Jump to content

ChronA

Community Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

ChronA last won the day on November 22 2020

ChronA had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About ChronA

  • Rank
    Discens

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Since this bug fix could have significant balance implications that should be compensated for by (possibly quite pervasive) stat adjustments, it would be better to sit on it until after A25 drops. However it should absolutely be fixed in A26. That sound & animation bug makes the game looks really unpolished.
  2. I know what you mean. The problem (IMO) is spearmen are too efficient at their job of killing melee cavalry (before they can get in contact with the squishy ranged support units). Maybe spearmen should have bonus resistance to melee cavalry attack, instead of doing bonus damage to horses? That would allow cav to be a better counter to ranged units even with spearmen in the area. Ranged units need more counter-play. And it would probably be more accurate too. The whole point of spears against cavalry is that they make infantry masses as intimidating to the horses as the horsemen are to inf
  3. I'd also like some elaboration. (Thanks for clarifying.) AOE3's gameplay was just generally a lesser son of greater sires on every level, so I'm not sure how much stock I put in its specific features as examples of what to avoid. If felt to me more like a game with interesting ideas but a very rushed development, resulting in a haphazard implementation; and no one had the courage (or pull with management) to say that the project either needed more playtesting time to polish the rough edges, or to retreat back to proven design principles from previous games. As you said, the problem with t
  4. Not necessarily a bad idea to support parallel progressive and conservative development paths. I've seen seen that approach helps keep the peace on other projects. But my concerns would be how far "Empires Extended" could really push things while still being tethered to Empires Ascendant by a shared code base, engine, & art assets; and would the conservatives really be open to integrating substantive developments from Empires Extended into their private sandbox? I'm guessing you would eventually still end up in a situation where the two sides want to fork. The progressive will be tir
  5. Sorry but you are objectively wrong about that. There are some extremely simple algorithms that would do the job (see my edit). But I think what you are trying to say is that it would be non trivial to design an algorithm that will switch between weapons competently in every tactical situation. (Which is true.) However you are approaching the problem wrong. It is not the system designer's job to produce a ideal algorithm that will work perfectly in every situation the players and modders can put it in. It is the job of the gameplay designers to design units that play well within the capab
  6. I think you are going to make life much more difficult for yourself if you insist on making this feature player controlled. You will have to have a whole discussion about key-binding conflicts, and some people are going to complain about having to do extra micro to optimize their units' combat performance. (These are irrational objections, but they will likely carry the day regardless.) However the mechanic can be supported with minimal new coding and discussion, provided the unit ai is the one deciding which weapon to use. In fact, it is actually possible for a unit to have and use
  7. Updated ground combat simulation for alpha 26 please. It doesn't even have to be used in EA; just make some new systems available for modders to experiment with: Directional armor system Infantry and cavalry charging in to attack Basic multi-weapon support Cavalry acceleration and momentum Expanded projectile simulation options - accuracy override, damage falloff, and ballistic occlusion like BreakfastBurrito_007 suggested (if that is technically feasible) For alpha 27-29, take the best new mechanics that come out of alpha 26's experiments and incorporate them
  8. If I'm interpreting parameters in simulation\data\pathfinder.xml correctly, the maximum passable incline for both units and buildings is 45 degrees. Personally I think a good practice for any map maker is to mark any impassable inclines with a unique terrain texture. That way there is no ambiguity about where units and buildings can go.
  9. @wraithii I appreciate your dedication, and based on their description the new parameters seem like great additions to the tool kit. I must tell you though that, in my testing, the new dials aren't producing much of a noticeable effect for me. I've even tired turning everything up to double digits, and while a few units on the edge of my groups have begun wandering around where otherwise they would remain stationary, as a group they are pretty much behaving just as before. The only parameter with a clear effect is Clearance. Forgive me for asking, but in your own testing are you sur
  10. I would absolutely appreciate more parameters to customize pathing behavior. Pathing is one off the most powerful factors in establishing the unique feeling of an RTS. It is the most basic way you interact with the game world. So even relatively small changes in behavior can have a huge impact on the flavor of a product (for good or ill). Given that the 0 AD project aspires to be not just a single game, but a platform for making ancient warfare games, I think embracing gameplay-differentiability is desirable. I would be much more interested in Delenda Est and Hyrule Conquest as stand-alon
  11. To clarify, I do not disagree with the feature itself. The much smoother pathing it enables is VERY nice, but obviously I have concerns about the gameplay implications. Admittedly it doesn't seem that much worse when compared to the deathball situation in a24 and a23... except, like I say the situation was already extremely bad IMO. I will definitely play around with the pathfinding parameters a bit, and try to get a feel for what's possible.
  12. I haven't been able to try out this feature until now... but DEAR GOD!!! Did no one test this thing?! Units have effectively no collision now, and that's saying something because they never had very much to begin with. This is what 200 units looks like. And they can even move like this. I assume you are familiar with the term death ball, well this is practically a death black hole.
  13. I do believe a quiver might be somewhat encumbering when running at a full sprint, but that would depend on the precise gear arrangement. If the quiver is open the arrows might bounce out. Likewise, if the quiver were loosely strapped to the wearer, it might flap around and disrupt their gait. However a closed or snuggly fitted quiver, which was well secured to the wearer or supported with the dominant hand while running, would sure be no more encumbering than a skirmisher's small shield and javelins. So, yeah, there might be an argument for a very small speed disadvantage for archers vs
  14. I never said that ranged infantry would be able to beat cavalry. Neither did I. However, I see I was in error because you specified that foot javelinists should be "situationally useful against melee infantry"... meaning that civs with javelin skirmishers could build them to counter foot swordsmen, spearmen, & pikemen (& elephants). Then in turn cavalry could be produced to counter them. That still leaves no clear reason to produce foot archers or slinger, but it is better than I thought. Yes, I've looked at them. Those shields cover about 60% of the rider and
  15. I broadly agree with Thorfinn's preferences. I have a few comments though. 1. If melee infantry categorically beat both ranged infantry and cavalry, there really is no gameplay reason to ever build anything except melee infantry. For the sake of gameplay diversity, ranged infantry and cavalry really need to provide some sort of value-added beyond the capabilities of the standard swordsmen, spearmen, & pikemen. In this writeup I don't see that they do, except possibly acting as a superior raiding force (which is easily countered by static defense, and so will only see a little bit of e
×
×
  • Create New...