Pedro Falcão

But, zoot, you like it or not, facebook and twitter are the most popular social media and by not using them we also lose. So i agree that it would be good for the game to be connected to those media.

Or make the blacksmiths reduce the training time for a specific kind of soldier (as if producing that kind of weapon continuously). Then, to change the kind of weapon the blacksmithers works on, you must take some time to prepare the new tools.

They are afraid of Facebook and Twitter services becoming obsolete and eventually deactivated, that would give players many errors if they try to send info to the deactivated services, and would cause only more headaches.

We do have a personal profile here, perhaps this profile may hold our statistics? And then we could publish it on Facebook or Twitter from here, and if convenient, later turn off the tool?

We had already had a discussion on that before my absence here, though i don't know exactly where. Out-of-territory farms are slowly damaged, already. Plus, i don't believe it will be a clicking race, have you ever played Rise of Nations? Well, Starcraft 2 is well known to be a clicking race and it has limited resources, while in Rise of Nations all resources are infinite and it's not a clicking race. We could increase the wood cost for each farm built, though. And no, it's not much more realistic, since the farmers used to save a part of their own harvest to plant another harvest.

This forum is enough of a social media, if a tool is made to publish scores here.

My bad, i meant to ask if there is the need for any new building at all. And, by the way, when is a new building needed?

Purposes can be found for every building, the problem is if it worth introcing them.

Are there differences between a battle and a raid? I think 10 cavalry archers firing on women isn't a battle, meanwhile a hero + 4 soldiers against a hero + 4 soldiers is a battle. Maybe you guys should make battles take into account if the units involved are economic or military, their ranks, if the soldiers are charging against each other and the percentage of military units present on the conflict to be considered a battle.

I'd love to!

Well, the low cost will be balanced with the production rate in a way that hunting will be chosen for early gathering, but as the match goes on, farms become the main source of food and eventually the only source. Economy management is an important aspect of a RTS game, yes, but the map's resources aren't infinite and i think the game has to end by skill, not by lack(luck) of resources. Also, if you keep an eye on your economy all the time, you'll hardly achieve the concentration to plan the great military strategies, that are the main focus of a RTS, uh?

To be honest, Michael, I see this is a clear attempt to add more identity to each faction, but i don't believe it will be viable, balance-wise. But since this is a development, new experiences are part of the whole effort to evolve the game, and i'm looking forward to test this aspect.

So... How will the other players, in a multiplayer match, know what settings were chosen?

Man, i really liked it. I'm not a writing specialist neither a native english speaker, so i'm not really useful as a critic, but i found the reading very engaging.

That is the solution used in AoK. AoM only lets you build town centers on settlements. Rise of Nations's cities couldn't be destroyed (only captured). Starcraft's and Warcraft's main buildings were built as close to resources as possible. But i think we must be able to destroy them for strategic reasons, yeah. But demolitions should take time, and forts and civic centres should take a very long time, so that the player will think twice where he is building it, for it can be used against the builder.

"World of Warcraft", "Starcraft 2", "League of Legends", "FreeCiv", "Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning" and "Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots". Well, i stopped playing almost all due to time issues, but i always try some quick matches of 0 A.D. and League of Legends.

I'd say there isn't enough RAM memory, 447 megabytes are so few...

Don't be so dramatic, there ARE games with features like these. And yes, they've made success, you just didn't play them.

Rise of Nations featured 3 kinds of special units (with no basic attack): Generals, Spies and Scouts. Generals just provided some passive bonus for nearby units (armor, healing, supply in enemy territory), depending on which kind of general, and strategic abilities, like AoE invisbility for a short amount time, increased speed for a short time and trenches. Scouts are very good at what they are named for, with large LoS and relatively fast moving speed, but they can also sabotage buildings and snipe shot one unit (costs half of the unit's "craft"). Spies could bribe units, retrieve information from buildings and kill other spies. Spies are invisible to all but the Scouts, Helicopters, Light (military) Ships and, of course, other spies.

You may find some drivers at the website of your card's manufacturer

I agree with zoot here, Jonathan. Remember that some teams only stand together while it's benefical for both parts, to defeat a stronger oponent, for example. So what is the point in helping your now-partner if you'll defeat him soon? You won't give him more resources than is convenient, for he can use the resources you gave him to defeat you, afterwards.

Then we could reduce the width of the chat box by a half, move the map description to left and put the options where the map description is, now.

Wouldn't be possible to put the map preview in a tab and the map setting in another tab? One could choose the map and see the preview, and then alternate the tab to change the settings of the match and etc.

All informations are there, in simple and effective way and position, epic warrior and epic battle. But, with sincerity, the background SS should be "less visible", it kinda overwhelms the vision. Look at this cover: The title of the game stands out, the 3 heads are the epic warriors, the desirable information is there, at the corners and the "game pics" are also represented there, but with much less emphasis, it doesn't make you look there and doesn't make you look away, if you understand what i am saying. The art is there, but you'll only notice it IF you want. Brynn's banner, e.g. had a background image, but with a soft effect. the cover style Ludo made and i modified had fading effects at the corners to make the info stand out and the stripe on the middle screaming "Hey! I'm here! Look at me!". In this last pic of Shield Bearer, the name of the game seems a bit hidden and the jumping elephant is who screams "look at me!", if you understand. It's not bad at all, you just need to make the correct regions of the cover to stand out. Edit: High Res logo with alpha background attached

Yeah, but, again, we can't afford the time to keep adding minor features like this. They may not seem much, but may yet consume time and developers' will to contribute. This would be cool to add, but unless someone with time decides to come and do it for the team, don't expect to see it soon. And by "soon" i mean 0 A.D. part 1.