FeXoR

Fexor was the name of my first pen and paper roll playing character. It came out of a mixture (not quite, I know but that was how it came up) of the Latin words ferox (wild, bold, gallant) since that fitted the characters idiosyncrasy and ferrum (iron, hard, steel) since it was a fighter and a smith. Since I myself are "ferox" and FeXoR has the same letters I decided to take this as my digital name.

The reason is that the trees are placed on the center of the tile (so tile coordinate + 0.5 in x and y direction). Fixed the corresponding check and added a comment. Now it should be alright. Here are the files including the SVN .diff (only one line in the .js changed): http://fexor.dyndns....rest/2012-11-4/ And a screenshot that seams to indicate it works: http://fexor.dyndns....st2012-11-4.jpg

Good! I was a bit confudes about the block due to "not enough relevance". Would like to know what kind of person did that... a general game hater, a person who distrusts open source or fighting for programmers able to earn their life with "professional" (whatever that would mean) programs? For myself I can't find a good reason but didn't have any problem with the German Wikipedia in the past as well. Well, glad the article is there now.

Nice! I think I know why: I leave a border free of trees to avoid trees are unreachable. I plant all trees in coordinates with integer x/y values. I check the distance to the border with (x*x + y*y)**(1/2). I noticed that a map has NOT getMapSize() tiles but getMapSize() + 1. So all the trees would have to be placed (currentX - 0.5, currentY - 0.5). I will check this...

True. But that was not the reason for me to post that. It was just an idea that would further derivate the roles to different units (in this case Females are better at Farming while cavalry is extremely good at hunting).

Since mounted citicen soldiers can hunt is it really needed that female citizens can hunt at all? Of cause an attack animation doesn't hurt ^^

Are you talking graphics exclusively? Because I think the gameplay side already leaves some commercial games behind and will, if everything goes as planned (even if I don't agree with all concepts), Part I will be one of the better RTS games in general. If - in Part II - great "modpower" (I'd personally prefer wide changes able in maps like in Warcraft III that has no "mods" in the common meaning) and the ability to change the games ruleset easily it will become one of the best RTS games/engines ever IMO. Nevertheless myconids improvements are vast and (for me) most impressive in complexity, "straight forwardness", speed of improvements and result. Well done!

Hi AlxCruel. Welcome to the 0AD community. I guess a team member will respond to you soon. Enjoy your stay

Having a grid the buildings snap to and not allowing building rotation belongs to each other and more a gain of options than a code simplification because the grid snap would be on top of the actual placement functionality. That way a player can decide what he wants. It just feels simpler and tidier and will speed up the player interaction, not the game as a program. Yes, that's the solution the way seams to go. But will this attack deal the same damage? Otherwise it would be more efficient to pull the unit away from melee distance to an enemy and you can't do it for the formation but for every single ranged unit (would be a pain) if the alternate melee attack is weaker. If it's stronger you would want it to be the default. So both are worse than just removing minimum range (which is quite unrealistic for non-siege weapons anyway). Me too That doesn't mean they have to miss sometimes as it is now... I don't say I don't want it, just that it is not needed and mainly (though not exclusively since projectiles can miss often as it is) a visual thing. Is Warcraft III like chess? I don't think so! But the priority was put to the gameplay, not the graphics.

In some cases it might be helpful if more than 1 additional "thing" could be attached to the movement determining "body" (like for mechs). Is that possible? In that case simple "attachment" would be a sufficient name.

Sounds good!

Wellcome to the 0AD community. Concerning territory borders: Perhaps one civ (perhaps celts) could loose the need of territory? I think you are somehow right but I personally don't find it that bad.

What about giving archers longer range especially compared to skirmishers?

Some Technology ideas: - Increase Buildings Sight Radius (in Civil Centre or Outpost) - Decrease Cost of Walls (Civil Centre, Walls or Mill) - Increase Archers Range (Barracks) - Increase Infantry Hitpoints (Barracks) BTW: I think Foraging/Hunting upgrades should be available in Settlement Phase (don't know how it's planned). I would like to have about one unit per building not buildable when a structure gets available but one Phase later.

Yes, graphics should be game options. but other things might be better me setup in mods/maps.

Welcome to the 0ad community. The game is in need of animators so I guess it will not take long until a team member will get to you. Enjoy your stay.

I'd love to be able to turn off: - Formations - Stances - Build limit of structures - Min. range of entities - Range check for melee units when the damage is dealt (the check after the attack was already initiated and the animation takes place/is done) - Projectile simulation - Rotation of buildings - Zoom limit - Camera rotation - Water effects ...and reduce: - Number of polygons per entity - Texture quality - "Grid" for building placement But I just can't while staying compatible with other players. Of cause it would be better to make most of this optional but some of them influence game-play and so different settings will lead to out of sync for multi-player games (So some of this things can go to the game settings while others would need to be setup in a mod or - IMO better - a map). For me it's not so much the hardware needed to run a game (though being able to set everything to run on an pretty old PC is nice) but that game-play things are suffering from the great priority on visuals. For example if non-moving entities are fixed on a grid building placement would be faster and the player could use buildings to block enemy units or decide to leave space between them to not surround own troops. This is pretty hard with float positions. I don't mean it has to be fixed to a grid (and rotation restricted to it as well) but it could be an option that would grand better game-play possibilities though the possibilities in general are reduced (placement fixed to a grid). A similar thing with formations/stances. The aim may be that troop movement is more realistic and ordered but the result in-game is terrible (as is now, perhaps it can be resolved but I pretty much doubt it). For example pick some units working on a building units and add another unit to the control group, then right-click on the building again, result: The one added unit sprints towards the others but the units already building walk away from the building though it's the target of the given order. Many more things are related to formations/stances and the gain is quite low for me. By the way: This all could of cause be changed with mods but then 2 players can only play if they both have the same mod installed and enabled. So I'm not sure (if I get it right how the mod support is planned) that's a good idea. Everything could be defined in the map IMO so that 2 players only need the same map (and it could be downloaded while the players are in the lobby, not sure if auto-download will work/is planned for mods as well). That way only one file would need to be submitted/organized. Binary stuff like pictures(e.g. for the gui)/skeletons/models/textures/animations would still be needed so it's not as clean as I would like it to be so not entirely sure about this (though ofc. needed binary files could be part of a binary map format, though I like that RMS for example are just scripts). ...so, If we had a trigger API with wide usability there would be no need for mod support.

Hm, there's no indication of an OOM error in the log files so it might be a graphic error as well. I'm not that familiar with the graphics so I can't say much more. It should run with an 5 year old computer if the graphic card can handle it. Not sure. Perhaps someone more in graphics could tell what that might be. Trying on an newer computer won't hurt though

I like all of them, good job

I can't tell what this is but it sounds like an Out Of Memory (OOM) error. Could you add the mainlog.html and the interestinglog.html. It should be found at %LocalAppData%\0ad\logs (AppData\Local\0ad\logs when in your user directory). You may need to turn on showing all files in the windows explorers settings. Perhaps try playing a small (or even tiny) random map with only 1 enemy bot. That should at leas work fine if it's not graphic related.

I'm glad others see it similar to Bigmaster and me! I fear that most of those issues will not be fixed with a better pathfinder. They are caused by the unit AI as well as the minimum range some units have. Alternative attacks for those units are planned to be added AFAIK but that will cause other issues if both attacks deal different damage. The loose formation is still a formation with all it's drawbacks. The main difference is that units are further spread. Thanks for the idea anyway.

Are you going to add buffs of a heroes aura dependent of the control group, the units that got the same order at the same time, formations, dependent on range or if the hero is visual to them??? I'm quite confused now... For me an "aura" is an effect dependent on range to the aura bearer...

Where is it? I can't find it. Is that what's meant by "Patience"? ^^

Well, perhaps Yves has to add something but if otherwise all agree we just "live" in a wonderful peaceful thread

I get your point. I was mainly trying to gather possibilities. What do you propose instead? At least some visual indicator on buffed units would be good I think. Another way would be to add some kind of "flag" or icons to the troops over their heads. But I think that will look messy.