Single Player bugs and crashes v37 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of December 2016

[JosEPh_II]

He does not make changes to gold. I guess we will have to go through all the SVN commits to find it

Oh and don't tell TB to call me off. What, you can't take it when some one is coming at you. Yes I have watched the discussion that has been going on and I know you are an arrogant, bitter person. And the next time the moderators want to ban you from the forums for being rude an abusive I don't think TB will going to bat for you.

You are more than welcome to check ever commit I have ever made. It's very easy to do.

And if Mods want to ban me so be it. 1st I've heard of it though as Arakhor is a personal friend. And I've had several talks with Leif over the years.

You are misinformed and have decide to take it upon yourself to try and castigate over something I have not done. You are only hurting yourself. Your "threats" mean nothing because they are based on error and misinformation.

As I posted above

@All, I am not the one responsible for what your games are like now. And I will no longer take the blame.

I will no longer respond to your posts.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Guys, gals, chill a bit.
Due to the way I include svn changes to the "my take on stuff" modmod, I am in a unique position to know about almost all changes that are made to C2C. it's been a long time since any xml changes that could noticeably impact the treasury was made.

The latest example I could remember was that initial city maintenance was reduced from 10 to 5 by Joe and that was (investigation....) as long ago as in rev. 9774. However, I don't believe this would have had a big impact.
Someone (@raxo2222 ?) might want to investigate how much of an impact it (INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE) has on a game where you have like 5-6 cities. Perhaps the impact is bigger than I assume.

If anything, Joe has mostly increased gold expenditure in C2C by upping the <iGoldModifier> in gamespeed infos extensively. And that does have a big impact.
There is one xml area of the mod that I don't look too closely at regarding SVN changes, and that is the disease and crime autobuilds, I do my own thing with them in my modmod and therefore don't look closely at what is done with them in the SVN.

In my experience, too much gold has been a continuous problem, and you may just be imagining that it somehow got worse now.
Look, in your game, at how much gold built buildings give, how much crime and disease your cities have, look at the economic advisor screen, and see if you can't find anything that seems unbalanced instead of starting an argument and pointing fingers again. We've all had enough of it at this point.

I didn't think I'd seen anything directly affecting gold but I can say that gold budget is certainly much more like v35 where there was no challenge and up to v37 release where there were some challenges there. At least until some civics in classical. So I have to wonder if some civic changes this cycle may be more to blame.

As for the research factor, I know about a few of these issues and I also know that somehow the tech costs are much cheaper than they should be. The formula may not have been completely reverted but what I mean by that is that I stopped the use of the era tag iTechCostModifier and changed the previously unused era tag, iResearchPercent, to work like the construction and build percent tags and to operate off the current era rather than the starting era, which is next to useless as an effect. However, in the timing of the calculation, it comes in at the same point and the xml settings were the mirror (in terms of the current method) of the old settings. The global variable that influences research was also moved and renamed slightly (so that it would be in the same globalmodifiers.xml file right next to the train and construction globals.) But ultimately, the numbers are all the same as they were before I messed with the research calculation in this last pre-v38 preparation push.

Theoretically. I'm reviewing the formula again to make sure.

@JosEPh_II I need to PM you a few questions. Just need to understand a few things.

 

[Toffer90]

I didn't think I'd seen anything directly affecting gold but I can say that gold budget is certainly much more like v35 where there was no challenge and up to v37 release where there were some challenges there. At least until some civics in classical. So I have to wonder if some civic changes this cycle may be more to blame.

Perhaps, civics is the only other xml part that I ignore changes in as I'm in the process of completely redesigning all civics in the modmod.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@JosEPh_II I need to PM you a few questions. Just need to understand a few things.

The gold in pre v38 was better ie tighter than it was in v37 release. I did back eternity of a bit for pit, but that was many months ago. It is Much better than v35 ever was too.

There have been some changes to Civics like Subsistence next to Barter as players complained it was useless. But I also added some serious gold sucking parts too to others over the last 6months or so.

Look I don't commit much or often. If Toffer can't remember anything I've done then what can I really tell you? He watches my every commit.

Everyone has opinions about what is too much or too little in the way of gold. For the last 6 months all my test games have been good challenges on Emperor or Immortal. I have done nothing to make gold easy especially in the last few weeks.

Even Noriad2 was pleased with the state of the Mod just a few weeks ago. And that says a lot.

I'll answer your questions when you Pm them. But this has went too far. I've been called a liar in so many words and other things as well. And now my integrity towards the mod is questioned? Like I would purposefully sabotage it? I have some very serious decisions to make. As I see that my fellow modders are not supportive in the efforts I've made to bring some balance to this mod. I saw a new problem and I said as much. Then because I can't do math formulas like Raxo, Toffer, and some others to show what I'm seeing and trying so hard to report.....never mind, I'm just for no reason over something I have not done. Don't delay you PM cause if you do I might not answer. I'm sick over this.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The gold in pre v38 was better ie tighter than it was in v37 release. I did back eternity of a bit for pit, but that was many months ago. It is Much better than v35 ever was too.

There have been some changes to Civics like Subsistence next to Barter as players complained it was useless. But I also added some serious gold sucking parts too to others over the last 6months or so.

Look I don't commit much or often. If Toffer can't remember anything I've done then what can I really tell you? He watches my every commit.

Everyone has opinions about what is too much or too little in the way of gold. For the last 6 months all my test games have been good challenges on Emperor or Immortal. I have done nothing to make gold easy especially in the last few weeks.

Even Noriad2 was pleased with the state of the Mod just a few weeks ago. And that says a lot.

I'll answer your questions when you Pm them. But this has went too far. I've been called a liar in so many words and other things as well. And now my integrity towards the mod is questioned? Like I would purposefully sabotage it? I have some very serious decisions to make. As I see that my fellow modders are not supportive in the efforts I've made to bring some balance to this mod. I saw a new problem and I said as much. Then because I can't do math formulas like Raxo, Toffer, and some others to show what I'm seeing and trying so hard to report.....never mind, I'm just for no reason over something I have not done. Don't delay you PM cause if you do I might not answer. I'm sick over this.

I had by the time you posted this so I'm not sure why you're not seeing it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I just tested latest SVN, on my favorite settings (nightmare/snail/large map). Building costs were roughly what they used to be, but my own tech speed was notably faster. But that was probably because of increased tech diffusion because the AI is teching MUCH MUCH faster than before. 2 weeks ago, I could reach tribalism before the AI reached Sed. Lifestyle. Now I had just reached Cultural Identity and the AI already reached Sed. Lifestyle. For me, Tribalism is still 25 techs away and Sed. Lifestyle 48 techs. And that was not a one-civ fluke as my 2 neighbours already had hunters when I sent out my first trackers.

I'm not sure if the game is winnable at these settings if the AI techs this fast.

Had I more time earlier today, I would've told you we'd already found cause to believe the tech costs were much lower than they should be. Your post was confirming to that. Nobody was trying to comment on this to blame Joe or anyone else as it was clear there was a problem in the formula, though it was hard for me to know for sure because I wasn't all that clear on what previous benchmark measurements would've been. Suffice it to say I spotted the issue and it was ironic because it manifested as a problem when I kept that part of the code I had overlooked re-introducing into the tech formula when reverting the method to the same approach we'd had before.

A fix is pending.

 

[raxo2222]

The latest example I could remember was that initial city maintenance was reduced from 10 to 5 by Joe and that was (investigation....) as long ago as in rev. 9774. However, I don't believe this would have had a big impact.
Someone (@raxo2222 ?) might want to investigate how much of an impact it (INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE) has on a game where you have like 5-6 cities. Perhaps the impact is bigger than I assume.
.

From modiki it says how much first city will cost in maintenance.
INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE Maintenance cost for the first city

Are there equations, that depend on this value?
It may be as well static.

It appears like is doesn't exist in .cpp files (DLL source)
I searched for it in all files in source folder and even then Notepad++ failed to find it.
Also comment for that define in defines.xml it says originally was 0.

Lets see if game will complain if I outright remove this define.

By the way I found that:
<Define>
<DefineName>POWER_HEALTH_CHANGE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>DIRTY_POWER_HEALTH_CHANGE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>-4</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
Ew random constants, they were near seemingly unused INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE.

Game didn't complained.
Not even python log happened.
But I had maintenance cost of 0.19 (-10% factor was coming out of nowhere, maybe civics?)

Spoiler :

By the way cost of tech I selected was only 100 (5*20, 20 was coming from Eternity).
My settings were Gigantic/Eternity/Noble.
It seems like this bug caused all other factors except game speed to be ignored in tech cost calculations, or at least vastly reduced.

I'll do this:
<Define>
<DefineName>INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1000000</iDefineIntVal><!-- was 0 -->
</Define>
to check if it is used at all.
That is processed by code.
I had same maintenance of 0.19 when I wounded first city and 9 when I founded second city like 5 tiles farther on Normal/Noble/Standard.

I have few players saves, so I can stress test them.
Seems like nothing happened.
Before recalculating:

Spoiler :

After recalculating:

Spoiler :

Did one turn. Expenses only marginally changed.

Spoiler :

I found only two mentions of this constant.:

Spoiler :

Search "INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE" (2 hits in 2 files)
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Python\Screens\CvWorldBuilderScreen.py (1 hit)
Line 3481: "POWER_HEALTH_CHANGE", "DIRTY_POWER_HEALTH_CHANGE", "INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE", "MAX_DISTANCE_CITY_MAINTENANCE", "MAX_TRADE_ROUTES", \
Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\XML\GlobalDefines.xml (1 hit)
Line 467: <DefineName>INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE</DefineName>

For comparison lets search for BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT constant in all files in mod.

Spoiler :

Search "BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT" (11 hits in 9 files)
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\CvGameCoreDLL.dll (1 hit)
Line 68717:
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\CvGameCoreDLL.dll.debug (2 hits)
Line 71625:
Line 71625:
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\CvGameCoreDLL.pdb (1 hit)
Line 84546:
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Python\AbandonCityEventManager.py (1 hit)
Line 103: iBuildProdPercent = GC.getDefineINT("BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT") / 100
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Python\Contrib\Sevopedia\SevoPediaBuilding.py (1 hit)
Line 98: szCost = TRNSLTR.getText("TXT_KEY_PEDIA_COST", ((iProductionCost * GC.getDefineINT("BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT"))/100,))
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Python\EntryPoints\CvRandomEventInterface.py (1 hit)
Line 8950: iBuildProdPercent = gc.getDefineINT("BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT")/100
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\Python\Screens\CvWorldBuilderScreen.py (1 hit)
Line 3500: "FEATURE_PRODUCTION_PERCENT_MULTIPLIER", "DIFFERENT_TEAM_FEATURE_PRODUCTION_PERCENT", "UNIT_PRODUCTION_PERCENT", "BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT", "PROJECT_PRODUCTION_PERCENT", \
\Caveman2Cosmos\Assets\XML\GlobalDefines.xml (1 hit)
Line 995: <DefineName>BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT</DefineName>
\Caveman2Cosmos\Sources\CvPlayer.cpp (2 hits)
Line 10997: iModifier = GC.getDefineINT("BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT");
Line 11106: iModifier = GC.getDefineINT("BUILDING_PRODUCTION_PERCENT");

Here we see this constant being used in code.

Conclusion: INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE doesn't have ANY effect, because it doesn't exist in code.
This means any adjustments to it did nothing.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The gold in pre v38 was better ie tighter than it was in v37 release. I did back eternity of a bit for pit, but that was many months ago. It is Much better than v35 ever was too.

There have been some changes to Civics like Subsistence next to Barter as players complained it was useless. But I also added some serious gold sucking parts too to others over the last 6months or so.

Look I don't commit much or often. If Toffer can't remember anything I've done then what can I really tell you? He watches my every commit.

Everyone has opinions about what is too much or too little in the way of gold. For the last 6 months all my test games have been good challenges on Emperor or Immortal. I have done nothing to make gold easy especially in the last few weeks.

Even Noriad2 was pleased with the state of the Mod just a few weeks ago. And that says a lot.

I'll answer your questions when you Pm them. But this has went too far. I've been called a liar in so many words and other things as well. And now my integrity towards the mod is questioned? Like I would purposefully sabotage it? I have some very serious decisions to make. As I see that my fellow modders are not supportive in the efforts I've made to bring some balance to this mod. I saw a new problem and I said as much. Then because I can't do math formulas like Raxo, Toffer, and some others to show what I'm seeing and trying so hard to report.....never mind, I'm just for no reason over something I have not done. Don't delay you PM cause if you do I might not answer. I'm sick over this.

None of us are calling you a liar. You're totally misreading the messages there and that's a big part of the building frustrations. I know I'm also guilty of misreading some of your comments and taking them to mean more than they did as well. The frustration expressed with you on this gold matter is that there was an expectation that you'd have a better insight. Gold at the beginning of the game has been more challenging in the fairly recent past. Your explanation that you weren't manipulating all that much in regards to that does register, however. So rather than taking it as a 'gripe', perhaps just consider how it might have eased up a bit more than it possibly should be? Ask some questions to start narrowing in on the problem details, as you usually do. But I get it, you thought I asked her to harass you and that's not the case. Yes, she's been offended by some of the things you've said to me, but I didn't ask her to get involved... quite the contrary actually. Still, she's not my property to control. If anything its the other way around (For those wondering what the hell that's about it was a comment made in a PM that I won't repeat.)

I guess the ultimate end point is that we might want to consider how to improve balance with gold. This was an unrelated problem to the research costs - we really all need to do a better job of making sure that problem reports and the discussions involving them are not blended in with all other problem reports and their discussions. I realize now you weren't trying to harp on me - but yes, your difficulty in showing the before and after numbers directly (like even just simply a test game object like a building or a unit and what its construction cost was before changes and what its turn cost to construct was before changes and then show the after change totals and what settings we're talkin about) made it difficult for me to get a stronger idea of where the problem might lie.

We all have to stop brushing each other off. And for my part in that problem, I apologize. I THINK we now have things back to the balance you did well to establish. With my next commit. But we do need to start considering that gold balance a little bit more after release.

 

[raxo2222]

Two quick questions:
How long INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE wasn't used by code?
Whoever was changing this before wasn't aware he's moving slider not connected to anything.
Used notepad++ to search for this constant in all files inside mod.

Can be Noble normalized to 100?

In short I changed Global Modifier to 0.6 (0.8*0.75, 0.75 being Noble handicap/100).
In XML files I divided all these values by 100 for easier calculations.
Global production modifier would have to be changed to 60.
Then from Noble being 100 I stepped down by 5% to 85% for settler.
Up from Noble to Immortal I used steps up of 5%.
For Deity I stepped 10% and for Nightmare - stepped by 20%.
Settler - 85, Noble - 100, Immortal - 120, Deity - 130, Nightmare - 150.

This won't change costs by >6%, as I did calculate this in XML file few pages before.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Two quick questions:
How long INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE wasn't used by code?
Whoever was changing this before wasn't aware he's moving slider not connected to anything.
Used notepad++ to search for this constant in all files inside mod.

Can be Noble normalized to 100?

This won't change costs by >6%, as I did calculate this in XML file few pages before.

We can revisit that after release.

 

[strategyonly]

getting this again after last 2 updates:

[52932.734] info type 'ATTACHABLE_CHIMNEYSMOKE' not found, Current XML file is: modules\Natural_Wonders\Reef_Shark_CIV4SpawnInfos.xml
[53000.047] info type 'ATTACHABLE_CHIMNEYSMOKE' not found, Current XML file is: modules\Natural_Wonders\Reef_Shark_CIV4SpawnInfos.xml
[53194.969] info type 'ATTACHABLE_CHIMNEYSMOKE' not found, Current XML file is: modules\Natural_Wonders\Reef_Shark_CIV4SpawnInfos.xml
[53749.859] info type 'ATTACHABLE_CHIMNEYSMOKE' not found, Current XML file is: modules\Natural_Wonders\Reef_Shark_CIV4SpawnInfos.xml
[53986.688] info type 'ATTACHABLE_CHIMNEYSMOKE' not found, Current XML file is: modules\Natural_Wonders\Reef_Shark_CIV4SpawnInfos.xml

 

[JosEPh_II]

When I try to Update the SVN I get a "checksum" Error in Red. I have done the recommended Clean up that the SVN asked. But it says now that the pristine files are now corrupt. So I have to re- d/l the whole svn files.

@T-brd,
As to the PM's and not getting them, I closed the conversation on my end. You will need to start a new PM. Or not.

I do have a question about the removal of the BBAI iTechCost Modifier though. What exactly was done? Was the Modifier just removed from the file it was in? Was the Modifier set to 0 before it's removal? Was the BBAI code for that Modifier changed? How it was done will have a big impact.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@Toffer,
Here is an example of how your new Downsizng is profitable Option works. Larest SVN, Immortal Diff, Snail GS. City taken from Cyrus. Wanted to sell some buildings to reduce over all and since I have a very tight budget. All buildings at 12% return give 0 , all bldgs. The person who complained and wanted it at 4% was obviously not using your Option. Or I do not understand your Option. Which is it?

If you get no for selling a building then what good is this new option? Help please?

See screenshots below.

 

[raxo2222]

I did tests earlier for Saddler and its unlocking tech.
It was when we had additive modifier production formula and after era building cost arc was reduced to +10% per era staring at 70% at Prehistoric.
Settler/Duel/Normal: 51/5
Noble/Standard/Normal: 65/52
Nightmare/Gigantic/Eternity: 1414/3380

I did such tests now again.

Spoiler :

Settler/Duel/Normal: 32/5
Noble/Standard/Normal: 40/52
Nightmare/Gigantic/Eternity: 496/3380
Raw cost of Saddler/Animal Riding: 98/52

Conclusions:
Building costs were reduced strongly when production costs were moved to multiplicative formula.
Integrity of final tech cost seems to be intact in these cases.

I think I can reasonably simulate changes, that will be done after release.
Settler/Duel would see 15, Noble/Standard would see unchanged and Nightmare/Gigantic would see 4464 cost of Animal Riding tech cost if costs would be purely multiplicative modifiers, that will be done AFTER release.
After this and removal of map size factors for tech cost you would see these values.
Settler/Duel/Normal: 32/30
Noble/Standard/Normal: 40/52
Nightmare/Gigantic/Eternity: 496/2232
This would make production cost be dependable on Speed, Difficulty and Current era.
Tech costs also would depend only on Speed, Difficulty and Current era.
Tech and production costs don't align together on Game Speed options just for your information.

 

[Toffer90]

@Toffer,
Here is an example of how your new Downsizng is profitable Option works. Larest SVN, Immortal Diff, Snail GS. City taken from Cyrus. Wanted to sell some buildings to reduce over all and since I have a very tight budget. All buildings at 12% return give 0 , all bldgs. The person who complained and wanted it at 4% was obviously not using your Option. Or I do not understand your Option. Which is it?

If you get no for selling a building then what good is this new option? Help please?

See screenshots below.

I have no idea what the "Downsizng is profitable" game option is supposed to do.
All I know is that it is an option that was added after there were some complaints about it, in Size Matter games, being possible to split a unit into three new ones and all those three could be disbanded for the same amount as the one you had before the split meaning you would get three times the amount of gold if you did the split before disbanding a unit you had no use for.

Two quick questions:
How long INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE wasn't used by code?

Forever, lol, the define existed in vanilla BtS but even vanilla didn't use the define for anything. ^^
When I find unused defines I usually delete them, I've never had a reason to look into this one before.
By the way, I was simply expecting a short answer like "it had Z effect on gold when I changed the define form X to Y".
Your verbosity/enthusiasm is a bit annoying. ^^

 

[raxo2222]

Forever, lol, the define existed in vanilla BtS but even vanilla didn't use the define for anything. ^^
When I find unused defines I usually delete them, I've never had a reason to look into this one before.
By the way, I was simply expecting a short answer like "it had Z effect on gold when I changed the define form X to Y".
Your verbosity/enthusiasm is a bit annoying. ^^

And someone was adjusting it
I guess you can remove it to prevent someone from getting bamboozled

 

[JosEPh_II]

I have no idea what the "Downsizng is profitable" game option is supposed to do.
All I know is that it is an option that was added after there were some complaints about it, in Size Matter games, being possible to split a unit into three new ones and all those three could be disbanded for the same amount as the one you had before the split meaning you would get three times the amount of gold if you did the split before disbanding a unit you had no use for.

So the downsizing Option is not controlling the abandon city functions. Okay good to know.

But you did not answer why the 12% you put in for Selling buildings is giving no returns. Wasn't it Noriad2 that wanted the 4%? And were you not the one that changed the functions of selling buildings off?

As you can see 12% is worthless, so selling buildings is worthless. I'm not sure even 20% would give even 1 gold back now.

New subject, cost of Upgrading a unit. I meant to post these screen shots earlier to explain the reason for dropping it to 50% when the new formula and tag changes were introduced.

Below is a screenie of the upgrade of a slinger to an archer on a Snail, Immortal game, when the changes were 1st made. The upgrade cost was 830 Gold. This is ine of the reasons I said there was a problem. While the cost of building a new Archer was 360 gold.

The next screenshot is the current cost at 100% Upgrade cost, 208Gold for a slinger to archer, again for an archer that costs 360 hammers.

You can see why I did the change. 830 gold was cut down to 417 gold, before all the "fixes". It was untenable to upgrade during that time. Now at 100% it is 208, after multiple fixes.

 

[strategyonly]

i believe this mini-dump is from trying to build the "inquisitor", i clicked on it and poof CTD . . .

 

[Toffer90]

But you did not answer why the...

Oh sorry, I got distracted by the game option thing, it's probably because 12% ends up being rounded down to 0.
It should only happen at fast gamespeeds with buildings from the prehistoric era, if it happens under other conditions, there might be a mistake in the python code (I'll take a look at the code asap).

Yeah.... I should probably revert it back to 20% as it always used to be at. It is in my opinion a reasonable percentage. Noriad has been around like forever, and that's why I took him at his word that it was a necessary
adjustment. However, I think he might be, as you would phrase it, an uber player.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Oh sorry, I got distracted by the game option thing, it's probably because 12% ends up being rounded down to 0.
It should only happen at fast gamespeeds with buildings from the prehistoric era, if it happens under other conditions, there might be a mistake in the python code (I'll take a look at the code asap).

Yeah.... I should probably revert it back to 20% as it always used to be at. It is in my opinion a reasonable percentage. Noriad has been around like forever, and that's why I took him at his word that it was a necessary
adjustment. However, I think he might be, as you would phrase it, an uber player.

Thank you.

The game speed is Snail so not a fast GS. The difficulty level of Immortal on a large C2C World map default #of AI. And it's in the Ancient Era.