Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2021-12-27 in all areas

  1. Massive war going on, dude in the down-left corner: "eyy im finna build a house over there"
    3 points
  2. Visual indicator when unsetting rally-points Commit number: rP14462 - Add visual indicator when unsetting rally-points (31/Dec/13) Closed ticket: #2117 - [PATCH] Add visual indicator for setting and unsetting rally-points (8/Sep/13) Rally point Add: ctrl+right-click Remove: right-click fscaleOUTPUT.mp4
    2 points
  3. Hi i'm Vrayer on the loby, Ali70 quit without resigning A SECOND TIME after few games where he resign normaly... .... @user1 Cheers commands.txt
    2 points
  4. In the texture file is fine. Extra props are extra draw calls.
    1 point
  5. IIRC relics are spawned near gaia entities on the map. I read from your post, there are no gaia ents. So then the relic code will error saying it can't find a spawnpoint. Maybe a solution would be to add some triggerpoints on the map (these are invisible for the player). Would need to test if that really works.
    1 point
  6. Carthaginian Standard Bearer (might be used for Battalions, if @Freagarach makes them possible. ). A couple of potential positions. Right flank or center.
    1 point
  7. 1 point
  8. My thoughts: I like git; (Bit controversial, but) I also like Phabricator (and, despite its flaws, arcanist!) (So I'd like to see consideration of migrating across to Phorge - once the Phorge team release a guide as to how to do that!) I'd like to see the repository split to differentiate between the engine and the game; I'd like to see binaries off-loaded via git-lfs or some other suitable tool; I'd like to for us to stop committing Windows-only binaries into the repository, but make them available through other means for those unable (or unwilling) to build themselves: The same process could potentially be used to provide "nightly" builds for macOS and some Linux distros as well; (On a related note, I'd also like to see a build script for Windows like the one we have for macOS - e.g. it also fetches and builds the libraries/dependencies. But that's for another thread.) We should continue to be self-hosted where possible;
    1 point
  9. @s0600204< Thanks for chiming in! How do you feel about git, gitlab, splitting repos, basically the things mentioned in the thread?
    1 point
  10. In the initial flurry of interest from/discussion between various concerned parties to continue Phabricator in some form, one user proposed dropping support for subversion and mercurial (so as to permit pushing directly to a phabricator-managed git repo with "git push" instead of having to use arcanist). There was some push back from others about losing mercurial support but not a single voice against the proposed loss of support for subversion. (Link to the discussion - requires login.) Since the fork ("Phorge") has established itself, the only mention to subversion that I can find (in the publicly/guest accessible bits, anyway) is in the list of "projects" for the various components of Phorge. As you might note - a project hasn't been created for subversion, although it is in the list. According to the comments below the list, projects will be created on a "as-needed" basis. So it looks like there's no plan to drop subversion support... but also no-one has stepped forward to express an interest in maintaining it either. (Unlike mercurial, who does have someone.)
    1 point
  11. Crossbowmen vs rams? Good luck with that xD
    1 point
  12. New version coming up! Changes: Banned canopies, so that trees cannot hide buildings or units. Changed all berry and apple tree to pink so that you cannot possibly miss them. Cleaned up unplayable biomes like India and Nubia. Huge changes to trees appearances. Made bushes identical to trees so that no more annoying bushes in India New Temperate: New Nubia: New India: It will lag less because each tree has 2 or 3 less components to render, making India a playable biome @nani This is still based on your autociv. I know this looks ghastly but it is worth it for the visibility improvement! Next step: remove details on the ground, e.g. grass, small bushes, stones and colour the entire floor to the same colour within each biome.
    1 point
  13. I think the main issue with that, was that it was originally only going to give you different heroes and champions, and that was it. If it were to be designed today, I think the choice would be at the beginning. Leaving it until City Phase makes the "Hellenes" for example feel very generic, until you pick "Macedonians" in City phase and get Pikeman and Spear Cav champions. You lose out on all the Macedonian flavor in the early phases. No Thessalians. No Hypaspist champions. No Thracians. No unique architectural elements. No unique techs (until the very end). It wasn't a bad idea for its time, but we know so much more now about how these factions were unique (specifically militarily, when talking about the Greek civs). The original design had no Seleucids and their awesome War Elephants. The original design had no Ptolemaic Egyptians with their awesome architecture and mix of ethnicities. I could see something where you choose your "Civilization" in game setup. So, "Greeks" for example or "Successor States" or "Romans" or "Celts" or "Nomads", and then when the match starts you get a popup where you choose the "Faction" from that Civilization. So, Greeks -> Athenians, Spartans, Thebans. Successor States -> Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemies. Romans -> Republic, Principate, Dominate. Celts -> Gauls, Britons, Celtiberians. Nomads -> Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns. That way, your enemies know what Civilization you chose, but not which Faction until they scout you.
    1 point
  14. There was also an idea floating around sometime on this forum to allow for civ branching with phases. You start as Mycenaean, and get more specific with phases or something. I believe the actual example was the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. The problem is that you can't easily get balanced linear progression for all civs, but maybe that's not a problem.
    1 point
  15. I think @psypherium made a good point about that in his video by saying inclusion wouldn't matter if we didn't have any assets for the hans or any of the other civs. We are not considering the yayoi Japan for inclusion because there are barely any assets, Lordgood never released the buildings. Han, Xiongnu, Zapotecs, Scythians have their own assets which make them eligible. The Kushites got in the game that way. In other words we are stripping potential fun away by not including a civilization that's probably more complete than a few of the 13 civs when they got in the game.
    1 point
  16. All the power. They fought against Seleucus the first and they are an important reason elephants entered the battlefield of the era. Honestly, the story of Seleucus the first is the best story of any greek general of the time and possible all time. Mauryas definitely deserve to be in for that alone. Maybe we then need a fation that actually did matter? Or settle on that we can't agree on this one.
    1 point
  17. Mauryas ended who? Kushites what? Spartans are largely a backwater, insular city state, but they're included because they are famous and fun and add diversity. Mauryas included because they are awesome and add diversity, but had zero contact with Rome. Kushites had a few minor border wars with Rome, but are included to add fun and diversity to the civ roster. Han could be included because "If the Chinese and Romans ever fought, who would win?!?!" is a super common what-if scenario people talk about. Plus they add diversity to the roster and the opportunity for new gameplay.
    1 point
  18. Indeed! If volunteer developers enjoy building new civs instead of doing other things, more power to them!
    1 point
  19. No need for tricks. You can add a flag in the mod.json to remove the check. In theory civs are picked before loading so it *might* work.
    1 point
  20. Now I am wondering. If I make a mod and use the autociv trick for making mod users compatible with non mod users. Then I could host a game and my mod could allow such a random civ grouping, while not all participants in the game room have that mod. Would that give the intended result of drawing a random civ out of a group?
    1 point
  21. One does have to keep in mind that the pathfinding changes done in the previous alpha ("unit pushing") can't and thus would not be integrated in such a mod (since it meant engine changes). So by the end of the day, all the work making and testing such a mod would be a compleat waste.
    1 point
  22. We need the random/group civ options from delenda EST, so that we can ban certain civs with going for random. For example, random except Iberian. Or random greek civ
    1 point
  23. Honestly, I've seen a lot of (well-meaning, but ignorant) comments like: They shouldn't spend time on new civs, they should spend time fixing lag (or insert the commenter's pet peeve)! Ignorant in a sense that generally the people who work on civs aren't the ones who are going to fix lag or networking issues. I think there are a minority of multiplayer players who would prefer fewer civs for balance-sake. Single player players, in general, and I think a plurality or majority of multiplayer players appreciate greater content, which may often include new civs. I'm using a lot of weasel words because hard data is difficult to come by. And even if a player doesn't want new civs, there's no rule telling them they have to play those civs or even allow them in their multiplayer matches.
    1 point
  24. I think that is indeed part of the problem.
    1 point
  25. This is partially because balancing changes usually die on phabricator if it's not already accepted here. However, most balancing changes proposed here or as patches are subjective opinions. If you provide objective values with the changes, the likelihood of it being committed goes up exponentially. Rather than saying slinger attack rate is too high, maybe provide a chart of DPS or something so it's obvious that slingers attack rate is indeed too high. If I was committing stuff, the latter would give me a whole lot more confidence to actually make the change. If something is supposedly overpowered, there would be numbers to quantify that. It's a whole lot more work, but we only need so much advisers, we need more contributors. For the more savvy, run nonvisual Petra tests on the same seed and match up civs maybe. Or hell, integrate such tests on CI too if they offer meaningful insights. As is, forum balance proposals are not doing anyone much good as they don't go anywhere far.
    1 point
  26. frankly this is the first comment against inclusion of new civs that I see. I agree that testing is possible and sometimes happens, even as things are now. I believe, but maybe I'm alone, that few testers can't be as good as many testers. For example, what I see is that most of the ones that tested a24 were rushers, that mean that inside that bubble the game was probably fine. When the game was then tried by the community, turtling and archer spam were discovered in a week after the release. Well this is easier. It was done even recently (I think for a24) but the last week before release. Still it looks strange to me, but I'm not a dev, that creating new installers and ask everyone to download is easier to make a "gameplay mod" as the one they were referring to in this post. Again, it is not a problem of me not being able to install svn. It costs too much effort to the average "competitive" player in the lobby. If the effort is similar to the one needed to install autociv, maybe more people will do it. The point is, sure balancing can be done this way. But if it's easier, more people will help and test. The more they are, the better it would be. What do you mean?
    1 point
  27. I disagree here. Hoplite tradition was not tested a lot and it was added to the game, so I think this point is not true either. You can just put a post on the gameplay forum and see if you get support. For example, I suggested affordable kushite pyramids in p1, and vali made a patch for that. If you do a good suggestion, then you can find people(like me) that can be convinced to make a patch. So it is not so difficult. What the balancing team lacks, is mainly one thing: Action. There was also some testing for A25. My personal experience was that without autocivs hotkeys, it was difficult to judge.
    1 point
  28. I agree. Getting into installing SVN, Trac and Phab, can be frustrating, intimidating and time consuming. It's quite a bump you must get over before you can actually try contributing or feeling like you're actually helping (<- of which i'm often not so sure of myself).
    1 point
  29. 1 point
  30. Indeed. A24 had more than double the changes than a more "regular" alpha, precisely because it had more than double the development period. Imagine the outcry some of the current players would have over the changes from Alpha to Alpha in the early days. lol. Each Alpha adding a slew of new features, new bugs, random stats changes, and entirely new civs! The horror.
    1 point
  31. I feel like everyone forgets that A24 development was an excruciating 2 years, while A25 was only 4 months. So of course it was bound to have more changes. So many cleanups, so many engine changes, so many new features. If it had come early 2019 it probably would have been much smaller. But the technical difficulties, combined with the team split, and the very special period made it incredibly hard to release. But we managed eventually. And then there was the outcry, a burnout, and we managed to get A25 out of the door. Hopefully A26 will stay on trac and still be interesting to play.
    1 point
  32. It wasn't luck. A24 tried to do a lot of stuff. In hindsight, a lot of people have summed up a24's mistakes by saying something to the effect of "in a23, slingers were too strong and archers were too weak, so a24 just should've lessened the dmg of slingers and increased the dmg of archers." That obviously sounds reasonable. But rather than taking that simple approach, a24 tried to do a lot of complicated changes. Some of these changes, like pathfinding, projectile speeds, and rotation times are massive changes with effects that seep into every aspect of the game and ripple through unexpected areas. When you try to change that much all at once there are a lot of unintended and unexpected changes. It's no surprise that the full effect of all these changes wasn't appreciated during development. In comparison, a25 was not as ambitious. It changed relatively few things and the changes that occured to the bigger things, like rotation speed, were far more modest. In short, the changes were more modest, humble and incremental. As a result, their impact was more ascertainable during development. There is a reason to limit these massive changes that impact everything--because it makes balancing possible. If you try to change everything all at once then you're basically making a new game with each alpha instead of adjusting an old game to keep up with current needs. With that said, basically all of the feature changes that are being discussed here (and elsewhere) aren't of the type that would have rippling impacts.
    1 point
  33. I personally don't think something needs to be 100% accurate before it's added. None of the current civs were 100% perfect when they were added by any means. But I suppose if there are niggling issues that bother some folks about the civ, it's okay to address them first. Just know that more issues will arise once they are added, and they will make the current release blockers look trivial. That's how every civ release has been.
    1 point
  34. What is balance and what is not can be a fine line. It feels at the moment that the weight is far too conservative, but I could easily see it swinging the other way. For what it's worth, yes there was a scathing criticism for issues, but I think that in part, that has to be expected with any change. Ideally speaking those should not be taken personally, but that's asking the impossible. Again this is why I think that when making changes that could both add colour to each faction, transparency is key, especially if there will be sweeping overhauls. Likewise, since the work would focus on just one faction at a time, there could be a large amount of balance testing focussed on just it alone.
    1 point
  35. Mh yes, 100% accuracy before something is included is definitely a noble goal, but it also raises the bar extremely. If we applied the good old 80/20 rule that would mean most of the work to include new civs ist still to do, despite them looking nearly finished and them being fun and playable. Which, as we can see in the video is frustrating when looking at it from the outside (Ofc there are also other considerations)
    1 point
  36. Just need to motivate @Alexandermb he hasn't answered me back yet. But it's christmas so...
    1 point
  37. Hence, this thread. I think part of Alistair's point in his rant video is that each Alpha will have a "flavor," based on the changing balance, changing meta, changing features, no matter what, and that's fine as long as new stuff is added and the game's design moves forward. Also, for "Balancers", isn't it fun to balance new things? Sure, you don't want an Alpha to come along and throw everything into complete chaos, but new civs and features to balance should be welcomed by someone who enjoys balancing these things, right?
    1 point
  38. Balance is most certainly not the reason Han chinese have not yet been added to the main game. I myself asked/advocated multiple times in the irc-dev channel for their inclusion, and it looks like the reason(s) they have not been added is something else, although I don't know (if I learned) the exact reason(s) And really, the development power is quite low at the moment. There are about 2 developpers coding, and 2 more reviewing, all in their free time, I don't feel like this will ever get much done in the grand scheme of things.
    1 point
  39. Have to agree I would vote to just include every civ from DE that is over 80 percent done. Then do balancing by grouping civs.
    1 point
  40. I'll add it further. Why should balance team have any say in what features get removed from the gameplay? IMO, it shouldn't. Balancing should be about finding the underdog civs and finding ways to improve them while finding the overpowering civs and either bringing all others to their level or bringing everyone a notch down using stats not features (e.g., not removing Mauryas worker elephant but adding cards to some civs). For example, slingers vs bows vs skrimishers and bringing everything in line with regards to usefulness. Another example is champions. Additionally, Mercs and usefulness of heroes. Balance should encompass: Unit balancing (timings, stats) Structure balancing (timings, stats) Upgrades (timings, time cost) Hero bonus stats What structures build what units (within reason) E.g., Delenda Est is completely different in how Carthage works with Mercs but also similar. It's weirdly cool and more developed IMO. (note: to me this is both a balance and feature change). Civ bonuses and stats (as long as within spirit of civ) Balance should provide suggestions/ideas for (things that won't necessarily get added, but could be nice): Ideas on new units. Ideas on how a civs can work differently (e.g., Ptol/Scythians/Han)
    1 point
  41. I have played 0 AD since mid A23. And I personally feel that there has been to much focus on balance and not enough on actual game improvement. Specifically I am referring to things that make civilizations feel and play uniquely. A24 was a net loss of Civ features for something that already felt like a full fledged game with differentiated civs, it just needed a little balancing to ranged siege and slingers and it would be fine. Then further differentiation of civs could have been done to flesh things out. A25 while nice is still just A24, now with a skirmisher meta, extra blacksmith goodies and better pathfinding. I really hope A26 returns some of the sparkle from A23.
    1 point
  42. Right. IMHO, making compatibility-breaking changes is definitely Alpha, not Beta.
    1 point
  43. Question for discussion: Why should the "Balance Team" have any say in what features get added to the game? Isn't it their duty to balance the features the team decide to add? That's not to say Balance team members can't participate in gameplay feature discussions. But those are two different roles. You can't come into a gameplay feature discussion and then derail it with constant balance concerns. You have to go into a feature discussion with a mind toward expanding the game's features in good faith. My latest discussions on Phabricator have had a few mentions of balance, but all-in-all have been a fruitful discussion about making the gameplay feature work. The exact statistics can always be decided later through gameplay experience and with input from Balancers. Again, Features and Balance are linked in the end, but they are 2 different things. You add the former, then try to do the latter. If it can't be balanced, then the feature can be removed, but you can't know a feature's balance until it's tried.
    1 point
  44. Not if we consider the fact that we (mostly I am guilty) break compatibility quite often. ^^'
    1 point
  45. (in professional video game development, binary assets are committed along with scripts to the same repository. It's standard procedure and the tools are specifically designed to handle that. Plastic or Perforce are pretty expensive though. There is a consideration that most professional video games are also not as code heavy as they don't usually develop engines.)
    1 point
  46. Sorry for dropping in on the discussion like this but I thought I could give my 2 cents on this. I am not a professional video game developer by any means but committing the art assets to the repo, be it art or sound, is very unusual. I have some experience with web development and I want to give an example: suppose we want to create a social media platform using Git or SVN. We create a folder in the server where we are hosting it and send the pictures that users upload to that folder. PHP, the language used for out project, can store and read the files from the folder, and everything works nicely. If for some reason we want to rollback our site (revert everything to a sate in the past) we will need a cached version of that folder containing all the images that existed in that time. We can even set up a script to create a cache everyday or, if our site isn't that big, every week. Take what I say here with a grain of salt but I think that what most developers do is setup a script (maybe even a makefile) that downloads the correct folder containing the resources necessary to build a certain version of the game. Something I have not seen mentioned yet is that including the art in the repository will bloat the commit history because some of these resources, specially graphics, get changed frequently. I also believe that Gitlab will host open source projects without any limitations after going through a "background check" to make sure the project is relevant enough. Given 0AD has existed for over a decade I'm sure Wildfire Games could become one of their partners (it's what they call it, GitLab Open Source Partners). Personally I prefer GitLab because their code review features are better and they don't have questionable initiatives like Github but either will work very well. Another point is that maybe the issue tracker could be integrated into GitLab/Github but I don't know how complex the tracker being used for this game is. I've seen some other projects not want to migrate because they needed to have a lot of information when filing an issue (GPU, OS, version used, last known good version, etc etc etc) and neither platform were satisfactory in that regard.
    1 point
  47. hi guys (sa) first of all sory for my english . ı make mistakes guys ı think team maches should be ranking . like cs go or leage of legends because some people dont care tg ,when they are lose the game they are closing game and we stay 4 v3 or some people have high rate and never play 1 v1 so ı wish ranking team game what do you think about this topic guys
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...