Can 0-AD hear my prayers ?!

[Lion.Kanzen]

I believe you're not very well-informed about Scythe's Balancing Branch (not surprise branch), Qwerty. It has been tested over a couple of months by a couple of skilled players (not me) (but I believe you will find them in the SVN lobby rather than in the A17 lobby).

Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea to revive the Design Team (which seems to be rather dead since Michael and Alpha123 left). That team doesn't need to consist of the best players (although competitive player input is a must) around but rather with of the guys with good and clear ideas.

Yeah I'm worried about gameplay, the last alpha only have a new gameplay feature ( have new balancing of course but not new in gameplay) the units on walls.

The game had at last 2 features or 3 like town bell, Gui shortcuts , new commands, farm system.etc

Can be nice have trample damage, relic and victory modes, I'm boring uses same victory conditions, the multiplayer is Pettry funny with new game modes can be more nice, capturing Gaia and buildings etc. even mercensry camp system ( campturing System + dynamic random unit building)

[iNcog]

I kind of agree with Auron's sentiment. I only skimmed this thread, mind you, however there are few things that slightly annoy me.

First off, if you're going to criticize the game, which is a totally legitimate thing to do in my opinion, then be courteous about it. Everyone who comes into 0 AD definitely comes with their ideas and past experiences. You can indeed contribute your thoughts, ideas and past experiences to discuss certain aspects of the game. However that does not mean that you are right (or wrong) and that the game should be developed how you say it should be.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to join the forums and (somewhat aggressively) criticize the way things are done. Pathing and coding is being continuously worked on by marvelous people who spend their free time and utilize their skills to help the game. It's unreal that anyone would work on something so hard for free during their free time; this is why you must worship them and not criticize their work, which isn't finished anyway.

Similarly, the game design is being worked on. Anyone is free to come and contribute their ideas on how things you should be. The right attitude is to come in and discuss things rationally, using things like in game experience and past RTS experiences to back up your claims. The wrong attitude is to join the forums and tell people that what they're doing is wrong. It's somewhat insulting to those who have been working on this game.

This may seem a little rich coming from me since I have been very vocal about a lot of things concerning 0 AD in the past (counter system, tech pairing, what have you) however I've always attempted refrain from forcing my own ideas too much (i back up what i say with lots of arguing). It's also very difficult for a single person to design the game from ground up.

That post at the top of the thread was a just bit condescending. I understand some of the issues that that person is bringing up but he's not being very polite about it, so to speak.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I kind of agree with Auron's sentiment...etc

I feel the same, I'm very grateful with team, from more prominent to normal users, the game industry is very fussy and picky is normal. our work is not easy , I'm speaking as little and humble contributor, many devs are gone, being criticized for his work. I feel that I owe my leisure to you. and to carry this noble cause is a heavy burden, we need to encourage any effort to help the game itself as both a youtuber said, is a continución own Age of Empires under That focus is compared and hard criticized, the game is still in alpha visually superior. The gameplay is simple and great succesor, even is better than Aoe3.

[iNcog]

I believe you're not very well-informed about Scythe's Balancing Branch (not surprise branch), Qwerty. It has been tested over a couple of months by a couple of skilled players (not me) (but I believe you will find them in the SVN lobby rather than in the A17 lobby).

Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea to revive the Design Team (which seems to be rather dead since Michael and Alpha123 left). That team doesn't need to consist of the best players (although competitive player input is a must) around but rather with of the guys with good and clear ideas.

This is somewhat interesting. If I may,

I have been toying around with the idea of doing a total and completely new unit set for a bit now, mostly for playing around with different types of counter systems. I decided not to do it since it would be a lot of work and I don't feel like bringing to the table a completely new unit set while Scythe and his testers are actively working on something else.

My own unit set would be made from scratch though and made in a way so that units are designed to have a fill a role rather than being just numbers; I understand this was alpha123's original idea. I played around a bit in the map editor while doing this and the results I obtained were interesting to say the least, I had fun with the units I created by modifying their stats. The idea was to eliminate counters almost completely: only the bonus that spear infantry have against cavalry would remain (for realism AND because cavalry play a different fundamental role in my new unit set).

A simple example, archers vs skirmishers:

Whereas skirmishers and archers fill more or less the same role as of right now (ranged DPS), my new skirmishers and archers were quite different in the way they worked, I changed their numbers so that they fill two different roles. Here are the numbers:

Archers:

HP: 80

Attack: 12

RoF: attacks every second (12 dps)

Range: 30

Hack Armor: 1

Pierce Armor: 1

Speed: 8

Skirmishers:

HP: 80

Attack: 30

RoF: attacks every 3 seconds (10 dps)

Range: 18

Hack Armor: 1

Pierce Armor: 1

Speed: 9

The way that skirmishers work now is that they are harassed based units. They work as a way to do a lot of damage when they are being used to hit and run. This makes them a soft-counter to swordsmen and spear infantry, AS LONG AS they are being actively controlled by the player. In a straight up fight however, archers are actually much better. Archers have more range and more damage per second. So, if you're looking to fight a battle and you need to support your own melee units, then archers are a better unit to use. You also don't need to control your archers in a straight up fight, they stand still and they shoot arrows and they don't need to be move around (since they are behind a melee infantry meatshield, of course). This is a way to give units different roles even if they are the same type (ranged infantry).

Let's look at what I made swordsmen into:

Swordsmen:

HP: 200

Attack: 20

RoF: attacks every second (20 dps)

Hack Armor: 2

Pierce Armor: 1

Speed: 8

Swordsmen will easily beat both archers and skirmishers IF they can fight those units. Essentially, that means that depending the position of swordsmen, they are effective or they aren't. I tested this in the map editor. I first did 12 skirmishers vs 12 swordsmen and if both armies are a-moved, then the swordsmen win so hard it's not funny. However with hit and run, it's possible for skirmishers to win. Obviously if you are the player with swordsmen, you need to make sure that they aren't hit and run. Notice that you can use archers to protect swordsmen from skirmishers, since they are ranged units made from straight up fights..

I actually put a lot of thought into this, like you put wine in a barrel and wait for a bit, I put these ideas in my head and I have been thinking things over for the past 6 months. I only went over 3 units here, but I have a new role for almost every unit now. There are some hard-counters due to design, but no multipliers are used, except for spear infantry against cavalry. There are a lot of soft-counters in this new unit set as well. That said, the numbers I have come up with aren't set into stone and I think they need to be tweaked, I do have them on excel though.

The idea is that every unit has two of the following three attributes: strong hp / dps, range or speed. Basically we have the following units:

Archers: long range support units (long range, medium dps, low speed, low hp)

Skirmishers: short range harass units (short range, low dps, medium speed, low hp)

Slingers: short range support units (short range, medium dps, low speed, low hp)

Swordsmen: melee fighting unit (no range, high dps, low speed, high hp)

Spear Infantry: melee fighting unit (no range, high dps, low speed, high hp, good vs cav)

Swordscav: melee mounted unit (no range, high dps, high speed, very high hp) (EXPENSIVE)

Spear cav: melee mounted unit (no range, high dps, high speed, medium-high hp)

skirm cav: ranged harass mounted unit (medium range, very low dps, high speed, medium hp, large line of sight)

archer cav: ranged harass mounted unit (low? range, low dps, high speed, medium hp)

Roughly speaking, the counter circle is the following:

melee units hard counter ranged units if they can fight

spear infantry hard counter cavalry units

slow units are soft countered by harass units

harass units are soft countered by ranged support units

sword units soft counter spear units

Don't you criticize Age of Empires 3. </3 !!!

it's an excellent game in so many ways

[Lion.Kanzen]

Imlove Age of empires 3, but is not great as AOk , I love mercenary system, Trasure guardians, Gaia units, trading post features, researchable tactics, embassies system and Ai interactive with player

[Qwerty]

I know my "post tone" wasn't polite. It was intentional to bump the topic. Now I see who is alive/active.

Good answers. I surely respect those who have been day after day working on this game... I even commented 0 AD is growing in technical aspects... but overall Balance left much to desire.

I haven't played Alpha 16 (from what I read here, it's a even more discouraging), but I played Alpha 17 and mastered it in 1 week (played all civs, tried all land possible tactics, performed best timing persian chariot rush, etc). Let's say I tested it on my way, because lobby players were really under my power (No fun with less skilled people).

So I noticed many issues that can be improved, some are mathematical (elements values), other are systemic (better variety for food gathering branches).

You want some constructive idea... that's easy to do. The main issue is... since idea is coming from ME... I repeat ME , I don't want to be argued with statements such as "oh you want to impose your arrogant views". I want my any ideas to be considered objectively, not subjectively. It's NOT about ME, it's about the abstract ideas that could make a positive difference to the 0 AD game.

Just a little warm up -> FARMS in 0 AD.

The current system is equal to Age of Mythology. You pay initial resources, and gives you infinite food.

If the intention is to look similar to any of the widely known RTS, then no suggestion I make will surt effect.

That's why talking of changing for the best some core mechanic, while being ignorant of game designers crew real wishes, ends discouraging me.

Let's say now you are open to new ideas (possibilty of re-coding for a new farming system), of course after approval of people with authority regarding ingame mechanics.

I will explain further my suggestion. Next post.

[zzippy]

...... but I played Alpha 17 and mastered it in 1 week (played all civs, tried all land possible tactics, performed best timing persian chariot rush, etc). Let's say I tested it on my way, because lobby players were really under my power (No fun with less skilled people).

Ah, ok. So you are a master of this game. Maybe you can help scythe, who has absolutely no idea about it and also is a poor player, to improve the game?

[Itms]

Me warning auron about his tone doesn't mean you are allowed to say whatever mean thing crossing your mind about 0 A.D. players, Qwerty.
Also, I really dislike when I read "I know I wasn't polite".

Everyone here should try to think twice before posting, or we will lock this thread where interventions have been harsh since the beginning... Thanks for understanding, and please edit some posts above!

[Qwerty]

Ah, ok. So you are a master of this game. Maybe you can help scythe, who has absolutely no idea about it and also is a poor player, to improve the game?

Be nicer please zzippy. First of all, I do detect your childish "sarcasm"... pretty obvious.

Second, he has done great changes to A16, reading descriptions... he took the job to DO something, and yes it's "better" now in A17.

But there is so much to arrange that he has overlooked some aspects. We are humans after all.

In a positive comment towards the add-ons to A17, I praise the special wonder technology +50 pop cap because redefines its purpose in standard games (not wonder victory).

I'm always building wonders now in A17 lobby games, and NEVER ever saw any other player consider this (not even the top 10 guys from ranking).

Me warning auron about his tone doesn't mean you are allowed to say whatever mean thing crossing your mind about 0 A.D. players, Qwerty.

Also, I really dislike when I read "I know I wasn't polite".

Everyone here should try to think twice before posting, or we will lock this thread where interventions have been harsh since the beginning... Thanks for understanding, and please edit some posts above!

Okay... unpolite mode OFF. Now let's talk seriously, shall we?

I like this game being historically accurate, but I'd like it more if has more interesting features like the special wonder tech.

Well, not everything has to be tech-innovating, but we can do something regarding Food branches in order to have multiple ways to gather this vital resource.

When I think something, I like to make it symmetric... so Farming main antagonist is Breeding (sheeps).

Take note these values are just to give an overall idea of the "FOOD rework" I have in mind. Numeric values are always open to discussion (specially when testing).

FARM (1 to 4 gatherers)

Build time: 150

Wood cost: 150

Food amount: 300 (basic, can get +75 and +75 with new granary techs)

The idea is to have farms depleted fast, and then farmers re-seed it for free. You only pay 150 wood in the beginning.

So it wil be working in cycles... seed-recollect-seed-recollect -> the more farmers (max 4) faster the process.

RANCH (sheeps)

Process: After building 1 Ranch, sheeps come out 1 by 1 with time gaps till reaching a max of 4 sheeps x Ranch.

These sheeps come out and stay in front of the building choosen direction... waiting to be slaughtered by your citizens or horse skirmishers.

Ranch itself is a food deposit (like granary), and has its own economic techs (faster sheep breeding or +food per sheep).

Build time: 100

Wood cost: 200

Food amount: 100 by sheep (basic, can get +25, and +25)

Sheep auto-breed: 1 quick after Ranch is finished, then each 50 secs (basic, can get -10 secs, and -10 secs)

Starting from a basic [100 food x sheep each 50 secs] it can be upgraded to end having in the Urban 3rd phase -> [150 food x sheep each 30 secs]

----------------------

I have other ideas in mind for food resources that in general deplete and we don't see them again.

They all got a Regeneration value, meaning they can replenish their food, always at same rate.

The issue here is to micro your gatherers... let's say you collect OK a bush with 5 gatherers, BUT while you get recollection or capacity techs, those 5 gatherers will start consuming the bush faster than its regeneration rate. If you overlook this and bush reaches 0 HP, then you lose that food resource... and your gatherers may start a chain effect, going to neighbour's bushes with "ideal amount of gatherers" and that way screw that FREE food resource.

If you pay attention in time to micro your fruits gatherers, you don't lose the resource AND you liberate at least 2 gatherers to give them other activities (you still take same food rate but with now 3 citizens instead of 5, due the continues tech researchs that improve their performance).

Bushes 200 hp

Apple tree 400 hp

Fish shoal 1000 hp

Whale shoal 2000 hp

So yes, I intend that "regeneration value" is also applied in water resources, tough obviously each shoal will be able to hold more fisher boats (than the land counter-parts).

These resources regenerate... but can be totally depleted if you misscalculate/neglect that new techs boost your gatherers capacities.

---------------------

It's much to read, but you wanted some opinion and less complaining. I hope some suggestion could make it into the next alphas.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Qwerty

[niektb]

[...]

They all got a Regeneration value, meaning they can replenish their food, always at same rate.

The issue here is to micro your gatherers... let's say you collect OK a bush with 5 gatherers, BUT while you get recollection or capacity techs, those 5 gatherers will start consuming the bush faster than its regeneration rate. If you overlook this and bush reaches 0 HP, then you lose that food resource... and your gatherers may start a chain effect, going to neighbour's bushes with "ideal amount of gatherers" and that way screw that FREE food resource.

If you pay attention in time to micro your fruits gatherers, you don't lose the resource AND you liberate at least 2 gatherers to give them other activities (you still take same food rate but with now 3 citizens instead of 5, due the continues tech researchs that improve their performance).

Bushes 200 hp

Apple tree 400 hp

Fish shoal 1000 hp

Whale shoal 2000 hp

So yes, I intend that "regeneration value" is also applied in water resources, tough obviously each shoal will be able to hold more fisher boats (than the land counter-parts).

These resources regenerate... but can be totally depleted if you misscalculate/neglect that new techs boost your gatherers capacities.

[...]

I actually got the same idea yesterday and I think it could really work! I think however of using the same approach on farms, with one difference however compared to the indefinite resources (like bushes and fish): the farms do not disappear when they reach 0. Instead the farm regenerates back to full resource capacity (unless you ofc. keep on gathering with a large amount of citizens) but with the option to the player by using a ability that instantly turns the farm to full capacity at the cost of a certain amount of wood (rather than building a new farm, which has the same effect).

Edited November 11, 2014 by niektb

[iNcog]

If the farms are automatically re-sown when they're depleted and it's done so for free, then why implement this feature at all? Besides giving coders even more work, that is. It doesn't add any necessary actions for players, since everything is done for free and automatically. The only difference is that instead of putting 5 villagers on a farm, I'll put 4. This changes nothing?

I don't care about berries though since berries are an early game resource, they don't have upgrades for them in the mid to late game and they get in the way of buildings. Nietkb's idea of having farms needing to cost wood to generate back to full food is an interesting one, though the amount of interest it actually adds to the game is minimal in my opinion. A player like me will probably simply pay the wood each time a farm gets depleted every time. This adds a mechanical task, yes, but it doesn't add that much to the game itself, in my opinion.

I personally think farms are fine, perhaps they need to have their numbers tweaked. If you want to make them more interesting, why not give them some interesting upgrades? Decrease their build time, allow more villagers to work on a single farm, increase their output, and so on? Give players stepping stones to set up a stronger economy.

If you want to make other food sources viable, why not change the way Corrals work? Why not give villagers the ability to plant apple trees or olive trees?

Either way, each and every proposition made in this thread is hours of work for the coders. So while it's fun to discuss things you always have to keep the coders in mind. Your changes are nonsensical in that they add a big workload for coders without actually adding much to the game. You'll notice I took the time to directly discuss your proposed changes before turning to you.

Your subsequent posts in this thread are even more condescending than your original post in the thread I notice. "i was intentionally rude", "good answers", "zzzippy is childish", "no fun with less skilled people", "people won't listen to my ideas because they come from me". You're still a rude person and your ideas aren't really all that great. "i have mastered A17 in a week" is a joke, if you even knew how RTS games work at all, you'll realize how vertically stupid that comment was. There is no mastering an RTS, period. The meta-game in any RTS is constantly, constantly evolving.

Go beat the likes of borg, wesono and tau every game and then come back and tell us how you've mastered the game. Until then, keep that ridiculously arrogant attitude of yours to yourself.

[niektb]

[...]

I don't care about berries though since berries are an early game resource, they don't have upgrades for them in the mid to late game and they get in the way of buildings.

[...]

That can be changed I suppose? I mean, upgrades can be easily added and about obstructing building placement: isn't that the case of every resource? Or is it poor placement of the bushes by the map designer?

[...]

A player like me will probably simply pay the wood each time a farm gets depleted every time. This adds a mechanical task, yes, but it doesn't add that much to the game itself, in my opinion.

[...]

But you'll be rewarded if you invest some time in finding a good strategy, rather than paying the amount of wood every time it empties. (that's the idea behind it) Think of something like field rotation where 1 field is being gathered and the others regenerate (that would be a possible strategy). Some math (or the charts mod) is needed to calculate/determine the effect of such regeneration concept but in itself it can add some depth to the economy.

Edited November 11, 2014 by niektb

[iNcog]

Why change berries though? Aren't they fine as they are right now?

For farms, well I still don't understand the use of adding a rotation mechanic. All it actually does is require a player to execute more actions to get the most out of his farms. I don't particularly mind mechanical tasks but if you're going to have them, shouldn't they add to the game?

The way you're describing this feature is that it seems that you need to actively micro-manage your villagers to get the most income out of your farms. That doesn't add anything it just makes things harder for no reason. You might as well remove rally points as well while you're at it, since it does the exact same thing: if you want to get the most out of your units you'll have to micro-manage them.

I would have thought that properly managing dropsite placement, citizen-soldier income and villager allocation was already interesting enough in terms of economic management. Not to mention we have things like Caravans to generate resources as well.

I can understand the desire to make farming more interesting in the game but I don't think that making them harder to manage mechanically speaking is the right way to do it.

I think upgrading farms is a better way of doing it; imagine for example training an ox in the corral. If you task the ox to a farm, that farm has increased production. This is a simple example but one that I think is more interesting than simply moving villagers around, since it's more about investing resources to make a certain building perform better.

You could maybe even train oxen to be tasked to storehouses. A oxen tasked to a storehouse becomes a mobile dropsite, for example it could carry 500 resources on its back and bring it back to the storehouse so that villagers can concentrate on gathering resources instead of moving them around or something.

For you it becomes interesting to make sure that every farm and storehouse has its ox to work with, for the enemy it becomes a juicy raiding target.

Idk, I just came up with this idea on the spot, but it's the kind of thing that would add more to the game than making things hard would be.

[Qwerty]

I know every "just words idea" is an amount of work for a developer. The only way to get this approved by them is that is attractive enough... AND, I also mentioned that I'm ignorant respect their original master plan. Even so, I'd suggest something to make 0 AD more unique.

But yes... Everything is coding as long as we are in ALPHA. If an idea is satisfactory attractive, why not trying it and get 1 step ahead of traditional RTS?

Practically all reknown RTS, have berries that deplete in time, and all urban plannings look like "FarmLand" in lategame.

0 AD can distinguish in much more other ways than simply technical section or history accuracy. What about the ingame mechanics to obtain food?

One of the things to make FARMS not such an obligation is having these alternative food resources viable along with it.

Do you choose Main Food between extensive farming or many corral sheeps? Each civilization may have bonus that favour slightly 1 or other route.

Farms and Corrals will tend to compete each other in Mechanics... so the Corrals sheep/time gap should be accurate as to have max 4 working per Corral.

Wood/Metal/Stone: You already have to micro them, specially woodcutters to move them into virgin forests or build forward drop sites closer to the "working area".

I actually got the same idea yesterday and I think it could really work! I think however of using the same approach on farms, with one difference however compared to the indefinite resources (like bushes and fish): the farms do not disappear when they reach 0. Instead the farm regenerates back to full resource capacity (unless you ofc. keep on gathering with a large amount of citizens) but with the option to the player by using a ability that instantly turns the farm to full capacity at the cost of a certain amount of wood (rather than building a new farm, which has the same effect).

I also think it could work, making everything in game with a fixed regeneration/replenish rate (if you achieve coding one, the rest is easier I suppose).

After all my suggestion for Corrals is exactly that but in blocks of sheeps 100 + 100 + 100 + 100

In current game, you get the classic AoM (mythology) set. Also to consider... the realistic world 0 AD wants to recreate.

Abusing 1 food source and move into next one is very classical system... now distributing your gatherers in order to be as efficient as possible is something new.

iNcog is right that in the end... is just another way to get the same... food gathering.

My answer is that is not the end, but the how, what gives identity to a game.

[iNcog]

It's like you didn't read my post at all.

[Stan`]

In current game, you get the classic AoM (mythology) set. Also to consider... the realistic world 0 AD wants to recreate.

Mind to clarify ?

[Qwerty]

It's like you didn't read my post at all.

Yes I did. We are actually in the same side. If it's possible to make food gathering different to general RTS, then proposing is nice.

However we should consider developers intentions to "change anything at all". What I refer now... is that even if your or my or the other guy idea is interesting... our suggestions will stay in "nothing" if developers do not consider making food different to other RTS (extremely low priority for them)... So it's like being waiting maybe 2-3 years, and see nothing changed.

Is it worth making a unique 0 AD food gathering? Yes.

Is it necessary for today? Not really. So yeah... We will have the cheap extensive farmlands (usually 15-20) and no Corrals for the time being till Alpha +30...

Mind to clarify ?

Age of Mythology has the same Farms that you pay initial cost (70 for most, 200 atlantean), and last forever (infinite gathering).

There is no-rebuilding (which in Age of Empires 2, makes you pay same Wood cost: 60)

I was thinking in my original suggestion that farms are only paid in the beginning... and need rebuilding, but this is automatically and doesn't take wood (which makes difference with AoE)

The only way this works.. is that instead of giving lots of foods per charge, it gives very little -> 200 or 300, and then rebuilding time is of 100 or 150 secs.

Sounds crazy, but is unique and works in the same way would work in real life. Farmers will be seeding lots of times, part of the real life with the different seasons/rotative cultives.

You can build extensive farming again... but the idea is to compete against the extensive corrals choice (which generates sheeps between time gaps-> I explained my system idea)

The current Corrals are not attractive at all, compared to the Farm system... so reworking Corrals in order to have that automatic sheep breeding, is what makes both main food branches balanced.

I hope I didn't extend much about this issue... In a personal taste, I referred to food resources coming within MAP generation, to have replenish rates: berries, apples grow with time, and shoals of fishes reproduce as well (could also be applied to hunting, so if abusing this method, all animals are killed without leting them reproduce, etc)

It's all just a innovative game "food system". If developers prefer to focus in other issues... I don't blame them. I perfectly understand.

[zzippy]

The current Corrals are not attractive at all, compared to the Farm system...

Sure they are. They need no pop slots to work, only a few (eg skirmcav to slaughter sheep). Given a popcap, which normally is 300, its a good choice in lategame to abandon farms and go for corrals. You can have ~50 soldiers more this way than a farming opponent, also use the former gathering women as arrow attractors in an attack.

Edited November 13, 2014 by zzippy

[iNcog]

With constant sheep production, a single corral produces ~ 3 food / second.

[Qwerty]

The current Corrals are not attractive at all, compared to the Farm system...

Sure they are. They need no pop slots to work, only a few (eg skirmcav to slaughter sheep). Given a popcap, which normally is 300, its a good choice in lategame to abandon farms and go for corrals. You can have ~50 soldiers more this way than a farming opponent, also use the former gathering women as arrow attractors in an attack.

With constant sheep production, a single corral produces ~ 3 food / second.

Corrals are not efficient as they need Manual handling, while Farms are Automatic...

A player will not be moving his farmers into corrals in lategame. He will be focused in the fighting and expansion which takes LOTS of attention.

So you think is wise to move into Corrals? Noone would ever do that. It's adding another manual action to your attention... training sheeps manually.

IF you think Corrals are worth in the current state... I have no more words for you.

Feels like talking to people who just talks from the "theory" and has never seen the "practise" of such statements.

Jeez... Whatever.

[Stan`]

Well you can automate them. Easy Add some goats. Make workers gather food on them while they are working recruit new goats. If done correctly you don ´t have to micro anything.

Also zzippy is quite a good player (Think before you speak.)

[Prodigal Son]

Qwerty if you consider the corrals worthless because they require extra micro and because the late game needs your attention elsewhere, why suggest adding micro to farms as well? That would just have the same result for farms.

Imo corrals actually work pretty well if you're willing to manage them, but as a macro player I avoid them to focus on other things. But when I experimented using them, I ended up with an insane food production using only a few horsemen in the late game and a mass of extra sheep filling my base.

Btw editing the game files for my mod I came across an idea for fully implementing the corrals in their supposed role:

Sheep can get a garrison-type aura adding a food tickle and get allowed to be garrisoned only in corrals (if that's not already the case). I think it's possible without extra code.

[iNcog]

Corrals are not efficient as they need Manual handling, while Farms are Automatic...

A player will not be moving his farmers into corrals in lategame. He will be focused in the fighting and expansion which takes LOTS of attention.

So you think is wise to move into Corrals? Noone would ever do that. It's adding another manual action to your attention... training sheeps manually.

IF you think Corrals are worth in the current state... I have no more words for you.

Feels like talking to people who just talks from the "theory" and has never seen the "practise" of such statements.

Jeez... Whatever.

The only thing I said was that a single corral, with constant sheep production and absolutely 0 queue time will produce ~ 3 food / s. That's literally the only piece of content in that post. I never said that Corrals are good to use, nor did I say they were bad. I didn't have an opinion on the topic so I simply stated a simple fact.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Pardon the expression, but are you an idiot?

Edited November 13, 2014 by iNcog

[LordGood]

Let's keep this thread tame, guys.

[Stan`]

Let's keep this thread tame, guys.

It was missing some ponies =D