Really?

[serveurix]

@DarcReaver , did you check out Alpha22 ? Do you look at the trac updates to see the regular changes ? Did you read the project announcements ?

A22 brought significant changes. A23 will bring long awaited fixes and novelties. New code or data is contributed every day.

More stuff is happening under the hood. Itms said the game design issue was being addressed. The pathfinder, currently priority number 1, is being worked on. Some other devs are working on formation-related design decisions and implementations. Artists are on huge tasks at the moment.

The project is moving on. A lot of work has been done and there's still a lot of work to do, and the resources are limited. But it's slowly getting there.

Edited October 6, 2017 by serveurix
typos

[av93]

I've seen some pathfinding work. But can we have some more info of the moving things under the hood? @Itms.

BTW, lets keep this polite

[elexis]

20 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

Maybe restarting the project completely with a new staff, using the current 0 AD as a base and recruiting new people would help.

Really?

[DarcReaver]

42 minutes ago, elexis said:

Really?

Maybe.. Idk tbh.. Was merely a random thought. A fresh project always attracts new people because it's "new". The main issue that I see is that the momentum was lost throughout the last years, and this could re-establish it again. News and game magazines also rather comment and publsih information about new projects instead of old ones.

The staff would automatically increase as more people are willing to work on it. But I might be wrong on that ofc.

Edited October 6, 2017 by DarcReaver

[feneur]

@Sundiata I'm not going to be the moderator of any discussions, I've more or less left the project. I try to help out with the forums, but that's about it.

I also doubt that another public discussion would be useful, there's no lack of that as it is. What would be needed would be someone who could both take the lead on design and get support for their ideas. Just having random discussions will just result in more information to go through, but no consensus to act on. Just going on without more defined design is unlikely to provide an enjoyable game, or at least as good a game as would otherwise be possible. But on the other hand, there is no point in having the best idea if you can't convince others (especially the ones who will implement it) to see things the way you do, or at least see that it's worth compromising to get a better end-point. So far there has been no such person, at least not for the last bunch of years. There was quite a lot of design discussion and decisions which were made in the projects early days, but not only have all those people left the project many years ago, a lot of things has happened which has put things in new light (features have been cut due to time constraints or technical limitations, and sometimes been added/added back later, other games have brought new ideas, etc.). So I do see that there might be a need to re-evaluate things.

As for wow leaving, leper expressed himself a bit harshly, but at least he's still around and can be talked to. Wow just left and didn't even seem to consider that he might have been wrong/misunderstood things. It might just have been a symptom of him being less than hopeful with the project overall and this just being a catalyst for that. In either case, and while it's certainly worth taking seriously how the team reacts to community contributors, it's hard to take him completely serious as he's done the same thing (though under a different alias) several times before.

[Zeta1127]

RotE/Terra Magna, along with most of the Council of Modders projects, and 0 A.D. Empires Extended are primarily just adding civilizations, not dramatically changing gameplay. Everything else is either balance mods or almost total conversion mods like Delenda Est. I have actually seriously considered trying to formally contribute to 0 A.D., even using 0 A.D. Empires Extended as a bit of a test bed to see if I could get food trickle for garrisoned Corrals working, but I have decided that suggesting ideas, providing feedback, and limited modding is all I can justify due to my job search going so poorly.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Zeta1127

[sphyrth]

Well, that seems everybody is done crying over this spilled milk. We've got the Base game ready for improvement, and Vox Populi seems to be satisfying the gameplay design of Classical Players.

The nagging issue now is "the game is still in Alpha". Not talking about "unfinished" but "still in Alpha". But this time, it sounds too arbitrary to talk about.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 10/6/2017 at 12:58 PM, Zeta1127 said:

limited modding is all I can justify due my job search going so poorly

Seriously, focus on real-world aspects of your life. Don't worry, development of this game will take another 7* years. You'll have time to contribute.

*or at least until core dev group gets tired and declares beta at some arbitrary point.

 

On 10/6/2017 at 12:09 PM, feneur said:

As for wow leaving, leper expressed himself a bit harshly, but at least he's still around and can be talked to. Wow just left and didn't even seem to consider that he might have been wrong/misunderstood things. It might just have been a symptom of him being less than hopeful with the project overall and this just being a catalyst for that. In either case, and while it's certainly worth taking seriously how the team reacts to community contributors, it's hard to take him completely serious as he's done the same thing (though under a different alias) several times before.

Take your game seriously, maybe. Focus on adding features and making the core gameplay better instead of yet another 50 commits tweaking how speed is calculated and balanced or fixing missing brackets in the code. Adding roving catafalques, while a novelty, hardly addresses anything in the core gameplay, yet it's offered up as an example of how far the gameplay is "progressing." lulz. More random maps don't address anything. If anything, you guys should be removing random maps. But meh. It would take a UN Security Council resolution to get you guys to do anything as radical as that. lol

[shieldwolf23]

Although a UN Security Council resolution can still be vetoed by the Security Council by the permanent members, so extending that analogy, the core team can reverse whatever they have resolved in the first place.

Which is either good or bad, depending on what is being talked to. I agree on a lot of points raised by distinguished members here. 0 AD's strength is it's continuing development, but it is also it's greatest weakness, especially if there is no one taking a clear, decisive lead. While we address how community members act and react on how the core team treats them, could we agree that this is the best time to have a focus group, involving active members and modders, and re-evaluate what are the things that the game needs? Preferably a design document that everyone interested on it could focus to achieve?

I'm not that active, having a family and a career and juggling between them is rather tedious (as all of you who have both knows), but if we want to push forward, I really hope someone from the Core team could extend the hand and modders take that hand. Let's try to make this work. Maybe invite everyone who is interested and can help. Release official documents that will be the guide for the team working on it. If there exists such document, then make it prominent over all the forums, so that it will not be buried to oblivion.

[Hannibal_Barca]

The problem is that almost everyone has a different vision: some want to introduce counters, others demand mercenary camps, yet others say that this is all unnecessary and foolish.

Meanwhile we'd have tons of squabbles over "unit roles", whether it should be set into stone that a swordsman must counter an elephant etc

To top it all, any new technology will suddenly have 8 paws on it with each trying to drag it in a different direction.

 

But regardless of all that, I'm sure it could be done

[mimo]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Seriously, focus on real-world aspects of your life. Don't worry, development of this game will take another 7* years. You'll have time to contribute.

*or at least until core dev group gets tired and declares beta at some arbitrary point.

You've just discovered an important point: people have another life than 0ad, so the time they spend on the game is limited. Nice progress!

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Take your game seriously, maybe. Focus on adding features and making the core gameplay better instead of yet another 50 commits tweaking how speed is calculated and balanced or fixing missing brackets in the code. Adding roving catafalques, while a novelty, hardly addresses anything in the core gameplay, yet it's offered up as an example of how far the gameplay is "progressing." lulz. More random maps don't address anything. If anything, you guys should be removing random maps. But meh. It would take a UN Security Council resolution to get you guys to do anything as radical as that. lol

All this part just does not make any sense, and you'd better put back things in their true perspective before saying even less sensible words:
- the purpose of the speed change was to ease future changes or mods, and it was a good move (imo same thing should be done for vision). If that would have caused a problem to existing mods (which was not the case), then the forum is here for discussing how to solve it.
- balance change? i don't see what's wrong with them. Although i agree some of them are still premature, it doesn't hurt to already have them as the people involved would generally not work on other aspects of the game.
- fixing missing brackets? that just mean that you don't understand coding, and it's usually better to not talk about what you don't know.
- removing random maps? lol, and we could even push that brillant idea farther, removing all maps to remove all gameplay problems. More seriously, same argument as for balance. people are free to work on what interests them, even if not the most urgent problem of the game. And personnally, i play almost exclusively on random maps!

Thus, instead of grumbling against missing core gameplay, you'd better take a good JS tutorial and learn how to program (that's how we've all started), that would be more constructive.

But for me, the current weaker point of the game is not so much gameplay, but performance. That's something far from trivial and needs somebody dedicated to it during several months, which nobody does currently. Another weak point of the game is missing animations, and that's also something you could try to learn doing instead of complaining that the game won't be finished before years

[shieldwolf23]

@Hannibal_Barca - different visions, yes, but on basic and/or important grounds, I really believe that all of the stakeholders would agree to adopt something that would make things moving forward a little bit clearer. Like, in the context of these discussions, how many people in the core team and the modders - in a group of say 10 hardworking, reliable people that know what they are doing and are talking about, how many would like to adopt mercenary camps? If 8 out of 10 say yes, we do need them, then surely, the remaining 2 would understand that the majority wins and that decision carries in the main game. This does not preclude however, the right of the minority to make their own mods to leave out the mercenary camps.

What I'm trying to say is, all you guys who make things possible, could try meet and agree on things so that would be the basis of subsequent changes. With a clearer line for the main game, the modders/ contributors out there could in theory, help out with what needs to be done. 

[Hannibal_Barca]

It would be really nice if the team would decide to add Kushites for example. I'm working on how to make them fit it yet stick out and it could be a great advert for A23

Of course it brings with it additional balancing issues but if properly worked on before should cause no problems

Should be voted whether or not to add them

[av93]

6 minutes ago, shieldwolf23 said:

@Hannibal_Barca - different visions, yes, but on basic and/or important grounds, I really believe that all of the stakeholders would agree to adopt something that would make things moving forward a little bit clearer. Like, in the context of these discussions, how many people in the core team and the modders - in a group of say 10 hardworking, reliable people that know what they are doing and are talking about, how many would like to adopt mercenary camps? If 8 out of 10 say yes, we do need them, then surely, the remaining 2 would understand that the majority wins and that decision carries in the main game. This does not preclude however, the right of the minority to make their own mods to leave out the mercenary camps.

What I'm trying to say is, all you guys who make things possible, could try meet and agree on things so that would be the basis of subsequent changes. With a clearer line for the main game, the modders/ contributors out there could in theory, help out with what needs to be done. 

 Is better to have a cohesive gameplay design, and then add small features. It would work better than a collage.

[Hannibal_Barca]

7 minutes ago, av93 said:

 Is better to have a cohesive gameplay design, and then add small features. It would work better than a collage.

Here come vague terms again

a "cohesive gameplay design" could mean from full hard counters to some counters to no counters at all (and lots of other points)

 

Myself, I don't believe in adding hard counters not setting in stone the use of units A-Z

It should always be flexible and open to many outcomes

[av93]

Is not a vague term, either with counters or without counters. I'm not advocating here for one way or another of design. But in this game, sometimes I find different sub-optimal or meaningful choices, that aren't really choices cause there's one better. Of course i'm in favour of asymmetrical design and situational choices (like sea maps) but..

I have written before, clear strategies and choices that let you boom/turtle/rush (and midways). Civs designs that feels different but balanced. Synergies.

Maybe I would explain myself better with the mercenary camp example:

Ok, we add a neutral mercenaries camps in the middle of the map, between players, a "resource" that should worth taking. Why is worth?
· Cause is only a barrack more near the enemy? Cause it's a "free" building that only cost unit time capturing them? It's worth spending time capturing (instead of working) when you can have a safer barracks?
· Cause it trains mercenaries? What happen to the civs that doesn't have mercenaries? (are the mercenaries civ bounded, or map bounded?)
 - Why mercenaries are worth? Cause a cheaper price? Cause are better fighting? Cause (if map bounded) fills unit roles gap that the civ doesn't have (so some mercenaries in some maps are more useful for some civs?)?

If mercenary camps are added right now, maybe the mercenary "trait" should be changed a little bit to make them more attractive, cause then with the current stats I think that there's a lot of problem that I write up there that aren't resolved. Sure, mercs are now more viable with the new techs, but a merc camp in the middle of the ground are only useful for seleucids and ptolomies, and add nothing for civs that doesn't have mercs.  For example, like Delenda Est, mercenaries could be limited population that doesn't cost space population.

But BTW, chaning a small element leads you to balance the thing with the global picture and the general design:

-Why spend or not ore in mercs. -> Where I can spend it-> It's ore a plentiful resource or a scarce one -> You can mine it safe or not-> Map design and resources distribution and gathering
-Why spend population in mercs -> They can work, They can work better? How perform in battle-> Other military roles -> Differences between soldiers (and between C/s, mercs and champs)
-Etc..

But adding mercenaries just like this, I think that doesn't add deep choices.

Hope I explained myself and I have give some idea behind the cohesive design gameplay. Sure everyone of them. But if you look the original design, there're a lot of ideas that myself I find random, like adding and adding instead of thinking, like capturing women or horses for corralling. Maybe i'm too influenced by a somewhat competitive and mid ground between Aoe 3 and 2...

And finally, I'm' only here to discuss, not to complain. I don't have skills to contribute myself, so work done, it's work appreciated.

I have to edit, cause I misclick the post button, and I didn't end it.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by av93

[Hannibal_Barca]

Yes, this trivia on mercenary camps is stressful and unneeded

I just brought up the topic to show the different stuff people want

 

[av93]

Just now, Hannibal_Barca said:

Yes, this trivia on mercenary camps is stressful and unneeded

I just brought up the topic to show the different stuff people want

 

I don't know how understand you. I think we're all talking about examples, and I was only talking about the kind of thinking designing the game.

That was my point, not to start a discussion about them.

[Sundiata]

On 10/6/2017 at 6:09 PM, feneur said:

I'm not going to be the moderator of any discussions, I've more or less left the project. I try to help out with the forums, but that's about it.

 

On 10/6/2017 at 6:09 PM, feneur said:

There was quite a lot of design discussion and decisions which were made in the projects early days, but not only have all those people left the project many years ago, a lot of things has happened which has put things in new light (features have been cut due to time constraints or technical limitations, and sometimes been added/added back later, other games have brought new ideas, etc.). So I do see that there might be a need to re-evaluate things.

Ok, thanks for the clarifications. So who is "in charge" that could moderate such a discussion, because it seems obvious to me there is actually a want and need for it. @Itms? I just want to remark that it's a new day indeed, full of new opportunities and there are new people bringing with them new possibilities (a lot of them just get frustrated with the lack of direction/clear tasks/vision). Off course, solving every hiccup in the game, or establishing an updated and feasable design document that everybody agrees on isn't going to happen overnight, but it's high time we as community (players and developers) work towards that.

The specifics of this document should be discussed noted and officially pinned somewhere easy to access.The old design documents haven't been followed and are simply too old and obscured. I don't think most of the "new" people are familiar with them.

This...

3 hours ago, shieldwolf23 said:

0 AD's strength is it's continuing development, but it is also it's greatest weakness, especially if there is no one taking a clear, decisive lead. While we address how community members act and react on how the core team treats them, could we agree that this is the best time to have a focus group, involving active members and modders, and re-evaluate what are the things that the game needs? Preferably a design document that everyone interested on it could focus to achieve?

 

1 hour ago, shieldwolf23 said:

What I'm trying to say is, all you guys who make things possible, could try meet and agree on things so that would be the basis of subsequent changes. With a clearer line for the main game, the modders/ contributors out there could in theory, help out with what needs to be done. 

 

I think most people want Optionality/Diversity/Aesthetic Pleasure/Historicity/Logical Gameplay/Intuitive Mechanics/Epicness/Scale/Immersion... Other people just want to play a numbers game: Stats/Counters/Balance/Efficiency. So here is a small/major suggestion for 0AD, another thing that seems obvious to me... "Split" the game in to two modes:

• Online/competitive (classic RTS):   streamlined gameplay with a focus on balance
• Offline/casual (2017 RTS):               focus on a large diversity of options and possibilities, aesthetics, expanded gameplay, buildings, units and beautifications, no limts (even if it seems pointless to the competitive gamers, they should just stick with classic RTS mode)

This would literally solve the systemic conflict of interest between competitive and casual players. Both communities need to be appeased, but neither of them can possibly be satisfied with the same game! This needs to be understood by everyone! Conflict of ideas is good for the development of the game as it constantly drives us to look for the best ideas. Conflict of interest however (as we see here between casual and competitive gamers) is highly detrimental to the development. If the two are developed separately from each-other, focussing on the ideal mix of elements for each play-style, development and motivation would increase. Developments in either version can be adapted (or not) at will in the other version. I'd even be so bold as to say it could be done relatively easily (looking at how fast some of the mods are created). You'd just have to choose one of two modes: "Classic RTS", or "Enriched RTS". Classic RTS would play very well on low end computers, while people with high end gaming computers could get a lot more adventurous/epic in how they play 0AD. 

 

 

Oh, and:

1 hour ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

It would be really nice if the team would decide to add Kushites for example. I'm working on how to make them fit it yet stick out and it could be a great advert for A23

Of course it brings with it additional balancing issues but if properly worked on before should cause no problems

Should be voted whether or not to add them

Definitely agree with this 

 

[shieldwolf23]

@Sundiata - you nailed it! Personally, I only play single player (not much of an online guy). I believe separating online from offline game is doable, and will hopefully solve game play issues. I find some changes in the main game leans heavily on feedback from online play. Even discussions in the forum reflect such. While the charms of single player cannot be discounted. I daresay most of the downloaders of 0 AD are single player enthusiasts.

@av93 & @Hannibal_Barca - I opened up the mercenary camp example as a "decision-making" guide, wherein I proposed constructive discussions between all you hardworking people, with the final decision to be accepted by the majority of the stakeholders. I hope 0 AD's leadership will take this proposal seriously (and I know I'm not the first who suggested this). We are losing valuable manpower because of misunderstandings which, in hindsight, is avoidable.

[Grugnas]

i guess that there are enough civs to have a variegate styles for all of them in the limits of the RTS genre.

Probably using a relative movement speed makes the code easier to maintain even if i'd have some critique about it because it is supposed to be used for vision range also ( for example it would make sense to make difference between units and building classes instead of referring everything to the "primitive" unit / structure template which is probably ugly ).  ( i am still trying to improve my communication skills )

• Quote

   

  • Online/competitive (classic RTS):   streamlined gameplay with a focus on balance
  • Offline/casual (2017 RTS):               focus on a large diversity of options and possibilities, aesthetics, expanded gameplay, buildings, units and beautifications, no limts (even if it seems pointless to the competitive gamers, they should just stick with classic RTS mode)

   

  Im sorry but i have to say that this totally makes no sense for many reasons:

• This is a game and, just like any other game, it is made of numbers. Far away from a visual novel.

• gameplay somehow implies balance.

• i thought that delenda est and other mods focused on aesthetics and "gameplay design".

• I still can't understand the difference between competitive online gameplay and casual offline if not for some aesthetic ( i take starcraft 2 as example) and some content relative to an hypothetic storyline.

• I guess that skirmish cavalry spam wins in offline games too.

• Online keeps the game alive as long as you have friends to play the game with.

• Online players have to deal with frustrating mechanics almost everyday because OP tactics get viral.

basically someone could just let women deal 100 hack damage and let any civ being able to train any unit from any building. there you go with the possibilities

Most of the balance discussions focus on taking the most of an already existent content and make it enjoyable without pretend too much ( which is kinda easy to do as long as the game is not finished ) from devs that perhaps have to deal already with not content relative stuff.

Knowing how players approach to the game is also a good inspiration for new possibilities/choices,  based ofc to a previously taken way.

[Sundiata]

This is exactly what I mean. Conflict of interest. Online desires are not the same as single player desires... I don't understand how there are still people that don't see this?

25 minutes ago, Grugnas said:

• Im sorry but i have to say that this totally makes no sense for many reasons:

• This is a game and, just like any other game, it is made of numbers. Far away from a visual novel. (You just proved my point... This is absolutely not how most people play the game)

• gameplay somehow implies balance. (I hope that's not all it implies...)

• i thought that delenda est and other mods focused on aesthetics and "gameplay design". (the creator of Delenda Est, just threw the towel in the ring out of frustration...)

• I still can't understand the difference between competitive online gameplay and casual offline if not for some aesthetic ( i take starcraft 2 as example) and some content relative to an hypothetic storyline. (use your imagination... There's a million things that can be added and changed in the game. Things that competitive players would oppose, because it would mess up their precious build-orders. but single players would love and encourage. We want to build cities! Raise armies. Manage an economy. Rule an Empire! 0AD doesn't do any of these things, but has the potential to... Forget AOEII and it's ridiculous 200 pop-cap and overrated game-play. Let go of that dogmatic interpretation of RTS. Think bigger! Think outside of the box. Much more is possible!)

• I guess that skirmish cavalry spam wins in offline games too. (...? I'm not talking about balance considerations here.)

• Online keeps the game alive as long as you have friends to play the game with. (So it's just a given that the game is dead without "friends"?? How is this useful info for the mass of offline players?)

• Online players have to deal with frustrating mechanics almost everyday because OP tactics get viral. (MOST PEOPLE DON'T PLAY ONLINE)

basically someone could just let women deal 100 hack damage and let any civ being able to train any unit from any building. there you go with the possibilities  (ok...???)

 

You're either unwilling, or unable to understand how the majority of single players play the game. For most casual players it's not about a brainless rush to crush your unexplainably aggressive AI-opponent as quickly as possible, nor is it about crunching the numbers and figuring out the perfect "build-order" and unit recruitment schedule. People want to immerse themselves in the game, imagine the town of their dreams. Then build it. Beautify it. Defend it. Expand it. People want to be able to create something unique with every game. Something worth fighting for. People want to fight epic battles. Not build exactly the same base, game after game because "that's the ideal build-order" and then send a handful of people to kill some women and call it an invasion-army.  

 

 

[Grugnas]

the reason why I don't get what you are talking about is because in order to play a game, you have to be at least two players.

None forces you to use the same build order, but as long as it is the most efficient way to win, there is always a human player who will use it and people "hungry" for win who will copy (basically like in any rts).

As long as none prevent you from "sim city" around in offline, I can't see the point.

If you mean that some players want some construction and economical "more oriented" game ( let's say like roller coaster tycoon, sim city which aren't rts at all ),  I can only guess that that's not the way the game meant to go at first by judging the fact that the game was actually developed from an AoE mod and not from a sim city mod.

Still nothing prevent a "Second" Justus ascension with enough time to make a conversion mod in such a way.

As said, most of "online" players (if you want to) talk about simple number tweaks that can be done in hours  with the ability to change the game experience, completely different from new content that may require much more time.

Don't want you to think that our "wishes" conflict, but you should consider to watch things from a realistic point of view.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Grugnas

[fatherbushido]

(Most of us would agree after a long discussion around a beer/tea/coffee/glass of wine/sake)

[Feldfeld]

About the proposition of splitting singleplayer/online game style, i see few issues there. I think mods could handle much more efficiently single player desires.

- Can the devs keep up 2 games at a time while they seem to struggle with only one ?

- If some features are officially implemented in singleplayer but not in multiplayer, it would raise some issues are people would be constantly asking for one or an other feature in singleplayer to be in multiplayer too. Also, it would be quite disrupting for players that decide to go play online after having played offline. I believe that most of online players started by playing offline before.