Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by gudo

  1. My math was right, my terminology was wrong >_> You're correct. Anyways, I discovered two trading bugs and reported them as tickets 1545 and 1546.
  2. Traders were too powerful. Pre-nerf, once I got two markets set up to give 8 resources per trade, I'd just kill off all my women and replace them w/5 carts of each resource. The income was incredibly fast, as I would get resources at each stop. Plus, I could build it inside my city making my economy immune to harassment. (Since carts can trade with docks, on maps with water, it was cheaper to build one dock and one market.) Used to be, the time a trading cart took to get 8 units of resource in trade was as long as the time it took a woman to farm 8 units of food. When you factor in the the additional time it takes for her to drop off the food and return to harvesting, trading was actually faster. In fact, I think any trading distance higher than 8 units (since trade value grew exponentially) used to be faster than gathering (and the further away, the faster it would be.) The only thing was you had to make a large investment and wait longer between payments. I'll see if I can't figure out where that balance lies now. [EDIT]Yeah, did the math, did a quick and dirty test too. Looks like trade with yourself now breaks even with gathering when the trade route value is 40 resources. When you consider that the farmer will have to make 4 trips to the mill and back to boot, trading becomes slightly faster. Trading with a foreign power at that same distance has a value of 70 resources per cart though :/ So it's slower than trading with yourself and slower than gathering. (because you get resources at each end, remember?) We might want to raise the value of INTERNATIONAL_TRADING_ADDITION if we want trade with other players to be a more attractive alternative to gathering. I've also discovered an interesting bug with traders, I'll look into it more, then post a ticket.
  3. That is a tall order considering how almost the entire Mauryan faction still needs to be modeled. After, it would be pretty cool, I agree
  4. Well, I just realized I don't need to be uploading them anyways hahaha. You can get them off of trac. Here's the link for the fortress mesh (updated just after I uploaded that. Blender compatability update, it didn't change the structure.) Download link is at the bottom of the page. Props turn out to be in the props folder. Here they are. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/art/meshes/props/hele_fortress_shields.dae http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/art/meshes/props/hele_fortress_gate.dae http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/art/meshes/props/hele_fortress_props.dae
  5. I think this is the only mesh for the fortress...
  6. Here are the current textures and market files. I'm pretty sure they're what you're looking for.
  7. Is there any particular reason why the art team doesn't use trac? seems like a handy way to keep track of who's doing what.
  8. Test the smaller area for sure. This lets us jam the gate open with a well timed rush.
  9. Hooray double post. Found another bug, submitted as ticket 1531. Currently, it is impossible to replace wall towers once they are destroyed without first destroying all connecting wall segments.
  10. >_> I took another look at it and realized I got confused. I thought the wooden crenelations were like on the scout tower: perfectly even and round. I didn't see that each boar was it's own piece of the model. Still though, it looks like it was designed as a stand-alone structure and not as a piece of a wall. It's certainly usable, don't get me wrong I'd rather you work on replacing some of the outdated Hellene buildings and making new Mauryan structures.
  11. Check out the Iberian gate. Not only is it low poly, and could stand a remodel anyways to bring it up to Civ Center/Temple/Fortress quality, but the way the gate's round towers joins with the round towers right next to it look bad. On a totally un-related note, I've just discovered that you can build walls on top of gates. And then turn those walls into gates themselves. And then build another wall over the top of that I've written it up in ticket 1529.
  12. You know... If you check trac, specifically changeset 12081 you'd see that gates are in SVN. Currently, they lack animations and a few may need to be re-modeled. But the important thing is that they are in and they work!
  13. Well.... A circle is more than just a round shape. In this way, one could say that circle maps are "bigger." But since in game, we make a square, then trim off the edges, square maps are actually bigger in this case /tangent
  14. If we had more diplomacy options, then I would support this. eg: Economic Alliance: May trade with allied player, gather in their territory, build dropsites/houses/fields in their territory. Military Alliance: May build military buildings in allied territory, may garrison in allied structures.
  15. Sorry guys, was on vacation, I'll update the list soon. BobJelly, I'll remove you from the list. And I thought it was already agreed that we wouldn't remove people who made contributions that were subsequently replaced.
  16. We should push back A11 just long enough to get even a bare-bones implementation of this in game. It could really help build a following, as it wouldn't be so hard to get a game going with a lobby.
  17. Nice. I think this will certainly add some uniqueness to the Civ. It could use some special props, to make it very apparent that it's not a normal fighting elephant at a glance. I wonder how AI writers will work the mobile dropsite into their creations... Apart from having no-where to train them, I haven't found any bugs with the support elephant. (They also need a name.)
  18. It's not set in stone yet, but there might be. For the latest version of the planned profile, see Civ_Mauryans on the trac wiki. So far, there are 4 elephant units planned for the Mauryans. An archer, a siege elephant, and two hero units. Do you have any idea for an "economic" elephant unit?
  19. I don't think making the econ elephant just a dropsite is a good move gameplay wise. Perhaps it might be better to just make them super worker unit. ie they gather wood at a rate of 10x normal, can carry 200 in a full load, have a ton of hitpoints and can help build (can't place foundations though). They'd be expensive and slow though, but I think it's do-able.
  20. That would be pretty cool. I was thinking like, a mobile drop-site type unit. Gatherers in the field would load collected resources onto the elephant which would then take them to a dropsite. Some other way to show them as the biggest and bestest beasts of burden. But that sounds like quite a bit of extra coding. Perhaps just an elephant merchant like you suggested.
  21. What happened to Elephant Stables as a special structure? Considering the elephant's power and flagship status, I think it's appropriate that they get their own building to train from, like most of the other civ special units (Spartan Gym, Persian Stables, etc.) We would then have a building for the elephant specific techs. It would also be @#$%in if we could get a third, economic elephant unit. I honestly have no idea how it would work in this game though.
  22. One thing the client side of the lobby software should do IMO is link into the 0AD IRC chat. Connecting to the lobby would also then log you into an IRC client and automatically connect you to QuakeNet. You would then be able to browse game and chat (to set up matches, etc) If you just wanted to idle in the chat, then you could do it with a traditional IRC client and not have to have the game running 24/7.
  • Create New...