Jump to content

Defining 0 a.d


av93
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that right now, that the game has a good shape and it's very advenced, it's important to define what direction had to choose. I said that, cause I think that is not clear enough, and it's important to define that for the desenvolupment.

For example, I don't have nothing agaisnt, getting morale, stamina, directional bonuses, etc (Total War style). But I think that this deign moves away the economical aoe style, cause it could be difficult to manage both aspects. With this post I want to debate and heat what devs want to do.

I find 4 models of RTS that I had play (some more than others)

Aoe games (Age of empires, Empires Earth, Rise of Nation..)

- Emphasis on economy (lot of resources)

- Emphasis on massing individual units without formations

- Hard counters (EE2 were too complex and crazy)

Blizzard games (Starcraft, Warcraft III)

- Simple economy (2 resources easy to manage)

- Soft counters

- Emphasis on individual units (more unique than aoe games)

- Emphasis on abilities and the right usage over massing units (micro)

Total War games

- Economy and warfare segregation

- Realistic warfare (Charge, Stamina, Morale, Direction bonus..)

- Units always in formations

Tactical RTS (Dow...)

-Simples economy of RTS

-Squads

-Tactical game (positions, reinforcementes, weapons, abilities)

So, what people say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to pigeonhole 0 A.D. into one category. IMHO

Yes, of course! But, as Prodigal Son said, has to get a balance.

Another thing that I think is that pyrogenesis should allow build a lot of kind of strategy games, but this is another topic.

Edited by av93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there's no need to directly copy one of those, the game has to get a fine balance between micro and macro if it is to get successful.

This is easy to agree on. :)

However, when you talk about difficulty and balance of features, I think it is important to think of gameplay like this: It should be easy to get good; difficult to be great. So, look at it this way: formations are an additional feature that adds management, balanced as you say with other concerns. But if you add directional bonuses it doesn't have to mean that the game has too much management, only that now the great player can have another thing to master. I am not saying this will be the case, but just an idea. Also, concepts can be made to be simple to the players (while underneath they are complex of course, the players doesn't need to see the gears turning, only the effect of the gears).

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...