WhiteTreePaladin

Don't forget that people who can't fix the hard things can still work on other things. We had enough changes to warrant a release, but the programmers that work on performance related things didn't have nearly as much free time this cycle.

I think Pureon is right, we should copy AoK here. We should use our Scout Towers (which should perhaps just be called Towers) and have Outposts or true "Scout" Towers. I don't think they should decay though. I'm also not really sure how decay woks, considering it wouldn't even let me me build in neutral territory (except for Civil Centers).

Scout Towers should perhaps be able to be built in neutral territory as a way of speeding up expansion?

Hmm, don't really see how that could have changed much, so it probably existed before. Needs to be fixed either way. Thanks for noticing. [edit] Ok, fixed. I think we might be trying to fit too much information in a tooltip. We should probably look at either shortening the description or displaying it in a different manner.

And there's BFME2's "War of the Ring" also.

Not necessarily simple to implement, but we will have limits on all powerful units.

Ah, so there is already a ticket. I do think it might be considered a release blocker. I get it very often. Even though it doesn't really cause any harm, it does make the game feel less polished.

Happens after the game closes out, so doesn't actually affect gameplay. Function call failed: return value was -120003 (Handle tag mismatch (stale reference?)) Location: h_mgr.cpp:235 (h_data_tag) Call stack: (0x6d32ae) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6d32ae] (0x68e773) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x68e773] (0x68f078) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x68f078] (0x68f476) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x68f476] (0x6aa1fb) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6aa1fb] (0x6aa2a5) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6aa2a5] (0x6acf58) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6acf58] (0x6a99c1) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6a99c1] (0x6a9ad7) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6a9ad7] (0x6d9523) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x6d9523] (0x50fcf7) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x50fcf7] (0x414f25) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x414f25] (0x415bd4) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x415bd4] (0x7f7c35702c4d) /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xfd) [0x7f7c35702c4d] (0x413729) /home/brian/0ad/binaries/system/pyrogenesis() [0x413729] errno = 0 (No error reported here) OS error = ?

Change the map type to "Random Map" and you will be able to choose the civs, the number of players, etc. Scenarios don't let you choose because that would interfere with the story. Because we haven't finished the scenario design features, the current scenarios/maps are just like the Random maps, except you can't change any of the settings.

One of the reasons decorative rocks were restricted from the hills was because they don't align to the terrain. This means that they often appear to be floating. That's a feature that needs to be re-implemented from the first simulation.

If houses aren't going to count, then Mills and Farmsteads probably shouldn't either. I think perhaps only "Conquest critical" buildings should expand it.

Don't think Gaia should be white, probably light gray would be better. I think white should be reserved for currently selected entities.

Don't forget that garrisoned units are shown in the same area as the formations - might need more than 10 spaces there for a fully loaded ship or fortress.

I don't think we will do those things for our game, but I believe all of that should be possible with only minimal to moderate effort. (As for a 3D view, we used to have that, so it shouldn't be too hard to enable it. The skybox is only used for water reflections currently, but it used to be visible by the camera too.)

Settlements would change ownership to whoever was nearby. You would have to keep units there or it would revert to Gaia or change to another player. To actually claim it, you would simply select the settlement and click on an icon for building it. (It would have a significant cost.) As it is being constructed, it would grow in size. When destroyed, it would revert back to a settlement. Here are a few videos. (Keep in mind that these castles had to contain all the buildings, while our settlements do not, so ours would not need to be as large.) Shows Gondor and Rohan castles. Shows a morder castle (doesn't have walls) get destroyed. It reverts back to a settlement.

True, although some things might be worth some extra time. Just thought it would be better to mention it now and get some discussion rather than say something after they were already implemented.

I posted this on IRC, but I thought I'd put it here also. Wanted to discuss the possibility of something like that for settlements versus just using a settlement building and converting it to a civil center. BFME 1 had castles and smaller outposts (outposts didn't have gates) that were placed in predetermined spots on the map. They started out as a plot of ruins or supplies but could be claimed and built. If destroyed, they reverted back to the small "plot." They also threw in a few farm plots around the map that were more difficult to protect. It was actually a very fun concept and it worked pretty well. Of course, in BFME 1 you could only construct buildings in predetermined plots inside a castle or outpost (unless it was a special map, like a fortress). I think maybe we could do a more hybrid concept combining the building styles of both the restricted plot building of BFME 1 and the free building of BFME 2 / AoE into one game. (Taking the best of both.) We could have a little plot in the center of a territory that could be converted into a small fortified area. We could then put some build plots in this fortified area for building predetermined things (although there would still be some options). The rest of the territory would be free build. The fortified area in the center would be upgraded with each phase to be stronger. (It would also be aesthetically nicer to show the transformation from a village to a city)

No need to apologize, we always welcome suggestions.

He meant the process of finding the idle units, not simply idle units.

Might want to align buildings with the starting civil center if there is one, otherwise default to the current angle.

Sounds sort of like the Regicide mode from AoK. I think we might do something more like "herocide" mainly because it was always annoying to me that the king couldn't fight. (I think you should start with him though, buying a king doesn't make a lot of sense to me. )

"What are the points against having units on walls?" Lots of work mainly. We'd rather put that effort toward other things. It would be a nice feature, but probably would require a fully 3D coordinate system. Our current game is really 2D with 3D graphics.

Well, if we're allowed to pick more than one, I'd have to add Erik.

Ideally, we'd have lots of trees. However, until some things get optimized, I think this is a good compromise. Belgian Bog lags much worse than Gold Rush (even with shadows and water reflections turned off).

BFME 1 (not BFME 2) had predefined settlements where you constructed circular castles or smaller outposts, and the system worked nicely. I think the city wall idea could work well with predefined settlements in our game. That would give us some control over the areas around the city (settlement) because the circular walls could be preplanned into the design of the scenario or random map script. For game modes without settlements, drag and drop is likely superior.