Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[chrstgtr]

29 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

fire rate, accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration

Related note, only one of those is visible in the in-game stats. I really hate the lack of transparency there is for accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration. I only have a rough idea how units compare for some of those variables. I cannot imagine how hard it is to understand for someone who is just learning how to play

[ChronA]

14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

[more damaging arrows with a slower repeat rate] would introduce higher variance because each arrow would make death more likely if hit. And misses would be a bigger lost opportunity.

Unlikely it would cause any noticeable difference with respect to <Accuracy>. The Law of Large Numbers applies because, even with a reduced rate-of-fire, you are still flinging hundreds of projectiles over the course of a typical battle (most of which hit something). That is more than a large enough sample size to push the tendency very close to the theoretical expectation.

In intuitive terms, yes misses would be a bigger lost opportunity, but the projectiles that do hit balance it out by having a proportionately larger punch that almost exactly makes up for the damage that is lost.

Plus, I don't think the threshold of "game breaking chaos" is nearly as sensitive as this objection makes it out to be. There are a bunch of really unpredictable factors in 0 AD's combat already: e.g. not being able to tell how many units are in an enemy formation due to the obscene model overlap, or the way that promotions can randomly change a few lucky units' stats on the fly. Despite this, I don't hear anyone complaining that the combat gameplay is unskillful.

Edited November 10, 2022 by ChronA

[Feldfeld]

5 minutes ago, ChronA said:

Unlikely it would cause any noticeable difference with respect to <Accuracy>. The Law of Large Numbers applies because, even with a reduced rate-of-fire, you are still flinging hundreds of projectiles over the course of a typical battle. That is more than a large enough sample size to push the tendency very close to the theoretical expectation.

In intuitive terms, yes misses would be a bigger lost opportunity, but the projectiles that do hit balance it out by having a proportionately larger punch that almost exactly makes up for the damage that is lost.

Plus, I don't think the threshold of "game breaking chaos" is nearly as sensitive as this objection makes it out to be. There are a bunch of really unpredictable factors in 0 AD's combat already: e.g. not being able to tell how many units are in an enemy formation due to the obscene model overlap, or the way that promotions can randomly change a few lucky units' stats on the fly. Despite this, I don't hear anyone complaining that the combat gameplay is unskillful.

Well, technically, there are large battles, but there are also small skirmishes which could be very important early game.

The game should be balanced such that a good player wouldn't need to rely/ be forced to be in a position where randomness decides the game. AoE2 has imperfect accuracy early game, and even monk RNG which is definitely questionable and can decide some games but in the end it stays because only rarely it makes a difference (for example map RNG would be just as if not more important).
I'd say we need to tune this so accuracy RNG doesn't have too much impact in fights, and small skirmishes should be predictable up to a reasonably good level for a good player (they are currently, I don't know if/how it would change with reduced rate of fire).

[ChronA]

2 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

there are also small skirmishes which could be very important early game.

That is a fair counterpoint. There might be some room to debate whether those skirmishes (if they are decisive) are actually so small that LOLN breaks down, or if they are just protracted exchanges still involving hundreds of projectiles but now spread out over a few minutes instead of 30-60 seconds. But I admit I lack the experience base to evaluate that question.  

Also I do agree with the concern that slower projectiles could throw of the balance in a major way, as it opens up a new avenue for systematic counter-play that could change the balance of tactics in unpredictable ways. (Dancing!)

Also, with fewer, chunkier projectiles there could be problems with overkill weirdness. Like if previously it takes 10 arrows to kill a unit and 50% of the last arrow is overkill, that means 5% of the unit's DPS is wasted. Where as if it only takes 2 arrows with 50% overkill on the last shot now you are losing 25% of your theoretical DPS.

Because of issues like this I would actually agree that any changes to attack rates should be lumped in with a general rebalancing of ranged vs melee troops. No sense doing the same work twice. (It helps that a melee buff is sorely needed if 0 AD is to have any pretenses of being historical.) 

[Dakara]

Why not slightly increase the attack speed without increasing the damage. To slightly nerf ranged units. By reducing the attack speed we reduce their dps and increase the overkill a little.

Then we see the test and conclude. 

just for say : Ptol heroe reduce attack speed :p

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Related note, only one of those is visible in the in-game stats. I really hate the lack of transparency there is for accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration. I only have a rough idea how units compare for some of those variables. I cannot imagine how hard it is to understand for someone who is just learning how to play

I would wager to guess most players (everyone not in the top 30 or 40) do not play the game thinking of it as a large spreadsheet meant to be deciphered in the most efficient way possible in order to maximize positive outcomes within time-frame blah blah. If a unit is effective in a certain situation, then players use that unit in that situation. Most will not care to perform deep statistical analysis on the fly (or even beforehand). The goal is to make the unit behavior intuitive to most players and we do so tweaking a dozen different stats that most players don't need to know in order to play an effective and fun game. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[chrstgtr]

24 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I would wager to guess most players (everyone not in the top 30 or 40) do not play the game thinking of it as a large spreadsheet meant to be deciphered in the most efficient way possible in order to maximize positive outcomes within time-frame blah blah. If a unit is effective in a certain situation, then players use that unit in that situation. Most will not care to perform deep statistical analysis on the fly (or even beforehand). The goal is to make the unit behavior intuitive to most players and we do so tweaking a dozen different stats that most players don't need to know in order to play an effective and fun game. 

Maybe. I’m sure some do—we can see it in the forums. 
 

More to the point, is there harm to showing it?

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, ChronA said:

That is a fair counterpoint. There might be some room to debate whether those skirmishes (if they are decisive) are actually so small that LOLN breaks down, or if they are just protracted exchanges still involving hundreds of projectiles but now spread out over a few minutes instead of 30-60 seconds. But I admit I lack the experience base to evaluate that question.  

Also I do agree with the concern that slower projectiles could throw of the balance in a major way, as it opens up a new avenue for systematic counter-play that could change the balance of tactics in unpredictable ways. (Dancing!)

Also, with fewer, chunkier projectiles there could be problems with overkill weirdness. Like if previously it takes 10 arrows to kill a unit and 50% of the last arrow is overkill, that means 5% of the unit's DPS is wasted. Where as if it only takes 2 arrows with 50% overkill on the last shot now you are losing 25% of your theoretical DPS.

Because of issues like this I would actually agree that any changes to attack rates should be lumped in with a general rebalancing of ranged vs melee troops. No sense doing the same work twice. (It helps that a melee buff is sorely needed if 0 AD is to have any pretenses of being historical.) 

Yeah, all your reasons stated. 

Also, it becomes an issue when units start dying off there is a snowball effect. For example, skirmishes are expected to cancel each other out so 100 skirm against 100 skirms results more or less in no units surviving but 100 skirm against 20 skirm will result in something like 90 units from the bigger army surviving. It happens because there are more units to absorb projectiles and more units to launch projectiles. It’s also why armies standing under defensive buildings tend to suddenly die all at once. So same damage may be dealt/received while units are alive, but once u it’s start dying and/or when armies aren’t equal sizes there is a snowball effect. 

Also, law of large numbers applies to averages. I am talking about variances that may result from observed effects. Parameters can have the same expected value with different standard deviations. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

11 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Related note, only one of those is visible in the in-game stats. I really hate the lack of transparency there is for accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration. I only have a rough idea how units compare for some of those variables. I cannot imagine how hard it is to understand for someone who is just learning how to play

acceleration is there btw. I agree though, accuracy and prepare time belong in "detailed tooltips."

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, ChronA said:

overkill weirdness. Like if previously it takes 10 arrows to kill a unit and 50% of the last arrow is overkill, that means 5% of the unit's DPS is wasted. Where as if it only takes 2 arrows with 50% overkill on the last shot now you are losing 25% of your theoretical DPS.

overkill is a problem regardless of fire rate. It depends on the number of units attacking 1 enemy, so increasing the damage per projectile just means overkill will be present when fewer numbers attack 1 unit.

Actually, overkill turns out to be the biggest problem for archers. Because the engagement distance is longer, the closest unit to the archers is the same one for more units. (compared to say slingers or skirmishers). A while ago I tested this and found that by giving ranged units building AI, archers beat equal numbers of any other ranged unit.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...repeat_times?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

now we just wait on @wraitii :C. I hope nothing bad happened.

[Fabius]

if you actually make building arrows damage melee units decently then I am fine with it, but if you going to remove even their vague use against unsupported range hordes, then I am not in favour at all. Defensive buildings are very lacking in utility these days. You get far better mileage out of walls and ranged siege.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

prepare time

I am curious how knowing the prepare time will benefit the player in any way? Will uber players choose one unit type or another based on prepare time? Average players won't. Information overkill is a thing.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

acceleration is there btw. I agree though, accuracy and prepare time belong in "detailed tooltips."

Good. I was referring to projectile acceleration, to the extent it differs across entities. 

[chrstgtr]

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I am curious how knowing the prepare time will benefit the player in any way? Will uber players choose one unit type or another based on prepare time? Average players won't. Information overkill is a thing.

It depends on how quickly a unit can engage. It’s different for a reason. We shouldn’t hide the ball. We also should try to determine what is and isn’t important information for a player to know. On multiple occasions I have heard players ask why their unit dies before another unit even though both units were low health and units appeared to engage each other at the time time. If that is the result of prepare time then players should be able to see that. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:

On multiple occasions I have heard players ask why their unit dies before another unit even though both units were low health and units appeared to engage each other at the time time. If that is the result of prepare time then players should be able to see that. 

Prepare time: 500 milliseconds

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Good. I was referring to projectile acceleration, to the extent it differs across entities. 

As far as I know, there is no projectile acceleration. I think there is gravity but that doesn't really effect gameplay.

Edited November 10, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

As far as I know, there is no projectile acceleration. I think there is gravity but that doesn't really effect gameplay.

Yeah, my point is: if there is differentiation it should be easily visible to the player and not require the player to learn through extensive gameplay. This is a logical change that we have made previously (e.g. eliminating woman gathering aura, which could actually be seen and was disclosed, but it’s impact wasn’t quantified). Something like gravity that effects everything doesn’t need to be disclosed/quantified because it is everywhere. 
 

For example, there is confusion right now on whether women and men construct buildings at the same rate. I don’t know the answer. But confusion exists, and if there is a difference it should be disclosed. Having hidden stats isn’t a fun Easter egg, especially when players don’t know differences exists. We should either eliminate the differences or disclose/quantify the differences. 

[Feldfeld]

17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

For example, there is confusion right now on whether women and men construct buildings at the same rate. I don’t know the answer. But confusion exists, and if there is a difference it should be disclosed. Having hidden stats isn’t a fun Easter egg, especially when players don’t know differences exists. We should either eliminate the differences or disclose/quantify the differences. 

That is not hard to verify, each building has a set build time, so you can start a building with one unit and check that the announced build time is consistent with the tooltip.

Personally I think it's fine not to show unimportant stats like acceleration or prepare time. You can easily have a feeling for it. I never checked prepare time of units and play by feeling, and, for acceleration I barely felt an effect from last alpha (though it's probably due to me being inactive before).
For precision however, I think it's quite important, also this stat can dynamically change from promotion and technologies.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

15 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

he game should be balanced such that a good player wouldn't need to rely/ be forced to be in a position where randomness decides the game. AoE2 has imperfect accuracy early game, and even monk RNG which is definitely questionable and can decide some games but in the end it stays because only rarely it makes a difference (for example map RNG would be just as if not more important).

Well said! I definitely prefer the inaccuracy system aoe2 has over aoe4 which basically turns ranged units into melee units with long arms. Highly manageable rng such as accuracy system or monk conversions are good touches to the game, especially as compared to resource RNG that you are helpless to mitigate.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

This is @borg-'s patch made into a git branch.

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...sparta?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

I didn't include the "two kings" part because there were issues with regicide, and I also think 1 hero at a time should be held constant for all civs.

Certainly some adjustments will need to be made, particularly costs of different units and technologies. The overall idea is to give the spartans a unique champion unit, one strongly tied to their culture. So for this reason they cost 2 pop, 1/2 resources, and are available p1 from the syssition.

Such a bold patch would likely not be agreed upon as a patch for a27, but my thoughts are that an open-minded crowd using the community mod would give it a try.

[LetswaveaBook]

17 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This is @borg-'s patch made into a git branch

I think the tech that reduces champion cost while increasing their population cost is especially nice. 

 

A major factor why people complain about (cavalry) champions being OP is that you can fill your population cap with units that are (over) twice as strong as citizen soldiers. Doubling their population cost could solve the issue. I am curious to see how it works out for Sparta.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

20 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Such a bold patch would likely not be agreed upon as a patch for a27

The boldest of patches: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think the tech that reduces champion cost while increasing their population cost is especially nice. 

 

A major factor why people complain about (cavalry) champions being OP is that you can fill your population cap with units that are (over) twice as strong as citizen soldiers. Doubling their population cost could solve the issue. I am curious to see how it works out for Sparta.

yes, that tech is a civ bonus, so it is an innate quality of the sparta civ. I think it makes sense as an economic limitation (especially considering their availability in p1). It also distinguishes Sparta from other civs' champion spearmen: very powerful unit, but especially early on, it inhibits the economy. I would be keen to merge this and also the unit_upgrades later, after balance changes.

doubling cav pop cost seems problematic, however. I think most players would prefer a general cavalry nerf, involving their damage and health. I think what I will do for this is split up my cavalry nerf branch so that individual changes can be considered independently. (current branch -> damage change branch, health change branch, inf speed branch)

Edited November 13, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[rossenburg]

is there a changelogs for version 0.26.3 ?