Leaderboard

Hooray I got it to glow, it looks like postproc = true was the culprit. Thank you very much for helping me figure that out:

That's why I think on a game like 0 A.D. making scenario for testing (like putting just 10 units vs 10 units) aren't really enough to understand the balance of this complex game. We need real games that takes economy, strategy, and military into account in order to see if the game as a whole is balance (we can do the scenario testing to adjust after) It's like for the cavalry skirmisher. If you go for skirm cav, you have less troops than an enemy going full infantry so again making a test 10 units vs 10 units doesn't prove that ingame it's unbalanced

I tend to agree with the suggestion for LOD support, even if we don't have the artists to do extra work creating the models today, that didn't stop us from adding AO, specular, parallax mapping to the renderer, with basically the same concerns. There never have been enough artists and there never will be, but you notice all our buildings now have AO and specular The worst case is we would never use it, but I have the feeling we would over time. Of course, AO, specular, parallax, bloom, were all basically a community contribution, not from someone officially on the team (that's how it started anyway). There hasn't been any similar effort for LOD, but perhaps if it was a desired feature... That being said, I think the renderer looks and functions well enough to not be a focus of the programmers, unless a feature really improves performance or attracts a lot of interest. Any evidence this would do either? I can imagine some performance benefit, I don't know if it's enough to justify all the extra work (look at 0 A.D.'s default camera behavior - how would it be used in practice?) and we would have to solve LOD "popping" behavior too.

The concept is really rather simple. If you want to improve something, and you have the time and skills to do so, then just do it. There's no need to go @#$%ing programmers around for doing this or that. You can give suggestions, but since everyone is doing this in his spare time, you can't obligata anyone. And about being open source, that's the beauty of it, there's no way back. I contributed code to the project, and as long as I don't want to relicense it, it's gonna stay open source. Every programmer that ever contributed to the project has a veto on changing the license of the code. Just like every artist that ever contributed to it has a veto on changing the license of the art stuff. So in short, the only way to change the license is to start over. I'd appreciate it if you'd come here with a more open mind. Getting a finished game isn't a very big priority. The artists and programmers contributing here mostly do it because they like to learn stuff, improve their skills, or just like to spend their free time in this group. Making this game work is actually part of the game.

In fact it is true what Alekusu says. I made a table of the gathering speeds from the templates in SVN (in amounts / sec):

The fact than archers are really slower than skirmisher isn't enough to balance mix armies' battle ? (more easy to micro skirmisher against melee because of the speed no?) But if infantry are even slower than archers (or as slow as), we have indeed a problem here

Wrong, fast phase 3 can counter this ^^ . (it is very hard to manage though) Mario can confirm And also I think this makes scouting really important (if you attack him when he is adding his CC, you have larger army and you win the battle) We did two very enjoyable 1v1 on the SVN. (r16405) On the first game, he went for the fast expand + towers on phase 2, I went for fast phase 3 (basically I just added 4 tours on phase 2 and went to phase 3) We had 2 spectators (supertux and ffm) who both thought Mario would win because he had CC (I think 3) but I didnt expand at all. I won because of the tech/siege advantage. So on this game I saw that we have new strategies, fast expanding, fast phasing.instead of just massing units like in a17. On the second game, we went for the same strategies as the previous game. Mario expanded on phase 2 (just one CC this time), I went fast phase 3, destroyed his CC. He rebuilt it and instead of adding more CC like he did on the first game, he went for phase 3. I should have expand at this moment but didnt so he won. He adapted and won the second game. My point is, I think it is too easy to say "the only answer to this is this" What I felt on playing the SVN is we have much more options than a17. In a17 cav sword were too OP (I have 100% win rate with gauls/britons with my sword cav harass strat (and it inculdes playing against butcher, wesono etc) In SVN, I used sword cav to flank ffm's ranged infantry (in another game) doing an awesome battle and feel like this is how sword cav should be used in game. So flank is still on (just flanking a city with 35 sword cav is useless now but I don't think that's a problem) HOWEVER, I agree buildings are a bit too strong but I need more games to have a good opinion. The game looks much more difficult than a17 (but this is a very good point in my opinion) and feel like we'll have more options concerning strategies. EDIT: I should have record all these awesome games... EDIT2: Someone suggested before than the default formation should be none formation instead of Line formation...that was the best suggestion ever actually...(for both gameplay and realism)

All I did was copy your files to the appropriate mod directories, start Atlas, place an instance of the actor and move the sun around (in the environment tab) to darken the map. If you try that and it doesn't work, then you might not have the fancy graphics enabled. My local.cfg is like this: preferglsl = truepostproc = truewaterugly=falsewaterfancyeffects = truewaterrealdepth = truewaterrefraction = truewaterreflection = trueshadowsonwater = truegentangents = truesmoothlos = truematerialmgr.quality = 10.0materialmgr.PARALLAX_DIST.max = 150materialmgr.PARALLAX_HQ_DIST.max = 75materialmgr.PARALLAX_VHQ_DIST.max = 30

Hello 0ad people! I write to highlight some concerns i have about the actual autofocus (aka "how soldiers select their targets once enemy is in range, if we dont focus manually with a right click"). Our unit will now "attack the closest enemy in range"-------> this is the autofocus we have now Problem this autofocus has is that when 2 big armies ( of rangeds units) engage a fight, many arrows or javelin will be wasted on "overtargetted" enemies. Imagine 2 armies consisting of 5 rows of 10 soldiers facing each other: just doing 1 step forward to the enemy with a random dude of yours, and the whole enemy army will target the poor bold soldier------> 50 arrows on 1 soldier is a big waste of arrows This is a scenario that always happens by accident, and a smart dude once found a way to draw all the enemy fire becouse of this (mr wesono's dancing trick) Ans this is the main problem of autofocus. Now imagine the same 2 armies, but nobody does a step forward, there's no enemy unit to draw all attention on himself. Does the autofocus work well in this situation? Each of the 2 armies pool of potential targets, is the enemy frontline. So it means that if we have the 2 armies of above ,5 rows of 10 soldiers, it means that 50 projectiles will be divided between 10 enemies. If both the armies consist of the same type of unit the autofocus , even if not perfect, will do his job well, since both the armies will have and suffer the cons of this system in the same manner, cant argue about that. What if one army is made of skirmishers and the other is made of archers? Just taking a look at the stats of the 2 type of units may give you an idea of the problem. Skirmishers: 20 pierce, 1.25 rateo, 24 range, 50 health Archers: 7 pierce, 1 rate, 72 range, 50 health (These are the stats of the 2 units in SVN and very likely to be, in a18) Ok, now some visual imagination again, two 5x10 armies facing each other, one made of skirmishers, one made of archers First shot of the two armies, will target the enemy frontline, meaning that each one of the 10 dudes of the frontline will get 5 enemy arrows/ javelins 5 arrows= 35 pierce (0 pierce damage wasted each tempo/shot) 5 javelins= 100 pierce damage( 50 pierce damage wasted each tempo/shot)* ( these stats show clearly how more skirmishers wouldn't help firepower! While more archers would help: sweetspot for archers being between 7 to 8 arrows per target, for skirmishers 2 ½ arrows! It would take huge amout of microing and a tons of clicks per second to take the best out of skirmisers, splitting them and spreading their firepower, while archers kind of need no microing at all. Not to mention that while you split and position your skirmisers, they're being attacked by archers) If we take the range variable out (each unit is in range of everyone of enemy's unit when the battle starts), skirmishers win and save almost half of the army, despite the wasted pierce damage. If we dont take the range variable out( each unit is not in the range of any of the enemy's unit when the battle is engaged), like most of the real play situation, archers win by far.( if you try this situation in the atlas you get a similar outcome of in real plays: even tho units dont get microed, and im talking about skirmishers particularly ,in the atlas, a good skirmishers microing is easily countered with an intelligent placing of archers in engagements) And here comes another problem: assume a bunch of skirm have to deal with a bunch of archers. If the archers are divided in small groups, far from each other, skirmishers are hopelessly lost. If they engage one group at the time( not splitting skirmishers) they'll have to walk miles to go from a group to another, since archers have HUGE range. Those walks give a great advantage to archers. What the skirm guy can do is try split his skirmishers, wich is very hard since ranged battles start and end very fast, and the archers dude can simply retreat his group of archers if enemy splitted skirms not evenly, so if you try to approach with 7 skirm one of the group of 5 archers, the archers simply fall back: archers army loses 5 soldiers, skirmishers army loses 7, trying to chase. If the 7 skirmishers focus on something else, archers come back in battle fast , while skirmishers will have to walk to engage another group. To solve this last problem, a new autofocus wouldnt be enough ( it helps in more straightforward battles, like 2 big formations facing each other) (This is a problem of skirmishers in general, also skirm cav suffers similar issue, they're too weak, once they get close – by to shot, they're half dead.) And also, trying to mix your army of skirmishers with melees is useless, since low range of skirmishers make them very bad at supporting melees (unlike archers...) Ok, hope you got my point.( archers are OP ) Hope i wont write a new post once i'll have tested slingers well enough x) I completely trust scythe's work, but maybe giving skirmishers some armor wouldnt be a bad idea( they also wear a shield, they have a free hand unlike archers, giving them more armor seems sensible and right to me). Archers have uber range, slingers have less 24 range, but kill buildings and have some more damage, skirmishers have 48 less range, have high damage but less ratio( if they had more armor it could be an even scenario? ). If you think i'm missing something, just let me note this, i'll be glad to be proved wrong and to give more clarification if necessary. Mario.

Blender file of the model so far: onager.zip

The crash happens because your devices don't have glMapBufferOES extensions needed by 16241 changeset (on my Nexus 10 I don't have that problem, but I've seen it on my ASUS Padfone Infinity). Anyway tonight I'm going to try revert that path locally to see if I can make it work without glMapBufferOES, if it works I'll publish a new version tonight. I think Philip needs to check if there is a better way to fix the problem.

I fear it might be too late, leper was already reluctant to commit new stuff yesterday ,since a18 is already being packaged and soon to be released (my technical language is very poor , i hope i didnt say any bs x) )

Oh geeze... Had no idea it had been done so much before lol. I guess what I noticed is that the team (from what I've read on the forums) cannot really agree about the balance between archers and skirmishers so was originally thinking maybe a second reload time. For example skirmishers who throw 5 spears with maybe a 1 sec gap between, not sure what it really is, then they have to reload and spend 2 secs collecting their next 5 spears from their feet(bit annoying having around 30 spears on ones back, they prob stuck some in the ground or whatever). Archers might get to shoot 20 arrows but have to get another set in 7 secs. Player would need to compensate for their troops reloading by using spare infantry etc. Meh, just thinking up stuff. Things like the one above could help balance troops. Atm it looks like you trade this for that but that leaves this other thing too OP etc. Not enough things to take into consideration maybe? Or could be too much, not sure. Either way good luck.

No problem. I was thinking eventually adding something like "(only for A17 version)" nearby the videos I already linked, so people know it's not the current one, or even better create a dedicated page for each (recent) version of the game. So no worries, just focus on your new videos / strategies, I'll update the strategy guide accordingly.

Well we've had the suggestion about a million times, i was recently so frustrated with the inability to balance ranged units properly that i considered that i make a reboot post on it (you beat me to it! D:) Generally i think the best way to do it would be the way warrior kings does it: Ranged units attack at max speed when supplied, when they run out of supply, they slowly regenerate supply (very slowly, like 1 supply every 10/20 seconds) But if they are nearby a supply caravan, they'll get 1 supply every 2 seconds. (which won't supply their max attack speed fully, but keep it up to scratch)

I must have been confusing it with AO maps. In fact, I tried the provided model and it does glow, though perhaps not the effect you were expecting? You can see in the screenshot below, the right one has self-light but the left one doesn't. I had to alter the sun angle to make the effect visible. I also tried it as a prop. This was how the effect was intended, as far as I know. It might be possible to tweak some of the material parameters and end up with a different effect.

with 7 views, I think YOU are the one supporting them !^^

The fact that it was closed-source made it nearly stall. Going open-source saved this project a couple of years ago.

Update: Thankfully, we are now we are paying for hosting directly from our SPI funds using an SPI credit card. The first installment of 157.98 EUR (appx. 171.33 USD) came out of my credit card on 18/01/2015. I am asking the rest of the Treasury Committee for permission to ask SPI for a reimbursement, plus wire transfer charges, which, according to my records, are 22 USD. Total: 193 USD. Thanks.

The best part is that they can hunt wild horses