My Feedback

[PurpleSector]

48 year old male in Seattle...long time RTS player.

I'm sure you know the game is unplayable with the massive lag, but that is what Alpha is I suppose. Been playing death match mode just to get a feel for the fighting. I don't really get the formations unless they are just still really buggy...the soldiers do odd things when you assign them to a control group and try to focus the attack, its best to just select them and control click towards the enemy. That's a little disappointing as micro should matter more, but again, might just be the alpha nature of everything.

It's an impressive game overall - but I really doubt you will ever balance all of these civs. I'd suggest dropping half of them, just stick with like the Spartans, Athenians, Persians, Carthage and Rome. This will be far easier to balance, then you can release the others one at a time and balance those carefully. I mean right now, looks like a Spartan rush is near unstoppable...

My suggestion would be narrow the civs as suggested above, improve the tech three (more choices), and work on the lag...it is really really bad.

Edited April 7, 2013 by PurpleSector

[Mythos_Ruler]

Thanks for your comments and compliments. To address your points:

Formations: These will be getting a big overhaul in the future. Right now, they're just cosmetic.

Number of civs: I don't think it will be so hard to balance them. Will just take a lot of playtesting. And of course, we'll listen to the experiences of the fanbase and take their balance suggestions into account. A lot of the civs are very similar, with just a few unique things about them.

Battle Micro: Right now I think micro is a big help to the player because effectiveness of a unit comes almost exclusively from its attack bonuses (what it counters and what its countered by). Make sure to check out the tooltips to see what each type of unit is best at.

[alpha123]

I don't really get the formations unless they are just still really buggy...the soldiers do odd things when you assign them to a control group and try to focus the attack, its best to just select them and control click towards the enemy.

Yup. Formations are pretty useless right now, but they don't really function as they should. I'm probably going to add a no-formation formation (the units get orders individually instead of as a formation) in the mean time.

That's a little disappointing as micro should matter more, but again, might just be the alpha nature of everything.

Micro already matters quite a lot. Have you played multiplayer at all? On the other hand, the macro players (quantumstate and Oimat) tend to be beating the micro players (myself and alkazar) more often lately.

It's an impressive game overall - but I really doubt you will ever balance all of these civs. I'd suggest dropping half of them, just stick with like the Spartans, Athenians, Persians, Carthage and Rome. This will be far easier to balance, then you can release the others one at a time and balance those carefully.

I think it's perfectly possible to balance them. It might not be easy, but it's certainly possible and probably not too hard (especially given that a lot of our civs are similar, especially Hellenes and Celts)

I mean right now, looks like a Spartan rush is near unstoppable...

Try it sometime in multiplayer. It used to be pretty much unstoppable, but that's fixed now.

My suggestion would be narrow the civs as suggested above, improve the tech three (more choices), and work on the lag...it is really really bad.

We're definitely not narrowing the civs, but the other two definitely need to be done, and are being worked on.

[PurpleSector]

I have played multiplayer on the LAN - I could not even imagine MP over the internet - the unit lag would be horrible, as over a LAN its already unplayable. But it's an Alpha release so...it is very nice to get a feel for it.

But yeah, no offence but your team is making the classic mistake all developer driven teams make. Too much content not enough optimization. It's a shame as you have something great, but having been in the creative and dev tech industry since 1991 or so, I'm sorry to see that you are making such a big mistake.

If you take a look at any other RTS that has ever been produced and played extensively, the development team started with a manageable set of feature set and optimized it. Trying to release version 1.0 with this many civs is just a mistake...you will never keep up...you have literally 3 releases and you are trying to cram it all into one release...makes me wonder what kind of leadership you have at the project management level...

That is my feedback good/bad/or indifferent. I urge you once again to focus on Sparta, Athens, Carthage, Persia, and Rome. Release the other civs in follow on versions...this will give you the time and space to address the serious performance issues you have and narrow your focus so you can balance the civs in a measured way...this is really development 101...I'm not sure what else to say...

Edited April 8, 2013 by PurpleSector

[kosmo]

Some points:

* These are alpha versions. These are meant to be feature-centered not optimization-centered, as is common in the gaming industry afaik

* Balancing issues will be worked on mainly in the beta releases, as is common in the gaming industry afaik

* Performance issues are to a large extent to the pathfinder, that is currently rewritten

[zoot]

Err, how exactly would cutting the number of civs "free up time" to work on optimization? The people who do the civs aren't programmers... unless you are suggesting they spend a lot of time reschooling themselves?

Edited April 8, 2013 by zoot

[idanwin]

Anyway, as a Open Source game, 0 A.D. is not very likely to have a totally 'final' version, balancing issues can still be resolved any time because people can always download it for free.

If you look at other os games like warzone and spring, they keep fixing balance issues.

[alpha123]

I have played multiplayer on the LAN - I could not even imagine MP over the internet - the unit lag would be horrible, as over a LAN its already unplayable. But it's an Alpha release so...it is very nice to get a feel for it.

Actually, multiplayer over the internet is extremely playable, more so than single player. I encourage you to hop on #0ad sometime. The network lag isn't bad at all (well, there are some players with bad internet connections, but that's few and far between).

Just curious, what kind of computer are you on? My 4-year-old desktop handles LAN games (and internet games, and even single player games) just fine, especially in the start of the game. In the mid-game there is a slight lag, and late game can get unplayably laggy, but it's far from the whole game being uplayable.

But yeah, no offence but your team is making the classic mistake all developer driven teams make. Too much content not enough optimization. It's a shame as you have something great, but having been in the creative and dev tech industry since 1991 or so, I'm sorry to see that you are making such a big mistake.

Fortunately, as others have pointed out, we have different teams for content and programming.

Actually, since the programming (including optimization) is going to take a few more alpha releases, the art team decided to add the Ptolemies.

If you take a look at any other RTS that has ever been produced and played extensively, the development team started with a manageable set of feature set and optimized it.

I think we've definitely got a manageable feature set right now. The game is not particularly feature-packed, programming wise (we do have quite a lot of awesome art, but the artists have manged to keep up just fine).

Trying to release version 1.0 with this many civs is just a mistake...you will never keep up...you have literally 3 releases and you are trying to cram it all into one release...

Well... all the civs are finished so I'm not really sure what your point is.

If you mean balance stuff, our civs are reasonably similar so it's not going to be that much work.

makes me wonder what kind of leadership you have at the project management level...

Pretty great management, actually. You can talk to them on the IRC dev channel.

That is my feedback good/bad/or indifferent. I urge you once again to focus on Sparta, Athens, Carthage, Persia, and Rome. Release the other civs in follow on versions...this will give you the time and space to address the serious performance issues you have and narrow your focus so you can balance the civs in a measured way...this is really development 101...I'm not sure what else to say...

We will probably release some more civs in DLC packs (Seleucids?), but since all the current civs are finished I don't think anyone wants to throw away that work.

As great as our artists are, I don't really want them solving the performance issues... xP

The civs are surprisingly reasonably balanced already. I play multiplayer at a reasonably decent level, and all the civs are pretty well represented (except maybe Celts, they're slightly underpowered). So at least from that we know there isn't one civ that is grossly OP, or vice versa.

Edited April 8, 2013 by alpha123

[fabio]

I have to say that I somewhat agree on the abundance of content and rules in 0 A.D.. This may please experienced users but many random users (including me which I rarely play) can find the game has a slow learning curve. I mean I still don't understand what the diplomacy is needed for, as well other little things, like the need to press SHIFT to continue building a wall (to me it should continue by default and finish it with the right click). No surprise I read this on IRC some day ago:

14:44 < Mythos_Ruler> LOL... 0 A.D. video

14:58 < quantumstate> ah, wonderful

14:59 < quantumstate> why do 90% of youtube video creators not really know ho to play?

[Shield Bearer]

Thats where tutorials come in

[wraitii]

It's not really complicated if you're used to Age Of Empires. I think the issues currently are mostly that we kind of lack tooltips, a comprehensive list of hotkeys easily accessible, and there should be a "tip" section. Perhaps below quote of the day (which I believe is to be replaced anyway?). There are some things that never really get explained otherwise, such as diminishing returns and things like that. Beyond that, a proper documentation would be nice to add some more info, but generally the learning curve seems good to me (Ok, so I've been a hardcore EU3/Crusader Kings player for a while, which might skew my opinion slightly).

The new features (gameplay-wise) are not really hard to understand nor to play with, since they're not really added on top of existing things but rather give new things to do.

I also agree that the art department is basically really efficient, and the programming department can't really follow up. It is however bad that optimizations have delayed that much, but we're working on that and it looks fairly promising.

Civ balance isn't really an issue right now, afaik. This is kind of because most civs play "basically" the same, though, which perhaps isn't that desirable either.

[PurpleSector]

I'll just say this final thing - if you want to see the most overpowered unit in the history of any RTS - play deathmatch and mass Carthage elephants...in fact, Carthage is some kind of super RTS civ - 4 different barracks, sacred band out of temples, and uber elephants...I mean maybe you folks are some kind of geniuses and know how to balance an RTS better than all the studios that came before you, including Ensemble, but I seriously doubt it...I think you are deluding yourselves...IMO balancing this game is going to be incredibly difficult and it may never happen...I see at least 5 different totally overpowered units...

Edited April 10, 2013 by PurpleSector

[alpha123]

I'll just say this final thing - if you want to see the most overpowered unit in the history of any RTS - play deathmatch and mass Carthage elephants...in fact, Carthage is some kind of super RTS civ - 4 different barracks, sacred band out of temples, and uber elephants...I mean maybe you folks are some kind of geniuses and know how to balance an RTS better than all the studios that came before you, including Ensemble, but I seriously doubt it...I think you are deluding yourselves...IMO balancing this game is going to be incredibly difficult and it may never happen...I see at least 5 different totally overpowered units...

While Carthage is a bit OP right now compared to most other civs, largely because they have almost every unit, pretty much all the top players agree elephants are underpowered.

It's true, grab a handful of skirmishers and eles go down easily.

I hope to see you on #0ad sometime soon, maybe we can play a few games.

EDIT: Also, pretty much nobody plays deathmatches, so we really have no idea how balance works out in those. Naturally stronger units would appear overpowered, since you don't have to worry about cost. Try playing the regular mode. AegisBot on Very Hard is actually a pretty decent opponent.

Edited April 10, 2013 by alpha123

[Mythos_Ruler]

I'll just say this final thing - if you want to see the most overpowered unit in the history of any RTS - play deathmatch and mass Carthage elephants...in fact, Carthage is some kind of super RTS civ - 4 different barracks, sacred band out of temples, and uber elephants...I mean maybe you folks are some kind of geniuses and know how to balance an RTS better than all the studios that came before you, including Ensemble, but I seriously doubt it...I think you are deluding yourselves...IMO balancing this game is going to be incredibly difficult and it may never happen...I see at least 5 different totally overpowered units...

I don't think you've explored the game very far. Elephants die to swordsmen and skirmishers (every civ has at least one of these counter units; it's a lot easier to mass skirmishers than to mass elephants), and folks in multiplayer rarely make Sacred Bands. The units from 3 out of the 4 Carthaginian barracks cost tons of Metal. We balance the game for default play first, death match second (or third). I am quite sure that is how Ensemble did it.

Stay tuned though, as we are completely changing the attack vs. armor calculation, so there will be a huge re-balance coming very soon.

[Shield Bearer]

Also, I think we'll be restricting the Embassies to only one per player at a given time, right?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Also, I think we'll be restricting the Embassies to only one per player at a given time, right?

That is one idea.

[Pureon]

I mean maybe you folks are some kind of geniuses and know how to balance an RTS better than all the studios that came before you, including Ensemble, but I seriously doubt it...I think you are deluding yourselves...

Ouch. Thanks for your support

[PurpleSector]

I don't think you've explored the game very far. Elephants die to swordsmen and skirmishers (every civ has at least one of these counter units; it's a lot easier to mass skirmishers than to mass elephants), and folks in multiplayer rarely make Sacred Bands. The units from 3 out of the 4 Carthaginian barracks cost tons of Metal. We balance the game for default play first, death match second (or third). I am quite sure that is how Ensemble did it.

Stay tuned though, as we are completely changing the attack vs. armor calculation, so there will be a huge re-balance coming very soon.

Perfect example. So you think because there is a counter unit to these elephants they are not overpowered? This is what I mean. The problem with the Carthage elephants is how quickly they take down structures when massed. Try it yourself, play qbot very hard in death match mode, and let the computer player build for a while - then mass the elephants. You will see what I mean. So you really think in say a 3v3 MP game massed carthage elephants wont be able to attack unopposed? And already you are talking about restricting buildings or units as a balancing measure? What real RTS player would want that?

This is just one example...and these kind of problems are going to be compounded per civ. I'm sorry but you kids are in la la land. There is decades of RTS development behind you, all with competitive play balancing issues. These issue were in games with peer to peer civs that worked relatively the same way, and you guys have created something like Carthage and Rome and think its possible to balance this as an after thought? LOL.

Edited April 10, 2013 by PurpleSector

[alpha123]

Perfect example. So you think because there is a counter unit to these elephants they are not overpowered? This is what I mean. The problem with the Carthage elephants is how quickly they take down structures when massed. Try it yourself, play qbot very hard in death match mode, and let the computer player build for a while - then mass the elephants. You will see what I mean. So you really think in say a 3v3 MP game massed carthage elephants wont be able to attack unopposed?

Now play the regular mode and mass 50 elephants. (I managed to get 40 once, but that was a very bizarre and exceptional circumstance, which is certainly OK. Also my opponents didn't have anything to counter them.)

For goodness sake, quit judging balance from single player deathmatches! That really doesn't work, OK?

I dare you to come play a REAL game sometime.

Edited April 10, 2013 by alpha123

[kosmo]

Can't you read? The balancing is mainly for normal games, so who the heck would mass expensive elephants if the enemy could take them down with some cheap skirmishers?

If you try to defend against elephants with buildings thats not the fault of the game...

Again, go to #0ad and play a match against e.g. quantumstate, and mass your elephants...

[PurpleSector]

You know what you think what you want to think. I worked at Gas Powered Games and I saw what those guys went through balancing units...it took weeks of attack scenarios and tweeking...that is EXACTLY how you balance units. So keep living in dreamland, you will find out later when the game is mature and all the good players play the exact same civ and own everyone. Find out the hard way. Be my guest.

[alpha123]

Again, go to #0ad and play a match against e.g. quantumstate, and mass your elephants...

Well, I haven't seen quantum for a while, but he would probably win just by raw skill even if his civ was severely underpowered and the opponent's grossly overpowered. xP

But yeah, please visit #0ad and play a few games, THEN judge balance. You might have to wait a little bit to find a game, but it probably won't take too long. Especially on weekends people play pretty frequently.

EDIT:

You know what you think what you want to think. I worked at Gas Powered Games and I saw what those guys went through balancing units...it took weeks of attack scenarios and tweeking...that is EXACTLY how you balance units. So keep living in dreamland, you will find out later when the game is mature and all the good players play the exact same civ and own everyone. Find out the hard way. Be my guest.

It will take a lot of tweaking. Of course we don't think the game is perfectly balanced right now! What we think is it's not bad right now, and it's possible to do with as many civs as we have.

Oh, and currently there are definitely good players who play different civs.

We did have a pro player who hung around for a while (TheMista) who didn't seem to think we'll have trouble with balancing this many civs. I'll take his opinion over yours, I think. He did show us that dogs were very overpowered, but we corrected that and afterwards he didn't seem to think anything was particularly messed up.

Edited April 10, 2013 by alpha123

[Lion.Kanzen]

That balancing is perceptual, when nobody agree with that faction is already balanced .When faction is overpowered or underpowered, the most people are agree with that perception. I said that in past no all faction is for you. You have a style. That the point.

[Shield Bearer]

You know what you think what you want to think. I worked at Gas Powered Games and I saw what those guys went through balancing units...it took weeks of attack scenarios and tweeking...that is EXACTLY how you balance units. So keep living in dreamland, you will find out later when the game is mature and all the good players play the exact same civ and own everyone. Find out the hard way. Be my guest.

It would help if you were a bit more polite. Right now, Alpha, Michael and the others have all been pretty open with you and have been very straight forward, yet have been very soft spoken and kind. I know how hard it is to be polite to someone who is just the opposite, so unless you're trying to purposely provoke us I'd suggest you make your points with as little sarcasm as you can and respect the people on this forum as well as yourself.

Also, if you wanted to win a game, which faction would you choose right now? I've seen people win with even the Iberian faction. Can you explain why you think the civs are unbalanced at the moment and which ones? That would help a lot more than snide remarks

[Pureon]

...it took weeks of attack scenarios and tweeking...that is EXACTLY how you balance units.

At what stage of development were you guys doing this balancing?

Probably after most of the features that affect balance were implemented. Unfortunately we are not yet at that stage, Capturing and Auras alone will both require mass balance changes.