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

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

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. 

It's actually pretty easy to adjust the amount of wood in the biome files if you want to play around with it. No need to touch the actual map generation code.

\mods\public\maps\random\rmbiome\generic

[alre]

41 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. 

agree. I remember there was a point between a24 and a26 that we stopped playing many maps we liked, like unknown, frontier, stronghold, rivolet, rheinland... and the reason is wood generation. I am not sure if something changed in those maps, or if it's mainland that was improved to the point that these other maps looked that worse by comparison.

[LetswaveaBook]

46 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

59 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

 If you give the players less wood, then they complain (Mediterranean/Aegean biome or like in A24). Then the wood quantity is increased again by changing the settings. The average player gets exactly the amount of wood he wants (which is plenty).

 

The current wood availability is not the problem: It is what players want.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

35 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

The current wood availability is not the problem: It is what players want.

Maybe others are talking about something else and mine is adjacent, but I mean that wood can be distributed in a way that is less likely to make placing buildings awkward. 

Also, what players want? Not sure how you quantify that, because what players want is the resources to win and that can be changed at any time by changes to the meta.  In fact, the wood-heavy nature of the game is mostly just an accident.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[krt0143]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy)

Proves there is no "one size fits all": I for one love water maps and using ships...

 

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

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.

As a player, I think resources should always be plentiful, but not necessarily easy to get at (i.e. far from your town center) -- except in maps where scarcity is the theme (desolate regions etc.). In those you'd expect to be short of some resources.

To rephrase: Resources should be just a formality, except when their rarity is clearly part of the map's challenge.

Because indeed different civilizations have different requirements, and should have very different requirements, lest they become standard copies with different skins.

 

(Note I'm totally okay with some civilizations being stronger than others. Not only is this realistic (Romans...), but it is even expected. The only reason to carefully level all civilizations to a common denominator is PvP, and while this is apparently the main driver, please keep in mind it's just one game option among several.)

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by krt0143
schpelling

[ChronA]

8 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Resources should be just a formality

But you also complain that games devolves into a speed clicking competition?  You see the contradiction there right?

From a game design perspective the whole point of resources is that they limit the number of simultaneous actions any agent can execute, whether that agent be a unit, a human player, or an AI.

I'd wager the reason the computer is steamrolling you every time with its superior APM is that for a full 40-50 minutes at the start of every game you are doing absolutely nothing to prevent its intake of resources. Then its shocked_pikachu_face.jpg that the AI with its fully built out industrial war economy, calibrated to give it some hope of holding its own in war of attrition against actual ladder players, smashes your scenario-editor model army and sim-city town in 30 seconds.
 

I actually do sympathize, because I mostly play the same way too. It's more fun. But the game is designed first and foremost to be fair and competitive in PvP, and that is a much harder challenge than making a fun PvE sandbox. I agree that 0AD doesn't have its balance right yet, but most of these guys have been working on that problem for years with little progress. All the easy solutions have been tried and found wanting.

I honestly think many of the games that get it right, like AoE2 and Starcraft, are actually products of incredible luck, not skill! They happened to stumble onto an improbable pseudo-balance that resonated with a certain audience, which then built a community around forgiving or mitigating the lingering issues. 0AD has not hit that tipping point yet and it may never do so. Most RTSs don't.

Edited September 21, 2023 by ChronA

[krt0143]

14 minutes ago, ChronA said:

But you also complain that games devolves into a speed clicking competition?  You see the contradiction there right?

Sorry, actually no. This is not an economics game, it's a strategy game with a side dish of economics. Sorry but I don't see the connection with the speed clicking competition. 

 

17 minutes ago, ChronA said:

From a game design perspective the whole point of resources is that they limit the number of simultaneous actions any agent can execute

No, not really. Resource availability only slows down the first phases, but inevitably later on you have more capacity to gather, and, after some point you have paid everything you needed to pay for (must-have buildings, techs), so your spending goes down while your income remains the same (unless you stop gathering, but that's not an imposed limitation, it's a choice).

The earning/spending ratio is not linear, and while you starve in the beginning, you have more than you need later on, when your only expense is training fighting units. Obviously if you rush the enemy as soon as you can you won't really notice, but I like to take my time and I do.

 

28 minutes ago, ChronA said:

I'd wager the reason the computer is steamrolling you every time

That's an unfounded supposition. I got my backside handed to me a grand total of 2-3 times (in the beginning), since that I've beat the computer over a dozen times, and 3-4 times I've abandoned the match because the game became too boring (entrenched situation it would take hours to sort out).
TL;DR: By now I've got used enough to 0 A.D. to beat the computer without a problem.

What I'm complaining about is not that the computer is too strong (it isn't. It's better than AoE 2, but still limited), I'm complaining it's not fun to play against it, because of the totally not-human-like speed and relentlessness.

 

37 minutes ago, ChronA said:

the game is designed first and foremost to be fair and competitive in PvP

Yes, I know. It's kind of obvious it's streamlined for that, but it's a pity because it could easily also cater for those perverts who don't like PvP games...

What it needs is more, and non-compulsory choices, so you can decide to do it this, or maybe that way, depending on the situation.
That's where the interest is for single-player games. Single player PvP is absolutely pointless, the AI lacking the only thing humans have over it, creativity.

 

44 minutes ago, ChronA said:

I honestly think many of the games that get it right, like AoE2 and Starcraft, are actually products of incredible luck, not skill!

I don't agree. Game designer is a job, much like film director, and among them you have the better and the less good ones.
There is no surprise gameplay quality is progressively going down the drain nowadays marketing has the creative say. But I'm going OT.

AoE was an improved copy of 1994's "Warcraft: Orcs & Humans". I know, I was there. Warcraft was revolutionary, and AoE (first of the name) was a me-too copy, but with (for the time) jaw-dropping graphics.
Obviously it fathered a franchise, but they were intelligent enough to improve the handling and keep the good parts intact (well, I only bought AoE, AoE 2 and AoE 2's Expansions, so can't talk for the later ones).

 

[Gurken Khan]

33 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

There is no surprise gameplay quality is progressively going down the drain nowadays marketing has the creative say.

I personally mainly blame the meddling from the suits/publishers.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, krt0143 said:

What I'm complaining about is not that the computer is too strong (it isn't. It's better than AoE 2, but still limited), I'm complaining it's not fun to play against it, because of the totally not-human-like speed and relentlessness.

Well then just set it to "defensive" if you don't want to be attacked as soon. But to say it is not human like is misktaken: the typical multiplayer game lasts about 10 to 30 minutes depending.

Most players consider rams to be balanced or a little weak. If you want them changed, you could mod it for your scenarios.

Edited September 21, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[alre]

2 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Sorry, actually no. This is not an economics game, it's a strategy game with a side dish of economics. Sorry but I don't see the connection with the speed clicking competition. 

 

No, not really. Resource availability only slows down the first phases, but inevitably later on you have more capacity to gather, and, after some point you have paid everything you needed to pay for (must-have buildings, techs), so your spending goes down while your income remains the same (unless you stop gathering, but that's not an imposed limitation, it's a choice).

The earning/spending ratio is not linear, and while you starve in the beginning, you have more than you need later on, when your only expense is training fighting units. Obviously if you rush the enemy as soon as you can you won't really notice, but I like to take my time and I do.

 

That's an unfounded supposition. I got my backside handed to me a grand total of 2-3 times (in the beginning), since that I've beat the computer over a dozen times, and 3-4 times I've abandoned the match because the game became too boring (entrenched situation it would take hours to sort out).
TL;DR: By now I've got used enough to 0 A.D. to beat the computer without a problem.

What I'm complaining about is not that the computer is too strong (it isn't. It's better than AoE 2, but still limited), I'm complaining it's not fun to play against it, because of the totally not-human-like speed and relentlessness.

 

Yes, I know. It's kind of obvious it's streamlined for that, but it's a pity because it could easily also cater for those perverts who don't like PvP games...

What it needs is more, and non-compulsory choices, so you can decide to do it this, or maybe that way, depending on the situation.
That's where the interest is for single-player games. Single player PvP is absolutely pointless, the AI lacking the only thing humans have over it, creativity.

 

I don't agree. Game designer is a job, much like film director, and among them you have the better and the less good ones.
There is no surprise gameplay quality is progressively going down the drain nowadays marketing has the creative say. But I'm going OT.

AoE was an improved copy of 1994's "Warcraft: Orcs & Humans". I know, I was there. Warcraft was revolutionary, and AoE (first of the name) was a me-too copy, but with (for the time) jaw-dropping graphics.
Obviously it fathered a franchise, but they were intelligent enough to improve the handling and keep the good parts intact (well, I only bought AoE, AoE 2 and AoE 2's Expansions, so can't talk for the later ones).

you are right about many things: 

- SP material and overall experience needs work

- the AI needs work

- siege needs work

but you are so deaf and busy listening to yourself that you you keep missing the point: the game needs work but lacks the people who put the work.

[krt0143]

13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well then just set it to "defensive" if you don't want to be attacked as soon.

Do you people read what I write? I don't care being attacked, given I take my time it will happen sooner or later anyway. No, it's the way it happens which is annoying.

 

13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the typical multiplayer game lasts about 10 to 30 minutes depending

Which is why I don't play PvP... 

My games, the ones I enjoy, last hours: I build my civilization, explore the countryside, find places to build advanced settlements, build them, and so on. While the AI tries to make an explosive expansion all over the place, I'm more like inching forward, slowly but unstoppable. Till I have caged the enemy in, and give it the final coup de grace.
Now I admit this would probably bore most of you to tears, but I never asked you to adopt my play style.

 

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

If you want them changed, you could mod it for your scenarios.

Sure, and that's what I'm doing. I've modded the whole game, first thing I did. Read (far) above for details, and I'm not finished yet.

The point being I can do it, because I've got over 30 years of gaming and computer experience, and lots of free time. Other players would be lost. So I'm suggesting that you (0 A.D. team) make some adaptations to 0 A.D. to cater for more classic single player games (as opposed to just PvP games against the AI). It would go a long way towards making it more attractive to some players. IMHO and all that.

 

[krt0143]

13 hours ago, alre said:

you are so deaf and busy listening to yourself that you you keep missing the point: the game needs work but lacks the people who put the work.

First, you don't need the ad hominem to get your point across.

That been said, yes, I've been made aware that the game is currently in the doldrums, but then again I'm not demanding, I just make suggestions.
Which are worth what they are, (general) you can pay heed to them or not. It's not like my life or well-being depend on it. 

[ChronA]

16 hours ago, alre said:

the game needs work but lacks the people who put the work.

Don't lead newbies on with false promises, alre. It won't end well for anyone. The truth is in every open source project I've ever seen, quality control matters a lot more than enthusiasm for deciding who gets to contribute.

This guy may be able to open up some XML and JSON to tinker with the contents, but in his 30 years of gaming he's learned next to nothing about game theory or competitive RTS design. He could submit hundreds of commits for consideration and not a single one will ever be accepted. He has an entirely different vision for the game, and with his current knowledge he has no ability to reconcile it with the consensus position or even see that there is a conflict.

We have seen where this road leads before. Hurt feelings, alienation, and compounding community toxicity. Let's not have another Yekaterina.

 

@krt0143 My emphatic advice to you is to focus on your modding, and heavily recalibrate down your expectations for the project beyond your own immediate control. People here will be very happy to help you achieve your vision for your mod. This community can be very generous with their time in the form of discussions and advice, right up until you start trying to overwrite their own visions by force of argument. Then expect a beatdown. No. The smart way to do things is to let your work make the arguments for you. Just reconcile yourself ahead of time that this community might not embrace your changes as wholeheartedly as you think they should.

You have a wonderful appreciation of a certain game experience that this project doesn't cater to. But I think you are right that it could... maybe.... However the way to do that is not to try to overwrite the current consensus. Rather you must try to build your own community and then shift the consensus organically. Check out the Delenda Est mod and the way it's nudged the development of 0AD in certain directions. It can be done.

And also stop boasting about how you've been playing RTS since Dune II. So have most of the people you are talking to. Everyone here is a connoisseur of the genre. It does not give your arguments any additional weight. (If you want to impress me, let's talk about how the design focus of the RTS market has shifted from sandbox to PvP over the years and how 0AD is missing a trick by not harkening back to AoE 1's sandbox focus, before AoE 2 established the series as a PvP staple.)

Edited September 22, 2023 by ChronA

[hyperion]

On 21/09/2023 at 8:42 AM, chrstgtr said:

That is unrelated

Obviously not. You claim there is an issue for the eco to fit into the current starting border, sure you can shrink the border but it's also valid to make eco take up more space. Being able to fit 300 workers into the starting screen has issues far beyond just not enough incentive to build extra CC.

[hyperion]

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

(If you want to impress me, let's talk about how the design focus of the RTS market has shifted from sandbox to PvP over the years and how 0AD is missing a trick by not harkening back to AoE 1's sandbox focus, before AoE 2 established the series as a PvP staple.)

PvP became a thing due to internet being stable enough at that time, assuming AIs progress to a point where they are a challenge for players a shift back wouldn't surprise me.

[krt0143]

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

heavily recalibrate down your expectations for the project beyond your own immediate control

Who said I had any expectations? I'm just telling generally my first impressions, what I think might need some additional work. As I've already said and repeated I make no demands whatsoever, and I'm definitely not seeking to impose my view.
I've spent enough time on this world (and especially in the Open Source community) to know you get what you pay for: If I pay you I tell you what to do, if I don't, you do as you like, period.

Yes, my view is different. I thought some of you might be interested to have a different perspective. Again, this was no demand, more so since development has stalled (I'm told).

Now if you don't want to hear my opinion, that's alright with me, just tell me so (I think you just did) and I'll shut up. Simple as that, no hard feelings. 

 

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

stop boasting about how you've been playing RTS since Dune II

I'm not boasting, I'm just trying to explain I'm not a total newbie. In 0 A.D. maybe, but I do have some baggage. Sorry if this came across as boasting.

 

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

If you want to impress me

Why would I?

 

[borg-]

31 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

Now if you don't want to hear my opinion, that's alright with me, just tell me so (I think you just did) and I'll shut up. Simple as that, no hard feelings. 

Well, we're working on some gameplay improvements for the next alpha, and yes, I want to hear some of your ideas for the game. Could you please list me?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, hyperion said:

PvP became a thing due to internet being stable enough at that time, assuming AIs progress to a point where they are a challenge for players a shift back wouldn't surprise me.

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

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, hyperion said:

Obviously not. You claim there is an issue for the eco to fit into the current starting border, sure you can shrink the border but it's also valid to make eco take up more space

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

[Joe-Lay]

On 22/09/2023 at 5:02 AM, krt0143 said:

My games, the ones I enjoy, last hours: I build my civilization, explore the countryside, find places to build advanced settlements, build them, and so on. While the AI tries to make an explosive expansion all over the place, I'm more like inching forward, slowly but unstoppable. Till I have caged the enemy in, and give it the final coup de grace.
Now I admit this would probably bore most of you to tears, but I never asked you to adopt my play style.

Yes, I think you are wanting a whole different style game. Have you tried the game called, "Farlands?" Although not nearly fancy as 0ad, it has a gameplay similar to what you want I think. Build a booming economy, explore, cantact the enemy, and finish him. Warfare is not the focus of the game, rather, the economy and expansion are. In fact, war simply consists of building troops, training them, and deploying them. It's simple compared to 0ad, but maybe you could look to it for inspiration.

 

Also, What happened to the rams? I understand that this is kind of like a conversation, but have you come to a conclusion about that? Last I read, ShadowOfHassan mentioned that historically they were vulnerable to melee troops. After that, they left to conversation.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 22/09/2023 at 2:02 AM, krt0143 said:

Other players would be lost.

I would bet most keep trying to figure out the game and all its nuances, and try to get better.

Rams are balanced for the PvP part of the game as PvP players are more affected by balance than players going up against AI. So it would be a bad call to nerf rams for everyone just because one person said it would be better for single player.

I could see benefit in spreading out the hack/pierce armor a little. This would be something like +1 hack armor -1 pierce armor.

[krt0143]

12 hours ago, Joe-Lay said:

the game called, "Farlands?"

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

 

12 hours ago, Joe-Lay said:

What happened to the rams? I understand that this is kind of like a conversation, but have you come to a conclusion about that?

Sure, I've weakened all rams by making them even slower, twice as long to repair (affects me, the AI doesn't repair), and by upping all fortress/tower resistances from their initial Hack:20, Pierce:35, Crush:3  to a more serious Hack:55, Pierce:55, Crush:10. This gives the defender more time to do something about rams. Previously, if no ram-busting unit was already very near the attacked structure, there was no time to do anything, the structure was doomed: 3-4 seconds and the mighty fortress was rubble... Penalizing the civilizations which have few sword units, like the Brits I usually play (they only have a champion sword unit).
I didn't change the rams' attack values, because they should remain deadly against other targets (civil buildings, wooden structures, etc.). They should just be less efficient against stone structures which historically were totally impervious to rams.

Now I'm happy with them, mostly. They are now the only real means of destroying the fortifications the enemy builds: Hacking at them with your puny swords and spears doesn't do a thing (as it should). But also, sending a group of 15-20 rams into the enemy's town and then just sending in the cavalry to mop up the survivors doesn't work anymore: You have to protect them if you want some of them to reach their target...
 

 

[krt0143]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Rams are balanced for the PvP part of the game

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. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Why so aggressive bruh

[krt0143]

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Why so aggressive bruh

Mean me? Because I feel a definite hostility from (some) people (see earlier this thread). You're not one of them, you stay matter-of-facts and that's really great, thanks.

I'm here to get information (due to the lack of documentation) and talk about the game, period. Neither to belittle said game (it's great, but it's a fact it still needs some work), nor to harass other forum users (or their favorite way of playing). I'd like people to understand that at last.