Leaderboard

I like the walking ready animation of the swordsman, however the animation isn't very suittable for the speed of the champions. It suits more a formation walking or slow sneaky walk. So i just done this for the ready_swordsman variant: i took the assault rifle jogging animation i've done before and tweaked some of the bone keys to match an ancient era heavy scutum: Can also make it more faster and have more body inclination and make another running like shield charging.

This is the replay of me vs littlegirlbeatyou. ffm_littlegirlbeatyou.zip

Devs do optimize the code https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2378 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2386 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2390 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2391 and fix memory leaks (and other things) https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP23067 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2331 so they obliviously do think optimising is important and they do what they can to improve the experience for the player. There have been discussions about moving to higher versions of OpenGL, it would allow them to use new features and possibilities how to improve graphics, but it would also mean to drop support for older computers and based on statistics the team did not want to cut off the game from that number of players. About pathfinder, they are have been improving it in a24 and simultaneously they have been changing code to be easier to apply multi-threading for that computations, which are mostly causes of lags. Any questions?

Another texture done + Gold Boss 2nd variant.: Its missing a detail in the middle both sides: I belive it should say something inside the rectangle? like LEGIO ? or not?

Mine is just a feedback. I tried the game and I didn't like it, so I posted my opinion about it. You probably didn't get my point, so let's do it your way. Let's say I have this project of building an house with my own hands. It will require a lot of time, sure, no one can expect a finished product or can tell me "you are slow", it's fine. But then I build my house, I build 3 kitchens and I forget to create the basements. Now I invested time and resources, and I have three kitchens and none of them works. So the point is, why adding 10 factions, when even a 1v1 map (and I'm repeating this, 1v1, playing with a friend) doesn't work. Why even adding bigger maps, when even the smaller ones don't work. So yeah I'm not expecting to play a full game with many functionalities, but to me adding new content when even the basics are not working doesn't make sense. They can keep adding races but that won't change things even in 50 years, if I can't even enjoy the basics. Anyway, if players can enjoy this kind of.. product, that's great, at least someone does.

Is this just something you wanted to share, or are you expecting an answer? Because the only thing I see you possibly ask is how it is possible that the development is slow (provided that that question wasn't rhetorical). Maybe you for some reason expected things to go faster, but you didn't state any reason why it should be that way. Imagine I decide to build my own house. But I'll only use bricks that I made myself and materials I could gather around. A few friends on mine promise to help me in their free time but most of them have a job or a family, so it's only a few hours at weekends. Are you gonna expect me to have a modern habitable house in a year, based on how much time a construction company with dozens of full-time professionals and modern tools would require? Or is it a success that I can somewhat use the house after only five years of work, while it is still slowly getting better and better? The beta version is just a sticker. The game already brings a lot of fun to many players who don't mind avoiding large maps with lots of trees or high pop games, which make the lag worse. Instead of losing hope, we just enjoy what the game offers right now, knowing that somewhere far, there is a cool developer testing out his patch to again make it all a bit better next year or so.

Hi Folks, Following https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1325#no1, which has not been updated in 6 years. I was trying to build 0ad on my FreeBSD desktop. I have successfully built FCollada using the musl libc implementation of ecvt(). Since musl libc is MIT licensed, would the following code be considered to be included on 0ad, as part of FUStringBuilder.hpp: char *ecvt_musl(double x, int n, int *dp, int *sign) { static char buf[16]; char tmp[32]; int i, j; if (n-1U > 15) n = 15; sprintf(tmp, "%.*e", n-1, x); i = *sign = (tmp[0]=='-'); for (j=0; tmp[i]!='e'; j+=(tmp[i++]!='.')) buf[j] = tmp[i]; buf[j] = 0; *dp = atoi(tmp+i+1)+1; return buf; } template <class Char, class FloatType> void FloatToString(FloatType f, Char* sz) { Char* buffer = sz + 1; static const int digitCount = 6; int decimal, sign; // ecvt rounds the string for us: http://www.datafocus.com/docs/man3/ecvt.3.asp char* end = ecvt_musl(f, digitCount, &decimal, &sign); if (sign != 0) (*buffer++) = '-'; int count = digitCount; if (decimal > digitCount) { // We use the scientific notation: P.MeX (*buffer++) = (*end++); // P is one character. (*buffer++) = '.'; // Mantissa (cleaned for zeroes) for (--count; count > 0; --count) if (end[count - 1] != '0') break; for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i) (*buffer++) = (*end++); if (buffer[-1] == '.') --buffer; // Exponent (*buffer++) = 'e'; uint32 exponent = decimal - 1; // X if (exponent >= 10) (*buffer++) = (Char) ('0' + (exponent / 10)); (*buffer++) = (Char) ('0' + (exponent % 10)); (*buffer) = 0; return; } else if (decimal > 0) { // Simple number: A.B for (int i = 0; i < decimal; ++i) (*buffer++) = (*end++); if (decimal < digitCount) (*buffer++) = '.'; count = digitCount - decimal; } else if (decimal < -digitCount) { // What case is this? decimal = count = 0; } else if (decimal < 0 || (decimal == 0 && *end != '0')) { // Tiny number: 0.Me-X (*buffer++) = '0'; (*buffer++) = '.'; for (int i = 0; i < -decimal; ++i) (*buffer++) = '0'; count = digitCount + decimal; } for (; count > 0; --count) if (end[count - 1] != '0') break; for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i) (*buffer++) = (*end++); if (decimal == 0 && count == 0) (*buffer++) = '0'; if (buffer[-1] == '.') --buffer; (*buffer) = 0; } I basically replaced the call to ecvt() by ecvt_musl(). What do you guys think? Cheers

i'll send you the files after finishing the tweakings. i've found one of the glitches and fixed it (on blender) New jog animation for both relaxed and ready state, in the current state, jog relax looks very similar to the rats dancing in "Ratattouille. And Jog Ready is unused since the beginning of the unit update before i re-exported all animations.

Tried the game some years ago and couldn't run it, pc fault. I decided to try it again with a friend, hoping to find something close to a complete game. But nothing, after 16+ years of development, and with a pc that can run the Witcher 3 without problems, I still get lags after 2 minutes into the match. Same for my friend, and our connection worked perfectly. I understand the project is free ect ect, but how is it possible. Being able to play something like 10 factions, when I can't even change the resolution of the game and I cannot basically play it because of the lags. It's not a big problem to me, wasn't a fan of the project anyway, but I feel bad for those players who have been supporting the game for so long (If there are any). Regardless, I wish you the best luck on being able to release it sooner or later, even if I don't have much hope left.

I don't think it is. You can edit maps directly though.

Update: Added coastal actors Fixed players' starting entities. Fixed some inaccessible stone mines.

Man, Romans really need a special 4th tier... Imperial Phase... Mmmm... Ok, don't mind me, bye

Another one:

More just scars all over his body based on speculation. He died around the age of 84, having fought basically to the end of his life. I'd expect a few wounds to have shown up in that time. I can check sometime about more distinct features but can't promise anything detailed.

I merged the three topics. For the non-technical people this means that the lobby server required more security than Windows clients were able to provide and therefore caused a denial of service for all users that had TLS enabled. We are sorry for any inconvenience. For those that wish to know what happened here is a short summary. An issue occurred after an Update on the Debian VM hosting the lobby. Debian then required that all clients use TLS 1.2. Currently all users on Windows are limited to TLS 1.0 because of Gloox, which caused them to be denied access to the service. From the debian mailing list https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/08/msg00187.html > I've just uploaded a version of OpenSSL to unstable that disables > the TLS 1.0 and 1.1 protocol. This currently leaves TLS 1.2 as the > only supported SSL/TLS protocol version. > This will likely break certain things that for whatever reason > still don't support TLS 1.2. I strongly suggest that if it's not > supported that you add support for it, or get the other side to > add support for it. elexis resolved this issue by recompiling the SSL lib without that limitation and changei 17:09 <elexis> have to compile with enable-weak-ssl-ciphers, why even update things 19:11 <elexis> /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf MinProtocol = None CipherString = DEFAULT + ejabberd restart Another workaround was to disable TLS.

Hello All, I got a lot to say but on a general basis and after playing a lot of onlines games on the current version : > ranged units and siege rams are too strong, it's not realistic (on a history point of view) to see celts winning the game with only slingers and battle rams, what I would suggest to correct this would be : 1. Lowering the attack dammages of slingers and allowing only a limited number of attacks (spears) for the skirmishers before a countdown that allow them to reload their stack of javelins, on the meantime the skirmisher would act as a spearman (with low armor). A level 1 skrimisher would have for example only 6 javelin to throw. 2. Battler rams and all other siege units in general should be packed with citizen soldiers units in order to be used, for example a battle ram speed could depend on the number of units inside and the units that handle the balistas or catapultes should be vulnerable of ranged attacks. If they got killed the siege engine become Gaia until some else is using it. 3. .. to compensate this I would give to the celts factions a citizen soldier with sword (which would be histroricaly accurate as gauls where well knows smiths) and also a citizen soldier with hammer or haxe that perform crush units and could be used to destrow buildings. 4. Spear cavaliers should have a special charge attack that could crashed low armored units such as ranged units. Currently they are not strong enough against archers, skirmishers and slingers, that's not realistic. It's just a start but I thing that with these littles changes the game could become even more attractive and we would see much more historically accurate battles.

Already done with the bronze boss: scutum_rome_imp_rect_boss:

The assumption that some other aspects of the game would now be better if there were fewer civs might be incorrect. There were some people interested in making models and it wasn't that hard to include those and make a new civ. There are currently more civs than planned but people generally don't dislike that. (Edit: Stan was faster on this one by a minute.) There have been several 1-vs.-1 tournaments and I don't remember any game ending prematurely because it became unplayable. I could watch all the replays on my years old laptop with an integrated graphics card. What do you mean by that smaller maps don't work?

Then send me the psd @Lion.Kanzen and I will print a few flyers for the Capitole du Libre in two weeks. Hopefully they'll get there on time.

You start doing optimisation when all of the planed features are working correctly until then all code just grows in complexity.But once we do start it will not be a fast process either as whole sections of code may need refactoring to make them completely thread safe (use all cpu cores available} then we might discover we have algorithm validity issues like the pathfinder. Enjoy the Choice

Jc u trying to get back in the group and saying sorry? haha

Sorry, but couldn't resist to fix the head

I never noticed that "Civil War" is an oxymoron.

i was going to suggest for the next time.

Exactly we dont have any prepared any render and any good new concept. Nostalgy sells but this need more time...

@LordGood, you also deserve a statue or two... Iron Johnny Also what are those towers? They look gorgeous...

I can’t find any link to read as to how 0ad will eventually be finalized. The way I sense from most of the discussion/s, it seems the features have to be tailored to multiplayer gaming; AoE, TW, aom or the likes. So mostly altering the arts and few tweaks on gameplay. I also spent more than 1k hours on AoE 2 on SP and after that I realized it’s a boring game to infinity. And it’s happening to 0ad, just that imo 0ad is more pretty with very realistic arts. Though each person has each own liking. But imo simple mindset a game that involves realistic scenarios are the ones that make gamers immersed.Not much pressure to play, relaxing but challenging. A game that even wife will understand that his husband gamer should rather stay at home and playing such a very pretty game than going out to flirt. Anyhow, still hoping this game can be improved before I even vanish from this world.

the only thing for someone to update is to have new art and some performance, the rest stays the same or worse.

It was a well discussed topic. But, I want to remind some of the inequality amongst civilizations... 1. Building Time:- As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 2. Superiority of Slingers over Archers(Especially) and Skirmishers:- Apparently most of the player would definitely admit that Slingers are the strongest unit in the game. But, is it feasible for Slingers to have more than 1.5 times pierce damage than Archers. A piece of stone cause more crush damage than pierce. So, I think there should a balance between Slingers and Archers. Maybe 7.5 pierce damage for Archers and 8.5 pierce damage along with 1.5 crush damage for Slingers. 3. Superiority of Roman Siege and Persian Rams:- There is no doubt that Romans and Persians had a superior Siege units with better atrack. But, this wasn't spontaneous. This was achieved by a long period of experiment. So, It'll be best to give them a technology(with practical costs) instead of just giving them directly. Along with that I would also suggest to give Carthaginian and Ptolemaic Juggernauts and Heavy Warships an equal Bonus by a similar technology. 4. Unlimited Access for certain Buildings I'm listing some buildings that can be built during game... Persians--- Apandana- 1, Hall- 2, Ishtar Gate- 1 Carthaginians--- Embassy- 2, Tophet- None. Sparatans--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited Athenians--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited, Gymnasium- Unlimited Gauls--- Tavern- Unlimited Britons--- Kennel- Unlimited Mauryans--- Palace- None Kushites--- Nuba Village/Camp- 2 Diadochii--- Military Colony- Unlimited Romans--- Army Camp- Unlimited These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures. 4. No Trample Damage for Elephants and Ability of Rams to Attack Organic Units:- This is one of the worst and impractical thing that makes Rams more stronger and efficient than Elephants. As Rams could only be destroyed by hack damage(most efficient and fast). On the other hand, not only Elephants can be killed by Ranged units easily but also they can be easily blocked by any units or women. And so this makes them useless. Again, more or less equal speed of an Elephants as compared to Rams make them more impractical. But, ideally an elephant has a great momentum along with a speed of nearly 40 km/h. So, I think they should have more speed with a continuous movement not obstructed by Organic Units. It'll be also better if we add trample damage for cavalry. 5. Costs for making a Catapult and Elephant:- An elephant costs 250 food and 250 metal and 3 population which is really impractical. Raising an elephant is more costlier than making a Ram. Again, making a Catapult cause not that much wood (400). So, there should be a balance. Again, most of the units first try to capture Bolt Shooters and Catapults instead of just destroying it! So, there should be a mode which can determine whether units will attack it or try to capture it. 6. Units and Faction Requests:- And lastly, I've some personal thoughts that I would like to share. In short--- I) Maiden Guards should not be trained from Barracks. They are elite and special units which only protect Royal persons and so they should be trained from Palace. And please give Mauryans access to Rams. II) Kindly give Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya a decent hero bonus. And please reconsider the bonuses given to some heroes like Hannibal(a bonus of 20% faster batch time for mercenaries instead of 20% less damage for enemy mercenaries) III) Instead of giving a 20% health Reduction for Archery Tradition, it'll be better if we apply a 5% or maybe 10% health Reduction just like Persian Infantry. IV) Civ Bonuses--- Some Civs have very much helpful Civ Bonus(Iberians, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Sparatans, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls, Persians, Kushites) and some have impractical Civ Bonus(Carthaginians, Mauryans, Britons). Please reconsider them. Hope, the authority will consider my urges...

This text, Kingdom of Magadha: Wars and Warfare, mentions the use of something like a catapult by King Ajatashatru of the Haryanka Dynasty of the Kingdom of Magadha, against the Vajii, a confederacy ruled by the Licchavi Kingdom, in the early 5th century BC (484 BC – 468 BC), more than one and a half centuries before the rise of the Maurya Dynasty. Wikipedia corroborates this. This Indian catapult was called mahashilakantaga, though I can find only very few mentions of the name, which all seem to point to the linked ancient.eu article. In the book, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, By Pierre Briant, p763, it's claimed that the Achaemenid Persians might have actually invented the catapult. this isn't exactly hard evidence though... Buuuuuuut.... There's this verse from the Bible, 2 Chronicles 26:15, which talks about King Uzziah of Judah, who built what sounds like catapults way back in the 8th century BC! That's definitely a possible source for the later hypothesized Persian catapults... It's also the reason why I'm not so quick to ignore the apparent mention of catapults (a thing casting stones at the enemy walls) in Piye's Great Triumphal Stela from the Amun temple at Napata, c. 727 BC: The Kingdom of Judah entered into a sort of protectorate relationship with the Kushites after Piye (they paid tribute to Taharqa), and they probably had relations before that. So if King Uzziah had developed catapults a generation earlier, the idea the Kushites employed them isn't totally unbelievable. The book Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity even states that there is a possibility that siege weapons including catapults came to Carthage from Mesopotamia via the Phoenicians. I know that the invention of the catapult is generally ascribed to the Greeks, but It's almost as if some of the Greek and Roman history writers and some of the people interpreting the texts today are full of manure... Greek scholars travelled all over, including Mesopotamia and Egypt, studying the local knowledge, then brought it back to Greece, adapted it and made it their own. The Pythagorean Theorem is good example. A lot of people think it's Greek, even though Pythagoras travelled to Egypt and studied there with the priests, where "Pythagoras' Theorem" was already known for about one and a half millennia before Pythagoras was even born...

I disagree. I think range, firing rate, and accuracy should be inversely proportional to damage. Movement speed is inversely proportional to armor. Health is inversely proportional to Food cost. Health+Accuracy inversely proportional to train time. Wood/stone/metal cost (whichever) inversely proportional to damage+range. This all depends on how granular you want to get. It's not absolutely necessary.

By not fixing design bottlenecks quickly, you get screwed in the end. And fixing them becomes impossible instead of just hard. (Intels report claimed using js was the major bottleneck, well, I like to see someone attempt a major rewrite.) NTFS comes to mind. And I am not saying that because l use ext4 or zfs or something else. Checking out version controlled repos are terrible on Windows. Especially when there are a lot of commits.