Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
borg-

Borg Expansion Pack Mod Release V 1.0.5

Recommended Posts

@borg- I found. the problem with catapults. is a bug when they change to pack to unpacked the unit ai tries  to capture instead of killing it.

 

I'm uploading the record. this time I was careful.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StopKillingMe If you want to discuss the merits or bad things about @borg-'s mod, please do so on specific and concrete grounds, and not just some generic "it's not the way it used to be" or "it doesn't say things this way in the design document". Nothing holds any value on its own, if you can't explain why there is less reason to mention it at all than if you can explain why your point should be taken seriously. And also more specifically in this thread, the Design Document etc doesn't really matter, what matters is the aspects of the mod borg has created and their merit in and of themselves. If you want to discuss whether or not parts of the mod or the entire mod should be included in the main game, please create a new topic to do so.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will recommended your mod with my followers. your changes are very interesting.

  • Can you check @DarcReaver gameplay design and try to incorpore some go the mod? I made a good quality document with solid arguments. Since I understand his points, I'm very open to their duggesting as well yours or Wowget.... are best guy to argue with this matter.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I will recommended your mod with my followers. your changes are very interesting.

  • Can you check @DarcReaver gameplay design and try to incorpore some go the mod? I made a good quality document with solid arguments. Since I understand his points, I'm very open to their duggesting as well yours or Wowget.... are best guy to argue with this matter.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I will certainly look at the document made by @DarcReaver. Where can I find your document @Lion.Kanzen??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I'm not sure if this is the complete one...

 

This one was just about the resources. My other ones should be available here:

 

Also had some other posts somewhere

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The armor thing is rather trivial to implement. Not sure if that makes much sense without formations though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Gindarus

Quote

When the Parthians got to the town, which sat on a small hill, they encountered Roman legions confidently formed in battle order on the slopes. The Parthians rushed to attack - whether this order came from Pacorus or was a spontaneous charge is unknown. In any case, Ventidius ordered his troops, who had the advantage of high ground, to attack the horse-archers advancing up the slope. The horse-archers were forced into close-quartered combat against the legionaries and suffered heavily for it, for they were unsuited for such combat. The Parthian cavalry's will eventually broke and panic spread, many of the horse archers being driven down the slope where they crashed into their fellows in their desperation to escape. The horse-archers eventually fled or fell. Parthian heavy cavalry, which was stationed at the bottom of the hill, was enveloped and surrounded by the legionaries. Instead of immediately attacking with the legionaries, Ventidius made use of his slingers to rain down projectiles on the Parthian heavy cavalry, which included Pacorus himself. 

Who vs Who?  can a army of slingers defeat an army of Cataphracts?

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 8:02 AM, elexis said:
  On 1/17/2019 at 11:09 AM, borg- said:

I have as main objective that this patch / mod is implemented to the a24, if this is the desire of the majority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feedback on your mod is pretty simple:

Giving all civs common startup techs from the CC, and removing the ability to train citizen soldiers from the CC.

IMO, this is a considerable mistake.  The male units that train from the CC are not the same for every civ, some can train skirmishers, some archers, some swordsman, some slingers, etc.  You've removed a feature that makes 0ad unique.  It now takes an incredible amount of time, and wood - to get up a barracks, an archery range, and a stable - in order to make the units that in vanilla you can make from the CC if you want.  Even worse, if your starting horseman dies, you can't create another one until you get up a stable.

IMO, the startup of phase of 0ad does not need to be changed.  Taking away the ability of the players to make citizen soldiers and Cav that can hunt from the CC is not something that in my opinion needs to be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, borg- said:

Thank you for keeping this in evidence.

borg  you are doing the correct thing, if this idea isn't good, probably nobodies care or spread hate. your idea left no one indifferent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, StopKillingMe said:

My feedback on your mod is pretty simple:

Giving all civs common startup techs from the CC, and removing the ability to train citizen soldiers from the CC.

IMO, this is a considerable mistake.  The male units that train from the CC are not the same for every civ, some can train skirmishers, some archers, some swordsman, some slingers, etc.  You've removed a feature that makes 0ad unique.  It now takes an incredible amount of time, and wood - to get up a barracks, an archery range, and a stable - in order to make the units that in vanilla you can make from the CC if you want.  Even worse, if your starting horseman dies, you can't create another one until you get up a stable.

IMO, the startup of phase of 0ad does not need to be changed.  Taking away the ability of the players to make citizen soldiers and Cav that can hunt from the CC is not something that in my opinion needs to be done.

 

Thank you for keeping mod in evidence.

Edited by borg-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, borg- said:

Actually I do not care because he's doing it based on an old version of a mod that is under construction and ever changing. Besides the only one who knows about all the changes is me. That's why I used the word "ridiculous." But this is even good, it will save me a lot of time when I'm finished mod and need to do the documentation.

I gonna use my new building(s) in your mod, if you want an icon for your mod, tell me. even i can try make sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I gonna use my new building(s) in your mod, if you want an icon for your mod, tell me. even i can try make sounds.

In real I need 3 new icons and color changes in some mercenaries templates (blue to green).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, borg- said:

In real I need 3 new icons and color changes in some mercenaries templates (blue to green).

Are you on git yet? It would help make it easier for contributors to keep up. :)

(I'm at work, so I forget if the mod is on git yet or not)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Are you on git yet? It would help make it easier for contributors to keep up. :)

(I'm at work, so I forget if the mod is on git yet or not)

I'll arrange.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 6:22 PM, borg- said:

give me some time. my ageda is full. and i need download the files.

probably I need finish the water supply or see if i can do this before. Theoretically is faster, but Wow still have better specs for the screenshots.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep In mind this vision.

 

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision

 

Especially this, most importantly, without this, you lose the immersion.

Quote

Snares 

It is very easy for a game to fall prey to many of the common mistakes that prove disastrous to the games in the RTS genre. We need to keep our guard up and avoid these pitfalls:

  • Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy.
  • Single path to victory - It seems to be a trend that games cater to a specific strategy that is frequently used to attain a victory. That could be rushing, turtling, booming, etc. We recognise these are valid ways to win a game, but we will attempt to not favour one over another. Players should be able to successfully use (and adapt/change) any strategy to achieve a victory.
  • Sneaky Tricks - Many games overlook some aspects of gameplay that are unintentionally (by the game designers) used to a player's advantage. Through many hours of gameplay testing, we need to identify and eliminate these tricks.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 6:22 PM, borg- said:

Next time a single. Zip file is more easy. I'm working in water supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:10 PM, (-_-) said:

Economic growth is directly related to technological effectiveness. RoN had an "artificial" limit there. It kinda makes sense and is somewhat similar to reality. Although, I would have preferred if it economic growth was an S-curve. It gets harder to grow the bigger it gets with new techs raising the ceiling. Not an arbitrary limit that you can reach within 5 minutes.

I read fieldfield talking today about having decreasing gathering rates for each additionnal units put in a single feld, was that related ?

(it might be someone else but I read somewhere else that historical accuracy is important only as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the wordplay).

Introducing negative externalities/decreasing returns could help to reduce the exponential growth effect. For example, we could also have a lower gathering rate for each additional units using the same storehouse. Then how many dropsites you build wouldn't be just a question of distance to ressources but depends on the number of workers using it (dropsite should then also be balanced between civ). 

    => More thinking = more fun

 

The following isn't related directly to the mod, but it might be considered while implementing changes.

I am wondering about how market barter rate are currently determined. They usually seems quite ok in 1vs1 but in tg, they often get crazy/unfair and can easily lead to game imbalances. In some recent games, I have managed to get to barter efficiency close to 300% thanks to Brennus or some additional mines. In the summary attached, I came to choose a strategy in which I would keep the ptolemies enemy player alive as long as possible just to artificially raise metal prices.

The strategy is quite simple:

 1 - Send army for direct confrontation with the mineral dependant player, it doesn't really matter if it is a good fight or not as long as the enemy loose a lot of units with a high cost in mineral;

 2 - keep sending units until the enemy can't sustain the fight because he runs out of minerals (because he can't gather it fast enough or he is running out of it, in both cases, he would turn to the market anyway)

 3 - once he doesn't react too much anymore, just turn to attack some other enemy, wishing his allies will send him food/wood in the meantime that he will trade for minerals in order to rise his pop again. As soon as it has some new mineral costly units, come back to put more pressure on him and on market prices.

With prices on minerals increasing a lot, you can basically keep just a few women on food (to use for protection against sneaky rams too), delete the rest and leave some men on minerals to gather what you will barter later. The larger your army is, the easier it is to put pressure on mineral prices, and the less units you need then on eco since you get better barter rates, the less units you loose also while fighting because you have a larger army, the less ressources you need to make new units...

Civilizations like ptolemies or athens should be very strong in team game, but sadly, they often just end up looking like junkies. Even kushites could potentially become close to fun with enough metal...

 

Changes in the way map are generated could help, this was already said elsewhere. Another fix (simple but maybe only partial too) would be to changes market barter rates determination. Barter rates of different teams should be independent, it doesn't make too much sense that how much ressources a player is bartering affects the barter rate of his enemy. I don't think they are supposed to barter together.

I also think that market prices volatility is partly responsible for the sustainability of a relatively small number of mineral dependent civs in the same team game. Markets should offer a way for those civ to hedge themself against map-gen risks. Any insurance should have a cost, but if there is a large need for barter and barter efficiency falls too low, then this cost becomes too expensive in the current version of the game (another S curve needed there??) .

Currently, traders seem like an unreliable suppliers to compensate for prices volatility (slow to put in place, hard to protect constantly...). Maybe a few other simple adjustments could be made to improve the game from this perspective, I just gave some ideas above...

 

I was also wondering about a last thing. Would it be complicated/feasible to introduce different land type on the same map ? I do like that currently wood is slowing down units and is preventing sieges from passing. Having some kind of muddy land type which simply slow down all units could introduce a fun strategical dimension to the game. Scooting would give a higher reward, range units would have a bigger advantage in fighting over this type of land etc... 

 

eae !!!

 

TradeWar.thumb.jpg.00411fc31e875e77955551fe567041a2.jpg...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...