Prodigal Son
-
Posts
518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by Prodigal Son
-
-
12 hours ago, Adeimantos said:
I'd be more interested in a more creative alternate history, where you change some significant event and imagine what different results that might cause, rather than just transposing existing history into fantasy themes.
The main reason for this choice is giving me a basis to fit in a lot of critics and satyre on modern society, while using a mostly ancient RTS setting which is more interesting to me. A "what if" scenario on a more specific and historical event wouldn't allow as much freedom. On including the fantasy / steampunk tech I'm not sure yet though.
-
@elexis Ty, makes sense now.
I guess it happened while modding (though that was in another folder) or working on patches/tickets a while back, but I don't remember messing with the specific files in conflict. What I can recall is something similar happening with mod versions from github, not from SVN. Those shouldn't affect the main game files/public mod either.
-
6 minutes ago, elexis said:
Merge conflicts only happen when you at one point patched your working copy, then updated it and the update changed the same files in the places you have edited. Than can include a leftover unrevisioned file.
If you want to preserve your diff, you have to carefully proofread it. If you weren't aware that there was a difference, you should revert your working copy regardless of the chosen merge resolve action. Should also look for unintentionally leftover unrevisioned files with the file "status" somewhere in tortoise.
I'm kinda confused by the terms. Could you explain exactly what patched and (leftover) unrevisioned stand for in this case?
-
4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Pathing obstructions for static objects are [currently] rectangular in shape. The groves have a square obstruction, so I don't think it's that hard for a script to do. All it would take is some small overlap.
[just as an aside, DE goes the exact opposite direction by making all trees passable; just throwing that out there; I hope one day someone codes a flag that can be used in templates so I can make individual trees destructible by building foundations, while keeping groves non-destructible]
I don't know if it's hard to implement, but I mean that such a function doesn't exist yet. Random Map Gen doesn't handle distances/adjacencies precisely, with gaps and overlaps appearing in uncontrollable fashion.
-
12 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
That's a big update
My previous version was aquired in 2016
-
1 hour ago, LordGood said:
way to fix that is with wow's grove suggestion
Could fix some of the issues but won't work with exactly the desired mechanics. Also, as far as I know/remember random map generation still can't place something like the groves in a way to always make forests (of more than one grove) without pathing gaps.
-
Thanks, got it
-
I just updated my SVN version of the game after quite a while and got this warning:
Spoiler
What I could trace with a quick search was map related, a couple like this one:
Spoiler
Will those cause any issues and if so, what should I do?
-
5 minutes ago, Imarok said:
Should be doable, by giving trees a big obstruction,so that they overlap.
Still it might be hard to find a right balance between the functionality and visuals on this. I think the way trees are placed randomly doesn't make them have equal spaces so there could still be gaps even with a larger obstruction size. And having too big of an obstruction would make workers appear totally like chopping "in the air".
-
Hi and welcome @ionut311991
I've tried doing something similar in the past and might attept to finish it at some point. Some of what you suggest is relatively easy to do (it mostly needs learning how to properly edit some game files) while other parts are not currently possible as far as I know. On specifics:
14 minutes ago, ionut311991 said:is it possible to make forest like in aoe
I guess you mean impassable forests. No, unless you place it by hand in the editor. In random maps it won't work (yet?).
16 minutes ago, ionut311991 said:do walls attach to clifs, water and is it posible to matke them attach to forest..... and how hard is to mod this
Can't remember very well on this one.
16 minutes ago, ionut311991 said:can i remove the batch training ( so u can crate one villager at a time)
Should be possible and not hard but I haven't tried.
17 minutes ago, ionut311991 said:how hard is to mod so that only villagers gather and build
It's possible and quite easy (just many files to edit). There's one issue though, you wouldn't want to have male and female versions of the same unit like aoe villagers, unless you don't mind them sharing the same voice set or having them voiceless.
19 minutes ago, ionut311991 said:can u make a unit upgrade, the same way milita upgrades to man at arm in aoe
Possible and easy (again, more tedius than complex).
-
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:
As for the legs as I said the texture is not fit for those elephants
Yeah my bad, I missed that. Do you also mean another skin will be used? Or just edit the armor?
-
This game does something similar with it's food system. It also has a lot of interesting ideas for this kind of gameplay.
-
Perhaps the back leg armor could be wrapped a bit better? You could also add some straps/chains to hold the tower.
-
1
-
-
Maybe you could make it a little darker overall, or with stronger shadows, to match other background screens. Also flying/falling leaves could make more sense as automn-coloured ones.
-
-
Btw I can see how this can be regarded as edgy and causing trouble for the community, so while I'm fully against censorship and for thought provoking messages/discussions, I won't complain if asked to remove it.
-
The Scorch
"We are in the late antiquity or early dark ages of an alternative universe. The Roman Empire (or rather, it's equivalent) was still expanding, while experiencing a relatively peaceful transition to monotheism. Philoshophical and scientific schools have progressed largely untouched by religious dogma, leading to great advances in knowledge and technology. That was until the past couple of decades, when a series of cataclysmic events, including natural disasters, climate change and a so-called barbarian invasion, reshaped the landscape to a largely barren scenery, while killing huge portions of the population and threatening all people of the known world with extinction. Superstition and hopelessness are on the rise, while tensions between the monotheistic majority and the pagan and secular minorities, as well as between the upper and the lower classes have never been higher in recorded history. The old world is divided in new factions, with current clashes and revolts bound to become large scale wars for survival and control of the remaining natural resources."
This is a synopsis of the back story of a strategy game concept I'm developing, on and off, for some years now. It's ment to be social commentary and satyre as much as an RTS game. I've been thinking of using 0 A.D. or Warcraft 3 as the basis for it. The former would give increased gameplay flexibility and a more authentic setting, while the later ease of work and models for the inclusion of a variety of units (steampunkish airships/drones/vehicles and possibly even fantasy/magic). I'll propably not work on this for a while, but feedback and brainstorming is welcome, as well as suggestions for possile 0 A.D. building sets for the factions if the game is chosen. Short descriptions of the four factions/civs follow.
Order: "The remnants of the old imperial state are rapidly turning into a much harsher totalitarian regime, of the religious variant, largely controlled through the influence of the Church Of Light. The majority of the population follows, willingly or not, providing the numbers of it's levy armies, along a small core of knightly imperial guards and elite church funded-zealots. Cheap propaganda, spoken to great effect by his holyness, the Minister Of Truth, demonizes whoever is living on the other side of the borders and promises rewards for the honorable and loyal servants of church and state, in this or the next life. The young ambitious emperor is currently little more than a glorified warlord, bound to prove his worth in military success, see what's left of his empire replaced by a complete theocracy or worse; face annihilation." Possible units:
SpoilerPleb (Worker), Fodder (Levy Infantry), Border Horse (Light Cavalry), Paladin (Heavy Guard Cavalry), Martyr (Self-Sacrificial Unit), Witch Hunter (Anti-Caster), Minister Of Truth (Enhancing Caster), Monster Bombard (Siege Cannon), Armored Cleric (Combat Healer), Imperial Pegasus (Flying Cavalry)
Greed: "A number of weathly merchants, landlords, provincial governors and other oligarchs have formed a shady (and possibly loose) alliance backing a claimant to the throne, which controls most of the few remaining valuable lands and a majority of the former imperial armies. Bolstered by mercenary soldiers and scholars, their force is a numerous as well as technologically advanced one. Their espionage, propaganda and provocazia methods are second to none, with their full potential largely unknown to outsiders, making this cunning faction the most likely candit for ruined world domination." Possible units:
SpoilerSlave/Mindless (Worker/Biological Automaton), C.E.A. (Certified Executive Administrator - Advanced Worker), Enslaved Charmer (Female Caster), Gnostic (Male Caster), Infiltrator (Stealth Spy/Saboteur), Companion (Elite Noble Cavalry), Midas (Armored Vehicle), Sword Of Liberty (Flying Airship/Drone Carrier), Eagle Drone (Flying Drone), Patriot Drone (Explosive Land Drone/Self-Deployable Mine)
Freedom: "In the power vacuum caused by the retreat of imperial troops, a number of minor provinces have claimed independance. In some cases there are efforts of horizontal self-governance by the people, backed by some renegade philoshopers and inventors who refused Greed's gold and escaped Order's persecution, as attempts to survive the new conditions through cooperation rather than face oppression. Their raids on oligarch properties along their religious freedom often get them labeled as criminals, terrorists or devil worshipers." Possible units:
SpoilerSkismisher (Flexible Light Infantry), Raider (Flexible Light Cavalry), Ranger (Female Scout/Archer), Agnostic/Philosopher (Caster), Flying Machine (Air Scout), Hand Cannon (Light Siege)
Chaos: "Forced to migrate by the events of The Scorch, tribes of steppe riders have approached from the far northeast. Unified with clans living on the imperial border through conflict, marriage or blood oath, they marched towards the weakened empire in hopes of settling in what they hoped to be greener pastures. Since their entrance was forbidden, they have defeated several imperial armies during what has so far proved to be a desperate march against time and arid land. Regarded as barbarians, they have been largely fended off the strongholds guarding most of the few still fertile lands, while a number of them has found employment as mercenaries in Greed's armies". Possible units:
SpoilerClansman (Axe or Spear Infantry), Steppe Rider (Bow Cavalry), Oddity (Offensive Female Infantry), Cataphract (Armored Cavalry), Druid/Shaman (Caster), Falcon (Air Scout), War Elephant/Mammoth (Melee Siege)
-
Tried it but it lags a lot on the old laptop I'm currently using. Seems to be a bit more advanced than the last time I came across it, playable as a mini-game/mode, but far from done. Could end up a fine game though.
-
1
-
-
I'll keep repeating myself, but such suggestions would only fit in if the rest of the gameplay is build around advanced combat mechanics and not the classic RTS style.
That said, the idea of merging things like ammunition, stamina, morale etc is an interesting one from a gameplay perspective, in order not to overwealm players with many changing stats to manage for each unit. On the other hand it might be a bit hard give it a good name and not having it appear unrealistic. Edit: On second thought something like "supplies" could work.
Similarly, the terrain ideas would need many game mechanics (and map design) to change.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Many things are "placeholder" ...
Yeah, probably an excuse, but we'll see.
-
https://fumanchuband.bandcamp.com/track/il-mostro-atomico
18 minute song from the latest Fu Manchu album (Feat Rush's guitarist). Nice build up and rarely good for present day rock.
+ New Propagandhi
-
Their historicity so far seems pretty terrible (for example see byzantine namings being purely greek and largely taken from ancient units). I can accept the graffics and see elements of EA gameplay as rather interesting though (like the way they deal with mongol packable structures).
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, causative said:
These are what I would consider "balance goals."
- Variety of strategies within each civilization: each civilization should allow several equally powerful unit compositions at different stages of the game. Players shouldn't be thinking, "OK, I'm Seleucid, therefore I will always mass horse archers." There should be suspense about what your opponent is doing.
- Variety of civilizations: different civilizations should have meaningfully different unit compositions and strategies.
- Balance between civilizations: all civilizations should be roughly equal strength.
- There shouldn't be any unit that's so powerful the dominant strategy is to just mass large amounts of that unit. Armies should be most cost-effective when they have a mix of units.
- There shouldn't be any unit that's so weak or expensive that it's not worth building. Every unit should have a use in some situations.
- Reward player skill: an easy-to-play strategy should not defeat a strategy that takes a lot of effort and micro
- The game should be true to history to the extent possible while still having a fun game. Good unit compositions should be the kind of unit compositions that those historic civilizations used.
Good ones. Imo a/the game needs to:
- Start from getting a clear core and list of fitting features.
- Then go to something like what you suggest here to flesh out the civs, while seeking the best possible ways to achieve it.
- Finally enter balance playtesting process.
Up to now 0 A.D. gameplay frequently goes steps forwards and backwards in those phases instead of progressing in a more sensible, largely forwards way. So here we are again discussing everything from unit roles/stats, to civ attributes, tech-tree layout, final balancing e.t.c., largely off-topic, all in the same thread.
-
2
-
25 minutes ago, Nescio said:
No hard feelings, great, we are on the same page then. Which means we can continue discussing
Sure
25 minutes ago, Nescio said:Actually my opinion is that no approach is intrinsically better than any other, which is why I can be dismissive about favouring any specific approach. An “approach” implies a starting point. Balancing by trial-and-error would be an approach, but not necessarily the best. To me, lots of AI vs AI playtesting is not an approach; it's a critical (later) stage in development, the most reliable way of testing if a game is balanced. And yes, I still believe the specific approach chosen is irrelevant.
Don't take anything I type exactly literally, but preferably in context. My english are far from perfect so at times I might cause confusion. Especially when discussing technical terms for strategy games/design it can get even more complex, cause many definitions depend on things like personal preference or community backgrounds (you'll find different terms for the same thing in AOE or SC communities, and not always precisely accurate ones at that). I accept corrections in terminology or use of english, though I might fail to follow them in the future
Let's phrase it differently then; for reasons I'd rather not repeat (read a few posts above), AI vs AI testing is not useless, but is far lesser than multiplayer for testing if a game is balanced at a critical (later) stage of development. Overall approach/way/plan of balancing is not irrelevant, it's another thing worth discussing, because while there are many different possibilities, some will be better than others.
27 minutes ago, Nescio said:Yes, I agree, interesting discussions can be enjoyable. However, as I stated earlier, I think the way to get there is actually unimportant. I tend to consider “balance at a game level” as an equilibrium. I had wanted to avoid that term, because it's quite technical, however, it's also precise, which is why I decide to introduce it now nonetheless. As you perhaps already know, an equilibrium is “a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced”. Also, your distinction between “acceptable balance” and “perfect balance” is understandable but artificial; something is either in balance or it is not; one equilibrium is not more perfect than another. Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to have a balanced situation from asymmetrical influences and unbalanced forces, because unequal things can still cancel each other out.
Acceptable balance in game result terms would be, for example, a 48% vs 52% win ratio between two civs and similar numbers as a whole between all civs. Perfect balance would be 50/50 among any civ combinations. I'm talking the way it's (mostly) used in RTS communities, not precise lexicon meaning (btw even that can be debatable for some words at times).
Theoritically you can have perfect balance from asymmetrical influences and unbalanced forces, but in RTS game reality it's pretty hard to achieve, to my knowledge doing that would be a world first.
57 minutes ago, Nescio said:Now, let's return to 0 A.D. It is often claimed javelinists are “overpowered” in A22. This can be considered as problematic at a low level (if you can win by exclusively training cavalry javelinists, then why would you want to train anything else?). However, it is not that important at a game level; although not every faction has a cavalry javelinist, every one has a javelinist (cavalry or infantry) and a cavalry (javelinist or not) unit available in the village phase.
Units play differently. Having the second strongest unit (or equally strong with other attributes) won't neccesarily make up for the lack of the most favored one. 0 A.D. unit roles and techtree layout are largely problematic but let's not get me started on that again
1 hour ago, Nescio said:A far greater problem is that 0 A.D.'s battering rams are not only good at razing structures, they are also capable of massacring large numbers of soldiers. An easy way to cripple an opponent is by sending in half a dozen or more rams, unescorted, against the enemy centre. Once it's destroyed all other structures will be lost as well, because they are no longer connected to a territory root (snowball effect).
Rams have a very high pierce armour and most attacks are pierce, allowing them to survive quite long; swordsmen have a high hack attack. Not all factions can train rams, which is problematic, and not everyone has access to swordsmen; factions which have both (e.g. iber) are clearly advantaged vs factions which have neither.
A way to solve this would be as follows:
- enable rams for all factions
-
prevent rams from killing humans by inserting into its melee attack:
<RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Soldier Support</RestrictedClasses> - give fortresses a territory root to prevent losing your entire base when your centre is lost (adapana, Ishtar gate, monuments, pillars, and wonders already have a territory root)
- enable constructing city walls in neutral territory for all factions (including spart)
- On rams for all factions I'm 100% in. It's realistic anyway, simplest siege weapon ever.
- I think rams attacking units was decided from a technical/unit function/pathing perspective. If I remember correctly, a middle ground solution would be rams having an attack bonus vs structures or debonus vs troops. Else as you suggested.
- That or even better remove capturing, saving the trouble with other issues as well.
- I've got no strong opinion on this.
-
1
The Scorch
in Game Modification
Posted
Yeah more or less. It started almost exactly like that, but I've been looking for ways to make it less obvious and a little more diverse and plausible in the setting.
For example the last civ started as a depiction of (parts of) nihilist thought and has turned into more and more of a tribal confedaration moved by need for survival and ruled by warrior elites. Kinda depicting the unknown/alien foreigner and the fear of migrations and multiculturalism. I partly give myself the excuse that a largely nihilist society would most likely end up being ruled by some kind of reign of power/terror, but it's also in contrast with ancient tribes who would have some sort of honor/religious morals instead of nihilism. So I'm not yet sure on their background story.