Prodigal Son
-
Posts
518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by Prodigal Son
-
-
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Just to respond to some of the criticisms of the system I proposed, I would say that it is as sensible as other alternatives. If it were to be realistic, citizens swapping to the soldier role should go back to their home and rally at a given location. To compare to other options, the idea of using the gatherer>ulfsark mechanic is no better. Weapons and armour appear out of nowhere for that. Also, there is no way of switching back. For that matter, villagers magically summon axes, mining picks, etc. In the case of the timed ability from Warcraft 3, weapons and armour again appear out of nowhere. In the system I proposed, it is not that different. The big change is mainly in that it takes time to switch between roles. If this idea still sounds frustratingly exploitable, I think that it is within reason to have some malus applied to citizen soldiers when they are outside of friendly territory (Technology could possibly change that in the mid-game.). To summarise, 'packing' seems to me to be a sensible marriage between realism and gameplay and should be considered since in many cases for civilisations of 0 A.D., they had no standing army, and it took time to mobilise their forces. There might be some ways it could be improved, yet it is a legitimate option in my opinion.
I ment the gatherer>ulfsark mechanic not as ideal or more realistic, but as preferable to the packing one. Need soldiers fast? Lose resources and workers and you get them. If well balanced, it's a kinda interesting trade-off. Still I prefer the WC3 one.
In the case of the timed WC3 ability, workers run to the civic center to pick up weapons, they don't get them out of their pockets.
I don't consider your proposal terrible, but for me it has the downsides I've already described.
-
Here's one in english:
They've been selling this mediocre (and that after many improvements) warscape engine for over 10 years and about the same number of games. At least this time it's free(mium)
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Servo said:
I hope the devs can put a settings to make the game pace slower. This can be done by setting technologies more expensive and slow. There is already a very low resource setting which I mostly play on SP. Then let the players try it.
RoN used to have so many pro players but for some reason or maybe when the nomad, very expensive and slow tech were set most if not all players are playing it until now. The only drawback is that with this settings the pop of most Civ is capped which imo won’t happen on 0AD for as long as you can build a house. They would scramble to outbuild each other the wonder.
The effect of this setting is that scouting becomes heavy due to ruin taking and finding the rares. Raiding and small skirmishes occur once the barracks are up. Then the main battle starts heavily on age 2 when cavalry and sieges are coming.
With this settings too the average number of soldiers is quite low. Around 5-7 mixed cavalry, 10 to 15 mixed infantry and 2- 4 catapults and the general. Losing quite a number of soldiers in the main battle is really painful so military tactics should be done in a very careful way. It’s not jus spamming units but choosing the best unit under the current situation. Counters are quite important too. No giving resources so trade routes and rares are to be protected as traders are biggest source of precious gold. You can always feel the effect of Civ bonuses.
I can say their players are real pro not just fast clicker but really understand and think the gameplay.
I know that 0ad is almost like AoE and I played aoe2 for more than a year straight on SP and never really got impressed than RoN and 0AD.
Indeed the game pace could/should be slower. I'll blame mostly the crazy movement speeds though and not the resource settings (which are something to consider, as of which should be the standard setting, but a minor and easy fix). Something like almost half movement speeds (as well as vision/unit range) would be great, talking about a classic RTS setting like current 0 A.D. and not within an advanced combat system.
I haven't tried RON multiplayer, but the single player, though interesting in many fields hasn't impressed me as a whole. If the game goes more towards the advanced combat/grand strategy genre it might have things to take from RON. Rare/strategic resources similar to RON would be a nice addition (ruins no, "treasures" in 0 A.D. are also a bad idea for multiplayer). How resource gathering works would fit rather well with a semi-advanced combat system. The way techs are acquired is also rather interesting (Civilisation does them in a similar but even better concept).
AOE 2 might be aged visually (but not so much considering it's 20yo), have some annoyingly oldschool mechanics (no so much if you like a variety of micro tasks) and is not very historical, but for the most part is awesome. I'd rank it as the best RTS game along with the first Starcraft. AOM without the Titans expansion being close to them.
-
1
-
-
On 2/4/2017 at 10:21 AM, Zeta1127 said:
I have found a few of the missing specific names.
For the Ptolemies, blacksmith is kh-p-sh, farm field is m-r, temple is ḥwt-nṯr, and sentry tower can probably be the same as outpost.
For the Mauryans, sentry tower is Tārāṅgaṇa.
For the Romans, sentry tower is Catascopium.
For the Hellenes, sentry tower is Karavokyrós.
Catascopium is a latinized greek word, but perhaps it's the right one as it comes from the greek word for watcher/spy. Karavokyros should mean captain/owner/master of a ship as far as I know from "καράβι" (ship) and "κύριος" (mister/master). Paratiritirion (perhaps with better lettering for pronounciation, modern greek is "παρατηρητήριο", ancient should be "παρατηρητήριον") should be right for greek sentry tower.
-
1
-
-
My main issue with worker-to-soldier "packing" would be that it makes no more sense than the current system. It would still be weapons and armor appearing out of nowhere even if not instantly. It would also need new animations or look weird. Going to the Civ Center to pick up weapons or hide makes more sense. I don't see an issue if some workers potentially get killed before they can defend/hide because the raiders had better micro or were massed at one place. If you don't have much more workers than the raider has soldiers you're doing something wrong anyway, and the better scouting and town layout you have, the less workers you will lose. Also I really hope that cavalry won't be available until phase 2 (besides maybe a single starting unit) or at least not trainable at the Civ Center.
WC3 has this seemingly protected base but it also has stealth and flying units, as well as loads of abilities that can hit over or destroy obstacles and rather fragile structures. I wouldn't say it's a game really favoring defense.
On mercenaries I'm in favor of a simple but relatively realistic concept. They cost only metal (and are slightly expensive) while they train very fast, like a last resort rapid defense, or luxury unit when you have a strong economy. If they can build or gather depends on how the rest of the economy works. Then accordingly to civ and the rest of the gameplay they could be available earlier and/or in more variety.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sundiata said:
Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but why can't we have this in alpha 23? With all the other new stuff, this would make 0AD really feel like a brand new game, and make alpha 23 legendary
It's also a really good one up over AoE DE......
I wouldn't care one bit if I had to wait another 2 weeks (or more) of testing/balancing for this...
It would probably need rebalancing of like half the tech-tree to get those in though, maybe much more time is needed for changes and testing.
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:
But let's not lead the thread there, if you want to keep debating on this we could continue in private or link it to a proper DE thread.
Ok, let's keep hijaking on more thread to DE. Whatever
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The entire capturing mechanic in the game is prone to snowballing. A very... slow... tedious.... snowball, which I am attempting to improve by making it more dramatic and decisive. Sometimes, a turn of events should simply be decisive and game ending, like how capturing a CC is a big deal in DE. Capturing in core game is boring, and worse, it's annoying.
I agree with your description, but your solution is one of a extreme imbalance and randomness. I can see me liking it from a realism perspective but in action, losing so much by one wrong choice or pure bad luck in possitioning, while at the same time the other player gains so much.. no, too bad for multiplayer.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Added in as much as I can. Paring back in the future as the gameplay gets refined. Maybe next alpha or two.
"
As much as I can" doesn't sound good for balance (that was part of my point).Edit: just got what pary back means. The other part was on the function of some techs to which I've got no detailed example, it's just out of hazy memory from back then. Anyway you've got to balance about 15 civs with about 15 units each and too many, mostly unique techs (add to that many squad upgrades if squads become a thing)... good luck with that.1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:The things I would like to do are hampered by the current state of the engine, but the engine is slowly improving and allowing for further refinements to DE.
For instance, if I suddenly had access to a battalion system the gameplay in DE would change dramatically, as would how the blacksmith worked. A big change I made recently [a few months ago] was to drop the citizen-soldier concept and give all civs a standard villager. There are some things wrong with actors and entities which make it difficult or impossible to have multi-gendered units, but if I could find a way to do it I would combine the male and female slaves into one unit and the male and female citizens into one unit.
I'd like the engine to support extra things like squads and advanced combat even if not used in the main game (though they shouldn't be a priority in that case). Indeed the gameplay would change dramaticly, but you would find out that even with less military entities, combat micro would become a lot more demanding. Unless battalions are mostly cosmetic, without advanced combat. Your blacksmith is another thing I mostly like in theory but can see to contribute a lot in balancing difficulties. More or less agreed on the worker thing.
-
(This as a reply to many people and points in one, to avoid like 8 quotes)
While I'm guilty of commenting without having played A22 at all, I think the game as it stands is full of bad decisions in gameplay design. If the goal is enhancing it's current (or recent:p) form I'd stand mostly for reduced diversification, especially in the early game which is most affected by assymetry. 12 civs are a lot, all RTS games I can think of with similar numbers of civs have relatively small tech-tree variations. That said, while citizen soldiers for all (preferably just one class) or for no civs (best choice) would be my preferance, I can see how having them for just some civ(s) might work. Take the example of levy hoplites as the only CC for Athens in a match-up against a civ with no CC. They could be slow moving and relatively weak especially in attack, making them not ideal raiders, while the opposing civ has appropriate units available to fight them from the early game. Or, as many have suggested, have a timed Warcraft 3 style "militia/call to arms" ability, so that they cannot be on the offensive for long. Then a non-early game tech could increase the duration of it, or even make it last until turned off. The packing system would be a lesser solution imo. An instant, non-reversable, paid Villager->Fighter mechanic like in AOM could be better in that direction.
I don't like the idea of ranked up or upgraded CC's gathering slower as it adds a rather pointless micro mechanic in spliting unit groups of mixed ranks to workers-fighters all the time and not offering anything really interesting besides a debatable illusion of realism. Likewise, the looting mechanic might sound cool, but in practice it's another snowball effect, rewarding resources to one player each time the other loses a unit, though it somewhat fits in current design as a flawed choice to boost raiding a little.
Balance of history and gameplay is a tricky thing, for reasons already mentioned and because history many times isn't clear, having missing links, conflicting sources and dishonest motives. I'd say most important is to keep historicity very high in the looks of the game (already true for the most part), while focusing on the gameplay side for the rest (ofc taking inspiration for techtrees, bonuses etc from history).
Counters and them being hard or soft might or might not fit well depending on target gameplay. Current form would benefit from a mix of hard and soft counters. It is close to classic RTS combat and due to having a huge variety of simularly human units, it's hard (and very ahistorical) to go too far with attribute balancing/differentiation and succeed. Also several units have very illogical attributes as of now. Counters can reflect unit roles where mechanics can't and are relatively easy to balance.
-
38 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
How much have you played it? lol
Not to mention I haven't even attempted to balance it yet, since it would be stupid to attempt in earnest while still in alpha. So, I don't know how anyone can say DE is "hard to balance" when it hasn't even been attempted.
I haven't played it in a long time. I think last time was a few years back when we played together. I've played at most 10 games in old versions as far as I remember. That said the quantity and mix of features you've added or plan to add make me not very optimistic that it can be reasonably balanced for multiplayer. Prove me wrong when the time to balance it comes, I hope you manage to do so because I'd like to play it in it's full form (that holds true anyway, balanced or not).
On more specific reasonings on why, without re-reading your blueprints for more arguments, the balance between economy/combat micro, the function of some techs (as well as their huge number), the presence of the (heavily prone to snowballing) capturing mechanic, the variety of battalion upgrades and the addition of even more civs come to mind.
But let's not lead the thread there, if you want to keep debating on this we could continue in private or link it to a proper DE thread.
-
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Lot of things happens since you were away.
Done reading it as well as a good number of comments. While he has many points on things that don't work well and some interesting suggestions, I disagree on so many things I don't even know where to start. Btw do you also mean that the team has settled on any major gameplay issues in the meanwhile? If so I'd be very interested to know.
-
17 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Depending on the chosen gameplay I might agree, but we need to be carefull not to add too many same class units per civ. Say militia, citizen soldier and champion spearman, doesn't serve gameplay much, especially for classic RTS style.
9 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:I would personally advocate for historical accuracy being the basis for the continued existence or discontinuation of citizen soldiers. The truth is that this type of phenomenon did occur in history, but I dislike the way it is found in 0 A.D. Working while armed is absurd. If a player wants a citizen changed to a soldier, they should have a "packing" effect like siege weapons in which they change from one role to the other. This would make raiding much more possible as there would be a window of attack. Should all civilisations have it? No. Cultures such as Carthage, which primarily relied on mercenaries, and ones like the successor states had professional armies, should have a completely different system. In later stages of the game things could change for these cultures, but the core design should be around them not having these and vice versa for citizen soldier civilisations (*cough* Marian Reforms). The important thing about having a flexible unit like a citizen soldier is giving the civilisations that have them a trade off so that that feature is not exploited.
If people think that militia were ineffective, I would remind them that the Roman military machine during the Republic operated that way. Another point to make is that there could be ways to level up soldiers. On the topic of Rome, assuming that battalions are used, a group of citizens would first be mobilised as just velites. By drilling them, they could be hastati, followed by princeps, and lastly triarii.
That's another issue, immersion breaking weapons and armor appearing out of nowhere. I'd say successor "katoikoi" settlers, fit in the citizen soldier description though. I've also thought of the Roman infantry progressing from velites to triarii but all those class changes might be an issue gameplay-wise. Perhaps it could be fleshed out though.
-
30 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
------can be nice discuss which things isn't desired for gameplay----
I tested in DE removing citizen soldiers... don't feel easy to balance.
Removing single units can limit some strategy micro.
I wouldn't blame the removal of citizen soldiers if DE is hard to balance (which seems to be the case since it tries to add way too much imo).
Single units and battalions/groups tend to favor different styles of micro, deppending to the rest of game mechanics as well.
4 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:Actually I believe the best thing to do would be to consider why they were added in the first place. I'd say historical reasons, but I may be wrong.
If this is the reason, can there be a way to not lose this historical accuracy ?
Yeah, those are the major drawbacks. I don't think there is any bad decision, just decision we feel not comfortable making. From an external point of view, removing the citizen soldiers seem like the best idea. I remember a lot of people getting confused about it.
They were probably added for historical accuracy and to differentiate early 0 A.D. from AOK. But even taking historical accuracy into account, not every male citizen, non-citizen (person with reduced rights, such as immigrants) or slave was a soldier in war times. In fact a minority in most cases. The classic RTS way of recruitment can be argued to be equally or more historical, representing the ones who went for training or picking up arms in the barracks as soldiers, while the rest as workers.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
For citizen soldiers, I would be for having some civs with them, and some without
I think the main issues with citizen soldiers are:
- A workforce that can fight raiders on equal terms. Severely messes the risk-reward balance between booming and rushing.
- The attacker losing resources while the defender still gathers for a while until the attack arives, discouraging rushing.
- Different movement speeds and costs among citizen soldiers favoring some classes as workers, some civs for their roosters. A nightmare to properly balance with 12 civs and several unit classes.
Possible solutions:
- Remove citizen soldiers. Easiest fix.
- Just one melee citizen soldier per civ (spearman?) representing the citizen levy. Uniformity across civs and relatively balanceable, while not neccesarily fixing all issues.
- Just one melee citizen soldier for one civ to make it unique while not completely discarding the mechanic. Might lead to some civ balance issues, while not neccesarily fixing all issues.
- Some factions with citizen soldiers, some without as you suggested. I'd still propose just one per civ. Might lead to some civ balance issues, while not neccesarily fixing all issues.
On the last three solutions we could play with the stats and cost of citizen soldiers to trying and find a happy medium between attackers and defenders in the early game. Also another thing that matters is what unit classes the rushing player will have available in the early game to deal with the citizen defence.
-
1
-
39 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Obviously though, there are compromises that can be made for the game. If battalions were introduced, a lot of the existing systems could still be in game but simply with more automation. Individual trees could be replaced by forest patches you assign a crew of workers to harvest from. All sources could be infinite, with the limitation primarily being the gather rate. Resources could be potentially permanently exhausted by assigning additional crews to harvest them at a faster rate, but that practice would have to be used with caution. Pathfinding could be simplified to make formation travel much simpler just by making the obstructions clear.
In general though, I think that you have made good analyses of the sub-genres of RTS 0 A.D. could draw on.
I more or less agree that those are good possibilities, but since my first example went to the extreme with battalion combat, I'd prefer the opposite direction for it's economy. In an intermediate gameplay what you proposed or similar ideas could apply.
21 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:So in any case no more citizen soldiers ?
I would be tending towards the AOE variant.
Just a question you seem to have some knowledge of these matters and while I have been around for more than six years I don't know much about your background in that area. Is it more like a general knowledge or do you have some work experience behind ?
Yeah I don't like the current concept of citizen soldiers at all from a gameplay perspective. It messes badly with economy and raiding mechanics. Perhaps having just one class of weak citizen soldiers per civ or just for one civ as a unique mechanic (say the hoplite levy of Athens) could work in order not to discard it.
Something in between. I've been playing strategy games for about 15 years (as a relatively good but lazy player almost always avoiding hotkeys and fixed build orders), modding several of them and reading on game design for several years now. I'm also a history nerd (especially ancient era) since my pre-school years.
-
8 hours ago, shieldwolf23 said:
THAT call has been made a lot of times in different threads all around the forum. Most are debated, but almost every one of them have been ignored at the end. Discussions are good though. We can always dream about them.
True, but that is normal, not every idea can get it's way in because of work needed, incompatibility with other incorporated ideas or distaste by influential people. However, a minority of proposed, previously unplanned ideas have made it into the game and to my knowledge others like advanced combat/formations are still considered. A purpose of this thread is to understand where the gameplay could be heading and maybe influence it in meaningful games. I guess I could just ask team members in private, but I doubt that I would get the same answear from everyone, or that each of them is sure about it. Worst case, even if this discussion is a waste of time towards it's goals, it has some value in understanding parts of gameplay design.
@Servo @stanislas69 A poll like that would need to be extremely detailed and well writen and even then I doubt every participant would have the knowledge or the will to evaluate the effects of each option. I'd say that actually none of us can 100%. Picking what we like in each game (as a majority or as individuals) and throwing it together would end up in a messy game. It could have the value of knowing which features are most desired by those who happened to participate, which could have some limited use though.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, av93 said:
We don't know how would react the player base with a major redesign. For sure always there would be conservative people, but maybe a lot of people will welcome changes, and some other will just accept. I don't know.
BTW, another great problem is the coding side. Is not the same designing the game with some key features that condition all debates, because they could drastically change the gameplay (I'm thinking in run/charge, formations/battalions movement and fighting, and directional damage), and isn't the same redesigning the game with the current stats of things that the engine can handle.
True and there's many people who prefered the older combat system from some alpha's ago. It's impossible to please everyone, hard to guess what path would have been more popular in the end, and popularity doesn't mean "betterness" anyway.. it can be shaped into people's minds by conditioning (familiarity, promotion/brainwash, WOW! factor etc). That said any gameplay style can be done right and functionality/quality can find a numerous player base for the game no matter which style is chosen. It's free, good and authentic looking, mod-friendly, waiting to be fleshed out.
The coding side is what makes me lean towards simplicity without expecting radical additions, even possibly cutting some of the unready features and shapping the game accordingly. But in the end the programmers and decision makers could surprise us adding even more than "promised", which has happened already, with mixed effects so far. By mixed effects I mean that adding extras pushed for adding more and more, generated discussions on adding even more, to make a more complex and unique game, while delaying production and causing indecision.
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:One thing that has to be considered that is important is that while adding features that come of as cool is nice, a streamlined intuitive system is necessary for an RTS when people have a limited timeframe to make decisions. If we want to have battles that are rewarding to micromanage, it is necessary to automate other types of systems. That is what made games such as Call of Duty so great to play; players, in focussing on the battles could boost their economy since their basis of supply was built entirely around how much territory they controlled. Age of Mythology also, in making its game, realised that adding favour as a resource required another resource to be cut from the system.
Agreed. More choices, complexity, impressiveness and realism are good as long as they have a meaningful focus and don't become overwhealming to the player and hard to balance. I think we could go on adding examples forever, as releases mostly show us that successful games stroke the right balance and recklessly ambitious games failed or ended up being released incomplete and more or less failed.
29 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Thorfinn is right , if something isn't necessary ... we can see this AoE DE failed to bad, because trying to focus in two different target and fail both.
They try their success keeping their nostalgic mechanic but at this point is outdated.
By the way why no try to improve battle mechanic without lost the simplicity?
Make longer battles , making micromanagement more easy. the troops hold the line with using ranged units and mobile faster troops keeping the support of infantry.
Many mechanics still missing...
I think where AOE DE seems to have failed is in being yet another buggy official release (becoming the "industry standard" these days...). It never promised more than new graphics and slightly more modern controls as far as I know. It also has some ridiculously high requirements for what it is, so I guess terrible optimization. On the Stronghold thing, indeed it has very detailed economy and city building, but it's combat system is even simpler than AOE's.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:
I can split this discussion as needed if for some reason we need to keep it organized
It was more of my way of saying "hey, I don't ignore you" to some people or parts of what they say and an encouragement to stay on topic rather than a call for radical action:)
To clarify a bit on my views on battalion/formation vs single unit combat since this seems to be a key point of the discussion for many people. Battalions could be added, but that means much extra codding work, especially if their they are not meant to be a simplistic "one unit, many actors" entity. Imo they fit well with a more complex approach with morale and/or stamina, running/charging, directional bonuses etc. But that would make the combat more complex so it fits with a simpler economy. Several people argue that you would actually control less units. It's true but those units would need far more babysiting to be effective (while single units with a basic "stats" combat system are relatively effective even left on their own). See again my previous example, try playing an Age Of Kings economy and a Total War battle (say just 20 units instead of 100 or 200) at the same time. An intermediate balance between combat and economy, adding features to one while removing features from the other is an option, but not necessarily better until tested (and ofc subject to personal preferance to a large degree). What would be boring in the end, imo is having squads that just work as simple, single units without realistic combat tactics, because we needed to tunedown the combat too much to fit current economy, or we couldn't get enough code in. I hated this approach in several games (rise of nations, rise and fall: civilzations at war and to a degree cossacks among others) and found it far inferior to single units. If a fully functioning squad system is possible, while striking a right balance with the economy, I'm all for it.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, shieldwolf23 said:
@Prodigal Son - I think focusing on your mod's ideas would, for me, be the best course of action. Don't expect those ideas to transfer to the base game, since a lot of threads proposing changes to the core game have been presented, deliberated, and dismissed.
As I've said in a prior post working on the mod is not a priority for me at this point. This can change with my mood, especially if the game reaches a more stable phase. That said, I'm not trying to turn the game into my mod, which anyway doesn't have a concluded gameplay core for a while now. Instead I'm saying that the team should conclude on something cohesive and doable, be it ispired by some of my various (and conflicling) ideas or not (see this tread).
10 hours ago, sphyrth said:We're at this point of the discussion again? Woohoo!
Asides from the lack of staff to spearhead this thing, I think the biggest hurdle for the Gameplay Feature is this: the current playerbase. The current playerbase like the general gameplay as is. And they'll fight tooth and nail when that balance gets broken.Now for my continued hibernation because I have yet to get over the Holiday Hangover.
I remember the game being at this point in discussion forever and up to now, so I don't think I should be singled out by anyone as making unwanted noise. Besides that, ideas and brainstorming by anyone should be welcome. The current playerbase is indeed another factor to take into account, but the end goal shouldn't be just clinging to their (varied, anyway) demands.
Forthermore, I've seen several specific ideas worth discussing in the comments, but I'll refrain from doing it as this wasn't the point of this thread.
-
Introduction
Realising that confusion on where the gameplay is/should be heading is still going on and inspired by discussion in this thread, I've got a number of different proposals for the game. They are based mostly on old ideas (not necessarily mine), while writen mostly on memory and would have improvements, extra details and better presentation had I used my notes. However I'll try to be as objective as I can about them and explain their pros and cons in hopes that they might inspire something. They also include related games that you might like if you like each Idea or regardless.
1. "4x/Grand Strategy with Tactical/Battalion Combat System"
Features:
- Battalion/Positional Combat (flanking etc)
- Battalion-only Recruitment
- Battalion Leveling & Customization
- Running/Charging, Morale and/or Stamina, Unit Abilities?
- Demoralized/Depopulated units (battalions) will flee to a friendly town (or territory) to replentish unless destroyed/rallied
- Towns are single, customizable/upgradable entities, (could be consisting of additional current building models under a single entity as they upgrade?)
- Towns have their own manpower pools and tech levels
- Towns and capturable resources/structures autogenerate income (or grant bonuses), possibly only if occupied by worker "battalions", including captured enemies (slaves)
- Lootable trade routes between cities and ports. Supply lines?
- Focus on real world maps?
Pros:
- Not overdone, much room for innovation
- Easy to assign unit roles even without counters
- Easy to represent large armies
- Fits great with territory and capturing concepts
- Easier to design campaigns and sandbox historical scenarios
- Religion/Culture/Politics could fit in well as techs, choice pairs, auras etc
- Easier and fitting to introduce new civs
Cons:
- A quite a lot of work thrown away, and extra work needed
- Limited/no citybuilding
- More prone to snowballing due to capturing
- Hard to balance a competitive multiplayer game in this style
Similar Games: Hegemony Series (Philip of Macedon/Gold/Rome e.t.c.)
Partly Similar Games: Paradox Games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Stellaris e.t.c), Rise Of Nations / Empire Earth, Total War Series , Spartan / Gates Of Troy
2. "Age Of Empires Clone"Features:
- Familiar Age Of Kings based gameplay
- No citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, territories, heroes
- Mostly shared unit classes among civs
- Universal upgrades
- Focus on Random Maps
- Mostly Hard Counters
Pros:
- Tested formula and desired by many who want the new AOE
- Kinda easy to balance
- Relatively little extra work needed in art and coding
- Scouting is valuable and replayability high due to random maps
Cons:
- Some work thrown away
- Very little innovation
Similar Games: AOE Series, Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds
3. "Starcraft A.D."
Features:
- Familiar RTS gameplay, somewhat more modern and fast paced than AOE
- No citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, territories, heroes
- Structure Requirements instead of Ages/Phases, Local Structure Upgrades
- Unique roosters for each civ
- Focus on Skirmish Maps
- Mix of Soft and Hard Counters
Pros:
- Tested formula, ideal for competitive if done right
- Relatively little more work needed in art and coding
- Unique unit roosters
- Scouting is valuable due to largely visible tech
- Balanced Skirmish Maps
Cons:
- Hard to balance and diversify unit roosters due to similarities among historical troops and the number of civs
- Some work thrown away
- Not much innovation
Similar Games: Starcraft, Armies Of Exigo
Partly Similar Games: Warcraft Series
3.5. "2 & 3 Mixed With Possible Extras"Features:
- Familiar RTS gameplay
- No universal citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, (heroes/territories?)
- Structure Requirements instead of Ages/Phases, Local Structure (and some local tech?) Upgrades
- Partly unique roosters for each faction OR "unique feature": Customizable units (chose weapons & armor with preset stats bonuses and cost for each of your unit classes in game)
- "Unique Civ features" : A civ could upgrade/level units through combat (Romans?), another have a limited form of citizen soldiers (Athenians?), another units that toggle between melee and ranged weapons (Persians?) another have (some) soldiers that can build e.t.c.
- Focus on Random Maps
- Mix of Soft and Hard Counters
Pros:
- Partly tested formula
- Relatively little more work needed in art and coding
- Scouting is very valuable due to largely visible tech and random maps. High replayability.
Cons:
- Could be a bit hard to balance
- A little work thrown away
- Not too much innovation
Similar Games: Empires Apart, Ancient Wars Sparta / Fate Of Hellas
Conclusion
While I know that none of the ideas above is reinventing the genre, I consider them doable and cohesive enough and I think the game needs something along those lines to reach a complete stage at some point in the not-so-distant future. It might be still on alpha, but how many more alphas will there be? I guess 4 to finish the latin alphabet, or even just 1 to complete it's classical form? Going to Beta usually means a feature-complete game lacking only polish. By going overly-ambitious while changing goals frequentily along the way things get messed up. This should be especially understood by an everchanging team of unpaid volunteers if they are to deliver something good, which would be quite an achievement and is still possible.
I'll try to rank my proposed ideas in two ways. If going by innovation (and risk) as the desired factor, I'd suggest them in order 1>3.5>3>2. If going by practicality I'd likely say the opposite, though I'm not sure on how to rank 3.5 and 3 in this case. Imo the last 3 could easily trade specific features with each other but not with the first one. Anyway... eveyrone is free to steal from the above for whatever use, also discuss, challenge, add your own.
-
3
-
5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Indeed. Now needs defined what constitutes a "foundation." Give a bullet point list.
That's very subjective, but we could try. For it to make sense I'd to take into account at least:
- What is ready to be used as of art/code
- What is not working as intended from the above
- What is easy to fix/add, or at least is probably doable in the relatively short term
- How we want the game to play in a broad, then somewhat specific way
- What details fit in the above vision while doable within given time/personel (or art/code) constraints
- How much/which work could be thrown out by any radical change and are we ok with such actions
- To what degree we will try to be objective, bypassing our confused egos, those of others and whatever "popular consensus", in trying to make it the best we can within the above limits
That's all I can think for now.
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone Well my point for bringing up WC3 was what you left out of the quote (that it handles it's coding weaknesses in a smart way). A battalion system can be handled in many different ways, but unless it's very simplistic, imo , it's incompatible with current economy. Anyway I could say much for and against the rest of your proposals, but let's not turn this into another "which gameplay details are best" thread, while it's overdone and we don't even have the foundation laid down.
@stanislas69 I think we a agree on a lot but also disagree on a lot. Plus judging from me (but I'll risk to say it affects both of us nowadays), we'd have the problem of who will handle the tedious parts.
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The gif is obviously posted in jest since I have previously admired your work and other posts. Perhaps you don't understand the sheer amount of blood spilt over this single issue over the many years. The only answer is modding so you can demonstrate your ideas, else you just start the 50th thread where good ideas go to die.
Well after about 3 years of almost complete inactivity here, I was expecting to find more focus towards the most important part, a clear gameplay goal. Still I'm not losing all hope for the game and I'm not in the mood to restart working on the mod.
-
2
-
-
I'll expand a little on my way of thinking around this. Also if what stan said holds true and the team is lacking in this field, I'm open to discussion on how I could help.
While working on my (now stagnated) mod and other projects and reading more history/playing more strategy games, (from Classic RTS to Field of Glory II, Hegemony, Civ, Stelaris, CK2...) for enjoyment and/or scanning them for ideas, I've come across some issues. What to aim for, what to keep and what to discard? The more ideas I come across, the more I want to steal, edit, fit with other or draw inspiration from. To me it's a natural process of opening your mind on whatever subject, becoming curious and interested, ovewealmed and confused at the same time. If you are to deliver a complete (or anything close to that) creation, you need to focus on something. Avoid a good portion of the possible ways in order to go somewhere. While the eternal search is far more fascinating and honest, and I mostly tend to go that way in real life at the cost of many things, it's not a very functional habbit for game design. Especially when you don't have one contributor but many, causing the confusion to skyrocket.
I've mostly used two extreme opposites as suggestions on where to lead 0 A.D. gameplay. RTS formula vs a mix of enhanced tactics and grand strategy*. I'm in noway claiming to understand the entire range of possibilities, nor that any kind of intermediate gameplay would be undesirable. But reading opinions, from years ago to today, by both team and community members, it often comes across as many people influence the games curse towards a mix of AOK economy (almost cloned to be the current one in game) and Total War style combat. Try fighting a total war battle while managing an age of kings base (while having the two linked for reinforcements, but that's not possible). Even if you can with great personal success and pleasure, would you suggest that the average player should have to cope with it? If we want more tactical combat, we need to simplify the economy accordingly (not neccessarily a bad idea, given it could solve issues with hunting, tree placement etc). Or let's stick with Classic gameplay and skip devoting a lot of work on implementing extra combat mechanics (or being scared of having to, among other colossal tasks). Or find a happy medium, but decide on something:).
On the scale and game pace thing, do we really need to have quantity over performance and gameplay quality? WC 3 is one of the most successful games of the genre. It uses 100 pop (in practice more like 30-40 since units cost pop accordingly to their power). The same game even after years of professional polish will lag badly on custom scenarios with hundreds of units. But the core game, supporting what it can, runs fine. I'm not saying lets go for 30 or 100 max units per player. It might be too immersion breaking. But we could have less than 300, at least until performance is greatly improved. Also, high unit speed and huge vision break immersion and make scouting too easy, while incohesive actors for simular units/structures make bits of the game confusing/unappealing (I'm all for realism where it fits, but for example we don't need 5 different cloth colors for the same unit type messing with teamcolor).
*Tactics as increased battlefield focus. Grand Strategy as focus on the great scene of things, say empire building, culture, politics, etc.
-
2
-
-
I've played previous versions of DE and like many ideas there. I probably would like many of the new ones as well, if/when I check it again (which I can't from my current computer).
However my whole point isn't to dictate what's best as a whole or as isolated elements. I'm not even sure what I'd prefer and I do like a good number of styles and strategy games. What I propose in short is that the team or whoever is currently in charge of the gameplay developement should finally decide on a solid basis and work around what fits it.
I Guess This Is The Time For Me To Apply
in Applications and Contributions
Posted · Edited by Prodigal Son
Position: Gameplay Developer
Do you understand that Wildfire Games is a non-commercial project, work for 0 A.D. is volunteer, and work is done for free? Yes, and while I wouldn't mind any interesting professional occupation paying my expenses, I value non-monetary interactions as superior towards creativity and honesty.
Do you agree to distribute all your work for Wildfire Games under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike
license? I'll shoe ya all if you steal MY work (Actually, no I won't throw sues at you and yes, I agree)
Are you sure you are not wanting to work on something programming related? (Then you don't need to send in an application form.) Yes, but I could occasionally do some simple tasks like in the past.
Name: Nikos (or Nick), from Nikolaos. Full name currently classified (I'm getting funny).
Email: I'd rather not post it in a thread.
Location: Athens, Greece.
Availability: I generally could offer several hours a week, often many hours a day and would also usually be reachable during my work hours. But as my schedule and priorities aren't always stable, I might have small periods of inactivity. The motivation of working on something I really like, from a position I consider meaningful, would probably mean I won't quit unless something really serious happens.
Age: Soon to be thirty-two.
Occupation: I'm now eating dried nuts with honey (I'm getting funnier). But I'm an optician/salesman/bored/whatever...
Motivation: Love of history, strategy games and their design. Creative/healing brain activity. Working in a team instead of alone.
Personality: Ignorant human being, skeptic, anti-authoritarian, a weird mix of a romantic and a cynic, rather shy, wannabe philoshoper, trying to be a decent/just person.
Skills and Experience: See just bellow.
Short Essay: I've been a strategy game player since about the year 2000, starting with Age of Empires, Age Of Kings, Myth I & II at friends' places, without owning a computer. It started for good though 2-3 years later when I bought Age Of Mythology and soon Warcraft III, which are probably my most played games, along with Rome Total War and World Of Warcraft. The first thing I did when I first run AOM was to create a scenario with the editor. I found about 0 A.D. online, sometime in the mid 00s, while searching for new strategy games. I've been a minor contributor to the game as well as a modder for it and RTW, WC3, Civ V. Also a map maker/scenario designer for AOE, AOK, AOM, AOE 3, Rise Of Nations, Stronghold Crusader and Civ III-V among other games. Besides playing, modding and designing strategy (and rpg) video games , I've designed tabletop/card games since a young age and been a history nerd since my pre-school years, with the ancient era (and it's military part) being my favorite. I'm intrigued by strategy game design from creative, balancing and realism/historical perspectives. While trying to find what works best under any given circumstances, besides a lot of trial and error, I've read on game design and self-studied on how various games work and try to achieve their goals.
Interests and Hobbies: Music listening/composing (with a focus on lyrics), reading, writing, the occasional mountain-walking, socio-political/scientific/philosophical discussions. I'll soon try to sing my songs in a band for the first time instead of playing guitar. May the higher beings of the universe help me.
Staff: I don't know any team member personally.
Community: Currently none besides this one, but I have participated in several game forums (thehiveworkshop and twcenter among others) and still check some of them at varied frequencies.
Favorite Game: Impossible to single one or a couple. Lately I play Crusader Kings II more than anything else. I wish 0 A.D. becomes my favorite.
Work Examples: You could check the mod Ancient Empires, though at the moment it's broken by game updates, stagnated and much of the information on the forum is outdated. If need be I could also dig for and provide my work for other games, in various states of playability. I fear all of this might not be tempting enough and I'm also not sure that the team wants a gameplay designer, but I strongly believe one or more are needed. So I thought, why not apply instead of keeping to spam the forum with suggestions as I've done occasionally for years now. To be honest I've thought about it in the past as well but this is the first time I took it seriously.
I'd love to make my dream strategy game or mod a reality, but at this point I'm so full of ideas it's hard to choose on which to work and working alone is a serious drain on my motivation. If I were to be accepted in the team I'd prefer to focus on a practical approach. I'd like to know what is planned, how the team works internally and to what degree changes are debatable as of now, because what I get from reading the forums is rather confusing. I guess it's most realistic not to have extreme expectations about possible changes, so I'll provide some short proposals bellow based on that assumption ( = don't shoe me for making no mention of battalions).
Mind that my observations are based on playing up to A21, and then on, only on impressions from forum comments, so please excuse any neglect on my part. Anyway, to the proposals:
Phases & Tech-Tree Layout
Capturing, Rank And Looting Mechanics
Citizen Soldier Concept
Unit Roles, From Historical And Gameplay Perspectives. Counters And Their Function
Game Pace And Scale
Territories
Visual Cohession
Civ Differentiation
Heroes
Maps
I can take the time to provide a more unified and personal gameplay proposal with additional details if that's desired, but I thought this rather generic approach describing possibilities is best since I have almost no clue on what is planned (and to what degree things are planned) behind the scenes and even if accepted I don't expect full control on the design anyway. What I would find ideal is working with a small number of sensible and friendly people that have a clue on gameplay design, while taking in account other team and community opinions as well.
This was my first application on anything ever, I hope it's not terrible and that my english are fully understandable.
Thanks for taking the time to read,
Prod/Nikos