Author Topic: SMACX Thinker Mod  (Read 17831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tnevolin

Re: SMACX Thinker Mod
« Reply #405 on: October 31, 2019, 12:09:54 AM »
Ah, one more thing I wanted to ask. Sorry, if I asked this already.

Did you tweaked unit cost calculation? There is one rule in unit cost calculation that sets attack value to 1/2 of armor value for cost calculation purposes only. I understand it stems from previous civilization versions where all defensive units have attack value at least half of their defense. I guess AC designers wanted to encourage players to follow the same unit design. However, cost formula multiplies attack and defense. Thus making defensive unit cost growing quadratically by its defensive value even if you don't invest in their attack value. And there is no way to make it less expensive!!! Whereas attack unit cost with minimal defense growths linearly proportionally to their attack value (as anyone would expect).

Would you mind dropping this rule if you are able and willing to? Thank you.
Tim

Offline tnevolin

Re: SMACX Thinker Mod
« Reply #406 on: November 01, 2019, 08:03:59 PM »
Actually, Induktio,
I am up to modify in game unit cost calculator myself if you let me be a co-author. I can do it either in stand-alone fashion to provide you the modified code or you can share yours with me so I can build on top of it if you prefer this more. Either way I'm eager to contribute. In game cost calculator annoys me so much and long already that I don't see other choice to deal with is besides code modification.
Tim

Offline Induktio

Re: SMACX Thinker Mod
« Reply #407 on: November 02, 2019, 10:32:22 AM »
> Did you tweaked unit cost calculation?

I don't know if you had some reason to think there were some differences, but Thinker should not include any kind of changes to vanilla cost mechanics unless the documentation says so. For the most part, my priorities weren't in rebalancing existing mechanics since that tends to be an endless endeavor, and some players would not like to see the game diverge too much from the original settings.

> In game cost calculator annoys me so much and long already that I don't see other choice to deal with is besides code modification.

Have you looked at how the calculation works in the binary level? Using Scient's IDA database it seems there are mainly two functions dealing with this, consider_designs and proto_cost. They are very closely linked to another when the AI uses them to design units. Just saying I am not actively developing any changes to this part. I would say fixing the orbital attack bug would be a priority before next release, but dunno about adding any new stuff that requires extensive reverse engineering and then more testing to make sure it doesn't break any existing game logic.

Offline tnevolin

Re: SMACX Thinker Mod
« Reply #408 on: November 02, 2019, 03:07:14 PM »
No worries. I won't include this logic into your mod if you don't like to. It this case I'll ask permission to fork your mod and add these changes on top of it. Or maybe I will be able to patch the original executable that your mod uses. Then there won't be need for forking. Don't know yet.

I don't understand "not altering game mechanics" while designing mod(ifications). You are altering something anyway. It may be not in line of your mod targeted changes, though. That's another story.

Thank you for sharing functions names.
Tim

Offline Induktio

Re: SMACX Thinker Mod
« Reply #409 on: November 02, 2019, 04:19:22 PM »
No worries. I won't include this logic into your mod if you don't like to. It this case I'll ask permission to fork your mod and add these changes on top of it. Or maybe I will be able to patch the original executable that your mod uses. Then there won't be need for forking. Don't know yet.

I think the word you're looking for here is "pull request". You might rebase the changes on top of the master branch and then submit a pull request. Something along the usual procedures for accepting external contributions on git projects. Then we can evaluate how it might work. I doubt you would want to maintain a fork of Thinker with divergent features over long term. And then any forks would have to be renamed to something else.

About patching the binary directly, it's a serious problem for maintenance and mostly unnecessary. Nobody wants to maintain patches that are described only on a binary level. For several releases now, Thnker has not featured any changes to the game binary because the patches are loaded dynamically at startup.

 

* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

Select language:

* Community poll

SMAC v.4 SMAX v.2 (or previous versions)
-=-
17 (6%)
XP Compatibility patch
-=-
8 (3%)
Gog version for Windows
-=-
69 (27%)
Scient (unofficial) patch
-=-
25 (10%)
Kyrub's latest patch
-=-
14 (5%)
Yitzi's latest patch
-=-
85 (34%)
AC for Mac
-=-
2 (0%)
AC for Linux
-=-
5 (2%)
Gog version for Mac
-=-
10 (4%)
No patch
-=-
12 (4%)
Total Members Voted: 247
AC2 Wiki Logo

* Random quote

Of all the employments, working in the the brood pit was at once the most horrific and the most desirable. Horrific for what we saw occur day after day, and because of the very nature of the sessile native lifeforms. Desirable, because having been chosen to work in the pit, you were highly unlikely to be one of its victims.
~Captain Ulrik Svensgaard 'The Shadow Resonance'

* Select your theme

*