Game rewards turtling too much

[FeXoR]

11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Are these 2 mine placements redundant code in each and every script (140 files) or is it in the shared code (1 file)? 

As @(-_-) said shared code (thanks to @elexis) for most maps. Only few use their own starting resource distributions.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 minutes ago, FeXoR said:

As @(-_-) said shared code (thanks to @elexis) for most maps. Only few use their own starting resource distributions.

So, I'm gathering that those pesky mines can be placed further away rather easily. It's just that they might interact with the Iberian walls and Fortress maps. Doesn't seem too bad.

[Guest]

Indeed, even easier if the current concept is to be abandoned and all maps follow the same procedure.

For example: in case of mines, it just involves changing the distance value in https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/maps/random/rmgen-common/player.js#L317.

[elexis]

For random maps. It could also be developed to a gamesetup option (no starting mines, small starting mines, regular starting mines, extra mines) (for random maps).

[Guest]

Perhaps even Iberian walls could be an option too. I recall some games with random civs where whoever gets Iberians had to delete the walls. It was on a wierd map (Snowflake Searocks IIRC), so theres that too.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Guest

[Sundiata]

I like the direction of this discussion  

1 hour ago, (-_-) said:

Perhaps even Iberian walls could be an option too.

Or discarded completely? It would be nice if factions are diversified by historical merit, instead of this arbitrary stuff like Iberian starting walls or free houses for Ptolemies, which is very unhistorical, weird and feels like a cheap attempt at "diversifying". Ptolemies could have all sorts of bonuses ranging from higher pop-cap, higher income from mines, higher agricultural output, higher income from trade, more specific mercenaries, etc, all historically based. But free houses that take longer to build? Nah.. Cheap houses that take less time to build, maybe... Same for Iberians... just give them cheaper walls if you must, but I don't even really see the logic in that. Iberians could have higher income from loot, and coral benefits, on account of the cattle rustling and raiding (hoping that cattle becomes a thing in the near future). 

Anyway, yes to moving mines further  It has bugged me for years as it also messes with your town planning (who would allow mining in the town center anyway?). It's so claustrophobic..

Turtling should be viable, but it can also be simultaneously nerfed by placing resources further away, and preventing farming in the immediate vicinity of the CC. This would allow you to effectively wall a built up area, but if you're being sieged, you'd eventually "starve" because you don't have access to resources. Right now you can farm while under attack as if nothing's going on and the starting resources usually last long enough to have a mini-trade route set up within you're walled area. Which is silly. Stronger, more expensive walls seems to be the way to go. They become more useful (with gates being the weak spots), but become less viable to spamming because of increased cost. 

Another thing I've been meaning to bring up in regard to trade and how the current mechanics could be improved: Currently markets generate the highest revenue if you place them furthest appart. Ok, seems reasonable, right? Not really... It results in people placing markets on the edge of their territory, away from their settlement. So now we have a situation, were people are farming in the town center, and building markets in the middle of nowhere. It should be the other way around. How? Simple:

 1) A hard exclusion zone around the CC, which forces farms towards the outskirts of your territory 

2) Profitability of markets is determined by 2 factors: relative distance to each other (like now) AND, how many houses are within it's radius. 1 - 10 houses represent respectively 10 - 100% market profitability. So the amount of resources a trader caries is determined by the market they're coming from (how many people "live there" and how far away is it)

Bonus side-effect: people actually build up relatively concentrated satellite settlements (for increased income) with natural looking farmlands on their outskirt, as opposed to the classically awkward low density RTS-sprawl all over the map. 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Sundiata

[Palaiogos]

I still don’t understand why people don’t like the farms around CC. It has been a stable for basically every RTS game. 

What needs to be done is more bonuses the more stuff you control. Like getting a bonus’s to gathering if you are in own territory. Territorial expansion takes too long.

[Guest]

Since we are on the topic, I would like to add something that has been brought up before a number of times in the past. This is my opinion on how to encourage town development like how its supposed to be done. Its two concepts which do not necessarily depend on each other and both would achieve the same goal.

---------------------------------------------------------

Treating a Civic Center as a "civic center":

Currently, its nothing more a storehouse which gives a large territory boost. Maybe, the RoN's city concept could give some inspiration. Building such as houses, markets, temples and other buildings "which you wouldn't find isolated in a country side" could be restricted to a radius n meter from the CC. And after n buildings, the town be considered as a larger town and the radius of the CC be enlarged. And certain buildings such as wonders or libraries be constrained near a CC which has reached the "largest" level. In such a concept, it would be pretty disadvantageous for a player to waste the precious space of his CC on farms or storehouses. Space becomes kinda like a resource. While model changes would be a nice addition, it is not necessary. And it would not be rather difficult to implement (could be, but probably not).

Changes to farms:

Most of the time, it isnt the farmer who decides where to put his farm but the land. You go and cultivate crops where the land is suited for doing it. Perhaps this could be reflected by either giving farms gathering bonuses/debonuses or by making farms finite and varying the amount of food it produces.The former is already implemented in Delenda Est to an extent. But in my opinion, the restriction should be stricter and easier to satisfy. So unlike DE, a pretty large area of the map should be viable farmland with some areas having a higher return rate (near rivers and the like). And the remaining area be impossible to farm. If up to me, I would come up with a combination of all. Personally, I do not like the "build once and forget" concept of farms.

---------------------------------------------------------

Thats just my opinion on an interesting concept. Now if anyone is interested in making a mod, I would be happy to test it.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Palaiogos said:

I still don’t understand why people don’t like the farms around CC. It has been a stable for basically every RTS game. 

What needs to be done is more bonuses the more stuff you control. Like getting a bonus’s to gathering if you are in own territory. Territorial expansion takes too long.

Its unrealistic. Being a game that tries to be a accurate as possible, it should be considered too. And the "every other game is using it" argument is IMO not worth much. I don't see any citizen soldiers in any AoE game. Uniqueness can be a nice thing sometimes.

But I'm not a fan of limiting the players and getting rid of play styles or whatever. So whatever the player wants to do should be possible, even if discouraged. "You can do what you want to do, but it may not be the best thing to do".

[Sundiata]

46 minutes ago, Palaiogos said:

I still don’t understand why people don’t like the farms around CC. It has been a stable for basically every RTS game. 

Have you ever been to a farm? Or have you ever been to the center of any town or city anywhere in the world? lol, sorry...

I just really hope that 0AD can breath new life into the RTS genre by getting rid of those stale 90's conventions, instead of dogmatically adhering to them. It's time for some new and revamped formulas. Not the same old, same old logical fallacies. 0AD can and should be much more than just glorified nostalgia (I know it already is, but we can do better, even with minor changes here and there).

Triggers me every time...

Farms belong on the outskirts while markets belong in the center! How does this not upset you? lol...

 

 

[ValihrAnt]

 

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

A hard exclusion zone around the CC, which forces farms towards the outskirts of your territory 

Will end up in players building fields at the edge of the map and building house walls around them to protect women during raids.

 

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Profitability of markets is determined by 2 factors: relative distance to each other (like now) AND, how many houses are within it's radius. 1 - 10 houses represent respectively 10 - 100% market profitability. So the amount of resources a trader caries is determined by the market they're coming from (how many people "live there" and how far away is it)

And because the fields will have most of the houses around them players will also make their market there, meaning that the market ends up in the middle of farmlands which are far away from the CC and have only one entrance as far away from the enemy as possible.

I think the best way to do it is to still let players build their fields around the CC, but have farmlands (like in Delenda Est) that increase farming rate by 2-4x (depends how much you don't want players farming around the CC) scattered around the edge of their territory. Would be a nice compromise for now.

Also what about corrals? I'm sure having a huge slaughtering grounds in the middle of a city isn't more realistic than farming in the middle of it.

[elexis]

4 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Perhaps even Iberian walls could be an option too

You're reading my tickets, admit #5147

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, ValihrAnt said:

Will end up in players building fields at the edge of the map and building house walls around them to protect women during raids.

And because the fields will have most of the houses around them players will also make their market there, meaning that the market ends up in the middle of farmlands which are far away from the CC and have only one entrance as far away from the enemy as possible.

There can be a no-build zone right on the edge of the map, just wide enough to let units and siege pass. Then building a wall (or a wall of houses) won't be able to hug the edge. You'd have to build all the way around. Secondly, houses should be really weak, so house-walling isn't effective, and raiding can more effectively include destroying enemy houses to suppress their pop-cap. Thirdly, building a marketplace close to farmlands and a bunch of houses is still far more logical than building markets in the middle of nowhere...

[Rolf Dew]

I would love if there was a feature, where when a citizen soldier is used to gather resources, then he would become just a regular unarmed villager. There should be like a armory building, where unarmed male villagers can go to, to turn into soldiers, there should be like a raid bell or something similar, so that when an attack happens, these unarmed citizens can become citizen soldiers. I believe in this way, raids can still be feasible, as citizen soldiers would be vulnerable to raiders when they are used as workers and this is also historically accurate, as citizen soldiers did not carry their weapons and armors at all times. This could be like a conscription idea, where male (and female in certain factions) villagers can become miltia or basic citizen soldiers when it is times of war.

I hope I was clear in explaining this concept.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Rolf Dew

[Rolf Dew]

I would love to see this concept in a mod or the main game if possible, it could add more strategy and thought to the citizen soldier concept in my opinion.

[Sundiata]

Also, farms should really be rectangular, like the great majority of farmlands in the real world. Like 50% larger on one side. They'd look a lot more natural, and the increased size will make them a little awkward to place in the middle of town. 

About the shape of the field: when ploughing a field, you ideally want to plough as long as you can in one direction. Ploughing is incredibly hard (even when using draft animals), and "an object in motion tends to remain in motion along a straight line unless acted upon by an external force", which means every turn requires a lot of energy, which in turn means that ploughing a longer, rectangular field is a lot less intensive than ploughing a square field of the same surface area, which would require a lot more turns. 

Third MAJOR advantage of rectangular field, is that it's a quick, easy and obvious visual distinguishing feature from Age of Empires' square fields. The square fields thing is such a weird yet iconic AoE -thing that it contributes to the image of 0AD being an AoE clone. This small visual distinction can have a big subconscious influence on how the game is perceived (more independent form AoE, not scared to do things differently/more realistic/better).

[Nescio]

• locating starting mines and quarries at a greater distance from the centre
• separating the metal mines from the stone quarries, so one could spawn e.g. to the east of the centre, the other to the north-west, instead of both directly adjacent to each other
• removing the hard-coded Iberian walls

Are three great improvements I've been hoping for for quite some time. As for the farms, I think 2:1 rectancles are just as unnatural as 1:1 squares or any other arbitrary shape and size; if you want more realism, people should be able to designate areas as farmland, rather than having fixed field structures.

Furthermore, I would recommend merging the market into the centre. In Antiquity the agora/forum/marketplace/central square was the centre simultaneously of politics and litigation, as well as of commercial and social life; besides, many towns grew out of trading posts. Making 0 A.D.'s centre function as a market would increase realism and improve gameplay: trade routes can only be from centre to centre, from centre to port, from port to centre, or from port to port, but no longer to structures at the edge of your territory or “in the middle of nowhere”. The AI would have to be adopted, though.

[Sundiata]

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

• locating starting mines and quarries at a greater distance from the centre
• separating the metal mines from the stone quarries, so one could spawn e.g. to the east of the centre, the other to the north-west, instead of both directly adjacent to each other
• removing the hard-coded Iberian walls

Are three great improvements I've been hoping for for quite some time.

We agree  

 

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

if you want more realism, people should be able to designate areas as farmland, rather than having fixed field structures.

Well, yeah, ideally, I'd loooove that... But I don't know how feasible it is from a coding/art point of view...

 

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

As for the farms, I think 2:1 rectancles are just as unnatural as 1:1 squares or any other arbitrary shape and size;

A lot of fields have "arbitrary" shapes (hugging the curves of the land), sure, but even those are mostly longer on one side. My point is, if you're ploughing the land, you're gonna make a long field, not a square one. Second point is that if rectangular is supposedly as arbitrary as square, then why did we end up with square? There is this other game called Age of Empires and a bunch of people think 0AD a clone of it (it isn't, I know). If the shape is arbitrary anyway, isn't it a no-brainer to choose the shape that is different from that other RTS-heavyweight everyone compares us to? You know, just to not rub it in how similar they look on the surface? 

 

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

Furthermore, I would recommend merging the market into the centre. In Antiquity the agora/forum/marketplace/central square was the centre simultaneously of politics and litigation, as well as of commercial and social life; besides, many towns grew out of trading posts. Making 0 A.D.'s centre function as a market would increase realism and improve gameplay:

Euhm.. Personally I'm not a fan of removing structures from an already limited list, at all..  Also, what happens to all the techs? They also go to the CC? Training traders at the CC? Removing the market places makes for an even staler economic gameplay... Also, what you're saying definitely doesn't apply universally, and even where it does, there were still "regular" marketplaces in smaller towns. Also, because commerce was conducted near the administrative centers, doesn't mean that the marketplace and the administrative buildings were literally synonymous with each-other. Some of 0AD's market places (like those of the Kushites) don't really represent a single structure, but a gathering of traders, which is what a market essentially is. A place where traders gather, and they gather at many other places than agoras. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Sundiata

[Hannibal_Barca]

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Have you ever been to a farm? Or have you ever been to the center of any town or city anywhere in the world? lol, sorry...

I just really hope that 0AD can breath new life into the RTS genre by getting rid of those stale 90's conventions, instead of dogmatically adhering to them. It's time for some new and revamped formulas. Not the same old, same old logical fallacies. 0AD can and should be much more than just glorified nostalgia (I know it already is, but we can do better, even with minor changes here and there).

Triggers me every time...

Farms belong on the outskirts while markets belong in the center! How does this not upset you? lol...

 

 

Person forgot to harvest the berries.

Never build farms and not take berries!!

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

farms should really be rectangular

Squares are rectangular 

 

 

As for the marketcc I'm not a fan, we got really nice actors for them and its a lot neater like this. 

[macemen]

12 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Changes to farms:

Most of the time, it isnt the farmer who decides where to put his farm but the land. You go and cultivate crops where the land is suited for doing it. Perhaps this could be reflected by either giving farms gathering bonuses/debonuses or by making farms finite and varying the amount of food it produces.The former is already implemented in Delenda Est to an extent. But in my opinion, the restriction should be stricter and easier to satisfy. So unlike DE, a pretty large area of the map should be viable farmland with some areas having a higher return rate (near rivers and the like). And the remaining area be impossible to farm. If up to me, I would come up with a combination of all. Personally, I do not like the "build once and forget" concept of farms.

I really like this idea. On certain maps (desert) farmland should be a resource you fight for, just like you (should) do for mines. To bring up an example of a game where this was implemented: in Stronghold Crusader there were "green" areas on the map, usually very limited in size. All agricultural structures could *only* be built on these green areas, which became one of the most valuable territories one owned. It worked really well.

Please don't make farms finite though. Microing farms is one of the least pleasant RTS experiences ever.

On  a related note I also don't think the game should force players to do or not to do certain things, like building farms around the CC, just because it's not pretty or realistic. Instead make it a multilateral decision. Currently there is a single aspect to take into consideration when placing farms: risk of the farmers being killed. And this risk can be minimized by building the farms around the CC, as simple as that. But if you introduce another aspect, say a terrain bonus, you suddenly don't have a single best way to place farms. You can take more risk for more gain, or play safe and loose on income. Placing farms is suddenly a *strategic* decision.

Edited August 28, 2018 by macemen

[Guest]

1 hour ago, macemen said:

Please don't make farms finite though. Microing farms is one of the least pleasant RTS experiences ever.

Agree that microing farms is annoying. AoE2 AoK was a pain to play in lategame unless you had that last farm upgrade.

In my mind, I had the thought of giving an auto-seeding option which if selected would deduct n wood and reseed the farm. Although, it would be sufficient if farmlands are to be implemented even if farms remain infinite.

I also had an idea of making the farmers actually do something on the field. Like AoE and make them wander around. Nothing major, just look better for the eye. I might even try after finally finishing all my WIPs.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I just would like to say that "the way it's done in Delenda Est" is only that way because of the engine's limitations (and my own limitations in not being able to code patches to make farming better; but even if I did have the chops to code a nice farming patch it could take years for "agreement" to add it to the base game, sigh; I mean, we're still talking about it even now). If I were to design a farming system from scratch it would be like "painting" the farms similar to the way terrain textures are painted in Atlas, with cost being deducted per tile painted. 

But if we were to keep "field" actors basically the way they are now, then like some have already suggested I would have areas of the map that give greater farming efficiency than others. And as you move the field's preview actor around you would see a percentage number change to tell you the efficiency of the farm if placed there. Around Civic Centers (and maybe other buildings besides Farmsteads and Corrals) you'd see something like 25%. Over grass and dirt it would be maybe 100%, over "farmland" terrain it would be 200%, over sand or rocky terrain 25%. The values open for debate. Different biomes could even have a global bonus or penalty for farms too, forcing different food strategies. These values could maybe be coded in the terrain XML files, or some other way of course, whatever is best. Also, field (and other building) foundations should delete individual trees (these trees would shade red when the field/building preview is hovered over them), but that's a different thing altogether (this works in DE, besides the red shading).

Edited August 28, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

I also had an idea of making the farmers actually do something on the field. Like AoE and make them wander around. Nothing major, just look better for the eye. I might even try after finally finishing all my WIPs.

Yes, this little detail is missing from the game. Also, fields should use the build_farm actor variant for a seeding animations instead of banging a hammer against the dirt.

[Servo]

When playing SP after establishing defenses my base looks so boring tbh. I have to delete farmers so that the food generations won’t reach millions. 

0ad is in the better situation to be the best medieval RTS for SP. It’s just too dull after neutralizing the AI. The only movement inside my base are the animals and traders.  I don’t even gather all the berries and trees around my first base to make it look better. 

0ad can only become the best imho if it’s more realistic. For now MP is boring except the players funny joking around. Same spamming then win or lose. 

DE has better mechanics to lessen the spamming with more military activity and strategy in the early phases. There are more ways to make the game less spam and fast click one. But only AI can bribe.

Mil AD AI enemy is much better with heavy and coordinated attacks. Anglo -Saxon wall garrison is not proper btw. 

More eyecandy on structures shrubs especially on the base.

Wall Civs must be able to train archers even if they are triple expensive. 

Structures from other Civs must be available to be built by other Civs having historical connections. This way an SP player has more choices. Or revert the A22 mechanics where a captured unit can build their own Civs structures if it won’t contribute to errors. 

Stronghold has really the best resources gathering and weapons mechanics. The AI has a disciplined attack and best siege weapons too.

[macemen]

1 hour ago, Servo said:

0ad is in the better situation to be the best medieval RTS for SP. It’s just too dull after neutralizing the AI. The only movement inside my base are the animals and traders.  I don’t even gather all the berries and trees around my first base to make it look better. 

What do you expect to do with your base in an RTS after you finished your enemies off?

 

1 hour ago, Servo said:

Stronghold has really the best resources gathering and weapons mechanics. The AI has a disciplined attack and best siege weapons too.

I'm not sure Stronghold is an example to be followed when it comes to game mechanics. As far as I remember, about the only fun thing was building castles, the economy was a pain in the @#$%, requiring constant supervision and micromanagement. Battle was really dull as well, without even the simplest tactical elements such as units moving together, much less in a formation.