All Activity

@Perzival12 @Jackerino Add a system for scenario and campaign narratives #8318 Add a speech/dialogue system #8614 Add scenario objectives #7785

Yeah, I learned most of my trigger stuff front reverse engineering the 0 A.D. scripts, which was a long and complicated process. @Vantha, did the cinematic stuff get implemented for R28? Or is it still on the back burner?

OBJ. Super common.

@EilatHere is the Iron Turtoise Deathmatch infinite pop, even though I kind of crashed because of the Han's minister(I tried to move), I had like 1.2k[50PPM] pop and the turtoise had 460(in another game against VH Petra its 620[25PPM]) in min 24, which is actually reasonable. The thing I like about this AI is its able to increase its pop beyond VH Petra, implementing the continue to build houses and army code to Petra would be very nice. Its just that its building one house at a time, maybe doubling it would be extremely funny for the average player(I want to hear them suffer), actually keep that for only the most combatant personailty one. Noted something: It does not build a hero. I see fortress and towers are build near the border but what if you enable it to build in between CC as well as building towers too all over non stop. Imagine my army getting arrowed to the knee from every direction and the further I go in there is still more... hence I need a lot.... of siege to unshell this guy, then again I'm playing on 27.1 and the capture is easy here. Looking at another default setting game(map is large) against VH Petra, this turtle has lower PPM then Medium difficulty[8.5PPM at min 24(I forgot)] which is [7.5PPM] at minute 20 and pretty much stunted there. Who knows... there needs more sample but I'm tired.... So inconclusion as well as extras are added: - Error: It does not build hero - In default setting It has slower PPM below Medium Difficulty, try to fix that one until it reach VH. - It should focus its economy more on stone through trading or technology, since its trying to build lots of towers. - It should tech its defense(murder hole/sentries/upgrade to stone tower) as early as possible before building towers. - Should make wood towers all over its area of influence then eventually upgrade to stone towers to force the player to produce siege or lose lots of unit in the process. - Fortress are to be build at the edge of the border as well as between CCs. Score; In default setting Easy to Medium Difficulty, I'm not forced to use siege to protect against barrage of arrows or to destroy 10th stone tower or the 5fth Fortress then again I'm on version 27.1 which the capture is easy.... however in Deathmatch and max pop its beyond VH Petra late game[>25min] Anyways since protecterate has same logic, I'll not fight it, For the moment VH Petra is my default bot, goodluck. commands.txt

@LienRag @CheckTester I hope this help you a bit. This is how I interpret the Unit Table: In the first table, we have the basic templates from which the others are derived. There, I select the base template I want to filter in order to easily view its stats. For example, I want to get the template for the Ranged Cavalry Javelineer. Then, in the table below, I specify the same unit again. There, the specialized Ranged Cavalry Javelineer units are displayed, along with the civilization they belong to. For example, the template I selected (template_unit_cavalry_ranged_javelineer.xml) has a walk speed of 16.2. In my example, I chose cart/cavalry_javelineer_b from the second table, which belongs to the Carthaginians and shows a Walk Speed of 1.6 (in green). This means that its final walk speed is 16.2 + 1.6 = 17.8. And this number is exactly the one shown in the unit’s tooltip in the Civilopedia. Reveal hidden contents to see the screenthos:

This https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8758 Dedicated server partially solves this problem. When player leaves rated game without previously sending resign -> it is detected and reported. Can be automated to the rating bot. I also think that some grace period needed: players may connect and realize that their networking conditions are not allowing a good gameplay and disconnect or basically drop the connection. Maybe in first 2 minutes this is ok to tolerate.

@AtrikAre you one of these so-called "hero programmers"? And what about increasing the interval of the "Default zoom" a lot? Any time I change a small setting (for example just the sound volume) the game annoys me with the "are you sure"-dialogue.

These two posts from Devereaux illustrate well how the game should make missile work, imho. https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social/post/3mfipjgvmuk24 https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social/post/3mfhpqnp2ac2i

Maurya is too unbalanced, but the rest is interesting indeed.

Even for one civilization, I really don't understand the difference between most units... I get the difference between melee and missile of course, between cavalry and infantry, between spearmen (good again cavalry) and swordsmen (good again siege units), but that's basically all...

To rate games we currently rely on both players "agreeing" about the outcome of the game. That means whenever a rated game ends, 0ad sends a report about its outcome to a bot which is responsible for handling the ratings. Only if the reports of both players match, the game will get rated. This is necessary to prevent players from sending fake reports to manipulate their ratings. In case one of the players disconnects and doesn't come back later, we won't get a report from that player and therefore can't rate the game automatically. The best solution I've come up with so far is to inform the bot already when a rated game starts and about which players participate. Then if only a single report gets received later on, we can wait a few hours and award that player the points. I've described that in more detail in https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/3951#issuecomment-62016 The non-host player loosing the connection and not being able to reconnect afterwards (no matter for what reason) is an interesting edge case I haven't thought about yet.

Have a match history that records rated games that anyone can view and report in game[saparated by version] and the details in it are there: - Map name, type of season, population limit, win condition such and such. - Game number[Individual for each player and the global number]. - Mod used, game will be counted saparately those who use vanilla approved and those who use cheat mod(giving advantage to players). - Duration [Any games thats ends under 15 minute or lower increases the lower it gets, the suspicion of the player]. - Players involve[trust level - your idea to implement - they are the ones who will help report] and their faction played[totalled - individual faction]. - Action Per Minute or Population Per Minute. - Did the game end with surrender/quit? - Was there any vulgar comments being used - flag the match, if so censor but keep it for proof, only the mods can read it. - Score at the end[In player profile, should have average score each game and only counted are above minute 15]. - Locked behind password? However to be honest if they want to exploit rating points by doing such exploit which any games under 10 minutes or it triggers a condition(mods preference) will be flagged, might as well disable their stats and flag the account as smurf by the system, if they want to have unflag their match needs to be reviewed and need to talk it out with the mods. I don't know if my comment is out of reach in the idea or out of topic, if so my bad but I want to contribute however I can.

It seems there are no bots at all, they all have similar power in 1v1 matches. Although they defeated Petra in my test matches, according to the user above, they are easily defeated. However, if you want to experiment, you can download any bot from here and play on large maps or larger, with unlimited population and deathmatch resources, and you can wait a bit for them to power up (although Petra doesn't wait for them). Anyway, I'm fixing early game issues for them (they are strong in the late game), so if you're still interested, you can come back and try them out.

There is an ELO rating system implemented in the MP Lobby for 1v1's. A notorious problem with it is that it doesn't handle matches where one of the players disconnected before it was over, these matches simply aren't counted. Some players exploit this by leaving or closing matches when they realise they are about to be defeated, in order not to lose any rating points. This obviously goes against the rules, which is why this thread exists for reporting it: However, I think we can all agree that, ideally, bypassing the rating system like this wouldn't even be possible in the first place. This would save players the frustration and moderators the work of checking submitted replays. While talking about it in this thread the following idea came up: There are two cases of players quitting, firstly the one hosting the match, and secondly the one who joined the hosted game (the client). - If the client leaves, currently, the match continues, just without anyone controlling one side. If the host now finishes the match as usual by defeating the opponent (who doesn't defend himself anymore since the client left), it should still count as a win for the host and as a defeat for the client. If the client disconnected for a different, valid reason and planned to return, he should communicate that to the host beforehand. I'd argue it's the clients' responsibility to ensure they have a somewhat stable internet connection, so that they aren't completely disconnected frequently, and when they are, can still rejoin quickly. The downside is that it incentivizes hosts not to wait for the client to come back, since they no longer have to. - If the host leaves, currently, the match is immediately ended, without the client having a chance to continue the match in the same way as proposed for the host. In that case, the game should count as a win for the client. I know this sounds harsh, but as far as I can tell from the code, this only happens if the host manually exits the match or terminates the program. If the host only loses internet connection, all clients (one, if it's a 1v1) are disconnected from the match, but they are able to reconnect as the match itself on the host side persists. So the only way this can happen unintentionally is if the computer crashes, but again, that's probably something the host is responsible to ensure that it doesn't happen. What do you think? Is there anything I'm missing? An issue I can think of is that it enables hosts to exploit the system by starting a match, immediately kicking the client or blocking his connection deliberately in another way, and then being able to easily win the game and still be awarded rating points. Although, that's something that should just be reported as well.

what's the hardest, most toughest to beat bot we've got here?

Protectorate isn't significantly different in power from the other two bots, as they share similar logic. The difference lies in the tribute and troop deployment mechanics, so if you've defeated the other two bots, you'll likely defeat it as well.

I remember seeing "this also unlocks undergirding cables for some civs" in one of the tech descriptions. was always confused what it meant

@Atrik Moderngui does not reflect This . it just says "reached city phase" in your mod.. can you fix that please uwu

out of topic but I realized that y'all wrote it as "nayara" which reflects the Magadhi Prakrit not having that "ga" sound but rather the "ya". I like these little odes to history (In current sanskrit its pronounced Nagara)

Muy bueno!

Thank you all for the help, it worked now. Interestingly, when compiling the libs spider mokey failed. At least with optimisations. Second pass without they were built fine. After that I was able to built pyrogenesis with optimizations works fine so far.

@sarcoma I've already ported to R28 and updated the links in the first message. But if you are using ModernGUI you have this feature already

Please have a look on @Stan`s precise answer to this question in the thread 0AD on Steam? (last answer 1 hour ago).

Why not just get rid of the exit option in 1v1 games? Where the only option is "Resign"?

@Vantha has merged above-mentioned pull request with commit c799e4221a. Thank you all for the joint endeavour!