zoot

In which cases would buildings hide themselves in hillsides? True, I did not really think of that Maybe in practice the 'hillsides' of the 'bedrock' could be slanted enough to be passable. Dunno.

I've been thinking about a solution to this problem. Say the terrain of your map is defined by a function f(x): When building something on the terrain, the engine would apply a leveling function g(x) to f(x): For convenience, we can call f(x) the surface terrain and g(f(x)) the bedrock terrain. In the spot where you are building, the engine would transform the terrain from the surface terrain into the bedrock terrain of that spot: Because this transformation is independent of the current terrain, no matter how many times you build something in the surrounding spots, the terrain would only ever transform into the shape of the bedrock terrain. So the player can 'deform' the terrain once in a given spot, but not more.

What is a "High Gift Review/feedback"?

I don't see any balancing items in the backlog.

This is potentially a graphics driver issue. Same with anti-aliasing.

It seems a bit futile to do any large-scale balancing effort at this stage. Why not wait until the beta when everything is not flux?

Ad-hoc contributors are standard in open source projects. Though there are not quite as many in this one as I think it could sustain.

She looks busy

Why not just attack the builders?

Do you use Codeblocks with JS? Does it do syntax highlighting etc.?

I have to admit, I'm leaning towards this: I experience it quite often with towers and civic centers in particular. Imagine you're 95% complete with the first tower in your base and it comes under attack from an early rush. Would it feel fair that you have a nearly complete tower, but never get the chance to use it to repel the attackers, because they keep hammering at it with their swords? Would it feel fun, would it feel realistic? IMO, no. I can see the logic of the other option, but if you do decide to go with that, at least evaluate it honestly and consider if it really makes the gameplay better.

We should do an Eclipse client next http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-Debugger/how-to.html

Did the words look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg

Alternatively, use this branch, which is confirmed to compile. Also remember to update your workspaces (perhaps even cleaning them first). (Edit: I don't know if it builds on Mac, though.)

A few bytes? Maybe not, but it's something on that order.

Though I have done no work whatsoever on that, you are absolutely right. Dead units have practically zero impact on performance. They only fill up a tiny spot of memory, of which there is plenty. The reason for the 300 pop cap is not to conserve memory, but rather to conserve processor cycles going into all the long-winded calculations (pathfinding, AI, etc.) that must be done for living units (only).

Looking forward to it

Well, the format you described is not compatible with this solution. I am not going to complicate it with a full-blown syntactical parser for the sake of the few who insists on writing their maps in vi

They are not strictly required to use CC-BY-SA for their original art, but again, it is easier to attract contributors if they do.

I suspect the speculars and normal maps will help with that. (Well, they won't add color, but variation at least.)

It's not code, it's a JSON-formatted object (equivalent to a Python dict). Does your idea come with an implementation?

Most programmers would balk at the proposition of working for free on a proprietary project. (Unscientific, yet truthful observation )

As opposed to what?

"Long-winded to use"? What does that mean?