alpha123
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by alpha123
-
-
I do not think a phalanx has 1 meter gaps in its shield wall.
Formations... don't really work right now. They'll be redesigned and reimplemented before beta.
But yeah, I agree some of them should be more compact, especially phalanx and syntagma.
-
2
-
-
Hi,
This kind of modification is a major modifcation in the game. When we played first time with alpha123, we though it was a very big bug and ended the game xD
...I thought we ended it because the pathfinder was being very buggy? (It was a primarily water map, after all.)
However, i think the 5 women limitation is too low. Firstly, there is NO place where it's indicated : some text MUST tell us that it exists a limit of women per farm.
See #1871.
Secondly, 5 women is very low.
More than 5 is too high, especially when farms will be infinite. I never use more than 5 gatherers per farm anyway. You just need to change your play style a bit.
-
I'm also curious to know why the existing FOSS implementations aren't what we need. (Licensing?)
As far as I know, nobody has actually evaluated them to see if they have what we need. Most of the work will be integrating it with the engine anyway; implementing the octree itself shouldn't be particularly difficult.
Feel free to hop on #0ad-dev on QuakeNet sometime. It's always great to get a new contributor.
-
You can rotate the camera using Ctrl + either arrow keys or the WASD keys as well
Or probably the easiest way... Q and E.
-
I have noticed that the yield of the fields was increased a short time ago (http://trac.wildfire...changeset/13405). How about instead the yield of the fields are lowered and when the fields are depleted, there is a regeneration period, probably represented by a grey progress bar, during which the fields cannot be harvested for food. Workers can still work on the fields, not collecting food, but making the fields regenerate faster. This would eliminate the need for new fields to be built when the old ones are depleted.
We will have infinite fields sooner or later (there's a patch of mine sitting on Trac waiting for some design discussion).
-
2
-
-
Hi!
We had another SC2 pro who topped the AoM ladder a few times, TheMista, used to play with us and he liked the game (and gave good suggestions). You should enjoy it, except for the lag. It's a fun game, it's just not particularly well balanced (although it's not that bad) and it can get very, very laggy (regardless of your computer; the game is just inefficient). Also it starts to get a little repetitive after a while due to the very tiny tech tree.
Definitely drop by #0ad on quakenet and play a few games.
-
Playing Persians against *anything* is easy, just mass the really cheap and yet extremely effective archers.
Speaking of that though, a random map mode where factions get access to their special buildings would be kind of cool.
-
Alpha123 i see in corral garrison capscity. that why this is the reason, I thought they had already .
Corrals have had a garrison capacity for a long time, it just wasn't displayed anywhere in the GUI until recently.
-
It's already planned that fish, land animals and berries will grow slowly again, but that has yet to be implemented.
I'm not sure about land animals, but soon I will work on regenerative fish and berries. Respawning land animals might be nice, and would make hunting more viable, but I don't really know if the team wants that. It has its pros and cons.
-
1
-
-
Citizen sheeps. And are good map explorers
So long as you don't mind the really tiny LOS and slow movement speed, sure, they're great for exploring....
The do have the advantage of being fairly covert though.
Special ops sheep.
-
Can you implement a break formation option to the formations menu? Scatter is not a break formation option as it is very ridgid, being basically a formation where the units keep a set distance from each other. The fact that a group of units have to be in a formation can sometimes lead to some absurd situations e.g. marching in a battle line to a construction location. The fact that animals are also bound to and move in formations can be ridiculous as you can see in this screenshot:
One day I (or somebody else) will probably get around to implementing a no-formation formation. In addition to the things you mentioned, formation regrouping is kind of terrible right now, which leads to all sorts of strange things.... (Although is also exploitable to make your units run.
)And yeah, the sheep thing is a little funny (it doesn't happen with non-domestic animals). They should probably behave like support units when it comes to formations.
-
Sheep garrison are working now? How works?
Where did you see that?
Eventually it will work that you'll garrison sheep in a corral and it will generate food slowly.
-
So players need much more space for fields to have a fast income in food.
This doesn't affect the farming rate at all.
I only use 3-5 workers per field anyway. It really doesn't require many at all. I can max out off fewer than 8 farms, which is not much space.
Why these changes?
Probably so players don't have to rebuild farms as often.
Some maps are to small/not ideal to create much more fields. Or you must enlarge the blue line of the civic centre.
It is easy to fit 10+ fields in the territory of one CC, and that's including room for things like mills and barracks.
Building time also increased from 60 to 100 seconds?! In total: it increase massively the playing time for each game.
1) 40 seconds is far from "massive".
2) It will build faster if you use more than one builder (specifically I think it's pow(numBuilders, 0.7) but I'm not 100% sure).
I do understand encourage players to expand, but this way is not the right one, I think.
I'm not really sure how this encourages players to expand. I tend to farm off one or maybe two in a very long game CCs anyway.
Another thing: it is also very hard to defend because of a wide area and the field hp is decreased from 120 to 100. So maybe you need to make turret cheaper or give more hp?
1) Nobody attacks farms directly; it's much more effective just to go for the workers.
2) Towers are a great bargain already.
3) This won't be any harder to defend than it used to be. It's not like fields got huge or something.
that works fine, may be Alert like message to beware to player about a Exhausted Farm would be nice.
Farms will be infinite eventually (soon?) so it would be wasted effort to implement this.
-
I was hoping we would have blacksmiths, so that sounds good to me. I still think we might want them for the Persians and Carthaginians though.
I think Persians should have it but not Carthaginians. Carthage can live with fewer techs as a penalty for having such a wide variety of units.
If I may propose a unit, what about a 'repairer', someone who can't fight, but who can repair buildings quite fast (repairing buildings with normal units is slow, and usually not worth the effort).
That would be very cool. It's true, currently repairing things is quite useless. I think the normal repair rate should go up a little bit, and something like a fast-repairing (and possibly fast-gathering?) unit would be cool.
-
I'd like to be in the programmers section please.
My name is Peter P. Cannici.
-
Why don't you want to use boost?!
You'd have to replace it with some half-baked ad hoc solution. Also, it's used in many more places than ScriptInterface. I don't frequently touch the C++ side of this game though, so I'm afraid I can't say exactly where.
I don't personally like boost - it's too big - but it's far better than writing a lot of code from scratch and having to test it.
-
You Dint think if i use google translator, I don't have mistakes, google translator always have mistakes. For cultural reasons and for differences in what I want to say. Even I don't expect in Spanish someone can understand. Some creative people like me, is hard to express. By the way.
I just think if you used Google Translate it might come out a little more understandable. I know machine translation isn't and can't really be as good as a human, but Google's Spanish to English (and vice versa) is pretty well developed. I think it would have fewer mistakes (particularly spelling).
Now the temples, can be protected, but maybe with trigger if temple take a some damage, the game is over. The player loses the game. That way, forces to the temple to dont have any damage, even a scratch.
If you're going to allow it to be damaged, you might as well allow it to be destroyed. There's always the possibility that it has no rubble actor and/or the normal actor doesn't go away when the temple is technically destroyed. I think at least in a scenario you might as well just go with your original idea and make it impossible to damage but also not have the ConquestCritical class.
-
There are some talks about "capturing" a unit though, and making it a slave for you.
Only buildings, animals, and female citizens. These will be captured if they are out of line-of-sight of other friendly units (actually, I'm not sure if that will be true for buildings).
-
I barely understood that (maybe just write in Spanish and use Google Translate?), but that idea seems good. Basically you couldn't lose the temple, but if you lost everything else it would be over? That sounds good, but presumably the temple would be garrisonable (to heal units or something), in which case what do you do if a player just hides his last few units in the invincible temple? If the temple isn't garrisonable it doesn't really serve a whole lot of purpose (although I suppose maybe it could have some kind of aura, once that's implemented).
Also I could totally see a "protect the temple" kind of scenario, where naturally the temple could be destroyed, but I don't feel like it would offend anyone in that circumstance.
-
Well, the Book of Genesis is Old Testament, right? That alone probably accounts for the single deepest and most inflamed point of disagreement between Christianity and mainstream science/history for the past 150 years.
Oh, yes. I sort of forgot about that when I made my statement (I was thinking about Moses, David, Solomon, etc). Well, I personally believe Genesis is history, but I'm definitely in the minority here. There are legitimate reasons for believing in a young created earth though - we're not just believers in fairy-tales or delusional as some atheists have said.
Anyway, I'm not really going to talk about that here - those discussions tend to turn into flame wars (although you're a quite reasonable person, zoot, and I doubt it would with you) - and it wouldn't be particularly helpful to the Bronze Age mod. You can PM me if you think I'm insane or something though.
For me as co-founder i was though, This faction must have more planification ideas in order to can create a non controversial faction.
I suggest just go with a big, glorious temple. That way nobody will be offended - the worst you'll get will be, "Uh hey, you know the thing might not have been that big, right?" from the people who think early Israel was poor. There won't really be any controversy (although you will have to be a little careful, given that the religion is still practiced today).
What do you mean by "planification ideas"?!
-
I appreciate your disclaimer, because I know a scholar or two who would strongly dispute the veracity of that statement
I expect there to be a few. I believe the Old Testament to be fact, but I definitely don't expect everyone to. There's a bit of a fundamental problem with historical science: we weren't actually there. It's like trying to put together a puzzle without having a picture of what the final thing looks like. Pretty hard; I have a lot of respect for historians even if they disagree with me.
Just out of curiosity, what part of it would you dispute? I really don't want to start some kind of religious war; I'm slightly curious. Besides, it would also likely prove useful to the creators of the Bronze Age mod.
You see, the Egyptian and Babylonian records confirm some things in the Bible because the Bible was written in a historical space, but at the same time, most of what is in the old testament presented as fact is negated by the discovery of archaeological or ... other Egyptian and Babylonian records, but also the Syrians, and others.
Well, the Egyptians probably lied a bit. It doesn't exactly look good for your kingdom if a truckload of slaves manage to escape.
It's like the Indian Bhagavad Gita-the content is placed in certain specific areas that can be identified archaeologically, but it does not mean that there was blue-skinned Krishna.
A bit like the Iliad, the content may actually have historical basis but is embellished with religious beliefs. Of course you could say this about the Old Testament as well, but I think it has more evidence going for it than the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita.
Bible says that kingdom of Solomon was very rich- but there is no archeological trace of this story- on the contrary-the kingdom of Judah is well recognized as a marginal and poor.
I encourage you to look up Solomon's copper mines - there's a decent amount of evidence out there for them. I'm not going to claim they're conclusively proved to exist, but it's certainly not out of the question.
National Geographic is not a good place to learn history.
I know. The article seemed fairly good though, and being a secular source I don't think they'd be very biased.
-
Yes I know, that's what make Rome the glorious wonder of our species dude.
I'm rather disappointed that the glorious wonder of our species left baby girls out on the road (which incidentally was full of sewage, because hey, where else should the drains lead?) because they were considered much less valuable than males.
-
1) The temple
It is almost certain that there was NO temple of this size built by Solomon, I am talking about the so-called First Temple, as to the time of Josiah, Jerusalem was a city of very small and rather poor and there was no room for such a structure.
Besides, there is no archaeological trace of the temple.
There actually are archaeological traces of the First Temple. Not a whole lot, but various artifacts that would have been used in it have been dated to that time. Solomon was actually quite rich, I think he would have been able to afford the temple. According to National Geographic it seems likely that he would have had access to enough copper and other metals to build it. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume a large temple stood there.
2) Using the Old Testament as a source
Try to understand- if you want to create a game historically reliable you can not only use the Bible out of the present state of knowledge of ancient Israel - for example do you see the difference between Age Of Empires and Age of Mythology?
The Old Testament is historically reliable (Egyptian and Babylonian carvings confirm some Old Testament events, the Tel Dan stele proves King David existed). Certainly other sources should be used as well though.
So yeah, I think there's nothing wrong with using the Bible as a historical account simply because it's also a religious text. There's not a lot of reason to doubt most of the stuff in the Old Testament. Besides, it would just look cool in the game to have this huge temple....
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Christian and so that almost certainly biases my opinion of the Bible a bit. However, I would probably not be Christian if the Bible was obviously historically inaccurate.
-
2
-
-
hey guys long time since last message but i have a little request :
Can you please add the "Wololo" sound when a priest is converting an enemy unit just like in the first AoE , that would be fun
We aren't going to have priests convert enemy units.
[Discussion] Spidermonkey upgrade
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted · Edited by alpha123
That is very surprising. Is all the JIT stuff properly enabled and E4X disabled?
You might want to consider asking the Mozilla folks about this; Firefox has gotten considerably faster from FF4 (SM 1.8.5) to FF17 (SM 17). So this looks like some sort of regression for our case.
EDIT: After some discussion on IRC apparently E4X was enabled, but disabling it barely made a difference. (I thought I read somewhere that E4X had some global overhead even if it's not actually being used -- apparently that's not really true.)