Accidently bumped into this game, wonderful, but some mild criticism

[DMC00]

Hello everyone I’m new here, came across this amazing game development somehow so I downloaded it to have a look after seeing pleasing screen shots. Basically I am a huge rts fan and these history era games particularly are my favourite. After playing age of empires (mainly 1 & 2, not aoe 3 that was a horrid experience) for so many years over the zone.com and lans etc it has been very hard to find games that can meet the bench mark of aoe 2. Now this game has amazing promise and I enjoy how well it is to interact with.

I know it is still in Alpha stages however I found myself closing the game after a few hours of game play. This was mainly attributed to the fact the game speed is to slow..snail slow, it doesn’t have the same intensity that aoe series brought and made it so popular and secondly territories is a disaster move, being able to build where ever you want is what makes rts games so fun and limitless, territories works but only in wwII alike games like men of war assault squad, dawn of war and company of heroes,

I just find these two points hindered and restricted my experience. The good points are that I love the modelling design on the buildings (obviously the human modellings are a bit of wreck at the moment) the trees and water are fabulous, and I was glad to see the innovation to use photo terrain to layer UV texture, but in other textures they are bland and don’t really complete the picture, perhaps grass models would boost land texture in a later instalment. It’s also pleasing to see soldiers can gather resources, also the variety of maps, civilizations and landscape.

Overall, I will try to get into this game as I would pay for it because im sure the final product would be great.

[feneur]

As for the speed (of the gameplay, the performance is another thing, that will be fixed for sure): I can see how you get that feeling from a singleplayer match, try a multiplayer match though, and I'm sure you'll get another impression (Especially if you play against quantumstate =) ) You have to remember that since we have military-capable units available from the start you can raid pretty quickly. Either way it should be possible to add a few different match types where things like build speed and unit creation speed is increased, and we will most definitely add the possibility to increase/decrease the overall speed.

Territories will definitely stay in, it should be possible to add a non-territory match type though. Have you played Empire Earth 2 (the expansion version, the default is certainly a pain ) or Rise of Nations by the way? Imho territories work well in both those game (they are of course not limited to the ancienct world, but still), though they're done differently in both of them.

[FeXoR]

Wellcome to the 0AD community.

Concerning territory borders: Perhaps one civ (perhaps celts) could loose the need of territory? I think you are somehow right but I personally don't find it that bad.

[feneur]

Perhaps one civ (perhaps celts) could loose the need of territory? I think you are somehow right but I personally don't find it that bad.

Personally I think it better fits one or two of the civs in part two (Scythians/Huns) to not need territories, and to some extent not need actual buildings at all, but rather wagons or something similar to simulate their mobility.

[FeXoR]

Personally I think it better fits one or two of the civs in part two (Scythians/Huns) to not need territories, and to some extent not need actual buildings at all, but rather wagons or something similar to simulate their mobility.

Sounds good!

[Pedro Falcão]

Whoa, packageable Civ Centre sounds amazing!

[Mythos_Ruler]

Whoa, packageable Civ Centre sounds amazing!

I don't see it being all that of a bonus, really.

[AllenY]

You could just pack up and move whenever the enemy come, they destroy barracks and houses, then an army deestroys them from some other place they never saw.

[Lion.Kanzen]

yes, just pack but slowly only CC and Houses.

[Greendogo]

I have to agree with the OP about territories. I wouldn't go so far as "disaster", because it could be interesting for a change, if you play a lot without them.

However, non-territory mode should be active by default, because territories are weird. Territories are only a hassle for the player.

I see a lot of good ideas being implemented and worked on here at 0 a.d. Unfortunately, I see a lot of ideas making it into the game that just hinder gameplay (such as territories or branching research options). Not every interesting idea is one that will make the game "fun" and fast paced.

What is the point of having the ability to build dump spots if you can't build them far away from a CC? The CC already functions as a dump spot, so you're just adding redundancy. It also makes it harder to attack far away resources and makes game-play more monotonous.

It also prevents rushing with barracks at the enemy's doorstep. You have to build everything in your own little bubble and make them crawl across the map.

Anyway, I hope enough people complain about it to change your minds. Can you tell I hate territories?

[Mythos_Ruler]

0 A.D. isn't meant to emulate the typical Starcraft click-a-thon strategies. Much of 0 A.D.'s gameplay has been designed to alienate the twitch-gamer. But having said that, micromanaging battles is still very important. And the "territory" aspect will always be a part of the "default" gameplay. However, we'll probably have a "classic" gameplay mode that removes territories and build limits and all that, to give it the typical Age of Empires feel.

[alpha123]

+1 to territories.

I've never played any other RTS games to compare it to, but I really like 0 A.D. the way it is. I don't want its gameplay to devolve to seeing who can rush the fastest or who has memorized exactly where to build everything and what to train when without even thinking or who knows every single unit's stats by heart. I think 0 A.D. should be about who has the best battle strategies and smart tactical maneuvers: that's what a real-time strategy game is about. It's not a real-time clicking game.

The gist of it that territories, IMO, help keep the game strategic instead of mindlessly repeating the best build sequence.

[Greendogo]

Ah, well I thought it was trying to be a different type of game; my mistake. You're right, I was hoping for something more along the lines of AoE (lately, I've been on a Age of Mythology binge).

However, this "Classic" gameplay mode sounds just right for someone like me! Thanks for informing me about its probable future existence!

@Mythos_Ruler: How would you describe the planned gameplay of 0 a.d. once all the future features are added? Like the style of the game or how you'd describe it to someone else.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Greendogo

[Mythos_Ruler]

Ah, well I thought it was trying to be a different type of game; my mistake. You're right, I was hoping for something more along the lines of AoE (lately, I've been on a Age of Mythology binge).

However, this "Classic" gameplay mode sounds just right for someone like me! Thanks for informing me about its probable future existence!

@Mythos_Ruler: How would you describe the planned gameplay of 0 a.d. once all the future features are added? Like the style of the game or how you'd describe it to someone else.

In the end, as I see it, 0 A.D. would be its own game, not simply an Age of Empires clone. Granted, we've often compared the game to Age of Empires and Age of Empires II, but the game is only inspired by those games, it does not imitate them. So, what 0 A.D. will be is a historical real-time strategy game with an emphasis on the strategy element. It'll use combat formations, technology trees, warships, territorial expansion, and buildings in unique, strategic ways that the Age of Empires series never approached.

[Greendogo]

Knowing that going in may very well change my perception of game-play. I'll definitely keep it in mind!

[Pureon]

Gameplay needs to be improved, we see that just as much as you do. We're working on it

[Chumply]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of ideas making it into the game that just hinder gameplay (such as territories or branching research options). Not every interesting idea is one that will make the game "fun" and fast paced.

It also prevents rushing with barracks at the enemy's doorstep. You have to build everything in your own little bubble and make them crawl across the map.

I disagree. Firstly, I don't think this is meant to be a fast paced game like Starcraft or others of that nature. Second, building barracks right outside a base and rushing isn't very realistic for a historic game. When you're waging a war, you're going to march your army into enemy territory. You're not going to be able to start recruiting locals as soldiers right outside of their own city.

Edit - I see others addressed this before me, but I'll add my two cents

Edited December 9, 2012 by Chumply

[Lion.Kanzen]

I disagree. Firstly, I don't think this is meant to be a fast paced game like Starcraft or others of that nature. Second, building barracks right outside a base and rushing isn't very realistic for a historic game. When you're waging a war, you're going to march your army into enemy territory. You're not going to be able to start recruiting locals as soldiers right outside of their own city.

Edit - I see others addressed this before me, but I'll add my two cents

i agree with you, but i like see some Neutral that if you capture or put a Outpost change to your own and make Mercenaries(Cheap Units and Weak)

[Pedro Falcão]

I say the territory itself can be used for both turtling and applying pressure to the enemy, but it adds some time/resource cost to lessen the super-aggressiveness of building a bunch of barracks right outside the enemy base, that's ridiculously unfair and inaccurate as our mate Chumply pointed. Still, you can take vital resource spots and/or defend yourself with almost no troops (with attrition damage).

[feneur]

Another thing to remember is that with our citizen soldiers we have units who can fight and can be trained from the Civic Centre, so you can always use that for a forward base (still needs to be at a set distance from your enemy's Civic Centre, but still, you can place it away from your own territory ).

[Kimball]

I loved not having territories in AoK/AoM. It gave you a lot of freedom to experiment with forward rushing strategies and made escaping a large ambush relatively easy.

That being said, I think we should keep territories as the default mode of gameplay for 0 A.D. They work really well with our vision and they do have their own advantages (such as applying pressure to an enemy and being more selective about where you decide to expand to).

Having a "Classic" mode, as Michael suggested, would alleviate everyone's concerns and allow 0 A.D. to remain its own unique game. I think this is a "must have" so that our AoE friends feel at home too.

[Chumply]

I think that is a good solution, Kimball, that way everybody wins. More options is always a good thing. And I agree, territories should be default.

[Chumply]

i agree with you, but i like see some Neutral that if you capture or put a Outpost change to your own and make Mercenaries(Cheap Units and Weak)

Yeah that is a good idea.

[Sighvatr]

If possible, I would want 0 A.D. as far away as possible from Age of Empires. Age of Empires was fun in itself, but it tremendously lacked historical accuracy in the art and gameplay. Instead, we should focus on what realism we can include into this game that Age of Empires lacked, yet keep the gameplay both interesting and fun. I'm just surprised that 0 A.D. lacked the need for unit formations, as that was historically important in ancient warfare. The infantry needs some kind of buff that would balance them out against cavalry or archery, and I'm hoping that buff would be to create infantry formations. So please, I don't like to look at 0 A.D. as another AoE clone.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Sighvatr

[Pedro Falcão]

If possible, I would want 0 A.D. as far away as possible from Age of Empires. Age of Empires was fun in itself, but it tremendously lacked historical accuracy in the art and gameplay. Instead, we should focus on what realism we can include into this game that Age of Empires lacked, yet keep the gameplay both interesting and fun. I'm just surprised that 0 A.D. lacked the need for unit formations, as that was historically important in ancient warfare. The infantry needs some kind of buff that would balance them out against cavalry or archery, and I'm hoping that buff would be to create infantry formations. So please, I don't like to look at 0 A.D. as another AoE clone.

I think the buff is already there. See Mythos_Ruler's post on formations for more info.