chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Right, that's why in this mockup the resources aren't immediately sent. You queue up the resources to be sent to which players, then have to click Confirm Changes to close the window and send the resources.
In the mockup's example, @real_tabasco_sauce has queued up a number of resources to send to @borg- (possibly as a peace offering or giving to a demand), but the resources don't get sent until he clicks the Confirm button.
The second one looks good to me. (I also don’t have a problem with the current one). I’d want to be able to see some of the actual gameplay screen, which the second one does well
Personal opinion, but I think clicking on confirm every time you want to send res would get annoying fast. This’ll probably vary from person to person. (Also probably east to turn confirmation requirement off)
-
2 hours ago, borg- said:
We had changes from that from a24 to a25. I don't remember for sure the reasons for the changes, but it had to do with better economic balance.
It creates a trade off decision to force players to have a better balanced economy (or make the decision to concentrate on a few resources more strategic) before all food was for pop and you only needed to mine wood/metal to tech upgrade, which meant a near mindless allocation of gathers to the same three res for most civs. For most games, was no reason not to spend all your food or to invest heavily in stone/metal
Also, it was to free up some metal for mercs/champs.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Ain't gonna happen. Best bets are Germans and Nomads.
Yeah. I mean more down the line. I just have zero interest in having another Hellenistic civ because of how they’re already repetitive.
It’s not per se bad. But I just really, really don’t care. And would much rather integrate new ideas into what civs we already have to get what we do have more differentiated/interesting -
Anything but another Hellenistic faction.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Needs and wants a different.
The game is fine now. But I don't have anything against including more (if the additions are reasonably balanced).
I have no desire to add civ that would be nearly duplicative of civs that already exist (i.e., Syracuse repeating elements of other Hellenic civs).
-
4
-
-
13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Hi everyone,
I am trying to get together some gameplay testing for the release candidate so we can make appropriate balance decisions if needed before a27 is released. Also it would be great to see what improvements to 4v4s might be made possible by the hard work the devs have put into performance.
below is a whentomeet poll (no password or sign in required) that asks you to fill in your 0ad username and enter the times you could play.
https://www.when2meet.com/?20172866-g4yFd
Once you have entered the times you can play the RC, you can close the site, no need to hit 'submit' or anything.
@MarcusAureliu#s@Stockfish @LetswaveaBook @Player of 0AD @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt
I can't commit to any specific time this weekend, but I will generally be around. Pls ping me if you see me in lobby
-
-
49 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
What are your stat settings? These look interesting/unexpected in a few different ways
-
15 hours ago, vinme said:
if they would get some advantage like "+5% attack in enemy teritory" that would be cool,Way off topic, but I agree that this would be fun and is a little surprising something like this doesn’t already exist.
-
1 hour ago, seeh said:
yes. but if build has not already started you get it 100% back. same as you cancel/destroy the build (plan). i have tested it at with aggressive AI.
Yes, same as if you destroy it.
-
10 hours ago, seeh said:
what happens when a attacker destroy a planed building? get resources back?
You get a portion back
-
4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Wow, I actually never realized this. Garrisoning turret points does not affect territory decay. That seems like a problem to me.
Agree. Didn't realize that either. But seems to be an easy, logical thing to fix
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I think that was actually brought up by @wowgetoffyourcellphone. (to change all walls).
Sure. But it was also clear that that was what everyone was talking about except for possibly causative.
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Yeah I think it would be fine to grant siege walls the exception to territory decay. After all, they already have the exception of being built in enemy territory.
I would also be fine with siege walls decaying, to be honest. They can be build in enemy terrority but so can camps. Those decay. Force players to garrision them like they do with camps. I don't like it when annoying things are built in my city and there is no reason why an absent player should continue to control it. At a min, it should be gaia and just something in your base
-
11 minutes ago, causative said:
@chrstgtr Well, it depends on what makes more sense for gameplay. If Roman siege walls are intended to be built in enemy territory, then those walls shouldn't decay when they are built there. But normal walls could decay.
Sure. Siege walls can be in a category of their own. But that wasn't what you were just saying.
-
41 minutes ago, causative said:
@chrstgtr If you're talking from a historical point of view, the point of a wall is that it takes siege equipment (such as a ladder or siege tower or giant earthen ramp) to capture, or siege equipment to destroy (rams, which only work if the wall is not too thick, or for thicker walls, digging under the wall to collapse it.) Soldiers without siege equipment couldn't capture walls unless the walls were unmanned. Walls were really darn good in the ancient world so that often the most practical way to assault a walled city was to starve them out.
Everything you say is irrelevant--garrisoned walls already don't decay/get captured. Walls only get captured when they are entirely in enemy territory and unmanned. Men can't even exercise a capture mechanic on walls.
If you think unmanned walls in enemy territory shouldn't be captured then you should tell all the Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, Brits, etc. that they don't actually have control of the old Roman walls in their countries because the Romans (who no longer exist) still control them.
-
2
-
-
There is literally no reason why walls should not be capturable. It makes no sense for empty walls that are surrounded by enemy territory to be controlled by a player that has no nearby units, building, or territory. Do you really think think fleeing armies locked a special door that can only be opened with one key and then left the Nest doorbell video on so they could view all that pass by? That is such an absurdly stupid thing to believe from a historical, practical, or gameplay point of view
-
8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Also, if I CC drop an enemy base, it would be good for their walls to become mine.
This. Before the decay rate of walls was unified with other buildings, iber used to be annoying even after killing it because you would get "trapped" in walls of a city you already destroyed/captured. I lost so many games because walls and pathfinding of a defeated iber player made be useless for 2 minutes while I moved to the next player and the other side of my team died.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Atrik said:
I know the scripts in ProGUI, are seen by some as a way to get an edge in game, and they are in some way. But just like @Helicity described, it is also a way to enjoy the game more, focus on fun stuff and "not feeling like a click slave".
The point other people are making is that they see automation as a cheat and your opinion on whether it is (or isn't) cheating doesn't matter. Both opinions are obviously reasonable. But only the person in favor of automation actually gets a choice on whether it is used--you get to decide whether to "cheat" and your enemy, who believe automation is cheating, can't do anything to stop you.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Atrik said:
New Stances : Focus weakest unit in range / Focus closest unit?
This actually makes a ton of sense and something that I would like to see in vanilla. It decreases the incentive to snipe (good because that is just micro intensive) and allows for actual strategy (as opposed to just automation) because ideal armies will have varying stance composition. This is also especially useful when fighting under towers/forts/CCs
-
1
-
-
Feels like a false choice. If the features are actually good then they should be in EA. To be honest, I don't see a need for a "sequel" when everything worthwhile can just be integrated into EA (yeah, I know the timeframe restriction exists for EA, but that is false construction that doesn't need to exist).
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I personally am not so hung up on the dancing thing. I agree, that particular issue has largely been mitigated. I just think /in general/ it would be a good thing for units, by default, to spread out their attacks and not all attack the nearest unit possible. A "MaxAttackers" component/element in the templates could be one way to do that. I agree that such a unitAI/template change should be overridable by the player if they wish to focus-fire on something. User input, to some extent, should override default behaviors. But also keep in mind, we don't allow players to set 100 gatherers onto a farm or 50 gatherers onto a tree either. They spread out. It's nearly the same concept and no one bats an eye at that.
A MaxAttackers template component would work very similarly to the MaxGatherers component in that sense. It's not "automating the game" to have those things, IMHO, and generally leads to better default unit behavior.
Yeah, I'm not entirely opposed to it. I would like just something that gives more control to the player. I also wouldn't want the max number to be set so low that it effectively automates the games. But that automating effect begins to take pretty quickly if it is intended to do anything like avoid having an entire army focus on a dancing hero.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
There's "automating the game" and then there's fixing bad unit behavior. But whatevs.
Sure, but one of the insights from @real_tabasco_sauce is that this isn't necessarily "bad" behavior and the "problem" we are trying to solve doesn't really exist. I agree with him on both points.
I'm just pointing out that there is potentially a better solution out there.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
IMO dancing is really not a problem at the moment.
Agree--it hasn't been for a couple of years now.
6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:Hmm it might be nice, but I think only for unit behavior. It would be bad if I actually click all my archers to shoot 1 unit and some of my archers to shoot a different unit.
Agree. This would only take away control from the player. At best, it runs the risk of automating the game.
Seems like the better solution is to revisit an "attack area" feature that would provide all the same, and more, benefits to the player without automating the game.
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I guess if you're an Uber Twitch gamer, this all makes sense.
For the 90% of players who play single player, they're gonna wonder why tech B is now available if the required tech A isn't even done yet. Dunno, perhaps that's just inertia talking since that's just how most (all?) rtses have done it in the past.
Can't you just make it shaded like the way queued units are now? That introduced nothing new
-
1
-
Leader names with >17 characters cut off in diplomacy window
in Bug reports
Posted · Edited by chrstgtr
It's just superfluous, and I can see why it would be annoying to do when already engaged in other tasks--it's already a bit annoying to have to send resources when busy with other stuff.
But I get why others would want it, esp for the scenario that Feld raised above.