Should we go towards less units on screen (but keep similar gameplay)?

[BeTe]

- I do use zoom on mouse scroll, but still...

- What you mean "use alt to move troops back" - what is Alt doing?

- People are actually attracted by large number of units? You mean beginners like it? If that's true, then all my posts here are senseless.  

Quote

300pop = big econony, spam more and make champion easy lol

Why I have on mind that spam and blobs are bad RTS games?   

[BeTe]

1 hour ago, Dakara said:

I'm not always right of course, but I think beginners are attracted to big armies and fun stuff like elephants.

You are right, because spam = big apm = not fun // /but I don't think there is a need for a big apm in 0AD compared to other rts.

Wait what.... more spam = more APM. You need more APM in 0AD than SC2 or AOE2? What I am missing here...    

Btw, no need to be right, we are discussing only. I am never right.  

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, BeTe said:

Not sure what you mean by this video and comment?

75 population max each player.

if one of them loses, the rest  of players assumes that number of units.

If 2 players lost they would have the rest 150 population.

With 75 population the battles are longer.

The economy is slower.

[Stan`]

39 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

75 population max each player.

if one of them loses, the rest  of players assumes that number of units.

We have that feature already. It's an option

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, Stan` said:

We have that feature already. It's an option

if i know i am explaining how it works in that scenario.(Maybe I misunderstood).

[BeTe]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

75 population max each player.

if one of them loses, the rest  of players assumes that number of units.

If 2 players lost they would have the rest 150 population.

With 75 population the battles are longer.

The economy is slower.

Sorry man  but I still don't understand point.  

[BeTe]

I played a lot 0ad recently and now've read all messages from both threads I started. I have feeling that people didn't understand my core idea and that nothing would be changed in how you play 0ad..

My idea was to make it so 1 unit would do equally to what 2 units do now.

Like this:

• Unit would be double cost
• double time to build
• double damage
• double resistance
• double gather rate
• double capture rate
• Buildings will have less garison capacity
• Fields&Resources will be reduced to 2x less worker capacity.
• etc.

So if I understand well, game will be exactly same but less crowded. 

Game will be less laggy, especially in Team games that most of people like to play.

There will be less problem with pathfinding maybe?

etc.

Isn't this great idea?  

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, BeTe said:

I played a lot 0ad recently and now've read all messages from both threads I started. I have feeling that people didn't understand my core idea and that nothing would be changed in how you play 0ad..

My idea was to make it so 1 unit would do equally to what 2 units do now.

Like this:

• Unit would be double cost
• double time to build
• double damage
• double resistance
• double gather rate
• double capture rate
• Buildings will have less garison capacity
• Fields&Resources will be reduced to 2x less worker capacity.
• etc.

So if I understand well, game will be exactly same but less crowded. 

Game will be less laggy, especially in Team games that most of people like to play.

There will be less problem with pathfinding maybe?

etc.

Isn't this great idea?  

Try 75-100 of maximum population.

[BeTe]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Try 75-100 of maximum population.

You don't understand again.   It does change how game plays. My suggestion keep game same but only produce less units on screen. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, BeTe said:

You don't understand again.   It does change how game plays. My suggestion keep game same but only produce less units on screen. 

I can see that as an option. For instance, Total War games allow the player to change the size of the battalions (usually for performance reasons as well). Just need a name for it. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, BeTe said:

You don't understand again.   It does change how game plays. My suggestion keep game same but only produce less units on screen. 

between those numbers, for exampleYou could mathematically extract all the values of the units.

 

Attack

Gathering rate

All numbers (stats) divided by 4 (1/4)

This is how "Age of Empires I" worked.

The difference between AOE I and games like 0 A.D is that 0 A.D is normally 300 units per player compared to 75 in AoE I.

 

 

 

[BeTe]

I've made some quick Mod. I am looking forward to see your feedback, suggestions, ideas, etc.!

Thanks!

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

*Fewer Units

[BeTe]

If someone wants to try.

Changes:

[x]Units double cost 
[x]double time to build
[x]double attack
[x]double health
[x]double gather rate
[x]double capture rate (ie. capturables regeneration x0.5)
[ ]Buildings will have less garison capacity
[ ]Fields&Resources will be reduced to 2x less worker capacity.
etc.
[x]House 2x less pop bonus

0ad_fewer_units-0.0.2.zip

[BeTe]

0ad_fewer_units-0.0.3.zip

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Maybe an easier way of doing this would be to simply double the population cost of all units?

[phosit]

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe an easier way of doing this would be to simply double the population cost of all units?

That would have more or less the same effect as halfing the popcap.
(The other way around: When doubleing the cost player will just increase the popcap. So there is litle difference in unit count)

I think it would be better if there is no hard popcap but a penalty for players having many units.

[BeTe]

2 hours ago, phosit said:

That would have more or less the same effect as halfing the popcap.
(The other way around: When doubleing the cost player will just increase the popcap. So there is litle difference in unit count)

I think it would be better if there is no hard popcap but a penalty for players having many units.

That could be idea, but not sure what actually to implement. Food (or all resources) decay? More pop, slower production is?  

idk, I prefer idea of just slowing down production time of units. Then to avoid slowing down eco and making dead early game lasts even longer, we need to either 1) increase gathering speed 2) reducing costs of buildings. 

I tried that and problem i figured out so far is that A) towers are nerfed (b/c units that you garrison in them are more "expensive") and farming is buffed (b/c with more efficient gathering, you can basically put equivalent of 10 villagers to 1 farm).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 18/10/2022 at 2:45 AM, Dakara said:

People are attracted to large numbers of units (especially beginners or people try the game); I believe that by playing 200 pop we are already quite limited on the number of units

I think the tendency of these large battles to happen is really a big selling point for 0ad. In other games, a "large" army might be 40 - 50 units. I think we just have to find a way to make these battles performant, balanced, and strategically diverse.

[BeTe]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think the tendency of these large battles to happen is really a big selling point for 0ad. In other games, a "large" army might be 40 - 50 units. I think we just have to find a way to make these battles performant, balanced, and strategically diverse.

Yeah, that's also good point. Someone mentioned before that he likes big fights... 

I just don't know how many current and/or potential (future) players prefer that over more focus on micro smaller groups and more smooth game. I guess that's question. I guess more people like traditional RTS with smaller fights, which is kinda proven. Well, we can agree (someone said that too) 0ad should not be copy of another game, but maybe there's another way to diversify. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I think smaller battles makes sense for a game like AOM:Retold, because you got monsters and heroes and god powers and all kinds of things like that happening that you need to reserve APM for. 0 A.D. has virtually none of that.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I think there are two main reasons why we usually see only fights with maximum size armies (aside from rushing and raiding). One of them is the citizen soldier implementation and the lack of a male economic unit. See "booming=turtling" below. Adding a male economic unit would mean that the barracks would no longer be the principal economic building and there would be more variations between booming and turtling. Additionally, forge techs in 0ad are very general and apply to many units at once. Adding unit specific upgrades could allow smaller, more specialized armies to exploit the timing value of unit specific upgrades. 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

29 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Adding unit specific upgrades could allow smaller, more specialized armies to exploit the timing value of unit specific upgrades. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Never been a big fan of the EA forge tech tree and never could put my finger on it. This articulates one of the reasons I don't like it. Specialization allows you to opt for specialized (and smaller) armies.

[ChronA]

20 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think the tendency of these large battles to happen is really a big selling point for 0ad.

I fall in favor of the less-units side of this debate, but I will concede that this is probably true. But, what would be even more useful, is knowing why larger unit counts appeal to prospective players in spite of the performance tradeoffs.

• Is it because larger fights take longer to resolve, which means players have more time to re-deploy their forces and rectify the trajectory of bad engagements without needing a million apm?
• Is it the gambler's thrill of committing all the fruits of 20-30 minutes of investment in city building and logistics into a single potentially game ending clash?
• Is it the visual spectacle of hundreds of units smashing against each other? (This last seems unlikely to me, since units continue to pack so densely that individuals smear together into an undifferentiated blob.)

If we had an answer to that question, maybe there would be a way to improve performance without degrading the special appeal of 0ad's ambitious scale in the minds of its playerbase.

[Boudica]

I didn't have much time for a proper response, so I fed my quick thoughts into ChatGPT and ask it to make that into a full answer.

You might need to clarify whether you're asking about general player preferences in RTS games or specifically about their behavior in the current alpha of 0 A.D.

If it's the latter, I have some insights:

1. APM and Gameplay Style: Fast economic growth (booming) requires high APM (actions per minute). Many players, especially those who aren't pros, find it easier to focus on either growing their economy or fighting, but not both simultaneously. As a result, they often switch from economic growth to combat at a certain point. Engaging all units in battle means there's less economic management needed.

2. Full Population Strategy: Reaching full population with all upgrades provides players with confidence. They know their opponent won't have more units or better technology if they themselves have maxed out their capabilities.

3. Early Attacks: If an opponent attacks early, they spend significant time moving their units across the map, which can be inefficient. Subsequent reinforcements also take longer to arrive, potentially weakening the attack.

The question might not be about wanting smaller fights. Instead, your concerns could be addressed by improving the UI to make unit management easier.