[Gameplay Guideline]Resource System & Map control Elements

[Guest]

Among equally skilled players, citizen soldier rushes will *always* favor the defender.

If Player 1 and Player 2 are matched in skill level:

Then it can be assumed their population composition would be almost identical. People eventually figure out the best build.

cit-soldiers_1 ≈ cit-soldiers_2

Now, if one of the players were to attack, he would have to lose a certain component X of his eco and a time constant. Meanwhile, the other player would would have an X larger economy for the time constant. When the player does reach the enemy, there would be population gap in favor of the defender. The battle field is already biased towards the defender. In such a case, the only way for the attacker to win is to have superior skill. But the two players are considered of equal skill. The outcome being that if I were to bet on borg- and borg- from an alternate reality, I would bet on the borg- who did not rush.

The only rush which does work is the cavalry rush. And that is only because of superior numbers. Which can be attributed to the ridiculous cavalry meat gathering speed.

You can consider this all to be a technicality which is negligible in reality. But I have never seen a player rush with infantry on a "pro" 1v1 game. There was the fanatic rush in A20 (?). But they were obviously OP.

[Feldfeld]

24 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Among equally skilled players, citizen soldier rushes will *always* favor the defender.

If Player 1 and Player 2 are matched in skill level:

Then it can be assumed their population composition would be almost identical. People eventually figure out the best build.

Not necessarily. There are different level of commitment whether to make more women or not. It can also depend on the extension to take additional ressources  more exposed around one's base.
It's a gamble to make women as it could give an eco advantage but also could easily lose the game, or lead to a disadvantage if someone makes more citizen soldiers and decides to attack with them.

32 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

You can consider this all to be a technicality which is negligible in reality. But I have never seen a player rush with infantry on a "pro" 1v1 game. There was the fanatic rush in A20 (?). But they were obviously OP.

 

33 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

The outcome being that if I were to bet on borg- and borg- from an alternate reality, I would bet on the borg- who did not rush.

There actually has been quite a decent number of infantry rushes in the current alpha. It could very well fail in case of similar number (although often the attacker can choose a favorable engagement) but the viability of a rush depends of scouting before to check if it's a good idea. A borg- and borg- from alternate reality will deal differently with their maps and civilizations which can lead to imbalances here and there but borg- will never do an infantry attack without scouting before.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I would say, however, that the flaw isn't necessarily with the presence of citizen-soldiers but their implementation.  It should take time to mobilise troops, which could make the effects of a rush significantly more devastating as working time can be lost during the time the soldiers are preparing to defend themselves and then during the time they demobilise.  It could be even harder if the rusher continuously cycles between different gathering areas, forcing the defender to take an active role in defence if they wish to survive.  I've mentioned this idea before, but in fairness, few people seem to appreciate this concept.  Definitely though, Darkreaver's concept is much better than the current iteration of the citizen-soldier.

[coworotel]

11 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

Because design doc. It pretty much describes a total war clone.

I think the problem of trying to make 0 A.D. a Total War clone at this point is that it is already very much an "Age of Empires" type of game (which in my opinion is a nice thing)... We might as well start a new game from scratch.

On 3/19/2017 at 2:14 AM, DarcReaver said:

-          No distinction between economic and military units (an integral part of every RTS)

-          Since many gatherers can be active at the same time (economic + every military) gathering rates have to be poor to avoid “economy explosions” which means that the resource income increases exponentially with each additional soldier

I agree with these points. The game would benefit of 3 distinct classes: workers (women currently), citizen soldiers (who would be "trash combat units" compared to military from barracks) and proper military. Also currently CC's function is too similar to barracks... I saw some gameplays (GamerZakh I think) when they notice that barracks produce almost the same units as the CC they are totally confused, and for good reason... IMO would be better if there was no military besides maybe a very trash one available in CC - like in borg's mod.

On 3/19/2017 at 2:14 AM, DarcReaver said:

Players loose resources when attacking, short math example:

Like StopKillingMe said I think this is not that huge disadvantage. Just the time of walking does not disturb your economy that much. Besides, while the attacker is harassing you and your economy, his base is working normally (with less workers, but still...)

On 3/19/2017 at 2:14 AM, DarcReaver said:

-          To get citizens back to work is a very fiddly task and annoying compared to regular economic units

Just press Y as FeldFeld said.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, coworotel said:

I think the problem of trying to make 0 A.D. a Total War clone at this point is that it is already very much an "Age of Empires" type of game (which in my opinion is a nice thing)... We might as well start a new game from scratch.

No one is truly saying the game should be a TW clone. Adding battalions (or "squads" as @DarcReaver would say ) does not turn the game into a TW clone.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No one is truly saying the game should be a TW clone. Adding battalions (or "squads" as @DarcReaver would say ) does not turn the game into a TW clone.

yes as you said, the simulation is very arcade even with that, can be a Preatorians or Rise Fall clon mixed with AoE.

and guys TW you can build your city at real time.

[coworotel]

22 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

• “Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy.

   

• Single path to victory - It seems to be a trend that games cater to a specific strategy that is frequently used to attain a victory. That could be rushing, turtling, booming, etc. We recognise these are valid ways to win a game, but we will attempt to not favour one over another. Players should be able to successfully use (and adapt/change) any strategy to achieve a victory.

   

• Sneaky Tricks - Many games overlook some aspects of gameplay that are unintentionally (by the game designers) used to a player's advantage. Through many hours of gameplay testing, we need to identify and eliminate these tricks.

   

• Repetition - If you find yourself doing the same action over and over without thought, then we need to either eliminate or automate such an action. Linear repetitious procedures are meaningless and boring. “

I think these goals are nice, but also utopic. Only scenario where clicking fast does not give you advantage is in turn-based strategy like Civilization. If there is a real-time aspect, whoever is faster will be able to do more.

Single path to victory is almost inevitable, in the pro competitive games. You have an optimization problem, eventually the best players find the optimal or semi-optimal algorithm and then that's what will be done to win. How to avoid this? Only if a problem with many equally good solutions is designed, but that will mean the game's balance has god-level perfection. Which now is the opposite, only 3 civs stand any chance of winning in competitive mode, all of them by using mass ranged units/booming.

Repetition follows from such optimal algorithms, which imo will inevitably arise.

The sneaky tricks part maybe deserves more attention. Many unintended advantages have been found: dancing, supremacy of ranged units, etc.

One question that I don't know the answer and that might help to balance ranged units: why are they balanced in AoE2? Why do people use infantry in AoE2? Is it due to hard counters?

[Guest]

Then I guess it's time to backtrack all the way to 2001. Those were not written by DarcReaver.

From what I gather, the common goal of everyone working on this game is to complete the game envisioned by the founders.

[wraitii]

On 6/10/2019 at 9:18 AM, (-_-) said:

From what I gather, the common goal of everyone working on this game is to complete the game envisioned by the founders.

That's still an open question at the moment.

---

Moderator's note: This comment, whilst a valid response to an on-topic remark, resulted in an off-topic stream of posts that were relocated here.

[fatherbushido]

2 hours ago, coworotel said:

Single path to victory is almost inevitable, in the pro competitive games. You have an optimization problem, eventually the best players find the optimal or semi-optimal algorithm and then that's what will be done to win. How to avoid this? Only if a problem with many equally good solutions is designed, but that will mean the game's balance has god-level perfection. Which now is the opposite, only 3 civs stand any chance of winning in competitive mode, all of them by using mass ranged units/booming.  

Yes. See all the past release and their (mp) meta.

[borg-]

Counter system helps to make the game with more rush and less eco boom, since you can scout your opponent and make counter units and attack in the first minutes.

Divide barracks in infantry, ranged and cavalry help too. You catch your enemy by surprise, he may not have the time or resources to start a troop that has a bonus against your troops.

Civic centers cant make soldiers also helps and reduces the initial eco boom. You must use more resources to build barracks and scout your enemy.

For the next version, I implemented a debonus for farms near the civic center. This should help players who want to attack early and create problems for those defending themselves.

I want to implement two things based on territory. Units gain a trickle of XP in enemy territory and a loot increase for killed units.

I also think it would be interesting if the units that had resources in the hands move more slowly. This slows down the collection speed a bit, and also reduce the chance of your enemy running from an surprise attack.

[borg-]

Another thing that would be a powerful resource to encourage attacks would be to enable the dropsides in neutral territory.

That would be incredible, but I do not know what the players opinion about it would be.

[Lion.Kanzen]

26 minutes ago, borg- said:

Another thing that would be a powerful resource to encourage attacks would be to enable the dropsides in neutral territory.

That would be incredible, but I do not know what the players opinion about it would be.

give a penalty to the HP..

other idea make little villages from water supply. like a water reservior this gives a little radius and build some houses.

.

work as a CC but you can train units and gives boost with farms.

redious is minor but you can hide in early in wood maps. you can health your units. water is life.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 hours ago, borg- said:

I also think it would be interesting if the units that had resources in the hands move more slowly. This slows down the collection speed a bit, and also reduce the chance of your enemy running from an surprise attack.

I've wanted this forever. I call it "shuttle speed." That way you can make pikemen and skirmishers shuttle their resources at the same speed and reduce the economic differences between them (Delenda Est gets rid of soldiers gathering resources because of this and many other issues, so is a moot point for my mod; important to implement for core game).

[s0600204]

As requested, all posts off-topic (and those flaming and/or trolling) have been split elsewhere. Those with value in them may be restored in/as a different thread,  later.

However, to everyone who posted before the split, regardless of who they be:

Be. Nice.

It is acceptable to disagree with someone else.

It is not acceptable to insult, to demean, or be overly aggressive in your posts.

I hope that is clear to everyone. No exceptions.

 

Oh, and please keep on-topic in future, thanks!

[Lion.Kanzen]

now normality is return here...

 

what about ancient Cistern, I'm making a mod from that to include in another mod.

little civil building that provide some rural aspects to the game.

Cistern can be one of them to a expansion more agressive but with less possibilities to defending, unlike a CC or Colony.

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[borg-]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

now normality is return here...

 

what about ancient Cistern, I'm making a mod from that to include in another mod.

little civil building that provide some rural aspects to the game.

Cistern can be one of them to a expansion more agressive but with less possibilities to defending, unlike a CC or Colony.

 

Cistern will have a territory root??

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, borg- said:

Cistern will have a territory root??

yes , is kind trying to some civilian to adventure in an province to exploit resources.

but are hard to defend, so is risky.

settlements to provide laborers to agricultural or mine.

Quote

Rural development is the process of improving the quality of life and economic well-being of people living in rural areas, often relatively isolated and sparsely populated areas.[1]

Rural development has traditionally centered on the exploitation of land-intensive natural resources such as agriculture and forestry. However, changes in global production networks and increased urbanization have changed the character of rural areas. Increasingly tourism, niche manufacturers, and recreation have replaced resource extraction and agriculture as dominant economic drivers.[2] The need for rural communities to approach development from a wider perspective has created more focus on a broad range of development goals rather than merely creating incentive for agricultural or resource based businesses. Education, entrepreneurship, physical infrastructure, and social infrastructure all play an important role in developing rural regions.[3] Rural development is also characterized by its emphasis on locally produced economic development strategies.[4] In contrast to urban regions, which have many similarities, rural areas are highly distinctive from one another. For this reason there are a large variety of rural development approaches used globally.[5]

Rural development is a comprehensive term. It essentially focuses on action for the development of areas outside the mainstream urban economic system. we should think of what type of rural development is needed because development  of village leads to urbanization and village environment disappears.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

"Cisterns" seems more like it should be a technology rather than an actual buildable structure. (as always, see Persians in Delenda Est, lol)

 

I'd looove it if we could give to the Persians a small special building called "Yakhchāl" or "Ice House" in English.

Quote

A yakhchāl is an ancient type of evaporative cooler. Above ground, the structure had a domed shape, but has a subterranean storage space; it was often used to store ice, but sometimes was used to store food as well. The subterranean space coupled with the thick heat-resistant construction material insulated the storage space year round. These structures were mainly built and used in Persia. Many that were built hundreds of years ago remain standing.

We should get rid of the weird "Tacara" object and give them something more unique like this. 3 model variations would be nice. Build limit of 5. Adds +5% health to all units with an aura. If special starting structures are implemented in core game, they can start with 1. Persian units could have a -20% train time buff (or have extra training techs to this effect), but a -10% health debuff. Building Yakchals would mitigate this and adds a nice cultural touch.

Either that, or someone could help me add them to Delenda Est instead.  

 

Spoiler

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Cisterns" seems more like it should be a technology rather than an actual buildable structure. (as always, see Persians in Delenda Est, lol)

 

I'd looove it if we could give to the Persians a small special building called "Yakhchāl" or "Ice House" in English.

We should get rid of the weird "Tacara" object and give them something more unique like this. 3 model variations would be nice. Build limit of 5. Adds +5% health to all units with an aura. If special starting structures are implemented in core game, they can start with 1. Persian units could have a -20% train time buff (or have extra training techs to this effect), but a -10% health debuff. Building Yakchals would mitigate this and adds a nice cultural touch.

Either that, or someone could help me add them to Delenda Est instead.  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

can be, but DE have different mechanic doesn't need control territory. here cistern represents more than water.

is rural thing. no temples, barely barracks, defenses if you want give some defense. build houses far away from  your CC.

increasing little you territory but are kind illegal settlements, no authority of governor. decentralized of course. 

the water es an excuse to populate.