Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[alre]

I believe that the "small incremental changes" philosophy was more useful when changes came from alpha to alpha, and a lot of different changes would stack, some of which weren't much thought trough from a gameplay perspective.

with community mod all changes are gameplay changes, and even when they were daring enough, they proved to be rather conservative. I don't think we need a big cavalry change, but I don't think a big change (cavalry or other) would be too risk to take.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, alre said:

I believe that the "small incremental changes" philosophy was more useful when changes came from alpha to alpha, and a lot of different changes would stack, some of which weren't much thought trough from a gameplay perspective.

with community mod all changes are gameplay changes, and even when they were daring enough, they proved to be rather conservative. I don't think we need a big cavalry change, but I don't think a big change (cavalry or other) would be too risk to take.

Indeed, I think the community mod would be the place where you can be daring, since it's not the official release and can be easily reverted or refined. I'm not saying huge sweeping changes, but modifying a unit's role a bit, going for a 10% change instead of a more conservative 5% change, etc. 

[chrstgtr]

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would like to see basically all of the community mod changes accepted into the regular game for a27. Only one I am iffy on is the ptol building cost/build time change. Maybe more testing is needed. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

43 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would like to see basically all of the community mod changes accepted into the regular game for a27. Only one I am iffy on is the ptol building cost/build time change. Maybe more testing is needed. 

My understanding is that it will be incorporated into a27 after more important engine changes and stuff.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

My understanding is that it will be incorporated into a27 after more important engine changes and stuff.

  

On 18/06/2022 at 3:58 AM, wraitii said:

To summarise: we'll give you the keys to the car to make A26 a more fun game. By the time A27 comes, we can hopefully use your work (and our own) as a good template for a better game out of the box.

If this experiment is a success, we may reproduce it after A27, but time will tell.

 

I think it still needs to be ported over and incorporated. My understanding is that the mod won't be a27 because other technical stuff needs to happen, but we could use the mod as a testing ground for things that may or may not be incorporated into a27. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

58 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I think it still needs to be ported over and incorporated. My understanding is that the mod won't be a27 because other technical stuff needs to happen, but we could use the mod as a testing ground for things that may or may not be incorporated into a27. 

yes, engine changes and other important stuff (hopefully some improvements to performance ). Its very unlikely that the mod can be copy-pasted, but something similar could easily be rewritten.

[Stan`]

Actually someone is looking into porting it for A27. A27 is planned for Feb 2023 and we had very little devs active so I don't know if there'll be major performance changes.

 

https://irclogs.wildfiregames.com/%230ad-dev/2022-12-01-QuakeNet-%230ad-dev.log

https://irclogs.wildfiregames.com/%230ad-dev/2022-12-01-QuakeNet-%230ad-dev.log

[BeTe]

I like this game Edwarf vs Dakara, as example for community-mod balancing.

Edwarf used fact that CC is cheaper and took map control by 2 quick expansions which is crucial on such map with so small amount of wood. I guess Dakara lost (mostly) b/c of not preventing that. 

So can we say if he were more active in p2, he would be in much better position? Can we say that this could be small indicator that changes are good for making early/mid game more active? 

(I don't want to be smarty newbie, just to initiate analysis of changes.  )

cc @Dakara @Edwarf

Edited December 1, 2022 by BeTe

[Dakara]

2 hours ago, BeTe said:

I like this game Edwarf vs Dakara, as example for community-mod balancing.

Edwarf used fact that CC is cheaper and took map control by 2 quick expansions which is crucial on such map with so small amount of wood. I guess Dakara lost (mostly) b/c of not preventing that. 

So can we say if he were more active in p2, he would be in much better position? Can we say that this could be small indicator that changes are good for making early/mid game more active? 

(I don't want to be smarty newbie, just to initiate analysis of changes.  )

cc @Dakara @Edwarf

Shame on me

I loose cuz a lot of mistake :

I play with fear : I don't make cav bcs no hunt and i know edwarf play better cav than me. I don't want make cav and don't use it, or just loose my cav for nothing.   So i make a lot of spear infantery for defend of rush cav spear.

I'm late for a people with 3 berries. 

I loose cuz not enought distance unit and don't control the wood. I try to late to control the wood with few woman, i have to send more i guess. Late in tech military / I go P3 for no reason

He just use his brain and not me

 

 

[BeTe]

@Dakara Hmmm, as I can see he got nothing with early cav... Killed some women, but you rebuilt that easily so you were quiet equal after that fights on min 13-15...  Even thought you fought around his Temple... He had 20 cav lost on min 15! After that if you have built CC with defenses on wood lines on left from main CC instead walls, I guess match would go totally different. Also he pushed hard with original CC thru the middle. He had that exposed Temple and Towers in your face and all that with main CC  

On min 17. you had no available wood lines and 25 wood in stock and basepush treat from 2 sides. You were surounded without wood.

That's what I see. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, Stan` said:

we had very little devs active so I don't know if there'll be major performance changes.

Thats unfortunate.

[Fabius]

On 29/11/2022 at 8:35 PM, chrstgtr said:

Romans are great and are a very diverse civ. Yeah, champ sword cav are their best unit, but I would argue that is a top 3 unit in the game and one that is OP. 

well they do have diverse melee options, but their ranged section is anything but diverse

[Fabius]

On 30/11/2022 at 4:54 AM, chrstgtr said:

I think all melee champ cav is OP because most civs can’t counter them.

This I concur on. the biggest culprits being Persia and Selucia since they can get extra health with the war horses tech.

And then after that comes Rome. 

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

[chrstgtr]

51 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

Agree

Edited December 1, 2022 by chrstgtr

[chrstgtr]

58 minutes ago, Fabius said:

well they do have diverse melee options, but their ranged section is anything but diverse

Yeah, only skirms. But that's better than some civs. Also, you get many siege options and camp, which other civs don't have. 

All in, Rome is by no means the worst civ. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

already done, see the merge request I previously linked. I agree, we don't need nearly 400 HP champ cav XD. I believe its closer to 13 percent, 300->260 for melee.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

8 hours ago, Fabius said:

This I concur on. the biggest culprits being Persia and Selucia since they can get extra health with the war horses tech.

And then after that comes Rome. 

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

Melee champion cav may be non-counterable, but that does not make them OP necessarily, just frustrating to play against.

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable. A key factor of firecav/brit chariots being OP in a25 and brit chariots being OP in a26 is their ability to pay for themselves in unit kills with only very few losses.

Personally I would welcome armor nerfs for consular bodyguard ( it seems they get more armor and more damage again like cs swordcav), as well as a moderate hp reduction and a damage buff for spearcav champions.

As for briton chariots/firecav I think fire rate of firecav should be restored to its a25 value and briton champion chariots should have their damage reduced from 36 to 30 (still 5 more than firecav, even neglecting the firecav accuracy nerf).

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champion cav may be non-counterable, but that does not make them OP necessarily, just frustrating to play against.

A unit is not OP if it is counter-able OR it is prohibitively difficult to obtain. Good game design requires that units not be prohibitively difficult to obtain because a prohibitively difficult to obtain unit is superfluous.

Melee champ cav cannot be countered and are not prohibitively difficult to obtain. Therefore they are OP. 

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable

No, they have more health and more armor. Even if they die, 10 champ cav paired with a normal army in a 200 pop game can leave the attacker at 190 pop while the defender has 130 pop. That is GG. A unit can die and still be OP if it leads to a player winning a game. 

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

As for briton chariots/firecav I think fire rate of firecav should be restored to its a25 value and briton champion chariots should have their damage reduced from 36 to 30 (still 5 more than firecav, even neglecting the firecav accuracy nerf).

Brit chariots are not OP. They are counter-able by any melee champ cav, CS spears, sniping, and by other means. 

[Fabius]

9 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable. A key factor of firecav/brit chariots being OP in a25 and brit chariots being OP in a26 is their ability to pay for themselves in unit kills with only very few losses.

Not at all, you get enough champion cavalry of the consular or heavy lancer variety and you can eradicate a ranged army in less time than it took to make said ranged army, this has and always will be one of the primary functions of cavalry, squishing light infantry into the earth. 

[Fabius]

9 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Personally I would welcome armor nerfs for consular bodyguard ( it seems they get more armor and more damage again like cs swordcav), as well as a moderate hp reduction and a damage buff for spearcav champions.

They haven't, they have the usual double sword cav stats plus 1 extra armour on both hack and pierce. the damage is just double the sword cavs, there has been no change except a loss of 1 hack armour and a gain of 1 pierce armour in A24 i think it was.

I will also point out that by the same logic champion lancers should have 11 hack armour since regular lancers have 5 and doubled that gives 10 and add 1 for a total of 11. And if that sounds scary it should. likewise the champ lancer damage is just regular lancer damage doubled.

[Fabius]

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

already done, see the merge request I previously linked. I agree, we don't need nearly 400 HP champ cav XD. I believe its closer to 13 percent, 300->260 for melee.

Something to be aware off is that if we drop melee cavalry health we should do something about ranged cavalry health, do we want ranged and melee champions both having the same size health pool?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

check the merge request:

melee CS: 160 (unchanged) melee champ: 260

ranged CS: 80 ranged champ: 180

[alre]

there has been in the past some discussion about reframing champ spear cav as cataphracts (which is mostly how they are called in game). cataphracts would be slower than usual cav and have a lot more pierce armor, and would be very good ranged inf counters, interpreting well the classical AoE cav role.

[binobo]

On 28/11/2022 at 10:31 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

k all done:

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

branches comparison:

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cav_speed?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs

These 2 shouldn't make a very big difference overall, but I expect them to help bring down cavalry's survivability.

Feel free to comment on other merge requests I have submitted. I did one lowering crush armor, one for allowing the roman army camp in p2, and one for adjusting pikemen damage/armor.

also, there is a slight crossbow nerf.

I think the roman army camp would be better at phase 2. however, rams should not be buildable at this phase. No other Civ can make siege in P2. I think most people don't use the camp because the build time takes too long. Reducing the build time to 200 seconds (20% reduction) would make it more viable. To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal but the overall stats should be changed. I would suggest slight health reduction to 1750 health to balance the faster build time. I think the arrows should still stay the same. Thoughts?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, binobo said:

I think the roman army camp would be better at phase 2. however, rams should not be buildable at this phase. No other Civ can make siege in P2. I think most people don't use the camp because the build time takes too long. Reducing the build time to 200 seconds (20% reduction) would make it more viable. To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal but the overall stats should be changed. I would suggest slight health reduction to 1750 health to balance the faster build time. I think the arrows should still stay the same. Thoughts?

yes, of course. As the merge request is written, rams are still a phase 3 unit, but just infantry may be trained during p2. At the time, I wasn't sure if an hp reduction was necessary as well, but I might still implement a few of these suggestions. Thanks.