av93
-
Posts
975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by av93
-
-
I've read the wiki. Nice concepts, hoping that will go official
-
And some units. If you look elephants (persian, archer and huntable) or camels... they look like different species.
-
If two don't want argue, they don't argue. So Lion, there's no need to answer.
Back to topic, I've read that the release have a lot of bugs. But is nice that they have included african factions, as one guy said in 0 a.d forums, historical games have been very ethnocentric, focusing in Europe, besides Civilization series.
Some highlights of the expansion:- Civilization with strong team bonus and even a tech (like 25% speed to castle production and ability to train a specific unit)
- Sudden death game mode (you can't build town centers, and if you lose it, you're defeated)
- Siege tower (they can unload units "jumping" the wall: encouraging double walling that its more stone expensive)
- Terrain bonus or penalties (f.e if you build on sand cracked terraing, the building it's weaker)
- Rebalanced water gameplay (Now there's a working rps system. In 0 ad, there's no really mechanic)
-
1
-
-
Me parece de poca decencia que estando en fase alpha el juego en su version 19 a punto de hacerse eco de su lanzamiento, estes aqui haciendo promocion de un jueg tercero que nada tiene qe ver con el proximo parche del juego. ¿Te pago alguien para que lo hicieras?.
0 AD is based on Age of Empires, so I in my opinion, is relevant. Lion posted some dev blogs that can be useful. Also, I doubt that posting that here would have some impact on people, that would download the new alpha anyways, cause is free.
-
If you read the comments, the dev says that's waiting some time to close the ticket, to look if the changes are working. In theory, should be fixed.
-
1
-
-
That would be nice, especially the name of the map type in random maps
-
1
-
-
-
I plowed through 4 medium Petra towns, and not a single one of my units ranked up.
Ranked is disabled for balancing purpouses.
-
Tactic progress as match progress. That's is a good catch. When designing, we have to have in mind what we want to achieve, looking the overall picture.
If we're searching a early defense dealer™, it depens on the gameplay that you want. If slingers can outrange ranged units and even defenses, you encourage ranged battles and trench warfare. If you favor melee (in this example sword cav) then you will have full assaults on enemy bases.
But remember early alphas that sword cavalry was OP, they were freaking fast destroying buildings.And a little Off-topic about counter-scheme: the remove minimum range tech could be in 2n late phase in the armoury.
-
Also agree in general, but I in my opinion I would remark:
The spearman durability against ranged, but swordman better dps against infantry.But regarding slingers I have some doubts. At first, I would say that it's a unit that in the actual roster it's very limited (could change), and in my vision melee should be better than ranged against buildings (otherwise you would encourage ranged fights) and maybe all ranged troops should have the same siege damage. And I don't like at all ranged being strong against siege. Just my personal opinion.
Finally, I thing that maybe you should think about turret feature, regarding cav archers, they also should be a hit'n'run unit, if going historical, but also shock cavalry isn't really accurate (and isn't fun to lost 20 cavs against some archers IMHO)
-
1
-
-
And remember that the game is being in alpha stage, so there's no point on working in a wiki, cause all will probably change, and then a lot of effort would be wasted
-
2
-
-
I dont know if they are Op, but Schyt changes that in SVN, I miss powerful vs tower super slinger.
As I say before slinger is a unit in AOE can deal with defenses like the skirmisher in AoK.
I really didn't understand at all. Can you rewrite the thing that you miss?
IRC, slingers in AOE had a bonus against towers, but not skirmishers of Aok, that were bad against defenses.
-
I know that there's a new approach in the way, but with the current gameplay
5 cav swordman vs 5 champion archers... 5 cav dies, 4 archers champion left.
Also, the crush damage of slingers are a bit powerful I think. -
Yes, I know, if I read dev logs you can be sure that I read the roadmap and the track timeline.
Regarding OS X, I remember an alpha that was shipped without Mac version, that was released some weeks after.
BTW I repeat to put emphasis on giving some info about stat of the game to comunity that doesn't look too deep into forums, tracks and such things. -
Hey guys, I've been reading the devs logs, and I just have to say that relax yourself. If you release a alpha with bugs, don't worry cause players that want a more stable (and laggy) release can still playing Alpha 18. Also It will be okay if you don't release until those get fixed. Maybe a dev report would be nice to say that fixing the new pathfinding isn't easy, but it will be a huge step forward when it's finished.
Good job!-
3
-
-
Lacks slingers
-
An interesting game that uses both individual and formation units it's imperium 3 (the great battles of rome).
It uses a hero to assign units, to make formations. You can see in this video, (altough later they mosh pit fight)By 35 minute aprox.
-
Long ago, sword and spear cav had diferent purpouses: the first agaisnt support and archer and the second against sword and javelin infantry. With the hard counters gone, they needed to differentiate one of each other, so they give to the spearman cav a high damage but slow attack, making them a shoking role. This also was with charging in mind. Sword cavalry doesn't make that big damage at first, but they faster attack.
I think that this is the history.
The problem is that, unlike other RTS, cavalry in 0 A.D it's very vulnerable to ranged attacks, so they can't barely make damage at all cause they die fast. But this is another topic. -
It would be nice to tag some of them multiplayer only, if included.
-
Roman mythology it's almost the same than greek
-
2) Maybe some "return to last working point"-feature. If you use some soldiers for economy and defence it all ends up being chaotic after defending an enemy attack. You have to reassign all your soldiers. A button that sends them to their last work would make this a lot easier.
That button already exist. Take a soldier, order to attack and later click on a wheel that appears in the area of stances, delete unit, etc.. Yes, isn't very visible.
-
Today i wake up with a little spamming syndrome. This topic it's for "Elexis"
- It wouldn't be nice to make a option for the host to disable the option of having observers? (Because performance, because they want a private match...)
- The ability for observers to pause, it's solved? If not, this suggestion it's more important.
-
1
-
-
http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20018&page=2
I hear you guys. I think the challenge is volunteer turnover. This game has been in development for so long that is continually evolving due to the people working on it. When I was running it for 6 years, I did my best to maintain a cohesive vision for the game. I took a lot of heat for "locking in" some design decisions and would tell people to hold off on criticism until it could be played as a whole. We got 60% there, but I couldn't finish before I handed off the reigns to Erik. Again due to this being a volunteer effort, people come and people go and that shapes how the game is made. Michael saw 0 A.D. in a very different way than I did, and things started to change (what was once locked was open again for debate) - but I don't think he made it all the way to the end of his vision either.
The dangerous end result in this path is a hodge-podge of halfway implemented features that don't quite make sense as a whole. Ken Wood (lead designer back in the early 2000's) once stated: The fate of 0 A.D. is in the hands, of those who have vision and perseverance. This is why it is going to be super difficult to make a game that is cohesive over a period of 15 years, everyone has a different idea of how it should be done. It is both good and bad. The flip side is... If you don't like it, you can get involved and do something about it to change it.
My opinion it's that, being cohesive, fun or not, we have to remember that not only 0 ad it's being developped: devs are making Pyrogenis engine, that it's very moddable. So now, they are adding features that can be adjusted or disabled, but can be useful for other games.
If the starting vanilla 0 A.D isn't succesful at all, a mod would. I think that all effort (maybe not the stat balancing) is useful. As I stated, before going Beta, devs and designers should take a look and choose what it's in, out or needs to be added about gameplay. Now the important it's pathfinder.
Don't discourage. Although some of us don't feel the gameplay at the best, great work. Just to send positive messages, also are important.
-
2
-
-
Just out of curiosity... I was wondering if anyone has ever read this?
Me. I'm pretty
freakcurious and I usually read everything about game mechanics (like aoe3 info, civilization civilopedias, etc.)I think that should be better discussed on
http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20038. I would quote you there.
-
2
-
Heroes redesign concept
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by av93
1.Suggestion (concept)
Let's start another suggestion thread. Hoping that would profit someone. This time is about heroes (very underused unit, mainly to kill sieges ) so let's go.
Currently, heroes have 4 variables:
- Avaliability (where and when you can train him)
- Cost
- Unit power (Is not the same Elephant than Spear hero)
- Bonus
So my point is to, instead of making each hero a concret bonus, let's take a specific number more general bonus and make combinations. For example:
- Think about 10 classes of total bonus/kind of Heroes
- Each civ get a combination of 3 heroes
In more concrete way (examples)
- Champion: No real bonus other than stronger heroe unit stat
- Governor: Economical heroe that with a boost of 15% bonus to nearby working units
- General: Nearby battalion or units in formation get bonus on stats
- Tactician: Bonus training a specific kind of unit (can be global while alive or nearby barracks)
- Naval Commander: Bonus to boat when garrisoned
- King: Ability to train personal guard in battle (limited to a small number)
- Leader: Special activable ability (throw a spear, a war yell, etc)
- Savior: Supporting heroe relating tech, healing
- Rebel: Gives ambush ability to nearby units
- Conqueror: Bonus to conquering rate to nearby units
It could be some specific traits (like the unit trained of the king hero or the warrior ability) but the goal is to keep it simple for easier balance
So civ 1 could have champion, governor and general, another one could have warrior, champion and naval commander, etc.
2. Current Design Document
Summary of the current design document
3.Sketch
Classify all heroes with a historical view into one category isn't really easy, cause a lot of them were generals, but also tacticians, leaders, kings, and warriors. With this concept, only a few civs overlap their heroes.
Some ideas about special civs features:
- A civ with an emphasis on heroes that allow a secondary class.
- Iberians could train two heroes instead of one. With the fact that all iberian heroes have the same Rebel class, this would encorauge a gameplay based on ambushes