All Activity

Recommended reading https://navotrel.xyz

Get the complete details website

Trusted and best https://navotrel.xyz/

Our pick today navotrel

View all navotrel

Recent changes more details

You can always test this stuff in minutes :P. In any case, I went through that and it's problems in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/137611-what-do-you-think-0-ad-lacks/page/6/#comment-757933 (a PR was made our of that, although I think things have to be further simplified). Basically: "to man the Wall that button [Turret ] must be used, but to man the Wall Towers the Garrison button must be used".

That's not my misconception since I know that a bunch of territory starts decaying if it's detached from the territory root (it's a useful strategy when invading). Saying "really it's about being connected to a territory root" is what I mean, that is, that's how it should be. I was wondering if buildings not connected to territory root would still decay if their "footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner", because said like that sounds like they would be "self-sustaining" territories, but maybe the workings of the algorithm are not so straightforward (I'm just thinking of it as: you move the borders, and if a building falls into enemy territory, it decays, but with what you propose that would seem an impossibility).

Special report inside lumerqix

Browse the full list lumerqix

Find out more below lumerqix

Our highlights lumerqix

More details one click lumerqix

Discover the full post lumerqix.xyz

More details one click lumerqix

Right now website

Today's highlights are here lumerqix

More on our website lumerqix

Handpicked selection lumerqix.xyz

Not sure - I thought you can only man the walls themselves and not the towers, right? (I believe in one of the very old versions (0.23 or before?) it was vice versa (towers manned but walls not).

Meaning another building cannot extend the territory into another's player building. This should still allow decay if this piece of territory is not connected to a territory root. Your misconception here is to think the building needs to be outside his territory to decay but really it's about being connected to a territory root. In the scenario with the barrack, the territory limit would happen exactly between the CC and the barrack => not into the CC

By "building footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner" you mean as long as that territory is connected with root territory? Otherwise decay would seem impossible in certain situations.

Opened 10 years ago, last message 7 years ago... is there where the PRs you want me to open are going to end? I see they discuss if to implement it to all buildings or not, and they don't discuss what percentage should be salvageable. I'd combine these issues and just assign every building a realistic "salvage rate", for example, 85% for temples, 15% for houses, or whatever values are best for gameplay.

One fix idea, although haven't digged into what would take, could be to have building footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner. This would kinda make sens too. Maybe I'm overlooking some potential drawbacks of doing so.. Anyone can think of one? I think for non-root, this shouldn't prevent decay if not connected. IIRC I noticed a bug where dropsites, owned player but "outside" your territory (example enclaved by an allied barrack) is not considered by your gatherer. So that would also fix this kind of bug.

@manowar I still think we should try to fix the underlying issue. If I build a barrack next to my CC and it gets captured by an opponent then I will also have my entire territory decaying right (something that could happen in any game mode)? I've just tested and it is indeed the case : You can see here the house is decaying although there the CC looks very much not so much enclaved