Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[smiley]

3 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Would require Dev B and C to agree with whatever Dev A has in mind (And with each other)

Sure, but that discussion is supposed to weed out ideas which would not quite work. That does not take that long.

Such a team is possible. I actually know such a team.

[Stan`]

That sounds like a nice feature.

 

2 minutes ago, smiley said:

Sure, but that discussion is supposed to weed out ideas which would not quite work. That does not take that long.

Such a team is possible. I actually know such a team.

So you just add ideas that work ? And see how it goes ?

Yeah, I had a nice chat with them earlier (at least was nice for me)

 

[smiley]

Adding comes after testing. I really don't think there is another way of going about things.

"hey, you think this would be cool"

"probably"

...

"change this and that"

...

"thanks for the review"

change has been merged.

 

Your patch is diffed against your current tree as opposed to master on D2338

Edited September 29, 2019 by smiley

[Stan`]

8 minutes ago, smiley said:

Adding comes after testing. I really don't think there is another way of going about things.

Sure. But let's take battalions for instance. If either B or C (and not both) do not want the game to use battalions then the patch no matter how good can never be committed, how do you solve such issues ?

[smiley]

When given logical arguments, there is a single right answer.  Either it is good, or it is bad.

That being said, no project would ever go forward if all of it's members are on different wavelengths constantly.

Edited September 29, 2019 by smiley

[Lion.Kanzen]

It is incredible that at this point we do not agree that we want as gameplay, a long time ago a team leader said that this was not a democracy, but neither do I see solid decisions.

[happyconcepts]

I'm just scared. When I contribute, like my last suggestion about battle alerts, it gets called a "complaint".

Why should I stay involved with 0 ad?

[happyconcepts]

So let me do my best to answer my own question. Perhaps others should still ask themselves the same.

1. I like to play RTS.

2. I am not prolific but my code is written with diligence, and I am always learning and trying to improve.

3. I have played RTS for over 20 years. See #1.

4. To call 0 A.D. a game is too polite. More like a screwed up science project.

That's how I see it.

So I come to contribute and only get trolled and labeled a complainer by the dev team.

So let me get back to my question and see if my answer is any different next time.

[Servo]

No, I’m not angry. Just that such a pretty game seems to be stalled to its current state. Any alpha that might emerge seems to just feather features. There no depth tbh and not much interesting unique add ons. 

So if for example a feature/patch is developed and the vanilla decision makers don’t want it, this means the modders can’t use it? If that’s the case the one who makes the patch just washed his energy. Why not commit it so that mods “might” find it useful. 

Any resources an entity have should be given attention to either be useful or not. Some might be trashed but what if some  are useful, like if not on vanilla perhaps on mods. 

[Stan`]

10 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:

I'm just scared. When I contribute, like my last suggestion about battle alerts, it gets called a "complaint".

Why should I stay involved with 0 ad?

That was a poor choice of words on my end, what I should have said "How come no one has ever given us feedback on this".

10 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:

Why should I stay involved with 0 ad?

Well it's up to you. I appreciate your feedback I guess I was bad at expressing that.

20 minutes ago, smiley said:

When given logical arguments, there is a single right answer.  Either it is good, or it is bad.

 

AOE and total war are different games, is either one bad ? (Yeah it's a bit of an extreme example )

[Lion.Kanzen]

the only thing for someone to update is to have new art and some performance, the rest stays the same or worse.

[happyconcepts]

Those words would reflect your mind, yes?

Please try to change your mind bro. And the words will take care of themselves. 

[Stan`]

4 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:

Those words would reflect your mind, yes?

Please try to change your mind bro. And the words will take care of themselves. 

Yes those words reflect my mind. I'm happy for every new contributor. I'm just sad I can't review all of their contributions because I don't have all the skills. That's also why I go places trying to recruit new people, making presentations, and advertise the game when I can.

[smiley]

The answer to the AoE vs TW question depends on the persons opinion on the genre. Given we that we all started working on this game as it was more like AoE, the answer to all TW inspired features might not be yes. That would probably be unanimous I suppose.

Well, this escalated quickly lol. Remember the person behind the screen before you hit send, folks.

Edited September 29, 2019 by smiley

[Stan`]

14 minutes ago, smiley said:

The answer to the AoE vs TW question depends on the persons opinion on the genre. Given we that we all started working on this game as it was more like AoE, the answer to all TW inspired features might not be yes. That would probably be unanimous I suppose.

Makes sense yeah. Thanks.

[Servo]

I can’t find any link to read as to how 0ad will eventually be finalized. 

The way I sense from most of the discussion/s, it seems the features have to be tailored to multiplayer gaming; AoE, TW, aom or the likes. So mostly altering the arts and few tweaks on gameplay. 

I also spent more than 1k hours on AoE 2 on SP and after that I realized it’s a boring game to infinity. And it’s happening to 0ad, just that imo 0ad is more pretty with very realistic arts. Though each person has each own liking. 

But imo simple mindset a game that involves realistic scenarios are the ones that make gamers immersed.Not much pressure to play, relaxing but challenging. A game that even wife will understand that his husband gamer should rather stay at home and playing such a very pretty game than going out to flirt.

Anyhow, still hoping this game can be improved before I even vanish from this world.

 

 

[smiley]

Anything can be improved. Stay tuned for the release of a certain other project. As mentioned on the initial announcement, improving SP is one of the main goals.

[Alexandermb]

A simplier solution would be, at the start of scenario or "mp" game because lets be honest, Gameplay wise features aren't added because multiplayer "Balance" being the balance one of the broken features of every single multiplayer game, while being SP the higher community in each RTS Game wich is not Total War Saga.

Add the feature selection on the start of the match like:

• Block specific kind of infantry.
• Allow Ammo and Ammo replenish for ranged entities.
• Allow Regrow Trees.
• Allow regrow berry bushes.
• Realistic Human Speed instead of 1.6 walk sped for a entity walking being it a horse or a human.
• Allow running.
• Allow Dying of Diseases and 60+ Y'old.
• Allow Seasons.
• Allow Hunting animal packs attack your base.
• Separated civilizations or merged into a single etnic or geographic area.
• Batallions or single entities.
• Citizen-Soldiers or Just Soldiers.
• Heros with inventory or just simple heros.
• Siege Artillery Require manpower or not.
• Dual attack for ranged and melee infantry, like throwing pilum or throwing hoplite spears before getting closer in exchange of higher output damage at the beginning of a fight but lower damage with sword.
• Sub Units on chariots and elephants or not.
• Poison and Status modifiers or not.

This features i've mentioned are just like nomad selection, Not every1 likes to play nomad yet the feature exist and its added (i belive?) pyrogenesis main engine should have EVERY feature that it can have enabled by default in the main game. Its decision of the player whether they like it or not and if they want to enable it or not.

a perfect example would be Delenda Est mod. it adds unique features yet it removes others so i like some features but still don't like others, i would require coding knowledge to get back citizen soldiers features, and if its ever implemented i assume he will add batallions as default wich is something i would certanly not like to have instead of having single entities and then merging them into a batallion, so im unable to play and enjoy properly Delenda Est or Empires Ascendant just because there are features that i don't like from both.

I would rather go for total realism in a single player match because i never liked to play RTS in multiplayer. im happy enough playing alone single player agaisn't IA and leave Multiplayer to better games like RPG's and ARPG's.

Features should be added to the main game no matter  a dev like ir not, the game is not the DEV Choice only, is for the community sake that a game should always leave community decide what they want. 

Look AoE DE for example, everyone was like Yay! New graphics they are so awesome but... Same gameplay? No thanks i rather play AoE 2 HD so after a long year Hype this was a waste of Hype (Yeah imagine Hype as a HP Bar people would get bored of the devs and wouldn't follow them anymore loosing community).

Features review should be changed in such way that a  dev only would require to give their advice instead of their approval. IE: 2020 new forum member wants to add a feature, and he already done the whole patch and his patch doesn't break anything from the game, A dev says no beacuse he doesn't like the feature because he only think on MP balance gameplay. Forum member from 2020 leaves his patch and never again touch 0.A.D. neither the forum.

And another perfect example of why gameplay changes shouldn't be limited to mods its once again: "Skyrim", IE: X Dev:  has done a gameplay mod wich affects combat in such immersive way that everyones like it, he just use his free time to finish a 5 months old mod whitout having in mind wich other features his move will replace. 2 Years later.. Y Dev: This guy makes another mod wich adds a better combat adding scars and injuries after a combat have place in the skyrim world affecting how your gameplay life will continue, BUT community liked how the X Dev changed the combat animations and action like parrying and such things, This two mods are totally incompatible but community wouldn't mind and will download both mixing them and playing for long time until their save game crashes and have wasted tons of hours in two incompatible mods (Happend to me a lot in my little knowledge of modding on Skyrim).

We already have seen such scenarios in 0.A.D. with the forums post saying that "Y mod is incompatible with X mod" and later dev would have to make a patch if he agrees.

im just an artist expending my time improving 0.A.D. Assets hopping that someday gameplay change in such way that 0.A.D. EA ends being a mix between all the RTS Great Franchise for single player, whitout care a single bit about MP.

a mod i've liked a lot was @Angen mod, yet the ia doesn't work at 100% on it, but it had the best realism features even thought they didn't had visual features to properly show them.

Honestly, forget about MP balance for some alpha and start adding features, this game is going down beacuse of the new franchise releases because this haven't advanced a little bit in gameplay compared to others.

Rams are overpowered? Just nerf them in random ways.
Slingers and Javelinist are overpowered? NERF, if the nerf didn't had any effect on this release just do another with another adjusment.

But what are we doing saying "Oh sorry, we don't have a balance dev we wouldn't fix it unless someone decides to add a balance dev thought the balance dev will be only a face because main devs will still decide rather they like the nerf or not".

I don't know if i ever will be able to play a single player game and enjoy it so much like AoE 2 HD, Dawn of War, Warcraft 3, Total War or  any City Building game like Dawn of Man, Civ city rome, rise and fall civilizationts at war, Stronghold, Stronghold Legends, Imperium Civitas, Rise of Nations. I just do art in my free time for avoid think i live in a country were i wouldn't be alive in the next day hopping that someday this engine reaches his proper potential instead of just debating like the ONU whether the decision is correct or no and end whitout a solution.

[Servo]

Yay! Yesss those things @Alexandermb! Maybe someday...

[Servo]

Here is simple gameplay that “may” at least make the multiplayer game better imo. I’ve posted these things before already.

 Cap the number of each units (all units) that can be trained. For barracks and stable units depends on number of these structures. Corral might be prerequisite for stables building (Hannibal Barca has it). And perhaps someday armory and/or weapons are prerequisite for barracks. 

 These things and any variation should reduce the pacing of the game and can introduce more strategies. This way small skirmishes before any final major battle can occur. This is just a very light presentation but needs some polishing. The players should be very careful of their actions and would not resort to spamming.

Tbh I don’t mind having Citizen Soldiers but imo citizens can become soldiers and should come from the ranks of slaves, tradespeople etc. Barracks units just fight and Civilians just become militia or CS to defend the base, but can be used for an all out assault.

And common, these structures that fire without any “range units” garrisoned is just ridiculous. Towers and forts that fire magically?! At least limiting the number of units moving could reduce lag.

Man those siege units please and not just imaginary but rather organic  operators that can be killed. 

Let us know the reason why these can’t be done and reason/s why these are not possible mechanics. Worried about game duration?

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Servo said:

And common, these structures that fire without any “range units” garrisoned is just ridiculous. Towers and forts that fire magically?! At least limiting the number of units moving could reduce lag.

1. Almost every soldier must know how throw a little stone.
2. You must know there people working inside the defense structures you need assume that, or who open the gates and doors to let them in?

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Servo said:

And common, these structures that fire without any “range units” garrisoned is just ridiculous. Towers and forts that fire magically?! At least limiting the number of units moving could reduce lag.

1. Almost every soldier must know how throw a little stone.
2. You must know there people working inside the defense structures you need assume that, or who open the gates and doors to let them in?

 

[Servo]

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

• Almost every soldier must know how throw a little stone.
• You must know there people working inside the defense structures you need assume that, or who open the gates and doors to let them in?

Any realistic features in the game will make it better, there’s no doubt. 

And any unrealistic feature is s turn off, there’s no doubt too...

Edited October 1, 2019 by Servo

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, Servo said:

Any realistic features in the game will make it better, there’s no doubt. 

Simulation can be affect the performance.

[Charles Martel]

Here are a couple suggestions with regard to walls. For one thing, palisades could have 2 upgrade paths, one giving them wooden walkways (garrison) and the other allowing them to be built in neutral/enemy territory. In addition, walls might be able to be captured, but you could garrison melee troops on top, which could attack any capturing troops. Maybe you would move the other troops to a similar level while capturing? Siege towers would be able to capture the walls. This way, you could attempt to storm the walls without making walls super complex. For this, you should probably increase garrison limit.