FeXoR

Perfectly I'd look into the code or ask at http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=0ad-dev what's up about this (In fact it looks like a bug to me). If I felt to lazy for that (or as a temporary solution) I'd set it to deep water to not confuse the player that this area would be passable (If meant for the player at all though bots would likely be confused too).

One reason for this might be that we use different code (for e.g. slope) in the different parts of the game (e.g. Engine, Simulations, Random maps). [i'd prefer one shared lib for such functions] In this case however it's more likely that it's simply the "Import Heightmap" functionality that cuts a part of the image (AFAIK to please the engines need for square maps with even side lengths). So the original and the resulting map do not fit. Also take into account that if the image is (eventually cut to) X*X in size the slope map is [X-1]*[X-1] in size because you need 2*2 heights to get a plane witch than has a slope. The "neither deep nor shallow water" thing is entirely unknown to me.

Hi tomoco. Have you tied NOT to enter windowed mode? What happens if you start the game with your mentioned settings? Alt+Enter caused some problems for me too but just using fullscreen (and Alt+Tab to get to other programs temporarily if needed) works flawlessly.

I'll check this. ATM I got no time though. May take a month to get back to the random maps but I really intend to finish this map until end of the next free period (in about 3 months). I'm sorry for this taking so long as well but I need to proceed in my real live.

Towers as defensive buildings can only be build in owned territory and they can't move. They should be strong (have a good price/value ratio) in early game to enable defensive strategies vs rushes/offensive strategies. They loose their strength in city phase due to availability of siege engines and they should not get much stronger then (ATM there's no upgrade at all for towers in this phase though a general "tougher buildings" tech might be good - but no offensive upgrade). Additionally stone (and metal) as a resource is much more valuable than food (and on most maps wood as well). So the price might seam low at the beginning but not being able to pay for catapults (or in a lesser extend slingers) later on (or have to barter/trade for the needed stone) is a real drawback of excessive use of stone early in the game (and I feel slingers cost to much stone for vilage phase units - as swordsman cost to much metal IMO). Building a civic centre early in front of the enemy base is expensive and risky. Just a bit of scouting can counter this. If a player succeeds with this strategy its entirely OK IMO if he got "repaid" for taking the risk of loosing the resources when his CC is taken down. IMO defensive structures should be available even earlier (village phase, not necessarily defense towers but some sort of tower stronger than the outpost but only buildable in owned territory) but that would not fit the phase design well and the civic soldiers could be considered an early defense though they can be used offensively as well (which is my point).

Sounds very promising! I guess triggers will be available for all map types (Scenarios, Skirmish, Random)? If we get something like the Warcraft III trigger editor that would be most astonishing (at least for me). It might be good to change map previews to be in the same location than the maps/trigger scripts as well (same path, same base name, no need to add it to the .json file).

Mythos_Ruler: sanderd17's concerns are quite real (I wanten to mention that too). It can likely be handled but has to be for each map individually. I was hoping to have a general function that places the resources close to the start locations alongside the starting entities. But: - The inner part (radius ~0-10 from the center of each players civ center) is occupied by starting entities - The outer part (radius ~15-25) has to be free for the Iberian civ bonus walls. (I tried to place the resources between them and this map adopted that derivation) So there's already not much space left for the mines (assuming 25 tile radius for each players base in total which already means on small maps with many players there is not much space for the random distribution of things). The resources might be best placed about 25-30 tiles away (Not sure if that means non-Iberian players see them initially or need to scout) However, on most maps there's barely enough place for the Iberian walls. So conversion of the existing RMS will at least need some time. (The "Maps and Biome Guide" doesn't really consider the Iberian walls AFAIK. - The small woods close to the start locations will collide with the wall - On Alpine maps the mountains collide with the wall - On forest maps the wall might block narrow passages etc. And until now we can't check this collision during generation (but there is a patch to get the entity data). So I intend to add tile classes for the walls that can then be avoided by anything else. I personally don't like the tile class implementation too much because it's one of those things making the RMS generate so slow (I think mainly due to the many function calls but I can be wrong) So on my maps I try to avoid avoid classes and similar stuff.) PLZ consider that adding more general rules for RMS (Like resource portions based on biome, increased map sizes, civ bonus like the Iberian walls etc.) means leaving the RMS less room for differentiating over all map design. This also goes for different resources needed for different factions at town phase. I don't want it to be changed by all means but it's for sure a thing to consider. It might be best to check in RMS scripts for the players civ so: - If Iberian the needed space for the base is a circle of 30 tiles (quite huge) - If not Iberian 20 tiles radius base circle will do (OK) I don't like the idea to check that every time you place anything for the general random map design though.

Mythos_Ruler: I somehow agree with that but some civs need metal for citizen solders (Which is questionable in the first place IMO). And if the next stone/metal mines near the start locations should not be inside the "base space" (like a circle with 20-30 tiles radius) where should they be? The other resources not inside the base radius are in general randomly distribute across the map. On the other hand the Iberian civilization bonus walls will not be that strong if no metal/stone is inside to be gathered (which I consider a good thing). I don't mind that much and the necessity to scout for them but some PPL already complained about having different ratios of resources distributed on different maps. If you have concrete ideas/design propositions PLZ let me know. To the map concerning this: AFAIK the stone/metal mine derivation comes from Deep Forest. When taking away the resources at the start locations it might be good to add 1-2 of them per payer (should be easy).

I agree that the new trading system might be confusing e.g.: The probability may be confusing at first glance (traders actually only trade one resource. But it might even teach PPL how probability works ^^) But I strongly agree that having all traders settings in one place is MUCH better to handle in the end.

To upload files try "use full editor" below the editor widget. You can't upload all file types so maybe best to zip it (zip files are allowed).

Without the log files and system information we can't do anything but guess. So please upload them (you have to "use full editor" to upload files). You cannot upload all file formats so maybe best to just zip the log folder (zip files are allowed).

Maybe. In this case adding your system_info.txt would help to figure this out (to find it see http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths) However, I can't help you in this case.

There is a limit of about 10.000 entities (interactive objects like resource entities) at least the last time I had trouble with that (in my case trees). AFAIK the number of actors (non-interactive objects like props e.g. shields and decorative plants and stones) is unlimited.

Informative techs (nothing strongly recommended, just ideas): - Basic information gathering: Activate minimap (before it could just be black) - Nightwatch: Increase vision range of buildings (maybe multi level tech with increasing price) - Scouts: The map is explored (not revealed, no buildings/units/borders are updated just the terrain) - Alliances: Gain ally shared vision (Only for the side that researched it, like in the previous post) - Cartographers: CCs, Army camps and territory borders are updated as the player had vision on them (may be a multiple time use tech and has to be payed again to refresh the information) - Spies: Gain enemy vision (cost should depend on total number of enemy units)

That will still invokes problems: - If a game is hosted and each player has to ready up, it can be abused by any player by just entering games and not ready up. So that's a bad solution. - If we assume player "agree" to play a game by entering a game (the consequence of the above) ALL setting have to be seen to all players entering the game (so they see what they are indirectly "agreeing" to). - Any non implemented rules are 1st not obvious to all players entering a game (and thus the entering player cannot silently agree to them) and 2nd tend to be subjective so... see http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18624#entry290973 Game rules should work, nothing more, nothing less. They are better ofc. if they are liked by more PPL (actually playing the game, well, a bit more complicated since the fun * time * person is what I think would count in the end ^^). If you want other rules, build a fun mod with this rules in place (or try to convince PPL to abide the rules but don't complain if they don't - even if they said so. And this is in the long run more work than making a mod...)

If you use squareroot calculation anyway you again could use negative exponential exhaustion (like we already use for armor): currentAttackSpeed = baseAttackSpeed * 0.99 ^ (100 - actualStamina%) Meaning (Stamina -> Attack Speed): 100% -> 100% 75% -> 78% 50% -> 61% 25% -> 47% 0% -> 37% So a fresh unit deals about triple damage compared to a fully exhausted unit (which is OK IMO, otherwise the base could be changed. E.g. for 0.993: 0% Stamina -> 50% Attack Speed). I don't know how well the engine handles speed modifiers though. It would be for sure easier if just the damage would be scaled (though attack speed would be more realistic) To improve calculation speed I think 10 "exhaustion grades" with fixed modifiers would do. Have anyone thought about when and how much stamina is lost dependent on the actions BTW? (IMO it would be running (linear dropping), special moves like charging (a fixed amount per action, e.g. 30%), regenerating when idle (linear, about 1 min for 100% I guess) and maybe fighting (just negative regenerating would be OK here IMO))

This topic might help figuring out what's the problem (from the linked post on mainly): http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16398&page=2#entry248132 And I remember of some talking with wraitii (I think) that my video card does not have enough "channels" for some settings or so. I can't find the post though. Starting the game with this settings (not changing them in-game) seams to work fine (I can't see any graphic weirdness) but still errors occur: interestinglog.html local.cfg.txt user.cfg.txt

Yes, I think it's a hardware and/or driver issue. Since it works without preferglsl it's not that vital. I tried again with the recent SVN and it looks better. I did: - Update SVN to revision 15148 - deleted the cache - Started the game (with preferglsl false) - Loaded a map (waited until everything is cached) - Turned preferglsl on (Similar structures like in the top screenshot appeared) - Turned off Shadows (I can't see any flickering but still some error messages appear) - Exited the game interestinglog.html mainlog.html

Yes, I see the difference. And still for me defense towers (those not in walls) has a higher gameplay value (despite the much lower health) because of their longer range. Structures are immobile and can't be build outside owned territory. Having not much range means covering less ground and the enemy decides whether he attacks structures or not. so the decision what happens in the game is on the side of the non-defensive player. So for me (personally) walls and wall towers are not worth to be build while defense towers and fortresses are. I'm sorry but I don't have the feeling it's about balancing here at all (Maybe take a deep breath, relax and try to find out what you really mean. Then I may be able to give you more helpful answers)

IMO the over-all behavior (Aggressor/Fortifier/Economist) would be best chosen by simply choosing the AI (though some AI's might have settings like this, too). For high granularity of AI difficulty a health modifier would be easiest (and could be used for all players including humans). In WC3 such thing is present and ranges from 50% to 100% health. While AI health modifier should only be changed by the host, human players modifiers could be only changed by the player himself. (This collides with my feelings about "all game settings should be set before the game is hosted" though. Could be made consistent if the player can only choose his modifier when entering the game.)

Maybe such a technology might give higher resistance to conversion(?)

If wall towers are really "overpowered" there will be many players using them and win the game in the end. But AFAIK that's not the case. And that means they are not "overpowered" (or PPL don't try to win games... which scenario I doubt). AFAIK most players considered "good" (because they win more often then others) don't even use them at all.

zzippy: You call it "abuse" but you are talking about "game features". If they really are imbalanced (e.g. to strong), they will be balanced (e.g. made weaker). But as I understand it you (and maybe some other PPL) just don't like the game features. If this is the case a mod that weakens (or removes) those features would help you (as long as you can find PPL playing them). That would make the ingame "discussions" obsolete also. If you like to socialize in a clan is IMO an entirely different thing though...

(it already started, faster than I though BTW)

Yep, I have some thoughts on this: Fix things by balancing them - not by adding arbitrary non-implemented people dependent rules you will never be able to check if sticked to. The main reason for this is: - If a game is balanced you don't need any of those rules. - If you add PPL dependent rules you need a vast amount of man power to check if sticked to (and usually such things lead to different points of views, conflict, stress and anger and that's bad for the PPL) Better do it the "healthy" way (though I'm not exactly sure what "healthy" is but I guess you get the point ^^). I hope that was not to forthright...