Jump to content

Housing places in the barracks and fortresses.


Sun Wukong
 Share

Recommended Posts

This would diminish the value of civ specific housing bonuses, such as Ptols, Celts, Carthaginians, especially in early game where a barracks is made very soon. We don't need to have any more economic value to the barracks (its already the most valuable eco building). We have had a discussion before about adding a male economic unit that would make CS infantry's economic role more secondary, which would add value to cc's, decrease the eco value of barracks, and differentiate booming from military buildup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

This would diminish the value of civ specific housing bonuses, such as Ptols, Celts, Carthaginians, especially in early game where a barracks is made very soon. We don't need to have any more economic value to the barracks (its already the most valuable eco building). We have had a discussion before about adding a male economic unit that would make CS infantry's economic role more secondary, which would add value to cc's, decrease the eco value of barracks, and differentiate booming from military buildup.

You can make a housing upgrade for the barracks in the later eras, in addition, the Ptolemaic, Carthaginian and others will also have access to barracks expansions. There will be no depreciation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Atrik said:

It's funny I couldn't find anything about storage capacity for resource that would have been discussed. Not thinking it's a good idea thoughts.

It would be great if the collected resources were stored in the city center in a limited way, for example, 5000 of each resource per center and 1000 cells per warehouse, and after destruction, would fall out in the form of collected treasures. It will need about 1,5 minute to assimilate enemy treasure.

Edited by Sun Wukong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

discussion before about adding a male economic unit that would make CS infantry's economic role more secondary, which would

Make a villager. Same stats as Gyne but different gathering bonuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The problem is the snowball effect of the gameplay due to the booming of the citizen soldiers.

IMHO, citizen-solders were the most dumbest decision in whole RTS world. If you allowed the construction of warehouses and estates outside the root of the territory, then this could make sense, and while one part of the army approached, the other would at that time gather wood next to the enemy. Now it is better to separate economic units and military units.

Edited by Sun Wukong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sun Wukong said:

IMHO, citizen-solders were the most dumbest decision in whole RTS world. If you allowed the construction of warehouses and estates outside the root of the territory, then this could make sense, and while one part of the army approached, the other would at that time gather wood next to the enemy.

A matter of taste. That's what mods are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

A matter of taste. That's what mods are for.

I think Ensemble Studio had a better idea of what to do. This is not a matter of taste, but the alphabet of RTS. It's like a keyboard: no matter what your taste is, the keyboard will always look pretty much the same everywhere. No matter is it SC or C&C clone, economy units are always economy units.

Edited by Sun Wukong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

There is deprecation inherent in removing population value from houses. People who understand the game well can pretty easily forsee the negative gameplay effects of barracks giving 10 or even 5 population space.

Balance the residential barracks with more training time? An increase in the cost of units in gold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Nothing is set in stone.

I respect your right to go through the same rake in the form of clumsy game mechanics, just to be different from the bulk of more successful games...(y)

Even Blizzard, with its mediocre game, didn't come up with the idea of having Zealots as crystal and Vespene harvesters.

Edited by Sun Wukong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sun Wukong said:

I respect your right to go through the same rake in the form of clumsy game mechanics, just to be different from the bulk of more successful games...(y)

I respect the opinion of people who think they are right and don't know their target audience.

"$uce$$full"

 

I am ending my participation.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I respect the opinion of people who think they are right and don't know their target audience.

"$uce$$full"

 

I am ending my participation.

Judging by the number of multi-accounts, your audience consists of 3,5 people.<_<

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

What country are you from? Your English is a little strange.

Oh my, what am I talking about?! If you make it possible to demolish resources that interfere with the construction, this will already be a whole miracle and an unheard of progress in your ossified game mechanics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Sun Wukong said:

I think Ensemble Studio had a better idea of what to do.

1 hour ago, Sun Wukong said:

this will already be a whole miracle and an unheard of progress in your ossified game mechanics!

2 hours ago, Sun Wukong said:

I respect your right to go through the same rake in the form of clumsy game mechanics

1 hour ago, Sun Wukong said:

Dear ChatGPT why developers of 0 A.D. so hard to accept harmless innovations..?<_<

Nobody will listen to your ideas if all you want to do here is hate.

You have to realize that popular and plausible changes are made, and that fringe out-of-scope changes are not.

If you expect you can personally redirect the design of the game, I am sorry.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

What country are you from? Your English is a little strange.

Sun Wukong is a fictional character from the the Chinese book "西游记". It is an upgraded monkey who spawns from a rock in the sky and is destined to escort the monk to India to bring back Buddhist texts. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_King

I was surprised when I saw this username. But the profile picture is not quite the common depiction:

称遭侵权 86版《西游记》总作曲起诉索赔60余万|西游记|总作曲|侵权_新浪娱乐_新浪网

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Sun Wukong is a fictional character from the the Chinese book "西游记". It is an upgraded monkey who spawns from a rock in the sky and is destined to escort the monk to India to bring back Buddhist texts. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_King

I was surprised when I saw this username. But the profile picture is not quite the common depiction:

称遭侵权 86版《西游记》总作曲起诉索赔60余万|西游记|总作曲|侵权_新浪娱乐_新浪网

He is Russian, I mean thehe user , No wonder he comes to talk about Cossacks, it is popular in Eastern Europe.

In general, it never caught my attention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

hate

This is not a hate, but sarcasm with surprise. Surprised by the fact that a strategy game is made by people who have practically never played other strategies. That is why we see a strange root territory, a limit between towers, an empty fortress, gaps in the defense in the form of forests and other "non-proprietary innovations".

6 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

I was surprised when I saw this username. But the profile picture is not quite the common depiction:

Spoiler

f428aae938ed16ff6aac88ba70ec93e2.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...