WFG Programming Team
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


elexis last won the day on May 3

elexis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

673 Excellent


About elexis

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,124 profile views
  1. When upgrading an entity, the old one is deleted and a new one is created. So the old one will count as lost (OnOwnershipChanged to -1). That will be initiated from ChangeEntityTemplate from Upgrade.js. As we can see in that function in Transform.js, an EntityRenamed message is sent just before deleting the entity, so the victory condition could listen to that and replace the remembered entityID before it's deleted.
  2. Re temple: (3) Because the building is square and they start shooting once in range. (4) Agree, but the issue is especially that we can't select multiple buildings of allies at once. (5) sure (7) That's controversial, discussion goes back forth. Most recently here #4576. (8) We've noticed th half-second delay for tooltips in D459 too. Agree to remove it, trivial. (12) Agree, the civs are well differentiated, all unique, even all hellenic ones. Apparently this is wanted though, so a new page was proposed once upon a time #3987
  3. Already had issues finding that improvement again, as it's buried on page 132 of a collective thread and the remarks are soon becoming forgotton history, so please create trac tickets for these issues, temple. For the civ dropdown size, I've created D527.
  4. Can we add that check to Attack.js until someone is willing to rewrite BuildingAI? :-(
  5. The current version of the copy of delenda est's file is the same as in the public mod one excluding this cost diff. The file (when it was added to delenda est on february 22nd), was either outdated by a commit which was the reverse of that hunk above (rP19213), or intentionally used the prior version. Now since that commit specifically fixed a delenda est bug, I wonder why delenda est reverts that x) This comment is especially about the changed line https://code.wildfiregames.com/D113?id=402#inline-2220 IMO the only real option you have here is deleting that file to stop having to keep it in sync and tell us if something is broken, we can fix it quickly. I've tested de with the deleted file and it works just fine. If you don't delete it, it will just throw random errors the next time we change it. Furthermore, your ptol_hero_cleopatra_3.json doesn't have a name nor description, thus bugs with the tooltips.
  6. Comparing the delenda est version with the public mod version from that time, the only difference is: @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ ret.cost = { "time": template.researchTime ? +template.researchTime : 0 }; for (let type of resources.GetCodes()) - ret.cost[type] = +(template.cost && template.cost[type] || 0); + ret.cost[type] = template.cost && template.cost[type] ? +template.cost[type] : 0; ret.tooltip = template.tooltip; ret.requirementsTooltip = template.requirementsTooltip || ""; Since that file is outdated, things like the resource trickle tooltip and aura range parsing are missing here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/history/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/globalscripts/Templates.js https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/commits/master/globalscripts/Templates.js
  7. This sounds a lot like the Templates.js file being outdated: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/blob/master/globalscripts/Templates.js Didn't delenda est have an issue with that some weeks ago already? Why is a copy of that around to begin with? If you need a new function, add it to a new file. If you need to change an existing function, tell us and we'll see what we can do to make 0ad work better with mods.
  8. This could be a ranged aura without aura range. I checked delenda est's aura folder, but all ranged ones have a radius too. I'd just add a warn(auraID); to see the name of the aura that it doesn't digest.
  9. This guy got the same issue: #4561. Now if some of you would figure this out, we could close it for good for more than 3 people.
  10. Thanks, I could reproduce it, even on Alpha 21: 1. Enable persist-match-settings 2. Select a skirmish map 3. Disable locked teams & enable last man standing 4. Get back to main menu, enter gamesetup again 5. Notice the more options dialog has both settings enabled and that this warning is thrown when starting the game. It is mostly visible because these two maps have lock-teams = true by default, but equivalent bugs can be possible for those maps that specify lock-teams=false. We can set that lock-teams = false for that new map, but it's no use. The persist-match-settings feature and with it the entire concept (still) of saving settings has to be redesigned. That warning seen above won't hurt the game, since last man standing will still be disabled, so probably no need for immediate action.
  11. I suspect this is a new (old) bug, so thanks for testing! Can you reproduce the bug? Was it a random map? Did you enable last man standing in the previous match? Was it a lobby game? Do you have a replay of that game?
  12. Account registrations were enabled again.
  13. This is a frequently requested feature: #3491, #57. It should be uploaded as a patch file, see SubmittingPatches and GettingStartedProgrammers, so that even if the patch won't be finished, that others might take inspiration from this. It should be done in independent steps (pinging and the resize independent of that, Resizing also needs some thinking on how we can yield the best usability from this).
  14. 1+2 -> Yep, wall placement code is odd, leaves gap, can't continue walls if the turret is missing. Will be tough to fix 3 -> Had proposed some patch to make this an actual gate, but the model guys weren't really happy with it, wanted to improve it, and that's where we left last release. What was there actually todo @stanislas69 ? Making sure the towers don't overlap? The entire thing just being too huge for a gate? Only found this screenshot in the irclogs Afaics it historically was part of a wall too
  15. The shared ally vision technology technology at the market seems easier (and cheap enough, perhaps making it more expensive might make players reconsider). But the trick seems handy for diplomacy games and neutral players