Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[chrstgtr]

On 17/05/2024 at 11:28 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I agree, I think the 25 wood cost especially has made them much less worthwhile. However, lowering the cost back to 100 or 80 wood and keeping them weak (-50% garrison dmg), makes them a bit more spammy (too easy to cover a large area), which is kind of what happened in 26.6.

I would rather keep the cost as is, but add a single default arrow to make the 125 wood more worthwhile. I think it is good design to make scout towers something you get if needed when you can't fight off rushes. For example in aoe2, they talk about "forcing a tower" basically applying enough pressure to make the opponent invest in a tower for defense, therefore that money isn't invested in eco.

Is any of this really necessary if we get rid of non-random arrows? I think there is a clear verdict on the non-random arrows at this point. 

Note, even after reverting back to random arrows, we might have to do a little rebalance to account for armor changes in the melee change. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

When I did the melee/ranged rebalance, I reduced all ranged unit damage. I could apply that same damage reduction to the a26 building arrow values. I think that would be the simplest way to go about it.

i won’t have time to make a new version for a while tho.

Edited May 21 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

When I did the melee/ranged rebalance, I reduced all ranged unit damage. I could apply that same damage reduction to the a26 building arrow values. I think that would be the simplest way to go about it.

 

Agree. Simplest and best. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I still can't understand why random arrows is desired by you folks. I'm absolutely flabbergasted. And even all mods will have to adhere to it. 

[chrstgtr]

54 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I still can't understand why random arrows is desired by you folks. I'm absolutely flabbergasted. And even all mods will have to adhere to it. 

There is a more full discussion in like three other threads. The short version is that non-random arrows creates lots of problems. Rushing is overly difficult. Sentry towers are too strong. Standing under a CC always creates unit loss even if there is no defending army outside, which means like 15 swords can defend against 2 rams and an army 3x as large. While it can be OP for both early and late game as described above, it also has lower dps than random arrows so the attacking army remains stronger in a way. Healers, including healing heroes, are ineffective and the ability to slowly level up units is much lower. And more.
 

In addition to these clear balance issues, this is ultimately just a preference issue. For me, I like random arrows because it creates a more dynamic game. If you stay under a building too long with random arrows you suddenly begin to quickly lose a lot of units, which can quickly flip the direction of a game. But with nonrandom arrows that sudden reversal doesn’t happen. This quick reversal effect can also happen if an army becomes lower health and then runs into a full health enemy army in an open field even if the full health army is smaller. 
 

All this is to say, we tried. But it was disliked by a lot of people. It wasn’t the first change to suffer that fate and it won’t be the last. 

[Feldfeld]

Nonrandom arrows simply don't play well with the engine currently imo, and random arrows did introduce a somewhat unique strategical mechanism like mentioned above.

That said I think nonrandom arrows would be good for ships.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

32 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

Nonrandom arrows simply don't play well with the engine currently imo

What is different about our "engine" that makes non-random arrows not play well?

 

41 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

There is a more full discussion in like three other threads. The short version is that non-random arrows creates lots of problems. Rushing is overly difficult. Sentry towers are too strong. Standing under a CC always creates unit loss even if there is no defending army outside, which means like 15 swords can defend against 2 rams and an army 3x as large. While it can be OP for both early and late game as described above, it also has lower dps than random arrows so the attacking army remains stronger in a way. Healers, including healing heroes, are ineffective and the ability to slowly level up units is much lower. And more.

So it is OP and UP. Got it. 

 

42 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But it was disliked by a lot of people.

They played it for what? A week? All right then. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

40 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

That said I think nonrandom arrows would be good for ships.

Well @wowgetoffyourcellphone has already put together a pretty awesome rework for ships, which goes a lot further.

40 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

Nonrandom arrows simply don't play well with the engine currently imo, and random arrows did introduce a somewhat unique strategical mechanism like mentioned above.

47 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

All this is to say, we tried. But it was disliked by a lot of people. It wasn’t the first change to suffer that fate and it won’t be the last.

I'll die on the hill that ultimately a non-random system is superior, but I can agree that the implementation of non-random arrows haven't hit the mark I was going for: Manual targeting isn't used much, some buildings are too effective, and others like the fortress are still fairly ineffective.

I'll put out an update sometime removing the non-random arrows, which may also help to serve as a negative control. I will bring them back at some point, with improvements for user control, cursors, audio cues, and more careful balance.

Edited May 22 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

They played it for what? A week? All right then. 

It’s been a pretty long time now. It’s got less popular as time went on. At this point, I think people’s minds are made up. 

43 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

That said I think nonrandom arrows would be good for ships.

I think I agree with this. But wow already has a rework for ships  I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, though 

It was also integrated with siege towers but I think that make siege towers OP. I’m not sure if that just needs a stat adjustment or if there is an actual problem with the mechanism 

Edited May 22 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But wow already has a rework for ships  I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive, though

They are, the rework makes ships behave like proper units rather than water siege towers.

And they have classes: scout ship, arrow ship, fire ship, ram ship, siege ship.

[chrstgtr]

41 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Manual targeting isn't used much

Agree. It’s an interesting idea (and one that I think I want) but it really isn’t used. 
 

32 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

They are, the rework makes ships behave like proper units rather than water siege towers.

And they have classes: scout ship, arrow ship, fire ship, ram ship, siege ship.

But why is that mutually exclusive? If it is old buildingAI then the classes get muddled and you just need a mix of units. If it UnitAI then I think it could become just be a bunch of luring with sniping (targeting overrides). If it is nonrandom buildingAI then at least you get battle positioning. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

57 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But why is that mutually exclusive? If it is old buildingAI then the classes get muddled and you just need a mix of units. If it UnitAI then I think it could become just be a bunch of luring with sniping (targeting overrides). If it is nonrandom buildingAI then at least you get battle positioning.

not sure what you mean with this. The ships are now like any other unit, (archer, pikeman, etc) in that they don't have buildingAI. So there is no buildingAI to be had.

im sure there will plenty of strategies and micro involved.

[MacWolf]

On 21/05/2024 at 1:37 PM, chrstgtr said:

Is any of this really necessary if we get rid of non-random arrows? I think there is a clear verdict on the non-random arrows at this point. 

Note, even after reverting back to random arrows, we might have to do a little rebalance to account for armor changes in the melee change. 

non random arrows are good, just need more balancing, the cc nerf + tower nerf was too much, for it to work properly i think just buff towers abit, no need to revert it to past, or atleast just do random arrows via cc and let the fortress+towers be non random, also new tech for fortress buffs, and towers whould be good

Edited May 22 by MacWolf

[MacWolf]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well @wowgetoffyourcellphone has already put together a pretty awesome rework for ships, which goes a lot further.

I'll die on the hill that ultimately a non-random system is superior, but I can agree that the implementation of non-random arrows haven't hit the mark I was going for: Manual targeting isn't used much, some buildings are too effective, and others like the fortress are still fairly ineffective.

I'll put out an update sometime removing the non-random arrows, which may also help to serve as a negative control. I will bring them back at some point, with improvements for user control, cursors, audio cues, and more careful balance.

noooooooooooooooooooo, siege towers will revert to being useless, we having more units being used lately, people are understanding how to kill siege towers, don't revert all random arrows, theres some good parts about it !!!

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

not sure what you mean with this. The ships are now like any other unit, (archer, pikeman, etc) in that they don't have buildingAI. So there is no buildingAI to be had.

im sure there will plenty of strategies and micro involved.

There's some disconnect. Right now, ship AI behavior is buildingAI (I think, it is referenced in the templates and that is how I remember it). I think it makes sense for ship AI behavior to non-random buildingAI instead of random buildingAI. 

For ships, I think non-random buildingAI is superior to random buildingAI and unitAI. Non-random buildingAI allows for positioning micro and allows the rock-paper-scissors in wow's proposal to work. Random buildingAI will mess that up by shooting randomly, so the efficient build in Wow's model is just a mix mashed together. UnitAI is similar to non-random buildingAI except ships will chase the first ship that they come into contact with. This chase can lead to problems, including luring with rock ships with rock and/or paper ships. 

Because naval battles are so clunky, I think the AI behavior should be something that emphasizes ship positioning. Non-random buildingAI seems best positioned for that.  

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok so basically unitAI is responsible for just about all the entities, so ships and siege towers have UnitAI. BuildingAI is responsible for the building arrows.

in @wowgetoffyourcellphone's work, they no longer have anything to do with buildingAI, and instead behave like infantry, cavalry etc.

19 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

UnitAI is similar to non-random buildingAI except ships will chase the first ship that they come into contact with. This chase can lead to problems, including luring with rock ships with rock and/or paper ships. 

By default they will target the first enemy they see unless you give a specific target, just like regular units. I think the ship classes do an excellent job on emphasizing ship positioning: Keeping vulnerable ships protected, flanking with ram ships, massing arrow ships together, raiding fish with scout ships.

The main thing is that ship gameplay won't be a total snooze fest XD.

[chrstgtr]

58 minutes ago, MacWolf said:

noooooooooooooooooooo, siege towers will revert to being useless, we having more units being used lately, people are understanding how to kill siege towers, don't revert all random arrows, theres some good parts about it !!!

You can just have separate behavior for siege towers and buildings. 

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok so basically unitAI is responsible for just about all the entities, so ships and siege towers have UnitAI. BuildingAI is responsible for the building arrows.

in @wowgetoffyourcellphone's work, they no longer have anything to do with buildingAI, and instead behave like infantry, cavalry etc.

So the overwork rakes out BuildingAI and replaces it with UnitAI? 

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

By default they will target the first enemy they see unless you give a specific target, just like regular units. I think the ship classes do an excellent job on emphasizing ship positioning: Keeping vulnerable ships protected, flanking with ram ships, massing arrow ships together, raiding fish with scout ships.

 

That's all fine and good (and I agree with most of what you say). But because UnitAI chases, your ships may move without you doing anything. That can be problematic with how clunky ships are (ships getting stuck behind other ships, ships getting lured, etc.). Non-random BuildingAI wouldn't have that problem because ships would only move when you tell them to, which also means that an enemy can't exploit it as easily. 

UnitAI and non-random BuildingAI aren't really that different from each other aside from the chase aspect. 

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The main thing is that ship gameplay won't be a total snooze fest XD.

Long overdue. 

Edited May 22 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

21 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Non-random BuildingAI wouldn't have that problem because ships would only move when you tell them to, which also means that an enemy can't exploit it as easily. 

UnitAI and non-random BuildingAI aren't really that different from each other aside from the chase aspect. 

AFAIK, ships will currently try and aggro enemy ships. Yeah the only practical difference is that the Building AI is a stream of arrows (or a multi-arrow blast :D) that can be done while moving.

[chrstgtr]

46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

AFAIK, ships will currently try and aggro enemy ships. Yeah the only practical difference is that the Building AI is a stream of arrows (or a multi-arrow blast :D) that can be done while moving.

Apparently it's been so long since any of us have played a game with ships (and for good reason) that we are all forgetting how the AI works. 

[ShadowOfHassen]

5 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Apparently it's been so long since any of us have played a game with ships (and for good reason) that we are all forgetting how the AI works. 

A solid map for sea would help. Currently I think we have one that is needed for naval battles

[chrstgtr]

23 minutes ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

A solid map for sea would help. Currently I think we have one that is needed for naval battles

We have maps that are functional enough. The most popular land map is mainland because it is just wide open space for battles. That more or less exists for naval maps.

Ships are just clunky to move, which isn't very fun. Naval battles also don't lend themselves to reinforcements which make the battles frustrating because it is either one short winner take all battle or it is a never ending battle where the player that wins the first fight becomes weak and cannot cross the remainder of the sea and land troops before fresh enemy reinforcements can arrive to wipe out the low health (and not repaired) victor from the first fight. 

Right now, ships are most fun when their primarily used as water-based siege that fight against land units/buildings.

Edited May 22 by chrstgtr

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

AFAIK, ships will currently try and aggro enemy ships.

From my experience ships will aggro on anything enemy, and have been for ~all versions; this includes chasing, so if you don't want your ships to move (because you're currently repairing them or not to get lured) you have to put them on standground.

[MacWolf]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

You can just have separate behavior for siege towers and buildings. 

i hope he doesnt change siege towers atleast.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

A solid map for sea would help. Currently I think we have one that is needed for naval battles

At least one good random map for naval play is sorely needed. Something good enough that it could be played semi-regularly in rated. There are some great skirmish maps, but they are mostly limited to 1v1 or 3 players.