Desired gameplay(planned) features for A23

[Grugnas]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Experience does not depend on armour, attack damage, or unit strength, nor do skirmishers require less experience to promote. Looking at the templates, it seems currently all citizen and mercenary infantry units grant 100 experience as loot, and require 100 experience to promote; all citizen and mercenary cavalry units grant 130 experience and require 150 experience to promote; healers grant 10 experience and require 200 experience to promote; all champions grant 150 experience and can not promote.

cmpPromotion.IncreaseXp(cmpLoot.GetXp() * -targetState.change / cmpHealth.GetMaxHitpoints());

an unit gains experience equal to the damage it deals and not equal to its attack strength ( pierce damage + hack damage + crush damage) thus the experience gained is equal to the damage filtrated by the target armor

[Nescio]

12 minutes ago, Grugnas said:

cmpPromotion.IncreaseXp(cmpLoot.GetXp() * -targetState.change / cmpHealth.GetMaxHitpoints());

an unit gains experience equal to the damage it deals and not equal to its attack strength ( pierce damage + hack damage + crush damage) thus the experience gained is equal to the damage filtrated by the target armor

Interesting; I stand corrected; so “-targetState.change” is the damage inflicted? From which file is this piece of code, by the way?

[Grugnas]

43 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Interesting; I stand corrected; so “-targetState.change” is the damage inflicted? From which file is this piece of code, by the way?

sorry, i should have mentioned it in the previous post.  it is from the Damage.js  component

[OuGaming]

clans....my oldest wish....only light clan structur( clanname, shortcut, memberlist). For further updates(clanranking, clan fights, flags,a clan map where the clans fight each other to control the map and maybe winning new flags for the clan/guild

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, OuGaming said:

clans....my oldest wish....only light clan structur( clanname, shortcut, memberlist). For further updates(clanranking, clan fights, flags,a clan map where the clans fight each other to control the map and maybe winning new flags for the clan/guild

I'm not sure is that is that easy to exist in next alpha.

[OuGaming]

but light structur's are not very difficult and helps a lot....and we can test a clan system...so we can search for the release the perfect system

[Lion.Kanzen]

How many mods are using counter system?

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/997#comment:15

Thanks @fatherbushido this great feature for everyone.

[Servo]

Some features for A23 if possible:

1. Make AI build walls and gates. Walls can be occupied by anyone if one turret is unoccupied. A slot on wall available for an enemy melee foot unit to come up and kill. Make AI station range foot units on walls and/or turrets. Make AI bell when there is attack and some foot range units occupy wall/turrets.

2. Increase the resources amount especially trees (maybe 400-500 per) and stone/metal and decrease the slots available for workers. African Plains stone formations though annoying but better(multiple pieces) Metals should be the same. In real world I guess you don’t get resources in one spot alone. More different food trees. 

3. With very nice animations from Alexandermb why not allow some factions that were capable and maybe built bolt shooters. If they are not specialized then make it very expensive to discourage training them become OP but in SP it would be very nice. Since the game will be in alpha for a very long time it’s better to allow training of many different units not just because the game can become pretty but testing too!

 

[WhiteTreePaladin]

7 hours ago, Servo said:

Make AI build walls and gates.

This would be fun. Probably would make the AI easier, but would still be fun. I wish we could have different AI personalities like AoE3. In AoE3 different civilization rulers (AI personalities) would have different play styles. I never really noticed much difference though. I wish we could choose a mode for the AI like aggressive, balanced, defensive, etc. and have the AI take on that role. A defensive one would tend to build walls often and be less likely to attack (would play like a turtle).

[Sundiata]

8 hours ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

I wish we could choose a mode for the AI like aggressive, balanced, defensive, etc. and have the AI take on that role. A defensive one would tend to build walls often and be less likely to attack (would play like a turtle).

I really think this is a must have. It would really help newbies ease in to the game, and offer (a combination of) different play-styles according to personal taste.

The first few matches for every single person I've ever enticed in to playing 0AD have been pretty traumatic. I see the same for every first-timer on youtube. Different aggression levels from the AI would help A LOT. The AI waltzing into your town with at minute 10 with a "massive" army when you've just figured out how to build a farm is really disheartening for a lot of first timers. At least give them a heads-up that the AI is a total douche... 

This shouldn't be that difficult to do, is it? I honestly don't know...

[Nescio]

16 hours ago, Servo said:

1. Make AI build walls and gates.

That would be very nice. Even when surrounded by fortresses and dozens of towers the AI can be easily defeated by ignoring those fortifications and simply ordering your battering rams and champion swordsmen to attack its vulnerable centres. Walls would make that less straightforward (provided the AI doesn't keep its gates wide open).

Being able to construct wonders would also be nice (a higher maximum population limit can be a serious game changer).

27 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

The first few matches for every single person I've ever enticed in to playing 0AD have been pretty traumatic. I see the same for every first-timer on youtube. Different aggression levels from the AI would help A LOT. The AI waltzing into your town with at minute 10 with a "massive" army when you've just figured out how to build a farm is really disheartening for a lot of first timers. At least give them a heads-up that the AI is a total douche...

The AI can be quite overwhelming if you're new or slow, but is not much of a challenge when you're used to 0 A.D. Furthermore, it seems to be have difficulty on maps where wood is scarce.

Actually I'd welcome any improvements which would make the AI a better long term opponent.

35 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

This shouldn't be that difficult to do, is it? I honestly don't know...

Have a look at the files inside https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai

[Sundiata]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

The AI can be quite overwhelming if you're new or slow, but is not much of a challenge when you're used to 0 A.D. Furthermore, it seems to be have difficulty on maps where wood is scarce.

Actually I'd welcome any improvements which would make the AI a better long term opponent.

I completely agree, I'd love to see the AI become a lot more challenging, reactive, responsive, strategic/tactical, building walls etc.. There should just be three "versions" of the AI:

• Passive: One that doesn't attack (unless maybe in late-game), focusses on defence/econ, peaceful diplomacy (more likely to request/accept ally status).
• Reactive: One that attacks, in response to attacks (reactionary). A balanced AI, that responds proportionally to threats. Attacks when strong, defends when weak.
• Aggressive: One that just attacks: Attack, attack, attack! Basically the current AI  

The newbies need something other than ceasefire to get used to the AI, and a lot of long-time players have a very laid-back/relaxed play-style, which isn't fun when the AI attacks every 5min. Sometimes you just want to live in peace, co-exist for a while, whilst building the town of your dreams. But that doesn't mean you don't want a worthy adversary when you're finally "ready" to fight. Ceasefire doesn't feel organic enough to satisfy. I want to feel different dispositions from different AI's...

 

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Have a look at the files inside https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai

Seems, simple enough... What you do is, you just type the thing, next to that other thing, with the funny symbol and then some more stuff kind of like that, and voila! Seriously though, code is scary  

[kalizy]

• Allow players to pick their factions and not the game host (multiplayer)
• Toggle option to lock any duplicate factions to prevent mirror matches
• Add description to formations and force said formations to stay in the formation.
• Allow the usage of any map for any player amount, some maps are just too little for some player counts
• Have a right click hold ability when navigating a formation to predict how it'll stay and where it will be pointing towards
• Build traps along the owned territory to cripple enemy approach like trap holes or spike traps
• Addition of far east Civilizations like the chinese and Japanese
• Have the corral provide trickles of food per garrisoned cattle
• allow taming of gaia animals, the persians suffer the most from not having this enabled
• Build traps around the owned territory with a certain limit and distance between traps to prevent spam.

Edited November 16, 2017 by kalizy

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

Add description to formations and force said formations to stay in the formation.

Formations are in re-design process...

• Allow the usage of any map for any player amount, some maps are just too little for some player counts

Big maps causes maps we can do maps bigger even for some rats standards

• Have a right click hold ability when navigating a formation to predict how it'll stay and where it will be pointing towards

More info.

• Build traps along the owned territory to cripple enemy approach like trap holes or spike traps

I suggested this, is nice to have and if the times permits  it.

• Addition of far east Civilizations like the chinese and Japanese

Japan is very primitive at this point, so missing information. 

• Have the corral provide trickles of food per garrisoned cattle
• planned but nobody is taking that feature.
• allow taming of gaia animals, the persians suffer the most from not having this enabled.
• Planned , is even in bonus info.
• Build traps around the owned territory with a certain limit and distance between traps to prevent spam.
• Like the towers? that probably need rebalance.

 

 

[Sundiata]

5 hours ago, kalizy said:

Allow players to pick their factions and not the game host (multiplayer)

How come this is such a bottleneck? Just curious... It's awkward, especially for first timers.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

6 hours ago, kalizy said:

Allow players to pick their factions and not the game host (multiplayer)

How come this is such a bottleneck? Just curious... It's awkward, especially for first timers.

It's one of those usability things that should have been implemented like 2 years ago.

[Imarok]

23 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's one of those usability things that should have been implemented like 2 years ago.

I have a working patch for that since some months, but implementing it properly would need a gamesetup rewrite and that takes much time and is difficult...

[elexis]

> Build traps around the owned territory

I didn't hear that one yet, it would add a new dimension to the game and would be historically accurate too I'm thinking of the roman siege walls that had horrible spikes. We already have these spike models, but they don't deal any damage.

About the gamesetup patch to allow players to select the gamesetup settings, it is a very important patch as it would also be one of the preconditions of dedicated servers (which are not as  relevant as they used to be but still a nice toy). (I would avoid the word rewrite and have done so in the option unification patch because people often say we need a/one/the gamesetup rewrite in order to solve any  problem in the gamesetup. Should give credit not too much and not too few credit to each rewrite. We for instance will need another major refactoring for the persist-match-settings crap and another one to allow maps to lock some settings, provide defaults for others while continuing to persist user settings by default. Also if everyone calls their thing gamesetup rewrite, people don't really know what's in it. Perhaps the term host-agnostic gamesetup would be more precise for https://github.com/0ad/0ad/compare/master...Imarok:just_another_gamesetup_rewrite?)

[Imarok]

2 hours ago, elexis said:

Perhaps the term host-agnostic gamesetup would be more precise for https://github.com/0ad/0ad/compare/master...Imarok:just_another_gamesetup_rewrite?)

Not really, in what why shoukd nuking g_GameAttributes be host-agnostic?

[elexis]

I did forget what the patch was about. The background was the intended change to the networking code to send only the changed setting instead of the entire gamesettings object, so that the server can check whether the modification was permitted, right? And this rewriting iteration didn't store the chosen settings in g_GameAttributes but in the GUI objects and constructed the gamesettings object from the GUI objects and the map data before launching the game. I recall. Maybe getSetting could be renamed to getGameAttribute to prevent confusion with the common settings.js code. 3 could become "ai:".length.

[SirPope]

Traps would just be a small aura that damages units. You'd just have to set blockMovement to false and they'd walk over it. A mod could easily be made without any change to the way things are (the AI wouldn't build it but that's a really minor addition to defenseManager). Would the AI know they are being damaged and move out of the way?

 

Spoiler

 

Wall building is entirely possible. The AI tends to stay away from the territory edge anyways. Implementing it would require a lot of knowledge though. The easy stuff: Access to cost, wall/gate size (and the restrictions). The hard stuff: accessing the pass-ability and territory maps - idk how to do this or how they work at all... and some vector math to make it quicker. A queue of sorts could keep track of the data for the next update. You'd also need to keep track of market path and be sure to build a gate there. Shoot make that territory exit a starting point for the wall... or the general direction of the ally or enemy locations. The upgrade feature doesn't necessarily even need to be touched to make this possible. They should be able to access the gate template right off the bat. It might need a foundation template attached to it. Use vectors and the pass-ability map to check if a spot is worthy of a gate (or if this segment has ended, can't go any father or a wall segment is near). Check certain distances and angles away from and toward the center point (nearest active base). It'd be a lazy path-finding algorithm that only runs for a little bit and follows the territory edge. It should shut off until everything in the queue is done or close to it.

 

Spoiler

"A few snakes at a time will make the plane fly..." I think Einstein said that once.

 

[Servo]

Shouldn’t be a CC be built a maximum 1CC radius away from “a player” CC border? Some Civs might have built CC very far from its main CC but probably after conquest of an enemy Civ CC. It would be impractical for colonizers to build a settlement and “grow” into CC due to some logistics and conflict reasons. 

Playing SP, AI build CC too far from main CC which make it defensive and focus on high maintenance of the newly built one. AI doesn’t even build sufficient numbers of different types of structures to qualify for use in advancing or making it look like a well developed CC, they don’t even build houses.  Their armies would even be spread thinly. The AI behavior can be affected by this type of gameplay as I noticed they don’t become aggressive even with so much resources. Though I experienced this playing 0abc mod coz I play long game/hours. I haven’t tried the vanilla for some reasons, mainly animations of melee cavalry and range sieges. 

Well it’s ok to build encampments and possibly control a tribe near the enemy territory (that is if maps are dotted with neutral tribes or towns and not just a Gaia farmstead or corrals) but shouldn’t be able to build structures that exerts too much border push.

In MP players tend to choke each other building CC too close to enemy borders and building annoying towers because they have resources in the “bank”. I think this should be changed. Say doubling the cost to cover logistics mobilization. Or whatever ways just to discourage doing so. 

[elexis]

Why discourage people from expanding their territory aggresively towards the enemy?

[Servo]

 

Just not building easily CC too far from your main borders if the gameplay can’t be changed. Well it’s just a game...that whatever strategy is available use it. 

In most wars that I’ve known armies battle they won, they conquer, they raze the city but never heard they build CC close to the enemy and very far from the main CC. 

When Civs have alliance were there Civs allowed by ally to build a CC near them during those times? IDK. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Servo