All Activity

@Langbart created a ticket for you 3 weeks ago: #7970 (Art: Gaul javelinist missing cape animation during attack).

Bonjour damale, ce n'est pas un bug, la traduction française était incomplète au moment où nous avons sorti la version 27. La phrase que tu montres en anglais sur la capture d'écran n'a été traduite qu'en février par exemple. La traduction française est toujours complète d'habitude, mais nous avons découvert en décembre qu'un traducteur (peut-être un bot) avait juste copié-collé l'anglais dans les traductions en français pour énormément de contenu. L'équipe de traduction croyait donc que tout était traduit. Elle n'a malheureusement pas eu le temps de re-traduire tout ce qui manquait avant la sortie fin janvier. N'hésite pas à contribuer à la traduction sur Transifex si tu le souhaites: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Localization

English follow Salut, pour jouer à la version 27 sur Debian Bookworm, je dois utiliser la version flatpak trouvé ici: https://github.com/flathub/com.play0ad.zeroad Je constate que la traduction alterne souvent entre l'anglais et le français Comme vous pouvez le constater sur les images en bas, quand je pointe une structure le texte peut être en anglais et dans une même partie, le texte peut être en français. Même quand il est écrit en anglais, sous le texte anglais il est écrit en français "cliquez pour plus d'information" Quand j'étais sur la version 26, tout était en français Est-ce seulement la version flatpak qui fait ça? Est-ce dû à une mauvaise configuration de ma part ? Merci beaucoup _________________________________________________________________________________ English Hello, to play 0ad alpha 27 on Debian bookworm, I have to install the flatpak version of 0ad found here : https://github.com/flathub/com.play0ad.zeroad Sometimes the translation is in french, some other times in english (like demonstrated on the picture below) When I was playing alpha 26 installed with the official repository of debian, all the translation was in french. What could explain that bug? Thank you

If you don't want to install the oddity detector (which warns in-game) you could check quickly the barter efficiency. If that is suspiciously high watch the complete replay. Note: Just a high efficiency alone is not sufficient to claim a market exploit. It is normal game play to use good prices once one takes note of it in the market. But a market exploit causes a high barter efficiency.

The most common and the most infuriating bug with formations, that I've experienced, is unit freeze. To reproduce: 1) Make sure "No override" is selected for formation control 2) Order your units into a line formation, 3) March towards the enemy base, 4) Add some more units to the group from your base, 5) Attack move the enemy base. Half the time, most of your units will just sit there frozen, while a few march in to be slaughtered by the enemy.

I’ve had matches crash unexpectedly too, and yeah, not being able to save online games mid-session is frustrating. A mid-game save option would make co-op and long matches way better.

Some formations should give an advantage to the defense and others to the offense. Testudo vs missile firing. Phalanx similar but less protection and some attack 2% more maybe Close formations should have bonuses against falling arrows and other projectiles. Syntagma and Anticav would be bonus to the attack against cavalry. Closed formations should penalize movement and open formations should favor it. The Persians were to have a unique formation, which would serve as a shield and barrier to the enemy of archers.( Protect the archers) It would be a composite formation. https://archeryhistorian.com/persian-archery/#:~:text=Persian Archery %26 Battle Tactics&text=They would release arrows%2C and,units would form their lines.

There is still at least 2 different bug with formations that I haven't been able to have clear way to reproduce yet too. 1. is units acquiring random targets when pressing Halt in formation, ex: a building even if clearly there are units nearby, or attack units far away. (happens when there are a lot of entity around so i guess it's because of some optimization stuff) 2. units sometimes freeze/dance salsa endlessly in formation. Else wise, formation are already very very useful without bonus already, for unit placement, and to fight efficiently. I know some will consider bug too but it's actually nice that units can cluster up while in formation.

There is a need to normalize the formations.

@real_tabasco_sauce 1. "units don´t actually fight in the formation" wrong, if you put your troops in front the enemy´s units they will fight while maintaining formation. 2. The battle formation exist to be an advantage in battle, no one chooses battle formation for cosmetic but for win. 3. Bonuses are not rare in this game, for example range bonus: ir you build a tower in high ground, it´ll have more range. I don´t see how complicated the solution I´m proposing is.

units don't actually fight in the formation, and selecting a formation over another just for the bonus and not for the formation of the units is gimmicky. I think formations are fine to remain as-is for organizing troops and for cosmetic reasons. There are more straightforward ways to address the issues you raised, like some speed balance and diverging the different roles of units.

Well, that´s the point of add battle formation bonuses. You will have an advantage in the game if you use it.

My only problem with "sticky" formations is that the enemy is often not using formations and now you have 20 guys in your formation focus-stabbing 1 of the enemy's guys at a time. Formations like desired are much better if all soldiers on both sides are in formations as well. so you have formation vs. formation.

We gave them bonuses in Historical via aura. My understanding is currently formations don't quite work, you cant attack in formation. So the only way to apply bonuses is through auras. Hopefully it is something that will get looked at and implemented in the future. Its a great idea!

Ritualistic Exercise sounds great

An interestic point of 0 A.D is the battle formation of most of the faction in the game: Phalanx for Greeks, Testudo for Romans, etc. But, does not exist are battle formation bonuses, wich is a drawback because it´s necesary. Melee units die very quickly againts ranged units, witch make very hard to invade enemy city and forces the player to use specific units like cavalry, rendering melee units useless. The necesary solution is implement battle formation bonuses for each faction in the game, add defence bonus againts melee attack to Phalanx and testudo formation, and add defence bonus againts ranged attack with a shield wall formation. Here an example of Celt shield wall formation:

See also: ticket #6760

I dont think its a "strict violation", but your goal is to obfuscate the code so its harder to determine what the mod is actually doing, which kinda goes against the concept of free (as in freedom) software? I think?

Prevent it from being able to use multiplayer for that.

Yes. market would signal suspicion. Still very niche scenario, FFA with 0 spec. Rare. Not a giant problem. If suspicious, watch replay after and expose cheater to rest of players(ik ofc huge hassle and no1 will care anyway prob). Obv a fix would be nice.

I don't test stuff when I'm playing. I test it when I am spec. I don't have enough apm to type code and play simultaneously

V02 is only a bug fix version. It should work now. It works in my one player replay and in the initial replay on which I set it up. Thanks for the report.

Can confirm. Made a short replay just doing it and its not recognized. I tested the mod on a multiplayer replay where it worked. I will check whats different. It is running though and detects 30s afk for example.

I just installed the mod, activated it and then I checked out a singleplayer replay where the market exploit was tested. But I couldn't see that this exploit was recognized...

Yeah, the other players may also just like to test out the market glitch now (or something else). And that is annoying to the other 7 players. One could still have games where all mods are allowed and games where one can play the game without having to worry the other players are "just testing something".