Lion.Kanzen

People are already bored of triple A. People also want games with greater compatibility with their devices (PC).

Again, the issue of graphics and polygons. It doesn't really touch on RTS, but it does touch on aesthetics. Polygons are definitely in our favor.Our game has that aesthetic like the original Age of mythology and a bit of AoE III. The RTS topic is only touched upon when talking about LAN, which is right, we need to forget about the lobby a bit and provide other simple ways to play multiplayer without needing the lobby or Hamachi.

I am having another new revelation. I was thinking about innovation and mechanics, one must always go back to basics, before AOE there was Civilization by Sid Meier. In that game Sid Meier has a group or entity called barbarians. "Barbarians come from outposts, which have a chance of appearing randomly on any land tile that doesn't have a revealed resource and is outside a unit's field of vision. This also includes Tundra and Snow terrain". I was thinking of a new kind of enclave. A kind of rural village. Similar to those in AoM.In appearance, I'm thinking of the mechanics from other games. Aesthetically it will be a barn, a house and maybe a field. It occurs to me that it will generate gaia units to defend itself. It will be on the maps and will generate a small amount of soldiers. Once captured it can be converted into a CC if it is assimilated. Or he could be subjugated, it won't have much loyalty.It will be easy to lose. What advantages will it have? It will have its unique technologies. All based on exploitation. You will have a resource that will be used to train slaves, that is, population. If the population is depleted, there will be no slaves to train. You can train farm animals or their equivalents. It can be used as a market, and trade can be carried out with this village. Additionally, it may generate recourses as a form of taxes. Basically it will generate metal, food, wood as tribute. That will go into the stockpile. It will be like any other trickle building. It will have that advantage, of giving you slaves and giving you resources in addition to serving as a trading post. It's like the village mechanics of Imperivm GBOR. https://www.imperivmworld.com/aprende-a-jugar/ Overall it has very good ideas for maps. Although this idea is taken from several games and adapted to our game. It will be a kind of weaker CC. + Market + and it will generate resources for you.

I think the strategies depend on the faction. You will exploit the other faction's weaknesses to your own advantage, using your strengths. Then come the classic war tactics like Rush which is very equivalent to a blitzkrieg. Then there is turtling which has been undermined in this game.In today's war, turtling is like attrition war. So we have the economic war or economic boom which would be the third strategy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine If we ever have a Grand Strategy style campaign, that campaign defines the mode of operation to win in a geopolitical operating scenario. For now our game is only limited to battles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war I'm going to take as a reference the criticism of RTS, the Wikipedia article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy "A second criticism of the RTS genre is the importance of skill over strategy in real-time strategy games. The manual dexterity and ability to multitask and divide one's attention is often considered the most important aspect to succeeding at the RTS genre. According to Troy Dunniway, former Westwood developer who has also worked on Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars: "A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this." Real-time strategy games have been criticized for an overabundance of tactical considerations when compared to the amount of strategic gameplay found in such games. According to Chris Taylor, lead designer of Supreme Commander: "[My first attempt at visualizing RTSs in a fresh and interesting new way] was my realizing that although we call this genre 'Real-Time Strategy,' it should have been called 'Real-Time Tactics' with a dash of strategy thrown in."[54] (Taylor then posits his own game as having surpassed this mold by including additional elements of broader strategic scope.) In general terms, military strategy refers to the use of a broad arsenal of weapons including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources, whereas military tactics is more concerned with short-term goals such as winning an individual battle.[48] In the context of strategy video games, however, the difference is often reduced to the more limited criteria of either a presence or absence of base building and unit production." -------- I remember that Empire Earth II had these aspects more developed, as did Rise of Nations. He had more advanced diplomacy and management. ----- Again wikipedia says: This criticism has ushered into a couple of hybrid designs that try to resolve the issues. The games of the Total War series have a combination of a (turn-based) strategy map with a (real-time) battle map, allowing the player to concentrate on one or the other. The games of the Hegemony series also combine a strategy map and a battle map (in full real-time) and the player can at any point in time seamlessly zoom in and out in between both. Rushing vs. planning A third common criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "rushes" where the players try to gain the advantage and subsequently defeat the opponent as quickly in the game as possible, preferably before the opposition is capable of successfully reacting. --------- How could we differentiate our game without losing its essence?

This is how this post began with the topic of graphics. At 0AD we don't have that problem of looking generic.

How nostalgic it makes me to see these gameplays.

He certainly has talent, he just needs to mature.

In fact, we have to work on turtling. It's a bit unfeasible. Just a simple rework with the limits of the towers since when introducing the capture mechanic the towers were never balanced properly.

More technologies are undoubtedly needed so that the strategy is more defined, that is, more evident. Champion needs to be more unique. Even if it is from the same class.

As I understand it, Yekaterina used that mod for several things and one of them was to optimize tactics and game speed.

It is a combination of attitudes and aptitudes. Not everyone wants the frenzy of clicks and APM. But it is part of the idea of being 1 in a ranking. This speed thing will depend on the pace of th game itself. I like the slow pace of seeing how I build my base step by step and then attack. It's like a mix of a turtle and an economic boom. But the formula to win in competitive is only one and whoever is faster in that technique wins. In fact, that is not strategy, it is tactics. The strategy is the macro plan and the tactic is micromanagement. For most players this micronanagment is very stressful.Just look at Yekaterine's mod, it's made to make those fights unrealistic, but effective. You become one with the machine, I mean it's all mechanical skill as you say.

It corresponds to 2 types of video game psychology. One, multiplayer is a game where communication and community work as a podium where you can show off in front of others. It becomes a social subculture, a social network where you prove you are the best. The other one, on the other hand, is more of a experiment you roleplay as a political leader without consequences.Making decisions about soldiers and slaves.

And who is he really? He has to have a name before he can pretend to be a woman.

Why are you asking me? Harold is the one who discovered her.

We have to admit that the girl is not stupid.

And again, that's what mercenaries are for. That's what mercenary camps were designed for.

In case I've already posted this...sorry. It's from 6 years ago and I'm reading the comments: Then I found good answers in the comments section. I identify with answers like: "I play to conquer the entire map." A cooperative mode should also be implemented, it is very popular. There is a very interesting comment, which says that when you don't have time to practice, because you are aging and becoming an adult (That happens to me) You stop being that good and competitive player, because you "sucks" playing...So it becomes frustrating. Another comment that I liked is that the ways to play in multiplayer are always the same to win.(I imagine that situations change but there are always pre-defined situations). [That's why some people always complain about new mechanics.] While the single player gives them an excuse to play without measuring himself against anyone.

We need gold rush type maps. No one would complain about Carthage. Brits- If we were to go back to slingers rush they would be useful. Slingers rushes were fun, but they need to be done more wisely. The other problem is how boring the war chariots are in this game. And druids should fight too. People should add things instead of taking things away. The Britons would be happy with a pyromaniac unit.

Hehehe. I imagine judging by A6 he imagined it to be simpler. We had to have new mechanics to have an identity. We were not going to be able to keep up with the changing times. He hardly connects anymore as he did when I arrived. And Wow, it was already a long time when I arrived. We started to get more features over the years. The capture mechanic was something I suggested and it wasn't considered. Indeed, I saw that you have more factions planned than what appears on this forum. But there are others that don't. Nomads and all those mechanics are just chatter that started one day on the forum. This was the game in the first versions that I was able to see.

Another topic to ponder. Does 0AD generate this sensation?

Not exactly old, but a compilation of time.

What they want to know lately is what makes a game entertaining. For example, we saw that casual should not be neglected. In the Spanish video it gives you ideas, which if you're comparing it with AOE II you'll understand, which is why the game isn't overly realistic. The game should be fun to do. Keep the fun factor. It should not be taken too seriously or resemble real life.

The problem is finding the balance, not scaring new players, nor being broken, in fact in the videos I saw the design leader is always an expert at playing.

Why games actual aren't the same as before?

My original quest was why most of this game was so boring compared to the ones from previous decades, I have a video in Spanish. I have not found that same thought in English. I'm trying to understand what makes a game fun.