DarcReaver
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by DarcReaver
-
-
On 27.6.2017 at 9:17 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Implement some of the longstanding gameplay elements that have been forgotten about:
-
Capturing and Garrisoning animals in corrals -- with food trickle.
-
Extension?: Training sheep, etc. is disabled until 2 of an animal type are corralled.
-
- Charging.
And then also coaxing @Enrique into completing the new cavalry animations and getting those all set into the game.
Add a surprise civ like the old days. Or maybe bundle together the Chinese and add them as a bundled mod.
It would be nice to animate the Zebu for the Mauryan Indians.
Also, add Auroch and Zebu to the game finally as fauna. And generic "Cattle" for eventual capture/corral feature.
Oh, and some ideas for replays/observers: When you choose 'Observer' in the drop down:
- Add the resource icons back to the upper left, hover to see the resource counts for ALL players. Right now there's nothing.
- Hitting TAB enables status bars for every single thing in the game.
those. Plus a working concept for map controls.
-
Capturing and Garrisoning animals in corrals -- with food trickle.
-
On 10.6.2017 at 9:25 AM, Grugnas said:
In most RTS you can destroy buildings with soldiers.
Capturing and "suicide" buildings is an alternative way to get a building down and a strategic choice to use it at own advantage once captured.
Io can still use sieges to destroy buildings and get a small amount of resources as reward though.
So, what is the advantage of not suiciding buildings? In the last version buildings automatically went to neutral within a couple of seconds anyways and couldn't be used anymore unless you kept half your army next to it to keep it occupied. Which binds significant amounts of soldiers that could instead go around and kill stuff. The fact that Town Centers are almost uncaptureable with earlygame/midgame armies and enemy soldiers garrisoned inside doesn't help either.
Either scrap capturing or suiciding. Both at the same time makes no sense.
-
On 29.4.2017 at 10:07 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
Done ✅ we have the ticket. And as Wraitii says must be training individual.
So, what's the purpose of this ticket? The arguments already hav been repeated like 10 times now...
-
1
-
-
On 22.4.2017 at 8:32 PM, cobwebby said:
Can I get in? All servers till 11 are full atm.
There is no need for that anymore. The game has its own multiplayer platform integrated now.
-
1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Need be hardly tested, have sense because is realism. You need almost each building to have sense.
Only spots where gatherers are. Much sense and realism.
-
7 hours ago, Servo said:
Game pace is really good, you can choose what pace you want easily.
Soldiers gather resources, yeah of courses they can. In times of war anything that you can have or mobilize of importance matters.
To quote myself:
Advantages of Citizen Soldiers/gatherers:
- Usage of military units when not in combat
- Especially cavalry can gather far away by hunting
- Easy transition from economy to fighting
Disadvantages of Citizen soldiers/gatherers:
- No distinction between economic and military units (an integral part of every RTS)
- Since many gatherers can be active at the same time (economic + every military) gathering rates have to be poor to avoid “economy explosions” which means that the resource income increases exponentially with each additional soldier
- Players loose resources when attacking, short math example:
o Soldier collects 0.5 food per second, 30 soldiers work as gatherers which means 15 food/second income (or 900 food/minute).
Now if the 30 soldiers move to the enemy the player will lose 900 food every minute from his soldiers not gathering. Provided that the enemy has a similar army/economy that means that he’ll be ahead with 900 food for each minute he can gather (which would be equal to ~10 or more soldiers).o The attacking player needs to destroy more than 900 units worth of food every minute to get an advantage from his attack. If he can’t do that his attack actually weakens the Attacker instead of the Attacked -> unbalanced by design
o Fixes: soldiers move at unrealistic ultra high speed (less time to get to the enemy) or lowering the gathering rates. The issue is the same still, attacking player initially has a large disadvantage
- There is no progress from weakest -> strongest unit. Instead the players already start at a high level and then only progress in very small steps towards higher tech levels
- Citizen soldiers discourage capturing as they are efficient at protecting the base early on, rendering capture rather useless
- To get citizens back to work is a very fiddly task and annoying compared to regular economic units
Overall it’s better to adjust gathering to specialized units for each civ type instead of giving every civ the ability for soldier gathering. This makes civs more diverse (-> more gameplay depth). One (poor) game mechanic lost for a massive gain in playability is more than worth it.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
That bad idea, I'm imagining the units doing this very far both sites, when they return , the civilians are dead.
batter automatic.
So, apply this mechanic to outposts aswell, problem fixed.
-
1 minute ago, Libervurto said:
Not quite, I would like to see seasons because the seasons played a huge role in warfare in ancient times. There are a whole load of ideas for seasons but that would be appropriate to discuss in a separate thread.
All I know is that global weather systems that affect fighting are despised in multiplayer. For campaign/single player missions that's an entirely different matter though and perfectly fine. Just don't suggest that as a basic concept for the game.
-
15 minutes ago, niektb said:
@DarcReaver: please mind your tone a little bit, will you?
@Lion.Kanzen: if the only change would be to remove the CS concept than it would indeed be even more a AoK clone. However, combined with the other changes mentioned in this thread I think it plays quite differently
If the sun sets in the east maybe.
-
16 minutes ago, Libervurto said:
Why not instead make construction sites drop sites for the materials required? This would mean you could place construction sites for buildings even if you don't have the resources at hand to build them immediately. Would that mess with the game?
So the Civic Centre would only have a dropsite in phase 1? Then changes abilities through the phases? Interesting idea!
Example:
Building cost : 200 wood, buildtime 10 seconds
Place building - initial : 0 cost
While building : -200 wood from your total resources is removed, wih 20 wood per second rate.
If stock reaches 0, the building stops.Correct?
If so: that would be a pretty drastic change in game flow. But I wouldn't oppose to it I think.
-
8 minutes ago, Libervurto said:
As a purely visual thing I would like it. Possibly if seasons were implemented then different crops could be planted at different times of the year.
As for making farms finite, that seems like an option to be set before the start of a match. Otherwise, if you give faster harvesting rates to the finite farms then that's the one everyone will use, so it makes the other farms redundant.
Yea, put seasons in an RTS. And let's rename the game to "Farming Simulator 0 - AD" while we're at it.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Servo said:
I really enjoy this. Unique but ripped off, Rofl
4 resources - AOE II ripoff
city phases - AOE II ripoff
Blacksmith/technology system - AOE II ripoff
"counter" system - AOE II ripoffCombined with a @#$% game pace.
But yeah, using a squad based system is a ripoff...
So what?
IT's not about whether the system was used by another game at point X in the past. It's about creating a concept, using various tools to make the whole game itself unique.
Currently 0 ad has what absolutely, unique and OUTSTANDING gameplay element?
Ah yea, soldiers can gather resources.. wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
So units can do the most boring task in the game to not be idle. Impressive.-
1
-
1
-
-
The game IS an AoE clone. And a s h i t t y one on top. Citizen soldiers do not save the @#$% concept, they just make it even worse. The whole point of this thread (and my threads) is to make the game more unique by creating a unique gameplay concept.
The suggestions are ripped apart into nonsense and there is nothing useful coming from the other side.
hippocrity.
-
4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
You haven't an argument vs citizen soldiers. We can have many variation to be more flexible. You are in wrong way.
Healing needs more love.
why battalion must be a box of units with have the possibility to merge or disband the battlalion?
you started the mod the game as developer designer ?
I've had dozens of arguments against citizen soldiers. I do not bring them up again.
@#$%ing read my posts you troll
-
12 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Why?
healing can be better much better. But CS is bad concept? I don't think so, you can prove that.
this worst example, the units are unrecognizable for me.
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2017_04/orc.jpg.be3ea65cd6839a0f9c7e07f5c01c5b7a.jpg
Your examples are only based in good micro, I can do same disorder in AoE2 .
if that thing even be a battalion I haven't idea which units are they.
You can clearly see following facts:
a ) color BLUE units are not color RED's units
b ) units from BLUE are clearly not the same as RED
c ) there are units with huge axes/hammers/logs that obviously attack close range, while BLUE's units seem to have rifles or something similarAnd no, my examples are not based on good micro. And you're still not understanding the difference.
Once more:
Compared to this:
Edit @ the picture - so, there are ~ 200 dead cavarly bodies and long bows + some priests. Even if I have not zoomed in I can see it easily. So nope, no disorder really.
If you put in a battalion, you'll at least have a much easier option to select units of a certain type at once. This already makes the UI much cleaner to use and creates order. Then it does not matter that much that unit's are harder to differentiate from each other.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Zeta1127 said:
I don't get this ant size unit argument at all, formations are an integral piece of the puzzle that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. Formations aren't fully implemented so units stay in formation during battle. 0 A.D. harkens back to the CnC and AoE/AoM way of doing things, with the twist of historically accurate citizen-soldiers and formations add into the mix.
Healing may need some work, but the temple and healer dynamic is sound.
Perhaps you are right about the training times being too fast, and things like making farms require farmsteads are good ideas, but other than that I just don't see most of the problems you see.
Once more. Every game you mentioned had a distinction between unit types. Each unit is easily. 0 ad doesnt have it.
Citizen Soldiers concept sucks @#$%. Healing is useless, yes. And apart from that your statements make it pretty clear that you don't have a clue tbh.
Compare this to:
To this
Units are easy to notice, contrasts are in between the unit types, and the models differ from each other enough to create an overview.
This is the main reason why lots of RTS do not use "authentic" unit skins by default.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Zeta1127 said:
Darc, I just don't see the problems you see. Formations, and the full implementation of naval combat, will solve a lot of the problems. Perhaps some tweaks to the tech tree to address the progression problems are also needed, but other than that I think formations, naval combat, and a somewhat more rigged tech tree are all 0 A.D. really needs.
Nope. The UI is a mess, units are not apparently easy to differ in regular fights. Formations are already implemented, but they just create more micromamagement for adding/removing units from them. The variable size of formactions even creates problems with grouping and spacing out armies on most maps (forests are in the way and mess up the unit positioning with Formations > 20 soldiers).
On top of that individual unit micro doesn't do anything because units can't be healed efficiently and die too quickly.Just adding a couple of techs/working on the tech tree won't do much.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Here's an idea.
If you guys don't like what I proposed here, then make your own thread for others to rip your proposals apart. Sound good?
Meanwhile, none of our proposals will get implemented.
Actually, from what I hear the closest thing that'll come to fruition will be:
Same darn game as it is now, but you can lock soldiers into a formation if you want to and disband them at will. There you go. I predicted the future.
Which leads us right back to my original application as gameplay developer
Without one there won't be progress just like we anticipated.
Great stuff.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:
I think the key feature I liked most from the battalion system is the ability treat the battalion as a super unit. This means selecting a group of units by a single left click and having a visible way to distinguish groups without having to actually select the group. This was accomplished by having the selection ring continuously change shape. Essentially, the outer edges of the individual selection rings would be connected together and all the inner portions of the selection rings would not be rendered. Banner units were also used to make the battalions stand out for easy selection and targeting. It's fine if the group can be disbanded to individual units for those that want that.
The question is : what do you want to accomplish by a "disband" function. As has been stated already, single units are more of a burden than a relief for the player. Units cannot be distinguished from each other due to lack of easy-to-notice art features (compare to age II, AoM or SC II). There is no benefit for single unit micro aswell.
I can't think of reasons why it would be beneficial for the game itself and for game controls to have manual disbanding options for formations.
-
1
-
-
A mechanic present is that siege can be captured. But the time to overtake them is simply too long. Fixing this should help.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
I played the game before but was boring.
And as usual ignoring the arguments when proven wrong and just shift over to a different topic. Debating culture at its best tbh
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Nice graphic, mostly of the games you says where are now....
by the way RoN is almost 16 years old. Total war is the only have life
( where is BAtlle for the middle earth 3?).
BFME and CnC official servers were shutdown when EA closed EA Pacific studios and lost the license from New Line to sell BFME games (which was in 2013 I believe). It's still played by a couple thousand players via gameranger and a private multiplayer server though and downloadable for free https://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=977795) (same for CnC games). So it's the same as AoE II on voobly. It sitll has a very active community compared to other RTS games of that time, with tournaments being hosted etc.
Battle for Middle Earth 3 can't come because EA has no longer the License for Tolkien games. SEGA got it now, and SEGA does not make strategy games at all, only Roleplaying games (Return of the King/The Hobbit).
So what are you trying to say?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Blizzzard and Forgotten Empires: "lol"
Forgotten Empires revives a 20 year old game. Just saying.
And blizzard games rarely have more than 50 units on the field per player
WHICH I WROTE HERE:
QuoteI already covered this half a dozen times already. Single soldiers is something for either Real Time Tactics (less than 50 units per player), macro games in which individual units do not matter (RUSE, CnC maybe) or games from the past century (because of lack of PC power to support proper squad AI).
@#$%ing smartasses really
Edit: Also to see how "battalions" _CAN_ work is shown here. The CnC game shows how single entity games can work aswell. However, the main difference to 0 AD is that units are easy to different from each other. Faction's units look very colorful, and each race has a different style -> fights are easier to overview. in 0AD everything looks the same from a far.So this already doesn't work per se. In AoE II the artist style of units also makes the units easy to different from each other, so countering/micro is possible.
or here
-
47 minutes ago, Grugnas said:
I) What you call "manspam" its nothing more than a numerical advantage. Using a sneaky group of cavalry for a raid while the enemy troops are busy elsewhere is possible though. While the number of barracks built depends on the time the player wants to wait before refill his army, batches of any size of units can be trained.
Formations can be composed by different types of soldiers and can be distrupted or modified with versatility.
Imo healers should be indivdual units healing in area and not single targets because they are very hard to micromanage and often they heal injuried ranged units who rarely take damage. Anyway, since the design foresee a battalion refill by garrisoning barracks, i guess that healers role would fall off.
II) Individual soldiers gain exp on the amount of damage they deal to individual targets, imo experience could be calculated by ignoring target armour avoiding pointless complexity. Whenever a target dies, the Exp loot could be shared between units near the killer as far as they are inspired by the successful kill, this would create a sort of chain in exp gaining, limiting the individual promotion as you pointed out.
III) Honestly battalion and formations are similar concepts but, while formations require an higher micromanagement at start for setting up battalions (which increases the skill cap), a pure battalion system will only increase men on the screen.
I) So, in order to fight with a battalion the player is forced to use randomly either single trained units OR multiple units with a price discount, to put them in a Formation, and then manually refill them when they suffered losses and not having any kind of overview about the total veterancy level / combat performance INSTEAD of simply training a battalion of 10 soldiers which can be reinforced automatically, have a set up combat value and overall equal veterancy level per single soldier within the battalion?
Yeah, sounds like a much more advanced, less micro intensive and better way to make game controls for combat. Especially if you consider stuff like flanking bonuses, hard counter system with charging etc.
Edit. Just to show my point: yeah it's really very easy and rewarding to micro each unit individually here
(note that this is only regular army movement. Now imagine another player or even 2-3 with their units clashing into yours. HF trying to get an overview and apply micro to assign unit counters)
II) I don't get your point. First: 1 basic fighter battalion kills another basic fighter battalion -> winning battalion = +1 veterancy level just to state a number. Elite units give +2 veterancy for the whole battalion etc. So the veterancy is tied to the battalion instead of a single soldier. Way more easy to overview, more predictable in gameplay for the player and much cleaner in general.
This is another reason to actually use battalion combat system instead of tying the vet to a single entity. TO REMOVE POINTLESS COMPLEXITY.
III) Yeah, higher skill cap... ctrl + A - CTRL Number 0-9 - pick formation. Very skill intensive indeed. This isn't micro. It's bacis of game control. And even worse: this is not where the unnecessary micro part starts. Once a formation lost soldiers it's becoming an annoying micro clickfest to actually "refresh" the battalion.
Once more
1) SOLDIERS ARE ANT SMALL IN 0 AD -> hard to notice individual soldiers unless zoomed in extreme close range -> no overview -> chaotic fights
2) individual soldier level up is no big deal because soldiers die quickly / cannot be microed effectively, except for A-click
3) Battalions make it way easier to overview and keep units in formation properly - if there are no hard battalions it's incredibly tedious to keep selecting and refreshing a combat formation once there is a battle ongoing.I already covered this half a dozen times already. Single soldiers is something for either Real Time Tactics (less than 50 units per player), macro games in which individual units do not matter (RUSE, CnC maybe) or games from the past century (because of lack of PC power to support proper squad AI).
If you insist on using a 20 year old, outdated system I can't help you. Especially since you already state yourself that you want to avoid unnecessary complexity.
-
1
-
I don't like capturing
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by DarcReaver
Dude you_can't_use_the_structures. Because there is no converted territory next to 1) Towers, 2) military buildings and 3) most importantly next to Civic centers. Which makes the system obsolete. Just delete while they loose capturing points before they turn neutral.
The reason why houses should have more population and cost more instead of being cheap and spammable buildings in the first place.