Jump to content

Nullus

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nullus

  2. An Error Updating Workspaces on SVN

    in Game Development & Technical Discussion

    Posted

    Hi,

    I have the latest SVN version of 0AD installed on my computer. When I updated it today, I moved into the workspaces directory and ran ./update-workspaces.sh, which gave this message:  

    WX_CONFIG must be set and valid or wx-config must be present when --atlas is passed as argument.

    I also ran ./clean-workspaces.sh, but the problem was still present when I tried again. Does anyone have any suggestions?

  6. Design Document Proposal

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Freagarach said:

    I must say this Design Document rather looks like an result of one? It looks more as an implementation of a design than a design itself? But I could be mistaken.

    For a DD I would expect more something along the lines of the tail of this post:

    I'm not sure if we have the same understanding of what the design document should be. What I meant by the term was a document that describes how how the game should play. Basically, I meant a set of goals for the design, not a description of how the design itself should be performed.

  7. Design Document Proposal

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, ChronA said:

    I suggest that a more in depth discussion of counter relationships for each unit type and any unusual information about attack interactions or composition synergies/anti-synergies should be added.

    This would be good, yes. I'll update the proposal to reflect this.

    3 hours ago, ChronA said:

    I think the Mechanics section needs to be filled out with more information about civ phases, techs, resource harvesting, production, and all that jazz. I'm sure that was the intent already for that section but its worth making explicit. 

    The eventual design document should include this, certainly. However, for this proposal I'm only listing any features that I think should be changed or which I think need to clarified.

    3 hours ago, ChronA said:

    And lastly, I would add a section about civ design principles. This should lay out the logic of designing a multiplayer-viable civ, the temporal and geographic bound of the game's representation, maybe list some civilizations. Others with a stronger sense of the game's vision can opine on what to say here. The one thing I would urge you to put in writing is that Every civilization will have access to at least one viable counter to every established unit type. While that sounds completely obvious, I think it is important to stress because it runs counter to the intuitive civ development methodology the game is built around. We're not starting with the question "what would be a fun faction concept to play with." We are starting with real civilizations and trying to represent them in the game. But real civilizations were not balanced. They did not always have answers to every military doctrine. When they met a doctrine they could not deal with they either changed their own identity or ceased to exist, which makes it hard to to produce iconic, accurate, and balanced representations.

    This sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure if it really fits in the general design document. This could be done along with the pages for the individual civilisations, but I think the overall design document should describe how the game should play in general, not the specifics of civilisation design. I will add the information about viable counters, thank you.

    42 minutes ago, Outis said:

    If we want to vote and propose changes, then I propose to do so on smaller chuncks. Arguments and agreement will be easier to track.

    Perhaps, but I'd like to keep this issue as centralised as possible for now. I have tried to avoid adding anything too controversial, so I don't think that should be too much of an issue at the moment.

    • Like 4

  9. Design Document Proposal

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nullus
    ChronA's comments

    As mentioned at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/77438-looking-back-on-the-balancing-strategy/, a new design document is required. This is my proposal for a design document. If the community approves of this, it could be adopted and design documents could be revised for the civilisations. This is a design for the general gameplay, not for any civilisations. Most elements will remain the same, I've only mentioned elements that could change or which need to be clearly defined. 

    All features which require mechanics not yet added to the game are highlighted in red.

    Spoiler

    Mechanics

    Territory

    Territory will be a display of the land under the control of a player. Most buildings will only be constructable within a player’s territory. Unless buildings are built within controlled territory, they will slowly lose their loyalty and convert to Gaia or to the player who controls the surrounding territory. Controlling territory will be very important to most civilizations; more important for defensive civilizations, less important for aggressive civilizations. All buildings will have a territory influence, military and civic buildings will have the largest influence. All civic buildings will have a territory root; which means that adjoining territory will not lose its loyalty.

    Gaia

    Gaia will be a neutral player, representing nature and the native inhabitants of a map. It will be hostile toward all players. Buildings not connected to a territory root will decay to Gaia’s control. On some maps, there will be villages under Gaia’s control. These can be captured or destroyed by the players. Ideally, these villages would contain some mercenary camps.

    New Mechanics

    Guard area

    Players will be able to order units to guard a selected circular area. The units will automatically target any enemy units that enter the area. This will apply to all types of units, whether ranged or melee, although it will probably be more useful for ranged units.

    Charging/Ramming

    Units will be able to charge for a limited amount of time. As they charge, their energy will deplete. When they remain idle, they will regain their charging energy. While charging, they will move significantly more quickly, and have a significantly longer deceleration and turn time. Their first attack will deal more damage. Ships will have a ramming attack using the same mechanism, which will be the only attack the ships themselves have.

    Multiple Attacks

    Some units and structures will have the ability to perform multiple attacks, both ranged and melee. Units automatically switch their attacks based on which attack does more damage to the target at the given range.

    Shared control

    Different players will be able to share control of units. The units will obey whichever order was most recently given by either player. This only works between allies, and the shared control can be ended by either player. When shared control is ended, the unit goes back to its owner’s control.

    Espionage

    Players will be able to select and bribe other players’ human units, at varying prices and with varying likelihoods of success. If the bribe fails, the other player is alerted. Stronger military units will be harder and more expensive to bribe. The bribe will only last a certain amount of time. The bribe will give the two players shared control over the unit, but not the ability to attack either. The shared control will be hidden to the player whose unit was bribed. Units from all players will be bribable, whatever their diplomatic status. If garrisoned in a building, the spy will be able to see the production and research queue.

    Morale (Optional)

    All units would have morale, which affects how well they perform their tasks. Units with high morale would fight well, but with low morale they would fight poorly, or even become uncontrollable and flee. The death of nearby allied troops would decrease morale, and the death of nearby enemies would increase morale. Auras from other units, such as heroes, could increase or decrease morale.

    Units

    Melee Units

    Melee units will have a short attack range, and engage the enemy in close combat. They will generally have higher armor and stronger attacks. They will form the main fighting force of an army. They will be moderately difficult to bribe.

    Ranged Units

    Ranged will units have similar damage values to melee troops, but can fire from a varying range. This makes them more useful for harassment, and at targeting remote groups of enemies from behind battle lines. They will be countered by cavalry, which can close the distance to them quickly. Most ranged troops will have a secondary melee attack, but this will be much less powerful than a dedicated melee soldiers attack. They will be moderately difficult to bribe.

    Cavalry

    Cavalry will be fast units with higher health. They will be unable to gather any resources but meat, and will not be able to construct buildings. They are most useful for attacking ranged units, for raiding, and for harassment. They will be countered by spearmen and pikemen

    Champions

    Champions will be units with higher health and armor, and a significantly stronger attack. They will be unable to perform any economic activities or construct or repair buildings. They will have higher costs, but will be more cost-effective in combat than citizen soldiers. They will be difficult to bribe.

    Heroes

    Heroes will be famous figures from a civilization’s history. They will have much higher health, armor, and attack than other units. They will have auras that can benefit their own troops or harm the enemy’s troops. They will be very difficult to bribe.

    Mercenaries

    Mercenaries will have a very short training time and no training cost, but will require wages, which creates a constant drain of metal. If the wages cannot be paid, the units will turn to gaia. They will be useful for quick conquests, or as emergency troops, but a handicap to keep in peace. They cannot be ordered to destroy themselves, but they can be disowned, in which case they become uncontrollable, but neutral. To use them effectively, a large supply or constant income of metal will be necessary. Every civilization should have access to at least one mercenary. They can be trained by any civilization, so if a structure that trains mercenaries is captured, any civilization can train the mercenaries from the captured building. Mercenaries cannot gather resources, but can construct buildings. They will be easy to bribe.

    Priests/Healers

    Priests will be trained from temples, and can heal wounded organic units. Units being healed cannot fight. Priests will provide an aura of increased fighting strength, but not increased health. If a morale system is implemented, they would also increase the morale of nearby units. They will be difficult to bribe.

    Elephants

    Elephants will be powerful anti-melee units, but will be countered by ranged troops. They will be approximately as fast as other melee units, but will have a significantly faster charge. They will have slower turn and acceleration times than other troops, making them easier to outmaneuver. They will have a very strong crush and hack attack, with area damage

    Rams

    Rams will be armored melee siege units, powerful against buildings, but unable to attack organic units or fields. They are vulnerable to crush damage, but well armored against other attacks.

    Catapults

    Catapults will be ranged siege units, powerful against buildings and rams, but will low accuracy against organic units. They will be vulnerable to military units of all types, and will have a minimum range. They must be guarded, but will be able to attack most defensive buildings without entering their attack range. They will also be usable to defensively destroy ships and rams.

    Bolt Shooters

    Bolt shooters will be ranged siege units, powerful against units, but with low damage against buildings. They will be vulnerable to military units of all types, and will have no minimum range. They will automatically target the units with the greatest number of health points, and will be able to kill most units with one shot. They will be quite accurate, but have a low rate of fire. They will have linear area damage, allowing them to hit multiple units at once.

    Spearmen

    Spearmen will usually be the basic melee troop, armed with spears. They will have moderate damage, armor, and speed, and will be a strong counter against cavalry. They will be countered by pikemen.

    Swordsmen

    Swordsmen will be melee troops armed with swords. They will have moderate damage, armor, and speed, and a strong attack against spearmen.

    Pikemen

    Pikemen will be melee troops armed with pikes. They will have low damage, high armor, low speed, and a long range with their pikes, allowing multiple pikemen to attack a single target. Masses of pikes should be very difficult to destroy. They will be a strong counter against cavalry.

    Skirmishers

    Skirmishers will be ranged units armed with javelins. They will have a low range, high damage, moderate rate of fire, and moderate accuracy.

    Slingers

    Slingers will be ranged units armed with slings. They will have medium range, low damage, moderate rate of fire, and low accuracy. They will cost some additional stone.

    Archers

    Archers will be ranged units armed with bows and arrows. They will have high range, moderate damage, high rate of fire, and low accuracy.

    Crossbowmen

    Crossbowmen will be ranged units armed with crossbows. They will have medium range, high accuracy, low damage, and a high rate of fire.

    Ships

    Most military ships will have a ramming attack, which will be their only attack. They can garrison units, and ranged units will be stationed on their decks. These ranged units will be able to attack other units from their positions. Larger ships will be able to station catapults or bolt shooters on their decks, to give them a stronger attack. Ships without any crew left cannot move, and can be captured.

    Structures

    Fortresses

    Fortresses will be powerful defensive buildings with a territory root. For civilizations with artillery, they will be able to upgrade to station bolt shooters. They will be able to train infantry troops.

    Artillery Towers

    Artillery towers will be defensive towers armed with artillery. They will have a low rate of fire, but high damage. Catapult towers will be useful against rams, and bolt towers will be useful against champions and heroes. They will be vulnerable to groups of infantry. They will have a higher minimum range than defense towers.

    Defense towers

    Defense towers will be defensive towers armed with arrows. They will initially have a minimum range, but with the “Murder holes” upgrade, they will gain a secondary, short range attack, falling rocks. This will be effective against soldiers, and, with a further “Heavy stones” upgrade, able to do some damage against rams.

    Counters

    All classes of units will have abilities which make them useful as counters against other types of units. All Civilisations will have at least one unit available to counter every other class of unit.

    General:

    Ranged > Melee > Cavalry > Ranged

    Melee:

    Swordsmen > Pikemen and Spearmen

    Cavalry:

    Ranged cavalry > Melee troops (When kiting) > Melee Cavalry > Ranged Cavalry

    Melee cavalry > Ranged troops > Melee troops (When kiting) > Melee cavalry

    Defenses:

    Infantry and cavalry > Siege units > Defensive Buildings > Infantry and cavalry

     

     

    • Like 5

  10. Perhaps P1 should be made a stage of purely economic development.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    24 minutes ago, AIEND said:

    I suggest you play these games first.
    The first stage of a lot of games is not that complicated, and the second stage is not that scary.
    If you haven't played it, you won't have an intuitive understanding of this.

    I'm afraid I don't have the funds for that :P.

    Until then, perhaps it would be best if a mod could be made so that 0AD players could gauge the effect of these changes.

    • Haha 1

  11. Perhaps P1 should be made a stage of purely economic development.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, AIEND said:

    If you haven't played those games, then you think the problems that have to be caused by letting combat start in P2 are just your imagination.

    I haven't played those games, but I have played this game quite a bit, and I know that rushing is already a popular strategy, and I know that rushing through the phases is already important. I anticipate that this will cause a rush to P2, with the slower player almost always losing, and I don't see any part of this plan that would mitigate this issue. Is there some solution to this that you see, or is there some reason that you believe this will not happen?

  12. Perhaps P1 should be made a stage of purely economic development.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, AIEND said:

    Age of Empires and Age of Myth series also started fighting from the second stage, do you find these games boring?

    I don't know what's wrong with these basic designs that are adopted by many RTSs.

    I've never played those games, so I can't judge for them. However, in the case of 0AD, there is already a rush to phase up, and I think this proposal would make that even more the default. If people want that, it could be implemented. For myself, however, it doesn't sound like it would make the game more enjoyable. If 0AD has a different design than other RTSs, I don't necessarily think that it means that 0AD's design is inferior, I think it makes 0AD more interesting.

    • Like 1

  13. Perhaps P1 should be made a stage of purely economic development.

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Won't this lead to the game just becoming a race to P2? In P1, without soldiers, players would be helpless to defend themselves against someone who rushes to P2, trains some soldiers, and attacks. This would lead to the game being very fast and boring, since matches would always go to the player who reaches P2 first. As it is, going to P2 quickly has a temporary disadvantage, since it reduces the number of soldiers that can be trained in P1. Currently, a player who stays in P1 can have an advantage attacking a player who went to P2 quickly, since the player that stayed in P1 longer had an opportunity to build up a stronger fighting force.

  14. Looking back on the balancing strategy

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    I would say that before any more major balancing is done, we should develop an updated design document. A25 has a few issues, such as Iberian firecav, but overall it's pretty well balanced, and there aren't any game-breaking flaws in it. Given this, I think that balancing should keep to fixing major issues, not working on civ differentiation or anything else. Before any of that, we need to agree on a design document. Without a cohesive plan for how the game should play, balancing decisions will tend to pull the game in opposing directions, making balancing ineffective or even counterproductive.

    To create a design document, I think that one or more proposals need to be submitted to the forum on how the game should play in general. For example, it could specify general roles for civilisations and unit classes. After this has been discussed and approved by a vote, then documents for specific civilisations can be created and approved by the same process. Once a complete design document has been created, balancing could resume, with the document as a goal. Until then, it would be limited to fixing major issues, not deciding any gameplay roles.

    Once balancing resumes, I think that there are two rules which would make it more effective. First, all members of the balancing team should be required to have the SVN version installed. Currently, I think that the current development version has made some major changes, such as acceleration and the Han Chinese, which could cause balancing issues in the next alpha, but which haven't attracted much attention, mostly because very few people play the development version. Second, if anyone wants to make a change to the game, a forum topic should only be opened after a patch has been submitted on phabricator. As it is, there are lots of balancing discussions, but I don't think they've resulted in any changes, mainly because no one creates any patches for them. If the consensus on the forum moved against the changes, the patch could be updated or abandoned, while if the forum approved, the patch could be committed. This could be much more effective than the current model.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

  15. Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    49 minutes ago, Outis said:

    Yes, if ranged infantry stray away from melee infantry, they are hunted by fast units. And this does not contradict the statement that they have a different role than melee infantry. I think the question to tackle here is: in most ancient armies, melee infantry was the main force, and ranged infantry and cavalry were supporting melee infantry or having specific roles. And then, there were some armies which relied on particular tactics involving large number of ranged units (Han) or cavalry (maybe Scythians some day? :)). How to make sure all are viable strategies?

    I'm not sure how ancient armies used ranged troops, although I agree that it would be best to keep the game as close to reality as possible. However, what I meant was that since ranged units have to stay with melee units for protection, they can't stay in one place and fire at enemies, they have to keep manoeuvring as well. If they were to stay in one place and fire, the melee troops would have to stay with them, which would make the melee troops ineffectual. Since players don't want that, and since melee troops would have equal damage and higher armor, armies would end up being made of nothing but melee troops, since ranged troops would have less armor and equal damage, and have to stay with the melee troops anyway. I might be wrong; if there's some way to avoid making ranged troops useless, I would like to have melee damage increased.

  16. Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Outis said:

    There is one thing they do which melee units cannot do: you cannot commit all melee units to battle at the same time because melee units need to almost be next to units, their availability for fighting is restricted to the battle line, so they spend more time manuevering. Ranged units may be commited in much higher numbers simultaneously if positioned well. They do not have to move until threatened directly or there is nothing left to shoot. This gives them and also their counters different roles than pure melee infantry.

    Yes, this is one potential role for them. However, in practicality, I've never been able to get this to work. The ranged units have to stay close to a melee force, otherwise cavalry can destroy them.

  17. Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    You use ranged units for their range. They can deal damage while not taking any damage, while melee units can't do that. Honestly, if players only use ranged units in specific situations or as a small contingent to back up their melee troops, then I am okay with that since that's how they were used in antiquity anyway. 

    The problem is that they wouldn't be useful as auxiliaries to the melee troops except if they had higher damage, since their lower armour gives them a disadvantage. If there were weapon switching, then they could be useful, since they could attack first at range and then join a melee fight. However, with equal damage, they would only be useful in very specific situations.

  18. Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, ChronA said:

    As the game currently exists, it is the ranged units that make up the survivable core of any infantry attack force. Melee infantry act as an expendable auxiliary contingent that exists to boost the combat efficiency of the core until it is killed off. I don't want to go too far and say that no ancient militaries worked this way, but it is certainly not how the ancient Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, or Macedonian successor states operated. For them it was the (mostly but not always entirely melee) heavy infantry that made up the survivable core of their armies. Light, usually ranged infantry were the ones deployed as the expendable support auxiliaries, and together with cavalry they usually represented only a small faction of an army's total fighting numbers. The status quo is a huge misrepresentation of these cultures' normal tactics.

    The issue with increasing the damage of melee units is that it makes ranged units redundant. If damage were more or less equal, why would anyone use ranged units? They would have lower armour, be more vulnerable to cavalry, and do no more damage. Ranged units might be useful behind walls, or for kiting, or for attacking elephants and heroes, but for the most part they wouldn't be useful in normal combat.

  21. Artillery towers

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I am fine with either, but I think the build time should be increased more. Defense tower is 150 sec and these towers are 200. I think it should be raised further to 250 so that it is difficult to play the towers very offensively. They should definitely be easy to deny.

    From my tests, they're not terribly powerful, not as good at offensive fortification as defence towers. However, they are able to do damage to rams, if properly placed, which could be their main use. 

     

    34 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?

    The existing tower upgrades only apply to defence towers, sentry towers, and the Han Great Tower. It doesn't matter if they're researched, the artillery towers maintain their minimum range.

    I actually decreased the range of these towers from the range of the siege catapults. The siege catapults have a range of 40-100 meters, and the towers have a range of 40-80 meters. This seemed logical, since historically it would have been hard to fit a large siege catapult in a tower, and it would be better for gameplay to avoid offensive fortifications. However, an approaching enemy, such as a ram, can pass through the area of fire quickly enough to reach the tower without being hit. I see three options to fix this. First, I could increase the range of the towers, which risks making these more offensive buildings. Second, I could decrease the minimum range to something like 25 meters. Lastly, if others don't think this is a problem, I could leave it with its current values. What does everyone think?

    • Thanks 1

  23. Teamwork Team Bonus Concept

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    On 27/03/2022 at 6:34 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Then also a "Spy" [aka "Sikarios"] unit where to you it looks like a spy wearing a sketchy hood and cape, while to the enemy it looks like a random one of their soldiers. The only way for the enemy to know it's not one of theirs is for them to select your spy and try to order it around.

    One idea I had was that you could select other players' units and bribe them to become your spy for a certain amount of time. This would be subject to increasing costs and lower likelihood of success for more powerful military units. All non-mechanical units could be bribed. After bribing the unit, the original owner and the bribing player would have shared control of it, although this wouldn't be visible to the original owner. Both players could give orders to the unit, but the unit couldn't attack either player. If a spy was garrisoned in a building, the production and research queue is visible. Unfortunately, shared control isn't implemented, but if it is, this could be a good use for it.

    • Like 1

  24. [random] Gaia

    in Scenario Design/Map making

    Posted

    1 hour ago, MirceaKitsune said:

    I wonder if it's too exotic? I'm not doing anything other maps haven't done though, just that this seems to be the first random map that does several things at once (roads, mercenaries, daytime, etc).

    I think that this is a good thing, more variety in the maps would be nice.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...