Really?

[DarcReaver]

2 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

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.

 

 

Okay then compare this:

to this

It's pretty self explanatory why 0 ad is inferior to Age II by miles.

[Feldfeld]

5 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

 

Okay then compare this:

to this

It's pretty self explanatory why 0 ad is inferior to Age II by miles.

 

For both 0ad and AoE2, very inexperienced players will just try to build a city, an army, and fight, while trying somehow to use the advantage the maps and civ give. I think it's irrelevant to compare like this, this doesnt show how gameplay is different between new players in 0ad and new players in aoe2.

As for your AoE2 video, i cant watch it for now but at first sight seems like a match in an exotic map. As i said in an earlier post, in 0ad too you can do different strategies that are very special to some map (example : migration).

[Hannibal_Barca]

This kinda went off topic from the first post

[Servo]

Sergiudragoon has low skill level and there are good MP games for A22. 

But it doesn’t mean because you are 0ad expert the game has depth. I prefer 0ad not because of strategy but the SP mode where I can build a nice empire and fight off multiple AI enemies. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Servo

[DarcReaver]

5 minutes ago, Servo said:

Sergiudragoon has low skill level and there are good MP games for A22. 

Yes the suspense in this game is killing me literally. Especially the strategical choice of building a clump of cavalry units and sending it over to the enemy after booming for like 15 minutes. AoE II is nowhere near this strategical finesse with all its unit line upgrades, different military building paths and overall tech trees, and stuff like dark age rushing, feudal scout rush or archer flsuhing etc.

This one aswell. 100 camel archers are really much better gameplay than AoE II.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Hannibal_Barca]

I can find tons of replays in which cavalry spam fails, where we can play a normal game IN SPITE of the cavalry balance problem of this alpha

[Servo]

Alexsu is decent player but most of his videos are really boring. 

Spamming structures and units are not my liking. I want more gameplay style. I just do it in MP which I seldom play. 

[Feldfeld]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Yes the suspense in this game is killing me literally. Especially the strategical choice of building a clump of cavalry units and sending it over to the enemy after booming for like 15 minutes. AoE II is nowhere near this strategical finesse with all its unit line upgrades, different military building paths and overall tech trees, and stuff like dark age rushing, feudal scout rush or archer flsuhing etc.

I could very well give an AoE2 video of a pro player beating another pro player with a rush (let's say, scout rush ? feodal rush ?) on arabia map, and

4 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

This one aswell. 100 camel archers are really much better gameplay than AoE II.

 

I could very well give an AoE2 video of a team game where a pocket player comes with paladin and spam it.

[DarcReaver]

Dude this doesn't matter that you can post game expamples of Pros beating other pros on Arabia or another map.

Because AoE offers more POSSIBLE strategies because of a better game design and more VIABLE strategies because of better balance. Also the game usually does not end with a Flush in AoE but instead with more tactical choices depending on the civ matchup AFTER the rush, which consists of adding multiple additional units, researching unit lines to counter enemy unit lines (like getting champions/halbs against people going cavalry upgrades) or getting trash units + archers, or mobile harassment forces (like woadies, Boyars or whatever) or getting siege to counter mass trash or getting monks to convert powerful enemy units or whatever. This isn't present in 0 AD because IT ISN'T EXISTANT.

Because the game design is unfinished, incoherent and unbalanced and there are only a couple POSSIBLE strategies and only a few VIABLE strategies, which limits both singleplayer and multiplayer. Just accept it instead of arguing against it.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Grugnas]

13 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

 

I can confirm that ptols may be really op.

actually this strategy is overkill and OP in early game and counterable by siege towers in late game. an elephant could destroy your siege towers tho.

The point is that towers with their distance restriction and low damage ( or cavalry with high hp if you like) can't prevent cavalry raids which is lame and let cavalry monopolize the whole game in any phase and state.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Grugnas

[DarcReaver]

8 minutes ago, Grugnas said:

actually this strategy is overkill and OP in early game and counterable by siege towers in late game. an elephant could destroy your siege towers tho.

The point is that towers with their distance restriction and low damage ( or cavalry with high hp if you like) can't prevent cavalry raids which is lame and let cavalry monopolize the whole game in any phase and state.

Well it isn't really beneficial to start discussing whether this is OP or not. I do believe you - the issue is pretty simple: having mobile harassment earlygame in a game like this is a large advantage and result of sloppy/bad faction design and another example why a proper gameplay dev (team) is needed since the team doesn't understand how the game mechanics of RTS games work/why and which mechanics are fun and rewarding for player's experience. I just took these games as a very random example of how boring, strategically unattractive, repetitive and unrewarding the tech demo is in multiplayer (I just typed in 0 ad multiplayer games on youtube and age of empires II multiplayer and took some random games from page 1 which were no single player 'let's play' videos to prove my point).

If I'd play more than like 5 of these games I'd immediately ditch it and play something else because it sucks (just like I did with Age of Empires 1 after playing against those weird vietnamese players). And this is not because of bad balance, but because it simply sucks to have no variety of choices. Which leads back to lack of a proper game design.

Edited October 11, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Feldfeld]

10 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Dude this doesn't matter that you can post game expamples of Pros beating other pros on Arabia or another map.

Because AoE offers more POSSIBLE strategies because of a better game design and more VIABLE strategies because of better balance. Also the game usually does not end with a Flush in AoE but instead with more tactical choices depending on the civ matchup AFTER the rush, which consists of adding multiple additional units, researching unit lines to counter enemy unit lines (like getting champions/halbs against people going cavalry upgrades) or getting trash units + archers, or mobile harassment forces (like woadies, Boyars or whatever) or getting siege to counter mass trash or getting monks to convert powerful enemy units or whatever. This isn't present in 0 AD because IT ISN'T EXISTANT.

Because the game design is unfinished, incoherent and unbalanced and there are only a couple POSSIBLE strategies and only a few VIABLE strategies, which limits both singleplayer and multiplayer. Just accept it instead of arguing against it.

and

2 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Well it isn't really beneficial to start discussing whether this is OP or not. I do believe you - the issue is pretty simple: having mobile harassment earlygame in a game like this is a large advantage and result of sloppy/bad faction design and another example why a proper gameplay dev (team) is needed since the team doesn't understand how the game mechanics of RTS games work/why and which mechanics are fun and rewarding for player's experience. I just took these games as a very random example of how boring, strategically unattractive, repetitive and unrewarding the tech demo is in multiplayer.

If I'd play more than like 5 of these games I'd immediately ditch it and play something else because it sucks (just like I did with Age of Empires 1 after playing against those weird vietnamese players).

 

If you want examples of interesting strategical games in 0ad i'll eventually give some replay.

As for unit composition, it is only 1 type of strategy and 0ad could have it with natural/hard counters. But in the end we can always show videos of a boring game of 0ad or a boring game of aeo2 this doesnt show nothing.

As it is now a live discussion i just say that i am out of it for today lol.

[Grugnas]

This is a snowball tactic. More units you have, more effective the harrassment becomes. Although the high mobile harrassment power, they can also destroy towers which is supposed to be the only counter to mid-long ranged cavalry.

Their disadvantage into the slow hunting. The idea with archers is to have a high range support with low mobility ( for infantry) and lack in the economy aspect (they suck at gathering),  i guess.

EDIT: i agree that the citizen soldier system isn't enough satisfying, it could be extended.

i.e. there could be gaia settlments to take control of their gaia habitants with at no population cost, enslave them to put them at work.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Grugnas

[Hannibal_Barca]

There are tons of possible strategies, the number of which are reduced due to the map and victory condition. The base fact is that if there is balance there can be diversity.

 

In my mod, Vox Populi, I've rebalanced cavalry so that they counter each other in the sword>spear>skirm>sword way.

Infantry have resumed their primary role in the composition of a basic army.

Players can choose to delay the training of their own cavalry if they do infantry instead since cavalry can no longer win at such drastic ratios as in A22.

One can opt for the cavalry rush which is still viable if you do it right (not just mindless train and blast the enemy)

 

Or one can choose a risky but possibly rewarding boom involving a higher ratio of female population.

 

In late game, you can access a Specialization mini tech-tree where you can go for melee/ranged and after that cavalry/infantry

 

Meanwhile several other technologies added and little balances, additions.

 

Remember this is a new mod under development but progressing.

It aims to keep the unique 0ad concepts of citizen-soldier and those things you like to rant about so much

They are all parts of a whole that is the unique 0 A.D. style

 

 

 

So summing it up, I think balance and new possibilities in the form of pair techs and mini tech-trees can improve this game a lot. Like DE but without some of the bullshit..

 

There will always be spams but if those spams can be countered(possibly naturally) then it will result in many fun games especially where there are several players in a team. Many games feature spams, it's a specialized army that you need so that you can further research down that path. Mixes (sometimes called rainbows) will always be viable due to the different shielding, damage capacities of the given mixed units.

 

Spams and mixes both have their advantages, bugs can be fixed, units can be balanced, things can be done if we work together in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner and not try to manufacture bigger and better Proof Bombs and the like to wipe out the defences of the other player who loves this game as much as you do.

 

Work together and be sensible, the future of 0 A.D. lies in your hands so please don't drop it.

 

Everyone has a place in this future, we need you all. We need @elexis with his neverending code fixes, commits and instructions; we need people like@wowgetoffyourcellphone to do their best, @Grugnas and the like to create mods to test potential features, @LordGood the artist, many others, and last but not least: people like @DarcReaver to incense us to such exorbitant heights that we end up doing something.

 

I can't match you guys in post count and I guess there will be tons of counterarguments and whatnot by the time I check it out tomorrow afternoon so take your time in replying and stop playing argument volleyball.

 

*Me out for today*

[Lion.Kanzen]

There we go with this Mr badass guy...

 

I like the arguments and mostly of your ideas, but don't be like that, you no are anyone here for mostly of us. Also you haven't the leadership. You can be most like a consultant.

The leadership here is Michael/Justus. But the problem is we don't know how works the team, only we know ITMS is the head and Elexis the guy to serves as making the team working.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Servo said:

Alexsu is decent player but most of his videos are really boring. 

Spamming structures and units are not my liking. I want more gameplay style. I just do it in MP which I seldom play. 

Indeed, that's why don't like extremely competitive, this happens with AoE saga. But in AoE the player have very clear the counters to get a massacre.

[sphyrth]

I'm still putting my trust on the people who are actually doing the work. All this constant whining about "They're not doing a good job in it." has almost put me in a state of depression.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

I'm still putting my trust on the people who are actually doing the work. All this constant whining about "They're not doing a good job in it." has almost put me in a state of depression.

Relax, this guy is some salty.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

On 10/10/2017 at 1:34 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

And then a new set of volunteer devs come along, scrap the old wish list or don't even know it exists, and create a new wish list, all while not having or agreeing to even the general concepts these gameplay items are supposed to support.

This has happened more than once. I'm not really sure that there is a "fix" for it. As team dynamics change, desired features change. This extends beyond programmers finding certain tasks more interesting to work on, and is more related to the fact that different people want different things from the game. Probably the only way that it will change is if we happen to get a group with a more cohesive vision where the group itself (not just some members) stays around long enough to actually make significant progress toward whatever vision is popular at that time. It might happen eventually. I'm hoping that as the game gets more mature, we will begin to retain enough simultaneously active people for the final progress toward version 1.0 to occur.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Age of Empires have solid gameplay, 0 A.D doesn't  I saw few commentary of normal people in others webs, the game is boring very different to any AoE.

0 A.D actually is boring. I'm very worried with that.

[coworotel]

About all the 0 A.D. bashing in this thread, I would like to quote my post from another thread: