[Really?]

1 minute ago, borg- said:

In team games, I've seen a team win prizes rush by one of the players. That was really very interesting to see. Age of Empires has always had a lot of strategy variety, maybe not as sc2 but is also present. Unfortunately, this does not happen in aoe1, its balance is bad, and because of that, among other things, it was not even 10% of its successor's success.

So you agree that a game with lack of strategical choices is bad because this results in bad balance and makes it less fun for the majority of players, am I right?

[Really?]

1 minute ago, borg- said:

This build order (22 > feudal) it's standard, but it all depends on what strategy you're going to do. Does not work on water map for example.

Also probably will not work in a rush of towers, or militia rush. For each of these strategys, there is a specific order build that best fits.

.

So? You yourself said the basic buildorder is the same for most civs, I just said that you're correct by stating the default 22 pop for landmaps. How this fact that a 22 pop feudal doesn't work on water maps make the situation on 0 AD better?

[Really?]

4 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

 

So for you it isnt enough that :

- There are strategies available at the start of the game, and you need to think about choosing the most appropriate

- Once you have chosen one, you need to think about how to do it, because its execution changes every game.

Because, my point last post was that your booming strategy could be countered by another strategy (rush) or by this strategy being done better. Also, the other strategies i said in the other post (for example ressource monopolizing or other i don't know) are still valid and all could be used as an example to answer your post. I mean that spamming units is not all and that it can be countered by better strategy depending on game which mean that all of these remain valid overall in the game.

And build order is one of the things that make your strategy better. (after all you can't effectively do a strategy if you don't build units from CC do you ?) All my talk about build order showed that there is not only 1 way to do a strategy.

And sorry for not knowing what does the word "teching" mean.

So in the end did you refute my words when i say that there are strategies available ? And that you need to think about them ?

Nope it's not enough. There are some tactical choices indeed.

military unit training start <-> economic unit training start
military building start <-> ecnomonic building start

Then you can select between a variety of earlygame units (spear/swordman, slinger/skirmisher, vacalry A/B)

All from the start, with no further strategical choices required. AND after that you spam champions/elite units because they're superior to all earlygame units, buildings and other units.

And that's about it. And that's a problem.

@Grugnas Indeed, Starcraft is also a great game with lots of strategical and tactical depth.

[Really?]

7 minutes ago, borg- said:

Any rts game you will find a build order, this is logical, players will polish their strategies until you create one that is the fastest / most functional.
There are several different strategies and openings depending basically on the map and civilization (bonus).

No have luck in RTS games, just if have bugs.

lategame has nothing definite, in age of empires you can not only spame a unit, regardless of the power it has, you will lose. The bonuses are influential, but do not lead you to victory alone.

Map control is essential in age of empires, and this is a point in common with 0 a.d. But there is a difference between the two. In 0 a.d you probably can not turn a game where your enemy is with the whole map, just because the balance is horrible, the towers can kill lots of faces alone, and this does not happen in age of empires. You always have a way out, or at least most of the time.

In age of empires 2 there is no specific build order for each civ, usually the same, with minor changes.

If I watch multiplayer all I see are vietnamese players rushing to bronze age, research the techs for herdings etc. and then spam cav archers from 4-6 archery ranges, so I doubt that you need more that you cannot win with only getting one unit. This has to do with Assyrian free archers +40% rate of fire though.

The comparison to AoE is actually a bad example, I admit. Mainly because AoE was made when multiplayer/competitive gaming wasn't really a thing in 1995/96. At least not the way it has become in the last 10-15 years. It's good for singleplayer tho.

About AoE II: the initial buildorder is the same indeed, 22 pop -> feudal. But after that you have lots of strategical and tactical options. Way more than 0 AD has (or even AoE). Which is the reason why AoE II is a popular league game, and AoE I isn't (although AoE I has other reasons like missing some technical features that make the game more easy to install/play than AoE II because AoE II is newer).

[Really?]

5 minutes ago, borg- said:

Yes, age of empires torney, where did you see the 2?

Because AoE II out of the AoE game series is the only community I'd consider to be competitive. And this is because AoE II is a great game with many nice game mechanics and a lot of strategical and tactical depth PLUS various options to micro. So you're playing AoE 1 I suppose?

Then I'll adjust the questions slightly, the answer will be most likely the same though. Although multiplayer in AoE 1 is pretty dull aswell. Assyrian + cav archer spam > all anyways, so I sort of understand why you enjoy 0 AD. But at least you can play stuff like Minoan comp archer spam or mass legions with Chosons or tower rush with Romans.

Anyways.

"So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (nomad, highlands, islands/coasts) and different military openings are in AoE?
How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame?
How luck dependant is the game?
Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies?
How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions ingame?
How does map control work?
Difference between playing pockets and flank positions?
General buildorders for civs?

And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD? "

[Really?]

2 hours ago, borg- said:

I have already put me in total disposition to do the balance of the game, respecting the gamedesign of game, that is to say, with or without counters system.
I'm sure i would do a great job. Probably the most experienced player of 0 a.d, with the most games, besides being the best player.
Not only that, I am now 28 years old, and I have played rts games since my 8 years, most of the time competitively, a practical example is to be in the semi finals of an age of empires championship in this moment. I must be the one who understands the most here in the balancing part.
The real problem I see is that with each small change, you should by voting and asking the opinion of many people, who most of the time do not even play the game, at least not multplayer. It makes no sense to me. The team should be small, with a maximum of 3 guys taking care of it.

Here. Also please focus on the questions I asked you.

[Really?]

7 minutes ago, borg- said:

This confirms what I have said, many opinions and few decisions. 

Okay once again, you said you're pro with AoE 2.

So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (arabia, GA, Arena, water maps) and different military openings are in AoE 2?
How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame?
How luck dependant is the game?
Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies?
How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions and team bonuses?
How does map control work?
Difference between playing pockets and flank positions?
General buildorders for civs?

And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD?

[Really?]

14 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

No. If you do so you will lose. Either you get a disadvantage before p3 due to a rush, that may end the game sooner, either later because as you didn't think about your build order (that must be improvised right in the game) you got behind at economy and are at a disadvantage.

If you have 50k res in bank, yes tech are no brainer. Otherwise you have to choose between them (which one to do first always has an importance).

As usual a "balancer" who doesn't understand the problem.

Let me quote the issue in my FIRST sentence again:

"There is no "best buildorder" because there is no teching"
So? What does your post with "if you do that you will loose because *blablabla*"

How do I loose? With what? By building units? By not building units? By booming? By rushing?

I said you have the OPTION to spam women AND/OR citizen soldiers AND/OR the basic military units from your Commandcenter. I didn't say "OMG BUILD 3 WOMEN THEN 8 CAV ARCHERS AND THEN BOOM OP BEST BUILDORDER".

To quote myself

23 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

It's like playing a dumbed down Age of Empires with even more booming and no own flavor. And it's definately not going to improve with balancing these aspects. It's like putting new rims on a 20 year old car.

So maybe you should start to read something about "variety of choices" "strategical depth" and "gameflow" before lecturing me about how you beat up everyone else with your proness, okay?

 

@Grugnas sort of agree with your points. One thing I'd like to add is that people leave because of "balance" - indeed. But most people will leave earlier because of poor gameplay mechanics. I'm currently asking friends I play other RTS games with to play 0 AD games with me and then come back with a small survey about feedback.

People already have have Age 2 HD and all its variations with tenthousands of players and AoE IV + Definitive Edition coming soon. There no longer is a need for an AoE clone because the "real thing" will >>>>>>>>> 0 AD both in terms of game mechanics aswell as graphics. Leaving 0 AD with nothing behind.

[Really?]

38 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

Then i'll just develop for the 2 first points that are, i believe the main points that really are influenced by gameplay design.

and

.

I believe that proper balancing solve the 2nd point, where all these strategies(that are examples for "conquest" type of games) can be balanced, i can also add another example which is ressource monopolizing strategy. I've seen effective uses of all these strategies, and if one can be better than another it's due to balancing (and if it is really needed i can show how simply balancing can fix that).

 

For the 1st point, it's a bit more complicated but i'll show how 0ad managed to fulfill this point quite successfully.

I saw some people say "do best build order that does best strategy and win". But to me this is false for 0AD and i'll explain why :

Currently, there is no best build order and it is impossible to find a build order that you can apply to each game and expect it to be good. Why ? There is 2 to 3 reasons that work together. The first one is training time of unit along with batch training and citizen soldiers. The 2nd is ressource disposition at start of a game. Your starting ressources influence a lot how you will create units and that will create imbalances really early in the game. The reason behind this is that, to compare with Age of Empires games, 0 A.D's economic units weigh less overall but are in more numbers, train faster, and due to batch training, unlike AoE, you can train as much units as your ressources can afford, instead of 1 villager by 1. So if you have more ressources, you'll be able to grow your population quicker. And it is so true that simply the distance between the woodline you're taking and the CC can make a difference, so  just imagine what additional berries or hunt can do. Why is it important ? Because having these advantages is good, but not knowing how to use them will lead to nothing. If you don't adapt with which units you will do or which technologies you will research, you will end up with useless unspent ressource that add up in your bank which is not good. Not to mention that the strategies you will decide to do will be influenced by these facts. What conclusion should we take of this ? It is that it is impossible to apply "brainless build order" and that it is useless to be fast clicking if you don't know the proper thing to do.

3rd reason is about guessing what your opponent will do. If you know that your opponent will rush but you wont rush yourself, you'll for example prefer making citizen soldier which result in more "imbalances" early game.

So that mean that fastest click clearly is far than being enough in order to win a game. I'll also finish this argument by saying, as an example that currently online, nobody is ever pretending to know a "best build order" (nobody is even speaking about that, never), and that in most recent games between some of the best player in 0ad (borg and me), the strategies and build order we used were always different.

 

There is no "best buildorder" because there is no teching in general. You spam women, cavalry, soldiers, archers etc all from your TC adn then go to phase III and spam like 2 types of super units. Also there are only a couple of technologies available and they're either completely useless (especially priests) and no brainers (daamge upgrades etc.).

It's like playing a dumbed down Age of Empires with even more booming and no own flavor. And it's definately not going to improve with balancing these aspects. It's like putting new rims on a 20 year old car. The game needs a direction, and then features added according to these design directions. And after that is finished you can balance. And modders can modify aspects or even make total remakes from it.

 

[Really?]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

What is the problem with counter system?(I'm not speaking  of old version - the hard counters)

 

Working counter system would do something, but not help in the current state imo. I think the whole damage system needs to be redone, and more damage types need to be applied to make it better. Also, penetration system might be helpful.

If you have units that are virtually unharmed by some thing (like having heavy cavalry that takes no damage from slingers, or low damage from sword weapons etc.) would help to make armies more diverse and make people think about spam.

1 minute ago, Zeta1127 said:

Well, the AI is definitely frustrating at present, since the AI pretty much just rushes to a blob of units without much strategy, but that can be improved in time, especially with formations.

AI is just a general problem but I think that would be fixable by giving it modifiers to economy booming (like maximum of workers per diffictulty level - like easy: 30, medium: 40, hard: 50 etc.

[Really?]

3 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

And i'd like to know for which points.

Read these topics before bothering me again, kthx.

[Really?]

5 minutes ago, borg- said:

I have already put me in total disposition to do the balance of the game, respecting the gamedesign of game, that is to say, with or without counters system.
I'm sure i would do a great job. Probably the most experienced player of 0 a.d, with the most games, besides being the best player.
Not only that, I am now 28 years old, and I have played rts games since my 8 years, most of the time competitively, a practical example is to be in the semi finals of an age of empires championship at that moment. I must be the one who understands the most here in the balancing part.
The real problem I see is that with each small change, you should by voting and asking the opinion of many people, who most of the time do not even play the game, at least not multplayer. It makes no sense to me. The team should be small, with a maximum of 3 guys taking care of it.

The problem is : what do you want to balance in this state? The 6 units that are all available without teching and the 2-3 types of soldiers that are spammed lategame? There is nothing to balance because the game isn't finished and a lot of core gameplay features are either placeholders, missing or not thought out well enough to be ingame. Balancing is the last step after all design decisions are set. With the  progress speed you may re-apply as head balancer in ~ 10 years from now, I think it's realistic that you can expect a finished beta by then.

[Really?]

39 minutes ago, Nescio said:

This is a great paragraph I can fully agree with. Other than that, I've not encountered anything really interesting after quickly skimming most of that design document.

Which is the opposite of what's currently ingame, yes.

[Really?]

51 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Apparently there exists some kind of design document; could it be published prominently at a clear location on these forums? This could help people understand what you works towards to, not just now, but also in months and years to come.

Anyway, I do hope this thread is not too frustrating for you and the other team members. Even though criticisms are posted more frequently than compliments, do know that many people greatly appreciate what's been done so far, what you're still doing right now, and what you all intend to do in the future.

There is a design document. But it's useless since noone cares about it. The game in its current state is 90% the opposite from the design doc. 
In this document I take a couple of references to gameplay related stuff in the design guide that doesn't fit to the current game found in "Part II: Solution Concept using Atheneans as example civilization". Feel free to read it.

 

[Really?]

1 hour ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

*pics up broken mic - nasty glare at stan*

 

Also if there is to be a choosing of a gameplay lead, it should not be just someone suddenly placed on the chair.

Maybe some sort of election where the candidates would tell us their vision of the future 0 A.D.

Where they would highlight the changes that they would try to do, what is their overall standing on the subject

It's always a bad idea to walk with no destination in mind but isn't it worse to rush without thinking down the correctly-deemed path?

If I wake up tomorrow and suddenly see that X just became gameplay leader or whatever and will now proceed to push through counters and whatnot, turning upside down the whole game, I would not be jumping with joy

If X doesn't have enough influence to push through his ideas then what use is a lead? There is no need to appoint a head - it's just dangerous (could turn out to be someone like @DarcReaver)

Simply choose a council comprising of an odd-numbered selection, make everyone vote y/n and things could be done. We don't have to suddenly rush down the drain after so many years of floating.. lets just paddle harder and avoid the rats.

 

*mic in garbage, go buy a new one or don't post*

You may try to host some competitive tournament if you think that this already is so great in terms of gameplay depth and is huge fun and listen to what other peoples say about this tech demo. People who actually play RTS games, on a decent - high level. Try visiting and putting advertisements on sites like https://www.aoczone.net/, https://www.gamereplays.org/portals.php (CnC Generals section maybe) and maybe https://www.coh2.org/. There you should find some players who might be interested.

I'm actually quite interested how a competitive scene judges the game mechanics. Also I'd invite you to actually play some different game competitively to get a general overview how other game mechanics work.

Also @everyone:

 

Quote

What Is a Game Designer?

Now, if you want to be a game designer, the first thing you need to know is what exactly a game designer does. Apparently, this could be very simple, but, as it frequently turns out, people dreaming about a future in games don’t really get what this means and what is expected from a game designer.

NOT an Idea Person

A game designer is a professional specialised in conceiving and delivering games. The job of a game designer doesn’t stop with having a good idea about a game. This is a myth that needs to be debunked. The idea constitutes probably the 1-5% of a game designer’s job. What is really challenging – and what truly defines the job – is all the work the designer does to put the game together, from the early prototype to the final release. The lead game designer is in charge to maintain and direct the general vision of the game.

Everything Starts with a Concept

As we have said, the game designer is not just an idea man. Actually ideas are really cheap, and can come from anyone in a game developer team. The game designer’s first task is to translate the first raw idea into a concept document. This document is meant to describe the general idea of the game and to start reasoning about the technology the game will need, the costs and the timespan the development of the game is going to take. The concept document is a first treatment of the game, and it’s just the very first step of a miles-long journey.

The Game Design Bible (Well, Almost)

The concept document is sometimes further detailed in into what it’s known as the game bible. This is a massive document detailing every tiny aspect of the game. This should work as a reference for the other team members. Every possible answer to their questions should be addressed here.

In the last few years, though, the game bible has changed a lot; since a more flexible workflow is preferred, the documentation is written by the designer during the multiple iterations of a first prototype. In this way the game grows in sync with the observation of the team. For more information or ideas about this kind of process, you should read Daniel Cook’s Game Design Logs.

However, whatever the development process is, the game designer has still the responsibility to keep the documentation updated, and to maintain the documentation and all the game related knowledge base updated.

continue reading: http://wannabe.urustar.net/
General overview about game design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_design

Just saying. this is fundamentally lacking in 0 AD.

 

Also, once again: I never said that that my concept should be used or that every aspect has to be done that I proposed. I said the game needs to be coherent and have a general direction. AoE clone, seperate game, single player game or whatever.

I always said if I don't do it someone else has to decide it. And he has to be competent and experienced with game design. Unless he  is meeting these criteria this will be a huge mess aswell. Maybe even a design TEAM would work aswell, but since noone here has experience in that area idk who should do it. But yea, whatever.

[Really?]

33 minutes ago, elexis said:

> I certainly won't waste dozens of hours to create another base game mod that noone plays.

Just directional damage by itself will cost many weeks if not months.

 Like I stated - first comes the design decision. 

"Do we want directional combat? - Yes/no"
"Do we want hardcounters? - Yes/no"
"Do we want battalions? - Yes/no"
Etc. etc.

Edit: to clear my point more: First you have to know if you need something, and if you need it it's worth the effort to make it. Because once done it adds value to the game and brings it forward in development. This is something that seems to be forgotten here. And also this is the reason why I do not create another sub mod for 0 AD - much effort with no benefit because it's not taken over into the core game anyways. Just like DE or any other gameplay improving mod.

 After these decisions were done there need to be tickets/sub sections to think of ways how the details of such game parts are shown ingame. And then programmers should start working on the implementation or suggest/discuss about ways to implement it in a cool way. After that playtesting, thinking of ways to improve it and then tweak again until you get a nice result. 

Then you get a useful progress. The people who are part of the team will see that the tech demo becomes more and more of a game with each design step fulfilled and one day you get a proper release that you can call "playable beta" - which then is a real game, not a graphic demo anymore. If even the devs themselves do not want to play the game - why should someone else want to play it?

And once again - I didn't say you have to take my concept and put it live. I just said that someone has to take charge on this matter and without it 0 ad will fail. As can be seen in every discussion that I read over here.

[Really?]

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

This the help of @DarcReaver.

The sad part is no one of these lines are a code.

I certainly won't waste dozens of hours to create another base game mod that noone plays. It was meant to actually make the dev team think of their concept, and how they're doing the exact opposite of the design document of 0 AD. And this hasn't changed in half a year. Again. I said I would start working more in practise if I become staff. But since it didn't happen I didn't contribute either. Unfortunately - but I have other projects that are more beneficial to spend my time on. 

I said that I offer to make a proper concept myself as a part of the core team OR someone else needs to do it. From what I've seen there are a couple of ideas going on, but apart from that nothing significantly happened. So it's neither me doing it nor someone else, leading the game's progress ad absurdum once again for half a year. You can't tell me that someone would not have been able to make a gameplay concept in such a long time. Even if not working on it full time. 

 

21 hours ago, Sundiata said:

 

Fair enough, but if 10 or so unofficial mods can be supported, why not 2 official ones, instead of only one? Also, the casual player mode would essentially be the expanded version of the competitive mode, so it would be logical/intuitive which features would be in what version. I also don't see any reason why both modes couldn't be played both offline and online. One is just more tailored for competitive play and the other for expanded gameplay. 

I ask you something: Why do ppl play singleplayer? Usually to either be entertained with an interesting story or somewhat "open world" style stuff that allows them to make the game the way they want.  At least that's what expect from single player games - either to be entertained like from a movie or with interesting new experiences, or to relax after a long day of work. 

0 AD has no interesting stories, and only a pretty limited "open world" character. At least unless people mod it for their personal needs (which again only a very small amount of people is willing to learn or to do). 

So, it's not even an option at this point, because there is no dedicated content that justifies a custom multiplayer/singleplayer split verison of 0 AD.

 

12 hours ago, balduin said:

Just to get one thing clear at the very beginning. 0 A.D. is a free and open source game. Which means it is all about choices. The choices you, I and all of us have. The list of choices starts with you can play 0 A.D. or you don't. This is what you can do with any game regardless if it is free or not. However, free and open source means you can participate and contribute to 0 A.D. There are many ways to contribute. But it also means if you are as unhappy as @DarcReaver then make a non-hostile fork. Find a new team and name for your project to work on your vision of the game.

However, people also have to realize that there is a difference between the game engine Pyrogensis and the visible game. Pyrogensis is the part of 0 A.D. which several developers actually contribute to. The engine is responsible for very basic things like rendering object, loading a unit definition from a file, the engine is responsible for calculating the path a unit will take the engine is also responsible to provide a mechanism to play online (multiplayer). This is the part most people are actually happy about.

 

I'm not unhappy. I'm just saying that the way things are done here are the opposite of how it should work and that the game cannot be completed or even be remotely successful as a game because it's missing almost every integral part that makes a game worth playing. It's just a playable tech demo with pretty graphics. Not a game. And it has not enough content for dedicated singleplayers, and not nearly enough gameplay depth in multiplayer. Which disqualifies it for both audiences. 

Quote

0 A.D. is basically a mod running on top of Pyrogenesis. However, people are downloading normally both when they download 0 A.D. What the online community really complains about is the balance changes to the 0 A.D., the mod running on top of Pyrogenesis. But they could create a mod which incorporates all there wishes, there is no need to have two versions of Pyrogenesis.

 

Regarding the other complains. Finding a common ground between some of the visions and ideas of people is impossible. But people can create mods, which incorporates there vision or there idea on how the game should be. 0 A.D. can be modified. For me it is okay to have many different balance mods. Then I can choose the one I like the most. However, sometimes I like one mod for several reasons and don't like other aspects of the same mod. Then again another mod focuses on different aspects. I love to have several mods. Mods which try new things or implement things differently. All mods have one thing in common, at the end of the day, I as a player have choices and this is important too me.

 

Yes, common ground is important. But it's more important to get a base that can be agreed about. This is absolutely necessary at some point. But this point has not even come yet. Also you like mods - well so do I. But guess what? Not everyone likes mods. And furthermore everything that is a mod is usually not put on the same level as the base game. I.E. competitive gaming always revolves around the basic game. Look at Hannibal_Barca - he plays 0 AD with competition in mind. He doesn't play DE mod or any other one, he plays the basic game. It's always like this.

If you buy a car you need to make sure which type of vehicle you want before you actually start discussing about rim sizes, tyres, color etc. What currently is happening is that you have a car without tyres and only a partly functional engine/transmission, and no interior except for seats. But at the same time you tell people "yeah you can choose your car's colour, lightbeams and interior by modding it, so go have fun with it! The car itself is great already".

 

This has not happened yet and is pretty urgent. If there would be at least a SOMEWHAT plan how the game should end up a lot of issues would fix themselves. 

[Really?]

3 hours ago, balduin said:

@WhiteTreePaladin why not creating a mod which disables/removes all the maps you don't like?

Because mods like this are completely ineffective. There are half a dozen mods that enable the game to be somewhat playable. Then another mod that disables map types? You can't use mods to fix basic gameplay issues. Mods are meant to supplement the game with additional content, not to create basic stuff that should be in the core game.

Modding is important, indeed. And good moddability of a game/game engine is a good thing. But for modding to be useful and successful the base game has to work in the first place. This is THE most important thing. Nobody plays a game that he has to modify with 10 different mods to make it somewhat playable. Everyone takes the vanilla game version, checks it, sees that it's not good and then leaves again. Only a fraction will try the gameplay mods, and of those only a fraction will actually start contributing to the project.

People who want to mod will find ways to do it, whether the game is "modding friendly" or not. And for that, the core game needs to be good enough to let people stick with the game.

This is an issue that seems to not be understood, and the attitude of some guys on the v0AD game game resembles that pretty well. And unfortunately, his has been like this since years, with only little very little progress. The differences between the alphas in terms of gameplay show almost zero progress, although I first started pointing out issues like 2 years ago.

And I already offered my help in the past, but there was no consensus and so the whole thing went apart on without any useful result. Which is because devs can say "well make your own mod (yet another one)" to cover up their inability to fix their game in the first place. Which isn't criticism of them personally, I'm just stating facts. Time has shown that noone used the past 2 years to get a gameplay concept going, or the game vision to be a bit more up-to-date.

[Really?]

42 minutes ago, elexis said:

Really?

Maybe.. Idk tbh.. Was merely a random thought. A fresh project always attracts new people because it's "new". The main issue that I see is that the momentum was lost throughout the last years, and this could re-establish it again. News and game magazines also rather comment and publsih information about new projects instead of old ones.

The staff would automatically increase as more people are willing to work on it. But I might be wrong on that ofc.

[Really?]

4 minutes ago, av93 said:

I will just point that this is not a waste of time, it's a game engine. A lot of people have throw a lot of effort, not only modders.

But a proper game design will make the game shine or not. 

That's the point. As long as the aim is to make a mediocre AoE clone (that's what I've written and what I refer to as "waste of time") - and this is what the game could be compared to (at best and with a lot of goodwill) it indeed is a waste of time to work in this while the "real thing" is coming. It was already problematic when AoE II HD was announced, but now it's even worse.

[Really?]

On 9/28/2017 at 7:05 PM, Hannibal_Barca said:

Ancient Empires - independent mod

Delenda Est - independent mod

Pro Balance mod- concept test

0abc - balance

Vox Populi - balance

Monkey Wrench - balance

Ponies Ascendant - fun

and probably a few more too but these are the ones on the first page

 

On 9/28/2017 at 11:03 PM, Zeta1127 said:

There is also my mod, 0 A.D. Empires Expanded, but I haven't updated it to Alpha 22 or released it to the public.

So many mods, so many people working on essentially the same - making the graphic demo somewhat playable. Some a bit more design oriented, and others stats oriented. But still. If the dev staff would actually at least use one of those concepts as a base game this would be honestly a huge milestone. But obviously it's better to stick with an unenjoyable mess than to make soemthing out of the potential. Also, see below.

On 9/27/2017 at 7:29 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, good luck on this fecking game. I'll take a look in 5-6 years to see if you've finished it yet. Done wasting my time trying to improve this on this pice of chit.

 

"Good bye and good riddance." There, said it for you.

tbh after the announcement of AoE II DE, AoE I DE and AoE IV I don't see much reason to work on this unless the dev staff gets their guts together to build something different than a mediocre AoE clone. I said it in the past that it's a waste of time, remember guys? And no, I'm not sarcastic at this point. I'm pretty disappointed tbh.

On 9/27/2017 at 2:35 AM, leper said:

So don't. Where's the problem? If you decide to change intermediary templates in a mod instead of adding new ones you have to deal with changes anyway. So either deal with them or don't deal with them, but stop complaining.

 

This comment was extremely rude. This attitude breaks communities and ultimately damages the project you're working on.You pretty much showed that you have absolutely ZERO apprecation on wow's hard work on DE. ESPECAILLY considering that 0 AD without any gameplay related mod literally is a piece of @#&#036;% to play, more like an (admittedly pretty) tech demo than a game at all.

If someone on my staff in Eastern Front would show this kind of attitude would be kicked off the team immediately, unless a proper apology and reasoning is given - and the issue would not be repeated again.

 

On 9/27/2017 at 8:51 AM, LordGood said:

That's just the nature of an open source project. Everyone has their own vision and they collide either creatively or destructively. I know I quit 'solo modding' after I honed my skills enough to get a feel for how things work. Modding is a waste of time at this point if you're looking for an end product. The thing is Terra Magna is a testing ground for civs so it wont break so often, Delenda Est and other balance mods are gameplay mods so you're going to be locking antlers with the dev team when we make any kind of progress/clean up code.

You have to understand too, I'm sure many of the devs are just as embittered about this. I know I haven't really had fun playing 0 AD since A16 did away with multiplier counters, and later PA. Not to say I didn't have a smattering of fun games along the way.

My job here is easy enough in that I just have to make things look pretty. I have my own vision for this game, but I'd rather see things centralized and strong than contribute to this 'warring states' period we're going through now.

That's the main reason why the resources (the limited time/motivation of modders contributing) must be used as efficiently as possible. The issue is that there should be people on the staff who actually concentrate and channel the "free contributions" into a proper game concept, and then work towards finishing it. This is the main issue with 0 AD, and has been this way since years. And after so many years I think the development has lost all its momentum - and it's unlikely you'll get it started again.

Maybe restarting the project completely with a new staff, using the current 0 AD as a base and recruiting new people would help.

[[Alpha 22] Balance considerations]

On 20.8.2017 at 5:44 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It seems like to me in these balance discussions that people keep piling on more tweaks upon all previous tweaks which just creates a giant stack of tweaks which like Jenga is prone to continue to fall over if the base is not solid. Create a solid conception of the roles of each unit and the web of counters in which they reside. Something that makes sense. Build the stats upon that. 

Sums up the issue in 3 sentences.

[Desired gameplay(planned) features for A23]

On 13.7.2017 at 7:58 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Do you mean hotkeys, meta, or map control as in gameplay?

gameplay.

[I don't like capturing]

2 minutes ago, Servo said:

@DarcReaver For multiplayer "delete" shouldn't be applied once a structure are built or portions of it built. Raze is in my opinion the appropriate way. Same as units once they are trained they are supposed to either live or die. That way you don't exploit the defects of real gameplay. 

But in single player The delete feature is very much useful and enjoyable. 

If the developers can toggle to either have it or not in either multiplayer or single player mode imo the better. 

This doesn't help with the issue at all. If you capture and raze the building it's still the same?!

What's so hard to understand that capturing and deleting buildings (call it delete or raze over time) contradicts each other fundamentally because structures in enemy territory become neutral anyways?

The issue is that you have no benefit from capturing at all, it's the same as destroying because you prevent the opponent from using it. It would only work if capturing is permanent. But right now it isn't. So the only reason to capture is to manually destroy it after capture to cause a damage to the enemy.

[I don't like capturing]

On 13.7.2017 at 5:14 PM, Servo said:

I like the capturing system but needs some fine tuning imo. Example...

1. There should be minimum number of units garrisoned (not 1) so that the structure does not revert back to original owner even if there's no unit/s attempt to recapture it.  This should apply to military buildings, temple and CC/military colonies. 

2. Recapturing abilities must be lessened maybe 2x the capturing abilities of the captors garrisoned units. 

3. Deleting structures or units just doesn't make sense and unreal. I rather have a "razing" style like RoN. The razing time for the owner should be faster than the captors. Most players (good ones especially) exploit some game mechanics defects just to gain more advantage. Although mechanics applied to everyone but lesser skilled players are more vulnerable to these exploits. Deleting units to save loot, gain more military unit numbers is really a bad mechanics. 

I hope attrition damage is in place in the game. 

The question is : Why should it be necessary to have a delete feature in the game in the first place?

Are there necessities to delete entities or structures manually because they are required? From what I've seen it's just unnecessary - UNLESS you're capturing enemy structures. There it's super useful to just delete it after capturing.