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

[hamdich]

2 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

So is it a realism argument?

 

 

It is not just a matter of realisme but effectiveness as well  .  As a player who play every week for a while now with a mosty havely agressive oriented playstyle i noticed that the arrows focus targeting of defensive buildings is not that effective against all kinds of rush , on papers they should be better against rush because of number of arrows and 1 unit target only  but  in reality it is worse for obvious reasons like arrows are in stream per 4 seconds which can be dodged easier  than before with cavalry and that the max number of arrows is actually like  40% less . Beacsue of that a decent army of melée can actually sit under cc for minutes , same thing for towers and forts  . 

i understand the reason for it to be a stream not all at a time arrows + the less max  number of arrows is to avoid  arrows miss all at once and avoid over kill  so for that i think the best way would be to keep it random targeting as it used to before with possibilty of manually targeting 1 units when player wishes with also augmenting the number of maximum arrows and lowering to stream time to a number to be figured  and tested .

 

[alre]

47 minutes ago, Stan` said:

I'm not sure but IIRC units have preferences with regards to their target e.g. the Elephant class.

first, units select palpable targets from the preferred class enemy units within range, then minimum distance is used for the final choice.

[ChronA]

On 22/05/2024 at 1:19 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

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.

I'd like to applaud @real_tabasco_sauce for the moderation of this opinion, and endorse it as my own view. Ultimately the non-random systems seems like it will have better implications for gameplay. However its balance implications are so convoluted and far reaching that trying to implement it all at once into a larger incremental-rebalance mod is just going to scramble all the other balance goals.

However, this idea of having an adjustable number or proportion of arrows, per actor, be non-random sounds very promising to me. I think it should be discussed further.

I imagine the implementation would be tunable on a per-unit-class basis through unit templates. That might be your solution to the balance problems. You could walk the proportion up for each building, just until it starts to cause problems, and then wait until a compensatory adjustment can be found before going further, without ever breaking the overall balance (if it were done very cleverly).

This would eventually let you transition entirely to non-random if you wanted, or find a happy middle where the gameplay objectives of non-random are achieved, but some random aiming is still present with its own beneficial effects on balance and presentation.

Edited May 24, 2024 by ChronA

[ShadowOfHassen]

19 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

So is it a realism argument?

If we're going with a realism argument, random arrows make more sense. However, if we were going like that, a good arrow hit would one shot the attackers. Even if they weren't dead I'm pretty sure none of us would get up from an arrow in the thigh.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

That could be an interesting thing, but if every arrow goes for that unit then the player probably won't have the time to react before the unit dies. Also, having distinguishable arrow volleys would help with that (not saying that's not the case right now, I didn't play recently enough to remember)

yeah I tried to set up a pause between firing rounds, but I couldn't figure it out. I think it would improve readability and the micro options.

Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas for improvement. I'll use these ideas to better refine the non-random approach the next time I introduce it sometime in a27.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 hours ago, Stan` said:

On 23/05/2024 at 10:30 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@Stan` is there already some sort of tiebreaking mechanism when two targets are exactly the same distance?

I'm not sure but IIRC units have preferences with regards to their target e.g. the Elephant class.

Oh no, I was asking about the rangefinder (maybe its the rangefinder..). Ie, say 2 units are exactly the same distance away from my archer, how is the tie broken?

Even if it isn't wanted for building AI, I think it might be helpful for a number of reasons to have a "coarse" rangefinder for situations like these, ie finding the unit's position to the nearest x meters where x could be 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1, etc.

Then maybe x could be a property in the templates. For instance, archers have a bit of a problem with overkill, so you could set X to be 3 or 5, so that they more often choose different targets.

Then for short range units, something like 0.5 could be used.

In buildingAI, it could inherit an array of the closest units and target randomly from those. That way with the fort you could set x to 5 so that the closer units are shot when they are farther away, but when the fort is surrounded, you kind of have a "fire at will" appearance, shooting the closest at random.

might be kind of a mess though for buildingAI, because a ton of functions would probably need to use arrays where they don't already.

Edited May 24, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[MacWolf]

On 22/05/2024 at 10:10 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This kind of attitude prevents improvement. Siege Towers are pretty weird at the moment, but because some folks have managed to use that weirdness to their advantage we shouldn't improve them?

i was saying siege towers are good rn, they are usable, before with random arrows they where useless, now atleast u can use the unit, any change is good if u can go back or balance if it doesnt work, but siege towers is working rn.

[chrstgtr]

6 hours ago, MacWolf said:

i was saying siege towers are good rn, they are usable, before with random arrows they where useless, now atleast u can use the unit, any change is good if u can go back or balance if it doesnt work, but siege towers is working rn.

Siege towers balance was just bad before. It's a unit that tends to go through cycles where it is useless or OP. It's really the same story with all ranged siege. There were alphas where players literally banned the use of old siege towers because they were OP.

The current siege tower mechanic is potentially problematic, though. Now, siege towers focus their arrows against their primary counter units (melee inf/cav). Changing dps is a really easy way to make siege towers better without using non-random arrows--it's a method that has been both too strong and too weak in the past, so the only thing that needs to be done is find the right balance. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok,

heres an idea: Let the carry capacity upgrades in the storehouse have a flat bonus to construction speed.

Why: Wicker baskets, wheelbarrow, and cart are fairly underused, since in many games it is preferable to just build additional drop sites when gathering becomes inefficient.

I think it would be great to add a small bonus to construction speed to each of these, something like 10%. It is perfectly realistic, and could add more options for civs that find themselves in need of many buildings.

just a thought, and it would be easy to do in the com mod.

[ShadowOfHassen]

13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok,

heres an idea: Let the carry capacity upgrades in the storehouse have a flat bonus to construction speed.

Why: Wicker baskets, wheelbarrow, and cart are fairly underused, since in many games it is preferable to just build additional drop sites when gathering becomes inefficient.

I think it would be great to add a small bonus to construction speed to each of these, something like 10%. It is perfectly realistic, and could add more options for civs that find themselves in need of many buildings.

just a thought, and it would be easy to do in the com mod.

I do have a problem with those upgrades anyway. I just build more storehouses. If you have bigger capacity it just takes longer before I can have the 3 wood I need for the upgrade.

[Gurken Khan]

8 minutes ago, ShadowOfHassen said:

I do have a problem with those upgrades anyway. I just build more storehouses. If you have bigger capacity it just takes longer before I can have the 3 wood I need for the upgrade.

I always get the carrying upgrades: less walking time = more gathering time (I often don't get the last, but with batches of five units it's a sweet 100 res with each cycle). If I'm impatient and need a specific amount (less than capacity) I tell my unit(s) manually to unload (and get back to gathering).

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok,

heres an idea: Let the carry capacity upgrades in the storehouse have a flat bonus to construction speed.

Why: Wicker baskets, wheelbarrow, and cart are fairly underused, since in many games it is preferable to just build additional drop sites when gathering becomes inefficient.

I think it would be great to add a small bonus to construction speed to each of these, something like 10%. It is perfectly realistic, and could add more options for civs that find themselves in need of many buildings.

just a thought, and it would be easy to do in the com mod.

The bold isn't right. They are frequently used by good players. The basket upgrades are a standard part of the basic boom build order and the baskets are an area that actually create build order differences between civs (delayed for ptol and sooner for mace). It's intuitively pretty obvious that investing 400 to not build ten storehouses that cost 100 and build time is a good investment at some point. 

I don't have a problem with a construction speed bonus being created. But I don't see why it should replace something that we already have and use. It should be an addition instead of a replacement. 

NB: isn't there already a construction speed bonus that is basically never used? It's for Carth, I think. 

Edited June 8, 2024 by chrstgtr

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Something like a construction speed effect needs to be large enough to be noticeable to the player and consequently worth investing in (assuming it's not a super cheap tech).

 

I'll look at the Carthage "Colonization" tech. Perhaps it should be applied to all buildings, not just a select few types.

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'll look at the Carthage "Colonization" tech. Perhaps it should be applied to all buildings, not just a select few types.

I feel it's worth it just for the houses and CCs.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Something like a construction speed effect needs to be large enough to be noticeable to the player and consequently worth investing in (assuming it's not a super cheap tech).

 

I'll look at the Carthage "Colonization" tech. Perhaps it should be applied to all buildings, not just a select few types.

Yeah that tech is also massively overprice iirc.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah fair points all around. if some tech boosts construction speed, better to let it be standalone.

any other recommendations for this next version?

I have the following:

• non-random arrows reverted, -25% building arrow damage (fire rate) to equalize melee unit TTK. This means ranged units survive a little better compared to a26 vanilla arrows, but otherwise its the same.
• Pack time for bolts, catas 10s -> 5s.
• Immortals cost is now equal for ranged and melee, switch time now reduced a little more to 4s.
• Stone wall garrison space is doubled, allowing for 16 to fit on large stone walls and 8 on medium walls.
• Loom cost decreased from 200 food, 40s to 150 food 20s.

the last two there are committed to svn already, so may as well test.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone does the naval rework require a lot of other a27 changes? if not, I could replicate it in community mod so we can get it balanced for a27.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah fair points all around. if some tech boosts construction speed, better to let it be standalone.

any other recommendations for this next version?

I have the following:

• non-random arrows reverted, -25% building arrow damage (fire rate) to equalize melee unit TTK. This means ranged units survive a little better compared to a26 vanilla arrows, but otherwise its the same.
• Pack time for bolts, catas 10s -> 5s.
• Immortals cost is now equal for ranged and melee, switch time now reduced a little more to 4s.
• Stone wall garrison space is doubled, allowing for 16 to fit on large stone walls and 8 on medium walls.
• Loom cost decreased from 200 food, 40s to 150 food 20s.

the last two there are committed to svn already, so may as well test.

All these changes make sense to me. But these aren't the most "exciting" changes. Should we try to get in some of the bigger changes to a27? Something like the Roman overhaul?

[Atrik]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Pack time for bolts, catas 10s -> 5s.

1. In plenty of games, unit abilities with delays are prized as skill.
2. Increasing maneuverability of bolts make them more susceptible to be spammable as a main force alike siege towers.
3. The pack/unpack time differentiate catas and bolts by giving opportunities to opponents for responses (units are vulnerable to cavs because of this pack/unpack time).
4. Having to carefully plan position of catas/bolts is fun. I play blots ~80% of games they are available for my civ and I enjoy it because it's not failsafe.
5. To counter bolts, I often see my opponent running out of their range (at the cost of retreating and losing few soldiers) with a -50% pack/unpack time (remember to move bolts you'll get this delay twice) this evasive technique would be seriously nerfed/useless.

Kindly reconsider. Crossbow champs are already an option for players that don't want to bother with pack time, no need make the bolts too similar to them.

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Should we try to get in some of the bigger changes to a27? Something like the Roman overhaul?

Spartans and Athens seems to have some big changes too Would be indeed interesting to have them tested.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

18 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone does the naval rework require a lot of other a27 changes? if not, I could replicate it in community mod so we can get it balanced for a27.

Off the top of my head, I think the naval stuff is pretty standalone, so should be fine.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 hours ago, Atrik said:

• In plenty of games, unit abilities with delays are prized as skill.
• Increasing maneuverability of bolts make them more susceptible to be spammable as a main force alike siege towers.
• The pack/unpack time differentiate catas and bolts by giving opportunities to opponents for responses (units are vulnerable to cavs because of this pack/unpack time).
• Having to carefully plan position of catas/bolts is fun. I play blots ~80% of games they are available for my civ and I enjoy it because it's not failsafe.
• To counter bolts, I often see my opponent running out of their range (at the cost of retreating and losing few soldiers) with a -50% pack/unpack time (remember to move bolts you'll get this delay twice) this evasive technique would be seriously nerfed/useless.

Ok I thought about it and I decided not to reconsider.

• I can't think of an example, at least not in an RTS game.
• no, damage would do that, also remember that ranged units can currently kill catas and bolts easily.
• I would argue 5 seconds easily achieves that.
• Its not like you can't plan their position if they pack faster.
• So "countering bolts" is just "Oh I see a group of bolts packing up, I guess I will walk away and take no damage." yeah that's really fun and cool, well played.

Your last point really highlights their enjoyability (or lack thereof) to play at the moment.

@Atrik I don't think you realize how much 10 seconds is. Its literally almost 1 percent of an 18 minute game.

Edited June 8, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

Also, healing heroes will be strong again. Maybe a .1/s nerf to heal?

Maybe not needed with melee rebalance

Edited June 9, 2024 by chrstgtr

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

21 hours ago, Atrik said:

Kindly reconsider. Crossbow champs are already an option for players that don't want to bother with pack time, no need make the bolts too similar to them.

Thats not a valid comparison because crossbow units don't deal pass through damage.

to be honest -50% would still be pretty long lol

Edited June 9, 2024 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Atrik]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I can't think of an example, at least not in an RTS game.

There are in every single rts excepted maybe in some aoe. Cast time in rts where you have some  'magic' involved, delay bombarding a area in moderns and futuristic themed rts...

 

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I would argue 5 seconds easily achieves that.

@Atrik I don't think you realize how much 10 seconds is. Its literally almost 1 percent of an 18 minute game.

Your last point really highlights their enjoyability (or lack thereof) to play at the moment.

You could also allow forts to be built 50% faster.  More enjoyable for the one building it, it's no fun to have to wait 1min for it to go up.

It's exactly the same reasons why bolts need to take time to set up. They are extremely strong, so they need to give room for counter-action.

 

I actually didn't expect my comment to have any effect on you pushing it. I'm already playing bolts often and will be one the most advantaged by this modification.
This will add (another) archive that I warned you about a change that would be bad and you ignoring it. Please note I mean no disrespect, this situation simply arise from the fact that you less experienced from playing less.

I will regret, however, the subsequent patch (community mod 0.26.10?) that would nerf the damage of bolts because of them being too strong when being used as replacement for ranged unit. I prefer their current balance that give them their role as support/artillery unit.

Edited June 9, 2024 by Atrik