vision range and balance

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I mentioned this elsewhere but I think it deserves it's own topic.

Cavalry can see more than infantry in the game because they are sitting on a horse. I understand they are on a vantage point, but 12 meters more is very excessive. Also, vision range is impeded by the same things regardless of height. (hills trees etc) Fog of war represents these obstructions and provides excitement to gameplay. Even if it were realistic (which it really isn't) I think it is problematic for gameplay that cavalry can see more than infantry, because these units are already difficult to kill with their infantry counter, spearmen.

lets do some comparisons

1. cavalry versus infantry (citizen soldiers)

92 meters vs 80 meters.

Spoiler

this is a substantial difference (12 meters) especially because the area is much larger with increasing radii.

 

2. champion cavalry versus champion spearmen

96 meters vs 80 meters

*notice that champion cav get an additional 4 meters while champion infantry do not get additional vision.

Spoiler

 

3. Champion cav versus outpost

the outpost is unupgraded by the way.

Spoiler

 

I think it is ridiculous that cavalry can see so far to be honest. At best, it is inconsistency, and at worst, it is a serious balancing issue between infantry and cavalry.

When people complain that late game cavalry death balls are invincible, this is likely a significant contributor.

 

Luckily, I have already made a simple patch and a mod for a25 to fix this discrepancy:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744

vision.zip

These both make vision ranges for all infantry and cavalry 80 meters. Give it a try if you like.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[alre]

I don't see the issue. the problem whith cavalry death balls is not vision. I guess we can equalize the vision ranges of cav and inf, but the way it is now is ok by me.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 minutes ago, alre said:

the problem whith cavalry death balls is not vision.

I said it is a contributor. Obviously there are many other reasons.

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

At best, it is inconsistency, and at worst, it is a serious balancing issue between infantry and cavalry.

basically cavalry can see their main counter (spearmen) long before the spearmen can see them.

Another example: camel rushes are easier to pull off because camels can see infantry archers before infantry archers can see camels.

[LetswaveaBook]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

camel rushes are easier to pull off because camels can see infantry archers before infantry archers can see camels.

Camel rushes are mainly viable because the Ptolemaic player has a better economy and can create the camels in unmatched numbers. In the scenario editor I matched an infantry archer against an cavalry archer in a duel and my experience is that the infantry archer won more often than it lost.

Cavalry are units with a bigger footprint and are easier to hit. This (partially) offsets their higher HP.

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I said it is a contributor. Obviously there are many other reasons.

If cavalry late game deathballs needed to be nerfed, it would rather suggest to remove the+10% health upgrade.

Furthermore the extra vision probably affect cavalry more in the early game than in the late game. Also, the player with the most cavalry might not always be the one benefiting the most from the extra vision. If I had only half as much cavalry as my opponent, I would very much like my cavalry to see the enemy cavalry from a larger range and escape.

I don't think that reducing their vision actually solves the problem you are aiming at. However since I haven't tested it I can't say if less vision for the cavalry makes the game better or worse.

[hyperion]

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I said it is a contributor.

It is not, at least not of any significance.

The issue with cavalry is for them to be usable as they are currently in P1 they will end up OP in P3. It's not about the difficulty to change this but the opposition you will face.

Anyway I really dislike this proposal.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If I had only half as much cavalry as my opponent, I would very much like my cavalry to see the enemy cavalry from a larger range and escape.

 

exactly, the same goes for infantry. I bet you would like to escape infantry spearmen, but its very very easy since champion cavalry see farther than an outpost.

5 hours ago, hyperion said:

Anyway I really dislike this proposal.

you literally disagree everywhere, but I still have not seen why

Edited July 31, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, hyperion said:

opposition you will face.

you are the only one in opposition to my knowledge.

[alre]

count me as well. I don't see benefit in the added micro for exploring and handling horse archers. those things are already noob-unfriendly.

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

you literally disagree everywhere, but I still have not seen why

many have talked about why, he may just agree. besides, your own motivations are very weak.

[chrstgtr]

10 hours ago, hyperion said:

It is not, at least not of any significance.

The issue with cavalry is for them to be usable as they are currently in P1 they will end up OP in P3. It's not about the difficulty to change this but the opposition you will face.

Anyway I really dislike this proposal.

This just isn’t true. In A23 they were usable (and very good, in fact) but not OP like they are now. Your axiomatic statement also suggests that inf should be OP in p3 just because they are useful in p1 right now. This just isn’t a reason for/against the proposal. 

Please state a reason why cav should have longer vision than infantry—because no one here has given one yet.

In my opinion, cav already have the benefit of speed which helps them escape (or entirely avoid) bad fights and chase good fights, dps which helps them conduct fights, and health which helps them conduct and escape fights. I find it very difficult to say cav should also have longer vision that will allow them to decide if a fight, which they already gave all the natural advantages in, should start or continue

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Please state a reason why cav should have longer vision than infantry—because no one here has given one yet.

12 to 16 meters longer to be exact, competing with scout towers and catapults.

I would also like to see a reason not to change it.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, alre said:

I don't see benefit in the added micro for exploring and handling horse archers. those things are already noob-unfriendly.

you make a point, thank you. I would honestly say they are more unfriendly to the recipient of a camel/horse archer rush: noobs have an extremely difficult time dealing with camel rushes, often because their own ranged units cannot hit the camels (because the camels see the counter well in advance)

That being said, I don't expect this to increase the micro required. After all, the main micro technique is to retreat vulnerable horse archers as needed (and maybe to snipe enemy ranged units). <- these techniques are limited by attack range more so than vision range.

the lowered vision range will only change the time you have to respond to a threat.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[hyperion]

10 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Please state a reason why cav should have longer vision than infantry—because no one here has given one yet.

Feel free to increase the vision of all units to match catas

 

10 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

In my opinion, cav already have the benefit of speed which helps them escape

Yes, they are to fast, faster than inf is fine but not by this much.

 

10 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

In A23 they were

In A23 they were also much weaker in P1, defense structure were worth more and even anti deathball tactics still existed (splash) making it less obvious.

 

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

you are the only one in opposition to my knowledge.

Well, you only hear and see what you want, not much point arguing further. You prefer dice while I prefer chess.

[chrstgtr]

37 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Feel free to increase the vision of all units to match catas

 

Yes, they are to fast, faster than inf is fine but not by this much.

 

In A23 they were also much weaker in P1, defense structure were worth more and even anti deathball tactics still existed (splash) making it less obvious.

 

Well, you only hear and see what you want, not much point arguing further. You prefer dice while I prefer chess.

None of this disputes the validity of a unified vision range. You just want longer vision ranges. That isn’t the purpose of the proposal. 

[seeh]

I think in the long term, the argument that comes closest to reality should be given the most weight. also because it is then easier to understand intuitively. (We should make all changes in such a way that ideally they can also be understood intuitively. There are many details in this game. Sometimes too many for me.)

ok, i learned camels see 12 meter more. is that realistic?
ok both have the same eyes. and the land in we are playing is mostly flat maybe. I think at first a beginner thinks maybe everything sees about the same distance.
maybe (BTW i like it because i started rushes more often ok. not important). i learned (from @letsWaveBook) better to hit because larger footprint than archer.

whats about the price? ah Cav is a camel + archer on top? but its counted as 1 unit. hmm (fun: way not sit down fight as archer and eat the horse ) .  maybe you want discuss about the  price? thats feels for me understood intuitively better maybe.

Edited August 1, 2022 by seeh

[hyperion]

1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:

None of this disputes the validity of a unified vision range. You just want longer vision ranges. That isn’t the purpose of the proposal.

There is a counter proposal for the stated purpose in the OP which is still not sufficient but clearly more useful towards that goal by @LetswaveaBook in this thread.

I don't want longer vision range, because I'm aware why some people push for low vision (has utterly nothing to do with the stated purpose), but I really dislike any further reduction.

[chrstgtr]

34 minutes ago, hyperion said:

There is a counter proposal for the stated purpose in the OP which is still not sufficient but clearly more useful towards that goal by @LetswaveaBook in this thread.

I don't want longer vision range, because I'm aware why some people push for low vision (has utterly nothing to do with the stated purpose), but I really dislike any further reduction.

No, commentators have conflated purpose and examples of why that might be a good purpose. The purpose is clearly stated by OP and on Phab. See below for examples. 

On 30/07/2022 at 11:40 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think it is ridiculous that cavalry can see so far to be honest

On 30/07/2022 at 11:40 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think it is problematic for gameplay that cavalry can see more than infantry

Quote

The main concern is that cavalry should not have greater vision than infantry

Other commentators have latched onto the cav discussion of why it may be problematic while ignoring the fact that that discussion is a sideshow and that this patch just seeks to unify vision ranges. The "counterproposal" is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with vision ranges much less the actual topic of whether vision ranges should be unified. 

Still--no one here has put forward a reason why the vision ranges should be different across units. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by chrstgtr

[alre]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the lowered vision range will only change the time you have to respond to a threat.

that means more micro. if you think horse archers are op, propose a change to make them weaker, not something that makes them just as strong but more difficult to use, they are already difficult enough. if you want to nerf cav death balls, come up with something that actually nerfs cav death balls.

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Still--no one here has put forward a reason why the vision ranges should be different across units. 

different lines of sight are fine. the cav units stands on a horse, also the cav unit is easier to use this way, especially for nubs. these motivations are good enough for me.

anyway, it's not the end of the world.

[Yekaterina]

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Still--no one here has put forward a reason why the vision ranges should be different across units

People riding cavalry have higher ground so they are more likely to see through obstacles although not by much.

There is zero reason to why women have less eyesight than men, do I propose letting women have identical vision range to men. The current setting is unjustified sexism.

Heroes and champions may have more vision but not by much. The justification being they were more meticulously trained to spot enemy and do maintain good eyesight for fighting. Almost no one had myopia in 0AD because there were few books and no screens. Priests should have low eyesight because they probably got myopia from reading too much text with poor lighting.

[hyperion]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

  On 30/07/2022 at 6:40 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think it is ridiculous that cavalry can see so far to be honest

Right, ridiculous to be able to see moon and stars.

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

  Quote

The main concern is that cavalry should not have greater vision than infantry

A simple Pythagoras can show you the difference isn't enough to "make sense"

 

For me this a matter about the nature of the game, and I object to any reduction of vision range as this is a bottom less pit. If the precedent already only needs such a meek reason when will this stop?

[alre]

19 minutes ago, Sevda said:

People riding cavalry have higher ground so they are more likely to see through obstacles although not by much.

There is zero reason to why women have less eyesight than men, do I propose letting women have identical vision range to men. The current setting is unjustified sexism.

Heroes and champions may have more vision but not by much. The justification being they were more meticulously trained to spot enemy and do maintain good eyesight for fighting. Almost no one had myopia in 0AD because there were few books and no screens. Priests should have low eyesight because they probably got myopia from reading too much text with poor lighting.

women reduced vision is indeed weird and poorly justified. there has already been discussion on this, but no patch yet for what I remember.

[Frederick_1]

1 hour ago, Sevda said:

Priests should have low eyesight because they probably got myopia from reading too much text with poor lighting.

But not the celtic (gauls) durids. They were trained via oral tradition in the nature, and not by lecturing in a library.

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, alre said:

women reduced vision is indeed weird and poorly justified.

Too much handicraft at poor lightning? But I agree, their vision should be the same as the inf's.

[borg-]

Women need a smaller range of vision to provide harassment by the cavalry, especially in the first minutes of the game, increasing their range of vision would be tragic in the current scenario. Currently it is very easy to open the map, in a few seconds you discover all the features of the map and also how the enemy is behaving just using cavalry on enemy borders. Making a general reduction of the range of vision, the player will have to scan the map for new resources, mainly hunting in the first few minutes, watchtower becomes much more important, new CC builds are encouraged, technologies and vision auras like "sibylline books" would again have a good importance, etc..
I'm guessing a number here, but I think something like 40 range would be pretty good to start with.

Edited August 1, 2022 by borg-

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, Sevda said:

People riding cavalry have higher ground so they are more likely to see through obstacles although not by much.

a couple of meters, assuming the earth is a perfect sphere.

For all practical purposes, this is a negligible difference.

3 hours ago, hyperion said:

For me this a matter about the nature of the game, and I object to any reduction of vision range as this is a bottom less pit. If the precedent already only needs such a meek reason when will this stop?

I am not reducing all vision range, just cavalry. No this is not a bottomless pit, because I reduced it to 80 meters and no more. I prefer something less for all soldiers, but this is another discussion.

Are you just opposed to changing the game?

6 hours ago, alre said:

that means more micro.

? no it doesn't mean more micro. It means the same micro in less time. 

 

shall I make a poll?

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Gurken Khan]

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

? no it doesn't mean more micro. It means the same micro in less time. 

I can't see how you come to this conclusion. I usually scout ~100% of a map, with reduced vision it would mean more micro and taking longer. Example Deep Forest: when I sent two cavs riding along enemies' borders, they'll eventually meet (except the ~180m gap) and coming back through the middle cover the whole area; with 24m (combined) less vision range I'll have to send one horse on an additional trip up AND down the map to achieve the same.