Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
14 minutes ago, azayrahmad said:
Current config is fine (11 / 20) but if you want to display additional text I'd prefer this one. Probably something like:
Used 11
(Available 20)
something like that.
The problem of the current configuration is that there is insufficient space for displaying high values (try e.g. 1234 / 56789), which is possible with the “unlimited” population cap setting, hence why I'm contemplating putting population and population limit on separate lines, for which there is plenty of space.
-
35 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:
The poll is closed. Notice that Nescio was close to the correct revision number.
Given that I was the only one who suggested a number, it's hardly surprising I won.
35 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:I didn't exactly know what was exactly the release date, so I took as ending the commit which bumps the version number.
This is wrong. You should take the revision that bumps the version number as the start of a new alpha and the release announcement as the end of the previous alpha. Moreover, as I already pointed out over a year ago, your table is misleading, since you're including A23b under A24. If you do it properly, you get:
Xšayāršā: 2991 commits in 787 days (2018-12-26 to 2021-02-20) → 3.801 commits per day
Ken Wood: 2024 commits in 512 days (2017-07-29 to 2018-12-23) → 3.953 commits per day
Venustas: 1007 commits in 259 days (2016-11-10 to 2017-07-27) → 3.888 commits per day
See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Changelogs
PS How's your fork?
-
Another thing, which of the following do you prefer?
On 22/02/2021 at 10:31 AM, Stan` said:Maybe you could consider another display approach for them, like at the bottom
As can be seen in the screenshot I posted earlier, there isn't much space there either. I would have to sacrifice one of the selection panels to be able to squeeze a new resource panel in there.
Currently I'm contemplating doubling the height of the top panel, allowing to have one row for resources and the build label and another row for buttons and dropdowns, as well as game time, group selection icons, and idle gatherer, idle builder, idle soldier, and idle unit icons. To do:
- Figure out how to add new idle [] icons.
- Figure out how to arrange group selection icons horizontally instead of vertically.
- Figure out how to add up all resource trickles and display the per second value below the total resource counts.
-
@Itms, when the translations from https://www.transifex.com/wildfire-games/0ad/ were last pulled for A24 (about two weeks ago), Korean was already at 100% but Chinese was below 90%, if I recall correctly. Right now Chinese is at 99.4%, a significant improvement. Since these translations are shipped separately, perhaps you could update the Chinese mod one more time?
-
Hello and welcome to the forums, @Alar1k, and thank you for drawing attention to this!
As for the question raised in the thread title, the long and short of it is that nobody has bothered removing it. As for why the embassy limit is there in the first place, I don't know, though I guess it might have been to make them more “unique”. As for whether it should stay, that's open for discussion.
Entity limits certainly do make sense for aura entities (heroes, wonders, theatres, monuments, etc.). However, I don't think they're really necessary for structures that merely produce units; barracks and stables don't have entity limits either, nor do the athen gymnasium, spart syssition, or cart super dock. I'm fine with removing the entity limit of embassies and mercenary camps; or perhaps replace it with a minimum distance, like the rome army camp has (and also centres, fortresses, towers).
Furthermore, I think the fortress and tower entity limits could be removed too; their minimum distances and costs effectively limit their numbers already.
4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:A while ago I mentioned the idea of mercenaries taking up 0 population
The purpose of population is to limit the number of entities that move around. The more entities there are in a game, the more things have to be drawn, meaning more to render; and the more things that move, the more things that change, hence more draw calls and hence more lag.
Cossacks had an engine that could comfortably handle tens of thousands of units and didn't need nor have a population limitation.
4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:The one other area I could see changing a lot would be giving them a massively reduced training time.
In A24 mercenaries have 30% less training time than their citizen counterparts. Basically it's 7 mercenaries or 5 citizens or 3 champions.
That said, mercenaries could certainly be further differentiated.
[EDIT] I'm also in favour of replacing the cart embassies with mercenary camps (cf. kush) and of introducing mercenary camps for the Greeks.
In the long run having certain maps using certain mercenary camps would be great. (Didn't @wowgetoffyourcellphone start experimenting with that already?)
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Do "top players" really think a 0.4 second firing rate for Scythian Archers is cool? I hope not.
All archers have a reload time of 1 s in A24.
4 hours ago, badosu said:The heroes standardized health was something I never was a huge fan of (without other adjustments).
The proposal to give all heroes the same health ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2682 ) was abandoned; instead ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3250 ), healer and infantry heroes have 1000 health, cavalry heroes 1200, elephant heroes 1500 in A24.
3 hours ago, maroder said:If it is really only about balance tweaks, wouldn't it be possible to do this via mods ? Like an weekly (or monthly) official multiplayer mod that takes care of those concerns and is used to test the balance. This mod could either be supervised by the wfg staff members, or what may be more sensible, by the top multiplayer.
All that would need is the willingness of these players to communicate and someone who knows how to handle the technical side. Then every week, you could just get the newest version of the multiplayer mod and be up to date.
That's possible and that was actually done in the past. If I recall correctly, @Grugnas and @Hannibal_Barca both wrote balance mods for A22 and @borg-, @Feldfeld, and @ValihrAnt each did for A23; there might be a few others too. Mods have advantages (can be quickly changed, easy to use, suitable for playtesting) but also their limitations (unpredictable lifespan; opaque decision-making process; tempting to include unrelated changes); basically they stand or fall with their author and mostly reflect the vision of a single person.
What changed during the development of A24 is that people who used to write their own mods decided to become more involved and participated in proposing and reviewing patches on Phabricator. Yes, a lot has changed in A24, and sure, not every single change may have been an improvement. Nevertheless, the fact there is change is in itself already progress.
A24 isn't perfect, it's very much a work in progress, and right now people will need time to get used to the new version. However, I sincerely believe A24 as a whole will be considered to be a better product than A23 by the vast majority of players in a month or two.
-
3
-
-
So I just did a bit of testing too:
20 dogs vs 20 cavalry javelineers → 13 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 20 cavalry swordsmen → 18 surviving cavalry
20 dogs vs 10 cavalry javelineers + 10 cavalry swordsmen → 10+4 surviving cavalry20 dogs vs 20 infantry javelineers → 9 surviving dogs
20 dogs vs 20 infantry swordsmen → 8 surviving infantry
20 dogs vs 10 infantry javelineers + 10 infantry swordsmen → 10+0 surviving infantryWhich again shows (i) swordsmen are most effective and (ii) infantry javelineers die quickly.
Given that dogs and animals can't attack structures and most players tend to have civic centres and towers which can be garrisoned and shoot arrows, I expect going for dogs might be not all that effective in practice.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
This is my point, it is available to all civs now. This makes sele and persia less "special".
The Nisean horses technology (city phase) is still available to pers and sele only.
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:There needs to be more civ differentiation
Yes, I agree; as I wrote in this thread only yesterday:
22 hours ago, Nescio said:Yes. Civilizations were already very similar in A23 and earlier releases and have become even more similar in A24. This is unfortunate, I don't like it much either. The reason it happened is because it's more important to get the basics right and having a balanced core gameplay, from which to further differentiation later.
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:Not to be petty, but I and several other of the top players commented quite a bit on a thread or spoke to devs in the lobby about it. One player and some of the devs, none of which I have ever seen play the game, thought the idea should be implemented. All the other players thought it was a very bad idea. Nonetheless, the revision was implemented. As a result, I decided not to bother commenting on other revisions since my opinion (and the opinion of several other top players) clearly didn't matter. I spoke to other players who commented and several others expressed similar feelings.
What you propose is great. But a near consensus shouldn't be ignored lest you invite commentators to become disillusioned and withdraw from the process
I'm sorry your experience has been an unhappy one. We're all human in an imperfect world.
Gameplay and balance are discussed in numerous threads on these forums, as well as in private conversations and via other channels. It's impossible for anyone to keep track of everything. Moreover, making changes is a slow process, it's not unusual for a patch to be committed (or abandoned) months or even years after it's proposed, which means that even if some comment was read and replied to in the past, it may have been forgotten by the time a final decision is made. Therefore it's really important to keep the discussion unified in a single place: the relevant patch on https://code.wildfiregames.com/ , because it's there the actual development happens and commits are made.
In case you're referring to https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2507 : you left one comment there and disappeared. Others continued the conversation, on-and-off, the patch was revised six more times, and in the end several people agreed it should be given a try; it was left open for a couple more months and finally committed in December. If it turns out to have a horrible impact, then it can be reverted in A25, of course, though so far I haven't seen people complaining about palisades in A24.
-
For the record, a player could have up to 50 dogs in A23, in A24 only 20. Their movement speed is slightly lower and they can no longer promote, making them effectively weaker.
Dogs might be useful in particular situations, I don't know, though generally investing the 100 food in two more female workers to gather wood or cavalry is better in the early game. Further changes could be made in A25, of course.
-
1
-
-
Basically, there is a reason for every change, otherwise it wouldn't have been committed.
What conversations such as this show is the need for more people to frequently play-test the development version and give feedback before a new stable version is released.
Feedback afterwards is certainly welcome too, however, keep in mind the next version is months away and will also include (many) other changes.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
I still like giving phasing HP bonus, but it isn't super necessary.
One of the reasons for that removal is to make player choices more important. Having technologies everyone would research anyway also increase other things for free is not particularly meaningful. In my opinion technologies should be simple, small, and straightforward, leaving it up to the player to decide what to prioritize.
38 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:keeping worker else for mauraya
I'm not sure what you mean.
41 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:I like cav health bonus for persia/sele (so I would take this away from other civs)
Persians and Seleucids still have a city-phase Nisean Horses technology, which works on top of the generic cavalry health technology that's available to all civilizations (it was added as a partial compensation for the removal of health from the city phase).
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:I like rome camps and would give it siege again to make the difference more pronounced
Siege engines were removed from them at the explicit request of someone who pointed out they were only slightly more expensive than arsenals but much more effective.
Perhaps rams only could be readded to the army camp, I don't know how that will affect balance, it needs testing, as do other things.
33 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:athens basically is no longer unique in any way?
They still have +10% metal gather rate per phase advance (i.e. +21% in city phase), the possibility to train troops in triremes, and the quite interesting Long Walls technology.
-
45 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
The game moves much, much slower. Part of this is because unit production is way slower. Part of this is because units actually move slower. I do not see the need for either of these and both make gameplay considerably longer.
As for unit production, some training times have been tweaked, yes, but not everything is slower; e.g. citizen cavalry went from 15 s to 16 s, but champion cavalry from 30 s to 27 s, reducing the gap between citizens and champions a bit, to make champions a more viable option.
As for unit movement, cavalry has been slowed down a bit, but not everything moves slower; the base speed remains the same (9), traders and female workers are unchanged, rams are a bit slower (8.1→7.2), but infantry spearmen (8.1→9) and pikemen (7.2→8.1) are a bit faster.
Nevertheless, the game certainly does feel slower. I suspect it's primarily because unit rotation rates have been changed to discourage “dancing”; see D2837 for more details; D3274 softened it a bit.
44 minutes ago, Genava55 said:Personally I am in favor of a pop-bonus for each CC, which could help a lot at the start
Each civic centre already gives 20 population. Sure, one could give e.g. a further +5. Or just give Britons an extra house at game start. Or merge the farmstead and house for them. Or something else
.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, king reza the great said:
i wanna say some reason that why alpha 24 is not good.
[...]
i think a23 is much better than a24. in fact a24 is like a different game. when i play it i dont feel im playing 0ad !
You don't have to play A24: you can continue to play A23, if you like, or an even earlier version
.
5 hours ago, king reza the great said:2- there r low differences between civs now and its not interesting. in fact if civs r almost same the game will be boring. in a23 there r enough differences between civs.
Yes. Civilizations were already very similar in A23 and earlier releases and have become even more similar in A24. This is unfortunate, I don't like it much either. The reason it happened is because it's more important to get the basics right and having a balanced core gameplay, from which to further differentiation later.
-
1
-
-
On 20/02/2021 at 10:58 PM, jorellaf said:
Corral
Suggestion: unchanged; Epaulos [Ἔπαυλος], or Mandrâ [Μάνδρᾱ], or Ostrimon [Ὄστριμον] (applies to other Greeks too)All three are fine, I have no preference here; do you? The former might have been chosen because 0 A.D.'s corral is more than just an enclosure, it also has a little building, though I'm guessing here.
On 20/02/2021 at 10:58 PM, jorellaf said:Palisade
Suggestion: Charax [Χἀραξ], or Skolops [Σκόλοψ] (applies to other Greeks too)The latter should be pluralized: σκόλοψ (singular) means ‘pale, stake, anything pointy’, while σκόλοπες (plural) means ‘palisade’. The word χάραξ can mean ‘pointed stake, pale’ (like Latin vallus), but also ‘entrenched army camp’ (like Latin vallum); there is also χαράκωμα ‘palisaded enclosure’.
As for why it's currently called ‘palisade’ for all civs, that's because currently all civs share the same file. I've written a patch to address that: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3594 (and opted for σκόλοπες and vallus).
On 20/02/2021 at 10:58 PM, jorellaf said:Temple
Suggestion: unchanged; Naos [Ναός], but maybe change Attic to Neôs [Νεώς]Currently all Greek civilizations use the same Greek and νᾱός is the most common form; however, other forms are attested, including Ionic νηός, Attic νεώς, Aeolic ναῦος, and Spartan ναϝός.
On 21/02/2021 at 12:47 PM, jorellaf said:Phoenician
Do you actually know any Phoenician, other than the alphabet (abjad)?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Freagarach said:
(I have to say that balancing is mostly changed only in the last month before Feature Freeze or so.)
[Edit]: 2.5 years
A quick look at this post showed there were 92 gameplay-tweaking commits in 2020 and 79 in 2021.
But yeah, two-and-a-half years of development doesn't mean two-and-a-half years of extensive testing.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Nathan Samson said:
The UI is way too small though, it should be scaled up with a factor 2 to be comfortoble
You can do that by inserting:
gui.scale = "2"into your local `user.cfg` file. (See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths for where to find it.)
-
1 hour ago, andy5995 said:
I ran all of these scripts. So far the only things I've noticed are a missing bench
ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'other/bench' ERROR: CCacheLoader failed to find archived or source file for: "simulation/templates/other/bench.xml"(which I couldn't figure out how to fix)
That was D3097. I've now updated the previous post.
1 hour ago, andy5995 said:And the civs can't be changed from the game setup menu. When I uncheck the player name and civ from within Atlas, changes to the civ name are not saved.
I'm not sure what you mean.
-
1
-
-
Classical (Attic) Greek won't be of help in this case, since all words starting with an upsilon are actually aspirated (i.e. start with hy-). It's alien to Latin too. Nor do I expect much from Gaulish, since the few words that survived were written in Greek or Latin alphabets. Therefore we should look east: the y is used for transcribing many languages.
I'm suggesting Yaunā, the Old Persian word for Ionians, Macedonians, and Greeks, which seems to me a nice follow-up to Xšayāršā (Xerxes).
If, however, the Han make it into the next release (
), then we can also use Chinese, giving more options to choose from.
-
4
-
-
21 hours ago, andy5995 said:
Thanks. I also want to give it some thought and see if it could be done with something like
find . -name '*' -print -exec sed -i 's/gaia\/tree\/cretan_date_palm_tall/replacement-text/g' {} \;to fix all the files at once. I'll take a closer look later.
You should have a look at the patches that broke your maps, they have sed scripts to fix things:
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1009
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1010
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2234
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2254
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2774
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3012
- https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3097
Furthermore, you need to replace {civ}_* with {civ}/* (for structures and units). https://code.wildfiregames.com/P225 was used for that, though that script does more than you need, so it's probably better to write a sed script for that (there are only 13 civs). [EDIT] Here you go:
Spoilerfind binaries/data/mods/public/maps/ \( -name '*.js' -o -name '*.json' -o -name '*.xml' \) -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i \ -e 's,structures/athen_,structures/athen/,g' \ -e 's,structures/brit_,structures/brit/,g' \ -e 's,structures/cart_,structures/cart/,g' \ -e 's,structures/gaul_,structures/gaul/,g' \ -e 's,structures/iber_,structures/iber/,g' \ -e 's,structures/kush_,structures/kush/,g' \ -e 's,structures/mace_,structures/mace/,g' \ -e 's,structures/maur_,structures/maur/,g' \ -e 's,structures/pers_,structures/pers/,g' \ -e 's,structures/ptol_,structures/ptol/,g' \ -e 's,structures/rome_,structures/rome/,g' \ -e 's,structures/sele_,structures/sele/,g' \ -e 's,structures/spart_,structures/spart/,g' \ -e 's,units/athen_,units/athen/,g' \ -e 's,units/brit_,units/brit/,g' \ -e 's,units/cart_,units/cart/,g' \ -e 's,units/gaul_,units/gaul/,g' \ -e 's,units/iber_,units/iber/,g' \ -e 's,units/kush_,units/kush/,g' \ -e 's,units/mace_,units/mace/,g' \ -e 's,units/maur_,units/maur/,g' \ -e 's,units/pers_,units/pers/,g' \ -e 's,units/ptol_,units/ptol/,g' \ -e 's,units/rome_,units/rome/,g' \ -e 's,units/sele_,units/sele/,g' \ -e 's,units/spart_,units/spart/,g'
And insert any other civs your mod has.
[EDIT] There are probably some other things I forgot.
-
1
-
On 25/02/2020 at 8:12 PM, Itms said:
I signed the mod and validated it.
Somehow this mod doesn't show up in the in-game mod download in A24. While a lot has changed since A23 and the new release breaks most mods, this one still works fine, as it should: font rendering was last changed in 7595. (And if it doesn't work, clear your cache, then it will.) So could you have a look and make it show up?
-
3 hours ago, Asger said:
Here is a short list about what I have so far:
Thank you for the feedback. Getting the balance right is tricky and we certainly do not claim everything is perfect; 0 A.D. is very much a work in progress. Nevertheless, players such as @badosu, @borg-, @Feldfeld, and @ValihrAnt participated during the development and gave feedback, therefore we hope A24 is overall better than any previous release.
As for war elephants, their crush damage has actually been reduced, from 150 to 120. As for slingers, they had a reload time of 1 s in A23, in A24 it's increased to 1.25 s. As for archers, their range has been reduced from 72+4+4 to 60. Moreover, ranged troops promote more slowly and advanced, elite, and champion ranged troops are easier to kill.
That said, there will be further changes in the next release (A25) and more feedback is certainly welcome!
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Ideally this should have been achieved with overlay icons I, II, III, IV, etc. with a line in techs that add the icon over the portrait. Similar to how rank icons overlay unit portraits. Would have required more code though.
Ideally, yes. Furthermore, portraits (of units, structures, resources, technologies) ought to have fully transparent backgrounds, to improve flexibility and consistency; opaque background colours could be placed underneath with a bit of code.
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Who plays at this resolution?
I do
: having 0 A.D. occupy one-half of the screen allows me to use a text editor or web browser on the other half; or two instances of 0 A.D. next to each other. Besides, designing for a width of 960 pixels also means it will work on 1024×768 (the mimimum supported resolution) and 1280×720, and it allows for easy scaling: 960×2=1920; 960×3=2880; 960×4=3840.
-
As you may have noticed, there is a new stable release of 0 A.D., a lot of things have been changed since 2018, and most mods designed for a23 will no longer work.
I've started writing a new version of my 0abc mod from scratch and included some of the basic things (silver resource, thrust damage, removed resource loot from units, cavalry requires 2 population and can't gather meat, disabled team bonuses, tweaked civ bonuses etc.): https://github.com/0abc/0abc-a24
Currently I'm unhappy with the session interface again, there is simply not enough room in the top panel for five resources and the player view control dropdown or build label:
-
45 minutes ago, ConfusedRose said:
OK, i set guiscale to 1.2, but everything else kinda just messes up: fonts are buggy and have random fragments and such. Is there a way to only enlarge the icons? By icons, I mean like when you click civic center and you train units, the buttons for spearmen/skirmisher.
Is there a possibility that this would be fixed if I set my resolution lower? If so how would I do that?
No, there isn't, the gui scale scales the entire interface. As for why the icons are smaller than they used to be, this was necessary because some civs have more structures than could be displayed with the old 3×8=24 icons in the right selection panel (and it also improves mod support).
1 hour ago, Stan` said:Not sure that people would see / read it. I don't suppose a FAQ wiki page would help much ?
People manage to find play0ad.com and download the game from there, so if they encounter problems, that would be a place to start looking.
32 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Better yet, an in-game Option.
Actually there is a patch for that: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3037
However, for other questions a FAQ is still useful, e.g.:
- Why is 0 A.D. still an alpha?
- When will be the next release?
- Where do the screenshots go?
33 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Font rendering in 0 A.D. is pants tho.
Yes, proper font rendering (e.g. with pango) would be great to have. It would also remove the need to bundle Chinese etc. in separate mods.
-
1
-
1
City Building Mod (A23 & A24)
in Game Modification
Posted
Yes, coinage did exist in 0 A.D.'s timeframe, however, their value depended on their purity and weight. That's also why I decided to name the resource “silver” in my 0abc mod, not “coins” or “money”. And yes, the ancient world certainly wasn't fully monetized: rent was typically a share of the harvest and import duties could be a percentage of the goods.