Training Times (Or Why the Fastest Click Wins)

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

To offer a brief clarification, I am not saying that this is a necessarily bad thing.  Many popular game series like Starcraft and Age of Empires reward players with high APMs.  I also would note that of my albeit brief time playing the latest alpha, I have had fun; this is not about whether 0 AD is a good or bad game.  That said, it is a fast game, with a casual player like myself feeling like I am running something more like a factory than a fledgling city.  The reason I think this is important to note since 0 AD's vision contradicts the current game state.  To consider this looking at training times shows at least in part why the game is fast-paced:

Looking at 0 AD, women train in 8 seconds, infantry in 10, and cavalry in 15.

Age of Empires II Villager training time: 25 seconds.

Starcraft Probe training time: 20 seconds.

Starcraft II Probe training time: 12 seconds

Age of Mythology villager training time: 15 seconds.

Age of Empires III settler training time: 25 seconds.

Age of Empires IV villager training time: 25 seconds.

Considering that aside from champions, all units have economic roles, training times should be significantly increased for all citizen soldiers and women.  If we don't even consider batch training, which accelerates training even more, the early game becomes a frantic rush.  Assuming that a player like myself starts by training women, something I think is intuitively sensible since they cost half as much as soldiers and produce the same economic output, the player is pressed to put all of them towards food production to maintain production before needing to rapidly pivot to wood to allow for the building of houses, eventually the barracks for citizen soldiers, and lastly farms for when berries inevitably run out.   The barracks snowballs this even further, and the fact that a technology at a house makes you able to churn out even more women means that population growth feels exponential.  I'm sure that there could be much better ways of playing, but intuitive way feels surprisingly intensive for what should be the most relaxed part of the game.  

I would advise at the very least increasing the training time of women to be 15 seconds.  Infantry could take 20 seconds to train, and cavalry could take 25 seconds.  These numbers, I would note, are a modest increase, and I would still argue that the game would feel fast paced.  If we truly wish to make it game that does not force you to multitask too heavily, bumping everything up another five seconds could further help.  These numbers are hardly perfect I'm sure, that's what playtesting is for, yet I think they would bring the game more in line with the game's vision.  

 

 

[TheCJ]

I would agree with you @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, if it wasnt for the performance issue in large (4v4) multiplayer. When the game basically runs at half speed, you have 16 irl seconds for a women and 20 irl seconds for a soldier.

 

Also, even in small games, where the lag is not so bad, the batch training makes things a lot easier, because you only have to queue up one batch every 20-40s. Sometimes even an entire minute (when you manage to queue up 10 women). And since you dont have to assign them individually (you can just send them all to wood or all to food), its basically one action every 20s.

[Seleucids]

Actually I hold the opposite opinion: training time should also be influenced by death rate and gather rate.

The current death rate is very high in battles and the current train speeds are insufficient to reinforce. If you increase train time further, then you are going to have a game where you lose everything after you get disadvantaged in one battle. 

The gathering rate is the fundamental requirement for supporting unit production. If you slow down unit production, booming will be much slower - not fun. Nobody can reach P3 quickly.

If anything, train time should be decreased 

Edited yesterday at 13:07 by Seleucids

[Deicide4u]

Yes, batch training alleviates this issue. You wouldn't ever only train just one woman, except only at the very start of the game. I usually just either:

1) click two times, and come back 15-ih seconds later,
2) batch train 6-9 units at the time,
3) count exactly how many women I need to fill up a farm, then click that many times.

Later on, when you have multiple production buildings ready, you'd just batch train units until your resources fall to around 400-500 food/wood. As long as you keep your resources low, it's ok. Also, keep in mind that you don't have to always produce units. Having a stockpile in this game can sometimes be beneficial.

EDIT: Starcraft 1 Probe's build time is ~12 seconds on Fastest speed, the speed at which pro matches are played. 20 seconds is on Normal, which is too slow.

Edited yesterday at 13:30 by Deicide4u

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

 I'm sure that there could be much better ways of playing, but intuitive way feels surprisingly intensive for what should be the most relaxed part of the game.

There are a lot of frustrations linked to production that can be addressed. Here are 3 features, from most basic to most advanced that can improve gaming experience.

1. Fix 'bugs'. Suggested by @guerringuerrin. Also implemented similar feature after his idea in Moderngui.
2. Help visualize idle buildings. (Moderngui)
3. Centralize production management. (Moderngui's 'ecopanels')

I'm pretty happy to be able to say that thanks to Moderngui the frustrations that i also used to experience from production management are past history for me.

Just commenting ideas and personal experience/preferences.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

30 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

Actually I hold the opposite opinion: training time should also be influenced by death rate and gather rate.

The current death rate is very high in battles and the current train speeds are insufficient to reinforce. If you increase train time further, then you are going to have a game where you lose everything after you get disadvantaged in one battle. 

The gathering rate is the fundamental requirement for supporting unit production. If you slow down unit production, booming will be much slower - not fun. Nobody can reach P3 quickly.

If anything, train time should be decreased 

Death rates in battles is a separate issue in my opinion, and I wouldn't mind a less lethal game in that regard.  That said, none of what you said refutes my point that 0 AD is a demanding game in regards to APM.  If a change like this makes the game too swingy, other things can be adjusted; that's part of a game's development cycle.  If it makes P3 too hard to get to, the costs can be adjusted.

I understand that you seem to be approaching the game from a highly competitive standpoint, but every level of play is important to consider, and the fact still stands that it makes this game harder for newer players and contradicts the game's vision.

[Genava55]

I always felt like the game was being taken over by a very competitive community.

[Deicide4u]

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, the issue you're raising can in part be resolved by lowering the in-game speed, but that is only in single-player.

MP community is highly competitive, that's a fact. RTS games nowadays attract mostly skilled MP players, most casuals either play against the AI (like myself) or choose a less demanding genre. Granted, I'm a veteran player of StarCraft 1 and even I avoid the MP scene there. I've also casually played AoE2 in the past.

0 A.D. can be played casually, just stick to the Easy or Normal AI. Move the difficulty up once you get better. Otherwise, try to find players that are of your skill level.
One other reason why so few people play these games seriously is time. Most of us here are dinosaurs who have other priorities in life right now. So, I would often just save a game after about 15 minutes and go do other stuff.

Maybe devs should pay more attention to the casual aspect, but so far its been fun for me as is.

[chrstgtr]

Longer train times was implemented in a24. It was widely disliked so it was reversed. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

This is a fair complaint in my opinion, generally related to the pacing of the game.

while I think the pace of 0ad is in part a strength, slowing down the game some could allow for “a story” to develop as famous aoe streamer t90 has said. As opposed the current dynamic of boom or rush.

also, I think this issue is related to others such as “booming = turtling” and “units die too fast”.

while I don’t think flatly increasing train time is the solution, targeted adjustments to train time could be part of a broader solution.

i have some ideas brewing that could help in these areas and I’d like to test them out in a future community mod release.

[Deicide4u]

3 hours ago, Seleucids said:

If you slow down unit production, booming will be much slower - not fun. Nobody can reach P3 quickly.

If anything, train time should be decreased 

Train time is already fast enough. Units dying too quickly can be solved in some other ways, like adjusting the overall health of units.

Or you could stop sending them into heavily fortified areas to their deaths   Siege units exist for a reason. This is not a game where you can just a-move your army and see the enemy's fortresses and towers fall like dominos.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, the issue you're raising can in part be resolved by lowering the in-game speed, but that is only in single-player.

MP community is highly competitive, that's a fact. RTS games nowadays attract mostly skilled MP players, most casuals either play against the AI (like myself) or choose a less demanding genre. Granted, I'm a veteran player of StarCraft 1 and even I avoid the MP scene there. I've also casually played AoE2 in the past.

0 A.D. can be played casually, just stick to the Easy or Normal AI. Move the difficulty up once you get better. Otherwise, try to find players that are of your skill level.
One other reason why so few people play these games seriously is time. Most of us here are dinosaurs who have other priorities in life right now. So, I would often just save a game after about 15 minutes and go do other stuff.

Maybe devs should pay more attention to the casual aspect, but so far its been fun for me as is.

My point isn't about game difficulty.  I can beat normal AI easily enough.  When I call myself a casual player, it is more that I play the game infrequently for this reason: never underestimate a player's ability to optimise the fun out of a game.  

I like thinking of the aesthetics or of my settlement when placing buildings; I like being able to cinematically watch battles unfold.  Instead, I am frantically laying down houses while also ensuring that every building is cranking out units like a Camino cloning facility.  

Part of the reason that RTSs attract only the competitive scene is because games often cater to them specifically, truncating growth of new players.

44 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

while I don’t think flatly increasing train time is the solution, targeted adjustments to train time could be part of a broader solution.

Perhaps to clarify my position, I am not saying that this alone is the solution; probably the reason it flopped in Alpha 24 was due to repercussions that Seleucids mentioned.  Some people have rightly noted that batch training does make operating a base easier, but it also makes each unit train faster of course.  A major side-effect of this is an even more constant need to build houses especially as other production buildings come online.  Population limit in theory isn't that bad of a feature, but the frequency of needing to build them as the game's pace racks up becomes annoying to say the least.  

[Deicide4u]

15 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

When I call myself a casual player, it is more that I play the game infrequently for this reason: never underestimate a player's ability to optimise the fun out of a game.  

I like thinking of the aesthetics or of my settlement when placing buildings; I like being able to cinematically watch battles unfold.  Instead, I am frantically laying down houses while also ensuring that every building is cranking out units like a Camino cloning facility.  

Part of the reason that RTSs attract only the competitive scene is because games often cater to them specifically, truncating growth of new players.

Yes, modern RTS games are all about the E-sports scene. People forget that a major part in StarCraft's 1 success was that the game had character and a very good story (for its time). It also appealed to casual audience through Use Map Settings custom games, very fun and casual team games and a good balance of easy and hard SP missions. Age of Empires 2 also had fun casual gameplay, even more so than StarCraft.

 I guess you've already played Stronghold and, in a way, you want some of that feeling here. But I don't know why would anyone want a "Free Build" game mode in 0 A.D.
As for the "laying down houses", just assign a couple of females to build them in quick succession.

Edited 22 hours ago by Deicide4u

[chrstgtr]

41 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

probably the reason it flopped in Alpha 24 was due to repercussions that Seleucids mentioned.

There’s no need for speculation or a revisionist history on why slower train times failed in a24. 

Comments were very clear that the player base doesn’t like a slower paced game. 

Users also noted that slower train times were extremely unforgiving. You couldn’t recover if lost one big fight since you couldn’t rebuild your population quickly enough to defend against an invading army. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

There’s no need for speculation or a revisionist history on why slower train times failed in a24. 

Comments were very clear that the player base doesn’t like a slower paced game. 

Users also noted that slower train times were extremely unforgiving. You couldn’t recover if lost one big fight since you couldn’t rebuild your population quickly enough to defend against an invading army. 

While I wouldn't call my attempt at understanding previous 'revisionist history,' the lack of any explanation on your part certainly warranted me speculating.  Your final point was precisely what Selucids mentioned in this topic.  Also, at least a few people seem positively inclined towards what I propose.  Alpha 23 established a firm meta that 24 quite rudely shook up, and whether the outrage was due to a bad game decision or simply jarring change is not entirely clear to me.  I am raising the issues of fast training times because it works against the philosophy of 0 AD, primarily I would add, in the early game, where build orders feel especially tight.  

• Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy.

If we look at this topic, I have noted that the early game requires a lot of tasks to stabilise production.  The main concern raised seems to centre around mid to late game fights.  So the question that stands is whether increasing the training times would cause a problem for those.  As the proposal would stand, yes, but simple way to fix this would be making it so every phase up would reduce training times, perhaps even going to the level they are at now.  That said, if the game already is punishing, perhaps the team should consider more explicit comeback mechanics.

[Seleucids]

18 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

As the proposal would stand, yes, but simple way to fix this would be making it so every phase up would reduce training times,

Ok this is good idea. 

Alternatively, we make higher tiers for the conscription tech. E.g. no conscription = 15s per unit, Conscript1 = 12s per unit, Conscript2 = 9s per unit, Conscript3 = 6s per unit. 

[chrstgtr]

46 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

While I wouldn't call my attempt at understanding previous 'revisionist history,' the lack of any explanation on your part certainly warranted me speculating.  Your final point was precisely what Selucids mentioned in this topic.  Also, at least a few people seem positively inclined towards what I propose.  Alpha 23 established a firm meta that 24 quite rudely shook up, and whether the outrage was due to a bad game decision or simply jarring change is not entirely clear to me.  I am raising the issues of fast training times because it works against the philosophy of 0 AD, primarily I would add, in the early game, where build orders feel especially tight.  

• Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy.

If we look at this topic, I have noted that the early game requires a lot of tasks to stabilise production.  The main concern raised seems to centre around mid to late game fights.  So the question that stands is whether increasing the training times would cause a problem for those.  As the proposal would stand, yes, but simple way to fix this would be making it so every phase up would reduce training times, perhaps even going to the level they are at now.  That said, if the game already is punishing, perhaps the team should consider more explicit comeback mechanics.

I’m not listing everything out because everything you’re saying has already been considered. Look at the old threads. The player base simply rejected it. I don’t understand why you’re trying to retread this four alphas later  

You say teams should just come up with better strategies to avoid losing their full armies. Guess what, they did. It led to players avoiding battles and trying to only engage in their bases surrounded around their defenses. It led to a complete turtle fest that, again, players rejected. 

This is the first post where you’ve complained about multitasking in early game. You actually previously made the exact opposite complaint and said the problem was in late game with houses. But guess what, users already had thoughts about this last time too. They said slow train times made early game particularly boring because not much happens in early game—there are fewer units, buildings, eco decisions, fights, and other things to do, so players can actually have more time than they need early on. We see this in MP games where casual conversation is common in early games and then slowly disappears as more units, buildings, fights, and decisions present themselves in later game. 

It is very clear that a24 was simply a bad alpha. User complained. Then they left. Game hasn’t recovered. 

If you really want a slower paced game you can change game speed (something I’ve never seen done in a MP game but I have seen 2x speed on several occasions). 

Edited 17 hours ago by chrstgtr

[Genava55]

I'm a bit worried to see that the most competitive players are proposing some pretty extreme things, like speeding up the pace of the game even more or even removing the concept of citizen-soldiers (or militiamen).

@wowgetoffyourcellphone tested a number of ideas in his mod that might be of interest. Mercenaries and slaves in particular. It has to be said that he tries out new concepts and goes beyond the fairly restricted AoE-like framework.

If you need to recruit quickly, mercenaries would be the best approach, as they should be able to be recruited very quickly.

I also think that the opposition between women and militiamen isn't done in the right way. At the moment, the woman only costs food, can't defend herself and has a tiny advantage when it comes to gathering. Whereas the militiaman costs extra wood, can defend himself and harvest all resources. I think it's a shame that the basic unit that can defend itself costs wood.

I think the militiaman should only cost food. Historically, hoplites and legionaries obtained their equipment themselves. It was only with professionalization that the state began to pay for the equipment. The state pays for logistics, i.e. food, clothing, ammunition, etc.

We could have an opposition between militiamen and slaves. The slave would cost more than the militiaman but would be more efficient at harvesting. They can't defend themselves. They can't create/initiate buildings, but they can help build them. It would be a way of highlighting an important facet of ancient societies.

Javelineers and slingers should still cost extra ressources (wood notably) because they are consuming munitions.

[Atrik]

11 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

the woman only costs food, can't defend herself and has a tiny advantage when it comes to gathering

They can be used as key defenders in a lot of situations. Also thanks to cheaper loom from @real_tabasco_sauce.

@Stockfish even went as far as to attempt offensives with Spartans females 

Edited 16 hours ago by Atrik

[Seleucids]

7 minutes ago, Atrik said:

@Stockfish even went as far as to attempt offensives with Spartans females 

And it worked! lol ! Spartan females are good dancing meatshields with loom upgrade. 

21 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

If you need to recruit quickly, mercenaries would be the best approach, as they should be able to be recruited very quickly.

I also think that the opposition between women and militiamen isn't done in the right way. At the moment, the woman only costs food, can't defend herself and has a tiny advantage when it comes to gathering. Whereas the militiaman costs extra wood, can defend himself and harvest all resources. I think it's a shame that the basic unit that can defend itself costs wood.

I think the militiaman should only cost food. Historically, hoplites and legionaries obtained their equipment themselves. It was only with professionalization that the state began to pay for the equipment. The state pays for logistics, i.e. food, clothing, ammunition, etc.

We could have an opposition between militiamen and slaves. The slave would cost more than the militiaman but would be more efficient at harvesting. They can't defend themselves. They can't create/initiate buildings, but they can help build them. It would be a way of highlighting an important facet of ancient societies.

Javelineers and slingers should still cost extra ressources (wood notably) because they are consuming munitions.

You can discuss this with @Emacz in his historical mod. 

Your proposals are sound, sadly, any major changes to the base gameplay will stir up chaos in the lobby. We got to do it incrementally one step at a time.

[Atrik]

16 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

And it worked! lol ! Spartan females are good dancing meatshields with loom upgrade. 

Yes On low wood maps, it's even pretty common to gather a female battalion to support an attack.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

You will kiss the feet of the 30 people who regularly play on the lobby and you will like it. It's their game. You should know that by now. 

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

or even removing the concept of citizen-soldiers (or militiamen).

Pls don't remove citizen-soldiers!! Is one of those original stuff the game has.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

I’m not listing everything out because everything you’re saying has already been considered. Look at the old threads. The player base simply rejected it. I don’t understand why you’re trying to retread this four alphas later  

You say teams should just come up with better strategies to avoid losing their full armies. Guess what, they did. It led to players avoiding battles and trying to only engage in their bases surrounded around their defenses. It led to a complete turtle fest that, again, players rejected. 

This is the first post where you’ve complained about multitasking in early game. You actually previously made the exact opposite complaint and said the problem was in late game with houses. But guess what, users already had thoughts about this last time too. They said slow train times made early game particularly boring because not much happens in early game—there are fewer units, buildings, eco decisions, fights, and other things to do, so players can actually have more time than they need early on. We see this in MP games where casual conversation is common in early games and then slowly disappears as more units, buildings, fights, and decisions present themselves in later game. 

It is very clear that a24 was simply a bad alpha. User complained. Then they left. Game hasn’t recovered. 

If you really want a slower paced game you can change game speed (something I’ve never seen done in a MP game but I have seen 2x speed on several occasions). 

....because 0 AD is at least according to my understanding of the vision is not supposed to be a fast paced game.  I'm sure there are some great points other people have made, but since you have not even bothered to link a topic for me to see, I will not address them.  Players that are used to it being fast paced would probably balk at the change, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.  A classic example of a community backlashing at a fundamental game design change happened in Darkest Dungeon.  The team still stuck to it, and it could be argued that the game is better for it. 

When I say the team, I am referring to the people responsible for changing the fundamental aspects of the game, not players.  My point is that if players are falling behind, there can be comeback back mechanics to give them a chance. To stress it,  I am not telling players to "get gud."

When I talked about training from houses, I regarded that as an aspect of the early game since it is available at the Village Phase.  Naively enough, I have researched it in the Village Phase in part to supplement a Phase I Champion rush.  I probably am playing quite suboptimally, but don't fault a person for regarding a Village Phase technology as an aspect of the early game.  Maybe it should be a Town Phase tech.  What do I know?  

You have said that the early game has few decisions compared to later phases.  While that is true, there still are a plethora of options available.  You can build four types of units at your starting building when most RTSs only allow you to train one or two.  You can research six economic technologies in that phase.  You can build stables.  Maybe there are ways it could be spruced up, and training times being increased may show its weaknesses.  The point is that slow =/= bad, and also the change I am pressing for is quite modest.  

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

If you need to recruit quickly, mercenaries would be the best approach, as they should be able to be recruited very quickly.

This I would particularly highlight since it would do wonderful job not just of helping players reinforce their fronts; it would also help represent the transition from citizen militia to professional forces.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I'm a bit worried to see that the most competitive players are proposing some pretty extreme things, like speeding up the pace of the game even more or even removing the concept of citizen-soldiers (or militiamen).

my finding is that competitive players want little change or find great value in small tweaks.