|
Malek posted:That was mainly it, though I am curious if you can import portraits and stuff... I know that's more RPGish but for a strat game, I enjoyed it quite a bit on the previous ones. No portrait importing, it doesn't fit with the leader editor I'm afraid. You have to make a 3D lord like you can see in the first part of the video. Elyv posted:Does that mean no Frostlings? That would make me moderately sad, I want little snow people riding mammoths. I feel like all my answers today are making people sad  On the bright side, if we have a new race in DLC, I think there's a moderate chance that frostlings will be it. Of the current races (Orc, Goblin, Draconian, Elf, Dwarf, Human) none of them like arctic terrain or use frost damage, so we kind of need frostlings to round things out.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I'm afraid the world does still lock while combat is running, so you can't do anything but wait That's really unfortunate. I was thinking, playing Sword of the Stars the other day, that a good alternative way to handle this problem in a game like AoW would be to make multi-turn battles and put a shorter turn limit on tactical battles. So say you could play 5 tactical turns for every 1 strategic turn, for example. But of course something like that you'd have to plan for from the ground up and it'd radically change a lot of the game mechanics (like sieges, especially). So if the world is still 'locked', are the non-involved players stuck on the strategic map (like AoW1) or does the whole screen blank out (like AoW2)? I'm sure you can't get into the detail but I would be interested in hearing why you couldn't do something like allow other players in other regions of the main map still move around while other players are in tactical combat. The improvements to Auto-Combat are definitely a huge help here anyway. Didn't look like it from the video, but did you manage to add any extra control going into the battle, like telling a hero to spend or not spend Mana? Or options to tell units to play super conservative vs aggressive, etc? And as far as flashing the taskbar, yeah it's super duper easy to do, takes about 5 lines of code to do it in C#, which is mostly just importing some unmanaged user32.dll functions, so shouldn't be too much harder to do in C++ (as long as you can get your window's handle, that's basically all you need). quote:3) If a player drops, then you get a choice to either: This is kind of unfortunate too as it would be nicer to have the ability to drop in and drop out without having to back out of the game. Hopefully you can get a chance to add that at some point. quote:The strategic map doesn't, but tactical combat does. In combat, each unit has an awareness zone, which is usually the three hexes in front of it. If you move a unit out of a hex in an enemy's awareness zone, the enemy gets an attack of opportunity on it. The attack uses up one of the unit's 3 attacks per round, like retaliation does, but it does mean you can't just run past units willie-nillie. That sounds good. I can't remember if the old AoW games actually had this or not, I keep thinking they did but now I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I feel like all my answers today are making people sad Aw  Game still looks really awesome and it's the most excited I've been for a new release in a couple of years.Gwyrgyn Blood posted:That sounds good. I can't remember if the old AoW games actually had this or not, I keep thinking they did but now I'm not sure. AoW2(never played 1) at least had attacks of opportunity, but I don't remember if they used up an attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:That's really unfortunate. I was thinking, playing Sword of the Stars the other day, that a good alternative way to handle this problem in a game like AoW would be to make multi-turn battles and put a shorter turn limit on tactical battles. So say you could play 5 tactical turns for every 1 strategic turn, for example. But of course something like that you'd have to plan for from the ground up and it'd radically change a lot of the game mechanics (like sieges, especially). I *think* non-involved players come and watch the battle as observers. To be honest, I don't really do much with multiplayer at the moment, so I'm not sure. If you were in the world map, you'd be able to look at things, just not pass through any commands into the system. Or to put it another way, you'd be able to do anything which didn't involve actually changing the game world. As for why we can't fix it, there are a number of problems, for example: 1) 2 or more of the players in the world aren't actually in the world, they're in another world having a battle. So, they can't respond to anything that other players do, you could walk a huge army up to their cities, for example, or sneak through their lands. 2) We'd need a system so that any hexes containing stacks in battle would be immune to magic and things, since it makes no sense that you could drop a rain of meteors on an army in the world map and not have it affect the tactical map. You'd end up with weird inconsistencies and exploits where players cast area of effect spells that end up with holes because half their effect zone was in a battle. 3) There's a ton of edge cases to deal with, like, what if A and B are fighting, then C attacks A in one place, and D attacks A in another place. Since A can only fight one person at once, who does A fight first after B? How do we inform C and D that A is ready for them? Can C and D do things while they wait? 4) Each active battle demands system resources, so you end up needing to budget how many battles can you have at once before the system runs out of memory, and what do you when you hit that limit, etc. You can come up with solutions to all of these problems in isolation, people reading this probably have suggestions on how to fix all of them, but those solutions will have their own problems, and will distort the game's flow and design. By the time we've fixed everything, we'd probably have a very different game than when we'd started, and we'd have had to make a lot of sacrifices and compromises just for that feature, as well as investing a huge amount of time that could have gone into other things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Can I ask what the new direction for the Draconians was? They seem closer to green brown Draenei now. E: And I can totally respect shifting the addition of Necromancers to DLC. For it to be a proper class you'd have to redo all the normal racial units to be undead in a way that's different than the emaciated Archons. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
On the subject of multiplayer, will I be able to invite people to a game lobby through steam works?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:In AoW3 a lot of the customizable units come from your class, not your race, so having lots of races isn't as important.  ) AoW experience. While the combinations of race + class may exceed the number of individual races in AoW1/2/SM from a gameplay variety standpoint, only having 6 races to choose from is going to cause the game to lose a lot of its flavour component over the previous games. Don't get me wrong, being able to choose between Undead Rogues or Undead Industrialists or Undead Theocrats would be cool as balls, but not being able to be the Undead in an Age of Wonders game feels so wrong I'm fortunate in that my favourite race (draconians) are still in, but I know at least one person who's had every one of their favourite races hit the cutting room floor.e: I'm assuming that there's going to be several DLCs containing additional race packs so I'm guessing it'll all come right in the end, I just wanted to make the point that wide racial choices are important for reasons other than just gameplay variety. Splicer fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Robin Hobb's Assassin trilogy is a good read, as are the other trilogies in the same series. I know this is a big detour from the point of this thread, but I really need to second this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies Geb, you're awesome. I just hope the multiplayer will be enjoyable for 2-3 friends and some AI or 5+ random people without any connection issues or massive turn times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Can I ask what the new direction for the Draconians was? They seem closer to green brown Draenei now. I have no clue, the first concepts for Draconians was similar to what we have now, then we remade them to be have more raptor like faces (like in older AoW), then we remade them back. As far as I know this was all art decision stuff, I don't think there's much beyond it than what people thought would look better  Demiurge4 posted:On the subject of multiplayer, will I be able to invite people to a game lobby through steam works? I don't think so, we don't use steam works for networking. Fitzy Fitz posted:I know this is a big detour from the point of this thread, but I really need to second this. The last fantasy book I read that I really enjoyed was Poison Study by Maria V Snyder. It started to go a bit downhill towards the end of the last book, but I really liked the first 2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I have no clue, the first concepts for Draconians was similar to what we have now, then we remade them to be have more raptor like faces (like in older AoW), then we remade them back. As far as I know this was all art decision stuff, I don't think there's much beyond it than what people thought would look better Thanks for the response Gerblyn. Wasn't saying they looked bad, just that it's very different than previous games and on the whole they look more demonic than draconic. Splicer posted:e: I'm assuming that there's going to be several DLCs containing additional race packs so I'm guessing it'll all come right in the end, I just wanted to make the point that wide racial choices are important for reasons other than just gameplay variety. This brings up a good point though: Would it be better if the Undead were introduced as a race, or Necromancers introduced as a class? (Or both?) Would having necromancers as a class replace your units with skeletal versions of the same race, or would normal units be used and instead you are able to summon units like Bone Horrors, Zombies, and Vampires? Actually this would probably be prohibitive to develop but it would be rad as hell if the frontline grunts of an undead army were based on the people you killed, so after conquering a town of dwarves your next batch of skeletons produced would be short and stocky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Necromancer as a class sounds great, once your live troops die they can raise up as zombies or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Right but that excludes the possibility of having undead musketzombies or undead Dire Penguins, which is totally unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Necromancy seems weak and obsolete in a world where you can build massive flame thrower tanks. I mean use just imagine an army of ghouls and skeletons uselessly hammering on the armoured hull while a dwarf sits inside cackling as he spews superheated napalm everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
That's why the smart undead commander will have a Bone Horror to shamble out and topple the tank or wheel out their own flame tanks, the scorching heat matched only by the screaming hatred of the soul bound flesh to metal of the truly infernal contraption. Just because the skeletons are brainless doesn't mean they're stupid. E: Though I totally agree with the below \/\/\/ I feel that the races that were removed (Tigrans, Frostlings, Undead) rely too heavily on altering the environment, which may be at odds with the economy of a given class (Really hard to justify an Undead Archdruid) Definitely hope they're added as DLC but certainly understand why they are out of the game right now. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think you may be underestimating how big a component the loadsaraces is to some people's (for example, my I feel like it would be really cool if there was a mix of additions on both ends. I completely agree with you that cutting the playable races from 12 to 6 takes away from the charm of the game (I realize that the only differentiation between the original 12 was their last t1 unit, and all units t3-t4). That does not stop me from wanting to play as a frostling dreadnought. That said, I think developing on both ends might end up being a little bit of a nightmare. For every race you add, that means you have to build X permutations of units to represent the available classes. For very class you add, that means you need to add Y respective units to represent the available races. Balancing every single one of those additions could end up being a nightmare. Demiurge4 posted:Necromancy seems weak and obsolete in a world where you can build massive flame thrower tanks. I mean use just imagine an army of ghouls and skeletons uselessly hammering on the armoured hull while a dwarf sits inside cackling as he spews superheated napalm everywhere. Maybe, but you might also just end up with a big army of flaming zombies climbing into those massive flamethrower tanks. I feel like with the archons/undead dynamic, necromancy really lends itself to being a playable class. The more good you are, the more divine and pristine your units become. The more evil you are- the more decrepit and plagues your army becomes. The former might be covered by the theocrat already though, so idk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:This brings up a good point though: Would it be better if the Undead were introduced as a race, or Necromancers introduced as a class? (Or both?) Arrrthritis posted:That said, I think developing on both ends might end up being a little bit of a nightmare. For every race you add, that means you have to build X permutations of units to represent the available classes. For very class you add, that means you need to add Y respective units to represent the available races. Balancing every single one of those additions could end up being a nightmare. So an undead engineer would be a skeleton model with engineer clothes overlayed holding a wrench. A goblin necro-priest would be a goblin model with flowy black robes overlayed holding a skull staff. An undead necro-priest would be a skeleton model with flowy black robes overlayed holding a skull staff. And so forth. I mean, I'm sure you'd have to give everything a once over to ensure there's no clipping issues or anything but otherwise you're not looking at the level of unit combinations you're thinking of. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'm getting the impressions from the previews that they've specifically designed around that. If you're a goblin then your standard sword goblins are just sword goblins + chosen colours. Your special class units are (basic model) + (class based overlay of appropriate scale). So there isn't six different pre-rendered permutations of the shaman, a goblin shaman is the standard Goblin model holding a staff and wearing a funny mask, rendered at game time. Think WoW costume changes. You're probably right. I was just thinking more along the lines of "If this race has these units, what happens when we introduce *this class unit* into the picture" and them having to worry about that type of unstable synergy with every race. I haven't been responsible for game balance before, so I don't know if that's the thought process needed to keep things in check. Still really excited to see the warlord reveal. Really, i'm just super excited for this game in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Arrrthritis posted:You're probably right. I was just thinking more along the lines of "If this race has these units, what happens when we introduce *this class unit* into the picture" and them having to worry about that type of unstable synergy with every race. I haven't been responsible for game balance before, so I don't know if that's the thought process needed to keep things in check. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I *think* non-involved players come and watch the battle as observers. To be honest, I don't really do much with multiplayer at the moment, so I'm not sure. If you were in the world map, you'd be able to look at things, just not pass through any commands into the system. Or to put it another way, you'd be able to do anything which didn't involve actually changing the game world. Big thanks for all the answers. And yeah you'd really have to design the game differently from the beginning to fix all of those problems. I believe the way AoW2 worked for observing the battles for non-involved players was that you could watch another player's battle as long as it was happening in your domain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Necromancy seems weak and obsolete in a world where you can build massive flame thrower tanks. I mean use just imagine an army of ghouls and skeletons uselessly hammering on the armoured hull while a dwarf sits inside cackling as he spews superheated napalm everywhere. What makes you think you can't simply create zombie flame tanks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I think you may be underestimating how big a component the loadsaraces is to some people's (for example, my And you are underestimating the budget needed to make 15 races with all their assets in 3d with nice graphics. Which, I suspect, it's the reason we only have 6 races here. A modern 3d game in 2014 is more expensive than a 2d game in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:And you are underestimating the budget needed to make 15 races with all their assets in 3d with nice graphics. Which, I suspect, it's the reason we only have 6 races here. A modern 3d game in 2014 is more expensive than a 2d game in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:(Really hard to justify an Undead Archdruid) It really isn't. Archdruids respect death as a natural part of life, so maybe our undead Archdruid just prefers the decay side more? That said though, I'd still prefer a Necromancer class over an Undead race. All the races are equal in death after all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:It really isn't. Archdruids respect death as a natural part of life, so maybe our undead Archdruid just prefers the decay side more? That said though, I'd still prefer a Necromancer class over an Undead race. All the races are equal in death after all? More mushrooms and toadstools than greenery, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Honestly the 'only' in 'only six races' seems odd to me. Six seems like quite a lot, speaking from what I'm used to with 4x games, even without classes on top of that. If a game gave me six races to pick from I'd call that solid, if it gives me that plus classes which add different units and abilities, that's pretty generous to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Honestly the 'only' in 'only six races' seems odd to me. Raygereio fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Feb 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
At first glance, but some of those races were pretty shite though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:AoW1 and AoW2 has 12 races and AoW:SM has 15. Going from that to 6 is going to feel like a step backward of sorts at first glance. I do get that, it's just compared to contemporary games, six plus additional customization options is pretty drat good. A lot of things were easier back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:At first glance, but some of those races were pretty shite though. Well yeah, but they were *there*, and they were fun. Some of my most fun games were had with stupid combos like Death Halflings or Life Undead. I never played super-seriously, so it didn't really matter if they were all perfectly balanced, as long as they were interesting and fun. Ofcourse, i understand that might be a minority opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
shelper posted:Well yeah, but they were *there*, and they were fun. Right, but some of them weren't interesting. At all. Three of the Age of Wonders 1 races were just 'humans' with different cultures. And considering Elves/Dark Elves have made up and are back together, and Archons appear to part of the Theocrat's arsenal, there aren't too many interesting races missing. Undead, Frostlings, Halflings are and I'd like to see them back at some point. But I can live without the cat people, human variants and Shadow Demons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Zore posted:Right, but some of them weren't interesting. At all. Three of the Age of Wonders 1 races were just 'humans' with different cultures. That's a pretty subjective opinion. Azracs were my personal favorite of the first game/shadow magic, and Lizardmen were pretty awesome, as well. Basically I would pay money out the rear end for racial DLC packs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I am fully aware that cost is a factor, but there is a big difference between saying additional races would not be cost effective and saying that additional races would not bring anything meaningful to the table. The latter is what I was referencing. Then I agree with you. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Was just having a look at the trailers again and was wondering how come one wasn't made for the sorcerer? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Archdruid class is up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Overminty posted:Was just having a look at the trailers again and was wondering how come one wasn't made for the sorcerer? Just curious. I asked my boss, and apparently we were all really busy at the time. Apparently one of the new trailers we're going to put out next has a lot of sorcerer stuff in it, though it's not really going to be the kind of trailer that explains what the sorcerer is/does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
I can appreciate that and the next trailer should be more than enough, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
So do we have a date for this yet? March isn't very far away now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Really diggin' that archdruid. Be pretty cool if all your cavalry was mounted on boars or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Really diggin' that archdruid. Be pretty cool if all your cavalry was mounted on bears or something. I corrected the spelling error.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:45
|
|
