Jump to content

Train time and rotation time mod.


Recommended Posts

TBH I think we went a bit too far on A23 with regards to anti-dancing. But I also don't think microing against javelineers or archers is a particularly good gameplay mechanic.
That being said, a simpler variant of Hyperion's idea would be randomly changing to target other units close by. That might be enough to make hero-dancing less interesting.

----

On the topic at hand, I don't really mind lowering train rates a bit. My problem with 0 A.D. is mostly that economy grows exponentially, which makes it real tricky after the 15th minute, but well, it's a high skill ceiling.

I would also be OK with higher turn rates, since I had originally proposed those anyways.

If the player feedback is good, this seems like a go for A25.

----

I'm OK with reducing archer speed compared to jab for balance, but I think at some point we'll need to rethink these entirely. We haven't been able to _really_ balance archer (inf or cav) ever, and we probably need to give most civs a long-range and short-range option (or at least a long-range one). The advantage is just too high.

I also really dislike how little damage spearmen deal to spearmen, and how tanky spearmen are in general, but that's another debate.

----

Edit -> Somewhat on topic, but I'm wondering if 0 A.D. standard starts shouldn't have _more_ units/buildings, kind of like the AOE2DE "Empire wars" mode. Since we're fast-paced anyways, maybe we should just cut the crap entirely.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Note it was made faster by wraitii to prevent dancing.

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 b

Reducing projectile speed would also help making micro more important.

23 minutes ago, wraitii said:

On the topic at hand, I don't really mind lowering train rates a bit. My problem with 0 A.D. is mostly that economy grows exponentially, which makes it real tricky after the 15th minute, but well, it's a high skill ceiling.

We have to remove Citizen soldiers from early phase 1 , I mean to start with the economic and only leave villagers and scouts, Perhaps the first units need an upgrade to become Citizen soldiers.

 

Start with weak militias, pure trash units.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, wraitii said:

TBH I think we went a bit too far on A23 with regards to anti-dancing. But I also don't think microing against javelineers or archers is a particularly good gameplay mechanic.
That being said, a simpler variant of Hyperion's idea would be randomly changing to target other units close by. That might be enough to make hero-dancing less interesting.

Move-attack micro wasn't a thing even in a23 when there was instant unit movement. Fights in 0 A.D. come down mostly to positioning.

In my changes I only adjust the rotation times of citizen soldiers. Heroes and champions with their current rotation times are completely useless at trying to dance, that's been wiped out.

42 minutes ago, wraitii said:

Edit -> Somewhat on topic, but I'm wondering if 0 A.D. standard starts shouldn't have _more_ units/buildings, kind of like the AOE2DE "Empire wars" mode. Since we're fast-paced anyways, maybe we should just cut the crap entirely.

I feel like that's already the case for us. There are rare strategies that start with instant military and many of the rushes are at the enemies base quite quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wraitii said:

I'm OK with reducing archer speed compared to jab for balance, but I think at some point we'll need to rethink these entirely. We haven't been able to _really_ balance archer (inf or cav) ever, and we probably need to give most civs a long-range and short-range option (or at least a long-range one). The advantage is just too high.

I can't possibly agree more. It doesn't make sense that a civ doesn't have any unit capable of shooting anything as far as an arrow... until they enter a tower.

Slingers should have the same range as archers, and all civs should have access to at least one of these units. That would also be an improvement in realism.

45 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

I feel like that's already the case for us. There are rare strategies that start with instant military and many of the rushes are at the enemies base quite quickly.

That's because in 0 ad age 2 is not very useful, and that's another problem still.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

Please do note that for casual players (the few I know of) the rotation times really add some immersion.

Actually the game feels better with that feature.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

Please do note that for casual players (the few I know of) the rotation times really add some immersion.

Rotation times aren't removed, they're still there and are simply reduced.

8 hours ago, alre said:
9 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I feel like that's already the case for us. There are rare strategies that start with instant military and many of the rushes are at the enemies base quite quickly.

That's because in 0 ad age 2 is not very useful, and that's another problem still.

I'm not sure I get your point. The early rushes aren't a thing only because P2 options are more limited in this release. In a23 I used to play cavalry rush into Athenian P2 champions which were the most expensive unit available then and it was a valid approach that could win against top players like borg. With P2 having more options the early P1 rushes won't go anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

Rotation times aren't removed, they're still there and are simply reduced.

I know, but probably to the point that they're not noticable anymore (since that is kind of the request). I've been playing with a lot of different values when this feature was introduced (and when critique came during the dev-cycle) and for me the current ones are really a minimum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

I know, but probably to the point that they're not noticable anymore (since that is kind of the request). I've been playing with a lot of different values when this feature was introduced (and when critique came during the dev-cycle) and for me the current ones are really a minimum.

The rotation times become quite noticeable on 90+ degree turns. The units walk speed also plays a role so with swordsmen it's much more noticeable than skirmishers. I guess it is mostly a difference of viewpoint. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

I'm not sure I get your point. The early rushes aren't a thing only because P2 options are more limited in this release. In a23 I used to play cavalry rush into Athenian P2 champions which were the most expensive unit available then and it was a valid approach that could win against top players like borg. With P2 having more options the early P1 rushes won't go anywhere.

I meant that people generally attacks either in age 1 or 3. I think the best scenario would be people attacking at any time, with any civ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, alre said:

I meant that people generally attacks either in age 1 or 3. I think the best scenario would be people attacking at any time, with any civ.

Wouldn't that mean that all civs are bland and identical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you can still push with a mixture of spearmen and skirmishers in P2

However, it would be appreciated if the Greeks still have access to their stoa for better champion push in P2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think P2 gameplay development (making it more interesting and less of a rush to 200 pop and p3) would also be a great way to help with civ differentiation that is being sought for a25. There is also the need to consider the prioritization of the more frustrating problems that the community is more unified on, such as archer adjustments, metal usage, defenses power/spam, and the more elusive but still very problematic late game turtle situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, wraitii said:

TBH I think we went a bit too far on A23 with regards to anti-dancing. But I also don't think microing against javelineers or archers is a particularly good gameplay mechanic.
That being said, a simpler variant of Hyperion's idea would be randomly changing to target other units close by. That might be enough to make hero-dancing less interesting.

Solving the single unit dancing I consider an intended side effect of turn time. The more important aspect is the much neater, less arcady unit motion. Freegarach saying this helping immersion I buy any day. Overall I consider the current turn times a good thing(TM). Just that it slightly widened the gap between p1 micro battles and p3 mostly macro battles which a minority doesn't like.

Micro is essential skill for top players of rts, and the more opportunities to make use of it there are the better. Sure one should be able to be a strong player without excessive micro but getting to the top shouldn't be possible without. With that said I don't understand why microing against ranged units could be bad unless overdone, would be nice if you could clarify how you mean it.

Picking "random" targets might indeed be sufficient against single unit dancing, however, the unit-ai being stupid is certainly another one of the annoying immersion breaking issues, so making it cleverer to some degree is certainly desirable. The randomized picking doesn't sound like the best direction to take this, unless performance doesn't allow for otherwise.

 

On 03/05/2021 at 8:45 PM, wraitii said:

If the player feedback is good, this seems like a go for A25.

Either have all units have reasonably good looking and plausible turn rates or drop it for all unlike this mod does, pretty please.

 

PS: instead of slow projectiles another hit/miss test could be performed on impact based on unit motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@hyperion

- micro is already important in 0ad

- just because micro is generally important for rts, it doesn't mean that we must commit to make it more important than it already is. it's a non sequitur.

- in fact, 0ad guide principles precisely say that sheer apm should not be the discriminant factor for victory, so, even if in other rts games it was possible for 5 archers to win against 20 (which I don't even believe it's the case) there is no reason for which 0ad should not aim to set itself apart in this regard

- I, for one, was convinced about 0ad when I saw a video of a match between two top players and I noticed that micro was much less relevant than it is for other games like starcraft. And I'm convinced that most casual players dislike the excessive importance of micro in games like that

- even if we made possible to nullify archers power trough micro, this kind of solution would only be valid for a handful of top players, while the rest of us would still have to deal with an unbalanced gameplay. I can't see how this is desirable.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@alre

There is a huge difference between requiring micro and rewarding micro. Let's take hunting, just a simple order is enough but micro like luring or driving the hunt towards dropsite pays off. As a casual player I don't want to be forced to micro but there is no drawback if others can gain an advantage by doing it.

 

On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:

- micro is already important in 0ad

To much forced micro, not enough rewarding micro. To much as can be seen by the auto queue mod somewhere in the forum, I'm all for it if it's implemented to be less efficient than manual queueing. Not enough as seen by the mod in this thread, though not happy with the implementation I agree with the sentiment.

 

On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:

- in fact, 0ad guide principles precisely say that sheer apm should not be the discriminant factor for victory, so, even if in other rts games it was possible for 5 archers to win against 20 (which I don't even believe it's the case) there is no reason for which 0ad should not aim to set itself apart in this regard

Right, 0ad replaces micro with strategies like hiding in forests, rolling stones into a canyon that must be passed or in open combat with stuff like flanking manoeuvrers.

Even if just one archer can kill 20 unattended archers but takes 10 minutes to do so it's like still not worth the effort. The point is micro battles need to be more rewarding than they currently are, at least a23 level, probably even more than that.

 

On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:

And I'm convinced that most casual players dislike the excessive importance of micro in games like that

I'm convinced that many changes between release are a mayor annoyance for casual players, worse if it's a back and forth like with training time proposed here. The situation after the change was neither better nor worse. So changing once was bad in hindsight, changing twice is worse.

 

On 05/05/2021 at 10:56 AM, alre said:

- even if we made possible to nullify archers power trough micro, this kind of solution would only be valid for a handful of top players, while the rest of us would still have to deal with an unbalanced gameplay. I can't see how this is desirable.

So can I take it you are against removal of turn rates as partially proposed here, as this only benefits a handful of top players while sacrificing neater unit motion and requires a new approach to single unit dancing on top?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/05/2021 at 8:39 PM, chrstgtr said:

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. 

Yes make more strategy useful.

Little siege P2.

Champ P2.

Mercenary spam P2

Reduce a little power of tower without tech. Good turtle must be expansive. For exemple reduce number of arrow (3-> 1 tower rank 1) (5->3 rank 2) but same capacity of garnison.

sentry tower better, but not toxic like A23, fast killable if you put 2 infantery melee on it, you understand what i means? Good for attack and defense.

Cav and infantery same recruitment time. =12 second  Alpha 25 ? 

I don't like the possibilty to spam micro for avoid arrow etc. but i don't like the new movement unit system. Many players are rebuffed by this rigid aspect. 

What do you think about  : make a very simple math system with% chance to hit depending on the range for each type of unit. For example totally random numbers

Non-champion archers 0-15 meters = 70% hit.

Non-champion archers 15-25 = 50%

Non-champion archers 25-45 = 25%

Non-champion archers 45-max range = 8%

??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hyperion said:

I'm convinced that many changes between release are a mayor annoyance for casual players, worse if it's a back and forth like with training time proposed here. The situation after the change was neither better nor worse. So changing once was bad in hindsight, changing twice is worse.

This isn't true. The current meta is worse because it allows for one good strategy--you to make a ton of barracks, spam, and boom. If you do not make a lot of barracks then you float a ton of res (which is inefficient) because of the long training times. In other words, a25 only allows for one good strategy--put down a lot of barracks and spam. In a23 more winning strategies were available with rushing and quickly phasing up.

 

We've all played it, and the vast majority of people are upset by these changes. The people who complained about spam last alpha are still complaining. And, people who used to be happy are now upset. How can you say that reverting to a way that will make more players happier isn't an improvement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

We've all played it, and the vast majority of people are upset by these changes. The people who complained about spam last alpha are still complaining. And, people who used to be happy are now upset. How can you say that reverting to a way that will make more players happier isn't an improvement?

Where?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@chrstgtr

Before the meta was don't float resources, now the meta is don't float resources. The difference is you build your second barrack earlier. Unit production is still limited by gathering efficiency.

As for rushing being less effective, there is no cav from barracks, better loom, changed unit motion, strong archers for defence and for p2 the rush units got nerfed or even removed and more. How come the least suspect change becomes the culprit. I really would like to greatly limit the permitted gameplay changes per release so people can still pinpoint what a change actually brought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Where?

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/search/?q=spam&quick=1  And, a ton of players complain about spam in game and in lobby.

 

8 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Before the meta was don't float resources, now the meta is don't float resources.

That is just to say the meta is to be efficient, which is kind of like saying the meta is to kill enemy units or to kill enemy CC's because, well, of course, it is.

There is clearly less diversity of gameplay strategies now--that is indisputable. Regardless of what individually or collectively actually caused it, @ValihrAnt mod clearly addresses the current problem, and thus is clearly an improvement. 

As for the need for the a more incremental approach to changes, I entirely agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with changing training times is that it does nothing to fix the fundamental issue.  Barracks serve a primarily economic role in the Village Phase.  Some people might not consider that a problem, but to me, the average Athenian just getting equipped to serve for the military doesn't say to himself, "Whelp, better start hoeing those fields."  

Introducing a gather-rate penalty of some sort to units trained in the barracks would generally fix this problem.  Suddenly booming would otherwise be done by researching fertility festival and training women or going with a suboptimal investment that would leave the player better protected at the cost of efficiency.  And there you go.  Booming would not be turtling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...