WhiteTreePaladin
-
Posts
2.319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by WhiteTreePaladin
-
-
29 minutes ago, OmriLahav said:
That said, I'm not the person in charge of sound design in the game, I just deal with the music...
I don't think we have anyone in charge of sound design right now. Considering your sound background and experience, I'm glad you commented on this. Any insight is always appreciated.
-
1
-
-
It's slow for me. For several days, it didn't work at all.
-
26 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
in any case i still have the blender files for everything so it can be checked, modified, used, etc.
We should commit those blender source files to the art repo so they don't get lost.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Servo said:
Make AI build walls and gates.
This would be fun. Probably would make the AI easier, but would still be fun. I wish we could have different AI personalities like AoE3. In AoE3 different civilization rulers (AI personalities) would have different play styles. I never really noticed much difference though. I wish we could choose a mode for the AI like aggressive, balanced, defensive, etc. and have the AI take on that role. A defensive one would tend to build walls often and be less likely to attack (would play like a turtle).
-
3
-
-
We will eventually need a way to swap flower props for snow props on certain maps, but that's probably a ways off.
-
17 minutes ago, Nescio said:
Besides, you also need stone for many researches (city phase, blacksmith infantry attack technologies, soldiers' will, glorious expansion, murder holes, unlock spies).
Nevertheless, walls are cheap, too cheap I think, and not very strong.
Nor do I think there isn't enough stone available; you can always barter for more or use traders to gain any resource. Moreover, on most maps you start with a 5000 stone quarry and a 5000 metal mine very close to your centre; if those would supply sufficient resources, there would be no incentive to expand, therefore I don't think mines and quarries should contain a larger amount than they already do right now.
I don't know if walls are too cheap or not; I don't get to use them often enough to know. I wish non-siege did less (if any) damage to walls - perhaps this could be an upgrade. You can trade for more stone, but it's almost always better to trade for more useful resources.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Grugnas said:
Beyond civic center, wonder, defense towers, fortress (and let's say 450 stone if you research all the economy technologies ), barracks (for some civs) and slinger and catapults (which aren't trained by most of the civs) there isn't any other thing costing stone. Considering that a single mine gives you 5k stone, probably with 2 or max 3, stone walls are really easy to build.
A good example is how fast can britons build a fortress despite their economy units are mostly slingers.
That's assuming one of each. Except for the wonder, you'll want several of each. It's almost always better to build another tower, fortress, or civil center than any walls. If you actually get to build the max of each (10 fortresses, etc.) there probably isn't enough stone left for walls.
-
2
-
-
On 11/1/2017 at 6:07 AM, wackyserious said:
So I will just post everything that I have modified and added in a zip?
This is always a good idea. You never know what can happen (computer failures, etc.). I would make a separate topic for your work unless you consider it part of your application.
-
2
-
-
I don't really think backgrounds should have to tile, but it seems that others want the consistency. It could be made to tile. I think the image is good enough to be worth it. You may have other things you'd rather work on though.
-
5 hours ago, LordGood said:
... I can't use this as a menu background because it doesn't tile. Right resolution though lol.
Do all of the backgrounds have to tile?
-
1
-
-
That looks awesome. Will it be a new menu background?
-
I do think skirmish maps should be playable with fewer than the max players. Ultimately would need some changes to allow choice of starting positions, but might work in the interim with just using the player numbers as positions for the players present.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, LordGood said:
looks a lot better in theory than in practice
You may have a point...
-
2 minutes ago, elexis said:
...the proposal was to change the default setting, not remove the ability to play with 300. You can even play with Unlimited (aka 10.000) currently.
Right, as mentioned here, I was only proposing to change the default. You'd still be able to play with whatever limit you want. The setting you choose would be saved as it is currently, so you if you like playing with a high population limit (300+), then it would remember those settings from the last match.
-
3 hours ago, LordGood said:
Carthaginian temple has to go too thx
22 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I should have kept my mouth shut...
Apparently I should have too. lol
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I actually really like the current Persian temple.
I don't see an issue with having both. The Carthaginians have two temple models randomized.
-
1
-
-
On 10/24/2017 at 5:01 PM, LordGood said:
I suppose you've never heard of the famous playercolor glazed bricks of Persia?
The Persians do have that bright blue Ishtar gate which I always thought would look awesome in player color... (Would be totally historically accurate...)
-
1
-
-
On 5/25/2016 at 4:26 AM, sanderd17 said:
The wall tower issue is a lot harder to fix (else we would already have fixed it).
That's what I was thinking. I do hope it gets fixed eventually though.
-
3 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
I'm guessing no one knows how to make a component for something like this then?
I'm pretty sure someone could do it. Might be a big time investment for something not immediately planned for the main game. Doesn't mean it won't happen though.
-
13 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Perhaps on a smaller scale for the Gerudo. Maybe the Palace can add three buildings on its sides and four towers to the corners?
I was thinking more about the structure of the fortress hideout from Zelda 64. You have a large building that is similar to that where the roofs of lower levels serve as the porches of the upper levels. Would be neat to build up a fortress like that during a match.
-
This idea would be kind of neat for your gerudo civ too. I always thought that main gerudo fortress structure looked like it had been built up. Allowing structures to be built different ways (choosing the specific structures to add to the main) adds additional variety.
-
It's easier to see things on smaller screens in isometric view than the default perspective view.
-
7 hours ago, av93 said:
Well, most civs in aoe3 (if not all) have separate buildings into barracks, stable and foundry.
Ah, that's true. The barracks and archery range was what was combined.
-
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Do you plan to make archery range, stables, etc. for each civ? Even if not all civs need them, they'd still be good to have for mods or scenarios.
That's one thing I liked about AoK over AoE3. I never cared for the combined barracks. Separate buildings slows down some rushing as you can't train all the different types of units until you have built the respective buildings. It also lets you target enemy unit creation more precisely. For example, you can opt to destroy stables first to prevent cavalry creation if your current units are more vulnerable to cavalry. Plus, building variety makes cities look nicer.
-
2
-
Why so many Alpha stages?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by WhiteTreePaladin
As far as I know, the engine as a whole hasn't been rewritten (disregarding early prototypes), at least not since I've been here. The "engine" is really a collection of smaller "engines" though. I know a lot of reworking was done on the graphics engine and simulation. Ykkrosh completely rewrote the entire simulation portion, and designed and set up the component system we have now. It was called simulation 2 for a long time, but I think it got renamed to just simulation in the last couple of years. The first simulation was rather messy. For example, it would sometimes invoke multiple function calls back and forth between Javascript and C++. I particularly remember that there was a Javascript function that did something simple like determining build counts. It was called from C++, but was implemented in Javascript presumably to be easily editable without having to recompile...