alkazar-ipse
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by alkazar-ipse
-
-
hum, question about treasure gaia: does the gatherer have to bring it back to a drop site? I believe not, as it is now...
-
edit: I usually win IF i attack, so I never consciously tried to test the "loose" formation behavior on a retreat... Migth be worth it: don't know if it's just an other formation, or if the idea is "no formation, each unit for it's self".
Inform me there if sb knows it
-
Hey there,
Yes, I think these are very common known issues,
(don't feel alone, I just dont complain about it because I know that pathfinding is still bad at this alpha stage and WILL be improved in the future(I hope!))
There is a "loose" formation, (basicly spread out units) , I guess the 'retreat' behavior is same as for other formations (gather-as-formation-and-get-killed-because-formation-technicly-can't-be-accomplished problem) ^^
But basicly there should be a possibility to give a set of units orders and have them execute it as if it was given individually to them (1 by 1), I agree with you on that, and I think everyone in the staff does too
-
I'd love to see scenarios with no gathering and no building , (ie just a huge fortress, 2 defenders and 2 attackers). A start army that you can only lose, not rebuild.
Some historical stuff, where you can try to win a battle in the way it was or completly differently, or try to find out how the defeat could have been avoided at the time.
-
-
GREATE IDEA !!! (but... put some boundries, to protect the player from doing stupidities)
Gameplay logic (like trading) is written in the simulation part of the code. And there is stated literally 'MoveToTarget(targetMarket)', i.e. that code doesn't care what coordinates/dimensions the 'targetMarket' has, the same about the trader, this is just different level of abstraction. On the other hand, 'MoveToTarget' goes somewhere into the engine, where code know nothing about the trading and to what side the trader is moving. There is just one entity (the trader) and another (the market), their coordinates and all those pathfinding things. I don't know how exactly the pathfinder works, but I think (from what I vaguely remember/misremember) that it just calculates path to the centre point of the object (market) until it stumbles upon a tile blocked by the target. So what you propose requires significant changes in both engine and simulation sides.
I can agree on a more common solution for all units, (just though maybe you can define the market as 2 objects, always built together, linked.
And then do something like:
-MoveToTarget(targetMarket_in)
-MoveToTarget(targetMarket_out)
I don't know exactly how, and if a more common solution will be found then everything is perfect.
As for now, I think the svn version deals with it pretty well, since i always get 2 routes, one for each direction.
-
when will the Mauryan be put as civ for random maps?
Since they are already in scenarios, I don't understand why I shouldnt play them in other maps.
I know they still have a lot of placeholders (ie avatars, buildings), but I'd really like to practise on them already.
I have a problem with unrelistic infinit javelos... (who cares?, I know^^)
Will there be a cavalry unit(else then persian wagon) that actually has a bow (and shoot while moving)?
-
That's exactly what I mean:
I know that Starcraft civs are very balanced.
VERY ballanced. IF you picked the rigth civ that fits your gameplay
(Id probably be protos too, i dont like spaming
)All I'm saying is its very challenging to keep it ballanced when civ number is growing.
But I have faith it will happen.
-
I'm a computer science student, and though didnt quite understand your math (admited, i didnt read it more then once)
But I guess What you suggest is surely a possible solution, I'd have said:
as it is now 0ad computes an amount of resources according to distances,
I'd just suggest a percentage (ie 10%) of that amount goes to the market owner (so basicly the trader would only carry 90% of what it does now).
If it's your own market, there is no difference.
Only change is your market can chose which resources it gets, maybe
-
not that helpfull...
sorry to say
-
I still like the idea of renewable resources eventhough the main theme is battle...
Loved Stronghold (first game I played^^)
rabbits are way too hard to hunt anyway in 0ad, not lucrative at all
-
edit: I'm not really suggesting it, just sharing thoughts, maybe someone finds them usefull and gets inspired for a good idea, even if completly different
BTW scenarios kinda are a compromize between online games and campain style
-
Respecting the wish for nice campains...
As for my taste, you can implement the best AI possible, it will still be a boring machine (even if challenging to beat)
So multiplayer is much more of a priority for me (so better gameplay, and not some campain specific heros and such)
Unless you make campains be multiplayer. (persians vs greeks, carthage vs rome, gauls as AI between them)
Idea: You dont fix who winns, at every mission you have a possible branching.
Of course it's hard to make (how to save games if break, and when one is pissed off it stopps...)
So this Idea is very unprobable to get put into practice... Almost unpossible, unrealistic
the branching thing has been done in some games (as stronghold 3) but of course its much easier there, since after a branching the campain is still designed for you to winn, so it's just a different campain...
To decide when a campain is lost or won, you have to define strategic key battles and as already mentionned, when the hope is gone a human losing player would rather stop there, then finish it.
So an alternative is to make a normal campaign against AI, but where you can play for example 3vs3 AI's the whole campain (ie greeks vs 3 persian AIs)
-
I do: each civ has it's bonuses to counter same things, or more bonuses to counter different things,
but then you force the player to chose a civ that fits in his way of playing instead of making him explore the different civs trying to find how they deal with things...
this sentence is quit confusing for me aswell when i read it again so, what I mean is:
-iberians have to build an ox where they attack, gauls'n britons have to make druids -> same gameplay, different civs, different ways of achieving the same thing
player can pik ANY civ and learn how to make it fit in his way of playing
VERSUS
-iberian startwalls, idk (persians good for cheap strong raiding cav? i dont know exactly but its a gess) so basicly an other civ strong at raiding
player CHOSES civ according to his way of playing
if you want to make a civ have some advantages in some way of playing (STarcraft, eventhough I never played it) then the fewer civs (3) the better.
(zergs for huge spam, aliens for technology, humans for who knows what ^^)
-
sounds... scary hihi,
encouraging raiding is encouraging raider-paranoids to play iberian only...
-
Do you know that currently you get loot for killing enemy units? currently it is fairly small, 1 of each resource for female citizens about about 5-10 of a mixture of resources for normal soldiers.
Didnt know, tx, just have been noticing an unnormal wood increases, so thats where it comes from ^^
-
Ok, different points of view there; had not seen it in that perspective since I'm more a defensive player...
You convinced me, It motivates me to learn how to raid properly, since this makes it much more lucrative
On the other hand the resources are just "gone", should one be able to steel from killed units?
I'm not suggesting it, just questioning.
My point is, keep it simple for the "get to arms";
If I tell 5 units to attack an enemy, I know what I'm doing, no need to call them to arms and THEN click to attack...
same for going back on tree or mine or building...
Also, no need to have all workers on the map get to arm if I'm attacked on one single spot.
I have nothing against new features, and I'm not saying this idea is bad, nor that it can't be done in a good and meaningful way,
I'm just sceptic because I can't imagine YET, how this could be done well...
(as how it is done untill now fits perfectly for me; I don't care if they suddently have a weapon or put it away)
-
between 2 markets there should be 2 different routes calculated: one for each direction, to counter those excited camels going straight on each other. (same for workers going to, or coming from a tc to a specific tree, or mine or idk. I know I'm being idealistic here, and that is easy to describe, but hard to implement correctly, but for the markets it's really not that hard, since camels really go form one precise point on the markets eadge to another one on the other market, so insted of going on one road back and forth they could do some kind of a rectangle with eadges 2 camellengths on markets)
wrote this in in an other thread, guess it belongs here
edit: talking about camels here, what I actually mean is any trader...
-
-
I guess this doesnt really fit in this topic, but... In teamfixed games, resource-sending would be a nice feature. Especially to exploit the civ's advantages. There should be some loss(5-15 %) by sending, so that its not too much exploited
The idea with the market owners getting something from each trader that comes to it is very realistic and fits perfectly in to the game play IMO. On the other hand I do understand the objections when it comes to a nonfixed teams game...
edit: On the other hand, I must say... when you win 75 % (or whatever this part could be changed to (90% or something to be less radical and compromise))
then, you really do win relativly to the player you are trading with. You are not really giving him an advantage if ever he turnes against you (you had a much better deal with it them him)
In the mean time, If the teams are fixed, a good player making lots of traders can help a less skilled partner, and in a nonefixed teams game their gains will just ballance/cancel out according to their skill (or traider number if you wihsh)
So I'm all for that suggestion
BTW, between 2 markets there should be 2 different routes calculated: one for each direction, to counter those excited camels going straight on each other. (same for workers going to, or coming from a tc to a specific tree, or mine or idk. I know I'm being idealistic here, and that is easy to describe, but hard to implement correctly, but for the markets it's really not that hard, since camels really go form one precise point on the markets eadge to another one on the other market, so insted of going on one road back and forth they could do some kind of a rectangle with eadges 2 camellengths on markets)
also not really belonging here, i guess, but rather to what ever this might point to XD
There was some discussion on just this topic a while ago here.
(looked it up, "time to report some progress and discuss what should be changed/added", but didnt read it all, maybe it has been suggested already)
-
LOL at this XD
When i get attacked on one spot, i dont want ALL of my citizens to leave their post.
this is not only making micromanagement more difficult, its destroying the idea itself of micro managment,
automizing things and taking me my gameplayfreedom, transforming the player into an AI, sligthly affected by my actions.
Features are ment to be tools, not the player a tool to correct features.
i want to give orders to 10 units without having it affect anyothers.
Edit: i don't know how its planed for civ center bell, but i hope it only affects a certain range arround it...
-
Planed. Can't even wait for it
-
I don't really like this spy idea... In age of 3 there are spys, bearly ever used by any serious player...
If you limit the features, and make them have a real purpose, else then just playing spys, which costs a lot of micro...
then, yeah, i must admit I'm just not smart enough to imagine rigth now what it would be like, maybe it can be something positiv to the gameplay, but i remain very sceptic for now untill i see something concret
-
I'd like to have an option to make my farms renew if wood is available for example
@ bill:
I do understand, that your suggestions might be long term, and not expected in next alphas, therefore:
Cuz I real realy don't want those names on MY screen (suggesting a checkbox in options, I respect your wish, I just don't share it).even in a few years, I wouldn't be very pleased having names everywhere, where you don't need them.
If so however, make it a box you can check or uncheck in your options.
Alpha XII Name Suggestions
in General Discussion
Posted
Guys, I like most of your ideas, but... think of "Jhelum", "Kronos" ... Its all pretty short Names (2 Syllables)
I think its bad to say: I don't have svn version so lets play Leoblablaputherewhatyouwantnidas
Lux is nicely short, (maybe too short)
Lenox hihi(just kidding)