Vox Populi - The Ultimate Balance Mod

[Hannibal_Barca]

@Sundiata is that an oil palm plantation on the pic?

[Sundiata]

@Hannibal_Barca Yes, oil palm is native to my region (West-Africa). It's been cultivated for at least 4000 years here in Ghana. Those are small-scale informal farms though, mixed with other crops like cacao, cassava, cocoyam, plantains, corn, cabbage, carrots, peppers, tomatoes, onions, and eggplants. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Sundiata

[Hannibal_Barca]

Updated mod

@Nescio your suggestion for trade didn't seem to work properly

It changed the trade values but you got something like 27 across a whole normal sized map.

[Nescio]

51 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Updated mod

@Nescio your suggestion for trade didn't seem to work properly

It changed the trade values but you got something like 27 across a whole normal sized map.

And? Your intention was to make trade less profitable, right? To me this seems to work properly; besides, with upgrades the income will probably be higher; traders don't have to gain more than they costed in a single trip.

[Hannibal_Barca]

Just now, Nescio said:

And? Your intention was to make trade less profitable, right? To me this seems to work properly; besides, with upgrades the income will probably be higher; traders don't have to gain more than they costed in a single trip.

As traders are easy targets for raid and stuff.. I dont think this will work

Something around 50-60 for 1 trip was my intention, also to have short distance trade not 4 but maybe 10

[Nescio]

20 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

As traders are easy targets for raid and stuff.. I dont think this will work

Something around 50-60 for 1 trip was my intention, also to have short distance trade not 4 but maybe 10

You can easily change the normalization (the “/ 100” part) or add a constant in the “gain.traderGain” line; e.g. if you think gain ought to be twice as high, just put a “ * 2” before the “;” .

Edited September 9, 2017 by Nescio
ce

[Hannibal_Barca]

Thanks

 

[Nescio]

... or change the “gainMultiplier”; by the way, have you disabled your “/simulation/data/technologies/trade_nerf.json”? I think it's unnecessary to have a separate technology if the problem exists and can be solved in the “/simulation/helpers/TraderGain.js” file

[Hannibal_Barca]

Just now, Nescio said:

... or change the “gainMultiplier”; by the way, have you disabled your “/simulation/data/technologies/trade_nerf.json”? I think it's unnecessary to have a separate technology if the problem exists and can be solved in the “/simulation/helpers/TraderGain.js” file

Not yet but I plan to now that I know how

Currently playing a game with @Feldfeld, nigel87 and 2 others

[Hannibal_Barca]

replaced lines 40 and 43:

let distanceSq = firstMarketPosition.distanceToSquared(secondMarketPosition);
gain.traderGain = gainMultiplier * distanceSq / 10000;

with:

let Ndistance = firstMarketPosition.distanceTo(secondMarketPosition)/ 70;
let NdistanceP = Math.pow(Ndistance, 1.5);
gain.traderGain = gainMultiplier * (Ndistance + NdistanceP);

 

Thus getting the following results: (they might still be a bit high but its definitely going in the right direction)

 

ORIGINAL

 

 

WITH CHANGES

 

@mimo, @elexis I couldn't help noticing you disputing about the "Trade based on Map Size" patch @Grugnas submitted

This could be an answer, but again I know nothing about this

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Hannibal_Barca

[Hannibal_Barca]

Updated to 22.0.5

[Nescio]

So you've changed the distance normalization from 100 m to 70 m? (Don't forget to update the comments between lines 40 and 43).

 

You also might want to have a critical look at simulation/data/technologies/trade_convoys_speed.json, because at 200 metal this town phase research is both much cheaper and more effective than any of the other market technologies. *1.25 (i.e. +25%) walk speed means 1/1.25=0.8 (i.e. -20%) travel time which means 1/0.8=1.25 (i.e. +25%) trade income. Maybe lower it (to +10%?) and make it more expensive (add a 200 food cost?).

[Hannibal_Barca]

54 minutes ago, Nescio said:

So you've changed the distance normalization from 100 m to 70 m? (Don't forget to update the comments between lines 40 and 43).

 

You also might want to have a critical look at simulation/data/technologies/trade_convoys_speed.json, because at 200 metal this town phase research is both much cheaper and more effective than any of the other market technologies. *1.25 (i.e. +25%) walk speed means 1/1.25=0.8 (i.e. -20%) travel time which means 1/0.8=1.25 (i.e. +25%) trade income. Maybe lower it (to +10%?) and make it more expensive (add a 200 food cost?).

As it happens, I just deleted the comments

As for the trade tech, it seems a nice idea but maybe 15% and current cost would be good enough.. after all players don't directly associate walk speed with huge gain, bet most of them think the profit techs are better (noone is going to get out a calculator ingame or even if bored - unless that's you )

Edited September 10, 2017 by Hannibal_Barca

[Nescio]

1 minute ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

As it happens, I just deleted the comments

As for the trade tech, it seems a nice idea but maybe 15% and current cost would be good enough.. after all players don't directly associate walk speed with huge gain, bet most of them think the profit techs are better (noone is going to get out a calculator ingame or even if bored - unless that's you )

Maybe it's just me, but I don't need a calculator to immediately recognize +25% speed is far more effective than +10% gain

 

 

Anyway, another, unrelated suggestion: replace simulation/data/auras/structures/wonder_pop_2.json with:

{
  "type": "player",
  "affects": ["Player"],
  "modifications": [
    { "value": "Player/MaxPopulation", "multiply": 1.1 }
  ],
  "auraName": "Glorious Expansion",
  "auraDescription": "Further increase the population limit by +10% per wonder owned (requires \"Glorious Expansion\" tech).",
  "requiredTechnology": "pop_wonder",
  "stackable": true
}

Because when playing with smaller population sizes (e.g. default maximum of 100), +40 really unbalances the game, and +10% would be much better (which works out at +10 at 100 and +30 at 300).

[Hannibal_Barca]

I don't think why anyone would pay 1k each res +2k food, 3k wood, 500metal stone  for 10+10 pop

when its so hard to accumulate enough res even for your own units with 100 pop max

[Nescio]

 

6 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

I don't think why anyone would pay 1k each res +2k food, 3k wood, 500metal stone  for 10+10 pop

when its so hard to accumulate enough res even for your own units with 100 pop max

Actually I would (and do), if I can afford it, because 100+10+10=120, which gives you a huge advantage against foes who're limited to just 100. Anyway, if you're not interested, perfectly fine, I don't really care, it's your mod, not mine

Edited September 10, 2017 by Nescio
ce

[Hannibal_Barca]

3k food, 4k wood, 1.5k stone, 1.5k metal for 20 pop

with that you can get full upgrades and have some res to spare, that's more of an advantage

Also to build the wonder itself takes manpower

So  thanks for the suggestion anyway but I'll keep it as it is

[Servo]

I'm glad @Hannibal_Barca and @Nescio are working together. Hope you will consider Nescio units need metal. 

Btw run animation not working really and it does on desert maps sometimes. 

[Nescio]

Working together? I only posted a few critical remarks because stanislas69 mentioned me earlier in this topic. If Hannibal_Barca decides to do something with any of my suggestions, then that's entirely his decision; it's completely his mod.

(Personally I think it's better to let it evolve on its own way, without aiming to emulate any of the other existing mods; always be critical of my suggestions and do not hesitate to reject them.)

[Hannibal_Barca]

11 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Working together? I only posted a few critical remarks because stanislas69 mentioned me earlier in this topic. If Hannibal_Barca decides to do something with any of my suggestions, then that's entirely his decision; it's completely his mod.

(Personally I think it's better to let it evolve on its own way, without aiming to emulate any of the other existing mods; always be critical of my suggestions and do not hesitate to reject them.)

I agree, personally I don't see eye-to-eye with @Nescio in a lot of things and units costing metal is one of them

Being Vox Populi as it is, I don't hear the masses clamouring for all units to cost metal

[Stan`]

The idea is to get things moving while keeping the trace on what has been done and why it didn't work. If it takes two mods to do that. So be it.

[Nescio]

5 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

The idea is to get things moving while keeping the trace on what has been done and why it didn't work. If it takes two mods to do that. So be it.

Why just two? I'm aware of the existence of half a dozen ongoing modifications (in chronological order):

• The standard public mod included in the default 0ad distribution
• wowgetoffyourcellphone's “Delenda Est”: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/forum/448-delenda-est/
• my (Nescio's) own “0abc”: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22779-0abc-mod/
• user1's “Pro Balance”: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22798-pro-balance-modconcept-please-test/
• Grugnas' “Monkey Wrench”: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22855-monkey-wrench-balance-mod-alpha-22/
• this (Hannibal_Barca's) “Vox Populi”: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22869-vox-populi-the-ultimate-balance-mod/

But there are probably many more

 

Different people have different ideas. The more mods there are available, the better. Having ideas you don't want to see implemented is also useful. Disagreement often can be constructive in discussions.

[Grugnas]

Actually balance opinions always travel on different trails and that could be reasonable as long as they are mods only. multiplayer is the only thing suffering from that mods splitting tendency because getting more people involved to play and try mods online is quite time spending. Also most of strategies invented in multiplayer are also valid in single player.

My personal point of view is that knowing already used strategies helps a lot to know about different units performance and perhaps how civs game style could "evolve" during the game.

[Stan`]

@Nescio Yeah there are a lot ^^ My point was that diversity was not a bad thing

[Hannibal_Barca]

Updated to 22.0.6

Currently in progress of thinking up a possible new pair tech for armor. (Maybe Lamellar vs Plate?)

It'd be nice to add a few techs to the main vanilla game, maybe not too many so that they don't fit but a few