Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[Old Roman]

Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere, but  when I tried to download the newest version of the community mod (in game) the game displayed a failure to rename file error and the mod failed to appear.  Disabling the older mod did not help, but finally deleting the old community mod 'folder' from the mods folder and repeating the download process eliminated the error and the new version appeared.

I also encountered the same problem with the newest community map mod and had to delete the folders of earlier versions before the newest one would successfully download and install from within the game.

[Gurken Khan]

12 minutes ago, Old Roman said:

when I tried to download the newest version of the community mod (in game) the game displayed a failure to rename file error and the mod failed to appear.

Same. Restarted the game and it worked.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, Dizaka said:

I think if the healer changes are implemented then Mauryas team bonus AND the hero upgrade (chariot hero) may need a change concurrently.

I would agree with this even in the absence of the healer/temple techs change tbh.

[Silier]

13 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Same. Restarted the game and it worked.

Safest way is to disable mod, restart game and then download 

[Norse_Harold]

Some operating systems (for example Linux) are able to rename or overwrite files that are currently in use, but others are not. Please tell us which OS you're using when you report errors with installing the mod. And, unless something unexpected happened like the game was run with writeable root or you manually installed a mod to the main game data folder instead of the user-writeable mods folder, disabling the mod before updating it should solve the problem.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Norse_Harold

[real_tabasco_sauce]

So I tried the repeat times change to see if there was an improvement on performance (200 archers vs 200 archers). It did not seem too impactful to be honest. (no detectable change in fps)

However, this isn't really a simulation of 4v4 conditions, so maybe it could still help. Would you rather I keep the merge request for the repeat times up? Or should I take it down?

[chrstgtr]

35 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

So I tried the repeat times change to see if there was an improvement on performance (200 archers vs 200 archers). It did not seem too impactful to be honest. (no detectable change in fps)

However, this isn't really a simulation of 4v4 conditions, so maybe it could still help. Would you rather I keep the merge request for the repeat times up? Or should I take it down?

As a general rule, I don't think things should change unless there is an improvement. It would only introduce a new variable that could (or could not) have harmful effects for any of the reasons explained above. 

 

[SneakEP]

On 30/9/2022 at 6:17 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Balance fixed.

what I liked about Katerine.

she helped me with the numbers of what I told her it could be.

Since she left I no longer have someone to help me reason out the proper numbers for units.

Where did she go? 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

Just a comment about the recent change:  I have not detected any change to my gameplay or strategy based on the fact that territory expansion has been reduced.  Has anyone?

[Feldfeld]

10 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Just a comment about the recent change:  I have not detected any change to my gameplay or strategy based on the fact that territory expansion has been reduced.  Has anyone?

I use it in 1v1. I imagine it doesn't matter much in TGs though with that mainland

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Just a comment about the recent change:  I have not detected any change to my gameplay or strategy based on the fact that territory expansion has been reduced.  Has anyone?

@ValihrAnt was able to strategically expand more easily here. It seemed very important to the win.

I see CCs and colonies a little more in TGs. Even while CCs may not be added much more frequently, it makes the map feel larger, with territories not squished up next to each other.

I guess it didn't really change the meta, just added flexibility.

[chrstgtr]

18 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@ValihrAnt was able to strategically expand more easily here. It seemed very important to the win.

I see CCs and colonies a little more in TGs. Even while CCs may not be added much more frequently, it makes the map feel larger, with territories not squished up next to each other.

I guess it didn't really change the meta, just added flexibility.

+1 

it’s not a huge change, but it makes it a bit more dynamic

Forests are larger on bigger maps, which limits the impact in TGs

All in all, I think it’s a slight positive. At worst, I don’t think it’s a bad

[Philip the Swaggerless]

 

47 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

All in all, I think it’s a slight positive. At worst, I don’t think it’s a bad

I can agree.

I am more likely to build CC's because they are cheaper.  I just haven't felt like I needed to in order to reach resources.

[chrstgtr]

47 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I am more likely to build CC's because they are cheaper.  I just haven't felt like I needed to in order to reach resources.

 

Yeah, that’s the effect of large maps generating with big forests. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok, recall the discussion on cavalry nerf. There are three separate and independent nerfs considered: nerf cav damage, nerf cav HP, and increase infantry speed.

As written so far, increasing infantry speed would be +0.5 m/s speed for the basic "unit" class. (skirmishers get a little more than 0.5 faster, pikemen get a little less than 0.5 faster). This is intended to close the mobility gap slightly.

I am pretty confident in my HP branch which is:

• ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ
• melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ

I have debated the best approach for a damage nerf, and I think the best approach is really to equalize the DPS for cavalry and their infantry counterparts. For ranged units, I would bring skirm cav and archer cav damage down to equal infantry values, and for melee units, I would raise infantry damage to equal their respective cavalry values. This is nice and dandy for everything except for 2 exceptions: 

• pikemen (have no cav equivalent), so I already made a separate branch for pikemen which could be added independently: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...pikemen?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false
• Spearmen/Spearcav (see below)

spearmen/spearcav:

currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav:

spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS

spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS

What I propose for these units is to use the margin of increase seen for inf swords (6.5/5.5) to increase spearmen DPS

3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS * (6.5/5.5) ~= 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec for spearmen

keeping the same 1.25 sec repeat time for spearcav, their new hack and pierce values should be:

3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec *1.25 sec ~= 4.4 hack, 3.75 pierce for spear cavalry

 

Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.

Don't like damage nerf. 

Don't like inf speed buff (maybe it's needed for other reasons, but its application doesn't make sense here). Would do cav speed bonus instead.

One of the most frustrating things with cav is when you "trap" them in a ball of infantry, but the cav still escape with minimal losses. This happens because cav have enough health to survive dealt damage and are fast enough to limit the number of landed hits. Slowing cav down means more hits can be landed on cav. Lower cav's health means those hits do more relative dmg.

To start, I would slightly lower cav speed and lower champ melee health (melee champ cav shouldn't be able to fight with impunity against CS spears--otherwise there is no counter for them). I wouldn't change anything else unless cav continue to be a problem. 

[BeTe]

Please don't nerf P1 cav.  I use them a lot early game recently. They are expensive and you are on big risk of being overwhelmed just for small mistake. It works only if player is veeeeery slow with reactions to pull gatherers. On other side it's so hard to keep eco going and you either forget housing, resources balancing or unit production.

So, I basically helps only to confuse opponent since no real damage can be done. But you are on risk of being confused b/c of a loooot of microing on other side of map. Or you can send them into blob of opponent's infantry during some work around CC and lose them all - I think I saw it in the recent Vali vs Feldfeld tournament game. That's quite disaster.  

P.S.

We talked about that starting from this message: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83784-introducing-the-official-community-mod-for-alpha-26/page/17/#comment-529865

Edited November 28, 2022 by BeTe

[chrstgtr]

Glad you're beginning to play with more diverse play styles. But what you describe mostly has to do with your skill level and that won't be changed by any of these changes. I suggest you watch some games with high level players to get better and see how units can be used. 

2 minutes ago, BeTe said:

They are expensive and you are on big risk of being overwhelmed just for small mistake. It works only if player is veeeeery slow with reactions to pull gatherers. On other side it's so hard to keep eco going and you either forget housing, resources balancing or unit production.

This is skill level. 

2 minutes ago, BeTe said:

no real damage can be done

This is untrue, if used correctly. 

[BeTe]

@chrstgtrYes it's skill level. But skill level is defending from opponents' side. I assume skills are similar. Point is that it's risky build and can work only if opponent make big mistake. On other side, you are on bigger risk of making mistake b/c of much micro.

Maybe recent Tournament game ValihrAnt vs Feldfeld is example? Vali's attack failed against lower rating player (idk about "skills" tho).

Yes, I watch every ValihrAnt game and watched nice Cav play in Vinme vs dakeryas (again vinme more rating than dak). It mostly end up in mid or late game as someone already said.

TLDR;

I am still new so I will not insist. But I just scared that we will make P1 game more dead. It's already pretty much dead in 99% of ~1400-1500 rating games. Dude you must build cav and do some micro/scouting early game, you can't just boom to 250, send entire army + rams + hero and see "gg".  

Cheers!

Edited November 28, 2022 by BeTe

[Feldfeld]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok, recall the discussion on cavalry nerf. There are three separate and independent nerfs considered: nerf cav damage, nerf cav HP, and increase infantry speed.

As written so far, increasing infantry speed would be +0.5 m/s speed for the basic "unit" class. (skirmishers get a little more than 0.5 faster, pikemen get a little less than 0.5 faster). This is intended to close the mobility gap slightly.

I am pretty confident in my HP branch which is:

• ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ
• melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ

I have debated the best approach for a damage nerf, and I think the best approach is really to equalize the DPS for cavalry and their infantry counterparts. For ranged units, I would bring skirm cav and archer cav damage down to equal infantry values, and for melee units, I would raise infantry damage to equal their respective cavalry values. This is nice and dandy for everything except for 2 exceptions: 

• pikemen (have no cav equivalent), so I already made a separate branch for pikemen which could be added independently: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...pikemen?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false
• Spearmen/Spearcav (see below)

spearmen/spearcav:

currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav:

spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS

spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS

What I propose for these units is to use the margin of increase seen for inf swords (6.5/5.5) to increase spearmen DPS

3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS * (6.5/5.5) ~= 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec for spearmen

keeping the same 1.25 sec repeat time for spearcav, their new hack and pierce values should be:

3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec *1.25 sec ~= 4.4 hack, 3.75 pierce for spear cavalry

 

Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.

For me, either no nerf, or the small damage nerf for skirm cav and archer cav only.

For the reasons I already wrote in this thread, I think cavalry is in a good place currently. It's already very hard to have an effective rush if the defender plays appropriately. Infantry is still plenty useful. Etc

[Philip the Swaggerless]

I support the damage nerf for ranged cav.

If something could be done to make it easier for spearman to poke escaping cav that'd be great.  Like faster turning, acceleration, and/or attack prepare time for melee infantry. But not faster top speed.  Or reduce acceleration and turn speed for cav. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok i see, thanks for the feedback.

From what I gather from you all: Archer and skirm cav damage should be nerfed to inf levels, but not the other cavalry. sounds good to me.

Also seems like the infantry speed increase isn't favorable.

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This happens because cav have enough health to survive dealt damage and are fast enough to limit the number of landed hits. Slowing cav down means more hits can be landed on cav. Lower cav's health means those hits do more relative dmg.

To start, I would slightly lower cav speed and lower champ melee health (melee champ cav shouldn't be able to fight with impunity against CS spears--otherwise there is no counter for them).

the health nerf I have reduces champ melee cav heath as well ranged cav (both CS and champ) a little.

• ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ
• melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ

For spearmen, their prepare time is currently 500ms for a repeat time of 1000ms. I could reduce prepare time some, 350ms maybe, perhaps I could reduce pikemen to 600ms.

On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2.

how does this sound?

also, any thoughts on the following discrepancy?

13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav:

spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS

spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS

[Dakara]

6 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

For me, either no nerf, or the small damage nerf for skirm cav and archer cav only.

For the reasons I already wrote in this thread, I think cavalry is in a good place currently. It's already very hard to have an effective rush if the defender plays appropriately. Infantry is still plenty useful. Etc

Same

i don't see problem about cav (except cav skirmish have 2 more damage than infanterie skirmish for exemple)

[LetswaveaBook]

37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2.

how does this sound?

Well, as a 0.2 meter advantage for a unit with a 6 meter pole arm.

This value of 0.2 meter is not an opinion, it is math.

[alre]

I remember noticing from a25 that added value of champions was greater for cav than inf. it's like buying a minigun that can be either carried by hand mounted on a pickup. the minigun is expensive, but the pickup is cheap; if you can have the pickup, why would you carry the gun by hand?

I must say I played a26 very very little though.