Who need stones ?

[faction02]

A number of changes in a24 have contributed to alter significantly the status of stone within the game. While in a23 it was an important resources for all civilizations, in a24, some civilizations might simply buy their way out of stone collection. The role of stone is a complex question since it relates to many balance changes.

Starting with some extreme example to illustrate the question:

Mauryas can go to P3 and get all military upgrades except will-to-fight for only 750 stones. The player might decide then to add some optional 200 for a palace, 300 for a temple or 200 for an elephant stable or skip them all and go for a fast push with rams instead.

Gauls might even need less stones since outside of will-to-fight and defensive structures, only slingers might be useful to spend stones.

As a reference point, upgrading stones gathering rates costs currently: 200Wood+100metal / 400Wood+200 metal / 600Wood+300metal. Simply using the resources you would have used to upgrade stones gathering rates to buy stones seems therefore like a good strategy, since it could be sufficient to cover stones needs and avoid the time spent on gathering the resource.

 

Changes that have contributed to reduce stone needs between a23 and a24:

-          The last wood/metal/stone upgrades stone cost was replaced by a metal cost (150 stones for each)

-          Stone cost has been removed from military upgrades (1000 stones in total for both melee and range infantry upgrades)

-          Fortress cost went from 1000 stones to 600 stones and most civilization required a fortress to get their hero/sieges in a23

-          Barrack stone cost is set to a standard value of 100 for most civilization instead of 150 or 200 for some civilization

Tickets that would affect the current issue:

-          D307: cheaper economic cost of technologies : 200wood+100metal / 300wood+150metal / 400wood+200 metal

-          D3680: Remove stone cost from will-to-fight

 

I see 3 critical points for the role of stones:

-          Limited supply of stones: For some civilization, stone is a rare resource with a limited supply (Ptolemies, Athens…) while for other civilization it doesn’t have more value than wood. Removing stones usages benefits to civilizations with citizen-soldiers with stone cost. The problem of missing stones for these civilizations was however eased by switching to a system in which military upgrades applies to both infantry and cavalry. It allowed for an easier transition from slingers to cavalry/camels (even if it still requires stones to build stables);

 

-          Reinforce(create?) a negative correlation between the value of stones and the value of metal: With the change in fortress cost, the reduction of stones alternative usages also reduces significantly the cost of turtling. With too much stones available, there is no limiting factors to the production of fortress and towers. As a consequence of the multiplication of defensive buildings, it also increases the need for metal to build sieges leaving less available to play champions or mercenaries. In a24, it is frequent to see players using about twice more sieges;

 

-          Excess stone availability gives an advantage to civilization with range advantages: Since not all civilization have long range units (archers, catapults, bolts…), too much turtling makes some civilization really unpleasant to play in late game. Attacking a players with multiples fortresses/towers  and archers that can shoot and retreat as needed to kill the enemy  is far from being pleasant when a civilization has a range disadvantage.

 

In a23, the value of stones in team games was usually correlated to the value of metal up until relatively late into the game. Stones would be always gathered and either used or sold for metal at a relatively good price. In a24, its value starts falling relatively fast once p3 timing is passed.

In a23, the lack of stones had the advantage of being limiting factor to the spam of the best unit in the game. In a24, the overproduction of stones is extremely unpleasant since it raises new questions such as how to balance towers/fortress.

Through my description of this problem, I would like to question indirectly some of the arguments that are motivating changes.

For example, if you interpret the lack of metal within the game as being the result of expensive upgrades among others, the current values of D307 can make sense. If instead you interpret the excess supply of stones and too many defensive structures as an important factor behind the lack of metal, then D307 might in fact make the problem worst since instead of buying stones through the market or simply skipping stones gathering upgrades, it might makes sense to gather them and build 5/6 fortresses to force the enemy to waste metal on sieges.

Comments on my description of the question?

Edited April 26, 2021 by faction02
Replace all usages of "issue" by "question"

[happyconcepts]

I read your post but I still do not understand the problem. There is choice how you procure stone. Thats a good thing.

[nani]

45 minutes ago, happyconcepts said:

I read your post but I still do not understand the problem. There is choice how you procure stone. Thats a good thing.

Summary: stone was an essential resource in a23 but in a24 with only 1000 units of stone you are already set for the whole game which means now the game has 4 resources but one is basically unused.

[faction02]

7 hours ago, happyconcepts said:

I read your post but I still do not understand the problem. There is choice how you procure stone. Thats a good thing.

Thanks for reading it all.  

nani did a great job at summarizing the key idea. I have only describe what I see as a problem because it is a complex problem with many possible solutions and no easy way to say which one is better.

 

Roughly, stone is the main resource for defense (towers/forts...), metal the main resource needed for attack (military upgrades, elephants, rams...)

Many balance changes have increase this separation between stone and metal.

Too much stones => Lack of metal

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, nani said:

Summary: stone was an essential resource in a23 but in a24 with only 1000 units of stone you are already set for the whole game which means now the game has 4 resources but one is basically unused.

It depends on the map and how much you like to build defenses.

[chrstgtr]

Great post. I think one of the underlying issues is that techs have become almost singularly dependent on wood/metal.

 

With respect to D3703 (i think you have the wrong ticket number for D307), I think it makes sense when paired with D3704. The % increase/res will go back to something closer to a23 (although still no where close to where it was), which provided more benefit to researching these techs.  I agree, this ticket still isn't perfect, though. In my opinion, I would like to see food/stone involved in tech costs. Food/stone requirements in tech costs would invite more choice and allow players to focus their ecos in more than just two areas like the current alpha requires (current alpha is essentially just "get as much wood/metal as possible and then spend it where you want"). 

[happyconcepts]

Who created this problem in Alpha 24 by disrupting the build requirements for stone?

I have been modding for two years now. Would be nice to see some effective use of y'all's time. Instead of these mindless changes just for the sake of someone's ego and to pad their commit history. Would be nice ...

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

One thing that does come to mind as a basis for why stone is less important in 0 A.D. compared to say Age of Kings can be seen in the fact that fortresses, previously essential for producing siege weapons, lack that utility with the inclusion of arsenals.  Maybe the question could be a matter of how fortresses could have more uses outside of being super towers.

[wraitii]

It seems to me that we could just make all civilisations use stone for their buildings.

[Yekaterina]

1 minute ago, wraitii said:

It seems to me that we could just make all civilisations use stone for their buildings.

I agree. We can also introduce other places where stone could be spent, e.g.:

Certain techs

Champion slinger units?

Remove metal cost of civic centres/ military colony and replace it with stone. (500 wood, 1000 stone)

[Yekaterina]

Perhaps we can give Iberians and Celts a champion slinger unit:

crush attack: 15

pierce: 2

HP: 120 (like any other ranged champion)

Cost: 100 food, 100 stone, 10 wood. 

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wraitii said:

It seems to me that we could just make all civilisations use stone for their buildings.

I'd prefer we introduce more differentiating factors between civs rather than making them all more uniform. All civs already feel too similar. As it stands, it feels like there are 2 or 3 civs right now that are dressed differently to make the whole roster

[Stan`]

4 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I'd prefer we introduce more differentiating factors between civs rather than making them all more uniform. All civs already feel too similar. As it stands, it feels like there are 2 or 3 civs right now that are dressed differently to make the whole roster

I agree what patches do we currently have to bring back the differentiation?

[Yekaterina]

Would you agree that differentiation is less important than balance? It is a competitive game after all and back in A23 we had more differentiation and it was less balanced. Celts were unstoppable but now at least we have 3 ways to counter archer civs, so you see people choosing a wide range of civs other than just the 2 OP ones. 

Instead of differentiating civs, why don't we integrate them?  

[Player of 0AD]

Removing stone costs from will to fight would just increase the problem. Link to that ticket?

[Grapjas]

49 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Would you agree that differentiation is less important than balance?

I would have to disagree with this statement, because i dont feel like you necessarily have to chose one of them. Something can both be (re)balanced and bring differentiation.

Also the pool of people who play this game casually is likely larger than the people that play competitively (as in trying to high on the leaderboards).

Edited April 26, 2021 by Grapjas
typos

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Possibly there could be a case for some factions that are more 'civilised' using more stone in their structures; one of the Settlers games did a similar thing with one being more stone dependant, another being wood dependant, and the last being a bit of a balance of the two.  It wouldn't change the inherent issue (if we call it one), but it would be a somewhat thematic way of differentiating one civilisation from another; it being worthwhile is another question.

[Yekaterina]

25 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Also the pool of people who play this game casually is likely larger than the people that play competitively (as in trying to high on the leaderboards).

Just take a look at Ratings disputes and Offence reportings forum

As long as it is multiplayer it involves some degree of competition, and we need to make that competition fair. 

[hyperion]

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

Would you agree that differentiation is less important than balance?

Quite the opposite. It wouldn't hurt to be able to play a strong civ against a strong opponent and a weak civ against a weak opponent. Would make finding a game worth playing easier.

40 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

As long as it is multiplayer it involves some degree of competition, and we need to make that competition fair. 

Simple, require mirror civ for rated games. At least make it an option.

[faction02]

6 hours ago, wraitii said:

It seems to me that we could just make all civilisations use stone for their buildings.

This makes sense but then come the question associated with slingers. It makes the question more complicated since Athens or Ptolemies often run out of stones if the game last too long. Maybe going in the direction suggested by chrstgtr, it could be possible to use civilization differentiation and some specific buildings to make some adjustments.

 

4 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

Removing stone costs from will to fight would just increase the problem. Link to that ticket?

D3680 in the list if I copied it correctly this time...

7 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

One thing that does come to mind as a basis for why stone is less important in 0 A.D. compared to say Age of Kings can be seen in the fact that fortresses, previously essential for producing siege weapons, lack that utility with the inclusion of arsenals.  Maybe the question could be a matter of how fortresses could have more uses outside of being super towers.

I do like the question of the role of the fortress too but I don't have any interesting idea on this specific topic.

[faction02]

13 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Great post. I think one of the underlying issues is that techs have become almost singularly dependent on wood/metal.

With respect to D3703 (i think you have the wrong ticket number for D307), I think it makes sense when paired with D3704. The % increase/res will go back to something closer to a23 (although still no where close to where it was), which provided more benefit to researching these techs.  I agree, this ticket still isn't perfect, though. In my opinion, I would like to see food/stone involved in tech costs. Food/stone requirements in tech costs would invite more choice and allow players to focus their ecos in more than just two areas like the current alpha requires (current alpha is essentially just "get as much wood/metal as possible and then spend it where you want"). 

I tried to search for the original motivations behind the introduction of this, but it is probably too old to be easily found. I was guessing that it was introduced as a indirect way to force players to gather stones even if it is not realistic to think that you might need these resources to make these upgrades.

I did like this feature of a23, although I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be touched. I also liked that a player might not be able to afford all upgrades in the game and he would be forced to choose which one are important depending on the situation. But this might be a personal preference...

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'd make all military and defensive buildings cost an amount of stone. 

Barracks: 300 stone 

Archery Range: 100 wood, 200 stone

Stables: 100 food, 200 stone

Fortress: 800 stone

- Move champions back to Fortress

Wooden Tower: 200 wood

- Upgrade to Stone Tower: 200 stone

[chrstgtr]

  

8 hours ago, Stan` said:

I agree what patches do we currently have to bring back the differentiation?

Most of the work seems to be focused on making things standardized and then adding "special" techs/bonuses to each civ. See athens threads on forum and the associated tickets for an example. I think that these techs/bonuses are great. But I don't think those need to be the only differentiators, and if you peruse the proposals for long enough you will begin to notice that the same ideas keep popping up (e.g., give a slinger tech to slinger civs like how there is an archery tradition, give a spear tech to certain civs like how there is a archery tech, cheaper techs for Athens like how some civs are universities that provide cheaper tech, heros that provide similar bonuses such as an attach buff of x% or healing rate of x, etc.) These aren't bad features, but they are repetitive features. Having some basic differentiating features like Iber starting with walls (which many now want to get rid of), celts getting a pop bonus for each building (which was eliminated this alpha), some civs not having rams (which was eliminated in this alpha), or ptol having free houses (which was eliminated this alpha) are all nice differentiators. There are still some things that are totally unique (e.g., Brennus giving metal for every kill) but these are less common than before. Making all buildings cost the same for every civ will only make the game more and more uniform with less and less differentiation. I question why this is necessary.

 

To answer your question with another question: why do we keep eliminating differentiators and then racking our brains to come up with "new" ideas to differentiate civs in order to "fix" problems that didn't exist before the latest "improvements?" It makes a lot more sense to work within the current structure to balance what already exists and add differentiators as appropriate and as necessary. This is what was done to balance units this alpha, which is one of the most popular changes (and while still not perfect it is much closer than before). 

Edited April 27, 2021 by chrstgtr

[Yekaterina]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

'd make all military and defensive buildings cost an amount of stone. 

Barracks: 300 stone 

Archery Range: 100 wood, 200 stone

Stables: 100 food, 200 stone

Fortress: 800 stone

- Move champions back to Fortress

Wooden Tower: 200 wood

- Upgrade to Stone Tower: 200 stone

That is basically Delenda Est...

300 stone for barracks is too expensive for 300 starting resource. Most players in A24 build more than 2 barracks. I think current cost for barracks is great. 

Moving champions back to fortress is great, but I would still like siege workshops. It would be a disaster to train both of them from the same building.

Will archery range be in A25? 

Stable cost is nice either way

Not sure what you mean by wooden tower. If it can count as a town phase structure, that would be very good news. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

28 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

300 stone for barracks is too expensive for 300 starting resource. Most players in A24 build more than 2 barracks. I think current cost for barracks is great. 

Ah, yes. I forgot that DE starts with 500 res, while EA starts with 300. But...... since stone is a rarely used resource in the first phase, the cost might not be that bad? Else, just drop it to 200 stone instead of 300. 

29 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Not sure what you mean by wooden tower. If it can count as a town phase structure, that would be very good news. 

Meh, I hate the current way EA does towers, so I subtly tried to insert DE's tower paradigm into the zeitgeist.