Jump to content

Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26


wraitii
 Share

Should these patches be merged in the Community Mod? II  

34 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
      25
    • 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
      24
    • 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
      16
    • 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
      24
    • 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
      6
  6. 6. Cavalry health adjustments https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22

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

    • Yes
      24
    • 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
      13
    • 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
      26
    • 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
      9
    • 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
      8


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BeTe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

image.png.3166289441a3323b034685c6b6be821c.png

image.thumb.png.2036b097993224dde614efcfd26a7b78.png

Why wasn't this implemented?

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...