Accuracy graphs for ranged units

[temple]

I thought I'd post about the accuracy changes in alpha 22, i.e. why skirmishers are so good.

Here's a graph of the differences in average damage per second between a21 and a22 for the basic ranged units. Their accuracy depends on the target's footprint (larger things are easier to hit), so I made graphs for both infantry and cavalry targets. (The calculations are straightforward but I won't detail them here.)

Javelin cavalry versus infantry at 20-28m now do about twice the damage they did in a21: 12-14 instead of 5-8 hp/s. Their base damage was reduced slightly (the dotted lines are above the solid lines from 0-10m), but that didn't make up for the big increase in accuracy. For a23, we'll definitely want to adjust the numbers.

Another difference in a22 is that veteran ranged units aren't boosted as much as in a21. Here's a graph showing that, along with the Mauryan and Persian "Archery Tradition" technology. (Archers' accuracy was reduced slightly in a22, so the dotted lines are above the solid ones.)

Promotion doesn't come with a decent increase in accuracy like it had in a21, and the archery tradition difference is really stark: against infantry at 80m, archers only do half the damage they used to. We'll want to adjust these numbers for a23 too.

Here's a few more graphs.

When fighting against other ships, ships are much more accurate than shown above, since their footprints are so large. The bolt shooter (ballista), catapult (onager), and quinquereme have splash damage, which I haven't taken into account here.

Edited August 24, 2017 by temple
corrected the a21 archery tradition curve

[Lion.Kanzen]

sounds nice info to add in-game manual.

[vladislavbelov]

7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

sounds nice info to add in-game manual.

Especially since we have charts

[fatherbushido]

Yes, that's different in a22 and in a21. Would you expect the converse?

[mapkoc]

I think this comparison helps tuning accuracy, pierce, etc. for future versions.

Right now skirm cav is too op.

Feldfeld thinks this doesnt take into account moving targets and that archers are better than the graphs show.

[temple]

The damage in the graphs is the equivalent pierce damage. I took crush damage (of slingers, cats, quins) to be 1/3 pierce damage which corresponds to about 10 extra levels of armor, since infantry and cavalry have about 10 more crush armor compared to pierce armor.

52 minutes ago, mapkoc said:

Feldfeld thinks this doesnt take into account moving targets and that archers are better than the graphs show.

Yes, it doesn't take into account moving targets.

The thing about ranged units is that they can all attack at once, so they work even better when massed. And since archers have longer range, they can be massed more effectively.

1 hour ago, fatherbushido said:

Yes, that's different in a22 and in a21. Would you expect the converse?

I'm just showing the differences. I think these graphs help in understanding the effect of "spread". I like that skirms were made more accurate in a22, but obviously it was too much. And for example, instead of reducing slingers' crush damage from 2 to 1, maybe a better solution would've been to reduce their accuracy. Hopefully we can make a23 better balanced.

[Feldfeld]

15 minutes ago, temple said:

Yes, it doesn't take into account moving targets.

The thing about ranged units is that they can all attack at once, so they work even better when massed. And since archers have longer range, they can be massed more effectively.

My point, when speaking with mapkoc, was that i think that with the accuracy rework, archers reach more moving target, so it would buff archers. So i suspected that your graphs were without moving targets, thus underestimating the changes for archers from a21 to a22, and this is why archers would be better than what the graphs shows (in addition of their strength when massed that we already knew). I'm pretty sure that you would find a difference between a21's and a22's archers if you made graphs on moving targets and it would seem difficult to me to balance with these graphs only.

But the fact that archers are better against moving targets compared with a21 might only be my own feel and maybe it needs confirmation.

[elexis]

3 hours ago, temple said:

For example, instead of reducing slingers' crush damage from 2 to 1, maybe a better solution would've been to reduce their accuracy. Hopefully we can make a23 better balanced.

The problem with slingers was that they nuked buildings really easily. We didn't want people that can throw tiny rocks to destroy fortresses quicker than siege engines. We can't fix that with accuracy, because a CC or fortress has a huge footprint. Slingers vs other units were not intended to be changed much by that commit.

I did see a lot more cavalry rushes in a22, which is a thing I do like. People have complained a lot about turtling and rushes being useless in the past. So take care in case of proposing balancing changes. It'd be great to have a replay that undoubtedly proves skirmisher accuracy to be a bug and not a feature. It ought to be discussed and tested in svn lobby games (admittedly that can be done more easily if people have Phabricator access and in a21 we actually had these balancing testgames based on that with Grugnas, borg- and few willing guests).

[Lion.Kanzen]

Add x3 resistance vs slingers or something like that .

slinger can be only effective vs towers.

[temple]

4 hours ago, elexis said:

The problem with slingers was that they nuked buildings really easily. We didn't want people that can throw tiny rocks to destroy fortresses quicker than siege engines. We can't fix that with accuracy, because a CC or fortress has a huge footprint. Slingers vs other units were not intended to be changed much by that commit.

I would say the problem was more that they were good vs buildings and good vs units, so you could survive with an army of pure slingers. One way to fix that is to make them weaker vs buildings like in a22. But another way to fix that is to make them weaker vs units, so that a pure slinger army could be more easily countered. I think this second option might lead to more interesting gameplay. (Edit: Maybe slingers could do circular splash damage? Maybe javelin could do linear splash damage? Just offering some ideas.)

(Just to do the math here, looking at the stats in a21: A fortress has 40 pierce and 6 crush armor. A ram does 150 crush damage with repeat time 1.5s, which is 53.1 hp/s against a fortress. A slinger does 9.5 pierce and 2 crush damage with repeat time 1s, which is 1.2 hp/s. So one ram is worth 44 slingers. It seems the only change in a22 was slingers' crush damage being cut in half, which brings their rate down to 0.67 hp/s. So now one ram is worth 79 slingers.)

 

6 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

My point, when speaking with mapkoc, was that i think that with the accuracy rework, archers reach more moving target, so it would buff archers. So i suspected that your graphs were without moving targets, thus underestimating the changes for archers from a21 to a22, and this is why archers would be better than what the graphs shows (in addition of their strength when massed that we already knew). I'm pretty sure that you would find a difference between a21's and a22's archers if you made graphs on moving targets and it would seem difficult to me to balance with these graphs only.

But the fact that archers are better against moving targets compared with a21 might only be my own feel and maybe it needs confirmation.

Archers shoot faster than skirms and slingers, so they can be better against moving targets. Here are the projectile speeds (m/s):

a21  a22    unit
120   75    archer
 60   62.5  slinger
 56   62.5  skirm
 75   75    cav archer
 50   62.5  jav cav

Archers shoot slower than in a21, along with being less accurate (and promotions having less of an effect). Numerically it seems archers are slightly worse this alpha, unless I've made a mistake. I don't use them often so I can't say my own feeling.

(There were some changes with the prepare time of melee units, maybe that could make ranged units seem better.)

Edited August 4, 2017 by temple

[Lion.Kanzen]

We can starting creating charts and sheets.

Spoiler

http://aoe2stats.net/

Edited August 4, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[Imarok]

Like that?

https://i.imgur.com/CY2Twpj_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

[elexis]

Link broken. There's also an attach button here.

Not sure if the graphs are really useful enough to be worth the complexity

[LordGood]

Projectile speed is way too high, I dropped it way down to experiment and it made gameplay a lot more interesting, and units visually wont be shooting arrows through teammates. Givign an ability to use micro to dodge archer spam would help reduce 'ranged supremacy'

[fatherbushido]

@LordGood: it will be time to decrease it when decreasing unit moving speed and reducing vision (and and and and and...) ;-)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 hours ago, LordGood said:

Projectile speed is way too high, I dropped it way down to experiment and it made gameplay a lot more interesting, and units visually wont be shooting arrows through teammates. Givign an ability to use micro to dodge archer spam would help reduce 'ranged supremacy'

 

4 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

@LordGood: it will be time to decrease it when decreasing unit moving speed and reducing vision (and and and and and...) ;-)

Ironically, DE has already done this for ages now. 

 

Projectile range decreased.

• Archers more vulnerable to faster moving melee units like cavalry.

Projectile speed decreased.

• You can actually see the projectiles now. lol
• Possibile to use micro and dodge incoming projectiles.
• The projectiles have a nicer looking arch to their flight.

Vision ranges decreased.

• Maps feel larger.
• Another significant benefit is that units are more manageable.

Unit movement speeds decreased.

• Units are more manageable.
• Maps feel larger.

Archer firing rate decreased.

• Now they don't look ridiculous.

Edited August 6, 2017 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Imarok]

22 hours ago, elexis said:

Link broken. There's also an attach button here.

Sorry, seems like my smartphone made stupid things

Here are the correct ones:

Spoiler

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I prefer this...

Edited August 7, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

use #FF3333 for red

try less dark red or use oranged redish

[Imarok]

Those pictures are not mine, they are a proposal from @s0600204

[Lion.Kanzen]

ok

@s0600204

[serveurix]

On 8/5/2017 at 1:11 AM, temple said:

I would say the problem was more that they were good vs buildings and good vs units, so you could survive with an army of pure slingers. One way to fix that is to make them weaker vs buildings like in a22. But another way to fix that is to make them weaker vs units, so that a pure slinger army could be more easily countered. I think this second option might lead to more interesting gameplay. (Edit: Maybe slingers could do circular splash damage? Maybe javelin could do linear splash damage? Just offering some ideas.

Why not making slingers do pierce damage instead of crush ?

[serveurix]

@Imarok these tables only concern 1v1 right ? They don't take in consideration massed vs massed ?

[Imarok]

1 hour ago, serveurix said:

@Imarok these tables only concern 1v1 right ? They don't take in consideration massed vs massed ?

Yes

[Grugnas]

1 hour ago, serveurix said:

Why not making slingers do pierce damage instead of crush ?

Honestly more crush instead of pierce damage would be really interesting, perhaps an alternative to ordinary sieges.

i don't fancy to see all civs training units from the same dedicated building for every civ,  basically like when you change skin to you favourite champion in League of Legends. Same stuff but different rendering