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

[Norse_Harold]

In my opinion, way too much is being tested at once, considering that all of community-mod is also in the test case. Therefore the cause could be anywhere. Why assume that it's caused by the walls delete trees component unless the crash can be reproduced with only that component?

[Grapjas]

Well, as i said it was more of a prototype code and expected someone to build off of it .

As for entsToDestroy, it doesn't need to be cleaned or emptied because a foundation will just start with an empty variable to begin with and be gone when the foundation has been built.

The new zip below has some fun JS edge case (also why are empty arrays truthy ) going on where it pushes ent twice, not really an issue but it shouldn't regardless.

Also got the shading to mark entities red that would be destroyed semi working aswell (not in this zip tho) but i've honestly got to much projects going on to finish it anytime soon lol.

Lemme know if this one's better and tweak it as you need.

BTW, can't you simply delete my mod (or files) to test if it still happens without?

walls_destroy_trees.zip

Edited September 10, 2024 by Grapjas

[Norse_Harold]

4 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

As for entsToDestroy, it doesn't need to be cleaned or emptied because a foundation will just start with an empty variable to begin with and be gone when the foundation has been built.

I think that isFinished() can be called multiple times when build progress is 1.0, so entsToDestroy is being processed multiple times. I've confirmed this with testing.

[Grapjas]

21 minutes ago, Norse_Harold said:

I think that isFinished() can be called multiple times when build progress is 1.0, so entsToDestroy is being processed multiple times. I've confirmed this with testing.

It gets called alot throughout when the foundation is being built, but the statement should still only run once. Maybe twice, but engine.DestroyEntity does nothing gamebreaking if the ent doesn't exist anyway otherwise i'd expect it to throw an error.

EDIT: you are right the var should be emptied if it does called multiple times though

Edited September 10, 2024 by Grapjas

[real_tabasco_sauce]

version 12 is out with no crashes (so far)!

[Grapjas]

36 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

version 12 is out with no crashes (so far)!

Hmm so it was the walls over trees mod? Interesting.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yes, and it seems to be fixed in your recent mod.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, there have been issues with OOS in the new version of the community mod. It seems many of these are related to install issues with version 12:

For example:

<p class="warning">WARNING: Technology "phase_town_spart" does not exist</p>

In this case, a version 10 file called "phase_town_spart" remains after installing version 12, which is supposed to be deleted in version 12.

How to fix (and hopefully this solves the OOS for good).

1. uninstall all your mods
2. navigate to your mods folder (For example, windows might be C:/Documents/My\ Games/0ad/mods/
3. delete the community mod folder
4. open 0ad and re-install the community mod and your other mods.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok are there any suggestions for version 12?

I heard from someone that the conscript spearman should be available for romans from the CC upon researching the reforms. I think its a good idea.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/pulls

some more com mod changes:

reintroduced non-random building ai (see the discussion for that)

Ptol civ bonuses: bolt shooters now get 10% net damage buff instead of 0, all 3 farming techs available in village phase

roman reforms allows conscript spearmen from cc

kushite pyramid 150s,75m 120sec -> 100s, 100m, 100sec (should help with build order flexibility, doesn't "punish" the player by only allowing one barracks with 300 starting stone)

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

all 3 farming techs available in village phase

This will be fun. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, any balance concerns I can address in a new version? Are swordcav too weak compared to spear cav? Perhaps a new briton team bonus?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, idea I just came up with for brit civ bonus:

The Briton team bonus is quite sub-optimal: it rarely comes into play and it doesn't make much of a difference.

At the same time, the gauls bonus is quite generic, affecting all military techs, which leads to no change in how the game is played.

Since the brits and gauls are sister civs, I think it would be neat to give them sister team bonuses, and there are multiple ways to go about this.

1. Brits: 30% cheaper ranged damage and pierce armor techs, gauls 30% melee damage and hack armor techs.

The way they are split is up to debate, but I think this would be a great idea for a brit team bonus.

[Gurken Khan]

I like the idea of giving sister civs sister bonuses. For me the Briton bonus always comes into play but it's not a big deal; for ten healers it's worth 250 res. It would feel like an upgrade to the brit bonus and gaul pretty much staying the same (doubling effect, halving affected tecs).

I don't know if it's less generic and would actually affect gameplay. I guess you're proposing it here so it will be tested before going into vanilla?

What I really don't appreciate is civ specific bonuses; if I don't have access to eles or mercs those bonuses are worthless. [I usually don't make eles or siege (unless I have two or more iber enemies), so those bonuses are usually worthless for me, but that might be a personal problem.]

[Effervescent]

35 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Brits: 30% cheaper ranged damage and pierce armor techs, gauls 30% melee damage and hack armor techs.

This is a buff for Britons and nerf for Gauls. Especially if you consider the resources/time spent after discounted prices is the same but only for limited options (melee or range). This limit to options is pretty insidious in it's own way as it promotes a certain playstyle (melee or range heavy, atleast initially) and more importantly takes choices/options away from players.

 

41 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

At the same time, the gauls bonus is quite generic, affecting all military techs, which leads to no change in how the game is played.

While I don't agree that Gauls is generic when you have options to vary your playstyle with Gauls -like p2 fanatics if you wanna be fancy, or going for a slinger army for simpler strats, there's also some good options to spam early cavs as they have good food techs and stables that don't cost stone- I can understand if you wanna make Gauls better. There is always room for improvement after all. The keyword being better and not different.

If you wanna give more options to players on how they can play Gauls, I don't see how cutting discount for half the military techs will achieve it. The changes to mace and spartans is a good example of adding variety to playstyle while making the civ better and I would be happy if Gauls get something similar but limiting options is not a good way.

57 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The Briton team bonus is quite sub-optimal: it rarely comes into play and it doesn't make much of a difference.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Brits need a better team bonus. And honestly, we can do better than giving them second-hand Gauls bonus. This should be the focus and complicating it by changing another civ to achieve this doesn't seem to be the way.

I suggest the bonus to britons revolve around their forts. They already have something to do with that in the building Island Settlement which is very good for naval maps. Maybe forts that can be placed in neutral territory. That would allow for some fun plays.

tl;dr: Don't nerf Gauls.

[chrstgtr]

Agree with @Effervescent. This feels like less of an addition and more a rearrangement. The whole sister civ idea is fine except we aren’t doing that for any of the other sister civs (Sparta and Athens, ptol and Sele, etc.) (note: brits need some new features for p2-p3 to make them more than a watered down version of Gauls with different heroes/bonuses)
 

For Brits, everyone always says how they should be an ambush/raiding civ. Why don’t we actually do something with that? Something generic could be giving a speed bonus or a loot bonus.  Something more ambitious could be something where you a p1 only bonus (ie, they get 10% cheaper units but only for p1 or something like that). 
 

If you don’t like that then why don’t we just make healers free? It’s the same idea of what is currently in place except free healers might actually have some game impact. 

Edited September 28, 2024 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I don't think a speed bonus would be good especially since caracutos's global speed buff.

Ok ok, ill come up with some others:

• Discount for defensive structures (or some subset: forts maybe? walls and palisades?)
• Buildings and support units get increased vision range?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 hours ago, Effervescent said:

This limit to options is pretty insidious in it's own way as it promotes a certain playstyle (melee or range heavy, atleast initially) and more importantly takes choices/options away from players.

I don't think a discount on half of the smith techs would take away options from players. Just like the iber team bonus doesnt take away the option to make slingers (many players continue to make slingers because they prefer them for combat). 

The main holdup for me about this change would be which techs to choose for which civ. No matter how hard you try to balance the techs there will be one that is better than the other. Also because its a team bonus very often see the same effect as the original bonus because of how frequently we see both brit and gaul in the same team.

I take the Athens team bonus as a recent addition that has been very fun to play with.

[chrstgtr]

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

caracutos's global speed buff.

Could change. But fine. 

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Buildings and support units get increased vision range?

A general vision range would be nice. 

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

• Discount for defensive structures (or some subset: forts maybe? walls and palisades?)

Meh. Also, doesn't fit with civ profile. 

[Atrik]

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

they get 10% cheaper units but only for p1 or something like that

That one sounds fun.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

But we are talking about team bonuses here.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

But we are talking about team bonuses here.

Don't think that matters. 

Athen's team bonus is "Democracy" but none of the other civs were democratic. 

Sparta's team bonus is "Peloponnesian League" but none of the other civs were members.

Rome's team bonus is "Conscription" but Rome didn't conscript men to serve allies. 

Etc.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Oh I was just talking about the stacking with other civs, like imagine the 10% discount on top of the 10% discount ibers get. That would be super OP. Also I think people would just boom in p1 even more than they already do.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I'm starting to hear suggestions that rome is borderline OP due to the fertility festival (ff), at the same time people seem to agree it is cool bonus. I agree, but personally I would want to wait for copycats (of chrstgtr's strategy, or a better one) to appear before deciding to make any adjustments. At the same time there are other issues relating to ff which we could look at if we want to adjust things:

• 30 second train time for all house sizes (5 pop 10 pop 20 pop): regardless of rome, it would be nice to adjust this so that 5 pop is slower, and 10pop houses are still 30 seconds)
• batch modifier for CC is slower than that for barracks: I would suggest lowering cc batch modifier to equal that of barracks. This would mean the gap between cc production and fertility festival would be less extreme
• fertility festival is expensive in food which is already needed to make use of the tech, and takes 60 seconds to research. I think if something like bullet 1 and or 2 is done, then a cost and research time reduction is warranted, reducing some food cost and 60-> 40 seconds.

in the meantime you can just rush lules.

 

[chrstgtr]

43 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

 

I'm starting to hear suggestions that rome is borderline OP due to the fertility festival (ff), at the same time people seem to agree it is cool bonus. I agree, but personally I would want to wait for copycats (of chrstgtr's strategy, or a better one) to appear before deciding to make any adjustments. At the same time there are other issues relating to ff which we could look at if we want to adjust things:

 

I don’t think Rome is OP. People just haven’t figured out how to deal with it yet. If Rome is OP, then give FF to another civ—Brit’s need one anyways.
 

On FF stats, I would def make unlocking it cheaper and faster. I also might make women train a little faster.  
 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Oh I was just talking about the stacking with other civs, like imagine the 10% discount on top of the 10% discount ibers get. That would be super OP.

Not sure about being OP. 5% might be a better number anyways, which certainly wouldn’t be OP. 
 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also I think people would just boom in p1 even more than they already do.

Also not sure about that. Not sure I’ve noticed a difference with iber. 
 

With all this said, I still think it should be a 3x loot bonus for team. I would make the civ bonus cheaper units for p1. But that’s just me. 

Edited September 28, 2024 by chrstgtr