Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[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, 2024 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. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

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.)

yeah ive done some tests and it works pretty well. I need to set up the precision value in the templates, and then test for OOS. Then there's also the performance side of things.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@chrstgtrare you saying that archers are viable right now? Since sniping has been nerfed archers are now worse than they were before the melee rebalance. Its not a usage issue, people don't snipe because its simply not as effective. This is especially the case when you consider that melee units now do so much more damage and are worth killing. I understand being concerned with increasing walk speed of archers because that was one issue in a24, but there's been plenty of changes with turn times and acceleration since then so there's probably some walk speed increase that can work. 

@ChronA as for the walk speed, the eco buff it gives can only be as big as the speed buff that we give them. For example gauls already have skirms which walk the fastest, so the eco won't be this drastic change that you suggest.

[chrstgtr]

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@chrstgtrare you saying that archers are viable right now? Since sniping has been nerfed archers are now worse than they were before the melee rebalance. Its not a usage issue, people don't snipe because its simply not as effective. This is especially the case when you consider that melee units now do so much more damage and are worth killing. I understand being concerned with increasing walk speed of archers because that was one issue in a24, but there's been plenty of changes with turn times and acceleration since then so there's probably some walk speed increase that can work. 

 

I'm saying there is a pretty basic principle where walk speed should correlate to damage, which should correlate to range and we should color within those lines. Archer balance may not right now (and it wasn't right before). Cross bow balance is worse (and always has been terrible). But making archer dmg equal to sling or jav dmg is certainly wrong. Same goes for walk speed. Implementing changes outside of those principles creates problems in the long run. 

If a solution can't be found when coloring within those lines then something else is wrong. I think, at a minimum, there needs to be some sort of "auto-sniping" built into the game. Pre-melee rebalance shows that is necessary. If "auto-sniping" and corrections within those principles don't help then there is something else wrong. 

I've been saying it a long time but balance is off post-melee rebalance. It rightfully changed the meta. But a meta isn't balance. Changing the melee rank up helped a ton (which itself was an artifact of a quick fix that was implemented outside of principles and caused problems down the road). But there is still something not quite right. We see a bunch of small problems with balance where things are just a little bit off. I can't put my finger on the exact problem or a solution but I think there is pretty wide agreement that balance isn't quite right. 

[chrstgtr]

52 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah ive done some tests and it works pretty well. I need to set up the precision value in the templates, and then test for OOS. Then there's also the performance side of things.

Great. I'm interested. Sounds like it's still in development, though, and has awhile to go before it makes it into primetime. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by chrstgtr

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

But making archer dmg equal to sling or jav dmg is certainly wrong. Same goes for walk speed

I didn't suggest that either value has to be greater than or equal to corresponding slinger or skirm values. damage and walk speed are continuous variables here of course. Its good you bring up the crossbows because those are even more challenging to balance. I think real tabasco's thing with range precision could help them reduce overkill a lot. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[chrstgtr]

39 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I didn't suggest that either value has to be greater than or equal to corresponding slinger or skirm values. damage and walk speed are continuous variables here of course. It’s good you bring up the crossbows because those are even more challenging to balance. I think real tabasco's thing with range precision could help them reduce overkill a lot. 

You said increase dmg “on par” with jav/sling. If that isn’t what you meant then, yes, should an augmentation of the dmg is in order just like some nerf was necessary before.

Walk speed has a bunch of problems that’s been discussed. Even if you find a middle ground that won’t help much with “stand and fight” situations (aka the majority of the time) since units don’t walk within the fight. 

Just saying we should stay within the basic principles I outlined before. There’s obviously some wiggle room  within those parameters

On overkill issue, I’ve already said how I think Tabasco’s idea will really only work for fights where armies are highly congested, so helpful but partial. Also, any effect will be shared across all range unit types, so skims/slings will get better at same time as archers. The magnitude might be different but I’m skeptical it will make a trash unit as good as skirms/slings. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

On overkill issue, I’ve already said how I think Tabasco’s idea will really only work for fights where armies are highly congested, so helpful but partial. Also, any effect will be shared across all range unit types, so skims/slings will get better at same time as archers. The magnitude might be different but I’m skeptical it will make a trash unit as good as skirms/slings. 

Two variables are important for how the range precision affects overkill and unit performance. The ratio of range to target and target spacing (largest for archers), and firing period (biggest for xbows). These are not constant for ranged units so we can be sure that the change will affect some units more than others. I do agree that it will mainly be noticeable when battles are large and congested, but this is by no means a rare thing in 0ad. "on par" was in reference to the overall unit performance and not specifically the damage/walk speed values needed to achieve that parity, my apologies for not being clear.

[chrstgtr]

26 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Two variables are important for how the range precision affects overkill and unit performance. The ratio of range to target and target spacing (largest for archers), and firing period (biggest for xbows). These are not constant for ranged units so we can be sure that the change will affect some units more than others. I do agree that it will mainly be noticeable when battles are large and congested, but this is by no means a rare thing in 0ad.

Sure. This is all to say it won't be a silver bullet, which I think is obvious. 

[chrstgtr]

39 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

"on par" was in reference to the overall unit performance and not specifically the damage/walk speed values needed to achieve that parity, my apologies for not being clear.

Ok. That's different then and compatible with what I was saying. 

I would say buffing dmg and fixing sniping are the obvious steps to take to archer/xbow. Changes to walk speed should be disfavored as they don't address "stand and fight" situations. I also think @ChronA is right that we shouldn't open the can of worms that walk speed would bring. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by chrstgtr

[Philip the Swaggerless]

So we played a gulf of bothnia game and here are my impressions.

I don't think I would make boats to take water control anymore.

Boats used to be effective for fighting land troops. (They were WAY too effective.)

Now they must be extremely weary of land troops because they will get sunk very easily by ranged infantry.

Boats firepower vs each other is also felt lackluster.  They take a long time to kill each other.  If you are trying to transport soldiers, I wouldn't be too worried about making a bunch of boats, just make a few and they'll probably survive to the other side unless hit by a fire boat.

So then what do you do with boats?

1. Fish,
2. Protect own fishermen, harrass other's fishermen
3. Transport soldiers

What do you not do?

1. Make combat boats for naval battles
2. Support land troops from the sea

I have no idea if this is more realistic so I won't comment about it.  But if this is the way it is to be, the fact warships still take 3-4 pop space means you better not make too many.

[chrstgtr]

9 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

So then what do you do with boats?

1.  
2. Protect own fishermen, harrass other's fishermen
3.  

Arrow ships are worthless against fishing ships too. Fire ships do literally zero damage against fishing boats. You're better off ignoring enemy war ships and building more fishing boats because it takes multiple minutes for an entire arrow boat to kill one fishing ship despite the arrow ship being more expensive in resources, build time, and ship cost. 

The tech tree is also unnecessarily extensive and complicated. A lot of this should just be consolidated into like two techs (if naval ever actually becomes a real aspect of the game it can be built out again but right now there are so many techs that each do such limited things that no tech would ever be worth getting). 

The scout ship seems to have no purpose. 

Overall, there is no reason to ever build a war ship to fight. Navy needs a bit of work

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I'd like to be able to make scout ship in p1. I think given how long p1 usually lasts, having an opportunity to "rush" on water would be nice. I think the details of which ships are too op/ up in navy fights aren't clear yet, but definitely ships need to be be killing fishing ships faster.

Currently the best way to kill fishing ships seems to be making multiple ram ships and one arrow ship. Since ram ships take all but 2 hp from fishing ships, you can task ram ships on different fishing ships and use the arrow ship to finish them off. As for the techs I think its nice to have potent techs that make an effect on a particular ship type, that way you actually choose which techs to get according to the naval strategy you are going for instead of just clicking almost everything like eco or land military techs.

[guerringuerrin]

I think I would put main focus on improving the arrow ship. It feels pretty weird that this one fires only one arrow at a time and does so little damage. I would even try that by default it can have more than one target and that the player can, in any case, attack a single target if he wishes.
On the other hand, the lack of animations and foleys for the actions of the ships makes them feel very little "exciting"...

Edited June 27, 2024 by guerringuerrin

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1. Foley/sound effects for ranged ships can be done if someone creates very simple idle animation for each one that we can use for the attack animation. For units, it is required to have an animation to trigger a sound. 

2. Ramming ships need a ramming animation. The Xiongnu battering ram serves as a good example of what could be done.

3. I do indeed would like to see Arrow Ships fire volleys of arrows instead of one at a time. I think there may be a patch somewhere for that. And then be awesome for the arrow ship tech to add arrows to this volley instead of reducing attack time.

4. Balance etc. This was a first draft of the ship stats. Put into the community mod for yall to suggest good stat values. I guess a few rounds of idle complaints are necessary before the real work is done. For instance, I would suggest (among other things!!2) tightening up the accuracy of warships so they are stronger against land units and fishing boats.

5. Let's hold off on making the tech tree as  bland and generic as the land tech tree please.

6. Things added despite flaws so that ppl may be inspired to fix them.