0ad can provide about half a year of entertainment but after that its over

[bad player]

if youre nolifer gamer prob about 3 months

otherwise 6 months

its a good result to be honest, but i dont think its good deal for veteran players

theres only so much a game can do, especially if game is based on replaying same matches over and over

theres no fun in building your kingdom and spamming units anymore

 

PS if you think im wrong, just think about all the players who played for period of few months and then dissapeared permanently! they got bored

Edited October 28, 2021 by bad player

[Radiotraining]

I don't know if the intentions behind this comment are legit or just for trolling, but I think there's a degree of truth in these observations.

I think 0ad overall is a pretty solid game (and is still incredible that such a game is still around!) but yeah, it as some limits. I think one of the limits is a bit of predictability in the gameplay and lack of flexibility for crazy strategies, like sometimes you can see in AOE 2 online games.

I think there are a few threads that could potentially tackle this issue. Like this one:

 

I think that breaking the status-quo by differentiating more the civilizations can help a lot to keep the game fresh and unpredictable, even after a lot of matches. I'm talking as a complete noob. I guess that for competitive players less differences would be better to ensure a fair match.

But I think that shuffling the cards a bit could still make some difference without compromising too much the balance. In that thread there was the example of Scythian as a good example of nomadic civilization that can make the game fun and unpredictable with a set of special bonus and weaknesses that keep that civilization reasonably balanced with others more "canon".

If you have some specific ideas on how to improve the gameplay I would suggest to participate in the discussion with constructive feedback, so the game can slowly adapt to new changes and ideas

 

 

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I think a good example of this is how all battles between ranged and melee units will always go the same way: melee die first, ranged die after melee. If we add player control to the areas shot by ranged units (like attack-ground, attack-area), it adds a new way to avoid ranged unit shots and a new way to deal damage to particular sides/back of an enemy formation rather than just the front.  

If you think about how one-dimensional the battles are in 0ad, then you would probably realize what a welcome change this would be. And even that would be ignoring all the positive balancing outcomes that would result.

[Radiotraining]

30 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think a good example of this is how all battles between ranged and melee units will always go the same way: melee die first, ranged die after melee.

That's also true. Good observation.

Another aspect about units that can be improved (in my opinion) is the hard differences between each type of unit. For example, spear units are so weak against infantry compared to sword units. And, as much as it's appreciable to have differences between units, I think the disparity shouldn't be so wide, because it makes the game a bit too mechanic and less creative.

Another example is about destroying buildings. Units are a tad too weak on destroying any building and this also force you to use the same predictable mechanic of relying on siege units before any attack. So this again makes the game a bit too linear.

Just my impression, but I haven't played much the most recent update, so things may be different by now I defer to more expert players to find the right balance in these micro differentials

 

[Jofursloft]

20 hours ago, bad player said:

if youre nolifer gamer prob about 3 months

otherwise 6 months

I discovered 0AD in 2015. I started playing multiplayer in 2017. I'm still here, not getting bored of it :))

(0AD is the only game I play)

[Gurken Khan]

Since there are different modes and mods I don't think one has to get bored quickly with the game. But maybe someone just wanted to make an edgy remark...

[LetswaveaBook]

What I think could increase the playability for 0ad single players is to add campaigns, which can also give some nice stories about history. Like the rise of Seleucid the first would make a good story.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

What I think could increase the playability for 0ad single players is to add campaigns, which can also give some nice stories about history. Like the rise of Seleucid the first would make a good story.

Rise of Seleucus

Anabasis of Alexander

Clash of Civilizations: The Greco-Persian Wars

Hannibal at the Gates

Wrath of Boudicca 

Iberia: Arena of Death 

The Last Cataract

[Stan`]

Still waiting for skilled map makers.

I'm not sure we support subtitles in cutscenes yet but I'm sure it can be added.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

What I think could increase the playability for 0ad single players is to add campaigns, which can also give some nice stories about history. Like the rise of Seleucid the first would make a good story.

more victory conditions.

More content (maps and stuff)

More interaction with AI.

[LetswaveaBook]

53 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Rise of Seleucus

Anabasis of Alexander

Clash of Civilizations: The Greco-Persian Wars

Hannibal at the Gates

Wrath of Boudicca 

Iberia: Arena of Death 

The Last Cataract

I think the story of Seleucus has the advantage in that he interacted with the macedonian, the ptolemies, the persian (after the achaemenids had been defeated), the galatian gauls and the mauryas.

[LetswaveaBook]

25 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Still waiting for skilled map makers.

I'm not sure we support subtitles in cutscenes yet but I'm sure it can be added.

 

To be honest, I don't think the requirements for making such a map would be that high. If you look at some age of empires campaign maps, they don't need to be perfect to tell a great story.

[Radiotraining]

What would you consider as "skilled" for map-making? 

Maybe there are people out there that can actually contribute! Maybe I would too, I just don't know exactly what kind of skills are required and if there's already an organigram to follow for campaigns 

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Radiotraining

[Stan`]

Making a nice looking map preferably using the best art assets with JavaScript Triggers. And tell an enjoyable story. Then send us the xml js and pmp files fix the potential bugs

[Radiotraining]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Rise of Seleucus

Anabasis of Alexander

Clash of Civilizations: The Greco-Persian Wars

Hannibal at the Gates

Wrath of Boudicca 

Iberia: Arena of Death 

The Last Cataract

Are these planned campaigns or is just a list of potential titles?

Or have these been made already and where to find them?

 

[Stan`]

Just ideas.

[ChronA]

I agree that the addition of some high quality scripted campaigns will be a great boon to 0 AD's value propositions. However, I must point out that in the RTS space, single player scripted (ie campaign) content has only a weak relationship to long term playability. For a lot of serious RTS players, a campaign is only something they might try for a few days (or hours) to get a taste of gameplay. Others might beat all the campaign content over the course of a few weeks then never touch it again. I think it is a only a small minority who find enjoyment in replaying campaign content repeatedly for the duration of their engagement.

So let's not lose focus on the real reason Bad Player raised this (IMO very legitimate) complaint: 0 AD has a shallow core gameplay loop. There needs to be more diversity between civilizations. There needs to be more diversity between units. The game needs to have some mechanics-based hard counter cycles so that not every battle is decided by marginal differences in unit numbers or strength that are mostly attributable to the snowballing of minor decisions and tactical blunders from 10 minutes ago. Otherwise the game is too easily "solved" and most players will lose interest almost as soon as they have a taste of mastery (e.g. within 6 months).

As for why some people might stick around longer: I would posit the main reasons are they become invested in the drama of the game's development. In some ways I think the evolution of 0 AD's metagame and design philosophy is a much more interesting strategic sandbox than the game itself. Others might be fanatic devotees of FOSS and have literally nothing better they can stomach to play.

Edited October 25, 2021 by ChronA
originally posted this in the wrong thread, so I attributed the OP to the wrong person. Sorry Bad Player

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

More content (maps and stuff)

I would say make the maps the game already has better. And yes, more map features, making the maps more interesting.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, ChronA said:

So let's not lose focus on the real reason Philip raised this (IMO very legitimate) complaint: 0 AD has a shallow core gameplay loop. There needs to be more diversity between civilizations. There needs to be more diversity between units. The game needs to have some mechanics-based hard counter cycles so that not every battle is decided by marginal differences in unit numbers or strength that are mostly attributable to the snowballing of minor decisions and tactical blunders from 10 minutes ago. Otherwise the game is too easily "solved" and most players will lose interest almost as soon as they have a taste of mastery (e.g. within 6 months).

Agreed. The core gameplay is a bit sus, and the endless discussions about balance really do little to address core issues. Removing some armor values here, adding +1.648 pierce attack there, etc. while necessary in the long run, don't really address core issues. 

@Freagarach's soft battalions (already committed for A26) are such a huge step, more people need to talk about them. I urge everyone, at least those knowledgeable/experienced with the game and community, to download the SVN (development) version of the game and work toward making those soft battalions integral to the game, feature complete (important to combat), and intuitive. They are really what's going to set the game apart from offerings such as AOEIV. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Agreed. The core gameplay is a bit sus, and the endless discussions about balance really do little to address core issues. Removing some armor values here, adding +1.648 pierce attack there, etc. while necessary in the long run, don't really address core issues. 

@Freagarach's soft battalions (already committed for A26) are such a huge step, more people need to talk about them. I urge everyone, at least those knowledgeable/experienced with the game and community, to download the SVN (development) version of the game and work toward making those soft battalions integral to the game, feature complete (important to combat), and intuitive. They are really what's going to set the game apart from offerings such as AOEIV. 

How do they work?

Today I tried and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. Don't fight on a large scale either.

[Freagarach]

_Any_ game can only keep me interested for about a day, subsequently I start tearing it apart and tinkering with it. The latter still keeps me entertained in 0 A.D..

[alre]

13 hours ago, ChronA said:

As for why some people might stick around longer: I would posit the main reasons are they become invested in the drama of the game's development. In some ways I think the evolution of 0 AD's metagame and design philosophy is a much more interesting strategic sandbox than the game itself

that works for me! 0AD has a lot of flaws (it's an alpha after all), but seeing how many opportunities for a change are always open makes me appreciate the game a lot more.

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Removing some armor values here, adding +1.648 pierce attack there, etc. while necessary in the long run, don't really address core issues. 

yes but also no. don't underestimate little stat adjustments. they make the difference between A24 meta dominated by archers, and A25 meta where archers are crap, mercs are OP, and thus MP matches last a lot less and employed strategies are completely different. Ideally, for the game to be varied and thus enjoyable for a longer time, a wide variety of strategies should all be viable at the same time. Remember that MP has the potential to enlarge engagement time indefinitely.

[davidsrsb]

Add some weather so that on a windy day the archers cannot hit a barn door, another day they wipe out the melee.

[bad player]

19 hours ago, ChronA said:

So let's not lose focus on the real reason Philip raised this (IMO very legitimate) complaint: 0 AD has a shallow core gameplay loop. There needs to be more diversity between civilizations. There needs to be more diversity between units. The game needs to have some mechanics-based hard counter cycles so that not every battle is decided by marginal differences in unit numbers or strength that are mostly attributable to the snowballing of minor decisions and tactical blunders from 10 minutes ago. Otherwise the game is too easily "solved" and most players will lose interest almost as soon as they have a taste of mastery (e.g. within 6 months).

...but why did you call me Philip..? I am not Philip, and I won vs him easily in the past, so this is an insult to me

Edited October 25, 2021 by bad player

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

18 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

soft battalions (already committed for A26) are such a huge step, more people need to talk about them

hmm, this and the unit acceleration seem to be two large gameplay features very much worth testing to make sure they are great for A26. @real_tabasco_sauce and I can try the SVN maybe this weekend.