Defining 0 a.d

[av93]

I think that right now, that the game has a good shape and it's very advenced, it's important to define what direction had to choose. I said that, cause I think that is not clear enough, and it's important to define that for the desenvolupment.

For example, I don't have nothing agaisnt, getting morale, stamina, directional bonuses, etc (Total War style). But I think that this deign moves away the economical aoe style, cause it could be difficult to manage both aspects. With this post I want to debate and heat what devs want to do.

I find 4 models of RTS that I had play (some more than others)

Aoe games (Age of empires, Empires Earth, Rise of Nation..)

- Emphasis on economy (lot of resources)

- Emphasis on massing individual units without formations

- Hard counters (EE2 were too complex and crazy)

Blizzard games (Starcraft, Warcraft III)

- Simple economy (2 resources easy to manage)

- Soft counters

- Emphasis on individual units (more unique than aoe games)

- Emphasis on abilities and the right usage over massing units (micro)

Total War games

- Economy and warfare segregation

- Realistic warfare (Charge, Stamina, Morale, Direction bonus..)

- Units always in formations

Tactical RTS (Dow...)

-Simples economy of RTS

-Squads

-Tactical game (positions, reinforcementes, weapons, abilities)

So, what people say?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

There is no need to pigeonhole 0 A.D. into one category. IMHO

[Prodigal Son]

There is no need to pigeonhole 0 A.D. into one category. IMHO

While there's no need to directly copy one of those, the game has to get a fine balance between micro and macro if it is to get successful.

[av93]

There is no need to pigeonhole 0 A.D. into one category. IMHO

Yes, of course! But, as Prodigal Son said, has to get a balance.

Another thing that I think is that pyrogenesis should allow build a lot of kind of strategy games, but this is another topic.

Edited October 20, 2014 by av93

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

While there's no need to directly copy one of those, the game has to get a fine balance between micro and macro if it is to get successful.

This is easy to agree on.

However, when you talk about difficulty and balance of features, I think it is important to think of gameplay like this: It should be easy to get good; difficult to be great. So, look at it this way: formations are an additional feature that adds management, balanced as you say with other concerns. But if you add directional bonuses it doesn't have to mean that the game has too much management, only that now the great player can have another thing to master. I am not saying this will be the case, but just an idea. Also, concepts can be made to be simple to the players (while underneath they are complex of course, the players doesn't need to see the gears turning, only the effect of the gears).

Edited October 21, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[ickylevel]

The performance issues we are having with the unit count makes it likely to become blizzard like imo. Atm the game is totally imbalanced and making 1 type of unit (ranged cavalry) is all it is about anyway. The game has a long way to go...

[zzippy]

... making 1 type of unit (ranged cavalry) is all it is about anyway.

No.

You would lose that game.

[auron2401]

You only make ranged cav?! Can i play persians against you?!

[ickylevel]

Well some other ranged as well. So what do you do to kill a player who is doing ranged only? What is the hard counter? A hard counter that's tier one, as I rush.

[zzippy]

Mixed is the counter. Half melee/ranged will beat ranged only.