Dancing

[HMS-Surprise]

There are some discussions about dancing during the games. Some players support it some players don't. This poll can help us to decide there should be a rule or not. What do you think about it?

[coworotel]

My option would be: it's a bug, but since it's there, I don't mind if people exploit it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, coworotel said:

My option would be: it's a bug, but since it's there, I don't mind if people exploit it.

You have clearly never been on the receiving end of this exploitation

[elexis]

The issue should be fixed by some kind of code solution obviously. Until then:

For rated games such things can be considered cheating.

For non-rated games, the purpose of the "ready" button is that every single player agrees to the rules. So the players who like (gamesetting X) can play in the game if and only if they agree with (gamesetting X). The server (host) is the one who provides the service, therefore the server can enforce his own Terms of Use (i.e. ban). When players click the "I am ready" button, they "agree" to whatever terms the host has stated (gamesettings, custom rules). (That doesn't mean that hosts can violate WFG Lobby terms of use though).

The only problem with custom host rules (Terms of Use) is that they can only be posted in the chat, and often players can't read all that and miss rules. Perhaps a custom hoster Terms of Use dialog field might be reasonable. (Otherwise, there were also proposals for effect-free voting systems.)

[nani]

0 A.D ToS generator simulator

[GunChleoc]

4 hours ago, elexis said:

The only problem with custom host rules (Terms of Use) is that they can only be posted in the chat, and often players can't read all that and miss rules. Perhaps a custom hoster Terms of Use dialog field might be reasonable. (Otherwise, there were also proposals for effect-free voting systems.)

A custom dialog field sound good - it's a very flexible solution. The hoster might want to state some rules that we haven't thought of yet.

[Jofursloft]

Dancing with patrol is clearly a bug, so it must be fixed. Only infantry units should dance (manually obviously), because in real life it's impossible for a horse. 

In my opinion, manual dancing should be reviewed too. Maybe it should be possible to dodge some arrows but not a 100 archers army...

Edited March 16, 2019 by Jofursloft

[Diatryma]

7 hours ago, coworotel said:

My option would be: it's a bug, but since it's there, I don't mind if people exploit it.

I agree with this.

[fatherbushido]

I wanted to check a box in the survey but my choice wasn't here.

[Silier]

8. Not undermine the intended gameplay or purposefully gain unfair advantages in multiplayer matches (for example cheating, using exploits or bugs).
 

I think dancing on purpose is in categories of bugs, exploits which gives advantage to player, so no. Moving units from left to right constantly just to avoid arrow hits is cheating. Running your troops at some path or even changing their direction is fine but there has to be significant distance between that change. No one would move two steps left, right, forward, back just to avoid every arrow. Maybe one soldier to dodge one arrow but not group of soldiers to avoid tens of arrows. They had shields for that.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I think that the major point is to dissect why this exploit is possible.  First, the projectiles are too easily predictable.  If there was more randomisation to the accuracy, this could nullify the need of 'dancing.'  Next, stray missiles should deal damage to whatever unit runs into its path, I would say both friendly and unfriendly, but that's subject to debate.  With these changes in place, this 'feature' would no longer have as significant of a role in gameplay.

[Silier]

Change spread in templates of range units and you will have no clue where arrow will land  Detecting missile collision on fly is a bit harder to implement but there have been some discussion about it so maybe in some future. But I do not remember who was the one talking about it. 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Angen

[Guest]

You mean that one discussion before the rerelease?, Maybe ray tracing would be easier. (also less accurate I guess since the actual trajectory is parabolic)

Edited March 17, 2019 by Guest

[HMS-Surprise]

You can write your choice here. @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Edited March 17, 2019 by HMS-Surprise

[camel]

• It's a skill that you need to learn.
• If your opponent knows how to do it, you can do it too.
• Patrol dancing is bad, manual dancing is cool.

 

Im agree with those 3.

[borg-]

It is obvious that dancing is not a skill, its a cheater.

[DarcReaver]

19 minutes ago, borg- said:

It is obvious that dancing is not a skill, its a cheater.

It's a bug/exploit in the first place, but it also IS a skill that has to be learned. However it's toxic for the game because it's not a fun game mechanic, especially for the receiving player.

This exploit can also be put in the category of "unnecessary micro click tricks" that the game makers want to avoid at all costs. That's why the exploit should be fixed. Also it's not worth to make a game room rule about this. If you add that you can just aswell allow/disallow all other game bugs - like bug walls, unit collision and other stuff.

Edited March 18, 2019 by DarcReaver

[borg-]

35 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

It's a bug/exploit in the first place, but it also IS a skill that has to be learned. However it's toxic for the game because it's not a fun game mechanic, especially for the receiving player.

This exploit can also be put in the category of "unnecessary micro click tricks" that the game makers want to avoid at all costs. That's why the exploit should be fixed. Also it's not worth to make a game room rule about this. If you add that you can just aswell allow/disallow all other game bugs - like bug walls, unit collision and other stuff.

There is nothing to be learned, you just need to move the unit from side to side, requires no skill.

Edited March 18, 2019 by borg-

[elexis]

On hostrules:

There's always some overpowered unit or mechanism that is ruled out by players. Last alpha skirmisher cavalry accuracy was off by 20% or something and it lead to players banning the unit from matches altogether, or resulted in every player being forced to only train cavalry as soon as possible and as much as possible. Another common user-specified matchrule is to prohibit wonders (because they allow each player +50 pop and that can lead to significant additional lag when playing with 8.). Also every player has a different understanding of what they consider toxic chatting, or when they chose to hand out bans. If that's put into some field that needs to be accepted like the other gamesettings, the player at least cannot start the game unless having formally agreed to the hosts rules.

On dancing:

Since it was in doubt what dancing is, I would define it as every command where the player moves units not to relocate the unit but to dodge arrows. (It means the sum of all units move vectors is about zero and covers a very small area.)

Hannibal_Barca has demonstrated how far one can take the bug. Practically one can send out a single hero or champion unit and do the dancing, and even if 100 archers shoot at it, there will just be 100 arrows piling up left and right of the unit every second. So to me it appears to be something that can be addressed in the accuracy code. By chance some of the arrows are expected to hit. On the other side, just reducing the accuracy to accomplish that might make the unit ineffective. So I suppose it needs a good idea how to change the projectile trajectory model without changing how much damage the unit practically delivers.

Given that one can with slightly more effort than using the patrol feature trigger the 'trajectory bug' using manual moves, changing the patrol feature just covers up the symptom. If a player patrols in place, they should be an easy target for the attacker in theory.

[HMS-Surprise]

I have found an idea while reading elexis' post above. Maybe it can be easier to fix. So basically, the hero moves between the shoots and units like archers shoot synchronized at some point. If they shoot randomly it can solve the problem. There won't be blind spots anymore. What do you think?

 

[Gurken Khan]

7 minutes ago, HMS-Surprise said:

If they shoot randomly it can solve the problem.

Generally people appreciate if their shooters have some accuracy; but as said above:

On 3/17/2019 at 8:39 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

First, the projectiles are too easily predictable.  If there was more randomisation to the accuracy, this could nullify the need of 'dancing.'  Next, stray missiles should deal damage to whatever unit runs into its path, I would say both friendly and unfriendly, but that's subject to debate.

So the question now seems to be to how to exactly implement some randomization, to make it counter dancing effectively while still having the shooters hit satisfactorily in other situations.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

If I could mention one thing about lowering the accuracy of ranged units while incorporating indirect fire, while it does lower their dps to specific targets, if the archer is firing at a dense formation, the probability of missing decreases exponentially.  Yes, the dps would be lowered, but other variables can be altered to still make them viable such as their cost, range, speed, etc,...  I'm just offering a practical solution for an exploit; the important question is if the repercussions of this change are worth accounting for.  I'd personally say yes, but that's just my opinion.

[nani]

I have a better idea. Much fair and more easy to implement too. Set a default maximum number units that will automatically attack at the same enemy unit. It would go as follows:

Default_max: 5

1. Search closest enemy unit to attack

2. Attack that enemy unit if currently is being attacked by less than Default_max of your own units

3. Othewise and if there are more enemy units repeat steps 1 and 2 for the next closest enemy unit.

4 if all enemy units have Default_max of your own units attacking them then turn to the current standard proximity attack.

This should apply to only ranged units.

 

Another option would be to make an "area" attack, much as the current free hand possition works currently. The points where the units would go in with the free hand option would serve as the proximity points to attack units (again only for ranged units)

 

[nani]

24 minutes ago, ffffffff said:

MAKE MAX QUEUED ORDERS PER UNIT TO 5 DANCING GONE

darn u beat me to it!

Nice idea too but you can still patrol

Edited March 19, 2019 by nani

[Guest]

Regarding lower accuracy, I wonder how that would work out? Remember A21?

Like fatherbushido said, clearly defining what the problem really is important. The units making sharp unrealistic turns?, the attacker being inaccurate?, the attacker trying to be too accurate?, the attacker not realizing they are wasting their time and not picking any new targets?, or maybe just the projectiles being slow?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Guest