Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

The projects speaking tube.
Add your two cents if you want to.
RobotMonkey
New user
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 18:35

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by RobotMonkey » 16 Oct 2018, 18:46

hi all

is it possible to built in a save for settings on the skirmish menues?
I remember when I was playing other games like C&C, every time the match was finished, the menu loaded the last setting for a skirmish game. However, in this game it resets every time the settings to "default" and I have to change the map and the other settings every time, which is really annoying. Otherwise I admire you guys for keeping this game alive and thank you for the remaster of this game. :)

Forgon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 161
Joined: 07 Dec 2016, 22:23

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Forgon » 17 Oct 2018, 17:01

RobotMonkey wrote:
16 Oct 2018, 18:46
hi all

is it possible to built in a save for settings on the skirmish menues?
I remember when I was playing other games like C&C, every time the match was finished, the menu loaded the last setting for a skirmish game. However, in this game it resets every time the settings to "default" and I have to change the map and the other settings every time, which is really annoying. Otherwise I admire you guys for keeping this game alive and thank you for the remaster of this game. :)
This feature has been disabled due to bugs since version 3.1. rc2, which contains

`
commit 398f77ede082063bd1bc607d5814e9630f663967
Author: Per Inge Mathisen <per@wz2100.net>
Date: Thu Aug 2 21:18:07 2012 +0200

No longer save default map, max players and map hash. Patch originally by vexed. Closes ticket:3618
'

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Oct 2018, 23:42

I continued testing with the latest camBalance mod. I started again from the end of alpha 05. Lancers and Medium Cannons are looking fine, the Mini-Rocket Pod looked a bit too powerful. I made a second test after I increased the firePause of the Mini-Rocket Pod to 12 from 10 so that the resulting ROF is 125 instead of 150 after the third ROF upgrade. Looks better but I will make a few more tests tomorrow so that I can better compare the performance of the Mini-Rocket Pods with the Lancers. Logs of the two tests (the second was only a quick check with the decreased ROF) are added.

Edit:
Berserk Cyborg wrote:Thinking about yellow bodies, should we start making use of some NP flamer units? The flamers from the NP bunkers are able to hit cobra half-tracks kinda hard on Alpha 6 if not under repair.
I don' think so. The two flamers from the NP bunkers are not really making much damage. And against tracked units even less. They would be no threat if the player decides to move forward with tracked units. If the AI could decide to change the templates to flamers in the factory if the player uses half-tracked units, then yes. At the moment, no. Maybe in alpha 12 against hover units. That would be interesting.
Attachments
logs alpha 06.zip
(3.99 KiB) Downloaded 3 times

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 21 Oct 2018, 23:19

I made a few more tests today. I let a group of Mini-Rocket Pods and a group of Lancers shoot at my own Python Medium Cannon Tracked Tanks. Looks good so far. The Mini-Rocket Pod didn't make any longer an overpowered impression. If I find the time the next days I will play alpha 06 once with each weapon (Mini-Rocket Pod, Lancer Medium Cannon) so that I can compare them in action.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 27 Oct 2018, 20:36

So I finally finished alpha 06 with Mini-Rocket Pods, with Medium Cannons, and with Lancers.
From the point on when I activated the eastern NP LZ I finished the level with Medium Cannons in 16 minutes, with Lancers in 23 minutes and with Mini-Rocket-Pods in 26 minutes. I think we decreased the modifier for hard structures for ANTI TANK weapons too much. Cannons are way better to destroy structures and only slightly worse to destroy tanks so that the Medium Cannon is the clearly best choice and the other two remarkable worse.
So I suggest increasing the structuremodifier for ANTI TANK weapons for hard structures to 25. It's not much, but due to the armour of the hard structures, the difference will be enough. I also suggest decreasing the weaponmodifier for ALL ROUNDERS for Half-Tracked, Hover, Tracked and Wheeled for each by 5 points.
The logs and the changed modifier-files with the suggested values are added.

I also looked into the code of alpha 08 and think six artifacts are too much for such a small level. I suggest making the third rocket damage upgrade a prerequisite for the third cannon damage upgrade and the second slow rocket damage upgrade that are own artifacts at the moment. This way we have only four artifacts instead of six. And I also suggest moving this artifact into the Heavy NP Factory so that we have one artifact in each of the four main NP buildings.

Edit: In the weapons.json file, all AA weapons have still the weaponEffect ANTI AIRCRAFT. But we removed it from the modifier files. What modifier takes place?
Attachments
logs alpha 06.zip
(6.04 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

Forgon
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 161
Joined: 07 Dec 2016, 22:23

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Forgon » 28 Oct 2018, 12:16

alfred007 wrote:
27 Oct 2018, 20:36
[...] Edit: In the weapons.json file, all AA weapons have still the weaponEffect ANTI AIRCRAFT. But we removed it from the modifier files. [...]
I could not find a commit in which this effect was removed.

I did however find a commit in which the effect "ALL ROUNDER" was introduced as a synonym for "ANTI AIRCRAFT":

`
commit 9799fb87c766c0f255a1435ac517d414516fdb8b
Author: Guangcong Luo <zarel@wz2100.net>
Date: Mon Jan 18 02:13:36 2010 +0000

Add "ALL ROUNDER" as an alias for the "ANTI AIRCRAFT" weapon type. Should save future modders a bit of confusion over why cannons and rails are anti-aircraft weapons. ;)

git-svn-id: https://warzone2100.svn.sourceforge.net ... trunk@9312 4a71c877-e1ca-e34f-864e-861f7616d084
'

Inside the directory './data/' the following JSON files make use of WEAPON_EFFECT WE_ANTI_AIRCRAFT (defined in './src/statsdef.h:205' and used in ./src/stats.cpp'):
  • './base/stats/weaponmodifier.json' contains the key "ANTI AIRCRAFT".
  • './mp/stats/weaponmodifier.json' contains the key "ALL ROUNDER".
  • './base/stats/weapons.json' uses "ANTI AICRAFT", but not "ALL ROUNDER", as value for the key "weaponEffect".
  • './base/mp/weapons.json' uses both "ANTI AICRAFT" and "ALL ROUNDER" as value for the key "weaponEffect".

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 28 Oct 2018, 12:24

@Forgon
Sorry Forgon, this is a change me made in the balance mod we are testing at the moment. In this mod, we removed the weaponEffect ANTI AIRCRAFT and replaced it by the weaponEffect ALL ROUNDER. This change is not made in the current master version and we are doing no testing for the current master version at the moment.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 626
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 28 Oct 2018, 20:33

The anti-aircraft weapons would use all-rounder modifiers. I did not bother changing those weapons to use something else yet.

Added your suggestions to the mod for the modifiers, rocket-pod, and alpha 8 artifact distribution. I'll test out Alpha 6 and 8 soon.

camBalance.wz
(108.26 KiB) Downloaded 6 times

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 28 Oct 2018, 21:03

Berserk Cyborg wrote:The anti-aircraft weapons would use all-rounder modifiers.
In this case, shouldn't we set the value for Lift in weapons.json to 100? Anti-Aircraft weapons with a modifier of 40 against the units they were made for would be strange.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 626
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 28 Oct 2018, 21:53

alfred007 wrote:
28 Oct 2018, 21:03
Berserk Cyborg wrote:The anti-aircraft weapons would use all-rounder modifiers.
In this case, shouldn't we set the value for Lift in weapons.json to 100? Anti-Aircraft weapons with a modifier of 40 against the units they were made for would be strange.
Sure. I'll add it the next time the mod gets updated.

Edit 1:
Finished Alpha 6. I think every weapon does fine without there being one that is clearly overpowered. Rocket-pod is as good as it will get. Anyway, off to Alpha 8.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 01 Nov 2018, 21:06

As before I made a test with all three different weapons. The gap between the Medium Cannons and the Mini Rocket Pods has narrowed to two and a half minute from 10 minutes. We can move forward to alpha 08. Logs are again added.
Attachments
logs alpha 06.zip
(6 KiB) Downloaded 1 time

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 03 Nov 2018, 00:38

Hi all

Just a quick check in since I haven't been around lately, I started Uni a few months ago so I don’t have the same free time I did before, although i have been keeping an eye out when time permits.

So how are things going?

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 03 Nov 2018, 13:36

Bethrezen wrote:
03 Nov 2018, 00:38
Hi all

Just a quick check in since I haven't been around lately, I started Uni a few months ago so I don’t have the same free time I did before, although i have been keeping an eye out when time permits.

So how are things going?
Hello Bethrezen, nice to see you. I missed you.

Things are going slowly forward because I have also less time free for testing. At the moment we finished alpha 06. We made some adjustments to the ALL ROUNDER and the ANTI TANK modifiers and to the Mini-Rocket Pods values in weapons.json. You can follow all the changes we make in Berserk Cyborgs GitHub branch here.

We are now going to test alpha 08 where Berserk Cyborg gave the Scavengers a huge boost with researches. An overview of all commits of the camBalance mod you find here.

Any help is appreciated even if you can't give so much input as before.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 456
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 03 Nov 2018, 18:46

I made the first test with alpha 08 and think the queue for the function buildDefenses is way too short. In 3.1.5 and 3.2.3 the player was able to reach the second LZ without contact to the NP. Now with the new function, the NP trucks are building defenses in the way to LZ 2, see the picture below. In the mission briefing is said that you should reach LZ 2 without fighting the NP. And with these defenses, it's impossible to reach LZ 2 without fighting the NP and also almost impossible not losing units even if you use your most experienced units.
I suggest setting LZ 2 as a trigger area for buildDefenses. It can also be activated as soon as the player detects the NP base. This would force him to avoid any contact with the NP before the reinforcements arrived. This would be more like the original behavior.

wz2100-20181103_163450-SUB_1_4A.png

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 626
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 03 Nov 2018, 21:52

alfred007 wrote: I suggest setting LZ 2 as a trigger area for buildDefenses. It can also be activated as soon as the player detects the NP base. This would force him to avoid any contact with the NP before the reinforcements arrived. This would be more like the original behavior.
Done.
camBalance.wz
(108.25 KiB) Downloaded 2 times
Bethrezen wrote: Hi all

Just a quick check in since I haven't been around lately, I started Uni a few months ago so I don’t have the same free time I did before, although i have been keeping an eye out when time permits.

So how are things going?
Going well I guess. A little slower but we just finished Alpha 6 which that is a huge accomplishment given how much stuff we have to test for it. Medium-cannon and rocket-pod are very much a viable option instead of just lancer.

Post Reply