Desired gameplay(planned) features for A23

[Servo]

Most of the fun and intense plays are team games on MP. IMO flaring and able to draw lines to signal allies are very important right now. Supplemented with taunts will enhance not just the gameplay but give chance to players who can’t type fast enough to send and understand messages. 

In RoN these features really enhance gameplay. Taunts even have sounds. Warning audios are also present if you are being attacked, messaged and/or flared. 

[Imarok]

7 minutes ago, Servo said:

Most of the fun and intense plays are team games on MP. IMO flaring and able to draw lines to signal allies are very important right now. Supplemented with taunts will enhance not just the gameplay but give chance to players who can’t type fast enough to send and understand messages. 

In RoN these features really enhance gameplay. Taunts even have sounds. Warning audios are also present if you are being attacked, messaged and/or flared. 

Flaring is totally wanted and planned, but it needs someone coding it... (And that is not that easy...)

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, elexis said:

Icons on the minmap are certianly desired. The minimap we have has only 120px * 120px however. So the art problem is as difficult as the code problem.

A greater minimap that pops up when clicking a button would be much better for communication and viewing details.

 

[elexis]

2 hours ago, Imarok said:

Flaring is totally wanted and planned, but it needs someone coding it... (And that is not that easy...)

Sure about that not that easy part? Adding a new entry in Commands.js and creating a local entity, similar to the target marker in D606 should likely suffice.

[SirPope]

49 minutes ago, elexis said:

Sure about that not that easy part? Adding a new entry in Commands.js and creating a local entity, similar to the target marker in D606 should likely suffice.

Adding a graphic to the mini-map (or over it) to show the location of the flare, and having that graphic be restricted to the mini-map area (accounting for scaling and possible movement of the mini-map). Then passing that information to allies. Reading it, and showing it, if you are an ally of the sender.

[elexis]

Nothing is passed to the allies since that is a simulation command and everyone derives the necessary rendering based on that.

Adding a dot to the minimap representing the flar shouldn't be an issue either by adding a MiniMap entry to the template of the flare.

Sending the other through the minimap instead of through the game view can be done in a separate patch, but ougt not be hard either because we have said GUI event already at hand.

[SirPope]

With this flare option it might be possible to tell the AI where you want to attack (or the player where it's attacking). An addition to the attack manager to look at that location or something.

[Imarok]

4 hours ago, elexis said:

Sure about that not that easy part? Adding a new entry in Commands.js and creating a local entity, similar to the target marker in D606 should likely suffice.

To me it seemed not that easy the last time I looked at it ( > 1 year ago...). But feel free to surprise me

[Servo]

Some game mechanics:

1. Farms can be built only or any farms can be occupied if a farmstead is built. 

2. Wood can be gathered only if there is a wood camp built. 

3. Metals and stones can be gathered only if there is a mine camp. 

This would limit early military unit spam early on...

Any thoughts?!

[Stan`]

27 minutes ago, Servo said:

Some game mechanics:

1. Farms can be built only or any farms can be occupied if a farmstead is built. 

2. Wood can be gathered only if there is a wood camp built. 

3. Metals and stones can be gathered only if there is a mine camp. 

This would limit early military unit spam early on...

Any thoughts?!

Isn't "Early military spam" called 'rushing' as opposed to 'turtling' and probably some other names I do not know ?
In this case isn't the ceasefire enough ?

[av93]

55 minutes ago, Servo said:

Some game mechanics:

1. Farms can be built only or any farms can be occupied if a farmstead is built. 

2. Wood can be gathered only if there is a wood camp built. 

3. Metals and stones can be gathered only if there is a mine camp. 

This would limit early military unit spam early on...

Any thoughts?!

It really won't make a real difference for rushing (maybe yes, depending in some maps)

[Servo]

Felfield once said the game without cavalry is really boring. I started playing no cavs game too but production of cavalry to gain advantage is not guaranteed unless specs are present. In case you trained some but told to delete will take a toll on your game early but would benefit if the deletion is delayed. 

Btw if there is option to toggle cav off on no cavs game should be nice to avoid wrong move and cheating. 

Also is there an option on next alpha for the hardest AI to sub a player who left? In some RTS games once a player drops there’s an option to convert a player who left to AI or the game into diplomacy. 

[SGK7019]

A ceasefire is enough in my opinion, and still; a storehouse and farmstead don't really cost much anyway, so I don't think it would stop rushing, only delay it to a point.

[SGK7019]

1 minute ago, Servo said:

Also is there an option on next alpha for the hardest AI to sub a player who left? In some RTS games once a player drops there’s an option to convert a player who left to AI or the game into diplomacy. 

I agree with the AI replacing leavers, but not at the hardest level. I believe that either the game should be paused after someone leaves and the players vote on the AI level or that it becomes an option before starting the game (like Resources, Ceasefire, Disable Treasures and so on) for the host to set the AI difficulty in case of someone leaving. Different levels of people play Multiplayer matches and some might have a hard time beating anything past Easy (such as myself). Also, the AI can sometimes be predictable so it could perhaps cause some unfair play between those who know how it works and those who don't.

[Servo]

Ceasefire won’t help the game especially on highly competitive players who really wants strategic gameplay. Ceasefire if fine for fun games only. 

[Stan`]

7 minutes ago, Servo said:

Ceasefire won’t help the game especially on highly competitive players who really wants strategic gameplay. Ceasefire if fine for fun games only. 

Isn't rushing a strategic gameplay ?

[av93]

IMHO, there's no sense of playing without cavalry games, if the balance is well done. No cav rules are showing that there's a problem of design or balancing. If a strategy is substantially superior (then others strategies aren't really choices) and doesn't have counters.

But there has been done a lot of talk in forums about the OPness of cavalry skirmishers rush, and they would be nerfed for the next alpha.

[Servo]

Rushing (neutralizing an opponent) is strategic but no depth and could end the game soonest whether team or individual games. 

Raiding (in lesser numbers) is much more better as it does not cripple the player totally. 

There’s been lots of talks about this (cav rush) already and so many ideas presented.

 

[Guest]

The main reason for the popularity of no cav games now is due to the fact that cav are OP. And yes, there is no need to play a no cav game when cav is nerfed.

[elexis]

Ceasefire was primarily implemented for nomad games so players can get up their initial CC. But indeed fun to use when going for a city-building match. But one can achieve the same with a last-man-standing mode.

Not considering build-order optimiztaion, rushes are more tactical currently (micro-management, deciding when to attack and when to retreat) than strategically (deciding sooner which units to build). That will change eventually when units are more diverse, maybe had some stronger counter effects.  No to not gathering without storehouses. Yes to skirm cav nerfing for a23 #4941.

[Servo]

IMO their easy production is making it OP. Nerfing a better performing unit is unproductive. Except that it is firing at any angles I have no complains at all. Idk how Hannibal Barca, Nescio and Wow did but they work really well and tweaking the melee cavs a bit made it much better. 

[Grugnas]

27 minutes ago, Servo said:

Rushing (neutralizing an opponent) is strategic but no depth and could end the game soonest whether team or individual games. 

Raiding (in lesser numbers) is much more better as it does not cripple the player totally. 

There’s been lots of talks about this (cav rush) already and so many ideas presented.

 

basically rushing is equal to raiding.

High mobility units excel at raiding thus excel at rushing =  cavalry excels at rushing.

Cavalry is always been OP at rushing since champions nerf in a20, most of players just didn't notice it because only 2 civs have spear cavalry available in phase 1 and 1 civ only has archer cavalry available in phase 1 ( i recall ptolemies doing quite good rushes in a20 ).

I recall to be one of the firsts to host few no cav games and they were fun but recently, after taking a break, i see more often no cav games. It is fun to mix units into different compositions and to try different strategies in games that won't insta-end. Battles seems more epic because expanding and defensive structures are more valuable.

Some may argue that having lethal cavalry isn't that bad at all, perhaps a team with some coordination could really put an opponent into trouble with cavalry only.

[av93]

Strategy is the overall way that you would develop in-game.
Tactics is more about situational decisions in a strategy context (mainly micro).

So making a rush is a strategy, but seems the mainly one, negating the others.

The difference between rushing and raiding, IMO, is that raiding doesn't aim to kill at once the player, just annoy or try to suffocate eco with a few units. Rushing would try to kill the enemy by force and numbers.

31 minutes ago, elexis said:

That will change eventually when units are more diverse, maybe had some stronger counter effects. 

Please.

We know that the debate about game design had been long and complicated. But something like planning the Alpha like a 2 phases (one for the features, and then for the design and balance?) wouldn't help? I know that should be the other way, but the game almost handle all the basic engine features of a RTS game, except abilities and battalion/squad system.

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by av93

[Servo]

Rushing/raiding kills the game. Putting ceasefire won’t change as players can still mass cavalries in few minutes(not much good player will like long minutes ceasefire ). Most of the newer players or majority plays with cavalry coz they haven’t known the strategy.

No cavalry is rendering spear infantry not very useful and takes a long and boring process before clashes begin especially if map is large and above. Right now cheating is possible if no specs.

Nomad is better setup but once you start late and locations are not team friendly the game can end sooner and unbalanced resources. Skirmish maps playable in nomad might improve the balance.

Most players are used to low resources settings right now as they are accustomed to but don’t want to try a cavalry game with very low resources that seems bettter. 

Its good to have more infantry battles but we can’t neglect the essence of cavalry in the game. Wars are fought with cavalries. The only problem is a consensus to limit its production early on.

[causative]

There are usually balance issues in any given major release.  Then it takes until the next release to fix them, and meanwhile the release under development has its own balance issues that are barely tested due to few people playing svn.  What is needed is a faster turnaround time to change the balance in the current major release.  This could be achieved with an official "balance mod" that touches only XML/JS so it can be updated to every client within hours, without having to wait for the next major release.  Components of the system:

1. When you start pyrogenesis, it checks if you have the latest version of the "balance mod" from an official wildfiregames server.  If not, it will prompt you to download and install it if you choose, and then switch to that latest version of it.  So, you would have multiple balance mods installed, one for each version, and the latest would be active by default.  The balance mod would be a very small download since it only has to change stats on a few units, so it would not increase server load much.
2. The game list in the lobby will display a concise abbreviation of the mod(s) for that game.  B-3 for example could be the 3rd version of the balance mod within the current release.
3. When you try to join a game with a mod that's not currently active, and you already have the mod, it will ask you if you want to switch to that mod.  If you do, pyrogenesis will restart with the mod active, and join the game.

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by causative