Okay, thanks. I'll give it another patch or two before I try again. MyTest1 and 2 did use the default buildings with the same result, so it's probably something else.
eviator
Im sure a lot has changed. It's alpha this is to be expected.
I tried again, same result. I feel I'm missing a minor but important step, so I made a short video about my process. What am I missing? [video]http://youtu.be/qjHVlsLls7E[/video]
I thought I did all that, but I'm not certain. I'll try again, thanks.
Has anyone besides the devs been able to create a map that can be played? I tried creating the simplest of maps, no terrain, just a couple seeds and resource points. When I try to start a new game with that map it seems as if there are no open player slots, so I cannot actually play the match. Secondly, does anyone know how to initiate MapScripts? That can be used to place units and buildings on the map, which they have done for demos. I'd like to use it for sandboxing battles of
I would also like a modding section. So far I've only tweaked things in .csv files, like unit speed, hp, obvious stuff. Increasing unit speed seems to negatively impact pathing, so I'm not sure how far that can be safely pushed. But I've stumbled into some other interesting things, like tweaking how units organize themselves in battle groups (formations) and battlegroup templates used by the AI. I tried creating a map so I could create a MapScript in order to set u
Since the units build fine, it's not that big of a bug, I'm sure there are worse, though none come to mind. We've been able to get by just fine since our first alpha. But as I said something else is going on in my first screenshot. That different bug, where the factory builds nothing but shows the wrong queue, that is what I'm reporting here, and the one that was a major hindrance in that game.
Yes. The new units built fine.
Tatsubj, yes you are right. Part of the issue I had was due to queueing a unit before the factory was complete. I had noticed this with the basic factory, but I had not noticed that it built a visible unit at that point. But there's still part of the bug that is unexplained, namely that the advanced factory would not build anything, but its queue has T1 and T2 units, and that queue changed as if it were building. That part I'll try to replicate. I have an idea how to do that.<
Then that should be easy to duplicate, I'll try it. Right now I think this is a different bug, or if it is similar it's slightly different. The queue has units the advanced factory cannot build. And it changes. It's like the game thinks it is in part a normal factory, except it doesn't actually build anything.
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="2" id="3597696"] I'd refrain from using groups. they really under-perform compared to being separate. [/quote] That is a poor recommendation for all but highly skilled micromanagers. I have found the battle groups to be a good way for me, the average player, to have above average unit control in battle.
In the screenshot below, I had this Advanced Factory and built a Prometheon (or the third one, whatever the name is). It looks like the Prometheon finished building, but I couldn't move it out of the factory. I couldn't queue up any other dreadnoughts, and the factory queue showed other units, though that factory wasn't producing them. If I can figure out how to reproduce this bug, I will post a reply comment. <img src="http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/gotyoke/Ashe
I'm guessing icons are eventually coming. Not individual icons per unit, as the devs said that is NOT happening, more like icons that represent multiple units in close proximity With some clever way of representing the composition. Heck they could almost take the empire tree, condense it, spiff it up a little, and make that the group representation.
The V key. B breaks up the meta unit.
A battlegroup with T2 or T3 units can request new units by clicking the group, then the unit buttons on bottom. Factories will build the units, which will automatically be added to the battlegroup when they spawn. Those new units will catch up to the battlegroup and fight with them. I've been hoping they would consider an ability to auto-request reinforcements, but that might be a bit overkill in the "let the computer do stuff for me" department.
The roadmap for the second faction is January. The hover units do not work over water, making naval units a thing in one of the expansions. Is how a unit moves over the ground for the different factions all that relevant? Or looks? I think more relevant is how they fight. Yes, making the Subrate version of a brute with similar battle capabilties except with shields instead of armor, and a different look, that would be lame. I have faith they will make the factions much more va
If you played against the normal AI, it would be hitting you with dreadnoughts by the 15 minute mark, so an archer "rush" at 15 minutes isnt crazy. And don't mind Tatsubj. He has built himself an antagonistic reputation on these forums because he wants the game to be awesome. For him awesome means it has mechanics similar to SupComFA, and this game isn't there, neither in terms of development or design. He's the quirky cousin who everyone loves, but who everyone thinks mig
1. Coming in a patch soon 2. Left click the unit in queue 4. It works, but I don't know the process off hand, which means the mechanism could stand to be improved.
On your third point, hitting V turns a group into a battle group, and they all stick together. On your first point, battle groups have AI to work together as a cohesive unit, including reordering into formations that make sense in battle. While I personally think more work is needed here, the game does have a decent start in that regard.
Okay then, well 3 "no"s in a row. I guess this idea is a bust. Global abilities seemed like such a rich area of game strategy variety, but it would seem that folks don't want that degree of variety. I can't find anywhere online that says deck building in AOE3 was a bad thing. All mentions were positive. Oh well.
[quote who="Lino722" reply="3" id="3597158"] I am not a fan of one player having a strategy that i can't effectively counter because of some decision I made pre match. I would hope that nothing could be built by one player that another cannot. [/quote] Does that mean you would rather have a limited stagnant set of orbitals available because that's all the UI can support? All I'm looking for here in the potential to add new global abilities over time, dozens
This is frustrating. I'm trying to bring some ideas to make individual games more varied, strategic, and interesting, and you think it's a bad idea because it's going to hurt mulitplayer matchmaking? You are so blinded by the multiplayer experience you insist upon that you seem to have forgotten that games are supposed to be fun. Fine get rid of the progression, but leave the deck-building. That was the main point anyway. Your metaverse progression idea has little to nothi
Orbitals/Global Abilities have the potential to add a lot of flavor, variety, and strategy to the game. I'd like you to consider the possibility of making a deck-building-like mechanic for the game, with each "card" being a different orbital. The only RTS game I've played with this mechanism was Age of Empires 3, so if you are familiar with that game, you know what I'm talking about. Prior to the game you build a deck out of the available orbitals, and only those orbitals are avai
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="3" id="3597096"] Also, we are starting to get things ready for the Orbitals which are scheduled to have two types of early game acts: 1. Incursion (call down a small armed force to anywhere on the map you have vision) 2. Engineering call down (call down an engineer anywhere on the map). [/quote] Wow, so awesome! I think orbitals have so much potential to make this game ridiculously fun to play. Imagine so