Jump to content

maroder

WFG Programming Team
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    779

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by maroder

  1. Civ differentiation : playstyles

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    10 hours ago, alre said:

    I, as @faction02, reject the idea of civs stronger than others is early game, or wither in late game,

    I get the point but how do you view the current situation between e.g. the romans who have access to multiple siege weapons and a civ that only has rams (and no eles) lets say the Gauls. Is it not already implied that the romans are more favorable in late game?

    The counterargument I can think of would be: No romans are not stronger in late game, because their different siege options cost a lot of resources and Gauls can just produce more cheap units. And this is more the direction I was thinking of with the different playstyles.

    10 hours ago, alre said:

    a bonus that gives an objective advantage to a particular player in any specific map, phase of the game, or team arrangement, should be avoided

    same here. I would say Mauryas have an advantage on the low wood maps through their worker ele. So should we get rid of it? Should we only have maps that have the same resource composition? I think advantages are fine to a certain degree, as long as they don't automatically decide who wins.

    10 hours ago, alre said:

    as I already said, and I hope @LetswaveaBook made a good enough argument for that, civs are already actually very different. people keeps asking for more difference because they can't see or can't appreciate what's already there. That's not their fault: for how 0AD is made, differences between civs are quite hard to navigate and understand.

    I mean good for you if you see it that way, but it very much depends to what other games you compare it to. Basically you say the problem is not the game, but the expectation of the players, which is a valid point I guess. Since there is no up-to-date design document that describes how the game will develop in the future or how each faction should play, each player brings his own ideas and wants them implemented. Which brings me back to my original post -> It would be really good if we would create a design document, so that everybody is on the same page.

    10 hours ago, alre said:

    they could have completely different sets of buildings and techs, like in starcraft, they could have different sets of resources even, different phasing mechanics, like in AOE4, and whatnot ......... I would rather see different playstyles enabled by new game mechanics

    agreed :D

    • Like 1

  2. Civ differentiation : playstyles

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    12 hours ago, faction02 said:

    if I look at that example, your description let me think that all Brit-Mace matchup would be about an early game in which Brit aggress Mace.

    yeah my bad, I have not put enough thought into the examples. The best already implemented example of such an "unique" playstyle i'm thinking of are the scythinans from DE.

    • Like 2

  8. Civ differentiation : playstyles

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by maroder

    Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small".

    If we look at other successful strategy games (in the widest sense) be it card games as magic the gathering or competitive online games as league of legends, we see that they enable the player to have completely different playstyles, which is probably why so many people like to play these games -> everyone finds a playstyle they like. For me 0ad is at the moment more comparable to chess; you can play different strategies, but it's still chess and always kind of the same, regardless which strategy you choose.

    I know that the civs kind of already represent different playstyles, but what if we would really accentuate that? I think vanilla AD could learn much from Hyrule conquest in that regard.

    So accentuate the playstyles of each civ, but also give them weaknesses through that instead of trying to balance them in every phase of the game.

    here just some links to interesting videos who touch upon this topic in game design:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQzdXPTb2A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Uk13mQdm0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QuKpJTUwwY

    But to come to an end here, I very much agree with sera in this discussion here

    https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4273#182067

    The thing that would be needed first to do that is a design document about how each civ should play.

    So feel free to tell me if you agree or disagree on this ( every civ should have a vastly different / unique playstyle).

    If this was always the goal of the differentiation and I just didn't get the extent of the planned differentiation then please excuse my slow mind.

    Also independent of your opinion regarding the above, feel free to give your ideas about how to best structure such a collaborative design document creation process, as that may be beneficial nevertheless.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 2
    • Confused 2

    [a25] Merc Cav (Carthage + replay)

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    I was wondering what makes palisade walls so ineffective

    My opinion is mostly that palisades should be useful to prevent attacks on you city /fields. I don't really think it would be desirable to wall off wood lines when they are not inside your city. For that it should be enough to have a good amount of spearman there and then maybe a tower as additional support. So if swordcav is so strong at the moment that the same amount of cav can just overrun an woodline with the same amount of spearman (and maybe a tower) then it should be nerfed. 

    But I think the basics gameplay concept should be scouting and if you see your opponent is preparing a rush -> wall off your fields and build a tower near the woodline. And if he is not preparing a rush either rush yourself or boom.

    • Like 1

    [a25] Merc Cav (Carthage + replay)

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    I think that palisades and towers should be helpful in defending a rush, but not completely counter it.

    If we're talking about a smaller rush I disagree. If we're talking about a rush with 30+ units I agree with you.

    And yes imo spearman should also be able to reasonably counter cav.

    [a25] Merc Cav (Carthage + replay)

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    This is obviously wrong

    Always nice discussing with you. lol

    5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    raiding doesn't need to be OP to be viable

    True and I never said or intentionally implied that.

    5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    and even if a unit isn't OP under defensive structures doesn't mean that it won't be OP in the open map.

    Disagree about it in principle. How can it be op if there is a counter? Then it's your problem if you don't use it. 

    Of course when the counter is only semi effective that's not working. The problem with A24 archers was that there was not that one effective counter for their opness.

    5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    OP units existing is a problem

    True and I won't mind if sword cav is nerfed a bit, but I would still say that the natural defense against raids should be defensive structures aka turtle.

    [a25] Merc Cav (Carthage + replay)

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Dizaka said:

    What if the mercenary buildings behaved like colonies maybe

    I mean if they behave exactly the same I would still say that makes the civs more uniform.

    But what I think is missing in this debate is the fact the the effectiveness and viability of turtling has been massively nerfed since A24. So imo the problems with super effective raids is the direct effect of that. 

    The defense against raids should be: build towers and palisades or as it is normally called: turtling.

    • Like 1

  16. Please make it a little less ... sexist

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

    We can have a poll to decide whether to implement 2 gender citizens or not. 

    Sure why not.

    I am still wondering why there is such a pushback when this doesn't change anything about the gameplay. 

    1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

    It would be quite surprising for an old player when they upgrade to A27 and see the women icon in the CC gone

    Not more surprising than any other change.

    1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

    Furthermore, since most soldier units are male, having half of the gatherers being male means even less females being produced and represented in your population composition. Not sure if that is a step towards or away from gender equality. 

    This is a point for discussion.

    1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

    To summarise, put your ideas into a lobby-compatible mod but please don't make changes to vanilla 0AD. 

    Watch out, this argument may come back to you in the future :D lol

    • Like 2

  19. Please make it a little less ... sexist

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    @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.

  21. Please make it a little less ... sexist

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    lobby harassment

    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.

  22. Please make it a little less ... sexist

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    No other female players have had this complaint, nor are the interested in installing extra mods to make the AIs more politically correct... This led me to suspect that whether this Crea is trolling...

    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/ )

  23. Please make it a little less ... sexist

    in Help & Feedback

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    'Female citizens' in 0ad are UnitAI + template.xml + actor.xml. They have nothing to do with real women whatsoever. So there is no sexism involved since we are dealing with purely AIs.

    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.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...