Are there balancing changes planned for A24?

[Gurken Khan]

37 minutes ago, wraitii said:

It could have become a fishing game at this point for all I care.

I'm not sure how to take this.

I believe there are some differences between a fishing game and a RTS, and would've thought that devs have some vision on what game they want to create?

[wraitii]

It just means I enjoy coding for coding's sake.

I've mostly worked on 'engine' things lately (pathfinding optimisations, code cleanups, things like that) because that's fun to me. Whether I was optimising an RTS or another type of game is not very relevant.

I do have my own opinions on where I believe 0 A.D. should go as a game, some strong, other less so, but for me personally there are higher priorities right now and so I am not debating gameplay or playing much.

[borg-]

7 hours ago, Stan` said:

Which is why @Itms found two people to work on the design document, and we have @borg- working and experimenting balancing in his mod. You can find said design document here. The markdown source can be found here.

If you wish to contribute in some way, please feel free to do so by contacting @Itms directly.

Of course this isn't perfect, and I would be much more happier if the game had perfect balance in the first place. However, I was asked what, in my own point of view, were the pros and cons. Since the goal is to try to find pros I thought it was a pretty good one. As @wowgetoffyourcellphone said, balancing needs experimenting (and other stuff).  Mods are a good way to experiment things between releases, as they don't follow the same schedule. It also allows one with no prior experience on balancing the game to learn things. It's kind of a way to get people to be competent with the balancing of the game by having a deeper knowledge.

In the industry, of course yes. Here it's a bit different, all external people are potential game developers. You could also be.

That is not the problem here  The issue is that we have to ensure we are not breaking the game, that's what the review process is for: Ensuring quality. @elexis learnt the hard way that stacking patches on top of each other for years make the game unmaintenable and makes it require a lot of cleanup sometimes a full rewrite., so now he is very careful about everything he does which is a good thing. 

It's implemented in @borg-'s mod, and it seems to work quite well, but just because a code works doesn't mean it's good. We can't rely on quick and dirty code. Also, even though I do code, I don't have the programmer's hat, I have exactly the same impact there as say @Angen except I have the rights to commit my own code once it's reviewed.

tldr; The patch isn't implemented not because it breaks mods, but because we aren't sure this is the best way to do it.

Of course, and we sometimes help them to adapt.

Well we are kind in a unique situation to be honest.

 

Well I've already been totally willing to implement my mod to a24 if that is accepted.

The mod has been widely accepted by players of all levels and great feedback, besides, I have not received any bug since the first version. So I think we're on the right track.

[Stockfish]

borg- I don't see that implement your mod on a24 like the only way to play 0ad is a good idea, i think you (with help of another high players if needed) could balance the game without changing the whole game, i like 0ad's bases and i think they must be respected,

 

That was my opinion, greatings :))

[borg-]

1 hour ago, Stockfish said:

borg- I don't see that implement your mod on a24 like the only way to play 0ad is a good idea, i think you (with help of another high players if needed) could balance the game without changing the whole game, i like 0ad's bases and i think they must be respected,

 

That was my opinion, greatings :))

My mod is made by me but based on the opinion of several players mainly high level players.

The mod does not change any original game base, just a few things, like more units and constructs that are not being used in the original version. One of my main goals in mod was to keep the foundations as they are. You can see, I could have added new civilizations and make the mod even better, but I did not do that, kept the original civilizations.
Could you quote me what is completely different from the current version?

Moreover, I have not said that the mod should be implemented exactly as it is now even because it is undergoing constant changes with the help of the players.

You have to understand that the balancing is much deeper than you think, it's not just coming and changing the status of the units that everything will be perfect. There are several issues in the current version of the game that should be taken into account.

Edited May 14, 2019 by borg-

[fatherbushido]

1 hour ago, Stockfish said:

0ad

what is it? (if ever it is something) ;-)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 5/13/2019 at 4:28 AM, DarcReaver said:

There is no point of balance changes because there is no coherent gameplay in the alpha. This was discussed numerous times in the past already. As long as key gameplay features do not work it's only wasted time that can be spent on other, more useful stuff. Like making planned features work. 

I agree here and have agreed in the past. We used to tag team that point together. I was just referring to minor balance fixes such as finally fixing annoying things like battering ram behavior and slinger spam. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to do that. A full balance overhaul should wait until after gameplay features have all been implemented, pathfinding fixed, etc.

[borg-]

54 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I agree here and have agreed in the past. We used to tag team that point together. I was just referring to minor balance fixes such as finally fixing annoying things like battering ram behavior and slinger spam. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to do that. A full balance overhaul should wait until after gameplay features have all been implemented, pathfinding fixed, etc.

I do not agree on this point.

An active balancing community keeps players playing the game. A good balance keeps the fun and better reception for new players.

This will attract new contributors who can help the game in many ways.

0 a.d is in a stage that needs to take this seriously. The game has been stagnant on balancing for many years.

Besides that should not need many guys to do, I myself have free time and could do much of this work, it would only need someone to review small things (if the mod is accepted as part of the vanilla ofc).

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 minutes ago, borg- said:

This will attract new contributors who can help the game in many ways.

gameplay + modding attract possible contributor. if they dont like  0 A.D factions can try Terra Magna or Millenium or try Hyrule Conquest.

or the possibilty the create your custom game with the engine our your art assets if you are artist or your sounds...etc. 

[borg-]

10 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

gameplay + modding attract possible contributor. if they dont like  0 A.D factions can try Terra Magna or Millenium or try Hyrule Conquest.

or the possibilty the create your custom game with the engine our your art assets if you are artist or your sounds...etc. 

This is true too, but what keeps the community alive is the multiplayer games, and you see most of the players playing the vannila version just because it's easier.

And whether you like it or not, vanilla is 0a.d's identity. It is for this version that people will look when they judge the game good or bad.

The mods may even be bad in this sense because many have even asked themselves in the lobby, how the mods are years ahead of the original version, and are usually made by 1 or 2 guys.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

without some youtubers and publicity probably died faster than you thought.

Justus and me are here before multiplayer were a thing. multiplayer lobby appears in A 15.

[borg-]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

without some youtubers and publicity probably died faster than you thought.

Justus and me are here before multiplayer were a thing. multiplayer lobby appears in A 15.

I know, I play 0a.d well before version 15 too.

And frankly, I have not seen any changes in gameplay since version 13. That's what I mean.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[borg-]

I feel a bit responsible for balancing, I feel like I should do something, so I did the mod. I've been here since the first day of the lobby, I've taught most of the current players to play, I've tried to do my best to keep the community active during those years, and it's clear to the players how that "abandonment" in the gameplay makes everyone upset.

Most forum People never entered the lobby, but I as an active player can say for sure, that many players have abandoned 0a.d because of balancing, and a lot of these guys were talented art and coders. 

well, that's just my opinion on this of course.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Don't get me wrong, since a stable balance mod already exists, we might as well use it. I think what Darc and I are saying is the team itself shouldn't bother with balance and should prob focus on features. If modders want to make balance mods, then more power to them. Just be prepared to rebalance whenever a new feature is introduced.

[borg-]

11 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Don't get me wrong, since a stable balance mod already exists, we might as well use it. I think what Darc and I are saying is the team itself shouldn't bother with balance and should prob focus on features. If modders want to make balance mods, then more power to them. Just be prepared to rebalance whenever a new feature is introduced.

I understand, but there is no fixed team, we are all collaborators, so i'm willing to change that. It would not need a lot of people, just someone to help me and review and minor adjustments, since we have practically everything already ready in the mod.

I created the mod for elexis orders, and it was thought from the outset to be implemented in the game. It was not a mod set up to be a mod, it's just the best way to test and get feedback, which is unquestionably very positive.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, borg- said:

I know, I play 0a.d well before version 15 too.

And frankly, I have not seen any changes in gameplay since version 13. That's what I mean.

• patrol was later...
• units on walls...later...
• we can count capture relic? 

[borg-]

18 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

• patrol was later...
• units on walls...later...
• we can count capture relic? 

But this is not the focus, I know that implementing new things is time-consuming and requires a lot of dedication from people, and I know everyone here works hard.

I mean it's more about the overall balance/changes/gameplay of the game with what we have at the moment.

A simple example, the units when they increase their rank they become invincible for a few seconds which completely ruins the balancing. I changed it by removing only one line from the code. It was extreamly simple and effective, but will this be a change to the a24? Probably not, because no one is looking at this.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 minutes ago, borg- said:

But this is not the focus, I know that implementing new things is time-consuming and requires a lot of dedication from people, and I know everyone here works hard.

I mean it's more about the overall balance/changes/gameplay of the game with what we have at the moment.

A simple example, the units when they increase their rank they become invincible for a few seconds which completely ruins the balancing. I changed it by removing only one line from the code. It was extreamly simple and effective, but will this be a change to the a24? Probably not, because no one is looking at this.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameplayFeatureStatus

my point is this list, is some huge. i appreciate  your effort.

and mostly of user worry is the lag. or when will be release the beta or steam....

[borg-]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameplayFeatureStatus

my point is this list, is some huge. i appreciate  your effort.

and mostly of user worry is the lag. or when will be release the beta or steam....

My priorities are also pathfinder, lag, among other things, but I do not know how to do that.

But I know how to make a good balance, and why not? if we have who do, and how to do, why not? Why not make the game even better?

[fatherbushido]

 

7 hours ago, borg- said:

The game has been stagnant on balancing for many years. 

 

There was different organization (one head, committee, ...).

The last official info about wfg I have is that it was decided at 2014-08-03 (see meetinglogs) to agree on merging the balancing branch of one member and to open a poll to give him the head of the gameplay balance. I didn't find public results of that poll. But it was kinda implicit that he was in charge of that.

I remember asking agreement before committing balancing changes, then don't asking him (sorry for that). So did other members. (We most of the times used forum, irc, trying to fight against our own biases or not, grepping opinions or not, phabricator also). I had asked several times clarification about that.

Due to past issues about that (see commit history above) and to other facts, there was an implicit conservation policy about committing balancing change.

I assume he is still in charge of that as I didn't see any announcement about that (or I missed it).

On the last 5 years, grepping for balance in commit message:

r15644: Surprise. 100% brand new rebalance for every unit in the game, after lengthy discussion with Enrique.

r15655: Revert Surprise commits by Mythos_Ruler, r16447 and r16444 following team decision. They will be put in a separate git branch. This is done to avoid conflict with scythetwirler's balance branch and potential other work in that area.

r15713: Gameplay rebalance after a long period of testing and rebalancing. See https://github.com/scythetwirler/0ad for details on changes.

r15728: Petra: some tunings in tech research following the merge of balance branch

r16285: Balance branch merge.

r16302: Hero balancing.

r16305: Petra: some tweaks for new ranges from balance brabnch

r16331: Siege balancing.

r17882: Limit arrows on certain buildings and ships. Patch by sanderd17, fixes #3196.
Balancing by elexis, reverts r16776 in favor of the new total arrow limit.

r18157: Balance garrisoned regeneration rate as proposed by mimo and scythetwirler.

Reduce rate in village phase from 10 to 5.
Increase town phase addition from 2 to 7 and city phase addition from 1.5 to 9.

r18248 : Unique building aura balancing, refs #3930

Owning multiple libraries and theatrons increases the aura bonus proportionally, so as to incentivize capturing.
Make the library aura more appealing by giving a 10% research time bonus.
Improve a tooltip.

r18249: Balance hellenic champions.

Double the metal cost of elite spartan citizen soldiers, as they have stats near those of champions.
Use a more reasonable cost for age 2 champions.
Differentiate the armored swordsmen from the other sword champions by actually increasing it's armor.

r18255: Balance the wonder and improve unique building tooltips.

Increase the armor of buildings following r18045.
Triple the research time for the population tech, as it is the most powerful tech in the game.
Mention that unique building auras stack.
Fix a bad tooltip in pop_wonder.json.

r18402: Trireme and bireme ship balancing.

The mauryan empire is not known to have the strongest fleet, so reduce their ships hitpoints to the average for that model.
Redue bireme metal cost to make it an actual alternative to the trireme, considering population cost and hitpoints.
Remove a hardoded linenumber in a comment.

r18528: Ram garrison balancing.

Garrison up to 10 men in rams and 12 in persian ones, in order to
have a greater chance of attacking enemies with many melee champs defending,
since the new balancing in alpha 21 requires siege engines to destroy buildings, see r18037 and r18045.

Remove undocumented garrisoned healrate of rams introduced in r11292.
That commit introduced it in many places, which were removed in later commits.

Leave the positive garrisoned healrate of ships and special buildings for now,
assuming that there are supplies on ships (but not in rams).

Add garrisoned healrate tooltips in the following commit.

r18550: Tree balancing of the red sea map.

Sometimes players didn't have any wood close by while usually all players have practically limitless wood around. Reported by sentado.
Thus enforce greater distance between big forests and add some tiny forests in between them.
Keep a big distance between all forests as it is supposed to be a desert.

r18555: Mediterranean tree balancing.

Increase minimum distance between forests so as to carve more space for player buildings. Reported by sentado, based on patch by _kali.
Adapt metal and stone mine numbers to keep the same probability.

r18722: Tweaks hp modification of the phase city tech to keep the current balance as tech modifications calculations changed in r18207.

r18738: Loot balancing overhaul and cleanup. Based on patch by fatherbushido, refs #4193.

Add missing loot entry to many new buildings that were added after r11524 and ships.
Give civic centers and wonders a significant amount.
Food related structures contain some food.
Temples somehow yielded 500 metal loot previously.
Remove experience point loot from non-defensive buildings.
Merge loot for cavalry and hero templates.
Swordsmen and sword cavalry loot 5 metal, slingers 5 stone, other units 5 wood.
Remove some duplicate Looter, MiniMap?, Selectable and TrainingRestriction? entries.
Remove pointless sentence "Special Building." from persian hall tooltip.

r18850: Tweak elephant hero stats. There were some inconsistencies with champion elephant template. Remove some hard bonuses forgotten in previous balancing commits. Reviewed by elexis.

r19359: Survival Of The Fittest Overhaul

r19370: Catafalque templates and auras for each civilization.

Patch By: Hanibal Barca aka Hannibal_Baraq
Differential Revision: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D269
Strings Reviewed By: Gallaecio
Balancing Reviewed By: borg-, Grugnas
Addresses few issues found by fatherbushido

r19505: Roman Entrenched Army Camp balancing.

r19697: Reduce slightly armor of gaul fanatic unit and make the run speed more consistent. The purpose is to balance it a bit more but also keep and emphasize the specificity of that unit. Reviewed by elexis.
Differential Revision: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D569

r19885: Women Attack balancing fixes.

r20363: Tweak a bit citizen cavalry costs. Follow the same infantry vs cavalry policy as for champs and heros. Motivations are: infantry vs cavalry consistency (from the abstract unit role point of view), preventing some unbalances, enforcing a more realistic infantry vs cavalry ratio in game.
Accepted by: Nescio, Grugnas
Differential Revision: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D983

r21477: Kushite tweaks and balancing

Add an anti-champ/hero bonus to Meriotic Temple Guards.
Make the Temple of Amun a unique building available in the City phase.
Adjust some auras and add one for cheaper triremes.
Nerf clubman attack, remove spearmen tweaks.
Change barracks cost.
Fix some icons.

r21556: Implement walls on Jebel Barkal, beautify the map, improve the trigger script and add stables/cavalry attckers, refs #5040.

Balancing:
Place Stables which only spawns melee cavalry which only attack traders, women and siege engines.
Nerf fortresses by not exclusively spawning champions (temples still do).

r21613: Don't have the difficulty of Jebel Barkal differ by the factor 10 depending on the mapsize and playercount.

If there are less spawn points, the groups of spawned units is increased proportionally.
The new balancing should yield the same results as a 1v1 on medium mapsize or a 4v4 on a normal mapsize in the previous balancing.

Notice that the number of elephant stables (and hence elephants) can still vary.

r21644: Improve Jebel Barkal balancing for smaller maps when there are very few or no elephant stables.

r21672: Add some small bushes near the straggler trees on Lower Nubia to try to improve the imbalance between players starting on the left vs players starting on the right side of the map.

And also (more complete):

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha21

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha22

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha23

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha24

7 hours ago, borg- said:

keeps players playing the game.

Obviously balancing is necessary to make a good rts. But what kind of players are you refering to? (I guess you refers to online multiplayer players?)

[Sundiata]

This discussion is weird.

There's serious balance issues with the game. 

Borg made a balance mod to address these issues. Big success, no negative feedback.

Help Borg implement those balance changes that don't affect core gameplay/historicity etc. in the vanilla game.

If you're unhappy with the balance changes, then comment something substantive on what you'd like to see changed and why. 

This discussion is turning into borg having to defend why he improved gameplay. It's making me cringe...

Don't behave like an autoimmune disease. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Sundiata

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

This discussion is weird.

There's serious balance issues with the game. 

Borg made a balance mod to address these issues. Big success, no negative feedback.

Help Borg implement those balance changes that don't affect core gameplay/historicity etc. in the vanilla game.

If you're unhappy with the balance changes, then comment something substantive on what you'd like to see changed and why. 

This discussion is turning into borg having to defend why he improved gameplay. It's making me cringe... 

I have no problem with this because it effects Delenda Est not at all. I haven't bothered playing Vanilla much since nothing interesting has happened to the core mechanics in many years. I started DE on my own to change that. Only problem for me is that "balance" isn't what keeps me from playing Vanilla, the lack of new features does. But if better balance will keep other people playing and contributing, then that is a win. It's not like borg is neglecting his battalions and SSAO patches in favor of working on his balance mod...  

Edited May 15, 2019 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[fatherbushido]

9 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

This discussion is weird.

There's serious balance issues with the game. 

Borg made a balance mod to address these issues. Big success, no negative feedback.

Help Borg implement those balance changes that don't affect core gameplay/historicity etc. in the vanilla game. 

If you're unhappy with the balance changes, then comment something substantive on what you'd like to see changed and why. 

 This discussion is turning into borg having to defend why he improved gameplay. It's making me cringe...

Don't behave like an autoimmune disease. 

@Sundiataif you refers to my post, it wasn't my intention. On my side I really don't care. I just brought some elements which I thought could be helpful in understanding things globally.

[DarcReaver]

3 hours ago, borg- said:

My priorities are also pathfinder, lag, among other things, but I do not know how to do that.

But I know how to make a good balance, and why not? if we have who do, and how to do, why not? Why not make the game even better?

 

58 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

There was different organization (one head, committee, ...).

The last official info about wfg I have is that it was decided at 2014-08-03 (see meetinglogs) to agree on merging the balancing branch of one member and to open a poll to give him the head of the gameplay balance. I didn't find public results of that poll. But it was kinda implicit that he was in charge of that.

I remember asking agreement before committing balancing changes, then don't asking him (sorry for that). So did other members. (We most of the times used forum, irc, trying to fight against our own biases or not, grepping opinions or not, phabricator also). I had asked several times clarification about that.

Due to past issues about that (see commit history above) and to other facts, there was an implicit conservation policy about committing balancing change.

I assume he is still in charge of that as I didn't see any announcement about that (or I missed it).

On the last 5 years, grepping for balance in commit message:

[...]

Obviously balancing is necessary to make a good rts. But what kind of players are you refering to? (I guess you refers to online multiplayer players?)

Well, the main question always was : how is the game supposed to be played? All the current features ingame are not glued together. They're taken from AoE II and other games and combined roughly to represent "something" which isn't clear. 

Gameplay balancing can only work when the game is in a stable version and the basic gameplay decisions are set. Which includes (simplified):

- how much is the balance economy/warfare (in terms of player micro)
- how detailed is the economy  setup/how do map control elements work
- how much is tactical/strategical micro
- how is the basic counter system/tech tree (shared tech tree or unique tech trees for each faction)
- which factions are included and how unique are they designed
- etc. I just pulled those out of thin air, there are probably a lot of other points with even higher priority

EDIT: Nescio put some nice points:

edit2: these @#$%ing quote mechanics, half my post is gone... fck this.

• content (actors, animations, icons, maps, sounds, etc.), which have to be up to the art department's standards
• features, which require serious reviews from the programming team to ensure code doesn't have unintended consequences
• balance tweaks (e.g. how much health a structure has, unit attack damage, which entities are available to which faction in which phase, etc.); these happen occassionally, as @fatherbushido pointed out, but not frequently enough, according to many people on these forums

In general borg was right : the game is judged by its vanilla content and gameplay. Mods can NEVER EVER be a replacement for a stable, fluid, working game. They can be used for total conversions, adding content (especially for single player experience - campaigns, missions etc.) but not for adding basic things as counter systems or tech trees. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Nescio]

Actually I think we should distinguish between:

• content (actors, animations, icons, maps, sounds, etc.), which have to be up to the art department's standards
• features, which require serious reviews from the programming team to ensure code doesn't have unintended consequences
• balance tweaks (e.g. how much health a structure has, unit attack damage, which entities are available to which faction in which phase, etc.); these happen occassionally, as @fatherbushido pointed out, but not frequently enough, according to many people on these forums

(There are other things, of course, but those matter less to gameplay.)

Mods can really help to test things; however, the more things a mod does, the harder it'll be to get it implemented; hopefully @borg-'s mod will result in a number of small patches that'll be accepted on phabricator and committed to the game.