Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

The projects speaking tube.
Add your two cents if you want to.
alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 03 Nov 2018, 23:59

In my second test of alpha 08, I found a second thing we have to change. We changed the reach of the Mini-Rocket Pods. And due to that my units are in reach of an NP Mini-Rocket Pod even if I move as far south as possible. See the picture below.
wz2100-20181103_221641-SUB_1_4A.png
So we have to move the NP combat group in the red circle in the picture below. I suggest to a place in the green circle. This means to move the group 3 tiles west and two tiles north. This should be enough to get the players units out of the reach of the NP Mini-Rocket Pods.
wz2100-20181103_223445-SUB_1_4A.png

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 04 Nov 2018, 18:43

alfred007 wrote: In my second test of alpha 08, I found a second thing we have to change. We changed the reach of the Mini-Rocket Pods. And due to that my units are in reach of an NP Mini-Rocket Pod even if I move as far south as possible. See the picture below.
...
So we have to move the NP combat group in the red circle in the picture below. I suggest to a place in the green circle. This means to move the group 3 tiles west and two tiles north. This should be enough to get the players units out of the reach of the NP Mini-Rocket Pods.
How about this?
camBalance.wz
(121.14 KiB) Downloaded 4 times

moltengear
Trained
Trained
Posts: 76
Joined: 22 Jul 2017, 15:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by moltengear » 04 Nov 2018, 22:42

Is it really correct to change the original balance.
You can support me. DOGE wallet - D5GFBVPoa2jcrwJqXyBvcYimnBB6mgHGjT

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 04 Nov 2018, 22:44

I started the third test with alpha 08. I think the NPBaseDetectTrigger is at an unfavorable place. If the player tries to move as far south as possible he's running into this trigger. See the picture below. And in my eyes, it makes no sense to move this trigger area further south. So I moved it north with a gap of 2 tiles for the player to reach LZ 2 without activating the trigger. Changed labels.json is added. One issue I found is that the trucks are now not building any defenses. Neither after I reached LZ 2 nor after the NP base is detected nor after I attacked the NP base. After I noticed this issue I stopped testing. I think you have to change something with the script.
wz2100-20181104_200545-SUB_1_4A.png
Attachments
labels sub_1_4a.json
(2.93 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
Last edited by alfred007 on 04 Nov 2018, 23:49, edited 2 times in total.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 04 Nov 2018, 22:54

moltengear wrote:
04 Nov 2018, 22:42
Is it really correct to change the original balance.
Yes, I think so. In the current balance lancers and assault guns are overpowered while cannons are underpowered. From alpha 06 on when you have researched the lancer, lancers are the best weapon with no viable alternative. Until you get the assault gun in beta 06. And from then on the assault gun is the best weapon with no viable alternative. Until you get the rail gun at the end of the campaign. Cannons are during the whole campaign useless. We try to make cannons a viable alternative to lancers and give the player more options which he can use meaningfully.

Feel free to download the current camBalance mod and test it. Any feedback is welcome.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 05 Nov 2018, 00:45

moltengear wrote:
04 Nov 2018, 22:42
Is it really correct to change the original balance.
The campaign balance is a mockery of "Strategy by Design". It is very, very easy to only use the lancer or assault gun and stroll through the entire campaign cause of how overpowered they are. Most other weapons are not worth using at all, or are really weak.

@alfred007
Trucks activate when I got to the LZ (the actual LZ where the video is shown at). I chose to do it there since any earlier and the trucks could go on a suicide mission toward player units.

Unfortunately, I have encountered an odd situation. Area labels are being shifted in game by 2-4 tiles SE of pos1 and 2-4 tiles NW of pos2. nvm.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 05 Nov 2018, 23:10

Today I made the fourth test of alpha 08. Now trucks are working for me too, as they should. Weird :-?
It's very tough to enter the NP base. The two factories are producing units as fast as I can destroy them if I only attack from the south. If I try to destroy the factories, trucks are repairing them instantly. And if I try to destroy the trucks, the combat units of the NP damage my units so fast that I wasn't able to destroy the trucks and the factories in time without losing units. Only when I used a second combat group I could destroy the factories. Mortars are very useful for that. Without experienced units, you wouldn't have a chance.
I made this test with medium cannons, I will make more tests with Lancers and Mini-Rocket Pods the next days. But it looks good so far.

The scavengers are not too tough because their units don't have many hitpoints so that they don't live long enough to be a real threat. But you have to take them seriously or you will become a problem.
For alpha 09 we should give them the following upgrades: Cannon damage 03, Rocket damage 03, Rocket ROF 02, Vehicle Metals 02, Structure Materials 02 and Defense WallUpgrade 02.

I'm not sure if we can make the newly researched weapon Mini-Rocket artillery another viable choice to fight tanks. They have the weaponEffect ARTILLERY ROUND and that means a modifier of 80 against tracked units. Also, they have only a range of 7.5 tiles. I will make some calculations to see if we can make them useful too. And if I find some values that make sense we can test them in alpha 09.
Attachments
logs alpha 08.zip
(3.17 KiB) Downloaded 2 times

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 09 Nov 2018, 07:50

alfred007 wrote: It's very tough to enter the NP base. The two factories are producing units as fast as I can destroy them if I only attack from the south. If I try to destroy the factories, trucks are repairing them instantly. And if I try to destroy the trucks, the combat units of the NP damage my units so fast that I wasn't able to destroy the trucks and the factories in time without losing units. Only when I used a second combat group I could destroy the factories. Mortars are very useful for that. Without experienced units, you wouldn't have a chance.
I made this test with medium cannons, I will make more tests with Lancers and Mini-Rocket Pods the next days. But it looks good so far.
Finished my first run with Alpha 8. Mostly medium-cannons with a few rocket-pods and lancers mixed in. Yeah, trying to bust through just the entrance reminds me of old Alpha 12. Very hard to gain ground with inexperienced units. That's why I like destroying the walls and hardpoints on the east side so I can send a sensor group up there to hit the factories with mortars.
alfred007 wrote: The scavengers are not too tough because their units don't have many hitpoints so that they don't live long enough to be a real threat. But you have to take them seriously or you will become a problem.
For alpha 09 we should give them the following upgrades: Cannon damage 03, Rocket damage 03, Rocket ROF 02, Vehicle Metals 02, Structure Materials 02 and Defense WallUpgrade 02.
I found them to be fairly dangerous to anything not tracked/cannon.

Initial research added for Alpha 9.
alfred007 wrote: I'm not sure if we can make the newly researched weapon Mini-Rocket artillery another viable choice to fight tanks. They have the weaponEffect ARTILLERY ROUND and that means a modifier of 80 against tracked units. Also, they have only a range of 7.5 tiles. I will make some calculations to see if we can make them useful too. And if I find some values that make sense we can test them in alpha 09.
Eh, it doesn't have to be great against tanks. Its main purpose is to provide the rocket line with an anti-cyborg weapon.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 10 Nov 2018, 22:52

Berserk Cyborg wrote:
alfred007 wrote: I'm not sure if we can make the newly researched weapon Mini-Rocket artillery another viable choice to fight tanks. They have the weaponEffect ARTILLERY ROUND and that means a modifier of 80 against tracked units. Also, they have only a range of 7.5 tiles. I will make some calculations to see if we can make them useful too. And if I find some values that make sense we can test them in alpha 09.
Eh, it doesn't have to be great against tanks. Its main purpose is to provide the rocket line with an anti-cyborg weapon.
Ah, ok. With the Mini-Rocket Artillery, we have the same effect we had with the Mini-Rocket-Pod. I made some calculations and in theory, the Mini-Rocket Artillery should do more damage to tracked tanks than the Lancer. But in the game, it doesn't. I let a Mini-Rocket Artillery shoot at my own Commander and it caused only a small damage. I think for the same reason as with the Mini-Rocket Pods: low longHit value. Nevertheless, we should test the Mini-Rocket Artillery in alpha 09 if my first impression is still right when we fight the NP.

I made the tests for alpha 08 with Lancers and Mini-Rocket Pods. Both worked fine. The trick for alpha 08 is actually to use a second combat group with mortars. It's even with tracked Lancers impossible to enter the NP base without losing units. Logs for both tests are added.

From my side, we can go on to alpha 09.
Attachments
logs alpha 08.zip
(6.41 KiB) Downloaded 2 times

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 11 Nov 2018, 23:01

I looked into research.json to become an overview how many upgrades every weaponSubClass get and found that the BOMB Accuracy upgrade increases Damage, RadiusDamage, and RepeatDamage instead of HitChance. Is that intended and, if yes, why?

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 13 Nov 2018, 03:59

I think the "accuracy" part is due to them getting a larger blast radius, and I don't recall vtol bombers ever missing a target. The research messages do differ between multiplayer and campaign and I am inclined to believe multiplayer has it right.

I'll upload a new mod in the next day or so for Alpha 9.

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 13 Nov 2018, 04:37

Berserk Cyborg wrote:
13 Nov 2018, 03:59
I think the "accuracy" part is due to them getting a larger blast radius, and I don't recall vtol bombers ever missing a target. The research messages do differ between multiplayer and campaign and I am inclined to believe multiplayer has it right.

I'll upload a new mod in the next day or so for Alpha 9.
I can understand the larger blast radius but higher damage has nothing to do with an accuracy upgrade.

Code: Select all

    "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01": {
        "iconID": "IMAGE_RES_WEAPONTECH",
        "id": "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01",
        "imdName": "trlvtlhe.PIE",
        "msgName": "RES_W_BAC1",
        "name": "Thermal Imaging Bombsight",
        "requiredResearch": [
            "R-Wpn-Bomb01",
            "R-Wpn-Mortar-Acc02"
        ],
        "researchPoints": 7200,
        "researchPower": 225,
        "results": [
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "Damage",
                "value": 10
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RadiusDamage",
                "value": 10
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RepeatDamage",
                "value": 10
            }
        ],
        "subgroupIconID": "IMAGE_RES_GRPACC"
    },
    "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy02": {
        "iconID": "IMAGE_RES_WEAPONTECH",
        "id": "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy02",
		"keyTopic": 1,
        "imdName": "trlvtlhe.PIE",
        "msgName": "RES_W_BAC2",
        "name": "Laser Guided Bombsight",
        "requiredResearch": [
            "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01"
        ],
        "researchPoints": 9200,
        "researchPower": 287,
        "results": [
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "Damage",
                "value": 10
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RadiusDamage",
                "value": 10
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RepeatDamage",
                "value": 10
            }
        ],
        "subgroupIconID": "IMAGE_RES_GRPACC"
},
As you can see, the name of the upgrades clearly indicates better accuracy, but not higher damage.

In multiplayer it is also wrong.

Code: Select all

    "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01": {
        "iconID": "IMAGE_RES_WEAPONTECH",
        "id": "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01",
        "imdName": "trlvtlhe.PIE",
        "msgName": "RES_W_BAC1",
        "name": "HE Bomb Shells",
        "requiredResearch": [
            "R-Wpn-Mortar-Damage02",
            "R-Wpn-Bomb01",
            "R-Struc-Research-Upgrade04"
        ],
        "researchPoints": 7200,
        "researchPower": 225,
        "results": [
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "Damage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RadiusDamage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RepeatDamage",
                "value": 25
            }
        ],
        "subgroupIconID": "IMAGE_RES_GRPDAM"
    },
    "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy02": {
        "iconID": "IMAGE_RES_WEAPONTECH",
        "id": "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy02",
        "imdName": "trlvtlhe.PIE",
        "msgName": "RES_W_BAC2",
        "name": "Improved Bomb Warhead",
        "requiredResearch": [
            "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01"
        ],
        "researchPoints": 9200,
        "researchPower": 287,
        "results": [
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "Damage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RadiusDamage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RepeatDamage",
                "value": 25
            }
        ],
        "subgroupIconID": "IMAGE_RES_GRPDAM"
    },
    "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy03": {
        "iconID": "IMAGE_RES_WEAPONTECH",
        "id": "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy03",
        "imdName": "trlvtlhe.PIE",
        "msgName": "RES_W_BAC3",
        "name": "Advanced Bomb Warhead",
        "requiredResearch": [
            "R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy02"
        ],
        "researchPoints": 11200,
        "researchPower": 350,
        "results": [
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "Damage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RadiusDamage",
                "value": 25
            },
            {
                "class": "Weapon",
                "filterParameter": "ImpactClass",
                "filterValue": "BOMB",
                "parameter": "RepeatDamage",
                "value": 25
            }
        ],
        "subgroupIconID": "IMAGE_RES_GRPDAM"
},
HE Bomb Shells and improved or advanced warheads are the names for damage upgrades but not for accuracy upgrades. So the id should be changed from R-Wpn-Bomb-Accuracy01/02/03 to R-Wpn-Bomb-Damage01/02/03. And in the research messages it's also said that the damage increases by 25%. This can be confusing if an accuracy upgrade increases the damage.

User avatar
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
Posts: 627
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Berserk Cyborg » 13 Nov 2018, 23:07

I guess, however, changing research names can be somewhat of a pain with multiplayer. Forgon and I tried something similar with the incendiary mortar (research has a spelling mistake: incenediary) and it broke mods, bots, saves, and invalidates the beta guide even more. I ended up reverting that since it proved more harmful than good at the time...

We can do this with the camBalance mod. As for official multiplayer, I am skeptical due to the above reasons.
---

So, those cyborg and VTOL factory upgrades are a placebo effect. I think I successfully removed everything related to them, bar the research messages. The "vtolPad-upgrade04" depended on one of them so I had to change the research item in Gamma-6 to the pad upgrade.

And so here is the updated mod for Alpha 9 (tested all research availability). may be preoccupied with some tickets so I could be late to test a real play-through of Alpha 9.

camBalance.wz
(172.66 KiB) Downloaded 3 times

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 13 Nov 2018, 23:35

Berserk Cyborg wrote:I guess, however, changing research names can be somewhat of a pain with multiplayer. Forgon and I tried something similar with the incendiary mortar (research has a spelling mistake: incenediary) and it broke mods, bots, saves, and invalidates the beta guide even more. I ended up reverting that since it proved more harmful than good at the time...
It's a trivial thing with no influence to gameplay, so if it brings more problems than solving, forget it. And with the bomb upgrade, there are only three bomb upgrades in research.json and most players will never look into the code, so we should save our time for more important things. Sometimes, I can be a bit pedantic. ;)

alfred007
Trained
Trained
Posts: 457
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 17 Nov 2018, 22:06

I finished my tests with alpha 09. I made three runs, one full Medium Cannon, one full Lancer, and one full Mini-Rocket Pods. The Mini-Rocket Pods were no viable choice. They had huge problems to destroy the NP Cyborgs and also the produced Mantis Body Tanks. That was expectable. In alpha 10, when you fight only units and no buildings, they are not the best choice. In alpha 11 you can maybe use them to fight the Scavengers. But latest after the heavy cannon is researched they are history. Logs for every of the three runs are added.

Take your time for the tickets, I will have a look at the de.po file meanwhile.
Attachments
logs alpha 09.zip
(9.96 KiB) Downloaded 1 time

Post Reply