Jump to content

Nescio

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.300

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nescio

  2. List of maps with Iberian starting walls?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Hrafnagudh said:

    It still says

    zip I/O error: Read-only file system

    zip error: Could not create output file (/snap/0ad etc to public.zip) :(:(

    The 24, in fact I was trying to apply the patch provided, but I'm still a noob at Linux and I'm having some difficulties xD

    It might have to do with the fact you're using snap. I don't know, I don't use snap. However, rather than trying to apply a patch or manually change it in the public.zip or, it's probably easier to do it via a mod. @nwtour's command looks good. Mods can also be created without the command line.

  3. Getting started.

    in Game Modification

    Posted

    40 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

            { "value": "Cost/BuildTime", "add": 50 },

    There shouldn't be a comma after the last item in a list.

    41 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    Then I start 0ad, enable the mod and see it does not work. Any ideas what additional steps needed to be done?

    No additional steps are necessary: the fact your mod shows up in game implies you've placed it in the correct location, which is possibly the most difficult part, since file locations can vary, depending on your operating system and installation method.

    What do you mean with “see it does not work”? Do you get any errors or warnings? (And did you check and double-check your files for typos?)

  4. List of maps with Iberian starting walls?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nescio
    exclude 0 counts

    On 13/04/2021 at 12:19 AM, Hrafnagudh said:

    Hello,

    is there somewhere a list of the maps in which Iberian does have their starting walls? I was exploring a little and noticed that they are only in casual and not skirmish, and some even have the walls not completed or even just the cornerstones.

    Also, there is some balancing reason behind them not appearing in skirmish maps? I'm new and curious sorry if it is a stupid question

    What version of the game are you using? As pointed out earlier, they're erroneously not placed on any skirmish map in A24, though they were in A23 and earlier versions; it's fixed in the development version (svn, A25).

    Whether or not the Iberians have starting walls is up to the map maker. They're present in some form on most (all?) random maps, several scenarios, and about half the skirmish maps:

    Spoiler 
    
[maps]$ grep -l iber.wall */*.xml

    scenarios/fast_oasis.xml
    scenarios/saharan_oases.xml
    scenarios/sahel.xml
    scenarios/sandbox_iberians.xml
    scenarios/serengeti.xml
    scenarios/siwa_oasis.xml

    skirmishes/alpine_mountains_3p.xml
    skirmishes/atlas_valleys_8p.xml
    skirmishes/belgian_bog_2p.xml
    skirmishes/butana_steppe_2p.xml
    skirmishes/caspian_sea_2pv2p.xml
    skirmishes/corinthian_isthmus_2p.xml
    skirmishes/corinthian_isthmus_4p.xml
    skirmishes/death_canyon_2p.xml
    skirmishes/deccan_plateau_2p.xml
    skirmishes/gambia_river_3p.xml
    skirmishes/golden_oasis_2p.xml
    skirmishes/greek_acropolis_2p.xml
    skirmishes/greek_acropolis_night_2p.xml
    skirmishes/libyan_oases_4p.xml
    skirmishes/lorraine_plain_2p.xml
    skirmishes/neareastern_badlands_2p.xml
    skirmishes/neareastern_badlands_4p.xml
    skirmishes/nile_river_4p.xml
    skirmishes/obedska_bog_4p.xml
    skirmishes/obedska_bog_night_4p.xml
    skirmishes/persian_highlands_4p.xml
    skirmishes/punjab_2p.xml
    skirmishes/saharan_oases_4p.xml
    skirmishes/sahel_4p.xml
    skirmishes/sahyadri_buttes_5p.xml
    skirmishes/skirmish_demo_2p.xml
    skirmishes/syria_2p.xml
    skirmishes/team_oasis_2pv2p.xml
    skirmishes/tuscan_acropolis_4p.xml
    skirmishes/two_seas_6p.xml
    skirmishes/vesuvius_6p.xml
    skirmishes/zagros_mountains_2p.xml

    • Like 1

  8. My langage request was weirdly not accepted

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Rayoun said:

    I created this topic because I didn't understand why Saudi (it's not even really a dialect), Iraqi and Egyptian Arabic could have a project and not the others. Maybe removing them from 0 A.D.'s Transifex could avoid any confusion.

    Exactly! Those were added long ago and are still at 0%. I suspect they were political additions, hence why I started the other thread.

    Meanwhile, standard Arabic (ar) is at 45%. Feel free to improve it further.

  10. What are your thoughts on Cavalry Gather Rates?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Indeed, butchering animals should be compared with butchering animals, not with growing grain, picking fruit, or fishing.

    For comparison, the current food.meat gather rates are: 

    basic cavalry:     5
advanced cavalry:  3.5
elite cavalry:     2.45
female citizens:   1
slaves:            1
basic infantry:    1
advanced infantry: 0.7
elite infantry:    0.49

    Furthermore, cavalry has double the default resource carry capacity (20 vs 10) and melee cavalry twice the walk speed of their infantry counterparts (ranged cavalry a bit less).

    If you want to maximize your food income, don't waste time on hunting, just set up a corral supply as soon as possible.

  14. Let's Fight - Gameplay Balance Mod

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    23 hours ago, hyperion said:

    Seconded. Any number limits except for heroes and wonder, which could be labelled natural, I'd rather see removed entirely.

    Some limits are functional, e.g. war dogs have an entity limit (of 20) because they require 0 population. Domestic animals ought to have a limit too, to prevent lag: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3777

    Towers and fortresses are already limited by their costs and minimum distance; having an entity on top of that is unnecessary, I agree: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3778

    17 hours ago, letsplay0ad said:

    @Radiotraining and @hyperion I agree that hard limits are undesirable. My original intention was to have the number of fortresses you could build be equal to the number of civic centres you had (ie: a castle for every city/village/town), but I couldn't get it to work.

    Why not? You already found the simulation/templates/special/player/player.xml file, just insert: 

      <EntityLimits>
    <LimitChangers>
      <Fortress>
        <CivilCentre>1</CivilCentre>
      </Fortress>
    </LimitChangers>
  </EntityLimits>

     

    37 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    Hello again everybody,

    I was trying to get a multiplayer game going with the mod recently and I tried to update from the first version. I tried to get "letsfight_v0.2.2.pyromod" as it seemed to be the most recent version and the one the host was using. When I downloaded the mods and installed them by following the same procedure as the first release, it seemed to replace the first version of the mod but keep the old name of the first release along with (2.2) after the name. After I save configuration and start mods and go to join a game, I find that I need the "letsfight_v0.2.2" rather than the "letsfight (2.2)"  I am not very good at computer stuff so perhaps someone could point to what I am doing wrong.

    Thanks in advance!

    Locate your local mods folder (see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths ), delete all versions of the mod, then download the newest again.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

    Army composition

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    Yes, that raiding is harder and archers and defensive structures are more effective in A24 is at least partly the consequence of changes made to discourage the so-called “dancing”.

    Units received a patrol wait time of 1 (I guess that's in seconds) and infantry a turn rate of 8, cavalry of 5, elephants of 3 (and that's in radians per second, don't ask me why).

    • Like 1

  18. Let's Fight - Gameplay Balance Mod

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Look what I managed to build with your mod:image.thumb.jpeg.9b1e474d05a0fa05b7044e865e8b9ab8.jpeg

    I can't say I like the hard limit of only 3 fortresses and 10 towers: that might be sufficient for the tiny map size, however, some people play on giant. Nor am I fond of the wall changes, trebling the stone cost and build time of walls (long and medium have the same time) while halving their health. Also, it seems you ignored the differences in resistance levels when lowering structure health.

    • Haha 2

    Army composition

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    This discussion is getting rather specific, perhaps it ought to be split off.

    I also like to point out there will always be an unit that's considered most effective, every release.

    1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    At first I would like to thank Nescio for the data and I will not discuss the validity of the tests. However I disagree with his interpretation. An open field battle with no micro is the best possible situation for the melee (infantry) units and this is the best you can they can achieve. The archers only killed 7 swordsmen, but we have to keep in mind that the remaining 13 probably weren´t full health afterwards.

    First of all, I never claimed those tests are representative: quite the contrary! In games there are simply too many variables. One can't work out the exact outcome of a game on a piece of paper; if that were possible, the game would be rather boring. It's exactly the unpredictability that makes games enjoyable.

    Besides, how something is tested determines the outcome. For instance, I tested with basic units; melee troops get increased attack damage and higher resistance when promoting, unlike ranged troops. Moreover, I placed the swordsmen at range; had I placed them closer or farther away the outcome might have been different. Not to mention the effect of technologies etc.

    I only did those tests to show melee troops can beat ranged troops, contrary to what was claimed in the post I replied to.

    2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    What is a far better number for comparison is not how much the archers kill, but rather how much archers you need to evenly match the swordsmen in open battle(best situation for the swordsmen). My estimate would be that (in the best situation) the swordsmen will be a evenly matched to 30 archers. I would encourage people to find what this exact number is.

    1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    What I do support is the idea that if an opponent has solely archers, say a 40 archer vs. 20 swordsmen in open field situation, the swordsman should be able to inflict huge casualties like killing at least 75% and that something which I currently don´t expect to happen in 95% of A24 situations.

    Yeah, that probably won't happen. The whole “one unit A is worth x unit B”-reasoning is flawed: the outcome of large groups of units is not simply a factor times the number of units involved. I did a few more tests, the outcome might surprise you: 

    20 infantry archers vs 15 infantry swordsmen → archers lost, 7 surviving swordsmen
20 infantry archers vs 12 infantry swordsmen → archers lost, 4 surviving swordsmen
20 infantry archers vs 11 infantry swordsmen → archers won, 10 surviving archers
20 infantry archers vs 10 infantry swordsmen → archers won, 15 surviving archers

    I remember having had a discussion with someone years ago, about a game you might have heard of: Age of Empires II. In that game knights are supposed to be the counter of crossbowmen and yes, a single knight can probably kill three crossbowmen. However, 300 crossbowmen will likely massacre 100 knights. The exact numbers don't really matter. The point is that when massed in high numbers, not all unit types are as equally effective as they are in single combat. (My conversation partner refused to accept this.)

    2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    The current stats is that an archer is both ranged and has a higher DPS than the spearman.

    Looking at damage-per-second values does not give the full picture. Currently javelineers have nearly twice the damage per second archers have, yet the latter are perceived stronger to be than the former. And yes, infantry spearmen have a lower damage per second than infantry archers or swordsmen, but against cavalry archers or swordsmen, the spearmen have a much better attack. Furthermore, pikemen have a damage-per-second less than half that of spearmen, yet pikemen are not worthless at all, far from it, thanks to their +5 resistance.

    • Like 1

  20. Stone and Metal not in Atlas

    in Bug reports

    Posted

    Yes, many templates have been renamed in A24, with the file paths better reflecting the entities. One can gather stone from rocks, from ruins, and from treasures; all three have different gather rates and could be gathered by different units, in principle; hence why their file names correspond with their resource subtype. Likewise, we have fish and fruit, not food.

    Army composition

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Nescio
    typos

    2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    The reason I think for the current meta is that the rock-paper-scissors doesn´t work out/is absent (referring to age of empires 2, there are many of those systems in the game).

    So if our opponent goes solely for ranged units in p1, there should be a counter to punish that decision. Such counter is currently absent and thus players can go for ranged units without punishment.

    What I would suggest is that there would be a counter to going solely for ranged units in p1. An example would be (buffed) mellee cavalry in p1 that will be able to punish players going solely for ranged units. The question I would like to ask if all of us agree that there should be a counter.

    Soft counters, yes please, hard counters, no thanks. Generally speaking, a combination of different unit types ought to be superior to an equally large group consisting of a single unit type.

    As for ranged troops, I created a blank map and ran a few tests, here's the outcome: 

    20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry javelineers → archers won, 10 surviving archers
20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry slingers → archers lost, 2 surviving slingers
20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry pikemen → archers lost, 11 surviving pikemen
20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry spearmen → archers lost, 12 surviving spearmen
20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry swordsmen → archers lost, 13 surviving swordsmen

    Depending how you position them you might get somewhat different numbers, however, the general picture is quite clear: ranged troops on their own are easily killed by melee troops.

    Of course, in actual games, it might be less clear-cut, since there are defensive structures, obstructions, manoeuvring, and differences in player skill, obviously.

  22. Let's Fight - Gameplay Balance Mod

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    19 hours ago, letsplay0ad said:

    Feel free to make other suggestions that you would like to see in this mod.

    A few proposals that could definitely use more testing:

    1 hour ago, letsplay0ad said:

    My intent with this was to have gameplay changes in an easy-to-use and download mod in A24 so that players could play test change more easily since generally most players I know don't know how to deal with version control to test the latest build of 0ad.

    Yeah, only few people have sufficient perseverance to set up the svn version. Mods can certainly help reach a wider audience.

    • Like 1

    Phase Eco Techs (cost and collection rates)

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, badosu said:

    I don't understand this argument, do we have a weekly release or a way to get a recent-ish release in an easy manner? Otherwise I think this is mostly noop

    It was not meant as an argument.

    Setting up the svn development version is not easy for everyone, I'm aware of that, and I fully agree regular previews could greatly help. However, that's beside the point.

    Development of Alpha 25 started a month ago and it has already diverged from A24, on some points more than others. While many things can be tried out in mods, not everything can be emulated. Hence why I mentioned 25000. If you play A24 (stable) and A25 (svn) alongside each other, even for a couple of minutes, you'll already experience a difference.

    • Like 1

  24. Let's Fight - Gameplay Balance Mod

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    11 hours ago, letsplay0ad said:
    • Reduced city phase requirement from 4 to 3 (to encourage boom/earlier aggression)
    • Defensive towers do not count in city phase requirement (to discourage turtling)
    • Sentry towers do not count in town phase requirement (to discourage turtling)

    Actually, that has already been implemented: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25135

    Furthermore, wall towers can no longer shoot arrows in A25.

    I've also written a somewhat similar mod for A24 about two weeks ago; more feedback is appreciated: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37312-balancing-defensive-structures-test-mod/

    3 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

    In regards to turtling being the meta, I'd say it comes down to rotation times

    Yes, I fully agree, this had quite a large impact. I don't know what would be appropiate rotation values, a lot more experimenting and testing by competitive players is needed for that; feel free to write a patch.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...