alkazar-ipse
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by alkazar-ipse
-
-
I was already like... "did I miss something? why am I always rushing to age 3 to get siege and attack if I could do it earlier?"any human player uses Siege before 3 phase
-
I don't like the idea neigther
-
any human player uses Siege before 3 phase, in that moment your city its very strong about defensive buildings.
?! before third phase? with what building if I may ask?...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still do support the idea of the citizen soldiers having to drop off their resources before they would be able to counter-attack. When the call to ars button is hit though, the soldiers could actually run back to the site. Perhaps units could have a defensive stance where the shield and weapon are strapped to their backs. That stance would reduce their gathering rate, but would allow them to instantly respond to a threat. Someone should seriously consider running a poll over this feature. It is too controversial to merely say "yes" or "no" to.
So basicly, you have settlers, good workers, defensless on one side,
and soldiers, armed from feet to teeth, very lazy at work on the other.
You can switch between these two by clicking on "call to arm" button (with consequences: go to nearest drop place and change phisical aspect)
BUT that is a much deeper change, then just realism or whatever, but rather a radical modification in the concept of what a worker/soldier is.
Untill now: wemen are faster at gathering food (from farms or bushes) and men FIGHT AND gather other stuff faster.
This new concept makes us have 3 unit types: 2 worker types, of which one can ALSO be soldier type, switch back and forth as player pleases...
-
True, but that is an AI issue. I played against human opponents much weaker then me, but they still sometimes have siege even earlier then me.
-
At the moment 10 catapults , if a LITTLE bit protected against melee units by skirmishers on the back, kill your "
ing" skirmishersoverwhelm -
Against a rush you dont have too many towers to manually manage them, and on a hard push siege units will make your towers go nuts,
so thinking about attacking the right spot with the right units at the right moment (ie cav on siege when infantery runs after some ranged units) is much more important then putting some guys in some towers... (just my opinion)
I agree though that some civ have completly overpowered towers, and I guess its ment to balance out something else, even though I have no clue.
I dont mind if townbell affects soldiers in some way or an other, as long as its reasonable...
-
I dont really understand "
the problem
"
Instead of selecting 20 wemen, send them to civ center, select another 5 into a tower, you can just click on a bell in civ center OR tower, and it will compute shortes way, number of people already there etc.
Soldiers carry weapons, at least for 0AD PART 1, if you want it or not (As I understood from mythos_ruler's statements), So where is the problem? they don'^t need to hide.
They keep working, and don't dare any enemy attack them , cuz they fight back. I'm trying to make it sound funny here, but what I mean is: if you want to garnison SOLDIERS, then you do it manually. Otherwise already implemented stances hold.
-
of course, we all agree (i guess and hope at least), that there should be a townbell to make wemen in a certain range to get in a secure place.
-
I'd like to see a REAL multiplayer game online. I 'd actually love to play in it my self
You know, A decent 2v2, and not just an ignorant guy speeking about men doing the fighting, because he doesn't know they can gather, most things even better, then wemen.
I haven't found a (cheap) way of recording games, PLUS I'd like to play a recorded game with some of the better skilled players (thinking about quantumstate, since he is the strongest I ever played against)
@ Mythosruler: I heard you are a pretty strong player, would you have the software to organize such a recording?
-
nice to see sb shares my opinion
-
Well, If they'r really ment to play differently from the beginning on, then I understand it better now.
However, I have other things that concern me more then the numnber of factions (as infinit javelos and such)
-
I find it much more important for realisme that siege units would stop being pieces of wood spooking around, its so scary, I always feel like a ghost is in my screen.
Just my opinion...
-
yes you click and drag. if you just click, there is no rotation.
-
I respect the idea(soldiers deposit weapons, get tools and vice versa), but what exactly is the goal? the purpose?
If it's more realisme then you are compleatly off the road.
This doesnt give more realism: first, I dont think people worked in a none secure zone completly defens less at that time (within their city walls maybe...)... But that is actually not really my point anyway...
My main concern is: you deposit your weapons in the CivCenter, then you go build a resource place, you go to work, you go back to the resource place to get your weapon?, where did they come from?
You see, even in making soldiers get their weapons, you still simplify the system, by having get them ANYWHERE, without keeping trac of how many weapons are where.
So why not just simplify the WHOLE system and assume soldiers carry weapons with them...? It a game, not a reallife simulatior.
If realisme is NOT your main motivation, then please make your statements explicit, and tell why on earth this should be usefull?...
-
I personally think that too many factions kill the game. I suggest one starts with the generic greek faction, and decides when aging to become the more specific spartans etc.
Most units can't be done till age 2 ANYWAY, so... This would also give a player the possibility to dynamicly (during the game) inpact what civilisation he will really play, without revealing it to his oponents from the start on.
I know lots of your answers "yes, that is how it was planed, but the faction diverged too much, so we found it easier to just split them up"
I just still think you should do it. think about it... If you planed it that way, it's because it makes total sence. Dont let being complicated hold you from pursuing the goal. it will be hard to find out how to finally do things, but I really think it would improve the gameplay.
-
BTW, I really miss bowmen on horses.
(edit: because i have a problem with infinit javelos idea, as for bows it doesnt bother me)
-
I know Age 3 (captain-major rank)
(even loved it, even though everyone else says its the beginning of age's decline, to me age 3 was great)
and They mixed it: there are more native tribes then amerindian civs. Still lakota dog soldiers are a unit the sioux could make as civ,
and therefore a sioux playing on grt plains just have technologies from posts (and more pop, since natives have a max unit number on their own)
-
are you suggesting more units as mercanaries, or units of a existing civ depending on where the map geograficly is? (which would mean, that a persian plkaying in syria would just have an extra barrack...)
I have no suggestions, just curious about your idea
-
Ah, tx Alevyr.
have heard of starcrafts huge success in balancing stuff, but didnt know much about warcraft.
And in that game you can set projectile animations off?
I'll check that out...
cheers
-
wemen belong in the citch.. nah, just kidding
-
That doesn't make sense, archers are not meant to survive melee combat. The owner should take good care of them putting infantry on the front line, else they should have heavy casualties.
When the player is running against time (e.g. ina a tournament), he'll not want to pay attention about rotation, except to fit the safe space he has in his base, so i think it should be activated, yes.
OK, I agree with you on the first one, archers are ment to eigther kill before they are reached orget slaugtered in melee combat (which can be avoided with protection with melee units or, if none, good micro-management)
Also I think you've got a good point for what solutions might be: increase melee's attack frequency on a fleeing ranged unit, or/and slow down fleeing spee of ranged units...
Stamina is not my favorite, ... but, why not after all? increases realism, units can strike hard and then get tired.
For the second one, I maybe just dont understand the idea, or if I do, then I completly disagree...
All I'm saying is, the other players might NOT be "running against time (e.g. ina a tournament)", and want to rotate buildings, if its implement it, why not use it? no one tells you you HAVE TO, just clic without draging if you are in a hurry...
How exactly would you suggest to make it on/off settable? like before the game starts the host can check a box "unable build. rot."?
I mean in what purpose? XD
(sounds like "I forbid you guys to rotate your buildings even though it is implemented. I wont use it myself, why on earth should YOU be able to? I'm the hosting big chief who's word is law, and I'll make you all suffer under my ruling(mouahaha)")
If a player is in a hurry, he doesnt have to bother rotating stuff (at least... I wouldnt), we all agree... but don't forbid it for others, i mean its simple: click without draging and the building is there without a single rotation angle, everything is fine...
If what you mean is that a player can set on/off build. rot. for him self, then... well, what you want me to say? It's already implemented: you set it off by not draging when placing a building and set it back on when you do...
If I'm missunderstanding what it's about, plz explane it better to me; Im not as smart to see little obvious reasons why it should be set off in some circumstances, make it explicit for me
-
Yes, that's the solution the way seams to go. But will this attack deal the same damage? Otherwise it would be more efficient to pull the unit away from melee distance to an enemy and you can't do it for the formation but for every single ranged unit (would be a pain) if the alternate melee attack is weaker. If it's stronger you would want it to be the default. So both are worse than just removing minimum range (which is quite unrealistic for non-siege weapons anyway).
[...]
Is Warcraft III like chess? I don't think so! But the priority was put to the gameplay, not the graphics.
I would give them a melee weapon that mainly diminuishes the damage they get and gives very few damage (basicly a defensif melee weapon) decreese losses MORE then harming a melee unit.
That way if a single ranged unit gets in melee combat, he is likely to survive if army number is superior. And you dont have to micro manage: to walk individual attacked units around.
I don't play Warcraft because of principles (games that continue without you, which makes you dependent...), so... Idk
------------------------------
I think I mainly agree with you on the fact that grafic settings should be done, And I gess that will be done very late in the developpment, since its a matter of making less good quality textures.
I do believe that things like water shadows are planed, if not already implemented, to be check-box... able
I do not disagree, but really dont feel a need of build-rotations being on/off settable
And I totally disagree on the need of making mods with different dealings against endless melee-range hunting, because I HOPE it will be solved in a good, suitable, neat, cool, fancy way.
-
- Formations
- Stances
- Build limit of structures
- Min. range of entities
- Range check for melee units when the damage is dealt (the check after the attack was already initiated and the animation takes place/is done)
- Projectile simulation
- Rotation of buildings
- Zoom limit
- Camera rotation
- Water effects
...and reduce:
- Number of polygons per entity
- Texture quality
- "Grid" for building placement
@fexor:
For multiplayer games the only settings you can change on your computer is to turn your screen off or your audio, or anything between it being on or off.
Which means diminuish resolution, contraste, volume etc.
I'm exagerating of course, but...
Things like turning off building rotation or formation as an option for YOU, ... doesn't REALLY work, because when an other player turns his building a way round, your computer still needs to compute it anyway, so just having YOU not being able to rotate a building wont speed things up, and if no one rotates buildings then the programm function for that is never called and your problem is solved on that stage.
For semantic things like how many units/buildings you can train, how big the map size is, how do units react to attacks, how much range they have and whatever else.
It is a matter of logic that those have to be the same on each players computer in a multiplayer. "Out of synchron" as you call it... OF COURSE if you dont have the same realities on your screens...
(if on your screen an archer can shoot on a melee unit that is next to him, and on your oppenents you are constantly walking away. Those things have to be solved for all players, like giving ranged units a possibility to fight back on melee)
things like water effects are very probably planed to be settable via checkbox in menu "settings" if not already.
texture quality, camera rotation and projectile simulations: Yes you DO be right, those things COULD be turned off with no real problem,
but again: just dont use camera rotation and its as if it wasnt there. (it just takes program size, not computing time...
And I agree that polygons per entity should be settable via a grafic quality setting like mediocre, normal, good
but for projectiles... I mean, I'd like to see my units shoots...
otherwise it's just like chess: my knight killed your queen (who knows, who cares how? just happened...)
-
Lutetia is nice and decent
Garrison improving resource idea
in General Discussion
Posted
the lag is not a very strong argument as it has to be dealt with on a much, much larger scale (having 300 pop attacking should be possible)
as for the realisme, it's a game and will remain unrealistic, even if you make people work in a house to forge a specific weapon, and make shoes and god knows what else.
nice to bring up the idea, I don't find it convincing yet, but looking forward to getting convinced