BreakfastBurrito_007

Hmm, everyone seems to be talking about rushing and how to make it viable again. Could someone explain to me how a lack of rushing from 2:00-10:00 contributes to turtleing in minutes 13 and onward? I have the feeling that turtley gameplay and endless 4v4s are caused by (see earlier post) unit speeds, stone availability and defenses power. If rushes happened more and they were equal on both sides of a 4v4, then I feel the game would reach the same inalterable state just at a later time. Although a successful rush by one team could potentially put a player out of the game and make the game winnable on a short term.

Hmm, I am having trouble installing the mod. The error says: mod failed to install. Is there some specific instructions or details in the installation for mac OS?

@ValihrAnt Nice work! I will be interested to see if we can organize a 4v4 with this mod to see if it improves the turtling feeling and improves mobility. One of the most frustrating things with equalized move speed of ranged inf was archers' ability to pull a turtle-like defense of a huge area of territory because they did not have to be waiting nearby the defenses on a particular place. I'm hoping we will stop seeing huge balls of archers pacing back and forth along lines of forts and towers.

I think it is good for the game to have rushing be more viable, and to make being unprepared for rush more risky. As bad as I am at rushing or being rushed, I think it helps to offer different strategies. But if you are seeking to eliminate the turtled gameplay that is currently in alpha 24, the best way would be to adjust unit stats, building stats and resource needs. The game should go from being an overstabilized system to a neutral system, or perhaps it should even have some mild aspects of instability. In a23 an enemies mistake would not guarantee victory but provide you an opportunity to press your advantage. In a24 a mistaken play or a 5000 IQ play both means that both parties retreat, rebuild back to 200 pop and then the game is the same as it was before the commencement of action. Most of all I just want to know if people understand what I mean, agree with me if this is a problem, or have other solution ideas.

I think that this is probably a good gameplay change with the women, it makes the economic decisions more complex. In 0ad in the past it has always been ok just make at least 40 women for ur 8 farms and thats it. A justification could be that women don't carry shields and armor and (heavy) weapons around with them. ^ I have noticed that big fights can happen at minute 15-20 but then after that, the gameplay gets more and more stabilized and stagnant. I have noticed that the gameplay is turtly no matter if you want to turtle or not. Turtly gameplay is a factor of many things but with some key differences. infrequent rushes (the purpose of the forum topic) archer movement speed: this makes it possible for archers to run to defend far away defenses in large numbers. (In a23 if u wanted to turtle you needed to concentrate to a small area). availability of stone and increased HP and range of defenses leads people who don't think they can win a fight in the short term to use their time building up forts and ccs and towers and temples. Eventually there forms ww1-like frontlines where attacks almost always end in failure at great cost. And large armies just pace back and forth along the defenses This means that an army of archers and spears can turtle under any defensive structure in your territory, and that even if an enemy moves their rams/eles and units to your weakest defenses that you can start hitting them with arrows while they are still moving about 90% of the time. Most attacks in a24 after 20 minutes wind up being retreats. Often as soon as you make an attack you are 2v1ed. The overall effect is that there is less mobility in a standard 4v4 on "medium" map than there was in an a23 pizza game. Rather than a balanced game feeling like either side is on the edge of destruction or that a gameplay choice could win the game, it feels like the game-state is inalterable and that player choices stop mattering. If archers were slower and forts/ towers were weaker, then archer turtling could only be exerted over smaller territory areas. One reason why people infrequently build expansions in a23 was because it was harder to defend 3 things rather than 2: your expansion, your main base, your ally's base. I have a more extensive post about this in "un-used buildings" topic. @ValihrAnt Many thanks for bringing up this conversation, I think this is one of the biggest problems of a24 and one that makes other problems worse. the gameplay needs to reward action and manuevering

The tragic situation in a24 is that you can turtle without any significant economic downsides. Or to phrase it better, a turtling situation can arise from a 4v4 even when all the players do not try to turtle. After 20 minutes I would say about 90% of attempted attacks on a base become retreats. Perhaps imposing a stone cost per unit*second of repairs for repairing big buildings like forts and towers and ccs could make it harder to dedicate to long term turtling with units static under defenses. The best unit for turtling, archers, should have a hard time moving along the defenses to defend a weaker portion of the perimeter. This would cause archer+ building defense to be relegated to defending particular structures like forts and CCs, it would reduce the area of which turtling can defend and reduce the economic feasibility of turtling, in this situation archers would be unable to defend a fort unless they were placed near there in advance, this would reduce the area of the map that can be covered by a turtle-like defense with archers and make army mobility and exciting gameplay a feature of a25. These problems are very hard to explain, but also very important. If you want to, you could join me to spectate some 4v4 where hopefully I could point out some of these situations or explain them better. I could be online this Sunday between GMT 21:00 and GMT 7:00 the next day.

I think it is important to make wonders a risky but potentially rewarding undertaking. I think there is no reason why we can't have both a pop expansion upgrade for free at a more expensive wonder (like what @chrstgtr said) as well as a civ specific thing there (like what @Dakara said with upgrades). Perhaps building the wonder for some civs could unlock some interesting unit that maybe some civs could only train from the wonder itself. I think wonders providing tie-breaking capability is good, but it is important not to make wonders a tie-breaking necessity. Ties should be rare, and balanced and contentious battles should leave each side one mistake away from severe losses that should often spell doom, rather than a reinforced, stabilized game-state that is inalterable by player choices, be they mistakes or 1000 IQ plays (like in a24). <<<--- TL;DR Issues: Endless 4v4s are a really serious problem in the game. I think some factors contributing to them are: metal availability: people can not afford to lose siege weapons and eles so they are rarely risked once metal runs out. slower time to make new army: decreases willingness to risk, decreases rate at which attacks can be mounted stone and time excess: such slow gameplay tempo and excess of stone causes building proliferation, with forts, towers, ccs, temples, stuck between frontlines. Also towers and forts seem to have more arrow damage, arrow range, and hitpoints. military movement speed: most units seem slower this alpha, so most offensive movements turn into 2v1s or 3v1s. Also defensive building gridlock combined with pathfinding changes has made it more costly to punch through defenses and the reward of being on the other side is reduced. opposing archer armies need more space to not engage each other, so armies can attack each other from their own defenses and bases. I am sure you guys could name a bunch of other features that introduce gameplay overstability and stagnation. But I would like to describe the effect this problem has. In a23, players could roam the map or go to unexpected places to attack, and turtling usually meant that you were trapped in your base which used to be a bad thing, since your allies could face a 2v1 in your absence. It is not that more players in a24 are choosing to turtle, it is that the gameplay has become more turtle-like in general, and their hand is forced. A standard a24 4v4 on mainland on "medium" (what used to be "Normal") map size has less mobility that a PIZZA(4v4 tiny mainland) did in a23. In a23, armies would wriggle their way around enemy team bases and cause maximum damage and force favorable fights by using rams and eles to threaten key buildings, in a24 such a move is almost certainly resulting in a loss via 2v1. Truly, in a24, it is rare and often inconsequential to catch someone off guard. Possible Changes: Some measures that could be undertaken to make gameplay in a25 as dynamic and exciting as it was in a23, while being balanced are: nerf archer infantry speed---> archers should be powerful still but can be out-maneuvered by most other army comps, this way they can not protect the whole base from the woodline, and an attack to the vulnerable part of a base with rams will cause panic and a defender can not patiently organize a huge defense army before serious damage is done. return archery tradition to a trade-off to suit different situations (perhaps minimum range? ----> check out my post to @letsplay0ad mod) return stone cost to some upgrades and make fort cost 100-200 more stone than in a24. Or perhaps keep tower damage but increase stone cost by 100% so that most bases will have defensive holes. increase training rates somewhat increase lethality of overall battles. decrease HP, arrow damage and range from forts and towers and CCs (back to a23 levels) This is an underlying cause of many seemingly unrelated frustrations people have with a24, and is a problem that I feel must be addressed by a25. If you disagree or agree please tell me how you feel about this. It is a very complex problem and I hope I have been able to summarize it in one post. And in the end, the changes could be many things, but they need to reward: movement, risk, maneuvering, and action.

Currently, the only situation where mercenaries would be advantageous as an overall army composition (rather than just anti-ram) is trading. Since traders get all resources at the same speed and mercenaries costs less total resources, then a player with mercenaries will beat a player without mercenaries if both are using trade as primary resource gathering method. Most games of 0ad do not see significant amounts of trade. I am not sure about the specific value changes that are needed for mercenaries, but I think keeping their inability to gather res is ok. If mercenaries costed the same in total resources as regular citizen soldiers, and with an increase from their current cost of wood and food and a mild reduction of metal cost maybe to a value between 25-50 (not sure). Example cost: 30f 40w 30m for infantry and 70f 40w 40m for cavalry. Also, maybe the "good mercenaries" (expertise in war?) upgrade should increase mercenaries rank to veteran rather than just advanced, but increase the training time of mercenaries and still cost some resources.

I am not sure if skirmishers should have a minimum range, because they are supposed to be a high damage closer range unit that works in combination with your own melee units. My hope is to get some judgement on these features (minimum ranges, archery tradition tradeoffs) from the balancing team members, it is not necessary to have the numbers ironed out; the core ideas of gameplay function are what matter. The values can always be tweaked for balance before the game is released. @chrstgtr what do you think?

This looks good! It is kinda like a rout, where the enemy flees disorderly with some still fighting and some running. This is what I would expect to happen if archers were to encounter melee specialized units on the battlefield.

Ok this is probably true, but I don't see how it should affect gameplay. We have religious healing in the game as a fun mechanic which is mostly just hysteria in real life. The main point of minimum range is not historical accuracy but to encourage taking big fights with melee units and cavalry rather than circling around local defenses in an endless 4v4 as we see so many times in a24.

I know that people are looking to diversify civilizations and units for a more interesting playstyle in a25, but this is not conducive to good gameplay. If anyone remembers the iber bonus from a23, they will know that is was quite powerful, reducing skirms from 50 f 50w to 40 f 40 w. Most civs that had skirms would almost exclusively use them for eco building during the first 13 minutes. and only train melee units until the last 20-50 population before a limit of 200. This bonus was especially powerful in combination with ptol because the merc skirms went from 25 f 50 w and 25 m ---> 20 f 40 w 20 m meaning that you could train men from a barracks and women from a cc just with 1 horse on chickens and 5-10 women on berries, this was because ptol could use the starting metal for immediate eco boost and would only need wood for skirm training. The point is that some units being cheaper by large margins makes those civs have very fast booms. Ptol already use only a bit of wood in a24, so such a low cost would make ptol (slings in p1) able to make eco insanely faster than the other civs. women would only be 10 total resources cheaper than slingers, and we already have women as a fast boom option for early game. It would basically be like women eco unit that can fight. Also accuracy is less important if you have greater numbers.

Minimum range might be a good thing to have on ranged units anyway. Perhaps slingers only have minimum range of 1 m, archers 2 m, and skirmishers none since throwing spears is the least complicated mechanical energy transfer. My favorite idea for archery tradition is +10 range +15% pierce damage, but increase minimum range to 5 m and decrease pierce and or hack armor. End result being they beat archers that dont have archery tradition but become very vulnerable to cav or melee inf. I think my biggest point of uncertainty is what the default behavior for ranged units will be once an enemy unit is within minimum range; will the ranged unit try to run until is at long enough range, or will it just shoot at something else? I think the latter option is better as it will not result in units running away from the battle endlessly. Having longer range units have bigger minimum ranges is something that could wind up supporting micromanagement and battle tactics for players with both melee and ranged units, and make the choices of units a little more important. I think that when melee units get close in, then it should be a worse situation for archers than for skirms, and this minimum range system could help with that.

I am not sure what the balancing folks have in store for archers, but a reduction in accuracy would be a good idea to nerf them. I think they should also have slightly slower move speed than skirms or slingers. We also need to keep in mind not to over-nerf them. I have a recent post to letsplay0ad's mod discussion about archery tradition. The changes of archery tradition and base archer balance should be done at the same time, to avoid bad combinations that make archery tradition a "never-get" or an "always get" upgrade for archer civs. My basic idea is to make archery tradition make archers more effective vs other ranged units, but make them even more vulnerable to melee attack from cav or inf.

Hello again everyone! I had an idea today to improve the "archery tradition" tech available to some archer civs. I think it should return to being a tradeoff tech like in alpha 23 but with some changes. 0 resource cost and instant research: a decision kinda like the seleucid champion infantry research add a drawback and a bonus with an overall effect depending on the situation in game (not necessarily a buff or nerf tech) The idea is to make archers with archery tradition beat other archers like in a24 by a significant (not OP) margin, but increase the vulnerability of them such that more units or buildings are needed to protect them from melee cavalry or melee inf. potential combinations of improvements and drawbacks: +10 meters range BUT establish minimum range (5 meters) where the archer would go to attack units further away. +10 meters BUT reduce HP (a little) +10 meters +15% damage BUT reduce HP(a little) reduce pierce and hack armor (a little) I think that if archers were nerfed in a25 to a reasonable level, then this upgrade could give some options to civs that would usually get archers, like mauryans. If a maur player is against a cavalry civ, or a civ with no archers, it is smart for that maur player to choose regular archers. But if the maur player is against regular archers, such as carthage, then it is smart for maur player to get archery tradition. But if a25 makes mercenaries balanced and effective (but still more expensive), then the carthage player could pull a surprise by investing time and res into merc shops and merc uprgades and mercs and showing up with mercenary sword cav. Balance considerations: getting this tech would have no repercussions like less training time from cc or resource cost (like a24) hence it should not be allowed until p3. Archer cavalry maybe should not be affected by the change, depending on the combination of buff and nerf chosen by the developers for the upgrade. I posted this here because there are many good ideas for a25 here and because I could find no other channels related to a25 that were open to public contribution.

Hello again everybody, I was trying to get a multiplayer game going with the mod recently and I tried to update from the first version. I tried to get "letsfight_v0.2.2.pyromod" as it seemed to be the most recent version and the one the host was using. When I downloaded the mods and installed them by following the same procedure as the first release, it seemed to replace the first version of the mod but keep the old name of the first release along with (2.2) after the name. After I save configuration and start mods and go to join a game, I find that I need the "letsfight_v0.2.2" rather than the "letsfight (2.2)" I am not very good at computer stuff so perhaps someone could point to what I am doing wrong. Thanks in advance!

Hello @letsplay0ad, These changes seem very well thought out and should make the gameplay a little more dynamic and less stabilized. Ideally, as players test the mod we could decide what parts are really good (candidate changes for a25) or what values could be tweaked. It would be awesome to see a25 take this direction. Nice work!

Hey @hyperion Thank you for the response. I feel the late game stability is much stronger than you stated it to be, at least in the 4v4 setup that is most common. I do not have any replays to post because I don't know how to do that, but I am sure that you have heard of or even played one of these endless 4v4s. In retrospect, the a23 level of instability was a bit high during 15-25 minutes, but not quite the spike that comes with a24 at 18 minutes (due to the speed at which multiple eles and rams can be acquired). Usually there are 2 outcomes to a balanced 4v4, the game ends at 20 minutes and things are labeled "OP" or teams are considered "imbalanced", or players survive the 17-21 minute instability spike and then the game becomes stagnated and endless. I think that while these things are considered and debated for a25, we should talk about how we can change our 4v4 setups so we can still have fun in a24. Larger maps could enable more movement which would make it more unstable, make metal more available late game and let more players access enough gold. This change would also reduce choke-points, reduce effectiveness of defenses ( since you already need to build way more buildings in total than in a23), and make archers' vulnerabilities more pronounced and exploitable. Larger maps also make more lag, so this would not work for every 4v4. Perhaps playing with only 1 fort allowed at any time, (if it is destroyed can rebuild). This would prevent some overwhelming fort spam. In one instance, @Dizaka built forts around the edge of the map faster than @chrstgtr could destroy them with large numbers of siege (he made it about (2/3)*pi around the circle). I am not as sure about this one so someone could convince me that it might be bad. This is one thing that I think makes AoE2 such a good game so long after being initially released. It seems to be slightly unstable throughout most matches, so you could expect game-changing decisions and developments to be made at any time. I think a slight instability rewards action and creative strategies, but does not guarantee more success like in the case of too much instability at 17 to 21 minutes in a24,. I understand that it is incredibly complicated to design a game to have such an ideal and controlled level of stability/ instability, but I think it is an aspect worth improving for a25. disclaimer: I never played AoE2, have only watched some videos of team games and 1v1s.

Hello everyone, @chrstgtr @Dizaka @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @cobrakai@badosu I have seen much frustration with the new alpha and it is much more worrisome than archers and eles being slightly too powerful or metal being too valuable. The problem is 4v4 gameplay pacing. I have been talking to players I often do 4v4s with recently and have been formulating my response to this for some time. This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently. One point of concern is that these stalemates can happen even when teams are moderately imbalanced. I am sure you have all seen stable vs unstable systems. A stable system has forces built in to return it to its original state if it starts to move. An unstable system has forces built in to push the system away from its original state if it starts to move. I give the example of a ball on a hill or in a valley: In an unstable system (top of hill), any motion of the ball will compound and the ball will accelerate. In a stable system (bottom of valley), the ball will roll back to the bottom after being nudged. Go to attached to see diagrams demonstrating stable vs instable systems (page 1). In a 0ad 4v4 application, one team can try very hard to beat the enemy and either their efforts will "snowball" (grant more successes) or it will be costly and not achieve much. In an unstable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle can expect to win in their next few engagements unless they make a mistake or their enemy gets clever, usually this leads to a victory overall. In a stable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle does not see a "snowballing" or "compounding" effect on their next fights, and you can expect the game to return to the original situation. In 0ad, an unstable situation makes things that are slightly overpowered (like slingers in a23 or eles and archers in a24) seem very OP; in addition, it makes the teams seem less balanced than they may have been. Often in a24 4v4s the situation after 20 minutes is stable. This means a team has to work very hard to win even if they have some serious advantages. I have made some graphs depicting the stability level of 4v4s of different alphas (23 and 24) as they progress in time from 0 minutes to 1 hour. I include examples of what players might see at particular times. Go to attached to see a23 diagram (page 2) In a23, for a balanced game, it could be quite intense due to the moderate instability of the gameplay most of the time. Go to attached to see a24 diagram (page 3) in a24, after a brief period (17-21 minutes) of high gameplay instability, a balanced 4v4 can stabilize and become endless. This way, 4v4s either seem super imbalanced if they end around 20 minutes and seem gridlocked if they last any longer. I am not sure what causes this behavior in 4v4s. But I will list some of my suggestions in bullet points. map gets fully built up so there is no unoccupied land ( all 4v4s have been played on same map size as usual a23 4v4s). This seems to make movement and flanking attacks very hard. This matches poorly with tower and fort defensive buff. metal runs out for all players quite quickly, even if it is evenly distributed. This means more lethal options like rams/eles/champions are harder to get. Somehow, it is easier for players to rebuild all the way (idk about this one but I saw it quite a few times) I hope to get at least some people agreeing with my assessment and adding some extra detail as to what is causing this gameplay quality problem. The endless 4v4s truly are frustrating and boring. I think there are many great changes with a24, like stables, blacksmith changes; people like to point out problems, but I think this issue is the only serious gameplay problem with a24. If we can find what is causing this issue we could have a 0ad that is mildly unstable. A mildly unstable 0ad means for the duration of a balanced game, it seems like either team can win at any moment rather than a stalemate, which makes for an intense and fun game. Some players had similar frustration and I am hoping I am being accurate for those who did not put a finger on how to describe it. I think a revert to a23 would be very sad and a last resort situation, considering what a leap some features are, and how much awesome work went into the new alpha. (Also, please excuse my handwriting, I know many other people grew up with other alphabets and have better handwriting than me :I.) 0ad Stability Charts.pdf

Hello everyone, I have an idea to consider for the balanced maps mod if it is being updated for a24. I thought, from a few different 4v4s, and discussing with different players, that metal seems to be way too scarce as a resource. Right now many things cost metal, some p3 buildings, eco upgrades, military upgrades, siege or eles, swords for anti-ram, and don't forget hero. It is not that these are too expensive, it is that one metal mine (5000 metal) is not enough. The way it stands, a player who only has 1 metal mine is at an outrageous disadvantage to someone with 2 or 3. Often a player without extra metal has to barter for 2000 metal to catch up with a player who has more than 24 people on metal. Total resource costs for mercs and champions have been reduced but metal cost remains high. In a 4v4, metal on the entire map quickly runs out so that no one can make these units (also some civs depend on mercs for anti-ram). One solution could be to have metal mines be upgraded from 5000 to between 8000 and 10000 metal. Certainly it would make sense to playtest this before making it final, as it would be undesirable to have no economic reason to expand. Another way to fix this could be to replace the small stone mines in mainland valued at 1000 with metal mines worth the same.

Well, basically the problem went away as suddenly as it came up. I sure hope it does not return. Thanks for helping me out nonetheless!

Ok, my brother and I tried a number of things. 1. LAN games: He hosted a LAN game, and I joined, there was lag and even some times where the connection warning said I was losing connection. When I hosted one for him to join, He lagged in the exact same way. 2. MP games: in normal multiplayer no connection warnings appear for him on hosts where I left because of lag. From a Larger survey of hosts, it seems the only host I can reliably connect to is the one from USA. Also, it seems that my brother has the same problem just not as severe. Here are some screenshots from an MP game that had only 2 players and me as spectator to test. I have Activity Monitor running as well.

Ok so I was in a game where I was lagging badly enough for the host to kick, then my brother rejoined the same game and he had no connection issues (same computer and net).

Hi wraitii, It's awesome to hear about the disconnect issue being fixed. As for the lag I cause on certain 0ad hosts, I have logged onto my brother's computer (same model and OS version) and tried the same hosts at the same time and confirmed that he does not experience any lag. I live in Oregon, USA, which is on the West coast. When he comes back I am thinking of copying the settings for 0ad he has arranged on his computer; I don't know if there are some settings that impact connection. Last night I tried finding the ping of the connection to 0ad and it seemed to be averaging around 300 ms. That was on a host who lives in the USA as well. I saw that I was lagging only a little, so it seems my connection is worse across the board, unlike what I observed earlier (about lag only on certain hosts). I will provide an update about the settings experiment sometime soon. The help is much appreciated!

Hello all, I have been having some strange new lag problems that I have never seen before. I used to play 0ad on a 2011 Mac desktop, but I have recently changed to a 2016 macbook pro. On the 2011 mac I had never experienced myself lagging out a server except when my internet was underperforming. On the new computer, I have found that on certain hosts, I consistently lag bad enough that hosts kick me upon entry (even before game launch), while on other hosts my connection has absolutely no lag whatsoever. I tried different hosts soon after one another (to minimize changes in conditions), and considering different days; the lag is always there for the same handful of hosting players and never there for another handful of hosting players. Are there ways I can view my connection statistics to the host or does anyone have any advice on this problem? To me it remains enigmatic. I posted here because I could not find a similar discussion elsewhere and because people in the lobby seem indifferent about the issue. I hope someone can at least shed some light on this issue or what problems I might be facing.