chaosislife
-
Posts
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chaosislife
-
-
Well honestly I'd expect it to not allow you to place less than a whole house, sort of like how the present system won't let you place a foundation in a tree. Once the line runs into an obstruction it shouldn't allow you to place any more houses. And they should obstruct unit movement, the houses themselves would act as a wall to keep the enemy from walking straight into town, they'll have to go around the houses or attack them.....and if they attack them that gives the defender a nice opportunity to take them out. It's like how we've got it right now, we don't have working gates so we can't properly block off enemy movement without walling ourselves in, so instead we just hinder their movement and direct them toward the bottlenecks where our towers can take them out.
I suppose what could be done with the present wall system would be that we basically trade towers for tents and remove the medium and long walls. Then it would just go tent=>short wall=>tent and every line would begin and end with a tent. Tho honestly I was really just looking for tent>tent>tent. Snapping buildings together like WTP was talking about would be great for this too, but I'm trying to work with what I've got......not with something that will probably never happen.
-
Well the techs are still pretty new, can't really expect much there for awhile. Trading and bartering would be a good thing to implement soon tho, I'm sure my enemies have enuf darn wood. Sea maps are.....sea maps.....you'd almost need an entirely different AI setup for those. I've yet to see any of our AIs garrison a building let alone a ship so they'd be stuck on the one island for life.
-
Something to toss in for the later stages of the game might be to have qbot build mills near sizable groups of trees if that group is outside their territory, they seem to get stuck sending civies a quarter way across the map to get wood. While you're at it I'd see about having them ignore cherry trees, berry bushes, etc that are outside their territory. Maybe mines as well. I've gotten them quite a few times by just camping in front of that spot with some archers or by building one of my evil lil modded outposts, garrisoning it, and then building a palisade all around the resource. After I've done that I just send my team back to work and let the outpost pick the enemy off gradually. I've modded it so that no one can simply build a CC wherever they want, they have to first claim the territory with outposts that are set up to build in allied/neutral territory and grant a decent amount of territory. It's set up so the firing range of the garrisoned outpost is just short of it's LOS and the territory is just short of that, no sense in granting territory you can't actually control after all. All this because jubot kept building CCs right on top of mine despite the fact that they clearly haven't scouted the area. Blasted omniscient AI.
-
I'm trying to dig around in here looking for data on how the new walls are made for the purposes of making a new one.....sort of. What I'd like to have is basically a wall made entirely out of houses so I could quickly lay out a line of them and set a team of builders to them without having to worry about half of my builders getting themselves stuck either inside or in-between the houses. Right now I'd probably be fine with a set of tents I could pop up in a hurry so I can build up a force. Problem is that it's obviously not as simple as replacing the (in this case) palisade walls & towers lines with the lines for the houses. That just got me a consistent wall of errors when I tried it. Anyone have any ideas on what needs to be done or where there's some useful info on this?
-
The code is all here (the files with "Pathfinder" in their names).
My current perspective is that users with very fast PCs are the least important when optimising the game - in general it's best to focus on optimising the bottlenecks, so users with very slow PCs are the much more interesting problem
. We want the gameplay to work well for every player; and to support multiplayer and replays (and to preserve sanity when debugging problematic behaviour) we really need the pathfinder to give identical results for every player; so performance is constrained by the slowest player we want to bother supporting (which nowadays is probably still (just about) single-core CPU and middling Intel GPU, i.e. not much opportunity for parallel computing).From someone who doesn't live on the bleeding edge, thanks. It's annoying when new games come with insane system requirements just to run with everything at the lowest settings.
-
I've noticed that the AI seems to have the ability to rally all or at least most of their offensive capable units into an attack squadron at a moments notice, likely because it can keep track of where each and every blasted unit is and select them alot easier than we can. Could we even things out a bit for us mere humans and put in a rally button that would select all offensive units on the map and send them to one location? Unless it already exists somewhere I haven't found yet?
Also, could something be implemented that would make gatherer units move more slowly when they're carrying resources? It would teach the stupid AI a lesson for not dropping off their loads before sending their units to attack me if their army has to travel at a snails pace because they didn't.
-
I think we should have the cheats in multiplayer, but only if everyone in that session is ok with it. Make it a toggle-able thing in the (saved) settings so if one player has it toggled then no one can join the game they're in unless they also have "no cheats" toggled. Also as I said saved settings, it shouldn't be something that can be changed back and forth once the game has been started. If you start the game with cheats you shouldn't be able to turn them off for everyone else once you're done using them. Cheats, mods, hacks, exploits, etc are a tad controversial, there have been a few instances in my life's gaming where the cheats were what made the game playable or fun. Honestly I don't want to spend days building up a character just to get killed by a rat.........or something else thats more RTS...
-
May have to tone down the scrolling speed then tho, right now it's like you're looking at one side of the map and then you hit the screen edge and poof, you're looking at the other side of the map. We don't have the options panel working right now so I don't think there's any way to change that without editing something.
-
Idea : Can we disable scrolling the screen while using the selection box? That way when trying to select all of the units presently on the screen, the view doesn't suddenly veer off to the side causing you to have to go back and try to select them again, and again, and again..... I usually have this problem because I'm trying to get say, all of my workers while they're all running back and forth so I can't just triple click on one without it moving before I've finished the action.
-
Eh, I didn't even notice that. Hope that's it then.
-
It's not the hardware, it seems the game has a hard time on linux alot. You could probably try different drivers. Tho i wonder what would happen if you tried using the Windows version thru wine or thru an actual emulator.
-
I thought the abandonware term only applied to commercial games and software? Meaning that anything which was already free of charge couldn't be considered abandonware.
-
How about a tavern type setup where any civ can hire randomly generated units from other civs? That way instead of being able to build an army of say, toxotes , you could only hire one at a time. It could have the unit show up as available until hired or until it just as randomly goes away. Perhaps it could be like a garrisoned building that is accessible to anyone.
-
I think part of the problem with resources outside the playable area is not being able to see them if they're there. Unless anyone knows a way to see past the edge of the map.
-
It would be better maybe to put this into the in-game Dev Console. Normal Speed -> x1.2 -> x1.5. This would end up being a game option anyway. I personally have no problem with the current speeds, because AGAIN you guys don't think about the larger picture and where the game is heading or read the Design Document.
Charging & Running will be in the game, making units move faster. Technologies to speed up gathering rates, research rates, training rates, movement rates and all that stuff will be in the game. Please be patient. Philip has designed a nice animation system that will speed up animations when stats increase.How about setting up a variety of speed buttons, say 0-9 between the civ icon and the menu button? 0 could be Engine.SetSimRate(0) or a bit higher if that causes the game to crash, then we could use the 0 setting for the pause function so we could still issue orders while paused. We could put the present default speed at the 3 -5 option and go up from there. Personally I use Engine.SetSimRate(3.0) most of the time and then increase to 5.0 or higher near the end of the game. Setting them up as buttons would make it dramatically easier to switch speeds from production/ building to battle modes.
-
In that case you'd probably use "Stand Ground."
You would want them to fight back if discovered and attacked, right? Yes, if there was a way to set their stances (normally) that is. There is a way to do it if they're part of a group but this assumes that every unit in the group should operate under the same stance, which might not be the best idea. Some units might work best on violent while others be on stand ground. It also assumes that there would be other units in the group running next to the rams. I might like to send my rams from one side and my infantry from another. Or what I've been doing which is just to send a group made up of a couple helepoli and five rams to slaughter the enemy's army and then crush their base. I really need to play against actual people instead of torturing jubot.
-
I'm mostly thinking about the ability to post siege weapons in defensive positions during battle so I don't have to have dedicated towers out in a place where they'll be unnecessary after awhile. Tho I think it could also be a good idea for rams since they'd be the only part of an army I couldn't tell to stand still while waiting to "strike at dawn" or something so the rams could very easily go haring off across the map after a woman or a decoy unit. This would screw up my plans an awful lot, especially since they'd likely follow said unit directly back to the enemy camp and get themselves destroyed.
-
I couldn't think of anything beginning with F that wouldn't require bleeping.
-
On bridges, you should try to make sure the water on both sides is nice and deep so the units don't try crossing on the sides of the bridge instead.That's what happens on the bridge demo map. You can make it really steeply deep since it's going to be underwater where no one will see the sudden drop.
-
It's a video game.
It would be nice to have additional bonuses for garrisoning units aboard. Heh, we could gripe about how the towers shouldn't get garrison bonuses to their ranged fire for having melee units inside too.
-
Hmmm... You're not using the modified common api's that rootbot uses are you?
No, I make different directories for testing things that aren't in the actual svn. I figure I've got 500 gigs for some reason right?
-
Ok, haven't noticed any more obvious lag issue but :
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/utils.js line 3 TypeError: a is undefined VectorDistance((void 0),[object Array])@simulation/ai/common-api/utils.js:3 ([object Object],"4529",[object Object])@simulation/ai/jubot/economy.js:450 ((function (centre) {'use strict';if (centre.hasClass("CivCentre")) {var centrePosition = centre.position();var currentdistcheck = VectorDistance(supply.position, centrePosition);if (currentdistcheck < distcheck) {distcheck = currentdistcheck;}}}))@simulation/ai/common-api/entitycollection.js:99 ([object Object],1128,[object Array])@simulation/ai/jubot/economy.js:446 ([object Object],"5122",[object Object])@simulation/ai/jubot/economy.js:440 ((function (ent) {'use strict';var types = self.pickMostNeededResources(gameState);for each (var type in types) {if (!resourceSupplies[type]) {continue;}var workerPosition = ent.position();var supplies = [];resourceSupplies[type].forEach(function (supply) {if (supply.entity.isUnhuntable()) {return;}var distcheck = 1000000;g...
Joy, eh?
-
This seems logical and probably something we'd implement. Same would go for ships.
I don't know if it would make as much sense for ships, I would assume that a ship would have all of the rowers it needed out of the dock. Also the passengers aren't naval folks so they might be too busy with seasickness and complaining and generally annoying the poor crew. It probably would make sense for the ships to get a drop in speed based on having more passengers tho. Don't know that anyone would want that.
-
What about a speed bonus for rams and maybe helepolis units? Something where they gain in speed based on how many units are garrisoned inside? It makes sense to me that a ram at least would be able to move faster if there were six people inside pushing it instead of just the one it presumably comes with. I also think a garrison bonus to a rams attack would be reasonable since six people could throw the timber forward with more force than one.
qBot (yet another AI)
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
I've seen it now, decided to play against jubot instead and jubot is garrisoning it's towers. Neat.