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

[chrstgtr]

26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

potential community mod ideas:

1. Let siege turn past 45 degrees without stopping (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5201)(improves pathing and clunkiness)

2. Reduce catapult and bolt shooter prepare time (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5131, already committed for a27)

 

I like both.

With (2) already committed to a27, I see no reason not to include it.

Speaking of a27 commits, I think the Iphicrates patch would also be nice to get into the community mod too. 

What is your plan for the next community mod, mostly cleanup with arrows/melee balance? I think that is a good plan. 

If you want to add new ideas, I think the wonder is ripe for reform. Ton of things we could do there. But right now it does basically nothing.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah, mostly trying to optimize the rebalance and arrows situation. That and bringing in some of the more simple a27 stuff like the changes to immortals: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5202

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The "no" votes on #3  smh

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The "no" votes on #3  smh

Yeah I think the game is very much in need of a more diverse tech tree and I think this would be a great way to introduce more interesting tech combinations for different civs. I will redo a lot of these upgrades at some point to be a little bit more interesting.

Also I think ppl would be more interested in them after the naval rework, since those techs are very similar.

Edited March 24, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah I think the game is very much in need of a more diverse tech tree and I think this would be a great way to introduce more interesting tech combinations for different civs. I will redo a lot of these upgrades at some point to be a little bit more interesting.

Also I think ppl would be more interested in them after the naval rework, since those techs are very similar.

There are many things that have not touched yet.

For example techs for increase range of sight.(First it would have to be reduced)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

we got the new one out! Unfortunately its called 26.8 not 26.7

[Outis]

15 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

we got the new one out! Unfortunately its called 26.8 not 26.7

Is there a release note?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yes, and its now in the game!

Go to settings-> community-mod, and you will see the patch notes in order of release.

The 26.7 changes are shown, but I had to make a 26.8 version because of an issue

[Atrik]

On 18/02/2024 at 5:10 AM, guerringuerrin said:

 

Alright, I think I ended up finding a pretty interesting middle ground solution. As you can see I added a new button inside Settings menu (instead of using the Options window) which opens a separate window with the changelog, a Close button and a Link button which opens the GItlab Repo as the images shows.

What do you think of this?

 

Why wasn't this implemented?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

It was, I just checked it out. unless something went wrong with your installation?

[Atrik]

Nice! @BreakfastBurrito_007 Ok I was just loading wrong version to play.

[hamdich]

Members of Balancing team are a fight between each other about what w and what not to change . No wonder every new 0ad version and evey comunity mod is instantly dissliked by  both newbs and pros

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@hamdich I think they are instantly disliked just because of human discomfort with change. For instance, some players told me the game was broken because I made cavalry archers OP in 26.6 (I made them much weaker).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

** first bug**

Both the melee and ranged immortals may be trained from the barracks, the price for the ranged one is mistakenly the full champion price. The correct price is the price of the melee version.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Second: no icons appear for iphicrates aura, the aura still works.

[chrstgtr]

10 hours ago, hamdich said:

Members of Balancing team are a fight between each other about what w and what not to change . No wonder every new 0ad version and evey comunity mod is instantly dissliked by  both newbs and pros

There should be rigorous debate. If you look back in trac at some of the least popular changes, those were the changes that typically had the least discussion or where dissenting opinions where just outright ignored. 

Disagree on each version of the community mod being disliked. To be honest, all the versions before 26.6 were pretty widely liked at initial release and those changes are still widely approved of. 

There are mechanisms to reverse changes. Indeed, we appear to be in the midst of changes with buildingAI and melee rebalance. 

[0 calories]

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@hamdich I think they are instantly disliked just because of human discomfort with change. For instance, some players told me the game was broken because I made cavalry archers OP in 26.6 (I made them much weaker).

make in-game change list and we gonna get fine.. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

settings->community-mod

[Atrik]

@real_tabasco_sauce Good thing you tried to make rams more maneuverable and durable.

For the defense building debuff of -50% it seems to me a ridiculous overshot. Defenses were a good way to prepare for asymmetrical battles and the only thing that was needed was to better options to break through them.
Increasing the cost and build time of sentry towers also feels sad, as often, building some early was already a sized investment. I would wish for a total revert of those changes. I rarely play defensive, but, it seems to me to decrease the 'viable' strategies and this is bad.

[Nobbi]

On 25/03/2024 at 6:09 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yes, and its now in the game!

Go to settings-> community-mod, and you will see the patch notes in order of release.

The 26.7 changes are shown, but I had to make a 26.8 version because of an issue

Hi, that is a nice thing to see the changes. I still don't find when the archer firing rate got decreased to 1.25 (from 1) and I also missed the discussion about it here in chat. I think. Where did it come from?
Besides that the change log has some mistake in it. Like Hans don't have elephants so it doesn't matter for them if splash damage was introduced or for pike there is written twice the Hack damage is decrease but I think one of it is armour.

[Player of 0AD]

Why has the targeting behavior of buildings not been changed back to the original state? 24 people voted that its a bad change, only 15 voted that it's a good change. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/110338-polls-about-community-mod-version-266/#comment-563146

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, Atrik said:

@real_tabasco_sauce Good thing you tried to make rams more maneuverable and durable.

For the defense building debuff of -50% it seems to me a ridiculous overshot. Defenses were a good way to prepare for asymmetrical battles and the only thing that was needed was to better options to break through them.
Increasing the cost and build time of sentry towers also feels sad, as often, building some early was already a sized investment. I would wish for a total revert of those changes. I rarely play defensive, but, it seems to me to decrease the 'viable' strategies and this is bad.

I agree, I think I overshot for towers and forts. Maybe even for CCs too. Forts really have no reason not to be formidable when fully garrisoned, so I would probably increase their firing period from 4 to 3s.

I think with a couple adjustments and some techs for fort and tower arrow damage (or maybe phase dependent damage) it might work out pretty well.

I didn't change the sentry tower build time, and I'm still evaluating the cost increase.

Edited March 27, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

Why has the targeting behavior of buildings not been changed back to the original state? 24 people voted that its a bad change, only 15 voted that it's a good change. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/110338-polls-about-community-mod-version-266/#comment-563146

 

That poll offered no way forward. Its a bit more complicated than a yes or no situation. 

Another poll showed players have mixed feelings about it, but it showed 3 clear issues.

The most agreed upon solution was to let building arrows be random unless targeted by the player. I tried this, but it was kind of a disaster to implement, so I went with the next most popular progressive solution which was to adjust building arrow counts.

Also, I have still not heard 1 reason from anyone why the building arrow behavior is bad that could not be explained by arrow counts. So why is the behavior itself problematic @Player of 0AD?

The fact of the matter is that building arrows were balanced under a random behavior and changing the behavior has clearly thrown off this balance. If we can restore balance, then we will be left with a new mechanic.

Edited March 27, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Another poll showed players have mixed feelings about it, but it showed 3 clear issues.

This poll is equally clear that non-random arrows is disliked:

• 66% of votes cast called for random buildingAI for CC/fort ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely," "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted," or "Make the civic center and fortress shoot at random unless targeted")
  • Note this 66% vote share is as great or greater than questions 3 and 4, which you point to as a clear issue).
• 61% of votes cast called for random buildingAI to be reversed for all buildings ("Reverse the non-random arrows entirely" or "Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")
• The largest vote getter called for random buildingAI ("Make buildings shoot at random unless targeted")
• But a less popular buildingAI behavior was implemented ("Balance the CC, Tower, and Fortress arrows"). In every way, this was a disfavored option by the voters. 

To the extent there are "mixed feelings" it is whether a player should be able to override random buildingAI and manually target units.  

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I went with the next most popular progressive solution which was to adjust building arrow counts.

This doesn't consider the likely outcome of a rank order vote.

This is like if you asked people what their favorite ice cream flavor was and gave them the options of dark chocolate, milk chocolate, and vanilla and the votes came out as below:

• Dark chocolate (3)
• Milk chocolate (2)
• Vanilla (2)

In this scenario, it is clear the people want to chocolate but spread their votes out between two similar options. Same too here. Rebalancing non-random arrows is only popular to the extent that you ignore 2/3 of all votes. Put simply, non-random arrows is/was unpopular.

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also, I have still not heard 1 reason from anyone why the building arrow behavior is bad that could not be explained by arrow counts. So why is the behavior itself problematic @Player of 0AD?

The fact of the matter is that building arrows were balanced under a random behavior and changing the behavior has clearly thrown off this balance. If we can restore balance, then we will be left with a new mechanic.

No one has put forth a reason why a new mechanic is needed. By your own admission, the old mechanic worked fine. Change should not inherently be favored. 

It is also untrue that no one has explained why non-random arrows is bad or why random arrows is good. It is just a question of personal preference, which has clearly been expressed several times at this point by the larger community. 

Edited March 27, 2024 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

By your own admission, the old mechanic worked fine.

I said random arrows were balanced, and I agree with that. But it was silly, boring, and resulted in a lot of unfavorable gameplay. Surely you realize we are not giving non-random arrows a fair shake here since they are not yet balanced ideally.

Diving under buildings without consequence, buildings acting like a timer for the soldiers to leave, Healer auras invalidate arrows, lack of control over arrows.

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

It is also untrue that no one has explained why non-random arrows is bad or why random arrows is good. It is just a question of personal preference, which has clearly been expressed several times at this point by the larger community.

So the reason that non-random arrows is bad is personal preference?