maroder
-
Posts
780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by maroder
-
-
23 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
However I do suspect there will be a lot more housewalling to keep your eco safe and map generation would become more decisive. I think it will hurt gameplay more than it helps.
I don't think there can be more housewalling as it is already used at the moment
Furthermore, you would need to build additional palisades / towers to protect the houses, as they are not longer automatically "safe" when they are in the arrow range of the CC.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
hyperrealism in an RTS is absurd.
It's not about hyperrealism, I don't propose that people need to build an exact copy of ancient Rome. It is about the fact that the starting area around the CC is already extremely well defended, without having to use any actual defensive buildings. As @LetswaveaBook said, the farms are build in a fortified area, which is at the moment always the outside of the CC. But why not actually giving the player the choice? If you want to go for a boom you don't have to invest in defensive buildings and take the risk. If you want to be more safe and turtle at the beginning of the game, this is now a more viable options, because there is not already free defense build into your CC.
There is additionally the visual aspect. Our CCs are nearly as strong as fortresses in terms of shooting arrows ect. but they look completely different. Nothing indicates that they are actually used for defense/military, they mostly look like civilian buildings (see picture below).
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I tried removing dropsite from CC for a while in DE, but I found myself annoyed that I couldn't use it as such.
Yes, I thought that might be a problem. The quick fix would be to give an starting storehouse and a starting farm at the beginning of the game, to avoid situations where you spend all your resources and have no place to store new ones.
Example comparison, Left side standard build order, Right side my build order with the proposed changes:
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Radagast your attempts seem indeed far more complicated that what I am aiming for, but very interesting ideas
-
Hello everybody,
For some time now I am bothered by the fact that farms are placed directly in front of the CC and after doing some digging in old tickets and reading the forums, it seems like I am not alone with this view.
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/4342
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1318
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/5415
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/28757-forests-and-farmlands-a-new-idea/
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/26701-city-building-mod-a23-a24/
I would therefore propose for A26 to finally move the farms away from the CC. I think from a realism standpoint the game could only benefit from that and it can also improve the ability of players to use different strategies (risky boom vs save turtle). So to get an idea about the general opinion on this is at the moment, I would be happy if you could indicate in the poll what your thought on the topic is.
_________________________________________
Just for context, here is a shortened version of my original proposal (remove dropsite capabilities and arrows from the cc):
At the moment, the CC serves as territory root, defensive building and dropsite and this combination seems logically very inconsistent to me.
- It leads to a standard build order that involves 8 fields around the CC, because that is the most defended area in the beginning of the game.
- The CC represents the center of the civilization. There is also no visual indication for the player, that a structure, that is elaborate and full of prestige, is also a big storehouse for stone, metal, wood and food.
The solution that I am proposing, is to split the functionality of the CC to the respective buildings. So defensive buildings do the defense and storehouses /farms are used to store resources. This means to replace the capacity of the CC to shoot arrows, with an aura of some sort and to disable it as a dropsite. This would hopefully lead to more realistic city layouts and to an more interesting early game, because players do have to think more about how they want to defend their farms, or if the just take the risk and do a straight boom.
-
2
-
1
-
Introduction:
The purpose this mod is to clearly define the role of buildings, which then leads to a (slightly) more realistic city layout. It is a follow up to this proposal: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37294-storehouse-and-farms-rework please look there for additional reasons why I think these changes are good.
So please take a look at the following building and ask yourself the following questions:
- Does this look like a place that you can pack full of soldiers and defend like a fortress?
- Does it look like a good place to store your food, stone or metal?
Well, at least to me it doesn't. And this is imo one of the reasons for the gameplay balance problems.
Therefore, introducing a mod, that clearly redefines the role of the basic buildings.
Features:
The civic center is no longer an all-purpose storehouse nor an easy to defend mini fortress. Its ability to shoot arrows has been removed and replaced by an aura, that increases the attack and armor of soldiers close to it. That is done because it is the center of your civilization, which should give the soldiers a boost of morale and it also prevents you from getting overrun in the first 5 minutes of the game.
The storehouse is now the main place to store wood/metal/stone and its cost are reduced to 50 wood.
Wood can still be stored in the CC to allow wood income in situations where all storehouses are destroyed.
The farmstead is now the main place to store food and its cost are reduced to 50 wood.
What do I hope are the benefits?
- A city layout that looks more realistic (e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Forum) and less like someone decided to turn the center of their city into one giant farming area.
- Easier to understand game logic. Defensive structures are for defense, economic structures are for economy.
- Better ability to rush in early game
Because I don't want to make two mods, there are also other changes (maybe more unrealistic) based on the following complaints I have read on the forums:
- Rushing is too hard
- defensive structures are too effective (e.g. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37687-lets-fight-gameplay-balance-mod/)
Changes:
Towers:
-
Towers do no longer have an minimum distance between them, because that restricts player freedom (and I don't like it )
- To balance that out , their ungarrisoned arrow count is reduced to 0, because it was imo not realistic that they had a default arrow count (indicating a person inside) but they did not contribute to the pop limit. To have any effect of the towers, you now either need to keep men around or let them stay inside, which should prevent an extreme overuse.
- The tech is removed, that adds one standard arrow to towers
- The tech is removed, that gives 40% more arrows per garrisoned soldier
- The stone tower can now garrison only 3 soldiers (same as the sentry tower) but it is still harder to capture and more resistant.
Palisade related:
- Palisades have very weak crush damage, which means that rams and catapults are way more effective against them
- Women now have a torch as weapon, which allows them to burn palisades. (A few hits are enough, the palisade will continue to burn until its gone)
Here is a test of how effective different unit types are at destroying palisades:
Nice new fire effects:
Here is the mod (v 0.0.3):
-
4
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Freagarach said:
Note this is the case already at least since A23b.
Yes I know that
I was only not sure about if that is going to change, so thanks for the explanation. Anyways I just wanted to say that having two icons to click to get your units out of e.g. a fortress which has turrets and garrisoned units, may increase the chance that you forget some of them.
Which is obviously only a problem when one entity can be both garrisoned and have turrets.
-
Ah ok. So the difference with D1958 would be that garrisoned units are passive and don't shoot arrows, while mounted/ turret occupying units can?
So in the case of a fortress with turrets: do only the units in the turrets fire arrows, or would the garrisoned units still increase the number of arrows a building is able to fire?
Because if they do, the action seems rather similar (at least to me) and it would be enough to use one icon that does different things, depending if you click on a turret (occupying) vs clicking on the fortress (garrisoning). In both cases you put your unit in/ on something.
If it is regarded as a separate action, and you select a fortress with occupied turrets and garrisoned units, would you have to click on both icons or use two hotkeys to get all your units out? That seems to me like an easy way to forget some units for the rest of the game in that building.
-
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I would say the Citizen-Soldiers' vision range reduces to the same as a Female Citizen while they gather,
I think it would be good to unify the ranges beforehand, i.e
19 hours ago, Nescio said:because if not, there is still the logic inconsistency that soilders/men are able to see further than women (when they are just standing in the field or walking). Otherwise I like @chrstgtr idea.
-
23 minutes ago, Freagarach said:
With D1958 (a.k.a. turrets) nearing its completion, can I request a few icons, please?
- action-occupy-turret (and its disabled variant) (this is a cursor)
- occupy-turret
- leave-turret
Just so I can follow, what is the reason to not reuse the garrison/ ungarrison icons? The action seems rather similar to me.
-
24 minutes ago, alre said:
My friends still make jokes about the fact that last time someone complained about the fact that women are too weak, in response they only got further nerfed
At least there is Wows mod now:
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37183-two-gendered-citizens-mod-please-test/
-
17 minutes ago, borg- said:
Why not? catapults were operated by people,
Yes, but in reality they were much more static than in the game and would have had some shield or people shielding the people, to protect them from archers, if they were that close. Rams on the other hand who get really close and are usually in the range of arches, are especially build with a roof the protect the soldiers inside. That's why I think it would make sense to make siege vulnerable to close combat (swords/pike), but not to arrows (exec fire cav).
-
Yes, sorry @letsplay0ad I was going off-topic for your mod and just expressing my thoughts as some of these ideas might find their way into the base game. But if you want to try a different concept to stop turteling, I think stronger siege, which can take down barriers faster, is nicer to play as more limits/ restrictions (even if that mechanic is already in the base game). @faction02 got a good point:
13 hours ago, faction02 said:Unfortunately, I would say RIP catapults, you will not be needed in a24. Mass archers are doing a good job at countering you (especially if they are not supported by archers).
imo as long as they don't use fire arrows, they shouldn't really damage siege (except elephants).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, faction02 said:
If you first reach the maximum population and start investing resources into turtling, then turtling doesn't really have an economic cost. Waiting for resources exhaustion is far from fun for me, I could make tea the first 2 minutes but then what should I do???
but jokes aside
1 hour ago, faction02 said:Turtling is a bit too effective in 0ad
Yes, true. But as you said that is mainly a problem in the late game / stalemate situation.
My point of view: In the early game there should be the three classic rock paper scissors strategies: Boom, Rush and Turtle, which cancel each other out. So If you think your opponent will rush, it should be a valid strategy to turtle, to counter that. If he instead booms, well sucks to be you, now you have spend resources for nothing.
1 hour ago, faction02 said:We probably all agree with your ideal of having incentives rather than rules.
Good to hear, thats my main point. So instead of setting a minimum distance or nerfing of defensive structure in general (which hurts turteling as a strategy in the early game) I would much rather prefer your suggestion that defensive structure (maybe not the sentry tower) cost population space or @Radiotraining suggestion. Additionally also stronger siege. This would be a penalty for late game turteling, without making it useless in the early game.
1 hour ago, faction02 said:P.S. if you enjoy building unconquerable city, you should try playing games with a population limit of 50. Defensive buildings become much more effective
thanks, I will try
-
From a pure logic standpoint I would vote not to reveal it, because if you're unit doesn't have the vision range in the first place, why should it suddenly see something that is further away?
Edit: indicating from which direction the unit is attacked or only getting a sign/flag would be nice.
Edit2: Why exactly do women have a lower LOS that other units? I would think it would be good to unify it for non-cav units.
-
13 hours ago, faction02 said:
only meant a small one, very small one..... such that people don't put their fortress just right next to the cc.
While I understand the reason, I personally disagree with it very much. I hate being told what to do or not to do
Especially in a less competitive setting, I want to be able to place my buildings wherever I want, to be able to build an unconquerable city. So I would remove all minimum distances and building limitations.
IMO Turtling should not be prohibited by the game mechanics, it should be punished by the fact that you run out of resources in the long run and that you have a slower economy.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, seeh said:
unrated game for drunken idiots
That is one nice name
-
1
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Setting up ambushes and waiting form an enemy to show up does not seem worthwhile to me at higher levels
True indeed, but what if you would balance it with time limited strong attack bonus? i.e + 50 attack for the first 30 sec when the troops leave the forest. So you can make a big impact even with a small amount of solders. This might be worth setting them aside as a future investment.
It of course makes only sense in a biome with plenty of forest that you cannot avoid.
-
First of all, thanks @wraitiiand @Stan`for your explanations, as someone who is relatively new to the forum I had no idea how difficult the release process was. Which is part of the problem. Forums are great to exchange opinions and discuss stuff, but they are very inefficient in transporting information, as all important stuff gets inevitably buried under other posts. Therefore there is no way for someone who is new, as to ask again.
I second @mysticjimopinion and would like to illustrate it by using myself as an example: I first discovered 0ad maybe three years ago because it was listed on some website as "cool free game". I tried it out and lost to the easy AI, then put it aside for a few weeks, tried it again and got crushed again. This continued for a year until I finally googled "how to play 0ad" and found one of Tom0ad's videos where he explains basic strategy. This video has done an incredible job at making the game more interesting for me (I never played other RTS before). And the only reason I am now here on the forums, is that I wanted to know when a new alpha would come out and after checking the homepage for several months and there were no updates, I finally began to read in the forum.
It is hard to keep people engaged, but the only way to keep them interested in the game is to reach out to them, again and again and again. 0ad is certainly not missing people who work hard on it, but the communication how hard the work is and what progress is done.
From my understanding open source lives from the people who want to contribute to it, but why should they, if they don't know how great the game is or if they never heard about it. It not about "hyping" and making false claims, its about communicating the actual progress and catching peoples attention. I want my comments here not to bee seen as "attacks" on the communication strategy the team had so far, I mean the project is still around and people are playing it, therefore it is not a failed strategy, but I do believe the engagement of new and old audiences should have a higher priority when we want more people to play it.
-
1
-
-
-
52 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
One question that needs answered is: Do we need to do a bunch of PR blitzing at this stage of the game's development? @wraitii I think has hinted that WFG has neglected PR because the game simply isn't ready yet.
I think that is exactly the point. The game has been around for a very long time and as @wraitii said, it doesn't seem like " the final version" will be ready anytime soon, because there is always something to improve. So the options are 1) to lay low, let the few people who work on the development side do their thing, until they don't have the time or fun anymore and let 0ad be a project that is only something for enthusiasts or 2) try to actively get more people involved and grow a bigger community. Because in my opinion 0ad is already a great game and you can have a lot of fun playing it. We don't need to hide that it's an alpha and that there are flaws, we can tell people: yes indeed and if you want to help fix them you are more than welcome.
In an age where game develogs on youtube get millions of views, it think there are enough people out there who find game development interesting and may want to help, but they never heard about the project.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I agree that the game can be quite ugly at times.
Another problem is that interesting mp games are played on mainland instead of nice looking maps
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Grapjas said:
I also think that alpha and beta increasingly lost their meaning over the past 5 or so years because of big companies
very true. The best example is probably Fortnite, where they call they call it "Season" when they bring out a new beta and add more stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite_Battle_Royale#Seasonal_changes
10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:A24 dropped just like every other 0ad alpha release
Yes and I think this was the problem, after a pause of ~2.5 years. After such a long time the regular player got very attached to A23 and a little more preparation and communication could have saved some of the negative comments aka "what have you done to my civ" ect.
But the whole: is it an alpha? discussion is sidetracking the original topic.
This is my point of view:
- 0ad has a decent sized player base, who don't closely follow the development process and are caught off guard when something new happens.
- In order to keep the project alive for many years to come, it is important to continuously reach out to the public and new players, as some of them may choose to contribute to it.
- Getting more people involved is of course more work, but division of labor takes the pressure of of individual people, which would be positive in my eyes. (See Stans vacation announcement)
The key to reach that is , again from my point of view, a better communication strategy, not only in the forums, but also to the public over social media or other outreach opportunities. I can completely understand if the devs don't have the time and don't want to prepare a public announcement for everything they do, so I think this would be a good opportunity to get the people from the community more involved. Maybe something similar to the Council of Modders. The "Council of PR" for example (maybe with a better name)
-
thanks for the explanation
53 minutes ago, wraitii said:- we don't have the time. Remember that nobody is doing this full time, nor is making any money off it.
- none of us particularly want to do it ('cause we're mostly developers)
And yes, my statement was not meant to be accusing, that is exactly what I thought was the reason
It is is good that the developers are developing and the players are playing, if they would do something different it would be a waste of resources.
The only thing that is missing for 0ad are influencers that influence @mysticjim?
1 hour ago, wraitii said:But I think you're mistaken if you think 0 A.D. has even a remote chance to stand against the Age of Empires PR machine
sad but probably true. But the goal does not have to be to be as big as AoE, but to attract new player and maybe also new contributors to the project.
1 hour ago, wraitii said:0 A.D. is also still quite laggy, and needs a fair few improvements before I think it's ready for a more mainstream audience. I would push towards dropping the 'alpha' from the name, but that doesn't mean it's quite ready.
Fair point. I personally think A27 would be good to switch to beta. Then the alphabet is completed.
-
1
-
But to stay on topic, while Stan is on vacation, maybe @Sundiatacould shine some light on the topic and explain if there is a official PR strategy / policy about promoting the next alpha before its release.
I would guess the reason why A24 was not more promoted, is that the team was busy with development and no one had spare time to do it?
-
1
-
increased realism mod (and random unrealistic changes)
in Game Modification
Posted · Edited by maroder
That is an elaborate looking city
Thanks for taking the time to try the mod and make suggestions. I will think about them and then reply in more detail and maybe with a new version of the mod.