Leaderboard

It depends on multiple variables. CPU. Ram Map Graphic settings 4v4 30-27 fps.

I tried to link a debug version of Spidermokey. This undercovered a lot of nasty bugs Update Patched Spidermonkey 68 source code. the class SharedArrayRawBufferRefs in ./js/public/StructuredClone.hStructuredClone.h (firefox source directory) was tagged as JS_PUBLIC_API to export its symbols. Please note that since Spidermonkey 68 clang is required to compile the codebase (at least on linux). Use instructions in https://github.com/mozilla-spidermonkey/spidermonkey-embedding-examples/blob/esr68/docs/Building SpiderMonkey.md. PersistentRooted is initialized with .init() Applied https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2768 ObjectToIdMap is based on GCHashMap I am almost able to run a game ...

Hello Arch Bot. I looked into the changes you made. First you should remove rate array and just use the equation you introduced. Multiplying 0,42 with 0,05 is 0,021 and not handicap player picked. Now I am going to present my current opinion if your mod should be merged with codebase. In most RTS Ais get cheats because they cannot match human thinking and decision making. Else they would be wiped out by any player and there would be no fun at all. Issue is that, with more complex games, Ai needs to think about more aspects and put them into equation. Also it needs to plan for future and to know when top stop current plan because it has to do something else. Also making Ai more complex could be bad trade off with performance. (fun story: I tried to mimic attacking code in defense manager to improve defense, it lagged so hard it was unplayable). Also there is issue what AI actually knows about. As player you move game camera and you can see enemy moving towards you and you know what units it has and how to counter them. That is not case for AI. It can at best check enemy units in some proximity of its structures but doing so for all visible structures and comparing enemy units if they are in the proximity is very resource heavy computation, so mostly it reacts only if gets attacked what is most of the time too late. I can agree rate bonus could be separate variable and difficulties could just influence what decision ai takes. But I am not sure if allowing for example hard ai going under rate of 1 is good idea. That would make it even worse then current medium ai. Also the same for allowing medium ai to go to bonus 100% would make it insane. It would mass units too fast. Current very hard ai has only 56% bonus and few players can beat and they count for ai wasting units with useless attacks and chases their units under their turrets. So generally speaking, ai is terrible in defense and sometimes lets units die stupidly or it tries to place structures at places it is constantly destroyed, also it wastes resources from time to time. Taking rate advantage from ai at this state would in my opinion make ai more boring to play against as it is right now. If you are interested in improving current ai: For the ai development and comparison it is preferable to remove that bonuses from initgame.js and let current ai fight against the new one with highest mutual difficulty level in various maps, settings and mainly I would suggest to pick for both of them the same civilization. Team would be more than happy to merge new ai if it turns out being better then current one, without destroying performance. P.S. : Ai should not be unbeatable. Regards Angen

what @Lion.Kanzen said above plus ai can configured to your liking with

Hello guys, this is my first message in this forum and it will be my first contribution to the 0ad community. First of all I'd like to thank to everyone for creating this great game. I have started developing ArchMod to improve 0ad gaming experience according to my expectations from an RTS game. In addtion, I would like to improve current PetraBot AI as an alternative AI bot. I never think to replace the current PetraBot AI. Actually, I was very surprised when I saw only PetraBot in my first installation of this game. I think there should be many different AI bots. I would like to create a new AI called ArchBot for this purpose. Of course, my starting point is PetraBot Installation: After extracting the compressed file to the data/mods path, you can easily install it from Mod Selection section. ArchMod-0.3 [ ArchMod 0.2 + Game Modes ] : ArchMod-0.3.tar.gz Now you can play 0ad in different Game Modes like as in Civilization. This option changes only tech costs, tech upgrade time and correspondingly barter trading mechanism. ArchMod-0.2 [ ArchMod 0.1 + Extra Options ] : ArchMod-0.2.tar.gz Bug fixes, Zero starting resources, Gigantic map size and extra game speed options. ArchMod-0.1 Initial Release Announcement [ AI Handicap ]: ArchMod-0.1.tar.gz Most of the RTS games use AI cheating for harder AIs. I don't like to play against these cheating codes. I think good AIs should beat even expert users without any extra bonus. ( I have started to contribute AI development by forking Petra as Arch Bot.) I think instead of embedding in AI difficulty, AI bonus/penalty setting should be a separate option like AI difficulty. Therefore, I have created an extra option called "AI Handicap" for AI players. I wish the developers will add this new feature to the next release I've kept default penalty settings for AIs easier than Medium AI, but I fixed bonus rates to 1 for other AI levels. In addition, I've added 10 more Very Hard AI levels for AI development and called them as Insane AI levels ( I - X ). These levels are also playable with default AI PetraBot, just an AI index increment. Installation: After extracting the compressed file to the data/mods path, you can easily install it from Mod Selection section. ArchMod-0.3 ( ArchMod-0.2 + Bug fixes, Different Game Modes ) ArchMod-0.3.tar.gz ArchMod-0.2 ( ArchMod-0.1 + Bug fixes, Zero starting resources, Gigantic map size and extra game speed options ) ArchMod-0.2.tar.gz ArchMod-0.1 (Initial Release, AI Handicap Setting & Insane AI levels) ArchMod-0.1.tar.gz

This is an idea I've had for a while now (couple of years maybe?)... Original text in spoiler: Proposal below: Our civilisations are currently supposed to be balanced. Picking a random civilisation should, on average, give you a fair chance to win assuming equal skill. Since we now have 13 civilisations, that means we need to balance 78 matchups. This is a considerable amount, particularly since we actually have limited manpower, particularly for gameplay purposes. In my opinion, we only have 2 ways to balance so many matchups: Effectively reduce the # of civs (e.g Celt, Greek, Roman, Kushites), by making the different "sub-civs" very similar. This precludes adding too many different groups, or we have to add "trash" civs. Effectively make all civs very similar. We can't get AoE2 level of variety because our tech tree/unit tree is much too small. So we're reduced to making them all basically equivalent. I like neither of these options. My proposal is to split our civilisations into groups, and only balance inside a given group. What I mean is that any matchup inside a group should give you a fair chance of winning - but matchups across groups (say, below, Roman vs Kushites) could be terribly unbalanced - or could not be. Romans might have one unit or one strategy that Kushites can't counter for example. Below is a Group List (proposal with some quick reasoning). My criteria are, to some extent, chronological and geographical. I am also picking what I think would be interesting matchups. Superpower Group - the 3 largest empires in the relevant timeframe Macedonians - Under Alexander the Great, circa 330 BC, they conquered most of what I will call the then "civilised" world. Obvious pick. Aechemenid Persians - While Cyrus II is technically out of our date range, he's in the game files, and it makes fine gameplay to have Macedonians and Persians in the same group since they did fight. Mauryas - Under Chandragupta, became one of the largest empires — period — back then. These 3 together also form a continuum of Greek-Indian empires and are historically somewhat tied. I think they make up an interesting group. Mediterranean Civs - More naval oriented Romans - Since we are pre-marian, this is the Rome of the punic wars. Stronger in terms of naval power than we might think, not yet mingling with the gauls up North too much. Carthaginians - Foil to the Romans at the time, we need them in the same group for historical play reasons. The question is "who next?". I think we might put Athens, a strong naval city state, but they did not really wage war on each other too much. Alternatively, Iberians were conquered by Rome by 100BC, so they could be put here. I'm having a hard time putting Athens somewhere more relevant, because as a strongly Naval civilisation they would be easily unbalanced against "land-based" greek civs, and they're historically not really relevant against anyone but these same greek states. Athens/Iberians Aegean Civs - more land-based civilisations perhaps. Spartans - land-based, which makes them good to fight the two other successor states. Seleucids - Successor state in the region, that mingled with Ptolemy Ptolemaic Egyptians - likewise. Celtic Civs I'm grouping these here because they were relatively similar, and thus would be relatively easier to balance. To be honest, we could perhaps move them all alongside the "Rome" group, particularly if we put Iberians there. The trouble is that they didn't really fight many of the other civilisations from our time-range. We could also dispatch one celtic civ in each other group, for variety, but that throws historical realism somewhat out the window and might complicate balancing. Gauls Ibers Britons Unbalanced Civs - those that aren't in a group (yet/ever?) Kushites ---- The advantages of this are: We need to balance fewer matchups. With easier balance, we can make civs more diverse, possibly more historically accurate. Currently, and particularly in A24, we've made civs very similar as balancing is hard. It makes it possible to highlight some different matchups. It also makes it possible to add more civilisations - we don't need to consider the overall balance. As such, a Mesoamerican group can easily be added, like wise for Asian civs. The drawbacks, obviously, are that MP users would have a reduced # of picks, and that it needs some development to support.

I agree, could be interesting and i love handicap. This give more randomization.

> P.S. : Ai should not be unbeatable. Theoretically unbeatable for sure not, it would be interesting to have an overpowered AI to challenge the best players though ("Impossible" difficulty), see Valihrant vs 4 Very Hard AIs.

posdata; https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/mayas-criaron-animales-y-comerciaron-ellos-fines-ceremoniales_12531/1 (Info . del ganado de los mayas preclásico) - info para los animales de el corral- Disculpen las molestias.

-Eliminar el diseño de la Greca escalonada/Tonalpohualli/Picalic/Xicalcoliuhqui es diseño geométrico zapoteca , no maya .Originario de Oaxaca (México), se extendió por toda mesoamérica. https://arquitectura.unam.mx/uploads/8/1/1/0/8110907/4_capítulo2.pdf (info del símbolo) https://www.academia.edu/8093855/La_Greca_Escalonada_en_la_Cultura_Maya_Antigua (introducción de la Greca Escalonada en El Mundo Maya , Leer página 13 capitulo 2 y página 114 Capítulo 4 ) -Parece que la Greca Escalonada o "Xicalcoliuhqui" fué introducida en la arquitectura maya entorno al (480-500 D.C) y en la cerámica y ropa entre los años (350-650 D.C) en el Clásico Medio y tardío , no en el preclásico. "Xicalcoliuhqui"

@feneur could you please unlock posts for @kokomaestro ?

Okay Frank! I'll contact you if anybody needs to be subbed out. Thanks!

some other project he is working on among many others such as https://www.moddb.com/mods/star-wars-galactic-battlegrounds-expanding-fronts too

Very much thank you for your hard work hopefully Angen will look at it this indeed will be very useful if you want you can also improve ai with other developers through patches put on phabricator for 0.24 version, it might many times speed up reviewing and inclusion btw some mods such as Hyrule Conquest by @The Undying Nephalim and @Exodarion do their own ai because of specific or unique requirements of those factions. BTW there is also https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2199 . Hope you will stop by IRC channel in 0ad-dev so others can talk to you about future improvemens for AI. Polite ping @Angen @wraitii

Byzantines ready for A24 ...

Hi, It seems that you have my same problem.. (doing a PhD ). Don't worry. As I previously stated, I expected my effort not to be 100% compatible to the direction you want to follow. And also last days I found many issues to solve that popped out when I tried to link a debug version of SM68. I fear that my efforts will require quite more time to result in an usable version on 0ad. I think that going through SM 52 is the most reasonable way to have a stable code without wasting too much time. I will continue to try going directly to SM 68 and see what are the issues to face to port 0ad to that version of Spidermonkey. Of course I would be happy to discuss together and give as much help I can. Thanks for 0ad and see you soon!

Patch patch patch.

@bb_ @Stan` @wraitii @Freagarach any chance to have this?

Hi @Bellaz89, nice to meet you! I have seen your work on SM in my emails, but as you've probably been told I was unavailable because of my PhD. I will be back to programming on 0 A.D. next week, and I will start with the SM 45->52 migration. I have already prepared this migration in a way that will probably conflict with yours, so I apologize in advance. When I'm back I propose that we schedule a chat together (IRC or elsewhere) to discuss how I plan to do the migration to 52 and whether you could help, and after that migration, I would be happy to help you include your work in the game by targeting SM 60, 68 and probably 78 at that point! To answer the question above, yes we plan to update incrementally every time. Thanks for your work and see you soon

Well we need @LordGood's buildings first.

It was early, so do not remember ^^ went for the polite version.

Thank you for your kind words and good luck! I'm not exactly sure what you intended to write there, but “salvage” is more polite than “scavenge” or “savage”.

Alright. Good luck for your future endhaviours i'll see if I can salvage anything from this. I'll make sure to credit you if I do.

nice to see you active again

I kit bashed some existing unit textures together to make some updated Seleucid chain mail for the Thorakites champion, aka Romanized Heavy Swordsman.

planned I guess. @Stan` confirmed?

I made this poll because I’ve always thought that the current market for the Iberian faction lacks a certain recognisability, and even after all these years, I still sometimes struggle to quickly find my allies’ Iberian market in a competitive match. In my opinion it’s a little too small, and looks more like a single market stall, than an actual market. A few years ago Stan` made a new Iberian market, but was not committed. I rather like that market, and decided to ask the community their opinion on the matter. The current Ibrian Market ("Old"): The "New" Iberian market by Stan`: https://skfb.ly/6Qvv9

Hannibal Hero Helmet: