Jump to content

DarcReaver

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    335

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by DarcReaver

  2. Civilizations and Cultures: A roadmap

    in Delenda Est

    Posted

    I am not creating game, I'm creating mod. ;) I don't care about "new players who will have to learn everything." (y) Tell Rome:Total War player and modder that they should only have 4 civs. lol

    I think you can see how well I have done with Principate Romans. Once I make new hero textures I move onto something new. German civs maybe to give the Principate Romans proper historic nemesis.

    Total War does exactly what I described above. You have main civs and sub civs. And all those main civs play out differently. the sub civs give certain smaller bonuses which works for singleplayer games.

    In multiplayer the civs do not matter that much. Unit composition is more important. So this is not really comparable.

  3. Civilizations and Cultures: A roadmap

    in Delenda Est

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    call down, this no is Starcraft or other rts where you have very difference between factions. If Justus wants little variation between them to have a great list, is their decision. Look AOE HD + Forgotten + African Kingdoms Its a lots of Civs.

    I have a question you have evidence, you know something like a poll or marketing research, how you are sure?

    I'm sure I create a survey about 0AD. And they , the target ( people) ever ask from new factions.

    AoE HD has a stable community because the game is fame from its name. If it wasn't Age of Empires the game would be dead by now. Anyways.

    If you ask people if they want more content they surely will say "sure I want". That's not an argument really. It's like this: if you have 60 civs, of which like 20 only have 1-2 different technologies or smth, all you get is: those 20 civs will play out 99% the same. So why bother to create a faction for them? Just make some skins for the units and it's done if someone really wants unit XY to look like AZ instead.

    60 civs is just nonesense imo. If you make those 60 civs differ more (which I doubt is even possible) it makes the learning curve much harder (you need to learn about 60 different factions, I doubt anyone would bother learning them. Also, out of those 60 civs you'll get probably a top 5, or maybe 8 of civs which are (most) useful in multiplayer and will be played, because they're easiest to learn, or most powerful if used right etc.

    Nobody plays AoF seriously. If you look at the player base, almost all lobbies are AoC lobbies with no AoF content allowed (which I find very dissappointing since I like Slavs a lot). The new additions to the game are mostly considered imbalanced or unnecessary. Just look at the steam forums, or that AoC community page (http://aoczone.net/). Quite a lot of AoF bashing in there. I sort of find it amusing because it's not THAT bad, but still, some posts have a point here and there.

    Which is getting back to my original point. More content =/= better game. Just face it. If the game itself is unfinished/unfun it doesn't matter if it comes with 2,5,10 or 60 civs, because it won't be played anyways. It's just even more unnecessary work. Also, if all civs play out the same more or less you attract only one player audience. If you have different types of civs (read: civs which do not play 99% the same) you have the chance to attract more people.

    Edit: don't get me wrong, having options ingame is a good thing of course! But just don't overdo it. Instead of having 60 civs consider just creating like ... idk .. maybe 4 main factions (like greek, germanic tribes/"barbarians", romanians etc) with some sub factions for each or some of them, making a total of like 15 civs or so. Larger differences between the main factions, and sub faction making them specialized in something. I really wouldn't recommend splitting those main factions into 10 sub/mini factions each. Better make a few less and make them feel more unique instead.

  4. Civilizations and Cultures: A roadmap

    in Delenda Est

    Posted

    my idea about mini and sub faction, I don't know if you read that system, because you need heroes and marvels for each faction.

    Sub factions are fine - but you really don't need hundreds of sub factions. If you make so many different factions it's too hard and confusing for people to learn the game. Less is better. If you make the difference very small there's no real point in making sub factions in the first place.

    The idea behind different factions/civs is that you get differing gameplay patterns. So, better have 4 civs which drastically differ in playstyle than have 20 civs who play the same.

    If you want to make "sub/mini factions" just go the way by making them skins for the existing civs with no differences in gameplay.

    • Like 1

  5. Civilizations and Cultures: A roadmap

    in Delenda Est

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    There's no point to have 60 civs where the only difference is stuff like "Infantry unit X can only have 2 hack armour instead of 3" and "this faction has 20% more town center radius", especially if even the graphics are the same for most. Just go with less civs, give the main civ certain bonuses and modify them within the sub factions (if there are some). And then FINISH those factions, make an interesting gameplay for each and you're set.

    More is not always better.

    • Like 1

  8. Gameplay Feature: Battalions and Formations

    in Delenda Est

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    Anger aside ;) Darc's comment about "watering down" the concept is the main thing for me. If the concept is solid then don't water it down and add unnecessary step. :)

    I'm not exactly angered, I'm more like ... annoyed. The thing is that game makers have to make decisions. You cannot please everybody. Every dev needs a certain vision on how HE/SHE wants the game to be. The player base will adjust to that. People who like the game will play it, people who don't will not. However, if you try to please everyone and include everything, all player sections eventually will abandon the game and there will be no players at all. Everyone will be like "meh it's kinda nice, BUT..." and at that point you've already lost as a developer. Because "BUT" means : not good enough, or even worse "it sucks".

    If you start arguing about integral parts and water down core concepts all you get is a strange mess of stuff with missing integrity. Better choose one way, go all the way until the end and have something proper finished instead of trying half-assed solutions which will not work properly in the long run.

    Which is something I sort of admire in your version of delenda est. You picked certain gameplay traits, put them together in a fitting way and continue to finetune them. Just like it should be done.

    Sure, there might be some details which could be changed or have potencial to be better, but the overall route of continuation is great. After playing like 2 games I noticed that there is a certain type of flow in the game, which makes playing enjoyable without becoming too repetitive.

    • Like 1

  9. Gameplay Feature: Battalions and Formations

    in Delenda Est

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    I much like the idea of battalions, but you can always accommodate single units, like what Empire Earth II: Art of Supremacy did, wherein you can select a group of units and have them form an army, as long as an officer/ hero unit is included in that group.

    Isn't a micro if is automatic. In Rise of Fall the units when we're to much formed battalion automatic.

    How do you want to make the "micro automatic" ? Units form battalions by themselves on their behalf? So in the middle of a fight your army suddenly moves back from the enemy and starts forming a phalanx because 2 additional soldiers arrived into the battle?

    What's the point anyways.... single soldiers can't use formations, die faster, can't get included in the "experience" gain process from fighting, deal less damage and are more tedious to micro. Either use battalion combat or don't. But don't mix it because it's stupid.

    Right and if that the case (I have play that game so you are right they are trained like 1 soldier at a time but then they gather into battalions on their own), then why not just train them as 1 battalion from the beginning instead of make the soldiers auto-form the battalion after they are trained? :) Makes unnecessary step your way. :) Just skip that step and make them battalion friom the beginning. :)

    Because that would be too easy to implement, to design and to balance. Tt's definately important to water down the concept so it won't work at all anymore. The only units that ever should be single units are expensive key units like elephants, siege or chariots or something like that.

  14. Design Meeting report #1

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Yes, it would be more like a short campaign. The inspiration is more Empire Earth, which has a nice concept of "territories" with different resources which you had to dominate in order to exploit it...

    Reminds me of Company of Heroes and Dawn of War. Capturing neutral territories on the map automatically gave you certain resources and additional pop cap.

  15. Is current status of game any good?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    In my opinion it is crucial that these battalions can be merged together to form an army. At the moment taking individuals and grouping them together does nothing other than make it easier to select all your melee combat troops or cavalry. I think the player should arrange their battalions on the map, then group them together forming an army. The position of these battalions would remain in the same position relative to the army. You could then move it as a single unit into battle.

    Why would someone want to do that anyways? You need to micro your troops individually to make them have the biggest effect by making them attack their counters, move them around to avoid unnecessary damage etc. Just A-clicking a group of units into the enemy city isn't really what RTS is about.

    • Like 2

  16. Design meeting report #2

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    No design meeting yesterday, it would happen soon.

    We are currently splitting the main description we set from the design documents into general aspects of the game to detail them further.

    More to come...

    Dude, are you serious? why post a topic and then tell everyone "well we don't have to say anything for now"?

    • Like 1

  17. Is current status of game any good?

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    So can we clarify what that feature is?

    I would say: focus on clear counters and battalion/army structure in order to develope a more macro based game that emphasises the strategical value of units working in groups.

    This would be accomplished by reforming the current combat system(increasing unit bonuses) and allowing units to be grouped together as a formation, then grouping to form an army (or at least make it so clicking on one unit in a formation selects that entire group) you could probably reduce a large amount of lag with this as well.

    That's what we have currently. train individual units and group them together.

    Instead just make units arrive in battalions by default. Size and cost depends on the type of unit. Units like Elephants or chariots can stay single units and be made more expensive and stronger compared to regular soldier battalions.

    • Like 1

  19. Is current status of game any good?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I think units should be created in battalions by default. That gives the formation system a use (a "phalanx" with 4 pikemen doesn't make much sense anyways). Faction battalion sizes can vary, for example - a barbarian horde of peasants is larger than spartan elite red capes. Question is then how to work with the resource gathering system: keep it "as is" or tweak it. Having armies gather resources looks rather strange to me.

  21. Conquer cities(occupation and annexion)

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    Play Alpha 19 when it's out and that'll answer your question :)

    Just a well meant suggestion from my side: screw the "indestructable building but captureable" concept. I tried some games on svn, and the feature makes booming even more viable. You can defend with citizen soldiers and your town center and garrison women in buildings already. Better make raiding more efficient, wooden buildings should be destroyable quite easy, with a few soldiers. Makes the game way more dynamic. Rushing is already suicide as you loose the resources from your soldiers gathering lumber/food while your enemy uses his defenders to gather more resources.

    Capturing buildings has no benefit to the player who captures them. Economic buildings cannot be used in enemy territory, military buildings are too easy to defend from being captured. So, all that's left is capturing houses. And if those are placed near your town center there's a low chance to actually capture them.

    To balance the citizens collecting resources you need to make buildings easy to destroy so your enemy has to move his citizen soldiers to react to your attacks immediately. If that's not the case rushing is pointless.

  23. Money,taxes and caravans

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by DarcReaver

    If you listen to the community all you get is "more content = more better". It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not, community polls will always result in that you add it. After that you'll get the @#$%ing in the forums about how unfun the mechanic is.

    You have to check if it fits your gameplay concept. If it doesn't you shouldn't implement it. If you let the community decide about gameplay related stuff you get a messed up game.

×
×
  • Create New...