Bring back a23

[Freagarach]

All individual features were discussed on Phabricator (https://code.wildfiregames.com/) and in the balancing group message (this is done more public now for A25).

As for polling on the forums, keep in mind that a _very large_ portion of the players never goes to these forums at all.

[BoredRusher]

2 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

All individual features were discussed on Phabricator (https://code.wildfiregames.com/) and in the balancing group message (this is done more public now for A25).

As for polling on the forums, keep in mind that a _very large_ portion of the players never goes to these forums at all.

Ah ok, I understand.

[Palaxin]

35 minutes ago, PhyZik said:

People are different and some are toxic like PhyZic. It's ok.

There will be less people agreeing with you on that than what you think there are people supporting A24. You may spread toxicity but the result is that you alienate people around you even if some may agree with your arguments. 0 A.D. has been declared (near) dead several times in the past and right now it rather seems the opposite. Development has increased and that won't change because someone feels the need to be disrespectful. It is obvious that not everyone can be happy with all changes, but everyone can participate in a respectful manner.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Archers Overpowered?

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters

Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy)

Observations: The archer range was decisive here

 

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range)

Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds

Results: 1 archer left (full health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters

Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health)

Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range)

Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified

Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO.

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see

Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health)

Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 30 meters apart

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers

Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health)

Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since 

Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters.

 

 

Conclusion

I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor. 

[BoredRusher]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Archers Overpowered?

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters

Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy)

Observations: The archer range was decisive here

 

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range)

Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds

Results: 1 archer left (full health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters

Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health)

Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range)

Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified

Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO.

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see

Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health)

Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 30 meters apart

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers

Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health)

Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since 

Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters.

 

 

Conclusion

I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor. 

You are right, thanks for this deep explanation and for the test stuff performed.

I think my words are confusing (I am not English native and my English is not this good, sorry for that).

Taking a look at the attached game in my original post, what do you think about the resulting game-play of the range of the archers you have so well underlined ?

[badosu]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Archers Overpowered?

It seems to me we should have more well-defined roles for javelins and slingers given the results? At closer range I'd expect for javelins to be way more effective, basically as skirmishers they should be more suitable for close combat (perhaps more effective at supporting infantry?). As for slingers, what role they could even have?

Edited March 10, 2021 by badosu

[feneur]

Please respect each other, criticise the game and its development all you want (though if you actually want to increase the chances of your opinion being considered -- doing so in a polite and constructive way is a good idea), but this forum is no place to mistreat other people.

[badosu]

A saying as old as the internet itself: don't feed the troll.

As for banning, I don't feel strongly either way, I certainly like the lackadaisical approach that we have currently but I've been on the receiving end of the trolling itself.

I feel the bigger issue is more about the extremely low quality content and signal-to-noise ratio. Especially considering we have to read that crap, and that only people involved in development effort itself can truly appreciate what has been done (tks @borg-@Nescio the whole 0ad dev team and reviewers @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt).

Even not polished feedback from players is welcome, and even with a certain level of salt, it's at least legitimate.

Just a soft-ban on certain subforums (that require some level of intelligibility) would be enough in my understanding, they can still trash talk anywhere else.

(PS: I don't want this to takeover the discussion, just my 2 cents)

Edited March 10, 2021 by badosu

[Dakara]

MORE HP TO ALL  UNITS PLEASE

 

FIGHTS ARE VERY TOO FAST

[Grapjas]

2 hours ago, badosu said:

It seems to me we should have more well-defined roles for javelins and slingers given the results? At closer range I'd expect for javelins to be way more effective, basically as skirmishers they should be more suitable for close combat (perhaps more effective at supporting infantry?). As for slingers, what role they could even have?

I kind of both agree and disagree. Skirmishers in their current armor will absolutely get obliterated by a volley of arrows (yes even with the little shields they have), from a logical sense i guess. However i think they are really good at being offensive once you throw a couple of melee units in the mix. 

[faction02]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Archers Overpowered?

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Skirmishers under fire as they have to approach by 30 meters

Results: 6 archers left (all fully healthy)

Observations: The archer range was decisive here

 

10 archers vs. 10 skirmishers

Units start 30 meters apart (skirmisher range)

Theory: Skirmishers can attack immediately, archer range nullified, strong javelin attack strength should even the odds

Results: 1 archer left (full health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; archers still slightly better, probably their attack interval advantage

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Slingers under fire briefly as they close to within 45 meters

Results: 6 archers left (avg 75% health)

Observations: As the slingers cost less abundant resources, this isn't a very good outcome for slingers

 

10 archers vs. 10 slingers

Units start 45 meters apart (slinger range)

Theory: Slingers can attack immediately, archer range nullified

Results: 1 archer left (10% health); 3 archers left (avg 20% health), 3 slingers left (avg 40% health), 1 slinger left (50% health)

Observations: Remove archers' range advantage and things even out considerably; After the first test was so close I moved some units around slightly by about 1 meter. The fact that results came down to a 1 meter placement tells me they are pretty much balanced in combat against each other. Is this desired? 

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. This is a good balance IMHO.

 

10 archers vs. 8 cavalry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Cavalry under fire for 60 meters; melee cavalry should be archers' natural counter

Results: 7 cavalry swordsmen left (avg 80% health); identical results to cav swordsmen

Observations: Unsurprisingly, the archers were massacred. I thought the cav spearmen would perform a little worse than cav swords due to their slower attack interval, but it didn't work out that way. This is a good balance.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers; we'll see

Results: 6 spearmen left (avg 85% health)

Observations: Surprised by this outcome. Archers were massacred by spearmen, probably because of the spearmen's double health. No spearman died until the last 10 meters of their charge.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry spearmen

Units start 30 meters apart

Theory: Infantry spearmen in theory should fall prey to archers

Results: 9 spearmen left (avg 75% health)

Observations: Unsurprised by this outcome given the 60 meter tests, but this still doesn't feel right. Very unbalanced toward the spearmen.

 

10 archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen

Units start 60 meters apart (archer max range)

Theory: Infantry swordsmen in theory should fall prey to archers, especially since 

Results: 8 swordsmen left (avg 80% health)

Observations: Archers were massacred by swordsmen, when it should have been the other way around since the swordsmen were under fire for the entire 60 meters.

 

 

Conclusion

I don't think archers are overpowered per se. At least not on a unit by unit basis. Their range does seem extreme though, and they only cost food and wood, so in a meat shield situation or raiding situation the results could turn heavily in their favor. 

Thanks for these tests and the explanations. Some players have tried similar tests too. The results from this type of test are interesting, but I find it hard to build robust conclusions out of them.

For example, if you change the starting position of archers (archers concentrated in one spot or archers surrounding the enemy), results can change significantly. The power of archers also comes a lot from microing them (hit, spread and escape). Obstacles plays an important role too (buildings through which you can teleport, forests, palisades/wall...). Balancing the range advantage of archers is quite difficult.

If melee units can provide a reasonable counter, nothing prevent a player with archers to make melee units too. And since cavalry units do not play the same economic role as infantry, I would guess the most relevant test would be slingers versus archers and slingers versus skirmishers which are the units with similar role in game. The corresponding numbers found seems off by a large margin to me.

Archers are now also a decent counter to both catapults and bolts if they are not well protected too. Skirmishers/melees do a terrible job at protecting sieges against archers. It is now hard to use catapults to destroy a fort protected by archers.

Unbalance between civilization with or without archers get worse since mauryans and persians can get archery tradition on top of other upgrades and benefits from population cap advantage which make it easy to outnumber the enemy.

I do not mean that balancing this would be easy since the current balance is the result of aggregating many other changes (units speed, rotation speed, no hp increase with phases...). I would like to emphasize that the problem is not to be minimized

Edited March 10, 2021 by faction02

[Yekaterina]

Personally I think we can keep the skirmisher's attack constant but increase the skirmisher health point to 75 - half way between archers and spearmen. This would highlight their superiority over archers in shorter range combat while keeping them inferior to spearmen in melee combat. 

In terms of slingers, I think the current A24 attack and defence stats are appropriate; they were not very strong historically as they were often recruited from the poorest citizens due to low cost. Therefore we should lower the cost of training each slinger to compensate for low attack and armour.  A sensible cost would be something like 5 stone and 20 food and 10 wood each. Alternatively we can also reduce their training time, so mass formations of slingers can be deployed to counter enemy catapults or towers. 

[badosu]

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

they were not very strong historically as they were often recruited from the poorest citizens due to low cost.

True

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Therefore we should lower the cost of training each slinger to compensate for low attack and armour.  A sensible cost would be something like 5 stone and 20 food and 10 wood each.

Slingers were really not that great, it takes a lot of training and skill to be able to use a sling effectively over a certain range. I had this idea where you could spam slingers well but they'd be incredibly inaccurate and squishy. They would be ineffective for the population cost but great at early game harass. Perhaps a nice way to differentiate britons and gauls further, tying to their current early game strong late game weak idea? (cc @borg- @Nescio)

That said I reserve the right of balearic slinger champs to be OP

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

This would highlight their superiority over archers in shorter range combat while keeping them inferior to spearmen in melee combat. 

I agree with skirmishers being able to handle close combat better, which stat can best balance that I'm not sure.

Edited March 10, 2021 by badosu

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, faction02 said:

I do not mean that balancing this would be easy since the current balance is the result of aggregating many other changes (units speed, rotation speed, no hp increase with phases...). I would like to emphasize that the problem is not to be minimized

I fully agree that "real world" experience is way better than simple Atlas tests. I did conclude that the archer range seems quite excessive and that meat shields and other real-world scenarios would increase their effectiveness beyond simple 1v1 unit matchups.  

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I fully agree that "real world" experience is way better than simple Atlas tests. I did conclude that the archer range seems quite excessive and that meat shields and other real-world scenarios would increase their effectiveness beyond simple 1v1 unit matchups.  

there's no way they miss the shots?

It is assumed that at a greater distance they should fail them more.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

there's no way they miss the shots?

It is assumed that at a greater distance they should fail them more.

Ranged unit accuracy was greatly increased in Alpha 24. 

[Sundiata]

How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. 

Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it.

Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... 

And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Hello everyone, 

@chrstgtr @Dizaka @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @cobrakai@badosu

I have seen much frustration with the new alpha and it is much more worrisome than archers and eles being slightly too powerful or metal being too valuable. The problem is 4v4 gameplay pacing. I have been talking to players I often do 4v4s with recently and have been formulating my response to this for some time. This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently. One point of concern is that these stalemates can happen even when teams are moderately imbalanced.

I am sure you have all seen stable vs unstable systems. A stable system has forces built in to return it to its original state if it starts to move. An unstable system has forces built in to push the system away from its original state if it starts to move. I give the example of a ball on a hill or in a valley: In an unstable system (top of hill), any motion of the ball will compound and the ball will accelerate. In a stable system (bottom of valley), the ball will roll back to the bottom after being nudged.

Go to attached to see diagrams demonstrating stable vs instable systems (page 1).

In a 0ad 4v4 application, one team can try very hard to beat the enemy and either their efforts will "snowball" (grant more successes) or it will be costly and not achieve much. In an unstable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle can expect to win in their next few engagements unless they make a mistake or their enemy gets clever, usually this leads to a victory overall. In a stable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle does not see a "snowballing" or "compounding" effect on their next fights, and you can expect the game to return to the original situation. In 0ad, an unstable situation makes things that are slightly overpowered (like slingers in a23 or eles and archers in a24) seem very OP; in addition, it makes the teams seem less balanced than they may have been. 

Often in a24 4v4s the situation after 20 minutes is stable. This means a team has to work very hard to win even if they have some serious advantages. 

I have made some graphs depicting the stability level of 4v4s of different alphas (23 and 24) as they progress in time from 0 minutes to 1 hour. I include examples of what players might see at particular times.

Go to attached to see a23 diagram (page 2)

In a23, for a balanced game, it could be quite intense due to the moderate instability of the gameplay most of the time.

Go to attached to see a24 diagram (page 3)

in a24, after a brief period (17-21 minutes) of high gameplay instability, a balanced 4v4 can stabilize and become endless. This way, 4v4s either seem super imbalanced if they end around 20 minutes and seem gridlocked if they last any longer.

I am not sure what causes this behavior in 4v4s. But I will list some of my suggestions in bullet points.

• map gets fully built up so there is no unoccupied land ( all 4v4s have been played on same map size as usual a23 4v4s). This seems to make movement and flanking attacks very hard. This matches poorly with tower and fort defensive buff.
• metal runs out for all players quite quickly, even if it is evenly distributed. This means more lethal options like rams/eles/champions are harder to get.
• Somehow, it is easier for players to rebuild all the way (idk about this one but I saw it quite a few times)

I hope to get at least some people agreeing with my assessment and adding some extra detail as to what is causing this gameplay quality problem. The endless 4v4s truly are frustrating and boring. I think there are many great changes with a24, like stables, blacksmith changes; people like to point out problems, but I think this issue is the only serious gameplay problem with a24. If we can find what is causing this issue we could have a 0ad that is mildly unstable. A mildly unstable 0ad means for the duration of a balanced game, it seems like either team can win at any moment rather than a stalemate, which makes for an intense and fun game.

Some players had similar frustration and I am hoping I am being accurate for those who did not put a finger on how to describe it. I think a revert to a23 would be very sad and a last resort situation, considering what a leap some features are, and how much awesome work went into the new alpha.

 

(Also, please excuse my handwriting, I know many other people grew up with other alphabets and have better handwriting than me :I.)

 

 

0ad Stability Charts.pdf

Edited March 11, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[BoredRusher]

56 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hello everyone, 

@chrstgtr @Dizaka @bbgotbanned @PistolPete @cobrakai@badosu

I have seen much frustration with the new alpha and it is much more worrisome than archers and eles being slightly too powerful or metal being too valuable. The problem is 4v4 gameplay pacing. I have been talking to players I often do 4v4s with recently and have been formulating my response to this for some time. This is what I believe to be causing the endless 4v4s we have seen so much recently. One point of concern is that these stalemates can happen even when teams are moderately imbalanced.

I am sure you have all seen stable vs unstable systems. A stable system has forces built in to return it to its original state if it starts to move. An unstable system has forces built in to push the system away from its original state if it starts to move. I give the example of a ball on a hill or in a valley: In an unstable system (top of hill), any motion of the ball will compound and the ball will accelerate. In a stable system (bottom of valley), the ball will roll back to the bottom after being nudged.

Go to attached to see diagrams demonstrating stable vs instable systems (page 1).

In a 0ad 4v4 application, one team can try very hard to beat the enemy and either their efforts will "snowball" (grant more successes) or it will be costly and not achieve much. In an unstable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle can expect to win in their next few engagements unless they make a mistake or their enemy gets clever, usually this leads to a victory overall. In a stable 0ad 4v4, a team who wins a battle does not see a "snowballing" or "compounding" effect on their next fights, and you can expect the game to return to the original situation. In 0ad, an unstable situation makes things that are slightly overpowered (like slingers in a23 or eles and archers in a24) seem very OP; in addition, it makes the teams seem less balanced than they may have been. 

Often in a24 4v4s the situation after 20 minutes is stable. This means a team has to work very hard to win even if they have some serious advantages. 

I have made some graphs depicting the stability level of 4v4s of different alphas (23 and 24) as they progress in time from 0 minutes to 1 hour. I include examples of what players might see at particular times.

Go to attached to see a23 diagram (page 2)

In a23, for a balanced game, it could be quite intense due to the moderate instability of the gameplay most of the time.

Go to attached to see a24 diagram (page 3)

in a24, after a brief period (17-21 minutes) of high gameplay instability, a balanced 4v4 can stabilize and become endless. This way, 4v4s either seem super imbalanced if they end around 20 minutes and seem gridlocked if they last any longer.

I am not sure what causes this behavior in 4v4s. But I will list some of my suggestions in bullet points.

• map gets fully built up so there is no unoccupied land ( all 4v4s have been played on same map size as usual a23 4v4s). This seems to make movement and flanking attacks very hard. This matches poorly with tower and fort defensive buff.
• metal runs out for all players quite quickly, even if it is evenly distributed. This means more lethal options like rams/eles/champions are harder to get.
• Somehow, it is easier for players to rebuild all the way (idk about this one but I saw it quite a few times)

I hope to get at least some people agreeing with my assessment and adding some extra detail as to what is causing this gameplay quality problem. The endless 4v4s truly are frustrating and boring. I think there are many great changes with a24, like stables, blacksmith changes; people like to point out problems, but I think this issue is the only serious gameplay problem with a24. If we can find what is causing this issue we could have a 0ad that is mildly unstable. A mildly unstable 0ad means for the duration of a balanced game, it seems like either team can win at any moment rather than a stalemate, which makes for an intense and fun game.

Some players had similar frustration and I am hoping I am being accurate for those who did not put a finger on how to describe it. I think a revert to a23 would be very sad and a last resort situation, considering what a leap some features are, and how much awesome work went into the new alpha.

 

(Also, please excuse my handwriting, I know many other people grew up with other alphabets and have better handwriting than me :I.)

 

0ad Stability Charts.pdf 1 MB · 7 downloads

Thank you for this very constructive explanation <3

I think it resumes pretty much very well what I was talking about since the beginning of this topic. You guy roc !

And just to expand your idea and conclusion (as I know you do not play 1v1 and rarely other kinds of game than 4v4), it's pretty much the same scenario in 1v1 and other game modes.

Edited March 11, 2021 by BoredRusher

[BoredRusher]

5 hours ago, Sundiata said:

How many people actually still play Alpha 23? Serious question. 

Controversial opinion, but I'm inclined to think that these strong reactions from certain types of players mean that we're actually moving in the right direction. There's definitely still a lot of room for improvement, but that has always been the case for 0AD. Either way, there are always going to be these kind of reactionary responses... I've seen them with almost every Alpha. Alpha 23 was just around for so long that some people got overly comfortable with a broken meta. Even dependent on it.

Also, about the archers, the fact that they need to be paired with melee units (meat-shields) to become truly effective is a good thing, right?? Once a sufficient number of melee units reach them, they cut through them like butter. I even saw someone complain about OP archers while he was just massively outnumbered by them... 

And complaining that everyone has rams is like complaining that everyone has spearmen... Some unit types are more generic by nature. 

For my part, A23 is the only one I have played so far (before that a24 obviously) and I can't play a23 because I'm simply unable to join the multiplayer lobby there.

[hyperion]

@BoredRusher isn't wrong, maybe the wording is.

There was a huge amount of gameplay changes late in the development cycle. Lot of changes in a single release are bound to cause some displeasure. I understand the eagerness to get everything in last minute when the last release was long ago so hard to blame the "balancers" for this. But less could well be more and something to keep in mind for a25.

Another point is most of those changes seem to be based on gut feeling. As the involved people are pro or at least knowledgable players gut feeling produces on average decent results. Let's say 80% good 20% bad for arguments sake. Out of the 20% one or two brain farts will inevitably mix in. Bad changes are always a lot easier to notice and are what agitates people. Getting hostile towards people pointing out what they do not like is similarly toxic.

A poll won't work. My impression is the effects of some of those gameplay changes aren't even well understood by the "balancers". Having people with even less of a clue vote will make things only worse. Well, you could at least blame the community at large instead of the few where things go wrong.

 

@BreakfastBurrito_007, the "stable system" is partially intended, no more bonus for advancing civ, no exponential growth of economy techs, the changes to techs in forge etc. There are even plans to reduce the territory influence of city phase.

To use your analogy, it's not yet a valley, more like flat ground, instead of a hill as in a23. I agree that those changes brings it's own slew of issues.

[BoredRusher]

3 minutes ago, hyperion said:

@BoredRusher isn't wrong, maybe the wording is.

There was a huge amount of gameplay changes late in the development cycle. Lot of changes in a single release are bound to cause some displeasure. I understand the eagerness to get everything in last minute when the last release was long ago so hard to blame the "balancers" for this. But less could well be more and something to keep in mind for a25.

Another point is most of those changes seem to be based on gut feeling. As the involved people are pro or at least knowledgable players gut feeling produces on average decent results. Let's say 80% good 20% bad for arguments sake. Out of the 20% one or two brain farts will inevitably mix in. Bad changes are always a lot easier to notice and are what agitates people. Getting hostile towards people pointing out what they do not like is similarly toxic.

A poll won't work. My impression is the effects of some of those gameplay changes aren't even well understood by the "balancers". Having people with even less of a clue vote will make things only worse. Well, you could at least blame the community at large instead of the few where things go wrong.

 

@BreakfastBurrito_007, the "stable system" is partially intended, no more bonus for advancing civ, no exponential growth of economy techs, the changes to techs in forge etc. There are even plans to reduce the territory influence of city phase.

To use your analogy, it's not yet a valley, more like flat ground, instead of a hill as in a23. I agree that those changes brings it's own slew of issues.

As I already said and as I will say again, we (at least, I) are not blaming the Balancing Team. Not at all and even if balance was not good.

I'm talking of the broken game-play.

[BoredRusher]

In addition, I see that most of the development team seems to be on the defensive, trying to find reasoning lacks in the words of we who are showing what is not great, or at least what we do not find great at this time of the development process.

I want to say you that we are not here to judge you or blame you or your work. We are just showing here the things we think should be improved/modified for a better result, trying to show you, from our perspective what we think wrong so far.

So, please, instead of making a kind of war between developers and the community which does not agree totally with some changes, listen to us and try to take some recoil. Instead of turning around the subject, face it.

Anyway, we are just writing words. Do not be that much on the defensive.

I also understand that you are proud of the work you did so far, and trust me, we are for you too. But taking another perspective on your work could eventually help you improve it.

Again, we are not here to judge you, we do not even have that power. So, please, at least, just listen, and take some recoil.

(Do not count on me to further discuss if you still that much on the defensive)

Kind regards.

Edited March 11, 2021 by BoredRusher

[smiley]

Hot take, but end user software is meant to be developed for, well, end users. You can have the game be a fancy tea party for Devs, but if there are no end users, it's all for nothing. Something to keep in mind before blurting out "you aren't entitled to anything, we made this without getting paid, take it or leave". You might get what you wished for.

Developers are entitled to end users, not the other way around. That is of course, if the objective is to build a solid community around the product.

[Player of 0AD]

I like some aspects of A24, but I also dislike some.

For example mercenaries are not good now. Too expensive, too useless. Maybe change the mercenaries back? Don't think that they were OP in A23.

Another point: Archers seem to be OP now because of (very) low inaccuracy. Why not removing the inaccuracy "feature" completely from the game?