Jump to content

Train time and rotation time mod.


Recommended Posts

Returning to the old train times is something that has been requested by quite a few people. Rotation times have also been unsatisfactory for some and the ranged infantry move speed equalization has been reverted, but not as extreme as it used to be. This mod is here to test out these changes, see if players would really prefer these changes and also avoid surprises in case of backtracking, because as a24 showcased there can be many unexpected side effects. The rotation times are only changed for citizen soldiers, so champions, heroes and siege still take a while to rotate.

The train time increase in a24 was to reduce spam. In my opinion, it only increased spam as the meta went from 1 early barrack to 2/3. Equalizing ranged infantry move speed worked to make archers unpunishable because if they were caught out of position or overextended they couldn't be punished.

 

Changes: Citizen soldier train times back to A23 values. Rotation times for citizen soldiers lowered. Archers 0.6 lower move speed, skirmishers 0.6 higher move speed. Archers 0.5 extra spread.

New version: messed with rotation times slightly, gave archers the 0.5 extra spread they have on the release version to see how it fares in combination with them moving slower.

 

RotationTrainTimes.zip

Edited by ValihrAnt
New version
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ValihrAnt Nice work!

I will be interested to see if we can organize a 4v4 with this mod to see if it improves the turtling feeling and improves mobility. One of the most frustrating things with equalized move speed of ranged inf was archers' ability to pull a turtle-like defense of a huge area of territory because they did not have to be waiting nearby the defenses on a particular place. I'm hoping we will stop seeing huge balls of archers pacing back and forth along lines of forts and towers.

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hmm, I am having trouble installing the mod. The error says: mod failed to install. Is there some specific instructions or details in the installation for mac OS?

That's because it was not packaged correctly. The mod.json and the folders should be at the root of the zip not in a subfolder.

On windows you need to create the zip from inside the folder not by right clicking on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I just re-compressed just the .json file and then it worked. Many thanks @Stan`!

@ValihrAnt I tried just doing a couple single players and moving the start units around, it seems like good changes. I noticed that the cavalry units seemed to still have the same rotation times but perhaps it was a smaller reduction for cavs. I look forward to trying this in a game if we can get enough people to download the mod.

I think the best way to evaluate the effects this will have gameplay and how much of a positive change it is for the game will be to do a 4v4 with ibers and sele and mauryans and persians mirror match. Perhaps we should arrange a 4v4 or 3v3 here to test these changes?

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Played 2 3v3 matches with the mod. Here are the games. Would be nice to get some 4v4s with more people before I start making patches for these changes and make sure there's wider support for them.

Edit: removed the files as there's a new version and the replays are now outdated

 

Edited by ValihrAnt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

The train time increase in a24 was to reduce spam. In my opinion, it only increased spam as the meta went from 1 early barrack to 2/3.

The reason that the spam exists is attached to the fact that barracks can carry out virtually an identically economic role as they can to a military one.  If units trained at a barracks started at an advanced rank or had a gather rate penalty, both of these would make the barracks a risky investment to commit to early on from an economic standpoint.  

I have pointed out before and can make the same point again; 0 A.D. has extremely fast training times for their units compared to games such as Age of Empires 2 or Starcraft II, the latter of which is already considered a quick-paced game.  If we want to reduce the spam without changing the economic functions of the barracks, simply having a cap of 1 barracks during the village phase would do the job; it would have other effects undoubtedly, but it would "fix" it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alre said:

and what would that change, other than making phasing a bigger priority?

It would mean that during the Village Phase unit production would be effectively capped.  The Town Phase becoming a greater priority of course is one side-effect that it would have.  

The point is that unit spam during the Village Phase is a thing, and merely increasing training time has not stopped it.  I would go for a different approach (like the change to the barracks mentioned).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The reason that the spam exists is attached to the fact that barracks can carry out virtually an identically economic role as they can to a military one.  If units trained at a barracks started at an advanced rank or had a gather rate penalty, both of these would make the barracks a risky investment to commit to early on from an economic standpoint.  

Yeah, that is the unavoidable side effect of citizen soldiers. Though, I really don't see why them having a gather rate debuff would make the barracks a risky investment. Where else are you going to put the resources? If they're trained at an advanced rank that would hurt early aggression too as units trained from the CC would have to face off against some units that are a rank higher and thus stronger.

9 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I have pointed out before and can make the same point again; 0 A.D. has extremely fast training times for their units compared to games such as Age of Empires 2 or Starcraft II, the latter of which is already considered a quick-paced game.

I can't speak for SC2 but keep in mind that AoE2 is played at 1.7 speed. Best comparison in AoE2 to the current boominess of 0 A.D. would be an Arena or Black Forest game as those are most generally boomfests and the lategame action starts a bit before or on minute 30, 30/1.7=17.5 minutes real life. Compared to 0 A.D. where the big late game figts break out a bit before or on min 15. I don't think the pace difference is that big especially if we consider how slow the Dark Age in Aoe2 is.

9 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

If we want to reduce the spam without changing the economic functions of the barracks, simply having a cap of 1 barracks during the village phase would do the job; it would have other effects undoubtedly, but it would "fix" it.

 

8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The point is that unit spam during the Village Phase is a thing, and merely increasing training time has not stopped it.  I would go for a different approach (like the change to the barracks mentioned).

There's no reason to cap barracks. The best solution is to offer military options and have players slow themselves and others by utilising them. Of course easier said than done, but that's what I believe is the best approach to be worked towards to over time. Players trying to remain in P1 and hold on just by sheer numbers is an approach that should be atleast semi viable in my opinion. Keep in mind that it gets hard to reach resources if you stay in P1 for long.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hyperion said:

Reducing projectile speed would also help making micro more important.

@alre, the issue is after the initial rush micro battles become largely inefficient. If you could beat 20 archers with 5 archers with insane micro we wouldn't have this topic. Here and in the other thread are plenty of ridiculous suggestions when the goal is to just keep @ValihrAnt and player at that level busy mid-game. Turn time is certainly not ideal when it comes to micro, projectile speed and minimum distance are other factors you can try to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear, you want dancing back, that's what you call microing battles?

Dancing is not the solution, and it's not dancing that made a23 more fun than a24. Quite the opposite.

I think there microing already has its right role in the game, and should be particularly useful only in limited occasions, like with javelin cav and siege. This is not the issue and all the proposals you are talking about, at least in my mind, have noting to do with extending micro importance in battles.

By the way, using micro and fortifications, battles can already be won by inferior forces. I'm quite a "military player", and I do it all the time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are asking that arrows are slower, so you can micromanage soldiers away from them, but you also want unit-AI to be robust to dancing. How exactly?

I must say I'm skeptic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

Yeah, that is the unavoidable side effect of citizen soldiers. Though, I really don't see why them having a gather rate debuff would make the barracks a risky investment. Where else are you going to put the resources? If they're trained at an advanced rank that would hurt early aggression too as units trained from the CC would have to face off against some units that are a rank higher and thus stronger.

It would make it a riskier investment since there would be a slower return on the investment made first on the barracks and then on the units produced.  What are alternatives?  What about economic upgrades or a faster phase up?  Granted, the point I would make is that people produced from a military building should be better at military stuff and worse at economic stuff than those trained from a non-military structure.  Giving them an increase in hitpoints like +10% while having a -25% gather rate would be a fairly reasonable start to make barracks units not be a go to option for expanding one's economy; those numbers are of course arbitrary, but the point stands.

6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I can't speak for SC2 but keep in mind that AoE2 is played at 1.7 speed. Best comparison in AoE2 to the current boominess of 0 A.D. would be an Arena or Black Forest game as those are most generally boomfests and the lategame action starts a bit before or on minute 30, 30/1.7=17.5 minutes real life. Compared to 0 A.D. where the big late game figts break out a bit before or on min 15. I don't think the pace difference is that big especially if we consider how slow the Dark Age in Aoe2 is.

Villagers in Age of Empires II take 25 seconds, making it roughly 15 with 1.7 speed.  Starcraft II sets training times of economic units to 12 seconds.  That distinction small by comparison, but the fundamental difference is that every early game unit in 0 AD can work to snowball the economy, a large part of which expand the military as well.

6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

There's no reason to cap barracks. The best solution is to offer military options and have players slow themselves and others by utilising them. Of course easier said than done, but that's what I believe is the best approach to be worked towards to over time. Players trying to remain in P1 and hold on just by sheer numbers is an approach that should be atleast semi viable in my opinion. Keep in mind that it gets hard to reach resources if you stay in P1 for long.

There is a reason; I clearly articulated that, but I will admit that it is not a solution I particularly care for.  The point is that if we wish to reduce spam, decreasing training times is not the solution.  Other options include increasing the cost of the barracks and/or increasing the training times at the barracks.  Again, these would not address the fundamental issue (at least in my opinion) that I did point out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, alre said:

So you are asking that arrows are slower, so you can micromanage soldiers away from them, but you also want unit-AI to be robust to dancing. How exactly?

I must say I'm skeptic.

if last target unit fleeing -> pick new target if in range, unless fast enough to actually hunt down fleeing unit (let's say within 50-100m)

if last target unit in motion -> pick stationary target if in range

Then dancing with a single unit is pointless (a23 issue), if dancing with all your units you can't attack at the same time.

 

Well, my apm is low enough that the current situation is fine as well ... ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

There is a reason; I clearly articulated that, but I will admit that it is not a solution I particularly care for.  The point is that if we wish to reduce spam, decreasing training times is not the solution.  Other options include increasing the cost of the barracks and/or increasing the training times at the barracks.  Again, these would not address the fundamental issue (at least in my opinion) that I did point out.  

I articulated myself badly there. What I mean is that in my opinion there's no good reason to limit the amount of barracks or really any building for that matter. I believe that spam is something that should be part of the game and used as part of a strategy if the player deems it the correct approach. Say one player tries to rush up to the City phase with low investment in military, the other player recognizes that and spams out military to try and overwhelm the other.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hyperion said:

if last target unit fleeing -> pick new target if in range, unless fast enough to actually hunt down fleeing unit (let's say within 50-100m)

if last target unit in motion -> pick stationary target if in range

Then dancing with a single unit is pointless (a23 issue), if dancing with all your units you can't attack at the same time.

 

Well, my apm is low enough that the current situation is fine as well ... ;)

 

I'm confused. Wasn't dancing done by shuffling some hero around, (or better, giving him a patrol order) always within the range of the opposing army? Because in that case I don't see any improvement in your proposal. What do you mean by "dancing"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current logic is: if last targeted unit isn't dead -> continue targeting it, however stupid that may be for an onlooker.

With this you can have one single unit attracting all enemies and dancing while your other units fire at the misguided enemy units. This is the case in a23 and is an abuse of dancing only possible with the current unit-ai behaviour and obviously annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, alre said:

Maybe It's me, but I can't see how your proposed mod on unit-AI changes that anyhow. Maybe write it again in a more precise form.

Well, if the unit is dancing it can't attack, so it's fine to ignore it and to attack the others first (for this unit-ai needs to be changed). If all your opponents units are dancing you do little damage but won't receive any damage in return, this is completely different from the a23 abuse case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I articulated myself badly there. What I mean is that in my opinion there's no good reason to limit the amount of barracks or really any building for that matter. I believe that spam is something that should be part of the game and used as part of a strategy if the player deems it the correct approach. Say one player tries to rush up to the City phase with low investment in military, the other player recognizes that and spams out military to try and overwhelm the other.

I agree. Spam isn't a problem in and of itself--it is a strategy just like any other. It becomes a problem when it becomes the dominant strategy because it is both the best and easiest strategy. Multiple strategies should be encouraged. Eliminating a strategy is frankly just a lazy way to change the meta by limiting player choice advancing what should be the true goal--to encourage multiple strategies. If you want to encourage other strategies then make other strategies better. Player choice should also be fostered, stifled. 

Edited by chrstgtr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...