Nescio
-
Posts
2.300 -
Joined
-
Days Won
23
Posts posted by Nescio
-
-
Yes, I'm aware the current situation is quite incoherent, however, ideally it ought to be one language for one faction. If you think you could make it more consistent or historically accurate, great, feel free to go ahead
-
Consistency is important. It's a bad idea if one faction uses words from different languages (Welsh, Gaelic, and Gaulish alongside each other). However, it's a great idea to use different languages to differentiate Britons and Gauls from each other, e.g.:
- Britons: Welsh
- Gauls: Gaulish (if possible)
-
3 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
They were
@Alexandermb Check it out. We are also one step away from having all the new meshes in the game
Great! I was asking because this topic's title doesn't include your “===[COMMITED]===” tag
4 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:> Camel cavalry
You mean camelry (cf. elephantry); cavalry implies the use of horses; “camel cavalry” is a contradiction in terminis. Other than that, I'm looking forward to it, a lot of great work has been done recently. Many thanks!
-
On 27/11/2017 at 9:21 PM, stanislas69 said:
@LordGood I fixed the texture, and added Alexander's animations. If you have no objections, I'd like to commit it.
@Alexandermb Your variant files were bugged so I added the anims inside the files directly and removed them. Basically things would get bad if you asked the onager to move. Also there was a lot of useless stuff in there. See a fixed file for example. Thanks for your work.Have these updated siege actors with animated crews been included in the svn version? If not, will they be added (eventually)?
-
That horse (eight posts up) looks really great! Legs move, tail moves, rider moves, even the cape moves.
One thing could be improved though: right now the horse's head, neck, and body is one solid block, which looks quite static. If it would consist of at least three separate elements which could move independently, the animation would look more natural
And perhaps the horse could occassionally look around or graze some grass when idle?
-
Happy New Year!
0abc has been updated again:
-
Ships cost 0 population
- Fishing boats are limited to two per dock
- Merchant ships are limited to five per market
- Warships are not limited but consume a significant amount of silver each 30 seconds
-
Centres have +20% build time, health, and territory influence radius per phase; furthermore:
- no phase: base cost is 500 wood; 25 m and 50 m auras enabled; no silver trickle rate
- village phase: +500 food cost; 75 m aura enabled; grant 1 silver per 7 seconds
- town phase: +500 stone cost; 100 m aura enabled; grant 2 silver per 7 seconds
- city phase: +500 metal cost; 125 m aura enabled; grant 3 silver per 7 seconds
- metropolis phase: +500 silver cost; 150 m aura enabled; grant 4 silver per 7 seconds
-
Upkeep:
- Military structures consume 1 food per 7 seconds
- Lighthouses consume 1 wood per 7 seconds
- Libraries consume 2 silver per 7 seconds
- Harbours consume 1 food and 1 silver per 7 seconds
- Fortresses consume 1 silver per 7 seconds
- Warships consume silver, mercenaries consume silver, champions consume food
- Fanatics no longer benefit from armour technologies
- Females can no longer be trained at the centre; houses no longer count towards town phase requirement; unlock research requirement is removed, females can always be trained at houses
- Changed a few civilization bonuses from autoresearched technologies to permanent global auras
- Various minor edits
As usual, have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf reference document for more detailed information.
On 07/12/2017 at 5:52 PM, Servo said:I think if the gates can be modified to at least allow to be garrisoned in the side maybe one slot each on each end they won’t turn into Gaia.
For your information, I tried it out and subsequently reverted it, because if units are garrisoned on top of the gates, the doors are permanently gaping wide open (even if you command it to be locked).
-
2
-
Ships cost 0 population
-
4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
the avatar shows elephant unit instead elite sacred cavalry in the temple from Carthage faction,
The issue is actually rP20677 :
- cart_champion_cavalry.png was correctly moved to cart_champion_elephant.png, which succeeded
- cart_sacred_band_cavalry.png ought to have been moved to cart_champion_cavalry.png, which failed
As a result the icon used by the sacred band cavalry is a copy of the one used by the elephant. To fix it, delete the “new” cart_champion_cavalry.png and afterwards move the old cart_sacred_band_cavalry.png icon to cart_champion_cavalry.png
-
1
-
1
-
On 23/12/2017 at 9:08 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Question. Is there one resource that every faction uses? Rupees? if so then trade and tribute can be all done with just that one resource. A rupee based international economy. Can solve some of the issues with having a dozen different resources. Maybe this was alrdy suggested.
On 23/12/2017 at 10:23 PM, SirPope said:I think the market should be based off of a resource that can't be collected in the game. Like a form of currency. It's determining how much 'money' a civ has that is hard. 10% the price of a building added to the currency amount? When you buy something, reduce the amount of currency that civ has, and have it trickle to the max amount (like a tax basically). I don't know if they had currency in 0ad.
On 23/12/2017 at 11:43 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Yeah, for DE I'd like to add a Coin resource, which is the resource you trade with and buy resources with, and is what I was basically advocating for H:C but with Rupees. Coin would be used to hire mercenaries and stuff like that and represent money or currency. Yes, they had advanced coinage in the 0 A.D. time frame.
Problem is maintaining component files that will constantly be deprecated. So, I refuse to add stuff like that until Beta is reached.
HC's rupees, DE's coin, and 0abc's silver are all basically the same resource. It would be really nice if a feature to restrict trading specific resources were included in A23.
-
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I tried this once with making unit consume food,
That's something I've considered as well (it works great in Cossacks), however, it would also involve a farming overhaul etc., which is why I don't intend to try out human food consumption, or mercenary silver consumption, not yet at least.
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:when it goes negative you can afford everything. It's like infinite resources or something.*
Interesting. It is no longer the case though. I tested it out earlier and checked it again now: when I have -10 food I can't train a female, and the tooltip states “Insufficient resources: 60 food”. Also, the AI is able to keep its food stock positive, at least in yesterday's test game.
-
1
-
-
0abc updated, changes include amongst other things:
- corrals can be deleted again (there was a typo: "2x4" instead of "4x2")
- all technology research times are multiplied by 1.5 (to make the game slower paced)
- all unit training times are multiplied by 2.0 (to encourage keeping your units alive)
-
all military buildings each consume 1 food per 5 seconds (to make barracks spamming more costly)
- this negative resource trickle rate can result in getting a negative food stockpile (I think it's interesting enough to try it out, although I might change it later)
-
changed silver trickle rates:
- wonders: 2 silver per 1 second (and no other resources)
- palaces: 1 silver per 1 second
- catafalques: 1 silver per 2 seconds
-
more structure auras:
- 15 m from houses: females +1 crush, hack, and pierce armour
- 20 m from corrals: workers +15% food.meat gather rate
- 30 m from farmsteads: workers +10% food.grain gather rate
- 40 m from storehouses: workers +5% wood.tree gather rate
- 60 m from rotary mills: workers +20% food.grain gather rate
-
100 m, 75 m, 50 m, 25 m from centres: civic structures +10% capture points, workers +5% build speed, -5% resource gather speed, +1% movement speed
- these bonuses combine (so if a worker is within 25 m of a centre, i.e. practically adjacent, it builds at 121.55% and gathers at 81.45%) but do not stack (a worker within 100 m of three centres gets the 100 m aura only once)
-
finally separated builders from workers:
- females can gather, but can no longer build
- citizen soldiers can both gather and build
- mercenary soldiers can no longer gather, but can build
- champion soldiers can neither gather, nor build
- many other tweaks I did longer ago and have partially forgotten by now
Have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf for more detailed information.
-
2
-
2 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Well I'm getting a very strange error when I try to look at the Zora Techtree in game:
<!DOCTYPE html> <meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Pyrogenesis Log</title> <style>body { background: #eee; color: black; font-family: sans-serif; } p { background: white; margin: 3px 0 3px 0; } .error { color: red; } .warning { color: blue; }</style> <h2>0 A.D. (0.0.22) Main log (warnings and errors only)</h2> <p class="warning">WARNING: JavaScript warning: gui/structree/helper.js line 177 reference to undefined property g_ParsedData.phaseList[0]</p> <p class="warning">WARNING: The "Town Phase" technology is not researchable in any structure buildable by the zora civilisation, but is required by something that this civ can research, train or build!</p> <p class="warning">WARNING: The "City Phase" technology is not researchable in any structure buildable by the zora civilisation, but is required by something that this civ can research, train or build!</p> <p class="error">ERROR: JavaScript error: gui/structree/helper.js line 170 ReferenceError: techName is not defined GetActualPhase@gui/structree/helper.js:170:2 GetPhaseOfTemplate@gui/structree/helper.js:180:1 selectCiv@gui/structree/structree.js:181:22 __eventhandler182 (selectionchange)@civSelection selectionchange:0:1 init@gui/structree/structree.js:36:27 openStrucTree@gui/session/menu.js:1034:1 __eventhandler158 (press)@civIconOverlay press:0:1</p> <p class="error">ERROR: GUI page 'page_structree.xml': Failed to call init() function</p> <p>Engine exited successfully on 2017-12-20 at 23:24:56 with 1016 message(s), 2 error(s) and 7 warning(s).</p>
Every unit, building, and tech for their faction works perfectly, there's nothing that's not showing up and both the town and city phase can be researched at their civil center.
Usually this means there is a typo in the <RequiredTechnology> element, e.g. Phase_Town instead of phase_town. If this is the case, the entity will correctly show up in the tech tree, however, it won't be buildable in game, because its requirement can't be normally researched, hence the warning.
-
Just now, Sundiata said:
That's the point. The better player wins. Why would the slow guy win? Or why would the guy suffering from crippling invasions win? If you play better, you win harder...
No, not the better player, the fastest player. The better player is the one who can survive an unfavourable situation and end up as the victor. If that's not possible in a game then I rapidly lose my interest. I favour games which are balanced and complex.
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:That's counterintuitive and inorganic. Scale-advantages suggest it should become cheaper to build barracks if you've already built 10 of them (expertise/experience and such), economy 101.
Mass production, economy of scale, and learning curve are very modern concepts which form an essential part of our world nowadays, but were absent throughout most of human history. The larger the population and territory, the harder a state could be controlled. Small but efficient Macedon conquered the enormous Persian Empire.
-
22 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
3 "military recruitment structures" per CC (after the introduction of stables/ranges) is totally reasonable. If you have 2 CC's, you can build 6 "recruitment structures", if you have 3 CC's, you can build 9 recruitment structures, and so on.
This would favour players who control lots of territory (and already have the advantages of resources and space), penalize players who're slow to expand, as well as make it harder for players who're under attack, have lost a centre or two, and are now trying to rebuild their army.
Let's assume a tiny two-player map; both players have two centres each, player A loses one to player B, the map is too small to build a new one, and suddenly B can produce soldiers three times as quickly. Do you really think A would still have a reasonable chance of winning?
Instead of limiting the numbers of barracks, maybe buildings could ramp up in cost, making each subsequent structure cost e.g. 20% more than the previous? So your fifth barracks would cost 207%, the tenth 516%; the total sum of the first five barracks is 644%, the first ten cost 2496% together; average cost of first five is 129%, average of first ten is 250%. A farming household can be run with much less corruption and waste than a large empire. It works great in RoN (which also had resource income limits).
Or simply assign a population cost to barracks.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Just a quick question, is there a ranged version of this:
<Bonuses>
<BonusCavMelee>
<Classes>Cavalry</Classes>
<Multiplier>3.0</Multiplier>
</BonusCavMelee>
</Bonuses>It doesn't seem to work for ranged attacks. Changing BonusCavMelee to Bonus1 doesn't seem to work either.
The name of the bonus doesn't really matter (if it's the same the child's overrides the parent's, if it's different both apply). The <bonuses> element has to be put inside an attack, which can be capture, melee, ranged, or slaughter, e.g.:
<Attack> <Melee> <Bonuses> <Cavalry> <Classes>Cavalry Ranged</Classes> <Multiplier>1.5</Multiplier> </Cavalry> <Elephantry> <Classes>Elephant</Classes> <Multiplier>0.5</Multiplier> </Elephantry> </Bonuses> <MaxRange>6</MaxRange> <Pierce>8</Pierce> <PrepareTime>750</PrepareTime> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Human</PreferredClasses> <RepeatTime>1000</RepeatTime> </Melee> </Attack>
11 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:Upon closer inspection I think it is working, it's just not displaying that the unit has the ability to counter when you hover the cursor over their portrait.
To do that you have to manually add it to the tooltip, e.g.:
<Identity> <GenericName>Melee Camel</GenericName> <Tooltip>Counters: 1.5× vs Ranged Cavalry. Penalties: 0.5× vs Elephants.</Tooltip> <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Camel Melee</VisibleClasses> </Identity>
10 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:Another small question I might have asked before but don't remember, is there a way to make it so that attacking a specific class of unit generates a trickle of a specific resource?
Not exactly; currently there are three different options available:
- <Loot>: if a unit is killed it grants these resource amounts to its enemy
- <Looter>: if a unit kills it gains these resource amounts as additional loot
- <ResourceTrickle>: this unit passively generates a constant flow of resources for its owner
10 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:I'm adding in a few last minute things and I want Gerudo units to gain a slow trickle of Rupees when they are attacking enemy workers and storehouses.
You could consider creating an aura for that (don't forget to include it under <Auras datatype="tokens"> in your unit files).
6 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:Last question, how exactly does the game detect and use Team Bonuses? I've found them floating around in simulation\data\auras\teambonuses and I've made them, but I have a feeling I need to do something more then just have a civ_ prefix because none of them are working.
Have a look at e.g. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/special/player_athen.xml
-
1
-
27 minutes ago, Grugnas said:
Still I am of the opinion ( i'd go in this direction in my mod in a23 ) that a Ranged or Stable structure would be kinda meaningless from the gameplay pov since 2 separate buildings ( ranged and barracks or stables and barracks ) would already do the job. Training 1 or 2 units per building is kinda frustrating and perhaps confusional. Imagine mauryan building barracks in order to train spearmen only or ranged strcture for archers only.. I am of the opinion that Barracks and Stables would suit the most,
Yeah, I don't really see the need for archery ranges either. In my 0abc mod I've distributed units as following:
- centres: females, one melee and one ranged infantry citizen, all heroes
- barracks: melee and ranged infantry (citizen and mercenary)
- cavalry stables: melee and ranged cavalry (citizen and mercenary)
- elephant stables: worker, melee, and ranged elephants (citizen, mercenary, and champion)
- hall (limited to one, plus one for each centre): champion units
- fortress: --- (purely defensive)
- siege workshop: siege weapons
- dock and crannog: fishing boats, merchant ships, barges, fireships
- shipyard and harbour: galleys
Of course, different people have different preferences, which is why it's great we can have different mods
Your suggestion to have three different blacksmiths seems a bit of an overkill, though.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, stanislas69 said:
Fauna is not low priority it's just that we are out of hand.
It's not a complaint. I fully understand the team is very small and has limited time. Also, I greatly admire the content created in the past few months. My point is merely that if the choice is between creating a siege workshop or a hare, it makes perfect sense to put give fauna a lower priority. Also, quality matters as well, and it's probably better to improve existing, frequently used actors than to create dozens of "temporary" placeholders.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Move the starting resources away from the CC! We've been screaming this for months or years now.
Yes, I fully agree, it would be really nice if someone who understand map file and has free time could move the metal and stone mines individually to a random spot e.g. 120 to 180 m from your starting centre, instead of always having both next to each other at about 50 m. The location of fruit bushes might be looked at as well.
28 minutes ago, Sundiata said:47 minutes ago, Grugnas said:Perhaps many players didn't realize it but the game is kinda frenetic since 10 sec for a soldier to train is quite low and usually using batches to train soldiers from fewer barracks helps to use the stockpiled resources and it is basically a battalion-like training system but building many barracks is always more efficient and it let you make a lot of pressure with a meat wall of soldiers since they can be replaced very fast, and this in parts kill the military strategy.
This... I don't think it's good that you can train 50 soldiers in a minute flat, from a handful of barracks. Assuming it takes more than a minute to conquer your enemies' base, your enemy could have an entirely new, and sizeable army trained by the time you reach their CC. If the enemy is already in your base, it should be waaaay too late to start training a defensive army.
I'm contemplating doubling the training time of all units in my mod, 0abc; this would make the game more slow paced, encourage raiding and keeping your own units alive; however, batch training and barracks spamming would probably become even more common in late game.
-
10 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
If their anims are similar to rabbits @Alexandermb or myself can probably add some to the game as well.
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:For how small these are, you could literally make a Hare template and just use the rabbit actor for now until the hare model is done.
Both hares and rabbits are rodents with long ears, but other than that, they're are quite different, simply reusing actors seems like a very bad idea.
10 hours ago, stanislas69 said:Sounds like ticket material
Until many more animals are created, most people will probably prefer alien species to no fauna; only a tiny minority (myself included) cares about historic realism.
10 hours ago, stanislas69 said:Interesting. In the current situation though I was mainly improving the current models, not adding new stuff. I wish I had that much time on my hands. Maybe in february.
Fauna have a low priority, and rightly so. I've posted a list of animals which I think ought to be available in the long run at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22944-domesticated-animals-livestock-and-other-fauna/
However, I certainly do not really expect anyone to start creating them. (Biodiversity would be a great way to distinguish 0 A.D. from commercial games such as AoK, though. Besides, animal actors could be used in any mod for any period in human history.)
-
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Love this... Is there a hare in game? They were more widely spread at the time.
Unfortunately there are no hares yet, although they lived all over Eurasia (and still do). Rabbits were historically limited to the Iberian peninsula and did not emerge beyond the Pyrenees until Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period. (Also, rabbits were considered pests, not food, as were mice and rats; hares, on the other hand, were considered food and were hunted and eaten.)
0 A.D., as with many other things, flatly contradicts historic reality and includes rabbits in India maps.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Constructing walls is difficult, and the AI isn't able to cope with this either.
QuoteI think I've got the answer to why people put farms near the CC's and don't use farmsteads.
Not just people (human players can do what they like), the problem is that the AI has this behaviour as well. As for why, it's because it's the most sensible thing to do under the current mechanics.
QuoteUgly like building farms around the CC (an illogical AoE convention)
Which is something I don't like either. I tried out a building restriction in my mod, 0abc, e.g. farms at least 75 m from centres; however, structure distance is calculated from object centre to object centre, and shuttle distance is edge to edge, thus perhaps 40 m. More importantly, the AI continues to build farms as close to centres as possible (which looks even weirder), so I'll probably revert this construction restriction (I don't want to penalize the AI). Apparently the ugly "farms around centres" behaviour is hard coded in Petra.
Another idea I have is using auras instead, e.g.:
- 50 m from centres: structures +20% capture points, workers -20% gather rates
- 100 m from centres: structures +10% capture points, workers -10% gather rates
- farmsteads and storehouses might get a slight gather bonus aura (cf. rotary mill)
The AI seems to be aware of diminishing returns, so maybe it can also take auras into account, and decide to build farms around farmsteads instead of centres.
QuoteOn 17/12/2017 at 7:15 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:[...] What I would do instead is just move starting resources out away from the starting CC to strongly encourage building Storehouses and Farmstead instead of relying on the CC so much as a dropsite. [...]
[...] I was thinking that the CC could be programmed to only be able to store a nominal amount of each resource, like max 200 of every resource. [...]
It seems you're talking about two different things. On the one hand, there is 5000 metal and 5000 stone within walking distance of your starting centre on about every map. Moving mines further away to or beyond the edge of your initial territory would be a great improvement.
On the other hand, the suggestion to have maximum resource capacities, which worked great in Caesar III and Stronghold. This is an interesting idea to explore (e.g. no buildings mean you can not gather any resources; centres increase every resource capacity by 500 each; small houses increase food capacity by 100 and wood by 50, big houses double that; granaries food by 1000; storehouses wood, stone, metal by 300 each; etc.), although it would mean significantly more micro-management, which is not necessarily an improvement.
-
3
-
Congratulations, it seems 0 A.D. is one of the five real time strategy games which made it into the top 100. Now a new voting round has started, which will end in slightly over nine days and twelve hours. Currently 0 A.D. is ranked #57. It would be nice if we could end up higher. The voting link remains unchanged.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
I don't at the moment but I could set one up.
You don't have to if you don't want to, it's merely a suggestion.
10 hours ago, The Undying Nephalim said:There will be ten resources in the game, but each faction never uses more then four. This is why I need resources to hide themselves from the UI if they are not used by a faction.
Apparently I misunderstood your question earlier; I thought you wanted to have, use, and display more than the default four resources; I now see your request is actually another, interesting idea. On the one hand it simplifies things (the gui can be left unchanged as it is, because it's designed for exactly four resources); on the other hand it complicates things (your novel suggestion requires changing how several underlying things work); it's neither impossible nor straightforward.
Basically there are two issues: on the one hand, having different resources for different factions; on the other, displaying different resources for different factions.
Let's start with the latter (your actual question). By default different factions have a nearly identical gui; the only difference is the faction emblem; you should have a look at the relevant code to figure out how that's done. What you probably should do is creating faction-specific resource arrays (e.g. Gorons: rupees, rock sirloin, wood, stone) and then telling the gui panels (top, trade, and barter) to load and display only the resources included in the new faction-specific arrays, instead of all resources.
Now the former. Do you want to allow factions to have, acquire, and trade resources other than the four they use? If not, things which have to be changed include:
- Allow different starting amounts for different resources
- Allow different starting resources for different factions
- Allow restricting barter, trade, tribute, etc.
Because it's likely you're not the only one who would want this, these three features should probably be enabled in the default 0 A.D. distribution.
-
15 minutes ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Does this only limit 4 resources showing up at a time or just resize the icons so all resources fit?
In my mod I increased the limits and number of items, resized icons, resized panels, and moved around some things, including the mini-map; it could be useful as an example if you want to start tweaking the gui for your mod. Also, the summary at the bottom of the wiki page includes a list of files to be edited.
How many resources do you intend to have in the long run? It's probably more efficient to properly redesign the gui once than it is to tweak everything every time you add a resource.
PS Do you also have a location (e.g. github) where one could easily browse or view individual files of your mod? This would make it easier to help you if you encounter problems.
-
On 05/12/2017 at 8:21 PM, Dade said:
As humble (and n00b) player, cavalry shouldn't take 2 population slots instead of 1? I am not complaining for the current 'meta' (that could always change) it's just I feel it should reflect the fact there are both soldiers and horses to feed.
If I am not wrong, elephants already take 3 population slots but cavalry it's still taking 1. I think it should be taken into consideration for either this - great - mod or the game itself.
Besides having both horse and rider to feed, cavalry also has higher movement speed, health, vision range, and attack than infantry counterparts, therefore it is perfectly sensible to increase their population requirement to two instead of one. This is actually one of many things I implemented in my mod, 0abc, months ago. One side-effect is that armies have higher infantry to cavalry ratios, which is perfectly fine, since armies with 10% cavalry or more were highly uncommon in Antiquity.
===[COMMITTED]=== New animations for fishermen
in Completed Art Tasks
Posted
Fishermen in boats typically used cast nets to catch fish. Fishermen standing in the water often used spears, harpoons, or hoop nets. Or empty traps they set up earlier. Clams were picked up at low tide or occassionally dived for.
Angling is a modern hobby to pass the time (and not necessarily to catch fish).