Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[real_tabasco_sauce]

23 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Pretty sure most people know this. But preventing this from happening will pretty much be worse.
In case that's not obvious, if a unit reset or re-target when foe gets out of range, chasing will become very buggy and depending on how often you check for range you also impact performance. Maybe some other games have this figured it out but from what I know it's often either chasing get too weird or overshooting is allowed.

I think the target reset thing could be limited to siege units maybe. Siege units don't chase anyway, and I doubt performance would be bad since siege units have slow repeat times and you rarely see more than 25 of them.

On the overshoot situation, I'd like to think its just about when the target is acquired, but I suppose we wouldn't want units to wait a whole repeat time before deciding to follow a unit that is out of range! There's surely a solution, and to be honest, I'd be ok with dipping a little into performance to find it, same with @wraitii pathing patch: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5037

imo such significant improvements like these are worth a little decrease in performance.

Edited September 29 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Have you ever been retreating from some group of units and thought "how could that hit me?"

Yeah, quite often. I find it aggravating when I'm pulling cav back and some pedestrian motherhugger hits me from ~halfway across the map. Maybe pikemen do it, but of course it's very noticeable with the punch crossbows have.

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, Effervescent said:

e can't compare previous alphas with community mod patches. Most players don't know all the changes that take place in community mod, myself included. I didn't even know bolts were nerfed for example. The ease with which a soldier unit can be spammed is different from the ease with which a siege unit can be spammed. Even the alpha where mercs were super op did not have widespread use of merc cavs for a similar reason.

All the example you mention for op units are soldier units and not siege units. I recall siege towers were pretty op in some alpha but still they were never in widespread use like the op soldier units.

This is all so specious and clearly only reflects how you don’t pay attention to balance changes, which really makes it odd that you even involve yourself in this discussion. In community mod (unlike alphas) you are told exactly what changes happen. In the community mod, bolts were rarely used, then used a lot, and now suddenly not that much. The change is usage reflects how good the unit was/wasn't. It isn’t OP. 

Also, in a22, common game rules literally banned bolts within about a week because they were so op. 

Players very quickly figure out what units are OP and then spam them. This has not occurred with bolts in their current form and we can therefore deduce that they are not OP like you say. 

8 hours ago, Effervescent said:

I avoided taking strategic measures taken by players into consideration

You have to consider all strategies. Not considering bolts lack of mobility is akin to not considering cav’s mobility. It clearly gives an incomplete picture. 

This is particularly important here because the main nerf to bolts was changing their movement speed. Again, you need to pay attention to community mod changes to have an informed discussion. 

8 hours ago, Effervescent said:

The second replay I cannot comment on as it doesn't show my replay list. sorry.

I’ll try to resend the replays when I am by my computer. In short, bolts stop working when some units get too close. It doesn’t matter that there are other units within range but out of min distance. The bolts just sit idle on stand ground or unpack to move away on aggressive. @real_tabasco_sauce describes this exact situation above. This isn’t desirable gameplay. 

 

Edited September 29 by chrstgtr

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ttps://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7074

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/6948

These are necessary too. But does it get at the issue that I am getting at and that you are getting at here: 

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

then it seems the bolt goes idle and keeps trying to shoot this unit

My understand is that 6948 was just meant to deal with the building vs. unit issue. A unit will still be high priority (despite not being hittable) if it is within min range. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

then it seems the bolt goes idle and keeps trying to shoot this unit

My understand is that 6948 was just meant to deal with the building vs. unit issue. A unit will still be high priority (despite not being hittable) if it is within min range. 

In checking that a higher priority unit exists, this unit would also have to be in the allowed range, so I think a single solution could solve both these issues.

Edited September 29 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

56 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

In checking that a higher priority unit exists, this unit would also have to be in the allowed range, so I think a single solution could solve both these issues.

Perfect

[real_tabasco_sauce]

community-testing.zip

Ok, here is a testing version of the next community mod. A little bit of multiplayer testing will help us avoid the crashes we experienced last time. 

[Effervescent]

On 30/09/2024 at 9:55 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

community-testing.zip 14.6 MB · 14 downloads

Ok, here is a testing version of the next community mod. A little bit of multiplayer testing will help us avoid the crashes we experienced last time. 

Thanks for keeping the minimum range on Bolts. Makes me feel like my feedback is heard even though I don't keep up with all the changes.

Bit late cause I was out but the mod works fine for me. I was only able to test with Petra bots though.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Thanks for testing @Effervescent

Did you find the building AI controls intuitive? I recommend binding the hotkey "Focus Fire" but its not essential.

[Effervescent]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Did you find the building AI controls intuitive?

I only used the right mouse button at first which was pretty intuitive for me. I clicked on tower and right clicked on unit, and then shift + right clicked on another unit to queue the focus fire. After I was done setting the order I used ctrl (attackmove) + right click on ground to set rally point. The focus fire queue stays active even when setting rally point.

As for the middle click button. I didn't understand the function.

The "Focus fire" hotkey I managed to set and use but honestly, the phrasing in the "Latest Changes" confused me for a bit. 

Quote

-(Left) A new hotkey, Focus Fire, is added to control exclusively the building arrows. Unbound by default. configure it to your liking in the hotkey menu.

"(Left)" made me think I had to press the hotkey and left mouse button. I realised later that I had press hotkey and right key.

I would recommend the text to be phrased differently, maybe something like

-Hotkey: "Focus Fire" can be set in the hotkey menu and used to control the arrows of the selected building(s). Can be queued with Shift. Unbound by default.

Edited October 5 by Effervescent

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ah, I didn't realize (left) and (right) would be misinterpreted. These are just to explain the three options shown in the image.

All the actions are completed by the right click, since left click is for selections.

16 minutes ago, Effervescent said:

I only used the right mouse button at first which was pretty intuitive for me. I clicked on tower and right clicked on unit, and then shift + right clicked on another unit to queue the focus fire. After I was done setting the order I used ctrl (attackmove) + right click on ground to set rally point. The focus fire queue stays active even when setting rally point.

As for the middle click button. I didn't understand the function.

It looks like you figured it out anyway, but the middle option is what you describe above: ctrl + click to just set the rally point. This is so that setting a rally point to a ram does not waste arrows or require you to re-set the arrows back onto units.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

community mod version 13 is out!

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hello, community mod players

This is possible to add this to the community mod, although it comes with a pretty minor performance decrease. On the upside, we get more responsive engagements and unit ranges hold true no matter where the target travels.

The benefit to testing this in the com mod is we get an idea of the balances effects as well a more complete idea of the performance impacts. On the balance changes, I expect this to make retreating less punishing, improve spear cavalry chasing, and make ranged units easier to micro around melee units (ie like for ram ships).

Are you all ok to try this out?

I'll also look into the bolt shooter unitAI.

Edited November 6 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

22 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I'll also look into the bolt shooter unitAI.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7188

from what I can tell, the bolt shooter fix will need to be in the c++ code, so it can't be done in the com mod :C

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Basically, its because the min range is not checked with a parabolic approach, while the attack is parabolic.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/pulls

pull requests: 1) implementing the additional range checks to fix unit overshooting, 2) some miscellaneous fixes balance adjustments, and building arrow adjustments:

• sentry towers get 1 additional default arrow (minimally affects fully garrisoned damage).
• CC repeat time decreased from 4.500 to 4.000 seconds, as many players said it was too weak.
• army camp repeat time 2.500 -> 3.500 (it was mistakenly unchanged in the current mod)
• sentries tech now uses 50% more arrows instead of +1 arrow. This makes default arrows go from 2 to 3 for sentry towers, and 4 to 6 for defense towers
• "professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

for the romans, I gave onagers a slight buff and made roman reforms a little bit cheaper.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/pulls

pull requests: 1) implementing the additional range checks to fix unit overshooting, 2) some miscellaneous fixes balance adjustments, and building arrow adjustments:

• sentry towers get 1 additional default arrow (minimally affects fully garrisoned damage).
• CC repeat time decreased from 4.500 to 4.000 seconds, as many players said it was too weak.
• army camp repeat time 2.500 -> 3.500 (it was mistakenly unchanged in the current mod)
• sentries tech now uses 50% more arrows instead of +1 arrow. This makes default arrows go from 2 to 3 for sentry towers, and 4 to 6 for defense towers
• "professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

for the romans, I gave onagers a slight buff and made roman reforms a little bit cheaper.

Why did the change occur in the Sentry Tower?

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

What is this? Is this new tech?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

15 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Why did the change occur in the Sentry Tower?

When i re-introduced non-random arrows to the current version, i balanced p1 building arrows on the weaker side out of an abundance of caution.

2 default arrows is closer to the sentry tower's original dps, so i think its appropriate to try it out with 2 arrows.

the change to the sentry tech is important because the value of adding 1 arrow to a tower depends on the number it already has.

Edited November 7 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Also sparta enthusiasts, I added a slight buff to the spartan hoplite itself, a 10% damage buff in the form of repeat time. This way the unit is strong without having to get the full tech tree.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

also coming: a fix to food gen infinite loop in badosu balanced maps, larger forests in badosu balanced maps, foothills improvements.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

in order to do some testing with multiple players, here is a mod with the overshoot change. It is based off of the current version of the community mod for a26.

community-mod-overshootFix.zip

Edited November 9 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok thanks to those who helped test! This is the final testing version before release. Lmk if there are any errors or bugs. I'll try to do a couple multiplayer tests today.

community-testing.zip

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hey com mod players,

What do you all think of the "Foothills" map with the new improvements to the woodlines?

I have a patch to add it to the regular random maps: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7155

If there are suggestions for the map, I'd love to hear then and I can add them to the pull request.

Edited Sunday at 05:46 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Philip the Swaggerless]

The Forge (blacksmith) is too cheap. Traders are too expensive.

Forge

Current Cost: 200 wood and 120 second build time

• It is the cheapest and most quickly built of the standard p2 structures required for going to p3. (forge, market, temple)
• In most cases it is the most critical p2 building to make.

Because of this, many experienced players make a minimum of 2 forges but may make 3 or 4.  They may not even make any other of the p2 buildings.  All or most upgrades are processed simultaneously so there is little trade-off in terms of prioritizing upgrades.

I suggest adding a significant metal cost so that the more blacksmiths you make the slower your p3 upgrade.

Proposed cost: 200 wood 200 metal.

Traders

Current Cost: 100 food 80 metal.

• They have a significant cost and are vulnerable.  They're more difficult to protect that regular eco units that have a central work area.
• For the maps that competitive games are played on the main reason (imo) to make them is to unlock the diaspora tech, not the trade income.
• Changing the trading system has been discussed but there's not been any consensus on how to do it.
  •  @real_tabasco_sauce admitted he has no idea what to do with traders.

Based on those points, for the time being, I say just make them cheaper.

Proposed cost:  50 food, 10 metal.