Can 0-AD hear my prayers ?!

[Organix]

Hello everyone !

I'm confused right now because I have so much to tell in every direction... let me introduce myself first. I'm a big fan of Age of Empires 1 / 2, Warcraft and Starcraft. I have spent thousands of hours casually and competitively on these games without ever getting bored. When I heared of a free and non-professional RTS clone last month, I was really excited to try it asap. My first words were : "whouaoo, quelle claque !" Yup, I was really impressed the first time I played the game. Technically and aesthetically, 0-AD is gorgeous. It really comes close to Age of Empires 3 in terms of appearance. Very good point here.

Preamble : as a kid, I was hoping to play (or create) a strategy game that takes place between -500 and +500, with Romans, Greek, Celts and more. Kind of Age of Empires 1.5 historically. Anyway I did studies in classics some years ago and I really appreciate the realism brought to all civilizations in 0-AD ! But it is precisely the source of all my worries and the primary reason of this post...

NOW I will outline many of the problems I encountered during the countless hours I spent on this game. I do not want to hurt anyone with my remarks knowing that this is a game made by free time volunteers, although defects are defects, even if you are all amateurs. It is my personal point of view and and I've in no way claim to require anything. I have infinite respect for your work and will certainly contribute with donations one day.

There are obviously three big flaws in the current beta (not including bugs and performance issues) :

I. The historical accuracy devours Game Design, Balance & competitiveness

What I mean through this flashy title is fortunately very easy to explain and understand. In no way 0-AD can be take seriously by high competitive players, for obvious things that I'll detail later. Maybe the dev team is not trying to attract this kind of community, but it's a large mistake. Why ? Because the competitiveness of a game does not go against the accessibility. A game like Super Smash Bros Melee knows how to appeal to the avid gamers and the more casual ones. This is terribly difficult to do, but really feasible since 0-ad has no deadlines. I read someone on these boards said that a perfect balance is not in lines, but that all civs should be able to win in 1vs1. It means nothing. A pro playing a low tier civ will easily win against a beginner with the best civ. Don't get me wrong, the balance is far from being perfect in Age of Empires, but I'll tell you the major difference between the two games. In Age of Empires 2, all civs can build trebuchets for the sake of balance. Did Aztecs build trebuchets to counter Cortes back to ~1500 ? Heck no. Developers are forced to compromise. If you don't give trebuchets to a civ, give it a godly substitution to compensate this lack. But balance will come after all in the development schedule, I know it and I'm confident. However, historical accuracy must NOT be an obstacle to game design. I have hundreds of examples, let's go :

- female citizens... ok I strongly disagree here. First and foremost, that's sexist. Historically sexist, of course. I'm kidding here but seriously, what does this bring to the game? I mean, even historically, females have never accept to be free punching balls for men, so why couldn't they build military buildings or defend themselves a minimum? It's stupid to separate women and men during the war. I frankly hate this flavour and I would be ecstatic to have citizens on a side, soldiers on another. There is a very good reason why Age of Empires does not distinguish the two sexes but distinguish the two roles. Let me explain the reasoning. These are fundamentals. If you give soldiers the ability to build and gather resources, you open the door for a lot of inconsistencies : this doesn't help your economy because you have to constantly juggle between citizens and soliders-citizens which are probably in a fight. You must be careful to not cut wood or hunt when moving your soldiers on the battlefield, and you have to constantly remember that a women can't build military buildings, so don't bother with them after the city phase. A pain in the @#$%, for what benefit? Be able to hunt with your scout? I don't get it. Soldiers must be constantly in a "search & destroy" mode, not in grape picking. I agree with special units for some civs (because historically, of course greek citizens were warriors... and have you plans to add the latrine? Realism does not equal to fun). A general system where soldiers are builders/citizens at the same time? Underwhelming to say the least, to have a core feature that bad for a game like this... you need a questioning.

So what could we do?

0.Current system. (bouuuhh I hate that)

1.Female citizens who can fight and build military buildings ; most of soldiers can always work as citizens. (Mehh...)

2.Female citizens who can fight and build military buildings ; only workers of the game. Men are devoted fighters. (I like it)

3.Asexual citizens who can fight and build military buildings ; soldiers are train in barracks only and this is the best thing ever. (I love it)

- the town center NEEDS to only build citizens, not soldiers. And of course, seeing that most of the soldiers are citizens at the same time, the town center is the combination of a house and barracks ; this is strange and not good from my perspective. Barracks (and castle) lack of identity in 0-AD. These buildings can create the same units most of the time. I really don't understand. The town center should'nt be able to create soldiers, and even less cavalry. Other very important thing to note : you should avoid almost all military units in the first phase. I don't mind some man-at-arms, but archers and cavalry so early? Nope.

- the range is transformed in meters (except for monks... maybe a french mistranslation). What is the point ? This is so vague in a video game, or rather too specific. My archer can throw his arrow at 36 meters, what a great tip. I have not the time as a player to get used to this new terminology.

- so much graphics to differentiate a skirmish greek from a skirmish persian... but only visually unfortunatly. There is a motive on why they don't give unique graphics to a british knight in Age of Empires 2. Because the british knight is not different from any other knight in the game. The game is really confusing for a newbie because you can't recognize a unit by his appearance with a neglected look, and this becomes a big flaw when you have to bring the good units to the table. If the design of tokens changed every time you play chess, you won't be able to think as fast as you are used to. However, a queen is always a queen, a knight is always a knight. But I've already explain the importance of defined roles for the gameplay.

- buildings take way too long to destroy. Because of that, towers are too powerful in the early game, preventing any successful offensive before siege. (except for a celtic rush...maybe)

- not sure if realistic, but archers and skirmishers are 100% accurate, which means you can't micro with a scout to harass enemies. Archers are gods and arrows are unavoidable, even with the fastest cavalry. This is not pleasant if you like to control your units during a fight, which is blatantly useless in 0-AD right now (except for comprehensive strategic positions).

-cavalry should be 2-pop (and not able in phase 1, like I have already said), a hero should be a one-time help. Once your hero died, you should'nt be able to train another from my point of view.

- is there a way to know the opponents' progression ? Their phase maybe ? It was really practical to know when your opponent was going to a new age in Age of Empires. Or was it a conscious idea of the dev team to leave the player in the dark ? Just curious, I don't mind either way.

II. Strange and reckless decisions

The worst decision of the game from my personal point of view is the countless bonuses given to units. x1.5 against mounted units, skirmish and champions, x2 against elephants, countered by archers and swordsmen. x2 against swordsmen and skirmish, countered by mounted units. Man, this is hard. Give complexity to a game doesn't necessarily bring depth. In the case of 0-AD, there are way too much bonuses to memorize for each unit. It's like if you have to perform 16 inputs in order to do a dragon punch in Street Fighter. What is the point here ? The current system is broken because you can't know effectively which unit you have to train in order to counter another on the battlefield. Sure you can memorize all things with a lot of practice, and sure it's logical for a spearman to deal a lot of damage against mounted units, but this has to be as simple as it can be. Because the game never intended for experienced players, there is no need to put a very complex counter/countered system for offensive. Bonuses have to be rare, but more prominent. Spearmen x4 against elephants and mounted units, that's ALL. Skirmishers x2 against archers, countered by cavalry and melee infantry. Clear, simple, logical and effective in the battlefield. When I see "x1,5", I asked myself if units don't loose their purposes, their identities in the warfare because of this decision. Macro > Micro in 0-AD, so why do you bother with such bonuses ? Yup, there is something wrong here.

But I have other issues in other departments :

- military units should be train slowly. 12s for a basic military unit is too fast, it's even faster than a female citizen. Why ? If you have enough wood, there is no need to train a female rather than a skirmish, which is a strange idea overall. Building a counter-offensive is quickly doable if you have enough resources, and considering the defensive pace of 0-AD, this is maybe the best strategy in the game. The opponents will loose a lot of their armies face to your towers (without siege = late game), and in a very short time you'll be able to overcome any situation by producing a large amount of units. We could believe that a shorter time to train a military unit is a good thing to favorize rush games, it is clearly not the case here. A fast attack can be countered so easily that it's not worth the attempt.

- because units are train very fast and because resources abound, the player rarely lacks of something. The market is too efficient right now, so you can buy 1000-stone and 1000-metal without any compromise. Buildings are surprisingly cheap and so are most of technologies.

- technologies costs are not balanced at all. It seems like the dev team decided randomly. 100 stone for that or 100 metal for this. By example, I think of a specific technology in the castle that costs stone for -20% wood to build Siege Weapons. This is a dumb move because wood is given at this point of the game, contrary to stone and metal. "Fruit Basket" should be 15s of research instead of 40s. It's useful at the very beginning, so I don't understand why it takes so long. And examples are legion... (on the other side, I love technological compromise : your choice of one tech or another will be important for the rest of the game, very strategic indeed)

- going to a new phase is too fast. I propose 90s of research for the second phase, 160s for the last.

- too much resources at the beginning of the game, even in low. I suppose "low" is the default value, but it's not enough low to my taste. In the same way, you don't need to build a house from the start (or near the start) as in every other RTS I play, and I dislike that a lot. This is disturbing and definitively not a good thing for casuals. You have to teach to a new player that he must build a house quick in order to allow new units. 20-pop from the start is way too much, I propose you 16. You have the time to train 4 citizens during the house's creation (15x4=60s). It would nicely flow with the beginning, so you can train 2 citizens before starting the house. Oh by the way, a house for 10-pop is a lot considering that a player can upgrade it to 13-pop. I propose 8-pop for a house, maybe reducing a little its cost. Just my thought.

- agricultural fields are... completly overpower. I suggest at least 100 wood in order to build one and a cap for 1000 food to collect. By doing that, you strengthen the micro of your citizens and you reward the player for its economic focus. A field is so cheap and so easy to preserve (by doing nothing, basically) that other way to gather food is really factitious. Of course it's slow, but it's also too convenient to be outshine by hunting or whatever. AOK farm's system please.

- skirmish-caval are broken. Auto-AI on them makes the micro-game nonexistent and the speed of cavalry gives them a considerable advantage over other units in the game.

- treasures are broken. In some maps, you just have to find treasures before your opponent to win the game, even with a terrible gestion of your economy. 1000-food, 300-wood, seriously ?! This is so broken that it hurts the whole metagame. Something like 100-food or 50-metal are more rational for me. Not to mention that a player who knows the map will earn an immeasurable advantage.

III. Feeling(s)

I'm sure this will be addressed in future updates but I want to speak about that briefly. The fights are not well rendered sometimes ; it looks like Age of Empires 3 without gunpowder, so it's not really great to my opinion. Siege weapons need better animations, and mainly a sense of power and danger. It starts with better gfx and sfx. I love rams in 0-AD thanks to their sounds (it could be improved with more bass, but the feeling is good), although balists and catapults are very poor in comparison. And "hitboxes" are strange sometimes, with a swordsman who can attack a building 4 meters far from him visually. Obviously, buildings will need some feedback on their destruction state, with flames, flying stones and so on. From a general standpoint, the game also lacks of several other feedbacks. Sound feedback, visual feedback. I have to know better when I need more houses, or more resources. I have to know better when I enter a new phase or when I finish the construction of certain buildings. And I'll say that some buildings sound pretty underwhelming, especially Barracks. (I love the "TA-DAAM TA-DAAM" from Age of Kings). This part of the game needs a lot of work.

Also :

- Why take metal instead of gold? For the sake of difference? There is a reason (again) why AOE took gold mines instead of metal mines. Gold is yellow and shiny, it's easy to differentiate it from the stone and wood on the map and the interface. Most of armors are aesthetically made of gold in the game, so I questionned your choice twice.

- Seperate Economic buildings from Military ones with one icon for each. Like Starcraft or Age of Empires, it's much convenient this way.

- I need a star on the minimap to distinguish allied market. Please.

- Hotkeys? I would prefer customizable ones. For the moment, it's really hard to master some HL tricks.

- Press Alt to watch units' health (Warcraft-like), it's really useful.

- I'd like to see how much damage a unit can deal without overfly a tooltip. If soldiers were'nt builders at the same time, it would'nt be a problem at all... ehh

- An option to only select idly female citizen if the general system of the game doesn't change.

- Livestock could gain in food over time. I liked this idea in Age of Empires 3 and I think it could be good in 0-AD as well. Maybe a sheep could be at 50-food when formed (original cost) and grow up to 200-food in 2 minutes.

- Wild animals sometimes don't attack citizens.

- AI is maybe one of the hardest part in a game's development, I know it. The AI in 0-AD is absurdly easy to beat even in the hardest mode. I play against Petra and the other one and I never loose a game. I don't think I'm somewhat good without hotkeys, so yeah, I'm curious to see what I could do against humans these days.

- Ergonomy before starting a game ; changing the map will reboot all the options. Frustrating.

- Music for each kind of civ is an excellent idea and I welcome the execution as well. It's very good and atmospheric. The main theme is somewhat lacking, I'd love something more epic and traditionnal, less hollywood-style. Personal taste again, I don't pretend to be objective.

- Hundreds of new and unique voices for all units!

____

TL;DR (and I don't blame you) : Historical accuracy doesn't need to crush against simplicity and balancing of the game. Some decisions and ideas are dumb or unjustified, preventing the game's depth in favor of nothing. Soldiers-citizens' feature is a game breaker for me. Better gfx and gameplay's fixes everywhere would bring a (needed) fresh air. If you need someone to help in the balancing department and game design issues, I'll gladly join your forces in my free time. Labor omnia vincit improbus.

I hope it was a decent read for you. I'm open to debate, because even if I don't know the project for a long time, I want to see its full evolution from today.

(OH by the way, I would love Huns into 0-AD ! I have ton of ideas for this civilization and I am passionate by nomadic cultures... maybe in another thread ehhh!).

If you could link me some videos of good players on Youtube, I'd be very happy.

[Freang12]

I agree with everything you have stated above. This is a great game but these points should be taken into consideration. The thing i would like to see the most would be the reduction of sexism in citizens and soldiers. Clearly the post above had a huge amount of consideration and effort put into it and it deserves our respect and should be looked into.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Freang12

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I understand some of your concerns, but do realize that first, the game is in the alpha phase so expecting much balance or missing features is a bit unrealistic. Second, the depiction of women is different I will admit, yet in many conservative societies such as Athens, Rome, Persia, Macedonia, and others such was basically the case. Granted, with the Britons and Gauls letting them have the ability to build military structures seems rational. Sparta actually does feature relatively flexible female units. Realize though that regardless of something being sexist, there is a lot of fact behind the roles for women in the game. Having men be solely devoted to fighting is itself sexist. The final option is not exactly historically justifiable also. It is best to have an accurate yet working system, which is what 0 A.D. has; perhaps it is not perfect, but perfection is difficult to achieve regardless.

[Zeta1127]

That is a lot to address, especially in one post, but I will do my best.

Part I

I am not going to address female citizens, because that is going to be a very touchy discussion. However, I will say that citizen-soldiers were a conscious decision.

I completely disagree with this assessment.

I don't understand the concerns over range.

The visual differentiation between the different civilization was a very intentional choice that isn't going to be changed.

A loyalty system with the capture of buildings by citizen-soldiers is planned, so I would wait for the implementation of that system before disagreeing.

Some people around here actually hate the idea of adding a lot of micro, so I suspect there will be a very lively debate about that in future.

I don't think that is planned.

As far as I know changing the model of buildings upon reaching a new phase, at least for the Civic Center, has been discussed, but it would take a lot of work by the art department to do.

Part II

I don't see what the problem is, there is currently batch training that has interesting implications that may make you reconsider the current system.

I think my previous comment also addresses this concern.

The Wicker Baskets tech is actually almost completely useless at present, because on most maps there is rarely much to forage besides at starting locations. Herding animals in Corrals isn't even implemented yet, similar the Animal Nursery from Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, so there maybe more to complain about in the future.

That's an interesting idea.

The current farming system was actually implemented very recently, but there is room for improvement.

The current population system was a conscious choice to help further differentiate civilizations from one another.

See my previous comment concerning micro.

I believe there is room for improvement with the treasure system.

Part III

I don't see why metal vs. gold is such a big deal.

Tabs for buildings is an interesting idea, but I am not sure very many others would be open to that.

There is plenty of room for improvements to the minimap.

Hotkeys are already available and even customizable to a certain extent with a little work, but it still needs to be implemented as an in-game menu.

I think health bars are visible by default upon selection.

I don't like that either.

I think there is a hotkey for that, but a button would be a good idea.

See my previous comment on the Wicker Baskets tech, which also mentioned what is planned for Corrals

Some animals aren't hostile.

I can abuse the AI too because they can't conduct siege warfare.

I don't like that either.

Music is a very subjective thing.

Voices in the appropriate language are planned, but some are harder to find than others. All units currently use Greek voices as placeholders until the voices are ready.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Zeta1127

[zzippy]

Generally it is a good idea to play the actual version (i.e. the developer version/a17) of the game before wasting time on "issues" which do not exist (anymore).

Eg:

- Hardcounters/boni are eliminated

- Skirmcav is nerfed drastically

- Women train now faster than soldiers

- Techtree/costs is completely redesigned

[Itms]

This is a really interesting wish-list I didn't read in detail because, eh, it's quite large

But I encourage you to try the new Alpha which will be released in a few days, and which addresses a representative subset of the remarks above (as zzippy just said).

Thanks a lot for your committed feedback!

[rolf.sievers]

- An option to only select idly female citizen if the general system of the game doesn't change.

You aren't the only one thinking that :-)

Hopefully you will be able to select idle units only in A18, then click on the women. (http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2407) Patch isn't in for A17, due to the feature freeze.

The patch mainly rewrites some parts of the selection code which makes it easier to add more selection options later on. Here are some things I could imagine:

• Button for random idle worker ⇒ Selection option for all idle workers in selection
• Button for random idle military unit ⇒ Selection option for all idle military units in selection
• Button for random idle female ⇒ Selection option for all idle females in selection

Keeping them in pairs should also reduce brain overload.

[/shamelessselfpromotion]

Edited October 9, 2014 by rolf.sievers

[Organix]

Thanks for those comments, I really appreciate the maturity of the community. I didn't know I could try a17 but I think most of the issues I've spoken are not gone for the time being, because like Zeta said, the "bad decisions" (for me at least) in Game Design department were conscious and deliberate. I want to answer (do not worry, I'll make it short).

the depiction of women is different I will admit, yet in many conservative societies such as Athens, Rome, Persia, Macedonia, (and blabla...) The final option is not exactly historically justifiable also.

Yup. What I said. Historical accuracy does not have to go against the game. Soldiers on one side & workers on another would work nice in 0-AD. Heck, if men were workers only and women were soldiers only, I would not have complained so much. A unit must have a defined role because we are in a video game, and put gaming constraint because of reality is plain dumb for my sake.

0-AD seems to be inspired by Age of Empires A LOT.The only changes made ​​by the development team are rarely justified and may significantly harm the whole set. Units and buildings in 0-AD lack of personality, not visually of course, but in the game's core. What is the point with barracks or town center right now? What is the point with all the bonuses for all units? This is a general problem and kind of a mise en abyme of the project itself. Units lack of identity, and so is the game right now. I don't think the feature of soldiers-citizens brings anything interesting, sadly.

- Hardcounters/boni are eliminated

- Skirmcav is nerfed drastically

- Women train now faster than soldiers

- Techtree/costs is completely redesigned

This is good to read. I'm now confident that programmers and designers will make the best decisions for the game in the future. This is a proof that the dev team is closely linked to the community. I hope that other issues will be addressed as well.

Zeta. You don't really answer the problems raised in my first post, because you often say that "you don't see the issue" or "you don't like this statement" or "deliberate decision, it won't change". I understand what you want to explain, but if the dev team is open to a better way to proceed, I'm sure they will try, at least. I remember that the game has no time limits, so it does not matter to have big gaps in a beta.

Example : "Some animals aren't hostile." Well elephants are not punching bags as far as I know. Sometimes they attack, sometimes they don't. This is a flaw and this needs to be addressed, like most of what I said early. It's not because the team decided 5 years ago that there were no limits between a citizen and a soldier that you can't think of a better system NOW. I read these boards recently, and you have to admit that new players mostly don't like this feature, unlike the regulars ... who are accustomed. Likewise, you did not catch what I meant sometimes. "Alt" is a fast way to see health of everybody without overfly or select anybody. You press the button, you see the health, you release button. Simple and useful. I also disagree with pop ; it's a value that should be consistent in the game for all civs. Other way, it needs perfect balance, and 0-AD is far from this consideration for now.

Anyway, I would like to know why you agree with the possibility to build military units from the start in a town center ? I'm just curious.

Hotkeys are already available and even customizable to a certain extent with a little work, but it still needs to be implemented as an in-game menu.

I did'nt know ! Thanks you Zeta, it will certainly help me a lot.

See ya.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Organix

[Prodigal Son]

While some of your proposals are interesting they are too many to really reply to at once. You seem to look for detailed and justified answers, while at the same time the majority of your proposals are ill-justified personal preferences, not real gameplay improvements (writing much doesn't always make a valid point and very often you're far more clueless than the "amateurs/bad designers" on your target subjects). Sorry if I sound harsh. I might take the time to reply in detail at some point.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

You seem to look for detailed and justified answers, while at the same time the majority of your proposals are ill-justified personal preferences, not real gameplay improvements

This^

The developers should be cautioned when reading posts like these. Just because this one guy does not like your direction does not mean there aren't 1000 people out there that do like your direction. As I have said time and again, vision is important. This guy's vision is different than yours, so be it. You cannot please everybody.

[Zeta1127]

Quite simply put, I have embraced the current female citizen/citizen-soldier system, because it allows for historically accurate things like the Spartans having Hoplites and Helots available in the village phase.

[wolflance]

For a RTS about historical, ancient warfare, making things as historically accurate as feasible is a always good. So I couldn't understand why "Hellenic skirmisher look different than Persian skirmisher" is a bad thing, even if they serve the same function in their respective factions.

Some civs have access to special upgrade for their unit, so making every unit from every factions look the same might actually confuse the player even more. (i.e. OMG how can this skirmisher throwing flaming javelins but mine couldn't ????!! )

I heard ranged units are currently OP, and making projectile less accurate could be a possible way to fix that (also more realism yay!). It could complicate the balancing process though, although personally I am not against micro-ing fast units to outrun arrows.

[Freang12]

The point about female only citizens and historical realism needs to be adressed. I know friends who like the game but complain and are somewhat put of it by what they say is sexism, regardless of whether the creators made it with that intention. It seems the benefits can only be positive and i would advise against realism in this one case.

[Prodigal Son]

Perhaps mixed villagers, (male or female trained at random) could work. It won't be unrealistic either. It would change some gameplay basics and require quite a bit of extra work though.

[Zezil]

While some of your proposals are interesting they are too many to really reply to at once. You seem to look for detailed and justified answers, while at the same time the majority of your proposals are ill-justified personal preferences, not real gameplay improvements (writing much doesn't always make a valid point and very often you're far more clueless than the "amateurs/bad designers" on your target subjects). Sorry if I sound harsh. I might take the time to reply in detail at some point.

Plus,

Citizen/soldier system is imho something huge for the variety it adds to the gameplay:

whenever you feel like you have to switch men from economy mansion, to military, you're making a huge decision for you're game.

How many of them should you switch? Is that "military thing you have to do" worth the suffer your eco wil get from actually doing that?

This system adds a lot of depth to the game, and that's what imho makes an rts an RTS.

[tau]

It's not because the team decided 5 years ago that there were no limits between a citizen and a soldier that you can't think of a better system NOW. I read these boards recently, and you have to admit that new players mostly don't like this feature

Just a remark, this feature was one of the main reasons which inspired me to download this game about a year ago. This is both realistic and interesting. And i tend to believe that 'defined roles' in other games can be induced by complicatedness of implementation of switching roles, not only design decisions.

[niektb]

I'd say, Citizen Soldiers are one of the key elements that make 0 A.D. unique. New players complain about it as they expect a distinct soldier and citizen unit. Not a combination of the two. That doesn't mean there is no room for refinements but I think the idea itself is good. (Also gameplay-wise)

[Andrettin]

I don't like much the lack of differentiation between villagers and soldiers, but I think that the development team should do what interests them in a game, not what players want. It is, after all, their effort that is going into the game. If someone really wants to have separate villagers from soldiers, they could make a mod that changes that.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Plus,

Citizen/soldier system is imho something huge for the variety it adds to the gameplay:

whenever you feel like you have to switch men from economy mansion, to military, you're making a huge decision for you're game.

How many of them should you switch? Is that "military thing you have to do" worth the suffer your eco wil get from actually doing that?

This system adds a lot of depth to the game, and that's what imho makes an rts an RTS.

Agreed. This thing is what happened in real life too. Going to war was a bad thing for your economy, unless you won the war and brought home lots of booty and land. Even then, it would take your economy a long time to "process" this new wealth, so during the war a kingdom's economy would suffer greatly while its able body men were away. That again is why I like the difference between men and womens in this game it is not sexist one bit. Men and womens had real roles in society and while the men left off to war the womens were left to hold down the home front so to speak and tend to the farms, shops, etc.

Edited October 11, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[greenknight32]

I always thought the citizen-soldier was one of the best features of the game. Always hated how, in RTS games, you'd often find you need to kill off a bunch of workers late in the game so you could make more soldiers. This way makes much more sense to me.

[Qwerty]

We face 3 big branch problems, regarding game's structure. I wrote them in importance order.

1) Code inefficieny: Serious LAG when many objects/orders ingame that makes +4 players matches unplayable -> most common complaint from lobby/ingame chatting.

2) Ingame mechanics: Main aspects of game. We could point these issues: Auto-Aim with ranged cavalry (only available for AI Petra), and Farming system (new idea needed).

3) Bad balance: Numeric relationship between elements (an element is a unit, a house, a technology, etc.. every single thing with a portrait/icon is an ingame element).

I have many ideas, but 1 thing that discourages me... is not knowing how is composed the developer/testing crew.

->Developers: Which skilled active players you take notes from? Who are the main testers that adresses what is good/wrong with (2) and (3)?

Sometimes, a single high skilled competitive player that takes notes from everyone, is better than a bunch of disoriented opinions here (which many topics give the impression).

It's like you read balance topics... and everyone wants to impose his point of view. Most of their POV's are really good I admit, but very variated which could lead to dozens of 0 AD prototypes (mods).

So what 0 AD Development Crew is lacking referring my points (2) and (3), is a person with Leadership (open-minded and able to handle bunch of opinions) and Experience (knowledge coming from long life true competitive gaming). It could be a duo or trio of these sort of persons, but no more... No real need of more.

SO yeah, I'm questioning the organization of the crew... because I see in Alpha 17... A17! that there are still very basic balance mistakes that should have been noticed and fixed right immediatly by a simple keen tester. If these "balance flaws" have passed unseen to these days... I doubt about the reception my constructive critics will receive.

It's like... hmm... IF i suggest a good solution to something... What answer can I expect from the "balance responsible", that gave and still retains ridiculously high costs to useless technologies?

It has discouraged me to read about "scythe's surprise balance" in another thread. Is that the way the general game's BALANCE is handled in this promising game?

I don't know how good player scythe is... because from my past experiences in other games forums... the strongest player has the strongest perspective.

Feels like 0 AD mostly grows in technical aspects, but cannot reach an holistic equilibrium because lacks of persons with wide balance perspective (which believe me, is not a minor Ability).

Sorry if anyone gets touched with my words, specially scythe.

PS: Why I wrote this here? Because I understood what [Main Poster] Organix meant beyond his game suggestions... The metacritic of his post targets the testing (if any?) crew.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Qwerty

[auron2401]

Oh Dear. Here we go again. New guy with entitlement issues.

Guess i'll try to answer some of your

We face 3 big branch problems, regarding game's structure. I wrote them in importance order.

1) Code inefficieny: Serious LAG when many objects/orders ingame that makes +4 players matches unplayable -> most common complaint from lobby/ingame chatting.

2) Ingame mechanics: Main aspects of game. We could point these issues: Auto-Aim with ranged cavalry (only available for AI Petra), and Farming system (new idea needed).

3) Bad balance: Numeric relationship between elements (an element is a unit, a house, a technology, etc.. every single thing with a portrait/icon is an ingame element).

I have many ideas, but 1 thing that discourages me... is not knowing how is composed the developer/testing crew.

->Developers: Which skilled active players you take notes from? Who are the main testers that adresses what is good/wrong with (2) and (3)?

Sometimes, a single high skilled competitive player that takes notes from everyone, is better than a bunch of disoriented opinions here (which many topics give the impression).

It's like you read balance topics... and everyone wants to impose his point of view. Most of their POV's are really good I admit, but very variated which could lead to dozens of 0 AD prototypes (mods).

So what 0 AD Development Crew is lacking referring my points (2) and (3), is a person with Leadership (open-minded and able to handle bunch of opinions) and Experience (knowledge coming from long life true competitive gaming). It could be a duo or trio of these sort of persons, but no more... No real need of more.

SO yeah, I'm questioning the organization of the crew... because I see in Alpha 17... 17! that there are still very basic balance mistakes that should have been noticed and fixed right immediatly by a simple keen tester. If these "balance flaws" have passed unseen to these days... I doubt about the reception my constructive critics will receive.

It has discouraged me to read about "scythe's surprise balance" in another thread. Is that the way the general game's BALANCE is handled in this promising game?

I don't know how good player scythe is... because from my past experiences in other games forums... the strongest player has the strongest perspective.

It's like... hmm... IF i suggest a good solution to something... What answer can I expect from the "balance responsible", that gave and still retains ridiculously high costs to useless technologies?

Did scythe then tweak a few units "here and there", but deliberately overlooked technologies costs?

Feels like 0 AD mostly grows in technical aspects, but cannot reach an holistic equilibrium because lacks of persons with wide balance perspective (which believe me, is not a minor Ability).

Sorry if anyone gets touched with my words, specially scythe.

PS: Why I wrote this here? Because I understood what Organix meant... beyond his suggestions... I felt similar when reading his first impressions.

Code inefficiency is being worked on. It's been said many times before: This game is In seriously early alpha, and being worked on by part time community members. Please Don't act all high and mighty about this issue, unless you intend to assist with it.

---

What's wrong with the in-game mechanics? I mean, a part from a lack of consistency (I.e build-times + recruitment-times are on different wavelengths) There isn't any big problem... What's wrong with farming?

Bad balance is a side effect of trying new things, I'll also throw the alpha card in, and not that many competitive players to help with balance card into the mix.

"Scythes surprise balance changes"... Good god don't even get me started. If Several months is too sudden, Development will take.. hundreds of years just to get the balance right without people going "WHY DID YOU CHANGE SO MUCH SO FAST".

If you want to have some influence on balance changes, download the SVN and give some constructive advices.

----

Please at the very least Download alpha 16 and compare the two, before you make comments on the changes themselves. Technologies are VERY DIFFERENT.

Before: They were Useless Technologies which were coined together, EG: +2 pop per house, or +25 health to your ladies. Now they are: Expensive, (and NOT USELESS) But you can get every tech.

makes more sense this way.

You seem to have made no effort to research, but all the effort to complain.

Go home, you're drunk.

[Itms]

auron, even if everyone and their cat voicing their opinion on the forum is tiring (maybe even exasperating!), it's not enough for being harsh with people as you just were (especially towards new community members). It's not the first time I read yell-ish and quite disrespectful posts from you, btw.

Please calm down and edit your previous post, especially the last sentences.

[Stan`]

Don't we have a read before posting thread ? Adressing those issues there would allow a single link posting instead of tiring members don't you think. Moreover the first post was not that nice either and this game is a part of each member of the community.

[niektb]

I believe you're not very well-informed about Scythe's Balancing Branch (not surprise branch), Qwerty. It has been tested over a couple of months by a couple of skilled players (not me) (but I believe you will find them in the SVN lobby rather than in the A17 lobby).

Nonetheless I think it would be a good idea to revive the Design Team (which seems to be rather dead since Michael and Alpha123 left). That team doesn't need to consist of the best players (although competitive player input is a must) around but rather with of the guys with good and clear ideas.

Edited November 10, 2014 by niektb