feneur

I ran via pyrogenesis.exe as I compiled a release version. But it's definitely a good thing to check that you're running the version you've compiled rather than the pre-compiled one from SVN if you're on Windows.

Ah, cool

Hello and welcome to the Wildfire Games forums! How did you find out about 0 A.D.?

Perhaps this should be posted in either the Development & Technical Discussion forum or the 0 A.D. General and Ideas forum? That way we'd get more discussion, and perhaps gather some useful ideas. (As well as be told if people really doesn't like the idea )

Ok, sorry to hear. On Windows I have no problems, neither with or without -quickstart (though after compiling as I'm pretty sure that's needed).

My guess is that you haven't recompiled the game?

For what's been planned for weather effects, see the Design Document: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Background:_Weather

This is a problem with OpenAL (and/or 0 A.D.s use of it), so for it to be fixed a programmer needs to work on it, so nothing you can fix as an ordinary user.

I don't know for sure as I'm not a Mac user, but the built files should still be there even if the computer shut down (as long as it didn't shut down while building).

True, it probably adds more confusion etc than necessary without adding enough value. The player has to assume that the unit he ordered to be created gets through training (or birth, growing up etc if you look at it that way) in just a few seconds, so 200 years in 20 minutes is not the problem in my humble opinion. But yeah, unless we want the buildings to have to be rebuilt, which in my humble opinion is, while realistic, too much micromanagement without any real value.

In general it's not a good thing to modify that file, but rather follow the instructions in the file to create a local.cfg (that way you won't get any conflicts if you update the SVN and the default.cfg is updated in SVN, I think it will just not). I'm not sure exactly where the file should go on a Mac though

Hmm, I'm almost starting to lean towards aging textures =) Not really as seasons give more effect and allows for more varied maps, especially for scenarios. (And also if we have seasons "for looks" it should be less work to make them have actual gameplay effect later. Though thinking about it, at least things like making it slower to walk on snow shouldn't be too hard to do already as textures can already have such effects.) But there could be a nice use of the aging effect: you could determine how far your opponent have come, if this is a new colony or an old. Though things like the number of buildings/what buildings there are could probably be of almost as much use for that purpose, so it's no big deal either way. If there's time and interest aging could be fun to have, but it's not anywhere near a needed feature in my humble opinion

Something like this will probably have to be implemented in any case, since we need something like it if we want the seasons to work as they're described in the DD. That still doesn't say anything about the need for this though =) It can have a value in the sense of helping with the immersion in the game though, but sure, that would interfere with things having a meaning. As long as it's something that's possible to turn off/on per map (as the seasons would be for that matter as they're currently just going to be for visual purposes) it's probably fine though. In either case I think it's something we can think more about when the seasons are implemented, there's enough to do in other areas to keep everyone occupied in either case

Sounds promising at the very least

Splendid, will this (help with) supporting Xcode on the Mac in any way? Would be nice to make things easier for people using that platform both for the sake of Mac programmers and other developers using Mac, so if that's the case you can rest assured your work will be even more appreciated

I don't have much to add, but I promised to say something after I'd read the document so I'd better do that To some extent, now that I'v seen your proposal, and read the other comments, I'm almost leaning towards having some kind of titles/ranks merely for their own sake rather than having experience effect unlockables. It seems having won games (perhaps in a sequence, i.e. win map one, then two etc, you can't choose at random) unlock new content is better, and grinding to get titles is more up to the player whether or not they want to spend their time on. That way they don't "have to grind", they just have to win a map (or more) to move on to unlock more content. Using experience/ranks to help users find good opponents to play with might be a good thing, but being good at accumulating experience points, or even winning games against the AI might not be a good indicator of multiplayer skill. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing having a special set of ranks (might be a bit confusing, unless it's very clear that they're different, perhaps even being referred to as something other than "ranks") or simply displaying number of won/lost matches (probably not too accurate either since you might have won a 100 matches against unskilled people, and might in either case push people towards playing against people of a lower skill than themselves and thus risk scaring away new people as everyone would just think about winning over them as much as possible to boost their stats). In general I'm not sure we should limit the way users experience the game by locking things at first, but both since it helps with getting them accustomed to the features one or a few at a time (and thus have an easier time learning them), and since it can help make people more likely to play multiplayer games, I think it might be worth it. I think calculating experience based on things like: number of enemy units killed - own units lost / time spent playing, could help with lowering the risk of players killing of enemy units, then waiting for the enemy to gain more units and continue until the timer runs out. Having more complex ways to count experience points will be more difficult to explain to the player. On the other hand, simple statistics are already viewable via the end game summary screen, so rewarding players for playing the game the way we want them to rather than for accomplishing things we spell out might be a good thing in any case. It would perhaps need quite a bit of testing to make sure we're measuring the correct things/using the correct numbers. Perhaps the above equation would favor rushers, so the "own units lost" might have to be multiplied with some number to make it more worthwhile with a more cautious playstyle etc. Not sure exactly what we should measure to encourage people to do fun things rather than to grind just to get as much points as possible, but I think we need to look into more complex things than just number of units trained or enemy units killed.

Only on a very amateurish level

That's not dropped, just not implemented yet.

Found this interesting article + video etc via the BlenderNation blog: http://www.blendernation.com/2011/01/06/he...istic-blending/ In short it's a reconstruction of the akropolis at Pergamon, done in Blender, and since there are people on this site who are interested in both ancient history and Blender (and in some cases both) I thought I'd post the link here so you have a chance to take a look at it. I really cannot say I know much about Pergamon, but seeing the rendered video from the reconstruction surely has made me interested to know more, it seems like it was a really interesting place. At least architecturally.

I don't have time to read it just yet, but wanted to post a few general comments (which of course may or may not be at all relevant, so only take them seriously if they're relevant, otherwise move on and forget about them ) In general I think rewards systems can be "an easy way out", when the game itself isn't interesting enough it's easy to throw on some arbitrary rewards, like: get a ribbon if you win 25 games, another if you win 25 with a certain civilization or a third if you win a game only using citizen soldiers. While that can be nice to have as a minor addition, it should never be put in as a major feature/instead of something else. I think having more game modes is more relevant and better. From things like nomadic, herocide, etc through (custom) scenarios and random maps to things like the proposed idea of having a "conquer the world" mode where you have to conquer several maps in sequence to win the overall game. Any kind of rewards system is probably more funny/useful if it's in some way "social" (i.e. either multiplayer or submitted scores/statistics from singleplayer games), not necessarily in the way of comparing yourself to others in an unhealthy way, but more like giving people a small badge they can show in their forum profile if they've achieved a certain goal etc. So it's at least a bit more than just having a title light up in an in-game dialog or so. I don't think we should do things like having special content that only players who have achieved a certain goal can access/can access before others. That would go against the idea of 0 A.D. in my humble opinion. So, now I'll go cook and eat and other things and hopefully I have some time to read through the document and enter some more related comments later (Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow, so please remind me if I haven't posted by Saturday )

Not so sneaky anymore =)

Hiram, thanks for your review of the movie.

Ok, now I see it as well =) I was using the Alpha 3 version, didn't think there had been any changes that would affect it since then (At least it proves that it's something that happened after Alpha 3.)

Which version of the game are you using? (Didn't get any errors with the latest version, so it's likely that you either are using an old version or, perhaps more likely, that you have made local changes on your copy of the game.)

Agreed, my point is just that if you have to choose between two tasks and one is at least in some obscure way related to the AI I think you should choose the later. But finishing things definitely comes first, so don't take it as me saying everyone should drop everything they're working on Only that I think we should get the AI system as solid as possible from the start