The varying costs of all buildings and units makes the economy very un-fluid. You could be building one thing and stalling one resource then change what you're building and stall a different resource. This makes part of unit choice controlled by economy instead of countering the enemy and could limit build orders and strats. Idk, you might want this say if someone is aiming for unit X which takes a lot of BP so they spam obelisks.
This does not have to be CA
It's so much easier to remember and use in CA. Anyway it doesn't have to be entirely normalised. There could be a different ratio for buildings, skeletons, t2, aircraft etc... It's just to make the whole economy easier to keep track of and manage. Widely different ratios discourage people changing their buildings because they've suddenly got to relearn what works all over again for a different set of drains.
Don't be so shy to say "it should be like CA" because many (not all) Spring games should be like CA. Deal.
CA's cost normalization is the best suited for Spring/TA-style economic system of slow resource drain purchases. In other games where you pay up front it's a different issue - you manage your economy according to your current "balance" to put it in bank account terms. In Spring you manage it based on your income and drain. If your income and drain are wildly changing every 2 seconds, you don't have stable numbers off of which to base your budget.
Heart of Darkness lets you morph certain buildings into better versions. Not sure what circle of corruption means, perhaps something planned for the future.
Firstly you've got a massive mess of special damages, these make the game really unintuitive for the player. I had a look and all units have their own % effectiveness of default damage against the 4 different ground armour types. There's no way for players too see this so they have to remember every single permutation of X vs Y on a case-by-case basis instead of thinking for example; 'this is good against fast things' and applying that knowledge elsewhere. So you might want to think of removing them. If not you could clean them up a lot and make them visible ingame. I noticed that most did decreasing damage to decreasing armour weight (ultraheavy to light), in this case there's no point, why not just give ultraheavy more hp? There are a few units with equal damage to all and then a few with more damage to ultra heavy then decreasing to light. You could condense the armour to 2 or 3 (light, med and heavy) and weapons to 2 or 3(anti light, normal vs everything and anti heavy).Keep the damages from the weapons to each armour type consistent. eg lightning does 25% more damage to heavy and 25% less to light. Heavy could be easily distinguishable by having flesh on the bones and light could be just bones.
Well - it is not that kind of a massive mess - ever looked at some of BA's or XTA's weapons... You are right - the damagetypes should be used more consistent. I like your 25% +/- suggestion and I'll drop one of the armortypes.
Quote:
The varying costs of all buildings and units makes the economy very un-fluid. You could be building one thing and stalling one resource then change what you're building and stall a different resource. This makes part of unit choice controlled by economy instead of countering the enemy and could limit build orders and strats. Idk, you might want this say if someone is aiming for unit X which takes a lot of BP so they spam obelisks.
That is changed. CarRepairer took up the cudgels for a more predictable economy already.
Quote:
What is suppose to be able to assist what? I found that obelisks could only assist necros and liche and that necros and liche could only assist other necros and liche. I got the impression that other people could do other things which could suggest a gadget that causes desync.
That is still a construction site - in the next release only necromancers and liches will be able to assist themselves and the Altar of Evil. There will be no other assisting elsewhere.
Quote:
The under construction green fuzz around buildings causes a lot of slow-down. Is an effect that detailed really necessary?
Doesn't have the effect for me unless I am building HUGE amounts of buildings at once - but maybe it is a question of hardware support. I can reduce the particle number though.
Quote:
Obelisks can reclaim enemy units almost instantly. I'd suggest disabling reclaiming enemies.
Apparently resurrect is near instant too which could be used in battles to make them never end. This was happening in the other universe than the one I was in so it may be caused by desync./quote]
OK - buggy bugs.
Quote:
Turrets and other things are FPSable which can be used to make them shoot further than they can.
I'll keep that in mind.
Quote:
Also for your burrow detection issue I suggest giving them a decloak radius. As suicide units and melees can be burrowed this would make melees of your own best for sweeping an area for burrowed units both because they're expendable and good at short range. This would also make them continue to be useful later on.
CarRepairer is already working on a script that makes Seer or Seekers able to spot burrowed enemies.
Thanks for the detailed feedback! That's the way we want to go!
knorke wrote:
same here, the fps go from ~100 to ~20.
Teeth/walls dont work, there is only smoke. If you select the smoke and press b there is a wall-sized hitsphere but it disappears when 100% complete.
The hovering radar plattform is cool, nice design.
Not sure if i like the units-build-units concept, always find that a little bit annoying.
Death animation of Bonebeast is cool.
The Heart of Darkness was buildable but I didnt notice any circle of whatever / techlevel being activated.
Looking forward to play this.
I like the units-build-units-concept - It is great! You can move your factories right to the front and away again! You are using the repeat button - aren't you? Besides that you have the same weird lua crash bug other people reported. I hope this will be history with the next release - but that is the reason why we need betas
The units-build-units is a mixed blessing. It's a fun concept to have. But it's harder to manage than a factory because a factory lets you easily add/remove units from the queue, set rally points using any command like move, fight, etc. Of course there is always a solution possible to make things easier, in lua.
Note that there's the widget by TheFatController called unit-mover which lets you set the Necromancer on repeat and build a bunch of units in a small area, and those units move out of the way when they are built. Perhaps there are ways this can even be improved upon but it works great. Not sure if it's included in the game but it should be, and on by default.
I also have the slowdown when I zoom into a building being built. It's really bad, like 5fps. But when I am zoomed out it's okay.
Note that there's the widget by TheFatController called unit-mover which lets you set the Necromancer on repeat and build a bunch of units in a small area, and those units move out of the way when they are built. Perhaps there are ways this can even be improved upon but it works great. Not sure if it's included in the game but it should be, and on by default.
It is the first widget I included - it is in the game since stoneage
I prefer moving factories as closed factories that can move like the carriers in THIS, not constructors that build units instead of buildings but that may just be me.
I prefer moving factories as closed factories that can move like the carriers in THIS, not constructors that build units instead of buildings but that may just be me.
Agreed. Either make a unit that morphs to/from a factory or duct-tape a factory onto the ass of a mobile unit so I can select the factory part separately from the mobile part. Factories provide too many UI advantages to be replaced with units-building-units.
that was already clear and this new post was unnecessary and rude
I did not diss his work or made an attempt to insult him, in fact it is a polite post to clear up any misconceptions since his reaction suggested he misunderstood what was said.
Variable drain is fine. If you WANT the player to have to invest in energy or BP rather than metal to be able to make a unit, that becomes a part of the meta strategy. In BA, id often switch to harassing with weasel/jeffy when i was low on metal, because they cost disproportionate amounts of e and BT but are still okay to contain enemy expansion. Specific economic states can dictate that you use specific units and adopt specific strategies.
But you need to keep this in mind when you design the game, not just plug in varying numbers on gut instinct. Try not to make it too hard on the player also, by trying to make it clear which units cost more of which resource.
KDR_11k wrote:
Regret wrote:
Great work.
And a great big piece of meat behind bars for the hungry modding community.
Might inspire them to learn cooking.
Says captain makes-100-mods-with-untextured-models (I kid, i kid, your shit is fantastic). But lack of quality, free, open source models and reliance on OTA does hold the entire spring community back. det was just asking politely that az reconsider. Regret on the other hand will keep being Regret and there is nothing any of us can do about that.
Thank you folks! At least some people are understanding here!
Just to clear up, I admire your work but I have no compassion with your licensing decision and its justification.
I do not diss your post or make an attempt to insult you, I just want to remind you to stop whining and respect the artist's decision of not wanting people take his stuff apart and poop on it.
I do not diss your post or make an attempt to insult you, I just want to remind you to stop whining and respect the artist's decision of not wanting people take his stuff apart and poop on it.
I do not respect such wishes. I find it to be primitive to forbid others from copying intellectual/digital property. But society is young, and such thoughts are shunned and find no understanding. Maybe in a different age.
But this is getting way offtopic and I will not debate this here anymore.
Unvariable drain fits CAs mex overdrive quite well, but it's not that good without it I think, otherwise it's just a pretty pointless clicking task of building the same amount of e production to go hand in hand with m production.
Though with no mm-like building and just a single e production building (at least didnt notice them on single try-out), I dont know how interesting the econ handling is with the current version - not to say it's bad, just dont see the dynamic yet with so little testing. What is the reason for having E as a resource in this game?
And seems to me too that turrets are too strong. Even if you attack a single unsupported turret with huge mass of skeletons or the like, the turret still makes cost and more... Ok I guess you could always just use only bonebeasts against them but that's not fun gameplay imo.
And I dont think anyone is interested to hear random peoples opinions on the games license here...
Unvariable drain fits CAs mex overdrive quite well, but it's not that good without it I think, otherwise it's just a pretty pointless clicking task of building the same amount of e production to go hand in hand with m production.
Though with no mm-like building and just a single e production building (at least didnt notice them on single try-out), I dont know how interesting the econ handling is with the current version - not to say it's bad, just dont see the dynamic yet with so little testing. What is the reason for having E as a resource in this game?
Energy is used as an economic limiter to stop rampart expansion as fast as possible being the only strategy. Energy lets people use the income from metal but it is not built in expansions which are easily raidable. It is a way of centralizing some economy investment. When mexes are raided the energy buildings that went with them is not lost so it is easier to re-expand. It also acts as an important target to protect. Energy is never just used for making more metal, it is mainly used for spending metal.
Quote:
And seems to me too that turrets are too strong. Even if you attack a single unsupported turret with huge mass of skeletons or the like, the turret still makes cost and more... Ok I guess you could always just use only bonebeasts against them but that's not fun gameplay imo.
If turrets aren't making cost then there's a problem. Turrets have the disadvantage of being unable to move which is a massive disadvantage.
Just to clear up, I admire your work but I have no compassion with your licensing decision and its justification.
Take a closer look at my quoting - It was not your statement I was refering to - yours was a quote in a quote...
Regret wrote:
I do not respect such wishes. I find it to be primitive to forbid others from copying intellectual/digital property. But society is young, and such thoughts are shunned and find no understanding. Maybe in a different age.
Guess you are a great advocator of digital piracy then. Don`t you think people have some kind of claim for their work - It does not matter whether you build a house or do digital art... Anyway - this does not belong here. If you feel like discussing it - please start a new thread. Let us focus on balancing and bugs here.
To the economy: Energy is also used as "upkeep". All units are constantly consuming energy - as well as the MEXes do. You need to built enough energy structures to support your unit AND to be able to continue metal extraction and unit production. I think it is a good thing to have the costs equalized to make the whole concept no more complicated. Btw. there are no metalmakers and there will be none in the future. Same thing is true for mex overdrive.
Google_Frog wrote:
If turrets aren't making cost then there's a problem. Turrets have the disadvantage of being unable to move which is a massive disadvantage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Home
Download
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
You are right - the damagetypes should be used more consistent. I like your 25% +/- suggestion and I'll drop one of the armortypes.
