Jump to content

Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26


wraitii
 Share

Should these patches be merged in the Community Mod? II  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Centurions: Upgradable at a cost of 100 food 50 metal from rank 3 swordsmen and spearmen. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/27

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      6
    • Skip / No Opinion
      4
  2. 2. Alexander - Remove Territory Bonus Aura, add Attack, Speed, and Attack de-buff Auras https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/26

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      6
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9
  3. 3. Unit specific upgrades: 23 new upgrades found in stable/barracks for different soldier types. Tier 1 available in town phase, tier 2 available in city phase. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      18
    • Skip / No Opinion
      2
  4. 4. Add a civ bonus for seleucids: Farms -25% resource cost, -75% build time. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/24

    • Yes
      28
    • No
      7
    • Skip / No Opinion
      5
  5. 5. Cav speed -1 m/s for all cavalry https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/23

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      19
    • Skip / No Opinion
      7
  6. 6. Cavalry health adjustments https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      15
    • Skip / No Opinion
      12
  7. 7. Crush (re)balance: decreased crush armor for all units, clubmen/macemen get a small hack attack. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/20

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      14
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9
  8. 8. Spearcav +15% acceleration. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/19

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      2
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9
  9. 9. Pikemen decreased armor, increased damage: 8hack,7pierce armor; 6 pierce 3 hack damage. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/18

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      16
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9
  10. 10. Rome camp allowed in p2, rams train in p3 as normal, decreased health and cost. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/17

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      5
    • Skip / No Opinion
      5
  11. 11. Crossbow nerf: +400 ms prepare time. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/15

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      16
    • Skip / No Opinion
      12
  12. 12. adjust javelineer and pikemen roles, rework crush armor https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/14

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      21
    • Skip / No Opinion
      10


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

I thought about doing the roman/athens reworks in the community mod

Would be sooo good to get early impression of how these work, also for Spartans. Is it high effort?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well its moderate effort in general, but there may be a couple of things that would need to be done differently in a26 vs a27.

I think I would just do sparta, roman, athens, carth, and mace updates in another community mod update.

(carth and mace ones are pretty small).

btw, if anyone just blurts out an idea for a briton team bonus I could do that super quick.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone at some point I think it could be cool to integrate speed into the damage model for ram ships, as long as their use is streamlined and things aren't too clunky (the latter would be the hard part).

Indeed, I feel ships are the prime example of units that can gave substantial acceleration and turn radius effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5284

 

I'd like to try to get the AI to build more Docks, Fishing Boats, and especially Warships. Can folks with the relevant knowledge take a look at that patch and suggest other files that can be edited for that purpose. :) Right now all it does is increase 'priority' for Docks (slightly sooner, but still only 1 dock), Fishing Boats (from 1 to 5 per "sea"), and "ships" (but no separate designation for warships), but doesn't do much else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@guerringuerrin the merge requests are all in:

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

I just need to check the maps compatibility with feldmap. I suppose I could just copy over the resource balancer so they are identical and then in theory, players could apply the mods in either order.

I believe you just have to check for name uniqueness. Both feldmap and badosu maps define their own balancer which they only use in their own new maps (thus unique). So the only way they would be incompatible is if some functions defined share the same name in both mods, then one would override the other which is bad. With a quick check it seems there is no shared name so they should be compatible but tell me if you see otherwise.

A way to check for OOS if you are alone is that you can launch a game, generating the map, then exit, change the mod order, and open the replay to that game. If it is incompatible you should see OOS there.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

A way to check for OOS if you are alone is that you can launch a game, generating the map, then exit, change the mod order, and open the replay to that game. If it is incompatible you should see OOS there.

k, I just did that test and it seems ok. Yeah I can tell that the different balancers are being used on their respective maps.

Before I get this next version out, I'll ask someone to do some more extensive tests with me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I've updated the changelog and is ready to be merged!

I've also added icons to make it more "aesthetics". I think it also makes the reading more comfortable.

I hope you like it!

Please check it one more time in case I missed something =)

Lastly, we can change the date to the exact release date when the merge is done and ready to be downloaded by the community.

image.thumb.png.b0a827bf4c5729775b200faad3ecbc19.png

 

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

image.png.15336d0534072301f3c61b9f720b0d4a.png

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

@Vantha maybe ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

35 minutes ago, Stan` said:

@Vantha maybe ?

Sure, I can help with that. Where is the code? I don't see a merge request for it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@guerringuerrin I did one more change to increase the temple of Amun capture points for kush. I'll test the the mod put together a decent bit.

Lets set the date for this Tuesday, 6/18. When you update the MR, i'll make a testing version and if all is well I'll publish the next version Tuesday.

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

@guerringuerrin Ok. As explained here, the icon tag has a property called 'displace' that allows moving the icon on the x and y axis by a certain number of pixels. Now, the target icons measure 32x32 pixels while the font is only 16 pixels high. A downwards offset by half the difference (in this case 8 pixels) perfectly centers the icon on the text => displace="0 8".

(The text might appear a bit smaller than 16 pixels because it mostly contains lowercase letters, so I suspect an offset of 9 pixels might look slightly better, but you'll have to be the judge for that)

I suggested according changes to the latest merge request.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is widespread agreement that archers play poorly since the melee rebalance mod. Prior to the melee rebalance, archers were bad unless players sniped with them. The melee rebalance effectively nerfed the extreme combat value of killing ranged units first, and this affected archers disproportionately since sniping was necessary to make them useful. We can always simply add some damage to make the unit on par with slingers and javelins, but there are more creative options that could lead to a better gameplay result.

  • reduce slinger/skirm projetile velocities (this is different to speeding up archer velocities)
  • increase move speed for archers 
  • + whatever people can think of
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real life, sling stones fly significantly faster than arrows. Realism is important.

Also, past experience has shown that changing units movement speed has massive economic side effects. Thus It is too chaotic to use for balance.

13 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

+ whatever people can think of

A. A small amount of hack added to archer damage. This could represent the ability of arrows to more precisely target and cut into gaps in armor, due to the static release of bows, versus the more chaotic dynamic launching methods of the other projectiles. More experienced or well equipped opponents would be able to cover these vulnerabilities, hence units with hack armor negating the advantage. (Contrast with slings, which defeat armor coverage directly using blunt kinetic impact, modeled by crush.)

B. Buffed archer accuracy, and maybe a small nerf to sling and javelin accuracy, so that slings and javelins will have some noticeable damage fall off at their maximum range. This could represent the superior willingness of archers to shoot to kill targets of opportunity, rather than just to suppress. Bows and arrows are expensive weapons systems compared to slings or javelins, thus bows are more likely to be wielded by committed combatants who are highly invested in victory.

C. A small amount of extra health, to represent greater willingness to stand and fight, for the same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

We can always simply add some damage to make the unit on par with slingers and javelins, but there are more creative options that could lead to a better gameplay result.

  • reduce slinger/skirm projetile velocities (this is different to speeding up archer velocities)
  • increase move speed for archers

None of these make sense to me. 

Dmg should correlate to movement speed, which should correlate to range. Increasing archer dmg runs entirely counter that. As does increasing archer speed. Changing projectile speed is just a shell game for changing dmg value: it makes a change in the least observable field that isn't even listed in unit stats. 

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
  • + whatever people can think of

The fact that archers were (arguably) the best unit when used for sniping (even when compared to sniping with other units) shows that the problem isn't anything to do with archers stats and instead has to do with how they are used.

So, what is the solution? Sniping. But sniping is annoying. So, let's make sniping less annoying. Let's put in an area attack option. The area attack option should mimic sniping micro. It will serve the dual purpose of balancing archers and eliminating the annoying micro tactic known as sniping. 

If an area attack option doesn't work then I think we need to seriously reconsider whether the melee rebalance patch uses the correct mechanism to balance melee/range units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Hopefully. But…

D1971 looks dead. I think I discussed elsewhere on how it’s imperfect.

D5282 is really just a concept right now. It also seems designed for balls of armies, which won’t help in small army fights. Maybe it helps where there are long lines. So a partial solution, if that. But obviously helpful if it does deliver. It just won’t be a complete solution. (Have you run any tests yet? Last I’ve seen was all technical discussion.)

Just saying we need something more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...