Jump to content

BoredRusher

Community Members
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BoredRusher

  1. 23 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Play testing intensively the development version is definitely something desirable, yes. 

     

    Where have you heard that? The only thing that was announced that we will stop adding A25 features on the first of June, if there is no delay. It doesn't mean A26 won't get new features.

     

    Nice ! I will get involved into this so. Will post my remarks and suggestions there soon.

    And thank you for the precision :)

    Have a nice day !

    • Like 1
  2. On 11/05/2021 at 12:07 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

    No problem...  We need an army of volunteers.

     

     

    -------

    @BoredRusher @badosu You too.

    Hello everyone !
    Sorry for the late.

    Yes, I'm obviously interested in joining the testing team !

    What are the procedures please ? Should I simply play test newer A25 and send here my remarks ?

    In addition, I have heard that this A25 will be the last version with features adding, so I guess it must be the best in terms of completion, right ?

    I'm listening to you, thanks and all the best !

    • Like 1
  3. 16 minutes ago, borg- said:

    The balance cannot be heard by everyone, and that is logical. Each player has a perspective on what op is and what not. Yesterday player Melunises said that champions were unfeasible in this alpha, @vinme and others said no, he insisted that it was. Well that's his point of view, and if we follow his vision then we need to do something for champions. However, I proved to him in two 1v1 games that champions are very possible, so he understood. Balancing is done by the best players for that reason. When there is a constant complaint like in alpha23, slinger, then we know that something needs to be done because all players are complaining, at all levels. Developing open source games is difficult because each person has a "perfect" game vision.

    Anyway, we are working for a25, today I was talking to @ValihrAnt about some changes that were necessary for a25, and I would like to share.

    Pikeman and spearman need to have an counter vs elephants.

    Champion elephants need a hp reduction like 10%.

    Mercenaries need to cost a little less metal and maybe start at rank 2.

    Reduce the damage of towers a little or decrease the amount of arrows.

    Archers needs a little less accuracy, from 2.0 to 2.5.

    Ranged cavalry need to move a little faster (16).

    Units need reduction in training time mainly cavalry. 8 women 10/12 infantry and 14/15 cav?

    It is clear that these ideas are based only on a24. As a25 is built, some values must change.

    This will be a great starting point to reestablish a good game-play feeling.

    The next step will be to correct units state machine according to those newer changes and according to the snapping addition (which still have not been addressed).

    • Like 1
  4. 44 minutes ago, badosu said:

    Forum is not the proper place except for informal discussion, you're basically waiting for a dev to read your comment and decide to work on it?

    Feel free to suggest a fix on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ . E.g. "Decrease build times dues to ...", attach a replay and gg

     

    43 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

    Let me explain a little how balancing is done nowadays (with no active balancer in the development team).

    Players (usually not devs, for they play too little or not high enough level) spot something that they think needs addressing, e.g. the unit production times being too long. They discuss that with other players. When they find themselves in a position backed by a number of other (esteemed) players, they can choose one of several courses of action:

    • State a number of times that there is a problem, and it _needs_ to be addressed.
    • Create a patch on Phabricator that addresses the issue, and point fellow players to discuss there, with a reference to a forum post describing the issue and the opinion of several other players.
    • Create a thread on the balancing subforums, that states the issue, (perhaps even with possible fixes) and hope someone else makes the patch once a consensus has been reached, which, obviously, will link to the thread.

    Guess what will be not effective :)

    [EDIT]: @badosu beat me to it :)

    Those are informations, for instance, developers have never told us (since we are complaining here at least).

    Thank you, I and others will follow this way.

  5. 8 minutes ago, badosu said:

    We all have the same goal here. I just think we have deficient processes to provide successful releases, either an overarching informed design committee or a feedback-cycle powered development process. Neither of both are present.

    And yes, if there are bugs surely they need to be fixed.

    What I mean are things like general sentiments about gameplay without an established meta, while valuable themselves in some way they don't provide actionable information.

    Right.

    Have you token a look at the attached match in my original post ?

    If so, what have you thought about ?

    Haven't you seen the broken state machine I'm talking about ?

    Haven't you felt the game poor in term of enjoyment ?

    If not, all this topic is then useless and we are just discuting for nothing.

  6. 1 minute ago, badosu said:

    To be fair, no suggestions for improvement or a qualified argument was presented. The closest one being stalemate on team games.

    One can for example provide a suggestion to have units deal more damage or champions being more powerful on late game as finishers, there are many ways to address the issue, none were presented.

    Right. But developers do not even let us à room for suggestions as they mostly sweep with the back of their hands everything we say.

    I understand the solidarity you have for each other but when the time comes to see the truth, see it.

    We all want the same thing : a great game.

  7. Just now, BoredRusher said:

    I did not even know the existence of this subforum till today.

    So, should we be blamed because we did not know its existence ?

    I mean, did we haven't the right, even the duty to give our opinion ?

    Or should we just agree with just everything ? No reviews ?

  8. 36 minutes ago, borg- said:

    To be honest it seems much more lazy for some players to learn something new than really a gameplay / balancing problem.

    I have entered 4v4 games and no less than 6 different civilizations per game. I see dog rush, bolts with palisades protecting in neutral territory, much more infantry in the game, champs, etc ...

    In my 1v1 games with @ValihrAnt, we played all games with random civ, and both had a chance of winning with any civilization, not the most afraid of celts / pto.

    Some players are stepping out of their comfort zone and learning how to play a new game, but you won't be able to do that by playing 2 or 3 games. It also took me a while to get used to the changes, the game seemed a little slower than a23, but nothing you don't get used to and learn to like.

    It is obvious that there is still a need for refinement for the units, but it is indisputable that a24 has a better balance than a23, for several reasons.

    Some frustrations seem to me more focused on ddos and also lag.

    We will continue to work to improve this, and make a25 even better, however it is necessary to make constructive criticisms and not throw up a lot of random words.
    We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?

    I did not even know the existence of this subforum till today.

  9. 26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

     

     

    This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

    That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

     

    There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

     

    This is honestly the best take I have seen throughout all the debate. 

    That may have been a problem in the past. But it clearly isn't a problem now. And if you read all the compliant threads on the most constant theme are players, many of whom have been around for a long time, making complaints or constructive criticisms to which the devs basically say shove it--you are wrong or it is too early to conclude that. 

     

    There are obviously some large, unaddressed complaints out there. And with each day more players that I talk to seem to enjoy the game less and less. Some have all but disappeared. It would be wise to address these concerns or at the very least actually engage them. Yes, people are playing a24 (myself included) but has anyone actually asked the players that are online day in and day out what they think of the alpha compared to previous iterations? 

    Thank you for this showcase of simply the reality.

  10. 14 minutes ago, badosu said:

    That's the idea :thumbsup:

    Lack of player feedback is the biggest issue with the development process imo.

    There has been a major improvement with player involvement on a24, but there's still room for improvement.

    Making a weekly update that includes the new changes would be awesome, or at least in an alternate lobby/installation.

    Nice ! A great idea I agree with !

    On my free time, I will get the basis of pyrogenesis and will help on this aspect.

    Your suggestion can really change the things because it will help as well to speed up the development process as well as it will be the basis for future great improvements.

    Thank you.

  11. 2 minutes ago, badosu said:

    I guess there's some confusion with terminology.

    I'll make it simple: if you can test the gameplay/balance changes for the next version you can provide feedback that it's less fun and avoid issues with the new release. Does that make sense?

    It does :angel1:

  12. 1 minute ago, BoredRusher said:

    0ad is not all about balance.

    The game must preserve an interesting game-play overall.

     

    And it seems that game-play have not been token much in consideration for creating the new alpha.

     

    1 minute ago, badosu said:

    That is an incredibly puzzling post. But ok

    Yes. As I am telling since the opening of this thread, I'm not much talking of balance but of a broken game-play (often resulting of balance (improvements ?)).

    From what I see, balance has been to the center of the priorities in a24 and game-play (which makes the game enjoyable) considerations have just been forgotten.

    • Like 1
  13. In addition, I see that most of the development team seems to be on the defensive, trying to find reasoning lacks in the words of we who are showing what is not great, or at least what we do not find great at this time of the development process.

    I want to say you that we are not here to judge you or blame you or your work. We are just showing here the things we think should be improved/modified for a better result, trying to show you, from our perspective what we think wrong so far.

    So, please, instead of making a kind of war between developers and the community which does not agree totally with some changes, listen to us and try to take some recoil. Instead of turning around the subject, face it.

    Anyway, we are just writing words. Do not be that much on the defensive.

    I also understand that you are proud of the work you did so far, and trust me, we are for you too. But taking another perspective on your work could eventually help you improve it.

    Again, we are not here to judge you, we do not even have that power. So, please, at least, just listen, and take some recoil.

    (Do not count on me to further discuss if you still that much on the defensive)

    Kind regards.

    • Like 1
  14. 3 minutes ago, hyperion said:

    @BoredRusher isn't wrong, maybe the wording is.

    There was a huge amount of gameplay changes late in the development cycle. Lot of changes in a single release are bound to cause some displeasure. I understand the eagerness to get everything in last minute when the last release was long ago so hard to blame the "balancers" for this. But less could well be more and something to keep in mind for a25.

    Another point is most of those changes seem to be based on gut feeling. As the involved people are pro or at least knowledgable players gut feeling produces on average decent results. Let's say 80% good 20% bad for arguments sake. Out of the 20% one or two brain farts will inevitably mix in. Bad changes are always a lot easier to notice and are what agitates people. Getting hostile towards people pointing out what they do not like is similarly toxic.

    A poll won't work. My impression is the effects of some of those gameplay changes aren't even well understood by the "balancers". Having people with even less of a clue vote will make things only worse. Well, you could at least blame the community at large instead of the few where things go wrong.

     

    @BreakfastBurrito_007, the "stable system" is partially intended, no more bonus for advancing civ, no exponential growth of economy techs, the changes to techs in forge etc. There are even plans to reduce the territory influence of city phase.

    To use your analogy, it's not yet a valley, more like flat ground, instead of a hill as in a23. I agree that those changes brings it's own slew of issues.

    As I already said and as I will say again, we (at least, I) are not blaming the Balancing Team. Not at all and even if balance was not good.

    I'm talking of the broken game-play.

  15. 5 hours ago, Sundiata said:

    How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. 

    Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it.

    Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... 

    And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature. 

    For my part, A23 is the only one I have played so far (before that a24 obviously) and I can't play a23 because I'm simply unable to join the multiplayer lobby there.

  16. 56 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    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 1 MB · 7 downloads

    Thank you for this very constructive explanation <3

    I think it resumes pretty much very well what I was talking about since the beginning of this topic. You guy roc !

    And just to expand your idea and conclusion (as I know you do not play 1v1 and rarely other kinds of game than 4v4), it's pretty much the same scenario in 1v1 and other game modes.

  17. 3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Archers Overpowered?

    10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters

    Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy)

    Observations: The archer range was decisive here

     

    10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

    Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range)

    Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds

    Results: 1 archer left (full health)

    Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage

     

    10 archers vs. 10 slingers

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters

    Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health)

    Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers

     

    10 archers vs. 10 slingers

    Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range)

    Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified

    Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health)

    Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 

     

    10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

    Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

    Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO.

     

    10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

    Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen

    Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance.

     

    10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see

    Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health)

    Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge.

     

    10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

    Units start 30 meters apart

    Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers

    Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health)

    Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen.

     

    10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen

    Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

    Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since 

    Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

    Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters.

     

     

    Conclusion

    I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor. 

    You are right, thanks for this deep explanation and for the test stuff performed.

    I think my words are confusing (I am not English native and my English is not this good, sorry for that).

    Taking a look at the attached game in my original post, what do you think about the resulting game-play of the range of the archers you have so well underlined ?

    • Like 1
  18. 2 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

    All individual features were discussed on Phabricator (https://code.wildfiregames.com/) and in the balancing group message (this is done more public now for A25).

    As for polling on the forums, keep in mind that a _very large_ portion of the players never goes to these forums at all.

    Ah ok, I understand.

  19. 1 hour ago, Lopess said:

     

    Congratulations to all the developers of this incredible game made in a collaborative and completely voluntary way.

    Lopess, the developers are doing an awesome work and we agree on that. Also, if I am talking about those "negative" changes it's because I love this masterpiece and want all its good for the future. See my words more as suggestions than criticism to the wonderful job done by those great persons who did, for sure an achievement to be congratulated.

    1 hour ago, borg- said:

    Is not possible to please everyone. I see a lot of people online and a lot of games, so it seems like most of them liked it anyway.

    You are probably right but the in my humble perspective, a big percentage of people would like to play a23 only with some of the new a24 improvements. Maybe, we could launch a vote to see that deeply but as i said, it's only from my perspective.

    And if a such vote reveals that mainly the players prefer a24 (which will surprise me a lot), if think the losing margin will follow the way of the democracy.

    The most effective way to show those opinion variations is to do a vote on all the newly implemented features to see how effective is each one from the perspective of the community.

    A such vote could be by the way, a kind of guideline for the developers. A guideline to follow whenever they can so the game will progress as intended by both the majorities of the community and developers.

    And further, it would even be interesting to make a such vote during the early testing of new versions to avoid those divergences of opinion in the future.

    49 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

    I'll refuse to understand how some people can just be this toxic and full of theirselves honestly. 

    Don't you guys know no one is getting payed and everyone is giving their free time and will to work on this?

    To not agree, criticise, discuss is one thing but ^ that = :throw-up: 

    EDIT: Also the prime example of what i meant when i said the devs shouldnt weigh to hard on negative opinions like these.

    Grapjas, maybe PhyZic was too far in his words.

    • Like 1
  20. 2 hours ago, Angen said:

    Honestly I don't see the point here.

    It was decided at some point to start release and stop adding new features so game can be tested. 

    That period took almost month and no one noted such a problems that would imply the process needs to be longer. 

    Sorry but I just said that adding new unit to faction is balance from my perspective (what adding rams to all faction is adding new unit) 

    also you say you don't complain about stat changes (attack and so on) but you do as you say archers are op now what could only be done but changing their attack stats. 

     

     

    that are 3 points mentioing balance

    I dont intend to corrupt your words, I just want to understand your point of view because it seems to be different from mine to what do you refer as balancing. 

    We definitely have different points of view. 

    • Like 1
  21. 15 minutes ago, Angen said:

    ok, so you count as changing attack values for units and introducing units to factions as gameplay and not balance, I see it as balance because it changes which faction is stronger or weaker :)

    I am not talking of those changes. I'm complaining the most about state machines, rams for all factions, etc.

    You are corrupting my words.

  22. 23 minutes ago, Angen said:

    could you please be specific what period do you refer to as last days

    The last 2-3 days to be exact. The release has been done with basic bugs. Maybe I'm wrong because I'm sure you do tests but in my point of view, those bugs were due to a rush.

    12 minutes ago, Angen said:

    I am confused, you say balance is good but posts above say something else. 

    Gameplay is not balance.

    I'm saying that gameplay is broken even if balance is better.

    24 minutes ago, Angen said:

    there have been almost month not introducing new things, just fixing crtical bugs and fixing balance based on players feedback from playing svn, which mostly was introduced by players requests in the first place. 

     

     

    unit state machine is very complex, which part of it is broken? 

    I gave some examples of broken states in a former comment, please take a look at it then if you want further, I will show you by example. 

×
×
  • Create New...