Training Times (Or Why the Fastest Click Wins)

[TheCJ]

4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

because 0 AD is at least according to my understanding of the vision is not supposed to be a fast paced game

This I have to disagree with. I do not think a fast game necessarily means that "the fastest clicks win".

Especially because of the batch training mechanic, 0ad is very fast (in that you can get a lot of population in a short amount of time), but doesnt need a lot of clicks (one click every, 35-40 seconds? for groups of five for every barracks?).

 

The only other rts I played (AoE2) is very slow paced in comparison (booming in 0ad means you are full pop before 14:00. Booming in AoE2 starts at ~14:00 when you reach AoE2s phase 3), but needs a lot more clicks.

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, TheCJ said:

This I have to disagree with. I do not think a fast game necessarily means that "the fastest clicks win".

This. Everything that OP talked about in his last post isn't about clicks. The vision says 0AD shouldn't be "the most clicks wins." I don't think anyone reasonable wants that (see any thread on sniping). Players are limited in the number of their clicks in early game because they simply do not have a robust enough economy to do more than a few things. And, in the grand scheme of things, 0AD isn't a "the most clicks wins" type of game compared to other games within RTS and other genres. 

Again, if the game is moving too fast for anyone, I suggest to simply change the game speed to .75x speed or something lower. Changing the the actual train times messes with the underlying balance of the game and no one has put forward an argument on why that should change or how it would avoid a24's problems. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

5 hours ago, TheCJ said:

This I have to disagree with. I do not think a fast game necessarily means that "the fastest clicks win".

Especially because of the batch training mechanic, 0ad is very fast (in that you can get a lot of population in a short amount of time), but doesnt need a lot of clicks (one click every, 35-40 seconds? for groups of five for every barracks?).

 

The only other rts I played (AoE2) is very slow paced in comparison (booming in 0ad means you are full pop before 14:00. Booming in AoE2 starts at ~14:00 when you reach AoE2s phase 3), but needs a lot more clicks.

Maybe Age of Empires needs a lot more clicks, but at least as far as I have seen, the EAPM of an average 2000 elo player in that game is around 60, which is significantly lower than Starcraft II's comparable elo, and much of Age of Empires 2's clicks in the early game may have more to do with things like quickwalling and deer pushing rather than aspects of the core gameplay.  

I assume that your talking about 3 APM is only in relation to training units.  That still does not account for other bits of APM of which it seems hard to find a metric for 0 AD.  Until that data can be found, I think relying on hearsay is unproductive.  

In watching some of ValihrAnt's gameplay, I saw that he was consistently getting housed while playing, meaning that even some of the better players struggle with the pace.  Raiding took place a bit past the 2 minute mark.  Another 1v1 had raiding happen during the 3.5 minute mark.  Granted, the game started marginally earlier than that.  If this small sample size is in any way indicative of the current meta, the early game is hardly boring.  Why then increase training times even if it does not impact the required APM too much as many of you have put forward?  

Even if it does not affect the APM too much, it does give a game with the economic complexity of an Age of Empires title a pacing akin to Starcraft.  If we compare Starcraft's resource system, it is worlds simpler.  When we look at the art and pillars of this game's design, it does not scream fast paced game, and slower paced games are better for drawing in casual play.  

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Again, if the game is moving too fast for anyone, I suggest to simply change the game speed to .75x speed or something lower. Changing the the actual train times messes with the underlying balance of the game and no one has put forward an argument on why that should change or how it would avoid a24's problems. 

I hope that above I have explained properly to that effect.  Balance is always upset by decisions, and you consistently fail to explain why training times in Alpha 24 were so awful of a choice besides people hating it, thus I cannot address your concerns.  That said, I am sure that there are solutions to those that go beyond making the game into an experience in which you print out units.  

[chrstgtr]

29 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

If this small sample size is in any way indicative of the current meta

Your small sample size is very unrepresentative of the current meta. Vali is so much better than the vast majority of people that his play style is very different compared to how most people play, including the very best players. So all your conclusions that follow aren't valid. 

34 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I hope that above I have explained properly to that effect.  Balance is always upset by decisions, and you consistently fail to explain why training times in Alpha 24 were so awful of a choice besides people hating it, thus I cannot address your concerns

To be honest you haven't really explained it. Instead, you've bounced around from idea to idea and now, for the first time, seem to be complaining about some unit spam meta instead of any of the other things you've previously mentioned. 

I've given you reasons why longer train times failed in a24 and you keep saying some variation of "well, go figure out a way to deal with it." No wonder why you haven't address any of my concerns.

Also, players hating it is a reason in itself. There are countless threads where players say that devs don't listen to players and failure is the reason why they are leaving the game, the game struggles gain a following, the game isn't better, etc. Almost every time devs come back and asks "what do you mean" or "can you give me an example, we never do that." Well, here we are again. 

[Dakara]

I don't feel like I've clicked a lot. At least I'm not bored in the economic phase.

And there are tools for those who don't want to click too much (automatic production).

I'm against extending production times. Maybe women by 8 to 10 seconds to indirectly nerf their economic boom and encourage unit military production. Increasing unit training times increases the snowball effect of the winners of the first fights, the power of champions or slows down the games if two players destroy each other's forces. Moreover, in these other RTS, dozens and dozens of military buildings have been made in the late game.

[borg-]

Well, I have played and still play some other competitive rts, and I can say, 0 a.d is extremely slow for me, and I often get bored during matches, especially against opponents 1800 and below.

The amount of actions I need to do in 0a.d compared to aom is ridiculous.

[Stockfish]

11 minutes ago, borg- said:

Well, I have played and still play some other competitive rts, and I can say, 0 a.d is extremely slow for me, and I often get bored during matches, especially against opponents 1800 and below.

The amount of actions I need to do in 0a.d compared to aom is ridiculous.

I agree to @borg- that 0 A.D. stands out for being a much less frenetic game compared to titles like Age of Empires II (aoe2) or Age of Mythology (aom). its more deliberate strategic focus where there are no constant micro battles that force players to perform hundreds of clicks per minute (except in high level games, but usually pro players like borg or vali doesnt overtask other players, tho they can do it perfectly) to manage individual units or special abilities. In 0 A.D., victory is built through macroeconomic decisions and largescale tactics, significantly reducing the number of actions needed to control standard matches. Micro plays are ofc very important, i usually like to do some 5 - 8inf minirushes to kill some wumen or counter rushes. 

I fully support the argument that the clicks required to play effectively are fewer here. While aom or aoe2 demand near surgical attention in every skirmish, 0 A.D. prioritizes planning and resource flow, making it more accessible to players who prefer strategy over reflexes. But ofc, as more reflexes and apm more advantage.

 Ipropose two key adjustments:

-Increase the base game speed to 1.15x, to streamline mid-game phases without sacrificing tactical depth.

-Reduce unit training times by 15 or 20%.

With this two things micro would be much important and the rest of the tactics remain the same.

Additionally, it’s important to highlight that 0 A.D. is designed for armies of 200–300 units, compared to the 100–150 of its competitors. This difference demands a less chaotic design but could also be leveraged to make large-scale battles more dynamic without overwhelming the player.

Anyway 0 A.D. doesn’t need to copy the frenetic pace of other RTS games, but it could optimize its rhythm to enhance its unique identity. I support @borg’s ideas and hope the developers consider these changes. Also i think 0ad needs a face-wash and make a better UI and PLEASE GO TO STEAM.

0 A.D. IS BETTER THAN MUCH OF ITS COMPETITORS, only needs few things and more players

[Stockfish]

That said, if you really know how to play, defenses in 0 A.D. can get incredibly demanding high APM, quick shortcuts, and precise micro. Building palisades, barracks, and towers midbattle while teleporting units to outmaneuver the enemy takes serious speed and skill. I love pulling off these kinds of defensive plays

And let’s not forget stopping rams on cc spamming palisades and houses to block their path. when you’re under pressure, 0 A.D. absolutely tests your micro and reflexes.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

slower paced games are better for drawing in casual play.  

I think casual players will play the game how they want to, irrespective of competitive players. A game with a steep learning curve and high apm can absolutely be played casually.

[Deicide4u]

28 minutes ago, Stockfish said:

-Increase the base game speed to 1.15x, to streamline mid-game phases without sacrificing tactical depth.

 

Yes, please. I don't want to wait forever for my infantry or rams to catch up to the rest of the army. And I surely don't want to wait forever for my buildings to complete.
 

29 minutes ago, Stockfish said:

-Reduce unit training times by 15 or 20%.

Not sure if I'd like this change, but I'm not a pro. I suck at this game, so I'll let better players argue with this.

[Emacz]

you can also increase unit movement speed slightly, which increases eco a little, to build a little faster and produce sooner.... we have messed around with various ideas on historical and open to trying others if you want!

[TheCJ]

9 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

Not sure if I'd like this change, but I'm not a pro. I suck at this game, so I'll let better players argue with this.

Well, we're having these kinds of discussions precisely because we want everybody to have fun playing this game and not just a small set of extremely good players 

12 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

the early game is hardly boring

This I would agree with. There are a lot of tactics one can do (or atleast try) in the early game if "normal booming" seems too boring.

But normal booming really doesnt take high APM; Just looking at some replays on the replay pallàs, normal APM values are between 20 and 40. For starcraft, an APM of 80 is considered low (afaik, I'm no sc expert though).

12 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

and slower paced games are better for drawing in casual play

I don't believe this to be generally true. The game can't be too slow, or it will be boring, even for a casual player. Of course, it can't be too fast either, and the most enjoyable pace for a casual player will be slower than the most enjoyable pace for a very competitive player, that much is true.

But I don't think 0ad should be much slower than it already is, even for casual players.

12 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

you consistently fail to explain why training times

But that's... precisely the problem, isn't it?

Of course it is theoretically possible to lenghten the training times to your suggested values while still keeping 0ad fun and unique.

But in order to do that, we would have to know exactly which other changes are necessary to achieve such a goal. Just changing the train time doesn't work, the players don't like it, it isnt fun. Then we would have to find out why its no fun; do the units die too quickly, so you can't reach high pop, do the buildings take too long, do they not deal enough damage... who knows. 

And if we did manage to find out what we would have to change aswell, we would still need to tweak the balance. (as an example, lets say we find out long train times dont work because units die too quickly, then we still need to figure out how to make all units die slower without destroying the balance between the units.)

 

Tl;dr:

@chrstgtr basically wanted to tell you that it isnt that simple, just changing the train time value will not work, finding out how to make it work is not that easy.

 

Lastly, in addition to such a change being a lot of work, the arguments supporting such a decision are not very conclusive.