What you are asking can't be reasonably done. It's not about doing a statistically validated poll, but what one reads (I can read plenty in three months), and perceives when taking up the game (maybe this was too long ago for you and many), after all, this thread started with "several posts that suggest that the current Petra is too difficult". That’s a start for something, and everything else I keep reading here, on Reddit, etc, makes it valid for me, considering the gap between Very Easy and Sandbox has already been mentioned before. And it's not that I don't care that some are having a positive experience, it's that that doesn't indicate there's no problem for some. Regarding pacing, as I've mentioned, it's a fact that production times are much faster than in other games, as discussed in the link I provided from this forum. Regarding speed of the game itself, I see that as less relevant than the other two things, but I do still think all this is mostly cosmetic, since once you choose the Competitive Preset, it just stays there, and one would use that for everything. Why do experienced players care what the default setting was at the beginning, if it's clear what the accepted competitive setting is? There’s no breaking of what already works, it’s all under the corresponding Preset. Actually, besides cosmetics, I also proposed the addition of levels, which was also mentioned by the OP. To summarise, I think the difficulty levels should be (for Aggressive, while for Balanced and Defensive rushes should be tuned down even more) something along these lines (or whatever approximation possible): -Sandbox: as it is now. -Extremely Easy: no rushes, small armies and defenses. -Very Easy: small rushes, medium armies and defenses. -Easy: medium rushes, decent armies and defenses. -Normal: decent rushes, large armies and defenses, comparable to other games, no warning should be needed. -Hard, Very Hard and Extremely Hard: only now large rushes, huge armies and defenses, EH at least as hard as SC2 brutal (or whatever is possible), VH and H more or less equidistantly filling the gap down to Normal.   For hard levels, yes, for easy levels, no. It's like all difficulty levels seem clustered somewhere above the usual Normal, but don't reach as far as SC2 Brutal, which is not that brutal considering I'm far from being a pro, yet managed just fine.

The inevitable conclusion it isn't that AI isn't hard at all. It's actually rather too easy, but the vanilla content 0AD offers isn't optimal for casual or new players for leisure games, nor for learning. There are some work in this area already like : https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8861 https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7785 Also a good foundation for making campaigns more immersive:  https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8614   We can thanks @Vantha which is the main dive in these areas.   I recommend trying mods, such as Delenda-Est, hyrule-conquest and a tone more already ported and coming up for R28, that are just 2 clicks away for players to get a great load of content from. If you want to not be a multiplayer try-harder, you do have many options that doesn't involve trying to beat the hardest level of AI possible actually.

Nice post! I like how you mixed 0 A.D. and chess together. It shows smart thinking and good strategy of  amazon wholesale suppliers skills. Keep sharing more cool game ideas like this!

When the playback stops because I closed Youtube / my browser I can just go to my phone's media overview (swipe down) and click play. The video now plays in the background / when my phone is locked. Or I use an app like PipePipe. Why would you even want that? That sounds horrible both from a usability aspect (tiny video on an already tiny screen) and for your brain (nuke your already shrinking attention span).

@Thalatta I’m not dismissing the negative experience that some players may have. What I’m saying is that it’s very difficult to establish that this negative experience is representative of every(or considerable amount) new player’s experience. I agree that the AI needs to be improved. Ideally, it shouldn’t rush under certain configurations. That’s something we all know is pending and difficult to implement. But that’s very different from wanting to modify the game’s pacing in its default state. I haven’t seen this kind of engagement approach in other RTS games. What I have seen are in-game tutorials, ranging from basic mechanics to complex build orders, along with campaigns and achievement systems, challenges. Establishing a slower pacing as the “normal” baseline would be a substantially disruptive change, and accepting it would require very solid evidence. Not just a handful of reports you might find on Reddit or that show up here from time to time in the forum. Furthermore, you will always have dissatisfied players. You can keep searching and maybe find 100 or 200 reports online about this issue. But is that sample representative? That’s roughly the same number of players who play multiplayer every day. The same group you’ve described as a minority (and I agree that’s likely the case). So those 100 or 200 reports should also be considered a minority, shouldn’t they? So, one thing is making the AI easier, and another is changing the game’s pacing. I think changing the AI’s default difficulty from Normal to Very Easy Defensive would be a positive change in this regard. Even so, without a basic guide to the game’s military and economic mechanics, it’s very likely that a new player will lose their first few attempts, for the simple reason that they don’t understand how the game works. I’ve seen many newbies build 50 farms with 100 civilians (people clearly coming from AoE). You have to give new players the tools to understand how to play. And if many of us recommend that people read some guides, it’s simply because the game doesn’t provide that kind of (good) how-to in-game. You should also care about those who are having a positive experience, they’re proof that something is being done right.   I think you’re drawing conclusions far too quickly for how little time you’ve been here. Have you seen the developers play? Do you know them? There are all kinds of contributors: some play very well, others are complete noobs, and some, I think, don’t even play at all. I hope that over time you’ll come across other perspectives and have experiences that will lead you to see this differently. Casual players don’t necessary need the game to be slower; they need in-game tutorials and campaigns, they need guidance. It’s not about “making it easier so they stick around.” It’s about teaching them how to play, giving them content, storytelling, and engagement. And this is missing, not because of some “experienced-player corporatism,” but because there isn’t enough manpower to tackle tasks of that complexity and scope. There’s no need to break what already works; what’s needed is to improve what works and build what’s missing.   Changing the game’s default speed to 0.8x is not a cosmetic change at all. It’s a significant design decision.   Alright. I think it’s a good idea, and I’ll open the PR as soon as I have some free time. Basic PRs like this tend to be resolved fairly quickly, whether accepted or rejected. Btw, I don’t think you’re trying to impose your ideas. I just meant that some of them are based on assumptions without solid support.