feneur

To me the main reason why we're keeping all these Hellenistic factions is to not throw away the work that's already been done. I personally would probably have preferred to have fewer Hellenistic factions, and perhaps add one or two others, but it's not really the matter what I or anyone else think personally. What matters is what makes sense for the game, and from a development point of view. To me it's hard to argue for adding more factions as it's a lot of work even maintaining the ones we have and make sure they are as interesting to play as they can, and will be as balanced as they can be. I still don't think it's a good way to go to remove factions we already have though. Both because that would mean that the work put into them would have been wasted, and because we have said that the game will include these civilizations. Sure sometimes you have to change things, and remove things, even though you have said they will be included, but to remove something just to add something else instead doesn't seem like a good way to go. While I sometimes do use the word civilizations as well I prefer factions as the word civilization has some problematic connotations, i.e. is a group of people more or less civilized, or for that matter how do you define exactly what group of people is a civilization. A faction is simply a group that's been set apart as a unified group for this game, so it doesn't carry the same problems.

What do you think it would add to the game? As I see it it does have the good effect of being possible to intercept by the other players, which would add one more thing one could do to affect the outcome of the game. I do think it does at the very least have some things which would have to be thought through before adding though. Using a trader would mean that you would not only be losing resources because you are giving them to someone, you would also lose the ability to use the trader to gain more resources during the time it's used to deliver the tribute. I think that would mean people are less likely to tribute resources, and if it's not used/rarely used I think that's an argument against it. Especially since it's something that can make e.g. a situation where one player is focused on by the enemies more fair/balanced as the allies can easily help by tributing resources, but if you would have to send traders through a battle-field to help out it would be a lot harder to do. It also means that it's harder for a player who is just about to be defeated to send any remaining resources to their team mates, but I guess that could be seen as a good thing if you want matches to be over sooner/give bigger benefits to the winning team. When giving tribute to an enemy it would give the added risk of someone else intercepting it etc, but I think it would add more angry players than benefits ("did you really send a tribute? you might be saying that you did, and that someone else destroyed it, but how would I know?" etc). Maybe it can be seen as an added dimension, but to me it seems like a lot of hassle, for a small added benefit.

Selection is defined by a box as far as I know, and not really depending on the model or animation. At least that's the case for buildings, I'm not sure if it differs with units/animals.

I've hidden three recent posts because they were unrelated to the topic, and if anything only could serve to cause conflict. If someone wants to be sure that others take their opinions/suggestions seriously I would advise to not bring up old conflicts but rather new ideas

It's only for random maps, change the first dropdown list (Map type) to be random rather than scenario or skirmish (These maps are handmade, so they come with the players they were made to feature. Random maps are put together by the game from a script and based on the settings you choose, so they are more flexible.)

Unless I'm mistaken that means that the AI will build up its civilization, but will not set out to attack you. Any units you send near it will still be attacked though.

Just realized there is the option to, if you choose to play on a random map, choose to only have one player on the map, yourself.

You can still destroy buildings, it's just not the default action because we want people to discover the capture mechanic (Use Ctrl+click to attack rather than capture, and siege weapons will always destroy, also it's easier to capture a building when it's lower on health.)

If you want to keep an opponent on the map to fight eventually you can set the AI difficulty to Sandbox (then it will not attack you). I think you could do that, and then set the victory condition to Wonder and you could still win the game when you want without having to fight (though I'm not 100% sure the AI won't build a wonder eventually, someone else will have to tell you about that). If you just want to build and don't worry about another player (and don't care about winning after you've built up your civilization), just use the developer controls (Alt+D to bring up), select Reveal Map, then Control all units, and then delete all the opponents units. That will give you a win dialog, but you can just select no and continue building as much as you like (I don't know how well it works with saved games, but at least for a single play session it should work fine, and there's no harm in testing -- apart from lost time I guess).

Are you using the version from this thread? Because if so it shouldn't be expected to work as it's for the Alpha 17 version of 0 A.D. The version in is the one which is supposed to work with Alpha 21 of 0 A.D.

I really doubt we can use this as it most likely is distinct enough to be copyrighted. Better to do something unique anyway

I would have to agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone, if I remember correctly that area is where the most pyramids in the world are to be found, so that would be really nice to both highlight (to teach people) and make them stand out from the other civilizations.

Shouldn't it be possible to do via techs though? I.e. you have to make the choice to research "Send embassy to x civ" and "Send embassy to y civ" techs before you can build the buildings, then they could have no limits for the amount of buildings.

I might have missed it as I haven't read this thread very closely, but what is it that makes the Kushites special from a game play perspective?

It's up to you what you do, though I don't really think it would be necessary to have individual topics for each. I do prefer to create a forum once there is a need for it though and not beforehand, so I suggest you begin to create some relevant topics and once there's enough discussion/activity it's easy to create a new forum and move topics there. I do suggest you use "Kush" rather than the full "Kushites" in the title though, mostly so that it doesn't take up so much space in the title, but I would assume that will be the short-hand version of it in e.g. template names etc anyway, so probably useful to start getting used to it Actually it's probably best to use it as a tag, that way it stands out a bit + it's easy to find the related topics etc

It certainly can be done, it's easy enough. I am a bit reluctant to create a forum for just three topics though (this + one for buildings and one for units). If there is a need for more than say five-six topics I think creating a new forum is a good idea, but at this point it does seem unnecessary.

We use Transifex (https://www.transifex.com/wildfire-games/0ad/dashboard/ ) for translation, so it's probably better to suggest the change there. I'm not sure, but I think that there are plenty of translators who don't visit the forum at all.

I'd say there are two things to consider here: First: as Lion says people are more likely to do what they enjoy doing, and while it's not always as effective short-term it can bring benefits long-term as we can't pay people so there needs to be some other motivation. Second: Not everyone has the skills to do everything, so sometimes there might not be official tasks which fit someone's expertise, but a mod/own idea might provide something one can do. In this specific case I think it's far more likely that Johnathan and Enrique just forgot about it though

There is the button next to the minimap You can also change the keyboard shortcut to be able to use this feature with another key, please see http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Manual_Settings#KeyboardShortcuts for more information. There might be something more in play in this case though as you say that the Period key doesn't work, but someone else would have to help out with more knowledge. Changing the shortcut key might be something to try in any case though, at least for the time being.

Either you click the Start new topic text when you are watching an existing thread: or when you are viewing a forum you click the Start new topic button at the top of the page:

(Split this out into it's own topic )

I would assume he means that he wants to be able to jump backwards and forwards in time in the replays. Whether it's feasible to add a full timeline or maybe some way to jump say a couple of minutes back and forth will have to be seen, as far as I remember when it was last discussed it sounded like it was quite difficult as the game needs to basically recalculate everything when you move back or forth in time. So something might be included, but as far as I know it's difficult.

I split this into its own topic as it wasn't related to screenshots, and deleted Lion's comment as it's no longer relevant now (but thanks).

I haven't watched it all, but I did see you copy pixels from an image for the eyebrows. I don't really see why though since you blurred it so much in the end. In practice I guess going so far away from the original means that there would be no consequences, but in theory you really shouldn't do that either. Especially when there really isn't anything gained from it. I do hope things like the original statue image and the SPQR symbol image are either public domain or compatible with the 0 A.D. license. As for the image itself, I would suggest that you use a lot less opacity in your brushes, 20% maximum. Your images have always seemed a bit extreme in colors/differences in sharpness etc, and now that I've seen your process I think that's probably one way to get around it. For laying down initial colors I guess a higher percentage can work as well, but in general I'd say it's better to be more subtle.

Are the photos you are using of those actors available using a license that is compatible with 0 A.D.'s?