Really?

[DarcReaver]

7 minutes ago, borg- said:

This confirms what I have said, many opinions and few decisions. 

Okay once again, you said you're pro with AoE 2.

So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (arabia, GA, Arena, water maps) and different military openings are in AoE 2?
How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame?
How luck dependant is the game?
Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies?
How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions and team bonuses?
How does map control work?
Difference between playing pockets and flank positions?
General buildorders for civs?

And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD?

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Okay once again, you said you're pro with AoE 2.

So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (arabia, GA, Arena, water maps) and different military openings are in AoE 2?
How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame?
How luck dependant is the game?
Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies?
How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions and team bonuses?
How does map control work?
Difference between playing pockets and flank positions?
General buildorders for civs?

And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD?

Where did I say that I am an age of empires 2 professional?

[DarcReaver]

2 hours ago, borg- said:

I have already put me in total disposition to do the balance of the game, respecting the gamedesign of game, that is to say, with or without counters system.
I'm sure i would do a great job. Probably the most experienced player of 0 a.d, with the most games, besides being the best player.
Not only that, I am now 28 years old, and I have played rts games since my 8 years, most of the time competitively, a practical example is to be in the semi finals of an age of empires championship in this moment. I must be the one who understands the most here in the balancing part.
The real problem I see is that with each small change, you should by voting and asking the opinion of many people, who most of the time do not even play the game, at least not multplayer. It makes no sense to me. The team should be small, with a maximum of 3 guys taking care of it.

Here. Also please focus on the questions I asked you.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

7 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Here. Also please focus on the questions I asked you.

Yes, age of empires tournament, where did you see the 2?

Edited October 11, 2017 by borg-

[DarcReaver]

5 minutes ago, borg- said:

Yes, age of empires torney, where did you see the 2?

Because AoE II out of the AoE game series is the only community I'd consider to be competitive. And this is because AoE II is a great game with many nice game mechanics and a lot of strategical and tactical depth PLUS various options to micro. So you're playing AoE 1 I suppose?

Then I'll adjust the questions slightly, the answer will be most likely the same though. Although multiplayer in AoE 1 is pretty dull aswell. Assyrian + cav archer spam > all anyways, so I sort of understand why you enjoy 0 AD. But at least you can play stuff like Minoan comp archer spam or mass legions with Chosons or tower rush with Romans.

Anyways.

"So tell me, how many viable game options, depending on maptype (nomad, highlands, islands/coasts) and different military openings are in AoE?
How many viable mid-game options (dependant on your civ) are ingame?
How luck dependant is the game?
Are there classic "phases" of earlygame/midgame/lategame in which you do certain meta strategies?
How does lategame trash wars work and how are they influenced by factions ingame?
How does map control work?
Difference between playing pockets and flank positions?
General buildorders for civs?

And how many do you have in 0 AD? And how are these point contained in 0 AD? "

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Servo]

You can spam units to gather without limit (no commerce cap easy spam). You can train any military units without limit (no military cap). No build order needed as long as you acquire resources to train desired units. Easy strategy (but hard to do) just click and little think/guess. I think Feldfed is saying build order is the strategy you need to do to play and win.

But at present you need to have the best possible train/build with the prevailing circumstances to win. 

Some players leave because they don’t like the Alpha but the game is fair to all. If they rush you can rush too! There are still lots of MP gamers new/old. If you don’t like cavs set rules without cavs or limited. Play the Monkey, Vox or 0abc at least the cav production is lowered. If still not satisfied play not with low resources but rather the very low (better with mods imo). 

[borg-]

Any rts game you will find a build order, this is logical, players will polish their strategies until you create one that is the fastest / most functional.
There are several different strategies and openings depending basically on the map and civilization (bonus).

does not exist luck in RTS games, just if have bugs.

lategame has nothing definite, in age of empires you can not only spam a only unit, regardless of the power it has, you will lose. The bonuses are influential, but do not lead you to victory alone.

Map control is essential in age of empires, and this is a point in common with 0 a.d. But there is a difference between the two. In 0 a.d you probably can not turn a game where your enemy is with the whole map, just because the balance is horrible, the towers can kill lots of soldiers alone, and this does not happen in age of empires. You always have a way out, or at least most of the time.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by borg-

[DarcReaver]

7 minutes ago, borg- said:

Any rts game you will find a build order, this is logical, players will polish their strategies until you create one that is the fastest / most functional.
There are several different strategies and openings depending basically on the map and civilization (bonus).

No have luck in RTS games, just if have bugs.

lategame has nothing definite, in age of empires you can not only spame a unit, regardless of the power it has, you will lose. The bonuses are influential, but do not lead you to victory alone.

Map control is essential in age of empires, and this is a point in common with 0 a.d. But there is a difference between the two. In 0 a.d you probably can not turn a game where your enemy is with the whole map, just because the balance is horrible, the towers can kill lots of faces alone, and this does not happen in age of empires. You always have a way out, or at least most of the time.

In age of empires 2 there is no specific build order for each civ, usually the same, with minor changes.

If I watch multiplayer all I see are vietnamese players rushing to bronze age, research the techs for herdings etc. and then spam cav archers from 4-6 archery ranges, so I doubt that you need more that you cannot win with only getting one unit. This has to do with Assyrian free archers +40% rate of fire though.

The comparison to AoE is actually a bad example, I admit. Mainly because AoE was made when multiplayer/competitive gaming wasn't really a thing in 1995/96. At least not the way it has become in the last 10-15 years. It's good for singleplayer tho.

About AoE II: the initial buildorder is the same indeed, 22 pop -> feudal. But after that you have lots of strategical and tactical options. Way more than 0 AD has (or even AoE). Which is the reason why AoE II is a popular league game, and AoE I isn't (although AoE I has other reasons like missing some technical features that make the game more easy to install/play than AoE II because AoE II is newer).

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Feldfeld]

19 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

As usual a "balancer" who doesn't understand the problem.

Let me quote the issue in my FIRST sentence again:

"There is no "best buildorder" because there is no teching"
So? What does your post with "if you do that you will loose because *blablabla*"

How do I loose? With what? By building units? By not building units? By booming? By rushing?

I said you have the OPTION to spam women AND/OR citizen soldiers AND/OR the basic military units from your Commandcenter. I didn't say "OMG BUILD 3 WOMEN THEN 8 CAV ARCHERS AND THEN BOOM OP BEST BUILDORDER".

To quote myself

So maybe you should start to read something about "variety of choices" "strategical depth" and "gameflow" before lecturing me about how you beat up everyone else with your proness, okay?

 

@Grugnas sort of agree with your points. One thing I'd like to add is that people leave because of "balance" - indeed. But most people will leave earlier because of poor gameplay mechanics. I'm currently asking friends I play other RTS games with to play 0 AD games with me and then come back with a small survey about feedback.

People already have have Age 2 HD and all its variations with tenthousands of players and AoE IV + Definitive Edition coming soon. There no longer is a need for an AoE clone because the "real thing" will >>>>>>>>> 0 AD both in terms of game mechanics aswell as graphics. Leaving 0 AD with nothing behind.

 

So for you it isnt enough that :

- There are strategies available at the start of the game, and you need to think about choosing the most appropriate

- Once you have chosen one, you need to think about how to do it, because its execution changes every game.

Because, my point last post was that your booming strategy could be countered by another strategy (rush) or by this strategy being done better. Also, the other strategies i said in the other post (for example ressource monopolizing or other i don't know) are still valid and all could be used as an example to answer your post. I mean that spamming units is not all and that it can be countered by better strategy depending on game which mean that all of these remain valid overall in the game.

And build order is one of the things that make your strategy better. (after all you can't effectively do a strategy if you don't build units from CC do you ?) All my talk about build order showed that there is not only 1 way to do a strategy.

And sorry for not knowing what does the word "teching" mean.

So in the end did you refute my words when i say that there are strategies available ? And that you need to think about them ?

[Grugnas]

6 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Because AoE II out of the AoE game series is the only community I'd consider to be competitive. And this is because AoE II is a great game with many nice game mechanics and a lot of strategical and tactical depth PLUS various options to micro. So you're playing AoE 1 I suppose?

please consider also starcraft 2 which is imho a superb game

I played AoEII in my childhood, a lot in single player only.

Despite some tactical sneaky built barracks (AI likes a lot to build stuff in most disparate zones), i can't see the deal into control the wide map (matter of fact most of times AI build walls even faster than i could remember LOL) and i have the feeling that its not worth to use villagers to build mills far away from civic center in order to hunt deers.

There are tons and tons of techs to research but I can't see concrete differences between civs if not for some and perhaps not very relevant civ bonuses. Also,  I am skeptical on considering most of those technologies useful in a competitive environment ( i talk not knowing the competitive scene tho).

[DarcReaver]

4 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

 

So for you it isnt enough that :

- There are strategies available at the start of the game, and you need to think about choosing the most appropriate

- Once you have chosen one, you need to think about how to do it, because its execution changes every game.

Because, my point last post was that your booming strategy could be countered by another strategy (rush) or by this strategy being done better. Also, the other strategies i said in the other post (for example ressource monopolizing or other i don't know) are still valid and all could be used as an example to answer your post. I mean that spamming units is not all and that it can be countered by better strategy depending on game which mean that all of these remain valid overall in the game.

And build order is one of the things that make your strategy better. (after all you can't effectively do a strategy if you don't build units from CC do you ?) All my talk about build order showed that there is not only 1 way to do a strategy.

And sorry for not knowing what does the word "teching" mean.

So in the end did you refute my words when i say that there are strategies available ? And that you need to think about them ?

Nope it's not enough. There are some tactical choices indeed.

military unit training start <-> economic unit training start
military building start <-> ecnomonic building start

Then you can select between a variety of earlygame units (spear/swordman, slinger/skirmisher, vacalry A/B)

All from the start, with no further strategical choices required. AND after that you spam champions/elite units because they're superior to all earlygame units, buildings and other units.

And that's about it. And that's a problem.

@Grugnas Indeed, Starcraft is also a great game with lots of strategical and tactical depth.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

If I watch multiplayer all I see are vietnamese players rushing to bronze age, research the techs for herdings etc. and then spam cav archers from 4-6 archery ranges, so I doubt that you need more that you cannot win with only getting one unit. This has to do with Assyrian free archers +40% rate of fire though.

The comparison to AoE is actually a bad example, I admit. Mainly because AoE was made when multiplayer/competitive gaming wasn't really a thing in 1995/96. At least not the way it has become in the last 10-15 years. It's good for singleplayer tho.

About AoE II: the initial buildorder is the same indeed, 22 pop -> feudal. But after that you have lots of strategical and tactical options. Way more than 0 AD has (or even AoE). Which is the reason why AoE II is a popular league game, and AoE I isn't (although AoE I has other reasons like missing some technical features that make the game more easy to install/play than AoE II because AoE II is newer).

This build order (22 > feudal) it's standard, but it all depends on what strategy you're going to do. Does not work on water map for example.

Also probably will not work in a rush of towers, or militia rush. For each of these strategys, there is a specific order build that best fits.

.

[DarcReaver]

1 minute ago, borg- said:

This build order (22 > feudal) it's standard, but it all depends on what strategy you're going to do. Does not work on water map for example.

Also probably will not work in a rush of towers, or militia rush. For each of these strategys, there is a specific order build that best fits.

.

So? You yourself said the basic buildorder is the same for most civs, I just said that you're correct by stating the default 22 pop for landmaps. How this fact that a 22 pop feudal doesn't work on water maps make the situation on 0 AD better?

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

In team games, I've seen a team win prizes rush by one of the players. That was really very interesting to see. Age of Empires has always had a lot of strategy variety, maybe not as sc2 but is also present. Unfortunately, this does not happen in aoe1, its balance is bad, and because of that, among other things, it was not even 10% of its successor's success.

[DarcReaver]

1 minute ago, borg- said:

In team games, I've seen a team win prizes rush by one of the players. That was really very interesting to see. Age of Empires has always had a lot of strategy variety, maybe not as sc2 but is also present. Unfortunately, this does not happen in aoe1, its balance is bad, and because of that, among other things, it was not even 10% of its successor's success.

So you agree that a game with lack of strategical choices is bad because this results in bad balance and makes it less fun for the majority of players, am I right?

[borg-]

You are confusing build order with strategies. as I said, in any game you will see build order specific to each strategy, this is more logical if you need 10 vills for a given function because it will make 11? You'd be losing money / time. This occurs in sc2 as well.

[borg-]

1 minute ago, DarcReaver said:

So you agree that a game with lack of strategical choices is bad because this results in bad balance and makes it less fun for the majority of players, am I right?

Sure, but what's the point here? Does lack of strategies exist because of lack of balance, or is lack of balance due to lack of strategies?

[Hannibal_Barca]

2 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

Read these topics before bothering me again, kthx.

47 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

So maybe you should start to read something about "variety of choices" "strategical depth" and "gameflow" before lecturing me about how you beat up everyone else with your proness, okay?

1) You are rude and thus not fit for the Gameplay Developer post that you applied for. No regard for others that don't share your views.

2) You have not contributed anything in code, you just shout around for changes and don't DO or suggest any yourself

3) You have not created a mod to showcase YOUR idea of this game. Go ahead with the "its a waste of time because the core game(which is broken) gets all the attention" line but it shows you are not willing to contribute anything just being rude on Forums.

 

[Feldfeld]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Nope it's not enough. There are some tactical choices indeed.

military unit training start <-> economic unit training start
military building start <-> ecnomonic building start

Then you can select between a variety of earlygame units (spear/swordman, slinger/skirmisher, vacalry A/B)

All from the start, with no further strategical choices required. AND after that you spam champions/elite units because they're superior to all earlygame units, buildings and other units.

And that's about it. And that's a problem.

@Grugnas Indeed, Starcraft is also a great game with lots of strategical and tactical depth.

I'm okay with the strategical choices you said for the start of the game, this is about it.

However, there is more of it middle and late game. I'll give a few examples here :

In 1v1, p2 you can choose to early expand to grab territory (ressource monopolizing). This is useful in very late game if you need metal or if ennemy starts to be out of wood. However, its disadvantage is that for quite some time your opponent will have a batter economy and more population, so it could be bad.

Another one (used by borg only as far as i know ...) is to advance p2 then p3 quickly while it is actually a rushing game and that the player doing so wont be able to spam lategame unit for quite some time. One explanation i found was the HP bonus for fighting units, another one i read was that it was about bluffing (opponent may wonder if the player has actually a good eco ...), or it could be to be able to build siege unit quickly.

About 4v4 : more players so more possibility, some i can remember is (for open map like mainland) : take the center quickly for the ressources, and being able to strike an ennemy from all sides (an army take time to walk after all !). You can invest into trade, you can try to raid trade. Early 4v4 game, pocket players (those who are close to ally only) may decide to rush in order to help their nearby ally against his direct opponent. Or not to do so and boom for late game.

This is not even considering what strategies other maps can offer.

Also, this talk was about conquest mode. In FFA, for some reasons, there are a lot of ways of playing...

[DarcReaver]

 

12 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

1) You are rude and thus not fit for the Gameplay Developer post that you applied for. No regard for others that don't share your views.

2) You have not contributed anything in code, you just shout around for changes and don't DO or suggest any yourself

3) You have not created a mod to showcase YOUR idea of this game. Go ahead with the "its a waste of time because the core game(which is broken) gets all the attention" line but it shows you are not willing to contribute anything just being rude on Forums.

 

He directly asked me to show my points. And since I've already written down a massive essay and contributed the stuff he can just go ahead and read those topics to get on the same level of knowledge as me. I simply don't want to waste my time to keep repeating and repeating my points.

And no, I didn't showcase my idea ingame because 1) gameplay/engine features are missing, 2) mods are getting no attention  (look at DE, which is levels ahead in terms of proper game design than v0AD gameplay)  and 3) I have other projects to work on which are way more useful than discussing with game design rookies, or some ignorant/incompetent coders about issues they don't seem to understand.

10 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I'm okay with the strategical choices you said for the start of the game, this is about it.

However, there is more of it middle and late game. I'll give a few examples here :

In 1v1, p2 you can choose to early expand to grab territory (ressource monopolizing). This is useful in very late game if you need metal or if ennemy starts to be out of wood. However, its disadvantage is that for quite some time your opponent will have a batter economy and more population, so it could be bad.

Another one (used by borg only as far as i know ...) is to advance p2 then p3 quickly while it is actually a rushing game and that the player doing so wont be able to spam lategame unit for quite some time. One explanation i found was the HP bonus for fighting units, another one i read was that it was about bluffing (opponent may wonder if the player has actually a good eco ...), or it could be to be able to build siege unit quickly.

About 4v4 : more players so more possibility, some i can remember is (for open map like mainland) : take the center quickly for the ressources, and being able to strike an ennemy from all sides (an army take time to walk after all !). You can invest into trade, you can try to raid trade. Early 4v4 game, pocket players (those who are close to ally only) may decide to rush in order to help their nearby ally against his direct opponent. Or not to do so and boom for late game.

This is not even considering what strategies other maps can offer.

Also, this talk was about conquest mode. In FFA, for some reasons, there are a lot of ways of playing...

Well yes, you have a COUPLE of options. However, this isn't nearly comparable to a "real" Age of Empires 2, a Starcraft game or any other game that is played by a larger community in competition. Also see this, as I'm trying to explain my point:

13 minutes ago, borg- said:

Sure, but what's the point here? Does lack of strategies exist because of lack of balance, or is lack of balance due to lack of strategies?

A lack of POSSIBLE strategies is a result of bad game design. A lack of balance results in a lack of VIABLE strategies. This is a major difference.

Against AI in AoE 1 you can spam short sword soldiers and still be able win. Or play with the units you want. Or walling your city, go iron age with like 30 pop and then spam elephants as first military unit. But in MP you will get destroyed by cav archers 9/10 times.

However, 0 AD doesn't offer you more than 4 basic units, like a couple of siege weapons and a few weapon techs.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Hannibal_Barca]

Just now, DarcReaver said:

He directly asked me to show my points. And since I've already written down a massive essay and contributed the stuff he can just go ahead and read those topics to get on the same level of knowledge as me. I simply don't want to waste my time to keep repeating and repeating my points.

Doesn't justify anything

It's the wording that makes you sound like an arrogant thug

[DarcReaver]

3 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Doesn't justify anything

It's the wording that makes you sound like an arrogant thug

Well I admit I was a bit harsh. However, reading these posts "prove me" "give me exact points" "you don't know stuff I know it better" kind of posts seriously start to annoy me on these forums. Especially from people who have no clue and experience with game making in the first place. It's repeating stuff again and again and again and again and again without any benefit for anyone.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

5 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

A lack of POSSIBLE strategies is a result of bad game design. A lack of balance results in a lack of VIABLE strategies. This is a major difference.

Against AI in AoE 1 you can spam short sword soldiers and still be able win. Or play with the units you want. but in MP you will get destroyed by cav archers 9/10 times.

However, 0 AD doesn't offer you more than 4 basic units, like a couple of siege weapons and a few weapon techs.

I agree that the design limits us a lot. Not being able to build in neutral territory / enemy is a great waste for me, I think that constructions like towers, castles and barracks should be allowed, at least in neutral territory, I remember to have talked about this some time ago. Another important point is the lack of balance, I think that improved it, would open up some more possibilities. The lack of counter system, this really limits a lot. And lastly, players have to start playing other maps, not just continent. This limits us to equal games at all times, but for this we need an amount of (competitive) maps that have a good balance.

[DarcReaver]

4 minutes ago, borg- said:

I agree that the design limits us a lot. Not being able to build in neutral territory / enemy is a great waste for me, I think that constructions like towers, castles and barracks should be allowed, at least in neutral territory, I remember to have talked about this some time ago. Another important point is the lack of balance, I think that improved it, would open up some more possibilities. The lack of counter system, this really limits a lot. And lastly, players have to start playing other maps, not just continent. This limits us to equal games at all times, but for this we need an amount of (competitive) maps that have a good balance.

Yes. But now think about the following:

You have a very low limit for POSSIBLE strategies in 0 AD because the design is weak.
You have even less VIABLE strategies becausethe bad unit balance.

But now if you invest dozens/hundreds of hours to get the current game design balanced you still end up with a very low amount of POSSIBLE strategies.

This makes me question: why would this be worth the effort? Why not make the game design good first and then balance the good game design to get a good game experience?

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Feldfeld]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

9 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I'm okay with the strategical choices you said for the start of the game, this is about it.

However, there is more of it middle and late game. I'll give a few examples here :

In 1v1, p2 you can choose to early expand to grab territory (ressource monopolizing). This is useful in very late game if you need metal or if ennemy starts to be out of wood. However, its disadvantage is that for quite some time your opponent will have a batter economy and more population, so it could be bad.

Another one (used by borg only as far as i know ...) is to advance p2 then p3 quickly while it is actually a rushing game and that the player doing so wont be able to spam lategame unit for quite some time. One explanation i found was the HP bonus for fighting units, another one i read was that it was about bluffing (opponent may wonder if the player has actually a good eco ...), or it could be to be able to build siege unit quickly.

About 4v4 : more players so more possibility, some i can remember is (for open map like mainland) : take the center quickly for the ressources, and being able to strike an ennemy from all sides (an army take time to walk after all !). You can invest into trade, you can try to raid trade. Early 4v4 game, pocket players (those who are close to ally only) may decide to rush in order to help their nearby ally against his direct opponent. Or not to do so and boom for late game.

This is not even considering what strategies other maps can offer.

Also, this talk was about conquest mode. In FFA, for some reasons, there are a lot of ways of playing...

Well yes, you have a COUPLE of options. However, this isn't nearly comparable to a "real" Age of Empires 2, a Starcraft game or any other game that is played by a larger community in competition. Also see this, as I'm trying to explain my point:

Well, i'd like to see why it isn't nearly comparable to a "real" age of empires 2.

AoE2 has some kind of rushes : tower rush, dark rush, feodal rush, but 0ad too (cav rush, fanatic rush, that can come at different phase). And for AoE, build order is strictly defined with few changes that can come in actual game unlike 0ad.

for AoE2 gaining map control by building castle is comparable to building CC, then protect a ressource by towering or building fortress near it. also, one way to expanding to gain a ressource in 0ad is to build many buildings to gain territory.

And in imperial Age, it is about spamming the right mix of units.