chrstgtr

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.

Meh. I am not a fan of scripts that automate the game as it provides an unfair advantage. The advantage here is de minimis, but I just dislike the concept. There was a player a few alphas ago who had a script that did all eco for him (made women, built storehouses, houses, built farms, directed units to all res, barracks, etc.). So all he did was micro rushes against players that were trying to do eco and defend rush at the same time.

Couldn't you just copy the BuildingAI file and change it to ShipSiegeAI and make your modifications there? I would think it would be an easy split process.

what's this?

This seems like a good item for the community mod for the reasons you and I state above. (I think ships and siege towers are fine to go straight to phab--everyone seems to want those changes, but maybe testing would be helpful since it is a code change and bugs sometimes pop up).

Notwithstanding what I said above, I think it would be nice if towers and other defensive buildings had a preference for closer units. It doesn't make sense how towers are just as likely to randomly shoot arrows at faraway, hard to hit moving units as they are to shoot arrows at units trying to capture the tower/other defensive buildings. I wouldn't want it to be as simply as "targeting the closest unit" but I would like something where towers are like 3x as likely to target units within 10m than targets 50m away. But such a system gets complicated fast and I don't think we have code for that.

I think I would like what you describe for something like siege towers/ships. (This has also irked me for sometime) Don't think I would want for buildings, though. It would make towers effectively the same as CCs and forts sue to unit “overkill.” Also possibly OP in small to medium sized fights because a unit would die at whatever the rate of fire would be, which would make towers very consequential (I.e., early game rushes could easily be stopped with a 100w investment). I kind of like how buildings can have little effect to suddenly killing an entire army at once. I think it adds more macro tactics and is one of the reasons why advancing armies don’t easily snowball after killing their first base (I.e., it is common that an army dies fighting the second CC it tries to take down because the units are already low health). This is personal preference, though relatedly, I think your two examples are positive. Towers weakening entire armies make countering much easier since a bigger, lower health army might be weaker than a smaller full health army. Likewise, towers create a two variable calculation instead of one, based only on unit numbers. Towers being more effective when close to each other also encourages more strategic builds

Yeah, there are a bunch of variations in what we could do. We could do just mercs like you suggest. Could do all military. Could do just eco buildings. Could do all buildings.

I always thought overriding this for a civ bonus would be fun and unique.