Jump to content

maroder

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by maroder

  1. Sure why not. I am still wondering why there is such a pushback when this doesn't change anything about the gameplay. Not more surprising than any other change. This is a point for discussion. Watch out, this argument may come back to you in the future lol
  2. Yeah, this is how I feel sometimes when I see nice ideas for the game shatter at the rigid mind of people.
  3. The process should be called something with pyrogenesis if that helps. Nevermind, you wrote that already. Sorry can't help then.
  4. @Yekaterina What exactly is it you dislike about the idea to have male and female gatherer/ citizens or however we call them? Because if it's only the recognition, I don't really understand your concerns. As I said, I tried the wow's mod and the citizens are (for me) clearly distinguishable from soldiers. Also as wow said: this is the concept that is used in AoE2 and it seems they didn't have problems with recognition.
  5. It's hard to think of all possible impacts this change could have. Best would be a mod and then play lots of games to see what's better.
  6. Yes that is a problem and should also be handled. _______ But to finish my point: I still think that having two gendered citizens in the main game would be a good choice. The way I see it the problem is not the depiction of women, but that they are the only (except priests) units who lack any real attack attack and defense capabilities, which is why they seem super weak in comparison. Maybe we can write an email to the author of the article linked above and ask about an opinion on this. I have tried the mod and the recognition between soilders an citizens is still good. Multiple people from the team have expressed that they would be ok with having two gendered citizens (at least for some civs), so I don't see a problem including it.
  7. This can have multiple reasons. Firstly computer games and especially strategy games as RTS have a player demographic that is to a huge majority male. So there could be just less female player voicing their opinion. Also, I guess that the female players that may exist are less likely to participate in a forum discussion, due to the let's call it "confrontative" environment that is here sometimes. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia as comparison. And lastly you are correct, not all women playing the game take issue with the depiction of female citizens (see this recent positive article: https://interactivepasts.com/blog-posts/0-a-d-part-ii-bring-in-the-queens/ )
  8. I disagree. They depict women, which is why there is a transfer of the meaning and depiction between the ai and the real world. We give things meaning through the words we attach to them and through the way we depict them.
  9. @Ryze it never did build walls in any of the recent alphas, cause it is not trivial to decide where to put them without blocking itselfself at the same time. So it's just not implemented (yet)
  10. Here is it https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens
  11. I guess this problem could be solved if ships would use the normal attack pattern where they attack the nearest unit / the unit you task them to attack and not buildingAI which spreads the attack on all enemies in range. But don't know what side effects that would have or what the original reason was to give ship the buildingAI.
  12. I guess they are culturally important and strengthen the gathering morale of unites who see them. Same as the Iberian monument.
  13. I agree very much with the type of civ uniques @chrstgtr is proposing. Unique techs are fine, but from a non competitive player perspective they don't make much difference for the unique felling of a civ. It is way better to have something unique that you can easily see and experience. I.e. some phase two champ, the war dogs, the workers ele or as an extreme example the Scythians from DE who have a completely different gameplay. @ValihrAnt for that reason I also agree that D4280 is superior to the alternative D4233
  14. I'm in favor, there are so many interesting possibilities. Although it may make balancing harder.
  15. This is something I was also thinking about lately. On my machine the game runs smoothly until 600 units max (world population) and then the first lag appears and judging from team game youtube videos, this seems to be the case for many people. And since most of the "big" performance optimizations I know of are by now already implemented (e.g. multithreading, unit pushing, pathfinder optimizations), maybe part of the solution to solve the lag could be to say: the engine supports less units, so let's design the game and the stats accordingly (i.e. make every unit worth more as @ChronA said)
  16. I agree in general, but the question is at what cost. For me, a game with less lag and smoother unit movement is exponential better than a game where units don't overlap but you have more lag and choppy unit movement. So while I'm always on the side of people who like nice graphics, I don't mind the trade-off at all between unit overlap and the performance that is gained through that. TLDR: I am a huge fan of unit pushing. Very good improvement.
  17. Imo catapults should be able to attack organic units and they shouldn't be extremely vulnerable to archers, so yes I like how it looks. One should test it in a match regardless. And yes a higher splash damage would be nice.
  18. The forest floor itself no, because it is not an "entity" for the simulation its just graphics. But one could create an invisible entity/ actor and place it inside the forest to do that. So yes I guess it should be possible and also more efficient.
  19. Generally speaking no, but auras can be computational intensive, so attaching it to every tree seem like guaranteed lag.
  20. That should not be hard, I guess you can use health variants. I.e only the grove with full health has the aura and if it gets damage it switches to another actor that doesn't have the aura. And yes the forest groves should also be compatible to auras as they are just normal entities.
  21. That would be another option to use those models the Chinese did use some freshwater fish farming back then. http://www.fao.org/3/y4762e/y4762e04.htm I don't think the engine is able to do that. But as I wrote, the can be made adaptive to the terrain since the are made up from smaller pieces.
  22. Yeah, I thought that they need more work, but I wanted to mention it here for the case that the general public really has too much issues with the round ones to include them.
  23. About the rice again: From my point of view, this could be a middle ground between the extreme square rice fields that are currently left in the han mod and the eyecandy round ones (Although the eyecandy ones would still be my first choice). And I guess one could also make this design adaptive to the terrain as it is also comprised out of smaller units. But I would still like the rice to be a little less perfect grid like and the dividing lines a bit less straight.
×
×
  • Create New...