Jump to content

Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26


wraitii
 Share

Should these patches be merged in the Community Mod? II  

35 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
      26
    • No
      5
    • 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
      3
    • Skip / No Opinion
      7
  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
      16
    • No
      17
    • 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
      25
    • No
      5
    • 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
      13
    • No
      15
    • Skip / No Opinion
      7
  6. 6. Cavalry health adjustments https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      14
    • 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
      14
    • No
      13
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  8. 8. Spearcav +15% acceleration. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/19

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      2
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  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
      14
    • No
      13
    • Skip / No Opinion
      8
  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
      27
    • No
      3
    • Skip / No Opinion
      5
  11. 11. Crossbow nerf: +400 ms prepare time. https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/15

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      13
    • 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
      6
    • No
      20
    • Skip / No Opinion
      9


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Why would you rather throw the entire proposal out the window than allow the possibility of 1 or 2 (slightly more) OP units in an experimental mod?

We can call it "experimental" all we want, but for all intents and purposes--it is the current alpha. The vanilla version of a26 does not function, if for no other reason, because of the Han farming issue and as a result most regular players exclusively play the mod. The mod will also likely be a27.

And, again, a single OP unit can ruin gameplay. For example, in a22, a common rule was the no one was allowed to make cav or bolt shooters. In a24, no one made anything but archers and OP defensive structures made games extremely long and enjoyable. Those are two alphas where a single OP unit was sufficient to ruin gameplay. We should not brush off just a few potentially OP units. 

I have other issues besides the specific ones I named, but the ones I named provide a general preview.

33 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

No, it's definitely a system. It is commonly referred to as a tech tree.

That is also true if you add just one tech--it becomes part of the tech tree. Each of these can standalone. What requires all 23 to be implemented at once?

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

26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

That is also true if you add just one tech--it becomes part of the tech tree. Each of these can standalone. What requires all 23 to be implemented at once?

each unit gets their own tree. All the upgrades play a role in unit (and civ) differentiation.

It doesn't make sense to overlook an upgrade for a unit type, that would be inconsistent. I think you are still assuming a lot. For instance, the javelin cavalry upgrade is not available in p1, where prepare time and accuracy would be the most problematic. Also, civs that already have strong jav cav for some other reason do not recieve this upgrade. See? Very easily modified as needed. 

The objective part is the content added, not balance because we can't predict the future meta (at least very easily).

Its like rejecting the entire hamburger just because you don't like pickles.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

And, again, a single OP unit can ruin gameplay. For example, in a22, a common rule was the no one was allowed to make cav or bolt shooters. In a24, no one made anything but archers and OP defensive structures made games extremely long and enjoyable. Those are two alphas where a single OP unit was sufficient to ruin gameplay. We should not brush off just a few potentially OP units. 

Yes, but these were OP due to their inherent stats, not due to upgrades. in a24, all units were slower so there was no way to escape the range of archers. Also, you should consider that other units (spear cav, slingers, skirms, pikemen, spearmen etc ) also get as powerful if not more powerful upgrades. This is what I mean when I say u should consider the whole system, not just one or 2 upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

each unit gets their own tree. All the upgrades play a role in unit (and civ) differentiation.

It doesn't make sense to overlook an upgrade for a unit type, that would be inconsistent. I think you are still assuming a lot. For instance, the javelin cavalry upgrade is not available in p1, where prepare time and accuracy would be the most problematic. Also, civs that already have strong jav cav for some other reason do not recieve this upgrade. See? Very easily modified as needed. 

The objective part is the content added, not balance because we can't predict the future meta (at least very easily).

Its like rejecting the entire hamburger just because you don't like pickles.

But my question was why do all need to be implemented at once? A pickle can make you reject the whole burger if you are allergic. I just don't see why all have to be implemented at once. 

43 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yes, but these were OP due to their inherent stats, not due to upgrades

Units will eventually get to the upgrades, though. If a unit become OP after upgrades it is still OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But my question was why do all need to be implemented at once? A pickle can make you reject the whole burger if you are allergic. I just don't see why all have to be implemented at once. 

Try the burger, if you don't like pickles just take them off, burger is still good no?

Idk, I just most players voting no are just afraid of change. The main thing is the mod has much higher turnaround than an alpha release, so we should try new things.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to stress that so far only the rice field and regicide fixes have been committed. Nothing from the mod itself. 

A possibility is for the mod to be rebased for A27 and continue to exist as standalone.

We have not decided what to do yet because there is too little activity on the other side.

Only three people are active. One is working on a new Atlas, the other on Vulkan, and the last one is working on some minor art fixes.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Try the burger, if you don't like pickles just take them off, burger is still good no?

Idk, I just most players voting no are just afraid of change. The main thing is the mod has much higher turnaround than an alpha release, so we should try new things.

Of course i'm afraid to add 20 new upgrades.  

Besides, I don't see much point. Have a lot of little upgrades it useless. You might as well have the effects of these improvements automatically if you deem them necessary, without upgrade. 

The interest of the upgrade of forge it to have a forge. We have already few upgrade in barack and stables.

if you eat too much resource with "4" additional technology, less resource for P3, make champion, do a new CC and get your fist in fortress.

An interesting point could be the creation of final choice upgrades at free cost. But not many. The neophyte must be able to retain the technology tree.

Edited by Dakara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stan` said:

I would like to stress that so far only the rice field and regicide fixes have been committed. Nothing from the mod itself. 

A possibility is for the mod to be rebased for A27 and continue to exist as standalone.

We have not decided what to do yet because there is too little activity on the other side.

Only three people are active. One is working on a new Atlas, the other on Vulkan, and the last one is working on some minor art fixes.

 

The mod is great. It allows for quicker improvements that players want. I'm just saying that, at least for a26, the mod represents a large portion of all regular users and therefore has replaced vanilla as the 'true' a26. 

I would love to see it back for a27. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dakara said:

Of course i'm afraid to add 20 new upgrades.  

Besides, I don't see much point. Have a lot of little upgrades it useless. You might as well have the effects of these improvements automatically if you deem them necessary, without upgrade. 

They are not available all to one civ. Each civ has a small selection of them depending on their unit roster. The upgrades are much more situational than the forge techs, because they are not just damage and armor. 

Also, they are researched in the barracks and stable because they apply to units trained there.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Loki1950 said:

Your allergy metaphor just does work if you are allergic to that pickle in the burger the whole burger has become toxic for you period removing it does remove the contamination it's still their and still toxic.

Haha you're right, I am all too familiar since I am allergic to many things. The point remains tho, that the whole system brings more benefit than individual components may bring harm.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/12/2022 at 5:34 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.

I dont know all the reasons, but I suspect that most people read badly.

Nobody pointed out that the tooltip for the Infantry archer said that it increases damage by 10%, while the code multiplies it by 1.15. Also the sword2.json file is missing a %-sign in the tooltip.

There is also the curious case that mercenaries are excluded from the upgrades, without showing that in the tooltip.

Apart from that, I dont have any noteworthy opinions about the patch. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I dont know all the reasons, but I suspect that most people read badly.

Nobody pointed out that the tooltip for the Infantry archer said that it increases damage by 10%, while the code multiplies it by 1.15. Also the sword2.json file is missing a %-sign in the tooltip.

There is also the curious case that mercenaries are excluded from the upgrades, without showing that in the tooltip.

Apart from that, I dont have any noteworthy opinions about the patch. 

Thanks for finding that mistake. I can fix that later today. As for the mercenary part, most civs coincidentally don't have upgrades for their mercenaries because mercenaries are most often unit types that the civ doesn't already have.

Since there are exceptions, and also for consistency, I will just say "Non-mercenary soldiers". How does that sound?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, @LetswaveaBook I fixed the issue you mentioned and updated the tooltips. Maybe after we test these in the next version, we could just allow them to affect all units. It might be too confusing to have them remain non-mercenary upgrades. It would be quite infrequent anyway that the upgrades also effect mercenaries, because there are few redundant mercenaries. One example would be the sacred band cavalry and spearcav mercenaries from the italian embassy for carthage.

Im going to go ahead and test all the merge requests together, looks like we have almost enough votes to decide.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say with 26 votes we could probably call it. Anyone disagree?

Looks to me like 1,2,3,4,8, and 10 certainly have enough support, but i'm not sure about 7. Neither cavalry change was supported, we can redesign something for cavalry later as @chrstgtr said.

#7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive.

Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes?

edit: nevermind, I guess the votes keep coming. When should we call it?

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes on most of the proposals for community-mod version 0.26.4 except unit-specific upgrades. That would add a lot of new variables to the balancing responsibilities. And, it would add a lot of new functionality that people would have to learn. As a result, it's not suitable for a limited balance mod. There's already a high enough learning curve for the newer players. I even saw a skilled player, SaidRdz, complain that he felt like a newbie for several weeks until he could learn how to be effective with the new version of community-mod. This is not a statement about SaidRdz, it's a statement about community-mod.

Also, any votes that are approximately "50% yes, 50% no" should be interpreted as no votes.

Edited by Norse_Harold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I would say with 26 votes we could probably call it. Anyone disagree?

Looks to me like 1,2,3,4,8, and 10 certainly have enough support, but i'm not sure about 7. Neither cavalry change was supported, we can redesign something for cavalry later as @chrstgtr said.

#7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive.

Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes?

edit: nevermind, I guess the votes keep coming. When should we call it?

What was the criteria we used last time? I thought it was a super majority or at least a majority of all votes cast.

Lots of people pick the third option as a "I like some but not all choice." At a minimum, I don't think something that skids by on a 40%, 35%, 35% votes should get in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I would say with 26 votes we could probably call it. Anyone disagree?

Looks to me like 1,2,3,4,8, and 10 certainly have enough support, but i'm not sure about 7. Neither cavalry change was supported, we can redesign something for cavalry later as @chrstgtr said.

#7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive.

Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes?

edit: nevermind, I guess the votes keep coming. When should we call it?

I'mma get bashed for this one:

For 4 I voted no.  It may be good ideas.  Great ideas too. I'd strongly, however, suggest making that "1 item changed/modified then vote for that 1 item."  Do not bundle items as riders for voting. 

It's hard to get a large overview of impact on the individual items/riders.  It would be better for a "no bundling/riders" rule on changes to be voted on.  Might sound stupid, but riders could be a problematic (a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under consideration). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dizaka said:

For 4 I voted no.  It may be good ideas.  Great ideas too. I'd strongly, however, suggest making that "1 item changed/modified then vote for that 1 item."  Do not bundle items as riders for voting. 

 

Do you mean 3?

 

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

9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

What was the criteria we used last time? I thought it was a super majority or at least a majority of all votes cast.

Yeah we did something like that. Unfortunately this means only 5 changes will be actually added, which is a tiny fraction of the work I put in here :(

Hopefully I don't get any blame for the lack of content.

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

17 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

And, it would add a lot of new functionality that people would have to learn. As a result, it's not suitable for a limited balance mod.

I would say learning new things is good. If there are more things to learn, that means there is more content to explore.

Also Said saying he feels like a newbie is a massive exaggeration, he still plays very well XD.

Also, this isn't a balance mod, its for new features too.

Again, I think I did a bad job of communicating what the upgrade system involves. Sorry to all the yes voters.

  • Thanks 1
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...