Bring back a23

[badosu]

Maybe having infrastructure to test balance changes in next alpha more frequently would help?

[Grapjas]

4 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently.

One solution to this is adding a new gamemode (which im planning to add in my mod sometime) something in the form of "body count". E.G. the first team that reaches 1000 kills has won the game, with maybe a little banner up top in the ui showing the current collective kill count.  

Obviously you should be able to set the kill limit at the gamesetup screen.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Grapjas

[BoredRusher]

7 minutes ago, badosu said:

Maybe having infrastructure to test balance changes in next alpha more frequently would help?

0ad is not all about balance.

The game must preserve an interesting game-play overall.

 

[badosu]

That is an incredibly puzzling post. But ok

[BoredRusher]

1 minute ago, BoredRusher said:

0ad is not all about balance.

The game must preserve an interesting game-play overall.

 

And it seems that game-play have not been token much in consideration for creating the new alpha.

 

1 minute ago, badosu said:

That is an incredibly puzzling post. But ok

Yes. As I am telling since the opening of this thread, I'm not much talking of balance but of a broken game-play (often resulting of balance (improvements ?)).

From what I see, balance has been to the center of the priorities in a24 and game-play (which makes the game enjoyable) considerations have just been forgotten.

[badosu]

I guess there's some confusion with terminology.

I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?

[BoredRusher]

2 minutes ago, badosu said:

I guess there's some confusion with terminology.

I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?

It does

[badosu]

That's the idea

Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.

There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.

Making a weekly update that includes the new changes would be awesome, or at least in an alternate lobby/installation.

[BoredRusher]

14 minutes ago, badosu said:

That's the idea

Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.

There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.

Making a weekly update that includes the new changes would be awesome, or at least in an alternate lobby/installation.

Nice ! A great idea I agree with !

On my free time, I will get the basis of pyrogenesis and will help on this aspect.

Your suggestion can really change the things because it will help as well to speed up the development process as well as it will be the basis for future great improvements.

Thank you.

[borg-]

To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem.

I have entered 4v4 games and no less than 6 different civilizations per game. I see dog rush, bolts with palisades protecting in neutral territory, much more infantry in the game, champs, etc ...

In my 1v1 games with @ValihrAnt, we played all games with random civ, and both had a chance of winning with any civilization, not the most afraid of celts / pto.

Some players are stepping out of their comfort zone and learning how to play a new game, but you won't be able to do that by playing 2 or 3 games. It also took me a while to get used to the changes, the game seemed a little slower than a23, but nothing you don't get used to and learn to like.

It is obvious that there is still a need for refinement for the units, but it is indisputable that a24 has a better balance than a23, for several reasons.

Some frustrations seem to me more focused on ddos and also lag.

We will continue to work to improve this, and make a25 even better, however it is necessary to make constructive criticisms and not throw up a lot of random words.
We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

[chrstgtr]

 

 

3 hours ago, smiley said:

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.

 

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

30 minutes ago, badosu said:

Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.

There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.

That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

 

There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

 

3 hours ago, smiley said:

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.

 

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

38 minutes ago, badosu said:

Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.

There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.

That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

 

There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

[badosu]

Weekly lobby would address these issues imo, accompanied by a better way to discuss with devs (discord channel with slow-mode on perhaps?).

And yes, generally I agree balance changes are something that takes a while to settle before any conclusion can be reached while at the same time I also agree that we'd require some better communication.

[BoredRusher]

26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

 

 

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

 

There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

 

This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

 

There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

Thank you for this showcase of simply the reality.

[BoredRusher]

36 minutes ago, borg- said:

To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem.

I have entered 4v4 games and no less than 6 different civilizations per game. I see dog rush, bolts with palisades protecting in neutral territory, much more infantry in the game, champs, etc ...

In my 1v1 games with @ValihrAnt, we played all games with random civ, and both had a chance of winning with any civilization, not the most afraid of celts / pto.

Some players are stepping out of their comfort zone and learning how to play a new game, but you won't be able to do that by playing 2 or 3 games. It also took me a while to get used to the changes, the game seemed a little slower than a23, but nothing you don't get used to and learn to like.

It is obvious that there is still a need for refinement for the units, but it is indisputable that a24 has a better balance than a23, for several reasons.

Some frustrations seem to me more focused on ddos and also lag.

We will continue to work to improve this, and make a25 even better, however it is necessary to make constructive criticisms and not throw up a lot of random words.
We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

I did not even know the existence of this subforum till today.

[chrstgtr]

32 minutes ago, badosu said:

Weekly lobby would address these issues imo, accompanied by a better way to discuss with devs (discord channel with slow-mode on perhaps?).

And yes, generally I agree balance changes are something that takes a while to settle before any conclusion can be reached while at the same time I also agree that we'd require some better communication.

 

See the responses below from devs (just from this short 3 page thread). Not trying to call anyone out but I don't see how the problem at this point is players not communicating their grievances. Also, compare these response  to where many players have made very specific complaints with very specific suggestions for improvement (in this thread and others), which were either totally unaddressed or just labeled "wrong." 

 

On 09/03/2021 at 3:43 PM, Grapjas said:

To say this release has been rushed is a little ridiculous on it's own to be honest. 

 

On 09/03/2021 at 4:02 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Would you mind explaining some of the things you miss from the previous alpha?  I doubt I'll agree with any of your points

 

21 hours ago, Grapjas said:

i said the devs shouldnt weigh to hard on negative opinions like these.

 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Yes, i don't really care about that kind of "criticism" anymore.

 

16 hours ago, badosu said:

only people involved in development effort itself can truly appreciate what has been done

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction.

 

40 minutes ago, borg- said:

To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem.

 

 

Complaints exist. How are these being constructively addressed?

Edited March 11, 2021 by chrstgtr

[badosu]

To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.

One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue (if there's such an issue), none were presented.

Edited March 11, 2021 by badosu

[BoredRusher]

Just now, BoredRusher said:

I did not even know the existence of this subforum till today.

So, should we be blamed because we did not know its existence ?

I mean, did we haven't the right, even the duty to give our opinion ?

Or should we just agree with just everything ? No reviews ?

[BoredRusher]

1 minute ago, badosu said:

To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.

One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue, none were presented.

Right. But developers do not even let us à room for suggestions as they mostly sweep with the back of their hands everything we say.

I understand the solidarity you have for each other but when the time comes to see the truth, see it.

We all want the same thing : a great game.

[BoredRusher]

And also, if we say for instance that the units state machine is broken, it is to tell you that there is a problem to repair. Is not that a kind of suggestion ?

Edited March 11, 2021 by BoredRusher

[badosu]

13 minutes ago, BoredRusher said:

We all want the same thing : a great game.

We all have the same goal here. I just think we have deficient processes to provide successful releases, either an overarching informed design committee or a feedback-cycle powered development process. Neither of both are present.

And yes, if there are bugs surely they need to be fixed.

What I mean are things like general sentiments about gameplay without an established meta, while valuable themselves in some way they don't provide actionable information.

[BoredRusher]

8 minutes ago, badosu said:

We all have the same goal here. I just think we have deficient processes to provide successful releases, either an overarching informed design committee or a feedback-cycle powered development process. Neither of both are present.

And yes, if there are bugs surely they need to be fixed.

What I mean are things like general sentiments about gameplay without an established meta, while valuable themselves in some way they don't provide actionable information.

Right.

Have you token a look at the attached match in my original post ?

If so, what have you thought about ?

Haven't you seen the broken state machine I'm talking about ?

Haven't you felt the game poor in term of enjoyment ?

If not, all this topic is then useless and we are just discuting for nothing.

[chrstgtr]

34 minutes ago, badosu said:

To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.

One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue (if there's such an issue), none were presented.

Read my post history. I've made many of my complaints known (primarily civs lack differentiation, turtle is way way too strong, and unit production is way way too slow). I have seen several of these complaints repeated in one form of another multiple times too (e.g. Dakara in this thread saying he wants more HP because fights are way too fast, which is a function of both turtle being too strong and unit production being too slow; breakfast in this thread saying that TGs are stalemates, which is a function of turtle being too strong as well as not being able to produce enough units to sustain fight, again slow unit production; many posters in other threads saying all the civs feel the same now).  All of these complaints were basically brushed off or labeled wrong. 

Most of all many people have said the game is no longer as much fun because of the above reasons. 

We have tried making our complaints known and in many instances provided specific and actionable solutions. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by chrstgtr

[badosu]

I don't think you understand we're on the same side here, we know civ differentiation needs to be improved, that bug was reported and should produce a ticket to be fixed, etc etc..

How are we going to test this? After 6 months?

I will state for the last time: have some way to provide frequent fixes/balance changes weekly. If this is an alpha that should not be an issue. This should address most complaints.

[fatherbushido]

29 minutes ago, BoredRusher said:

And also, if we say for instance that the units state machine is broken, it is to tell you that there is a problem to repair. Is not that a kind of suggestion ?

As opposite to concerns about game data (units stats...) that's more a concern about code. Those type of concerns (even if they intersected) should really be treated separately.

I don't want to participate more in that topic, I just wanted to precise some things so that the initial author of the topic is not misunderstood.

[chrstgtr]

24 minutes ago, badosu said:

I don't think you understand we're on the same side here, we know civ differentiation needs to be improved, that bug was reported and should produce a ticket to be fixed, etc etc..

How are we going to test this? After 6 months?

I will state for the last time: have some way to provide frequent fixes/balance changes weekly. If this is an alpha that should not be an issue. This should address most complaints.

I've never said you're the problem, badosu, because I do not think it. 

As for civ differentiation, it used to exist. Now not so much. This is part of why this alpha feels so frustrating--it feels like a step back in many respects. 

Another major problem is that this alpha works well for 1v1s but can become completely miserable in long drawn out team games. This particularly true with my two other major complaints (turtle is way too strong and unit production times need to be sped up). These complaints I have been repeated many times over on the forum but never seem to be addressed beyond being dismissed. 

I hope that these issues are resolved sooner than later. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by chrstgtr