All Activity

Want to try something new with Merc in Classical Warfare AEA. I havent tried yet, cause I figuted I would ask before nubbing and creating errors. Can I write it so the Promotion is includeded in the upgrade? <Upgrade> <veteran> <Entity>units/athen/merc_inf_archer_market_a</Entity> <Tooltip>Rank up to veteran status.</Tooltip> <Cost> <metal>10</metal> </Cost> <Variant>upgrading</Variant> <Time>10</Time> </veteran> </Upgrade> <Promotion> <Entity>units/athen/merc_inf_archer_market_a</Entity> </Promotion>

Tiny precision, I wasn't trying to blame the process I saw how it works well to generate hardened quality code, the time reviewer spend to read your (sometimes sh!ty) code is never to be taken granted --thanks by the way @Vantha, @phosit, @Stan` for the reviews on my PRs --. But simply the additional time to be spent on trying to get any feature into the game (again the 1-2 order of magnitude larger of work isn't a exaggeration, add to this waiting time) create a very real limit to what you can get done, even over a large time frame. Your suggestions to try to organize the collaboration although nice, can hardly solve this dilemma.

@Atrik @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI want to touch on the recent discussion regarding our development workflows and how best to align our modding efforts with the vanilla codebase. I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability. The reality is that there are definitely valid differences between the timelines for mods versus full game integration, particularly when it comes to compliance and QA scrutiny. However, as we move forward on larger project deliverables, our goal is to streamline the process without sacrificing quality. I am proposing that we introduce weekly alignment sessions on Microsoft Teams to keep everyone synced with QA and product management. This would allow us to surface blockers earlier and ensure our technical direction remains aligned with the broader roadmap. Regarding the specific debate on mods versus pull requests, standardising our integration protocols can actually help bridge the gap you mentioned regarding reviewer availability. By centralising these reviews within a PR workflow, we create a more predictable pipeline for feedback and refinement before code enters the core system. This is a collective effort to improve how we scale our development operations. If we can establish these regular touchpoints and adopt a shared development standard, we should see fewer integration headaches and faster cycles for feature releases. I would love to hear your feedback on how you think we can implement this in a way that respects the workflow differences you are facing while still moving us toward greater consistency.

Same. However, offending people deliberately and expecting no punishment for it strange. If a player targets the other player's racial, ethnic or religious background, that player should be punished. Of course, we don't have to go to extremes and punish people for saying the f-word or just calling other people idiots in a heated context.

I’m not sure about this one, since someone’s idea of trolling varies wildly (you could consider anything from worker harassment to deleting captured buildings trolling, and both are commonly used tactics.)

I like the distributed farmers idea. There would be lots of gameplay ramifications for eco efficiency and vulnerability to raids. One outstanding point is the slot ("trees" as mentioned by @DesertRose) priority per farmers. Instead of some script that would place each additional farmer at the best possible slot depending on dropsite and farm orientation, slot prioritization should be done based off the path the farmer takes to access the farm when tasked to farm on it (whichever slot is closest).

I have a sanction idea that satisfies both sides of the argument but it is a bit difficult to implement technically: Every time JC says a racist comment, his units increase in cost by 20%. When he insults another player, his units loose 20% of attack damage. When he trolls, his units loose 10% max HP. The penalty changes depending on the severity of the offence.

That's not necessarily true. It's definitely a discussion we can have. Your other points are 100% fair. My main reasons for starting DE. Collaboration, especially online collaboration, can be very frustrating at times. But what you can do (which you've already done and which I've done) is use your mod for experimentation, etc., then parse out bits and pieces you think would serve well the base game and make PRs.

It's a bit more complicated then that however. It's not just about good will. There are things that I can do in a mod that won't be accepted in vanilla, like dropping support for minuscule screens. The time spent on developing anything for vanilla is of a large order of magnitude (often even two) longer then for a mod, due to requirements, process, need of communications.. Reviewer availability is scarce and mismatch with your own motivation and availability creates a even bigger gap between making something in a mod and for vanilla. Some ideas are very often initiated in the mod as a totally buggy POC, and refined over time since you can immediately play test it (or dropped). Which is something you cannot really do with vanilla.

That's actually something I wanted to say, but I feared that the walking distance is too small to replace the 10% diminishing return.

Merged. Thanks @nifa! I'll work on the Erechtheion and Caryatids Pull Request next.

I'd rather Hack = Melee, Pierce = Ranged. Crush = Siege and/or Anti-building. KISS principle applies and prevents unintended consequences.

Or.... add Blocking & Muting to the base game's code. Alone, they would be a worthwhile basic features.

This can be a compromise between what we have now (which kinda sucks, not gonna lie) and the "wandering farmer" of Age of Empires.

He already is adding things to the base game. All one has to do is make Pull Requests. Other people criticize the code to improve it, or a design discussion occurs so that the design is honed and refined and meets the criteria of the game.

Not precisely related to what I was discussing, but i think that would conflict with HP bars.

Just add an outline to indicate how full it is, from red to green. [Can change colour in setting for the colourblind]. Hmm... then again this needs further ways to identify easily. Edit; Whoops I thought they mean't how to identify how full fields are, since I sometimes miss some numbers.

This could be a neat way to replace the less intuitive diminishing returns feature. As long as the spots get filled by proximity to the storehouses, and the farmers choose the move to the closer spots if they are vacant. Lots of stuff to implement for this tho.

Yes, the vanilla training system has many limitations that, in my opinion, are a form of malfunction. I think that frustration can lead users to look for alternatives. In fact, I’ve been working on a mod that always prioritizes empty barracks, and my goal is to have it implemented in the next release (PR #8483). While respecting the “no automation principle”, I believe removing unnecessary limitations is something positive.

Thx @Atrik, should've split advantage from updating the GUI, one for the looks and one for QOL type of thing for those that prefer playing it like that. The game does need some ease of readability when it comes to multiplayer.

I guess that’s a bit like life, right? A person can be many things at the same time. It’s also true that we are a very small community, so frictions naturally arise. Also, I don’t support encouraging hatred. And I think @Atrik has contributed many positive things, even if there are some aspects I don’t like. Personally, I consider the automation features in ModernGUI’s training system a clear advantage, and we have discussed this publicly many times. Aside from that, all the GUI aspects of the mod are really great. The configuration wizard is excellent. In my view, a game that allows you to configure the GUI the way you like—the more freedom it gives you, the better the user experience. Of course, there can be some nuance regarding how far certain visualizations might also be considered an advantage, although I see that as a relatively minor issue.

I mean, when I looked through the options offered by ModernGUI and saw the option of "Queue in idle buildings first" I was baffled that apparently is not how the game already behaves.

@Atrik has talent! I'm not sure if they allow him to add things to the base game. People have very strong recations and beliefs to some aspects of ModernGUI and I feel treat Atrik in an unfair manor because of that. I for one am a big supporter of adding some of his GUI aspects to the main game. I think its more visually pleasing, and easier for people with not great eyesight.

Well, the issue with that method is that right now it's very hard to see how many Farmers work on which Field. Maybe this could made more clear by adding 5 gather points on a Field where each Farmer has to do. Like . . . . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . X . . . . . . . . Basically there are 5 invisible "trees" placed at those "X", and each "tree" has a maximum of one Farmer.

But I will say I enjoy the GUI customization screen. Hadn't seen that before. I wish you would focus on adding things like that to the base game. You are indeed talented at this.