All Activity

Sadly, right now a "DawsonKiboult" posted his first message, full of nonsensical spam. A solution I'm thinking of is if posts that are flagged as spam by a certain number of people (3?) could become hidden, for the mods (the only ones able to see them) then to decide what to do with them (as a way to keep things clean faster, help mods, but not give definitive power to non-mods, and of course any abuse of the actual purpose of this should be penalised).

Yo, just saw this video Can't believe it took them 21 years to add a Regicide mode lmao. We'll have to come up with another unique feature then.

These changes are now deployed and I'm hopeful this problem is now fixed. I've closed the associated issues in Gitea. If somebody is still encountering this problem, please don't refrain from re-opening the issues or comment here.

You're super welcome; it's always great to get positive feedback. I still hope that eventually Neph comes back to this project, but until he does, I'm happy to carry on his work. Speaking of the Twili...

hello, i just made an account solely to say, thank you. ive been keeping up with nephy's work over the years since total war and conquest but never got the chance to play them. i can play conquest now, and while i was happy to see my favorite factions the darknut and lizalfos get in, but i was disappointed when i saw the twili just didn't get in when nephy gave up on the mod. im happy to see someone pick up where he left off an i hope it only gets better an brighter than ever before. once again, thank you for this. younger me would be happy

The best way imo is to make new accounts require being approved by moderators (that will catch a lot of the spam bots, since you can just deny ones that have names like "Starz_CO_1", "Starz_CO_2","Starz_CO_3", without even reading anything past their names The other way is to make a poster's first post require approval by a moderator, but this wouldn't really help with the amount of effort placed on the mod's shoulders.

Indeed, in this example, Liu Hu accepted straight away both neutrality and alliance, Antiochus rejected everything, and Ptolemy accepted neutrality but required a tribute for an alliance: It took me like 10 tries to get such a varied output, so there are some random starting parameters in this. The tribute asked was always 1000 Wood. I wonder if there's a way to display messages again after they disappear, I had to do all that a bit fast (but not so much for the order not to get messed up, since they take a second to answer). So, the game is quite good at describing things, but it would be nice if, when they don't accept, they mention that more trade would be needed if that's the case, or whatever is, although some friendliness indicator would be ideal.

Hello, You need to find the right balance. Generally, it is advisable to have a large population before advancing to the next age; however, if you wait too long, you will fall behind in technology. That said, a larger population usually means gathering more resources, so you should have enough to advance (it isn't that expensive). Best regards,

I always get town phase very late in the game. But at that time I have lots of troops and workers. My pop is up on 200 and i get food and wood very fast. Do I need to save more resources and don't spend that much?

I think, when I said that they replied "not interested" I didn't think like that was exactly what they said. I just wanted you to be aware of that they always weren't interested in an alliance.

Same here, thanks a lot!

that would work except not everyone has lobby accounts. I was on the forum for years before I got a lobby account (and even then I used it like once)

I have a question, is it possible, when creating an account to check if the lobby name registered by the user corresponds to an actual lobby name (if not already done) and to prevent the user from creating one if it does not exists. Alternatively, maybe ask to enter a lobby password which could be broadcasted in the lobby with a command. Although that might be too much trouble for actual users.. ?

I spent some time trying to duplicate the issue after removing the personal store certs by backing them up and re-adding them later, but no dice. I only had one that had a key and tried removing/adding with/without the key, no change. Perhaps Ayyad1231 still has this issue. If I have the problem again, I'll investigate further.

Sheeps are in "passive" stance, while gazelles and all fleeing fauna have "skittish" stance.

But can this be deactivated? Or does the original species targeted have a priority? It's much harder to hunt gazelles than butcher sheep. Besides, I guess it shouldn't be "same stance", but "more passive stances than", because I'd think @Vrayer wanted to hunt passive animals as well after targeting an aggressive one (unless the point is to exterminate the aggressive ones first, which could be useful). To use the Target Area idea also for hunting (and the other things mentioned) would seem a less problematic and more encompassing solution to me.

Should be in for next release where (mostly useful for corrals) gathering from animals continue if other animals of the same stance are nearby. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/9083

As we know thanks to the debugging work of @Shad_ and others that the problem seems to be related to client certificates, I dug into it a bit deeper. While I have no Windows available, I couldn't figure out the root cause, but I'm confident I found a workaround to get rid of the problem server-side without players having to do anything. As I mentioned, it isn't possible to disable requesting client certificates in ejabberd right now. After a discussion with the ejabberd devs (https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/discussions/4593), this will be added to the next version of ejabberd though (https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/commit/5b03ca51e003bae785d186f183c0cd276fc89e97), so once we update to that version at some point in the future, we should be fine. Until then, the workaround I have is to instruct the clients to only send us certificates signed by a specific CA. That CA is a dummy CA we have created and where clients haven't signed certificates from, which should result in clients not sending certificates at all. I have prepared all changes necessary for that (https://github.com/0ad/lobby-infrastructure/pull/43) and will likely deploy them in the upcoming days. It would be awesome if we'd have somebody who is currently affected by this problem or can reproduce it, so we can test if the changes indeed fix it.

When I'm concise, I'm misinterpreted, so I have to end writing more… The last couple of ideas were just alternatives for if people prefer them. Personally, I think I prefer the Target Area idea, which is what is described in your link, but only for fighting. My proposal generalises that idea to resource gathering (including hunting), garrisoning, boarding, and even repair, along whatever I can't think of right now.

You post so many ideas that I'm getting the reflex to skip your posts, just so you know you might want to be more concise. What you are describing here will be implemented next release : https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8525

There's an Issue for that on itea: #4581 (current title: Flags for all garrisonable buildings and units).

Funnily this was a topic on Reddit 16 days before OP as well:

A couple of different possibilities inspired by that, which might need refinement to condense on one useful thing: -Target types: if one queues this with a sheep and a gazelle, the hunter would hunt all sheep and gazelles he has around. This could be also used for chopping all trees, garrisoning certain buildings, and boarding certain ships, as long as they are nearby. In case of troops, maybe it could work as cavalry targeting archers, while pikemen cavalry, and so on. -Action stances: similar as before, but the target doesn't really need to be specified. One could hunt all non-aggressive animals (or also aggressive ones if that was selected) as mentioned, but could also work with things like "repair all", "board all", etc, as long as they are nearby.

@Vrayer, congratulation on making your first mod! I have to warn you however that changes like theses will cause oos if you play with players that wouldn't have the mod. For the mod you posted, you should keep the compatibility check enabled in the mod.json to avoid problems. If you really want to create a compatible mod that does this without compatibility issues (that will not oos), you would need a different approach where the UnitAI behavior stay unmodified but triggers re-issuing a command, for other clients to serialize the same behavior as you want. That's tiny slightly more complicated to do but very feasible.