All Activity

They are getting better at writing some BS.

As a reader, I’ve often wondered why war dogs—those brave, battle-hardened canines—cannot be garrisoned like human soldiers, and the answer lies not in their courage, but in their very nature. Flipping through military history and training manuals, I came across a fascinating perspective at www.happypawsus.com/collections/munchkin, which reminded me that these dogs are wired for action, not for static guard duty over a fixed post. Unlike a human sentry who can stand watch for hours, a war dog’s hyper-alert senses and intense bonding with a single handler make them restless and stressed when confined to a garrison without constant movement or missions. They are trained to patrol, detect, and pursue—skills that atrophy in a barracks environment, where the lack of varied scents and terrain dulls their razor-sharp instincts. Moreover, garrison life means exposure to loud drills, crowded quarters, and unfamiliar soldiers, which can trigger anxiety or aggression in a dog conditioned for combat chaos, not peacetime routine. I also realize that their value lies in mobility; chaining them to a base would waste their elite tracking and apprehension abilities, which are better deployed in the field. From a logistical view, kenneling them permanently would strain veterinary resources and morale, as these dogs thrive on the bond of daily patrols with their human partners. So, to me, the rule isn’t a slight against their loyalty—it’s a profound respect for their unique psychology, ensuring they remain effective, happy, and truly heroic where they belong: on the move, not behind walls.

Just retry, the server hosting the file might have been to busy.

@Atrik I believe this problem is worthy of a dedicated issue with the attention of people more experienced than me. Do you think we could get the current PR approved for the next release to allow us to play games without the problem ? At the moment I have it hard-coded to 200m but the distance could be configurable. Then when the larger issue is resolved we could remove that configuration option. Thoughts ?

What about showing the foundation only to the owner (and maybe allies)? It should be just a plan before anyone comes close to it. This would also avoid the annoying destruction of foundations, unless this is on purpose because of some gameplay consideration. I think my proposal results in a more fluid gameplay.

So, just was building the game, and got this: ERROR: Download of https://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/freetype-2.13.3.tar.gz failed ERROR: Failed to build freetype I downloaded it from somewhere else, and I think it is past that now. Just was letting you guys know, for any other people

It's fixed for noobs. You can just hold H and then the cav just makes some jerking movements and stays. But don't tell anyone.

I agree in theory, but in practise, my walls do seem to get converted when slowly leaving my territory (yes, this means they become detached from my root, and you can then see that as the actual reason), that's what I meant with: And my first observation was that I think this won't happen anymore with your fix. A detail: there are exceptions to "they decay if not connected to a root", like garrisoned buildings, and docks (which don't even decay in enemy land). And maybe it's not that the wall really leaves my territory, but that each block has it's own too small territory (in a way, this is what you fixed), and the enemy's land expansion makes each of these to detach from root, but still, that's a difference between what exactly happens in theory, and how it looks like in practise. Sure. But I'm not sure if you understood my first observation (which I just clarified), and nothing has been said regarding my second one. The point being not what's actually happening, but how some other things (besides the "Barrack Hack") will behave differently. @Atrik I edited some things to be more concise and clear, just in case you already read a previous version.

"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