Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ttps://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7074

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/6948

These are necessary too. But does it get at the issue that I am getting at and that you are getting at here: 

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

then it seems the bolt goes idle and keeps trying to shoot this unit

My understand is that 6948 was just meant to deal with the building vs. unit issue. A unit will still be high priority (despite not being hittable) if it is within min range. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

then it seems the bolt goes idle and keeps trying to shoot this unit

My understand is that 6948 was just meant to deal with the building vs. unit issue. A unit will still be high priority (despite not being hittable) if it is within min range. 

In checking that a higher priority unit exists, this unit would also have to be in the allowed range, so I think a single solution could solve both these issues.

Edited September 29, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

56 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

In checking that a higher priority unit exists, this unit would also have to be in the allowed range, so I think a single solution could solve both these issues.

Perfect

[real_tabasco_sauce]

community-testing.zip

Ok, here is a testing version of the next community mod. A little bit of multiplayer testing will help us avoid the crashes we experienced last time. 

[Effervescent]

On 30/09/2024 at 9:55 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

community-testing.zip 14.6 MB · 14 downloads

Ok, here is a testing version of the next community mod. A little bit of multiplayer testing will help us avoid the crashes we experienced last time. 

Thanks for keeping the minimum range on Bolts. Makes me feel like my feedback is heard even though I don't keep up with all the changes.

Bit late cause I was out but the mod works fine for me. I was only able to test with Petra bots though.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Thanks for testing @Effervescent

Did you find the building AI controls intuitive? I recommend binding the hotkey "Focus Fire" but its not essential.

[Effervescent]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Did you find the building AI controls intuitive?

I only used the right mouse button at first which was pretty intuitive for me. I clicked on tower and right clicked on unit, and then shift + right clicked on another unit to queue the focus fire. After I was done setting the order I used ctrl (attackmove) + right click on ground to set rally point. The focus fire queue stays active even when setting rally point.

As for the middle click button. I didn't understand the function.

The "Focus fire" hotkey I managed to set and use but honestly, the phrasing in the "Latest Changes" confused me for a bit. 

Quote

-(Left) A new hotkey, Focus Fire, is added to control exclusively the building arrows. Unbound by default. configure it to your liking in the hotkey menu.

"(Left)" made me think I had to press the hotkey and left mouse button. I realised later that I had press hotkey and right key.

I would recommend the text to be phrased differently, maybe something like

-Hotkey: "Focus Fire" can be set in the hotkey menu and used to control the arrows of the selected building(s). Can be queued with Shift. Unbound by default.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Effervescent

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ah, I didn't realize (left) and (right) would be misinterpreted. These are just to explain the three options shown in the image.

All the actions are completed by the right click, since left click is for selections.

16 minutes ago, Effervescent said:

I only used the right mouse button at first which was pretty intuitive for me. I clicked on tower and right clicked on unit, and then shift + right clicked on another unit to queue the focus fire. After I was done setting the order I used ctrl (attackmove) + right click on ground to set rally point. The focus fire queue stays active even when setting rally point.

As for the middle click button. I didn't understand the function.

It looks like you figured it out anyway, but the middle option is what you describe above: ctrl + click to just set the rally point. This is so that setting a rally point to a ram does not waste arrows or require you to re-set the arrows back onto units.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

community mod version 13 is out!

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hello, community mod players

This is possible to add this to the community mod, although it comes with a pretty minor performance decrease. On the upside, we get more responsive engagements and unit ranges hold true no matter where the target travels.

The benefit to testing this in the com mod is we get an idea of the balances effects as well a more complete idea of the performance impacts. On the balance changes, I expect this to make retreating less punishing, improve spear cavalry chasing, and make ranged units easier to micro around melee units (ie like for ram ships).

Are you all ok to try this out?

I'll also look into the bolt shooter unitAI.

Edited November 6, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

22 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I'll also look into the bolt shooter unitAI.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7188

from what I can tell, the bolt shooter fix will need to be in the c++ code, so it can't be done in the com mod :C

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Basically, its because the min range is not checked with a parabolic approach, while the attack is parabolic.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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

pull requests: 1) implementing the additional range checks to fix unit overshooting, 2) some miscellaneous fixes balance adjustments, and building arrow adjustments:

• sentry towers get 1 additional default arrow (minimally affects fully garrisoned damage).
• CC repeat time decreased from 4.500 to 4.000 seconds, as many players said it was too weak.
• army camp repeat time 2.500 -> 3.500 (it was mistakenly unchanged in the current mod)
• sentries tech now uses 50% more arrows instead of +1 arrow. This makes default arrows go from 2 to 3 for sentry towers, and 4 to 6 for defense towers
• "professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

for the romans, I gave onagers a slight buff and made roman reforms a little bit cheaper.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

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

pull requests: 1) implementing the additional range checks to fix unit overshooting, 2) some miscellaneous fixes balance adjustments, and building arrow adjustments:

• sentry towers get 1 additional default arrow (minimally affects fully garrisoned damage).
• CC repeat time decreased from 4.500 to 4.000 seconds, as many players said it was too weak.
• army camp repeat time 2.500 -> 3.500 (it was mistakenly unchanged in the current mod)
• sentries tech now uses 50% more arrows instead of +1 arrow. This makes default arrows go from 2 to 3 for sentry towers, and 4 to 6 for defense towers
• "professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

for the romans, I gave onagers a slight buff and made roman reforms a little bit cheaper.

Why did the change occur in the Sentry Tower?

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

professional garrisons" tech buffed a little: +4 default arrows to +6.

What is this? Is this new tech?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

15 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Why did the change occur in the Sentry Tower?

When i re-introduced non-random arrows to the current version, i balanced p1 building arrows on the weaker side out of an abundance of caution.

2 default arrows is closer to the sentry tower's original dps, so i think its appropriate to try it out with 2 arrows.

the change to the sentry tech is important because the value of adding 1 arrow to a tower depends on the number it already has.

Edited November 7, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Also sparta enthusiasts, I added a slight buff to the spartan hoplite itself, a 10% damage buff in the form of repeat time. This way the unit is strong without having to get the full tech tree.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

also coming: a fix to food gen infinite loop in badosu balanced maps, larger forests in badosu balanced maps, foothills improvements.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

in order to do some testing with multiple players, here is a mod with the overshoot change. It is based off of the current version of the community mod for a26.

community-mod-overshootFix.zip

Edited November 9, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok thanks to those who helped test! This is the final testing version before release. Lmk if there are any errors or bugs. I'll try to do a couple multiplayer tests today.

community-testing.zip

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hey com mod players,

What do you all think of the "Foothills" map with the new improvements to the woodlines?

I have a patch to add it to the regular random maps: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7155

If there are suggestions for the map, I'd love to hear then and I can add them to the pull request.

Edited November 17, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Philip the Swaggerless]

The Forge (blacksmith) is too cheap. Traders are too expensive.

Forge

Current Cost: 200 wood and 120 second build time

• It is the cheapest and most quickly built of the standard p2 structures required for going to p3. (forge, market, temple)
• In most cases it is the most critical p2 building to make.

Because of this, many experienced players make a minimum of 2 forges but may make 3 or 4.  They may not even make any other of the p2 buildings.  All or most upgrades are processed simultaneously so there is little trade-off in terms of prioritizing upgrades.

I suggest adding a significant metal cost so that the more blacksmiths you make the slower your p3 upgrade.

Proposed cost: 200 wood 200 metal.

Traders

Current Cost: 100 food 80 metal.

• They have a significant cost and are vulnerable.  They're more difficult to protect that regular eco units that have a central work area.
• For the maps that competitive games are played on the main reason (imo) to make them is to unlock the diaspora tech, not the trade income.
• Changing the trading system has been discussed but there's not been any consensus on how to do it.
  •  @real_tabasco_sauce admitted he has no idea what to do with traders.

Based on those points, for the time being, I say just make them cheaper.

Proposed cost:  50 food, 10 metal.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Because of this, many experienced players make a minimum of 2 forges but may make 3 or 4.  They may not even make any other of the p2 buildings.  All or most upgrades are processed simultaneously so there is little trade-off in terms of prioritizing upgrades.

 

Agree.

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I suggest adding a significant metal cost so that the more blacksmiths you make the slower your p3 upgrade.

Disagree on metal. It's too scarce and the upgrades already cost metal. But I do think it should cost more. I would add a food cost because it is the slowest to produce (yet is infinite so it is just a time trade-off) and would force a player to forgo pop to spam blacksmiths. 

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Proposed cost:  50 food, 10 metal.

This feels really cheap. The problem with traders is that they quickly become OP, so you don't want them to become too easy to spam. When resources get depleted on a map this is particularly true. I've played multiple games where the first player to get like 5 traders consistently safe wins. If traders are super cheap, then there will be a very narrow window in which you could effectively respond to your enemy switching to traders (either by raiding or making traders of your own). Because of that, I would keep metal cost higher (like 100m). 

An alternative fix would be to keep the cost the same but increase the min yield of traders. Right now, traveling between your base and your closest ally yields something like 4 resources. That is so little that it never makes sense to trade unless you are traveling super far distances. Increasing the min yield will make "safe" trading over short distances more viable. 

Edited November 18, 2024 by chrstgtr

[Philip the Swaggerless]

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Disagree on metal. It's too scarce and the upgrades already cost metal.

Metal from you're initial p3 territory is too scarce to get all forge upgrades + a significantly champion army. I think that's okay.  More metal can be gathered from expanding territory and ...traders. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I would add a food cost because it is the slowest to produce (yet is infinite so it is just a time trade-off) and would force a player to forgo pop to spam blacksmiths.

Maybe this is me not booming well, but I find that getting enough food to maintain p1 unit production and get 500 extra for the p2 upgrades leaves me with more food income than is needed for p2 expenses, and I usually send some to wood.  Rather than seek alternate advantages, I think people would just boom accordingly and get all the forges as usual. The only adjustment might be to delay mining upgrades. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This feels really cheap.

It is. This is me assuming nothing else about traders will change. It could be more but should be reduced from what it is. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

When resources get depleted on a map this is particularly true. I've played multiple games where the first player to get like 5 traders consistently safe wins.

I'm curious - on what maps? I don't like the idea that you make traders only if you are on a seldom-played map that lacks a particular resource. 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Because of that, I would keep metal cost higher (like 100m). 

An INCREASE? 

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

An alternative fix would be to keep the cost the same but increase the min yield of traders.

That small gain of 4 metal is especially bad because they cost 80 metal plus food to make.

I would hate to see a bunch of traders going 100 meters back and forth.  Since they can be so vulnerable, I would mostly rather see the cost of traders reduced but we could couple that with balancing the journey-distance-to-income multiplier. Longer trips should be rewarded, but the gap should not be so extreme.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Philip the Swaggerless
Typo: changed should to should not

[real_tabasco_sauce]

What about utilizing stone cost for the forge? 
something like 200 wood, 50 or 100 stone.

i think this could be interesting as it brings a bit more opportunity cost into the picture since mining techs, production buildings, and clicking up also cost stone. It would also make the no stone build for Gauls less strong.