All Activity

That's not my misconception since I know that a bunch of territory starts decaying if it's detached from the territory root (it's a useful strategy when invading). Saying "really it's about being connected to a territory root" is what I mean, that is, that's how it should be. I was wondering if buildings not connected to territory root would still decay if their "footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner", because said like that sounds like they would be "self-sustaining" territories, but maybe the workings of the algorithm are not so straightforward (I'm just thinking of it as: you move the borders, and if a building falls into enemy territory, it decays, but with what you propose that would seem an impossibility).

Special report inside lumerqix

Browse the full list lumerqix

Find out more below lumerqix

Our highlights lumerqix

More details one click lumerqix

Discover the full post lumerqix.xyz

More details one click lumerqix

Right now website

Today's highlights are here lumerqix

More on our website lumerqix

Handpicked selection lumerqix.xyz

Not sure - I thought you can only man the walls themselves and not the towers, right? (I believe in one of the very old versions (0.23 or before?) it was vice versa (towers manned but walls not).

Meaning another building cannot extend the territory into another's player building. This should still allow decay if this piece of territory is not connected to a territory root. Your misconception here is to think the building needs to be outside his territory to decay but really it's about being connected to a territory root. In the scenario with the barrack, the territory limit would happen exactly between the CC and the barrack => not into the CC

By "building footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner" you mean as long as that territory is connected with root territory? Otherwise decay would seem impossible in certain situations.

Opened 10 years ago, last message 7 years ago... is there where the PRs you want me to open are going to end? I see they discuss if to implement it to all buildings or not, and they don't discuss what percentage should be salvageable. I'd combine these issues and just assign every building a realistic "salvage rate", for example, 85% for temples, 15% for houses, or whatever values are best for gameplay.

One fix idea, although haven't digged into what would take, could be to have building footprints (their size) always be the territory of the building owner. This would kinda make sens too. Maybe I'm overlooking some potential drawbacks of doing so.. Anyone can think of one? I think for non-root, this shouldn't prevent decay if not connected. IIRC I noticed a bug where dropsites, owned player but "outside" your territory (example enclaved by an allied barrack) is not considered by your gatherer. So that would also fix this kind of bug.

@manowar I still think we should try to fix the underlying issue. If I build a barrack next to my CC and it gets captured by an opponent then I will also have my entire territory decaying right (something that could happen in any game mode)? I've just tested and it is indeed the case : You can see here the house is decaying although there the CC looks very much not so much enclaved

@manowar, I see.. The issue seems that even if the territory area is influenced by the CC (the territory root), the CC is still considered outside of it, so "no root is attached to the territory". Good catch. A enclaved CC is probably expected to have territory outside the enclave to decay. But here the enclave is just created by the barrack having bigger weight then the CC. So here I would say it's definitively a territory influence weight problem/bug.

Could we automatically sync all replays in the player's replay folder to replay Pallas? This allows us to have access to every single game that has ever happened

By accident I found a related Issue on Gitea: #4050 (Build back own buildings to gather resources)

Ah, I was confused. This has nothing to do with "losing health" or "health bars". You mean capture points. Now that I think, maybe that should be called loyalty or allegiance, to pair it with "health", since saying "losing capture" wouldn't make much sense.

Screenshot below shows another test but with the health bars so you can see the decay clearly

@Atrik adding detail here about why your approach (and what I tried first myself) still has problems. (reference PR comment) I added your code, built and ran the game twice as player1 (blue) and player2 (red). In the attached first screenshot player1 has built a barracks close to player2 CC. The new code stops the CC from decaying BUT notice that buildings created by player2 have auto reverted to being owned by player1 AND while they are in the process of decaying the territory line of player2 starts flashing and it is not possible for player2 to add any other building within his own territory (see building highlighted red). It is for this reason that I approached the problem from another angle i.e. allowing the host to impose a CC distance in the Game Setup. The alternative of messing with the weights of buildings, owning tiles, decay rates felt like a more dangerous change.

Yeah, that was the thing. As I understand it wfg can't just let any bots run on the lobby. Uff was honest about his bot, but it wasn't approved (yet). I can understand that some boundaries have to be set e.g. to avoid adds, spam etc.. But I liked uffs host. I can also understand that it is not so attractive for a developer to have everything approved of the ideas one wants to try out. For me, I would appreciate such a host in combination with a fast automated pairing system like the LocalRatings Team-Balancer Mod. The hoster could build up a better database than I could by only manually spectating and playing games. This way one could also experiment more with parameters of the pairing system.