Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Radagast.]

@lako3000: What you mean is giving the player the choice as of which attributes to train (though we already have that via techs ... so your proposal essentially boils down to add techs that each influences another of these attributes.

the heroes ability could be to build a specific building or buildings, or even to build a specifc building quicker than 5 villagers

Heroes currently aren't allowed to construct things but they can have a great boost for other nearby worker units. (at least there is one hero that specifies such an aura effect that makes nearby units construct 50% quicker)

the calvary could mabey be able to train other cavalry just slowly or something. calvary are hard to think of for an ability cos they cant build but yea

I like the cavalry idea to train other cavalry, but I see it more general, i.e. units should be able to share experience and train each other (technology transfer in the bigger picture).

[Lion.Kanzen]

I was thinking of giving the player the choice between three heroes like he chose gods in Aom.

There is a ticket for high medium ultra. But thing is it´s not wise to implement that until pathfinder has been rewritten

I was fighting for that for years. Select for each phase a heroe and special units and technologies.

You can change the gaming experience for each play(match)

Edited August 19, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Stan`]

I like it, cause it does the same than gods, but in a realistic way.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like it, cause it does the same than gods, but in a realistic way.

in aoe 3 instead of gods you can select a type of. Governor like president, like nobleman, like king or a revolutionary leader like Washington or Bolivar or Jose San Martin ( liberator)

[Stan`]

I submitted the idea to scythewirler, but that requires extra coding, and I'm not sure he is willing to do it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I submitted the idea to scythewirler, but that requires extra coding, and I'm not sure he is willing to do it.

we can do it in our mods, the mods are the best way to test new ideas

I suggested select dynasties instead gods or type of governor but dynasties is more accurate

Even Gauls have tribal dynasty like Arverni or Aedui or Iberians and their Vascones, Lusitans, Turdetani etc.

Macedon have 2 factions in Alexander's ages the Alexander family was the faction that hate Persians the other was a puppet dynasty

I dont remember the name. All aristocracy in ancient world had faction opposite to foreign intervention.

[lako3000]

@lako3000: What you mean is giving the player the choice as of which attributes to train (though we already have that via techs ... so your proposal essentially boils down to add techs that each influences another of these attributes.

Heroes currently aren't allowed to construct things but they can have a great boost for other nearby worker units. (at least there is one hero that specifies such an aura effect that makes nearby units construct 50% quicker)

I like the cavalry idea to train other cavalry, but I see it more general, i.e. units should be able to share experience and train each other (technology transfer in the bigger picture).

by attributes i mean instead of giving the hero techs you can just take out hero techs and make attributes for heroes

a roman hero could have something like 20 streangth for 1 attribute and taht could give him mabey 600 hp or something depending on how the developers want it but yeah.

i forgot the game had hero techs. look at games like warcraft 3 and the attributes in taht game for heroes, tahts where my idea came from

[FeXoR]

Attributes just make the stats blurry because e.g. if (as in your example) "strength" grants "hitpoints", "strength" is meaningless and so we should use hitpoints...

Heroes that are hard to kill and also can kill themselves are extremely unrealistic BTW in general.

Historical "heroes" are made of luck, non-combat skills (like commanding armies, impressive speeches, political assertiveness, convincing argumentation, ..) and "historical", social or political glorification during and/or after their lifetime (In general they where not stronger, sturdier, more agile, just maybe more determined/clever/egocentric/ignorant or had other better than average - but not necessarily the best - mental/psychological abilities but in the first place they had luck to have their abilities and opinions fitting social reality at the given time enabling them to have a big impact back on it).

Edited August 20, 2014 by FeXoR

[lako3000]

Attributes just make the stats blurry because e.g. if (as in your example) "strength" grants "hitpoints", "strength" is meaningless and so we should use hitpoints...

Heroes that are hard to kill and also can kill themselves are extremely unrealistic BTW in general.

Historical "heroes" are made of luck, non-combat skills (like commanding armies, impressive speeches, political assertiveness, convincing argumentation, ..) and "historical", social or political glorification during and/or after their lifetime (In general they where not stronger, sturdier, more agile, just maybe more determined/clever/egocentric/ignorant or had other better than average - but not necessarily the best - mental/psychological abilities but in the first place they had luck to have their abilities and opinions fitting social reality at the given time enabling them to have a big impact back on it).

yeah i see what you mean i just thought the heroes could be so much more by adding in attributes, streangth is a bit ehh but i thought in my original post about "Building Speed" as an attribute

that would be cool dont ya think? some heroes have a better building speed so they can build buildings and stuff, if they could. and i just thought about calvary!

calvary heroes could have an auraq ability so mabey something like:

building aura - +10% building speed to nearby units ???? i think thats a good one

Speed aura - +10% speed to nearby units ???? mabey more or less speed because heroes are in the 3rd age and thats near the end of some games so you could make it faster to end games quicker

Attack aura - +5% attack damage to nearby units ????? or you could make it + 1 attack to a specific type of unit

thats just 3 different abilities i thought of so mabey attributes dont need to be in the game but i think an ability would be cool. heroes being able to build buildings faster, or a specific building quicker than 5 villagers. just stuff like taht, the opportunities are endless if they decide to do this but its up to the developers and the players if they like the ideas.

[auron2401]

Agreed.

While it would be cool for a fantasy-esque mod,

It wouldn't really be a useful mechanic to have in the base game. Particularly one which is emphasising things like territory, large armies, mostly-in-depth resource management etc.

Unlike one Warcraft 3 which, let's be frank, Was not an RTS. It was a Role Playing Strategy Game. note how at least 90% of the maps involved the heroes being ub0r str0nk killing thousands of enemy units with single abilities..

anyway.. While we don't want to encourage this, There probably won't be any real reason to discourage it either. (for aforementioned "fantasy-esque" mods, of course.)

Ah, someone else wrote whilst i was commenting on four different threads.

Anyway, theres' already Speed auras and damage auras. See Leonidas (sparta), Himelqart (Qarthage) Vercingetorix (gaul) and probably others i can't be bothered looking for

Also. Build speed auras would be silly if it wasn't global. And having them exclusive to 'cavalry heroes' Far more so in the way of silly.

Also-also. Cavalry don't build, so putting something like a build speed aura on a cavalry hero unless it is of course, One of those silly fellows that run the show in the Diadochi civs (ptolmies, seleucids) who actually do build.. well.. yeah.

Edited August 20, 2014 by auron2401

[FeXoR]

Yes, auras are what heroes should be good for IMO and all of the auras I see here are reasonable (might need some balancing but that's for the beta stage).

And making heroes sturdy sounds reasonable to me to "simulate" they where well guarded and enable them to actually make use of their aura.

(Attack power should be normal though IMO. Just by being sturdier they're allready stronger in combat than any other unit)

Edited August 20, 2014 by FeXoR

[lako3000]

Agreed.

While it would be cool for a fantasy-esque mod,

It wouldn't really be a useful mechanic to have in the base game. Particularly one which is emphasising things like territory, large armies, mostly-in-depth resource management etc.

Unlike one Warcraft 3 which, let's be frank, Was not an RTS. It was a Role Playing Strategy Game. note how at least 90% of the maps involved the heroes being ub0r str0nk killing thousands of enemy units with single abilities..

anyway.. While we don't want to encourage this, There probably won't be any real reason to discourage it either. (for aforementioned "fantasy-esque" mods, of course.)

Ah, someone else wrote whilst i was commenting on four different threads.

Anyway, theres' already Speed auras and damage auras. See Leonidas (sparta), Himelqart (Qarthage) Vercingetorix (gaul) and probably others i can't be bothered looking for

Also. Build speed auras would be silly if it wasn't global. And having them exclusive to 'cavalry heroes' Far more so in the way of silly.

Also-also. Cavalry don't build, so putting something like a build speed aura on a cavalry hero unless it is of course, One of those silly fellows that run the show in the Diadochi civs (ptolmies, seleucids) who actually do build.. well.. yeah.

woah there are auras already! i didnt know that!

the calvary aura thing was just because i couldnt think of a ability a calvary unit could have because calvary cant build so i couldnt really think of anything

[auron2401]

Infantry heroes' can't build either.

And giving auras to non heroes? No.

The only heroes that can build are Seleucid and Ptolmaic heroes, and that's only so they have the whole 'we make cities' thing sort of work.

[wraitii]

Why would I have the same lag?

That's actually completely unrelated to multiplayer connection or what have you, it's because we're using big turn lengths. We probably could lower them.

[iNcog]

What is ping ?

Ping is the time the pressed key takes to get through all computers.

Then you could re-phrase my question into "why is ping so bad in 1v1 in 0 AD compared to aoe3 or starcraft 2 or even games like il-2: clod, where i have 120-150 ms of ping and not 1000" ?

That's actually completely unrelated to multiplayer connection or what have you, it's because we're using big turn lengths. We probably could lower them.

I think this is the answer to my question. I'm sorry for being such a scrub when it comes to these matters, but could you elaborate on this point? I think this makes sense in that the connection I use to play aoe3 and the connection I use to play 0 AD are the exact same one, aoe3 is just much more reponsive overall. 0 AD offline (vs ai) is also very responsive and has a nice feel, unlike online play. so you're probably touching the issue at hand here, i think.

whatever a turn is, if it's too big then I can see it not being a problem offline but being a problem online.

Edited August 20, 2014 by iNcog

[Llanos]

After playing several matches I have some suggestions:

• When the red player completed the CC in the middle, the tower of the yellow player was isolated and went down. The players were in the same team. I suggest that buildings shouldn't loose health when they get enclosed by allied territory.

• Instead of focussion on enemy units, some parts of my army (the enemy troops were in their line of sight) were attacking buildings and a boar. Maybe it's possible to add attacking priorities to the units.

• The AI (Petra on hard/hardest) often attacks with small parts of their army instead of a massive attack and stops at the front of my territory, attacking towers, houses etc. I know it's difficult to implement, but the AI would be much more dangerous if it learns to break through the first defense line and to rush, maybe even do a quick cavalry rush and retreat. Or to do a massive strike on key buildings like CC, fortresses and barracks.

• The AI doesn't know when to retreat. Even when outnumbered the troops fight to the death, instead of retreating to protective areas, like own towers or regrouping. Same thing when buldings under construction are attacked and destroyed. The AI should be capable to delete them and get some ressources back.

[iNcog]

That's a nice map! Which one is it?

[niektb]

That's a nice map! Which one is it?

I think it is this one:

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19019&p=297329

[Llanos]

I think it is this one:

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19019&p=297329

yes it is

feel free to test it (and give feedback how to improve it), it should be balanced

[niektb]

I thought of a feature that dynamically balances (as in weak vs. strong player) the game:

Make the resource gather speed dependent on territory size.

This graph is of course only an example. But this approach could be used for various aims (by adjusting the values in the graph):

1. Give stronger opponents a slight handicap to make the game more interesting.

2. Give (little) room for late-game comebacks (Something you hear casual gamers complain about often)

3. Encourage early game expansionism (to get that ideal territory percentage) and discourage turtling (or the other way around).

4. It would also be fun if it could be changed by triggers to enable asymmetrical maps (attack / defense style).

5. Etc.

Edited August 23, 2014 by niektb

[Radagast.]

We can create a trigger map for this. Triggers are so powerful that they can change the GatherSpeed depending on the territory extent, given there is a nice way to determine territory size and I can't think of why there shouldn't.

We can use triggers to create feature demonstrations.

What Niek proposed could also influence morale. If a people is driven into the last corner of the map, their cohesion will increase and they will try a last rescue out of the dangerous situation on the battle fields.

The last (negative slope) part from 80% on could emulate that finally hope is gone when the enemy really becomes overpowering.

[lako3000]

We can create a trigger map for this. Triggers are so powerful that they can change the GatherSpeed depending on the territory extent, given there is a nice way to determine territory size and I can't think of why there shouldn't.

We can use triggers to create feature demonstrations.

What Niek proposed could also influence morale. If a people is driven into the last corner of the map, their cohesion will increase and they will try a last rescue out of the dangerous situation on the battle fields.

The last (negative slope) part from 80% on could emulate that finally hope is gone when the enemy really becomes overpowering.

so would we have gathering speed increased for less terratory or more terratory? it would be cool if it was for more territory and would make player push out more civil centres and fortress

[auron2401]

I agree. More territory making you gather slower would be a fine example of a large empire becoming increasingly more difficult to manage.

[niektb]

so would we have gathering speed increased for less terratory or more terratory? it would be cool if it was for more territory and would make player push out more civil centres and fortress

You could use it for everything.

[lako3000]

I agree. More territory making you gather slower would be a fine example of a large empire becoming increasingly more difficult to manage.

im the opposite, lol sorry but i think that if you get more land you should become stronger because it would encourage different styles of play from people.

ive recently been playing the map. Gear and i thought if this was added in with the more territory you have the quicker the villagers gathering speed or walking speed then you would be fighting over controll of the map. its more about controlling the map then units if this was added in and i like taht