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

[chrstgtr]

23 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Sure, and I don't say PvP shouldn't exist, I just said that the single-player game is a little "underprivileged": 0 A.D. is clearly a PvP game.

Now please, before we start round 2 of shadowboxing, I have solved the problem for me, in a way satisfactory for me, and will keep improving it for me, changing stuff and adding units and buildings till I'm happy with it, meaning I do not make any demands. I've just stated an opinion. 

If you really want the game that way you can mod it and play it all you want in SP. 

But most of your balance complaints aren't really valid. They're only valid for your current level. As your skill improves, you will see why the game is balanced the way that it is. 

Ultimately, it would be great if 0AD had a better SP experience. But, as it stands, it just isn't there. The lack of a better AI system is probably the biggest weakness of 0AD and that item that keeps 0AD from gaining a bigger player base. As it stands, AI is often too difficult for beginners and way too easy for experienced players. The lack of a true campaign mode is another glaring omission. 

[krt0143]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

They're only valid for your current level.

Here we go again with the "you're too stupid to realize our genius"...

First of all you know nothing about my level, you're just making assumptions to support your certitudes. Second you're clearly unable to understand I don't care about PvP. Not in the slightest. It's irrelevant to me. I sure hope my PvP "skill" won't ever "improve" in any way.
In other words, your glorious fine-tuning for PvP is totally irrelevant to me and will remain so forever and ever: I'm a single player player.

 

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

The lack of a better AI system is probably the biggest weakness of 0AD

That's only valid for your current level.

0 A.D.'s single player AI isn't perfect, but already way better than that of the big classic hits (Warcraft and AoE 1&2, to quote those I know really well), so I'd say "adequate". The weaknesses of 0 A.D. are elsewhere and quite obvious too.

Please don't start telling me about how this is because I'm a clueless noob. There was a long exposé here on what I think can be improved, exposé I've removed to spare your superior intellect the aggravation. See, I can be taught.

 

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

that item that keeps 0AD from gaining a bigger player base

Nothing to do with the AI. The reason is first and foremost that people don't know about it, and depending on what they hope to find in this game, they might be slightly disappointed by the lack of single player features.

 

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

AI is often too difficult for beginners and way too easy for experienced players

Don't flatter yourself. The AI is correct, nothing more. What newcomers struggle with (I'm well placed to know) are:
a. Undocumented features (Why do my units do this now? How do I do this?)
b. Quirks (I tend to call them bugs, I've been told they are features... )
c. Undocumented quirky features (like the wall repair thing, or the formations, etc.)

The biggest usability problem with 0 A.D. are IMHO the rough edges. It's a really nice, good-looking game, it works well at 99%, but the remaining 1% tends to spoil a little the experience.
Also, at the risk of repeating myself, it totally lacks single player features: Just click on "Campaign", it's the first thing a new player will try after having gone through the tutorial...

IMHO, YMMV and all that.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

Second you're clearly unable to understand I don't care about PvP. Not in the slightest. It's irrelevant to me. I sure hope my PvP "skill" won't ever "improve" in any way.

10 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

a. Undocumented features (Why do my units do this now? How do I do this?)
b. Quirks (I tend to call them bugs, I've been told they are features... )
c. Undocumented quirky features (like the wall repair thing, or the formations, etc.)

ok, then please do not insult game design or the careful balance we have worked to achieve in a26, and continue to improve.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

The most experienced players of 0ad understand balance better than anyone else, because they have gone to great lengths to learn it in order to beat other players. Usually if there is a genuine balance issue it remains most noticed/complained about by more experience players. Not a soul among the top half of 0ad players complain about rams being too durable, and since its the same game that you play all we need to do is to help you learn how to counter them. Some great options:

• swordsmen (garrisoned in the building rams will target)
• swordcav ( can be garrisoned further away)
• catapults
• some melee heros
• spearmen (if you have enough)
• women ( they deal hack damage)
• your own rams

Hope this helps

[krt0143]

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

please do not insult game design

Could you please be so kind to point me to where I do this?

 

 

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the careful balance we have worked to achieve

Balance for PvP. And I'm sure it's great, except it doesn't really concern me, given I'm only interested in Player vs. AI games, where the situation is totally different: What is marvelously balanced when two humans face each other, is totally unbalanced when you replace one of those players with an AI. Why don't you people get it?...

There are two totally different aspects of the game: Human vs. Human and Human vs. AI. The first is (I'm sure) great and perfectly well balanced, the second (the one I care for) is much less so. That's all I'm saying.
That does not mean the first one is bad or shouldn't be, no, it only, exclusively, means the second is underdeveloped.
It also means that no matter what your Great Old Ones of multiplayer do or think, single player isn't (yet) what it should be.

Jeez guys, I'm aware English isn't the first language of most of us here (I'm German, for instance), but I have rarely seen such a difficulty of getting a point across.

[krt0143]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hope this helps

Thanks, but I don't have no problems with rams myself. It's the AI which has problems, when I just send 20-30 rams into its town and let them raze everything...
Anyway, as I said earlier, I've solved the my problem by editing the rams to be slower and the fortifications to be way more resistant (for all civs).

I really wonder why everyone assumes I get regularly beaten by the AI. I did indeed get beaten in the beginning, in my very first skirmishes. I've progressed a little since...

 

[chrstgtr]

I tell you these things because this is the common route that almost every player goes through (including myself). At one point, I thought rams were too strong. At one point, I thought AI was great. Then I played a little more and realized my errors.

If you aren't interested in other people's opinions then I don't know why you're posting here.  

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

My apologies for misunderstanding the situation. Yes the AI is flawed in a number of ways, and is something that needs work. I think if you increase the AI difficulty or set it to defensive it might deal with your rams better, but I haven't tested it. Well in this case the discussion is not really about rams being too durable as indicated by the title of the thread, but about AI behavior.

[Joe-Lay]

On 25/09/2023 at 5:47 AM, krt0143 said:

Interesting. Any link? Due to the pretty generic name, a search finds all kind of stuff. Which one do you mean?

widelands.org Sorry about the name mishap, it's been awhile since I played. It's real name is WideLands.

Glad to hear that you fixed rams for yourself.

As for the AI... I've found That on hard they will use rams. Especially with bigger pop. limits. Several times on 1v1 maps without population limits, I've been attacked by a hoard including 7-10 rams. However, it does seem to build them as an afterthought, focusing manly on the main army.

[ChronA]

@krt0143, for what it's worth. The reason people got prickly with you (and may continue to do so) is that the process of developing balance changes here often follows a certain pattern:

It starts with someone, often a relatively new player, asking for help with a certain feature and subsequently suggesting balance changes to push the game design in a certain direction. The community will then debate back and forth whether the critique has any merit. However, usually the mere fact that an issue was raised at all is enough evidence to agree that there is a genuine problem, which requires trying to implement at least a half fix.

While you may have no intention of making any demands, the mere fact that you exist on this forum, proclaiming that "this game does not cater to my desired experience, and there are others like me," sets a process in motion. Whether you intend it or not an institutional inference mechanism will start making demands on your behalf. The community wants to cater to your unmet preferences, even if that will cause big problems for other stakeholders, because an open source project is supposed be the ultimate expression of democratic egalitarianism.

Basically the only way to stop this process is for people to come out and try to poke holes in your POV.... saying you don't actually know what you want. It sucks that we can't discuss these things dispassionately, but such is the nature of a project with a shaky creative vision. Every perspective morphs into a sort of unintentional power play, and one must tread with care in the games of thrones.

I'm glad to hear you have been able to develop the kind of experience you want through modding. That is one of the true advantages of this project. I hope you will find opportunities to share your work and the preferences that inspired it. Just be aware that game design and balance is a charged topic here. There is history, and petty group politics, and egos tied up in those discussions. Exercise discretion if you don't want to be sucked in.

[Freagarach]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Rams are balanced in PvP, assuming equal skill for both Ps.
Rams are not balanced in SP, which is PvAI.

That may mean one of two things, IMHO:

• PvAI needs a different balance
• PvAI is of unequal skill

In the first post, the P in PvAI thought the rams are too strong, due to being overwhelmed by them. Then the P learned how to counter rams. In the later posts, the AI "thinks" the rams are too strong, due to being overwhelmed by them.

Doesn't that point to the AI not being able to cope with being attacked by rams?

(I'm not saying that the use of rams can't be changed to achieve a different balance.)

 

12 hours ago, krt0143 said:

single player isn't (yet) what it should be.

Sadly, agreed.

[chrstgtr]

51 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

PvAI is of unequal skill

At one point, someone posted a video on YouTube of you can beat very hard AI  with 300 women and clever micro. No one should suggest that women are too OP. It’s just that the AI isn’t very intelligent 

[krt0143]

8 hours ago, Joe-Lay said:

widelands.org Sorry about the name mishap, it's been awhile since I played. It's real name is WideLands.

Thanks, really appreciate it.
A Settlers-like? Sounds interesting, I will definitely give it a try.

 

8 hours ago, Joe-Lay said:

However, it does seem to build them as an afterthought

It definitely doesn't know how to use them optimally. On Easy it always sends a single ram, long after the main attack has been crushed, allowing the human player to easily get rid of it, even with a single axeman: You know it will be coming, and it will be all alone. Sometimes, later on in the game, there are two or three, but still no challenge unless you don't notice the (inconsistent) attack alarm.
On "Normal" difficulty it sends more rams, but I haven't tested the even higher difficulties to see if it uses the utterly cheesy tactics of flooding the opponent with two dozen rams at once...

[krt0143]

8 hours ago, ChronA said:

It starts with someone, [...]

At last someone calm and reasonable! Thank you!

I am fully conscious that my postings set things in motion, and that was indeed my intent: Make (general) you think about the game, beyond your little habits and compromises. Because I am assuming you want to improve it, eventually, am I wrong?

As I said repeatedly further up, while I don't make any claims for myself, chances are other people will be put off by the lack of single player features, and will lack my capacity to learn a new game engine in a week and adapt the game to my liking.

Now if that's a reason to attack me personally, I'm out of here, I'm too old to frequent school yards. I was assuming I was among adults.

 

8 hours ago, ChronA said:

Just be aware that game design and balance is a charged topic here.

I almost noticed...

[krt0143]

2 hours ago, Freagarach said:

That may mean one of two things, IMHO:

• PvAI needs a different balance
• PvAI is of unequal skill

True.
The AI is (and will be for the foreseeable future) kind of stupid, and needs some adaptations to be a worthy opponent.

That been said there is another aspect to it too: A single player AI would not be anyway similar to a multiplayer bot AI. The requirements are totally different, and it would/should proceed completely different.
That is my beef with the current AI: It's more of a multiplayer bot AI.

 

2 hours ago, Freagarach said:

In the first post, the P in PvAI thought the rams are too strong, due to being overwhelmed by them

Yes, because I was expecting the rams to be roughly similar to the AoE ones, i.e. vulnerable.
0 A.D. rams are terminator-like behemoths, especially when you play a civilization with few swordsmen (Brits only have a champion swordsman) and you do not know (because obviously no documentation) that only blades affect rams... Throw as many spearmen at them as you want, nothing happens.

The second chapter was when I tried rams myself and, due to their near-invulnerability (and probably the fact I was playing at (very?) easy difficulty back then), I could easily win the game just by building one arsenal and flooding the AI with rams. No need to train any soldiers, just build some fortifications to mop up incoming enemy raids.

 

2 hours ago, Freagarach said:

Doesn't that point to the AI not being able to cope with being attacked by rams?

No, apparently the AI knows how to cope with them quite well, but it obviously doesn't know how to cope with the crazy ideas of a human, like flooding it with dozens of rams.

At standard difficulties rams kind of work right now, but they're (IMHO) far from perfect yet: Attack timing needs improvement and their pathfinding is quite perfectible too, given they can remain blocked by 1-2 trees for a while till they find how to get around them. Actually pathfinding is their biggest weakness: Put any unit in front of them, even a non-combatant one, and they're stuck...

Anyway, my point earlier is that Rams shouldn't be some kind of medieval tanks, they should be a very specialized tool for a very specific task (breaking doors actually, but okay, let them breach walls too, else it becomes too complicated/realistic). They should actually be very easy to destroy in melee (not ranged), and you shouldn't be able to send them all the way across the continent: Ideally you should build them (like all other siege units) in the immediate vicinity of the target, and discard them after use because of their extremely limited mobility.
0 A.D. has chosen the AoE way of having a "siege engineer" building, I would had created a special unit ("siege engineer", veeery expensive!) who builds siege units locally, like you would build a house. Obviously you would have to protect those units as they would be a prime target for the adversary. Okay, that's just my opinion, feel free to disregard. This is not a demand. It's food for thought, if you guys want to think about it. If not, it's just wasted time on my part. 

 

[Grapjas]

37 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

On Easy it always sends a single ram, long after the main attack has been crushed, allowing the human player to easily get rid of it

It's kind of in the name though, on easy AI it should be easy. With that said pretty much everyone knows AI can improve but it's also a difficult task to get right. AFAIK we only have 1 person who is/was working on AI.

29 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

chances are other people will be put off by the lack of single player features

Well the game is still in alpha, so the bar shouldn't really be that high imo. That's not an excuse but people should also have realistic expectations.

32 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

Now if that's a reason to attack me personally, I'm out of here, I'm too old to frequent school yards. I was assuming I was among adults.

Your posts sometimes can come off as belittling, like this quote for example. You are mostly among adults but in any case, even a teenager can make a point. Just saying age doesn't have to be a factor at all, you can learn from youngins and vice versa. So far i've only seen people get into a (positive) genuine discussion with you. My advise would be to not take everything personally. Yes, that can be difficult, but you get better at it the longer you stick around. Which i'd encourage you to ^^.

It's obvious that 0 A.D. can be rough around the edges (there are 1441 open tickets atm for example), and everyone can have a different vision for the game (open source curse). But the moddability can almost cure anything (open source blessing).

24 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

very specialized tool for a very specific task (breaking doors actually,

I like this idea and was something i wanted to do with my mod aswell, give them a bonus damage to gates. Making them less efficient against walls, but buffing catapults against walls is something that can be quite interesting aswell.

[krt0143]

1 hour ago, Grapjas said:

That's not an excuse but people should also have realistic expectations.

Sure, but "realistic expectations" doesn't mean "it's great so far, so let's rest on our laurels now" either, does it... In other words, I'm expecting nothing, I'm just suggesting which parts IMHO need work.
(Yes, yes, development is in the doldrums, I know. But I'm assuming development will eventually resume).

 

1 hour ago, Grapjas said:

Your posts sometimes can come off as belittling, like this quote for example.

I know, but I didn't start it. I just adapt.

 

1 hour ago, Grapjas said:

give them a bonus damage to gates. Making them less efficient against walls, but buffing catapults against walls is something that can be quite interesting aswell.

Yes, but while it must be trivial to tell the engine to have rams do more damage if the target is a wall gate (given this is a specific entity), there are no real gates in towers and fortresses, so where would you aim your ram at?
As for catapults, the problem is not all civilizations have them. Many just have rams, others have the whole lineup, rams, bolt shooters, stone throwers, towers, you name it.
It's one of those cases where (relative) realism goes against gameplay richness. AoE chose to give everyone everything, no matter how strange, 0 A.D. has decided that there is a lowest common denominator (rams) and lots of exclusive extras. I'm undecided if that was the better choice: As a player I regret it, as a history buff I find it okay.

Anyway, the siege part (just like the rest BTW) could be extremely rich (from a single player perspective).
Example: Some civilizations have fire arrows, and fire should do quite some damage to wooden siege engines. Means your siege engines have no chance against those civilizations? Not at all, just develop the "Wet Hides" technology, and their fire won't do any damage anymore. (Needless to say you don't have to develop it if your adversary doesn't use fire.)
Now somebody will come and tell this will break the balance, because you'll need to spend some additional time developing that technology, putting you at an disadvantage compared to an adversary not needing it. Sure, that's why I specified "single player", where richness of gameplay is the only important thing, and civilizations don't need to be perfectly balanced (you know what you're facing when you're a primitive/poor civilization going against the mighty ones...).

 

(BTW, thanks for fixing my bug! I was wondering indeed, but given I don't know where this is processed I left the defaults)

Edited September 27, 2023 by krt0143

[Grapjas]

51 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

Sure, but "realistic expectations" doesn't mean "it's great so far, so let's rest on our laurels now" either, does it

I don't think that's ever been the mentality of the devs.

45 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

As for catapults, the problem is not all civilizations have them

I don't necessarily see this as a problem, but more of a strength and weakness diversification between civs. When theres a wall it generally means there is a wall gate too. But you should still be able to brute force your way through walls with rams, just less efficient.

Elephants are also still a thing, but imo they could use a rework aswell (much less siege dmg, more unit dmg, add splash dmg, trample etc). 

48 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

there are no real gates in towers and fortresses, so where would you aim your ram at?

I personally wouldn't simulate this ingame.

58 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

that's why I specified "single player", where richness of gameplay is the only important thing

Balance is also important in single player btw and a perfect balance doesn't exist, you can only come close(r) to it. But if it would be a close call to enriching gameplay vs balance, i would vote enriching gameplay for sure.

[krt0143]

6 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

I don't think that's ever been the mentality of the devs.

Didn't say it was, what I meant is that as long as I don't throw a tantrum because my favorite feature isn't implemented yet, I think it is okay to talk about things "which would be nice to have, eventually, if possible, etc.".

Call it brainstorming. After all nobody can think of everything himself. 

 

16 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Elephants are also still a thing, but imo they could use a rework aswell

Didn't try elephants yet, but I'd be tempted to agree: A charging elephant must be very efficient -- and quite terrifying too: Elephants should have a (short range!) enemy malus aura, especially against civilizations not used to beasts this size.
Imagine people without TV or books, for whom the biggest animal existing is a horse, suddenly seeing an elephant! Must be a traumatic event...

 

17 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Balance is also important in single player btw

Sure, but also very different, because the priorities are very different: It's not about being fair to both players, it's exclusively about giving the human player an interesting challenge. ("Difficult" if you can't manage "interesting", but that's really just the last resort choice.)
One could say the requirements are contradictory, and it wouldn't be totally wrong. The challenge is finding a good compromise...

I too think gameplay is more important (but I think you got that by now... ).

 

[hyperion]

On 22/09/2023 at 9:48 PM, chrstgtr said:

I guess what you're saying could be relevant. But only if all units can't eco within the borers. Otherwise, it just spreads out an eco. So long as all units are working then you will still end up with too much res

If farms have maxgatherers 1 you will have troubles putting your 60+ fields into current borders, if you have mines with maxgathers 8 you need to work multiple mines at the same time, often maps don't have a dozen of them in starting borders.

Clumping is a strong reason for the boom to push meta, any divergent investment hardly pays off. Even fortification can't be much more than decoration like this or any and all mean of breaching defense becomes impossible.

The reason I'm not particularly fond of reducing border radius is you can get most everywhere by building a couple barracks you need anyway. We also had proposals of building storehouses in neutral territory . So if you want to go that route any and all buildings in neutral territory must be objected except for outpost and expansion by other means more limited.

About maps, there are those with more scattered resources, try convincing players to play those, no need to change all maps. But I doubt those maps are very popular. Worst case create a map with your ideal distribution and see how it goes, my guess is you will be disappointed by the effect.

 

Another problem with expansion I forgot to mention when I last posted is the CC itself. The cost is to height and the placement restriction is problematic. Basically you put yourself on a backfoot and then due to capture potentially gifting it just away right after. Maybe the civ center shouldn't be dropsite, temple, houses, barrack, stable, fortress and forge all at once so that sane pricing and no placement restriction could be reasonable. Then expansion comes easier and at a lot lower risk.

[hyperion]

On 22/09/2023 at 8:47 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think it will take top players to work with AI programmers to make worthy AIs. That, or top players becoming AI programmers. 

It's a lot about resources, google in collaboration with blizzard trained an ai for starcraft that could compete with the best players in the world. Lot's of replays from pros and a datacenter for training were the main ingredients.

[alre]

11 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Another problem with expansion I forgot to mention when I last posted is the CC itself. The cost is to height and the placement restriction is problematic. Basically you put yourself on a backfoot and then due to capture potentially gifting it just away right after. Maybe the civ center shouldn't be dropsite, temple, houses, barrack, stable, fortress and forge all at once so that sane pricing and no placement restriction could be reasonable. Then expansion comes easier and at a lot lower risk.

I strongly support a further reduction in cc cost. a couple of possible nerfs that could go along with the reduction in cost/build time:

- no housing bonus: the baseline 20 pop is hardcorded instead

- max arrows reduced (currently is 23, could be half that number and that wouldn't make a difference in early game, as for late game, I say it would be a balance improvement actually)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Now if that's a reason to attack me personally, I'm out of here, I'm too old to frequent school yards. I was assuming I was among adults.

Before you complain about being attacked, be sure not to attack others.

Edited September 27, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Elephants are also still a thing, but imo they could use a rework aswell (much less siege dmg, more unit dmg, add splash dmg, trample etc)

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5008

[real_tabasco_sauce]

So then @krt0143, what would you like done about rams? I have seen a lot of comments but no succinct suggestions. I proposed something I thought you would be interested in earlier, but maybe you didn't see it.

Edited September 27, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce