Am I missing something? I don't see anything mentioned about economy dealing with SMLs being tweaked in the changelog.

But even if it was an economy thing TMLs wouldn't be effects because either its a different toggle (which it is) or they are cheap enough to not be a concern

Both TMLs and SMLs were affected by the bug.

Fixed as in the regeneration does not apply to the ACU itsself? I don't know what you consider GPG's specs. The well known imbalance is the rapid regeneration of the ACU itsself in the early game - does this one still hold?



I do respect your position as main author/coordinator of the mod and I mean no blame with my suggestion.



Not beeing THQ is certainly an advantage. However you also do not have GPGs distribution mechanisms which makes me a bit concerned about a chaos of different versions among the players. What is your policy about versions? I do not find the link to V4 on the main page, is this not released yet?



Major gameaffecting exploits (including untargetable units at the shore) (I assume I do not know all of them), Mexbug, T3 bomber aiming, Splash damage on shields (Harbinger, T3 Transport). I might have forgot important once, thisis just a quick list. I consider most other stuff just nice-to-have, so I would also make it dependent on the complexity of the fix. Some fixes are even hard to accept for me because I'm used to certain gameplay behaviours (e.g. cybran nukes beeing shieldable).

BTW how did you fix the Eye-Adjacency problem? Did you just reduce the adjacency bonus? Is it still possible to run it on very low enery cost by 3/4 surrounding it?


Also another question on the mex-bug: There are actually two bugs:
1) During an upgrade there is no mass produced but the mass is directly substracted from running cost. This is unfavorable during negative mass income and empty storage.
2) The cost Mex pause not working during negative mass income and empty storage.

From the release notes i get it that just 2) is fixed. Have you considered fixing 1) or is this just too deep in the game mechanics? I assume it would requre two separate mass"income" values.


Another question. There is a bug/gameplay problem that a T2 mex wreckage is not reclaimed when you build a T1 mass extractor onto it. I assume this is generic for different buildings. It leads to significant disadvantages when not reclaiming the wreckage manually before. Is this fixed/considered?




Unfortunately tests cannot prove the absence of bugs. But of course tests are important.

Sorry about the wall of text and all the questions

scrutiny is a good thing. if CBF can weather the metaphorical storm then we'll all be the better for it.

i'm not going to answer any questions on behalf of Brute, but i'm pretty sure there's only three versions (number 4 isn't out yet) of CBF is explicitly to stop 100 different people from having 100 different versions.

Interesting, I've never seen this problem with nukes building. The only thing that even comes close to this for me is if I'm out of mass, and then they build really slow. But I've never had to toggle the build, they always build automatically.

@HTKatzmarek: The nuke bug that's in v3 is a nasty one. Well, it's easy to fix but it doesn't always show up. I never noticed the bug before and I've build a fair share of nuke launchers in the games I played. Some mods (appearantly also the balance one) seem to fix it for some weird reason. If you only use the CBFP v3 you'll definately encounter this bug. As far as I know it's the only bug in it (albeit the Aeon TMD isn't working at it's best either). Ofcourse the work-in-progress-v4 fixes this.


@Zulan:

1 [restoration field]: No, the restoration field affects the ACU aswell. I consider changing that as changing the gameplay which I've been trying to avoid. If 'everyone' agrees that it should be changed then I have no problem changing it - although preferably in a seperate mod.
I try to not change gameplay as not everyone might like the change and then they won't use this mod. That's a bit related to one of your other questions, see point 3 below.

The restoration field in the CBFP v2/3/4 has been rewritten and replaces the GPG code (which was something of a mess). It's now more robust, it's not specific to the Seraphim ACU anymore (other modders can put buff fields on their units if they want), and in the upgraded field unit's don't get a semi-permanent health boost anymore.
I try to make the CBFP interesting as a base for other mods aswell. This also has partly to do with one of your other questions, see item 3 below.


2 [mod chaos]: I don't want many different versions of this mod either. That's why I don't like the idea of a "CBFP lite". I do release new versions from time to time that contain more bug fixes. There are alpha and beta versions aswell but I don't recommend using that, only for testing purposes.
Officially there are 3 CBFP versions: 1, 2 and 3 where 1 is ancient, 2 is almost ancient and 3 is old. I'm working on v4 and I've put up a few test versions for download over the last couple of days. Officially v4 doesn't exist.


2.5 [mod versions]: There's no real policy. I don't plan to release a version every month or so. If there are enough bug fixes in the version I'm working on then I'll release it. Between version 1 (which I didn't put together) and 2 there was like 4 or 5 months I believe. Between 2 and 3 there was like 2-3 months. Between version 3 and 4... still don't know, I think we're at 9 months now. It's probably going to be 10 or 11.


3 [distribution]: I can't force this mod onto anyone else playing FA. I don't have the means but I don't want to either, everyone should decide for themselves whether to use it. But if 80% of the people playing use it then the remaining have little choice but to use it aswell. Even if 40% of the people use it most people will know about the CBFP.
There's no way for this mod to get into ranked games unless a community game service is created. I can't do anything about that (other than helping GPG fixing some bugs in official patches - if it ever gets released ).

So far there have been 2 ways to get the CBFP; download it from a website (filefront, whatever) or get it in the vault. I'd like to add that the current version, v3, was picked up by some of the SupCom FA websites so it did get some additional attention that way.
Additionally to regular downloads, the CBFP could be supplied with other mods that rely on the CBFP. I try to make the CBFP usable for other mods aswell. The restoration field for example can be used by other modders for their own custom units, with different settings if they so wish. If the CBFP is a requirement for another mod then that means they'll need to include the CBFP so there you have another method of distribution.


4 [important fixes]: Yes I guess some people will have to get used to some fixes if the CBFP is used by 'everyone'. Maybe it's comforting to know that when you play a game with the CBFP on it'll be more like how GPG intended it to be... Just don't be afraid of a bit of change


5 [bugs/fixes]: The eye of rhianna is wrongly categorized as being a 2x2 building (I believe) while it's 4 times that. It's a very simple fix, replace 1 word for another and the adjacency works as it does for other buildings (50% maintainance cost reduction with complete adjacency bonus).
It's very very likely that the same thing is in the patch, if it ever gets released. The fast shooting static Aeon T3 Arty is fixed in the same way by the way.

The mex bug, both issues that you describe are fixed (since v1). In v4 I did a tiny bit of work on it, mainly to get the fix code neater. All in all it's not even 10 lines of code but Gowerly had his hands full fixing this one.

T2 mex wreckage: I never heard that one before. I'll put it on the list. So, no, I don't think it's fixed.

If you have more bug reports that you don't think is fixed in the CBFP v3 please let me know.


edit: my wall is longer than yours

Thanks for the answers. I think i got a better picture now. Concerning regenfield I agree that it is against the idea of a pure bugfix mod to include such changes. We need a simple (Regen+Restorer) balance patch for competive play anyway - but it should be compatible with the CBFP.

I already had a quick look at the wreckage build bug. (I call it bug now even though it is arguable if it was GPGs intention or not).
The reclaim value depends on the wreckage health also considering overkill, 81% is maximum.
T2 over T1 wreckage leads to reclaim before the build. When building over a similar wrackage of the same or a higher Tech level it always starts at 50% (independant of the wreckage health/overkill). This is very annoying - e.g. when a T3 mex is sniped and most of the mass of the wreckage gets lost when building a T1 mex on it.
It applies to mass extractors, factories, radar, shields, kennels (but not hives)

I have not found out how this is controlled, it seems that the check is not done in lua. But I assume this is somehow controlled by the wreckage blueprints.

It's interesting that it doesn't go the other way. I'll try to look into it, but it appears most of the building bonus stuff is done in code (hence I've not been able to fix that ridiculous infinite resources + instabuild bug/exploit)

@BulletMagnet, 25% reduction if it's t1 power, 50 for t2, 75 for t3. Hopefully surrounding it with power doesn't reduce it by 50% or I've done it wrong (I believe the adjacency fixes were mine. Same with the Salvation)

@Zulan: A simple and seperate balance mod is a good idea but it's going to need support from many people for it to be a succes. And it's gonna take a whole lot of discussing and play-testing to get it right. If you need a modder then I can do it. Just give me the changes and numbers (I hope this go the same way as the CBP though).

@Gowerly: I think I fixed the bug you mentioned in the test version of CBFP v4 (please check it out, if it's not the same thing then please tell me what you meant in a PM).

About the mex wreckage thing, in the economy part of the blueprint for buildings you sometimes encounter a table called "RebuildBonusIds". This tells the game what wreckage gives a build bonus to the new building. For the Aeon T1 mass extractor that section looks like this:

The new T1 mex gets a bonus if it's build on the wreckage of a Aeon T1 mex, T2 mex or T3 mex.

For the Aeon T2 mex is looks like this:

No t1 mex there. The T3 mex is in it though.

So I suppose the way to fix this is to remove the references for mexes of other tech levels for each mex unit.
I'm not sure this mod is the place for this change though. It's borderline bug and balance if you ask me...

I think maybe a way to get a balance patch accepted is to work together with the various players and organisers of the tournaments that are being run? (like the QuadV matches, etc.)

If changes can be agreed on and used in high profile tournaments, then the rest of the competitive community will be more likely to follow.

Is anyone else having problems with the engy attack move? When I tell them to attack move over wreckage field or forest they will only pick up about 25-40% of the reclaimables. Not sure what causes one wreckage to be reclaimable and another not. However the larger the distance of the attack move, the less that is picked up.
Also is it possible to fix UI hacks, you can get mods that alter the scoreboard to show enemy units numbers, enemy attack and move commands, enemy eco income and expenditure rates etc. Anyway of locking down the UI show this information is only available from permanent allies?
Example of scoreboard hack (not me lifted from a previous post):


Thanks
I'm continuing to play all my games with this mod so I'll try to find as many bugs as possible.
K-lord

I never noticed a problem with that but I never really looked at what they were doing either. Are you sure you didn't have full storage? Engineers seem to slow down or halt reclaiming when you do.

What's the name of that mod and where can I download it? (probably best to send it to me in a PM)

Ah, that might explain the reclaiming not working, thanks, I suppose that's desirable behavior.

About the UI, I do not have a link to the mod itself, nor do I know its name, but I found that screen in the "Open Letter To THQ" thread in General FA discussion, 2nd Page, can't even trace the original post.. I think PheonixIV did some work trying to find out how exploitable the UI is, but I'm probably wrong. I can't find the posts anywhere. Sorry to be of so little help

K-lord

Brute, I will PM you a link.
Ideally, the CBFP would simply remove the score and remove the data. But, that may be out of scope.

As for the mexes, then I would say that while they're technically not a bug, they're also not balance and are very irritating. It would be within the scope I believe, and a great benefit to cut this behaviour. Moreover I may have a look at the lua and see if something can be done about it being independent. But I should think that it's done in C.

v4 alpha 5 still has all the instabuild/infinite mass bugs in.

I would support the removal of score-hack-data, but please do something to support Hotstats. It should be pretty easy to keep track of the data on sim-side and deliver it after the game. Also I would appreciate the data to be avaiable for observers/in replays to keep live (the score-mod which i am using for livecasts) working.
I would gladly modify my mods to work with the CBFP if it help fighting cheaters.



Well said.

So how about that community balance patch? For this project to work there has to be a project leader, a coder and a group of players (preferably top ranked players) that test the changes AND give good feedback.

(Yes I said "balance" but please don't go posting balance suggestions in this thread)

New test version: download.

edit: There was a pretty serious bug with shields in version I posted earlier today. I've fixed that and put a new version up. If you downloaded the file earlier today you should replace it with this file.

I am working on making the changes in the new balance patch compatible.

Edit:
Brute, you totally rewrote the code for the regen field. Can I ask where the code to actually apply the buff is held?

Edit Edit:
Found it. Not sure about hooking a non-standard Lua file.. Am just going to have to use a little trick.

The only thing I wanted to comment on was this:

They are functions. UnitBlueprint is a function. They just didn't include the (), cause Lua supports that. You've pretty much done the exact same thing.

Edit edit edit:
But not supported Merge, which makes my life harder. I've written in a little something that should work for now. It's just going through testing atm.

I have no problem changing the code a bit. Just let me know what you need changed preferably with an example. If it works in the CBFP and it works for your mod then I see no problem including it.
Took care of your Double post - Mike

edit: wow, that's fast! I got some kind of SMTP error when posting that but appearantly it didn't break the forum.

Well because the buff field definitions are in a non-standard file, I can't hook them if the loading order is off, and it's not dependable. That means that I can't hook your buff fields to change them, and you've not put in any merges. I don't know if your function is global?

I would suggest:



Finally, the code is doscripted in siminit.lua, so that the functions and table are globally available (just this file's code).

I think that I will also have an easier solution for your path resolver that should save you much performance with it, for blueprints.

I think I never even considered hooking with this code... Anyway, your code is identical but simpler than what I just cooked up:

Either implementation would be fine, it's just a question of having this out the door so that I can put the Balance Patch with it.

i believe i've just spotted a Riptide trying to shoot at the tip of a Percival's barrel, and failing miserably at doing so.

however, the muzzle bone is called Muzzle (wow, what a name) but the AI.TargetBones table in the blueprint doesn't have Muzzle listed as a valid bone to shoot at.

IIRC, there was some talk about adding more bones to shoot at for units that hang about half submerged. could this an issue with said fix?

[EDIT:] just checked the blueprint in CBF4, and Muzzle has been added. rofl.

Yeah, torpdoes have a hard time hitting a percival aswell. It's on the list of things to address...