Is current status of game any good?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I find myself not evern completing a match. It becomes boring because there are just dozens or hundreds of unmanageable unit moving around doing their thing and I don't care what happens. The pathfinding and group management so frustrating I can't bear to complete a game. Anyone else?

Edited September 9, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[niektb]

To be honest, (it's sad but true) most of the time I find the current state not even interesting enough to start a match (except to test stuff, like playtesting Millennium A.D.)

For the pathfinder I understand that we need to give it some time, but I don't really like the way 0 A.D. plays atm.

Edited September 9, 2015 by niektb

[Itms]

And what do you suggest?

[av93]

If we want a lag free game, pathfinding had to change. If the new release isn't playable at all, just stick to the old. There's a lot of effort in...

[niektb]

If we want a lag free game, pathfinding had to change. If the new release isn't playable at all, just stick to the old. There's a lot of effort in...

I don't have real problem with the pathfinder really. I'm happy that Itms puts so much effort in this game including such difficult topics as the Pathfinder.What my problem is that I liked how 0 A.D. played when I joined up on this forum (that would be around Alpha 14) but that gameplay was radically changed in Alpha 17 (and IMHO not to the benefit of the game)

Edited September 9, 2015 by niektb

[av93]

That's another topic

[niektb]

No, that links to "It becomes boring because there are just dozens or hundreds of unmanageable unit moving around doing their thing and I don't care what happens." in the TS (unless I understand wow not correctly)

[Stan`]

That's not really clear though. I need to play, to see what you guys mean. But maybe we can come up with something more productive than that. Maybe even a poll or something. But that poll would need to be talked of on every media 0ad is in if it was clear that something needed to be changed. If things must be done they should be fully.

[Lion.Kanzen]

the game needs somé counters ( like Aok and AoM) like archer vs infantry melee , cavalry melee vs ranged infantry, slingers vs buildings and sword infantry, sword cavalry vs building.

The technologies are big part of be boring because at the 3d phase there are nothing to research because you have enough adventage over defenses ( if you are boomer) become a boomer its easy, because you have a exceeded of resources, because you need more things that need be wasted.

With formation and unit behavior is a mess, need enough and obvious bonus, some formations hold positions, may be some cases add hotkeys to behaviors.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

And what do you suggest?

I suggest people on forum talk about it. Or should every opening post come fully formed with pages of concrete ideas?

Edited September 10, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Karamel]

I tried some games lately just to see. My mood was "hey, how is alpha 19 going if I want to put some LAN with it?". It is about 3 things: capturing, general balance (in fact unit design) and pathfinding

I never finished a game either. I stopped at phase 2 with a few rush against a poor AI (even in very hard) and being stuck around an empty civic center.

• Capturing is making raiding more tedious. Capture, select, destroy, repeat. It is still very fun to capture a defense tower and use it to protect your raiding party but raiding a 5 pack houses and depots is boring. In enemy territory, you can't keep them anyway.
• Village phase is anemic. Even if I think units are superfast I don't really get the point of rushing. Much much much micro to do with broken skirmishers (with the fake throw prepare time) and unkillable melee units. I reanabled auto-micro with minimum range for some tests and I was more pleased with the result (less dumb-heroic thing of a skirmisher trying to fight an armored swordman in front of him)
• No formation, fast units. It's an arcade game for designing targets and managing your troops with a very high action per minute. I even get troubles clicking on moving units . And as I don't really get the counter scheme well for now I just get melee = shield, skirmishers = damage. I use cavalery skirmishers a bit before raiding for scouting and luring some troops away.

Just for comparison, I tried Delenda Est a few weeks (month?) ago, here are what I preffer:

• Outposts: as you can build your depots outside your territory and are encouraged to do so, village phase is more dynamic with early encounters around outposts. Even if the civic center is untouchable. Still early game battles can give an advantage on long term.
• Capturing becomes then more interesting, by capturing outposts (thus line of sight and territory) instead of buildings around the civic center that couldn't be kept anyway unless the player is anihilated.
• Game pace is slower. Both with unit movement and training time (and cost). Your choices are more visibles, line of sight get very valuable. Along with formations, the overall game is much clearer (and more eye candy)
• Obvious counter scheme: even if I'm more for a soft counter scheme, the hard counter scheme make it clear how you can defeat some troops and give roles to your unit types instead of rushing them all and see what's happening.

I made some suggestions in balancing to stick more to the design document if you want some concrete things. It goes toward something more like Delenda Est though.

Regarding capturing, I don't really know. It works well with a few cases like defense towers and maybe civic center. I must check but I think women reduce capture, which makes it very hard even if there are no military unit around. Maybe it should be a spartan bonus only.

About the pathfinding I don't really know. There are a lot of bugs in the current state like units being stuck or abording their job but it's not suprising with a rewriten from scratch thing. If the performance is much better, it must not be thrown away.

Maybe alpha 19 is technicaly ready in some way (capturing enabled, improved performance, new UI stuff) but not mature enough? Or maybe I'm an old frustrated player that don't want an antic Starcraft

[niektb]

I fully agree with Karamel!

[wackyserious]

Yes, and IIRC, someone else before me also suggested to switch the default action to destroy instead of capture in buildings.. (It is your choice (ctrl+click) if you want to capture the building or the siege engines, making it less hectic.. specially if you do not really want those buildings/siege engines..) The victory goal is basically annihilation, territorial dominance is just a possible strategy to achieve it.

Just some idea for the line of sight, I don't have any idea if this is achievable or if it is hard/easy to implement.. Just a suggestion.

Edited September 10, 2015 by wackyserious

[Lion.Kanzen]

for the thing about Capture is simple to solve ; a switching mode behavior between destroy and capture.

Or only inverse actual gameplay.

[Itms]

Or should every opening post come fully formed with pages of concrete ideas?

Not at all. I thought this topic was a technical complaint about the pathfinder's current state, sorry for that mistake.

On the technical side, I pushed a big change and informed you of this in this topic: http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20032#entry309026

[av93]

Me also. No purpouse to fight.

Aside from pathfinding, I agree about gameplay, it don't like at all. There was a topic that in quick search I couldnt found froma veteran modder, talking about looking at resources at first to design the game. Later other aspects... I think that 0 ad tried to add a lot of gameplay features in a Aoe game, but it lacks cohesion.

There had been some changes and with the game development, long awaited features had been implemented. But one thing is designing a game in the paper, and other it's making the game. There had been changes trying to stick into the original plans, but maybe later, before going beta with all wanted features (I hope this 2016), maybe the devs should stop, take a look in the game as whole, the meta, maybe took some crazy expert players like this. No need to aim to design a competitive game, but maybe in the lines of easy to play, hard to master.

Edited September 10, 2015 by av93

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Me also. No purpouse to fight.

Aside from pathfinding, I agree about gameplay, it don't like at all. There was a topic that in quick search I couldnt found froma veteran modder, talking about looking at resources at first to design the game. Later other aspects... I think that 0 ad tried to add a lot of gameplay features in a Aoe game, but it lacks cohesion.

There can be 2 ways to look at the lack of cohesion. One can be (which is how I feel) that the gameplay is incomplete. The other way is that there is too much gameplay, which is how I think you feel (in a sense that too much was added to the "classic" aoe formulaa).

in my view, formation can be used in a way to decrease so much micro of all those units going all over the place. Would help selecting units. Would help make battles more epic and feel more important if only formations and maybe the whole idea of "units" is rethinked and refined and innovated.

I think soldiers should be in companies always. They are train, fight, and gather as 1 unit. Say, 24 soldier per company (6x4). Click one; selects all. Even have a cool banner carrier dude with each company. And then now you streamline formation. I post formation plans in my Delenda Est thread but short story is: Simplify and give 2 basic formations - Battle Line and Column. Battle Line is default for most unit and Column is auto-select by game whenever company (or group of companies) is sent over long distance, a lot like now (so 'Battle Line' and 'Column' formation buttons are not even need). And then you have some modifyer for Battle Line (basically your only formation): Open Order (to reduce effects of splash damage and incoming charge attacks), Close Order (Default), and Locked Shields (Phalanx for extra armor but slower speed). That's it. Melee Cavalry can auto-select Wedge formation when sent to charge, but defaults to a modified Battle Line formation otherwise. Again, only buttosn here are for 3 modifiers. Nice big, easy click buttons.

Edited September 11, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Giotto]

I believe the combat is the main issue at present. I think the current system with melee, pierce etc attack and defence is too complicated. There are no clear counters to enemy troops. I believe we need a system where units have hard counters against other troops. E.g 2x, 1x and 0.5x attack against different enemy's (archers, cavalry etc). The difference between the factions troops can be small bonuses (eg Spartan spearmen get a 2.5x bonus against cavalry instead of 2.0x). The system is far too hard to grasp at present. Too much time is spent on figuring out what troops to use. Please implement a clear counter system. The only problem I can see is that it might simplify tactics, but simple is much better than complicated.

[Stan`]

I believe the combat is the main issue at present. I think the current system with melee, pierce etc attack and defence is too complicated. There are no clear counters to enemy troops. I believe we need a system where units have hard counters against other troops. E.g 2x, 1x and 0.5x attack against different enemy's (archers, cavalry etc). The difference between the factions troops can be small bonuses (eg Spartan spearmen get a 2.5x bonus against cavalry instead of 2.0x). The system is far too hard to grasp at present. Too much time is spent on figuring out what troops to use. Please implement a clear counter system. The only problem I can see is that it might simplify tactics, but simple is much better than complicated.

IIRC It was actually removed.

[Giotto]

Combat should be as simple as in aoe etc. It is tried and tested, works and doesn't confuse the heck out of some people. Too much time is spent in micro mode at the moment. The game is great, it just doesn't have the rich feel of aoe and other historical rts's because the combat is vague and overcomplicated. A game should have as simple rules as possible and from those rules strategy can be developed.

[av93]

There can be 2 ways to look at the lack of cohesion. One can be (which is how I feel) that the gameplay is incomplete. The other way is that there is too much gameplay, which is how I think you feel (in a sense that too much was added to the "classic" aoe formulaa).

I would say both.

[Giotto]

Same here. It's both. Bits are missing and combat is over done.

[DarcReaver]

There's no gameplay concept, so, no.

[Stan`]

There's no gameplay concept, so, no.

Can you be more explicit on what you expect ?

[DarcReaver]

I've already been more explicit in the past, and there was no response on issues pointed out that so far. I even went further and tried to get into contact with the balancer devs with no result.

The game lacks a fundamental, underlying rule system, techs, and several game mechanics are counter-intuitive. I'm too lazy to repeat myself, just search for my posts in this forum.

Without all this the game looks pretty, but apart from that there's no reason to play it at all.

Edited September 12, 2015 by DarcReaver