Are there balancing changes planned for A24?

[Lion.Kanzen]

same here with fatherbu... and wow... nothing new , no gameplay ... boring.

the only  good thing was adding new art.... and some optimization.

naval battle are dull, sieges and turtling tactics are a mess...

 

Excuse me if I digress sometimes.
I don't feel anything for the current gameplay, only Wowgetoff here does the things that provoke immersion.

No more battering rams killing entire squadrons.
enough to capture houses and then destructible in seconds.

the default capture system instead of attacking or adding a behavior.

the abandoned single player. we have nice units and badly implemented mechanics. look at those walls that do not close perfectly.

no animal capture. units on the wall that do not defend at all, look like a shooting gallery. 

too much cavalry....

 

@Sundiata needs balance...i agree with that.

 

 

[Feldfeld]

I don't want to take strong position  but I think that a reason why devs could be hesitant to implement those big changes in main game is also because we don't know what to expect. All those changes are very complex to balance, and we can't garantee that borg-'s mod is balanced simply because there really is too few testing. Even if, in the very few games i played in the mod, I didn't find any imbalance, i can't say if the mod is balanced and the same reasoning should be applied to the positive feedback it receives. It is not enough. Small changes can lead to big imbalances. I am not against putting the mod in the base game since it would lead to some progress in that direction but you can't expect balance complaints to stop.
Also, it may not seem like it with the sizeable complaints about balancing but don't forget that a23 is much more balanced than a21 or a22 were.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Feldfeld

[Guest]

Well of course it won’t be easy merging something like that in. But I wonder who thinks creating a game is easy in the first place. If no one is willing to do the hardwork, then I guess this discussion is pointless.

"this is clearly broken, but I am too afraid to fix it. I might break it further.”

 

Then theres the discussion about a design document. Which makes me wonder why it wouldn’t end any differently. The founder of 0AD drafted a nice document too. What’s needed here is a new attitude, not a new document.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Guest

[DarcReaver]

45 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. 

It's the core game mechanics that are lacking. The balance itself being bad is just another minor side effect of that.

If the core game is bad, a good balance can only improve the game to become sub-par/mediocre at best.

Good core game mechanics/features with a bad balance can be fixed with stats changes to become enjoyable.

 

Quote

I don't want to take strong position  but I think that a reason why devs could be hesitant to implement those big changes in main game is also because we don't know what to expect. All those changes are very complex to balance, and we can't garantee that borg-'s mod is balanced simply because there really is too few testing. Even if, in the very few games i played in the mod, I didn't find any imbalance, i can't say if the mod is balanced and the same reasoning should be applied to the positive feedback it receives. It is not enough. Small changes can lead to big imbalances. I am not against putting the mod in the base game since it would lead to some progress in that direction but you can't expect balance complaints to stop.
Also, it may not seem like it with the sizeable complaints about balancing but don't forget that a23 is much more balanced than a21 or a22 were.

@Feldfeld It's not about hesitating. It's that noone has a clue how the game is supposed to be in the first place. That's what is missing. If you have an idea what you're working towards you can adjust the components necessary. That way you automatically start the balancing process. Because every new feature along the way towards the goal, the finished product, serves a purpose and can be balanced around that purpose.

BUT If you don't know where you're going you end up with a couple of loose ends that do not fit together - which we have right now. 

And balance complaints will always be there, no matter what happens to the game. Even in chess there are people who complain that white is better than black because white always starts the match.

Edited May 15, 2019 by DarcReaver

[wraitii]

10 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

It's the core game mechanics that are lacking. The balance itself being bad is just another minor side effect of that.

If the core game is bad, a good balance can only improve the game to become sub-par/mediocre at best.

It appears to me some people enjoy the game, so I would not say this is an absolute fact. One can also create an almost perfect AoE 2 clone, which is a good game, purely by editing templates.

Now, regardless of what the team will decide on balancing, I would like to say that borg has worked hard on his mod to make something that (it seems) people like, and that is a valuable achievement, which we should all recognise and applaud.

[DarcReaver]

30 minutes ago, wraitii said:

It appears to me some people enjoy the game, so I would not say this is an absolute fact. One can also create an almost perfect AoE 2 clone, which is a good game, purely by editing templates.

Now, regardless of what the team will decide on balancing, I would like to say that borg has worked hard on his mod to make something that (it seems) people like, and that is a valuable achievement, which we should all recognise and applaud.

Nowadays there is AoE 2 HD, AoM : EE and AoE 2 DE in the makings you already have 2 superior clones of AoE 2 on the market, supported and published by major game companies along with superior graphics. So there no longer is a need for another AoE clone since the base products are vastly superior in every aspect at this point.

But at least "we want to make 0 AD an Age of Empires clone" would state a goal/vision for the finished game. If you cannot compete with ideas of your own - steal them and work on improving small details to smoothen the template. Altough I sort of doubt you're capable of that because it could have happened 10 years ago/the core gameplay could've been centered around this. I'm also quite sure the base community would be larger by a multitude if that was the case. AoE 2 HD has a player base of more than 10k people at all times.

about the "community enjoying the game" I heavily suspect that most of the people "enjoy the game"  for reasons that have nothing to do with the gameplay itself. They either like that their favorite faction is in the game or that you have unit Y available, not because the game itself is compelling.

As an example for external feedback I only ever saw people on YT creating content for 0 AD who said "alright this looks pretty" "okay some XXX here and there", then some battling/skirmishing and afterwards I've never seen them play the game again on their channel. Sure - some players only present unique videos per game, but there are others who have a pool of games to choose from and play those from time to time during their streams/videos. For all those "pool players" 0 ad never made it into their game pool, for reasons unknown (or maybe known?). 

As a random sidenote: my RTS mates which I invited to play 0 ad with me all stated "oh well it looks nice but it's boring".

Edited May 15, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Nescio]

35 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Then theres the discussion about a design document. Which makes me wonder why it wouldn’t end any differently. The founder of 0AD drafted a nice document too. What’s needed here is a new attitude, not a new document.

If I understand correctly, the design document as listed on trac is quite outdated, so it seems the idea is to create a new one that's hosted separately ( http://docs.wildfiregames.com/design/ ), first making it descriptive of the current situation, afterwards prescriptive for future direction (at least that's my impression; please correct me, @Itms). I don't expect any major overhauls, though.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Nescio said:

first making it descriptive of the current situation, afterwards prescriptive for future direction

Nothing prevents that argument being used for Design Document 0.3 a few years later.

[Sundiata]

The title of thread is: "Are there balancing changes planned for A24?"


Instead of discussing this, the thread is becoming another hack and slash on 0AD's flawed gameplay mechanics. That's not what this thread was about and that's not what borg's mod is about. Obviously the one affects the other, but they're separate subjects. There are glaring balance issues that have little to do with gameplay, but which affect the enjoyability of competitive matches. Battering ram shenanigans. Slinger spam. Only 3-4 civs are played competitively. Underused units. etc. Borg is not a master of C++ to my knowledge. He is one of the best, or the best players out there and he has a lovely demeanor as well. He helps and teaches people how to play. He has used his experience and his skillsets to improve the balance of the game, with the stated intention of addressing many of the issues that many players have brought up repeatedly. If a team of experienced players commit to playtesting the mod and ironing out potential flaws, then we're looking at a tangible improvement in one aspect of the game. WHICH IS A GOOD THING. Regardless of whether it addresses core gameplay issues. That's a different subject, handled by different people with a different expertise. Borg's balance mod has been hugely constructive in terms of addressing some of the recurring issues that competitive players, as well as single players have complained about. Try to do your best to facilitate and improve on his productiveness!


As for gameplay, don't get me wrong, I think 0AD can do way better. And we should actively try to overhaul (parts of) it. Unlike what some people say, 0AD is loads of fun. Otherwise none of us would be here. But it could be a lot better. Our biggest problem is lack of manpower. This is obvious. But some of the discussions on gameplay do little to inspire people to work on it. Quite the opposite. Even if I had the skills, which I don't, I'd be very hesitant to put my hand in this wasp nest. I had recently actually typed more than 4 pages of condensed suggestions for 0AD, thought through over a period of several months, many of which address gameplay one way or the other, but decided not to write it out and share it because it was obvious to me at the time that every capable person is already buried neck-deep in work. A lot of things that aren't immediately noticeable to the end user but are necessary, and often boring tasks just to keep this project going. Then my computer flipped out on me and I lost all my brilliant and not so brilliant suggestions (a sign, perhaps?). Anyway, my point is basically, learn C++ and javascript if your passion lies with improving gameplay mechanics. Seriously, we need the people! Be brave, put in the work, even if nothing comes out of it. That's the risk, and always will be. But at least you might actually learn something in the process, and inspire a more capable person to pick up the cause, or support you efferts. If you're not willing to put in the work, try to find people who are, outside of the small and already overworked pool of talented, yet under appreciated contributors. Scour forums of programmers and game-developers for capable and willing individuals. Talk to capable people in your environment, or make some publicity for 0AD on Youtube/social media, with the intention of "recruiting" people. We need people that understand what free and open source means. People that have the strength to walk the whole nine yards. Not more people that have pages of suggestions but can't do anything about it themselves and expect it to just be done, like a teenager that never folds the laundry but always has a closet full of fresh, clean clothes, and never even thinks of where they came from. 

@DarcReaver I agree whole heartedly that 0AD shouldn't try to be another AoE clone. But deciding what it shouldn't be is a lot easier than deciding which one of the infinite other possibilities it should be. Reaching a consensus seems to be one of the hardest things in the process. It's obvious that we all have our own ideal RTS in our mind, and it's also obvious that our definitions of ideal RTS are wildly divergent. We're all going to have to make compromises somewhere. But it shouldn't feel like a sacrifice. We need to develop a shared vision, in order to manufacture consent for our ideas. We need to foster good relations, first and foremost, because the most valuable resource to our disposal is the human resource. People need to want to work on something, not be made to feel inadequate, even though mountains have been moved over the past few years. I'm not saying you need to sweet talk anyone, just recognizing the work that has been done so far (I remember a time when 50 units would lag out the game, there were only a handful of civs, no walls, no MP, barely any gameplay at all... A complete mess, basically)

[Pause Writing: there are pigs on the land! The same ones that had me up last night wondering if I'm being burglarized... Going to chase them away now. Update: The pigs are hostile! I repeat, THE PIGS ARE HOSTILE! Sending in the dogs... Hmmm, the dogs made the pigs bleed... Good! (Don't worry, the pigs are fine, just shaken) Bye Bye pigs. Doggos get some nice fish as reward. Good boys  End Pause] 

 

3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

about the "community enjoying the game" I heavily suspect that most of the people "enjoy the game"  for reasons that have nothing to do with the gameplay itself. They either like that their favorite faction is in the game or that you have unit Y available, not because the game itself is compelling.

Yes, I love art, history (antiquity in particular), variety, the ability to build a town, raise an army, murder the living daylights out of my opponents, or fight for survival. Those things make the game compelling to me, as for many others. Yes, the gameplay can be a little lackluster sometimes, but baby steps man, baby steps. It's only been about 15 odd years or so, give it some time, jeez  Just kidding... Like I said, we need manpower. Without the right people with the right skills, we're going to be having these kind of discussions for many years to come. It's not as simple as just deciding what to do. Someone has to actually do it. And without pay, that might take a while. Also, just because the game isn't progressing as fast in the areas you'd like it to be progressing doesn't mean that there hasn't been stellar evolution in the quality, stability, performance and art of the game..

 

4 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

@Sundiataif you refers to my post, it wasn't my intention.

Not a personal attack, just a general observation. 

 

4 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

On my side I really don't care.

Obviously you do  And that's not a bad thing. My point is, just to do what you can do. If you don't want to anymore, that's fine. But try to keep the criticisms constructive. 0AD and Wildfire Games forum are large communities. Even if we don't see eye to eye on some topics, there's always a myriad of other items we can work on, together, or separate. It doesn't matter how, as long as it mutually benefits us, there's reason to continue working on the project and sharing our progress as well. I see you're still around helping people here and there, so again, not necessarily a personal comment, just a general sentiment. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Sundiata

[fatherbushido]

8 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Obviously you do  And that's not a bad thing. My point is, just to do what you can do. If you don't want to anymore, that's fine. But try to keep the criticisms constructive. 0AD and Wildfire Games forum are large communities. Even if we don't see eye to eye on some topics, there's always a myriad of other items we can work on, together, or separate. It doesn't matter how, as long as it mutually benefits us, there's reason to continue working on the project and sharing our progress as well.  

I don't exactly get it and what you are refering too. I didn't do any criticism especially not unconstructive ones, I just provided useful elements (history).

And I am really not concerned personally by all what is above given that's a non issue for most of my current personal concerns.

[Stan`]

To go back to the topic question "Are there balancing changes planned for A 24?" Yes there are balancing changes planned.

@borg- Can you make a version of your mod compatible with SVN ?

[Sundiata]

21 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

I don't exactly get it and what you are refering too. I didn't do any criticism especially not unconstructive ones, I just provided useful elements (history).

Sorry, I added this line before you quoted me:

42 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I see you're still around helping people here and there, so again, not necessarily a personal comment, just a general sentiment. 

 

[fatherbushido]

Thanks, I didn't want we stay on misunderstanding ;-)

[Guest]

Anyone read this (rhetorical question I guess. Most of you posted there)? (I know of the existence of another large design proposal.)

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22036-wowgetoffyourcellphones-gameplay-design/

Edited May 15, 2019 by Guest

[Nescio]

Out of curiosity, are there any balancing changes done in Fork A.D.?

[GunChleoc]

I think if borg can improve balancing now and he is willing and able to spend the time, that's a great idea. Changing core mechanics takes time, and it will make the game more interesting to play in the meantime. So, even if everything will change again in the future, the effort will not be wasted.

[fatherbushido]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Out of curiosity, are there any balancing changes done in Fork A.D.?

Perhaps Fork A.D. public mod is about battles between sausages and sauerkraut armies, so probably the balance is not the same as  0ad alpha23beta :-) But let's discuss that elsewhere (not in that topic) if you want ;-)

[borg-]

2 hours ago, Stan` said:

To go back to the topic question "Are there balancing changes planned for A 24?" Yes there are balancing changes planned.

@borg- Can you make a version of your mod compatible with SVN ?

With certainty!!!

[coworotel]

I think the game is doing great. My only worry in terms of Pyrogenesis is performance (pathfinder). The rest can be modded, the game is already on the level of other RTSs done by multi-million dollar corporations.

About balance, I agree with borg, even if there is still some engine changes, the game has to be always as balanced as possible. Every alpha has to incorporate balance changes according to the feedback of the best players, don't need to be anything revolutionary, but there are some points that everyone agrees with: buff archers (a lot) and cavalry (a bit), nerf slingers, etc.

[Guest]

Archers are nearly invincible when they reach a critical mass. One on One match-ups don't really show all the info needed. Which is where the mechanics discussion comes into play again.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Archers are nearly invisible when they reach a critical mass. One on One match-ups don't really show all the info needed. Which is where the mechanics discussion comes into play again.

To back that claim up I just carried out a test, 70 kushite Champions Archers vs 70 Kushite Sword champions (same cost) ends in the expected way. With an overwhelming victory for the swordsmens with 22 of them remianing which is ~30%. When the numbers are doubled (almost), at 150 vs 150, the Archers win with 70 remaining alive which is ~46%. Given the common situations, the archers would win at even lower numbers. This test was done on open ground with no micro. Just the archers standing their ground and the swordsmen attacking them. This is obviously not how anyone uses archers. Commonly they fight under defenses or sometimes...behind a wall.

There are of course a lot of reasons for this. Some being game limitations and others are just inevitable. (tldr; melee spend less time attacking. And more melee also bump into each other. Archers get free shots) They need to be considered, else it's just another thread named "Are there balancing changes planned for A25?".

This is why the current meta is based on ranged units.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Guest

[elexis]

18 hours ago, borg- said:

I created the mod for elexis orders

I seem to recall that you wanted to make a hard counters mod in 2016, but then didn't do so because you thought the developers would review and reject the idea, or reject the idea based on prejudice? The problem is more the missing caretaker. But I don't recall ordering you to do something, but rather explaining how WFG operates with regards to committing such changes, which was mostly creating a branch that has one single feature and nothing else, getting that tested, then committed, then considering the next feature, rather than stacking many features.

Secondly the design document needs to be checked. 0 A.D. started in 2001, people wrote on design documents until 2003 until development was started. There was a link to the hard-counters in the design document since 2017 in the thread. In december 2018 we reminded that there is this design document that should at least be reviewed. One can still decide against it if it turns out to be a good idea. After that I had tuned out due to several circumstances. But I didn't order it. Problem is if one spends some time to give some valuable feedback, one gets implicated (i.e. one gets bad reputation if one provides some feedback for improvements but doesn't finish off with a complete review, test, discussion, commit, fixing bugs or balancing defects of that afterwards), so developers are often faced with the decision to not respond at all, to go all the way, or to appear as someone who orders someone to do additional work for no reason. I.e. one has to bring a lot of dedication and time if one wants to start working on something.

If I look at the description on the first page I see so many features. Suppose the hard-counters were tested against the design documents and there is a developer who wants to commit the hard-counters mod, it seems very difficult now to review, distinguish the changes:

Spoiler

 

On 1/17/2019 at 8:09 PM, borg- said:

Changelog V 1.0.4:

Fixed:
Loot of athen merc archer;
Cost of mace champ cavalry;
Name of fanatic tech;
Spartan agoge tech;
Attack of Mace Champ cavalry;
Pig/sheep amount of food;
Cost of Black cloak;
Add extra pop for celtic stable and range;
Two specific civ techs that could be searched for other civ if captured;
Ptol champ intantry could be training in the barrack without the tech;
Tech ballistic.

Balance changes:
Status dog;
Cartage bonus civ 15 > 10;
Mace bonus civ 15 > 10;
Women can build all buldings;
Kennel available on p1;
techs attack blacksmith  10% > 20%;
Slave is free but increase training time;
Gastaphetes better attack but increase cost;
Chariot are more resistant, they cost 2 pop;
Women can train on tavern without tech;
Brit infantry champ increase attack and range, but less pierce armour (have no shield);
Ptol farm cost tech 50% > 40%;
Merc tech cost merc 20% > 15%;
Priest reduced cost of metal of 80 to 60.

ADD/New: 
Marines aura;
Lighthouse aura;
New gaul build, assembly;
New gaul unit, carnyx;
New rome build, arch;
Spartan women tech;
Tech iber toledo steel;
Seleucid new civ bonus, fortress cost less;
Athen tech, ritual to Zeus;
New tower tech, fire arrows;
Some new icons;
New civic center tech;
Chickens can be trained on corral;
Unic Tech/model cartage apartment;
Unic Tech ptolomies pharaonic cult.

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

Changelog V 1.0.3:  

Lots of new techs;
New animals on corral, bull and cow;
Cow generates food per sec;
New aura for corral;
New stats for champion units;
All dead animals lost food per sec;
Domestic animals can fatten;
Fixed number max of icons;

Cleaning unnecessary files.

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

Changelog V 1.0.2:  

Fixed techs;

Fixed loot of sword cavalry;

Fixed attack of elephant archer;

Techs CC reduced search time;

New unit cavalry scout for iber. Fast movement, fast attack, low damage, low price, bonus against support, fast hunt, low armour, can not be promoted;

New building spikes. Protect your soldiers, can be building only on neutral territory, low hp, fast build, low price.

 

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

Changelog V 1.0.1: 

New units status base;

Better units balance; 

Palisades/walls/houses balanced;

New techs;

Fixed all techs with +1 dmg for %;

Fixed legionnaire on barracks;

Elephant archer mov speed fixed;

Slaves can be healed;

Priests balanced;

Bolts balanced;

Mace can build stoa;

Advanced and Elite rank only give 10% health;

Swordsmen infantry/cavalry no more bonuses, but better status;

Javelins infantry/cavalry less dmg, but better bonus and range; 

Slings infantry less dmg, but better bonus;

Spear cavalry better bonus;

and other little things.

I need all possible feedback, thank you!!!

Version 1.0.2 is already doing well and soon we will have a lot of new stuff. 

Not yet compatible with fgod mod.

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

It is with great satisfaction that I present to you guys my mod Borg Expansion Pack.

It's been a long time since the game turned into spam with the same units, no strategy, no big decisions or anything.
Many players are complaining about this and we players feel abandoned in this part of development. Small changes are made, but they do not help much.
I know that at the present stage of development this may not be of great importance, but I disagree with that.
I am the older player in the lobby and the more experienced as well, and I know that 0a.d can offer much more dynamic and fun games than the current gameplay offerings.
So, alone, i decided to make the necessary changes to achieve that goal.
Talking with @elexis, the main goal was to create a counter system that worked. But for this to work properly I would need to change many things, so I decided to create a new base for the units / constructions.
I created a solid and harmonic status base for hp / armor / attack / speedmov / loot / cost, etc ...
Created a basis, all current and subsequent work becomes much easier to work with.

The base system and counter was ready, I could have finished the mod, but decided to go a little further.
So I implemented new units, technologies, buildings, civ bonus/unit bonus, auras etc.., all based on historical context. (I was careful not to change the root gameplay of 0a.d, all the features are the same.)
All the techonolgias, bonuses and auras already exist have been remodeled.
I also updated the technology tree, so you can see all the changes there.

I have as main objective that this patch / mod is implemented to the a24, if this is the desire of the majority.

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

COUNTER SYSTEM:

I had two options for counter system, to do by unit or by status, I preferred by status, because it is simpler for novice players to understand.

So this is basically it:

Archers ( Archery Cavalry/Elephant too) bonus vs Melee infantry;

Slingers/Javelin bonus (Javelin Cavalry too) bonus vs Archers (includes Archery Cavalry/Elephant);

Spearmen (Spearmen Cavalry too) bonus vs all Cavalry/Elephant;

Pikemen bonus vs all Cavalry/Elephant;

Swordmen bonus vs Spearmen and Pikemen;

Swordmen Cavalry bonus vs Support;

War Elephant bonus vs Buildings/Cavalry;

Special units:

Kushites Champion Axemen bonus vs Heros and Champions;

Mauryan Champion Macemen bonus vs Buildings;

Iberian Champion Javelin Cavalry bonus vs  Archers (includes Archery Cavalry/Elephant) and Buldings.

All heroes and champions have the same bonus.

It is important all feedback on balance / counter system, for future balancing.

(Do not judge balancing based on what you know in a23)

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

GENERAL CHANGES:

As I said earlier, there have been many changes made, I will put here only the most important ones.

Civil centre can only train women (athen can train slave too);

All civilizations have Archery Range, Stables, Elephant Stables and Workshop;

Champions are units a little stronger than citizens, but cost and train much faster than a23;

All mercenaries cost only metal;

Animation of promotion are desable;

Hero can only be training once.

 

 

It should be development of one feature (hard-counters?), then that should be tested and committed, then one can add the others afterwards.

FeldFeld did everything correct with uploaded the tooltip to display hard-counters in D1707. I understand that you take the opportunity to test multiple features if you already make a mod for hard-counters, but to me doing this is more assuming responsibility than doing something that is entertaining, i.e. to me it's hard work to do it right and (reviewing or development). I'm sure it contains a lot of hard work for you as well that you didn't want to do. If you wanted me to review this, why not ask me, why not check for the design documents as we asked, why keep adding stuff instead of closing the development and proposing it to be committed as is? Perhaps the plan is to have the above list of features all committed as above (similar to the scythetwirler balance branches from years ago)?

I remember we also had a discussion in the lobby to split these into one feature per commit and that you mentioned that it was a lot of work but doable. But why not avoid that extra work by adding only one feature at a time? I'm open to alternative ideas, but I'm currently inactive (I either get stuck reviewing day to night because everyone wants something and expects another review or test and commit after one review as posted, or I have to not even give the first feedback). The other developers may also be open to different ideas how to get the best and acceptable contributions into the game. One's chances to find a developer are greatly increased if one actually looks out who is active, who is involved in which areas of development, which deal they could accept (i.e. making it as easy as possible for them to accept. For some it may be easier to review one feature at a time, for others it may be easier to commit a huge bag of features. One also has to consider that that merging balancing branches makes it harder for future people to look read what that commit changed and to identify possible mistakes or improvements  in it).

13 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

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?)

Target audience, indeed.

My perception has been / is that the experienced players aren't an exclusive target audience, but they are the ones who are most able to identify defects in the balancing, since they run the laboratory tests in these petri dishes all the time.

Less experienced players may be considered part of the target audience, since they are many too. But less experienced players either stop playing or become more experienced players, so it's questionable to me whether to optimize it based on the mere fact of quantity of inexperienced players. It should be done for the people who enjoy the game IMO.

Singleplayer mode is currently only supported against Petra and gaia zombie waves, no campaign mode. So it's considerable that the difficulty of the AI influences the sensitivity of the entity template / tech / aura balancing. However, if all the experienced players discover that some units are OP or useless, these units are also OP or useless against Petra bots, zombie waves and campaigns using that template, if the according AI uses the templates as effectively as possible.

So there have been historic clashes between SP and MP players that develop the game. If one doesn't play online multiplayer and the AI isn't as player-terminating as competitive players, then there is more incentive to save ones time with figuring out the perfect balancing. If one wants to play this game against his online buddies, there is more incentive to invest more time on testing so that the game is actually not broken (degenerating the gameplay into snowballing of one OP unit and clicking the fastest).

So mostly I think it partisanship should be tried to overcome by contributing in such a way that all stakeholder interests are represented and no fact left neglected, ... and whatever.

13 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

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. 

A policy (that might exist and just hadn't been uncovered from the archives) could restrict whether or not and how far and for whom and for what purposes one has or has not to care about policies. I took steps one at a time. If we get 10 reports about unit X being too strong every day from the players, there must be something to it, especially if one can reproduce it in a test case. So I mean we don't need a policy if there are intersubjectively witnesseable facts that determine quality of life of users (combined with the proclaimed intersubjectively valid argument that SP and MP have effectively the same balancing constraints, as a competitve player or competitive AI uses the same templates regardless. Open to controversy.)

13 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

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

Thanks for the list, reminded me of some better memories, and it provides a good example of easy research that new contributors can do!

[borg-]

Actually, the initial goal was just hard-counter, that's where all the problem came up. The game has severe balancing problems on almost everything, it's not just about changing status like attack, armor, and that's it. I had to change many other things for the counter system to work. As the feedback was very positive I decided to continue the work, giving more dynamics and depth to the game, including many bad things, with the technological tree for example, which is super outdated, or heroes archers as cleopatra that if I fail the memory has an attack speed of 0.3, totally out of balance and realism (every 1 second she attacks 3 times, almost 4), I'd say idiot. Just a few examples of what I've seen and changed.

I say for sure, if you make only minor adjustments it will not work.

Edited May 15, 2019 by borg-

[elexis]

1 hour ago, borg- said:

I had to change many other things for the counter system to work

1 hour ago, borg- said:

feedback was very positive I decided to continue the work, giving more dynamics and depth to the game

So there are three classes of contributions:

1. Hard-counters (core idea)
2. Prerequirements / Dependencies
3. Unrelated goodies

If that is correct, then I would again recommend to stop working on unrelated goodies, get the dependencies uploaded if you want this in Wildfire Games 0 A.D. (like FeldFeld did with the hard-counters tooltip). Then get the hard-counters in. Then you can continue to work on unrelated goodies. The more unrelated stuff is added, the more time-consuming it becomes to split it apart later, for you, anyone who would commit it, and anyone who reads it years later. If you want to only have it a mod, I won't stop you, but if your objective is to not have it in a mod, there has to be some theory how this happens. I understand many people offer their contribution and leave it there, but reality is one chances to get something committed increase by some orders of magnitude if one actively looks for oneself how to get it in (i.e. trying to identify the developers, getting them interested, making it as easy as possible for them to agree).

The mod was tested for 5 months now, so I guess you have sufficient results to stop adding new unrelated features? I mean it's your work and WFG review is the end-boss, your choice, I can only show the situation.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, borg- said:

Actually, the initial goal was just hard-counter, that's where all the problem came up. The game has severe balancing problems on almost everything, it's not just about changing status like attack, armor, and that's it. I had to change many other things for the counter system to work. As the feedback was very positive I decided to continue the work, giving more dynamics and depth to the game, including many bad things, with the technological tree for example, which is super outdated, or heroes archers as cleopatra that if I fail the memory has an attack speed of 0.3, totally out of balance and realism (every 1 second she attacks 3 times, almost 4), I'd say idiot. Just a few examples of what I've seen and changed.

I say for sure, if you make only minor adjustments it will not work.

that sounds better than usual balance changes where change a little number by other. I'll  give a try.