maroder
-
Posts
779 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by maroder
-
-
Other option: increase loot in general, so you can have a little bit of a "war based" economy.
And talking about new merc mechanics, not as a suggestion but just for fun:
-
Talking about mercenaries:
This mod gives the ptol hero Ptolemy I the ability to actively convert mercenaries from the enemy for 250 metal each. So why is this mod called Midas you may ask? Because you have no choice. When you have metal left and an enemy merc is in his aura, the unit will convert until you have no metal left.
-
6
-
-
9 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Second, whoever makes the patches has the advantage of being heard.
One thing the development team wants is solutions
Yeah, but that's only one half of the coin. The other thing is agreement over the changes. And while I would love for example to have the two gendered citizens mod folded into the game, as well as farmlands, even if I make the patches, they probably won't be accepted because of lack of consensus.
And while I like the mercenary ideas all the people who tried to balance the mercenaries for a24 may (probably) not agree with them.
-
I agree with most of @wowgetoffyourcellphone ideas, especially: instant training, advanced or elite rank and mostly metal cost.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wraitii said:
And for perf reasons it'd be good if these meshes weren't hundreds of props, so we need some dedicated stuff.
interesting, so one small actors with many props costs more performance than one big actor without props (Given they have the same number of vertices) ?
-
9 hours ago, hyperion said:
Clearly communicate as in a code comment, a forum post or some press release? -> awful discoverability
To me this looks not like poor discoverability. It uses the same aura concept and visualization as heroes, healers, temples and the old rotary mill, therefore it is not "invisible" as the diminishing returns. So I can't really follow your argumentation. I would be happy if you try the mods and tell me in more detail how the the communication to the player could be improved.
And yes, I agree it should be obvious to the player without checking the code. I also agree that is is bad to restrict player choice (I don't like the minimal distance between towers for example), but I came to the conclusion that some restriction actually help the gameplay and the realism. Otherwise we would have the discussion: Why can I not just use my houses as dropsites? why can I not build champions in P1? why can I not build 20 wonders?
These restrictions help with the narrative and the realism.
Also, please note that farmlands are not the only options discussed. Disabling the CCs dropsite abilities and reducing its arrow count was my original proposal, which would not be such an "artificial" (meaning visible) restriction as a minimal distance, but it seems like people would like the CC as it is now.
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, wraitii said:
However, I think we should have an easy option to make impassable forests, and that (to me) means undergrowth/old growth meshes to take up space and become impassable. I agree that it's annoying that we don't have that.
Is that not only a matter of taking one of the shrub actors and increase the obstruction size or am I missing something?
-
I mean hard counters are ok when they prevent that you would otherwise have to crank up the regular damage values, but yes it should probably not be 25x
-
My two cents: Forest groves all the way. Combined with health variants there are just so much more possibilities and the need the build a new storehouse every minute to avoid transportation time is gone.
-
2
-
-
@LetswaveaBook your idea sounds like a similar mechanic as the farmlands to me. The difference would be that you would probably don't want to use a minimal distance? I mean yeah sure, as long as it works I am not opposed to it. The only problem is that people don't seem to like "convoluted" bonuses.
@hyperion You can build your city as you like, but there is only one way that is hugely benefits you in the game. And to my frustration it is the way that makes the city look like one big farming area. Speaking of UI and communication. How does the visuals of the CC relate to its functions? There is no indication that is has huge defensive capabilities or that it would be a good storehouse.
A solution like the proposed farmlands on the other hand, clearly communicate: "this land is good for farming", so I a not sure to what proposal you are referring to in your comment.
-
1
-
-
first feedback:
I now you gave them extreme stats to showcase a point, put it would be better to start from realistic values.
So their speed of should be similar to other cavalry, probably even slower due to their heavy armor. Yours are way to fast
The same goes for the attack repetition rate and basically all other values as well. At the moment they are just superhumans. Try to stick to the values that are used in the other champion cav templates.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Related:
@Arch Bot Would you be up for an AI tournament, or are there any news?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:
We could have a feature were you could place fields individually or for a reduced price with a granary.
Not sure how much this would change. As the CC is still the most defended area, I believe people will just build like this:
Only depended if 8 fields are aromatically spawned (left) or if you get a reduced price for placing a field close to the farmstead (right).
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Auron24015 said:
Either put them wherever you want, or just around farmhouses
Just around farmhouses would not help that much, as you then can just build the farmstead close to the CC. So you would have to add a minimal distance between CC and farmstead, which is just a more complicated way of using a minimal distance between CC and fields.
-
1
-
-
@Stan` it seems like there are a number of people who would like to comment on this topic but they don't have access to this forum. Maybe it would be better to just move this thread to the gameplay discussion forum.
-
Should be fixed now.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Too bad about the farmland getting put inside forests.
yeah, I am working on figuring out how to fix that.
-
17 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Also how do you turn it into a mod?
Look here: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Modding_Guide
here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/443-tutorials-guides/
and here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/21083-how-to-modify-0-ad/
-
To keep this discussion productive: I created two versions of farmlands, so that everybody can test how it would influence the game. It is important to note, that both options still allow you to build fields wherever you like (including directly around your CC), but the farmlands should give a strong incentive to build on them and outside of the CC range.
Option 1: Player buildable farmlands
- can be build by the player (should work with infantry and women)
- cannot be build in the city
Option 1: Farmlands on random map
- Works only on the map "Farmland", which is a modified version of "Mainland"
To recap, what are the goals and consequences of this approach:
- more realistic city layout
- no restriction of player choice, you can still build fields wherever you like
- if you use the farmlands, farming gets more risky, therefore rushing is easier
Notes: [The mods are for a24]. I choose relatively random values for the positive farming aura, so don't get hung up on those. This same is true for the amount of gatherer per field. Also, as I said, I have no experience in random map creation, so don't be surprised if they are not balanced. Further discussion points: size, number and effect strength of the farmlands.
So please try it out and me what you think. Is this how you imagined the farmlands? Does this fit into the game? Does it change the strategy too much?
-
2
-
1
-
It does seem like a logical progression. P1: Citizen Solider -> P2: Citizen Solider + Champions -> P3: Citizen Solider + Champions + Siege.
Then every phase has new options to attack and break a defense.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Even increasing loot would be a huge meta change--especially late game when you are near constant fight. I honestly don't know if it would work. It's a tricky problem to solve.
True. But I quite like the idea that one gets rewarded for effective rushes. On the other hand, an ineffective rush would also set you back even more.
43 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:If rushes happened more and they were equal on both sides of a 4v4, then I feel the game would reach the same inalterable state just at a later time.
Rushing should set the other players back, so that they cannot turtle effectively afterwards (because they are already behind in resources/population). But yes it is not the only thing that contributes to that.
-
1 hour ago, m7600 said:
Halfway would be something like this:
BTW good call on changing the texture color to look more like the plaster section.Great work! I really like this version. It is still sad that the original brick texture needed to go, but this looks also nice.
-
It does not make a lot of sense to have this discussion on a purely theoretical basis.
Here are the mods:
Personally I think both options could work. And also farmlands or reduced number of gatherers per field.
@chrstgtr since you wrote about two of your mentioned options, that you don't believe they will change anything (so booming is still = turteling), I didn't include them.
-
1
-
-
Procedural generation of buildings using blenders geometry nodes (no tutorial, but maybe someone has not yet heard about it) :
-
2
-
Midas (actively convert mercenaries)
in Game Modification
Posted
yeah exactly it is a trade off between op and huge resource drain. So you need to maneuver him carefully or you will have no metal left. But as I said, this is more of a fun idea, probably to op.