[Community mod] Melee rebalance

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Nobbi said:

Did raiding with JAV CAV still work in your tests?

Yes it did. Of course, the main objective with early raids is to find easy kills, so this is relatively unaffected. However, they are now more easily stopped with melee units.

In addition, sword and spear cavalry will now be more viable units for raiding, whereas currently a spearcav takes a long time to kill even 1 woman.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@Nobbi

The core of the issue of the booming meta is that training soldiers is simultaneously the best economic and military process. In order to resolve the issue citizen-soldier infantry need to lose a good portion of their economic value. There is a whole other discussion on this, but the leading suggestion is to introduce a male economic unit that can be trained from the cc.

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

17 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

There is a whole other discussion on this, but the leading suggestion is to introduce a male economic unit that can be trained from the cc.

Or just do this:

https://0ad.old.mod.io/two-gendered-citizens

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Or just do this:

https://0ad.old.mod.io/two-gendered-citizens

That is not the same thing. It results in no gameplay change, because it does not change the value of citizen-soldiers.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

That is not the same thing. It results in no gameplay change, because it does not change the value of citizen-soldiers.

ehh, the mod affects gathering rate of infantry by -20%. Can definitely discuss whether that is enough or not though. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

ehh, the mod affects gathering rate of infantry by -20%. Can definitely discuss whether that is enough or not though. 

The citizens-soldiers would still be the best option for getting metal, stone, and acceptable for wood (they won't die to raids). Having two separate economic units is nice because the women can be trained faster from cc as well as houses, and male eco unit would be made exclusively from cc and be used for different economic tasks. I think the gather rate reduction would need for cs in this case would need to be more like 50% or 60%. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The citizens-soldiers would still be the best option for getting metal, stone, and acceptable for wood (they won't die to raids). Having two separate economic units is nice because the women can be trained faster from cc as well as houses, and male eco unit would be made exclusively from cc and be used for different economic tasks. I think the gather rate reduction would need for cs in this case would need to be more like 50% or 60%. 

I disagree with 2 different gathering units based on gender. Best to go with Citizens vs. Slaves or something, but I know that might be "controversial" (but just how controversial is probably over way stated). DE tried having different units for male and female citizens and male and female slaves. Quickly decided to streamline it though. Reducing soldier gathering rates by half seems about right. I didn't want to go overboard with the citizens mod and was conservative.

[Nobbi]

@BreakfastBurrito_007

On 09/04/2023 at 12:59 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@Nobbi

The core of the issue of the booming meta is that training soldiers is simultaneously the best economic and military process. In order to resolve the issue citizen-soldier infantry need to lose a good portion of their economic value. There is a whole other discussion on this, but the leading suggestion is to introduce a male economic unit that can be trained from the cc.

 

 

Is there a thread about this discussion?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 09/04/2023 at 11:18 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

controversial

there are very few countries in which it is controversial.They are less than 7 countries. Isn't it more controversial to kill people?

Or the weapons?

[Lion.Kanzen]

You have to introduce the explorer, either be a foot unit or horse unit.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

update:

• reduced ele archer damage in accordance with other ranged units
• increased all buildings hack armor by 5 (40% less hack received, compared to melee units + 50% hack damage)
  • siege units as well

Edited May 6, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[LetswaveaBook]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Instead of proposing automated workarounds, let’s actually address the root of the problem:

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...melee_buff?from_project_id=36954588&page=2&straight=false

I looked at the statistics and I see that most ranged units lose 20% attack, and most melee units get around +50% and -2 armor.

The war dog seems an outlier. It gains +50 attack boost, but no durability penalty

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I see that most ranged units lose 20% attack

Which ones are -20%? It was my intention to make them all -25%.

Some slight rounding up vs down does make some just above or just below 25%, but there shouldn't be any with 20%.

I didn't change the dog armor, should I reduce its HP some?

[LetswaveaBook]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Which ones are -20%? It was my intention to make them all -25%.

You are right, it is 25% HP.

 

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I didn't change the dog armor, should I reduce its HP some?

The statistics in you mod suggest that the dogs now should win against both ranged infantry and spearmen in a 1v1. I dont know if that is desirable. Especially since if you send the dogs directly to the ranged units, then they are good at taking them out in A25. That becomes only more potent in your mod.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

The statistics in you mod suggest that the dogs now should win against both ranged infantry and spearmen in a 1v1. I dont know if that is desirable. Especially since if you send the dogs directly to the ranged units, then they are good at taking them out in A25. That becomes only more potent in your mod.

yes, I think I should reduce HP some, as the armor is already 1 for all levels.

Alternatively, I could leave their damage unchanged, as we don't want the dogs able to 2-hit women.

[Adeimantos]

I've played with the mod some, and I believe it is an improvement. Might want to reduce the Gaia fanatics in Caledonian valleys map, they can be pretty dangerous early game with extra attack.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5055

Edited June 18, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

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.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5055

Do we have a timeline on when a27 comes out? Thoughts on doing another community mod update for a26?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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.

Edited June 19, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Freagarach]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Do we have a timeline on when a27 comes out?

It'll take "a while".

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Thoughts on doing another community mod update for a26?

It may be more representative to make a community mod based on the latest RC. We can refrain from including balancing changes in SVN and merge (all/most of) the patches from the community mod just before releasing a new RC.

[chrstgtr]

 

14 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

It'll take "a while".

It may be more representative to make a community mod based on the latest RC. We can refrain from including balancing changes in SVN and merge (all/most of) the patches from the community mod just before releasing a new RC.

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

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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.

Edited June 19, 2023 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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.

[chrstgtr]

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

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.

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