FeXoR
-
Posts
1.426 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by FeXoR
-
-
Well deserved. Great changes over the last few release cycles. Artists are slowly making better use of all your changes. It's looking good :-)
0 A.D. already leads within open source, but with deferred lighting, better shadow code, better water rendering (coming from wraitii soon), 0 A.D. will start rivaling some of the commercial games :-)
Keep the changes coming :-)
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
-
@fexor:
For multiplayer games the only settings you can change on your computer is to turn your screen off or your audio, or anything between it being on or off.
Which means diminuish resolution, contraste, volume etc.
I'm exagerating of course, but...
Things like turning off building rotation or formation as an option for YOU, ... doesn't REALLY work, because when an other player turns his building a way round, your computer still needs to compute it anyway, so just having YOU not being able to rotate a building wont speed things up, and if no one rotates buildings then the programm function for that is never called and your problem is solved on that stage.
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.
For semantic things like how many units/buildings you can train, how big the map size is, how do units react to attacks, how much range they have and whatever else.
It is a matter of logic that those have to be the same on each players computer in a multiplayer. "Out of synchron" as you call it... OF COURSE if you dont have the same realities on your screens...
(if on your screen an archer can shoot on a melee unit that is next to him, and on your oppenents you are constantly walking away. Those things have to be solved for all players, like giving ranged units a possibility to fight back on melee)
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).
things like water effects are very probably planed to be settable via checkbox in menu "settings" if not already.
texture quality, camera rotation and projectile simulations: Yes you DO be right, those things COULD be turned off with no real problem,
but again: just dont use camera rotation and its as if it wasnt there. (it just takes program size, not computing time...
And I agree that polygons per entity should be settable via a grafic quality setting like mediocre, normal, good
but for projectiles... I mean, I'd like to see my units shoots...
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.
otherwise it's just like chess: my knight killed your queen (who knows, who cares how? just happened...)
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.
-
Personally I think it better fits one or two of the civs in part two (Scythians/Huns) to not need territories, and to some extent not need actual buildings at all, but rather wagons or something similar to simulate their mobility.
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.
-
Doing it per-map (duplicating for each and every map where this is wanted) sounds messy. As far as graphics is concerned, surely the relevant files can just be reduced in quality without breaking multiplayer. Texture quality can be reduced with a setting at load time (scale it down e.g. 2x). Water effects can already be turned off from the options menu / default.cfg.
Non-graphical things like formations and stances are another matter because it impacts gameplay determinism.
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.
-
Why not just turn off the effects you don't need?
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.
-
1
-
-
Hey there,
Yes, I think these are very common known issues,
(don't feel alone, I just dont complain about it because I know that pathfinding is still bad at this alpha stage and WILL be improved in the future(I hope!))
There is a "loose" formation, (basicly spread out units) , I guess the 'retreat' behavior is same as for other formations (gather-as-formation-and-get-killed-because-formation-technicly-can't-be-accomplished problem) ^^
But basicly there should be a possibility to give a set of units orders and have them execute it as if it was given individually to them (1 by 1), I agree with you on that, and I think everyone in the staff does too
edit: I usually win IF i attack, so I never consciously tried to test the "loose" formation behavior on a retreat... Migth be worth it: don't know if it's just an other formation, or if the idea is "no formation, each unit for it's self".
Inform me there if sb knows it
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...
-
Thanks Jeru for the update on Gameolith. Patience.
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 really don't like the idea of a "heroic glow" in a game such as this. Made sense in AOM, but not in a game that doesn't have magic.
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.
-
Statistics are already collected for technical information (and opt-in, so only those who agree to submit the information have their information submitted), so it should just be to add more things you want to track to include more information.
Oh, true! I checked it when I installed Alpha 9 but for some reason it failed.
Enabled it in SVN now. Sorry for not enabling it before x).
-
The visual effect don't have to/should not be the only indicator which units are effected by which auras. All buffs should be clearly shown if a single unit is selected. That could for example be placed in the attack and armor tooltip/mouseover. Actually the attack/armor gain by technologies is not shown as well. I think it should be clearly visual what the base attack/armor of a unit is and what the bonus is and where it comes from. It does not have to be shown in the "main" unit widget but it should be somewhere!
-
If no one thinks there should be a fixed set of social networks, what is the disagreement about?
I suggested a way to allow the user to have a say in which social networks to support - by doing it over an intermediary server. I'm interested to see if there are any better suggestions.For statistics (which are helpful for development e.g. for balancing which civ is played how often and which units are used most) there should be a server to gather them anonymously. I don't know if an agreement of the user is needed there. This server should belong to wildfire games or the community if possible IMO. I don't know if that's realistic due to the costs.
Non-anonymous data linked/easy to post to social networks for sure has to be accepted by the user. If the user don't want to use it he/she should not be bothered with the buttons neither and the social network should have no access/connection to that users computer.
So I think the disagreement is about if social media support is present all the time or if it can be turned off and who/which social network/server gets access to which kind of data by default (or at all).
-
that's what i'd personally suggest; perhaps there could also be different auras depending on the culture or background of that hero, just to make it more uniquei think maybe he meant that the auras would visually be represented by a "heroic glow" around hero units
IMO all heroes should have a "heroic glow" to better be noticed on the battlefield. The aura could than be displayed by granting a weaker (less glow radius?) version of that glow to all effected units. The color of the glow could be different depending on the hero. Since one player can usually only have heroes from one civ it could be of the players color and only differ in how light/dark it is. If units are effected by more than one aura that might not be clear from which hero they get a bonus due to an aura though. So perhaps it might be better to use colors only depending on the hero despite the player's color. Guess that has to be tested.
Another way would be to add something to the selection "rings" e.g. to fill them with a color depending on the aura they are effected from and give the glow only to heroes. That selection ring inner color should then be visual all the times even if not selected and so should be quite transparent to not fill the view with distracting rough shapes.
I'm not sure about this but perhaps the glow could only be shown to the player the hero is owned by. That way it would be harder for an enemy to detect the hero.
-
For people wishing to use the Mauryans, edit public/civs/maur.json. Set "SelectableInGameSetup": true. This will allow them to be selected and will work for multiplayer, even if only the host sets this option (no sync problems, it just affects the game setup GUI).
Guess with the exception that AIs can't handle being Mauryan?
Can AIs handle playing against Mauryan human players?
Anyway a good note!
Female Citizens and Hunting
in General Discussion
Posted
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 ^^