All Activity

Also, nothing is more discouraging to me when I sign in to the forums then to see 50+ bot spam posts in Russian.

Yeah, no problem. I don't use GitHub, I prefer GitLab.

LOL I literally just added this to Hyrule Conquest the other day, what a coincidence

I haven't put much thought into the minor factions yet, but yeah they're mostly going to be filling niches that other races don't expand on, or to add to races that don't have a feature (like Wizzrobes mages to help out the magic-less Moblins). Volvagians are definitely going to be a heavy unit group, focusing on fire damage and siege. Subrosians will mostly focus on mining and upgrades, with a boomerang unit and some weak melee stuff Huskus will be a strange mix of expensive units with a high damage output and swarm units that are almost useless.

I agree that 0ad is wasting its potential, but I don't think the scenario should be the absolute priority, I think the better immediate step is working out the multiplayer mostly an anticheat, account management etc to push the game to mainstream platforms like steam. once more people notice, the additional interest should drive people into creating content and improving the game, the opposite is having a well polished game that no one knows about.

@Red Wolf, some clarification: Regarding 10 (Wall towers could be upgraded to fire at enemies): I think this was so in the past (someone said "left-over from old wall towers being able to shoot" in another thread), so there were reasons to change it. I think there are issues on how Palisades, Walls, Towers and Fortresses work, so we might see some changes at some point. Regarding 15 (Signs of destruction on buildings as they lose health are barely noticeable): I actually agree on that, just not with flames appearing without any reasonable source.

We understand that the developers are volunteers and that they don't owe the players anything, but you have to admit that currently game hosting isn't convenient for a variety of reasons (IPv4 CGNAT issues, P2P etc.) if anything players hacking their own solution by paying for their own servers to host the game should be at the very least tolerated. In my opinion the game develops very slowly (that's how open source community driven works) and human nature implies that if you people aren't given an option they'll come up with their own solutions and they can't be blamed for that. I don't see how a single player creating a single dedicated account to host games is any different than a player forgetting his credentials and creating another account to host games, especially considering that it was done with no malicious intent and with well thought safe guards (spam protection, moderator player system etc.) So far everyone who played on those hosted servers had a great experience and they're pushing back on your decision (and rightfully so) because they see how a very efficient and convenient way of playing the game is being taken away from them over technicalities. As for what should be done next I think uff (and other selected players) should be allowed to host a fixed number of server instances (at least 1, more if the mods allow it) since so far it's only been positive until a true functioning headless 0ad server is released.

it happens when we are not a robot and we see unfair stuff

Fais un effort pour répondre de manière constructive. Tu donnes une mauvaise image de toi-même.

The principle of tolerance must be applied; moderators have brains, and they need to use them. They are not judges who are out of touch with reality.

Funny topic, so if I make mod to host a game as player I guess all is ok here? Please clarify

you already remove the feature of remplace someone just by IP and now this possibility too , for fake reasons of security.

Bots usually behave notably different than humans. Most of them also aren't even designed to hide the fact that they're not a human user. So in most cases it's quite obvious. I believe I have explained that already in my earlier response. Anything I should clarify about that?

I can't see this unless I edit the link. Here's what I see then, which is actually a pretty good rendition.

@Red Wolf, maybe edit your post to add numbers to your suggestions, so the following is easier to read: I disagree with 2, 11 and 15 (standard practice doesn't mean good practice, I'm strongly against spontaneous combustion). I agree with 1, 12 (also proposed it), maybe 4, 5, 13 and somewhat 6. 14 would be nice, but not a priority, I guess. Regarding 3, the default size should just be bigger, many have complained already, and honestly, I find it offensive to people that have sight problems. I got super used to it, but I remember thinking how unnecessarily dumb it looked. Regarding 7, this is easy to find in Settings > Hotkeys, start writing "mi" and you see "Select military only: Alt", so just use that modifier. Regarding 9, you said "snap", go to Settings > Hotkeys, start writing "sn" and you see "Toogle snap-to-edge: Ctrl", so just use that modifier. Regarding 16, as usual, Settings > Hotkeys, start writing "id", the hotkeys are "." and "-". If you literally meant "button", yeah, maybe, or could eventually be right-clicking on the one for idle workers, or similar. Regarding 8 and 10, I'm quite neutral and would like to listen to arguments.

Greetings to the 0 A.D. devs and community. It has been many years since I first encountered the game, but only now have I dedicated enough time to it to truly understand it. I hope my observations prove useful to the devs and make as much sense to the community as they did to me while playing. The game is fantastic—a gift from the devs to strategy game fans like myself—and it is a privilege to be able to play it for free! 1) When animals attack gatherers, nearby gatherers should automatically defend them. The same applies to gatherers who are also military units when enemies attack them. I have lost entire groups of gatherers to wolves because I didn't notice they were under attack; after all, the units appear small on screen due to their scale relative to the buildings. 2) Houses should provide a population capacity of 20, not 15. Units are trained very quickly in this game, and the housing capacity falls behind rapidly. 3) More options for adjusting the UI size need to be added. It is very small at 1920x1080 resolution; unit icons, buttons, names, and text all appear too small. 4) In the floating info panel (which appears when hovering the mouse over a unit, building, or technology button), the items could be arranged in this order: Unit/building name; Costs; Unit type; Command instructions—all spaced out, with the name and costs in a larger font than the rest of the text. The way the text is currently formatted—all bunched together and uniform in size—makes it difficult to quickly scan for the information a player might be looking for. 5) Some Formations could be eliminated; "Battle Line" and "Close Order" could be merged into a single formation. 6) The "YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED BY" message urgently needs to appear larger and flashing—ideally above the bottom UI bar. Placing it there would make it more visible and prevent it from being confused with AI messages requesting resources (as happens to me, since AI requests resources so frequently that sometimes I ignore them altogether). 7) I missed having an easy drag-and-select option for military units. 8) Selecting a Corral and right-clicking on it should automatically cause the animals raised there to garrison inside. 9) When placing a building foundation near existing structures, they could automatically align or "snap" to the side, similar to Age of Empires III. This helps ensure there are no gaps between them. While rare, builders can sometimes get stuck between structures because of this issue. 10) Wall towers could be upgraded to fire at enemies. 11) Certain Stone and Metal source models are easily confused; This makes it necessary to hover the mouse over the resources to identify them, rather than simply looking at them. 12) The feature where you click and hold the right mouse button to choose the direction units will face is very useful in similar games and could be added here as well. 13) Walls built next to trees, cliffs, or water almost always leave tiny gaps between the wall and the terrain feature. The placement silhouette turns red—blocking construction—even when a gap exists. Players should be allowed to build walls slightly into these elements. 14) Until more complex building-collapse animations are created, have the buildings tip to one side as they fall, like in Empire Earth. It's a simple animation that looks really cool! 15) Signs of destruction on buildings as they lose health are barely noticeable. Add flames that grow in intensity as health drops, as is standard practice. 16) There should be separate buttons for idle villagers and idle military units. 17) The Gold and Stone icons on the minimap are very helpful! I’m still waiting for those in Age of Empires II. Please share your thoughts.

I think our model should have roughly the same footprint as the existing stone theater model, which means that the shape from the second image from @Genava55 fits much better for our needs. And the Skene would be made of wood and fabric then.

@nifa, AC's picture resembles the 2nd that @Genava55 posted, but I'd guess the 1st one he posted is a bit more accurate, being more elongated. Nothing remains from wooden theatres, but one can see the layout of the earliest stone ones, an example being the one at Thorikos, the world's oldest known theatre, from around 500 BC (https://theatreofancientgreece.blogspot.com/2014/08/ancient-theatre-of-thorikos.html): The Euonymon Theatre in Trachones would be another example (for more details, and mention of others: https://www.theatrum.de/382.html). Additionally, the Oxford Classical Dictionary states, regarding the early Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, that "late 19th-cent. excavations suggested a circular orchestra; many now prefer to think of a rectilinear orchestra" (thus hard to say something about its exact shape, considering others just state "possibly in Pi-shaped arrangement around the orchestra"), "the stage and most probably the stage building were wooden at this period; some think that there was no stage building till shortly before the Oresteia in 458 BC", while before "the stage was about a metre high with a flight of steps in the centre communicating with the orchestra". It was rebuilt in stone in 350 BC (although in many cases there are intermediate stages, like the first rows only being made of stone, but this would be too much for the game, for now).

Ok, I guess javelineers aren't so bad. I think they were in the base game, and I just assumed they were as bad in here too

I see, although usually they have to wait hours or days for an answer to whatever they ask, so in principle I don't think the problem is as serious as it initially might seem.

From assasins creed. Should we go for something similar, especially with the stage? Is it historically accurate?

Sorry, my statement was incomplete: bots run by players aren't permitted, the ones run by Wildfire Games are of course permitted (and are actually necessary to run the multiplayer lobby). What we need is a server, which can run headlessly, so without requiring a graphics card. It also has to be resource efficient, easy to isolate (e.g. by running it inside a Firecracker micro VM) and maintainable (so no re-implementation of the required functionality, but reuse of code we already have in pyrogenesis). Additionally it should be integrated into pyrogenesis and XpartaMuPP, so whether or not to use a dedicated server is an option in the game UI rather than sending chat messages. That'd also allow us to use it for rated games, something which isn't possible with an unofficial solution. It's probably also a good idea to get in touch with us developers while developing such functionality, so we can provide guidance where necessary, to avoid work which results in something which doesn't fit our needs and standards (for example a change of the network layer from UDP to QUIC is in the works right now (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8925), which would require changes to a dedicated server as well). That said, if we're talking about ways to improve the ability of players to join multiplayer games and improve their performance, proper support for IPv6 (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/projects/9) is something I personally would like to see as a step before adding dedicated server functionality.

Personally I've been/still am reluctact as it would mean that genuine new users might have to wait a number of hours before their first post is approved, and in the mean time they might give up. No matter what we do or don't do there's always a cost somewhere, so the question is what is reasonable. I did suggest changing things in this manner in a staff-only topic, but there were other suggested ways to try and limit the issue that we might try beforehand.

I just don't really get cav. I like having units that can gather, and then fight when I need them to. I guess that just how I play though, maybe I should just use a different civ

Yes, Mace is a little different and tough. But you have strong p1 allied cav that only cost food.... you can unlock slingers p1. Yes you should also notice although Mace p1 units are "weaker" they are cheaper and train faster... mace is more about eco early on and getting to p2. We didnt want civs to play practically identical to one another. I can show you how to play to each civs strength, we can team up against the AI. And Im sure there are people better than me who could really play into the strengths even more.