Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 344 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Production overflow? #228269

    Overflow is totally possible if the game is designed for it, and as people pointed out would make sense for a combat focused game like aow. As BBB said earlier, it would allow a different design where spamming low tier chaff is the most efficient but higher tier units could be weenie smashing monsters. A lot of tier 4 units already do this (anything with an area effect attack basically).

    This could make for some pretty interesting units and more variety, especially if production wasn’t always exactly equal to a unit’s cost. You could have powerful units be cost effective but slow to produce. Armies would end up having a lot of cheap chaff and a few powerhouses. As someone mentioned this sort of design would work better with bigger armies, similar to how TW games work.

    I don’t think the modding tools we’re being given will allow game engine changes enough to test that sort of change out though. We could edit the units but not overflow itself I think?

    in reply to: Feature Request: Map Ping/Draw on Map #223798

    Having AI allies respond to it like the do in total war would be pretty slick too. It would add another level of interaction. When AI were given little taunts and groveling and other interactions people really loved it, more of that would be really well received. The more an AI feels like a human player the better.

    in reply to: Feature Request: Map Ping/Draw on Map #223788

    Absolutely agree. Other games have done it and it works really well, very helpful for allies to coordinate. Perhaps only have allies see what each other draw? Or be able to select players that you are sending the map information to, similar to how you send text messages but able to send to more than one person at a time?

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #208631

    Yuriohs, are you up for our first round game this weekend? I didn’t see you in the steam group but I should be free any day this weekend.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #199404

    I’m game. Making a new steam group or using the one from last year?

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172800

    No one said that. It was just said that efficiency becomes a parameter AS WELL. In addition. Not the ONLY parameter. And that it makes things less clearcut.<br>
    It has become a bad habit to argue against things no one said.

    Dude, scroll up a bit. You yourself just posted saying that it is totally fun and awesome that you get punished for building what you need.

    I can tell you, why I like it the way it is.<br>
    With rollover, when I have 65 production and want one or more Flamers – I produce them. Period. Not much to think about, except, DO I need a unit, if yes, which one.

    The way it is now, I can’t do that, because I wouldn’t make BEST use of my town’s production capacity. Not only that, I can go a lot more into detail, start working out the “critical” production values for a town (for example, 70, for a regular Archer, what does the T3 cost in relation to it and the buildings, seventyFIVE being probably better, and so on) and make a plan how to get to the critical values most economically.

    In short, it’s more of a challenge.

    This is some serious stockholm syndrome. There isn’t a meaningful player choice here. If a player needs or wants an archer, then they build an archer. The very start of your post is exactly the point of the game: What does the player want? Build that. That *is* the game. The whole point people are making is that even if you spend time and resources to acquire more hammers in order to build that certain thing you want you end up wasting more of them unless they luck into an exact fit. Also, your examples always focus around producing one specific thing that you custom build a city to try to meet that exact hammer amount for. This is inherently silly. At any given time players will need a variety of things. That is where depth in strategy comes from. Player choice and consequence. If the best way to play is to set up every city and leave it on autoproduce all game there is very little left for the player to do. It isn’t more engaging or productive, it is *vastly* less, you are taking *away* player choice.

    Fortunately this is as useful as it is interesting, which is to say not at all. Players are encouraged to build a variety of things and to fluidly change the focus of cities as the game progresses. Having your backline focused on production means it takes longer for reinforcements to reach the front, so players are always encouraged to shift backline cities to economy if they can manage production closer to the action. This inherent aspect of the game makes this weird hammer micromanaging game you invented rather pointless as by the time you have hand groomed a city to produce one specific unit wasting as little as possible you have probably conquered three more cities. Games are also relatively short compared to something like civ, and focused on action, not on micromanaging details. The only depth to the economic side of AoW is “do I need more money or mana so I can make more swords and fireballs to murder my enemies” and “if I need more resources I should murder my enemies to get them”. The game does combat well and focuses heavily on that.

    Even if the game was completely overhauled to be more like civ and focused heavily on producing various resources it still makes sense for player choice to be focused on what to do with those resources. Even civ players strive to reach some kind of victory condition, the fun in the game is from actually playing the game. If you get enjoyment out of optimizing spreadsheets that is great, I’m happy for you, and you can still build perfectly optimized cities even with this change and get excited as you see your hammers match the only unit you will ever build there.

    In the end though this whole discussion is pretty pointless as this will likely not get fixed without mod tools, and probably not even then unless the community can step up and write mods complicated enough to actually patch the game itself. This sort of thing would have been a while ago, like it was with shadow magic, if it was nearly as easy. The people that made those mods are still around and as far as I know haven’t bothered to even try with aow3.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172781

    Ah, I only dabbled in shadow magic with a popular community modpack. Played the heck out of the Master of games back in ye olden years, but never even knew AoW existed in its prime. When I saw someone else talk about previous games with rollover I just assumed that was how they originally worked since that was how the post was worded and it makes sense. Going back I’m seeing the popular mod actually changed a few things like that, that I assumed worked that way from the start because it makes sense to do so.

    In that light it makes more sense that AoW3 has a little history of questionable mechanics being fixed in patches. I just assumed it would eventually get on the list, like naval transports taking a year to fix after several patches to nerf them that didn’t seem to understand at all what the problem was. Or the hilariously broken economies at release that were brought in line in a number of ways in the first patches. Of course there were still people raging and demanding changes be reverted pretty often even back then so I suppose you really just can’t please everyone no matter what you do.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172762

    Yeah Quo is right, saying something doesn’t roll over because you choose not to use it is silly. Technically you are free to choose to never cast or build anything all game, and you are getting the theoretical possibility of using 100% of your income, just choosing never to use it. This is a really stupid thing to say though as it is completely pointless. It has been used a couple times now and only serves to sound silly.

    People saying that you should simply plan around such a rounding error are using yet another fallacy, that the only thing a player should ever build is exactly what can use the most hammers without wasting them. Go ahead, build a settler every turn, try to conquer something with them. A play must build what they need because of actual gameplay concerns, be it an archer or a settler or anything else. Even now there are reasons to build low tier units later in the game, if infrequently, for defense and scouting. The player is just punished for doing so. Players cannot seriously be punished for choosing to build something because they need it; there is no actual choice there. If you need an archer you build an archer. Saying that maximizing production output is a crucial game skill is simply false. The player must choose what to do with their hammers based on what they actually need. Higher tier units are extremely limited and mostly cavalry, so the only time you could actually use this argument of “build a tier 3 instead to use more hammers” is if all you ever wanted to do ALL GAME is build cavalry. Or whatever your higher tier is. The point is that *all building projects are not identical* and what you get from them is different! This is in fact the entire point of building things. By keeping this rounding error you are punishing players, especially new players, from actually trying to play the game. Building a higher tier that you don’t have a plan for is not going to be useful. No one leaves tier 4s on backline garrison duty because it is wasteful and doesn’t even provide that much firepower from the walls compared to archers. All buildings do not have the same strategic use, so the player’s choice comes in what to build when, NOT in “how can I lessen the amount this poor mechanic screws me” because if you focus on that you aren’t building what you necessarily need, so you are just screwing yourself. It is a pointless argument. It has been used before and it was pointless before.

    The player can, if they choose to, actually use CP because it DOES roll from one project to the next. You are able to spend any remainder after one finishes on the next. If building worked exactly like CP this thread wouldn’t exist, because this is exactly what people want.

    Saying you can’t call something inconsistent because the game itself is inconsistent is also madness. That is actually the entire point. That is what the word means. Also, as people have pointed out, not is it inconsistent within itself but with other similar games as well as the previous games in the series and MoM on which they are based.

    So yes, it is inconsistent, on top of being very unintuitive and adding difficulty to balance and hamstringing the AI and every other thing that has been brought up already in this thread.

    As people have mentioned before, there are plenty of reasons for this to work this way. Someone earlier made a nice list. All the reasons against have been systematically debunked. As Quo mentioned the only discussion left against the idea is blind fanaticism ignoring any and all of the calmly and thoroughly thought out points made multiple times by different people. Either desperate fear of change or simple misunderstanding is all that is left.

    in reply to: Team games… #172546

    The main thing about coop is that human players don’t get knocked out unless you win generally. FFA games are difficult to play with friends since you basically tell each person as they are knocked out to go sit on the bench and don’t come back. Most people, when playing a game with friends, are doing it to play WITH their friends, so this isn’t really acceptable gameplay unless you are playing with bots or random players.

    Probably why coop maps are so popular on the steam workshop.

    People have made some interesting suggestions to keep players in the game after losing. These generally involve putting them back in the game so they can keep playing but at a big disadvantage. Something like having them take over a random neutral town and throwing their throne in it, having them take over for an AI, or turning them into a vassal, or allowing other players to accept them as refugees through diplomacy and gift them stuff to bring them back into the game to help them. The basic idea of all similar suggestions being that while a human player may only have a slim chance of winning once knocked out they can at least keep playing.

    in reply to: Tigran and Frostling economic advantage #172418

    The beta itself is getting patched frequently. It’s an exciting time to be playing with fixes and tweaks coming out so quickly.

    in reply to: So how do we pronounce it? #172417

    They sound adorable now matter which way you say their names.

    Blight debuffs attached to damage spells or attacks are common enough that, as has been pointed out, spending a turn to wipe a debuff when your opponent can attack you *and* put the debuff back on is pointless. The few blight debuffs that act like spells, taking up the whole turn, and don’t do damage (so curing would be an equal use of actions to counter it) tend not to be important enough to bother with. As someone mentioned, mind control can swing a battle. Curse is annoying and can lead to a unit’s death combined with other attacks, but it doesn’t directly steal the unit by itself. It just isn’t a big enough threat to care, and curing the disease still leaves the source of it ready to curse or poison you again.

    Even using break control to counter mind control is generally less useful than killing the controlling unit if you have that option to be honest. Taking enemy units out is always a good thing. Any ability that spends a turn not killing enemies has a big inherent drawback.

    in reply to: Team games… #172380

    Because of the state of multiplayer there is essentially zero support for public pick up and play games. People play with their friends or those from community groups almost exclusively because of this.

    That being said, the game isn’t on Bnet so if you are going to play with your Bnet friends they are going to have to get GoG or steam anyway.

    As plenty of others have said: never used it, could use a buff, the things it effects are generally not worth spending a turn to wipe when you can do something else with that unit.

    Very impressive!

    As for campaign vs RMG I think even the people that exclusively play single player can only play a pre-made campaign or scenario a limited amount of times before it becomes stale, while the RMG allows for nearly infinite replayability.

    They each have their place, since you can have interesting gimmicks and events in handcrafted maps, but the bulk of play is going to be on RMG for anyone that plays for very long.

    In theory competitive multiplayer would benefit greatly from handcrafted maps, but mapmakers on the workshop seems to focus entirely on coop or themes copying famous sources (tolkien, g.r.r.martin, warhammer,etc). This is probably due less to maps and more to the state of multiplayer though.

    in reply to: How Do You Feel About Mini-DLC? #172335

    As long as the price matches the size of the offering in a sensible way I’m happy with pretty much anything. A big package of stuff that costs more or two small ones that cost less comes out to the same content for price in the end. If breaking it up means faster delivery, or means optional stuff can be easily skipped by some that don’t like it without changing their game, it makes for a smooth experience everyone can enjoy.

    As long as stuff continues to be of such great quality I’ll get it regardless of size. Big or small doesn’t really matter to me, I just want to see this great game gets lots of love for quite some time and I’m sure plenty of others feel the same way.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172296

    There is no way that rollover of production or research would be hard to implement since it is already in the game. Ground pickups and happiness events already allow rollover, so the ability to do it is already there.

    As for needing a balance pass, units already have a cost and are balanced around that. It makes it *easier* to balance, since 1 hammer always is worth 1 hammer with rollover.

    If there is a very real fear that spamming garbage tier irregulars would become a strategy so dominant as to eclipse everything else….you could always limit rollover to only happening once per turn. That would still allow you to keep hammers in 99% of cases while only stopping that one exact strategy. Seriously though who fears an army of civic guards showing up at their city when you can only bring a few stacks into the fight? The equivalent cost even in other tier 1 units can split stack them to death without breaking a sweat even without abusing simultaneous turns, simply because there is a limit to how many stacks you can bring into a fight.

    As for making the AI a better player it usually needs all the help it can get just to keep its head above water in my experience, though it is much improved with the beta patch!

    in reply to: How Do You Feel About Mini-DLC? #172284

    Small optional dlc is fine, stuff like cosmetics or unit packs like total war does are a proven way to release small chunks of content.

    I will buy pretty much anything they put out.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172180

    Quo makes really good points and explains them quite well. As he mentioned earlier, a system of production rollover (used by most games similar to this, even earlier games in the series and the master games they are based on as people have already pointed out) actually makes balancing costs of units much *easier* since players get a predictable amount of use out of their hammers. As Quo pointed out, the current broken system can make a single hammer worth a 50% increase, and 50 hammers can be worth 0%.

    Rollover makes judging the costs and balancing much easier on everyone involved and should probably have been that way from the start. There is a reason other games do it, and even within AoW 3 there is rollover on other resources so it isn’t even consistent in itself. Rollover makes sense to players and makes the dev’s job of balance consideration easier. If anything needs cost adjustment because it is too cheap or expensive then it would need that *anyway* even with the current system because you still have to pay those costs.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #172047

    Look at how wrong I am about everything

    Ok so let’s go over each of your points. Again.

    Hammers are a resource just like everything else. You’re right, you don’t HAVE to spend them any more than you have to spend any resource. You can sit there not spending gold all game if you want. While technically true this is also really pointless, you are saying “well you don’t have to play the game”.

    Hurry production does not equal production rollover. It never has. Yes, you can pay extra gold and happiness to build things faster. No, this has nothing to do with rollover.

    Building merchandise, knowledge, etc: as wuffy pointed out, hammers probably SHOULD have an impact on those abilities. That is how it works in every other 4x ever pretty much, including Moo and MoM that AoW has built its legacy copying in pretty much every way right down to the icons. Also it makes sense that a town focused on production would get more use out of production than a town with crappy production. This isn’t even in question, it is like wondering if one plus one should equal two.

    Lastly, your own math explains just how silly the current system is. You are actually doing a great job explaining why so many people would like to see it changed.

    in reply to: Multiplayer suggestions #171895

    A bit like trying to put a band aid on a chainsaw wound. Anything to improve multiplayer is good in my book though.

    #2 doesn’t work at all. The overhyped 15 seconds rule just means you wait 15 seconds and get into exactly the same clickwar as you would have 15 seconds earlier. It helps nothing. Having everyone wait until the end of the turn to all move at once doesn’t help for the same reason.

    As people have already said, #1 would be really nice but only if it scaled with the amount of units in the fight, otherwise people can waste a lot of time on a scout skirmish or have no time at all to move in a big battle.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #171886

    Well firstly I don’t think they are actually going to fix this. But I think we need a math moment here.

    What the current mechanic does is reward you for building units and structures that are evenly divisible by the number of hammers you have. The number of hammers it takes to build something always rounds up.

    Where this becomes especially noticeable is the HUGE difference between being able to produce a unit in 1 turn versus 2 turns.

    City A has 45 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit/2 turns.<br>
    City B has 50 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit a turn.

    Even though 50 hammers is only 10% better than 45 hammers, when that increase puts you over the hump and 1/turn versus 2/turn, it’s a 50% difference. If it doesn’t get you over the hump at all, it’s a 0% increase, which is equally bizarre.

    This is why many games allow hammers to roll over. It’s actually more broken and prone to abuse not to have them roll over because it means its hard to predict how much of a bonus +10 or +5 hammers or whatever actually is.

    FWIW the main time you actually have to worry about hammer roll over as problematic is when it lets players start hammers on a structure/unit they haven’t actually researched yet. (That is, intentionally build something small the previous turn so on the next the hammers roll into the next project, which you couldn’t have started until you did the research). But I really don’t see that as a serious problem for this game.

    Well said!

    The last point seems like an easy fix: don’t have rollover unless there is already another thing queued for those hammers to be assigned to. That stops players from “banking” hammers for something they can’t build yet while still maintaining all the other advantages.

    Alternatively just let players do this. As you said, not a big deal and provides actual decisions for the player when deciding what to build when.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #171878

    Not to mention that the player rarely has much control over the hammer output of a city. The theoretical super hammer city just…doesn’t happen. Only the dread has a hammer buff, everyone else has to rely on pure luck to get forges and such. Morale and city size are both functions of time assuming the player isn’t already losing, so again not something the player can really change.

    Having hammers spill over would actually add player choice and thought, not take it away as joker weirdly seems to think. As someone else already mentioned right now there is no choice involved. If hammers were conserved then there actually would be a choice: building or buffing production, population, and morale and leaving yourself vulnerable now for a better output later. Right now hammers are just so bad they aren’t worth pursuing since they can not give a reliable return on investment.

    As it stands now I’ve seen plenty of new players try to invest in infrastructure early only to end up far behind even the AI. They very reasonably tend to think that building and capturing sources of production will give them an edge in – guess what – production. When this doesn’t happen their entire gameplan falls apart as they have spent time and resources for zero effect.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #171870

    Possible, but hardly easy. You’d need a bunch of hammers from buffs, forges, or somewhere, as well as high morale and city size. All of those things either take investment that could be going elsewhere (and right now should definitely since there is no production spillover) or they take the place of other resources. Even buffs like mana batteries require research and a trade of another resource. If you have put that much focus into nothing but production on a city then it SHOULD be useful for PRODUCTION.

    That is the entire and only point.

    Right now you would be better served in almost all situations if you had gotten basic resources instead of hammers. Also, with a combination of the excellent new vassal system and nerf to inns it is easier than ever for players to have income that far outpaces their ability to spend it. This just means players want hammers even more, and are that much more sad when they realize that the magama forge or whatnot that they got means absolutely zero nine times out of ten.

    Also, making three civic guards instead of the equivalent in higher tier units in a late game city you have carefully handcrafted to be an industrial juggernaut when you obviously have the resources to afford better units is beyond silly. The only time anyone would even consider doing that is if they just lost a massive amount of armies and desperately needed something, anything, just to man their walls.

    in reply to: Spiders #171804

    What we really need are vampiric badgers!

    This can be the new dire penguin if we get an underground focused expansion.

    Penguin and badger armies everywhere.

    in reply to: Friendly Neighbours ? #171803

    Part of it might be they are trying for the new culture victory, but the devs did say that “good/peaceful” AI personalities need work and are behaving a bit silly right now, and it is right there on their list of known issues they are working hard on.

    So probably a bit of both, either way it will probably be fixed when the expansion gets here.

    in reply to: Speculation: Next Expansion #171800

    Fixing the current (sorry to be frank) halfassed naval mechanics doesnt have to be a chore, it could be an opportunity to create a whole system that explores some oft-ignored corners of high fantasy.

    The current beta does a pretty great job of making water and related units and spells relevant! It took a year to address it but it seems to be in a good place now. Did you mean you wanted more special naval only mechanics like wind affecting movement, not being able to turn quickly, hull breaches sinking ships? The sort of stuff that is in total war? Because yeah that isn’t in but honestly, would that even be feasible in a turn based game like aow3? At least the beta does improve water in a huge way.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #171798

    Doubtful that it would even need tremendous balance work since you still have to pay for everything to be honest. Gameplay wouldn’t really change, you still have to balance income with output, it would just mean you aren’t being arbitrarily punished. Also the whole “you should always build whatever uses the most hammers so they aren’t wasted” idea is inherently silly, a smart player may need to build a variety of things at any given time based on the game state. Maybe you need to invest in infrastructure, or need scouts, or really want pikes. You can’t just pick your building projects based on how expensive they are as if all projects result in the same thing. They don’t. Even units within the same tier can have drastically different roles and costs.

    This is the sort of thing that is probably beyond the scope of your average modder/mod tools too, although there are lots of things modders could tweak and fix and playtest. Naval stuff for instance – it is fantastic now in the beta, but it took a whole year to change two number values, the movement and sight on transports, that a modder could have done in ten minutes. The dev team is tiny and getting free work and playtesting would be a pretty amazing way to multiply their ability to create content without adding overhead cost to them.

    in reply to: Inquery about production carryover #171770

    Yeah, the devs are working hard on the expansion. I think people are just posting about it because it is a bit baffling that it is set up this way, rather than because they expect anything to change anytime soon. As people have said, even the older games did something with unused hammers. Pretty sure even MoM did. Even within aow3 itself resources carry across from one project to the next (casting points, research bonus from pickups/events) so it isn’t even consistent within itself, not to mention completely backwards from what a new player expects.

    in reply to: And This, dear AI, is how I will get you every time #171423

    The AI has gotten a lot better in the beta in many ways, but it will never be a perfect player. It will always make some mistakes, and this isn’t actually a bad thing. This might be a little bit too easy to abuse though.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 344 total)