hyperion
-
Posts
1.021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by hyperion
-
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
1. Using enough women for eco (I see some improvement)
For eco stopping the ai from walking 200m for some berries would help a lot. Generally the ai doesn't mind large distances much when gathering.
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:3. No suicide push. (haven't started editing this yet)
Danubius (map) would be a great benchmark for this.
---
Adding to your initial list, ship trade is currently pretty much broken for the ai, so disabling it is an easy fix.
In a perfect world to ai would be non-cheating.
As for lower difficulty yet still interesting ai you could simply limit pop to let's say half what the player has at any given time.
---
If you are serious about writing an ai, first thing give it a new name
-
Before the meta was don't float resources, now the meta is don't float resources. The difference is you build your second barrack earlier. Unit production is still limited by gathering efficiency.
As for rushing being less effective, there is no cav from barracks, better loom, changed unit motion, strong archers for defence and for p2 the rush units got nerfed or even removed and more. How come the least suspect change becomes the culprit. I really would like to greatly limit the permitted gameplay changes per release so people can still pinpoint what a change actually brought.
-
3 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
Maybe it would be better to implemented new civs only in mods, as the multiplayer community seems to have no need for new civs? Singleplayer-oriented players can play mods, they don't need to be in synch with the multiplayer community. Multiplayers do.
Even better outsource 12 of the existing civs so no one can complain about balancing anymore and development efforts can be spent on more important stuff!
Seriously, han should be added. First to show appreciation for the work done, then for easier maintenance, lastly there is a rather large (potential) user base which has a much closer connection to han than any civ already in game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 01/05/2021 at 3:20 PM, hyperion said:
- The idea of a central command tower in the original was actually good just oversized me thinks.
What I meant with a central command tower was basically an elevated platform from where you can see all the walls, so a commander can direct the defence from there with a few assistants waving flags which doesn't work with your approach. Anyway the last prototype looks great albeit more like a palace than a fort
As for the texture colour, unlike in the west yellow is the colour associated with earth, so it's ok to assume yellowish earth to be rather dominant over there.
-
There is a huge difference between requiring micro and rewarding micro. Let's take hunting, just a simple order is enough but micro like luring or driving the hunt towards dropsite pays off. As a casual player I don't want to be forced to micro but there is no drawback if others can gain an advantage by doing it.
On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:- micro is already important in 0ad
To much forced micro, not enough rewarding micro. To much as can be seen by the auto queue mod somewhere in the forum, I'm all for it if it's implemented to be less efficient than manual queueing. Not enough as seen by the mod in this thread, though not happy with the implementation I agree with the sentiment.
On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:- in fact, 0ad guide principles precisely say that sheer apm should not be the discriminant factor for victory, so, even if in other rts games it was possible for 5 archers to win against 20 (which I don't even believe it's the case) there is no reason for which 0ad should not aim to set itself apart in this regard
Right, 0ad replaces micro with strategies like hiding in forests, rolling stones into a canyon that must be passed or in open combat with stuff like flanking manoeuvrers.
Even if just one archer can kill 20 unattended archers but takes 10 minutes to do so it's like still not worth the effort. The point is micro battles need to be more rewarding than they currently are, at least a23 level, probably even more than that.
On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:And I'm convinced that most casual players dislike the excessive importance of micro in games like that
I'm convinced that many changes between release are a mayor annoyance for casual players, worse if it's a back and forth like with training time proposed here. The situation after the change was neither better nor worse. So changing once was bad in hindsight, changing twice is worse.
On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:- even if we made possible to nullify archers power trough micro, this kind of solution would only be valid for a handful of top players, while the rest of us would still have to deal with an unbalanced gameplay. I can't see how this is desirable.
So can I take it you are against removal of turn rates as partially proposed here, as this only benefits a handful of top players while sacrificing neater unit motion and requires a new approach to single unit dancing on top?
-
18 hours ago, wraitii said:
TBH I think we went a bit too far on A23 with regards to anti-dancing. But I also don't think microing against javelineers or archers is a particularly good gameplay mechanic.
That being said, a simpler variant of Hyperion's idea would be randomly changing to target other units close by. That might be enough to make hero-dancing less interesting.Solving the single unit dancing I consider an intended side effect of turn time. The more important aspect is the much neater, less arcady unit motion. Freegarach saying this helping immersion I buy any day. Overall I consider the current turn times a good thing(TM). Just that it slightly widened the gap between p1 micro battles and p3 mostly macro battles which a minority doesn't like.
Micro is essential skill for top players of rts, and the more opportunities to make use of it there are the better. Sure one should be able to be a strong player without excessive micro but getting to the top shouldn't be possible without. With that said I don't understand why microing against ranged units could be bad unless overdone, would be nice if you could clarify how you mean it.
Picking "random" targets might indeed be sufficient against single unit dancing, however, the unit-ai being stupid is certainly another one of the annoying immersion breaking issues, so making it cleverer to some degree is certainly desirable. The randomized picking doesn't sound like the best direction to take this, unless performance doesn't allow for otherwise.
On 03/05/2021 at 8:45 PM, wraitii said:If the player feedback is good, this seems like a go for A25.
Either have all units have reasonably good looking and plausible turn rates or drop it for all unlike this mod does, pretty please.
PS: instead of slow projectiles another hit/miss test could be performed on impact based on unit motion.
-
39 minutes ago, alre said:
Maybe It's me, but I can't see how your proposed mod on unit-AI changes that anyhow. Maybe write it again in a more precise form.
Well, if the unit is dancing it can't attack, so it's fine to ignore it and to attack the others first (for this unit-ai needs to be changed). If all your opponents units are dancing you do little damage but won't receive any damage in return, this is completely different from the a23 abuse case.
-
The current logic is: if last targeted unit isn't dead -> continue targeting it, however stupid that may be for an onlooker.
With this you can have one single unit attracting all enemies and dancing while your other units fire at the misguided enemy units. This is the case in a23 and is an abuse of dancing only possible with the current unit-ai behaviour and obviously annoying.
-
55 minutes ago, alre said:
So you are asking that arrows are slower, so you can micromanage soldiers away from them, but you also want unit-AI to be robust to dancing. How exactly?
I must say I'm skeptic.
if last target unit fleeing -> pick new target if in range, unless fast enough to actually hunt down fleeing unit (let's say within 50-100m)
if last target unit in motion -> pick stationary target if in range
Then dancing with a single unit is pointless (a23 issue), if dancing with all your units you can't attack at the same time.
Well, my apm is low enough that the current situation is fine as well ...
-
"Dancing" is only problematic due to 0ad's unit-ai and not an issue on it's own. The way it was in a23 certainly wasn't good.
-
16 hours ago, hyperion said:
Reducing projectile speed would also help making micro more important.
@alre, the issue is after the initial rush micro battles become largely inefficient. If you could beat 20 archers with 5 archers with insane micro we wouldn't have this topic. Here and in the other thread are plenty of ridiculous suggestions when the goal is to just keep @ValihrAnt and player at that level busy mid-game. Turn time is certainly not ideal when it comes to micro, projectile speed and minimum distance are other factors you can try to play with.
-
Reducing projectile speed would also help making micro more important.
-
3
-
-
Pause render option is possibly useful for fast-forwarding a replay or for catching up as an observer in multiplayer games.
Execution speed x0 would be useful for testing graphics option or could be used as simulation pause when opening menus like civ page.
Pause as in "game pause" for me is "I do currently something different, don't bother me with sound or high load meanwhile, I'll be back".
-
1
-
-
Just now, Stan` said:
I think the problem is that the game keeps rendering the static image when paused (Because i can use that to test options quickly)
Nothing wrong with adding a execution speed 0x option or pause renderer option (D1217) distinct from pause ... Pause is pausing the game foremost.
-
1
-
-
If the game causes noticeable amount of load while paused I'd consider this a bug, maybe file a report if there is none already.
To work around it the OS also lets you pause and resume processes or do things like sleep or hibernate.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, m7600 said:
Does this wall make sense?
- The coloured stripes seem rather off
- The green stripe is supposed to be a stone layer, with that there is a material issue on the top of the step
- The step doesn't make sense in the first place and increases footprint
- The water spouts feel completely out of place
- While fine the inclination of the wall could be made a bit steeper to reduce footprint
- rammed earth should probably have a more yellowish tint
-
12 hours ago, m7600 said:
Meanwhile, what do you think of this work in progress for the new version of the fortress? I think it sucks. @Stan` made some really awesome buildings for the Han and I'm just butchering them.
There are several points that can be made.
- If it's rammed earth, there is no greenish stone stripe at the bottom as decoration
- Walls usually don't have roofs, except for lookouts which are meant to be always manned as roofs get into the way as well as are a risk by themself.
- The inner side of rammed earth wall is still rammed earth
- The idea of a central command tower in the original was actually good just oversized me thinks.
- The crenelations slits are of different size and some to small limiting the angle to shoot through, although if you are supposed to shoot over it (depending on height) the slits only makes it more fragile.
- Leaving out the protection of crenelations right above the gate where you'd think it's the most important is questionable.
About sucking, well I don't thinks so.
-
28 minutes ago, m7600 said:
How about now?
Somehow I doubt this to be more accurate than the original. Most meshs are to delicate for rammed earth. They are more based on something like the following
A rammed earth fortress would be more like
Anyway colums are always red as far as I know. Well green for pleasure houses.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, wraitii said:
I think this Greek Colony idea is good.
Here's a quick rundown of what I'm thinking:-
Start in a small coastal town. You control a unit of some kind, and need to walk around the city, gathering stuff. Maybe at some point you get in a fight with another guy over insurance money 'cause that's showbiz baby. The goal is to get your ship ready, and get underway.
- Walking around, some light resource collecting, some light attacking.
- It looks cool.
-
You get diverted by a storm and must pause for repair on some unspecified Mediterranean island.
- More resource gathering, scouting
-
You land in you new place.
- More scouring, more resource gathering, more base building & starting some actual fighting
- And then we'll see where we go from there.
Sounds more like a role playing game, would sure be fun. Could even make use of wow's first person view feature. However, likely on the ambitious side of things considering the next release is near. Maybe go with something closer to a "standard" campaign like the Macedonian one. Polishing a couple of those scenarios and presenting them in a more campaigny fashion will probably unearth quite a few issues in terms of flow and presentation already. Basically something just a tad more then a dry test is already good enough for A25 I'd say. Along the line of a demo for modders instead of a tutorial for beginners.
-
Start in a small coastal town. You control a unit of some kind, and need to walk around the city, gathering stuff. Maybe at some point you get in a fight with another guy over insurance money 'cause that's showbiz baby. The goal is to get your ship ready, and get underway.
-
54 minutes ago, wraitii said:
I mean, it's been done. I don't really have a strong handle on how our different resources play together and whether having one more or one less would make a huge difference.
But here I'm mostly agreeing with you, I think. If we keep stone, it should probably have a well defined meaning, such as 'military, defensive buildings & CC', and not be civ-dependent unless we completely change it up for a given civilisation.
One resource is enough, some old RTS used credits, tiberium, energie or what ever. The purpose of multiple resources is to require planning and with that adding a new dimension to gameplay. The more resource types the harder it becomes.
To many types makes planning to tedious and impossible to present in the UI. It can also restrict balancing and map creation. So what is a good pick? Probably about a hand full. 0ad has food, wood, stone, metal, and if you will population. So the number is about right. Could be one more or less depending on whether to strengthen or weaken this gameplay facet.
An other aspect of multiple resources is how to procure the resource. 0ad has the same mechanic for stone and metal, so this differentiation is the least interesting (add to that the mines are right by the CC) and it might be nice to come up with another way of collecting for one or the other even if it requires renaming (gold washing for instance, salt ponds, even money trough trading). Food is the most developed resource, with farming, hunting, fishing, and picking.
Next, resource cost must not be dictated by "pseudo realism" but forcing the player to plan, to be over the top it's fine if a stone wall cost only food (meat shield ;)) if it makes gameplay more interesting. A23 was slightly better in this regard than A24 if I may say. Resource types are also a poor choice for fine tuning balance but great at upsetting it. Currently for the holy grail of balance any other aspect of gameplay may be sacrificed next / isn't off limits.
For the current lack of metal issue, there are many simple ways to tackle it. Less metal cost for various entities, increase metal per deposit, add more deposits to maps or simply drop the somewhat ridiculous metal cost of traders.
-
1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:
However. Does anybody know where the files of unit stats are here?
Without tooling you'd have a hard time extracting the stats from templates. However there is a mod by wratii which makes what you want available in-game, just can't remember the name of the mod ...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Would you agree that differentiation is less important than balance?
Quite the opposite. It wouldn't hurt to be able to play a strong civ against a strong opponent and a weak civ against a weak opponent. Would make finding a game worth playing easier.
40 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:As long as it is multiplayer it involves some degree of competition, and we need to make that competition fair.
Simple, require mirror civ for rated games. At least make it an option.
-
3
-
-
The flags here which could be said to fall into the category hardening are pretty much standard for most major distributions (part of gcc specs). The error looks more like something wasn't compiled PIC when it should.
-
42 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:
WFG is not being accountable to only offer a download from "other" sources such as other parties' PPA and snap installs.
The idea of wfg provided packages is what is broken.
22 minutes ago, Stan` said:Once again the problem comes from the hardening flags used by Ubuntu, which is one of the only distribution that doesn't provide A24.
Which flag/flags?
move fields away from the CC
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Currently you can build your city as you like, but don't like how others build their cities, so to make all follow the same ideal let's add more restriction. Or add some boni no matter whether they can be reasonable communicated through the UI, people just can check the code (open source after all). How many people are aware of diminishing returns for instance?
Some changes towards your goal easily discovered by players (whether they are desirable is another question):