Radiotraining
-
Posts
324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Radiotraining
-
-
33 minutes ago, hyperion said:
There is eject health already defined and structures should switch to "damaged textures" at that point to give a visual clue for needs repairing to be garrison-able again. (Just that the art department only managed to get Carthage done in all those years
)
Yeah, correct! That was a consideration that emerged exactly from working on new textures for this reason. It was more clear that it could open a different gameplay mechanics. It was an idea though, not sure if it will improve things or not. Would be interesting to try tho.
(One of the reason I proposed it was also because of the unrealistic fragility of buildings with rams and siege weapons.. with this trick it would be possible in my mind to squeeze some 25% more health without changing the balance. But I guess this is more of an aesthetic change than gameplay)
-
Uhmmm trip-hop, nu jazz, ambient electro, lo-fi stuff, vaporwave, synthpop, minimal techno, indie, fado, bossa nova, electro swing, rap aaand Viet and Korean indie
-
2
-
-
uhmmm.. I'm not sure there had been such contacts between Japan and Korea.. or I'm not sure they would had Korean mercenaries in Japan, since they had been historically adversaries/enemies
But I'm not really an historian, so you better check it out.
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
that's the same as now but more rigid and without visual feedback.
I agree!
Maybe there's a bit of a misconception, because capturing is not bad per se. I like it!
I just think - but that's an opinion - that it could probably work better as second choice. Or, as Freagarach suggested, with some limitations that can prevent abuses
6 hours ago, Freagarach said:when the enemy already has someone garrisoned, you can only destroy.
like this.
-
16 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
You have understand that a house is not the same as a barracks or a fortress. They must have different mechanics.
I agree with all the other points but I just wanted to remark this, which I find an interesting point never really discussed. Maybe, if the concern is on making clear the function of capturing to the user, if can stay as default for CC (and maybe a core of vital structures), while the others, and the defensive ones, can be attacked by default instead. Like what's happening with farms, which are definitely more satisfying to destroy
Could be a compromise to make everyone happy?
EDIT: okay, I'm saying something stupid cos is what DE already does and I forgot lol But hey! It just makes a lot of sense
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Indeed. I think if your territory swallows up a building of the enemy's, then that enemy structure should slowly convert to your side. That happens now already. That, plus units can capture buildings that have gone Gaia. And that's the extent of it.
btw, the other day I proposed a variation on the mechanic in this thread here: when you damage a building to a critical level (like 25% of health), then it lose loyalty/functionalities or turn to gaia, so you can conquer it.
I don't know if it's too unnecessary or complicated in the game, but it can be a way to make attack and capture work together more coherently.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Quality over Quantity when it comes to maps, IMHO.
Hey! I'm on the same side, noticing the big improvement of newer maps and the need for those, so I agree with the statement.
BUT. If we're talking about maps, assuring some quantity is also key to allow longevity for the game!
Just sayin'.
I don't mind the current numbers, but I agree that some can be discarded or re-made. But let's not commit the mistake in the other sense of not leaving enough
5 minutes ago, maroder said:I mean if people feel that strongly that nothing should ever be removed ok , but then at least moving the bad maps under a separate tag/ folder should be done.
It just doesn't make sense to have a wild mix of high quality and mediocre maps. That kind of choice is super confusing and will give new players a bad impression of the game.
Well.. that sounds like a sensible approach anyway
-
Haven't played all of them tbh.. or maybe not so recently to remember exactly. I got a little tear, however, with the idea of removing "water holes" .. I had quite some fun with that map! I think is probably meant to be more for multiplayer than prettyness.
Volcano also is not bad.. is a very interesting variant compared to the rest to have. I think is good to have it as a option.
But these two are just my opinion. Do what is best.
-----
Yeah, I may be interested in a remake of older maps
I could maybe help a bit
-
1
-
-
what an astounding work!! wow!
For people like me that are trying to learn also the technique, is very interesting to see all the textures together!
Thanks for sharing and again awesome job!
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 16/12/2021 at 10:33 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Sometimes is still amazing the kind of things you can find in the internet!! A channel dedicated to biomes wow!
-
2
-
-
Ah! Okay!
Yeah, I've experimented a bit while modding my stuff eheheh but nothing really serious..
But, in case, I can post here if there's something
good advice to maybe get in touch with them. I took a look at the threads on map overhaul, and maybe an help could be to fix/update the not-so-great maps already there.
I don't know also if you guys have some particular scenarios in mind that could be explored.. don't be shy and share your ideas!
-
Love this!! I think I missed it. Nice work!
I wanted to comment the ratings, but then I realized that "1" wasn't a bad rating as opposed to be first on the podium
So, with that in mind, I think I generally agree with the list!
Great one!
Is there any idea/plan for new maps? Are you looking for help?
Who made the most recent ones? (some are fabulous!), is there any tutorial/advice/material that could be helpful to learn some tricks to make pretty-looking maps?
Anyway, need help?
-
1
-
-
yeah I agree maybe it won't change much on that side.. but I'm one of those part of the "aesthetic team"
(LOL) and I find the conquer mechanic quite irritating to witness.
Also because it's exploited with the combo the conquer + delete, which I don't think is a very clever mechanic and, at that point, simply attacking would be a more straightforward action to get to the same result.
However I'm not gonna debate as with the arrow precison
(just kidding, eh!) ahahaha I like the possibility to capture things. I just think it could be maybe secondary/optional, that's it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, maroder said:
Capturing is an interesting mechanic, but it should only be done when directly tasked.
THIS. I hope some of the main devs can read this
I also like "capturing" as an option. But I would rather prefer it as just an option, not a default as it is now.
-
2
-
-
eh, thanks for asking! I was talking about this with Lopess ahahaha I mean.. yes it could be possible, but at the same time these are very much "experiments" for side-mods, I don't think myself as being really ready to deliver something for the official game (I'm not a professional artist, these are more like exercises ehehe). That's why I keep a low-profile.
But hey! If you have some particular ideas and you don't have expectations too high and accept some attempts, we can talk about it!
-
1
-
3
-
-
Booom!! Excellent! Thanks so much for sharing, I was missing this!
And great job!!
-
Aaah.. possible!
I hoped not
ehehe i hoped it was maybe a general function somewhere to not twist every file lol but is a good hint! I'll try that way
-
Speaking of destruction, I got a curiosity on something I've seen on DE @wowgetoffyourcellphone : i noticed since the first time I played that the primary choice of units is for attack and not conquering as in Vanilla. How you did that?
I actually tried to look a bit into the files, but couldn't understand much from the JavaScript jargon
ahaha i didn't know where to put my hands
Well, anyway, I think that this discussion around fire, hell and destruction could make better sense if the attack mode is privileged over the conquest
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Lopess said:
I'm trying to recreate it based on the images from the forum, there's still a lot to be done for everyone who wants to help will be welcome especially about the civ icon and unit textures. I'll make a branch available in the repository I already have and with the original 3d file soon.
Awesome stuff man!!
I really, really like this style and how they're looking!
-
1
-
1
-
-
I would say yes! That is a good limit.
Also, I think is positive if there are, say, 5 heroes available but you can train only 3 X match. I think that having those limits increase the longevity of the game, because you're forced to make decisions and try different combinations each time
-
1
-
-
To do a really -really- good job, the best thing would be to have animations with physics. So you see actual pieces falling down etc..
But this is a bit beyond my skills/knowledge at the moment and again, it requires some serious dedicated work. So I would opt for simple solutions that can implemented more easily. The texture degradation is one of those!
-
58 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Our programmers can give us some hints.
I'm sure! but, another issue is how to implement it: it's already a bit of an hassle, and it would require double the work for each building to assign a a different response each time to different attacks, so i would go with a solution that can be standard (with fire? no fire? only smoke? only demolishion..?) and leave this a little bit as a secondary priority, at least for now!
But hey! Obviously if some of the programmers have suggestions or want to collaborate closely, I welcome that!
it would make everything much easier anyway!
-
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
looks interesting It should start with smoke.
good advice!! Definitely!! It needs some tweaks
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nullus said:
It looks very nice! Do you know if there is a way to cause the fire animation to only be triggered by certain attacks, e.g. flaming arrows?
Eh, you're asking too much from me!
I'm only exploiting the functionalities available, but I wouldn't know at such deeper level. As I'm aware no, there isn't a functionality to distinguish types of attack > different damage and it would require some re-coding of some mechanics, I guess.
We can leave the fire aside, if too unrealistic. I get it is a bit random, but to me it doesn't looks too bad. It looks like a structural failure of the building when it comes from inside.
> Maybe someone inside has left the gas open in the hurry of defending the building
Fire and Buildings.
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Radiotraining
Sure! Personally, I'm positive about it!
I would only say that it may become relevant if some features are added (like some reactions with critical damage ..), otherwise right now it can just be only a nice "extra".
I like langbart proposal tho!! Seems like an even more effective hint than aoe