Jump to content



Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Grugnas said:

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.

But most people play against an AI.


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).

There shouldn't be any strategy that's always effective. That's why adding more civs with unique traits an diversifying the civs is interesting. It throws off the predictability of a game.


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

I understand, but building an empty, lifeless city is no fun. Building diversity, variety, and functionality are somewhat neglected. So are random animations to bring things alive.


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.

Again, I understand this point, but don't you think that this is selling 0AD short? AoE really wasn't as great as some people think. It was very limited, and I was always under the impression 0AD would be everything Age of Empires wasn't. Otherwise I'd just go play AoE, I mean they have the whole HD thing now, so why not? Because I don't want to. I believe in 0AD and it's potential. 


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

Yeah, but it's still a loss. And how long will it take before someone starts another ambitious project like that?


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.

Good things require time and effort. Working on 0AD is a sacrifice, in a way, I just want it to be sacrifices that are worth it.


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

Last year I thought adding a playable African civilisation to 0AD was impossible, yet, with tremendous help from the community, the Kushites are now a playable faction. I started playing the game when 50 pop would cause unbearable lag, and I can now move many hundreds of units without any lag. Multiplayer, was once just a dream... So I ask you to be more bold! More ambitious about what this game can offer, because it's a lot.


38 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

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.

Fair enough, but if 10 or so unofficial mods can be supported, why not 2 official ones, instead of only one? Also, the casual player mode would essentially be the expanded version of the competitive mode, so it would be logical/intuitive which features would be in what version. I also don't see any reason why both modes couldn't be played both offline and online. One is just more tailored for competitive play and the other for expanded gameplay. 

Edited by Sundiata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as single players don't care about balancing, all I can tell you is that a proper diversifying of the civs requires time and testing ( thing that actually lacks in svn ) with no need to add new redundant content with just more exotic actors ( me in first line have been really impressed by Kushite actors and would like to see them in main version [ e.g. i don't know why ptol nubian archers changed skin color from black to white ]) .

Probably the first step would be to let technologies occupy the mid row of the production queue panel because pair techs are a couple only ( 1 actually ) in order to give modders more room for more technologies in already existing buildings.

Everyone wants more contents.

AI simply emulate a human player, thus the rules that apply to single player is a natural consequence of a proper tested working "formula" in online matches. The main concerns about balancing is that monotone strategies kill the fun and totally obscure already existing stuff like palisades, walls and towers that may have a more relevant role in any level of skill.

Beyond the fancy effect, having more buildings/units/technologies available during the game would make the games ( intended like diversity between different matches ) more fun and would let not 1, new civ, but 10 already existing civs benefit from it.

So, why is there a need to add more fancy stuff if the one already implemented doesn't properly work and that may even have counter-productive effects?

Basically most of the already existing civs are just "fancy looking" because they are bound to the phase 3 convenient rush and to the "common for all" build order.

There isn't any official mod ( made of fact i started my own balance mod which is already difficult to try online ), just fan mods due the flexibility of the engine.

Delenda Est is an interesting mod and, sadly, a huge lose for eye-candy seeker players, but arguing on a flame thread because of a modify decision in an alpha stage game is quite time wasting if not useless because someone should foresee changes, especially if those kind of changes aren't new paper.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of those things... The game can improve a lot by simply optimising what's already there and utilising more of the already existing stuff. I just like to see more "useless" stuff, like statues or shrines or gardens, just for the sake of it. Those kind of small things lying around in Atlas, that never see the light of day, could add diversity and beauty without affecting gameplay, but giving casual players the option to beautify their town as they wish. It would add a lot of fun, to players like me, to whom the AI is more of a background disturbance that's easily put in check (even on very hard, the AI is quite predictable, although clear improvements have been made here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grugnas - unfortunately, numbers can only get you far, game play wise. I am with @Sundiata - most of the players downloading 0 AD do so wanting to play a single player game (since we still don't have campaigns).

I believe that the split into offline & online mode would be similar to this: treat online mode as a simplistic RTS geared to competitive game play, while have the offline mode as historical and realistic as a game can be. Like @Sundiata eloquently said, we want to manage cities, build empires and give rise to mighty civilizations! ;) Taken to the extreme, one day, I hope that the offline mode can be a mix of city management games (albeit simplified), and RTS.

But that's in the future, my friends.

This discussion, although my pessimistic buddy @Lion.Kanzen would like to believe, is not useless. It only shows how diversified our thoughts are regarding this game. Please, could someone ask the leadership of 0 AD to consider my proposal of gathering like-minded guys, ones who can really help, in at least initiating a discussion of a clear cut design document? any chance please? @niektb, @feneur, @Itms, @elexis, @LordGood

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shieldwolf23, my friend. What you are asking for is a totally separate game which would require much more time than what it already requires.

I am sure that offline players will be more than satisfied with campaigns implementation ( whenever they will come ) because they reproduce historically accurate events with perhaps already built cities in games where hopefully quests will be introduced:

  • build N temples
  • trade  X  amount of resources in Y minutes
  • build a Wonder before the enemy get TOT population.

Which is different from having something like a Tribute resources per house, a totally new talent tree and something that could somehow also affect multiplayer game and that perhaps make no sense atm.

But yes,  something  risk-like  with Simulated battle in random generated maps and an economy system oriented to upgrade your army ( maybe civilization has something like that? i never played it ) mode would be also fun.  ( still this sounds like a total different game too )

Edited by Grugnas
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the casual and competitive game-modes goes, it's just an idea to help relieve the unsolvable difference of interest regarding play styles.

Some people want an "updated AoE", streamlined and straightforward. This could be 0AD classic. Other people are much more ambitious in what they want. As @shieldwolf23 said, a mix between a (simplified) city-managment and RTS. 0AD is the best platform to develop such an idea. Imagine a Real Time Total War with elements of Anno in 0AD. Big cities and epic battles on giant maps, and it's not turn-based, but real time... That's revolutionary. It's basically what "everybody" wants, but hasn't been achieved by any commercial developer yet, although attempts have been made. 0AD casual mode can strive toward realising this dream, of the ultimate RTS/Strategy/management game. 0AD, The Birth of Civilisations, or something like that...

Looking at the improvements to the game over the past few years, I'm sure that within a year 0AD will be able to handle 1000 moving units, greatly expanding the potential for epic gameplay, and this could/should be utilised. I understand that these ideas are so far away from the original concept or the current direction, that it makes some people uncomfortable, so that's why the need for 0AD Classic. These don't need to be competing ideas. 

Anyway, these things are definitely not the most important topics at the moment, there are much more pressing concerns regarding the next release, that need to be discussed in a more official framework. There have been many suggestions/requests from many random players on this forum the past months/year. Many of them are repetitive. The same kind of requests keep turning up, for example the capture vs destroy default issue. At least the most popular/recurring requests and suggestions need to be identified and discussed more in depth, and agreed upon resolution/solutions need to be formulated publicly by the development team in response. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shieldwolf23 said:

Please, could someone ask the leadership of 0 AD to consider my proposal of gathering like-minded guys, ones who can really help, in at least initiating a discussion of a clear cut design document? any chance please? @niektb, @feneur, @Itms, @elexis, @LordGood

Thanks for your interest in the game.

0 A.D. and the pyrogenesis engine is a free & open source project. This means that you can create an entirely new game you envision, see GettingStarted.

Furthermore, everyone can use our forums to a plan a new game based on the Pyrogenesis engine here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/forum/18-game-modification/

If you do not want to base your new game on the Pyrogenesis engine, then it is not related to the project and should be planned on a project related webpage.

You will need a team of developers and artists who share interest in the game you desire and are willing to spend years building it. So either your plan is universally compelling or you have several hundred thousand of dollars to hire that team.

If we like your contribution, if it's technically compatible with 0 A.D. and if there isn't any copyright infingement of the art files in your mod, we might use it for 0 A.D. too.

Until then we are going to cooperate with people who are capable of creating files that implement features and designing features in a way that fits to the project.

Unless you hire us, we are not liable to create a different game for each player on the forums and the lobby that thinks that he knows better.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd prefer the core team to focus on optimization, or the things that they deem very important. We already have Mods that encourage balancing, and those who support them might even get into the core game.

We still have the total conversion Delenda Est, and the Pro-game-balance Mod Monkey Wrench. But my current favorite is Vox Populi, mainly because it's the closest thing to DE along with some mechanics I really like (animals running away, for example).

I'm quite optimistic about it, actually:
Advanced Players are happy with Monkey Wrench
Singleplayers are happy with the core game

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mimo said:

- removing random maps? :P 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!

To be fair, I actually think we should remove some maps since some are rather poor quality, look bad, or aren't that playable anyway (snowflake searocks). Also, some new random maps are effectively better versions of old ones. It does clutter up the list and makes random selection of random maps a bit hit or miss. Sometimes I want to find out what kind of map I'm playing on through exploration, so I won't look at the loading screen to avoid seeing the map name. Often enough to be annoying, I end up on a lower quality one (or a map lacking metal/stone, etc.) and don't realize this until I've explored a bit. I don't mind a lot of maps, but we should probably clean up the list more often than we do. (This is even more true of our scenarios.)

If maps like snowflake searocks are really desired, then they should belong in a separate category.

Edited by WhiteTreePaladin
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks unrealistic yes, but since why would snowflake searocks be unplayable? Had fun matches there I wouldn't want to miss.
> some new random maps are effectively better versions of old ones

Which ones?

Unknown, Unknown Land and Unknown Nomad are the exact same thing and I have a patch to merge them. They should be merged to a single map with a user option on wheather to allow naval. Nomad should and not unlikely will become possible to play on every map. Some of the map generations of Unknown are similar to maps. For example the Central Sea variant can be similar to Corinthian Isthmus. But it's different (lobby players called it Unknown Isthmus), as the middle passage is much bigger and the map uses the random biome system, whereas Corinthian Isthmus always looks the same.

There are dozens of players who play thousands of matches per year and probably hundreds that play hundreds of matches per year. So until we have some map downloader that can be used by highly drunken people without security issues, we should allow players to use any variation they want.

If we want to delete a random map script, go for new_rms_test. :P

If we're discussing redundant maps - we have many Skirmish/Scenario maps that are present as random maps too - Sahel, Corsica & Sardinia, Corinthian Isthmus, probably few more.

If we can only keep one type of them, then we should use the random map script variant, so that the user can chose the number of players, mapsize, victory condition and so forth and possibly implement parts in the random map script that the skirmish maps did better.

I really don't like this thread xd

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to get one thing clear at the very beginning. 0 A.D. is a free and open source game. Which means it is all about choices. The choices you, I and all of us have. The list of choices starts with you can play 0 A.D. or you don't. This is what you can do with any game regardless if it is free or not. However, free and open source means you can participate and contribute to 0 A.D. There are many ways to contribute. But it also means if you are as unhappy as @DarcReaver then make a non-hostile fork. Find a new team and name for your project to work on your vision of the game.

However, people also have to realize that there is a difference between the game engine Pyrogensis and the visible game. Pyrogensis is the part of 0 A.D. which several developers actually contribute to. The engine is responsible for very basic things like rendering object, loading a unit definition from a file, the engine is responsible for calculating the path a unit will take the engine is also responsible to provide a mechanism to play online (multiplayer). This is the part most people are actually happy about.

0 A.D. is basically a mod running on top of Pyrogenesis. However, people are downloading normally both when they download 0 A.D. What the online community really complains about is the balance changes to the 0 A.D., the mod running on top of Pyrogenesis. But they could create a mod which incorporates all there wishes, there is no need to have two versions of Pyrogenesis.

Regarding the other complains. Finding a common ground between some of the visions and ideas of people is impossible. But people can create mods, which incorporates there vision or there idea on how the game should be. 0 A.D. can be modified. For me it is okay to have many different balance mods. Then I can choose the one I like the most. However, sometimes I like one mod for several reasons and don't like other aspects of the same mod. Then again another mod focuses on different aspects. I love to have several mods. Mods which try new things or implement things differently. All mods have one thing in common, at the end of the day, I as a player have choices and this is important too me.

The main concern of @wowgetoffyourcellphone was that he has to invest time and efforts in adapting to the changes made to the 0 A.D. mod, because he bases his mod on the 0 A.D. mod and not directly on the engine. The question for me is should the Pyrogenesis engine and the 0 A.D. mod be more decoupled? And should there be a discussion about changes to the 0 A.D. mod, especially if they could break dependent mods?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, balduin said:

@WhiteTreePaladin why not creating a mod which disables/removes all the maps you don't like?

Because mods like this are completely ineffective. There are half a dozen mods that enable the game to be somewhat playable. Then another mod that disables map types? You can't use mods to fix basic gameplay issues. Mods are meant to supplement the game with additional content, not to create basic stuff that should be in the core game.

Modding is important, indeed. And good moddability of a game/game engine is a good thing. But for modding to be useful and successful the base game has to work in the first place. This is THE most important thing. Nobody plays a game that he has to modify with 10 different mods to make it somewhat playable. Everyone takes the vanilla game version, checks it, sees that it's not good and then leaves again. Only a fraction will try the gameplay mods, and of those only a fraction will actually start contributing to the project.

People who want to mod will find ways to do it, whether the game is "modding friendly" or not. And for that, the core game needs to be good enough to let people stick with the game.

This is an issue that seems to not be understood, and the attitude of some guys on the v0AD game game resembles that pretty well. And unfortunately, his has been like this since years, with only little very little progress. The differences between the alphas in terms of gameplay show almost zero progress, although I first started pointing out issues like 2 years ago.

And I already offered my help in the past, but there was no consensus and so the whole thing went apart on without any useful result. Which is because devs can say "well make your own mod (yet another one)" to cover up their inability to fix their game in the first place. Which isn't criticism of them personally, I'm just stating facts. Time has shown that noone used the past 2 years to get a gameplay concept going, or the game vision to be a bit more up-to-date.

Edited by DarcReaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sphyrth said:

Looks like the only real "successful" mod in here is Hyrule Conquest. It has two main strengths:
1. Unified Team
2. It has exposure / promotion.

Most mods usually lack #2.

but huge weakness, Nintendo Copyrights and Hyrule Total War. Many guys dislikes the mod because he don't finish Hyrule Total War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...