All Activity

My last batch of suggestions to be ignored, just because I had them written down already. From simple to controversial, the last ones mostly intended for some crazy mod and blah blah: 61) Redundant Options could be avoided. I pointed out some before, but there are also repeated items between Settings > Options > Graphics (general) and (advanced), for example. 62) Sourced Quotes (like the ones I tend to use in my historical posts) at the bottom of Information panels would be useful not only to suggest bibliography to people and show the work done, but to stabilise it, since anyone coming up with alternative proposals should properly justify them in the same manner. 63) AI Difficulty and Behaviour could be shown straight away in Match Set-up, and not be treated so differently than the other selectables (could have been useful for me a few times). 64) Icon schemes seem random, like regarding portrait background colours, maybe it would be nice if techs, buildings, units, champions, heroes, etc, have each a given corresponding background colour. Marginally related, it would be nice to represent if a building, tech, or whatever, appears later or earlier for a civilisation in comparison with the norm, maybe colouring its border (green earlier, red later, whatever). And something to indicate which building trains Heroes (and maybe Champions). 65) Tips and tricks tree thematically organised could be useful for those looking for something in particular. 66) Observer hotkeys could be useful to have when choosing a player to view. 67) Unit scan with TAB (seems unused, otherwise another key) to cycle among units, ordered from last produced (maybe also for structures with some modifier). Combined with the previous point, this could help in cases like someone posted not long ago, who missed an enemy unit still alive in the replay. 68) Self-Destroy queue by making each Self-Destroy order take a bit of time (depending on target HP) and work in two queues, one for buildings and another for units. This would improve immersion and SP experience since the AI abuses destroying everything instantly (apparently doesn't happen much in MP). This wouldn't really change present gameplay, unless a lot is deleted at once. 69) A Resource trickle counter could be added somewhere, for example in parenthesis besides the number indicating how many gatherers a given resource has. 70) Notification positioning could be improved and victory conditions could be displayed. My attempt, based on @manowar's work: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/169086-top-panel-ui-opinion/page/2/#comment-761666. 71) Lock buttons with CTRL modifier could be useful to automate things like weapon switching (depending on predetermined situations like enemy distance), auto-queue specific units (currently panel button does it for all units in a building) or keep researching techs appearing in that slot. Of course this is meant to eventually reduce micro in these areas to focus that on eventually more interesting tasks. 72) Solid walls should prevent attacks and not just movement, particularly melee ones. 73) Gendered Healers for certain civs, just like with Workers now, since it was an important role women could have. 74) Champion ships and engines seem appropriate for some civs. While all of these should have garrison slots, champion versions would have none, their default operators being always maxed up. 75) Champion/Rank rename since the "champion" term is not appropriate for the time period, "elite", and the XP ranks "recruit", "seasoned" and "veteran" are terms that do appear in the relevant literature. 76) Special units with a limit for each civ, preferably non-combatants, seems a nice idea for civ differentiation (their role should vary). The Han have Ministers, and I've proposed Ephors for Spartans, Philosophers for Athenians, and Musicians for the coming Thebans. Always something characteristic for each civ. 77) Spies and engineers have been discussed. Spies would be visible only by the owner in most situations, could be revealed by Lookouts, maybe Towers, or after performing some action. These actions could be bribing, revealing hidden information, assassination, Hero detection, infiltration (climbing walls and palisades) and opening gates, among others things. All these could be made easier or unlocked with experience. Engineers have been floated around many times. The Arsenal, which should be called (Siege) Workshop should produce them instead of the largest slowest engines. Then Engineers would be able to lay their "foundations" anywhere (any worker would be able to build it up from there), same with some very advanced buildings, particularly Wonders. Engineers' build rate (if that's a thing) should be high. These two units seem relatively important and general to be among the special units mentioned in the previous point. 78) Market mechanics could be more interesting. I proposed the basis of a scheme in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/137856-multiple-markets-for-trade-routes/page/2/#comment-763248. Bartering mechanics could be different since doing it instantaneously for any amount like it's Wall Street in the digital age cheapens resource differentiation. If I remember correctly, the first Empire Earth only has that for the United States in the Atomic Age, and StarCraft doesn't have such things. Bartering ends being more efficient than actual trade, the opposite of reality. Along (or as part) of Traders and Merchantmen gains, they could continuously barter any surplus: one could set minimum values for each resource (for example, 4000 Food, 3000 Wood, 2000 Stone, 1000 Metal), and the resource with more surplus would be traded for the one farther removed to meet their intended proportion (4:3:2:1 in this example). Setting 0 would remove that resource from the bartering. Relative "prices" would still automatically vary. This would be more interesting and realistic, while simple and automatic, than smashing a button at any time. 79) Resource subdivision could be interesting, to have small bonuses like Rise of Nations. For example, Gold and Iron (specific resources) would give Metal (main resource), Fish and Grain would give Food, etc, with the specific resources being actually gathered giving some small bonus (rewarding diversification but penalising overexploitation). This could even be combined with the proposed Market mechanics from the previous point, adding a bonus to Local Trade if a Market has certain specific resource in its Eco Zone (rewarding generalisation), and a bonus to Route Trade if the involved Markets have different specific resources in their Eco Zones (rewarding specialisation). 80) Religion and culture aspects could be added since their lack has been mentioned, so maybe units could have allegiance (similar to capture points), and priest/religion and bribe mechanics could play into this (along a morale system). Reputation could also be a thing, I've read about Philip V gaining enemies by attacking allies or directing "his rage to the temples and sanctuaries of the gods, bringing shame (...) on himself". This could influence plenty of things like AI behaviour, Diplomacy options available, or Market ones.

I bet the regret is mostly that you realized you cannot make the last point, and probably never will on any subjects, even something you know better about.

You didn't do anything wrong. Everyone shares your wishes, and your proposals are welcome. Just to be clear, nothing I said was directed at you. Sorry for bringing conflict into your thread. I get annoyed by the attitude of certain people who point fingers and look for someone to blame. That attitude contributes absolutely nothing. But I should have kept quiet.

@Stan` seems like some other mods have mismatch : "name": "xiiiad", "label": "XXI Century AD" https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/xiii-century-ad But isn't the file creation something we control and could make more flexible in the engine? Or we just want to enforce the rule anyway for other reasons?

The problem is that the results aren't very different. I suppose AI lacks training. And perhaps the ability to distinguish between fantasy and historically accurate designs.

mod.io link https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/moderngui looks like you're hitting the problem where it creates multiple folders because name don't match https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/Mod_Verification_Process

Thanks for the report @namename, I can reproduce. It seems it would happen for any mods that have uppercase name, as the folder seems to be a left-over from the temporary download files. It might be possible to fix this at it's root I'll investigate.

Linux Flatpak: ModernGUI folder capitalization causes multiplayer compatibility failure Environment Both had 0 A.D. 0.28.0 I had Linux, Flatpak installation. The other player had Windows version. I have also tried 0ad AppImage and Lutris installation, so the problem is not related to Flatpak. ModernGUI R28, alongside Community Mod and Community Maps 2 Problem After downloading and enabling ModernGUI through the in-game mod manager, two directories appeared in the mods folder: ModernGUI — contained the mod files (mod.json and mod.zip) moderngui — empty Both players had the same mods and versions, but the multiplayer lobby reported incompatible mods, despite the installed and required mod lists matching. The tooltip was saying we have identical mods, their versions, and their order. The mod.json contains: { "name": "ModernGUI", "version": "0.28.78", "ignoreInCompatibilityChecks": true, "dependencies": ["0ad=0.28.0"] } Workaround that fixed it Since the other player in their in-game mod manager had ModernGUI entry look like "moderngui"(lowercase) in their folder column, I copied the contents of ModernGUI into moderngui, selected the lowercase moderngui entry in the in-game mod manager, and the multiplayer compatibility check passed. We were then able to play together. Question Why does the game create both uppercase and lowercase directories for this mod? Is this a ModernGUI packaging/installation issue or a 0 A.D. Linux/Flatpak mod-discovery issue? Could the folder-name mismatch cause the game to load or compare the wrong mod entry, despite ignoreInCompatibilityChecks: true? I can provide further details if needed.

!! I'm so glad! You've been pushing for battalion system, I've been hoping you'll take a look at this! Yes, I'm not entirely sure of the direction I would take from here. The battalions are using, as you might have guessed, barely modified UnitAI and Formation code as normal battles/vanilla 0A.D. So currently, the way you could do it is simply to have units in stand-ground stance. While playing the campaign, I had opportunities where it made sense : for example ranged units on high ground defending the acropolis, phalanx formation to defend a choke-point.. Example reproduction of the scene : Here I switched units into stand-ground so the melee block the choke-point and ranged units stay behind. The battalion cohesion (blue bar above the formation) gives extra bonus : The phalanx gives ~+5 armor but -50% speed at full cohesion. The ranged units get +20% attack range due to staying at high cohesion, and even more from terrain. So now I'm wondering : Is it worth rewriting all UnitAI and Formation code, (more work; diverging too much from base 0A.D.; unknown difficulties)? OR Keep it, and try to embrace the gameplay impact. But of course, it's not going to play exactly like TotalWar games. I tend to want the second more (also because I'm lazy) but it's possible I'll come to realize it's going to have too much cons.

Does it look like this https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7572 ?

tried this... what else can i try

More ChatGPT

ChatGPT^. Grok is not good.

Tried it. Really like it. Good concepts there. I wish the battalions stayed in formation, but I appreciate the direction it's heading in. I also think the battle maps should use the Aegean terrain assets, but hey.

"Fortune favours the Bold"

I feel that deeply, I've also had passions wither and die because the enthusiasm for them just wasn't being realised or cared for and in the end i was just doing it for myself, It's a tough one but never give up! even if it is on a small scale there are still people who appreciate what you do.

Your concepts are better and riskier than the base game. By riskier, I mean bolder.

Try switching from OpenGL to Vulkan or vice versa.

It's no big deal, honestly. I wouldn't take it too much to heart. I was once very passionate about making 0 A.D. into XYZ, but over the years realized no one shares my vision. lol Now, I only develop 0 A.D. out of spite. j/k. But anyway, the engine itself is slowly evolving to allow for more and more interesting things, even if the base game doesn't showcase them. Mods can and will take up the mantle as long as the capability is there.

I never wanted to create any conflict. I want collaboration: I want the gameplay people to help me, and I want the experts to help me too. But I can't handle the conflict. I don't have the energy for it. I want this game to be the AAA of open source. But I want us to do it together.

my characters are somewhat cloaked and they look like laser beams are bolting out of them?? help

@guerringuerrin of course it's hurtful to have the (many times unnecessarily extensively researched) whole body of one's input completely denigrated just for saying what many others have already said (and with a couple to "Like" such attack). But what is even more hurtful is when that comes from someone that seemed amongst the most reasonable people in the forum. My tag was just a reference to the campaign author, I could have omitted the @. What seems to me like a lack of humility is the apparent blindness towards non-competitive players, it's unfortunate that you put that on me when I'm only reacting with annoyance to the attitude "shorten timings and git gud", one doesn't even need any time in a forum, but with RTS, to find that mentality alarming (as happened in that thread). And there is a spectrum of it, many think the game is already leaning towards that extreme, and that a more centred presentation would benefit the growth of the game, and the less it affects the lobby players the better, but if some get jumpy even with techs that are there just for SP (as I think I mentioned in the only discussion I remember we had), then it's hard to say they even care about their experience (same with a couple of nice but held back recent proposals, not made by me). I don't even blame the whole lobby, or would go as far as to say people are pointing fingers, because you would leave no room to even address the issue.

Ah.. Well I guess you are right on campaign map, right click should just garrison the army. Basically here the city is just like your classical 0A.D. building. So to garrison you need to hold Ctrl+RightClick, as you would do to garrison a CC or any building in a game. It's true that because the campaign was built from ground, It didn't came to my mind that maybe some things could simplified with the hotkeys.

I tried station my army but I couldn't. Right click in the city wouldnt work