Attack-ground: include in A26 or not?

[borg-]

I think it's an interesting feature but it's not the ideal time to implement it in my opinion.

[Grapjas]

18 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

is just a use of more micro, which you said won’t exist.

Didn't say this at all. I said i doubt it. Attack group reduces the basic micro that's already there is what i'm saying. You honestly can't disagree with this. How is painting an area to target units more micro than invdividually selecting unit per unit with alt? If that's how you feel we might aswell stop discussing this further with eachother.

24 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

What you banally describe as an “over complication” most others would describe as skill

Which is pretty much what i said. I said the thought process you discribed will come more naturally the better you get at the game. 

[chrstgtr]

17 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

 

46 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

is just a use of more micro, which you said won’t exist.

Didn't say this at all. I said i doubt it. Attack group reduces the basic micro that's already there is what i'm saying. You honestly can't disagree with this. How is painting an area to target units more micro than invdividually selecting unit per unit with alt? If that's how you feel we might aswell stop discussing this further with eachother.

 

No one does that once you’re fighting with more than like 30 units. It’s just not worthwhile because you can’t click fast enough to do that and all your other tasks in mid-late game. If you want to spend all your time clicking on 10 out of my 120 units then that’s fine. You’ll kill those10  units but you won’t have reinforcements because you wasted all your focus trying to click on 10 of my units while i spent my time doing all the other necessary tasks to sustain a fight that large. One of the most common mistakes of new players is that they spend all their time trying to micro big fights while their enemy just runs them over by properly managing their macro eco/unit production and ignoring micro. The mirco you describe all but does not exist in large fights because it isn’t worth the other sacrifices you have to make to do it. 

 

17 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Which is pretty much what i said. I said the thought process you discribed will come more naturally the better you get at the game. 

You’re not getting it. I’m describing things that mostly do not exist now. I know what you think I am saying, but there is so much more to it than that. And to the extent that it is the “same,” it is in an entirely different context that will require different considerations than what exists now while still preserving what already exists. 

[Grapjas]

Individually micro'ing units pays off more than it doesn't and makes your army fight more effective than the enemy who doesn't or who uses all that time to walk close to your army and then to press H. And i'm not saying it's viable in all circumstances. You assume to much. Anyway, at this point there are alot more things to consider that's not even related to what we are discussing here like army composition, how cooperative pathfinder is for the player that doesn't micro, player skills etc. 

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

it is in an entirely different context that will require different considerations than what exists now while still preserving what already exists

In that new context the point remains the same, it will get easier the better you get at the game. It's just something to get used to for a short moment and then it comes naturally. And when it does it's much less micro then before.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Grapjas

[chrstgtr]

3 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Individually micro'ing units pays off more than it doesn't and makes your army fight more effective than the enemy who doesn't or who uses all that time to walk close to your army and then to press H. And i'm not saying it's viable in all circumstances. You assume to much. Anyway, at this point there are alot more things to consider that's not even related to what we are discussing here like army composition, how cooperative pathfinder is for the player that doesn't micro, player skills etc. 

In that new context the point remains the same, it will get easier the better you get at the game. It's just something to get used to for a short moment and then it comes naturally. And when it does it's much less micro then before.

We just disagree. Nothing you said makes sense to me in my experience or observations. 

[Grapjas]

2 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

We just disagree. Nothing you said makes sense to me in my experience or observations. 

That's ok. No hard feelings or disrespect meant or anything.

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

That's ok. No hard feelings or disrespect meant or anything.

Same

[ChronA]

1 hour ago, borg- said:

I think it's an interesting feature but it's not the ideal time to implement it in my opinion.

Why is that? If you mean that it would break a lot of work that has already gone into preparing A26, I can understand holding off on introducing something like this until A27. I can also understand wanting to wait until a more polished implementation can be demoed, since this BuildingAI is obviously janky AF. But if you are speaking more generally...

Well, much ink has already been spilled about how this project's development is too conservative. Meaningful changes will always break things and piss people off, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. 0 AD is undeniably a feast for the eyes but in terms of depth and polish of gameplay it sits somewhere around Age of Empires 1, which quite frankly is unacceptable in this day and age.

If not now then when?

Edited January 12, 2022 by ChronA

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, ChronA said:

Why is that? If you mean that it would break a lot of work that has already gone into preparing A26, I can understand holding off on introducing something like this until A27. I can also understand wanting to wait until a more polished implementation can be demoed, since this BuildingAI is obviously janky AF. But if you are speaking more generally...

Well, much ink has already been spilled about how this project's development is too conservative. Meaningful changes will always break things and piss people off, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. 0 AD is undeniably a feast for the eyes but in terms of depth and polish of gameplay it sits somewhere around Age of Empires 1, which quite frankly is unacceptable in this day and age.

If not now then when?

After acceleration/turn times. That is a major change that will be hard to assess if you add this too. Borg’s comment has merit. Otherwise, I would 100% say now.  

[borg-]

I'm in favor of changes and when I said, maybe to a27. It's a feature that's being discussed a lot on the forum, so I think it should be looked at carefully.

[the-x]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

We just disagree. Nothing you said makes sense to me in my experience or observations. 

Exactly --> The main problem with theese changes is that it makes the game even more technically and less strategically. Since 0ad is A Strategy Game and we play 0ad mainly because of intelligent mechanics and: decisions what we need is a far better balance with differences and real differences between the tribes (--> long term fun keeps player)

 

[maroder]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

After acceleration/turn times. That is a major change that will be hard to assess if you add this too

Well, the testing bundle that includes this is already out for testing, but has not generated any big reactions so far:

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by maroder

[chrstgtr]

30 minutes ago, maroder said:

Well, the testing bundle that includes this is already out for testing, but has not generated any big reactions so far:

 

Didn't know. Doesn't seem like too many people have played it. Honestly, I didn't realize we were so close to a26. 

[Stan`]

From https://trac.wildfiregames.com/roadmap

*Due date is for feature freeze, actual release might happen a month later. (Hopefully not)

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Didn't know. Doesn't seem like too many people have played it. Honestly, I didn't realize we were so close to a26.

I did my best to advertise it a bit (on Discord mostly), but I can't post it on social media, because it's highly experimental.

 

[LetswaveaBook]

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

No one does that once you’re fighting with more than like 30 units. It’s just not worthwhile because you can’t click fast enough to do that and all your other tasks in mid-late game. If you want to spend all your time clicking on 10 out of my 120 units then that’s fine. You’ll kill those10  units but you won’t have reinforcements because you wasted all your focus trying to click on 10 of my units while i spent my time doing all the other necessary tasks to sustain a fight that large.

That is sometimes what I do, when the situation suits me. I also believe vinme sometimes does that as well. I don't believe vinme or me have problems with reinforcements.

Losing your army is a bigger problem.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@borg- I agree, I don't think we are ready to consider this for A26, especially since acceleration is also introduced and there would probably need to be some rebalancing after attack-ground/attack-group. At last, the answer to my question! XD

Also, I hope those of you with indifference tried the mod, or watched the replay to see how much of a difference was made in gameplay with the meat shield meta gone (aside from balance issues e.g. firecav).

@chrstgtr I agree. Maybe attack ground won't be enough to beat the meat shield meta, but it will make a large difference between those who use it and those who don't.

In conclusion, after reading all the comments, I think I have an idea of the pros and cons to each:

Attack gound:

• Pros
  • More easily implemented (i think)
  • More micro, also player must decide if it is worth it to use.
• Cons
  • has fewer use cases
  • Might require too much micro to be practical (especially when the game is laggy)

Attack group:

• Pros
  • A little less micro, more easily manageable
  • More use cases
• Cons
  • Harder to implement (i think)

This is all that I could definitively say most people seem to agree on. I think there would be disagreement over which involves more skill, and which one would be more effective for attacking ranged units. As for me, I like them both.

I think getting a taste of either would help solve the debate, as we can only predict so much.

Thanks for all this discussion, I think we are on the right track.

 

[LetswaveaBook]

My assumptions:

Attack group would reduce micro, and allow players to use their units more effective.

Attack ground will in general be as difficult to use properly as manual targeting and it will generally be less effective as manual targeting.

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Attack group:

• Pros
  • A little less micro, more easily manageable
  • More use cases
• Cons
  • Harder to implement (i think)

Cons: More OP than BuildingAI (assuming moving+walking is fixed), which would be a gamchanger allready. Building AI targets units randomly, but with Attack group you can specifically target ranged units

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

OP can be adjusted for. As long as the feature is an improvement in behavior. 

[Freagarach]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Attack gound:

• Pros
  • More easily implemented (i think)
  • More micro, also player must decide if it is worth it to use.
• Cons
  • has fewer use cases
  • Might require too much micro to be practical (especially when the game is laggy)

Attack group:

• Pros
  • A little less micro, more easily manageable
  • More use cases
• Cons
  • Harder to implement (i think)

Attack ground: Harder to implement (properly).
Attack group: GUI only code change needed (for the case of selecting a unit in the group randomly and keep attacking that until it is dead). As such, it seems easier to implement.