Jump to content

wowgetoffyourcellphone

Community Members
  • Posts

    7.115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    311

Everything posted by wowgetoffyourcellphone

  1. Only 1 civ if I remember correctly?
  2. Reduce ranged cav attack range so that ranged footmen can out-range them.
  3. If we had scout units, then Skiritai could be their scout with a buffed hunting ability.
  4. Bronze is metal. A metal alloy to be exact. You can't "mine" bronze. It's made of copper and tin. What could be done instead is just replace the iron anvil icons for metal with copper-ish ingots. This would hint at copper/bronze but keep the name generic enough to cover all metals used in the period.
  5. Maiden Guards instead of Poison Maidens. Done.
  6. Have you pulled changes from the repo lately? Those look like errors I fixed a week or 2 ago.
  7. I'd like to keep the giant canopy Acacia, because it's so cool and Acacias can get that large. But I have 2 possible solutions to the gameplay problem you mention. 1. Reduce the frequency of this variation in the actor, perhaps by 5 (the "giant" acacia variant will show up 5 times less than it does now). 2. Make the giant acacia variant into its own template, so that it can be used sparingly as a decorative option (but gatherable, perhaps with a little more wood).
  8. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25789 "This removes the fancy mainland biome switch because it was the only map to do that and we lack the tools to automate it." Wow looks at all the brute force work he's done without the benefit of automating anything because he is dumb at writing scripts...
  9. I like this^ as another option. Perhaps call it "adaptive shadow quality." My experience playing with this feature is kind of odd. If I turn off "Cover whole map" and set the slider Cutoff distance to 1500 and shadows get really blurry. But if I turn on Cover the whole map (covering the whole map should stretch the texture really far?), the shadows sharpen up again. I play with Cover the whole map anyway, so it's no big deal, just relating the behavior.
  10. Ultimate solution would be to add move-attack (attack while moving; sword cav swings his sword while his horse is still chasing), but that may be one of those features no one knows how to implement.
  11. Are things too far along to make resource distribution improvements to Mainland? @wraitii @Stan`
  12. Rumor is 90+ gigabytes disk space required. Seems really excessive to me, but we will see what kind of content they pack into this baby. I'll be really pissed if gigs and gigs of that content requires microtransactions or expansion pack purchases to "unlock."
  13. Yaunā is a cool name. I dig it. Yangtze would have been perfect in other circumstances (if the Han had been committed), but Yaunā is pretty cool regardless.
  14. Everyone does this as a part of their free time. Get things done when you are able. All effort is appreciated. If I win $200MM in next week's Powerball, I pledge to put you all onto payroll.
  15. This has been brought up before, and there have been steps in that direction. I think it might eventually happen.
  16. My responses were clear. Your examples are not examples of new game changing features. I do not care what you think or enjoy. The dev team increasingly cares about what you think and enjoy, so take heart. About my mod, it's not made for you or other multiplayer "experts," lol. Thousands of people have played it and enjoyed it. But because you don't see it played on the lobby you think it's not played or well-received. lol A25 will certainly be better than A24. I'll look for you on the field.
  17. We just aren't going to agree here. I don't think editing some templates to remove a pop bonus or tweaking unit costs are what should be considered new game-changing features. You do. So, we are at an impasse. Kushites were almost 3 years ago. New civs used to be added every 6 months. If you were here back then, we'd still be stuck at 4 civs so you can perfect the 2012 meta. Maybe adding territory lines was a mistake that ruined the 2009 meta and cheesed someone off so much they complained about it nonstop on the forums. Difference is, those people used to be ignored.
  18. Changing the game, which happens with every SVN commit is different from a "game changing feature." Tweaking merc costs and rotation times or even enabling a new building are hardly what I would call "game changing" features. Taken in that context, the last several alphas have been incremental. Each alpha has had its OP unit class, so A24's archer over buff isn't much different in that regard. What made it more impactful is that it was 2 yrs between alphas and everyone was used to A23's meta. A24 was 2 years in the making, or 3 normal alpha cycles worth of possible changes. Considering that, A24 was quite incremental.
  19. On the contrary, I feel like a game changing feature hasn't been implemented in ages. Game changing=battalions, merc camps, charging/trampling, greater hero integration/abilities. There was a big debate about simply adding scouts, and that went nowhere.
  20. Of the guardsman, I feel like a Xiphos would be more period appropriate than a Gladius.
  21. It's not bad, but you get these weird effect of your units being scattered to the wind chasing down fleeing archers. There needs to be some work done on the fleeing behavior to mitigate this effect.
  22. Lol. On one hand everyone wants new stuff, but get angry when things change. I would say A24 was an aberration in that the changes were reductive rather than additive. Those new features that were added were often not pushed to their full capacity, so felt inconsequential.
×
×
  • Create New...