Jump to content

Tonto_Icy_Tripod

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.177

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Tonto_Icy_Tripod

  2. User Interface?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    It does, you just don't have the background behind the icons like normal. Or you could just learn the hotkeys :D

    I'd also like to add that I hated the EE interface... it wasn't intuitive in any way (which was also true for the entire game, but let's just skip that point :D), which made functions which might've been good annoying.

    Haven't got TT myself, so I can't say I know how the enlarged minimap works, but I looked around a bit after I read this post, and it seems that instead of just the dots you actually get building symbols, for the different kinds of buildings (ie a barracks doesn't look like a house). You don't have to make it superdetailed, just make it like a one storey building for houses, and extremely high for towers and such.

    As I see it, unless you're playing competively you won't need that kind of feature, so there's really no need to make it look overly beautiful...

    Also, would it be possible to remove certain parts of the GUI if you didn't want them? For instance, I might not want to see the build part (if I only use hotkeys, why would I want to see the buttons?). If I could minimize or remove it, I'd be able to see a bigger portion of the map. Or, better yet, how about making the GUI into smaller portions, which you can then choose where you want. I'd make a pic, but I'd need somewhere to post it, so I'll just have to describe I guess...

    AoM is the example of course :)

    1. Resource bar, you could move it around the edges basically, and it'd behave like the bottom bar in windows (if you put it at the bottom, it'll lie horizontally, while if you put it against the sides, it'll be vertical)

    2. "Actions" menu. This is the one where you have the build house buttons and such. It'd be good to allow people to move it arond the bottom or minimize/hide this window. That'd require researches to have hotkeys as well though.

    3. "Stats window" the one with the pic and all. Also a good idea to remove often, as it's big, and it's not like you're gonna sit there and look at stats during the game. I'd say, put this either in corners or by the bottom.

    4. Minimap. Same positions as above, but This one is critical all the time, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to allow people to remove it (the way I see it, if it's possible to remove it people will think it's less important, while in this case it's rather the opposite, hence only the repositioning :))

    5. Score, anywhere you please. Heck, put it smack dab in the centre of your screen if you wish :o

    Well, yeah, that's all for now I guess.

  3. User Interface?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Anyone of you played Celtic Kings (or whatever it was called, I'm sure TRD can fill us in :))? Apparently it had this ability to make the minimap take up the entire screen, allowing you to do quite a few things from there alone. I've never used a feature like that, but I believe it could be useful.

    Also, regarding the GUI being hard to understand, the simple way to get around that would be to just have an "advanced" option, like back in aok. You know how you could get things like formations, economic/military minimap and such when it was turned on? Something like that would solve any problems. In fact, even the vill allocation bar might not be the best thing for a newcomer to have, as they often won't have a clue as to what to do with it and it'll just be in the way in that case....

  4. User Interface?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I guess the title say most of it, but despite that:

    Could you give us any kind of description of the GUI, or just tell us what you plan to have in it. I personally think AoM revolutionized it quite a bit, mostly by the group concept up top, and even more importantly the idle vil tab. The only thing I'd add to that (which was also done with an add-on program) would be to show vil-allocation (and yeah, I know you're not haing vils in that sense, but I actually think that makes it even more important :)).

    Something like:

    Gold: 134/10

    Wood: 300/15

    Food: 321/16

    If you see what I mean.

    So, any suggestions?

  8. Currency System

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    Just a quick question here, if points are there to show appreciation for good posts and such, what is the real difference between it and reputation? Except that in currency you also have postcount included. Don't get me wrong, cause I like both of them, and want to keep em both as well. It's just that they seem to do the same thing right now... If you perhaps made it so that you had an auto-ban for a week or so if someone dropped to -20 in reputation, and did....uh, something else with currency. Perhaps you could allow larger sigs at some point, or allow pics in sigs...I don't know, just distinguish the two a bit, cause right now there's hardly any difference as I see it.

    Also, I'd rather see scrapping points/gold/coins whatever and simply have the number. Something like:

    Currency: 23

    Points sounds a bit artificial to me.

  9. 0 A.d. Borders And Boundries?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    What you're saying is that the offensive player will lose his army, the defender will use what is left of his army (can't be too much or the bonus would've been too large) to destroy a large part of the offensive player's base. During this whole time the offensive player has created no new units at all. He didn't even replenish his first army, but sent them all to die straight away...

    I see your point, but I claim that the game wouldn't be played so statically that such a scenario would happen ;)

  12. What Is Your Favorite Rts Game And Why?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I got the demo for aoe waay back over at a friend's house. Played it for a few mins, got bored of it and quit. Then we did some other stuff and...

    Anyways, I got the demo again a few months later and got hooked. I even found out you could play on the net ;) So I did that for a while, until I found out aok would come out. Got that the day it came out and played it like mad...seriously. 3+ hours a day, 7 days a week. And I never really got bored of it :P

    Anyways, played it for a while again, got to inter or good player and then left for a few months. Came back, played it a bit more and then got aom. Aom is the only game I felt was intuitive enough to actually just pick up and play from the get-go. So I did that, to somewhere around 1800 and then quit that too :P

    Short summary:

    1 aoe: I got no idea why I liked it, but it just got me hooked. I don't even have the demo anymore, but it was a good game (which I believe anyone can here can say as well)

    2. Aok. There has never been a game that's as fun to play at a rook level all the way up to expert level that I've played. When you're a rook, huge paladin armies just blew your mind away. At higher levels there's just so many ways to perfect your play. The dedication needed was a major turnoff for a lot of people though I believe. You can't really expect people to pick up a game and realize that 60% of your units should be vils...

    3. Aom: Very intuitive with the GUI, idle vil/military tabs and such. As I said, you could pick it up and learn to play very quickly, but then it got boring due to low pop and the lame strats that developed (I guess I'm not the only one who thinks fighting with monkies is lame :P). If it had been better balanced regarding set and cav (and possibly a bit higher pop, but that wouldn't have been really necessary with the other changes) I wouldn't be sitting here typing this, I would be playing!

    I guess I should also mention that the zone played a major part in the success of aok, as it was almost the reason the fanbase developed. ESO proved to be a setback in that respect (though I hear it's been vastly improved...anyone care to comment on that?).

    Now that I think about it, that wasn't really a summary at all :P OTOH I know there are other parts I could add to that, but that I can't think of right now....I might add some more later if I come up with something to write ;)

  13. Scale Of Ships.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I think the scale of ships is completely dependant on how large fleets you expect to have. If we're talking 40 ships or so (like in aok) then you can't have them much bigger than they were in aok either... meanwhile, if we're talking 10 or so ships at the max, go ahead and make them huge. You've also got to consider pathing, how close the ships will be allowed to go next to each other and such. From a pure aesthetic point though, 1:1 scale would of course be the best.

  14. 0 A.d. Borders And Boundries?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Really, anything having to do with supply trains/wagons/units/whatevers is pretty difficult to make work. If you have to have a whole train, it'll be stupidly easy to destroy it unless it's heavily defended, but then how will you survive at the real battle? Compare it to walls. It's much like a wall that you have to constantly defend. If you wanna defend, you don't attack. If you attack, you don't defend. Here you're forced to do both at the same time. It'll lead to a game where you can't possibly break a defence without having twice the army ;)

    If you're having a wagon, then it'd work like siege in aok/c. You simply rush to get the siege, then fight the army. By killing the supply first, you will gradually get a stronger army. You would need really strong wagons to avoid that...

    You were talking about just having a supply wagon at all. Then what about multiple fronts? I'd just find a clear spot in enemy territory, park my wagon there and voila, I can fight there just as if at home then, which would in fact defeat the entire purpose of the wagon...

    Also, raiding would be completely unaffected by this. Assuming it'll still be possible to raid in 0ad of course.

    How about this instead of supply stuff:

    When you have an army in opponent territory, you can build in enemy territory, which will allow you to acquire it too. The radius in which you can build will be dependant upon the size of the army (could work like fenris wolves in aom). It would also have to start at the edge of your own borders. That'd mean you couldn't just walk to the back of the other guy's base and build a fort or something. You'd have to actually push forward from your own base.

    In conjunction with this, you could make it so that units lose health when in enemy territory. Thus, when fighting you'd also build right behind to gain the territory you're fighting in, and wouldn't be fighting penalized.

    Not sure about the realism, but I think it'd be playable at least....

  16. Hey...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I don't see why not. A lot of people complain when game companies don't release enough information. It's better for the community to have an idea of what is going on and that gradually adjusting to the circumstances then to have to wait a year until you get to know anything.

  21. How Do You Rate The Current 0ad Site ?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    My gut feeling is that it's not good to have a section without having any content there. There's nothing more frustrating then clicking on a link only to see an empty page ;)

    I thought I'd already posted this, but seeing as I can't find it now, I guess I never did <_< Use one of those calender thingies that you can see on blogs and some people's homepages. It's great to keep track of news.

  23. Multiplayer Settings

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    That's the point...if you start in positions like that you get a lot more from doubling (since then you'll be attacking from two directions instead of just having twice the amount of units in one place), winning land becomes more important as you can then connect with your allies, resulting in better trade (I assume there's trade here of course ;)).

    Of course, you could always end up with two 1v1s, but that's almost the standard today, so I don't see how you would lose anything?

  25. Multiplayer Settings

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm not sure what you mean avenger. I didn't mention any specific victory modes. All I said was that in aoc, the standard vill count was 120 or more. If that's what you mean, then I agree with you, it was a bit too much, but I think I also stated that in my post... I'll have to re-read it though to make sure.

×
×
  • Create New...