Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Just to note, the carry capacity they have does a lot to improve their efficiency as well while hunting. If we want to target gather speed, that should also on the table.

While 0 AD does have players start with a cavalry, given the importance of hunting as a source of food, it is often relegated to the task of gathering resources, while I have before argued for speed at which they gather food to be slowed down to make early game scouting more relevant, I think that ignores the fact that regardless of how glacial the pace a unit might gather, many would prefer to simply approach the game from a greedy perspective than scout, which I think makes the game weaker; scouting is a key ingredient to most great RTSs. Thus, I think that an argument could be made to have a unit with little to no combat ability and economic value to improve what many have described as a slow and boring early game in the Training Time topic. First, I think that even if these units are only specific to niche skirmish maps, they still should have a place since they could provide good value for future campaigns. If they were to be introduced to regular play, I think that there are some valid questions to ask such as whether they could be trained, how much they would cost in that case, and many more such implications. Athenian and Spartan scouts could be runners, which would obviously benefit any representation of the Persian Wars in campaigns. Persia could have a courier unit, modelling the famous praise Herodotus said regarding the system. Britons could have a smaller dog. Again while I think there is an argument for such units existing in standard play, they certainly would find a great niche for scenarios.

I agree that this would be the best way to resolve the current impasse. Unfortunately though, I have never modded the game and only in recent days have been active on the forums due to a hiatus at work. Once it begins anew, I doubt that I will have the time to properly commit to such a project, and given the nuances required, I doubt this would be a simple one and done matter. If I do find the time and energy to do that though, I would be happy to reach out to you.

Agreed. The point I made was that 0 AD has training times significantly faster than many of its fellow RTS games, and the numbers I offered, while placeholder of course, would be conservative changes relative to other games. Some have suggested just changing the speed, which slows everything. I for one do not want that to be watching my soldiers moving that slowly. I would never claim that a single change would be without side effects, but the doom and gloom that some would suggest I think is a wild exaggeration. Supposing that the early game feels far too sluggish. Perhaps that's more the fault of things like not properly incentivising players to scout from the get go like most RTSs (Which I think is a problem in 0 AD regardless of whether training times are changed.). From my perspective at least, temporarily ruining a product is a perfectly normal part of prototyping in the interest of creating the most robust iteration possible, and I do not think the risks are as massive with this comparatively modest suggestion. By the way, I searched the forums for topics with the keyword 'alpha 24,' and the in the one topic that criticised the alpha, I found that only christgtr pushed for training times to be reduced. I could not find a single other person pressing for that change. I'm sure there were lobby conversations about it, but the outrage regarding training times seems a bit overblown. Granted, there were many things people didn't like about Alpha 24 (It was a long topic.), and maybe that was a lesser priority. Fair, I don't think that it would be good if I tried to make them such. Nothing substitutes empirical data, and while I did want to test alpha 24 to contrast its slower training times, I unfortunately could not get it running. On the flip-side of what I've argued for, there might be good reason to even see how the community reacts to faster training times as many individuals have pressed for. While I remain skeptical of the merits of such a change, if the community supports it after rigorous testing, who am I to challenge that? While I think you make fair points, if we really wish to depict such large battles, shouldn't we be playing with units on a squad or battalion level rather than force players to manage hundreds of peons? That would definitely make the design less chaotic and allow for meaningful micro that the game has hoped to introduce since this project began. That, however, is a completely different can of worms. I think that the conversation has stagnated, and I rest my case. Even if 0 AD is less frenetic compared to Age of Empires 2 or Age of Mythology (Of which the evidence for, while important, is only anecdotal), as I said in my opening post, the factory-like way units pop out is odd compared to other titles, and considering bringing the numbers down is nothing radical with that perspective. 0 AD does not have to make itself unique by being one of the fastest paced titles in its genre.

Maybe Age of Empires needs a lot more clicks, but at least as far as I have seen, the EAPM of an average 2000 elo player in that game is around 60, which is significantly lower than Starcraft II's comparable elo, and much of Age of Empires 2's clicks in the early game may have more to do with things like quickwalling and deer pushing rather than aspects of the core gameplay. I assume that your talking about 3 APM is only in relation to training units. That still does not account for other bits of APM of which it seems hard to find a metric for 0 AD. Until that data can be found, I think relying on hearsay is unproductive. In watching some of ValihrAnt's gameplay, I saw that he was consistently getting housed while playing, meaning that even some of the better players struggle with the pace. Raiding took place a bit past the 2 minute mark. Another 1v1 had raiding happen during the 3.5 minute mark. Granted, the game started marginally earlier than that. If this small sample size is in any way indicative of the current meta, the early game is hardly boring. Why then increase training times even if it does not impact the required APM too much as many of you have put forward? Even if it does not affect the APM too much, it does give a game with the economic complexity of an Age of Empires title a pacing akin to Starcraft. If we compare Starcraft's resource system, it is worlds simpler. When we look at the art and pillars of this game's design, it does not scream fast paced game, and slower paced games are better for drawing in casual play. I hope that above I have explained properly to that effect. Balance is always upset by decisions, and you consistently fail to explain why training times in Alpha 24 were so awful of a choice besides people hating it, thus I cannot address your concerns. That said, I am sure that there are solutions to those that go beyond making the game into an experience in which you print out units.

....because 0 AD is at least according to my understanding of the vision is not supposed to be a fast paced game. I'm sure there are some great points other people have made, but since you have not even bothered to link a topic for me to see, I will not address them. Players that are used to it being fast paced would probably balk at the change, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. A classic example of a community backlashing at a fundamental game design change happened in Darkest Dungeon. The team still stuck to it, and it could be argued that the game is better for it. When I say the team, I am referring to the people responsible for changing the fundamental aspects of the game, not players. My point is that if players are falling behind, there can be comeback back mechanics to give them a chance. To stress it, I am not telling players to "get gud." When I talked about training from houses, I regarded that as an aspect of the early game since it is available at the Village Phase. Naively enough, I have researched it in the Village Phase in part to supplement a Phase I Champion rush. I probably am playing quite suboptimally, but don't fault a person for regarding a Village Phase technology as an aspect of the early game. Maybe it should be a Town Phase tech. What do I know? You have said that the early game has few decisions compared to later phases. While that is true, there still are a plethora of options available. You can build four types of units at your starting building when most RTSs only allow you to train one or two. You can research six economic technologies in that phase. You can build stables. Maybe there are ways it could be spruced up, and training times being increased may show its weaknesses. The point is that slow =/= bad, and also the change I am pressing for is quite modest. This I would particularly highlight since it would do wonderful job not just of helping players reinforce their fronts; it would also help represent the transition from citizen militia to professional forces.

While I wouldn't call my attempt at understanding previous 'revisionist history,' the lack of any explanation on your part certainly warranted me speculating. Your final point was precisely what Selucids mentioned in this topic. Also, at least a few people seem positively inclined towards what I propose. Alpha 23 established a firm meta that 24 quite rudely shook up, and whether the outrage was due to a bad game decision or simply jarring change is not entirely clear to me. I am raising the issues of fast training times because it works against the philosophy of 0 AD, primarily I would add, in the early game, where build orders feel especially tight. Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy. If we look at this topic, I have noted that the early game requires a lot of tasks to stabilise production. The main concern raised seems to centre around mid to late game fights. So the question that stands is whether increasing the training times would cause a problem for those. As the proposal would stand, yes, but simple way to fix this would be making it so every phase up would reduce training times, perhaps even going to the level they are at now. That said, if the game already is punishing, perhaps the team should consider more explicit comeback mechanics.

My point isn't about game difficulty. I can beat normal AI easily enough. When I call myself a casual player, it is more that I play the game infrequently for this reason: never underestimate a player's ability to optimise the fun out of a game. I like thinking of the aesthetics or of my settlement when placing buildings; I like being able to cinematically watch battles unfold. Instead, I am frantically laying down houses while also ensuring that every building is cranking out units like a Camino cloning facility. Part of the reason that RTSs attract only the competitive scene is because games often cater to them specifically, truncating growth of new players. Perhaps to clarify my position, I am not saying that this alone is the solution; probably the reason it flopped in Alpha 24 was due to repercussions that Seleucids mentioned. Some people have rightly noted that batch training does make operating a base easier, but it also makes each unit train faster of course. A major side-effect of this is an even more constant need to build houses especially as other production buildings come online. Population limit in theory isn't that bad of a feature, but the frequency of needing to build them as the game's pace racks up becomes annoying to say the least.

Death rates in battles is a separate issue in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind a less lethal game in that regard. That said, none of what you said refutes my point that 0 AD is a demanding game in regards to APM. If a change like this makes the game too swingy, other things can be adjusted; that's part of a game's development cycle. If it makes P3 too hard to get to, the costs can be adjusted. I understand that you seem to be approaching the game from a highly competitive standpoint, but every level of play is important to consider, and the fact still stands that it makes this game harder for newer players and contradicts the game's vision.

To offer a brief clarification, I am not saying that this is a necessarily bad thing. Many popular game series like Starcraft and Age of Empires reward players with high APMs. I also would note that of my albeit brief time playing the latest alpha, I have had fun; this is not about whether 0 AD is a good or bad game. That said, it is a fast game, with a casual player like myself feeling like I am running something more like a factory than a fledgling city. The reason I think this is important to note since 0 AD's vision contradicts the current game state. To consider this looking at training times shows at least in part why the game is fast-paced: Looking at 0 AD, women train in 8 seconds, infantry in 10, and cavalry in 15. Age of Empires II Villager training time: 25 seconds. Starcraft Probe training time: 20 seconds. Starcraft II Probe training time: 12 seconds Age of Mythology villager training time: 15 seconds. Age of Empires III settler training time: 25 seconds. Age of Empires IV villager training time: 25 seconds. Considering that aside from champions, all units have economic roles, training times should be significantly increased for all citizen soldiers and women. If we don't even consider batch training, which accelerates training even more, the early game becomes a frantic rush. Assuming that a player like myself starts by training women, something I think is intuitively sensible since they cost half as much as soldiers and produce the same economic output, the player is pressed to put all of them towards food production to maintain production before needing to rapidly pivot to wood to allow for the building of houses, eventually the barracks for citizen soldiers, and lastly farms for when berries inevitably run out. The barracks snowballs this even further, and the fact that a technology at a house makes you able to churn out even more women means that population growth feels exponential. I'm sure that there could be much better ways of playing, but intuitive way feels surprisingly intensive for what should be the most relaxed part of the game. I would advise at the very least increasing the training time of women to be 15 seconds. Infantry could take 20 seconds to train, and cavalry could take 25 seconds. These numbers, I would note, are a modest increase, and I would still argue that the game would feel fast paced. If we truly wish to make it game that does not force you to multitask too heavily, bumping everything up another five seconds could further help. These numbers are hardly perfect I'm sure, that's what playtesting is for, yet I think they would bring the game more in line with the game's vision.

Thanks for the helpful comments. There are lots of maps that definitely were carefully thought out aesthetically but yield questionable gameplay results. Mainland feels good to play.

As per the title, I was wondering what is the default map that players tend to go for when playing the game, especially for multiplayer.

You and Geneva make relevant points, and I am not against Hippocrates being present in the game to some capacity or another. At the very least he would make a fantastic hero for a campaign. That said, the main point I would still stress is that he did not establish at least to my knowledge any medical school to continue his traditions. After all he did wander. This is not discounting his massive contributions to the medical field; I would just note that they do not strike me as particularly Athenian in nature. If we contrast that with the case of Plato and Aristotle, the ruins of the Academy and the Lyceum show obvious impact for Athenian culture. While I am in no way wishing to disrespect Socrates, I think for the reason of his being executed makes his inclusion as a hero as controversial as Alcibiades as an Athenian hero. I would put forward Plato or Aristotle or the choice of one of the two as ShadowofHassan already said. While we're at it, Zeno for the Stoic school and even Epicurus could be depicted, but perhaps leaving it at just two would be preferable. I think that having the option revolve around garrisoning the philosopher in a building to boost its efficiency might be good. Perhaps in one case it could increase the work rate as Wowgetoffyourcellphone mentioned. The other could provide discounts to costs.

I will admit that this is a bit of a quibble, but this would not be the first time a hero has changed for similar reasons. Xenophon used to be an Athenian hero, which was quite strange given his devotion to Sparta. Also, by having Hippocrates as a hero for Athens, we shaft actual Athenian physicians such as the admittedly legendary Agnodice or perhaps the more relevant Aristotle, who did clearly make some advances in biology. Regardless of that, I think representing the Athenian place in philosophy would be much better than its place in medicine by depicting a man from Kos. The point is that the gameplay effect could remain the same; let's just change the name. As for the matter of Marian Reforms, if that seems problematic, we could use different term like Professionalisation, Professional Reforms, or just Reforms. I could get behind that since it would make the incongruity of having Marian reforms without Marius disappear.

With Alpha 27's release, there are many things I appreciate about the design improvements. One thing, however, that I think is a problem is the implementation of Hippocrates for Athens. Simply speaking, he was not Athenian, being born on the island of Kos. While he probably travelled to Athens, he was an itinerant physician. Having non-combat heroes is a good idea, but I think there are some much more obvious and much more Athenian choices. Ones such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle come to mind, but also depicting the theatre side with people like Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, or Menander could also be welcome.