WhiteTreePaladin
-
Posts
2.319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by WhiteTreePaladin
-
-
35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The pathfinder is absolutely atrocious. That's probably what they're fixing. Plus maybe a few usability features. But that's it. Those are the main criticisms anyway.
That's good. From what people were saying, it wasn't ready. I'm glad they're going to spend some more time on it. If it doesn't do well, it's less likely that we'll see a definitive edition for AoK. I hope that doesn't get cancelled.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, LordGood said:
I had a sneaking suspicion that the theater in the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia was Roman made aaaand i was right, the theater was built in the 3rd century AD. Thing is, its already almost done. should have figured sooner, classical Greeks are not one to build with arches and vaults
whups
Should be good for Romans. Might be close enough to squeeze in part one or might have to wait for Imperial Romans in part two. Or perhaps it's close enough to modify for the Greeks?
-
1
-
-
On 10/10/2017 at 1:34 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
And then a new set of volunteer devs come along, scrap the old wish list or don't even know it exists, and create a new wish list, all while not having or agreeing to even the general concepts these gameplay items are supposed to support.
This has happened more than once. I'm not really sure that there is a "fix" for it. As team dynamics change, desired features change. This extends beyond programmers finding certain tasks more interesting to work on, and is more related to the fact that different people want different things from the game. Probably the only way that it will change is if we happen to get a group with a more cohesive vision where the group itself (not just some members) stays around long enough to actually make significant progress toward whatever vision is popular at that time. It might happen eventually. I'm hoping that as the game gets more mature, we will begin to retain enough simultaneously active people for the final progress toward version 1.0 to occur.
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, elexis said:
Looks unrealistic yes, but since why would snowflake searocks be unplayable? Had fun matches there I wouldn't want to miss.
I don't have anything against it. But if you were wanting a random "traditional" map, it's a rather unpleasant surprise. It's also sort of unplayable on small map sizes. Would be nice if we had a better filter system than just keywords for naval, demo, triggers, etc.
-
14 hours ago, mimo said:
- removing random maps?
lol, and we could even push that brillant idea farther, removing all maps to remove all gameplay problems. More seriously, same argument as for balance. people are free to work on what interests them, even if not the most urgent problem of the game. And personnally, i play almost exclusively on random maps!
To be fair, I actually think we should remove some maps since some are rather poor quality, look bad, or aren't that playable anyway (snowflake searocks). Also, some new random maps are effectively better versions of old ones. It does clutter up the list and makes random selection of random maps a bit hit or miss. Sometimes I want to find out what kind of map I'm playing on through exploration, so I won't look at the loading screen to avoid seeing the map name. Often enough to be annoying, I end up on a lower quality one (or a map lacking metal/stone, etc.) and don't realize this until I've explored a bit. I don't mind a lot of maps, but we should probably clean up the list more often than we do. (This is even more true of our scenarios.)
If maps like snowflake searocks are really desired, then they should belong in a separate category.
-
3
-
-
I don't know if the well needs a roof like the others. Perhaps a little more decoration would help though.
-
3 hours ago, LordGood said:
(and theoretically would for the city walls but spartans dont get those walls)
Would still be nice if they matched the style in case someone wanted to use them in custom scenarios.
-
4 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
I don't think that part is threaded.
It might not be, I just know that can cause very unpredictable errors.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
Allowing newer alphas to play mods built on older versions would be really nice, so that mods that aren't updated regularly are still playable after alpha-releases.
I really like this, but I doubt it can be done. There are too many changes from one release to the next for a mod of a previous alpha to work.
-
1
-
-
Maybe it's a threading issue? Those are very random sometimes.
-
6 minutes ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
After trying to play some multiplayer games it seems like the hero select only works for one player, the first to choose a hero. Might be worth investigating.
I was working on a trigger only version of that and I had a similar issue. The dialog appeared to all players (over multiplayer) but it was the same dialog. The code for the loop over all players does run for each player so everyone does get a dialog, but all players get the heroes list for whatever civ the last player is using. I don't know how to specify something to only run for the current player.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Pick a hero?
Right
-
1
-
-
Would be nice to add that feature in for the regicide mode.
-
1
-
-
Can triggers directly interact with GUI elements? An example would be showing and hiding icons
-
11 hours ago, av93 said:
Doesn't look inconsistent, the small tower having roof, and not the stone one?
I think the addition of a roof could be considered part of the upgrade. It's one way to make it easier to distinguish upgraded towers from the ones that are not yet upgraded.
[edit]
Hmm, actually I might have that backwards. Looks like it's the upgraded tower that doesn't have the roof. Doesn't really bother me either way though.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, elexis said:
What does return do?
Are you referring to the fact that the second return should never execute?
return this.resourceData; // returns, so function ends return this.g_Players[g_ViewedPlayer].Civ; // this line is ignored
Could you get away with renaming metal to Rupee and switching the icon?
I think he wants to use metal for other civs though.
-
The new definitive edition of AoE includes both the new graphics and the old style. I agree that it would be nice to play 0 A.D. in this view.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, I don't like to micromanage my farms at all. The main goal of infinite farms was to reduce micromanagement. There's always hunting if one wants food micromanagement.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The returns are per gatherer.
Ah, that makes more sense. I read some old threads about it, and wasn't really sure how it had ended up being implemented. Wish it was more obvious how it worked.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:But you are right. I would much rather have a more visual or strategic effect with farms insteadof a diminishing returns thing. See: Farmlands in DE.
Also like in AOK it wouldbe nice if the farmers walked around a bit too.
I agree with all of that.
-
I saw a recent commit mention diminishing returns for farms. I forgot we had this. There is no convenient way to view the gather speed nor is there any visual indication that some farms are performing better than other farms. There is no way new players would even know this exists. AoK farm management queues were less than ideal, but they were still easily accessible.
It gives AI players an artificial advantage because they have easy access to the stats and adequate time to micromanage such things. We already give the AI players free resources at higher difficulties, so I don't feel this is necessary.
How does it work? Are we supposed to rebuild farms periodically?
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
For the rest I don't know but start resources are defined by the map I think.
If you want different resource amounts per player, then yes. If the resources were the same for all the civs, then the game setup could handle it.
-
I'd personally prefer fewer "larger" ships over lots of small ones. However, I think many of the current ships are already too large and entirely too long, so I would actually shorten them.
-
6 hours ago, Imarok said:
Have you played with AIs?
Rejoining doesn't work for games with AI.
Really? I hope that gets added. I've noticed that before but didn't realize it wasn't implemented.
-
2 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
I agree, but can be nice increases the size some ships
I think our ships should be slightly cartoonized: a little fatter and shorter. They currently maneuver poorly and I think a little reshaping would make a better footprint. I don't think the effect should be extreme. It's something that shouldn't really be that noticeable unless you put one next to a correctly proportioned ship or you just happen to be very knowledgable in ancient ship profiles.
Hyrule Conquest
in Game Modification
Posted
That's a nice feature from BFME1. (BFME2 removed it and had free placement for everything.) Probably would be done through the upgrade system like the small tower to large tower upgrade, or even the conversion of a wall segment to a gate. If you wanted to change what you had already built there, you would have to have a default upgrade that "destroys" it to return to a state that would allow you to upgrade again. Would have to link several entities together somehow to allow the separate upgrade plots and to create the overall shape to allow for concave sections in the footprint of the combined entity. I'm not sure how to do the combination part or if the upgrade system is the best method either. Just some ideas. Someone else may have a better option.