Jump to content

fatherbushido

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1.148

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by fatherbushido

  2. Stone and Metal not in Atlas

    in Bug reports

    Posted

    10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Stone and Metal have been removed from the Atlas list. Why is that? 

     

    That's probably due to a wave of renaming.

    That's meaningful for text displayed in game. The cost / reward is less obvious for filenames...

  3. Idea: Dynamic daytime and weather

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, seeh said:

    yes i think so. a few days ago i saw it raining somewhere, in some map. was really surpriced

    (names are probably different in 0 A.D., those are from Fork AD)

    For rain, you have those ones:

    random/extinct_volcano.js
    random/rmbiome/fields_of_meroe/rainy.json
    skirmishes/Deccan_Plateau_2.xml
    skirmishes/Gambia_River_3.xml
    skirmishes/Punjab_2.xml

    You have also maps with fireflies or volcan dust.

    You have more chance to find nice maps in the skirmishes and scenario category.

    That one from @nani is nice for example:

    image.thumb.png.c9adfbe6eba3a1ff92846a9bcf070f06.png

     

    • Like 1

  4. Idea: Capturing living units

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    Those topics have been widely debated all among the forum or the ticket manager.

    I won't provide you answers as that's not my role but give you some elements.

    4 hours ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Just like buildings, captured / donated units would retain their original faction but change color and become part of your team. If the received unit has the ability to create buildings, it could additionally be allowed to create the buildings of its faction rather than of your own: This would allow the interesting circumstance where your team can have units from multiple cultures at the same time despite starting off as part of just one (eg: Romans), which is already part possible by conquering enemy buildings.

    I start with that point as it has effect on the other points.

    It's really common in some other games. Some discussions few years ago concluded it doesn't fit really with the game as it is: keeping "civilization" (call that how you want)  diversity. But technically, both case are already doable, so that's just a matter of decision of what to do in your game/mod.

    4 hours ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Trade units with allies: You can already send or receive resource donations to and from allied factions. It would be cool if an ally could also opt to donate soldiers when need be, meaning they allow some of their units to chance become your units.

    As said above, it's really common in other games. There is a ticket about that. I don't know if that's wanted : decide what to do with the above point, decide if that's fair to give units to your ally just to prevent him of dying, decide if you can give units or structure. Apart from that matter of design, there is just the gui part : placing the button at the nice place.

    4 hours ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Capture units by destroying their city or defeating the faction: When an enemy faction is defeated its remaining buildings are transferred to Gaia. In case the game is configured so you can take down an empire without killing all its units, any unit left alive surrenders and becomes yours.

    Already doable and mainly depends of the first point and a matter of victory conditions.

     

    4 hours ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Capture units by bribing: You can already bribe spies to share their line of sight. With this mechanic you could also bribe an enemy unit to become part of your team! The more developed your enemy is, the more the bribe could cost.

    That's mainly a matter of design, do you want that one to be randomly selected ?

    That kind of thing was evoked for a roman hero.

    4 hours ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    Capture units on attack: At rare random intervals, when an unit being attacked is close to dying, the unit may choose to join the attacker rather than take the final blow. This could be connected to how loyal your units are to you... if you're doing a poor job and the town is under-developed or you lack resources, you could have a greater chance of your units deserting.

    That's mainly a passive conversion. That was evoked for converting animals or citizen woman. There are a lot of way of doing that, the annoying part is to design something which fits well in game (not becoming too important and not being useless) and which actually brings something.

  5. Idea: Dynamic daytime and weather

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    Weather, seasons and things like are widely discussed in the forum. The answers will probably depend of your point of view : graphical or gameplay related. I understand you speak more about the graphical part. In that case, I think it depends mostly of artists. For example, for the winter part we would have to switch to the snowy variants of all structures and things like that: that needs a lot of artwork. (But that's doable and was even done).

    2. Perhaps does it depends mainly of the map maker ?

    3. It's yet done I think : there are maps with rain or snow.

    Civ Differentiation -- Celts -- Loot Bonus?

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    31 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

    I don't know the specifics of the code, but it seems that this feature already exists elsewhere in the game. For example, Viriato provides +50% loot only when that hero's player kills units. Likewise, Brennus provides +15 metal only when that hero's player kills units. Also, half of @Nescio's response was only about how the loot would apply to all things that are destroyed and not just buildings like the previous suggestion. This would be a little different and would only need the aura to apply to your own units (kind of like how women gave an aura to men doing eco in a23 or the heros referenced above). 

    That's indeed already doable.

    • Like 2

  10. Bring back a23

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, nani said:

    No permissions to view :(

    Oh sorry!

    It was in 2014, the decision was made to remove hard counters (like the rps designed in the early years) and replace them with stats (speed, accuracy, range...) and gameplay features (flanking, ...).

    • Like 2

  11. Blacksmith rework idea

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, borg- said:

    In fact my original idea was that only Gauls could have access to the forge in the village phase (I did it in my patch), I think it would be a great differentiation, with a historic backing to be a good rush civilization

    That was actually like that 7 years ago.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  14. Bring back a23

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    15 hours ago, nani said:

    Very interesting, could you link to where that decision was made?

    That was posted many times. Those things were around 2014. At the time there was a design group, then one person in charge of the gameplay. That was the beginning of the lobby too.

     

    A time of changes:

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15644

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15655

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15713

     

    Decision of moving to hard counters to gameplay features:

     

    But then, there was an appraisal of those changes:

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  15. Why are Kushite and Carthage mercenary camps still limited?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    17 hours ago, maroder said:

    @fatherbushidoyour post is restricted "Sorry, we can't show this content because you do not have permission to see it. "

    Oh sorry :-)

     

    I had opened that discussion (among others) back in 2017:

    Quote

     

    The embassy/embassies was/were introduced in r10604, see also https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Carthaginians?action=diff&version=32

    The purpose of that one was mainly to split the training in two different buildings (barracks and embassy) and give that mercenary civ flavour.

    Then a building limit restriction was introduced in r13801. The purpose of that one was mainly to push to choose between two 'civs' among three.

    I always prefer protect past decisions but it seems that one was not really finished and currently, it's a bit in contradiction with that old clean Wijitmaker sum up:

    Quote

     

    In 0 A.D. the Carthaginians will have a strong navy and the largest selection of units in the game due to their tendency to hire mercenaries.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20041214000913/http://www.wildfiregames.com:80/0ad/page.php?p=1388

     

    Can we remove that limit?

     

     

    To be more precise, there wasn't really a concept of mercenary in the initial_design* of that game.

    The notion appeared among the years of the development of that game, with different meaning: artistic, names, technologies, structures...

    Some experiments were done, more in DE ("delenda est") than in EA ("public"). Around 2017 there were some big and nice art commits importing the green portraits from DE mods, so we tried to fit with it. There wasn't any guideline in the team around that concept, so basically there were just not discussed fix around that idea at the time, in random directions (put those things in green, reduce their cost, use a technology, oh a mercenary champion now...). Note that it happened even if there was someone in charge of the gameplay at that time (which is still in charge if I am not wrong) and also big plan from the project leader (which is still in charge if I am not wrong) about the game design that I don't know if they were done or followed.

    In the initial design of 2004, which was considered to be some kind of flexible "let's design and follow that", there was a concept of tribes, reflected in art and names of units to show the diversity of armies and "civilizations" of that time. So there wasn't a "Mercenary" class.

    Sum up:

    - nuke the mercenary concept

    - if units are duplicates, adjust their costs and combat stats

    - embassies are unlocking structures

     

     

     

     

  17. Dancing from a player point of view

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    In 0 A.D., the unit "dancing" was pointed out as an annoying issue until a23, especially in multiplayer lobby games.

    The ability to dodge projectiles is not something specific to that game and probably not even a bug.

    In old release, projectiles were just head seeker. Then there was some kind of targeting. So the ability to dodge them is not new, it was already used in multiplayer lobby games around a16 if I remember correctly. It becomes probably worse when the patrol command was introduced, when that exploit was more known and when people used it with high resistance units like hero.

    I know that I have already ask the question and that this issue is considered fixed in a24. Still, I would like to know from a player point of view, what is really annoying :

    - ability to dodge units with micro

    - ability to dodge units in an automated way (patrol for example)

    - the fact that units target the closest one

    And for example :

    -  is a low resistance unit dancing annoying?

    - is 1 attacker vs 1 dancer an as big issue as 10 attacker vs 1 dancer?

     

    All inputs welcome.

  18. Bring back a23

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    29 minutes ago, BoredRusher said:

    And also, if we say for instance that the units state machine is broken, it is to tell you that there is a problem to repair. Is not that a kind of suggestion ?

    As opposite to concerns about game data (units stats...) that's more a concern about code. Those type of concerns (even if they intersected) should really be treated separately.

    I don't want to participate more in that topic, I just wanted to precise some things so that the initial author of the topic is not misunderstood.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...