Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 839
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 29 May 2018, 22:03

alfred007 wrote: OK, sounds good. If we give the Scavengers the same weapons the Project have, we should also upgrade the Cannons of the Scavengers (BabaCannon and BabaBusCannon) to the Light Cannon that the Project will get in Alpha 05.

@Berserk Cyborg: In weapons.json you changed the values for the BabaJeepMG and the BabaMG but not for the BabaBuggyMG and the BabaTrikeMG. Is this intended or do you forgot them because the alphabetical order of the weapons in weapons.json is not correct?
Forgot about those... made it way harder than it should have with my last test. Fixed. Seems like the research is fine up to Alpha 3 then.
alfred007 wrote: Even if it's a little bit soon I want to give one more idea for discussion. At the moment the Assault Cannon have the same base damage per minute as the Heavy Cannon. Should we make the Assault Cannon a little bit stronger than the Heavy Cannon like the Assault Gun is stronger than the Heavy Machine Gun? This would give the player one more option from the moment the Assault Cannon is researched (Beta 9 if I remember right).
I would not complain if it was a little stronger. I always stayed with the Heavy Cannon as I saw no real incentive to switch to Assault Cannon, for campaign anyway.
camBalance.wz

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 564
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 29 May 2018, 23:28

pastdue wrote:We will be transitioning away from the buildbot (the long process is underway), so please test the AppVeyor CI build links I posted above - that's where we're heading.
I used the link you posted and installed master 5151267. But as you can see in the picture below the game shows master f8fd447 as the installed version.
wz2100-20180529_232142-main.png

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 839
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 30 May 2018, 00:11

alfred007 wrote:
pastdue wrote:We will be transitioning away from the buildbot (the long process is underway), so please test the AppVeyor CI build links I posted above - that's where we're heading.
I used the link you posted and installed master 5151267. But as you can see in the picture below the game shows master f8fd447 as the installed version.
That is an old link. You can go into the master commits section and there will be green check-marks next to the successful commits. Click the check-mark next to the commit you want and select the details link next to AppVeyor. Then click on artifacts and choose what you want to download.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 564
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 30 May 2018, 00:32

Berserk Cyborg wrote:
alfred007 wrote:
pastdue wrote:We will be transitioning away from the buildbot (the long process is underway), so please test the AppVeyor CI build links I posted above - that's where we're heading.
I used the link you posted and installed master 5151267. But as you can see in the picture below the game shows master f8fd447 as the installed version.
That is an old link. You can go into the master commits section and there will be green check-marks next to the successful commits. Click the check-mark next to the commit you want and select the details link next to AppVeyor. Then click on artifacts and choose what you want to download.
Now I know what went wrong. With the new installer, the .exe file was renamed from warzone2100_portable.exe to warzone2100.exe. And I made shortcuts for every Mod. And those shortcuts used the old .exe file instead of the new. After I updated my shortcuts the current master get started. The old link of pastdue gave me also the current master.

Edit 1: But now I found a new issue. As you can see in the picture below the language is set to German (Deutsch), but the main menu is still in English. And also the translations to German when running the game are not working correctly. The reticule is in English and also when I want to design a new unit everything is in English. Only my produced units and templates are in German.
wz2100-20180530_003230-main.png
Edit 2: No translation is working. I set the language to French and everything is still in English. Except my produced units. They were still in German despite the game language was set to French.

pastdue
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by pastdue » 30 May 2018, 01:53

alfred007 wrote:No translation is working. I set the language to French and everything is still in English. Except my produced units. They were still in German despite the game language was set to French.
Working on it. This apparently has been broken for a while when building on Windows (looks like some old Windows-specific-code hasn't been updated yet). This is why testing those new builds is quite helpful! 8)

pastdue
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by pastdue » 30 May 2018, 23:18

@alfred007:
Please try a fresh AppVeyor build (commit fce7e6bb01b041dd086567bd41ac853b90059e5f or later). The translations should be fixed.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 564
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 31 May 2018, 00:19

pastdue wrote:@alfred007:
Please try a fresh AppVeyor build (commit fce7e6bb01b041dd086567bd41ac853b90059e5f or later). The translations should be fixed.
Is fixed. :)

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 564
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 01 Jun 2018, 00:51

I found two mistakes that I made with weapons.json and Berserk Cyborg thereby implemented into the camBalance Mod. I wrote the right values into my post but not into the file. The base damage of the Hyper Velocity Cannon should actually be 70 and not 75 and the base damage of the Assault Cannon should actually be 36 and not 30. Attached is the corrected Mod. Sorry for that.

I tested Beta 05 with the camBalance Mod to see if the Ripple Rockets become a threat again with the changes in the Mod. I like the result, they are no longer a joke, but not as powerful that you have no chance against them. I also like the more aggressive behaviour from the units that are already on the map. And it was a great idea to have the factories produce sensor units. Now you have to be much more careful so that you don't lose units by a Ripple Rocket attack.

I noticed that all factories for ground units are not using their assemblies but send them all to the northwestern corner. The VTOLs are no longer hovering over the factory but are now on the ground and are blocking the units that get produced in the northern heavy factory. I think we have to define some assemblies for the VTOL factories too. If wanted I can upload a saved game.

I will restart a new campaign tomorrow to see how the changes for the Scavengers are working.
Attachments
camBalance.wz
(89.58 KiB) Downloaded 15 times

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 839
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 01 Jun 2018, 02:19

alfred007 wrote: I noticed that all factories for ground units are not using their assemblies but send them all to the northwestern corner. The VTOLs are no longer hovering over the factory but are now on the ground and are blocking the units that get produced in the northern heavy factory. I think we have to define some assemblies for the VTOL factories too. If wanted I can upload a saved game.

I will restart a new campaign tomorrow to see how the changes for the Scavengers are working.
Are you using the libcampaign from the defenseOrderUpdate mod in this post? I don't see that behavior using that one.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 01 Jun 2018, 13:46

At first glance, a damage upgrade on Alpha 2 seems a bit much. About 6 or so of their machine-gunners will rip anything apart unless you got about 2 repairs on one of your units (I kept the towers the same, though). Did not test Alpha 3 yet.
I guess it depends on what there actually damage is at the end of alpha 1 what I had envisaged is that at the end of alpha 01 the player and the scav's machineguns would be the same in terms of range damage and fire power, then on alpha 2 since the player gets twin machineguns and the scav's don’t use them then they should get a small damage upgrade, because I would think that most players upon getting twin machineguns would upgrade there units.

with regards to the scav machinesguners ripping your units apart did you remember to account for the higher rate of fire when you boosted there damage slightly? because twin machineguns only have about half the rate of fire of regular machineguns so a full damage upgrade in conjunction with the higher rate of fire is probably why you where seeing the results you saw where bout 6 of there units would rip yours apart. So maybe instead of giving the scav's machineguns a full damage upgrade on alpha 2 maybe giving them half a damage upgrade would be more appropriate when combined with the higher rate of fire of regular machineguns doing that should should bring there regular machineguns closer to matching the twin machineguns.

Failing that you could always experiment with giving the scav buggies twin machineguns on alpha 02 to make them a little more threatening, i guess it depends on what is easer to do, but it's something worth experimenting with anyway.

As far as giving the scav's heavy machineguns I think the most fair place for that would be alpha 04 because the mission briefing warns us that the scav's on alpha 04 are more advanced than those on the first 3 levels and indeed we see this with the introduction of scav mini rocket pits so I see no reason that they wouldn’t also upgrade there machinegun units at that point, and again we can see how this players out in terms of difficulty and whither giving the scav's buggies heavy machineguns is to powerful, and maybe needs to be delayed slightly.
OK, sounds good. If we give the Scavengers the same weapons the Project have, we should also upgrade the Cannons of the Scavengers (BabaCannon and BabaBusCannon) to the Light Cannon that the Project will get in Alpha 05.
About the only minor problem I can see with doing that is that like for previous weapons I'm sure the player gets several cannon upgrades all in 1 go and I'm of the opinion that those damage upgrades should probably also be staggered just like the ones for machineguns and flamers but once we figure out were best to give the player damage upgrades for the cannons then I see no problem with having the scav's improve there cannons in line with the player, because obviously we are getting are equipment by stealing it from them and the new paradigm so its makes sense for there upgrades and the players upgrades to run parallel to each other, at least to begin with any way because obviously by the time you are finishing alpha 06 the player will be starting to pull ahead of the scav's in terms of technology and weapons, but of course than can be addresses by simply giving the scav's small boosts to there abilities as the player proceeds through alpha to make sure that scav's remain relevant, and again this makes sense from a plot point of view as the new paradigm would want to help they ally as they start to loosing to the project.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 01 Jun 2018, 14:03

@pastdue
Where do i find the latest build of the xp installer ? is there a page smiler to http://buildbot.wz2100.net/files/ that is update each time there is a new build ? if not then how do i find the latest build ?

do i just use the links you posted here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12714&start=1020&si ... 0c#p141148

if so isn't that going to give me an outdated version ?

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 564
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 01 Jun 2018, 18:36

Berserk Cyborg wrote:Are you using the libcampaign from the defenseOrderUpdate mod in this post? I don't see that behavior using that one.
No, I didn't. I updated the libcampaign in the Mod and now everything is fine.
Bethrezen wrote:with regards to the scav machinesguners ripping your units apart did you remember to account for the higher rate of fire when you boosted there damage slightly? because twin machineguns only have about half the rate of fire of regular machineguns so a full damage upgrade in conjunction with the higher rate of fire is probably why you where seeing the results you saw where bout 6 of there units would rip yours apart. So maybe instead of giving the scav's machineguns a full damage upgrade on alpha 2 maybe giving them half a damage upgrade would be more appropriate when combined with the higher rate of fire of regular machineguns doing that should should bring there regular machineguns closer to matching the twin machineguns.

Failing that you could always experiment with giving the scav buggies twin machineguns on alpha 02 to make them a little more threatening, i guess it depends on what is easer to do, but it's something worth experimenting with anyway.

As far as giving the scav's heavy machineguns I think the most fair place for that would be alpha 04 because the mission briefing warns us that the scav's on alpha 04 are more advanced than those on the first 3 levels and indeed we see this with the introduction of scav mini rocket pits so I see no reason that they wouldn’t also upgrade there machinegun units at that point, and again we can see how this players out in terms of difficulty and whither giving the scav's buggies heavy machineguns is to powerful, and maybe needs to be delayed slightly.
With the research upgrade, Berserk Cyborg made for the Scavengers, their Twin and Heavy Machine Guns still have the ROF of the Machine Gun. I created new weapons for the Scavengers in weapons.json giving them the Twin Machinegun and the Heavy Machinegun with the values of the Projects weapons. I also updated templates.js and the scripts for Alpha 01 - 05 so that the Scavenger factories in Alpha 02 produces Scavengers with the Twin Machine Gun and in Alpha 04 and 05 Scavengers with the Heavy Machine Gun. I don't know how to modify the already on the map existing Scavengers, so I have to leave that to Berserk Cyborg. I added the updated files.

If we want to make the Scavengers in the levels from Alpha 06 on still a relevant threat, we could give them one ROF and damage upgrade more than the project has. And maybe we can give the Scavengers the medium cannon in the later levels.
Attachments
New Baba weapons.zip
(15.42 KiB) Downloaded 16 times

pastdue
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 17:44

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by pastdue » 01 Jun 2018, 19:23

Bethrezen wrote:@pastdue
Where do i find the latest build of the xp installer ? is there a page smiler to http://buildbot.wz2100.net/files/ that is update each time there is a new build ? if not then how do i find the latest build ?

do i just use the links you posted here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12714&start=1020&si ... 0c#p141148

if so isn't that going to give me an outdated version ?
@Bethrezen:
Those links should always give you the latest (successful) build.

But just to be clear: it isn't working on Windows XP (yet). (Although the portable component download issue should be fixed.)

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 01 Jun 2018, 20:59

@Bethrezen:
Those links should always give you the latest (successful) build.

But just to be clear: it isn't working on Windows XP (yet). (Although the portable component download issue should be fixed.)
@pastdue
ahh fair enough, in that case you want me to hold off till the remaining issues get sorted out ?

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 01 Jun 2018, 21:08

With the research upgrade, Berserk Cyborg made for the Scavengers, their Twin and Heavy Machine Guns still have the ROF of the Machine Gun. I created new weapons for the Scavengers in weapons.json giving them the Twin Machinegun and the Heavy Machinegun with the values of the Projects weapons. I also updated templates.js and the scripts for Alpha 01 - 05 so that the Scavenger factories in Alpha 02 produces Scavengers with the Twin Machine Gun and in Alpha 04 and 05 Scavengers with the Heavy Machine Gun. I don't know how to modify the already on the map existing Scavengers, so I have to leave that to Berserk Cyborg. I added the updated files.

If we want to make the Scavengers in the levels from Alpha 06 on still a relevant threat, we could give them one ROF and damage upgrade more than the project has. And maybe we can give the Scavengers the medium cannon in the later levels.
I kinda of figured that might be the case, I see what Berserk Cyborg was saying on alpha 2 where the upgrade seemed a little much it's far from impossible by any means but it is pretty brutal so yeah I think I'd agree its probably a little much even for insane.

I'll give your mod a go with the adjusted stats and see what its like.

[edit]
err ok clearly I'm doing something wrong because that mod doesn't work, had a look inside the zip file and figure it's because the files are not in the correct directory structure so what folders are each of the files supposed to go in?

Post Reply