The "Alpha" label is scaring off new users from trying the game

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

This was going to be corrected by balance mod melee.

I have been satisfied with the preliminary tests.

 

[Thunderforge]

I think that my original point got a bit lost with these discussions. Is the takeaway that improved multiplayer, and in particular 1v1 matchmaking, is a prerequisite for dropping the "Alpha" label that have discouraged myself and others from trying out 0 A.D. in the past?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Thunderforge said:

improved multiplayer, and in particular 1v1 matchmaking, is a prerequisite for dropping the "Alpha" label that have discouraged myself and others from trying out 0 A.D. in the past?

Not sure if I would call it a 'prerequisite', but I would consider those items important for a major release, bringing the game to a wider audience.

• voice lines for civs.
• performance (all around, not just multiplayer)
• improved ranked play system (including matchmaking)
• additional content for strategic development (ie more technologies)
• campaigns.

While it is officially an 'alpha', I have observed that we effectively have a live service model.

[Thunderforge]

Is there some reason you can't have a live service model with a "beta" label? I mean, open source games like The Battle for Wesnoth add new campaigns and gameplay elements with each release, and Age of Empires II does the same, including new multiplayer modes in some cases.

[Dunedan]

I see little value in automated matchmaking with the current numbers of players playing multiplayer games, as matching with equally ranked players would either take much too long and/or would match with the same opponents over and over again.

For making a meaningful difference to just selecting a game as it is right now, match making IMO would have to happen server-side (as it could be easily gamed with modified clients otherwise), such games must not be visible in the existing lobby and 0 A.D. clients must not know the identity of the opponent before a game starts. While one of the players would still need to host the game, its settings shouldn't be set by the host, but based on the preferences of all matched players and should be set by the server logic.

Implementing it this way would also offer the ability to centrally punish known smurfs or cheaters, as we could deny them to participate in such automatically matched games (or shadowban them, match them with stronger players, ...).

Maybe it'd make sense to introduce automated matchmaking only when WFG-hosted games are an option as well, as that'd remove a whole bunch of problems.

[wraitii]

A few things that I'd say prevent 'beta', though I've argued differently in the past as well:

• No dedicated servers (and with it stuff like what Dunedan describes)
• Game Performance woes, and turn-length issues (200ms turns are not so acceptable these days I feel)
• Graphics performance - though the Vulcan rewrite will probably end up fixing that soon-ish
• No actual campaigns.
• AI still isn't great.

However, these are only sorta relevant. The reason we're not in 'beta' is because the 'original vision' for 0 A.D. included a lot more features, including things like running units / charging / better formation & naval play which we have not been able to deliver on. We just don't have a good design for these within the current scope of the game.

In the end, this isn't a race. This isn't a money-making project. It's a side-hobby for all of us. It moves slowly, it moves surely, and it'll likely get there (or computers will catch up...)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, Dunedan said:

Maybe it'd make sense to introduce automated matchmaking only when WFG-hosted games are an option as well, as that'd remove a whole bunch of problems.

yes, thats what would make sense to me. I think of matchmaking as a longer-term goal.

[ChronA]

0 AD has been in open source development since 2009.

It has been in alpha for 14 years, and currently there is no realistic timeline or roadmap for when it will leave alpha. In fact, I'd lay better than even odds that the project never will leave 'alpha'. The reason: nobody seems to have more than a very vague idea of what that would entail, and I can't imagine this group ever coming to a consensus about it when we can't even agree on basic gameplay requirements.

This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. Actually I think it is admirable to acknowledge that this is not finished software. It's true that "the 'Alpha' label is scaring off new users from trying the game," but for many of them this is fortuitous because it correctly calibrates their expectations. No one currently downloading the installer is expecting a complete experience and coming away feeling deceived about the current state of the game.

The problem though is that the alpha label implies a development process that doesn't actually exist. It makes it seem like if you just wait a few more years the project will be more complete, and that is not true. It is more like the open source equivalent of software as a service, the product is not feature-complete and maybe never will be, but it is still a whole and cohesive product made available in its current state for those who can take it on its own terms. For everyone who can live with that, play away. For the rest, look elsewhere for your free ancient warfare RTS fix. However, that is not what the alpha label implies.

Personally I think the most honest way to thread this needle would be to drop the use of alphas for all future updates, but also rebrand 0AD as a whole. It is not a game: that would require campaigns, and better multiplayer support, and performance improvements that may never arrive. Rather, 0AD is "an ancient warfare RTS sandbox".

And if it ever does evolve into a game, that just means it's time for a new title. 0AD: Empires Ascendant perhaps.

[hyperion]

24 minutes ago, Thunderforge said:

Is there some reason you can't have a live service model with a "beta" label? I mean, open source games like The Battle for Wesnoth add new campaigns and gameplay elements with each release, and Age of Empires II does the same, including new multiplayer modes in some cases.

I always find it funny to have an rc for an alpha, that's not how versioning is supposed to work ...

The we don't have a stable api or are feature complete is sufficiently communicated with a version lower than 1.0.0, having a warning in the modder guide to emphasize this once more while being sensible with actual changes and I call it fair game.

About unhappy users, true there will be more but that should be proportional to happy users. Even a decade ago the game was sufficient to entertain for many hours.

 

7 hours ago, wraitii said:

(or computers will catch up...)

... or features catch up with computers

[Genava55]