elexis

It's a pattern.

Wow, not bad. The first 25 seconds of the trailer too? The individual faces are animated, so many effects, it looks like it as timeconsuming to create? We should have such videos as cutscenes eventually in 0ad, but I suspect it'd take too long to create a number of them. For the jebel barkal scene of our trailer it took some days to create and render. It seemed worth it, but it takes so freakin long to get right. Edit: I'd suggest to add a license for your own artfiles (although I'm not sure about the legalities of the design thing)

I am not sure what schedule the rest of the team is. We need to commit the new lobby privacy policy, repackage, test, publish and inform all packagers including ubuntu.

(Created #5248 for the victory/defeat focusing)

That's why WFG should host these games, it can reject kicks. If someone joins a game and leaves it for network issues or bugs, then it's to his disadvantage. There may be a 2-5 minute limit for rejoins and a 2-5min window for abandoning a rated game after the start. Such as? I believe it would only change the way it would be exploited, for instance using the taskmanager to kill the process or pulling the ethernet wire. If it needs questioning, then we didn't have a solid impression yet. To moderate foul language it's ok currently. Anyone claiming to be able to handle rating fakery is lying. I'd like to invite new moderators too, but it's hard to find someone who is trolling rarely and actually helping. Each time I saw a candidate that I'd endorse recently, he does something that he should have punished others for. It depends on how hard it would be to fake a rating. Currently the rating is changed if both clients agree that one of them lost. So if one rating report differs or isn't sent, nothing is changed. If we trust one of the two players, someone can use this to create arbitrary amounts of fake rating and remove points from a selected player, making it effectively worse than now. There was also the proposal to upload replays, then moderators would have to watch the replay to decide. This is easy to implement, but is extremely timeconsuming to moderate. We need the code for dedicated servers, players setting up the game anyway regardless of rating fakery, so might just as well stop postponing this for more years to come.

We also have the information dialog in alpha 23 when rightclicking on a tech, but there is no comparison indeed.

That will certainly make it more available! See our LICENSE.txt for which license applies to which file. The *.js files and *.json, *.txt, *.xml files in simulation/ gui/ globalscripts/ are GPL v2+: Some of these files don't seem modified and could be dropped. The lobby terms in particular must be deleted because we will update them very soon. (They should be sent by the lobby server ideally so that it's impossible to alter.) population.png, some WFG logos in hyrule/art/textures/ui/pregame/shell/logo that are licensed as creative commons, didn't check the rest. But these files can be deleted since they are unmodified copies anyway. Really? Some of them (in the trailer too) appear like derived work:

GNU/Linux and mac OS people can't install Hyrule Conquest, because it's a windows installer. (I don't know which format that ClickTeam Installer uses, I couldn't unzip/unrar/un7zip the exe on linux except with wine.) Maybe it's easier to just distribute a zip or pyrogenesis file of the mod? Or as an alternative download format? I guess the installer exe file counts as distributing the source of the modified files, but you must also include the license_gpl-2.0.txt and mention which files are licensed under that (the javascript ones) and the creative commons one for art files that came from Wildfire Games, see LICENSE.txt for which license applies to which file. Are the other art files licensed correctly? There is stargus for example which comes with free source code but requires the user to provide the starcraft files, this way stargus doesn't distribute any files that they don't have the right to use. 0 A.D. started as a total conversion mod of AoE2 too in 2001.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/HotKeys

I believe too that it's either already supported or very cheap (and probably good practice) to support it, since phases are techs and and phase choices would be tech pairs that we do support. Phases might have some specifics to them somewhere. It depends on the likelihood of it being used by anyone (0ad or not) whether the payoff of maintenance cost is hypothetical or actual. Avoid adding features noone is ever going to make usable. Like implementing the first 10% and then deciding to leave it in there because someone else might do the other 90%. But that's more misleading than helpful (if 90% are missing one has to start at the design stage and it's likely that design constraints were not analyzed by the 10% one). If a feature is fully implemented but not used by the 0ad mod, it's indeed disadvantageous because devs have to understand that code but don't get playerfeedback and bugreports on it and never see the code work in practice. If there is a modder specifically wanting to use something, then the preposition to not add features if they are not used is not fulfiled and we can see the code being used in practice, maintain it a bit more easily too. if the feature itself is as polished as 0ad features then there is no part of that code adding an unfounded burden to development either. So it depends on the feature quality and likelihood of use at all.

One of them is currently in holidays for some months, the other two ones moderate the lobby chat. We cannot afford to moderate rating fakery if we want to do it properly, because we first have to hear the other side of the story (otherwise someone could make up rating fakery and get innocent people banned). It's a problem which must be solved on the program level. It should be technically impossible to leave a rated game without influencing the rating. But for that we will have to implement Wildfire Games hosting rated games, for that we will need the dedicated server and for that we will need players to be able to setup the game and for that we need to rewrite the way gamesettings are handled in multiplayer gamesetup. I'm tired of both the rating fakery and the repetition of the story and we have planned the implementation for the most part, so unless fate stops me, I'll write it down. (But then again I don't know if I should do it for this lobby or one that I host under my terms.)

If it's intended that individual units that aren't part of a military group can't be affected by that then yes. (Could also become a formation thing then.)

It's determined by BattleDetection player component: <BattleDetection> <TimerInterval>200</TimerInterval> <RecordLength>12</RecordLength> <DamageRateThreshold>0.04</DamageRateThreshold> <AlertnessBattleThreshold>4</AlertnessBattleThreshold> <AlertnessPeaceThreshold>0</AlertnessPeaceThreshold> <AlertnessMax>8</AlertnessMax> </BattleDetection> "<element name='TimerInterval' a:help='Duration of one timer period. Interval over which damage should be recorded in milliseconds'>" + "<element name='RecordLength' a:help='Record length. Number of timer cycles over which damage rate should be calculated'>" + "<element name='DamageRateThreshold' a:help='Damage rate at which alertness is increased'>" + "<element name='AlertnessBattleThreshold' a:help='Alertness at which the player is considered in battle'>" + "<element name='AlertnessPeaceThreshold' a:help='Alertness at which the player is considered at peace'>" + It keeps track via damage by subscribing via OnGlobalAttacked and it ignores gaia. So if there are globally enough incidences of violence to exceed some arbitrary number, it will play the war music. (The problem for observermode is (1) which battle to depict if there are multiple and (2) whether to transition cameras. IIRC user1 had a patch to transition cameras smoothly, it was a bit funky) So your local superiority idea could be implemented by using BattleDetection and introducing a second arbitrary number, some geometric measure to determine if two entities belong to the same local superiority group or not.

I guess the invulnerability was forced for the promotion because units aren't in idle state while fighting and only promote while fighting. Only cheering if a unit is in IDLE state would certainly not worsen the players situation (maybe besides getting distracted for the duration of the cheering animation, but that's not so relevant). If superiority means having wiped out the enemy, what does local mean? (A unit could play that animation if there are no more enemies in sight and at least one enemy was killed. But that's behavior of individual entities, not a group.) (This question is also relevant to implement better automated camera movements in observermode)

Maps should be unique content -> 0ad. AI is simulation code, so it ought to be in the non-0ad mod. Identity classes are part of the Identity simulation component, so it's not inherently wrong to parse them from the AI simulation. But the identity classes can become more abstract and speak of general properties (Ranged Mechanical) rather than specific names (SiegeTower) for instance. template names should go for sure.

Didn't check, but you might have to launch with -mod=public and -mod=mymod, also you might mean petra and not pedra

I wasn't sure with how many mods we could get away. On the one hand people have to become convinced that it's a good idea to split in the proposed way, on the other hand every additional mod that needs to be launched by the player in the correct order can make it harder and more error prone for them to get the mod setup right. (With some additional mod inheritance features that may or may not be improved.) The most important line to be drawn is separating 0ad content from more generic engine code. The remaining parts seem more intertwined, need to check all directories, possibly files once.

The confusion should already be solved by the defeat and victory reasons when that is announced. Suddenly changing the camera perspective to an entity can be unexpected, so confusing too, but is's probably still a good idea to focus, maybe optionally like we have in replay/observermode. Easy to implement for wonder victory and conquest, for relics it would have to focus a random one. Winning because everyone else was defeated could focus the crucial entity for the player who lost. For the cheat-victory and resigning however there is nothing that could be focused. Didn't we have cheering at victory already at some point? If not, we should. And what would local superiority be? We currently have invulnerable cheering for promoted units. But it's problematic and was reported to me reoccurringly to be a relevant issue that this unit draws arrows, possibly all arrows of the attacker, possibly making him lose the skirmish. Arrows could ignore invulnerable units, but it comes with the cost of code complexity, performance cost, it's a bit timeconsuming to implemen. Depending on what local superiority would be, there might be other problems arising too. For instance if it's a territory gain and 100 units in the territory cheer for 2 seconds, you might lose 200 seconds worth of workertime. Maybe it would be balanced if the units of the enemy player play an anti-cheering animation, but then what do the neutral players do? It needs considerate design. Theres a similar problem what to do if we want to play a cutscene without giving the player the disadvantage of not being able to order units. maybe a cutscene Might want to insert a reference for the readers. Just wanted to say that JB is a map where players are incentivized to build fields further away from the CC by having the CC be very exposed to scripted attackers, while some parts of the base can be far away from both gaia and the enemy. So the task to make farming less dumb and introduce tradeoffs for players is certainly a mapdesign task too (just like in DE). I like about the current phase model that it's a significant barrier, that it is more satisfying to have it achieved than the other technologies and that it is a tradeoff of resources whether one researches it sooner or produces more units and creates a greater city size sooner. If nothing happens when a player built 100 houses, then it's because he didn't read the "pls research age 2 first" tooltip yet. Whether your suggestion is balanced depends on the consideration that the Cost component has a use which would be removed, the use case is that it gives the player the need to decide between different actions, whether to either train more units, or build more buildings, or send resources to an ally, or research a technology. If there won't be resource costs, the number of strategical choices are reduced. Would be practical for houseclumps indeed. Building snapping would mean there are minimum distances between buildings unless players disabled the option or hotkey, probably not a problem. Also would be nice if the player wouldn'T have to search that one pixel where the building can be placed, albeit not straight forward to implement. Would be an exciting new feature. Would need lots of template changes, I think mimo added the foundation for the {civ} template things in the last alpha, not sure. It depends on what their use case should be. Should it make players rush that building or should it make them stay away from it as far as possible ; what should be the advantage if the player captures it. One empty current mercenary camp with 4 aggressive units surrounding it that don't do anything other than chasing the first one seeing it across the entire map and then giving no further gameplay interaction at all seems dull. That's what we have on one map at in 0AD currently, I didn't see Delenda Est ones yet. On other maps we have garrisoned villages or cities with reoccuring gaia attackers. In general it's something which I want to extend a lot more. It would be great to have an even more vivid and natural city than in jebel barkal. The main problem with NPC villages is the map space, which is no problem if the mapsize and playercount is fixed, but a difficult task to solve if players expect the map to work well if it's a tiny one with 8 (or later even more) players and giant with 2 players. The additional implementation difficulty however seems worth it as the these maps, if well done, can surprise and challenge the player every time. To make map control more interesting, it's a mapdesign problem. If the map is radially symmetrical (all places having the same chance of receiving a resource, forest, hill, lake or camp), then it's still not important to capture on specific place. So it's good to only mirror the map along at most one axis, so that the mapgeneration still provides equal chances to opposing teams while making the map asymmetrical in the other direction. Each place on the map should have an own meaning, a different reason to conquer it than the other places. (Again <insert JB advertizement> here.) Also each map can have an entirely different gameplay than "here is the same base you get every single match, kill the enemy, bye". By definition if maps aren't unique, they are repetitive and to some degree characterless. It's why on one of our maps the waterlevel is rising, on the other hungry polar wolves are out for you. After considering all of that, were still missing multiple narrator voices .

I was hoping to be able to split the public mod into two mods. One mod has the 0 A.D. content that would be left out if there was 500 A.D. or a mod that comes with only original content: models, textures, music tracks, maps, translations, templates, fonts; that could be called empires_ascendant for sure. The other mod would be pyrogenesis simulation and shader code and the GUI pages. There are only few things that are hardcoded 0ad references in gui/ and simulation/ that can just be moved to some js, json or xml file.

The gifs look so good that it'd be a shame not to have it. Imagine some guys walking through the forest with torches or a campfire at night!

Also chek https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/docs/pathfinder.pdf and wraitii had started some pushing patch at D1490.

If the worst case applies, we may not allow uploading of files anymore unless there is a copyright scan of uploaded files (which does not and cannot detect copyrighted materials properly). In the worst worst case not only binary uploads but even patch uploads (because they could contain the compelte works of shakespeare too).

Third party opinionpieces should not be left without links to the actual regulation: art-4-gdpr, art-6-gdpr. "relates" seems ambiguious, no? At first I thought too it's only structured data (name, email, IP address database columns, see the examples on the site you quoted). But unstructured data (forum posts, chatlogs) are the greter problem and it's not excluded in the GDPR as far as I see. If some other post you or someone else posted contains information that allows identifying your natural person, then this post here relates to that other post by your identifier / nickname. So in the worst case everything can be regarded as personal information if we don't know the content of every bit.

It looks like the background is just uninitialized data, so it displays random fun. The hypothesis is covered by the JS errors complaining about the background being unidentified nonflying objects.

Upload mainlog.html, it contains the full SETI response Perhaps the mods were enabled in the wrong order