Packing and Unpacking Rams and Siege Towers

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Still that's how the game has been working since Mythos left. I agree it's not always for the best, but the game isn't that bad ^^

But DE starting to be more popular...

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, aeonios said:

This ain't a democracy bro. If you make changes to gameplay it should be to improve the gameplay according to a clear vision of how it ought to be. If you don't have the guts to take such a risk then you can't be a gameplay designer. Trying to make a game by mob rule will always produce garbage. I've been there, and it's not pretty.

Yes, but who... I propose Michael Justus Hafer Abramovic @wowgetoffyourcellphone at last use the mod a as experimental lab.

[Servo]

I don’t think there were much gameplay improvement/s (except some unit abilities which only affect OP and balance on cavalry) done on this alpha. We are still like AoE clone except we have promotions. Well it’s playable and some said if it’s not broken why fix?!  I like to try AoK but fantasy game is just no my liking. 

A23 gives us better animations and arts and very grateful for this for my SP games. The only big issue with SP right now is that wololo is not fun anymore, A22 is more better as you can build enemy structures, structures that are nice from each Civ that you can build in your empire. 

If the dev continues the path of making the game more realistic, more SP gamers will be happy. 

Any modder up to a challenge for this sieges to be manned not just animations?!

[aeonios]

40 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Is there anything you like in the game lol ? So far all you have looked at is crap :p

Sure. Territory in 0ad is pretty cool, although I think eco buildings should be untied from it. The fact that you can't spam towers in the enemy base is probably better than in aok. Tower rushes were super lame in that game. The fact that you can hunt with cav rather than having to herd animals to your CC is definitely an improvement. Herding was freaking lame. Relics were also lame. 0ad's barter system is definitely an improvement over aok. There are lots of things we do better.

There are a few important things that we do worse though.

0ad's buildings are virtually unkillable until city, which is lame. Towers were fairly strong in aok but they could be killed by a mob of infantry. Walls of houses are also freaking lame.

Citizen soldiers are a disaster that ties eco to combat units and makes unit choices heavily eco bound. The fact that the vast majority of combat units come from the barracks for most civs is also bad because it means there are fewer meaningful decisions, and this is compounded by citizen soldiers since civs that have, say, a separate building for producing infantry and cav are extra limited by the eco limitations of cav. It also limits combat in the early game since any use of combat units for actual combat sacrifices eco. Rushes tend to be limited to top players because of this. Basically unless your rush is really, really effective in suppressing your enemy's eco it's practically suicide and most people aren't willing to take such a high risk. It's also a major nerf to mercs, which I don't think are even as strong relatively as aok's t2 units.

The fact that women don't add arrows to CCs, towers, etc, is also lame. If you accidentally garrison them in an arrow-shooting building they're worse than useless since they prevent units that do add arrows from garrisoning.

The fact that fortresses can't be built in neutral is also lame, since unlike towers forward fortresses were a very interesting and useful strategic move in late game aok.

AOK had stronger unit counters. It mattered a whole lot more what units you decided to build. In 0ad it feels a whole lot like spamming random units (or just spamming everything except maybe pikemen) is the way to go. I don't necessarily like the unit counter arrangements in aok entirely, but in general it was more interesting than what we have.

We don't have any riot units. AOK had tactical catapults (mangonel, onager) that were only mediocre vs buildings but which could splat enemy armies into mashed potatoes. They were also very vulnerable to being killed, which made for interesting exchanges.

35 minutes ago, borg- said:

Compare 0 a.d to aok is cowardice, you are comparing with one of the best games ever created.

No, cowardice is refusing to compare your game to a similar game which you know to be better. Just because it was a good game does not mean that it can't be improved upon, and if you aren't willing to address the weaknesses of your own game then you will never improve upon them, either. What you've said is like saying "oh I shouldn't bother learning to play piano beyond chopsticks because mozart was so great that I'll never be as good as him". If everyone took that attitude there would be no musicians, no artists, and no great games in the first place. Why make aok when chess is obviously such a great game?

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 minutes ago, Servo said:

I don’t think there were much gameplay improvement/s (except some unit abilities which only affect OP and balance on cavalry) done on this alpha. We are still like AoE clone except we have promotions. Well it’s playable and some said if it’s not broken why fix?!  I like to try AoK but fantasy game is just no my liking. 

A23 gives us better animations and arts and very grateful for this for my SP games. The only big issue with SP right now is that wololo is not fun anymore, A22 is more better as you can build enemy structures, structures that are nice from each Civ that you can build in your empire. 

If the dev continues the path of making the game more realistic, more SP gamers will be happy. 

Any modder up to a challenge for this sieges to be manned not just animations?!

Empires Apart have promotions in their Aztec faction...so

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

The fact that women don't add arrows to CCs, towers, etc, is also lame. If you accidentally garrison them in an arrow-shooting building they're worse than useless since they prevent units that do add arrows from garrisoning.

they must  throw all kind objects, asking King Pyrrus. - -regicide--

Quote

We don't have any riot units. AOK had tactical catapults (mangonel, onager) that were only mediocre vs buildings but which could splat enemy armies into mashed potatoes. They were also very vulnerable to being killed, which made for interesting exchanges.

I agree, splash damage and a good animation.

Quote

AOK had stronger unit counters. It mattered a whole lot more what units you decided to build. In 0ad it feels a whole lot like spamming random units (or just spamming everything except maybe pikemen) is the way to go. I don't necessarily like the unit counter arrangements in aok entirely, but in general it was more interesting than what we have.

We can innovate mixing soft hard etc.

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[Servo]

I don’t like playing Indie and if Empires apart and Civ 6 as well are not Indie I should be in those games right now. Who cares anyway. 0ad will remain as my game regardless of its lacking depth as SP is so much better than any other game available. 

Rushing/raiding in 0ad is not easy in A23 but has been done on A22. I like raiding to be more feasible but CC can just fire projectiles and added more if garrisoned even with just unarmed women(this is lame imo), and it discourages raiding or shall we say skirmishes within deep inside enemy base. Why would a CC fire projectiles if there were no weapons or projectile emplacements done?RoN does it better (and 0abc too) as CC don’t fire arrows when not garrisoned but towers and forts do. RoN’s CC can easily be sacked by 5 hoplites if its raw. RoN did not have ram because probably they are aging and no walls. 

I don’t mind CS gathering resources as it is more realistic. Cavalry is fine too to hunt but it shouldn’t be abused that they hunt the outputs of the corral. 

Best siege weapons gameplay so far (for me) is Stronghold.

[borg-]

1 hour ago, aeonios said:

Sure. Territory in 0ad is pretty cool, although I think eco buildings should be untied from it. The fact that you can't spam towers in the enemy base is probably better than in aok. Tower rushes were super lame in that game. The fact that you can hunt with cav rather than having to herd animals to your CC is definitely an improvement. Herding was freaking lame. Relics were also lame. 0ad's barter system is definitely an improvement over aok. There are lots of things we do better.

There are a few important things that we do worse though.

0ad's buildings are virtually unkillable until city, which is lame. Towers were fairly strong in aok but they could be killed by a mob of infantry. Walls of houses are also freaking lame.

Citizen soldiers are a disaster that ties eco to combat units and makes unit choices heavily eco bound. The fact that the vast majority of combat units come from the barracks for most civs is also bad because it means there are fewer meaningful decisions, and this is compounded by citizen soldiers since civs that have, say, a separate building for producing infantry and cav are extra limited by the eco limitations of cav. It also limits combat in the early game since any use of combat units for actual combat sacrifices eco. Rushes tend to be limited to top players because of this. Basically unless your rush is really, really effective in suppressing your enemy's eco it's practically suicide and most people aren't willing to take such a high risk. It's also a major nerf to mercs, which I don't think are even as strong relatively as aok's t2 units.

The fact that women don't add arrows to CCs, towers, etc, is also lame. If you accidentally garrison them in an arrow-shooting building they're worse than useless since they prevent units that do add arrows from garrisoning.

The fact that fortresses can't be built in neutral is also lame, since unlike towers forward fortresses were a very interesting and useful strategic move in late game aok.

AOK had stronger unit counters. It mattered a whole lot more what units you decided to build. In 0ad it feels a whole lot like spamming random units (or just spamming everything except maybe pikemen) is the way to go. I don't necessarily like the unit counter arrangements in aok entirely, but in general it was more interesting than what we have.

We don't have any riot units. AOK had tactical catapults (mangonel, onager) that were only mediocre vs buildings but which could splat enemy armies into mashed potatoes. They were also very vulnerable to being killed, which made for interesting exchanges.

No, cowardice is refusing to compare your game to a similar game which you know to be better. Just because it was a good game does not mean that it can't be improved upon, and if you aren't willing to address the weaknesses of your own game then you will never improve upon them, either. What you've said is like saying "oh I shouldn't bother learning to play piano beyond chopsticks because mozart was so great that I'll never be as good as him". If everyone took that attitude there would be no musicians, no artists, and no great games in the first place. Why make aok when chess is obviously such a great game?

I did not say that can not be better, I said that in the current moment (alpha), it is a cowardice. 

Well, i agree with you on most of the issues you see in 0a.d. 

1- I would like to see towers and forts that can be built in neutral territory;

2- I wish units could destroy enemy buildings more easily;

3- CC should not train combat units, just women, you should be forced to have a barrack for this.

these are some things I would like to have, the gameplay would improve, but they are just my points

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by borg-

[sphyrth]

My, my. The discussion has devolved into a general gameplay discussion.

Balance
I noticed that in every Alpha, different balancing complaints are being addressed:
1. Roman Swordsman rush destroys Civic Centers immediately! That's no fun
2. Skiritai Commando and Slinger Rushes destroy buildings quickly! That's no fun
3. Cav Rushes are too OP! That's no fun
4. Ranged Cavs are unstoppable! That's no fun
5. There's something wrong with Siege Weapons!
Is there an end to this?

Counter System
Yeah, it needs to be brought back since the planned combat system has yet to take successful fruit.

Citizen Soldiers
I'll advocate that Citizen Soldiers should only be available in the Civic Center. Because, you know, they are Citizen Soldiers (villagers that can fight; NOT soldiers that can gather). They are technically defined as Resource Gatherers, but they're visually defined as Fighters. -- This is where the developer/designer-to-player miscommunication happens.

Different "Barracks" for Different Types of Units
It's getting there. We'll just have to wait. Even the Siege Workshop is being done.

Gameplay Vision
Seriously, the classic playerbase vs. modern playstyle is rearing its ugly head again. And the devs (who still need a tremendous amount of help) are being forced on the fence trying to decide how the game should be played.

[borg-]

18 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

My, my. The discussion has devolved into a general gameplay discussion.

Balance
I noticed that in every Alpha, different balancing complaints are being addressed:
1. Roman Swordsman rush destroys Civic Centers immediately! That's no fun
2. Skiritai Commando and Slinger Rushes destroy buildings quickly! That's no fun
3. Cav Rushes are too OP! That's no fun
4. Ranged Cavs are unstoppable! That's no fun
5. There's something wrong with Siege Weapons!
Is there an end to this?

Counter System
Yeah, it needs to be brought back since the planned combat system has yet to take successful fruit.

Citizen Soldiers
I'll advocate that Citizen Soldiers should only be available in the Civic Center. Because, you know, they are Citizen Soldiers (villagers that can fight; NOT soldiers that can gather). They are technically defined as Resource Gatherers, but they're visually defined as Fighters. -- This is where the developer/designer-to-player miscommunication happens.

Different "Barracks" for Different Types of Units
It's getting there. We'll just have to wait. Even the Siege Workshop is being done.

Gameplay Vision
Seriously, the classic playerbase vs. modern playstyle is rearing its ugly head again. And the devs (who still need a tremendous amount of help) are being forced on the fence trying to decide how the game should be played.

Exactly, i defend the sycounter system for a long time, it is necessary for any rts.

[Imarok]

3 hours ago, borg- said:

Exactly, i defend the sycounter system for a long time, it is necessary for any rts.

I think we all agree that an RTS needs a counter system.

Where no consensus exists is how those counters should look like: soft counters? Hard counters? Or a mix of both?

[Sundiata]

Marauding rams is a problem. A ton of people have complained about this, both on the forum and in many online games I've played. What counters them is not intuitive. Neither is it intuitive that siege towers should be captured, instead of just destroyed.

Siege should be attacked by default, not captured. Can we just agree on this please?

Siege should always be slower than the slowest infantry units. Can we please agree on this as well??

So, apparently this isn't a democracy (okay...), but if you keep ignoring recurring complaints and only changing the game to benefit an absolutely tiny fraction of the player base, the general public is going to loose interest. 

[Nescio]

Personally I'm in favour of letting the game evolve and see where it goes. Although 0 A.D. is far from perfect, it is promissing nonetheless. Every alpha is a significant improvement over the previous. Gameplay and balance are not great, true, but we're still in the alpha stage. Besides, people will always be complaining, myself included

Luckily it's quite easy to modify the game and to distribute modifications. The problem is not a lack of vision or a shortage of ideas, but an abundance of different overlapping and conflicting visions. Radical changes will please some, but alienate others. I'm not in favour of the tyranny of democratic dictatorship. Getting consensus is often hard, but if you fail to convince others your suggestion is an improvement, then it might not be a good enough solution.

Is the svn version still in feature freeze, by the way?

[asterix]

7 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Personally I'm in favour of letting the game evolve and see where it goes. Although 0 A.D. is far from perfect, it is promissing nonetheless. Every alpha is a significant improvement over the previous. Gameplay and balance are not great, true, but we're still in the alpha stage. Besides, people will always be complaining, myself included

Luckily it's quite easy to modify the game and to distribute modifications. The problem is not a lack of vision or a shortage of ideas, but an abundance of different overlapping and conflicting visions. Radical changes will please some, but alienate others. I'm not in favour of the tyranny of democratic dictatorship. Getting consensus is often hard, but if you fail to convince others your suggestion is an improvement, then it might not be a good enough solution.

Is the svn version still in feature freeze, by the way?

yes it is in feature freeze, still waiting for repackaging and few more OOS fixes (performance improvements are already in) just look at timeline.

[Feldfeld]

9 hours ago, borg- said:

There is no problem with rams, there are several ways to stop.

 

I think too that rams, and siege units in general are balanced.

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Siege should be attacked by default, not captured. Can we just agree on this please?

I agree with that

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Siege should always be slower than the slowest infantry units. Can we please agree on this as well??

However i don't think siege stats should be changed as i think they are balanced.

 

Thing is that if we blindly change balance for next alpha only for some complaints, bigger problems may be raised. I think that the only problem right now is that some players don't see how to counter siege even though it's completely possible right now. But if we nerf siege for next alpha, not only will they be less efficient but this time players will clearly see how to counter them and we may have lots of complaints that it is so easy to turtle, and that would be a way bigger issue imo.

I also think that in a21 skirm cav was also very strong and that people didn't see it, but clearly did in a22 after a change (that wasn't that important i suspect).

Btw i checked Nescio's mod and that may be a good idea to have that p2 siege workshop. The balance changes that came with it are meh, but the general idea can be thought some more.

[aeonios]

16 minutes ago, asterix said:

yes it is in feature freeze, still waiting for repackaging and few more OOS fixes (performance improvements are already in) just look at timeline.

I think the timeout on mapgen workaround still has yet to be committed as well. There shouldn't be too many more commits before release though.

[Sundiata]

42 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I think that the only problem right now is that some players don't see how to counter siege even though it's completely possible right now. But if we nerf siege for next alpha, not only will they be less efficient but this time players will clearly see how to counter them and we may have lots of complaints that it is so easy to turtle, and that would be a way bigger issue imo.

Indeed, balance isn't the biggest issue here, but the fact that most new players just don't know certain things that are important to understand the game, and there isn't really an easy way of learning them without searching through the (very large) forum or straight up asking more experienced players. That in itself puts off a lot of people because they get frustrated from not understanding what they're doing wrong. Ideally those awesome new information dialog boxes could also provide more explicit information, as opposed to just stats (not everyone is a numbers person), such as "swordsmen counter rams, ..."  in the swordsmen info, and "rams are countered by..." in the ram-dialog.

The other issue is that certain aspects of the game just aren't intuitive enough. Anybody that has never played 0AD would naturally expect any melee infantry unit to be able to take out siege-equipment (sure, one may be a bit better than the other, but not a huge difference), and ranged units are expected to struggle with covered siege like rams and siege towers, but could take out uncovered artillery like bolt shooters or catapults.

[Feldfeld]

5 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Indeed, balance isn't the biggest issue here, but the fact that most new players just don't know certain things that are important to understand the game, and there isn't really an easy way of learning them without searching through the (very large) forum or straight up asking more experienced players. That in itself puts off a lot of people because they get frustrated from not understanding what they're doing wrong. Ideally those awesome new information dialog boxes could also provide more explicit information, as opposed to just stats (not everyone is a numbers person), such as "swordsmen counter rams, ..."  in the swordsmen info, and "rams are countered by..." in the ram-dialog.

That, and also an improved tutorial can be needed. Age of Empires serives have a whole campaign to help player understanding the mechanics. The first campaign of each of these games guides players step by step. I didn't really check that but i think 0AD's tutorial teaches the basis, but doesn't go in depth (which is perfectly understandable as the more advanced parts are really dynamic and change from alpha to alpha, it's really not a priority to make that stuff. It's not finished game)

That's funny because when i played a21, i started with an "how to make good eco" tutorial map that was there. It was probably outdated as i didn't have the time to follow instructions, probably because the training time was lower in even previous alpha. I ended up becoming good quite fast, after struggling with that tutorial.

[Sundiata]

Yeah, 0AD's tutorial is a HUGE step forward in my opinion, kudos to everyone that worked on it! It can, has, should and probably will be updated with every new alpha, so that's very positive. An entire tutorial campaign would be epic indeed. Maybe when campaigns start being a thing... 

Some optional in-game advice would nice too for beginners. When you build a structure for the first time, recruit a unit for the first time, attack or get attacked for the first time, more explicit (perhaps smaller) unit information dialog-boxes could automatically pop-up, pausing the game, explaining the what, where and how's of it all (only for SP of course).

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

A thing that needs to be realised though is that the game is still in alpha, and any tutorial that is made for that alpha alone could later be outdated in just a few alphas.  Balance is a good idea to continue to evolve since that keeps an active playerbase for the game.  Trigger warning: I'll next write about game design.

Regarding counters.  I personally dislike that word as an explanation of how units interact beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors formula.  Although it is possible to build on that, it rapidly becomes convoluted.  I would look to the previous document which outlined counters for 0 A.D.  It was very unintuitive.  I personally prefer the term 'roles,' a less loaded concept since counters generally only define units by what they are good against.  Can there be some hard and soft counters in the mix?  Yes, but there should be more to a unit's design than just that.  The ultimate goal embraced by the original makers of 0 A.D. was a combat system that was more like total war, and ideas for how units should operate should be established within that kind of framework.  Were there counters in that system?  True, yet much of the bases for these were due to the tactics players employed against those units. 

[Nescio]

36 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

A thing that needs to be realised though is that the game is still in alpha, and any tutorial that is made for that alpha alone could later be outdated in just a few alphas.  Balance is a good idea to continue to evolve since that keeps an active playerbase for the game.  Trigger warning: I'll next write about game design.

Regarding counters.  I personally dislike that word as an explanation of how units interact beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors formula.  Although it is possible to build on that, it rapidly becomes convoluted.  I would look to the previous document which outlined counters for 0 A.D.  It was very unintuitive.  I personally prefer the term 'roles,' a less loaded concept since counters generally only define units by what they are good against.  Can there be some hard and soft counters in the mix?  Yes, but there should be more to a unit's design than just that.  The ultimate goal embraced by the original makers of 0 A.D. was a combat system that was more like total war, and ideas for how units should operate should be established within that kind of framework.  Were there counters in that system?  True, yet much of the bases for these were due to the tactics players employed against those units. 

Why do you type two spaces after each sentence? It's slightly unpleasant to read.

[Loki1950]

He most likely learned to use a keyboard with a typewriter remember those two spaces after a sentence was the standard for over fifty years it's only with the advent of word processing that it changed as for being easier to read all the formal research says there is no real difference in either speed or comprehension.

Enjoy the Choice  

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Not precisely: I learned to type with a system rather reminiscent of that idea.  Typing without two-spaces seems alien to me, but I'm okay with seeing other people do it.  Sorry if I caused anyone distress through my spacing tendencies; that is not at all my intentions and I express my humblest apologies possible without being insincere.   

[LordGood]

lol I never even noticed until now.

[borg-]

In my experience, hard counter work better.