Badmadblacksad

Good job, that's not the easiest task!

I think we should switch to c++11. It makes every programmer happy to work with the latest technology.

It's now online. You can check out the everything here : https://github.com/badmadblacksad/0ad. On linux (debian) you just have to apt-get install libgloox-dev, on windows the binaries/header are included. Then you just have to compile as you would normally do, and see a 'Lobby' button in the 'Multiplayer' menu. Please report back any bugs you see.

I think you need to rebuild the game.

Localhost.. need to be sorted out.

Mostly taken from Erik's wish list : user profiles friend list private messages user management (currently doable via the ejabberd admin page only) displaying in-progress games for rejoigning purpose displaying more infos about games (players, map preview..) auto-downloading of a map if a player does not have it NAT traversal

As far as I tested it (on my computer only), it works

I just updated the ticket with a new patch containing a slightly improved ui (image 1) and a filter box (image 2).

I would prefer these images not to be a capture of the full map but rather of a of a local area showing it's traits (e.g. a river, an island, a cliff, a forest ..). It would be more beautiful IMHO, avoids to reveal too much information (preserve the map discovery excitement), and give the player an idea of what the maps looks like, so that he can pick one.

Yes, that's technically possible but I don't know why we would like to do that.

There will be no irc in the lobby but a xmpp (jabber) room.

@Pureon: yes you can access the lobby in the game. @Klaus: It would be great to be able to avoid the NAT/firewall issues. I m not familiar with upnp technologies at all, I will have to read things before attempting to answer something relevant... Thanks for your ideas everyone.

Hi all, As some of you might remember, I was working on a multiplayer lobby many months ago. I would like to discuss with you the features you would like it to have. At the moment it still very basic, with only a list a created game and connected players. New ideas could give me the motivation to start working on it again, so do not hesitate. Thanks. (I attached a patch to a new ticket) http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1504

That statement is not fully accurate, in Praetorians some units cannot go into forest (mounted units (apart from some Barbarians ones) and pikemen), some other cannot walk in shallow water (heavy infantry like legionnaries). I know nothing about BFME2, I will watch some videos. I think that formation is the killing feature 0ad miss. Whatever we choose to do, we should do it well. IMHO having only the same system than AoE would be disappointing.

Hi. Here is a link to a video a game called Praetorians. You can see how are their formations. No sure if it will be usefull, but it might give you some ideas. (I don't like the fact that their formations can overlap, but other than that I think its a pretty good system. Of course I also like our individual units. A combination of both system would be great imho.)The great thing with their system is that they only need to do one long pathfinding for the entire formation. A player can not order a formation to go somewhere if there is not enough room for it there. The formation temporarily tightens (some units in the formation overlaps) if there is not enough room around it. There is also a "snake" effect in the curves. The formation size is limited (to 6*5 units). We can't see it in this video, but Praetorians formations can be splitted Just to let you know what impressive work these Spanish guys did back in the day.

Yes. we would host the lobby server ourself. About the ELO thing, it's far from beeing a priority, imho. But people might not agree.

Hello. Yes there are plans to create an in-game multiplayer lobby. I started to work on this. But don t expect it to work soon, there is still a few things that cause me headache.. things that are working: _account registration _connection _send / receive messages to / from the server _requesting and receiving the games list _host / join game (not very well yet) things to do: _retrieving the public IP address _NAT punchthrough ? _make the server more robust _better GUI _there is also a lot of things to improve everywhere

don t have time to read everything, sorry. But I read your idea about having a slowly-regenerating pool of "population available for training" in addition to the current population limit defined by the number of houses. I think it s a great idea. In fact I had the same, thanks for writing it. It would prevent the game to have the same drawback than AOK had, where winning a battle could sometimes be more a matter of having a great economy and a continuous production of units rather than real strategy (where a player take care of its units). If people agree, it would be nice to add to the todo list

In AOK, I found it very annoying to have to destroy every enemy building and units (particularly villagers) to win. Market, kennels, houses, farms, corrals, and villagers should not be conquest critical, I think. Since the remaining soldiers will still be an hassle, we could also consider implementing an "inferiority" feature. When a player got far less soldiers than the weakest of its opponents, these units could be circled on the minimap (and we could also remove the fog of war around them on the normal map) to avoid any boring endless game. (see the game named Praetorians)

hello the new album of the Red Hot Chili Peppers is being broadcasted right now. go here (then click on, e.g., the London event) if you think you could enjoy it. I do!

Ok, should be fixed now.

please copy-paste the error message you get.

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai

Thanks for your answer Philip. I commited a patch. Feel free to tell me / change all the things you don't like.

great I bet you didn't see this file did you try to do something along those lines ? in entitycollection.js EntityCollection.prototype.attack = function(target) { Engine.PostCommand({"type": "attack", "entities": this.toIdArray(), "target": target, "queued": false}); return this; }; in entity.js attack: function(target) { Engine.PostCommand({"type": "attack", "entities": [this.id()], "target": target, "queued": false}); return this; }, and then the same with "garrison" var cmpRanged = Engine.QueryInterface(entity, IID_Attack); if (!cmpRanged) return; var range = cmpRanged.GetRange(type); hope thats help. never coded anything related to bots.