elexis

Indeed it didn't help us. :/ But you are right, projectiles shouldn't just pass through walls and mountains. Catapults would still be able to shoot beyond walls, but only if they don't collide with it. There was a trac ticket for that as far as I know. The additional checks won't be good for performance however unless we maybe add some new kind of pathfinder grid.

Ceasefire was primarily implemented for nomad games so players can get up their initial CC. But indeed fun to use when going for a city-building match. But one can achieve the same with a last-man-standing mode. Not considering build-order optimiztaion, rushes are more tactical currently (micro-management, deciding when to attack and when to retreat) than strategically (deciding sooner which units to build). That will change eventually when units are more diverse, maybe had some stronger counter effects. No to not gathering without storehouses. Yes to skirm cav nerfing for a23 #4941.

Used "strings filename | grep fancy" to find which textures are not supported yet. Then located visually by enabling GLSL and using the "Replace" tool. With the strings tool I could confirm the completeness. Rotated the civic centers a bit besides the one on the bottom right. The guy near the mountains looks like he has an advantage with regards to maps, but life is historically unfair, so that's accurate enough. Also removed the civs, as skirmish maps don't specify that (at least no other map does it and it would be good to have it uniform). Added map thumbnail. Committed in rP20883. Thanks for the map!

In order to address this reoccuring topic, we had added the "beta" to http://trac.wildfiregames.com tickets. But the list is incomplete and may contain false positives. The priority list on trac seems more accurate.

So let's go with the simple solution. Also I noticed the CCs should have the same standard 45° angle.

Actually I just noticed an issue with (at least one) of the terrain textures used there. Perhaps @stanislas69 sees a quick fix? It only occurs when enabling GLSL: (Not a blocker for the map IMO)

Well the tree distribution looks worse on the screenshot than when playing the game. I commit it as is. If you want to change some things afterwards, that's always possible. I'll add a thumbnail. Thanks for the map, I hope we see more :-)

I've created a ticket so that we don't forget this patch #4952.

TWO_PI -> 2 * Math.PI paintMap() -> The map should decide what textures should be painted. There may be no references to globals in the library (tWater, tCliff, ...) Names like "fillWith" are a bit common, other libraries might want to add a function with that name too. So we should probably move all of that into a prototype. (I can do that if it's difficult, but it's not really hard, just look at the constraints prototypes for example)

Any updates? Would be sad to not put this to use in one way or another. The artifacts should be cleaned, but that shouldn't be impossible.

Also the ground at the CC usually has some stone or road texture.

The free & open source alternative is LMMS https://lmms.io/ (but of course there aren't nearly as many plugins as far as I know).

We don't have any of these huge mountain maps (besides that one skirmish 3v3 map scythetwirler made in a19 committed in a21), because prior to sanderd17's patch the maximum height was 8 times lower. About mapsizes, it's a big performance issue if we go beyond normal or large. Medium maps are good for 2-3 players if all of the terrain is accessible, but Normal mapsizes are usually golden middle. I would like to see some more realistic mountains, but as wowgetoffyourcellphone correctly mentioned, it is important to keep it playable. About this specific screenshot, I would make more area passable. Also notice place actor trees (trees that cant be gathered from) if they are inaccessible (otherwise units will try to reach it). Also goats, right?

The available area of the players is about equal, but the guy at the bottom left seems to have a big disadvantage with regards to trees, no?

The PMP file contains the terrain, it is absolutely needed. We add the names of all contributors, just so that we can see who did what (even if they just changed one line). The new name is authentic, I like that.

Perhaps you have a public.zip file then that contains the stuff zipped. Creating new directories to match the given path should do the trick then.

Thanks Stan. The performance problem is definitely not only related to the forums, because the IRC bot also sometimes reports things half an hour to an hour after they happened on Phabricator. Also just clicking on things on the forums takes longer than it used to.

In fact I have created a ticket because I see this forum thread just being forgotton and neglected like many others: #4934. If you want to be mentioned with your full name in the credits, please post it here or upload a patch for art.json. Also Roman Roads had more stones on them? So perhaps a different map name or a different texture would improve the historical accuracy :-)

Tell me when you're done, this map should be committed, judging from the screenshots.

It's not so important to have a certain amount of resources, but to have the equal amount for all players. If resources are rare, players have to use them very wisely. But if one player has more resources than the other one, or easier access to them, it won't be a fair battle.

@temple was annoyed by that behavior too and had uploaded multiple patches. I'm not sure if there was one for computing the actual path rather than the line-of-sight one however. That could consume quite some performance as our bottleneck is the pathfinder currently.

If it was, then before my time (< 2015). Those are just textures currently.

Indeed binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/ui/session/icons/mappreview as mimo mentioned. Make sure to have the filename right in the XML file.

Very nice. Just care a bit about that civic center at the bottom left, that guy has way less trees than the other civic centers. Perhaps it could just be a 3-player map. But it is important that all players have about the same territory too. Other than that, we could and probably should commit it to our codebase!

Different passabilities would require new obstruction grids, that will increase the memory footprint but not the performance I think. But just making units walk slower in some areas would be possible without messing with the pathfinder I believe (and units would be stupid enough to not avoid the slower areas). Though I'm not sure if this would be used by more than few maps (swamp? shallows? sand?).