vision range and balance

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I can't see how you come to this conclusion.

@alre was discussing micro for fighting with horse archers.

2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I usually scout ~100% of a map, with reduced vision it would mean more micro and taking longer.

taking longer, not more micro. Your actions per minute will be the same, whether you queue more waypoints, or scout manually. Most players would not even consider scouting micro to be honest.

Micro is usually just handling the details of a fight: retreating weak soldiers to safety, sniping key enemy soldiers, using formations, even dancing if you are toxic lol.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I still can't find one good reason to not reduce vision of cavalry.

here are some reasons to equalize infantry and cavalry vision to 80:

• general infantry/cavalry balance
  • spearmen more likely to successfully reach or trap cavalry
  • slightly easier for spearcav to chase down ranged cavalry.
  • level playing field for archers versus archer cav (for example in a camel rush)
  • champion cavalry no longer see 96 meters (massive compared to 80, see my pics), slightly easier to defeat.
• scout towers more relevant
• overall more surprising and exciting gameplay.

[alre]

I don't need more excitement when controlling cav. it's already micro intensive enough.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, alre said:

it's already micro intensive enough.

as it should be. They are fast, you should be careful not to wander into spearmen. Again, this will not increase the micro required to use cavalry in any way: you still do the same number of clicks!!!

The only difference is that you have to react a little bit faster.

2 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't need more excitement when controlling cav.

so you like the lighthouse cavalry?

I just feel like once you have a cav army, especially with champions, you basically have fog of war turned off XD. There's no question about where your enemies are.

[hyperion]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Are you just opposed to changing the game?

Ha, it ends with ad hominem ...

Well, if I make a patch to increase the vision range of all units to 120m will you support it full heartedly or are you just opposed to changing the game?

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Are you just opposed to changing the game?

Ha, it ends with ad hominem ...

Well, if I make a patch to increase the vision range of all units to 120m will you support it full heartedly or are you just opposed to changing the game?

[Frederick_1]

4 hours ago, alre said:

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

Woman are busy working. Not having much time to scan the environment. In my youth there was a television format "Länder Menschen Abenteuer" in German TV. The usual complain in reports about more traditional eastern societies, especially nomad ones was that apparently women are doing all the work, meaning building the camp while men was only sitting around in the area next to the life stock.

People growing up in a all secured civilization environment do not get the point that they are securing survival of the group in guarding them and the livestock where the next ambulance and police station is several 100km away.

I would accept it the way it is, modeling the situation of ancient societies. Also with the advantage of horse.

[chrstgtr]

In sum, after being asked multiple times for reasons why cav should have different vision ranges than inf, people have put forward the below reasons. 
 

1. Realism—Cav have a higher vantage point. The argument goes that they sit higher so they can see over objects and just see farther. But standing next to a wall doesn’t stop them from seeing through it so the “seeing over objects” part is inconsistent at best. No one seems to care about the “just able to see farther” part or thinks that it justifies a >10% vision greater range. Even so this realism argument is hard to justify in a world where units can’t see farther than the length of a football field. 
2. Champions—Champs should be able to see farther. This isn’t a reason for different vision ranges for cav and inf. This is a reason for CS vs champs. I also think it’s reasoning (is dubious at best, especially when
3. Micro—shorter vision will mean more micro. This keeps getting repeated so I’ll directly address: this has nothing to with whether cav or inf should have farther vision. It’ll be an impact of a change. Please state why cav should be easier to play and have less micro than inf. 
    

Again, the goal is to unify vision ranges. The length of that range is a separate topic. 
 

Women are a separate topic and will be addressed elsewhere 

[alre]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Micro—shorter vision will mean more micro. This keeps getting repeated so I’ll directly address: this has nothing to with whether cav or inf should have farther vision. It’ll be an impact of a change. Please state why cav should be easier to play and have less micro than inf. 

cavalry already needs more micro than inf, and that's a reason why noobber players sometimes only play inf, and gameplay gets a bit boring under that level of skill. I'd like that level to go down rather than see it pushed up.

I'm constantly saddened by people trying to make the learning curve of the game steeper, like you are doing, because 0AD actually has a good design document, that says that importance of high APM should not be stressed, but rather diminished when possible (understood, @real_tabasco_sauce?).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

51 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Ha, it ends with ad hominem ...

? no I said this because you literally said:

5 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.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 minutes ago, alre said:

cavalry already needs more micro than inf, and that's a reason why noobber players sometimes only play inf, and gameplay gets a bit boring under that level of skill. I'd like that level to go down rather than see it pushed up.

I'm constantly saddened by people trying to make the learning curve of the game steeper, like you are doing, because 0AD actually has a good design document, that says that importance of high APM should not be stressed, but rather diminished when possible (understood, @real_tabasco_sauce?).

ok but how does this patch change micro??

its the same actions per minute.

If anything it makes infantry better, not cavalry. So it is noob friendly. Noobs might not know why they cannot stop cavalry, why they lose so much. Its because the cavalry see their spearmen long before the spearmen see cavalry.

This is not making the learning curve steeper: it is balancing infantry and cavalry vision. A very small change to gameplay. Stop making it something it is not.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 30/07/2022 at 3:18 PM, alre said:

I guess we can equalize the vision ranges of cav and inf, but the way it is now is ok by me.

@alre what happened to this nice attitude? you are now vehemently against the proposal.

[alre]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@alre what happened to this nice attitude? you are now vehemently against the proposal.

no, I didn't change my mind, I just don't agree with you, even if you insist. be cool with that, we won't always be all in agreement.

[maroder]

Just so that everyone here has the same knowledge about what was discussed in the past here are some cross links:

[gameplay] Revisit Vision (and Ranged Attack) ranges : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D76

[gameplay] unify unit vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3487

[gameplay] lower soldier vision range : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3486

[gameplay] increase vision of support units : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3776

 

[hyperion]

37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

? no I said this because you literally said:

5 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.

Edited 19 minutes ago by real_tabasco_sauce

Well, you liked the statement of @borg- where he suggest 40 instead of your 80. So what I see is salami slice tactics, better to nip this trend in the bud.

As for nature, I prefer chess over dice, prefer civilization over ego shooter, I prefer 0ad to be a strategy game over a high apm game.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

18 minutes ago, hyperion said:

Well, you liked the statement of @borg- where he suggest 40 instead of your 80. So what I see is salami slice tactics, better to nip this trend in the bud.

As for nature, I prefer chess over dice, prefer civilization over ego shooter, I prefer 0ad to be a strategy game over a high apm game.

why do you think this changes APM at all. The actions taken are the same. Take for example some cavalry skirmishers encounter spearcav on a head-on collision course.

In both 80 meter and 92 meter ranges (even 200 meters if you like), the player will retreat the skirmishers REGARDLESS of when they see each other. That is one "action"

if they see each other with one second until collision or four, the actions involved are identical.

This patch will not impact the micro required to use cavalry, only the vision range.

it will change some things:

@Gurken Khan said it will take longer to scout the map, i agree. More actions are needed to scout the map, but the rate is the same.

primarily: one must now be a little more careful using cavalry because there is less warning before you encounter spearmen for example. (note that this does not change the "micro" required, as I explained above).

 

also, do not think I want 40 meter vision range. My original patch listed 75 meters, but I kept it at 80 so that less people would shoot it down.

Edited August 1, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Gurken Khan]

29 minutes ago, maroder said:

 

[maroder]

sry bad link

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I don’t mind vision ranges being reduced, because once everyone is p3, I get the impression that everyone can see everything. Perhaps the game is a bit predictable at that stage, but also I find it very hard to surprise anyone. 
 

maybe vision range upgrades for p1 and p2 should be considered along with a broad unification and reduction.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

unification

unification first IMO

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, alre said:

I don't need more excitement when controlling cav. it's already micro intensive enough.

Micro is the same except cav can get distracted more easily…because they have a longer vision range

 

Again, this is about how long the range should be, and isn’t about whether that range should be the same or different than inf

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, hyperion said:

Well, you liked the statement of @borg- where he suggest 40 instead of your 80. So what I see is salami slice tactics, better to nip this trend in the bud.

As for nature, I prefer chess over dice, prefer civilization over ego shooter, I prefer 0ad to be a strategy game over a high apm game.

I don’t even agree with borg as I think women should have the same vision range as inf, but borg was clearly discussing women and not soldiers. He was also suggesting a longer vision range for women as opposed to a shortening of one 

And, again, the length of the vision range is different than unifying the vision range between inf and cav. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by chrstgtr

[Freagarach]

12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Realism—Cav have a higher vantage point. The argument goes that they sit higher so they can see over objects and just see farther. But standing next to a wall doesn’t stop them from seeing through it so the “seeing over objects” part is inconsistent at best. No one seems to care about the “just able to see farther” part or thinks that it justifies a >10% vision greater range. Even so this realism argument is hard to justify in a world where units can’t see farther than the length of a football field.

Horseriders don't need to look where they're walking and can focus on the environment?

(Intentionally not stating any preference in this discussion.)

[hyperion]

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I don’t even agree with borg as I think women should have the same vision range as inf, but borg was clearly discussing women and not soldiers. He was also suggesting a longer vision range for women as opposed to a shortening of one 

Please reread his post. The following simply wouldn't make any sense then "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.."

 

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

And, again, the length of the vision range is different than unifying the vision range between inf and cav. 

Well, it's perfectly natural and realistic for those ranges to be different. As we don't build a simulator and as long as there is a very good reason why for gameplay purpose it must be the same unification is a possibility. The one given here is ridiculous. The one given by @Nescio in D3487 is at least reasonable but was shot down all the same.

 

11 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

maybe vision range upgrades for p1 and p2 should be considered

We had such a release and it's plain awful if your units change behavior based on phase. This experiment was reverted right away.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Freagarach said:

Horseriders don't need to look where they're walking and can focus on the environment?

(Intentionally not stating any preference in this discussion.)

But the vision is still longer if both units aren’t moving. The logic is inconsistent. 
 

A bit off topic, but this reminds me of how I think vision range should reflect what a unit is doing at any given time so that units actively engaged in eco/fighting should have the shortest vision, units walking/riding should have medium ranges vision, and units standing still should have the longest vision. That seems far more realistic than the current scenario and gets at the “distraction” idea you bring up

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Any more voters want to cast their vote?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone, maybe @borg-, other balancers too.