Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/16/2018 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    I have finished Lanayru's buildings:
  2. 8 points
    Progress; First screenshot was posted on Wed 28th January 2004. And quite likely the first screenshot posted ever. The second one is a bad recreation done today. (and yes, I suck at using Atlas)
  3. 8 points
    Teutonic Order Faction Update. Walls are about 90% finished, as the gate animations are still under development. The gate door will fit 2-3 units wide, making for a choke point if used this way. gate size reference, https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-gate-malbork-castle-medieval-teutonic-order-crusaders-poland-image72248634
  4. 7 points
    Mod that shows you all the maps in a grid for game-setup /ease of use / map selection. Hope is added to vanilla Make click on top of map preview in game-setup to open it. Mod archive: mapbrowser_v0.1.1.pyromod mapbrowser_v0.1.1.zip eae ? * Not compatible with other mods that change gamesetup.xml (autociv is compatible tho) * You can play multiplayer with mod on
  5. 7 points
    Evolution of trireme in 0 A.D. Closer look at another bake Need to finish the ram better detailed, and add more details if its desired.
  6. 6 points
    UPDATE: Initial faction commit Champions Cavalry Infantries Auxiliaries Non-combatants
  7. 5 points
    Hello! I thought I'd offer to help out. I'm a video editor & Web Developer that absolutely loves this game and would be happy to help out. Position: Video Editor (also any web development) Do you understand that Wildfire Games is a non-commercial project, work for 0 A.D. is volunteer, and work is done for free? Yes Do you agree to distribute all your work for Wildfire Games under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license? Yes Are you sure you are not wanting to work on something programming related? (Then you don't need to send in an application form.) Maybe in the future but not right now Name: Sean McManus Email: mcmanussean@gmail.com Location: Boston Massachusetts Availability: It will vary but a few hours a week I think should work Age:(Optional) 39 Occupation: [(Optional) Software Engineer / Web Developer Skills and Experience: I'm a web developer / software engineer / video editor professionally with over 18 years of experience Motivation: I love this stuff. Personality: Creative, intelligent, easy to get along with occasionally funny. Short Essay: I absolutely loved loved loved age of empires.. for many many years and then life sort of got in the way and I was distracted by other things. the last year or so I've been wanting to get back into it but I have a modern mac and haven't been able to get it running without hacking too much. I also wanted to find a more modern version of it that could make the gaming experience more exciting / challenging. I looked for months and months watching loads of youtube game reviews and googling for days. It was incredibly frustrating. I would have paid just about anything to get a game like this. Somehow on some random forum (don't remember where) someone mentioned 0AD and I was like WHAAAAAATTTT??? I did a bunch of research and was shocked that this awesome game was there all along and wasn't able to find it despite searching for so long. I would like to help bring more awareness to this amazing project / game and I have a skillset that I think / hope would help. Interests and Hobbies: I'm an huge sailor, spent most of my 20s teaching sailing in Santa Barbara California (it was amazing) I'm also a musician I've recorded two albums under my name ("elevated" and "a new world again") they aren't great so I'm hoping to start recording again under a new moniker. I'm also big into photography and film making. Staff:(Optional) nope Community:(Optional) none Favorite Game: Oad is my current favorite. Age of Empires is my favorite of all time Work Examples: you can check out my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcmanussean/
  8. 5 points
    Hello and thank you for your application. I'm pinging a few people @implodedok @Itms @BrynnOfCastlegate so you can get more feedback on what you can do with us. In order (Web and Sys Admin), (Project Leader), and (Lead Video Artist) If you know how to compile in Mac your help would be precious to test the next release candidates. We don't have much video editing to do right now (Though showcasing art commits when they occur might be nice) so It will be a bit empty for some time, but we need some help on the web design field, so I'll let you talk directly with Implodedok in that area. Hope you'll enjoy your time here with us on the forums, and do not hesitate to drop by IRC. (We are mostly in Europe, so we might have delayed conversations)
  9. 5 points
    This weeks progress update Structures: Market, Fortress, Temple, Sentry Tower and Barracks. Map: Malbork Line (2)
  10. 5 points
    Alpha 17 and 18 took 5 months, Alpha 19 took 6 months. But comparing early to late releases is like comparing apples with potatoes: On the one hand: The more features there are, the more code has to be maintained, fixed, rewritten, improved. For example it took me 6 months to rewrite 65+ random maps during alpha 23 development. So many maps and bugs didn't exist back then. Secondly the capable motivated and available developers went down. Thirdly we put more emphasis on quality now than was done before from what I can tell (for example we try to balance the game so that it can be played competitively on the lobby, which wasn't the case until alpha 14-16 when the lobby was introduced and scythetwirler started trying to fix the balance. But the quality in other areas was neglected too. I recall alpha 18 was about to be released with an OOS, nowadays we would fix it). Another example are the trailers, which consumed up to 2-3 weeks. Very early releases often were only a new snapshot of the most recent state with sometimes only few and small addtions. In the last years we try to add at least 3-4 new impressive features that have distinct, memorable character to call it a release, so that people actually get excited about the release (rather than just installing something that doesn't differ from the predecessor). The 4th reason is also the reason why this should not be called alpha 24 but alpha 23b. There is literally not a single new feature unless you call privacy policies or connection encryption one. It's a classic maintenance release. An update to an existing product as the existing product had some serious defects. So if one wants to target 3-4 month release cycles, that will come with a serious quality or feature reduction unless there are some supermen coming. I think we should continue to keep the quality, use our time more economically / productively. People have kept piling hacks and workarounds. It seems we currently add more contributions the way they should end up in the final version of 0 A.D. and pyrogenesis. So the end of having to rewrite historic spaghetti code might come eventually. After that, we can provide the same quality and same new impressive features in a shorter timespan. I don't see how we can change the rest of the restrictions (in particular if we want to use the time most productively). Alpha 23 rerelease in particular had some weeks of timewaste unrelated to above argument as everyone fled the dirty GDPR work. That is more a problem of negligence.
  11. 4 points
    Another idea would be to treat weapons and armor and other things like ungatherable resources. Using the barter mechanic already in the game, you can convert wood and metal at the Blacksmith to spears, swords, chain mail, etc. "resources" which are then added to the player's stockpile. Hoplites then don't cost "50 food and 50 wood", they cost X amount of spear resource and Y amount of shield resource, etc. and -Z food per minute. At the corral, I could see converting the Food resource into the Horse resource, so that cavalry also cost an amount of Horse resource.
  12. 4 points
    How about catapults each projectile costs 10 stone ? For bolts could be 10 wood 5 metal. *Having a starting 10(?) projectiles for each siege unit.
  13. 4 points
    I thought them stealing the Privacy Policy would make things even. STUN code was theirs. </offtopicness>
  14. 4 points
    It made sense also because the Gauls share the same archeological culture, the same language and had a very connected network of settlements sharing the same evolution during a long time period. The same for the Iberians. Regional specificities are minor and not temporally constant, in contrary to the Greeks. It means an ethnic centered mod which is problematic for the Germanic factions where the North-West Germanic languages didn't splitted before the third century AD and the West Germanic languages didn't splitted before the sixth century AD. Moreover their ethnicities are well mixed and shared together by huge confederacy system that appeared during their history like the Suebi/Suevi, the Marcomanni, the Alemanni and the Franks. Plus the Merovingian and the Carolingian dynasties are new levels of complexities from an ethnological perspective.
  15. 4 points
    I think ethnicity in the Middle East including the Arabian peninsula is actually incredibly complex. I'm personally not in favor of ignoring political realities to create a single muddled up faction like the "saracens" in AoE, based solely on the notion of shared ethnicity. The Umayyads were a vast and multi-ethnic state that incorporated Arab, Persian and Byzantine influences, as well as everything in between, and far beyond. I'm in favor of depicting an actual state that really existed, rather than separating a "single" ethnicity from that state, stripping it of all non Arab elements, of which there are many, and then present it as a historical faction, which it wouldn't be... It doesn't make sense to me. It made sense in vanilla for the Gauls because of a lack political cohesion, and the Iberians because of a lack of references. Neither of these things are an issue with the Umayyads.
  16. 4 points
    From personal experience with A23 and reading all the forum posts I can, I'd like to summarize my own suggestions/features that could be of interest for the next release. I'd try to be as synthetic as possible, but of course we can develop this ideas further if there is interest/discussion. Siege engines Battering rams. Actually I find even sword cavs to have problems while chasing a retreating rams, lets not even talk about walking soldiers Should have a lower base speed. Garrison units inside rams should increase the speed and even damage a bit Pykes and spear soldiers should be able to damage them, to simulate the fact a ram is driven by other soldiers which will take damage from the enemy (but I think this would need to differentiate between archers and pykes/spears damage) Bolts. By far the most efficient tool to kill enemies I have seen on A23 They need to be more vulnerable, specially when chased on retreat with again another base movement speed reduction It could be nice to "garrison" units inside which could increase rate of fire and it's defenses. If this can be packed with additional animations showing the soldiers of that units, could be awesome Catapults Packing and unpacking speed should be raised, this would emphasize on the decision making when using them. Actually players can pack and unpack them soon enough to deny their opponents the possibility to retaliate when attack goes wrong Should be easier to take down, with incremental resistance with garrisoned units Siege towers. Actually have little to no use Same as battering rams, should get lower base speed and increase it with garrisoned units but walking units should be still able to catch it They should be able to capture at least certain targets (castles, cc, military colonies and towers, to not make them OP) to better define their role into the battlefield while being able to keep attacking - maybe at a slower rate when capturing War elephants They could have some extra armors in general but most important they must deal some damage around them, if possible only while walking to better simulate their use Ranged infantry units You may already know my opinion from other posts, IMO it's not about "ranged/slingers win games" but about choice. Actually there's dominant choice when composing an army: few frontline units (if any) and about 10 times those units as ranged. From this dominant choice, Bretons arise as the first choice civ: "one-size-fits-all" slingers from the beginning, faster eco, the security of being hard to be rushed and a fair possibility to be the first one to attack the enemy. Archers New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Minimal range, same idea of towers. If a unit enters this minimal range, it cannot be shot and the archer need to fall back Javelins New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Slingers New feature: suppression. I will explain this later Same health than other units maybe but definitely much less armor Lower base damage, movement speed (they carry rocks), attack speed and remove blast damage but let them be improved by techs: Clay ammunition: extends range and attack speed Casted lead ammunition: improves damage Also note Carthagians merc slingers should have a bit better stats than others, as Balearic Slingers were widely known in the ancient era for their capability. I guess this should also includes Iberians slingers, but I am not sure if that's historically accurate. Features Melee infantry block probability. Positional damage is still on developement, wouldn't be easier to add a block probability to incoming attacks meanwhile? I am probably wrong, but a similar process used from the game when deciding if an arrow hits or not, could be used to determine if a shielded unit blocks incoming damage or not Suppresion. Archers and slingers should slow enemy units to better reflect their support role in the battlefield. Spears, but specially pykes, should also slow enemy cavs to increase their utility on the battlefield. Terrain as strategic factor River crossing All units should move much slower when walking on water Siege engines should not be able to cross rivers, but need to be transported instead Trees Slows cavs, as it's harder to maneuver Protect from ranged attacks (maybe block feature related?) Elevated places. I am not sure about this, but I am pretty sure the game already takes into account if a unit is on a higher place to extend their attack range. However, it should also be taken into account to extend their vision range A LOT more. This is specially true for towers and vision towers. I am sure I left something behind, but probably it's enough to discuss for now. I hope you all enjoy the post and join a productive discussion.
  17. 4 points
    As we haven't heard back for a couple of weeks, I've played around with a virtual machine and put together something based on this thread and my own exploration. It can be found at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions#CentOS. If the instructions are (or become) incorrect, please feel free to suggest corrections.
  18. 4 points
    People (team or not) who keep following http://irclogs.wildfiregames.com/ know what's going. It's something which everyone ought to do, but can also be time-consuming (as one cant find some little detail to comment everywhere and then gets caught up in some argument about something that still is a detail). Of course we also have internal staff forum threads, the trac roadmap (https://trac.wildfiregames.com/roadmap), the ReleaseProcessDraft and sometimes staff meetings (logged at https://wildfiregames.com/meetinglogs/) for scheduling. As a byproduct of the Phabricator irc bot, I had scripted an semi-automatic summary of activity on Phabricator. It could be polished and become full-automatic (weekly or user-determined-timeframe reports). But I had put it aside because it can be and was mistaken as a presenting ones ego. I'm attaching an example from the past. Of course an overview of the most recent commits and the trac.wildfiregames.com/timeline also helps getting a summary of what happened. The development reports on play0ad.com themselves maybe more digestable to the distant player who wants to know a summary in 2-5 minutes. But they are really lacking a lot of information. We probably want weekly reports with screenshots and twitter and facebook, so that all work (including server, forum, lobby and team administration) has a place to be mentioned. (But that also means that it will be very visible when people receide and there might be some infighting for the fame and the hearts of the groupies) Generic Progress Report for Wildfire Games in the time between Mon May 1 08:00:00 2017 and Sun May 7 22:00:00 2017 elexis: fatherbushido: fcxSanya: FeXoR: Imarok: Itms: leper: mimo: scythetwirler: wraitii: Progress by non-team members: bb: borg-: causative: Grugnas: Hannibal_Barca: minohaka: Phormio: Polakrity: s0600204: sacha_vrand: Sandarac: Stan: user1: vladislavbelov:
  19. 4 points
    Oookkkk... (still not through the code...it's quite a read ) Roads: AFAICT you first paint textures, then you paint roads taking the textures painted into account. This means you are overpainting existing textures. What about defining areas instead of textures you can than take into account for the paths to be placed, then you place paths (again as abstract regions, maybe an inner one for the part textured and a second, larger one for not placing terrain entities - and not containing the tiles of the inner path [if you want to you could also add a 3rd - again not containing any of the inner areas - that can contain entities and maybe avoiding start and end point by slightly more than it's own width to generate something like @elexis had in mind]) and then you paint the textures (with all the other map generation stuff in between ofc.). That way your approach will still work (weighted path search) but you don't have to overpaint textures and you can avoid entities close to the path and @elexis can have alleys (if you avoid forests or other entity rich areas because this is likely what is wanted). And I'd say try 5 tiles unobstructed path width (or 3 tiles from centre). Domestic animals at start locations: You can just place them after line 194 like "berry bushes" or "starting trees". Did I miss something? (And what issues does which newer placement method cause?) Large areas covered in water and ramps that can't be build on: Making the water deeper and the ramps flatter would do IMO. I don't get the entire main landscape procedure yet but maybe non-linear scaling (e.g. with square root) of the heightmap ("before" mountains are added - yea, it's in one go but in different sections) could change this without having to change much else? (on the other hand there should be an exponent scale factor for higher and lower terrain anyway IIRC) I can live with it as is but really think at least deeper water would be nice - and more realistic BTW (If the water level is set before the main landscape procedure one could also change those areas separately ) Roads avoiding water: Yea, no big deal. Still strange looking to me and AFAICT easy to avoid in placers.js line 513. Textures: Not looked into, yet. To tired ^^ Well, I hope you can make something out of this rather chaotic set of suggestions. Keep it burning @Pyrophorus EDIT: After a closer look you do most of the suggested stuff in "roads" already. Additional Area types (e.g. road_clearance and road_border) and changing the texture placement might be enough.
  20. 4 points
    Sorry if I explained myself wrong, but I didn't say slingers wins games alone. Whenever I loose, it's either my fault or the opponent is better than me, period. I am just saying there's a dominant choice: civs with slingers. Either to thrive stronger economies or directly smash the opponent. How many non-casual players have you ever seen in lobby playing Spartans, Macedonians or Persians? Hell, Kushites looks awesome and on paper they should be THE counter to slingers/rams civs (swordsmans and sword cav), but I hardly see someone playing them. My point is pretty simple, Rome conquered almost the entire known world with gladius, not throwing rocks to their opponents. Same probably applies to any other civilization. I never heard of an ancient castle siege with only ranged units (you can include bolts shooters here too) supporting their siege engines and I doubt I will ever will. Actually on 0 A.D., that's the current meta of 95% of the games also because its much easier and safer - most of the time - to destroy structures than conquer them, which is completely illogical from my point of view. If we consider this is an issue, there are many but I am trying to update myself on 0 A.D. development before saying something which is already planned.
  21. 4 points
    You can write quite long comments in this forum. (Ask @Sundiata ;))
  22. 4 points
    @stanislas69 I don't think any apologies are necessary, at all... We should all rather be grateful for all the headaches you guys (and gals?) put yourself through so we can all play one of the world's greatest historical RTS-games!
  23. 4 points
    They sure are pretty, those Zapotecs...
  24. 3 points
    Perhaps catapults could lose a little bit of health for every shot.
  25. 3 points
    Tought this ship would have less tris, but ended having the same amount because of shields: