Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

The last person who did ramming animation was @LordGood for ponies ascendant.

Yeah, similar to the Xiongnu hand ram, where the actor moves back and forth, but the entity is technically stationary (so we don't need any extra pathing code). It's all done in the animation.

[Outis]

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

I thought about doing the roman/athens reworks in the community mod

Would be sooo good to get early impression of how these work, also for Spartans. Is it high effort?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Well its moderate effort in general, but there may be a couple of things that would need to be done differently in a26 vs a27.

I think I would just do sparta, roman, athens, carth, and mace updates in another community mod update.

(carth and mace ones are pretty small).

btw, if anyone just blurts out an idea for a briton team bonus I could do that super quick.

Edited June 10 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone at some point I think it could be cool to integrate speed into the damage model for ram ships, as long as their use is streamlined and things aren't too clunky (the latter would be the hard part).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

btw, if anyone just blurts out an idea for a briton team bonus I could do that super quick.

Briton was known for its tin trade and this fact is partly why Rome was interested in the island to begin with. Perhaps a team bonus could be a small trickle of metal resource.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone at some point I think it could be cool to integrate speed into the damage model for ram ships, as long as their use is streamlined and things aren't too clunky (the latter would be the hard part).

Indeed, I feel ships are the prime example of units that can gave substantial acceleration and turn radius effects.

[chrstgtr]

 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

btw, if anyone just blurts out an idea for a briton team bonus I could do that super quick.

100% loot bonus

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5284

 

I'd like to try to get the AI to build more Docks, Fishing Boats, and especially Warships. Can folks with the relevant knowledge take a look at that patch and suggest other files that can be edited for that purpose. Right now all it does is increase 'priority' for Docks (slightly sooner, but still only 1 dock), Fishing Boats (from 1 to 5 per "sea"), and "ships" (but no separate designation for warships), but doesn't do much else.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@guerringuerrin the merge requests are all in:

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

I just need to check the maps compatibility with feldmap. I suppose I could just copy over the resource balancer so they are identical and then in theory, players could apply the mods in either order.

[Feldfeld]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@guerringuerrin the merge requests are all in:

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

I just need to check the maps compatibility with feldmap. I suppose I could just copy over the resource balancer so they are identical and then in theory, players could apply the mods in either order.

I believe you just have to check for name uniqueness. Both feldmap and badosu maps define their own balancer which they only use in their own new maps (thus unique). So the only way they would be incompatible is if some functions defined share the same name in both mods, then one would override the other which is bad. With a quick check it seems there is no shared name so they should be compatible but tell me if you see otherwise.

A way to check for OOS if you are alone is that you can launch a game, generating the map, then exit, change the mod order, and open the replay to that game. If it is incompatible you should see OOS there.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

A way to check for OOS if you are alone is that you can launch a game, generating the map, then exit, change the mod order, and open the replay to that game. If it is incompatible you should see OOS there.

k, I just did that test and it seems ok. Yeah I can tell that the different balancers are being used on their respective maps.

Before I get this next version out, I'll ask someone to do some more extensive tests with me.

[guerringuerrin]

Alright, I've updated the changelog and is ready to be merged!

I've also added icons to make it more "aesthetics". I think it also makes the reading more comfortable.

I hope you like it!

Please check it one more time in case I missed something =)

Lastly, we can change the date to the exact release date when the merge is done and ready to be downloaded by the community.

 

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

That looks great! Thank so much @guerringuerrin

[Stan`]

47 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

@Vantha maybe ?

[Vantha]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

Note: I wanted to put the icons in the same line as the titles, but I don't know how to center the text in the center of the images and didn't like the end result. If someone know how or have a better looking alternative, I'd be happy to read abbout it

35 minutes ago, Stan` said:

@Vantha maybe ?

Sure, I can help with that. Where is the code? I don't see a merge request for it.

[guerringuerrin]

@VanthaThanks!. I've just sent the merge request

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@guerringuerrin I did one more change to increase the temple of Amun capture points for kush. I'll test the the mod put together a decent bit.

Lets set the date for this Tuesday, 6/18. When you update the MR, i'll make a testing version and if all is well I'll publish the next version Tuesday.

Edited June 16 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Vantha]

@guerringuerrin Ok. As explained here, the icon tag has a property called 'displace' that allows moving the icon on the x and y axis by a certain number of pixels. Now, the target icons measure 32x32 pixels while the font is only 16 pixels high. A downwards offset by half the difference (in this case 8 pixels) perfectly centers the icon on the text => displace="0 8".

(The text might appear a bit smaller than 16 pixels because it mostly contains lowercase letters, so I suspect an offset of 9 pixels might look slightly better, but you'll have to be the judge for that)

I suggested according changes to the latest merge request.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Thanks @Vantha and @guerringuerrin, the changelog page looks great!

version 9 is out right now!

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Thanks @Vantha and @guerringuerrin, the changelog page looks great!

version 9 is out right now!

Nice, maybe put a changelog on the mod.io page and/or include that screenshot?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

There is widespread agreement that archers play poorly since the melee rebalance mod. Prior to the melee rebalance, archers were bad unless players sniped with them. The melee rebalance effectively nerfed the extreme combat value of killing ranged units first, and this affected archers disproportionately since sniping was necessary to make them useful. We can always simply add some damage to make the unit on par with slingers and javelins, but there are more creative options that could lead to a better gameplay result.

• reduce slinger/skirm projetile velocities (this is different to speeding up archer velocities)
• increase move speed for archers 
• + whatever people can think of

[ChronA]

In real life, sling stones fly significantly faster than arrows. Realism is important.

Also, past experience has shown that changing units movement speed has massive economic side effects. Thus It is too chaotic to use for balance.

13 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

+ whatever people can think of

A. A small amount of hack added to archer damage. This could represent the ability of arrows to more precisely target and cut into gaps in armor, due to the static release of bows, versus the more chaotic dynamic launching methods of the other projectiles. More experienced or well equipped opponents would be able to cover these vulnerabilities, hence units with hack armor negating the advantage. (Contrast with slings, which defeat armor coverage directly using blunt kinetic impact, modeled by crush.)

B. Buffed archer accuracy, and maybe a small nerf to sling and javelin accuracy, so that slings and javelins will have some noticeable damage fall off at their maximum range. This could represent the superior willingness of archers to shoot to kill targets of opportunity, rather than just to suppress. Bows and arrows are expensive weapons systems compared to slings or javelins, thus bows are more likely to be wielded by committed combatants who are highly invested in victory.

C. A small amount of extra health, to represent greater willingness to stand and fight, for the same reasons.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

We can always simply add some damage to make the unit on par with slingers and javelins, but there are more creative options that could lead to a better gameplay result.

• reduce slinger/skirm projetile velocities (this is different to speeding up archer velocities)
• increase move speed for archers

None of these make sense to me. 

Dmg should correlate to movement speed, which should correlate to range. Increasing archer dmg runs entirely counter that. As does increasing archer speed. Changing projectile speed is just a shell game for changing dmg value: it makes a change in the least observable field that isn't even listed in unit stats. 

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

• + whatever people can think of

The fact that archers were (arguably) the best unit when used for sniping (even when compared to sniping with other units) shows that the problem isn't anything to do with archers stats and instead has to do with how they are used.

So, what is the solution? Sniping. But sniping is annoying. So, let's make sniping less annoying. Let's put in an area attack option. The area attack option should mimic sniping micro. It will serve the dual purpose of balancing archers and eliminating the annoying micro tactic known as sniping. 

If an area attack option doesn't work then I think we need to seriously reconsider whether the melee rebalance patch uses the correct mechanism to balance melee/range units.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@chrstgtr

2 developments re sniping:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5282

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1971

[chrstgtr]

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@chrstgtr

2 developments re sniping:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5282

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1971

Hopefully. But…

D1971 looks dead. I think I discussed elsewhere on how it’s imperfect.

D5282 is really just a concept right now. It also seems designed for balls of armies, which won’t help in small army fights. Maybe it helps where there are long lines. So a partial solution, if that. But obviously helpful if it does deliver. It just won’t be a complete solution. (Have you run any tests yet? Last I’ve seen was all technical discussion.)

Just saying we need something more.