Jump to content

0 A.D. A24 gameplay patches


Nescio
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/7/2020 at 6:16 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

@borg-

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2507

What you think of this one.you can try with @ValihrAnt @Stockfish @Feldfeld

Im not sure if can be exploited in a bad way.

In allied territory, @ValihrAnt give a good argument. Some players can spoil your allies with some walls near the center for example.

In enemy territory it is a great idea, however it does not make sense if are converted to the enemy after a few minutes.

In neutral territory I think it would work very well. My only fear is problems with the pathfinder. Some players can abuse it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, borg- said:

are converted to the enemy after a few minutes.

That could be easily solved by removing territory decay from the palisades (making them effectively uncapturable). Moreover, this applies to “neutral” territory too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2019 at 6:47 PM, Nescio said:
  • D2504: Remove territory influence from arch, monument, pillar.
  • D2505: Tweak wall vision.
  • D2507: Allow building palisades in neutral territory.
  • D2687: Tweak gate cost.
  • D2741: Allow rome to build palisades.
  • D2760: Add visible garrison points to gates.
  • D2769: Add visible garrison points to wall towers.
  • D2783: Allow a few more units on medium and long walls.
  • D2803: Reduce palisade health and repair time ratio.

These patches are related, so I bundled them in a mod:

walls_a24.zip

So people can try them out easier. This mod requires the svn development version (A24), mind, not the latest (A23) or earlier stable releases. It allows things like this:

Spoiler

ManTheGates.thumb.png.07f8099525843249f6978858b405cc7e.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six months ago I started this thread. Since then progress and changes have certainly been made, however, new proposals have been uploaded as well, therefore the review backlog on phabricator continues and won't disappear in the forseeable future.

Nonetheless, it would be great if team members (@Angen, @Stan`, @wraitii, @scythetwirler etc.) could have a look at the following, and perhaps commit a few?

Patches that were accepted at least two weeks ago, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted at least a week ago, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted last week, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted by one or more, but others expressed caution, concern, or disapproval:

Everyone, feel free to give your opinions on any of these and other patches on phabricator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Six months ago I started this thread. Since then progress and changes have certainly been made, however, new proposals have been uploaded as well, therefore the review backlog on phabricator continues and won't disappear in the forseeable future.

Nonetheless, it would be great if team members (@Angen, @Stan`, @wraitii, etc.) could have a look at the following, and perhaps commit a few?

Patches that were accepted at least two weeks ago, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted at least a week ago, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted last week, with nobody raising objections so far:

Patches that were accepted by one or more, but others expressed caution, concern, or disapproval:

Everyone, feel free to give your opinions on any of these and other patches on phabricator.

Can you please update the first post too, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, asterix said:

Can you please update the first post too, please?

Isn't it? In the opening post I've listed all open gameplay patches, including those that haven't been reviewed or accepted, and in chronological order they're first uploaded. I believe it's up to date.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2504

This is controversial. It need be "garrisonable" to have root?.

They are civic monument.

Quote

 

Before removing that I'd suggest to try to lookup what the reasoning for introducing it was.
Unsurprisingly the reasoning wasn't documented in the introduction of the template rP11229 and rP12841, but perhaps one can find something on the forums.
I would guess that the idea was that inhabitants near a monument would remain loyal to the owner as they are inspired by the building, so they remain on that site.
Then it'd not be a property of the stone monument that territory is kept, but the effect that the monument has on the nearby inhabitants.
(Similarly it's quite common for example for military units to be motivated merely by a flag or other material objects that can't be garrisoned to remain loyal. I'm thinking about the Aquila for instance)

Not all must have have a natural logic , other are just an abstraction.

---------

This other , is a huge change in early game.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2821

It need more testing.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Angen and @Stan`, thank you for committing those today! There are about a dozen more gameplay patches that have been accepted, some of which weeks ago:

If any of those needs to be rebased or altered, let me know.

Other team members are also more than welcome to get involved, of course. :)

Edited by Nescio
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2020 at 6:11 PM, Nescio said:

@Angen and @Stan`, thank you for committing those today! There are about a dozen more gameplay patches that have been accepted, some of which weeks ago:

If any of those needs to be rebased or altered, let me know.

Other team members are also more than welcome to get involved, of course. :)

@wraitii committed some gameplay patches today, but these twelve are still open, and a few more have been accepted this week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@asterix, @badosu, @borg-, @Boudica, @Feldfeld, @ffffffff, @go2die, @Lion.Kanzen, @nani, @PhyZic, @sarcoma, @sphyrth, @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, @ValihrAnt, @wowgetoffyourcellphone, and others, I'd like your attention for the following.

Currently the right selection panel panel only supports up to 8 × 3 = 24 icons, which limits things for future additions (and mods). There are two competing proposals to address that:

It would be great if you could indicate which one you prefer.

Furthermore, rP23737 unified cavalry walk speeds, but infantry walk speeds are still rather inconsistent. Here too are two competing proposals for:

Then there are also some gameplay patches that are probably an improvement but might significantly alter balance and could really use some playtesting:

Finally, feedback is also appreciated on these two:

And on any other open gameplay patch, which are listed and in the opening post of this thread and can also find via https://code.wildfiregames.com/search/query/fksZuv18waI4/#R

For all of the above, please refrain from posting here, follow the links above instead, and voice your opinions over there on the respective phabricator pages.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Currently the right selection panel panel only supports up to 8 × 3 = 24 icons, which limits things for future additions (and mods). There are two competing proposals to address that:

It would be great if you could indicate which one you prefer.

I vote increasing minimum screen resolution and then making the HUD longer.

13 minutes ago, Nescio said:

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nescio said:

The panel-hight  D2875 looks more better, D2806 looks like the panel is part of the middle panel and not a seperate panel, but the icons looks much more better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I vote increasing minimum screen resolution and then making the HUD longer.

That option is not on the table. Not everyone has a high-resolution screen. Besides, doing that would mean changing many more files, resulting in a much larger and harder to review patch.

Personally I'd actually favour reducing the minimum resolution from 1024 to 960, to allow for easy gui scales:

  • 960 × 1.5 = 1440
  • 960 × 2 = 1920
  • 960 × 2.5 = 2400
  • 960 × 3 = 2880
  • 960 × 4 = 3840

Anyway, that's a different discussion. Back to the topic at hand: do you prefer D2806 or D2875?

Edited by Nescio
D2806
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

Anyway, that's a different discussion. Back to the topic at hand: do you prefer D2300 or D2875?

D2884*

My opnion:

D2300: bad. make civs / unit more similar.

D2884: good and actually necessary.

D2493: necessary for a24. Probably would reverted for next alphas.

D2815: no. not necessary and make civs more similar. 

D2841: good. make celtics less op.

D2866: yes. values proposed better than current alpha.

Edited by borg-
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nescio said:

Currently the right selection panel panel only supports up to 8 × 3 = 24 icons, which limits things for future additions (and mods). There are two competing proposals to address that:

It would be great if you could indicate which one you prefer.

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

Do you prefer D2806 or D2875?

Everyone, feel free to vote in the new poll: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28525-larger-panel-or-smaller-icons/&tab=comments#comment-401080

7 hours ago, Nescio said:

Furthermore, rP23737 unified cavalry walk speeds, but infantry walk speeds are still rather inconsistent. Here too are two competing proposals for:

@Lion.Kanzen, @Lopess, everyone else, any preference?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Furthermore, rP23737 unified cavalry walk speeds, but infantry walk speeds are still rather inconsistent. Here too are two competing proposals for:

I am in 100% agreement with @borg- on these. You are changing combat balance and realism to solve the shuttle speed problem, when the actual solution is to add a shuttle speed feature. I didn't agree with cavalry speed unification either (again, it was done to solve meat shuttling during hunting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I didn't agree with cavalry speed unification either (again, it was done to solve meat shuttling during hunting).

To be clear, D2596/rP23737 removed the walk speed differences between basic, advanced, elite, and champion cavalry, but it did not remove the differences between cavalry archers, javelinists, spearmen, and swordsmen, and it was not done for meat shuttling.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

I want extra row. I don't glasses or goggles so i tend to incline to se better.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2806 <<<<<<<====  I voted 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

To be clear, D2596/rP23737 removed the walk speed differences between basic, advanced, elite, and champion cavalry, but it did not remove the differences between cavalry archers, javelinists, spearmen, and swordsmen, and it was not done for meat shuttling.

Thank you for the correction.

My criticism of unifying all infantry speeds still stands. The justification for D2300 is indeed because of shuttling speed.

Quote

Currently all citizen infantry has the same total resource costs (100), training time (10), and resource gather rates; however, they have different movement speeds, which means faster units (e.g. javelinists) are much more efficient gatherers than slower ones (e.g. pikemen).
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Thank you for the correction.

My criticism of unifying all infantry speeds still stands. The justification for D2300 is indeed because of shuttling speed.

Yes, it is. I proposed D2300 last year after observing various people on the forums want exactly that. Yesterday @borg- requested different changes on phabricator, which is why I created D2884, and am posting in this thread today to inform people there are two alternatives.

Personally I don't have a strong preference either way. Both are valid approaches and a clear improvement over the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is confusion in this patch. D2884 it's basically about champions having same speed of the citizens, more armor expected to be slower than faster (like D2596). Focus D2884 just for champions seems better. We can make other patch for It, and vote on new patch or D2300.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nescio changed the title to 0 A.D. A24 gameplay patches

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...