What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

[Classic-Burger]

@wowgetoffyourcellphoneN Within gameplay, we need a conceptual game department that decides to improve gameplay, not just balance.

People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements, gameplay improvements and that the way to get new features.

Many ideas never progress beyond a  sheet of paper with ideas.

[Genava55]

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish?

It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@Classic-Burger I can explain why a sheet with a bunch of ideas doesn’t translate to an equivalent bunch of gameplay changes/features.

gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad, be compatible with existing features, not introduce unnecessary complication, while enriching gameplay.

For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation.

if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it?

One other thing is that these changes require people’s work to get them over the finish line. So arguments for a new feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.

 

[Deicide4u]

3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish?

 

I'm not the one who proposed adding battalions*, but the benefits from my point of view are:

- streamlining formations, allowing us to tie formations to battalions,
- implementation of battalion-specific bonuses for units that can form a battalion,
- de-coupling gatherers from front-line units. In the long run, this will enable us to do all kinds of "battalion-specific" combat roles, allowing players to choose between stronger army or stronger economy. The units that are gathering resources obviously won't belong to any battalion, and they will, for example, need to drop-off resources in order to form battalions. Furthermore, individual units will be weaker than units in a battalion,
- more opportunities for strategic positioning, decisions on when to attack and with what, etc.
- implementation of a "shared experience pool" between units in a battalion. All units in a battalion will share the combat experience, and when an unit from a battalion dies, its experience is shared between the surviving soldiers.

Cons would be the massive changes to the game's meta, and the cost of implementing all this.

Edited 13 hours ago by Deicide4u
added the experience pool mechanic

[Perzival12]

11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

- streamlining formations, allowing us to tie formations to battalions,

As I said before, formations should just be turned into battalions, with a bit of Warzone 2100 unit grouping added.

[Deicide4u]

You already have that option, and it's on by default when you install the game. 

[Outis]

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

Battalions can be useful if it helps to create features such as directional attack bonuses and formation bonuses.

[Classic-Burger]

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad

Being a clone of another game seems to be the case, I suppose.

Show me a recent design document.

[Classic-Burger]

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation.

Nobody said an exhaustive simulation.

This is not very exhaustive.(In theory)

The only thing I disagree with about WoW is that the formation or battalion shouldn't be fixed.

The only advantage this has is that the performance could be better.

I'm not asking for flanks and other things.

I'm saying that the battalion should function differently in combat.

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it?

Correct, thank you, that's my point. Bravo.

That's why there needs to be a department with a leader.

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.

You read what I wrote, tell me what you didn't. Read it again.

On 01/12/2025 at 7:58 PM, Classic-Burger said:

People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements

I'm not saying that the ideas will be taken.

I'm saying that it will be discussed (as it already is).

And it gets filtered. And if something needs improvement, it gets done.

But there must be transparency, a public document outlining what needs to be done or where the desired path is to be taken.

---Let's start again.---

 

Is 0 AD an open-source clone of the Age of Empires series with fewer features? Or does it aspire to be more? I mean, to innovate.

Yes or no?

I didn't say it has to be a full Total War game.

But the formation should be useful and somewhat more immersive.

For now, the battalions are useless and just an aesthetic banner.

But not total war.

I'm talking about the formations.

I wasn't the one who started the conversation about the battalions.

Wowgetyou..etc is right.

Battalions could give it something unique, as I said before, not many RTS games work that way.

The other idea is the idea of progress; that no longer has to do with innovation but with reinforcing the gameplay.

 

The CS are very OP for the economic experience( the snowball effect), but I don't want to remove them. Something has to be done. 

From there, all that's needed are more game modes.

Do you think these are very radical ideas? @real_tabasco_sauce

Furthermore, I'm not the only one with these ideas.

The change should be gradual and progressive, not a radical change.

By sheet I mean a route to follow. Simple.

Edited 7 minutes ago by Classic-Burger