DLL Features

[r_rolo1]

Ok, then for you that's clear. You must have noticed that it isn't that clear for me. And also the HOF uses a different definition. (which is also again different from mine)

Just for closing this discussion .....

HOF objective was never to maintain the game rules... they had already changed the rules atleast once before the UP ( the huts near the starting spots ban they introduced ), so they are more than confortable to acept a rule change from a third party. HoF is not about UG , HoF is mainly a mod to assure some minimum standarts to games in a competitive enviroment that by acident has some cool helping features .....

@EF

I assume that partial loading of the Dll features would be dificult or hard to do in Civ IV enviroment, right?

 

[ruff_hi]

the huts near the starting spots ban they introduced

What? I didn't hear about this - got a link to a discussion?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Err - I don't think I said that. BULL is EFs domain, but my reading is that we will include the following:

- any UG features that we want to add
- the latest 'official' unofficial patch (if you know what I mean)

Oh, I had read that the UP wouldn't be included at all. By the way, I don't really know what is the latest official unofficial patch. The one used in HOF-Mod?

The user will have the following options:

- include BULL (all features)
- include BULL (without the UP)
- exclude BULL (ie no DLL)

Sounds like two BULL versions... Or can you change which parts of the DLL are used in the options screen? I thought that was impossible.

I am pretty sure that no one at BUG wants to be pulled into the UP / not UP discussion on various items of the UP and so we will leave that decision up to the UP generators.

I can imagine. It's an impossible discussion. You will never get everyone to agree and thus the discussion will never end.

Actually, the only reason we haven't had a DLL yet is because my old machine BSODed whenever I compiled the SDK. My suspicion was that one of my RAM modules didn't like the timings I was using. My new machine handles it just fine.

Oh, I vaguely recalled some discussion about problems with merging with other mods. But I could be mistaken in that.


By the way, maybe you guys could create a 'Request for Mods merged with BULL' thread. An 'official sticked thread' in the BUG-forum would facilitate these mergings and if anyone using BUG would create such a merge, then they could upload it in that tread to be used by other players. It would of course be best if someone would update the first post with any requests and uploads in later posts. I would be willing to do that. Doesn't sound like too much work. But I'm not proficient in creating these mergings myself, so I'm not sure if I'm the most suited for the job. I would just be organising things a bit so that others could find things.

Just for closing this discussion .....

HOF objective was never to maintain the game rules... they had already changed the rules atleast once before the UP ( the huts near the starting spots ban they introduced ), so they are more than confortable to acept a rule change from a third party. HoF is not about UG , HoF is mainly a mod to assure some minimum standarts to games in a competitive enviroment that by acident has some cool helping features.

Really interesting. I didn't know that. But I don't think this will change the fact that people will never agree what is UG after several unofficial patches and a game competition that uses a set of rules different from the latest patch. Once a community starts using a different set of standard rules, the community will never return to a common set of official rules. For instance, most players will agree that the so called 'pure' bugs fixed by the UP are not part of the standard rules.

 

[r_rolo1]

What? I didn't hear about this - got a link to a discussion?

Niklas told me in a casual conversation... as he is part of the GOTM staff and has acess to the code, I believe in his words .

 

[EmperorFool]

I assume that partial loading of the Dll features would be dificult or hard to do in Civ IV enviroment, right?

Sounds like two BULL versions... Or can you change which parts of the DLL are used in the options screen?

I already have code working that calls out to BUG's Python code from the DLL to check which options are enabled. For UI features, this is fine. However, some of the UP changes will be executed frequently while the AIs take their turns. I don't want to negatively impact performance, but I have a work-around for this as well.

In short, it won't be difficult to have each feature of the UP be optional, except for one. The 2nd half of the collateral damage fix is to remove the Barrage promotion line from Tanks. This is done in XML, and I cannot affect that from C++ or Python. The player will have to manually add/remove the XML file (well, that's not entirely true, but I haven't done this yet).

By the way, I don't really know what is the latest official unofficial patch.

I based BULL off the 0.21 version. Is there a newer one I'm not aware of? The UP pretty much stopped development back in December AFAIK. There are probably a few fixes in BetterAI that we should adopt, the one about AI planes refusing to fly if damaged, for example.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I already have code working that calls out to BUG's Python code from the DLL to check which options are enabled. For UI features, this is fine. However, some of the UP changes will be executed frequently while the AIs take their turns. I don't want to negatively impact performance, but I have a work-around for this as well.

In short, it won't be difficult to have each feature of the UP be optional, except for one. The 2nd half of the collateral damage fix is to remove the Barrage promotion line from Tanks. This is done in XML, and I cannot affect that from C++ or Python. The player will have to manually add/remove the XML file (well, that's not entirely true, but I haven't done this yet).



I based BULL off the 0.21 version. Is there a newer one I'm not aware of? The UP pretty much stopped development back in December AFAIK. There are probably a few fixes in BetterAI that we should adopt, the one about AI planes refusing to fly if damaged, for example.

Wow, that sounds complicated. I hope you'll get it to work the way you want. To maybe limit your workload: there are quite a few UP changes that weren't causing any dissent, on which everyone seemed to agree. Of course, you could also make those optional. But then you're maybe better off with an all or nothing approach on those undiscussed UP features. The ones who don't like those are likely the players who only want Firaxis approved stuff (and actually probably will also think that BUG is not Firaxis approved).

I really like the BetterAI mod, but it has a lot of added AI-features. I can't imagine how the screen would start to look if you were to add all of them...
And I don't know how you will choose between various changes.

Are you going to create a separate screen for the BULL-options? The present screen is already crowded.

There are some tough choices ahead of the team and it's hard to take these without having someone disagree. Good luck.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Wow, that sounds complicated.

Hopefully not complicated enough to preclude a release in the next week or so.

I am more anxious to get my hands on this puppy than I have been for most commercial releases.

 

[EmperorFool]

I know it's torture, but I'm getting closer. It's hard to resist adding the odd feature now and then to maintain interest while working through a bunch of logistical %&*$*&# to release this puppy.

When you hover over the commerce rates in the city screen, you now see the list of buildings that you can build in the city that will add to the value. You'll see the actual additional value. This will speed the decision process for players that haven't yet memorized their chosen "it's worth it" levels.

In the screenshot science: rate hover), the bottom shows that the Library adds 25% to the modifier, but since I have the UoS the Jewish Monastery adds +2 on top of its normal +10% .

Soon I'll add it to the food (Supermarket) and production (Forge, Factory, Power, IW) rates.

But the real goal is to display all of the values for a single building when you hover over a building icon:

Christian Cathedral, +2, +2, +2, +10%
Adds +2.50, +3.65, +2​

 

[AlpsStranger]

I know it's torture, but I'm getting closer. It's hard to resist adding the odd feature now and then to maintain interest while working through a bunch of logistical %&*$*&# to release this puppy.

It is, but I understand. You are giving this awesome mod to all of us for free, so if you need to tinker a bit to keep from getting bored and walking off, well, we'd be morons to complain.

All of that aside, finish it before we're all in the nuthouse

 

[Denniz]

Just for closing this discussion .....

HOF objective was never to maintain the game rules... they had already changed the rules atleast once before the UP ( the huts near the starting spots ban they introduced ), so they are more than confortable to acept a rule change from a third party. HoF is not about UG , HoF is mainly a mod to assure some minimum standarts to games in a competitive enviroment that by acident has some cool helping features .....

@EF

I assume that partial loading of the Dll features would be dificult or hard to do in Civ IV enviroment, right?

While the HOF Mod has some bug/exploit fixes, for the most part we try not to alter game play too much. Just a few of the minor AI fixes, IIRC. BTW, there are no changes to goody huts in the HOF Mod.

Niklas told me in a casual conversation... as he is part of the GOTM staff and has acess to the code, I believe in his words .

Niklas was probably taking about the practice the GOTM team has of removing huts near the starting positions of their worldbuilder maps. There has been way to much controversy over the different results people were getting and the affect on the level playing field of a common map.

 

[r_rolo1]

I probably misunderstoon Niklas.... thanks for the correction, Denniz.

But you do confirm that HoF has no "no rule change" in the same way BUG has, right? HoF acepted Dresden overflow gold cap, that I would not call consensual ( Dresden got a virtual egg throwing when he annouced that in Strats & tips forum ) and it is definitely a rule change ( about being a exploit... well, the Firaxians never talked of the issue AFAIK, but that particular issue is known atleast since warlords 2.08 and there was no change in 1.74, 2.13, 3.01 , 3.03, 3.13 and 3,17, that were made after it ( and after the War academy of Civ IV in here having a dedicated article about that particular part of the game ).... I strongly suspect that Firaxis does not consider this issue to be a bug or a exploit ( or that it had not found a better way of running the overflow mechanics ) )

 

[oyzar]

Doesn't hof mod chance or remove the probability of some events?

 

[Denniz]

I probably misunderstoon Niklas.... thanks for the correction, Denniz.

But you do confirm that HoF has no "no rule change" in the same way BUG has, right? HoF acepted Dresden overflow gold cap, that I would not call consensual ( Dresden got a virtual egg throwing when he annouced that in Strats & tips forum ) and it is definitely a rule change ( about being a exploit... well, the Firaxians never talked of the issue AFAIK, but that particular issue is known atleast since warlords 2.08 and there was no change in 1.74, 2.13, 3.01 , 3.03, 3.13 and 3,17, that were made after it ( and after the War academy of Civ IV in here having a dedicated article about that particular part of the game ).... I strongly suspect that Firaxis does not consider this issue to be a bug or a exploit ( or that it had not found a better way of running the overflow mechanics ) )

We try to limit the game play changes to bug fixes (usually from the unoffical patches) and exploits. When we included the unoffical patch we didn't take everything. I don't recall the overflow gold cap specifically. Are you sure we have it in there?

Doesn't hof mod chance or remove the probability of some events?

There were a few that created problems for competitions due to early luck or were unbalanced for/against specific civs.

• Events Disabled:
  • Horseshoe - Gives free Flanking I to all mounted units
  • Axe Haft - gives free Shock to all axes
  • Tower - Shield gives free Cover to all melee units
  • Toxcatl - anti-Aztec Event
  • Dissident Priest - pro-Egypt Event
  • Anti-Monarchists - pro-France Event
  • Impeachment - anti-American Event
  Events Modified:
  • Vedic Aryans - triggers with Priesthood/Archery instead of Polytheism/Archery
  • Partisans - attempted to check civic (Emancipation)

 

[r_rolo1]

I was making faith in the words of Roland some posts ago about HoF having the overflow gold cap. Haven't tested myself yet... probably will do that soon.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I was making faith in the words of Roland some posts ago about HoF having the overflow gold cap.

I didn't say that.

 

[EmperorFool]

Getting back to the topic of the thread , I have completed adding the actual effects each building will have on the commerce types and production to the hovers for them (sliders in top-left corner and production bar in top-center), and I'm adding the full actual effects on these values to the building hover. I've got some questions about preferences.

First, here's an example for a Jewish Monastery (+10%) while I have both the UoS (+2) and SM (+2):

Two questions come to mind (one related to the above).

• Should I hide effects that are exactly the same as what's shown on the first line? (+2)
• Should I show +0 for a Market in a city that is producing 0 currently? (+25% of 0 is 0)

The main reason for adding this information is to deal with the effects of modifiers. Thus, I won't be adding other things like or . It shows only yields and commerce types, and I will likely add next.

 

[phungus420]

I honestly think the way that looks is a bit confusing.

I suggest you split up the bonuses further:

Default: obvious
Extras: Bonuses from events, wonders, etc; basically extra bonus raw commerce & yield types + bonus modifiers
Total: Total net commerce types & yield types the building would produce if built right then

So that for the Monstary example it would say:
Default: +2, +10%
Extras: +2
Total: +2, + 3.1, +2

 

[Roland Johansen]

I don't see how focussing a line of information on the special bonuses to a building from world wonders and events will help us. In the end, we just want to compare between the various buildings that we can build. The source of their bonuses is not that interesting anymore. Except of course when the source is temporary, when the discovery of a technology might remove the bonus. In that case, it would be interesting to mention it in a separate line.

So I'd go for:
[Building name]: All permanent bonuses with relative figures
Temporary: All temporary bonuses with absolute figures
Current: All bonuses with absolute figures

The value of current would be dependent on the current setting of the tech slider. The temporary bonuses could also be mentioned in the building line, in between parenthesis. Then the temporary line would be superfluous.

 

[mystyfly]

I like a lign for "standard bonuses", one for actual bonuses, tbh.

Should I hide effects that are exactly the same as what's shown on the first line? (+2)

No. THAT would be confusing imo.

Should I show +0 for a Market in a city that is producing 0 currently? (+25% of 0 is 0)

No. I'd prefer "+0.0". If you don't show anything you wonder whether that's missing or the building doesn't produce any wealth at all. Showing a decimal number shows that there is one otherwise (if it's not 0). I'd rather have only decimals instead of a mix of decimals and integers.

 

[EmperorFool]

I'm torn about showing the temporary bonuses on a line by themselves, though I think they should probably be in relative numbers if so. I might go with adding them in ()s at the end of the first line, though there they might look odd and need explanation.

I have yields, commerce, and all done, and the GP bar in the city screen now shows the buildings you can build that will affect your rate/modifier just as for production and commerce.

I don't see the point to adding the buildings--Supermarket and Baray [Khmer Aqueduct replacement)--to a new food hover. It would be pretty boring unless I worked in Raw Yields to it:

Worked Tiles: 21
* +1 from Buildings
* +2 from Specialists
---------------------
Base Food: 24
* -18 from Population
---------------------
Total Food: 6
---------------------
* Supermarket: +1​

I like a lign for "standard bonuses", one for actual bonuses, tbh.

Like I had it in my post above, including temporary bonuses in the Actual line?

I'd rather have only decimals instead of a mix of decimals and integers.

I'll probably make this an option. Show decimals: always, when needed, never. Some people might prefer to see the rounded value that is added rather than the fraction. For example, if you are producing 7.50, adding a Bank nets you +3.75, which results in 4 due to rounding.

Edit: Actually, I think this last part is wrong because BTS changed it so that the commerce rates for all cities are added up before dropping the fraction. In that case, showing 4 is misleading.