Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[azayrahmad]

Some suggestions from me.

• Snapping on building placement: Sometimes I have to precisely find a perfect space for my field only to later realized that one of my houses is too close a little to my civic center that I couldn't possibly place a field between them. I prefer the hard snapping like in AoEII or in Empire Earth. The snapping in AoEIII is a bit more complex (smooth in large field but snap when you want to place a building next to existing buildings), but the old snapping will do.
• Detailed Formations tooltip: Why and when should I use phalanx or syntagma? What is battle line formation supposed to be? I can't find it anywhere.
• Civilization profiles in game session: Sometimes I play random or trying new unfamiliar civilization and I forgot what's their special powers. The history page could be accessed in Main Menu but there's no way to access it while playing. The emblem on middle-top is just a decoration with a tooltip of the civilization's name. How about making it clickable and when clicked it will show the history page?

Edited August 25, 2014 by azayrahmad

[lako3000]

Some suggestions from me.

• Snapping on building placement: Sometimes I have to precisely find a perfect space for my field only to later realized that one of my houses is too close a little to my civic center that I couldn't possibly place a field between them. I prefer the hard snapping like in AoEII or in Empire Earth. The snapping in AoEIII is a bit more complex (smooth in large field but snap when you want to place a building next to existing buildings), but the old snapping will do.
• Detailed Formations tooltip: Why and when should I use phalanx or syntagma? What is battle line formation supposed to be? I can't find it anywhere.
• Civilization profiles in game session: Sometimes I play random or trying new unfamiliar civilization and I forgot what's their special powers. The history page could be accessed in Main Menu but there's no way to access it while playing. The emblem on middle-top is just a decoration with a tooltip of the civilization's name. How about making it clickable and when clicked it will show the history page?

i like your 3rd idea. i would also like to be able to know what your enemy civ is, if you can find out already then please tell me how because i find myself not knowing what civilisation im fighting against and what they are strong at.

the 1st idea i think its kinda good that we dont have building snapping but tahts just my opinion, i like the different placement instead of Aoe 2 beacuse it is easier in aoe 2 but it makes you think more in 0ad about what your doing and how you need to be more aware, also its cool that you can place crop fields almost on top of eatchother and that means you have more of them around your cc instead of on Aoe 2, but thats just my opinion

[azayrahmad]

i like your 3rd idea. i would also like to be able to know what your enemy civ is, if you can find out already then please tell me how because i find myself not knowing what civilisation im fighting against and what they are strong at.

For the time being I think the only way is to print it out and read it while playing

Actually the no-snapping placement is not that bad. It's nice to have it precise. It's just that in some cases like in limited space you have to zoom in to be able to know if you can place a building while in tile system like in AoEII you can easily see from afar that a building can or cannot fit in a place. I'm thinking image placement in MS Word. When you place an image in a page it will be snapped according to line spacing but if you press Alt it will be smooth (although MS Word 2013 is the reverse).

[FeXoR]

I thought of a feature that dynamically balances (as in weak vs. strong player) the game:

Make the resource gather speed dependent on territory size.

[...]

This graph is of course only an example. But this approach could be used for various aims (by adjusting the values in the graph):

1. Give stronger opponents a slight handicap to make the game more interesting.

2. Give (little) room for late-game comebacks (Something you hear casual gamers complain about often)

3. Encourage early game expansionism (to get that ideal territory percentage) and discourage turtling (or the other way around).

4. It would also be fun if it could be changed by triggers to enable asymmetrical maps (attack / defense style).

5. Etc.

- Gather speed dependent on territory size: This would be hard to communicate to the player. Also this makes faster expanding players (usually the "stronger" player) even stronger.

1.) This should be a setting in the gamesetup and only be changeable (from 100% gather speed/health/damage/whatsoever to less) by each player himself. With default settings the "strong" player should win...

2.) Casual gamers also complain about the game takes to long. So that's no argument for me.

3.) IMO There shouldn't be an "ideal" amount if territory or an optimal strategy. Ideal for me would be the freedom for the player to use multiple strategies that are able to win the game with. This shouldn't be "hardcoded" in any way, though, but be achieved by the general game rules, the type of units available (and so a little, but not exclusively dependent on the civilization a player chooses), the map the match takes place and the alliances of the players.

4.) For such specific maps the proposed thing might be useful but this could also be achieved by different amounts of starting resources, defensive structures placed on the map, expansion resources and the distance to the players etc. IMO.

So in the end I'm not thrilled by such specific advantage/disadvantage systems that just mean players knowing the game better have an even bigger advantage then without such things and that means an additional disadvantage for newcomers (the opposite of what you are trying to achieve as far as I get it).

Also the number of strategies will get harder to balance which I don't like at all.

I agree with point 1 (if set before the game starts and not by a system taking into account the "stats" of a player which would encourage deliberate "bad" playing).

Edited August 25, 2014 by FeXoR

[oshron]

i was reading a book earlier (Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove--it's set during the American Civil War) and it was mentioned by a soldier character that he had difficulty moving through a particularly thick patch of foliage, particularly because of thornbushes. it hit me that maybe this could be a gameplay element in 0ad: iirc, at least some units will be able to navigate forests (which generally speaking is unusual for RTS games, at least the ones i've played), but what if there were some tree units (meaning the actual trees that appear on the map) which randomly have thicker foliage around them that even units that can cross forests can't move through. this could have design purposes as well as being a randomly-generated hindrance in skirmish maps: suppose, for a campaign, that you aren't supposed to be in a particular area of the map yet but have units which can pass through forests, since in this case forests would be the main method of blocking passage to this area. instead of allowing the player to break sequence, there could be a wall of thornbushes within the forest that your units can't cross no matter what

[FeXoR]

Something like this is already possible. Depending on the density of trees placed units can walk through or not. Bushes, that grand resources, are also blocking units. To make sure no unit can harvest the blocking trees/bushes actor trees/bushes (non-gatherable non-blocking versions of trees/bushes) could be placed and the terrain below them made impassable.

ATM such maps are quite unplayable though because the pathfinder is to slow to find units their way through dense forests (the passable parts OFC).

Edited August 27, 2014 by FeXoR

[niektb]

- Gather speed dependent on territory size: This would be hard to communicate to the player. Also this makes faster expanding players (usually the "stronger" player) even stronger.

1.) This should be a setting in the gamesetup and only be changeable (from 100% gather speed/health/damage/whatsoever to less) by each player himself. With default settings the "strong" player should win...

2.) Casual gamers also complain about the game takes to long. So that's no argument for me.

3.) IMO There shouldn't be an "ideal" amount if territory or an optimal strategy. Ideal for me would be the freedom for the player to use multiple strategies that are able to win the game with. This shouldn't be "hardcoded" in any way, though, but be achieved by the general game rules, the type of units available (and so a little, but not exclusively dependent on the civilization a player chooses), the map the match takes place and the alliances of the players.

4.) For such specific maps the proposed thing might be useful but this could also be achieved by different amounts of starting resources, defensive structures placed on the map, expansion resources and the distance to the players etc. IMO.

So in the end I'm not thrilled by such specific advantage/disadvantage systems that just mean players knowing the game better have an even bigger advantage then without such things and that means an additional disadvantage for newcomers (the opposite of what you are trying to achieve as far as I get it).

Also the number of strategies will get harder to balance which I don't like at all.

I agree with point 1 (if set before the game starts and not by a system taking into account the "stats" of a player which would encourage deliberate "bad" playing).

- Communicating to the player would be fairly easy I think. Just put another box next to the resources with a multiplier. Maybe a tool tip showing a small graph with the territory/gather-speed relation.

1. It depends on how you shape the graph. You can use it for various purposes. You can use it to handicap stronger players but also to encourage expanding, to name some possibilities.

2. Could I get a quote? I never heard someone complaining about the game lasting too long...

3. It is indeed not good to have one exactly optimal territory area. It would be best to have the player try to find the optimal amount of territory for his strategy (that would be influenced by above described mechanic).

4. It could indeed be done with map design, but if it would be applied map-specific it is way easier for the designer than having to shape the map completely for it.

[FeXoR]

niektb:

While showing a multiplier sounds reasonable it's not very telling because the player meeds to know the incline of the graph at the current position to know what happens if he expands/raises an expansion CC (and the second should never be beneficial IMO).

Showing a graph is neither trivial, nor telling (many PPL don't understand graphs and you have to mark the current x) and it will not fit well in the GUI (which is a lesser argument for me but for others it would be a big one).

So if done it has to really add some benefit to gameplay and IMO it doesn't (In fact it makes it worse IMO).

1.) I meant a fixed "handicap" multiplier. Your approach always benefits a specific situation and is bad in all others so freedom is less and that's bad IMO.

2.)

Currently 0 A.D.'s gameplay is too slow compared to any other RTS game out there I know of. It makes the matches take much longer time and the main factor resulting this speed is the economic side of the game.

The economic side has the speed of a snail. Construction take a lot of time, costs are too high, and resource gathering is very slow considering the costs.
[...]

What about the new walkspeed?

I'd like to hear a few thoughts about walkspeed increase, since a few balance branch* testers claimed that it is too fast. In my opinion it should be decreased a little again; generally spoken its a step in the right direction (a16 feels like slowmotion when used to balance branch ) ...

I don't make such an assumption at all. I was simply asking a question. My question is in regards to the idea that the game is too slow. Only one guy seems to admit that he has have even tried it at 1.25x (iNcog).

[...]

And longer ago there where many other players stating the overall gameplay is to slow.

3.) Try and error is IMO the last option to learn with. Though experience will always be beneficial OFC hegemonic knowledge is never a good thing IMO. Expansion has to be rewarded (it actually costs much and thins the units per territory contour length so it's risky in the first place) and as is (constant multiplier) assures that.

4.) Maybe for the map designer but not for the player (at least to understand).

IMO RTS games are complex enough (with few well designed core features like armor/attack type, physical collision detection/projectile speed/trajectory, damage bonus vs. specific other units, bonus to ranged units based on height and/or (mainly or) other things).

Balance the basic gameplay in the end feels much more "free" and rewarding IMO then enforcing specific strategies by arbitrary rules (despite they are much simpler do balance).

IMO we already have to many features (like e.g. stance + formations + armor/damage type + damage bonus vs. XYZ + many different civilizations) to be sanely balanced at all.

Don't dare to replace balancing with capping (like fortresses and defense towers), arbitrary crippling/rewarding or other stuff that simply takes away the freedom of play and will lead to an/a few "optimal" strategy/strategies (like so many modern "professional" games come with)!

(I actually have the feeling the term "balancing" is not really understood by many people - without meaning any offense. One of the few astonishingly balanced games is e.g. Warcraft III (though for sure the focus on heroes might be considered a balance breaker). Very diverse races and an attack/armor type matrix with diverse unit speeds and what comes out is an awesome game.)

Edited August 28, 2014 by FeXoR

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The problem with the idea that the game is too slow is that while you may have some vocal people saying the game is too slow, there are many thousands more who either don't care enough to state that the game is too slow or the game speed is just fine for them. In my comment about game speed (1.25x), I am just trying to get people to understand that (I think) the game has game speeds for a reason. That reason (again, I think, I do not know) is to allow players to play the game at speeds they are most comfortable with. My opinion is that the 1x game speed is just fine for beginners or players who want to more leisurely-paced game. Players who want a faster game can play at 1.25x speed, which is what I tend to play when I don't have time for a longer game. In my opinion, a qx game in 0 A.D. is about as fast as a 1x game in Age of Empires II.

[auron2401]

The problem isn't that it's slow

It's that the game can't make it's mind up on the matter. "Am i a slow paced game, or a fast paced game?"
EG: Units take 10-20 seconds to train (quicker in batches) but a house, for example, takes 60. (or 40)

This is a bit of a mismatch. You'd expect a building which gives you the ability to train more units would only take the time it takes to make by one person, the same or almost similar minimum time to create say, 10 units. Barracks are also long, 200 seconds? Yikes.

The game forgets time is as much a cost as something such as... say, wood, stone, metal, food. Probably more important a cost. Time spent is generally equated to reward gained, if the reward gained is minimal, why would you spend the time to DO? You have other things you need to be doing. Like killing the @#$% out of things.

In summary: Speed isn't a problem. Consistency in speed IS a problem.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Does a house take 40 seconds for 1 unit to build it or regardless? If you use more than 1 unit to build the house it does build faster, correct? So, now you are making a decision: Should I send 3 units to build this house very quickly or just send 1 to build it slowly and use the other 2 to chop trees. When I play the game if I send 3 units to build a house then it builds very fast. Also, the game is still in an immature state. There are many possibilities for technologies to be included that make building buildings much faster for those with no patience. Is there no creativity left for these things? You say the game is this way or that way, but I see an unfinished game yet, so you should give the developers some time to satisfy you.

Edited August 29, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[thamlett]

hmmm, that's a good point

Also, would it be better to train units 5 or 1 at a time so that while the others train, the trained can gather resources?

And what about dedicated hosting mode? Plenty of people (including me) have internet-connected computers with plenty of processing power that could provide the hosting that no one in the lobby seems to be able to do (because they don't know how to forward their ports or can't)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

hmmm, that's a good point

Also, would it be better to train units 5 or 1 at a time so that while the others train, the trained can gather resources?

I think in the first minute or two minutes you should train 1 at a time and then after that train 5 at a time. In 3rd age train 10+ (do this especially if your base is directly under attack; of course this all depends on the situation you find yourself in).

Edited August 30, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Tango_]

just train in groups, always always always in group. one of the key to take the economical advantage.

only cav at the beginning are usefull to be trained one per one, to put the trained cav on hunting, to have a food income more.

[jgcampbell300]

thought ... team play .. 3 or 4 team members 2 resource 2 combat ..maybe have diffrent divisions or something like that

problaby need servers t odo that ... maybe a good source of income for game development

[TriplicariusDEN]

No idea if this has been suggested before.

When I go to the barracks, the only roman spearman I see is a Triarus.

It is veteran.

Why not add a new stage to it, like Rorarrii (Basic spearman, kinda like militia)

So, from the regulars, (Rorarri) to Veterans (Triarri)?

It would make it so that roman spearmen could evolve just like Hastatus.

Edited September 7, 2014 by TriplicariusDEN

[iNcog]

Disregarding design features right now, I would like to know how performance is doing? Namely, multiplayer command lag, has it been fixed? Has performance in-game improved during A17? I read somewhere that there were a couple of changes that might have been possible to make path-finding a task that scales with more threads. Any update on any of that?

I'm calmer than before about the game but I'm still pretty excited to see where this is going. I do believe that the performance issues are the most pressing ones.

[raisiscronos]

might be a good idea to add Dacia to the list of factions, was a territory that aroused the interest of the Romans and Macedonians, where there were great battles, do not believe?

[Lion.Kanzen]

might be a good idea to add Dacia to the list of factions, was a territory that aroused the interest of the Romans and Macedonians, where there were great battles, do not believe?

Is planned for second part.

[tau]

Some suggestions:

1) Cancel fortesses and towers number limit
Never knew why the number of fortresses is limited to 10 and can't think of a good explanation. Maybe it is time to reconsider?

2) Autopause when a player leaves an MP game (as an option)
When a player suddenly leaves a game, a common courtesy is to pause and wait for him for a while. Would be nice to have an option for autopause if a player left not through menu but because of a crash or connection issue. Should be unpausable from menu.

3) Do not allow warships/heavy wasrships in shallow waters
Military ships in oases are a joke. If there is a way to know max depth of waters in a basin where a dock is, would be nice to disable warships/heavy warships building for depths less than some value.

4) Giving a rotary mill a functionality of a farmstead (so that workers can drop resources there)

5) Changing alert bell functionality
Now, increasing the alert level is mostly useless option: normally, after an initial alert a CC and towers garrisoned with women, and this is pointless to hide citizen soldiers in houses, better to make them fight.
I would suggest at least not let women to hide in towers on alert (or maybe give houses a priority to towers), so that after an alert level increase ranged inf could get there.
Another idea is to replace an alert level increase feature with an independent alert for ranged troops, calling them to garrison in CC/towers/forts.

6) Remove player number tips from the map sizes control (eg make it just "Small" instead of "Small (2 players)" )
What we have now, leads to stereotypical thinking. In practice, an 'open' Medium map can be just perfect for 4 players game. This also depends on a game type: if you play 2v2 or 3v3 on a large map, this is ok; if you play all-vs-all, this can just become boring when only two stay alive.

7) "Shared" pop cap for locked teams, as an option
A bit crazy, but... In 2v2, after one of the enemies is killed, it is normally won, not because it becomes 2v1, but because it eventually becomes "600v300". What if pop cap could be set per team, depending on initial number of players?

8) Disable teamchat for defeated players, so that they couldn't secretly give hints to their teammates, seeing a revealed map

9) Make foundations of health 1 (placed, but not being constructed yet) not visible to enemies

[raisiscronos]

Is planned for second part.

wooh, is very good idea, fantastic work, one more thing, the docks are very resistant against ships, improved damage for boats, arrows with fire or units with distance can attack inside. or docks with less resistance and greater speed of construction would be good.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Ai is very Agressive even in easy. For new players can be hard beat. Is a huge difference between easy and test.

[TriplicariusDEN]

Maybe an "On duty" and "Off Duty" mode? This would add an element of strategy if you made them move to a civic center or military building in order to have them back. Promoting surprise attacks, and I think we all know how valuable that is.

[Pariahbass222]

I seriously truly believe rome needs palisades. The romans were famous for building a fortiefied garrisson near overnight. During legion movements literally overnight. So in the idea that each game you are in a sense a "roman colony" why not a pallisade? To me it just breaks a major aspect of roman warfare. but thats just me.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I seriously truly believe rome needs palisades. The romans were famous for building a fortiefied garrisson near overnight. During legion movements literally overnight. So in the idea that each game you are in a sense a "roman colony" why not a pallisade? To me it just breaks a major aspect of roman warfare. but thats just me.

I agree with that , I knew about siege walls but are not same the palisade are avaible in I phase.

-----------

Why the first age cost wood? In Aok the first age pass cost food (500) and the second cost food and gold