Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Your brother (I think) tried to do against me to prove his point when I built ALL women and failed miserably

I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

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

Thats a good point, I think the whole purpose of the change was to try find a better game mechanic that, if balanced could allow for better gameplay. Just because something is balanced doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Mercs were balanced before a25 but they played pretty much exactly the same as normal CS, so people decided they could be improved and now they play an interesting role in 0ad games after an alpha of being imbalanced.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@chrstgtr You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward.

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Just because something is balanced doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Mercs were balanced before a25 but they played pretty much exactly the same as normal CS, so people decided they could be improved and now they play an interesting role in 0ad games after an alpha of being imbalanced.

Edited March 12, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[ChronA]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward.

@real_tabasco_sauce Forgive me for butting in, but as a third party I do feel @chrstgtr has made their case in this dispute better than you have. Both parties seem to agree that the rush vs turtle balance hinges upon static defense doing a very limited amount of damage. It's basically supposed to act as a timer for how long you can derp around in enemy territory, rather than being a decisive source of attrition against enemies who happen to stray too close to an emplacement. The building AI change has disrupted this balance by concentrating the damage emplacements deal, which was previously spread out, such that now it can cause real, lasting attrition.

You want to adjust down the damage stats of static defense to restore the balance, which is fair. Except, won't that in itself defeat the original purpose of the building AI change entirely? Static defense still won't have the ability to generate real, lasting attrition, because that is what the whole thing is balanced around. The net effect on the tactical dynamics of static defense will end up being completely negligible, and all that you will have accomplished is to waste your own time and energy on a largely cosmetic adjustment to the simulation. That's the argument I think @chrstgtr is trying to make, and to me it seems well reasoned.

Now, maybe you have some bigger plan in mind for this. Maybe this will enable smaller, multi-tasked raids to be more viable, if now large incursions will be subject to the same concentrated fire that currently dissuades small ones. But you have not made that argument recently. Instead you are leaning on the premise that concentrating static defense damage is an intrinsic good, but the mere fact that you guys are having this discussion pokes a pretty big hole in that idea.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

You aren't butting in, thanks for your input!

However, I am really confused @ChronA. I can't tell what you mean.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

new poll

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes. 

I'm not insulting you and I do not intend to--apologies if you there was a miscommunication. My point is that I recall very few instances where a "chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist then good players would frequently employ the strategy. But that is very clearly not the case. To be honest, I don't recall a single instance where anyone has ever discussed it (aside from when or your bro bring it up, which used to be fairly often). 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward

I don't know what you want. I said it should be reversed. That is as concrete as possible. You asked for input then rejected it and said my input should be different if I felt the way I felt. 

You also keep dismissing what I have said as theory. That's nonsense. I have said it IS too strong. That is observed. You have agreed with this. I have said it was balanced before. Any deviation from a state of balance that results in more kills will disrupt balance. That is definitional. 

I feel like you keep changing the goalposts. E.g. There is a change needed because this is a better system-->rushes are too strong-->buildings should kill rushing units-->it is better for 0ad naive players. Or, saying people like-->people will like it-->let's disregard a poll-->let's get a new poll-->I asked some people and they complained about other stuff. 

I also feel like you haven't set forth any valid reason why you think this change should occur aside from there may be some 0AD naive players who don't understand this (never mind the fact that there are so many aspects of the game that are different from AOE and that 0AD is not and should not be a replica of AOE). 

This isn't productive. I don't feel you are taking any feedback here and just looking for feedback that you want/disregarding feedback you don't want to hear. This isn't how it is supposed to work. This is a community project. I get it--you/your bro care a lot and received a lot of unfair/mean criticism from others. But there is other criticism that comes from a good place. Don't forgot those, loud and silent, that may disagree with you from time to time. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

"chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist

The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player. This works to some extent even if they defending player has prepared for it because then their boom will be much slower compared to players of their same level. To be honest, its not very relevant to discuss this since the "chicken rush" as I call it seems to be just as effective now as before.

Games are fun because of the skills and strategies that you learn to win. There's not much to learn about random arrows, because there is no player control over them. The goal of non-random building AI was to add another aspect of the game for the players to play.

On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:

 

commands.txt metadata.json

[chrstgtr]

2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player.

Depends on game but can be. It can also be an effective strategy where a lower player attacks a higher player in TGs (I think that is what you were getting at with the other portion of your reply). 

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:

Not at home at the moment. But I'll watch later if you think I should. I think the complaints about archers are overstated by some. I agree archers are weak now but in some ways archers are actually better/very strong--it's impossible to do rush where you push near the CC now and archers are quite strong in early game once they get ahead.  

I think the melee patch in general is more complicated to understand. There are parts I like and others I dislike. I think there have been some good ideas on how to address it. If we ultimately follow the general approach in the melee patch, think it'll take a few tries to get it balanced as well as before (with the added benefit of getting rid of meatshield meta) 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36

I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players.

I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36

I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players.

I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.

A similar buff is needed for x-bow. 

[BeTe]

Friendly 1v1 Community Mod Test (FCMT) tournament - when?

Instead single elimination, let's make mini league with 4-6-8 players in each group so anyone can play few games before elimitated.

Edited March 13, 2024 by BeTe

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up?

I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)

[chrstgtr]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up?

I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)

Yes. Plan makes sense. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

potential community mod ideas:

1. Let siege turn past 45 degrees without stopping (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5201)(improves pathing and clunkiness)

2. Reduce catapult and bolt shooter prepare time (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5131, already committed for a27)