Multiplayer mode

[jd823592]

Hello,

today i got an idea of what i would like to have in RTS multiplayer and have not found yet: 2 vs 2 players operating 2 nations, one player taking care of army and one taking care of economy. I know that most units can be used to gather resources and build buildings but maybe that could be altered for this mode of game.

Possible implementation:

2n players, 2 teams

all players in the same team are assigned the same nation (fraction/...)

players can select to be:

army (only fortification and barracks can be built; no resources gathered on their own)

economical (only mills/farms/...; no serious forces or protection)

economical players would automatically provide fraction of gathered resources to the army, army could maybe give some siezed resources to economical players.

whole enemy team in the same color, while all alies could be distinguished

Vision:

1 economical player 2 army generals (navy / infantry and cavalry)

What do you think?

[quantumstate]

With AoE2 you could have multiple players controlling the same units. This allows what you suggest but with no forced separation of roles. It seems fairly likely that we will include this in 0 A.D. because it is quite a neat feature and is very easy to implement. Separating the military from the economic sounds like quite a lot more work and seems like quite a niche feature so is much less likely. It sounds interesting though.

[idanwin]

Sweet, I've always wanted this!

Not sure about the 'forced separation' part though. The economical one may also want to do the defences and in case of a surprise attack it could be better if he could also control some military units.

I think that without the forced separation people are going to do this separation themselves anyway. "You do this, I do that."

Really looking forward to this!

[jd823592]

The separation was ment to enforce players to take care of their allies better. If there is no separation then it is not much different from playing two different allied nations and trading resources.

[idanwin]

What I meant to say is that players will decide to take a certain task on themselves anyway, I do not feel an enforcement is necessary.

[sanderd17]

With AoE2 you could have multiple players controlling the same units. This allows what you suggest but with no forced separation of roles. It seems fairly likely that we will include this in 0 A.D. because it is quite a neat feature and is very easy to implement. Separating the military from the economic sounds like quite a lot more work and seems like quite a niche feature so is much less likely. It sounds interesting though.

It is easy to implement the controlling of allied units I expect (as you can already do it in developer mode), but there are some design choices you must make.

Like, do you share all resources? That means, if you start from both teams, you have a high population cap as a start, as you have two CC's. You easily reach 5 buildings with two players, and you can gather all stuff very fast. Or does each ally keep its own resources, but just has the ability to control units of the other? So you have to build the 5 buildings twice before both allies go to town phase. Resource sharing isn't really needed since you can tribute.

Another interesting thing: have you tried putting units of different factions under the control of the same player in mapmaker? When you select them to build something, the UI gets cluttered because you have a another building with the same function for each faction. Can a player only build buildings of it's own faction (may seem silly if a cartagian controlled by a celt can't build its cartagian dock)? Or do allied factions in such a game have to be equal?

Edited March 4, 2013 by sanderd17

[FeXoR]

In AoE 2: AoK/AoC playing together meant you are indeed considered one player - just you share control of that player. That doesn't mean you are weaker than 2 separate players though. The game is complex enough to be efficient enough together as one player. How the two players arrange responsibilities should be their decision IMO.

[idanwin]

Resource sharing isn't really needed since you can tribute.

Not sure how it works in 0AD, but in AoE you lose some resources when you send tributes (you send 100, only 80 arrives or something).

Another interesting thing: have you tried putting units of different factions under the control of the same player in mapmaker? When you select them to build something, the UI gets cluttered because you have a another building with the same function for each faction. Can a player only build buildings of it's own faction (may seem silly if a cartagian controlled by a celt can't build its cartagian dock)? Or do allied factions in such a game have to be equal?

Both players would control the same civilisation, I believe.

The solution could be to blacklist all buildings that are not in the selected civ at the beginning of the game (but allow scenario makers to whitelist buildings)

[quantumstate]

That doesn't mean you are weaker than 2 separate players though. The game is complex enough to be efficient enough together as one player.

You definitely are weaker than 2 separate players, since the only benefit is better multitasking control.

[jd823592]

If you do not enforce any separation you lose the possibility of having matches where two moderate players beat one excelent player with someone who makes bad decisions just by cutting their economical growth. Indeed not separated game would also be fun. But what i am suggesting is delegating tasks to different players, when one player fails, the whole nation gets wiped out... you endeed could have a scenario where one player is given cavalry, the other archers and so on. But that is too much restrictive and not very variable.

[Lion.Kanzen]

"You do this, I do that."

Really looking forward to this!

yeah i think , if one can change the game do it yourself with others common in interest about this matter .