Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[Lion.Kanzen]

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

prevent the infinite catapulting situation.

What is this?

[hamdich]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't think aoe4 should be a source for inspiration.

I agree. but like or not  AOe been there for long time and similar games took one or two things from it 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 29/02/2024 at 8:35 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

What is this?

Catapults can get stuck shooting a building indefinitely if their vision cant see enough of a structure to reveal it has been destroyed.

On 29/02/2024 at 9:59 PM, hamdich said:

I agree. but like or not  AOe been there for long time and similar games took one or two things from it 

Yes, thats why I think aoe2 is far better a source of inspiration than aoe4, especially when it comes to strategic depth and mechanics.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Catapults can get stuck shooting a building indefinitely if their vision cant see enough of a structure to reveal it has been destroyed.

If I remember that, isn't it a bug?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok here is my plan to address current concerns with buildings. My understanding is that most of the problems people have are when buildings are fully garrisoned. For example, a CC gets almost 7x as powerful when fully garrisoned, so it can be too powerful early on. Also, many players are leaving towers garrisoned indefinitely in order to make the most of their arrows for turtling.

These differences were not really problematic when buildings shot randomly, but when all arrows are directed to 1 unit at a time, they become problematic.

I think this is an example where we should look to aoe2 as an example. CCs, Towers, and castles get stronger when fully garrisoned, but not by an order of magnitude like they do in 0ad.

So the plan is generally this: decrease the fully garrisoned damage of most buildings, while keeping the ungarrisoned damage the same (or maybe boosting it for forts?). The defensive buildings is that they provide firepower without the need to garrison, and that garrisoning can be used to add arrows if you are in a rough spot. (for that matter, I think the un-garrisoned arrows should be even better, but I am sure most people would want a more cautious approach like this).

Towers:

• fire rate: 2->4
• default (un-garrisoned) arrows: 1->2

Now for CCs, people say they are too strong when fully garrisoned, so I would do a little more:

• fire rate: 2->4
• default (un-garrisoned) arrows: 3 -> 6
• max arrows: 23 (basically the same as a fort) -> 16

For forts, I think they should remain pretty tough to crack, so I would do it a little differently:

• fire rate: 2->3
• default (un-garrisoned) arrows: 4 -> 6 (or maybe 8 to boost un-garrisoned arrows)

I think this is all I would do for now, but in the future we could consider stuff like letting tower upgrades apply to forts, or phase dependent building damage.

Edited March 11 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

To give some examples, currently these are the changes from un-garrisoned to garrisoned:

• Sentry: 11->44 is 4x stronger
• Defense tower: 11-> 66 is 6x stronger
• CC: 33 -> 253 is almost 8x stronger
• Fort: 44 -> 264 is 6x stronger

with the changes above, towers would only be about 2x as strong when garrisoned, the CC would be about 2.5x stronger, and forts would be about 4x stronger.

[chrstgtr]

8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

To give some examples, currently these are the changes from un-garrisoned to garrisoned:

• Sentry: 11->44 is 4x stronger
• Defense tower: 11-> 66 is 6x stronger
• CC: 33 -> 253 is almost 8x stronger
• Fort: 44 -> 264 is 6x stronger

with the changes above, towers would only be about 2x as strong when garrisoned, the CC would be about 2.5x stronger, and forts would be about 4x stronger.

There was a pretty explicit change to unify building arrows recently: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25309

Personally, I'm ready to walk away from any change to buildingAI. Random vs. nearest unit buildingAI just depends on personal preference and, after some testing, the player base doesn't seem to want a change in behavior. 

As it has been said in other places, no one seems to have a problem with rush or late-game building-unit balance, so this change also doesn't "fix" anything (aside from behavior preferences). But as we have seen, it can introduce a problems with building-unit balance. 

At this point, this seems that this doesn't fix anything, it creates balance problems, and it changes buildingAI to a disfavored form. Seems like an experiment that was worth trying but has run its course at this point. 

[chrstgtr]

55 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think this is all I would do for now, but in the future we could consider stuff like letting tower upgrades apply to forts, or phase dependent building damage.

I always thought this should be true. But that's a different issue from buildingAI behavior. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

23 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

There was a pretty explicit change to unify building arrows recently: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25309

yeah and then someone turned around and made towers 11 pierce XD. I don't think all buildings should have to behave identically wrt arrows.

24 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

player base doesn't seem to want a change in behavior. 

is that so? I assume u mean non-random arrows here, not the above updates I suggest.

26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

As it has been said in other places, no one seems to have a problem with rush or late-game building-unit balance, so this change also doesn't "fix" anything (aside from behavior preferences). But as we have seen, it can introduce a problems with building-unit balance. 

I assume you mean non-random arrows, not the changes I suggested just now. Please tell me some problems with non-random building ai that are not due to the arrow count balance.

My understanding was that you found particularly the CC to be too strong at preventing rushes, and that turtling was too effective.

There were problems with random arrows, its just that people tolerated them: Buildings did not effectively deter rushes/raids, and healer hero auras could invalidate building arrows.

[chrstgtr]

2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah and then someone turned around and made towers 11 pierce XD. I don't think all buildings should have to behave identically wrt arrows.

I don't really care. But others seem to. Regardless, I think buildings were well balanced before the mod change.

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

is that so? I assume u mean non-random arrows here, not the above updates I suggest.

Yes, non-random arrows. It seems, at best, to be preferred as much as random arrows but more likely disfavored compared to random arrows. Keeping random arrows doesn't require additional balance changes

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

There were problems with random arrows, its just that people tolerated them: Buildings did not effectively deter rushes/raids, and healer hero auras could invalidate building arrows.

This has been the problem the whole time with this change. It was widely held that rushes were balanced before the change. And, if you have a problem with the hero aura then the hero aura should change. Buildings working against armies without hero indicates that it was properly balanced before. 

Your proposal just feels ptolemaic. At the end of the day, I want to be able to rush the units around a CC in p1. I don't see how that can ever be possible without losing a bunch of units. I also don't want to lose a considerable portion of my army guarding rams from a couple garrisoned swords in p3 after I have clearly won a battle of units. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I don't see how that can ever be possible without losing a bunch of units. I also don't want to lose a considerable portion of my army guarding rams from a couple garrisoned swords in p3 after I have clearly won a battle of units. 

These are both symptoms of the fact that buildings get way too strong only when garrisoned. Take the CC for example: 33 pierce goes up to 253 at the moment. This has always been an issue IMO, its just now that it is actually killing units it feels OP. Previously, you would just retreat after losing HP across all your units.

I think you need to look at the behavior and the arrows objectively and individually, throwing away all previous balance ideas, and ask yourself which is the superior system? One that acts as a damage aura, or one that actually kills individual units? Then, ask yourself which is the issue: is it because buildings become 5 to 8 times as powerful when garrisoned, or is it because units are killed 1 by 1?

Without any nostalgia or fear of change, people would prefer what I have suggested to random arrows.

Lastly, what do you think should be done now? Full revert? partial revert?

Edited March 11 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Without any nostalgia or fear of change, people would prefer what I have suggested to random arrows.

This is axiomatic and runs contrary to what evidence we do have. You have championed this issue and on several instances have said things along the lines of "people just don't understand what I am proposing" but people do understand and have experienced it. A lot of people just disagree.

You keep putting forth a bunch of alternative explanations/theories and it keeps getting more complicated each time. But the fact remains: balance was fine before and there were very few (zero?) complaints. That is nowhere close to true with the mod. Creating a new, more complicated system (that a lot of people seem constitutionally opposed to) just disregards the feedback that we have. Look at the poll in the other thread. There hasn't been uptake on this concept and, as time wears on, it seems to get less popular. Compare the buildingAI change to the melee change where people clearly want something different but just aren't sure if what we have is actually right. 

 

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Lastly, what do you think should be done now? Full revert? partial revert?

Keep the ability to manually control building arrows. 

For buildingAI, I would do a full revert for CC/forts. In the interest of experimentation, I would maybe keep buildingAI as nearest unit for towers to see if that works as towers seem less problematic on borders. I still think sentry towers are too strong and make rushing too difficult in p1. But I don't think the community has really focused on this aspect vs. the fort/cc aspect. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

A lot of people just disagree.

I think you are making this decision for a lot of people.

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

"people just don't understand what I am proposing" but people do understand and have experienced it.

You are taking me out of context. I said these things before the mod was out. Now that it is out, players understand it.

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Look at the poll in the other thread.

This one? In which only 10 people voted? It was 6-4 non-random. The only written complaints I have seen that didn't come from haters were yours.

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But the fact remains: balance was fine before and there were very few (zero?) complaints.

I would hardly call that a fact. If it was fine before, why don't you advocate for a full revert? After all, you suggest that 

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Creating a new, more complicated system (that a lot of people seem constitutionally opposed to) just disregards the feedback that we have.

If that is the case, why do you suggest to further change the system ...

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

In the interest of experimentation

 

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Keep the ability to manually control building arrows. 

For buildingAI, I would do a full revert for CC/forts. In the interest of experimentation, I would maybe keep buildingAI as nearest unit for towers

Let me make the rest of this reply about why going halfway as you suggest won't work as well as one might expect:

1. Not an elegant solution: As you suggest, there would have to be two distinct buildingAIs, one with random arrows and targeting, the other with non-random arrows and targeting. Either this, or a new class for non-random buildings that gets read by buildingAI and then activates a non-random version of firearrows().
2. How to balance random and targeted arrows: Allowing a building to be random when it becomes non random upon targeting is bound to fail: If non-random arrows are stronger as you say, players would benefit from constantly targeting manually. You would have to ensure both the targeted arrows and the random arrows are balanced, which would (obviously) need to be handled differently.
3. Inconsistencies: Asymmetry between units is fine and we call it differentiation. When mechanics are so massively different when players expect consistency, we have a problem. You call for differences between targeted and un-targeted arrows, as well as further differences between CCs/Forts and towers. I think that would be a confusing mess.

->Please tell me some issues with 26.6 building arrows that are not due to arrow count balance.<-

53 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

There hasn't been uptake on this concept and, as time wears on, it seems to get less popular.

What makes you say this? I saw complaints during week 1, but now I see none in the lobby. Surely this means there is no problem, right? Jokes aside, I don't declare no complaints to mean there is no issue, that is why I plan to rebalance the arrows.

Edited March 11 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

new, more detailed poll: 

 

also, anyone feel free to chime in on this:

17 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

->Please tell me some issues with 26.6 building arrows that are not due to arrow count balance.<-

 

[chrstgtr]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think you are making this decision for a lot of people.

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Without any nostalgia or fear of change, people would prefer what I have suggested to random arrows.

Come on...Also, see below. 

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This one? In which only 10 people voted? The only written complaints I have seen that didn't come from haters were yours.

There's not a lot of commentary in that thead and it is old. Look at the recent votes on the thread that Weirdjokes posted. Out of all the issues, BuildingAI got the fewest number of approving votes and received the largest number of negative votes (note these two facts do not necessarily have to occur simultaneously as there is a third "uncertain option," which received the lowest share of votes for this question). BuildingAI is the only issue where "no" received more votes than "yes." BuildingAI is also only one of two issues where any choice received a majority of cast votes.

I've checked in on that poll from time to time to see how opinions are progressing and it has been trending downward for awhile. For some people, there is a disposition bias that disfavors change. But you would expect that bias to erode with time. The opposite appears to be occurring here. For other people, there is a novelty bias that favors change. That bias appears to be eroding. Opposition to this change has accelerated. 

 

8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

->Please tell me some issues with 26.6 building arrows that are not due to arrow count balance.<-

The concept doesn't work if you think rush balance was fine before the mod. Full stop. It's inspiration is a false premise.

 

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

38 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think you are making this decision for a lot of people.

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Without any nostalgia or fear of change, people would prefer what I have suggested to random arrows.

Come on...Also, see below. 

You talk on behalf of others, and I say what would be likely if the decision would be made with no status quo. These are very different.

3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

->Please tell me some issues with 26.6 building arrows that are not due to arrow count balance.<-

The concept doesn't work if you think rush balance was fine before the mod. Full stop. It's inspiration is a false premise.

Thats not an issue though. Give me an issue with the way it is currently.

[Lion.Kanzen]

38 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Inconsistencies: Asymmetry between units is fine and we call it differentiation. When mechanics are so massively different when players expect consistency, we have a problem. You call for differences between targeted and un-targeted arrows, as well as further differences between CCs/Forts and towers. I think that would be a confusing mess.

We are not Age of Empires I and II

Our unit /building tree  is asymmetrical. All factions work differently.

In AoE what changes is that units have access to some units and not others.

We, on the other hand, have access to hoplites, pikemen, cataphracts, chariots and elephants.

In the AoE except for the elephants and camels everyone dominated those classes.

0 A D was intended more to be like AoM AND AoE III.

With different factions we have rather equalized them a lot.

It seems too much to me to equate an Indian spearman with a Roman one with the matter of armor.

[chrstgtr]

9 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You talk on behalf of others, and I say what would be likely if the decision would be made with no status quo. These are very different.

These are indeed very different....I am repeating what others have said. I pointing to votes of other people.

You not only are saying what other people MIGHT think--you are saying that people will change their mind. 

I honestly don't see how you can continue to insist on knowing the opinion of others. 

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Thats not an issue though. Give me an issue with the way it is currently.

It is. 

If more units die during rush then it is a problem. The current rush game is less dynamic. That is a problem. No matter how you slice it, that will continue to be problem because buildingAI changes are designed to get kills faster. The entire thing is fixing a rush problem that I so rarely heard uttered by anyone (aside from you and your brother).

Late game is more complicated to assess because of the melee change. But it has also clearly become more staid with players often unable to kill bases if the game runs longer than the first big push. How much of that is melee change vs buildingAI change, I'm not sure. But I know I have seen several players play in a standoffish manner because they don't want to stand under CCs, which has led to more successful turtles. Players will now often walk away from conquering a CC after they winning a unit battle. Game design should not created stilted gameplay like that. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You talk on behalf of others, and I say what would be likely if the decision would be made with no status quo. These are very different.

These are indeed very different....I am repeating what others have said. I pointing to votes of other people.

You not only are saying what other people MIGHT think--you are saying that people will change their mind. 

I honestly don't see how you can continue to insist on knowing the opinion of others. 

Ah, then you must be misunderstanding me. I was explaining that 0ad NAIVE players would expect and prefer a system similar to the one I developed over random arrows. You are the one saying "People don't like X, Nobody complained about Y"

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

If more units die during rush then it is a problem. The current rush game is less dynamic. That is a problem. No matter how you slice it, that will continue to be problem because buildingAI changes are designed to get kills faster. The entire thing is fixing a rush problem that I so rarely heard uttered by anyone (aside from you and your brother).

Ok this is closer to what I was asking for. Before you were just deflecting to how things were previously to describe a problem in a26.6. So I am gathering this from your paragraph: "Non-random building AI is too effective at stopping rushes"

Is that what you mean? If so, I agree. Changes must be made to CC arrows and sentry towers so that rushers can still find kills.

And lastly, let me address your last sentence here. Maybe people didn't complain about it, but my observations told me there was a problem. Players were able to dive under the CC for extended periods of time with no consequences. The CC should (according to the success of other games) be able to be a somewhat safe space if there is a ton of pressure. I would just argue that it is now too good at countering rushes when it is garrisoned now that it actually gets kills.

It seems pretty clear then that the solution is to change the CC arrows and not revert to a26 arrows. With the right balance, rushing should be more dynamic since it brings in arrow micro, dodging, weak unit sniping, and quick dives under the CC. You could compare it to a26 where early rushes basically only involved buildings for uprising rushing cavalry with soldiers, other than that, they basically were just a timer saying "ok in XX seconds you need to leave the cc range."

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Late game is more complicated to assess because of the melee change. But it has also clearly become more staid with players often unable to kill bases if the game runs longer than the first big push. How much of that is melee change vs buildingAI change, I'm not sure. But I know I have seen several players play in a standoffish manner because they don't want to stand under CCs, which has led to more successful turtles. Players will now often walk away from conquering a CC after they winning a unit battle. Game design should not created stilted gameplay like that. 

About your second paragraph, I would summarize it as: late game effects are complicated, but in general there is more turtling. Is that accurate?

If that's the case, I would also agree and argue that arrow balance could fix it. However, given that there is so much uncertainty, how about I put together an update that addresses all the non-buildingAI stuff which is easier to address, and then we can reassess?

Edited March 12 by real_tabasco_sauce

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

balance was fine before and there were very few (zero?) complaints

It’s true that the building ai was better balanced before the mod, but it was very underdeveloped and led to a very simple gameplay result. It would be foolish to say that random arrows is the best possible building ai system, so it was definitely worth trying something new.
 

Also I’ve seen high skill players avoid losing units to the cc despite the cc shooting the closest unit. These weak cav or infantry then just go back and gather or heal in their own cc. Interesting micro has arisen for both the rusher and defender. The best part of the building arrow change is that there is now an immediate cost to entering building arrow range instead of it being negligible for big armies. The worst part has been how fast units die especially with overlapping ranges.

Edited March 12 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Lion.Kanzen]

46 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

It’s true that the building ai was better balanced before the mod, but it was very underdeveloped and led to a very simple gameplay result. It would be foolish to say that random arrows is the best possible building ai system, so it was definitely worth trying something new.

With all the game mechanics over the years, it has always been difficult to balance them.

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Is that what you mean? If so, I agree. Changes must be made to CC arrows and sentry towers so that rushers can still find kills.

And lastly, let me address your last sentence here. Maybe people didn't complain about it, but my observations told me there was a problem. Players were able to dive under the CC for extended periods of time with no consequences. The CC should (according to the success of other games) be able to be a somewhat safe space if there is a ton of pressure. I would just argue that it is now too good at countering rushes when it is garrisoned now that it actually gets kills.

You understand my critique. My point is if it was balanced before, which I think it was, then this is a change designed to disrupt what is already balanced. 

You keep saying it was imbalanced before. But it seems you are so far ahead of the parade you forgot to look behind to see if the band is still following. 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

About your second paragraph, I would summarize it as: late game effects are complicated, but in general there is more turtling. Is that accurate?

You understand my complaints 

————

Random or nearest-unit AI is is a personal preference. You seem to take it for granted that nearest-unit is indeed the preference where most available feedback says otherwise. Same for your perceived imbalanced for rushes. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

which I think it was, then this is a change designed to disrupt what is already balanced. 

That is massively mischaracterizing the intent of changing buildingai. I did think the 1:30 chicken rushes were imbalanced but above all else, the purpose of the buildingAI change was just progress. To further the enjoyability of the game.

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

You understand my critique. My point is if it was balanced before, which I think it was, then this is a change designed to disrupt what is already balanced. 

You keep saying it was imbalanced before. But it seems you are so far ahead of the parade you forgot to look behind to see if the band is still following. 

I don't know what to do with this information. I don't think it is helpful at this point to use the past as a reference: Its better to observe current games and adjust from where we are at right now. So it doesn't help to tell me I am wrong and my development is wrong simply because things were not problematic in the past. Nevertheless, I think I identified the two main issues you raised with the current version and I agree with both.

But ok, I give up on it for now. The next version will just address the other variables and then we can take another stab at rebalancing arrows sometime later.

Edited March 12 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I did think the 1:30 chicken rushes were imbalanced but above all else, the purpose of the buildingAI change was just progress. To further the enjoyability of the game.

Again, you see you say it is imbalanced but I’ve only ever heard you and your brother talk about “chicken rushes.” I’ve never seen them work against any good player. Your brother (I think) tried to do against me to prove his point when I built ALL women and failed miserably

Again, there is no evidence that the player base, as a whole agree, with you on the “enjoyment of the game aspect.” Available evidence says the opposite 

9 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't think it is helpful at this point to use the past as a reference: Its better to observe current games and adjust from where we are at right now.

This is just wrong. This assumes the community game IS the current game. The community mod is an experiment. We had that. It appears to have been rejected. 

You keep taking change as  necessary. That is contrary to what feedback we have 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

It appears to have been rejected. 

Ok then you want to go back to a26, surely. Frankly, I don't understand why you say this. I see perfectly content players in the community mod. You are massively overstating the effects on rushes, people are still doing rushes very effectively, its just different. One player yesterday told me that rushes are slightly more difficult.

thats about 1% of the complaints. And your own complaints above are purely based on theory as you insist.

Right now I am hearing that archers are too weak. I heard this from about 15 people when asking the lobby. I heard elephants are not quite effective enough from 5 people. And I heard 1 player say that spearmen were much more impactful when defeating a rush than the building arrows!

Frankly I think you are very confident about your opinion solely based on a26 vanilla, and you fail to accept what is actually happening in the mod. It is not a disaster as you make it out to be, and that is why you called for "more experimentation" even though you said above "it appears to have been rejected." If it was really that bad you would actually advocate for a revert.