Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Karamel

  1. That's something I'd like to "fix" too. Also if the pikemen in syntagma could only fight in front of them that would be better. It makes it odd with all the crossed pikes and it denies flanking. And yes, you need more than one or use some spear lines to enlarge the front. With formation being less manœuvrable (like with a turning speed to keep their bonuses) this would make it even more interesting and would allow to break some spear/pike formation from the back with cavalry for example (maybe not killing everyone without much losses but crushing in a sandwish attack)
  2. Just a few words about Phalanx and Syntagma formations from what I experienced in Sybillae Vox. Remember my mod is way slower and have a bigger focus on unit positionning. The Phalanx is not deep, usually 2 to 4 lines in the games I played. Considering the spear range, the first two lines are fighting, the deeper lines are there for formation durability (it could add a push bonus like an attack bonus for the first line anyway). So disrupting a spear line can be rather quick by making a hole in the middle. The Syntagma is deep, 4x4 for the minimum requirement (that I made). The pike is way longer so almost everybody is fighting, at least the 3 front line. Put a Syntagma in an open door and none shall pass for example. This is especially true against swordmen who have even shorter range (not in the vanilla game), they just get impaled before getting in range. Individually pikemen are almost useless but get a strong bonus when in Syntagma (or lesser in a line/phalanx).
  3. How did you come across 0 A.D. I was building a listing of free/libre games and was lacking some good R.T.S. I don't remember well, even if I have heard about it long ago but couldn't remember the name. I think I've found it again from an article on the web (an no, not even as being the first package in the package manager) What motivates you to play 0 A.D.? Actually I don't really play it by now. I played it while I was discovering the game (alpha 15 or 16) then spend most time studying the mechanics. I sticked on it for multiple reasons. The game was very promising and pleasant to play, had a great atmosphere with graphics, sounds and musics (probably the best free 3D game I know in term of quality and the world best water rendering). I loved Age of Empires 2 and the fact it is historically correct, this game makes you learn things. And most of all, it's a free/libre game, you can share it, dig into it, play it on most systems, enhance it, well, be free and you know in three years the game will still run natively on next generations of OSes without DRMs. Is there anything you want from any part of the 0 A.D. community and feel you're not getting? If so, why? Like for every free/libre game I play, I haven't found a local community to play/discuss it (even for Wesnoth which is far more popular). But as far as I have seen this community is rather large and well structured, with a lot of diversity in all domains (free games often lack an art department). There is still something that have shocked me the first time but finally is maybe what have given the game it's durability is the strength of the official team (legacy of the original non-free game?). On other free projects there are contributions here and there and it can go anywhere. Here there is a team that says "No" in term of quality or general direction. It's disturbing at first, but there's still plenty of room for creativity and it probably have saved the game from a pile of crap state of TODO: enhance it (and it's motivating to do better things). Is there any more information you'd like to add? This is the only R.T.S I know in which you can breed an army of sheeps. What is your age, gender, and location? 3 decades, fluctuating, France
  4. There's no GUI except your text editor, what a lose of time for data editing I've updated the project with the basics, set can now add tags, remove is there, alter can be called multiple times on the same file to group editions by topics and the project can be split in multiple files. Now Template Alterator can have a different purpose than the template extension from sanderd (with subtile differences between overriding and extending), enjoy the choice as someone would say.
  5. I'll check it out, my available time is somewhat random these times. From the first reading it seems to work for the sanity-friendly cases. I may still keep Template Alterator, I'm planning it to be multifile so I can group changes by topic instead of by entity and find/edit them all in one place (like one file for armor and damage, one for buildings, one for resources…).
  6. Hello I'm trying to solve the issue mentioned there about the difficulty for gameplay mods to keep track of the modifications from the original game. There is a ticket about it #4076 for which I've tried to think about a solution in pyrogenesis but in vain (see the ticket to read why). So my solution was to create an external tool to maintain this kind of mods during the development of the main game. And here it is http://creativekara.fr/doku.php?id=0adta:start Still a WIP it only allows to edit an existing value for now. I'll add more operations and probably make it more flexible with time. I'll use it for Sibyllae Vox, if you encounter some issues feel free to say them here.
  7. If the release process from the mods and the regular game are done at the same time, there could be a release for the mods that is ready to be shipped with the game, so that even if you don't know how to install a mod, you know it exists and can play it and discover a few things. That said some features may be missing not to add a big mess, like preventing players to start a multiplayer game without the same mods activated (which would cause a big out of sync error at startup and people thinking the game does not work). And if the modders are not reactive enough, some mods may skip an alpha or two and that's a big mess too.
  8. I am currently trying to figure out a solution for #4076, there would be too much to do on Sibyllae Vox too after each new release if I can't/don't update frequently. Appart from errors with new/removed tags in templates, it would sad to miss some art enhancements with new models or sounds for example. Before posting a proposal on the ticket, I'm trying to figure out how to do, to find what could work and what won't and discover some side effects. http://creativekara.fr/doku.php?id=0adsv:merge#extend_a_template_from_an_other_mod By the way an other obstacle for mods is (at least for me) is the lack of players and probably the "hard" thing of finding and installing a mod (for a non technician nor involved member). Just as a idea on the fly, could it be possible for certain mods to follow the release process (feature freeze, commit freeze, release) to include a working version of some active mods right in the main data (I'm thinking about mainly Delenda Est, Ponies Ascendant, Millenium A.D. and Sibyllae Vox, sorry if I miss someone, I haven't checked every one)? I know it would require some big work for modders to follow the schedule and for team members for validation, keeping track of who is ready and tracking packaging in a period that is already time-stressing for the whole team.
  9. Pour des parties locales c'est comme une LAN. Faire rejoindre une partie et entrer l'IP de la machine qui a créé la partie à rejoindre. Pour Windows il y a la première fois une popup qui peut s'ouvrir sur le bureau pour autoriser les connexions entrantes. Si ça n'est pas validé, les autres joueurs ne pourront pas rejoindre. Pour une partie en ligne il vaut mieux passer par le hall pour simplifier les choses. L'ouverture du port 20595 se fait sur le routeur ADSL, selon le modèle la procédure est différente (il existe plein de tutos à propos du NAT). Il y avait un bot en test pour héberger les parties sur le hall sans ouvrir les ports, je laisse les autres en dire plus là dessus. For local games it's like a LAN. Click join a game and enter the IP of the computer that hosted the game. On Windows you will have the first time a popup on the desktop to allow incoming connections. If it is not validated, other player wouldn't be able to join. For online game, you'd better use the hall to make things more simple. Opening the port 20595 is done on your router, depending on the model it is done slightly differently (there are plenty of tutorials about NAT). There was a bot in testing phase to host games in the hall without opening ports, I let the other tell more about it.
  10. There are some cases in which the formations are reformed too many times, sometime when a distant one comes near an other. They will try to gater in one (thus going back) before going again from where they were. Sometime when you change formation during movement or attack, the new formation is ignored and they act strangely. Try to disable formations when playing aggressively or use the defensive/hold position stances and let them live their live. Formations behaviour is broken is some cases, sometime it works, sometime not. This is a hudge work to do to fix.
  11. I updated yesterday before posting and it seems to went well until advanced town phase. I just updated right now and I don't have errors on startup at least (I haven't tried to run a whole game though) I ran in the update code to make a compatible version for alpha 20 and added it to the download page. I don't think I'll try new things on this one, if I read correctly alpha 21 is not so far ahead. If I am to keep Sibyllae Vox playable while keeping new features from vanilla without spending most of the time to keep up to date, I think I'll have to spend some time on #4076 before implementing other things. By the way, is there any way to edit the topic title, this is not a balance mod anymore but a gameplay mod. [edit]Done, that's supersimple with the new forum[/edit]
  12. Thanks to niektb Sibyllae Vox has been updated to svn. This was a big work and a one that raised the mod from its ghost state (even if I don't know if it is sane to run after ghosts, I'd like to try, thanks to illness to give some freetime…). By the way I have updated my website and migrated the document pages on it. You can find the download link, concepts and in the future probably more player related things. http://creativekara.fr/doku.php?id=0adsv:start sibyllae vox 20160702.zip [edit]And because it was requested, I created a page to list the enhancements that could add more flexibility or features to the regular game. Once I have a sufficiently detailed feature or patch I'll open a ticket for discussion. http://creativekara.fr/doku.php?id=0adsv:merge
  13. No new version this time but still some news. With the help of mimo I could finally implement formation bonuses, that is units get armor or damage bonuses when in position in a formation. I put some bonuses for testing but it is still rough and requires a lot of changes to be used basically (behaviour of units when forming/reforming, behaviour of women, setting direction, pathfinding, formation bending, target picking...). If those changes are not included in the main branch yet and won't be released soon, you can check them in the experimental1 branch. The countryside feature is now included in the core of the mod even if there are still things to tweak. In a nutshell compared to vanilla, Sibyllae Vox is then: More tactical battles (slower movement, counter-scheme, less champion-centric)More map usage (build villages outside your CC, requires to control more resources spots)The next release will happen probably next on Sunday with no new features but fixes and little balancing. I have a game to play with Romans to check their swordmen (Iberian will be fixed to have towers again). Last but not least, if you want to play Sibyllae Vox, let's meet on each Tuesday evening (European time), either on IRC (#0ad or 0ad-sv) or in the main lobby of alpha 19. Ping me at any time if you have questions or want an introduction to the mod.
  14. For those who are willing to discuss, play or contribute to the mod or even just show interest I've created the channel #0ad-sv (enter webchat) Nothing new since the last message. I was very busy in real life and lost some motivation to work on 0 A.D. Still if you want to have fun ping me there for a game or a discussion.
  15. Way for new voices? If you don't know a lot about recording I have found this guide from Hedgewars some times ago. http://www.hedgewars.org/node/2132 No need for a high pitched voice, but the general tips should apply I think.
  16. What I see is most of your CS proposal are already in Sibyllae Vox (at least from a first read) with some exceptions like spear cav which is stronger than you suggest and swordmen not that good against cavalry. I don't feel them to be very different but I may be too familiar with them. Most of the traits between the same type (melee infantry, ranged cav…) give a slight bonus but don't make them totally different from each other. For the champion thing, you seem to suggest they are no match at all for citizen soldiers (so if a civ has a counter-champion, it wins). If champions are just better but not THE unit of phase III I don't see a good reason to split them from regular units. They are just strength that must be dealt with, not the only way to win. This point is not discussed at all and thanks for pointing it (the fact is I almost never use champions and end the game before champions are wide-spread)
  17. After playing more games with the countryside feature (which allows to gather quickly outside your CC) I don't feel infinite stone/metal would fit at last. The requirement for an infinite food source is because food is a basic resource and if the game comes to lack it even at early phase you're stuck. It's not the case for metal and stone and it would destroy trading in a way. Regarding the amount you may stick to the small and large spots. The nature of the metal would only change the gather rate. In my countryside feature, there can be much less workers on a spot (8 on a large spot, 3 on a small), so even a gold mine cannot be rushed and you need to control more resource spots to be efficient. Even more, there are not that much spots, so maybe only 2 levels can be fine (common/rare or surface/deep), at least to start with and see if more would add something significant.
  18. From a message just one day after big gameplay changes, I think there will be much much more against theme, no matter if the change is good or not. Leave a few days for the players to try to change their way of playing to use those new features and then the comments will be more accurate. PS: See also Sibyllae Vox for more use of the capture feature.
  19. I like the idea in the way to encourage players to use more of the map and have some strategic spots to hold. It was also proposed for some ground with a farming bonus (working in Delenda Est if I read correcly). I have one doubt though, with gold being fast to gather and small supply, they will deplete quickly. The highest the reward is, the faster it will vanish (so less time to fight for them). On the same time, wowgetoffyourcellphone also suggested to have metal and stone mines or careers, that are infinite spot (I don't think they are implemented yet in Delenda Est). That way there is still an advantage to keep them under control on the long run, but they may not (or do) give a short time bonus. It may be having all stone/metal spots infinite (like farms), but with more or less gatherers allowed per spot. Anyway, if you can test the idea (which will require modifying maps) it may give a lot of interesting feedback.
  20. I played a few RTS long ago, as I don't have any Windows since my gaming experience is far from the main stream. Even if the concepts are not really innovatives. My top, inspiring my changes on 0 A.D.: Age of Empires II, Command & Conquer Generals. Both for simple mechanics, units countering without much much micro, battles being sending the right units at the right spot. AoE also for its historical background. My top, but more counter-sample for my changes: Annex: Conquer the World: a game on Megaglest engine, with a good sound-atmosphere and a simple counter-scheme and a lot of continuous battles full of micro (for me maybe a sibling of C&C Generals or Starcraft II in the free software world, but with much less quality and an annoying interface) Zero-K: base upon Spring Engine (Total Anihilation inspired engine), an other game with continuous fight and a clear counter-scheme, with a big part of micro too. Warcraft II: but more for the music, graphic style and background. Didn't liked my online games (rush for max pop knights or ogres and rush at ultra-unplayable-speed). All of my top, except for Warcraft II, have this particularity: rather simple mechanics, a clear counter-scheme, fighting most of the time (I can't turtle, it stresses me, I need to go out). Either with instense full micro or a slower pace with more focus on positioning units (with a preference for the later). Other relevant games: Warzone 2100: very interesting campaign but still a big mess in multiplayer with way more time reading the doc than playing the game. Tried to make a mod to push away most of the complexity and focus on designing a proper army (but it was not played and I abandonned the game). Battle Bugs: hey, I was quite young at that time, and commanding ants, pray-mantis and grasshoppers to conquer a slice of pizza was fun Caesar III: a good real time building game (I don't remember if we could pause the game) with a lot of resources to manage to grow you city, but rather repetitive scheme and poor battle design. Battle for Wesnoth, UFO Alien Invasion: TBS with few units, recruiting and positionning for the first, training a squad battle after battle with a lot of abilities for the second. Other I didn't liked: Warcraft III: I didn't catched the hero-focused game, they had too much importance in battles comparing to regular units to my liking. In short I wasn't playing how it should be played. Starcraft I and II: I played a lot Starcraft I in campaign, but never understood how to play (which unit for what, ending up massing super units and a one-fight win-or-lose game). Played a bit of Starcraft II, too much micro, often only one decisive fight with too much speed to handle it for me. Otherwise they are good games Megaglest: poor interface (shared with Annex), strange animations and graphic style, I never finished a game. If I played it I may have liked it, it has a good reputation. Sudden Strike: too much things to handle everywhere, not really forgiving because it is hard to replace your losts. Since I now can't play most of the well-known games (I played Starcraft II on a borrowed computer) or with a lot of pain to make them working (when possible) I can only study some aspects with videos or game reviews. I'm mostly sticking to games with at least a free game engine.
  21. I don't think phases are broken as a concept, but a lot of things derivating from it are. Even if there can be an other way to have a similar effect. Each phase already gives an advantage in theory, but not maybe in current implementation. In village phase you only have the basics. With the addition of wooden towers you also have a few defensive abilities (considering they should be part of a strategy and not a always do or never do, with proper advantages and drawbacks). In phase II you unlock the ability of having better soldiers, either with new classes or technologies, better defenses and better economy. In phase III you have the same power upgrade that can outclass phase II. On that point I have a different view from wowgetoffyourcellphone, not unlocking new strategies by phasing up but unlocking other -and more efficient- ways of doing them (why excluding diversity from early game?). So if you phase, you unlock things that can overwhelm the previous one, but you need to spend resources on it (and can be overwhelmed by just number). In theory it's a cat and mouse, a race between exploiting phases bonus and costs. I agree, currently there is no real reason to stay at a low phase. It's just going up to town phase, build a CC and towers and attack with towers (offensive towers? Isn't this a siege weapon?), untill you go city phase, get champions and fortresses and wipe everything. Which I feel is way more broken than phasing and to be deeply linked to it. At least it's how I see the latest svn games I played, I would be truely happy to be proven wrong and wouldn't have started Sibyllae Vox otherwise. If there would be some way to fight in early phases (and things to fight for), it would be harder to spare more resources for phasing. Then phasing cost is just a matter of finding the right cost. You are providing interesting ideas like more diverse buildings requirements and building upgrades. But I don't know if it will open more strategies, it will surely provide more build orders. To the extreme, Warzone does specializing at a huge size, and because you can't really switch from a strategy to an other, it's still rather linear (once you have made your first choices, you are really stuck in them, switching is losing). I really don't know about this, it a matter of finding a good balance between choices and destiny and invite you to develop it a bit. I don't have made my mind, I was thinking about extending village phase in sibyllae Vox, to make it not just a sub-phase, but a full entity, like you can already play a lot of things in town phase (well, in Sibyllae Vox) and make it last a bit longer (say if an average game lasts 45 mins, have more or less 15 min of each phases and not phase III at 15 min). Thinking it the reverse way, phasing being the effect of growing and not a requirement (you can get town phase once you already have a town, and not be able to make a town when phased). Thus the "step", requiring investments (resources and time) may add one choice more to do in the global strategy, instead of flowing by itself. It may be a bit artificial but it seems to work (maybe the cost is having a strong will to evolve politicaly and set up the tools for a richer and broader civic life). I don't know about it, for now I'm for keeping it, just not to reboot the game (and deal with it, which with time often make sense of the feature but not always) but if someone convince me that it is far better with a more linear progression why not? Finally, I may be locked in my concept to implementation way of thinking, when you say "I want to focus on champions", isn't it "I want to focus on a small unstoppable strong army" that translate to training champions (but is not the only way)? The argument of making more diversity isn't in fact revealing the current state should have more? And there are tons of way to deal with it, the phases concept is one of them. Not saying that it won't be modified at all, but are we trying to solve the right thing?
  22. Thanks for summarizing it. It will come handy when differenciating some civ/units to have more chance to see at a glance some flaws appearing. Note: you have all spoilers included in the Spartan spoiler, a closing tag is misplaced.
  23. Nice start, seing the list it may ease a lot the learning curve. For those who are lazy to search for the design document (or eager to do something else), could you add a line or two to justify the class choice? Mostly from historic facts I suppose. I know for Pericles and Bouddica, not sure for Philip II (which I see more as a reformist) and Alexander (more as a conqueror). That way we can agree or disagree on your choices more easily. Also a link to the design document page relative to the hero may be a plus (you can consider other people are lazy )
  24. How funny, it looks almost completely as how wraitii made me rethink about it. Why charging? Because it allows you to have an offensive bonus or having a defensive one (when not). So why stamina? At first it was for some historical purpose, with armies being very weak for traveling the whole day and being attacked by night or thing like that (having already a lot of things about preparing an army that is the thing too much). This is for the walking part. For the running part it may still be a timer, for skirmishers not hit'n run forever for example and still give charging a drawback on long battles, be quick or be dead as a rock group said (and the run speed is required to differenciate resource gathering ability and in battle movement ability). And the charge button is what I called behaviour against order. Because we already have stances that are almost useless, that would just be recycling some code. The good new is that is more easy to implement (but still an harcoded thing not realy geared toward auto-abilities).
  25. I agree with the 3 level of information from FeXoR. It is for me a matter of being familiar with the data. At start you will need the encyclopedia to understand most of the things. It's not a problem it takes the entire screen: you are still not effective anyway and if it is a solo game, no problem for auto-pausing the game. Your first games should anyway be rather slow paced like a tutorial scenario (even Easy Petra is slow to develop) or something like that to be able to get the game mechanics. Once you get the basics, the small tooltips are there to help you remember the whole scheme. Then you don't need them anymore and want just changing values (for the stats, the bonus may be more usefull than the basic value at that point). Adding a tab may add useless click for going back and forth (well you get it too with an encyclopedia page but not a popup. Or would it replace the unit portrait?). That is if when you are in the stat tab, other commands are hidden, that stat tab should be playable enough to keep looking at it (instead of switching back to an other one to be able to actually do things). I'm not sure about it, it may be a matter of UI nature, being passive (informations) or active (used to control the game). Mixing them may not result in an intuitive thing.
  • Create New...