Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 minutes ago, alre said:

I think the non-diminishing returns are a very big buff actually, even if late. must be well evaluated. maybe it's better to just keep the building bonus.

perhaps yes. Maybe this is something we could remove if it proves to be OP.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

no diminishing returns for farmers.

 

Do you mean the number of builders?

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

no, this is for farmers here.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

also, I added a merge request for unit specific upgrades, after I finally found an image for the last upgrade.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25/diffs

take a look, this could be a large content drop for the community mod.

[chrstgtr]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

no, this is for farmers here.

What the normal diminishing marginal return?

 

Also, do you know what the actual quant impact is? Say how much more food collected by min 10 assuming all fields are max staffed

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

What the normal diminishing marginal return?

90% return,

so i think it's each additional farmer is 90 percent of the previous one.

1st farmer = 100%

2nd farmer = 90%

3rd farmer = 90% * 90% = 81%

4th farmer = 73%

5th farmer = 65%

Maybe I am wrong tho.

Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:

90% return,

so i think it's each additional farmer is 90 percent of the previous one.

1st farmer = 100%

2nd farmer = 90%

3rd farmer = 90% * 90% = 81%

4th farmer = 73%

5th farmer = 65%

Maybe I am wrong tho.

in theory, you would get pretty good benefits from spreading your women out after you move some to a woodline.

[alre]

cumulated effect of proposed bonus:

1 farmer per field: +0% food income

2 farmer per field: +5.3% food income

3 farmer per field: +10.7% food income

4 farmer per field: +16.3% food income

5 farmer per field: +22.1% food income

so if you keep your farms fully staffed, it's +22% food income. it's not wild but it's very good from the moment you get farms.

[alre]

formula: n / sum (for i from 0 to n-1) of (0.9 ^ i)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah not huge, but it's substantial. The main thing is that its present for the whole game time, unlike the discount on construction. 

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, alre said:

cumulated effect of proposed bonus:

1 farmer per field: +0% food income

2 farmer per field: +5.3% food income

3 farmer per field: +10.7% food income

4 farmer per field: +16.3% food income

5 farmer per field: +22.1% food income

so if you keep your farms fully staffed, it's +22% food income. it's not wild but it's very good from the moment you get farms.

Thanks.

So this is about double what the Gauls' extra gathering tech is except it starts immediately and you get it for free. Could be fine--I don't know. Sounds substantial, though. 

My guess is that in the long term this would be less impactful than the extra pop that Persia and Maurya gets, but in the short term this would be one of the best booming features. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 minutes ago, alre said:

formula: n / sum (for i from 0 to n-1) of (0.9 ^ i)

wait, is it 90 percent for each farmer, or only for the added farmer?

In any case, it could be removed or changed to .95 if it is too OP for seles.

Edited December 5, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah not huge, but it's substantial. The main thing is that its present for the whole game time, unlike the discount on construction. 

See above. I lean towards just making it the diminishing marginal returns. Or going bigger on discount cost (i.e., make fields free) and forget about the diminishing marginal return issue. 

[Fabius]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I called it "fertile crescent"

It should help with seles need for food, in particular for eles and cavalry, two Seleucid strengths.

Fertile Crescent sounds good

[Fabius]

59 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

also, I added a merge request for unit specific upgrades, after I finally found an image for the last upgrade.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25/diffs

take a look, this could be a large content drop for the community mod.

That is quite the impressive list, I like the swordsmen techs especially.

[alre]

25 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

wait, is it 90 percent for each farmer, or only for the added farmer?

In any case, it could be removed or changed to .95 if it is too OP for seles.

I believe it's the added one. (otherwise that bounus becomes crazy, like +52.4%)

I think it's more understandable if it's just a building bonus. no matter if it doesn't affect late game.

[hyperion]

The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan, a hidden bonus to a hidden feature doesn't make sense at all. Just because a parameter exits doesn't mean it has to be tweaked. Increase gather rate for a civ if you want a farming bonus.

[alre]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

also, I added a merge request for unit specific upgrades, after I finally found an image for the last upgrade.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25/diffs

take a look, this could be a large content drop for the community mod.

battle axes are actually lighter than normal axes, quicker to handle and sharper, because of how flesh is different than wood.

[maroder]

5 minutes ago, hyperion said:

The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan

yes, I'm not a fan of it. For reference:

But at least in that poll it seems like other people enjoy it.

[chrstgtr]

2 minutes ago, hyperion said:

The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan, a hidden bonus to a hidden feature doesn't make sense at all. Just because a parameter exits doesn't mean it has to be tweaked. Increase gather rate for a civ if you want a farming bonus.

I tend to agree. I don’t like hidden features. Diminishing marginal returns is disclosed, but it’s magnitude is not. So the true impact of this bonus isn’t obvious (hence the above discussion). @hyperion’s suggestion makes the game more comprehendible and can easily be adjusted to do @real_tabasco_sauce‘s civ bonus. 
 

On this, I would also eliminate the diminishing marginal return for buildings, which is entirely hidden (I think). 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

About the "either or" discussion for seleucid civ bonus, I think the farm cost and build time reduction will have more gameplay impact than the elimination of diminishing returns per farmer for seles. The diminishing returns per farmer I think would get treated as a simple food rate bonus and would not as visible or actionable in-game.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok, I'll remove the diminishing returns part, since this is an obscure game mechanic that might be removed anyway.

I think the building and resource cost is good on its own.

Also, an update on centurions:

Spoiler

Rank 3 swordsmen may be upgraded to centurions which are strong champions with an aura: +10% damage and -25% promotion experience.

3 things remain, however:

1. I need to add a limit to them (8 maybe).

2. give them a cost to upgrade.

3. ensure that the auras do not stack.

Edited December 5, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

19 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok, I'll remove the diminishing returns part, since this is an obscure game mechanic that might be removed anyway.

 

I like that. I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 made a great point about how the diminishing marginal returns is not actionable--it really just makes Sele easier. In that case, I think you can give an even bigger cost and/or build time decrease to make it "more" actionable and relevant.  Deceased cost/build time could open up some different build orders (i.e., people would be less likely to chase berries). 

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I like that. I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 made a great point about how the diminishing marginal returns is not actionable--it really just makes Sele easier. In that case, I think you can give an even bigger cost and/or build time decrease to make it "more" actionable and relevant.  Deceased cost/build time could open up some different build orders (i.e., people would be less likely to chase berries). 

to be honest decreasing the cost and build time also would give seles an advantage when it comes to diminishing farmer returns because it would be easier for them to build extra farms to spread out workers to 3/5 per farm or so. Perhaps the diminishing returns is something more players should consider even with the current game, at least I have never intentionally spread out my farmers.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Also, I just made an icon for the Nisean war horses upgrade so that the "chamfron" upgrade can use the chamfron.png icon.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone 

now all the icons are taken care of.

 

[chrstgtr]

51 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

to be honest decreasing the cost and build time also would give seles an advantage when it comes to diminishing farmer returns because it would be easier for them to build extra farms to spread out workers to 3/5 per farm or so. Perhaps the diminishing returns is something more players should consider even with the current game, at least I have never intentionally spread out my farmers.

Sure but that’s more attenuated. Field costs changes build order more. For example, I would be a lot less likely to expand my territory with buildings to get extra berries if I know I can save 100 wood (farm stand cost) and not have to walk all the way to the edge of my territory if I have free fields.