Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[satchitb]

No, we should totally do it for rams too, Trojan Horse. Bwahahaha. Personally, I'd like all units to be convertible if they're horribly out numbered. It would make a tad more sense than 3 soldiers trying to take on an army.

I don't even want to think how complicated that would be. I don't support this, quite frankly. Having soldiers convert back and forth would confuse the hell out of me.

Reputation is also something I don't support. It would make the game too complicated, and I don't think adding this mechanic would do anything in a short 2-3 player game.

[chaosislife]

Eh I'm all for complication but then I don't play quick lil 15 minute battle scenes, I play long drawn out episodes of torturing my enemies by giving them just enough resources to stay alive but not enough to win. Winning and losing both mean the end of the game and if the entire point of playing the game for you is to get it over with then I don't see why you even bother playing. Personally I'd like to play with the same map flat out forever with new enemies randomly appearing from the edge of the map to set up bases and attempt to take my bases. I'd like units that 'level up' and gain random unique powers. I'd like to never run out of resources on a map. Basically I'd like a fully moddable Seven Kingdoms 2/ AoM hybrid.

[oshron]

I don't even want to think how complicated that would be. I don't support this, quite frankly. Having soldiers convert back and forth would confuse the hell out of me.

Reputation is also something I don't support. It would make the game too complicated, and I don't think adding this mechanic would do anything in a short 2-3 player game.

there could be special programming so that, for the purposes of gameplay, the trojan horse can never be seen by enemy units. there could also be some more aesthetic units to be used that would be the trojan horse standing still or recognizable by enemies (suppose its for a role-reversal scenario in which the player is troy while the enemies are the invading greeks so you have to destroy the horse when it gets to your gate instead of accepting it)

Eh I'm all for complication but then I don't play quick lil 15 minute battle scenes, I play long drawn out episodes of torturing my enemies by giving them just enough resources to stay alive but not enough to win. Winning and losing both mean the end of the game and if the entire point of playing the game for you is to get it over with then I don't see why you even bother playing. Personally I'd like to play with the same map flat out forever with new enemies randomly appearing from the edge of the map to set up bases and attempt to take my bases. I'd like units that 'level up' and gain random unique powers. I'd like to never run out of resources on a map. Basically I'd like a fully moddable Seven Kingdoms 2/ AoM hybrid.

if game mechanics would allow this, you could try playing on a map that is literally to scale with a given region (say, the entire ancient world) and make it a free-for-all between twenty players

[Rasunadon]

Personally I'd like to play with the same map flat out forever with new enemies randomly appearing from the edge of the map to set up bases and attempt to take my bases. I'd like to never run out of resources on a map.

if game mechanics would allow this, you could try playing on a map that is literally to scale with a given region (say, the entire ancient world) and make it a free-for-all between twenty players

Doing this as a multiplayer game to which new players can connect as soon as one of them is destroyed would be really great. It could even go forever.

[Sebovzeoueb]

Doing this as a multiplayer game to which new players can connect as soon as one of them is destroyed would be really great. It could even go forever.

That sounds amazing. Please make this a game mode!

[gudo]

Oh yeah! Sounds awesome. It would work best once territories are implemented I think. Once a player is destroyed, we respawn all the resources that were there, and turn on a short rush timer.

[chaosislife]

Oh yeah! Sounds awesome. It would work best once territories are implemented I think. Once a player is destroyed, we respawn all the resources that were there, and turn on a short rush timer.

Idk about respawning the resources but one thing that annoys me is that when an enemy is wiped out all their remaining resources just disappear, it'd be nice if they'd be left behind to be collected by the victors or by scavengers.

[Kimball]

Doing this as a multiplayer game to which new players can connect as soon as one of them is destroyed would be really great. It could even go forever.

What happens when one player becomes dominant and camps out on a destroyed player's territory until a new player arrives? Would the incoming player spawn at a random location on the map?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hmm, perhaps players are prevented from claiming the losing player's final settlement, ensuring an open area for the new player.

[chaosislife]

What happens when one player becomes dominant and camps out on a destroyed player's territory until a new player arrives? Would the incoming player spawn at a random location on the map?

Ideally yes. The new player should spawn in a black zone, but if there aren't any such zones available then the new player should just spawn randomly at the farthest possible distance from any other players civil center.

[oshron]

Idk about respawning the resources but one thing that annoys me is that when an enemy is wiped out all their remaining resources just disappear, it'd be nice if they'd be left behind to be collected by the victors or by scavengers.

perhaps there could be a "spoils" mode that can be turned on and off so that all players who were in opposition of another player when they are completely defeated (or otherwise depart from the game) receive a portion of that player's resources. this could also lead to interesting developments in gameplay where a player who is on the verge of losing--suppose their last city was just bulldozed by a coalition of three other players and their remaining units are on the run--transfers all of their resources over to their ally, who has not been attacked once in the entire game, so that they can try to exact revenge.

in these cases, it would also be cool if there was a "mercenaries" mode as well in which a defeated player can choose to shift control of all their remaining units and buildings to another player. this would also go well if a real-life issue comes up in which a player has to leave the game but doesnt want to just leave an ally to fend for themselves, so they give their armies and cities to their friend to use for themselves

[chaosislife]

perhaps there could be a "spoils" mode that can be turned on and off so that all players who were in opposition of another player when they are completely defeated (or otherwise depart from the game) receive a portion of that player's resources. this could also lead to interesting developments in gameplay where a player who is on the verge of losing--suppose their last city was just bulldozed by a coalition of three other players and their remaining units are on the run--transfers all of their resources over to their ally, who has not been attacked once in the entire game, so that they can try to exact revenge.

in these cases, it would also be cool if there was a "mercenaries" mode as well in which a defeated player can choose to shift control of all their remaining units and buildings to another player. this would also go well if a real-life issue comes up in which a player has to leave the game but doesnt want to just leave an ally to fend for themselves, so they give their armies and cities to their friend to use for themselves

Part of having resources drop tho could be that if you were paying attention and planned well enough you might be able to steal the spoils from a conquering army by watching a player who is quite obviously about to be wiped out, setting up an platoon to occupy the invading army after the destruction is done and sending in some gatherers to pick up the treasure and run. An added bonus is that if you keep the invaders interested in that platoon you could retreat them all the way back to your "Wall of death" tower emplacements and watch the invaders get slaughtered.

One problem with this premise tho is that people wouldn't want to just give up their hard won territory but can't play for days on end with no sleep. This could be solved by having them be able to give their territory over to AI control while they're offline and then take back over when they can play again. The AI could be set to simply defend and farm only. There's still a chance that they'll be destroyed in the meantime but the loss of their investment isn't as certain.

[Kimball]

Hmm, perhaps players are prevented from claiming the losing player's final settlement, ensuring an open area for the new player.

My point is, some @#$% like myself could just wait around for the new player to respawn and then kill him off in his infancy for whatever rewards that yields. If someone's empire is massive enough, they could likely maintain this procedure over several deceased players at once as a secondary source of income and @#$%ry. So this raises the question, what mechanisms could we introduce to deter players from taking advantage over new players?

One thought of mine is not only spawning in a random position on the map (let's say we have 60 designated spawn points for a 20 player map in which we've determined there are ample resources and land to allow no player to have an unfair advantage), but not announcing when the new player enters the room.

In this sort of game mode, we need to figure out how to allow players entering mid-game the time they need to develop their economy before a greater faction wipes them out, having been in the game for much longer (and subsequently destroying the opponent that existed before them).

[gudo]

My point is, some @#$% like myself could just wait around for the new player to respawn and then kill him off in his infancy for whatever rewards that yields. If someone's empire is massive enough, they could likely maintain this procedure over several deceased players at once as a secondary source of income and @#$%ry. So this raises the question, what mechanisms could we introduce to deter players from taking advantage over new players?

One thought of mine is not only spawning in a random position on the map (let's say we have 60 designated spawn points for a 20 player map in which we've determined there are ample resources and land to allow no player to have an unfair advantage), but not announcing when the new player enters the room.

In this sort of game mode, we need to figure out how to allow players entering mid-game the time they need to develop their economy before a greater faction wipes them out, having been in the game for much longer (and subsequently destroying the opponent that existed before them).

Rush timer sounds good to me. If any of your troops enter a newly colonized province, they take massive damage. Any of your structures in said providence are either destroyed or converted. This would not only give the new opponent some breathing room, but would also give them fog of war cover. You may know where they spawned, but you wouldn't know what they're doing or what their faction is. Adjusting the balance would be fairly easy, just increase or decrease the length of the rush timer.

Another option would be to have them spawn with extra soldiers (say 3 women and 25 Hopolites) or give them a construction/training boost (for the first 5 mins, you build and train at double speed and half cost.) Probably some combination of all three would be the way to go though. Give them a bit of breathing room to start, but you don't need to wait five mins for them the get up to speed.

[Sebovzeoueb]

I think it would work best if it were on a very very large map with a lot of players (I believe I have read somewhere that the game engine supports 16). This way new players may be able to build up completely unnoticed. But yes, the problem with this game mode would basically be "spawn camping". I think the best would be to not announce when a player joins the game, so the dominating force is never 100% notified of what may be going on in the fog of war.

This game mode idea reminds me of Civilisation (I played Civ II mostly), where you completely destroy and enemy civilisation, and a new one crops up somewhere else on the map. I used to turn this option off, because otherwise I found you could never win by military victory, but in this case this is what we want.

As I say, I think if the map is large enough and busy enough, a new player might have a chance to build up without too much hassle. The bigger the better, but I'm not sure how this would work performance-wise.

Also, regarding someone giving up their game, maybe they could pass the control on to a friend, or even an unknown new player. Someone trying to join a game could select "take over existing player if possible" or words to that effect. Hardcore players could have an option to have a team of about 4 people to keep their civilisation going 24/7! Maybe cooperative play, as in 2 players controlling one faction, could also come into play here. Especially useful for getting a new base set up.

I think this type of game mode would necessarily be a bit of a lottery, sometimes you would get an excellent game, and sometimes you might spawn into an impossible situation, but I get the feeling this happens in many online games, and is not that much of a big deal. It's just a matter of having a good ratio of good games to not so good ones

EDIT: In this game mode there is also a strong case for implementing resources which grow back, which has been raised in another post, but so far has had a lukewarm reception. It would be more interesting if resources "grow" rather than being infinite. This way the dominating player can run out of resources.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Sebovzeoueb

[chaosislife]

There is one problem with regenerating resources given the present mechanics. How would metal and stone mines grow? I suppose we could have a map that starts with alot of mines but once those are out new ones would have to rise up and be explained away as erosion or perhaps some sort of deep mining building since all the mines that seem to exist now are clearly surface pockets. Perhaps some sort of trade buildings that generate metal like the plantations in AoE3? I don't really like the idea of all the stone and metal coming only from markets as you'd have to trade something to get the resource you need and it leaves the question of where the resource comes from in order to get to the market in the first place. Plus who are you trading the resources with if you've conquered the map? The market just seems too much like "hack w/e resource you need" to me. I can see them being used to generate income in the form of metal tho. We could also stave off the need to magickally find new mines with collectible debris field 'corpses' for buildings wherein the buildings material cost could be left behind when the building is destroyed. Of course that could very easily become a hack if techs were created that made buildings cheaper to build because the debris would be worth more than the building cost to build. Tho I suppose the tech could also change which debris field entity was left behind too.

[Kimball]

There is one problem with regenerating resources given the present mechanics. How would metal and stone mines grow? I suppose we could have a map that starts with alot of mines but once those are out new ones would have to rise up and be explained away as erosion or perhaps some sort of deep mining building since all the mines that seem to exist now are clearly surface pockets. Perhaps some sort of trade buildings that generate metal like the plantations in AoE3? I don't really like the idea of all the stone and metal coming only from markets as you'd have to trade something to get the resource you need and it leaves the question of where the resource comes from in order to get to the market in the first place. Plus who are you trading the resources with if you've conquered the map? The market just seems too much like "hack w/e resource you need" to me. I can see them being used to generate income in the form of metal tho. We could also stave off the need to magickally find new mines with collectible debris field 'corpses' for buildings wherein the buildings material cost could be left behind when the building is destroyed. Of course that could very easily become a hack if techs were created that made buildings cheaper to build because the debris would be worth more than the building cost to build. Tho I suppose the tech could also change which debris field entity was left behind too.

In this type of game mode, I think it would be permissible to adopt a CnC sort of approach, where they regenerate slowly over time. Trading with other players would still benefit you, but if all of the resources on the map are exhausted, this doesn't mean the game ends.

That being said, this sort of game mode is still largely hypothetical, so take everything here with a grain of salt.

[Alpha of the Eagles]

How about a certain amount of time where the new player can't be rushed, his workers build much faster (not gathering though) and he recieves an amount of starting troops in a 10:1 ratio to the largest player on the map (i.e. he has 300 soldiers, he lands 30 soldiers). Perhaps a certain amount of resources as well (depending on how far the game has progressed). The game should end after a pre-set amount of time (like 5-10 hours), and if a ladder system is implented, the player with highest score should win the game (bonus points for longest survival).

[oshron]

In this type of game mode, I think it would be permissible to adopt a CnC sort of approach, where they regenerate slowly over time. Trading with other players would still benefit you, but if all of the resources on the map are exhausted, this doesn't mean the game ends.

That being said, this sort of game mode is still largely hypothetical, so take everything here with a grain of salt.

though this wouldnt work in the iron age like with 0ad, one game im making written designs for features many alternative methods of generating resources, particularly Energy (it takes place in the modern period), basically through "green energy". if such methods could be found in 0ad, that would probably help

i would honestly suggest against letting a game literally go on forever. after all, its an RTS, not an MMORPG. if you want games to go on for VERY long periods of time, just make ENORMOUS maps that can support about two dozen players. the "spoils" and "mercenaries" modes that i mentioned before could still work very well in this scenario

i mean, what if someone has beaten every single player on the map and is about to win, and then suddenly a dozen new opponents pop up? that would just turn people off that game mode

Edited June 24, 2011 by oshron

[Sebovzeoueb]

i mean, what if someone has beaten every single player on the map and is about to win, and then suddenly a dozen new opponents pop up?

I think the point of this game mode is that the game never ends, and that you can't win. It's more of a survival mode, in which there is an ongoing rotation of civilisations. It would almost be like FPS games such as CoD and Battlefield in which you join an ongoing game, and then leave it again, but on a longer timescale.

It seems to me though that this suggested game mode is a game in itself. It would take a lot of work and balancing to make it work properly, and I wouldn't want it to detract from the development of the more standard game modes. That said, this suggested game mode would be extremely cool if well implemented.

[chaosislife]

I think of it as the campaign mode. Better than AoE/M's campaigns which end out more as a "play a movie" mode because the plot is already chosen for you and you can't say take over troy and defend it from hordes of barbarians or make peace with them and build a grand empire. You just end out building the horsey and sending it to the gates because that what the game says you have to do.

I suppose there could be a way to "win" by taking over the entire map and holding it for awhile without new players joining but that would only happen if no new players join due to being busy doing other things or by everyone just reaching a consensus that you've won.

Edited June 24, 2011 by chaosislife

[Kimball]

I think the point of this game mode is that the game never ends, and that you can't win. It's more of a survival mode, in which there is an ongoing rotation of civilisations. It would almost be like FPS games such as CoD and Battlefield in which you join an ongoing game, and then leave it again, but on a longer timescale.

It seems to me though that this suggested game mode is a game in itself. It would take a lot of work and balancing to make it work properly, and I wouldn't want it to detract from the development of the more standard game modes. That said, this suggested game mode would be extremely cool if well implemented.

It might be best to organize this into a six-team match (by faction choice). If so desired, you could specify that the room is between two factions only, and the first to eliminate the other would effectively win. Other players would cycle in and out, but there's a cool-down period after a player quits (say, 5 minutes or so). If all players are eliminated during that cool-down time, the other team wins.

Just a thought.

[chaosislife]

It might be best to organize this into a six-team match (by faction choice). If so desired, you could specify that the room is between two factions only, and the first to eliminate the other would effectively win. Other players would cycle in and out, but there's a cool-down period after a player quits (say, 5 minutes or so). If all players are eliminated during that cool-down time, the other team wins.

Just a thought.

Eh setting up a six team match doesn't sound too different from the multiplayer we already have (or perhaps will have since I've not tried it), part of the idea was to have it set up so the game doesn't end or at least lasts for days on end. The best way to do that IMO is to make it really difficult to completely win but not that difficult to survive.

[Annozero]

I really would like a game mode (probably optional) with a renewable economy. As it is now, after a couple of hours an average-sized map runs out of resources, so you have to win or lose before that. In this mode, one would be able (especially on very big/giant maps) to create a true "empire", a strong civilization which can win or lose a battle without being completely defeated, resulting in much longer and elaborated matches, where the economic choices and the diplomacy would play a very important role (of course a prerequisite for this would be an option to save the game).

To achieve this, I would make (again, optionally) these changes:

- Forests re-grow, unless a player completely destroys them (which actually happened in some Greek islands in the past: now they are empty, but 2500 years ago they had woods and forests which were used to build ships ans do on).

- When a building is destroyed, it becomes a ruin which can be mined like a normal mine (which was so common in the past that half Rome was built with stone from roman monuments). So, while the total stone or metal is limited, it can be recycled.

- Farms auto-regenerate, requiring about 1/3 of the food they produced (that was the best efficiency achieved in the Roman Empire).

- Fish reproduce itself, unless you make it extinct.

This game mode might be called "renewable" or "unlimited".

[Mythos_Ruler]

Markets and Trade routes will make the economy "renewable" enough, IMHO. All of you guys are forgetting about that.