real_tabasco_sauce
-
Posts
1.830 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce
-
-
3 hours ago, Vantha said:
I think it would add variety to, for example, increase one champion unit's damage and decrease its resistance. Maybe decrease another unit's price at the cost of making it less powerful. Or (like with mercenary champions) just change the price to make one unit cost only metal, or no metal and more food and wood. This would allow for more strategies and build orders. But that's just my opinion. What do you think?
Yes, there are already some units like this.
An example is the gaul fanatic unit. It only costs food and wood and is very fast, but they are weak and train from temples. I think it would be nice to start introducing some 'unique' champions.
-
Yes, I’ve checked for duplicates, but I will look further.
the <civ>.json section is empty for both civs, except for where I added the women promoting to maiden infantry civ bonus. so all of the problematic ones are coming from technologies.
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone @borg- @chrstgtr
I made some major gameplay revisions for the two nomadic civilizations in terra magna, Scythians and Xiongnu.
- Horses can't build
- buildings must be in own territory
- nomadic civ bonus where buildings decay 5x slower.
- Ovoos are a weak but cheap territory root that may be built in neutral territory, available p1. Stone upgrades are back in the storehouse.
- Scythian women promote to maiden infantry.
- Maiden cavalry are available from the temple in p2 and are a fast, weak, high damage raiding unit.
- Skilurius has a cavalry discount and can directly train maiden cavalry.
- Scythians have p2 access CS javelin infantry and in p3 unlock champion spear infantry using a tech.(with a new mixin merc_inf_champ)
- xiongnu start with axemen and access swordcav and spearmen in p2.
-
xiongnu yurts can upgrade to royal yurts in p2 which train 3 warlords for each royal yurt.
- warlords start as high damage, vulnerable axemen that can weopon switch to a cavalry archer which is only slighly slower.
- Royal yurt limit of 5 means total of 15 possible warlords
- warlords cost extra food and metal and provide a damage and speed aura for surrounding units
-
Xiongnu can access 'Han diplomacy' from the CC in p2, which allows the construction of the han embassy (academy).
- In p2, the embassy can train mercenary crossbows.
- in p3, the technology unlocks catapults and medium warships, as well as allowing champion chariots and spear infantry from the embassy.
Spoiler
I think this is a great framework from where we can proceed, but a few things are still needed:
- Xiongnu 'heavy cavalry' spearcav champ (use icon from warlord, which was a spearcav)
- Warlord needs a new icon featuring an axe.
- Royal yurt = bigger yurt with more bling.
-
some really basic ships for xiongnu/scythians.
- I think even some raft style vessels will suffice, but they have to have some navy.
- here, I toyed with the concept of a 'mercenary' chinese ship for the xiongnu.
- The stable needs some structure: some small yurt attached, or a shed-like structure.
- For the scythians, split the corral from the stable (my opinion)
- Ideally, they should also have some sort of siege workshop and dock.
-
lastly, figure out what is going on with technologies and civ bonuses. You will see that there are a lot of duplicates in the civ bonuses part of civ overview. I deleted these, but they remain :l
- I also deleted the special yurt based phase up for xiongnu since it is OP, but this also remains unfazed.
-
1
-
1
-
What do ppl think about mercenary champions? Should they be a thing, or should all champions stick to the food/wood/metal cost profile?
-
1
-
-
no, I just restarted the game. Everything else is updated when I make changes, just not technologies.
-
Hi,
I am curious to see if anyone has experienced this before.
I am currently making a proof of concept out of scythians and xiognu so that they can better fit in with the current civs. When I delete a technology, for instance a civ bonus (from civbonuses/) it does not disappear from the civ bonuses section of civ overview and it also keeps affecting the game. The same goes for other technologies, I might remove a technology from the game, but it still works perfectly.
These techs are not in vanilla and I do not have the original Terra Magna installed in addition to my modified version.
Perhaps these technologies are referenced elsewhere, or maybe there are duplicates somehow?
-
Yeah I agree with @Dizaka. I think mace don't really need as much a rework as sparta did. I would be happy with something like this, possibly also with either a technology or bolts available in p2.
-
I guess we have seen no complaints for making a 5th release of the community mod. @wraitii is there still time to do this?
would it be possible/good to keep the 4th version on modio in case people want to keep playing that version?
-
not a fan of the metal trickle idea. The mace team bonus is already fine IMO, maybe just buff it or otherwise tweak it to make things more interesting.
P2 siege workshop with either access to bolts or access to a unique siege upgrade would be great. This would be all that is needed to set mace aside as a siege civ.
I think storehouses should remain in territory.
-
Allow the siege workshop to be built in p2. (Perhaps access to bolt shooters in p2??)
this would behave somewhat similarly to the ele stable for Maury, and could make for some very interesting builds.
in addition it makes the swift early siege push more attractive which seems like a Macedonian hallmark.
-
Maybe it hasn’t inherited vision range from the parent?
-
9 hours ago, wraitii said:
Edit: ran them, looks like it fails 'cause the pipeline is broken.
If people are OK with the changes I can merge them regardlessDo you think it is worth it to open a poll? Maybe not, I think most players will be happy to get a preview of some a27 content, but there might be complaints about shaking up the meta.
To alleviate those complaints, It would be good to keep 26.4 on mod.io.
-
10 hours ago, alre said:
I'm very opposed to non-random building ai.
I don't want to make too big a side topic, but care to elaborate why?
-
Ah, well @chrstgtrthe reasoning there is that the Maury heroes are already committed. The idea is to test the current gameplay of the release candidate + those 3 new changes.
maury and Han will be the only 2 civs affected by the already committed patches. Fortunately, if we want to just assess the catas, eles, and melee rework without the heroes confounding, all we have to do is play other civs.
I left the buildingAI patch off since that probably needs to wait until after a27.
-
These auras do not stack. The same goes for the centurion aura, and most auras of the same unit or building.
I think the Han ministers are an exception.
-
https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests
Ok they are there. Let me know if you recommend any last minute changes.
Also, not sure why the pipeline is failing. Are they still able to be merged, or do I need to change something @wraitii@Stan`?
-
on second thought, maybe I will just make a single merge request for all of the a27 gameplay changes + the ones from above. Maybe just the important ones.
-
15 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Seems like option 2 is potentially less work if we have to adjust anything/un-commit anything. Option 1 doesn't seem like it really saves any time
So should I make a merge request for just these?
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5055 (melee rebalance)
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5054 (along with other ele changes)
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5053 (catapult changes)
I guess I can't just blanket update all of simulation because those files probably reference things that wont be in a26 (like art files). There aren't really a whole lot of other really important balance changes, but is there anything else I should add? Maybe the new maury hero auras.
maybe https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4964? or should it wait?
-
46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
We could either commit gameplay patches and then update the community mod to version 5, or update the community mod and then add changes as merge requests.
I think the first option could be done faster, but if it is more appropriate to do the second (seems weird to commit and then test), I could get to work on merge requests for the three patches I just made.
-
43 minutes ago, Mentula said:
This is against Fastest click wins. With automatic batch size, one single click is enough.
I like the sound of your idea a lot more than the progui solution.
However, you are free to use the mouse wheel to decide a batch size. Also, you can train a batch before the previous one is complete, so the fastest click does not necessarily win. Other decisions and clicks massively outweigh this.
I agree that the auto queue cancellation issue is problematic, but there should be a more elegant solution. I think freezing the queue would be ideal, no?
Maybe freezing vs cancelling the queue could then just be a settings option.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Thanks.
It seems like we should at least do melee mod rebalance, elephant changes, and cata changes. Those are all straight forward balancing items that shouldn't cause bugs but need to be tested. Best case all get implemented before a27.
Problem with testing in RC is that there is lack of players, which means less testing
Well it would certainly make RC balance testing much easier to release the gameplay changes in the a26 community mod. I think we could feel confident with more ambitious changes like the melee rebalance with this approach.
We could either commit gameplay patches and then update the community mod to version 5, or update the community mod and then add changes as merge requests.
@wraitii what do you think?
I feel like I always try to get ppl to try the RCs and only 4 to 5 players will download, so this would be a great way to get a lot of feedback.
-
Here is my TLDR, sorry it is a mess. I pretty much agree with @Atrik here but add a couple thoughts.
I tried it to get a cleared picture. I can already tell that the level of automation (autostart, choosing a unit composition for autoqueue) is consistent with macros, if not doing even more tasks for the player.
I won't judge anyone for using it in casual games, and I have already played a few with @Atrik and others and it was fine. But in a competitive setting it should be considered cheating.
I think the reason to consider it cheating is what @Feldfeld described, where a p2 attack to distract the enemy while you flawlessly boom is pretty much a guaranteed win.
On top of that, it is bulky (4 options tabs, lots of screen space) and complicated on its own. It takes time to learn, just like the game underneath. So based on that I would say it is unwise to add to vanilla as some have suggested.
overall, I think its a great tool, especially for new players who might just want to have fun with the AI as well as casual players that don't like the number of clicks needed to manage eco. However, it shouldn't be allowed in competitive games.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Thoughts on doing another community mod update for a26?
Thats a good idea. Not sure if there are other things that would be good to include. Maybe the rebalance is significant enough it should be merged by itself.
Even if there is only 1 month before release, I think that would still be enough time to playtest thoroughly. That is, assuming players adopt the 5th version.
-
ok, I just made some small edits to the mod, but importantly released it on mod.io
So if you would like to test, but haven't yet please do.
Suggestions for 0 A.D.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
yeah, I think they should be unique in various ways. Ive just put together some cool ideas for the nomads civs in terra magna but there is still plenty of missing art for those civs.