gudo

A few days ago, I reached a milestone with the credits. I've sorted through all the contributors.txt and team profiles! Just a few questions before I post my list so far to the apps/contribs sub forum: Where should I put Kimball? Profiles says he's retired dept head, but his forum group is for active dept heads. Do you like how the contributors are divided? Should they be more or less subdivided in the various depts? Any other comments?

It would be pretty cool if we were able to define barter rates in the map files (like light data.) That way, we could have wood cost more in deserts, less in forest heavy maps, etc.

The standard I was going by wasn't code so much as an accepted patch. Despite how trivial the patch is, it was accepted. Good 'ol edge cases. I'll probably pull him off the list though (with a foot note in case it's decided he should be included.) If any other devs have an opinion, I'd love to hear it.

Oh right, forgot about the fish check. I'll take care of that. Also I'll look into who made testbot. I did notice that mjesteger's contribution was trivial, but I included it because consensus earlier was that the credits should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Odds are one or two people who did even less will make the credits. No need to list contributions other than actual code. There'll be some sort of shout out to all those who helped with testing and whatnot.

I found myself with a tiny bit o time to work on my list of people to include on the credits. I figured that now that qBot is in SVN (grats btw), I should go through and list all the people who helped in it. I got quantumstate and infyquest, but there was also a commit on github by a mjsteger. So, does anybody know who this guy is? Specifically, does s/he have an account on WFG forums that I can credit? I searched his name, and nothing came up in posts or in members. While looking for him, I also came across nikitakit. I'm pretty sure nikitakit hasn't contributed to qBot, but if you could confirm that for me quantum, that'd be great. Again, no sign of this person on WFG.

Is it barter? (changeset 10588) Or something even more awesomerer?

I certainly wasn't going to the profiles as my only source Just as a source. Adding everybody from them would help me blast through the trac commits I think. I was under the impression that all that was needed for credits was a user name + real name (if available.) All the profiles have that much info at least. And the people who disappeared without doing much doesn't seem to be a problem. If their profile go deleted, then no biggie. If it didn't... Well, safe to include rather than exclude. If you want to make me a team member, I'd be fine with that, but it'll be a while before I get around to digging through the staff archives. I still need to dig through 10k commits, and then double check every ticket with [patch] before I start looking elsewhere.

I've been making some progress on this. Listing at least one contribution by each member was getting pretty cluttered, so I removed it. You'll just have to trust that I found a contribution for each of the above I came across the Team Profiles page which is looking like it'll make things a whole lot easier. Sadly, looks like it was only kept updated to Nov '09. Does anyone know how accurate that was? If I could just pull names off that and skip 5 years of commits, I'd be ecstatic. Also, when did the project go open source? I wanna know when I have to start really keeping an eye out for contributions by people that may not be credited elsewhere. Isn't "root" an auto-generated user on trac? If so, then who did this commit?

Yeah, I saw the '04 (and the low changeset number) and figured it had to be super old... But it hasn't been removed from trunk so I figured it must still be in the game somewhere. Though now that I can look at the files that are actually installed, I'm not seeing it. Shame.

Thanks for answering my questions. I'm liking the listing by Dept. idea. I wonder if there should also be a separate credit listing for donators in game as well... Anyways, how's this for a dept listing Engine/Programming Dept Heads and Major Contributors AI (General, Jubot, any other bots included in default) Engine Misc Art/Content Dept Heads and Major Contributors Art (2d, 3d, concept) Mapping (Handmade maps, RMS module, RMS rulesets) Sounds (Effects, Music) Misc Other Hosting Misc Donators (if included) Pledgie Drive 1 Pledgie Drive 2 Flattr Dear God, no. I was just doing it because I found myself with some spare time and thought that we might want to list completed tickets (ie: "Jubal - 6 patches.") Now that I know I don't have to, I'll stop (and pull them from the list above.) Still gonna have to go through them though, see who belongs in what category >_>

Hmmm... not really any sort of thread for this, but with both Alpha 8 and Christmas on the way, why not post here? What's the deal with the Santa stuff? Some sort of Christmas Easter egg? (Only the most Christian of holidays )

Not committing to it just yet, but I figure I can help whoever decides to tackle this. Main focus right now is the people who have done few things. If anyone wants something added to the list, either PM it to me, or post here ;P [EDIT] You can view my latest compilation of credits here. [/EDIT]

Just wanna be clear, I'm not against the idea of sending or gifting resources to other players. I'm just against the game forcing a ceasefire against the will of a player. There should never be a mechanic that takes control from a player. That's part of the risks of engaging in diplomacy. Send bribes at your own peril. Very real world. The players offering a bribe should be the one to come up with the incentive (there are already considerable benefits to calling a ceasefire even without bribes.) Weighing back-stab vs ceasefire is also a decision that should be made by the players. I see no role for coded ceasefire enforcement in this system. I don't see how a forced ceasefire could possibly escape abuse. Not only is there the problem of players using it as a barometer, but it's easily exploitable. Say you and I are in an alliance and I decide to backstab you. I send you a bribe, you accept because why not? It means I can't attack you. (Or, you send me a bribe ironically to see if I'll decline and backstab.)I now use the forced ceasefire to march my army into your city where I can take my time positioning my troops. Once the ceasefire ends, I break alliance and attack. You might see this coming, and if it weren't for that forced ceasefire you could break alliance and intercept my troops. With a code enforced ceasefire, there's nothing you can do to stop me from simply strolling past your perimeter defenses and walls, reaching your city. Sure, you'll be able to position your troops too but you can't possibly stop me from setting up my attack. Say good bye to your civ center. Hope you like loosing loyalty. Now suppose you and are on opponents and I've got you on the ropes. You offer a bribe to buy some breathing room. I accept. Now, I can scout your territory and troops to my hearts content and there's nothing you can do about it. I can march my troops right past your towers and fortresses and into the juicy economic heart of your empire. Again, you've handed me your civ center without a fight. Don't forget, backstabbing isn't the only reason to break alliances.

I agree with adding a fee for trading and using an allies drop site. So long as they are sufficiently small, there should be no problem. I have to disagree with cooperation as a technology. It seems really rather silly. What would be better IMO is, as a diplomacy option, a variety of alliance/treaty options. For example, I could enter into an economic alliance which would let me trade with him and use his drop sites, and work on/repair his structures but not build in his territory. Furthermore, (assuming there's some technology or condition that gives troops a penalty for being in enemy territory) any of my troops that enter his territory suffer the relevant penalties for being in a enemy territory. Or we could enter a military alliance whereby I could construct defensive buildings in his territory, work on/repair his structures but not trade with him or build economic buildings. Furthermore, any of my troops that enter his territory gain the benefits of fighting on friendly land (assuming again that any are implemented.) Another option for a full alliance would give me the benefits of both. This method gives me better control over what exactly my ally may do in my land. If he researches Cooperation 2, what's to stop him from taking my strategic resources? I may get a small fee, but what if I wanted that whole forest to myself? Suppose he's a troll, or plans on backstabbing me. If he researches Cooperation 3, what's to stop him from building towers and barracks in my territory even if I don't want him to? I understand the depth of gameplay that this sort of potential backstabbing adds, but it should only be possible if I decide to take that risk. What he can do in my territory should be up to me, not him. He can either respect the terms of the alliance, or he can break the alliance. As far as diplomatic tech goes, I think the following would be better: {civ} Language: Allows you to initiate diplomatic relations with the civ. Without this tech, the only diplomacy you can do is to either declare war or remain neutral. With this tech, you can enter into any of the three alliances above. Prerequisite to all other civ based technology. Money Changing: Unlocks trading with other civs... Assuming you can speak their language. This might be a prerequisite to "Economic Alliance" as stated above. {civ} Engineering: Allows you to repair or assist in the construction of building created by another civ. (Note: This wouldn't unlock any of the three alliance modes I've described, but it would make them more potent. Also, this is essentially "cooperation 1") Optional: Should you capture a building belonging to another civ, you couldn't repair it without this tech (so it's internally consistent and useful to players who avoid alliances) {civ} Theology: Without understanding your allies spiritual needs, you cannot service them. Your priests may now attend to allied troops belonging to the civ. Furthermore, you may co-opt their religion to drain their loyalty faster (if you're opposed to the civ, not allied.) Cartography: Removes Shroud of Darkness (FoW still applies) for your allies on territory that you've explored. One thing that I think is very important with diplomatic techs is the possibility of dual use. Since some techs would have a use even for people who don't enter into alliances, it helps lower the "cost" of not entering into an alliance. Also, if diplomacy will have a "cost" in research, dual use technologies also prevent civs from suffering too badly in their place on the technology curve should their ally die or the alliance break. Hmmm... If the ceasefire is enforced by the game, then it's a bad idea. This would be terrible for backstabbing. Say I offer you a bribe, if you accept, I know I'm safe (since the game forces you to not attack.) If you decline, I know I'm not (since there'd be no reason to turn it down UNLESS you planned on attacking.) Permit the gifting of resources, but if you want a ceasefire, you need to make an agreement player to player.

[EDIT]See next post.[/EDIT]

ESDF FTW But seriously, FTW. "a" for attack-move is free, and "g" for garrison is right there. I suppose a long term goal would be user-defined keys, which would make this whole issue moot.

I still think "g" should be the garrison hotkey... IIRC, the AOE games did it that way. It's also easy to remember and frees up the ctrl key. Of course, then I would have to wonder why "A" isn't the attack-move hotkey...

AI-Amsterdam hasn't logged in since July 21, 2011. So I'm pretty sure the project is dead. However...

The change makes it so that you can't farm opponents farms. Gaian farms are still fair game. Honestly, I like the change. Nine times out of ten, when I come across an enemy farm, I wan to destroy it because I'm raiding. If I've already driven off the defenders, (and so could farm) then I'm probably too busy pressing the attack to farm it. Besides, when you consider the distances you're farmers would have to travel to deposit their goods it's not really worth it anyways. Farms are only useful if you can build a farmstead nearby (meaning you have territory.) If that's the case, just expand your influence and capture it via loyalty.

Heads up quantamstate, as of r10348, the farm thing is a non-issue. Also, IsSeaCreature has been renamed to just SeaCreature.

Only unit-producing buildings (except corral) and building producing units should be conquest critical IMO.

Just did some testing, and SplitBot is the "best" of the bots. Despite a whole bunch of building placement crazyness that causes it to waste considerable time, it still grows in population faster than the other bots, builds siege sooner and attacks in larger waves. Though an interesting idea occurred to me, perhaps it grows so fast because it builds slowly. Sure, it wastes resources when it puts the foundation down, but that blocks the builder agent from building and placing more buildings, freeing up more resources for spawning units. Plus, it gets those resources right back when it cancels the stuck structure. Essentially, the delay in building means an acceleration in spawning. Edit: I was playing some more 4 way FFA, when SplitBot started throwing errors.

The DD certainly does need some work, but in the short term have you tried getting in touch with the devs via IRC? It's #0ad-dev on quakenet.

Just discovered a serious flaw in the latest version of qBot. I set up a random map w/4 players in free for all. Me, SplitBot, JuBot, and qBot. Shortly after the match stared, qBot sent about 10-15 women across the map to go farm off of one of JuBot's farms. It was the nearest farm to them. I think the problem is that qBot doesn't check ownership of farms, and the game permits farming of enemy farms. Needless to say, all the women were killed (nice defensive behavior form JuBot, and the farm was on the other side of a tower >_>) Jubal take note, I also saw your bot do this.

The "building inside farms" problem is not unique to SplitBot, JuBot does it too (as of latest build no-less.)It's probably due to the way that the bots are checking if they can place a building there. The obstruction map checks for what, passability? If you check the structure template around line 46, you can see it has all the obstruction types on. For farms however, their template disables obstruction for path-finding and movement. If they AIs check for those, but not say BlockFoundation, then it makes sense that they'll build in farms when they won't build in any other structure.