quantumstate

Alpha 12 will have tribute, so the player can give you some of their resources . This is a lot of work for a small graphical improvement. I also like the idea of building bridges. It is quite low priority though.

Formations do not current give a bonus.

I chatted about this a bit on irc. A summary of my point of view is: 1. We plan to have our own multiplayer lobby and server in the future. 2. Fragmentation of the people playing multiplayer 0 A.D. is bad, it makes it harder to find a game unless you join all of the locations. We won't want to continue with GameRanger once we have our own lobby, this will fragment the multiplayer community to some extent. 3. The game is not finished yet, I don't think it is good to encourage masses of people to play at the moment, so there is no great incentive to get a multiplayer lobby soon.

That sounds like an incredibly ambitious task, good luck! Importing models, animations in particular is tricky, so please ask lots of questions so that other people can use the answers when they want to make content. I would encourage you to put everything online like we do with 0 A.D. I'm sure lots of people will be interested and it might provide some extra motivation. How long will you project last?

One of the profilers is always running. Nothing in inherently an approximation by itself, an approximation is required to have an associated exact version which it is approximating. So the manhattan distance can certainly be an approximation for the euclidean distance (quite a bad one since it can be 41% out), an equivalent of the manhatten distance which allows diagonal moves as well (8 possible directions) is perhaps a better sped/accuracy tradeoff. Since in theory the pathfinder should be getting a complete rewrite spending too much effort on the current one does not seem worthwhile.

I think it would be better to allow a more flexible trigger system with pieces of actual javascript allowed. For the more fancy scenarios this would make things easier. A agree that a trigger system would be quite easy to implement. The concern I have is that building such a system will lock us into backwards compatibility troubles. If we release a trigger system with part 1 but then decide that actually it isn't the best design will we be able to change it once a whole set of maps depend on it? My initial reaction is to go for implementing the system though. I agree that the argument about it delaying the release because we will somehow be forced to implement a trigger based campaign is weak. We can just release a game with the possibility for campaigns without actually having any. Campaigns are very easy to add since they don't affect multiplayer compatibility at all so players can install them at will.

The game has a 300 unit population limit. Even top starcraft players are going to struggle with that much micro, we already have unit ranks so I think it is not worthwhile.

I concur that his game type was a lot of fun. I played a lot of CBA matches, the most important thing was good teamwork. I was sometimes frustrating if you got a bad player though. AoK style triggers were a really clumsy way of doing this. I think the CBA map was made using some external software, aok trigger studio. Some of the other castle blood scenarios were liable to crash because of the thousands of necessary triggers. Also the fact that many of the unique castle units were pretty unique really made the game style work, I think to do it well in 0 A.D. you would want to mod the game to adjust some unit stats.

Tilt shift basically emulates a shallow depth of field so you would expect them to loo similar. I think it looks like tilt shift because nobody ever takes landscape pictures with that sort of depth of field so the normal context of seeing a picture like that is with tilt shift.

The pathfinder does not account for fog of war in any way. It is highly unlikely that this will ever change. Fog of war is a graphical effect that only the player sees.

If there is no binary something probably went wrong. Please look at the error messages from those commands and post them here if you cannot work out the problem yourself.

I won't go into large amounts of technical detail here, there has been some work on changing the pathfinder implementation which has stalled. The long pathfinder creates a series of waypoints which are a fixed distance apart, the short pathfinder routes between these. The short pathfinder handles dynamic things such as other units and also creates more direct paths rather than tile based movement. The solution for roads is to not have roads. The team will not encourage implementation of roads for part 1. If some contributor came up with a wonderful well performing pathfinder which works with roads then it might be integrated but this is very unlikely.

OnSimulationUpdate would be better since the simulation component won;t ever get updated faster than that.

The UI can query the simulation through GUIInterface which would provide one way to do things.

Currently there are a couple of forms of A*. The long range one is a standard grid based A* but then there is a short range one which uses more exact geometry directly from the entities which is used to construct a network which A* is run on. (The differences between the two are responsible for siege and ships getting stuck currently.)

This conflicts with making the pathfinder run really fast. Potentially you could do it but we decided it wasn't worthwhile trying when we have enough trouble as it is. Apparently for AoE2 they had a developer spend a whole year of full time work on the pathfinder which gives an idea of how it can be tricky.

Try running the combat demo map with the simulation serialisation checks enabled (http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/12930/). See http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1737 for the trac ticket.

It is an interesting idea. A similar thing would be to add a tax for tribute to discourage too much tributing. I'm still unsure about either idea though.

I look forward to admiring it .

I think this should be fixed by http://trac.wildfire...hangeset/12916/ please could you test?

I agree with alkazar here. We shouldn't be doing things like this because of lag, if we want fewer units moving around we can decrease the pop cap for a similar effect. The idea adds complexity and is basically another rule to learn. I can't see how it is strategic, it is just one more micro thing to keep track of.

It says to build 4 town structures, not 4 different types of town structure . Town phase structures are the structures which are enabled in town phase (except for civil centres). It seems to be very difficult to find succinct wording for the tooltip which conveys this information.

This is expected behaviour. It could probably be changed to not do this, however during game play it is likely to need a lot of cpu power anyway so I don't know whether it is worth spending time on this, I can't see many reasons for a player to sit in the menu unless waiting for a multiplayer game to start. Having a laptop which overheats under load is a hardware problem.

I am the copyright holder of original works I post in the Wildfire Games 0 A.D. Art Development forum. I hereby release all original works I uploaded to this forum in the past, and those I will upload in the future, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.