AtlasMapper

Some screenshots of 1vs1 multiplayer games on Cyprus version 1.4 (running on latest A20).

@feneur: Ok, I think everything has been told now. About Lion's post, I did not asked to delete it, but instead just move it in another place (like the split from the original topic of this message). I agree, there is no need to censor it by deleting it. But maybe make in sort newcomers won't be afraid about it. It was a suggestion. I just don't understand your last comment: But this is because I can't translate it properly. If the relax word is because of it, please forget it. Maybe it wasn't clear, keep benevolent, and you can put "kindly" in place of relax, but I'm not sure to be able to explain it more sharply. Thanks for the exchanges of point of view.

@feneur: Don't misinterpret what I tried to say: I just wanted to point out that in its current state, it is not so easy to use contribute to the game, especially in my case to use Atlas. It already requires lots of efforts. So if atop of it you have to face a continuous flow of negative comments, hostility and "private jokes" of long-term users and even harassment, it is really discourage many people. You can always say it is just a problem of interpretation from me, but the recent post of @Lion.Kanzen illustrate how rude historical contributors can be with newcomers. I understand some of you contributed since years to this project, but that doesn't mean there is no place for other people. You can always tell wrong things, you won't make them get true. And it is not the point, as I previously said: But anyway, I am not asking you to justify others people behavior, nor asking you if I am right or not to feel rejected by the historical contributor. I was just pointing out the fact that it is not easy to (try) to contribute to the game for many reasons. So it would be better if people here would cheer newcomers rather than making fun of them, reject and deny any attempt to help. Seriously, I have been actively engaged in a few other open-source, collaborative projects, and more serious than this one (I want to be clear, what I mean by "serious" is the final goal of the project, not that this game isn't made in a serious way. I mean projects that fits technical objectives) and I always loved the atmosphere in open-source projects. But here it is very different, but it is a game, I was expecting something even more relax and benevolent, we are all here to have fun! In the end, what any new contributor would have to gain to help this project ? A nickname listed in the credit page ? If I wanted to eventually help this game, it is just because I like it. It was something positive from me, no need to reject it because the territory is already occupied. Anyway, I believe it could be an endless loop. I believe we should stop this useless conversation. As I started with it, I leave you the opportunity to leave the last message, and then close this topic.

@Dade: I think it is really a wonderful suggestion. It is also close to a recent post (about 2-3 weeks ago, can't find the post, the search limitations is annoying) about a group of student eager to offer their help on 0AD as a part of their school project. I am sure many student would love to help 0AD this way. Also, art students maybe (visual arts, music schools) ?

@Loki1950: Yes that was what I did have in mind. So is it possible to make use of "actors" instead of "entities" in order to lower the memory usage ? Should we then recommend @jarnomodderkolk the use of actors to improve performance on big maps ? Or in the end, does the display of a huge amount of actors alters performances too ?

@Hermes: Yes after a few tries, I feel that this A20 is more consuming resources than before. Your problem looks a bit like mine. Have a look at this bug too. I experience lags and crashes earlier than in A19. But it is easier to go until the end of a game when playing versus humans.

@jarnomodderkolk: it will take lots of time to fill it entirely so good luck. Maybe it could be nice to ask to some more experienced mapper if such a big amount of trees could induce some performance issues too ?

@sanderd17: Well ok, it did take some time with some friends, but I tried again it and we finally make it work. Again, I am talking about a direct LAN by connecting two computers with a single cross ethernet cable. I connected both computers, everything was fine and started out of the box: we did note the automatically attributed local IP, then we could share file after the connection. We tried to set up a local multiplayer game in 0AD, and it did not work. it did take ages to find out how to make it work. In the end, we needed to reconfigure to IP attributed automatically then it worked. I'm not sure, and it is hard to explain, but it was like 0AD induced something that regenerated the local IP addresses and make them unavailable... Anyway, if anybody face the same issue, here is what I suggest for a two computer game: Connect both computers, and go in the settings, then reconfigure anything that have been assigned aromatically: set up a new IPV4 connection on your Ethernet interface, disable automatic IP (it seems to be more important for the host computer), and manually enter some local IP (could it be like 192.168.x.x or 169.254.x.x) and the same mask. Then you can set up your firewall (eg. with a rule like this for the host : to (HOST local custom IP with MAC address) allow incoming connection on 20595/UDP from (CLIENT local custom IP with MAC address). Was tested several configurations, from linux-linux connections to linux-win connections. Removal of the automatically attributed local IP was a mandatory, even if it allowed working connections, for unknown reason. I was able to play my custom maps in some epic multiplayer games, that was great! So thanks for motivating me to try again.

Indeed, It seems to be a standard to put fog on -almost- all the map in 0AD. But t might be the "bloom effect" too ? You can remove this effect by unboxing the post-processing effect in options.

@niektb: again, about your config, I don't think you have 8Ghz of CPU, so you probably talk about 8x512 = 4 GB of ram. So we have a very similar resources amount. But you experience lags without crashes, and I don't. So it is something different from the config (again). @feneur: Well it might be an usual way of managing things here, it might be obvious for long-term users. But from my recent user experience, it is not so clear. How can I see the difference from a speculative suggestion from a random forum user (sometimes I do such speculative posts), and the confirmation that the bug is really taken into account ? It appears that neither the number of posts, nor the different user tags (wfg staff, or forum users) is indicative at all. So if you're new and don't know the people answering, it is not clear. I think I now start to understand the role of people answering me here, but it is not so easy and still speculative. Moreover, if "you just have a low config" is the only answer for some days, how can I understand the problem is still taken into account and other people thinking about it ? All of this is blurry for me. I think this is actually the origin of this problem. First, it has been told to me on irc that almost no devs are actually using the forum. So the forum is probably not the best way to catch the dev attention on a specific problem. Secondly, I never used the trac system before, I just saw some tickets: maybe there is some way to see more clearly that the problem is officialy taken into account, even if nobody answers with a message. I don't know if I am clear, but I believe it would be more simple to understand after reporting a bug in this way. And finally, every other time I suggested some bug or any kind of issue, I have a similar answer "just report it on trac, see link..". So for all these reasons, I think it would be more productive to directly suggest to newcomers to report bugs on trac, and not on the forum at all. And you need another account to report on trac, so if unregistered people see they should go ahead on trac directly, it would be easier for them. But it is just a little feedback from an unexperienced user. Yes you're right, I was thinking of something else than on this thread. It was certainly not a good thing to mix things, I didn't wanted to reject the help on any other post on this thread. So let's be transparent and clarify things: I was talking about @niektb, @elexis and @leper. So if I can resume all of this (sorry for the long explanation, but now I am clearer): when you're a newcomer to this game/project, things are not easy at all. I tried to point it out several times, and again in the top of this post. The project lacks some good tutorial and explanations too. So one should be very motivated. But then, when you have to face repeated negative comments, unfriendly behavior (like "this is my territory"), mocking on irc because you're a newcomer, and even harassment, there are no chance on would really contribute to this work. So I will repeat what I did say: "It seems that it is easier for a few devs/contributors to deny, reject or mock any attempt of newcomers to make the game better rather than listening, trying to understand and eventually cheer up any positive initiative (even if unperfected). I think you're doing a huge error by acting this way. Especially for an open-source, collaborative project. The most valuable thing for such project is the man power." Everybody is not like this here. I should finish by talking about @sanderd17, this guy is like a bottomless well of science never afraid to see any new bucket. Almost all the things I wasn't able to figure out by myself, I learn from him. But he can't take care of every single newcomers here. Some retired wfg guys were incredible too, and very friendly. But some other people are really spoiling this project. As a team manager, I really think you should tell them to change their way of managing potential new contributor, even if what they suggest is not yet ready for the project. A newcomer could become a major contributor at some point. Or maybe you think the team is good in this current state and don't want anymore people, it is possible. So just state it. But again, it is just a suggestion from my personal experience. Sorry for having mixing things in my previous post.

@sanderd17: Thanks for the infos. Yes I understand this feature is not complete yet, but as it is announced here, it is a bit disappointing not to be able to see some example in the A20. Maybe it could be nice to add the example you provide (thanks for the link) as a demo-only map in A20 ? You can also insist in the description of the map the feature is not yet complete. There was some trigger examples in the A19 (like treasure islands), even if triggers are still experimental. In the same way, you can show how the cinematic camera feature could be used. Some users might find nice to try to mess around with this feature, even if not easy to use yet ?

How can one use the new cinematic camera feature in its current state ? Also, is there any map (scenario, or maybe just only some demo map) packed in the new A20 that provides examples of this new feature ?

I started to try out RC, I have a few observations: Atlas seems to be the same, so not much to say about it. I can open my old maps as usual. However: can't display the actor /flora/trees/grass_1 (doesn't seems to exist) particle/seeds looks like some moving squares, I don't know if it is what expected some error messages while displaying "auras" in actors, it seems to be related to the animation files Displaying 80 % of the actors in Atlas did fully filled my swap then Atlas totally freeze I also quickly tried a few scenarios/skirmishes, and the display seems less smooth than before: when I move the screen in-game, and more especially when I quickly zoom in/out, there a few display artifacts. Like some parts of the screen than need more time to calculate and freeze a bit (for less than an half second), while the rest of the screen is zoomed normally. So you can barely see some kind of squared areas artifacts. I can't show you screenshot or post replays, as it only happens when moving the camera. Dunno if related to my own config, I think I had to tell you. Beside of this, the new gameplay features seems to be really nice! Previous posts related the fact that not much things would change in A20, so it is a great surprise. I also love the fact that you provide some new maps, and not only the one in the A20 announcement. Thanks for the work.

@roofridder: now you have some more symmetrical maps out of the box in the main A20 release

After a few tests, it appears that my problem is probably related to this bug. (thanks @SandJ & @pikey). I tried to launch a game, pause it at start, and wait for some time (30-60 minutes), then unpause and really play the game. The game freeze and crashes much more faster in this situation. So it appears that the game slowly eats all the memory in a much eager way than he should. So when I play games, especially with multiple AI, in the end the game will always lag, then completely freeze. I can play short games with 1-2 AI, but I will never see the end of a match with more AI. So all the lazy comments stating my problem is just a config issue, and telling that the minimum recommended specs for the game are not accurate (yes thank you, I know these specs are indicative, but I have more than 2x the minimum specs, so it would be much more than unaccurate) are counter productive. It seems that it is easier for a few devs/contributors to deny, reject or mock any attempt of newcomers to make the game better rather than listening, trying to understand and eventually cheer up any positive initiative (even if unperfected). I think you're doing a huge error by acting this way. Especially for an open-source, collaborative project. The most valuable thing for such project is the man power. Anyway, now I believe bug reported by others will be taken into account, and it might be solved soon or later.

The Battle of Salamis was a naval battle opposing Greek allied forces (mainly Athens and Sparta) to Persian float in 480 BC. The battle did set in the Saronic Gulf, very close to Athens and especially Piraeus (the actual marine dock of Athens). The battle is famous in that despite largely outnumbered (the float was 5 time less), the greek allies did win the fight. Here is the area of the Battle: And here is my map: The battle did begin in the start of the dawn. It has been described by classical authors to happen with this configuration: So I decided to reproduce the battle as close from this. Beside Persians battleships, some Egyptian (Ptolemaeus) warships did support the fight against the greek faction, by holding position in the north area of the battle to intercept any greek ships eventually trying to escape the battle zone. I just had to reduce the number of total ships for technical reasons, but the ratio is the same. Some screenshots of my scenario: Because of the unbalanced ratio between the greek allies and the persians allies, I did use a garrison system in order to have some greek battleships more powerful compared to persian battleships (that was a nightmare, but thanks @fcxSanya for the procedure ). I still need to set up some nice scripts to make an interesting naval fight. Is there any published scripted battle in some scenario yet, to get inspiration ? Or maybe will there be some new maps like this in the next A20 ? Also, I have some display issues with such actual environment settings (I needed to set up a dawn atmosphere): because I need a very low sun inclination, I have some artifacts (a large shadow that comes from the out limits of the map area), in the east and in the north. Is there any way to fix it ? Will there be any new features in A20 that would allow some interesting naval fights too ? Thanks for the information and feedback.

I hope still I'm clear with this option 1/2 stuff..

I don't think the two options you are proposing are mutually excluding. I think you can have both. In the way I see things, the popularity of a game, and even the fact it might be attractive for some hardcore gamer and the competitive scene is not necessary an objective, and can be a passive consequence. If the game is very good made with attention and passion, and fun to play it will naturally attract many people. Moreover, if the game is polyvalent enough (I'll explain how in a second point), it can be satisfying for history lovers as well as hardcore competitive gamers. What is happening with the recent posts of the clan of gamers if the demonstration of this : as you said, the current dev setup is your latter description "Just a casual game for those that love history and gaming", still the game is fun to play in multiplayer and it already attract many hardcore gamers, they see the game as a competitive platform. So the game already provide the both options. In my opinion you can have both option, and polyvalence by acting on maps and scenarios too. Surely, the factions are of prime importance. But you can design a wonderful RTS with a realistic and sourced history background, develop nice historical campaigns and story modes, satisfying people looking for your option #2 (whose I belong actually). But beside of this, you can provide nice multiplayer maps, and make in sort these map are challenging for multiplayer competition. And even if only a few factions are interesting in the competition (maybe some factions have a bigger impact on the historical side than on any multiplayer playing side), people will only use a few factions for the competition and will have fun this way. Like for the "no wall" rule for multiplayer gamers. Competitive players can set up some more restrictive rules to turn the game in something more competitive (option #1), it won't change its main, current value. I think this game can satisfy both kind of players. Even if I am player #2 type, I am glad many hardcore gamers like to play this game too. It could be inspiring in term of strategies for me, to help me to simply beat the AI. And maybe they could push the game to its limits, then helping devs to finely tune the factions with subtle balancing, without fully destroying the gameplay. But if there are some balancing choices to make that could exclude type #1 or type #2 players, surely the core devs and main historical contributors would have to choose. Then there are more chances that option 2 (current, as you said) would overlay option 1. But still, I don't think it won't exclude hardcore gamers. I believe in the "middle way", and I am sure that the game will naturally take it . Don't worry, I'm sure everyone will be pleased.

Oh, ok.. I'll try to mess around for triggers then. Thanks!

Hey guys, I'm not really into clan stuff (I'm quite a casual-like player anyway ), but knowing that a community of hardcore gamers is gathering around 0AD, with intensive exchanges about the game, its strategies & tactics, etc is very interesting. I believe that's a very good point if 0AD, even if still in alpha, is attracting players like you. I think that would be nice if you guys have a look at this topic: its goal is to collect points of view about what makes a map fun, interesting or challenging. Some detailed explanations about the kind of maps and features you are waiting for some competitive matches would be very inspiring. Thanks guys, happy gaming!

In a similar way, is it possible to define some units behavior at start by editing the xml file ? Like "defend", "hold position" or "aggressive" ? @trompetin17: Like the garrison feature, it would be nice to be able to set it up in Atlas too (also, the garrisoning procedure supports the idea of the need of retrieving the entities UID in Atlas, as I previously told you). Oh, and also, is it possible to modify the starting stats of some units ? Especially, can one define the amount of life points of an units/building by acting on the xml file (eg. in order to start with some damaged buildings) ?

Haha ok thank you mimo too then That's a really useful feature, especially to set up naval battles!

Yes, islands are really close from each others, so there have lots of similarities. But you can usually get some more beautiful pics from Zakynthos islands, such as the one you posted. I did choose Kefalonia and Ithaka primarily because of the shorelines, landscapes, hills and narrowing that make we want to play battles there. But for some vacations, you're right I would probably like to visit Zakynthos

Thank you for your fast, clear and illustrated answer.

@causative: Wow that's an impressive post! You definitely should consider participating in the strategy guide of this game!