chrstgtr

@real_tabasco_sauce, I think you're misstating what the "meat shield" meta means and, as a result, the proposal isn't tailored to fix the meat shield meta that players complain about. The "meat shield" meta that people commonly complain about, is an overriding strategy where players primarily compose their armies of range units and use melee units as a distraction (i.e., melee units become a shield to the more important range units). The meat shield meta is fundamentally defined by how melee units interact with range units. Defined differently, the meat shield meta is defined by how melee units don't interact with range units. I've asked (in many threads, including this one), how increasing melee's dps and decreasing melee's armor changes the meat shield meta (as defined above) instead of just changing how quickly the meat shield dies and no one has ever explained it. There are at least four main ways the current meat shield meta (as defined above) can change: Melee units can get more dps than range units. Option (1) has been proposed several times but people typically reject it because of fears that the game will become a single unit melee spam. Melee units can get more armor to be able to reach enemy range units. Option (2) is more or less where a25 was with melee units becoming (slightly) more important and battles being decided by whoever actually reached enemy range units with their melee. Other strategies/tactics, such as sniping, can develop to avoid the meat shield meta. Option (3) is where we are at in a26 with players coming up with alternative stats to get around the meat shield. But most people think micro heavy strategies like this are not ideal and agreement can't be reached on what hard-coded tactics should be developed (e.g., people couldn't area on what attack ground should be). Melee units can be made quicker to reach enemy range units. Option (4) is what I think should be implemented because it's less likely to create the single unit spam problem of option (1) and hasn't already failed like options (2) and (3). You seem to be defining the meat shield as a reflection of stats where melee units can absorb a relatively large amount of dmg. People aren't complaining about that--see how no one complains about melee being able to kill range with their relatively high armor and low dps. People are complaining about the strategy where players mass large range armies. Your proposal doesn't appear to address this (but please correct me if I am wrong to believe that your proposal won't just change how quickly the meat shield dies).

I said this: You said this: I asked: You said: You say melee is stronger in straight up fights but that melee can't kill before range units flee. But your proposal focuses 100% on how fast melee can kill range in straight up fights (which again, you say melee already have the upper hand in) and doesn't address the underlying problem that range units can just outrun chasing melee units. In other words, according to you, the melee vs. range problem doesn't exist but for range units' ability to run away from chasing melee. Wanting to address the underlying speed problem necessarily has to come first because your proposal will otherwise fall into the same problem that we currently have: range units will just run away from higher dps melee units. If there is a problem with the dps and armor of melee units, you won't know how big the problem is until melee units can actually engage in straight up fights vs range units (which, again, they can't because, as you say, range units just run away from chasing melee). So changing dps and armor of melee units now will only cause complicate the process because you will need to rebalance once you fix the speed issue. I’m the meantime, a change to attack/armor of melee may also mess with cav vs inf balance, unit vs building balance and/or melee vs range balance. The large level change won't happen because you aren't actually addressing what you've identified as a core problem.

But how is this fixed with the proposal? Now the very first row of range might die but then the rest run and can’t be caught because range units move quicker than melee units. Maybe you’re right that there should be an increase to attack (and corresponding decrease to armor), but that can’t address range units running away faster than melee can chase like you’re describing. Doing dmg/armor feels more complicated and like it’s putting the cart before the horse. Sword cav are clearly better. They just cost metal. But they can also quickly kill CCs. Also, @BreakfastBurrito_007, based on your reply. I think you’re missing some context in what we’re talking about—we were exchanging messaging re cav’s involvement in a meat shield. I don’t like the meat shield, but I also think it’s contained to cav.

Fair. Good to know. Sure, reserve judgment until we actually see it in effect, but this just looks like an item where a very strong unit loses basically nothing and gets their attack doubled. Why? The changes are supposed to address problems. I just don't see and haven't heard any real complaints about a cav meat shield problem. Definitely doesn't exist for cav fighting straight up against inf (except for melee champ cav imo, but that is another issue). I haven't seen it much, if at all. Cav produces too slowly and are too expensive for there to really be a meat shield meta imo. I've always found micro (movement to get into a good army position, not sniping and dancing) with cav way more valuable and effective enough that endless spam and meat shields don't come into play. To get enough units to do a true cav meat shield also requires you to sacrifice a ton of fire power. Besides, it usually makes more sense and is easier to just use an inf meat shield to pair with your cav armies. Ok. But why is that a problem? Doesn't it achieve the desired result of melee winning vs ranged? How is this different than the current meta, though? I get that that it will be more likely that melee will decide who wins the front (as opposed to range units in the back), but it still looks the same with units just killing each other in front. Yeah, it will decrease the need for sniping (which would be great), but the gameplay is still otherwise the same--spamming front melee units to make sure they never reach the back range units. It seems like the proposal will basically just keep the meta but make melee actually contribute to killing enemy meat shield but not actually involved in the fighting vs range. Isn't the point of the desired change to introduce new tactics and get melee more involved (i.e., players want more "tactics")?

This all needs testing (read: community mod implementation), but a few things stand off the page to me. Items (1), (2), and (3) deal with the actual stats you propose (i.e., their balance relative to other units, straight up) while item (3) concerns the general nature of your approach. Pike look too strong relative to spear. Sword cav looks like they get way too much of a buff. They're already the strongest CS unit. They easily destroy ranged units when they encounter them (which they can do because of cav speed). The step down in pierce armor will help, but I doubt it is enough to compensate for their attack doubling. Sword cav also can beat melee units. Basically their only current weakness is against spear/pike (i.e., units with a 3x counter). But, under your proposal, sword cav will get a doubling of attack with no decrease in hack armor. In effect, sword cav's strengths are doubled (attacked) or unchanged (speed) while their weakness is unchanged (hack armor stays the same). Why did you include cav in this at all? Cav aren't part of the meat shield meta. Players use cav's speed to move around and flank ranged armies without having to engage meat shields. And when cav do fight against meat shields that are heavy on spears, the cav army suffers unstainable losses (cost and time to replenish). As far as cav vs. cav fights are concerned, I don't think there is a meat shield meta problem nor have I widely heard people complain of one. (I know you want to buff CS spear cav, which I agree with, but that's different because it is just a weak unit relative to other melee and range cav. I know you also want to change axe cav, which I agree need to be changed, but axe cav just need a re-conception into something else like becoming a glass cannon meant to destroy buildings.). This doesn't directly change the incentive to create a meat shield--it only changes the pace at which the meat shield will die. Currently, melee troops regularly beat range troops when they can actually engage in straight up fights. But these units never get a chance to engage because they're too slow relative to range units. Making melee units faster would introduce more maneuvering strategy and allow the current units to actually engage in fights with range. Without a change to speed, I question whether any attack/health/armor changes will impact anything (because the melee units will still just fight one another in a meat shield meta Other stuff just needs to be tested to see if they're balanced vs. one another and to see if the desired effect (elimination of the the meat shield) actually takes effect.

Well when the difference between 1 and 3 is huge then the number system is probably based wrong (if decimals is actually something you care about). My guess is that most people who have a problem with 1.5 health out of 5 wouldn’t have a problem if it was instead called 3 out of 10. Or they would be ok if it was just a graph that never disclosed numbers.

For me, fine. We have other decimal numbers.

Shame on the devs for not pre-announcing an unreleased, not yet implemented feature that would be optional to the player! How dare they try to be helpful! Those rascals!

This is a bit more than just changing BuildingAI. Even still, that seems like a really expensive to basically function as ~3 towers. I'm skeptical, but interested. It's something that is either going to work or fail.

I think this is key, which is why I've been advocating for community mod inclusion even though I am skeptical Why would this would help the buildings against big armies? Why would it be better than just adjusting the dps? The main reason why your proposal struggles against big armies is because all the arrows are focused on just one unit (i.e., there is overkill). That change would certainly help versus small armies, though. But I am concerned it will be difficult/impossible to make a building balanced in both early game and late game. Even small changes that make kills more likely in during a rush can have massive effects (see a24 where archers made it more likely would kill a 1 or 2 cav in a 10 cav rush--that had the effect of making it very difficult to retreat from a rush and still win). To me, it's just too hard to predict how small changes will impact the ability to rush, and I think we should play test it. Edit: another possible option would be to change buildingAI only for towers and leave other buildings the same.

Thanks. I tested with @BreakfastBurrito_007. Below are some numbers. The big takeaway is that this will be a massive nerf to fort builds right next to CCs. The other numbers I think you can partly compensate for by adjusting dmg but that will come with drawback, especially with respect to early/late game balance. The seconds represent the time it takes for all units to die (all skirms, no armor upgrades) 20 units vs fort Current: 11s Proposal: 18s 50 units vs fort Current: 29s Proposal: 45s 100 units vs fort Current: 45s Proposal: 75s 20 units vs fort/CC Current: 7s Proposal: 14s 50 units vs fort/CC Current: 17s Proposal: 30s 100 units vs fort/CC Current: 30s Proposal: 50s Takeaways Current proposal is a massive nerf to strategic builds like CCs and forts next to each other. This cannot be "fixed" Current proposal kills entire armies more slowly. This can be "fixed" by increasing dps up. But I am concerned that if you do that it will become extremely difficult to rush early game if a player puts up just one tower. Part of this can be fixed by changing the dps of towers vs CCs/forts, but then that makes the game a bit more complicated/less intuitive and still doesn't fix the problem for CCs, which exist in early game. My verdict is that I'm skeptical for all the same reasons as before--it nerfs strategic builds, changes the attacking/retreating/countering calculation from 2 variables (number of units and the overall health of those units) to just 1 variable (number of units), and it will be very difficult to make CCs useful late game without being OP in early game. I am most concerned that this change will eliminate the ability to rush in early game because killing just 1 unit of out 3 could be devastating to rushers. This will require extensive real game testing to see. Edit: we tested to see if @Freagarach fix worked, and it made the AI work as intended.

Thanks. Whenever you two figure it out, I would like to test it with either or both of you. I think comparing the rate at which an army dies under the old system and the proposal will be really helpful to know. It would be helpful to know how that comparison looks for small and big armies. It would also be helpful to know how that comparison looks in the context of strategic turtle builds (i.e., a fort placed right next to a CC).

Sure. But that doesn't mean someone using a program against an opposing player without consent isn't cheating. I'm just trying to say the community as a whole should determine what is and is not appropriate when it comes to automating gameplay. Again, no one is trying to say that @Atrik or @Mentula are cheaters or that the particular mod in question actually is a true cheat. This thread is so off the rails. @Atrik came trying to help other people and we got this mess. Welcome to forums.

Depends. Again, this is part of the reason why I am skeptical of this: the current system introduces two variables when attacking/retreating/countering. Those two variables are (1) the number of units and (2) the overall health of units. When attacking a defensive building the attacker must be careful because a delayed retreat could result in quickly losing many units. Likewise, a delayed retreat could lead to that player having a low health army, which could be easily defeated by a smaller healthier army. The proposed system sounds like it will more or less eliminate the health of units variable and make the attack/retreat/counter calculation only depend on the number of units. I would like to see how this actually plays out, which is why I asked to test this with @real_tabasco_sauce in a couple of situations.

If I create an AI program that automates the game to ensure that I win every game without having to ever touch my mouse or keyboard is that a "cheat"? If it is a "cheat," can I cure it into "fair play" just by publishing the program? This is an opensource game where anyone can do anything they want with the code and then publish it. Again, I could care less about this mod. But I do dislike the principle. The community as a whole should judge what should and should not be "allowed." Mods shortcut the community's ability to provide input and one person should not be able to unilaterally determine what is and is not allowed in the game.

Fortunately, the old player that had an eco script based it on their own boom, which wasn't very good. Nonetheless, it provided them with a huge unfair advantage. That script may not have been a game ruiner. And this mod may not be a game ruiner. But someone, some where down the line, will create a script where the machines rise up

I’d like to test this with you. Basically, I’d like to see if the current regime or your proposal kills an entire army quicker under different scenarios (I.e, 20 unit army, 100 unit army, cc only, fort + cc built next to each other, etc.) If I forget, please remind me.

I agree that it is "cheating." I feel the same about "features" like auto-queue. With that said, this mod's "cheat" it is immaterial as it may make him 1s faster and I think @Atrik or @Mentula are acting with only good intentions. The other scenarios that you describe and the scenario I described where I old player used to automate their eco is far more concerning and would truly be problematic.

I do not know a less offensive way to say it. As @BreakfastBurrito_007 has said, let's move on and stop with the insults. I will not respond to you anymore here. DM me if you want to discuss there.

I have definitely never called you a noob. Nor have I seriously ever said it anyone else. I will only say it to the people I am friendly with and joke with them about. Please do not spread misinformation. Agree to disagree on your other/previous statements.

No offense, but I am a much better player than you. I don't think that is a widely contested belief. You didn't read what I wrote above. Agree to disagree.

I do share. It may not be as much as you want or at the exact time that you want it, but I do. As a general principle, my eco balance in late game is very different from other players because I stockpile res and then try to overwhealm enemies with greater numbers. That often makes me look like I am floating way more res than I actually am. Because of this, it is not uncommon for me to go from 2-3K in res down to 0 in a very, very short period of time. Likewise, I often do not feed "worse" players during boom because it allows an enemy to rush a "worse" player but have the effect of rushing a "better" player. It often isn't as simple as it seems, and just because you ask doesn't mean I can

auto tribute can be helpful. But usually when I have too much of a res it is because my ally doesn't ask. Perfect communication would always be far preferable to auto-tribute

That’s fair. Hopefully those changes take effect by a28

Exactly. Even if your proposal is adopted, I think there would be problems because ships and siege towers shouldn't perform exactly the same as buildings. For example, the problem with towers/CCs/forts all becoming duplicative may be solvable with changes to spread but that would then create a ton of balance issues for siege towers and ships. So I think a split is probably necessary anyways.