Leaderboard

Nearly finished with Nuba Mountains. In the tweaking phase now!

@camel you could be a more polite

I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

@borg-

We could probably extract the time of a resource share event from the replay file easily, but it could be more accurate to weight by the average economy strength or value of each resource at the given time. To get the whole context, it's probably better to just run the replay with some event hooks that update the score. This approach also allows weighting kills, which aren't explicitly written in the replay data. You already know who can do that kind of thing. Let's ping @ffffffff to see if he's interested.

Check out the current league fixture above. Tell us if you know someone who is motivated to track and extract data from the replays to make the league fixture better. Have fun.

Hello, I only noticed this thread now, so I'll put my two cents in. The system you introduced is probably not far from the best you can get, but that's partly because it's really hard to create a fair system. Giving a whole point for a win is a good way to discourage selfish playing. I'm a bit afraid that some of the other factors could be misused. When you now count in the resources shared, it's very important to weight the importance of the share at each time such event occurred. 100 of wood in the first minute can easily mean more than 1000 wood at minute 10 when the average player's economy is stronger and gathering is much faster thanks to upgrades. Also remember that at the resign time, fgod mod shares all the resources you have with whoever is left. Imagine that two allies resign just before you and now half of their resources also get counted as those that you shared with the last remaining ally. The same sure holds for the kill count and the kill / death ratio. Getting someone's ten women early in the game can decide the whole game, while a few minutes later players would even want to delete their women just to make more space for soldiers. Anyway, I know that it's hard to adjust for these factors. They could perhaps be implemented into the military score the game shows, which would make things much easier. Currently the system favors economy focus to raiding early in the game, dumping useless resources to allies later, and the player gets penalized for making tank units while their ally gets all the kills in a fight. You could notice the last thing in the game of yesterday when borg had like 60 spearmen taking damage for fpre's slingers.

Tnx so much!!!

Here are the stream link and replay. Have fun. 2019-05-05_0004.zip

Courtesy of Exodarion

Just had this idea, and I think it's good, so I wanted to share this... Current situation As you may know, the AI is currently designed to ultimately be run in an asynchronous manner, in the background, over possibly n turns. A reference is this interview of @quantumstate for example, but it's also quite obvious from the architecture. The Idea was that thus the AI wouldn't be blocking for the simulation even if it was slow. Based on the fact it currently runs once per 8 in-game turn (about 1.5 seconds in SP, about 4 seconds in MP), we can assume that this is a reasonable time-frame for such a threaded AI. To support this, the AI receives a copy of the simulation state, through AI Proxy components on most entities and AI Interface. Consequences This is nice in theory - I've never questioned it and I don't think anyone questioned it in the past few years. However it has several significant drawbacks: The AI wouldn't be able to be run more than once every n turns (n=8 right now). That makes it basically impossible-by-design to micro efficiently, for example. Note that our synchronous AI can, but that's not how it should work (and it doesn't leverage that). Copying the simulation state is slow. AIProxy listens to most messages, all entities have one. It can easily take up several ms per turn (in fact I had a diff for that which I didn't keep as it was kinda broken.). Copying the simulation state is error prone. We have to do it manually. Techs in particular were a real pain to handle. Mitigations for multiple AIs (the common-API) are a mess. Copying the simulation state is greedy and custom. If the AI wants new information, we have to add it to its state. If it doesn't care about some information that we've added, we've payed the price anyways. The above flaws are all fundamental to the design. The second and first can be mitigated, but at great cost, and only up to a point. Proposed Change The biggest change is simple conceptually: we run the AI synchronously. It fixes all the fundamental design flaws above: we can run it every turn if we want to. This fixes point 1. we no longer need a copy of the whole simulation state. This fixes points 2/3/4. The AI can call into the Engine directly (using QueryInterface or something similar) - in a read-only manner. This can be by setting a flag or by copying only that relevant bit of data it's asking for. If the AI remains in its own context, we can use structured clones. The problem of this design is that if the AI wants to do something slow (and it does sometimes), it will lag. There is a solution. We let the AI run specific computations asynchronously, over a specific number of turns, using an interface similar to worker threads. Then if the computation isn't done, we block, otherwise we return the result and process it synchronously and deterministically. For these computations only, we copy whatever state is necessary. What I hope this achieves A speed-up of several ms per turn on both SP and MP. A much simpler AI interface (basically no interface). Still the ability to run longer computations asynchronously.

Widelands Build 20 Released The Widelands Development Team is proud to announce the immediate availability of Widelands Build 20. Widelands is a free, cross-platform economy strategy game in which players control the fate of a small tribe that can grow into a big empire, in a style of play that is unique in the open source world. Since the previous release, we have implemented over 400 features, code cleanups and bug fixes. Build 20 features a new tribe – the Frisians – as well as four new campaign scenarios and a new “Barracks” building for recruiting soldiers. Also, the AI has been rewritten to use a genetic algorithm. The user interface comes with new features that make it easier to use, like map zoom, dropdown menus, a new ships list, and improved keyboard navigation. Build 20 also continues the behind the scenes cleanup, polish and modernization that was started with Build 19. There have been additional improvements to the stability and performance, as well as numerous bug-fixes. PeerTube Trailer Full announcement on Widelands Homepage

si. aun le falta en mi opinión.

I haven't seen anything they've done so I can't assume anything, I don't know how much time they have on their hands so I can't tell much about that either. I don't know if they still use the same review process they helped put in place, or maybe they just trust each other and commit stuff. I don't have a single metric on their project, so it's really conjectures for my part at this point. I will also assume they don't have much issues handling external contributions And each one does, in their own respect on their own areas. If three people can know 150 000 lines of code, that's really good for them Well I'm still working on it, and so are the other artists, so I would assume you mean something else, though I might be wrong.

This last game was very nice to play and for see repetition. Comebacks from both sides, a lot of spot figths, from 2v2 on each side to 3v3 and 1v1 etc. Quite intense, with raids from both sides, valirahnt and Boudica sometimes holding 2v1, continuosly res support from each team to help between us etc.. Lets hope all games being like that one. Also we need to clarify the passive hero dance, im agree that is the same as dance, focus all dps army and then ran away to come back again its, in fact, the same stuff. Moderators u will decide what to do with that. Cya.

True, but in principle reviews can be done by non-team members. Getting more people engaged in the development process can be helpful in the long run.

No. The primary difference is that Oxford spelling uses -ize (because -ιζειν) and British uses -ise.

Personally I favour Oxford spelling, which is distinct from American, British, Canadian, and other national varieties, and is used by international organizations such as the United Nations and by numerous scientific publications. But yeah, 0 A.D.'s style guide says we should use American spelling.

One could add an old english translation on transifex.com

Also https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/EnglishStyleGuide

There could also be a commit race which could even result in conflicts (or having a rule like in GO)

That was an exhausting game. The team balance was changed just a few seconds before the start, but it turned out to be a good balance. I also liked that we had some less popular civilizations present. I considered taking Iberians for the team bonus, but it wouldn't help archer and slinger civs as much as the Roman bonus could. Anyway, the game was pretty much over for me after the initial coordinated raid with camelius. I'm glad that at least that part didn't fail. It's happened to me recently that a failed attempt at such coordination did more harm to ourselves than the enemy. But camelius is a good team player in this regard. The other strong part of Romans would be the P3 sieging, but I could barely even get to the City Phase until the game was over. Archers can be very good for defense against short-range units like skirmishers, and getting closer was risky and not really worth it. Feldfeld was right that our side was pretty much stalled when I spammed a network of up to 12 upgraded towers. Fortunately the other side was doing better, so I could be happy with that position. I've watched the whole commentary and I liked it. I think you guys covered all the important events that were happening. Setting the playback speed to 1.5x also allowed me to counter the lag that was present later in the game. Thanks for the event and I hope to see you next time.

Frankly, I don't quite understand this reasoning. Balance isn't perfect at the moment, never was, and I doubt it'll ever be; nor does it have to. And even if balance were perfect, there would still be plenty of room for gameplay mods. Anyway, most values in game seem to be rather arbitrary; replacing one arbitrary value with something less arbitrary could be considered an improvement. And if something doesn't work out, it can be reverted or changed again. Establish some simple and clear procedure, e.g.: identify a problem suggest a solution make a patch on phabricator and a tiny gameplay mod which contains only the exact change(s) launch a couple of test games, for different maps, map sizes, civilizations, number of AI players, etc. find other people to discuss, play-test, approve, or review your proposal get someone to implement the patch Only the last step requires a team member, everything else can be done by others. Just let the game evolve.

Everyone working in team know that you have to rely on: - people - process Sometimes you can rely only on people. Sometimes.

Mmmh, in my own POV pros: gameplay mods can strive, if the balancing was perfect, there would be no need for gameplay mods. It also keeps the changelog history clean. On the cons... It doesn't showcase the full potential of the game It makes external contribution painful and frustrating, even useless sometimes Makes most contribution about the engine, and not about the game. It makes adding new functionality like adding growing fattening or #3488 very complex, because even if the features is good someone needs to take responsibility for committing it. I can't even think on how hard it would be to get bb #252 and my #2577 in the game... Of course this is my own opinion, and I might be painting a darker painting, than it currently is;

In your POV what are the pros and cons of this approach? I don't think balancing changes are like adding new code or features. It's basically just tweaking stats or enabling things already in the game. Perhaps balance changes could be given fewer restrictions.

Well I guess it started when we started to be very critical on how people do commits. Which in turn lead us to have a very strict review process for anything that isn't art related where everything needs to be as perfect as possible before it's committed. Then comes the part where balancing needs experimenting yes, but also experience, and the people who were up to do it in the team went AWOL, or just couldn't stand failing an alpha.

Why so much fear in experimenting? Make a change and if it doesn't have the desired effect then revert that change or change it some more. I swear the team didn't used to be so tepid when it came to this stuff. Who cares if some people howl at the changes? Listen to those who make constructive suggestions and ignore those who don't. Battering Rams have been OP for 3 years, Bolt Shooters have been UP for years. Siege Towers are just weird. People spam Slingers, when really melee infantry is what they should spam (ranged units should support the melee infantry and cavalry should be for raiding or targeted strikes). Perhaps it's because there hasn't been someone designated to decide these things?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Like this ?

Things have moved quicker this week, but for a release i'm not sure when. I want two factions to be well balanced and the rest to be polished enough to be enjoyed by the community. One game-play change that is coming with the mod is taking away the ability to build walls. Walls will be built in with the maps, and walls are going to be at-least 5x-10x stronger. So how you use the castle is up to the player, but wooden palisades can still be built. example:

Haha got it, I touched them up a-little so it now has a smoother look...for a low poly. Edit: I got them down to 50-55 poly Thanks Stanislas69, the lighter colour does make it contrast better.

The most important thing here to win as a team. When you are the winning team you get 2 points. Then the other scores are involved. Unknown_Player is the host here. He balances the game and asks other players ideas. You need to be more the winning team to get more points. This is not like 1v1 matches. Team play is more important. Yes, we cannot make it perfect but we can start from somewhere. It will be better day by day. Share all your ideas. Have fun.

I am the one who decided to not give the yellow card because he stopped right after being told and i was not sure if it was said in the chat before that dancing is forbidden (was trying to fix technical issue at that time) so he might not have known. Sorry, if it is preferred by most players/viewers to strictly follow the rules then I won't take those arbitrary decisions.

Hi all, I've updated the League Fixture. Now, the economy score was implemented somehow. However, we calculate the resources that you sent. If you feed more you get more points. I can't solve the early aggression issue. My coding skill is very limited. If you would like to help us to make a better League Fixture send me a PM. Tell us what you think about it. Have fun.

What do you mean? Another shot:

The UV mapping for the pikeman shields could be rotated about 80 degrees clockwise. It's always bothered me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Started a new skirmish map: Palmyra.

Roads and pathways.

omg, you look so similar.. one can see that you share same ancestors

I would say probably not. Spartans were known for braiding their hair, not skiritai to my understanding. As for linen armour, I would say that is plausible for them to wear, maybe even no armour. I would be cautious about abandoning the hoplon. Although their role in the phalanx was different from mainline troops, they definitely fought in it, and given that heavily armed peltasts had been incorporated into most armies of this time, I would say it is completely implausible for skiritai to be armed that way.

abandoned village and date orchard by a dried up oasis. merchant caravan spending the night