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

[LetswaveaBook]

22 hours ago, ChronA said:

. 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.

That is the meaning of a soft counter system!

I think some flaws are just inherent to an soft counter system and the citizen soldier system, but on other points these systems have their charms. These two systems might have their strengths and flaws, but I think we need to stick with what makes 0ad stand out. Which is off course these two systems.

[Radiotraining]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

That is the meaning of a soft counter system!

Dumb question from a noob. What do you mean with "soft counter system" and how would it differ from a hard one? 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Radiotraining said:

Dumb question from a noob. What do you mean with "soft counter system" and how would it differ from a hard one? 

in simple words the unit endures more hits from the counter unit before it dies.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Radiotraining

Empire Earth have hard counters, very hard.

 

[Ceres]

On 24/10/2021 at 7:30 PM, 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.

On 24/10/2021 at 7:41 PM, 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

There's already a mod like this.

[Stan`]

There is a campaign for A23 yes

[Ceres]

 

[bigaxd]

I think as soon as campaigns get introduced into the game, it will improve

[ChronA]

On 25/10/2021 at 6:20 PM, Radiotraining said:

What do you mean with "soft counter system" and how would it differ from a hard one? 

Lion.Kanzen's explanation is usually correct, however a more precise definition is that the hardness of a counter is determined by the ratio of cost effectiveness of the counter-unit/composition against the thing it is intended to counter. A soft counter requires nearly equal resources to be invested for a counter to be effective, while for a hard counter a small investment in the counter unit can shut down a much larger investment from the opponent.

The dividing line between soft and hard counter depends on context, so it is a little tricky to try to generalize a dividing line. But if you are spending less than 75 resources on your counter for every 100 the opponent spends then you are probably talking about a hard counter. If you spend more than 80 for every 100 you are probably talking about a soft counter.

I don't want to give the impression that designing a game around soft counters is bad. Soft counters give a certain amount of inertia to proceedings, which gives players more time to consciously strategize. They also lend much more weight to economic activities, which makes the game accessible and "fair."

However, when a game is under active development, soft counters have one huge disadvantage: they are susceptible to perturbation. When the margin of victory is small, it is easy to unintentionally reverse the direction of a counter just as a consequence of small mechanical changes; for instance by making a unit slightly faster, or introducing a rotation delay, or changing the speed, range, or accuracy of projectiles. That can cause the metagame to completely rearrange in unintended ways with each patch and makes life very difficult for whoever is supposed to be in charge of the balance design. Sound familiar?

[andy5995]

On 23/10/2021 at 3:01 PM, bad player said:

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

But there's more to it than that. Sometimes I play for a few months, then I come back after a few months and play for a few more months. I first played around 2016. Also, if some people leave and don't come back, that's not necessarily a reflection of 0 A.D., but it's just natural that some games aren't to everyone's tastes.

Yes, there are some things that could be changed, and that's what tickets are for, and what the devs are working on, to make the game better and more interesting.

 

One thing that may be alienating new users is the ratings system. It seems to be not just a ratings system, but a caste system in some cases. As if having a low rating means the person is not just an inferior player, but an inferior person not worthy of acknowledgement or common courtesy. And often a player's rating isn't even accurate. I often see pro players stating that someone else's rating doesn't accurately reflect their skill. People who play regularly have a pretty good idea of a player's skill and don't really pay much attention to their rating, I think. I sometimes wonder how worthwhile it is to maintain the code for the ratings system, especially since there are so many practical aspects of gameplay that actually need to be worked on.

Edited October 28, 2021 by andy5995

[Stan`]

12 hours ago, andy5995 said:

People who play regularly have a pretty good idea of a player's skill and don't really pay much attention to their rating, I think. I sometimes wonder how worthwhile it is to maintain the code for the ratings system, especially since there are so many practical aspects of gameplay that actually need to be worked on.

There is not much code for it. In fact it hasn't changed in a while. So we're not wasting maintenance time on it. Competitive multiplayer while often a toxic thing can also have some upsides.

What I'd like to have is 2v2 and 4v4 ratings too and a more moderated lobby.

[thephilosopher]

Campaigns really would do a lot for single player appeal.

If we're brainstorming ideas for how to improve multiplayer games - and not necessarily thinking about the work that would go into it (I don't know the first thing about coding or about how difficult it is to do specific things with code) - I'd put forward something like this: make individual units less effective at fighting when they're part of large armies. When individual troops are part of a group of troops larger than a certain number of units, let's say 20 for example, each individual unit loses attack points.

Again, don't know if it's practical, but it would at least reduce the effectiveness of the "spam out units and then send 100 skirmishers to overwhelm the opposition" strategy.

[thephilosopher]

On 28/10/2021 at 1:27 PM, andy5995 said:

One thing that may be alienating new users is the ratings system. It seems to be not just a ratings system, but a caste system in some cases. As if having a low rating means the person is not just an inferior player, but an inferior person not worthy of acknowledgement or common courtesy. And often a player's rating isn't even accurate. I often see pro players stating that someone else's rating doesn't accurately reflect their skill. People who play regularly have a pretty good idea of a player's skill and don't really pay much attention to their rating, I think. I sometimes wonder how worthwhile it is to maintain the code for the ratings system, especially since there are so many practical aspects of gameplay that actually need to be worked on.

 

I'd qualify as a "new player" for our purposes here. I've played 3 rated games (and several unrated ones) and lost all of them. I don't find the rating system itself alienating. It doesn't really bother me much how I'm rated. If I have a problem with it, it's the other part of what you said - that it's not very accurate. I've played at least a couple of games against people who were rated lower than me or not rated at all, but were clearly as skilled as people rated about 1300-1500. It'd be nice to have something in the game lobby that genuinely sorted things out for newer players to find people closer to their skill level. I don't mind playing some games against people more advanced. I learn something from the games. But I don't really want all my games to be that type.

[Dizaka]

On 29/10/2021 at 3:00 AM, Stan` said:

There is not much code for it. In fact it hasn't changed in a while. So we're not wasting maintenance time on it. Competitive multiplayer while often a toxic thing can also have some upsides.

What I'd like to have is 2v2 and 4v4 ratings too and a more moderated lobby.

 

I think just keep track of "overall games played" and "overall games won" which would include all games.  This would actually give people a reasonably good idea on a player's rank.  I'd split it into buckets based on total population since 200 pop games are totally different than 300 pop games.  As long as you know how many total games someone has played you can estimate skill.  Most people have similar learning curves and after playing XYZ games generally are well proficient.

You can even hash login IP's and then make a players name more red indicating current IP hash matches a previous hash therefore possibility of a smurf, so be weary of rank.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Dizaka

[Gurken Khan]

6 hours ago, thephilosopher said:

When individual troops are part of a group of troops larger than a certain number of units, let's say 20 for example, each individual unit loses attack points.

Meh. I paid for those units and their fighting power (through upgrades). If I can overwhelm a player with 100 units, it's their fault that they don't have 100 units to repel my attack.

[thephilosopher]

11 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Meh. I paid for those units and their fighting power (through upgrades). If I can overwhelm a player with 100 units, it's their fault that they don't have 100 units to repel my attack.

That's fair enough. It's about what I'd expect as a response. If there were an adjustment, I'd think it would have to be a very mild one that still left 100 units much more powerful than 20 units. Maybe just not five times more powerful.

[Gurken Khan]

I also suspect rubber-band mechanics would draw out an otherwise quick and clear victory.