Is the AI too difficult now?

[Grautvornix]

"Medium" in 0AD (= "Normal") I believe is intended for players having reached some intermediate playing level. Newbies are really recommended to start with "Very Easy" or "Easy" otherwise it can become a bit frustrating quickly - and that's what the game says. Although the classification is correct, there is a bit of "affecting the player's pride"and not everyone can stand this (I know, grown-ups should be capable of taking a defeat in "Easy", but we should also aim at creating a "fun" experience).

We might rename the levels to be more inviting, as e.g. "Very Easy" might be felt as embarrassing, especially for experienced players of other RTS.

Can I therefore suggest to rename teh levels to something like this (just a proposal) :

• Very Easy --> Beginner,
• Easy --> Intermediate,
• Medium -->  Advanced
• Hard --> Professional
• Very Hard --> Advanced Professional

We might add a note somewhere (in the tutorial or in teh help text or tips&tricks?) that if you are mastering "Very hard" you should be ready to go for multi player with human opponnents and will find adequate challenges there.

I'd be interested to read your opinions!

[Deicide4u]

44 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

Can I therefore suggest to rename teh levels to something like this (just a proposal) :

• Very Easy --> Beginner,
• Easy --> Intermediate,
• Medium -->  Advanced
• Hard --> Professional
• Very Hard --> Advanced Professional

There isn't anything wrong with the AI difficulty names, and most other RTS games are using this nomenclature.

Professional? So, you can become a professional in 0 A.D.? Professional is a person who has a profession. And Easy is way too easy for an intermediate player.

Edited yesterday at 17:39 by Deicide4u

[Grautvornix]

@Deicide4u your are right, an this was really not an important suggestion. 

The issue seems to be (according to some messages I've seen over the years in this forum) that newbies for this game overestimate their capability (like - exaggerated - "Easy is for kids, I have played many RTS already and will manage a serious challenge") an then don't like the game as the AI is perceived too hard. I agree that one should learn to play first. The game - while it should be challenging - should be fun as well for newcomers.

 

[Thalatta]

3 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

newbies for this game overestimate their capability (like - exaggerated - "Easy is for kids, I have played many RTS already and will manage a serious challenge") an then don't like the game as the AI is perceived too hard. I agree that one should learn to play first. The game - while it should be challenging - should be fun as well for newcomers.

The problem is that Very Easy and Easy should indeed be for kids, elders, and anyone who is in it for history, graphics, whatever, but just doesn't want to get rushed in 10 or 15 mins. Sandbox is not the solution because apparently not much happens, and some time ago someone said “the jump between Sandbox and Very Easy is too big”. So, it does seem that an extra easy level is needed, combined with that Normal shouldn’t be "for players having reached some intermediate playing level", or "about the level a somewhat competent player can beat consistently after 1-3 tries". Competent for 0 A.D. then? And measured by whom? Normal is not this in RTS, there's always certain implied equivalence between games, and this is a known issue, it has been brought up, I remember someone saying that it's the early attacks that get the newbies. And, again, the game states "the default AI level is quite challenging for new players", something I've never seen in any game before, a completely artificial situation, one shifts labels and no such thing happens, no clarification needed, there shouldn't be one in the first place. I don't understand the need to tell people that never had any problem in Normal/Medium in other RTS to stay in Easy or Very Easy until they git gud, and leave without a reasonable challenge those who might be below that level. Normal is so not normal that training times are around 3 times faster when compared to basic units and techs from StarCraft 2 in Brutal, which is ludicrous. I don't think most people wanting to explore the game in general would find that enjoyable. I think I’ve said it already: default options should be friendly for beginners, the vast majority of which will be more (or only) interested in SP.

This paragraph might seem a bit offtopic, but I’ll connect everything with the difficulty levels. As known, this game caters too much to PvP: clickiness, rushes and tryharding have priority over strategy, tactics, and city-building. When someone complains, they have been told they want “a certain game experience that this project doesn't cater to”. There are many problems with that if the idea is to grow the game. Over 90% of gamers care only about SP (AoE numbers, similar for most). On the AoE forum, someone asks “why do developers struggle to design good RTS?”, and someone gives 7 points: half baked single player campaign, missing skirmish mode, missing editor tools, cliche soundtrack, making only multiplayer focused game, blatantly copying other games in genre and cheating AI. For 0 A.D., I think the MP issue is among the most blatant ones (not to mention the lack of a proper campaign, but I think other things should be fixed before that). It cannot be that if some tech is not optimal for MP then there are proposals to remove it. As someone said, they are there for SP, and that’s not a minor thing, at all. Just ignore the icon. Or better, propose how to make it interesting also for MP. Of course, there’ll be people saying “these changes are not part of the proposal and style that 0 A.D. seeks”, which doesn’t tend to be true if one actually reads the 0 A.D. Vision Document.

Coming back to difficulty levels, maybe the AI is hard to code, but, as mentioned, people don’t like cheating AI (or advantages). I wonder if those gathering rate and trade gain modifications can be removed (except maybe on the hardest levels, if needed for a challenge), and the AI to be about when to attack, army sizes, defenses, and how efficiently other things are handled (techs, eco, etc). If Easy is the usual Medium, then that should be Normal, Very Easy should be Easy, and the apparent gap with Sandbox could be filled with a new Very Easy, and maybe another Extremely Easy, since the now nameless hardest level could acquire an Extremely Hard label. Maybe research, training and building rates should be independent speed options, and could be labelled as Normal 4x or 3x present times, some name for a possible 2x, and a Competitive 1x present times, to be used in PvP as it stands now. Regarding the speed of the game in general, I think barely slower would be more attractive to most, for example a Normal game speed of 0.8x the present one, making a Competitive 1.25x the present 1x, and 2.5x would be the present 2x Insane. To simplify things, “Presets” could be used, the "Normal" one selecting all Normal options, and the same with “Competitive”. All this not only makes the game more palatable for new players that will try things with default Normal settings, but also doesn’t change absolutely anything as things stand now if the Competitive Preset is selected.

Besides, I think there's a way to incentivise people to play with Competitive Presets, with the hope that then they’ll have a go at MP (having more players in general should increase the ones going for MP anyway), and that is with Achievements. They are fun and addictive to get, and are good content for SP, giving objectives to be achieved in many possible ways. Maybe accounts or profiles would need to be introduced, so under a given one all played games would count for the Achievements. Each Achievement would be some nice icon, which would get decorated with background wings and lightning bolts (I have an idea to model them on some Roman scutum emblems) if obtained for harder difficulties and speed combinations, respectively, possibly handled with different Presets.

Edited 22 hours ago by Thalatta

[Grautvornix]

Thanks for the comprehensive answer! @Thalatta Indeed, there are many different playing styles - from competitive MP to relaxed SP (my favourire as an elderly guy).

My intention was to start a discussion on naming the various playing levels and referring to them in a way that does not discourage people from trying out the game. Probably too much concerns as everyone should be able to find out that there is an easier setting if a game is too difficult as a beginner when set to "medium", same as there are means to make it more difficult (increased diffulty setting, more adversaries, higher speed, less resources etc.). Just, when initially "opening the box" default setting should be such that people can apprecviate the beauty of the game and its historicaly-appealing gameplay while challenges increase slowly.

[Thalatta]

1 minute ago, Grautvornix said:

when initially "opening the box" default setting should be such that people can apprecviate the beauty of the game and its historicaly-appealing gameplay while challenges increase slowly.

Exactly. I've actually thought about all this the other way around: I wanted to introduce "upgradeable" Achievements (which I enjoyed in games from Kingdom Rush to Sins of a Solar Empire), and at the same time I came across difficulty levels and PvP focus comments, so it all fell into place. I think from combining all these problems and views, a nice solution that makes everyone (or most) happy can be achieved.

[Deicide4u]

@Thalatta, while I somewhat agree with you, the truth is that the AI has some serious flaws, and games against it start to feel samey after a while. 

Case in point is the 1v3 game that @ittihat_ve_terakki has shared. The AI is just plain stupid, doesn't upgrade its units and wastes them frequently on useless attacks. Only after reaching the City phase, the attacks start to become huge.

Any experienced RTS player that sticks with the game for a couple of weeks will be able to crush Medium Petra.

[Thalatta]

29 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

doesn't upgrade its units and wastes them frequently on useless attacks. Only after reaching the City phase, the attacks start to become huge.

Any experienced RTS player that sticks with the game for a couple of weeks will be able to crush Medium Petra.

And that's perfectly fine, Normal should indeed mean an experienced RTS player crushing the game after a couple of weeks. Easy should be for RTS casuals, Very Easy for RTS beginners, and Extremely Easy could be basically what Sandbox is (removing the name Sandbox just to be more consistent with nomenclature). One would then have Hard, Very Hard and Extremely Hard, ideally quite separated between them, for something actually challenging (Petra stupidity allowing). On these levels, unit upgrades should indeed happen, but it seems for some reason it's somehow hard to code. In any case, I have not seen a 1v7 on Very Hard yet, after all overwhelming numbers can sometimes make for plain stupidity.

Edited 21 hours ago by Thalatta

[guerringuerrin]

Kids can be very, very good at playing 0 A.D. and many other games as well. The AI is, in fact, very easy to beat with a bit of practice. And you don’t need to defeat the AI on Very Hard before moving on to multiplayer.

In the lobby, you can find all kinds of player profiles and skill levels. it's not all tryharding. 

The AI needs fundamental improvements instead of compensating for its weaknesses with production and gathering handicaps. Things like better decision-making and creativity. As it stands, the Very Hard AI is much easier to beat than the AI in StarCraft II on Brutal. Also, this game is far less click-intensive than others in its genre.

Improving the AI and adding campaigns would be a major contribution to retaining and growing the single-player community. There’s a lot of work to be done, and not enough manpower.

Edited 19 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[AlexHerbert]

I have made FFA and more than two teams, and that doesn't exist. 
They almost don't fight each other, they come everyone against you.

Edited 14 hours ago by AlexHerbert
Typo

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, AlexHerbert said:

I have made FFA and more than two teams, and that doesn't exist. 
They almost don't fight each other, they come everyone against you.

How many observations?

In earlier versions I knew when I could expect all enemy teams at my doorstep, but I feel that has changed and there's more variety of how it plays out.

[DesertRose]

20 hours ago, Thalatta said:

Really? I don't remember this

Iirc it's the lowest difficulty level where the AI will age up sooner than you, and builds up to ~35 Villagers. I think it's also the lowest difficulty level where it starts an attack on its own.

In other words it's on a level where you can't beat it anymore with randomly clicking on the screen, but actually have to play with intent.

edit: Oh wait, AoK AI. Don't remember anything from those days.

[Deicide4u]

13 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

Oh wait, AoK AI. Don't remember anything from those days.

Extremely aggressive, attacks in force and frequently, ages up as fast as an experienced player would.

I know that I found it much, much more difficult that Easy at the time. I heard that The Conquerors expansion made it even stronger.

[Thalatta]

11 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Kids can be very, very good at playing 0 A.D. and many other games as well. The AI is, in fact, very easy to beat with a bit of practice.

I don't doubt most kids nowadays will beat me in 15 minutes, I mentioned them because they were mentioned, the point being that there are lots of other people that won't necessarily have a good first impression if Normal is not normal, a fact stated by the game itself. This is just a relabeling for them, to remove that artificial warning, and to open the door for upgradeable achievements (if that's wanted), none of this changes anything for present players.
 

11 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Very Hard AI is much easier to beat than the AI in StarCraft II on Brutal

Yes, and I think the hardest AI difficulty should be indeed harder. But the point is 0 A.D. Normal AI being harder than most Normal/Medium AI in other games.

 

[guerringuerrin]

 

2 hours ago, Thalatta said:

the point being that there are lots of other people that won't necessarily have a good first impression if Normal is not normal, a fact stated by the game itself.

I understand that there may be some reports from frustrated players who quit the game because they couldn’t beat the AI, but there’s no solid evidence that “a lot of people” have a negative impression and/or abandon the game because of that. RTS games have always been known for being quite challenging.

And if I had to put forward a hypothesis, I’d say that having engaging campaigns is far more effective for player retention.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

17 hours ago, Thalatta said:

On the AoE forum, someone asks “why do developers struggle to design good RTS?”, and someone gives 7 points: half baked single player campaign, missing skirmish mode, missing editor tools, cliche soundtrack, making only multiplayer focused game, blatantly copying other games in genre and cheating AI

Were these points addressed to AoE in particular or talking about the struggle for single player experience in general?

I'm also a bit confused about what it means to have a multiplayer focused game? is that for the design of units, civs, and gameplay mechanics? or just that not enough effort goes into single player features?

I would be one to argue that the competitive experience should always drive development of gameplay mechanics, and that this should not cause any detriment to SP or beginner MP players. Good gameplay features are ones that can be enjoyed by all levels but are difficult to master at the top level, and in order to get the skill depth it is important to consider how those features are used at the top level.

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

I understand that there may be some reports from frustrated players who quit the game because they couldn’t beat the AI, but there’s no solid evidence that “a lot of people” have a negative impression and/or abandon the game because of that. RTS games have always been known for being quite challenging.

The reports should give an idea about the amount of people that will never post in a game's forum. In any case, I'm saying "won't necessarily have", it's not about solid proof, but about why to risk it, and have an artificial warning. Why not just have a normal Normal. I was surprised about how hard it was, not because it's hard in absolute terms (after all I finished SC2 on Brutal), but because it's hard for a normal level, and if on top of this there's a gap between Sandbox and Very Easy, then some adjustments seem recommendable.

 

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Were these points addressed to AoE in particular or talking about the struggle for single player experience in general?

I'm also a bit confused about what it means to have a multiplayer focused game? is that for the design of units, civs, and gameplay mechanics? or just that not enough effort goes into single player features?

RTS in general (https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/honest-discussion-why-do-developers-struggle-to-design-good-rts/32757). Regarding your other questions, more like there's even an effort to remove SP features if they have no point in MP, as I've mentioned has happened in the case of certain techs. It's a state of mind many in the community have. It's not realising that production times 3 times faster than SC2, a clearly competitive game, is not the most enjoyable experience for the casual, which are the vast majority of players.

 

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I would be one to argue that the competitive experience should always drive development of gameplay mechanics, and that this should not cause any detriment to SP or beginner MP players. Good gameplay features are ones that can be enjoyed by all levels but are difficult to master at the top level, and in order to get the skill depth it is important to consider how those features are used at the top level.

I agree. I think of it more the other way though: ideas and content have to be driven by SP experience, balance and final mechanics by MP, in a way that accommodates enough interesting content so as not to make it dull and MP focused only.

[Deicide4u]

@Thalatta

One of the posts from the topic you've shared summs it up perfectly. 

"Progression systems and other stuff that don’t belong in RTS games is what kills them. After the golden age of RTS games they started to over-complicate the formula by adding all kinds of stuff in an effort to further bring innovation just for the sake of it. When they realized RTS games became too complicated for people to bother, they started simplifying them by removing things that were good, instead of the things that were superfluous. For example, removing base building, many of the units, maps and game modes, but keeping the progression systems. So now not only you can’t just jump into an RTS to build a nice base and use all the stuff in the game, but you have to grind over time in some progression system to be able to use everything which is already scarce as a whole."

Most of the RTS players are veterans of older titles. As people get older, they have little time to adapt to new complex features, and prefer playing something they already know. New RTS games are no longer simple build->expand->conquer games of old. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Deicide4u

[guerringuerrin]

10 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

The reports should give an idea about the amount of people that will never post in a game's forum. In any case, I'm saying "won't necessarily have", it's not about solid proof, but about why to risk it, and have an artificial warning. Why not just have a normal Normal. I was surprised about how hard it was, not because it's hard in absolute terms (after all I finished SC2 on Brutal), but because it's hard for a normal level, and if on top of this there's a gap between Sandbox and Very Easy, then some adjustments seem recommendable.

I’m not interested in discussing semantics. The point you’re making is clear: “many people might get a bad impression of the game,” and based on that premise, you’re defending your idea of recalibrating the difficulty levels. But the reality is that you have no actual evidence that this is a frustration point that is driving players away. To be clear: I don’t see a problem with recalibrating the AI. What I do see as a problem is making decisions based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises.
 

38 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Regarding your other questions, more like there's even an effort to remove SP features if they have no point in MP, as I've mentioned has happened in the case of certain techs. It's a state of mind many in the community have. It's not realising that production times 3 times faster than SC2, a clearly competitive game, is not the most enjoyable experience for the casual, which are the vast majority of players.

Here’s another assumption without solid grounding: in your less than three months here, how many people from the community have you actually talked to in order to make that claim? How many members do you think the community has to assert that this is the “opinion of many”? And how many others don’t participate here and might hold a completely different view? The truth is, you don’t know. Yet you bring it up, assume it as a valid premise, and from there make proposals about how things "should be.”

 

38 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

It's not realising that production times 3 times faster than SC2, a clearly competitive game, is not the most enjoyable experience for the casual, which are the vast majority of players.

And how do you know that the majority of singleplayer players don’t enjoy the game at its current pacing? Do you have any statistics to support that? I’ve seen new players running the game at 1.25x speed, so does that mean the game is too slow?
I understand that this may be your preference, and that others might agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion or proposing ideas, but it would be better not to defend them based on unproven assumptions.

[Thalatta]

@guerringuerrin no, I'm basing my ideas on many premises, some are factual, some are opinions, and I think I've been quite clear which is which, but just in case (and going over everything I've said since my long post, you can check): it's a fact that the game states "the default AI level is quite challenging for new players", it's a fact production times are 3 times faster than SC2, I said I think that those wanting to explore the game wouldn't find that enjoyable, I said default options should be friendly for beginners (is this controversial?), it's a fact that the vast majority of players are only interested in SP (quoting AoE devs), I said I think the game a bit slower would be more attractive to most. I didn’t add I think when stating all would make the game more palatable for new players, but by now it should be obvious that’s my opinion, given all that came before. And then I brought up Achievements, which is obviously an idea coming from personal experience from other games, maybe others find them boring, but I would have liked hearing more opinions about that. I then said I think this would be a nice solution. Yet, you take issue with my subsequent statement (using your rephrasing, to which I agree) of “many people might get a bad impression of the game”, stating that that’s “based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises”. Well, here I gave you a summary of all what I’ve exactly said up to that point, so, where have I done that? So no, I’m not playing with semantics, that’s just how I’ve been stating things all along. I think I’ve been (luckily, I must say) quite clear on what is a fact, what I think, and what maybe could be, but you dismiss all that and take my last post (or its wording) as the basis of everything.

Regarding my last post, first I just asked why not do this or that, based on what I’ve read, and personal experience, which I think is more aligned with SP experience, which is a fact is underrepresented online. Then, I didn’t fill it with “I think” like before not only because it was a fast response to someone, but because I was just rephrasing what I already said before with plenty of I think in front of it. And yes, I’ve read posts where some pushing for a more SP focused experience have been talked down into that they just don't understand the game, something I’ve argued already somewhere else is misleading. But, should I really scour the forum and quote all this? Quote the many times the default difficulty level issue has been brought up (particularly by newbies), quote the many opinions pushing the game towards more MP focus (like the proposal of removal of certain techs), quote the times it has been said this is a fast paced game? We both know these posts are there, and it would be a waste of time for me to do any of that. So, yes, I’d say many think like this, and I’m sure there are those that “hold a completely different view”, but those are not contradictory things, and that's not even the point, the point (or one of many) is that I’m not bringing up anything new (besides Achievements, I don’t think having read about that), I’m just packaging old ideas and combining them with the upgradeable Achievements idea.