Jump to content

wraitii

WFG Programming Team
  • Content Count

    3.074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

wraitii last won the day on April 26

wraitii had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1.581 Excellent

2 Followers

About wraitii

  • Rank
    Space Poodle

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3.346 profile views
  1. Can't say I disagree. Maybe not 75%, but we could certainly use a 'Maps in need of work' category where we put the garbage. I think 'random' is more easily understood than 'procedural', so I'd rather keep it, but I'm probably OK with splitting the maps in more category for the time being, particularly removing some of the more special maps (arena, the one with no wood, ...) from the general random pool.
  2. My belief is that making it so that it takes time to switch from gathering to attacking mode for soldiers would help with balancing citizen-soldiers considerably. Because then each 'variant' can be considered sort-of-in-vacuum. I'm not sure 'hardcoding' strategies is the way to go, but maybe, you know. That being said, don't expect this to get in A25. I think the target for A25 will be to fix the most egregious issues with A24, so players are happier with the current state of the game, before running into an experiment that tweaks a core concept like this.
  3. [Usual disclaimer that 'WFG' is not a thing and this is just a bunch of people giving some of their free time] We don't have particular plans to address this, mostly because the people currently active are mostly devs who work on other things. That being said, we are stretched rather thin in terms of lobby moderators. It would make sense to have more, but as usual things aren't so simple, because giving moderator power to people implies trusting them, which implies knowing them somewhat.
  4. I must say I find it odd how most civs have no siege option in Phase 2, when you do get some turtling options (towers, etc.) That being said, I suppose it's still mostly eco growth at that point in theory and so making the fights about eco makes some sense. I agree with the notion that fights in 0 A.D. tend to disadvantage the attacker more than in say Age, since the attacker loses more eco. Increased loot might work to counter that. I think turn times are a bit of a decoy problem. I think if there were no archers in P1, you wouldn't notice it nearly as much. That being said, not aga
  5. (Note that archers already have +.5 spread in A25, as D3736 was merged.)
  6. Current plan is to revert to A23, as part of D3898. However, because of how turrets/visible garrisoning has been split from regular garrisoning, the visibly-garrisoned units no longer recover Capture Points. Which means the outpost will go neutral even if garrisoned. IMO, the solution is to remove the 'decay' feature of outposts, and barring changes that's likely what I'll do.
  7. Well, sorta. I think they'd be pretty ugly just scaled up, ideally we'd have moss-covered stones, more dead/rotting trees, more vine-looking stuff. For tropical environments we need completely different setups, too. And for perf reasons it'd be good if these meshes weren't hundreds of props, so we need some dedicated stuff.
  8. I do believe you could find some discussion on this, but you'd probably have to dig a fair bit. Fact is we also don't have 'impassable terrain texture', and a few other things that make 0 A.D. quite liberal in where you can walk. 0 A.D. isn't too dissimilar from Age 3 in my experience in how forests feel, though maybe trees didn't have obstructions in that game? Don't recall. Anyways, it's not completely unrealistic, and I don't think removing obstruction entirely would be necessary. I don't think most forests being passable is actually an issue, overall. However, I think we should have
  9. I disagree somewhat. I think the correct solution is to have impassable undergrowth entities, that are much bigger but still gatherable (though generating less wood). A wild forest isn't impassable because of the trees. Alternatively, having more low-trees that block movement naturally would also work.
  10. I think Petra is 'optimised' for the meta of a few alphas back, which would explain the difference.
  11. Definitely out-of-space because of the "continue campaign" button. Not sure what to do here. We could make the notice smaller, I suppose?
  12. Answering as a "team member", I'll say that the notion of "plan" for 0 A.D. is murky at best. We don't really have a well defined end-goal for the gameplay at the moment. The general notion was to have formations be a larger part of combat than in the Age of Empires series, though probably not as involved as Total War. ---- My personal opinion is that they're somewhat unlikely to be more than Age-of-Empires like, that is, a movement/micro helper. The current gameplay doesn't really benefit from formation, nor would they really work compared to not using them.
  13. TBH I think we went a bit too far on A23 with regards to anti-dancing. But I also don't think microing against javelineers or archers is a particularly good gameplay mechanic. That being said, a simpler variant of Hyperion's idea would be randomly changing to target other units close by. That might be enough to make hero-dancing less interesting. ---- On the topic at hand, I don't really mind lowering train rates a bit. My problem with 0 A.D. is mostly that economy grows exponentially, which makes it real tricky after the 15th minute, but well, it's a high skill ceiling. I wou
×
×
  • Create New...