Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[chrstgtr]

13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Hopefully I don't get any blame for the lack of content.

No one reasonable will be upset with you. You did/are doing a great job. 

Assuming this all gets implemented into a27, there will be several new changes--maybe more than a24--and we did it without adding a new civ. That is a huge accomplishment. On this note, thanks to @wraitii and @Stan` for creating this project--I think it's been a huge success and one that makes a27 much more likely to succeed even though a27 will likely include a large number of changes. 

Thanks, @real_tabasco_sauce and everyone else who participated here

[real_tabasco_sauce]

10 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If I remember correctly the Team bonuses were almost rejected last time and have since been quite successful in terms of player feedback.

I think they were almost rejected. I think a lot of voters are not looking on gitlab to see the specifics before voting. Also many might dislike change like @Norse_Harold said.

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

24 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Thanks, @real_tabasco_sauce and everyone else who participated here

Yep let us hope that the mod contributors are still willing to progress the game despite having their best work outvoted by people privileged to have both no work invested in patches and near total ignorance of the patch itself.

Its a shame that people are denying this effort a chance to even be tested. A26 was a fine alpha even before the community mod, aside from the han fields bug. People must understand that there was a risk of the Athens team bonus being OP for example, but we voted for it because we wanted to try it out.

Edited December 11, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[real_tabasco_sauce]

If you want a better look at the upgrades (all visible in the tech tree), here is the branch made into a mod:

unit_upgrades.zip

[Dizaka]

44 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I would like more people to have this mindset. 

People are saying that all the upgrades in the system being bundled together is a bad idea. I suppose the alternative is to have 23 fractions of the system all in series in the poll. If you support this way of voting for the system please state the advantages.

My understanding:  Votes for a change should be informed votes.  That is, to make changes as appealing and unanimously supported/voted by the community so that there is a greater likelyhood of adoption in a27 (if even possible) it would be best to vote on this when changes are properly elaborated.

Problem:  Yes, someone can go through code, but not everyone can read code.  Yes, someone can go through comments, but not everyone has the time to read the comments.  Doing the items in series is an alternative to if the item is not described properly in the changes.  I spent 20 minutes reading through all the items and voting on obvious things.  Then I spend 30 minutes reading through the comments to find item 3 changes and to try to piecemeal what the 23 changes are.  I couldn't find enough of a descriptive of all the individual 23 items that were changed/added.  This doesn't necessarily mean that those changes are bad.  But I do not want to jeopardize the integrity of the process.

I can't make informed votes on changes, that likely, are good when they aren't descriptive if I want a high chance of other changes making it into a27.  My reasoning is that I want to protect the integrity of the whole vote process to make sure that the changes in the community mod are likely to be given a strong weight by stan and the dev team.

Maybe add a 4th option "better description needed" in the votes?

Edited December 11, 2022 by Dizaka

[Feldfeld]

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

#7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive.

Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes?

I'll explain a few of my votes.

I voted no for #7 because elephants are already borderline OP in my opinion and this will buff them a lot. I imagine this will make them 1-hit kill a lot of units. On top of that, personally i'd like perhaps a return of catapult splash damage and i'm not sure the change prepares well for it.

I voted no for the cavalry nerfs for reasons I already explained in this thread.

Voted no for #9 pikemen because while the current situation may be not great i feel this change lacks a bit of vision and turns them slowly into spearmen.

Voted no for #11 crossbows because in my opinion they are rather weak.

Voted yes for all well supported proposals except #2 Alexander which I skipped.

Voted yes for #3 unit specific upgrades. IMO it is good that it is a complete change (and not divided into many changes) because otherwise it would be way too slow, and the changes go well together.
Whether the upgrades themselves are good, that I don't know without playtesting but it looks like a nice change to try for me.
It also acts as a cav nerf as it removes the cavalry speed and health upgrades.

It would be nice if a changelog for the mod can be shown in the game for people who don't follow the forum. I remember autociv had some form of changelog when it was updated.

[alre]

3 hours ago, Dizaka said:

My understanding:  Votes for a change should be informed votes.  That is, to make changes as appealing and unanimously supported/voted by the community so that there is a greater likelyhood of adoption in a27 (if even possible) it would be best to vote on this when changes are properly elaborated.

Problem:  Yes, someone can go through code, but not everyone can read code.  Yes, someone can go through comments, but not everyone has the time to read the comments.  Doing the items in series is an alternative to if the item is not described properly in the changes.  I spent 20 minutes reading through all the items and voting on obvious things.  Then I spend 30 minutes reading through the comments to find item 3 changes and to try to piecemeal what the 23 changes are.  I couldn't find enough of a descriptive of all the individual 23 items that were changed/added.  This doesn't necessarily mean that those changes are bad.  But I do not want to jeopardize the integrity of the process.

I can't make informed votes on changes, that likely, are good when they aren't descriptive if I want a high chance of other changes making it into a27.  My reasoning is that I want to protect the integrity of the whole vote process to make sure that the changes in the community mod are likely to be given a strong weight by stan and the dev team.

Maybe add a 4th option "better description needed" in the votes?

right. at the time I voted I hadn't noticed that the upgrades were civ specific, for instance.

btw @real_tabasco_sauce don't make this personal, it's the worst thing you could do. no one wants to reject changes because they don't appreciate your work, and no one wants to feel obliged to accept changes out of appreciation of your work alone. that would be bad. (personally, I skipped that question, for various reasons that have been said already by others)

anyway, mind that all civs can train mercs after capturing buildongs that train them.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Im frankly just surprised so many would reject such a large addition of content to the game. Almost nobody would vote no on a new civ, even thought they may not understand all the details on the new civ.

8 hours ago, Dizaka said:

what the 23 changes are

@Dizaka did you follow the link provided? https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25

It is a tech tree, a system, found in the barracks/stable for each unit. Each of these 23 is an upgrade for a particular unit type. among them, there is a level 1 (town phase, costing 100 food, wood, metal) and a level 2 (city phase, costing 200 f,w,m). They do not effect mercenaries. Each civ is allotted 4 to 8 of these upgrades for units which are important to their play style, and also depending on balance. (for instance, I didn't give the skirmish cav upgrade to mauryans).

each upgrade is also designed to give differentiating qualities to units (longer pikes, increased pikemen cavalry counter, spearmen prepare time upgrade).

The idea is that the upgrades one civ has access to are at least a little different from another, and different advantages/disadvantages come from this.

I hope you can see that they all work together as a system and that adding a select few of them wouldn't work well.

A lot of you mentioned you like them, but a few things are remain unappealing. What would you personally change about the upgrades?

5 hours ago, alre said:

btw @real_tabasco_sauce don't make this personal

It's hard not to. The fact of the matter is that I put a lot of time into these thinking new content would be widely approved of. For so many people to vote no on the grounds they don't understand it is pretty disappointing.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

I voted no for #7 because elephants are already borderline OP in my opinion and this will buff them a lot. I imagine this will make them 1-hit kill a lot of units. On top of that, personally i'd like perhaps a return of catapult splash damage and i'm not sure the change prepares well for it.

see, this is a good reason to vote no. Thanks.

[alre]

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It's hard not to. The fact of the matter is that I put a lot of time into these thinking new content would be widely approved of. For so many people to vote no on the grounds they don't understand it is pretty disappointing.

you are doing great work and I'm sure that if you give it some time you will get to make a lot of sense out of this whole story. your work isn't wasted, you can propose it again next time after taking the feedback. criticism is fundamental to development, (game development, but really, any tipe of development) you can't make a good product without collecting some failures on the way.

for the time being, I really recommend you to not make the mistake of taking it personally, it's just how work works. (pardon the pun)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, alre said:

you can propose it again next time after taking the feedback.

yeah I probably will later, but I don't have any clear feedback. Just saying it's confusing is pretty unhelpful. Anything can be confusing the first time you see it. 

Anyone have specific changes they would like to see in the upgrades? Maybe allow them to apply to mercs too? Maybe they are too expensive?

The icons are all quite good matches, so theres not really much to improve there.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok @Stan` @wraitii it looks like only 5 of the 11 were supported enough: 1,2,4,8 and 10.

With more votes I don't expect any of the other merge requests to change.

[Dizaka]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Im frankly just surprised so many would reject such a large addition of content to the game. Almost nobody would vote no on a new civ, even thought they may not understand all the details on the new civ.

@Dizaka did you follow the link provided? https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25

It is a tech tree, a system, found in the barracks/stable for each unit. Each of these 23 is an upgrade for a particular unit type. among them, there is a level 1 (town phase, costing 100 food, wood, metal) and a level 2 (city phase, costing 200 f,w,m). They do not effect mercenaries. Each civ is allotted 4 to 8 of these upgrades for units which are important to their play style, and also depending on balance. (for instance, I didn't give the skirmish cav upgrade to mauryans).

each upgrade is also designed to give differentiating qualities to units (longer pikes, increased pikemen cavalry counter, spearmen prepare time upgrade).

The idea is that the upgrades one civ has access to are at least a little different from another, and different advantages/disadvantages come from this.

I hope you can see that they all work together as a system and that adding a select few of them wouldn't work well.

A lot of you mentioned you like them, but a few things are remain unappealing. What would you personally change about the upgrades?

Here's are my concerns and suggestions for #3 after going through everything and summarizing it for myself (note:  this took 2+ hours.  Not a simple vote item).

Final Conclusion Statement:  It's a great idea and it's something where 0ad should strive for "civ differentiation."  However, the main issues is that base units needs to be balanced and roles more defined.  That is, spear/pike/sword/axe, bow/skrim/sling/xbow, cav vs infantry, need to be more defined.  Currently, cav are OP for endgame even without the proposed upgrades.  As it stands, the upgrades, I think, would make 0ad a cav-centered game.

 

Suggestion/Middle ground:  A checkbox in community mod to "enable" this over base game.  Alternatively, a new "community mod" type but then this wouldn't get usage.

 

My analysis is based on the following "data" and extraction of information.

 

 

·      Athenians

o   Horseback training

• • • P1
    • .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime
    • .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread
  • Husbandry
    • P1
    • 1.1 Health/Max
  • Chamfron
    • P2
    • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
  • Longer slings
    • P2
    • +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange
    • 1.1 Attack/Ranged/PrepareTime
  • Basic Training
    • P1
    • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
  • Battle Charge
    • P2
    • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
    • 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed

·      Britons

o   Husbandry

o   Chamfron

o   Longer slings

o   Basic Training

o   Battle Charge

·      Carthaginians

o   Heavy draw weight

• • • Available P1
    • Maury/Kush/Carth/Hah
    • 1.15 attack/ranged/damage/pierce modification
    • 1.5 projectile speed modification

o   Horseback training

• • Basic Training
  • Battle Charge

·      Gauls

o   Horseback training

• • • P1
    • .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime
    • .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread

o   Husbandry

o   Balanced Javelins

• • • P1
    • +30 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Speed
    • 0.7 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread

o   Spear Thrower

o   March training

• • • P1
    • 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed

·      Han

o   Heavy draw weight

o   Horse Racing

• • • P1
    • 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
    • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
  • Lancing tactics
    • P2
    • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
    • .25 Attack/Melee/PrepareTime
  • Streamlined Fletching
  • Longer Pikes
    • P1
    • Sele/Mace/Ptol/Han
    • +4 Attack/Melee/MaxRange
  • Basic Training
  • Battle Charge

·      Iberians

o   Horse Racing

o   Lancing tactics

o   Balanced Javelins

o   March training

·      Kushites

o   Heavy draw weight

o   Horseback training

o   Horse Racing

o   Greaves

• • • P1
    • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack

o   Lightly Armored

• • • P2
    • 1.3 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
    • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
    • -1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
  • March training
  • Hand Guards
    • P2
    • 1.1 Health/Max
    • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack

·      Macedonians

o   Horse Racing

o   Lancing tactics

o   Streamlined Fletching

• • • P1
    • 1.5 Attack/Ranged/projectile Speed
    • 0.8 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread
  • Longer Pikes
  • Buttspike (Rome?)
    • P2
    • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
    • 1.5 Attack/Melee/Bonus/BonusCavMelee/Multiplier
  • Balanced Javelins
  • Spear Thrower
    • P2
    • Mace/Rome/Gaul
    • +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange

·      Mauryas

o   Heavy draw weight

o   Scouting tactics

• • • Available P1
    • Adds 10 to vision & range
  • Cavalry Heavy Draw
    • P2
    • 1.15 attack/ranged/damage/pierce modification
    • 1.5 projectile speed modification
  • Husbandry
  • Chamfron
  • Greaves
  • Lightly Armored

·      Persians

o   Scouting tactics

o   Cavalry Heavy Draw

o   Heavy Axe

• • • P1
    • 1.65 Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack
    • 1.5 Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush
    • 1.5 Attack/Melee/RepeatTime
  • Raiding Cavalry
    • P2
    • 1.15 Motion/Walk
    • 1.25 Motion/Acceleration
    • 0.75 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
  • Basic Training

·      Ptolemies

o   Scouting tactics

o   Horse Racing

o   Lancing tactics

o   Longer Pikes

·      Romans

o   Horse Racing

o   Lancing tactics

o   Balanced Javelins

o   Spear Thrower

o   March training

o   Hand Guards

·      Seleucids

o   Scouting tactics

o   Cavalry Heavy Draw

o   Horse Racing

o   Longer Pikes

• • Buttspike
  • Balanced Javelins

·      Spartans

o   Horse Racing

o   Balanced Javelins

o   Basic Training

o   March training

 

 

 

• "Heavy draw weight"
  • Available P1
  • Maury/Kush/Carth/Hah
  • 1.15 attack/rangedd/damage/pierce modfication
  • 1.5 projectile speed modification
• "Scouting tactics"
  • Available P1
  • Pers/Sele/Ptol/Maur
  • Adds 10 to vision & range
• "Cavalry Heavy Draw"
  • P2
  • Maur/Sele/Pers
  • 1.15 attack/rangedd/damage/pierce modfication
  • 1.5 projectile speed modification
• Heavy Axe
  • P1
  • Pers
  • 1.65 Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack
  • 1.5 Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush
  • 1.5 Attack/Melee/RepeatTime
• Raiding Cavalry
  • P2
  • Pers
  • 1.15 Motion/Walk
  • 1.25 Motion/Acceleration
  • 0.75 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
• Horseback training
  • P1
  • Gaul/Athen/Kush/Cart
  • .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime
  • .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread
• Horse Racing
  • P1
  • Rome/Mace/Kush/han/Iber/Ptol/Spart/Sele
  • 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
  • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
• Lancing tactics
  • P2
  • Mace/Han/Rome/Ptol/Iber
  • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
  • .25 Attack/Melee/PrepareTime
• Husbandry
  • P1
  • Athen/Brit/Maur/Gaul
  • 1.1 Health/Max
• Chamfron
  • P2
  • Athen/Maur/Brit
  • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
• Greaves
  • P1
  • Kush/Maur
  • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack
• Lightly Armored
  • P2
  • Kush/Maur
  • 1.3 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
  • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
  • -1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce
• Streamlined Fletching
  • P1
  • Han/Mace
  • 1.5 Attack/Ranged/projectile Speed
  • 0.8 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread
• Longer Pikes
  • P1
  • Sele/Mace/Ptol/Han
  • +4 Attack/Melee/MaxRange
• Buttspike
  • P2
  • Mace/Sele
  • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
  • 1.5 Attack/Melee/Bonus/BonusCavMelee/Multiplier
• Balanced Javelins
  • P1
  • Iber/Mace/Spart/Gaul/Sele/Rome
  • +30 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Speed
  • 0.7 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread
• Spear Thrower
  • P2
  • Mace/Rome/Gaul
  • +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange
• Lead Shot
  • P1
  • 1.3 Attack/Ranged/Damage/Pierce
  • 1.25 Attack/Ranged/Damage/Crush
  • 1.2 Attack/Ranged/RepeatTime
• Longer slings
  • P2
  • Athens/Brit
  • +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange
  • 1.1 Attack/Ranged/PrepareTime
• Basic Training
  • P1
  • Athen/Pers/Brit/Spart/Cart/Han
  • 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce
• Battle Charge
  • P2
  • Athen/Brit/Cart/pers
  • 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration
  • 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
• March training
  • P1
  • Iber/Rome/Gaul/Kush/Spart
  • 12.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed
• Hand Guards
  • P2
  • Rome/Kush
  • 1.1 Health/Max
  • +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack
• •  

 

Civ-Balanced.docx Upgrades-Balanced.docx

Edited December 11, 2022 by Dizaka

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hi @Dizaka thanks a lot for this feedback. Do you mind if I use the list you made in the unit specific upgrades description in Gitlab?

first: I think you meant to say 'P2' and 'P3' not 'P1' and 'P2'.

I think the current cav concerns will remain since we were unable to agree on a nerf for them. I thought the health adjustments were pretty ideal, but it seems players had their concerns with them since many voted no.

Keep in mind that the existing "cavalry_health" and "cavalry_speed" upgrades would be removed here as @Feldfeldmentioned, so the upgrades would technically buff infantry more than cavalry.

What do you mean by "defining the unit roles"? Are you saying the units are too similar for these upgrades to make sense? Are some upgrades too similar? Also what are the red, underlined parts?

[Dizaka]

  

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Hi @Dizaka thanks a lot for this feedback. Do you mind if I use the list you made in the unit specific upgrades description in Gitlab?

Go for it.  That's why I included the files so there is no need to "repeat" the work.

 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

first: I think you meant to say 'P2' and 'P3' not 'P1' and 'P2'.

Ooops

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think the current cav concerns will remain since we were unable to agree on a nerf for them. I thought the health adjustments were pretty ideal, but it seems players had their concerns with them since many voted no.

Keep in mind that the existing "cavalry_health" and "cavalry_speed" upgrades would be removed here as @Feldfeldmentioned, so the upgrades would technically buff infantry more than cavalry.

Sounds good

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What do you mean by "defining the unit roles"? Are you saying the units are too similar for these upgrades to make sense? Are some upgrades too similar? Also what are the red, underlined parts?

What I mean by that is, for example:

Macdonians:  They don't have non-champ xbow.  However, the upgrade (Streamlined fletching) for xbow is provided for them.  Currently, that upgrade seems pointless and/or their champions too strong?

Another Point:  Certain civs feel "empty."  I genuinely feel that each civ should have tank/ranged for both cav and infantry.  There are a few civs don't have both for cav unless you include mercs.  That is, cav usually win games.  If civs don't have cav tank/ranged combos then they are weak civs.  I think this could be changed with more diversity by doing chariots and mounted cav and mixing this up and making elephant cav viable for some civs (sele/Maury).

Another Point:  Maury elephant archers are sidelined by 2 pop.  Their damage has been halved.  They are not used anymore.

Another Point:  Ranged siege is weird situation with infantry attacks.  Same with rams.  I don't understand why these units can't be used versus live units.

Another Point:  Kush axemen.  Are they sword? Are they Spear? Are they Pike?  What is their role?

Another Point:  Persian Axe Cav.  What are they?  What function should they serve?

Another Pont:  Han Halber(sp?)?  Are they just reskined pikemen?  An hybrid sword/spear/pike?  Hybrid sword/pike? Hybrid Sword/spear?  Why do han need pike, spear, and hal.  Could it be hal+ just another one, not all 3?

Another Point:  Heroes without auras?  Sparta comes into mind.  Then Mauryas if temple update is permanent.

Another Point:  Are merc cav even used/useful?

I think the changes being proposed are more of an "overlay" that could be perfected/added in the future but the primary effort should be at making current units more usable.  That's why I think, if it does get implemented, it's as a checkbox for multiplayer in the community mod.  That is, I don't want to live through another "archer update" (which WAS necessary) to make units viable.  I'd prefer all units to be viable BEFORE any changes are put on top for uniqueness.

 

Disclaimer:  I'm of the perspective that 0ad matches, ideally, should be 20-30 minute matches majority of the time.  Anything over 45 minutes is too "hardcore" to attract casual players.  There needs to be an available aggressive early game, aggressive mid game, and aggressive end game.  Phases shouldn't be just "transitions."

Edited December 11, 2022 by Dizaka

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@Dizaka I see what you mean but these issues are individual and outside the scope of the upgrades we discussed. Adding the upgrades would in no way stop updates to elephant archers for example.

that being said, you are right that some of these are areas for improvement:

• ele archers might need an adjustment, they are a little weak.
• the remaining heroes need proper auras.
• I currently envision the kush axemen like a more lightly armored swordsman with an additional crush attack, right now they are basically sword champs but slightly worse.

However:

• Axe cav (persia) were given a buff in 0.26.3 such that they deal more damage than swordcav but remain weakly armored. (the upgrade "raiding cavalry" gives them more speed at the cost of making the unit even weaker). They absolutely have a role at the moment, you should try them out.
• ranged siege can attack soldiers, rams cannot.
• Mercenary cav are still very strong.

Lastly, I doubt such an overlay is possible or even effective. Instead, we can just add what has been voted for into 0.26.4, and then I can modify the upgrades as necessary to be a part of the community mod in a27. (because I really haven't seen any good reasons not to add them.)

this way a27 and 0.26.4 get the more popular items here, and the upgrades could possibly go through a longer period of playtesting.

Edited December 11, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Dizaka]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@Dizaka I see what you mean but these issues are individual and outside the scope of the upgrades we discussed. Adding the upgrades would in no way stop updates to elephant archers for example.

...

Lastly, I doubt such an overlay is possible or even effective. Instead, we can just add what has been voted for into 0.26.4, and then I can modify the upgrades as necessary to be a part of the community mod in a27. (because I really haven't seen any good reasons not to add them.)

this way a27 and 0.26.4 get the more popular items here, and the upgrades could possibly go through a longer period of playtesting.

I'm hoping it is possible.  You can disable/enable allied vision being explored.  I don't see why it'd be impossible to enable/disable technology trees from lobby.

My main concern is 0ad and community mod becoming too divergent and incompatible.  I genuinely like the changes but they are drastic.  To not change the spirit and intent while increasing the complexity of balancing, I would seriously consider the proposed changes as ones that would need a lot of balancing and input/testing.  I think a checkbox would be best choice and I do not mean to belittle your effort because I like the changes but they are drastic but are what is wanted, civ diversification.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Dizaka said:

My main concern is 0ad and community mod becoming too divergent and incompatible.  I genuinely like the changes but they are drastic.  To not change the spirit and intent while increasing the complexity of balancing, I would seriously consider the proposed changes as ones that would need a lot of balancing and input/testing.  I think a checkbox would be best choice and I do not mean to belittle your effort because I like the changes but they are drastic but are what is wanted, civ diversification.

the 5 changes that were voted for can be added in 0.26.4 and could go on into a27. Maybe it is for the best that we postpone adding the upgrades to the community mod until after a27 is released, since this way they would get more playtesting and balancing time in the community mod for a27.

This close to feature freeze, I think players want features they have more confidence in.

Edited December 12, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

also, to anyone, why not reduce pikemen armor and increase damage? Im curious since plenty of complaints exist on pikemen being too tanky.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

also, to anyone, why not reduce pikemen armor and increase damage? Im curious since plenty of complaints exist on pikemen being too tanky.

I think I voted for it, but I fear we are slipping into just making them spears. I don't have any good suggestions here. Maybe increasing attack range, like your 23 unit upgrade patch, would keep them differentiated and then you could decrease armor or something too to keep them from being OP

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I predict that the next time #3 goes up for a vote it will be shot down again, with the same vague reasons given as this time. I just want this written here so that I can quote it when it happens.

 

[Fabius]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the 5 changes that were voted for can be added in 0.26.4 and could go on into a27. Maybe it is for the best that we postpone adding the upgrades to the community mod until after a27 is released, since this way they would get more playtesting and balancing time in the community mod for a27.

This close to feature freeze, I think players want features they have more confidence in.

I like the unit upgrades and definitely think they should be tested and added, but how exactly are we going to test them effectively if the player community doesn't want to be helpful and let it go in the community mod? Seems to me the only option will be to override the player base for their own good.

[alre]

well that escalated quickly

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, Fabius said:

Seems to me the only option will be to override the player base for their own good.

no, this is a community mod. The community has spoken on 5 of the MR's and these are the ones that should be added.

I will revise the upgrades and see if they are of interest later.

[Fabius]

So when do we call an end to the voting and move into the consolidation phase?