Game Balance: Battering Rams, the 0 A.D. tanks?...

[alre]

no reason to wait, test it already. you can use a26, or you can use the release candidate. whit who would you test it?

Edited September 19, 2023 by alre

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

If you have any ideas for other strategies, I'd love to hear them. I don't program much but the hole game design side of developing I think is fascinating. 

Also, look here:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/differential/query/all/

There is plenty of recent work in this direction.

[krt0143]

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The point is that you need a strong economy in order to afford all of your scheming here.

Sure, but I don't have any problems with economy whatsoever: By the time I reach the 3rd age I'm literally swimming in resources. By the time I start considering conquest I have several thousands of each resource. 

Please keep in mind I might be new to 0 A.D., but I've been playing AoE for years, and generally computer games since before the first PC was invented...

 

14 hours ago, alre said:

if you reward players that do something different from current meta, you are just changing a build order with another. creating a variety of strategies takes a bit more than that.

That's true, but it's still a step in the right direction, IMHO at least. It makes the game feel less scripted and deterministic.

Once again, there are players who like platform games where the (only) point is to click on the right button at exactly the right nanosecond, and who enjoy spending many months perfecting their timings. Others hate that.  - Tastes...

 

14 hours ago, alre said:

you can partecipate to the testing and general work ig you want. what's your level (lobby ranking)?

And here we have the problem! 

"Lobby ranking" = conditioned to fit the already existing play style. "More of the same".
If you want to think outside the box you have first to free yourself from that box (i.e. the standardized play style you guys have honed to achieve those rankings)...

 

Short game analysis:
There are some fundamentals in the game: You need to gather several types of resources, use those to build buildings, which in turn build more or less specialized units.

Ideally you'd need to build them (almost) all, and research (almost) all the technologies (else you get ridiculous nonsense like Zerg rushes). But "almost all" means that ideally you should be able to chose a strategy: For instance only rely on a fast-moving cavalry-based army, or prefer ranged over melee, or don't bother with siege weapons, or whatever.
Because that's where the game gets rich and interesting! What about somebody who only invests in resource gathering, and gets so rich he can rent very powerful mercenaries to do the dirty work for him?... Quid of a defensive vs. an aggressive player? Like, making sure the enemy can't harm you, but not really trying to destroy him either? Should be possible, and you should still call it a "victory", since you did achieve your goal, and denied the opponent's one.

That is what I mean by thinking outside the "RTS - PvP" box.

 

 

[alre]

2 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Sure, but I don't have any problems with economy whatsoever: By the time I reach the 3rd age I'm literally swimming in resources. By the time I start considering conquest I have several thousands of each resource. 

hoarding res is actually considered a sign of bad eco.

2 hours ago, krt0143 said:

And here we have the problem! 

"Lobby ranking" = conditioned to fit the already existing play style. "More of the same".
If you want to think outside the box you have first to free yourself from that box (i.e. the standardized play style you guys have honed to achieve those rankings)...

I can understand the appeal of such line of reasoning for anyone who wishes to change the game without having to actually understand it first.

everything you are saying about RTS has been written in this same forum dozens of time already. so much for thinking outside the box.

[borg-]

The big economic problem of 0a.d is that you can obtain thousands of resources without having expand your city. You can literally reach 300 pop with all the upgrades without needing to expand a single inch. A simple solution without the need for new developments would be to change the standard cost of units, add metal to all infantry and cavalry units, except slinger which already has its stone cost. It would also be necessary to reduce the game's initial mines to perhaps 1000 resources for metal and stone. I think that this way the player really needs to expand his territory and look for new game alternatives.

Of course, this is just a vague idea, it would need to be worked on better.

[krt0143]

57 minutes ago, alre said:

hoarding res is actually considered a sign of bad eco.

I'm not hoarding, I earn more than I need or want to spend.
Now I could indeed minimax and redeploy all those units gathering to something more productive, but by then those 20-30 spearmen are too weak for serious fighting. I could also kill them to make place for champions, but then again I don't need that many units. I only hit the 300 units limit once. I'm used to AoE 2 and its 200 unit limit.

So yes, "hoarding" might be considered "bad playing" in a PvP optimization strategy, but I don't need (or even want) "optimization", I want fun.

 

1 hour ago, alre said:

without having to actually understand it first

Come on, call me stupid, don't be shy...
What is there to understand? It's far from being rocket science, besides I've been playing AoE, which is pretty much the same thing, for 26 years now, I think I might have caught a notion or two.

As about things I said having already been said by others, maybe that proves I might be on to something, other people having had the same idea (I never claimed originality or uniqueness BTW, I only said I don't play your official way, and I thought I read that you might be interested in making 0 A.D. more universal, but clearly I was wrong).

Jeez that condescension... 

[Gurken Khan]

23 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

by then

Assuming default start res, when is "then"? (Ofc 30 spearmen have a different impact at min 10 than at min 50.)

[krt0143]

41 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Assuming default start res, when is "then"?

When I start thinking about getting offensive?
That is usually when I have built and fortified my town(s), developed all technologies, and there is nothing more interesting to do than to get medieval on my adversary's backside...
(I guess you expected some threshold amount of resources, but sorry, as I said above I only care about having enough.)

By then I'm more in minute 50 than 10, to take your example. Both parties have fully developed tech trees and their best units, so any spearmen I might have (even fully upgraded) are considered reserve and/or home defense, while all slingers are inside the towers and the couple fortresses which protect my territory from the adversary till I decide to take care of him.

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, krt0143 said:

By then I'm more in minute 50

No surprise that if you let an enemy go 50 minutes uninterrupted that it's a pain in the butt, lol.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, krt0143 said:

I'm used to AoE 2 and its 200 unit limit.

You can set this in game setup btw, if you would like 200 more. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, borg- said:

It would also be necessary to reduce the game's initial mines to perhaps 1000 resources for metal and stone. I think that this way the player really needs to expand his territory and look for new game alternatives.

not sure about 1000, but 3000 would be a reasonable short term change. I would also support further reducing the territory increase each age.

it would be true that the rng of having extra metal and stone nearby would have a much bigger effect as well.

I have mentioned this before, but I don't think the starting metal and stone should be so close to the cc. I think it would be good to randomly choose a radius and angle for each, within a reasonable range of the cc.

Sorry to go so far of topic XD.

[chrstgtr]

11 hours ago, borg- said:

The big economic problem of 0a.d is that you can obtain thousands of resources without having expand your city. You can literally reach 300 pop with all the upgrades without needing to expand a single inch. A simple solution without the need for new developments would be to change the standard cost of units, add metal to all infantry and cavalry units, except slinger which already has its stone cost. It would also be necessary to reduce the game's initial mines to perhaps 1000 resources for metal and stone. I think that this way the player really needs to expand his territory and look for new game alternatives.

Of course, this is just a vague idea, it would need to be worked on better.

Or just decrease the radius increase size with each phase. We did that some in the community mod but I think we could do it even more.

It's pretty easy to run of of minerals, esp if you build a lot of slingers, mercs, etc. It's usually wood that there is "too much" of. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I have mentioned this before, but I don't think the starting metal and stone should be so close to the cc. I think it would be good to randomly choose a radius and angle for each, within a reasonable range of the cc.

Me* and almost everyone else says the same thing (for years!), but no one creates a phab patch for it.

You'll see almost no skirmish map with the metal and stone tucked right up next to the CC, because I was the one creating those maps.   

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

It's pretty easy to run of of minerals, esp if you build a lot of slingers, mercs, etc. It's usually wood that there is "too much" of. 

Indeed. I think a lot of maps have too much wood in general, but specifically in the starting area. Not just too much resources, but so many trees everywhere making building structures feel cumbersome sometimes. 

[hyperion]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Or just decrease the radius increase size with each phase. We did that some in the community mod but I think we could do it even more.

Or actually fix the real issue, worker density.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. I think a lot of maps have too much wood in general, but specifically in the starting area. Not just too much resources, but so many trees everywhere making building structures feel cumbersome sometimes. 

Agree. On some maps this is a huge problem. The ability to build over shrubbery has partially mitigated this somewhat for some biomes.

Unfortunately, it's a tough problem to fix because you can easily tip into a scenario where there is not enough wood, which is often a frustrating player experience. Indeed, I think the player base prefers maps where wood is overwhelmingly plentiful. There is a happy medium in-between where we presently are and "not enough" wood but I think a slight decrease in wood could quickly go from "this is an improvement" to "this ruined the game."

12 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Or actually fix the real issue, worker density.

I don't know what you mean by "worker density."

[hyperion]

1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:

I don't know what you mean by "worker density."

Cut max gather by 4 to 8 for each resource.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

this ruined the game

hmm, maybe an overblown fear. I think wood would still be plentiful, just less so. Also, sometimes real improvements are hotly hated by the player base until the old meta shakes out and a new one adopted.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Cut max gather by 4 to 8 for each resource.

Simply cutting max gatherers for trees from 8 to 5 in Delenda Est makes for a more spread out wood line, less unit clumping, etc. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[chrstgtr]

18 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Cut max gather by 4 to 8 for each resource.

That is unrelated. It doesn't change the fact that there is "too much" of certain resources on certain maps. Economies will be slowed but players still may end up with thousands in extra res on many maps. 

The problem is there is often no resource scarcity, which encourages unit spam and obviates any need to build additional CCs .

Edited September 21, 2023 by chrstgtr

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

hmm, maybe an overblown fear. I think wood would still be plentiful, just less so. Also, sometimes real improvements are hotly hated by the player base until the old meta shakes out and a new one adopted.

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy).

All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

18 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy).

All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback. 

I'd say keep the same amount of wood (or just slightly less) per map in Temperate, India, et al., just make them clumpier to make more room for construction.

Edited September 21, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[roscany]

Most TGs and 1v1s take place on Temperate or Alpine biomes where wood is abundant. Starting resources can create a lot in inequity with other biomes with less starting wood (abundant stone available for slingers, Maurya with Worker Els deposit, etc.). The biome with a lot of hunt and sporadic wood can heavily favour maur for instance.

A biome like temperate or alpine usually gives for a relatively equal chance of success for all civs.

[chrstgtr]

13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd say keep the same amount of wood (or just slightly less) per map in Temperate, India, et al., just make them clumpier to make more room for construction.

I would like that.

The slightly less wood part would obviously be an alternative to making a smaller radius--both result in slightly less resources within the territory footprint. My radius idea is just easier for my less programing savvy brain to understand because it doesn't require changes to the underlying map generator. 

[chrstgtr]

8 minutes ago, roscany said:

Most TGs and 1v1s take place on Temperate or Alpine biomes where wood is abundant. Starting resources can create a lot in inequity with other biomes with less starting wood (abundant stone available for slingers, Maurya with Worker Els deposit, etc.). The biome with a lot of hunt and sporadic wood can heavily favour maur for instance.

A biome like temperate or alpine usually gives for a relatively equal chance of success for all civs.

I agree in part. But I would also say that maps with relatively less metal/stone and relatively more wood create inequity for civs that rely on slingers/mercs. It's always very sad when the ptol player runs out of stone/metal and is stuck making only pikes and camels. 

There has to be somewhere between "way too much wood" and "way too little wood" that would make it more fair for everyone.