Jump to content

faction02

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by faction02

  1. Program error: Assertion failed: "0 &&"

    in Bug reports

    Posted · Edited by faction02

    Hello,

    I think game time was about 1h30 but I had pressed start about 2 or 3 hours earlier.

    No files were modified by myself (except for hotkeys), I had fgod and autociv enabled.

     I have attached both files, the game didn't crash afterward. I have also a pyrogenesis.exe.8428.dmp of 4.4mb created at the same time if that can help....

    If anything else can help, let me know.

    crashlog.txt crashlog.dmp

  3. unit properties

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    I am not sure to understand the questions.

    Maybe try double left click on one unit of the units type you want to select .

    Try to use SHIFT+right click to create a path going through multiple points.

    I hope that's what you were asking...

  7. Ideas ?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    "We are all dancing." - A nub (Lobby)

    That nub might be right in some ways but I see one important difference between "micro" and "dancing". For me:

    Micro consists in moving a unit for a particular purpose.

    Dancing consists in moving a units to influence an audience (other units).

    These definitions  emphasize one important difference, the purpose of the unit move. (All) dance is micro but not all micro is dance and I would consider dance as rather bad while micro isn't necessarily.

    From this perspective, trying to save a cav from death with micro is fine. It requieres some efforts to do so, and the advantage earnt is small. Doing the same thing with the only purpose of distracting a whole army is wrong because with only one unit, you might gain too much advantage over too many units. The difference can be sometimes relatively thin and apparent only to the player performing it.  The issue might be seen as being in the relationship between the dancing unit and the audience.

    A simple way to allow a cav to run away safe but prevent from exploiting units predefined behaviour would be to implement a counter move to dance moves. To protect the strategy dimension of the game, there should always be some ways to counter efficiently all micro moves, dance or not. But this is not the case when some micro actions requieres too many actions to be countered efficiently.

    One could try to remove micro (aka adding battalions if I understand well) but it is also possible to just search for ways to counter the influence of the dancing units on the audience. If the "public" units could be ordered to ignore the dancer or attack a particular group of units, then all might be fine. I have also read ideas about doing this in a more systematic way, by changing units predefined behaviour as for example by implementing some spread fires. Micro would remain there while dancing would be countered (I could save my cav from multiple fires while the enemy could target my army easily). Luring is another form of dancing but I don't see it as too problematic since it can be countered more easily.

    I do not claim that I believe it is the best way to go, but it seems a small departure from the existing gameplay but simply cutting that relationship might allow to save some micro for those who enjoy it...

    • Like 1

  9. 3 ideas for game setup

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

    I don't think @faction02was suggesting arbitrary/different colors, but that each player can assign any (existing player) color individually.

     

    Yes, exactly. The only disadvantage that I see might be for communication since all players might not choose to allocate the existing colors in the same way. Maybe with a default allocation of colors (for example the one chosen by the host) that could be solved if desired/usefull. 

    This way all players could have their favorite color (chosen among the existing one) as seen from their own perspective and the host wouldn't have to care about this anymore. Fears of the black player 's sneaky attack would be gone

    • Like 1

  11. 3 ideas for game setup

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by faction02

    A few ideas that could be interesting to add in game setup:

    1 - option of choosing players locations/leaving it random (could help to balance games with players of different levels, for example when you have a team with 2 strong and 2 weak players against 4 medium. It could also make some civs more interesting to play but most of all, we could make sure Pudim is on border duty);

    2 - option to choose mines average density on the map (it could make some civ more interesting to play in team game)

    3 - option to allow for Wonder or not (in some game we might want it not to be forbidden to limit lag)

    4 - color customized differently for each players (I am player 2 I can set player3 to green, and player3 can set player 2 as green if he want

    Good or not ?

    • Haha 1

  12. Ideas ?

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by faction02

    I agree that dancing/luring/patrolling against big armies is a problem. I do blame high level players for doing it. I do not consider this to be fair-play and if it was to become a standard practice, the game would become pointless for me.  

    I guess many players agree with the idea of having hero-trainable once only, I do not see any reason to be strictly against it. However there might be some adjustments to be done accordingly (aura range, hp, balance between civ with 3 good hero and those with only 1...). It could be used to address other issues too, weaker hero with larger aura could reduce dancing issues for example.

    16 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    Ranged units should randomly pick 1 out of the 10 nearest enemy units to attack.

    This will literally solve the issue and we'll have more organic ranged combat as well.

    Currently ranged units always target the nearest unit. That's the core of the problem. They should spread fire.

    The idea seems interesting, however I wonder about the implications that it might have on the other parts of the game. Would it make melee units run around too much or what would be the implications for fights between small groups of units ...

    • Like 1

  13. Attack of a group of units

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by faction02

    I was wondering whether it would be feasible/practical to implement a way to target a group of units instead of only one?

    For example if you have some archers, you might want to tell them to hit the skirmishers instead of the melee soldiers in front of them. It could be also useful to counter players making their hero dance. The units doing the actions would only ignore other units until the one which were targeted are all dead...

    • Like 2

  14. Economy and Citizen-Soldier Movement Speed

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 5:13 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Okay, but do you want the player to have to consider all of this? Sure, unit differentiation is good to keep things interesting, but is this kind of differentiation really all that interesting? I would say "no", and I would wager money that most players would say "no" too. :) 

    I would say that the player shouldn't have to consider all of this in order to make a good economy. Besides, when units are working, even though they still have their "armor" textures for easier recognition, they're really supposed to be in their "work clothes" so to speak, not really wearing any armor (which is indicated by their helmets being removed as they gather and shuttle), making their amor-based walking speeds a moot point.

    That's another reason why I think we need a ShuttleSpeed element: The units are being "civilians" at this point, not wearing their armor, so why should their walk speed which is largely based on armor stats and combat balance also be their shuttle speed? These are two entirely separate "modes" for these units ("combat" vs. "resourcing").

    Of course, most people don't want to consider this. I personnally do consider those details because I need to keep myself busy while other players might be rushing. That would be the way I try to build some economic advantage over those players who have less time to manage their eco.

    I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, it might not even make more difference over a game than an extra cluster of berries for example. I might be biased also by my game style preferences. ;)

  15. Economy and Citizen-Soldier Movement Speed

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by faction02

    On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:41 PM, soshanko said:

    mele units can have more armor and hack maybe? so that they become more invincible or just a extra defence update for mele in the armory.

    archers 60 food 30 wood 10 metal is my propose.

     

     

    Difficult to say if more armor would be sufficient. It would create an incentive to have more of course, but ranged units would still be more effective at making damage.

    I think that a metal cost would make archers even less attractive. Metal is always a scarce ressource, it is needed for all upgrades and on some map, it might be a problem to be relying so much on it. Ptolemies have this issue too, but they also have the option of relying on stones too for sieges and slingers when metal run out. Archers would still need something more to become more attractive.

    • Thanks 1

  17. Economy and Citizen-Soldier Movement Speed

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    I would like to suggest into alternative options that uniforming units speed to improve balance. I doubt that removing units differences would make the game more interesting. I personnally think that balancing the game should be about giving options to players to deal with a specificity rather than removing them.

    For example if you want to maximize the productivity of your soldiers, you could build a barrack near your minerals and use this particular one to produce the slower soldiers of your army. Those will then collect only minerals as the walking distance for this particular task is constant and usually smaller than for wood. To reduce the economic  disadvantage of walking speed, players could build more dropsites, use elephants or the carrying tech. Those tech still remain largely unused by a large number of players even when wood is sparse.

    Also, in early game, most civ don't offer the choice between different ranged units. So the economic advantage that might offer one ranged unit with respect to another plays no role in the way players will act once the game has started. It only affects balance accross civ which seems to be a different issue. Archers are definitely at a disadvantage with respect to other ranged units but taking off their economic disadvantage would still not solve their problem. Giving them some advantages as also suggested by Philip the Swaggerless would make more sense. About the question of speed, I think that raising the speed of melee units with respect to ranged units remains interesting.

    One reason to prefer ranged units over melee units is that during a fight, they are much more effective in killing. Ranged units can also be more easily managed, you basically just need to group them behind their meat shield and press H to be sure they target the closest units. Melee units are more tricky, the closest units is sometimes a bad target for them. All of them might be running toward the same unit which is either isolated, either moving in the opposite direction. Melee units used offensively can spend a good amount of time walking around during the battle before dying while still ranked I.  Increasing their speed slightly might give them a chance to kill something before dying.  Currently, only swordmen seems to make sense as a weapon on the battlefield in the absence of cavalry units. They are the only melee unit that can get decent kills, other units are too slow and weak. Many civ do not have any and metal scarcity often is a good reason to keep them out of the battlefield. Raising melee units speed could also potentially reduce slightly the problem of rams too fast to catch.

     

  19. Eae rating

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Eae,

    I suggest here an unformal eae rating for op player. You can compute your own aea rating using the simple following formula:

         eae rating = (Number of times you won againt the top player)/(Number of times you played against that top player)

    If we call this top player borg- for example, then borg- would have a constant score of 0,5 and he would be the benchmark to beat. Other players would have a score between 0 and 0,5. For those with a 0 score, keep trying beating the top player or just keep on having fun! 

    Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !!!!

    f02

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...