Proposition: Decrease projectile damage but increase firing frequency.

[Yekaterina]

Dear all:

I would like to relay to you an observation by DoctorOrgans: the projectile damage values are large and discrete, so there will likely be some wasted, overflowing damage when an unit dies. This is especially the case with skirmisher units: each shot deals 16 damage, but a typical spearman has 100 health. By default, one needs 7 shots from the skirmisher to kill this spearman, but 7x16=112 damage, which means the last 12 points of damage were wasted. The skirmisher used 1.25 seconds to prepare for the 7th shot, but 75% of which were wasted. In a sense, the skirmisher wasted ~0.9 seconds on that spearman. The same applies for having armour and technology: if the total effective health is not divisible by the effective damage per shot, there will be wasted damage.

In my opinion damage values should be decreased to minimise such time wasting. To maintain a high damage per second value, we can increase the firing frequency instead, such that that total theoretical damage output per second is consistent with what we currently have for each unit.

However, it is also my opinion that battles happen too quickly; units die too quickly and there is relatively little time for directing battles, using formations and building supply lines. A large army of hundreds can disappear in less than a minute, especially with champions, so that players cannot use ancient war strategies like outflanking manoeuvres and wedge shapes... So my suggestion is we decrease the damage per second of all units and maintain health / armour constant. 

 

[alre]

I don't see what's bad in damage overflow.

3 minutes ago, Helicity said:

However, it is also my opinion that battles happen too quickly; units die too quickly and there is relatively little time for directing battles, using formations and building supply lines. A large army of hundreds can disappear in less than a minute, especially with champions, so that players cannot use ancient war strategies like outflanking manoeuvres and wedge shapes... So my suggestion is we decrease the damage per second of all units and maintain health / armour constant. 

On this I agree.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

you have discovered "overkill". like @alre says, there is nothing bad about it.

If you do increase fire rate and decrease damage, then you have many more range queries in one second, and there will still be overkill when a larger group of units shoot one unit.

I consider it a property of RTS games in general. The default behavior of your units may not be the most effective approach, depending on the situation. Thus, it is up to the player's skill to control units so that they fight more effectively. @JC (naval supremacist) was probably taking about sniping, which is the technique used to 1) minimize overkill and 2) kill ranged units past some melee "meat shield"

I really like the fast-paced gameplay 0ad offers and I think slowing down fights would push us toward a24 gameplay, which longtime players will tell you was terrible for competitive play.

Edited March 2, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Quote

 increase firing frequency

I'm horrified. Will we go back to machine gun Scythian Archers?

 

1 hour ago, Helicity said:

the projectile damage values are large and discrete, so there will likely be some wasted, overflowing damage when an unit dies

Let's just reduce damage of ranged units. Ranged units should be the support units, not the primary damage-dealer anyway. We've had a dozen discussions on this already and the concept is broadly supported, just no one has bothered to make patches because it changes the meta (lol).

[Yekaterina]

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

it is up to the player's skill to control units so that they fight more effectively.

Currently, you have few chance to play the tactics that historical Generals had used, because your units disappear so quickly that your army is gone before you can even command them. The primary cause is damage rate being too high compared to total health, as well as pathfinding - units get stuck in a crowd and cannot push themselves out.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 minutes ago, Helicity said:

you have few chance to play the tactics that historical Generals had used

I'd say the real reason is because those "tactics" don't help in 0ad because 0ad is a videogame, not a simulation of history.

In game currently, you actually have many chances to control your units, as your mouse can make hundreds of clicks within the minute you say the battles are lasting. I recommend using the "option" key to order one unit at a time for sniping. If you want more tactics you can actually click and drag a group of units to adopt a shape: for example, order your cavalry archers to adopt a semicircle in front of the enemy.

There are a lot of "tactics", of course they are videogame tactics, not real historical ones, but they work well and there is time to do them. I think you just are not aware of them.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

My piece of advice: do not listen to DoctorOrgans about anything.

He gathers chickens with women after all.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

46 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Let's just reduce damage of ranged units. Ranged units should be the support units, not the primary damage-dealer anyway. We've had a dozen discussions on this already and the concept is broadly supported, just no one has bothered to make patches because it changes the meta (lol).

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I think i've mentioned it before, but I plan on changing the ranged vs melee balance in the community mod. I think this way the fear of impacting the balance can be alleviated. Probably first will be the melee damage/armor change, then ranged damage reduction afterwards if needed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I think i've mentioned it before, but I plan on changing the ranged vs melee balance in the community mod. I think this way the fear of impacting the balance can be alleviated. Probably first will be the melee damage/armor change, then ranged damage reduction afterwards if needed.

could you make melee combat longer?

Sometimes the units feel like tiger paper. they die with nothing and very little melee combat is appreciated in the game.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

31 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

He gathers chickens with women after all.

Death by words

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

very little melee combat is appreciated in the game.

yes, this will be the primary issue to fix. I'm pretty much ready to submit a few merge requests when the community mod is set up for a27, one of which would address this. It should help with the "meat shield" meta people talk about.

Edited March 2, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Yekaterina]

A23 had some great fights. We should lower the typical stats of units to about what we had back then: javelin do 14 per second, slingers do 2 crush 9.5 pierce, archers do 5.9 pierce

[alre]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I really like the fast-paced gameplay 0ad offers and I think slowing down fights would push us toward a24 gameplay, which longtime players will tell you was terrible for competitive play.

I think we keep taking the wrong lessons from A24 bad reception. A24 wasn't fun because it was too turtle-y and because just a few civs were played, I actually miss quite a lot A24 slower battles. They also had the effect of giving tactical relevance to logistics, and line of reinforcements, which is totally gone now.

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I'd say the real reason is because those "tactics" don't help in 0ad because 0ad is a videogame, not a simulation of history.

In game currently, you actually have many chances to control your units, as your mouse can make hundreds of clicks within the minute you say the battles are lasting. I recommend using the "option" key to order one unit at a time for sniping. If you want more tactics you can actually click and drag a group of units to adopt a shape: for example, order your cavalry archers to adopt a semicircle in front of the enemy.

There are a lot of "tactics", of course they are videogame tactics, not real historical ones, but they work well and there is time to do them. I think you just are not aware of them.

By this line of reasoning, development of real-looking tennis/table-tennis videogame is wasted money, because Pong is a perfectly fine game already.

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

slingers

everyone loved my slingers.

 

The idea for slingers came from AoE I

What I should have calculated is the ratio of numbers between an AoE slingers and 0ad.

 

In 0 AD every 4 units equals one of AoE I.

4 Phalanx units kill an Armored Elephant.

In 0 AD the ratio should be between 8-16 pikemen.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 minutes ago, alre said:

I actually miss quite a lot A24 slower battles. They also had the effect of giving tactical relevance to logistics, and line of reinforcements, which is totally gone now.

I respectfully disagree with both of these. I didn't like the 45 minute average games, and there is absolutely logistics and reinforcements in a26.

9 minutes ago, alre said:

By this line of reasoning, development of real-looking tennis/table-tennis videogame is wasted money, because Pong is a perfectly fine game already.

Good analogy. On the other side of that coin, how about we make the game take actual days to play, make the romans better than every other civ, make women actually give birth to get soldiers, individually put soldiers on horses, make the maps earth sized? Sound fun?

Edited March 2, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[alre]

17 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I respectfully disagree with both of these. I didn't like the 45 minute average games, and there is absolutely logistics and reinforcements in a26.

Good analogy. On the other side of that coin, how about we make the game take actual days to play, make the romans better than every other civ, make women actually give birth to get soldiers, individually put soldiers on horses, make the maps earth sized? Sound fun?

Did @Helicity ask for earth-sezed maps or any of those other things? What has that to do with "the tactics that historical Generals had used"? Also, did you consider that you can have games with longer battles but with shorter duration overall? A23 was like that. Your comments are completely off-focus.

[Lion.Kanzen]

36 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

45 minutes ago, alre said:

I actually miss quite a lot A24 slower battles. They also had the effect of giving tactical relevance to logistics, and line of reinforcements, which is totally gone now.

I respectfully disagree with both of these. I didn't like the 45 minute average games, and there is absolutely logistics and reinforcements in a26.

Hour 1:30 is perfect. Hahahaha

[real_tabasco_sauce]

11 minutes ago, alre said:

Did @Helicity ask for earth-sezed maps or any of those other things? What has that to do with "the tactics that historical Generals had used"? Also, did you consider that you can have games with longer battles but with shorter duration overall? A23 was like that. Your comments are completely off-focus.

To be fair, you started it with ping pong, how is that relevant?? my point is that we will never be able to (nor should we) simulate real strategies used by generals. Maybe this can be featured in campaigns.

My recollection is that a23 battles were fairly similar to a26, except there was pretty much no need for melee units at all. In a24, battles were longer, units slower, and buildings stronger.

That being said, I don't disagree with reducing ranged units' damage, I said previously that it might be necessary after melee buffs.

Edited March 2, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I think there are ways to give the feel and approximation of battle tactics without needing to turn the game into a Rome:Total War clone. On the "extreme" end, there are Battle for Middle Earth-style battalions, which I favor, but on the other end, there are stats, auras, formation control, PreferredClasses, etc., which don't remove the mosh pit completely, but gives a sense of tactical control. While I prefer the former, I've implemented the latter in some ways in my Delenda Est mod. Check out in DE how hoplites and pikemen boost each other, and how the Wedge formation helps cavalry. Minor changes for sure, but can incentivize more tactical unit usage. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

To be fair, you started it with ping pong, how is that relevant?? my point is that we will never be able to (nor should we) simulate real strategies used by generals. Maybe this can be featured in campaigns.

My recollection is that a23 battles were fairly similar to a26, except there was pretty much no need for melee units at all. In a24, battles were longer, units slower, and buildings stronger.

That being said, I don't disagree with reducing ranged units' damage, I said previously that it might be necessary after melee buffs.

to simulate strategies better more development is needed, there are many things planned that simulate strategies and battalion formations need to be improved.

Also rear attack effect (that's planned).

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxWrMflDU1DfB1tlvt8X--yfEhEjBbNfKJ

Check the cut(clip) 

When there are enough units you can give a good control.It is quite strategic.

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I am not sure how I feel about battle tactic game mechanics that just rely on the player to choose "wedge" or some other tactic to execute. My worry is that some of these pre-made tactic options could take away from the player-controlled battle tactics that organically exist. I think there is a number of ways to design such mechanics, so it certainly doesn't have to detract from organic battle tactics. 

 

 

[sternstaub]

49 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I respectfully disagree with both of these. I didn't like the 45 minute average games, and there is absolutely logistics and reinforcements in a26.

Why should those be exclusive? We already have different meta with community mod. Problem is that joining a modded game can be tedious (it is relatively easy if mod is on mod.io), and it takes time. No long time, but some time.

Why talk about mod changing for different games here?

Well, because i think that both sides do have their points. Furthermore, the modularity of the game can be of great use on the matter. I already argued that for community mod in the past. Simplifying the exchange of currently used "modset" can be a way to prevent split in community (bad) while using the strength of modular game concept to try out many ideas simultaneously.

Please be aware that my point here is about disparities in the community. From my experience, growing communities can develop such splits, which 

So, while the community mod is a "single split", so to speak, this is not really a problem imo. Yekaterina mentioned on another discussion that it also filters out "cosmic nubs". I am certain that we can achieve that filtering in other ways just as well, if there were no more "modding-splits". 

To be clear here, i do not think that the current system is bad or something. It is already a comparably simple and pleasantly straightforward process to change mods and add new ones. However, there is a tendency not to join the grayed out games, or not to see them at all, unless there are no other games specified. 

I think that it would be great if players would tend to use multiple mods and thus having to be smart about their play, think about what the consequences of the given rule-deviations are. For example, i play a vanilla game where CC cost 500, right afterwards i play a community mod game, where it is cheaper to build. That changes the frame within which the player would have to strategize.

In fact, there already is the possibility to manipulate that frame already. Each lobby has it's own rules, relatively simple values which can affect game experience on a big scale. 8p small map 50pop low res is different than 2p big map wonder win high res 300pop. No need to argue that.
But would it not be possible to extend the lobby rules and give the host more options? All the unit values of registered units (on host machine) could be manipulated. Since these values should be const during the simulation, it might make sense to set these up on lobby creation, so that they are handled like the game name or STUN. It can be set once, and not changed in the lobby

iirc,  @Stan` mentioned in another topic that the projectile speed cannot be adjusted by mods. So, given that there was a system for silently changing mods (or maybe rulesets? certain kinds of mods? plugins?), we would also have to assume that these mods which can silently be loaded / unloaded only affect. Therefore, with such a solution we would have two kinds of disparities. 
1) disparities about different balance values of units, res cost, health, acceleration... could be addressed by the hosts easily
2) disparities about gameplay must still be discussed in forum and can affect the engine, or things that cannot be changed by mods.

The question may well be asked whether this can make the overall multiplayer experience more confusing, because you need to look at many different values and compare them (you know, think very hard all the time etc.). It would thus be advisable to have a default value for each unit (makes sense, since these values do exist and will keep existing), and that each lobby will only point out the value changes which are made for the game.

 

If this were to be realized, that can certainly be considered a formidable task. And it is quite a generalization of the original proposal of this topic. Anyway, it could prove as a fertilizing feature to the community grassroot power, because many different things can be tried out simultaneously, without changing mod and restarting client each time. Altough it is only little effort to do this, we all know how human beings tend to behave. Although the game already belittles the complication to perform such change to a triviality, it still requires some effort. 

 

ps: even if i talk about very general things sometimes, please take this not as an offence towars the things which have been already accomplished. Many things work very well, and this suggestion is merely intended to inspire a general direction for the future.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

it is sought that the player has more control to order, disorder and reorder his troops.

Battalions benefit the most from melee infantry and melee cavalry to a certain extent.

 

We are not looking for realism like total war but you do feel the immersion of the battle.

 

That the infantry needs less micromanaging and you can focus that management on the missile and cavalry units.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

55 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I am not sure how I feel about battle tactic game mechanics that just rely on the player to choose "wedge" or some other tactic to execute. My worry is that some of these pre-made tactic options could take away from the player-controlled battle tactics that organically exist. I think there is a number of ways to design such mechanics, so it certainly doesn't have to detract from organic battle tactics. 

 

 

No offense, but that is a lot of words to say "I dunno bout dis. we can make it gud tho"

Wedge isn't a tactic, it's a formation. You don't click it and then cavalry automatically pwnz0r the field. You click it to put your cav into an formation that gives them some kind of stat buff for the tactic or maneuver you want to perform. You still have to command the maneuver.