[Discussion]Future the design and Vision for 0 A.D

[AIEND]

The game is now trying to force all factions to start massive battles in P3.
But in fact, each faction has different levels of civilization according to the historical background. If some factions do not have some powerful units in the late stage, such as cataphract, chariot, war elephant, ballista, then their dominant period should be placed in P2 and attack earlier than other factions. And those factions with powerful units in the later stage should try their best to survive the opponent's offensive in P2 until they reach P3 and reach the dominant period.

Edited April 21, 2022 by AIEND

[AIEND]

13 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

可能是推车很慢的推车作为dropsite，村民会比标准更弱。 CC将是一个大房子。

前段时间想把aoe的那个慢发展带来，没实现，但想法是从一个贫穷落后的定居点开始。

我住在一个贫穷的国家，我知道情况如何。

 

这个 地狱 变成了CC。

 

 

It won't make any difference, as you still need to build a CC to train more civilians. In fact, nomadic mode is quite an interesting design for Age of Empires 3 where the map will generate random terrain, because you have to explore unknown terrain to find a good place to settle down, but for the terrain is fixed 0AD, just Lack of fun.
To a certain extent, if this mode is to be interesting, the design of citizens-soldier and territory needs to be removed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

It won't make any difference, as you still need to build a CC to train more civilians. In fact, nomadic mode is quite an interesting design for Age of Empires 3 where the map will generate random terrain, because you have to explore unknown terrain to find a good place to settle down, but for the terrain is fixed 0AD, just Lack of fun.
To a certain extent, if this mode is to be interesting, the design of citizens-soldier and territory needs to be removed.

este modo basicamente no tienes cultura y los soldados son milicias basicas, granjeros peleando con armas.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

在这种模式下，你基本上没有文化，士兵是基本的民兵，农民用枪打架。

Then it seems we should call it "wilderness mode".

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Then it seems we should call it "wilderness mode".

Yes, a little.

[Belisarius17]

Hi Lion, What about Adding the Rise of Rome campaign map...I will be posting the campaign soon for everyone to play it. You can play the campaign on solo mode as The Roman Republic, or modified the settings for up to 8 players. The map can also be modified to fit everyone personal taste and be use for many other scenarios, like the Roman Civil war or whatever pop into your mind. You can add other mods to it as well to make new scenarios base on many Historical situations in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa. Creativity has no limits for the creative mind.

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, Belisarius17 said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Belisarius17 said:

Hi Lion, What about Adding the Rise of Rome campaign map...I will be posting the campaign soon for everyone to play it. You can play the campaign on solo mode as The Roman Republic, or modified the settings for up to 8 players. The map can also be modified to fit everyone personal taste and be use for many other scenarios, like the Roman Civil war or whatever pop into your mind. You can add other mods to it as well to make new scenarios base on many Historical situations in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa. Creativity has no limits for the creative mind.

Off topic.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen

[Belisarius17]

[Lion.Kanzen]

back to topic...

Because of the type of design that we have created, it is a total war mix, AOM/AoE III/AOE IV.

The mix we create is based on units with unique appearances and historically accurate warriors.

Unlike Roman AoE's they don't have Hoplites which is why it is not historically correct in Roman design in the context of the Punic Wars.

Therefore our units belong to a specific timeframe.

We are even more radical than for example AoE IV:

In AoE their basic units are archers, lancers and spear cavalry. Absolutely all factions have these 3 units.

We decided to remove units that were rare or did not exist in a certain faction.

 

Therefore our factions are asymmetrical.

[thankforpieOfficial]

This is how i see 0ad development since theres so many discussions, concepts, feedbacks, it seems like everyone has an idea or two.

Then who gets the final say? Stan? Someone else? Multiple people?

 

If 0A.D. was my game the first thing I'd wonder about would be 1. What do I need to change or implement?

Then I'd ask myself: 2. Why do I need to change/implement it?

Then I'd think whether 3. This is important change that is also worth the time it would take to implement it.

Then I'd 4. Write down the list of reasons for and against it & Examine them carefully.

And then finally I'd 5. Make a list of systems that will need to be altered to work with this new change & Write how altered & Examine them as well.

 

I personally don't see how making a generic civ in phase1 or in not-yet-added phase0 is going to be a ground-breaking change that will add hundreds of hours of game time before players get bored and leave.

So while this doesn't seem huge I'm also not particularly against it because to be fair it may be a positive change:

1. Firstly, the target civ becomes an upgrade, and players love upgrading stuff.
2. Secondly, just as Borg said, it adds element of surprise.

 

That said this change also limits certain things. For example all the people in phase 1 or phase 0 are going to have access to the same small subset of units and buildings. Where originally ptolemies would start with slingers and seleucids with skirmishers, they both will start with the same unit after the change. Ptolemies players that started with pikes usually had slower eco cause they, well, walked much slower.

As for how hard it will be to implement this change - that I don't know.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, thankforpieOfficial said:

This is how i see 0ad development since theres so many discussions, concepts, feedbacks, it seems like everyone has an idea or two.

Then who gets the final say? Stan? Someone else? Multiple people?

 

If 0A.D. was my game the first thing I'd wonder about would be 1. What do I need to change or implement?

Then I'd ask myself: 2. Why do I need to change/implement it?

Then I'd think whether 3. This is important change that is also worth the time it would take to implement it.

Then I'd 4. Write down the list of reasons for and against it & Examine them carefully.

And then finally I'd 5. Make a list of systems that will need to be altered to work with this new change & Write how altered & Examine them as well.

 

I personally don't see how making a generic civ in phase1 or in not-yet-added phase0 is going to be a ground-breaking change that will add hundreds of hours of game time before players get bored and leave.

So while this doesn't seem huge I'm also not particularly against it because to be fair it may be a positive change:

1. Firstly, the target civ becomes an upgrade, and players love upgrading stuff.
2. Secondly, just as Borg said, it adds element of surprise.

 

That said this change also limits certain things. For example all the people in phase 1 or phase 0 are going to have access to the same small subset of units and buildings. Where originally ptolemies would start with slingers and seleucids with skirmishers, they both will start with the same unit after the change. Ptolemies players that started with pikes usually had slower eco cause they, well, walked much slower.

As for how hard it will be to implement this change - that I don't know.

in the end the team decides which idea is better. do not think that it is a democracy. (if not, it would be a chaos to know who to listen to).

The same for that discussions are made with multiple possibilities. 

The most practical and reasonable is always taken into account.

[Lion.Kanzen]

 controversial design topics are advertised here.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/418-design-committee/