Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
On 10/03/2021 at 3:00 AM, Langbart said:
This is my first mod, judge me gently. I am open to suggestions and would like to implement them if they are not too complicated.
First of all, congratulations! While 0 A.D. is designed to be easily modifiable in principle, doing something the first time can be challenging. If you continue and become more experienced, you'll see many things turn out to be much easier than they might seem right now.
Then some minor nitpicking: 0 A.D. is free and open-source software. You can do whatever you want with it, provided you comply with the relevant licences. Most assets (e.g. art) are released under CC-BY-SA-3.0, while most code is released under GPLv2. Your mod contains both art and code, however, you only mention the former. You can release code under CC or any licence you like, if you've written it yourself. However, if you've copied it from 0 A.D. (and I believe you did), then you have to release it under GPLv2 (or v3), therefore you should make that explicit in your mod.
Furthermore, include the relevant licence files (you can just copy them from elsewhere). Although this is not really necessary, it is good practice (people can be lazy). See how it's done in https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk
Also, when using dates (e.g. in your diary.md), keep in mind some Americans might interpret 10/03/21 as October the 3rd, therefore it's advisable to either use the ISO format (2021-03-10) or to write out the month (10 March 2021) or abbreviate it (10/Mar/21).
And another suggestion: include https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3037 Many players are asking for this, unaware how to do it via the local user.cfg configuration file.
On 10/03/2021 at 3:00 AM, Langbart said:You might want to partially revert D2875, if you've not done so already.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Could you show it from a different angle? I'd like to be able to see the other two sides too, as well as the central courtyard. And perhaps zoom in to better show the columns? Furthermore, how does it look in game? How large is it, compared to other wonders?
I'm not too fond of the steps, trees, and corner decorations around the structure either.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, azayrahmad said:
“Polished” is perhaps too much praise. It's a mod I use for trying out ideas and for showing what 0 A.D. could be. It works, without errors (A24 version), yet it's not finished, far from it, it's very much a work in progress, though I don't have enough time to improve it as often as I would like.
1 hour ago, azayrahmad said:In my mod I called it Coin, but yeah it works similarly with 0abc.
The concept is the same (a money resource that cannot be gathered directly), the name is not particularly important, and both Delenda Est and Hyrule Conquest have such a resource too.
An important difference is that in Delenda Est, citizens generate the resource; in yours, houses do; in my 0abc mod, neither does. (Civic centres did in an earlier version, but I haven't carried that over, because large players benefit a lot more from that, effectively penalizing players who develop more slowly or are on the defensive. For the same reason I've removed resource loot from units.)
1 hour ago, azayrahmad said:Currently the coin seems to increase exponentially lategame,
That's hardly surprising. If I understand correctly, houses increase your income, there is no limit on houses, therefore there is no limit on your income.
2 hours ago, azayrahmad said:(I also have in mind to create Knowledge resource for researching technologies).
Rise of Nations had that, it worked great there.
-
In fact, it is already present in game:
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nescio said:
the inner courtyard was square and had a colonnade on all four sides;
To be precise, the central courtyard had 60 columns (16 on each side).
1 hour ago, Nescio said:at the west side there was a smaller extension with another square, colonnaded courtyard.
That smaller courtyard had 34 columns (on the north and south sides 10 each and 9 each on the east and west sides). I don't know if your design is large enough to accommodate that many columns, though.
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:@m7600, indeed, the model is looking fantastic already!
Here's a detailed proposed reconstruction of the facade, that I think looks really great and should be useful to interpret Nescio's suggestion:
That image and other artist's impressions were already posted earlier in this thread: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/20820-macedonian-wonder/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-394657
-
12 hours ago, m7600 said:
Quick update. It's still a work in progress. I don't have a lot free time lately, so the little that I have I've been spending it on the Macedonian Wonder.
That's looking promising, thanks for sharing!
It's important to get some details right, though:
- the palace at Aigai (now Vergina) was larger than the Parthenon in Athens or any other building in Classical Greece;
- columns were Doric and not part of walls (engaged columns were used in imperial Roman architecture)
- the inner courtyard was square and had a colonnade on all four sides;
- the east side (front) had two storeys, each with a colonnade;
- the north side had a veranda, which gave a great view at the theatre, temples, and rest of the plain below;
- at the west side there was a smaller extension with another square, colonnaded courtyard.
Some images showing how the site looks nowadays:
Spoiler
-
1
-
1
-
15 hours ago, Palaxin said:
So the UI elements you are talking about are just abstract elements (with the same relative proportions independent of resolution) which are filled with a texture that is chosen according to resolution. In theory we could have
2n x 2n textures for 720p
3n x 3n textures for 1080p
4n x 4n textures for 1440p
6n x 6n textures for 2160pwhere n is any natural number. Right?
EDIT: if we want more different resolutions then
4n x 4n for 720p
5n x 5n for 900p
6n x 6n for 1080p
8n x 8n for 1440p
12n x 12n for 2160pKeep in mind image dimensions should be powers of two, e.g. 4×1024 is fine, 5×1000 causes errors.
3 hours ago, hyperion said:As for 4k, if the GUI is optimized for FullHD and font scaling is implemented the experience would already be much better than currently.
Yes, 0 A.D. really needs decent text rendering (e.g. with pango). If and when texts can be properly scaled without compromising readability, then it no longer matters much what resolution user have or for which size the interface is designed.
-
9 minutes ago, wraitii said:
In fact, the problem is only in the "I capture a building, I can delete it" way, and since to capture the OG owner must have 0 CP, it's usually already > 50% for the new owner.
The only way to fix that is to transfer ownership at another value.
Or make deletion cost time.
If I recall correctly, when you deleted a building in Cossacks, it would start losing health, initially slowly (indicated with a tiny frame), though quickly accelerating (many flames visible); this gave players the opportunity to recapture and repair buildings before those collapsed.
-
22 minutes ago, Imarok said:
Oops, I thought it was 0% xD
Was it added in A24?A24? No. A grep shows you need to look at the simulation/helpers/Command.js file and browsing its svn history shows it was actually done when capturing was implemented, with 16550, six years ago, i.e. it was already present in A19.
-
1
-
-
On 03/03/2021 at 6:47 PM, borg- said:
Why not work with equal numbers? For example, if you have 11 soldiers trying to capture a barracks with 10 soldiers garnished, then you capture that barracks slowly. If you have 10 soldiers trying to capture, then there is a tie. So if you have a center with 20 soldiers garnished, you can still be converted by an enemy with 30 soldiers trying to capture, it seems much easier to understand and promising
Keep in mind a fully garrisoned structure at e.g. 50% health is much easier to capture than the same structure at 100% health.
On 03/03/2021 at 10:19 PM, wraitii said:Capturing a garrisoned building is essentially impossible: the garrison capture regen rate is too high and on top of that it increases the arrows of the building, so it's a real double whammy
A very large part of the problem are the high increases given by the phase advances: each garrisoning unit counters up to 1 champion in the village phase, whereas the same unit garrisoning the same structure counters up to 4 champions in the city phase. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2845 addresses that.
For the arrow count of civic centres, see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2854
And https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3601 lowers the city phase land grab.
44 minutes ago, Imarok said:- As soon as you have less than 66% capture points you can't delete a building. (This also the threshold in many democracies to vote on major changes (see wikipedia:Supermajority) and deleting a building is a major change ;))
Right now it's 50%. I don't really see how raising it to two-thirds would help capturing.
44 minutes ago, Imarok said:- Newly built CCs always start as village phase CCs and have to be upgraded individually. (This gives the enemy time to fight for that territory)
This is something I really want to see too! I prefer how it was done in Rise of Nations, though:
- cities have both territory (large) and a city radius (small);
- most buildings could be built anywhere in your territory, but some (e.g. library, temple, university) only inside the city radius;
- new cities start as a small city; once at least five unique buildings are inside its city radius, the city automatically becomes a large city; and once at least nine unique buildings are inside its city radius, the city automatically becomes a major city; and even if those buildings are destroyed, the city does not lose its size.
I believe doing it like that would work great in 0 A.D. as well.
The problem is a lot more art is needed (three versions of the civic centre for each faction).
-
1
-
1
-
5 minutes ago, Vince said:
Hi,
I'm both, a Linux (Linux Mint Cinnamon) newbie as well as 0ad one.
How can I manage to update 0ad23 to 0ad24?
Thanks for your support.The easiest way is simply to wait until the relevant package maintainer has updated 0 A.D. for your Linux distribution. Right now only a minority has been updated to A24b, as you can see at https://repology.org/project/0ad/versions
-
You need to move it out of the bottom panel object, i.e. replace:
<!-- START of BOTTOM PANEL --> <!-- Limit to the minimal supported width of 1024 pixels. --> <object size="50%-512 0 50%+512 100%"> <object size="50%-512 100%-200 50%-312 100%"> <include directory="gui/session/minimap/"/> </object> <!-- Supplemental Details Panel (left). -->
with:
<object size="0 100%-200 200 100%"> <include directory="gui/session/minimap/"/> </object> <!-- START of BOTTOM PANEL --> <!-- Limit to the minimal supported width of 1024 pixels. --> <object size="50%-512 0 50%+512 100%"> <!-- Supplemental Details Panel (left). -->
(Or whatever the size is you're using: it's size="left top right bottom".)
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Ridiculous comparison and you know it. Linux is capable of being run on very beefy hardware.
It is, but it is also capable of running on much lighter and older hardware. So what you or someone else might consider a very outdated machine could actually be very capable of running 0 A.D.
For what's worth, low-resolution screens still have a sizable market share worldwide, according to https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/worldwide
-
3 hours ago, Bings said:
Well ideally the UI should look good on all resolutions.
Exactly!
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:#1 Why "should" 0 A.D. work on a laptop clearly not built for gaming? Probably a Chromebook or something similar.
What kind of an argument is that? Linux isn't specifically designed for gaming, should we therefore drop support for Linux too? Many people have machines not built for gaming, yet can and do enjoy 0 A.D.
By the way, the minimum resolution required by Windows 10 is 800×600: https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/windows-10-specifications#primaryR2
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:#2 1366 pixels wide is clearly more than your proposed 960. 1366 pixel width is wider than the current 1024 pixels the GUI is crammed into. I would happily design a UI to fit 1366 pixels. I propose we make that our new min resolution.
1366×768 is basically the 16:9 counterpart of 4:3 1024×768. I favour a width of 960 because it allows for easy scaling, but I'm not mandating others to do the same. You can design an interface for 1920×1080 or any other size you like; the important thing is that it should be implemented at 0 A.D.'s minimum resolution. People with higher resolution screens can use the gui.scale setting.
(For the record, I have a 3840×2160 screen.)
-
The problem with forum polls is that once you voted, you can't vote again. And more options will probably suggested in the coming months.
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:Ysbaddaden, a giant of Welsh mythology.
Yr Wyddfa, a famous mountain in Wales.
Ynys Môn, an island called Anglesey in English, a place where there was a sanctuary and famous for the massacre perpetrated by the Romans on this island.
In case the Britons got their re-work.
It would be great to see the Britons reworked! Is a Brittonic (or Gaulish) name known, though? Welsh did not yet exist in 0 A.D.'s timeframe and Welsh is no longer used in game either, so why should we adopt a (modern) Welsh name for the next alpha?
-
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
No where do I say design a 4K UI and scale it down. I say design for 1080p [1920 width] and scale from there. With all the numbers and data you want to load the UI up with I don't see how you could do it any other way. How are you supposed to fit all the attack data and other stats you want into a 960px wide UI while also having a production panel, a minimap, and a garrison panel. Honestly you will have to start having things climb up the sides of the screen, but I have yet to see a serious proposal for that.
Scaling 960 by a factor 2 or 4 works fine, whereas scaling 1920 by 0.5 or 3840 by 0.25 does not; images are not the problem, text is. Try it yourself.
1 hour ago, Bings said:I use 1920 X 1080. The steam survey shows 2/3 users use this resolution and no other resolution gets into double figures of % usage. The buttons are too small for the resolution that the vast majority of people use. They don't even fit in with the size of other parts of the UI, which haven't changed in size.
Keep in mind new laptops with a resolution of 1366×768 are still being produced and sold. 0 A.D. should work on those too.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, hyperion said:
Yes I agree that the most logical place to produce sieges would be the Roman army camp which is placed in enemy territory. But that one can't produce them any longer either.
Perhaps we should make a distinction between siegecraft and artillery. Artillery was used by both the besiegers and the besieged, as well as in naval warfare. Arsenals (i.e. places for producing, storing, and mantaining artillery) are well-attested, many urban centres had them. Siegecraft (ladders, rams, towers, etc.), on the other hand, was very much constructed on the spot.
The Romans were great at besieging and constructing siegecraft, however, they tended to rely on their Greek allies to provide the artillery. The first known usage of artillery by the Romans themselves was during the Second Punic War, after they seized the large arsenals of Syracusae and Carthago Nova. Nevertheless, artillery was only included in Roman legions by Caesar, who experienced having a battery of scorpion(e)s coud give a clear advantage on the battefield, and became a fixture of Roman legions (and army camps) in imperial times, in contrast to the Republican period (0 A.D.'s timeframe).
I'd be fine with returning siege rams to the army camp and perhaps moving them from the arsenal to the forge as well, removing arsenals for factions that only have rams. However, I don't think army camps should be able to produce artillery.
If I recall correctly, Stronghold had trainable siege engineers who could construct and man siegecraft (ladders, mantlets, rams, etc.). Such a thing would be really nice to have in 0 A.D. (rams as “movable structures”).
-
Perhaps someone should split this conversation.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I believe the Iberians were to be the quintessential defensive civ.
Aren't the Carthaginians supposed to be that? Their walls have 3× the health walls of other factions have.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Hiding behind their walled settlements sending out raiding parties and wearing down their opponents that way. Along with ambushing/guerrilla warfare, the Iberians would be rather unique in this way.
Ambushing and guerrilla tactics were not unique to the Iberians. Moreover, they're typically conducted by those who didn't have heavily fortified urban centres to fall back to.
As already pointed out by others, the Iberians in 0 A.D. are a combination of different things, both various ancient peoples (Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Iberians, Balearics), as well as some 19th and 20th C notions; the original designer even argued they should speak modern Spanish in game, not Basque (see this post). 0 A.D. is not exactly the same game as it was a decade or two ago, or even an alpha or two ago; things evolve over time and that's perfectly fine. That doesn't mean we should throw away everything, just that nothing is sacrosanct: a critical attitude is healthy, both towards new proposals and towards what's already present in game.
-
2 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
Then call them surgeons or healers
Aren't they?
-
10 hours ago, Grapjas said:
Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it
.
Even IF you want to refer to biblical times these miracles have happened, they never ever happened during war or active combat but always outside of it.
But this probably won't get any traction because many comp players use this mechanic. Just put 10+ priests inside box formation on flee formation and watch the literal magic happen (also very much a form of dancing btw).Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative. Like, make players be able to build a relatively weak camp of tents they can build inside neutral territory where units can "rest" / heal up but has 0 defense on its own in addition to temple and barracks / CC healing that's already present.
Or keep healers but remove their range, requiring them to be adjacent to units they heal. Infantry can't repair structures at a distance either, nor can workers gather resources they're not adjacent to.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Stan` said:
Actually it's on every single skirmish map. It's a skirmish entity. For Random maps you're right, it's part of the code.
Skirmish maps are xml files, removing the starting walls there is simple and straightforward. For random maps it's more complicated, since you actually need to understand the code.
10 hours ago, Sundiata said:None of the skirmish maps actually have Iberian starting walls... Not that I'm complaining
Thank you for pointing this out, that's indeed not how it should be. Iberian starting walls are present in a number of skirmish maps:
Spoiler[b@p50 skirmishes]$ grep -c 'iber_wall' *.xml acropolis_bay_2p.xml:0 alpine_mountains_3p.xml:82 alpine_valleys_2p.xml:0 atlas_valleys_8p.xml:220 bactria_2p.xml:0 barcania_3p.xml:0 belgian_bog_2p.xml:52 butana_steppe_2p.xml:50 caspian_sea_2pv2p.xml:95 corinthian_isthmus_2p.xml:56 corinthian_isthmus_4p.xml:112 corsica_and_sardinia_4p.xml:0 cycladic_archipelago_2p.xml:0 cycladic_archipelago_3p.xml:0 death_canyon_2p.xml:74 deccan_plateau_2p.xml:52 dueling_cliffs_3pv3p.xml:0 egypt_3pv3p.xml:0 farmland_2p.xml:0 forest_battle_4p.xml:0 gallic_fields_3p.xml:0 gambia_river_3p.xml:31 golden_island_2p.xml:0 golden_oasis_2p.xml:54 greek_acropolis_2p.xml:82 greek_acropolis_4p.xml:0 greek_acropolis_night_2p.xml:82 libyan_oases_4p.xml:120 libyan_oasis_2p.xml:0 lorraine_plain_2p.xml:52 median_oasis_2p.xml:0 median_oasis_4p.xml:0 mediterranean_cove_2p.xml:0 neareastern_badlands_2p.xml:52 neareastern_badlands_4p.xml:102 nile_river_4p.xml:122 northern_island_2p.xml:0 obedska_bog_4p.xml:77 obedska_bog_night_4p.xml:77 oceanside_2p.xml:0 persian_highlands_4p.xml:112 punjab_2p.xml:60 saharan_oases_4p.xml:97 sahel_4p.xml:104 sahyadri_buttes_5.xml:25 savanna_river.xml:0 sicilia_2p.xml:0 sicilia_nomad.xml:0 skirmish_demo.xml:17 sporades_islands_2p.xml:0 syria_2p.xml:64 team_oasis_2pv2p.xml:108 temperate_roadway_2p.xml:0 thessalian_plains_4p.xml:0 tuscan_acropolis_4p.xml:56 two_seas_6p.xml:162 vesuvius_6p.xml:138 via_augusta_4p.xml:0 watering_holes_4p.xml:0 zagros_mountains_2p.xml:48
While they were placed on these maps in A23, this no longer happens in A24. The reason is a typo in the `iber.json` file. I've written a patch to fix that: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3616
That said, the fact they're present on only about half of the skirmish maps and on only five scenarios seems rather arbitrary to me. Removing Iberian starting walls altogether would be more consistent.
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Part of the problem is that some folks insist that the UI fit to ridiculously small horizontal resolutions. IMHO The real solution would be to design the UI to the common HD resolution, then use scaling for smaller resolutions.
Due to the way things are rendered, scaling up is fine, while scaling down makes things unreadable. People have a variety of screens and while designing an interface for 1024×768 is indeed a bit harder, it does allow everyone to use it, whereas designing for 3840×2160 might be easier but would alienate everyone who doesn't have such a screen.
-
28 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
But why focus on these random things like walls for the Iberians (why do they get walls, of all people?).
This is something I really want to see removed too. (It's hardcoded somewhere in the map scripts.) Iberians certainly didn't build better walls or more frequently than anyone else historically. Sure, civilizations are rather similar to each other and should become more differentiated, however, differentiation for the sake of differentiation and at the expense of realism, no thanks. Let them start with a monument instead, that should already give them a defensive advantage (and also help the AI).
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, fatherbushido said:
Is it what I actually did (the bumping commit being https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/24939)?
I would agree for introducing a23b in it, but it didn't exactly match in the table: it hasn't a name and why isn't it call a24?
So I am ok for introducing it in the table, but then I would have to include a24b (see http://releases.wildfiregames.com/). In that case, if you link me the related revision number I should use for it, I will include them in the table.
19923 (2017-07-29) was the start of A23 development and 21947 (2018-12-26) was the start of A24 development. You're starting A24 with 21821 (2018-05-16), which is basically shifting the goalposts by seven months, distorting the numbers. A23b was very much part of the release process of A23 and the game remained under a feature freeze; no work was done on A24 during this time. Likewise, A24b is part of A24, not the start of A25. If I recall correctly, the last commit for A24 was on the 18th, the release was bundled on the 19th, and the release announcement was posted on the 20th; one or two things slipped through, which were quickly corrected with the rerelease of A24b on the 21st. Nothing was done in the next few days, to be able to do another rerelease if necessary, and the development of A25 started yesterday, with 24939 (2021-02-27).
See also:
Macedonian wonder
in Official tasks
Posted
That's wrong, all four sides were slightly different from each other, have a careful look at the images I posted earlier.
While I'm aware wonders are not on the same scale, I'd appreciate it if the Macedonian wonder could be at least somewhat larger than the one used by Gauls. The palace at Aigai was really large, much larger than e.g. the temple of Zeus at Olympia (the current Macedonian and Athenian wonder).
Take your time, doing things properly is far more important than doing it quickly. Besides, @Stan` is having a break, so technical feedback or having it committed won't happen soon anyway.
(In case it wasn't clear, you're doing a great job! I don't even know how Blender works
.)