Jump to content

wowgetoffyourcellphone

0 A.D. Art Team
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10.211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    491

 Content Type 

Posts posted by wowgetoffyourcellphone

  3. [Campaign] Gallic Wars

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

    Tree templates define an obstruction and an obstruction means the pathfinder has to consider it. => Performance issue. That's what Philip criticizes from time to time too: too many tree entities (though I love those trees and thus I want to only replace them with actors which don't have obstructions but are purely visual.).

    What if replace single tree entities with large forest entities with multiple trees? Example, clumps or groves of trees together as one thing instead of many things. This would reduce pathfinding?

  7. Suggestions for 0 A.D.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

    hmmm, that's a good point

    Also, would it be better to train units 5 or 1 at a time so that while the others train, the trained can gather resources?

    I think in the first minute or two minutes you should train 1 at a time and then after that train 5 at a time. In 3rd age train 10+ (do this especially if your base is directly under attack; of course this all depends on the situation you find yourself in).

    • Like 1

  9. Suggestions for 0 A.D.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

    Does a house take 40 seconds for 1 unit to build it or regardless? If you use more than 1 unit to build the house it does build faster, correct? So, now you are making a decision: Should I send 3 units to build this house very quickly or just send 1 to build it slowly and use the other 2 to chop trees. When I play the game if I send 3 units to build a house then it builds very fast. Also, the game is still in an immature state. There are many possibilities for technologies to be included that make building buildings much faster for those with no patience. Is there no creativity left for these things? You say the game is this way or that way, but I see an unfinished game yet, so you should give the developers some time to satisfy you.

    • Like 2

  10. Suggestions for 0 A.D.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    The problem with the idea that the game is too slow is that while you may have some vocal people saying the game is too slow, there are many thousands more who either don't care enough to state that the game is too slow or the game speed is just fine for them. In my comment about game speed (1.25x), I am just trying to get people to understand that (I think) the game has game speeds for a reason. That reason (again, I think, I do not know) is to allow players to play the game at speeds they are most comfortable with. My opinion is that the 1x game speed is just fine for beginners or players who want to more leisurely-paced game. Players who want a faster game can play at 1.25x speed, which is what I tend to play when I don't have time for a longer game. In my opinion, a qx game in 0 A.D. is about as fast as a 1x game in Age of Empires II.

    • Like 2

  11. Iberian circuit wall

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

    wowgetoffyourcellphone:

    I agree with your proposal removing the stone/metal resources from the start locations.

    For Iberians, however, that would mean they have no such resources inside their walls. Not sure if that would be good or bad.

    Concerning entities (e.g. trees) in walls: I'm working on this for random maps now that RMGen has access to the entity templates.

    I think that would lessen the "overpoweredness" of the free walls. I think the walls should be looked at as some kind of inner defense against rushing and all that, to protect the houses, temples, and such things instead of something that encompasses a bunch of resources so that the player can gather behind them. Overall I think players should have to move out away from the Civic center to get to the bulk of their early resources. In short, the player should in general need to build both a farmstead and storehouse in the early game to get an efficient income trickle. Having everything all bundled up against the starting civicenter made the walls overpowered by default. This was a flaw in map design, not a flaw with the walls.

  13. Iberian circuit wall

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    then we have a plethora of maps that serve the exact same purpose,

    You will have maps that serve the game mechanics.

    and less wiggle room for mapmakers to actually be creative. As a modding community we need to give mapmakers more freedom through more versatile gameplay mechanics, not force them to adapt to the pitfalls of the game.

    IMHO, giving map makers 100% freedom and creativity should not be a priority. There are obviously 100 other different features and mechanics in the game that the map makers need to take into account. Iberian walls are no different in this regard. And as I said, the maps are crammed and weird for all players, not just Iberians, so the maps just need better design overall. All just my opinion. Why are metal and stone mines right next to the civ center on almost every map? Shouldn't the player need to scout for these precious deposits of minerals? That's what I'm saying -- rethink all the maps to take into account the game's features and mechanics. So far it doesn't look like this has been done. Not for the Iberians. Not for much else.

  14. Iberian circuit wall

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

    If a map is designed without iberian walls in mind

    I think maps should be designed with all features in mind. And I also think the maps are too cramped with or without the Iberian walls. The random maps need redesigned/rethought. It would be better to have 10 or 12 really well-designed random maps than 30 random maps that are all cramped and weird and don't take into account game mechanics and features.

  15. Alpha 17 Balancing Branch

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Playing the game at 1.25x speeds up Everything, So your question is stupid and pointless. It assumes that game speed only affects movement speed. Which is the ONLY thing which has been increased.

    unless you count the research which makes everything harvest faster but that costs.

    I don't make such an assumption at all. I was simply asking a question. My question is in regards to the idea that the game is too slow. Only one guy seems to admit that he has have even tried it at 1.25x (iNcog).

    I have to say the responses I have gotten so far in this thread have been troubling. I am a long time lurker. I was around the forums 2+ years ago under a different name ( been playing the game since alpha 1, or was it alpha 2, don't remember) and I remember this to be a much friendlier (and more productive!) place then. You have this "balance branch" run by a team member (?) with contributors challenging me to a schoolyard duel like we're in middle school instead of discussing a video game? As someone in the game industry, I seriously wonder about the methods being applied here. Is there a vision? What are the guiding principles for this branch? Will any of your changes actually make sense within the context of the game design? Have simpler solutions to balancing problems even been attempted before throwing out what seems to be a mature set of game rules?

×
×
  • Create New...