Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Your brother (I think) tried to do against me to prove his point when I built ALL women and failed miserably

I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

My point is if it was balanced before, which I think it was, then this is a change designed to disrupt what is already balanced

Thats a good point, I think the whole purpose of the change was to try find a better game mechanic that, if balanced could allow for better gameplay. Just because something is balanced doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Mercs were balanced before a25 but they played pretty much exactly the same as normal CS, so people decided they could be improved and now they play an interesting role in 0ad games after an alpha of being imbalanced.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@chrstgtr You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward.

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Just because something is balanced doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Mercs were balanced before a25 but they played pretty much exactly the same as normal CS, so people decided they could be improved and now they play an interesting role in 0ad games after an alpha of being imbalanced.

Edited March 12 by real_tabasco_sauce

[ChronA]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward.

@real_tabasco_sauce Forgive me for butting in, but as a third party I do feel @chrstgtr has made their case in this dispute better than you have. Both parties seem to agree that the rush vs turtle balance hinges upon static defense doing a very limited amount of damage. It's basically supposed to act as a timer for how long you can derp around in enemy territory, rather than being a decisive source of attrition against enemies who happen to stray too close to an emplacement. The building AI change has disrupted this balance by concentrating the damage emplacements deal, which was previously spread out, such that now it can cause real, lasting attrition.

You want to adjust down the damage stats of static defense to restore the balance, which is fair. Except, won't that in itself defeat the original purpose of the building AI change entirely? Static defense still won't have the ability to generate real, lasting attrition, because that is what the whole thing is balanced around. The net effect on the tactical dynamics of static defense will end up being completely negligible, and all that you will have accomplished is to waste your own time and energy on a largely cosmetic adjustment to the simulation. That's the argument I think @chrstgtr is trying to make, and to me it seems well reasoned.

Now, maybe you have some bigger plan in mind for this. Maybe this will enable smaller, multi-tasked raids to be more viable, if now large incursions will be subject to the same concentrated fire that currently dissuades small ones. But you have not made that argument recently. Instead you are leaning on the premise that concentrating static defense damage is an intrinsic good, but the mere fact that you guys are having this discussion pokes a pretty big hole in that idea.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

You aren't butting in, thanks for your input!

However, I am really confused @ChronA. I can't tell what you mean.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

new poll

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I can't remember that one, but I tried another one against other good players and it worked just fine although I didn't keep all of my cav alive (boo hoo, its still ~60/9 across 4 players). Also there's no need to insult someone who rarely rushes. 

I'm not insulting you and I do not intend to--apologies if you there was a miscommunication. My point is that I recall very few instances where a "chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist then good players would frequently employ the strategy. But that is very clearly not the case. To be honest, I don't recall a single instance where anyone has ever discussed it (aside from when or your bro bring it up, which used to be fairly often). 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You are slamming me and my change to the mod without simply offering a clear way forward

I don't know what you want. I said it should be reversed. That is as concrete as possible. You asked for input then rejected it and said my input should be different if I felt the way I felt. 

You also keep dismissing what I have said as theory. That's nonsense. I have said it IS too strong. That is observed. You have agreed with this. I have said it was balanced before. Any deviation from a state of balance that results in more kills will disrupt balance. That is definitional. 

I feel like you keep changing the goalposts. E.g. There is a change needed because this is a better system-->rushes are too strong-->buildings should kill rushing units-->it is better for 0ad naive players. Or, saying people like-->people will like it-->let's disregard a poll-->let's get a new poll-->I asked some people and they complained about other stuff. 

I also feel like you haven't set forth any valid reason why you think this change should occur aside from there may be some 0AD naive players who don't understand this (never mind the fact that there are so many aspects of the game that are different from AOE and that 0AD is not and should not be a replica of AOE). 

This isn't productive. I don't feel you are taking any feedback here and just looking for feedback that you want/disregarding feedback you don't want to hear. This isn't how it is supposed to work. This is a community project. I get it--you/your bro care a lot and received a lot of unfair/mean criticism from others. But there is other criticism that comes from a good place. Don't forgot those, loud and silent, that may disagree with you from time to time. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

"chicken rush" have been successful against good players. If that strategy was anywhere near as effective as you and your bro insist

The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player. This works to some extent even if they defending player has prepared for it because then their boom will be much slower compared to players of their same level. To be honest, its not very relevant to discuss this since the "chicken rush" as I call it seems to be just as effective now as before.

Games are fun because of the skills and strategies that you learn to win. There's not much to learn about random arrows, because there is no player control over them. The goal of non-random building AI was to add another aspect of the game for the players to play.

On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:

 

commands.txt metadata.json

[chrstgtr]

2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The strategy is more effective for 1200-1400 players who can lessen the performance gap between themselves and a higher level player.

Depends on game but can be. It can also be an effective strategy where a lower player attacks a higher player in TGs (I think that is what you were getting at with the other portion of your reply). 

4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

On a side note heres an interesting game where H.Herle managed to make archers look good:

Not at home at the moment. But I'll watch later if you think I should. I think the complaints about archers are overstated by some. I agree archers are weak now but in some ways archers are actually better/very strong--it's impossible to do rush where you push near the CC now and archers are quite strong in early game once they get ahead.  

I think the melee patch in general is more complicated to understand. There are parts I like and others I dislike. I think there have been some good ideas on how to address it. If we ultimately follow the general approach in the melee patch, think it'll take a few tries to get it balanced as well as before (with the added benefit of getting rid of meatshield meta) 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36

I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players.

I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/36

I did a 0.3 pierce buff here. Of course a well played game can make archers look really good, but I have heard archers being a little weak from a lot of players.

I think 0.3 won't take them to OP territory, just a little boost.

A similar buff is needed for x-bow. 

[BeTe]

Friendly 1v1 Community Mod Test (FCMT) tournament - when?

Instead single elimination, let's make mini league with 4-6-8 players in each group so anyone can play few games before elimitated.

Edited March 13 by BeTe

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up?

I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)

[chrstgtr]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok, after a couple of months with the new update, do you all find melee units too strong when they rank up?

I have a plan to reduce the melee rank up stats (+hp, +20% damage, +1 armor of all types -> +hp, +10% damage)

Yes. Plan makes sense. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

potential community mod ideas:

1. Let siege turn past 45 degrees without stopping (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5201)(improves pathing and clunkiness)

2. Reduce catapult and bolt shooter prepare time (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5131, already committed for a27)

 

[chrstgtr]

26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

potential community mod ideas:

1. Let siege turn past 45 degrees without stopping (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5201)(improves pathing and clunkiness)

2. Reduce catapult and bolt shooter prepare time (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5131, already committed for a27)

 

I like both.

With (2) already committed to a27, I see no reason not to include it.

Speaking of a27 commits, I think the Iphicrates patch would also be nice to get into the community mod too. 

What is your plan for the next community mod, mostly cleanup with arrows/melee balance? I think that is a good plan. 

If you want to add new ideas, I think the wonder is ripe for reform. Ton of things we could do there. But right now it does basically nothing.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah, mostly trying to optimize the rebalance and arrows situation. That and bringing in some of the more simple a27 stuff like the changes to immortals: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5202

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The "no" votes on #3  smh

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The "no" votes on #3  smh

Yeah I think the game is very much in need of a more diverse tech tree and I think this would be a great way to introduce more interesting tech combinations for different civs. I will redo a lot of these upgrades at some point to be a little bit more interesting.

Also I think ppl would be more interested in them after the naval rework, since those techs are very similar.

Edited March 24 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah I think the game is very much in need of a more diverse tech tree and I think this would be a great way to introduce more interesting tech combinations for different civs. I will redo a lot of these upgrades at some point to be a little bit more interesting.

Also I think ppl would be more interested in them after the naval rework, since those techs are very similar.

There are many things that have not touched yet.

For example techs for increase range of sight.(First it would have to be reduced)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

we got the new one out! Unfortunately its called 26.8 not 26.7

[Outis]

15 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

we got the new one out! Unfortunately its called 26.8 not 26.7

Is there a release note?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yes, and its now in the game!

Go to settings-> community-mod, and you will see the patch notes in order of release.

The 26.7 changes are shown, but I had to make a 26.8 version because of an issue

[Atrik]

On 18/02/2024 at 5:10 AM, guerringuerrin said:

 

Alright, I think I ended up finding a pretty interesting middle ground solution. As you can see I added a new button inside Settings menu (instead of using the Options window) which opens a separate window with the changelog, a Close button and a Link button which opens the GItlab Repo as the images shows.

What do you think of this?

 

Why wasn't this implemented?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

It was, I just checked it out. unless something went wrong with your installation?

[Atrik]

Nice! @BreakfastBurrito_007 Ok I was just loading wrong version to play.