hyperion

Thank you!

The most sane proposal in this thread wrt. this issue made by @Feldfeld to half all ranged damage seems to get categorically ignored.

Sorry to say, but this should have been split into five patches. A patch that reads as squash unrelated changes is plain awful.

Not yet another Greek civ is something I strongly agree with. Xiongnu, Maya, Zapotec, Yayoi are all fine by me. As for assets, it's perfectly fine if there is only one variant, on the other hand I dislike shared assets between civs. So those listed as crib models from civs already in the game are a no go for me.

The sole purpose is obviously to trigger the bot, this really feels like arguing with my 10 years old nice.

What is really kafkaesque is the issue as was recently demonstrated in the forums. And if people do something in an attempt to fix this they get criticized or even attacked. It's very obvious that all those mentions weren't in context were will to fight would be used in abbreviated form normally. Seriously just get used to use w2f in future. It doesn't really matter where you set the bar, just handle it consistently. That being said, the list of offensive terms or it's source should be publicly maintained.

The simplest would be to always garrison trained units in ships without the need of a mechanic to set garrison point.

Walls don't obstruct vision either. Also trees, mountains, structures et al don't inhibit ranged attacks either, so why should walls?

Agreed, without looking at the code this is very hard to parse. Also increasing capture attack would be similar in effect and imho more natural.

To obstruct movement.

All your options seem to be already covered by the different stances (as supposed to). Maybe allowing to choose default stance like default formation might be an idea tho.

Well, for a poll to be meaningful it has to run for more like two weeks than two days, then a month of play-testing at the bare minimum, then a debriefing of at least 2 weeks. As I see it, there is just enough time to cleanup the current changes and have a discussion on which changes had a positive/neutral/negative impact, then based on that discussion merge whats left into main before FF. @Kampot stated earlier in this thread he feels the current state is a mess, where many don't even clearly know what the changes are. The author of half the changes and most active player stating having time over new year (for many this is a busy time) to play test another dozen changes doesn't help if you want for the changes to have a broad acceptance. Probably, but having a poll of cleaned up changes (code-wise and listed in prose) and a discussion (what @alre intended here) would be a means to foster trust. Keeping the proposed changes out for now would also mean there is content for community-mod early instead of late in the a27 cycle. Trying to get in as much as possible right before FF may lead to stress and extended periods of FF, which no one profits from. ---- I haven't had that much time testing the changes but the reduction in territory radius without adjusting min distance felt far from ideal in closed maps. The reduction in cost of CC is actually what might have a positive impact and I don't see why they need to be a package.

The engine is called pyrogenesis. Using it for an fps is possible, actually there already exists a mod that does use first person view, just can't remember where I saw it. That said, it's probably not a great choice for a modern fps, more for something a la wolfenstein.

For this to be believable we actually need to see changes dropped ... time will tell. The other thing is we are close to FF and a whole load of new changes might get merge last minute, this would basically be throwing away the label of "play-tested".

Do you have an example of a component messaging another within the same entity? Also do the components know which other components belong to the same entity without querying the engine?

Thanks to capture, basically yes.

And only implement the top 5 changes in 0ad proper, so we don't end up changing everything every other release.

Acceleration I'd say should be an artist only property, make things looking and feeling good is the only legitimate purpose in my book.

The only sensible thing is to remove the diminishing returns for all civs, @maroder had such a plan, a hidden bonus to a hidden feature doesn't make sense at all. Just because a parameter exits doesn't mean it has to be tweaked. Increase gather rate for a civ if you want a farming bonus.

This is a typical road "texture", guess this would be plausible as well. The slabs to the left by the columns would also be a fine texture for the plaza and what I had in mind.

Guess dirt would be fine as well, just that this texture feels somehow wrong to me.

Instead of a "mod" repo a branch in a 0ad fork would probably be better for later merge. A script to create a mod from a branch is trivial to write.

No one would use Windows then. Sure functionality wise the UI isn't a master piece but I wouldn't call it broken. PS: A designer told me that the first 8 seconds are the most important. Leaving the start page in that time is close to impossible on first visit. Personally I also go for functionality, that why I stick to config files.

it's not about functionality but styling, the current UI fits the 90'

@wowgetoffyourcellphone me thinks perfectly square tiles are a better fit for Greek architecture, the issue with the original model was missing tiles (to make it more visually interesting, I have my gripes with that idea) and somewhat skewed symmetry. Anyway, me thinks they would have never used randomly sized slabs here.