All Activity

"CC denial through units on the foundation. If one is lucky, one can put their cavalry on the enemy foundation during ceasefire and the enemy can't start their foundation because the cavalry won't move." @ffm2 I think its fixed now, when enemies start building your units automatically moves away

Buildings don't decay because they are outside your territory (in 95%+ of cases, they sit on their own territory influence), they decay if not connected to a root. This would be unchanged. Territory ownership and connection to territory root are two different things. So nothing will change if you capture a CC and opponent have no other root attached to buildings => all buildings will decay. Your opponent will still own the "blinking" territory until the buildings are decayed to a new owner (unchanged and unaffected by proposed modification).

Your misconception here is to think I'm imagining something I'm not. I'm just trying to mentally emulate the consequences of the fix and point out anything unintended, given that you said "maybe I'm overlooking some potential drawbacks of doing so.. Anyone can think of one?". And I'm thinking of a couple of things, as I'll mention (I guess related to your "buildings are reasonably spaced" observation). Indeed "you cannot own a building but the land is to someone else" (except if they are decaying because of that). "There will be no more territory lines crossing buildings" is indeed the direct consequence of the fix, as is "buildings in the territory won't decay unless the CC is totally enclaved", that was your point all along. I see now why there won't actually be "self-sustaining" territories: their footprints are not root, so they should decay if detached from root territory. But I was also thinking about this situation: I've had the issue that part of my walls would decay if the enemy territory expands. If I'm not wrong, this won't be the case anymore, since the fix wouldn't allow anymore for only a part of a long wall to decay. I don't have a problem with this, in fact I think the present behaviour is a problem (because my towers get distracted shooting the converted walls I want to gain back!), and your fix might have solved this. But considering all that, and, again, if I'm not wrong, it would seem that the fix would make buildings not "reasonably spaced" way harder to convert just by territory expansion since, given that "there will be no more territory lines crossing buildings", one would have to detach a whole not "reasonably spaced" group of buildings from the root territory. Maybe this is preferable for some, but seems a bit of a drawback for me.

Why do the spammers keep doing it? Does it actually work?

There is no need for whatever complication you imagine. We just want buildings to always be in owner's territory. Which is how it should be, you cannot own a building but the land is to someone else (in this game at least). If this land is not connected to a root, then all buildings on it decays still, like what happens commonly in games when buildings are reasonably spaced. Basically in the picture with the CC in the comment above, the territory line would be between the CC and the barrack. There will be no more territory lines crossing buildings, which makes sense. None of the decay conditions are changed, beside that now the CC center point will actually be in the owner's territory (as it makes intuitive sense) and therefore buildings in the territory won't decay unless the CC is totally enclaved.

game hosting isn't about hardware, it's a network problem. you could get 0ad run on a toaster if there was a headless version/mod to the game but that's not the actual issue preventing people from enjoying the game: not being to join certain games, or hosting games at all lag players dropping out All of which can be fixed with a server in a data center, which currently cannot be made to run headless/seamless. Once a solution to that is found then yeah multiplayer as a whole will be actually functional.

I've been fairly absent from the lobby lately, but I did get to see Uff's hosts, and I think they're a very interesting development. I'm sorry to read that he left over a disagreement. I can understand the frustration, but I can also understand that it isn't easy for the developers to establish rules and enforce them. If anyone is in contact with him,it would be good to tell him not to burn any bridges. It's not worth throwing everything away over the first disagreement. I'm sure there is common ground to be found that could benefit everyone. Of course everyone needs to be willing to compromise on something and work together on any aspects that require coordination with wfg.

Yeah, or at the end of the game a upload button. To avoid spam of re-host of games with wrong settings and some sanity checks of game duration, full replay, duplicate uploads etc..

Indeed. @feneur, this image shows a 3rd wave of spam, the 1st one was over 40 minutes ago, and it's still there. I have to strongly disagree that "new users might have to wait a number of hours before their first post is approved" is any worse than this, which affects all users and makes things look trashy and unsafe.

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).

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

@manowar, I see.. The issue seems that even if the territory area is influenced by the CC (the territory root), the CC is still considered outside of it, so "no root is attached to the territory". Good catch. A enclaved CC is probably expected to have territory outside the enclave to decay. But here the enclave is just created by the barrack having bigger weight then the CC. So here I would say it's definitively a territory influence weight problem/bug.

Could we automatically sync all replays in the player's replay folder to replay Pallas? This allows us to have access to every single game that has ever happened

By accident I found a related Issue on Gitea: #4050 (Build back own buildings to gather resources)

Ah, I was confused. This has nothing to do with "losing health" or "health bars". You mean capture points. Now that I think, maybe that should be called loyalty or allegiance, to pair it with "health", since saying "losing capture" wouldn't make much sense.

Screenshot below shows another test but with the health bars so you can see the decay clearly

@Atrik adding detail here about why your approach (and what I tried first myself) still has problems. (reference PR comment) I added your code, built and ran the game twice as player1 (blue) and player2 (red). In the attached first screenshot player1 has built a barracks close to player2 CC. The new code stops the CC from decaying BUT notice that buildings created by player2 have auto reverted to being owned by player1 AND while they are in the process of decaying the territory line of player2 starts flashing and it is not possible for player2 to add any other building within his own territory (see building highlighted red). It is for this reason that I approached the problem from another angle i.e. allowing the host to impose a CC distance in the Game Setup. The alternative of messing with the weights of buildings, owning tiles, decay rates felt like a more dangerous change.

Yeah, that was the thing. As I understand it wfg can't just let any bots run on the lobby. Uff was honest about his bot, but it wasn't approved (yet). I can understand that some boundaries have to be set e.g. to avoid adds, spam etc.. But I liked uffs host. I can also understand that it is not so attractive for a developer to have everything approved of the ideas one wants to try out. For me, I would appreciate such a host in combination with a fast automated pairing system like the LocalRatings Team-Balancer Mod. The hoster could build up a better database than I could by only manually spectating and playing games. This way one could also experiment more with parameters of the pairing system.

I have some machines which can be used as dedicated servers for 0ad, but I am not fully sure how to achieve a constant lobby presence. Also how to handle the end of a game session If you are willing, we can work together to pull this off. I can commit my main account to host for people while I'm sleeping. This does not breach TOS as there are no bots (in the sense of xmpp bots) inside the lobby and there is no use of multi accounts. I have seen some promising progress from sanafur who was automating his host largely yesterday evening. Players can allocate themselves and start game by typing commands so that sanafur doesn't have to read the chat and do things manually. It's a good starting point and people with the resources can carry on