elexis

WFG Programming Team
  • Content count

    675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

elexis last won the day on March 17

elexis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

531 Excellent

3 Followers

About elexis

  • Rank
    Centurio

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

939 profile views
  1. Indeed I don't think 120 minutes is a realistic option, but I do think people should be able to chose whatever value they want. For example if someone really wants to try for 2 hours to defeat the enemy before the timer runs out but still having the opportunity to end the game automatically in case there is no decision on the battlefield. Also it is planned to allow combining victory conditions (somewhere mentioned in this thread long ago iirc). So you could be able to play regicide + conquest + wonder victory + relic victory all in one game.
  2. You can set the countdown in the matchsettings, even set it to 0. As mentioned in the ticket and post above, there are some more things planned. Players could be able to set 1 to 8 relics. The relic cannot be destroyed. The same issue with some units trying to attack invincible units applies to invincible units that are focused when attacking, for example while Promotion or with the treasure seeker woman on survival of the fittest. AI support already has a work-in-progress patch (D236).
  3. "Ought to" as in how the current code is expected to behave. Sure, they can absolutely be reused, perhaps for some campaign too. Room for possibilities just opened :-)
  4. Agree. That's the primary observation I made in that testgame until someone cheat-deleted the relics, gah. Perhaps the bribe / spy feature could be used as it allows, (1) seeing the relic even if it's in enemy territory / fog of war, (2) automatically focuses it (instead of having to scan the entire map (which might take a long time), once one clicks on the button, the camera focuses on the relic). On the other side, I'm not sure if that is actually needed. It's quite fun to have to search it and not only attacking it. In team games, one doesn't have to search alone. In last man standing games with shared vision, the relics are typically guarded in the base of the one who has captured them (so less finding work). Needs (more) playtesting and 0ad-tv (observing relic games). New autobuild done. Might also be some settings bug, but relics ought to be spawned if and only if relics victory is active.
  5. Also since it wasn't obvious how this works: To win the gamemode, your team has to capture all relics and keep them for a certain amount of time The time can be specified in the gamesetup (from 0 to 120 minutes) Our relic is a Catalafque that holds the remains of a great person If you have N players, about N/2 relics are spawned on random places The relics can be captured and moved, but cannot be destroyed nor garrisoned If an enemy captures a relic, the victory countdown is reset and starts again as soon as one team captured all relics again Inlast man standing games, one player needs to capture all of them in order to win
  6. Yes (obviously), that's already the case. Placement should also be optimized (sometimes it's in the middle of a forest, sometimes favors some players). Also would be nice to let players select a number of those in the gamesetup and have each Catafalque being an individual (so would be great to have names for the dead guys in them that are different from the heroes (so that Alexander the Great doesn't guard his own corpse)) and an individual aura for each one. The model can't be much bigger without it being annoyingly stuck in forests and chokepoints all the time (same is true for siege engines which were much bigger than men in history). A variant with relics to be picked up can now more easily become added once we have support to pickup entities.
  7. Enjoy. D152 Thanks Sandarac for implementing the code, Enrique for the model and Pureon for the icon!
  8. (I think the number 8 might come from the fact that units that approach the tree also apply to that number, so probably must be kept greater than the intended number of lumberers.)
  9. (http://jsonlint.com/)
  10. 1. Let the player adapt to the map and have variation in the maps. Should be discussed on a map to map basis. 2. Eight seems a bit much indeed, but wouldn't go to three, better five IMO 3. Not very descriptive what should be changed 4. Careful. The purpose of forests is not solely to gather resources but also to make the map visually appealing. Should be discussed on a map to map basis since some maps have endless wood and others (african ones) very few. 5. doesn't seem necessary to me Agree that the poll is undescriptive
  11. (also metadata.json)
  12. (cat commands.txt | grep -v hash > commands2.txt)
  13. trac is for feature- and bugreports, phabricator for reviews and automated tests of proposed patches. We didn't have a press release yet because the implementation isn't finished yet, for example we want automatic highlighting of coding style mistakes. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/SubmittingPatches http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Phabricator Relics (at least in the variant of a catafalque) will be in alpha 22, see D152 and
  14. It's not really the food income of the map that determines whether corrals or fields are rather suited at all, but the time when you can start corrals. Some players will always start with corrals to have men to defend from attackers, even if it means having only 70 population (instead of 120) at minute 10. Some players that do corrals will always train exactly 1 sheep at each corral, no matter what and build like 15 corrals. Others build half the amount of corrals but train batches of 5 there. Other players will always build fields, just so that they don't have to care about keeping the sheep flow going. I like using the fields and farmstead upgrades in the first 15 minutes, since those females are faster in the beginning (assuming no additional huntables), build exactly one corral, upgrade that and immediately start doing batches of 5 there, then build 8 more corrals there and slowly replace the women with cavalry, so my city becomes less vulnerable (always having 20 men to garrison the civic center), still having a continuous food income (since with batches of 5, I can safely forget the corrals when fighting, they can become idle and I still have a big buffer of food in the bank, which I wouldn't have if I'd use batch size 1) and my population limit isn't consumed anymore by defenseless women. Notice this also has the disadvantage of not having workers anymore around, so if I want / have to build or repair something, I can do it only slowly. The number of wolves on polar sea depends on the mapsize. It is definitely a 0 field map, so you have men to fight off the wolves. Also many players invest their initial wood into building a palisade wall around their civic center, so that they can build gather food metal and stone without being touched by wolves. Other players invest their wood into docks and go fishing and trading via sea, where they can't be touched by wolves. For team and last man standing games it's an entirely different story and either way requires the player to think outside of the box. The idea is that the first 45min of an 8 player game, the players are busy struggling with the wolves and then slowly but surely becoming more concerned with their human enemies.
  15. Never seen someone banning corrals, why would they?