Jump to content

Wijitmaker

WFG Retired
  • Content Count

    9,657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Wijitmaker


  1. On 6/18/2020 at 1:00 PM, Nescio said:

    Basically the art files are for how things look, the audio files for how things sound, the simulation code for how things work, and the simulation templates for things that matter, where everything comes together.

    Yes, this is the answer.  Kind of like Actor is the physical manifestation, the Entity is the inherent essence.

    Back in the day, we had something called "actor editor" which was a stand alone WYSIWYG editor that would assist in the creation and editing of the actors.  I'm not sure what happened to it?  It used to read and create and edit the actor files and format them in the correct way so that non-programming people would feel comfortable with xml files. 

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Actors

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Actor_Editor

    Entities separated because they were the logic of what defines an object.  I always dreamed of having an entity editor that would be like a massive table that unified all of the entity xmls in one single view for easy editing and graphical assistance in helping your eye see the highs and lows of values across all entities.  Kind of a massive spreadsheet.  We had plans to make a crude simulation tool as well.  No graphics, but it would run a theoretical battle between X number of unit A vs. X number of unit B.  It would quickly crunch the outcome of which unit A or B would come out on top.  These were just tools that were going to assist with balancing.

    https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Entity

     

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  2. Yeah, it all kind of started with Michael's dream to convert 0 A.D. into his dream game he was calling "Age of the Aegean".  I think the Hellenes were the first generic civ that was broken apart and split into multiple civs.  

    When you look at RTS games 15 years ago (I'm not sure what is out there these days) you usually find that they are either many civs/races that are slightly different from one another (Age of Kings), or few civs/races that are drastically different from one another (StarCraft).  

    Each Civ was supposed to have a general theme and favor a certain playing style...

    • Romans - Generic all purpose, Strength in siege
    • Hellenes - Generic all purpose, Strong fortifications
    • Persians - Cannon Fodder, Cheap infantry, Cavalry strong
    • Celts - Aggressive and Offensive, Cheap/weak structures
    • Carthaginians - Economy is based on metal/gold because of mercenaries, biggest variety of units, strong navy
    • Iberians - Defensive, Small numbers, Tactical

    New civs were created and I'm not sure how they fit in or how they are distinct but I would encourage there to be a distinction to give players a reason to use them.  For me - 0 A.D. was always a game first and wasn't ever intended to be a historical simulator.  That was for games like Total War.

    • Like 1

  3. Probably a mute point... but this thread caught my eye. 

    I had numerous discussions about this exact issue over a decade ago.  There was a reason the original game design limited the number of civs.  The civs were intended to branch as the game developed.  So, for example - when you start the game you choose the generic civ of "celts" then when you reach a certain phase (city) then you are offered the strategic choice of either going with the Britons or the Gauls.  Depending on what strategies and tactics you wanted to finish the game with (based on the sub-faction's strengths and weaknesses).  

    Michael didn't agree and opted to separated them all into their own factions....  So... happy balancing guys ;)  


  4. Ah, yes - when making Buildings (and weapons) we thought it was redundant to make a unique building texture for each building at the time, when we were trying to be consistent in the theme and look of a building.  Probably shouldn't have done that in hindsight, but we didn't know in the future there would be AO and normal mapping capability.  Also had no idea that we'd be releasing the game 20 years later on "super computers" (or we would have thought at the time).  Compare the textures of 0 A.D. with those of Age of Mythology - even our old textures were quite a bit higher quality.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

  5. Do you have an example handy?  I'm guessing that merged textures were used for GUI applications?  Shared textures were used with buildings.  You got to remember that 15 or so years ago our minimum specs were:

    • CPU: 1 GHz Intel or x86 compatible.
    • RAM: At least 512 MB.
    • GPU: Any supporting OpenGL 1.3 with 3D hardware accelerated drivers and at least 128 MB memory, e.g., Radeon 9000, GeForce 3, or similar.
    • OS: XP, Vista, 7 or 8.
    • Resolution: 1024×768 or above.

    I'd wager to guess that most all our phones today have 10x the computing power :p


  6. On 4/10/2019 at 10:25 AM, stanislas69 said:

    Yeah that's true... Maybe @vladislavbelov might have insight on whether using texture atlases but having numerous models is better or worse.

    I couldn't find a thread discussing this. Maybe @Wijitmaker can enlighten us :)

    Yep, we thought casual modders would find it easier to tweak textures than to tweak models.  All you had to do was save your texture in the folder structure and make a tweak to point to the new file in the actor editor.  Easy as pie :)

    • Like 1

  7. On 4/23/2018 at 1:32 PM, Shiyn said:

    Hayo 0AD!

    Here is a scrap for a not very simple UI. 
    Adapted it from some previous design made for AOE3. 

     

    CIoht5a.jpg

    6o2fa6j.jpg

    H6l8eU1.jpg

    Sadly for now i have no idea how to implement this, so its pretty much eye candy.
    (Feels like this would fit well for 1000 AD thou). ;) 

    Any critizing and opinions are welcome!

    I like your eye candy.  It reminds me of the original intent with the UI.  I was intended to be very circular and orb like.  We had planned to do lots of context sensitive commands that appeared around objects that we're clicked to minimize the mouse cursor travel all over the screen.  It was annoying at 1024x768... I can't get imagine what it's like in 4k.

    Another:

     

    • Like 2

  8. On 10/24/2017 at 12:48 PM, stanislas69 said:

    Stables, but actually the old design didn't have any stables. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ArtDesignDocument
    I guess they would have called it iber_st or something similar. Maybe they had a filename limitation at the time maybe @Wijitmaker knows more.

    Yeah, we didn't have stables as part of the design document because... the designers at the time didn't want to blatantly rip-off age-of-empires games.  We were trying to simplify the flow of the game and focus more on unit-to-unit interactions instead of building buildings.  Less city building feel - more tactical.

    The codes for the buildings were just shortened to keep file paths and references shorter.  Less typing, less bytes... etc.   Nothing magical ;)

    • Like 2

  9. and perhaps some choices when you Phase Up

    I like that suggestion. Choice = strategy

    Your choices at the phase could bend you either toward a strength in military (perhaps sub divided in aggresion or defense) or economic (perhaps subdivided to favor certain resource types)

    It would also make it more interesting if the phases weren't globally applied to your entire civ on the map, but instead utilized territories and were localized to each town center.

    My view of phases are that they are gates players go through to unlock more capability: new structures, new technologies, new units. They also help measure the pace of the game. I belive AOK notified all players when they reached different ages. If you weren't in the castle age when your opponent reached it before you, it served as a good kick in the pants to say... you better age up, and fast!

    Just some random thoughts ;)

    • Like 2

  10. How did they elect the project Leaders in the past ?

    Well, we only really had 3... Myself, Erik, and Michael. I can only speak for myself and the transition to Erik... but, I took the helm because I wanted to play a Roman era RTS in a similar vein of AOK with some C&C and RON twists to it. Then I went out and recruited people with a similar vision to help me do just that. Shortly after I got married, I recognized that 0 A.D. wasn't helping my relationship with my bride. So, I recruited Erik to take the administrative role (from gamedev.net? I forget...). He's done a fabulous job since and has stuck with the project longer than I have now.

    I bet you are not willing to come back are you ? :P

    I'm afraid not. I still have an interest in 0 A.D. succeeding because I gave 6 years of my life to it. But, as a family man now - I don't have time to game anymore. I'm always available to consult though.


  11. I hear you guys. I think the challenge is volunteer turnover. This game has been in development for so long that is continually evolving due to the people working on it. When I was running it for 6 years, I did my best to maintain a cohesive vision for the game. I took a lot of heat for "locking in" some design decisions and would tell people to hold off on criticism until it could be played as a whole. We got 60% there, but I couldn't finish before I handed off the reigns to Erik. Again due to this being a volunteer effort, people come and people go and that shapes how the game is made. Michael saw 0 A.D. in a very different way than I did, and things started to change (what was once locked was open again for debate) - but I don't think he made it all the way to the end of his vision either.

    The dangerous end result in this path is a hodge-podge of halfway implemented features that don't quite make sense as a whole. Ken Wood (lead designer back in the early 2000's) once stated: The fate of 0 A.D. is in the hands, of those who have vision and perseverance. This is why it is going to be super difficult to make a game that is cohesive over a period of 15 years, everyone has a different idea of how it should be done. It is both good and bad. The flip side is... If you don't like it, you can get involved and do something about it to change it.

    • Like 3

  12. Okay let's assume community advice is bad which is a little weird on a community game but whatever.

    I think we should then look at the original plans: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document

    and see what we are missing and what we have that we should'nt.

    If you don't know where you are going look where you are from.

    I see a lot of features than we lack and only capturing that is added. Maybe I'm wrong but we are still on trac.

    I thibk what we need is someone to lead now.

    Just out of curiosity... I was wondering if anyone has ever read this?

    http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/War_Story

    • Like 2

  13. Over a decade ago, the plan was to have ambient sound play a large role in the sound scape for the game - more so than the music. The frequency of music played was a setting in the user configs. Music would be queued on command (attack/under attack) or randomly (frequency settings). The ambiance sounds played were going to be associated with what terrain types were displayed on the screen.

    http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=308

    http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=309

    We wanted to get away from endless looping of music and have the dynamically change.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...