hyperion
-
Posts
894 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by hyperion
-
-
Thumbs up for asking in a public forum!
Gather rates and carry capacity of cavalry determine if and what distance hunting makes sense. Besides hunting wild, corralling needs to be considered as well. My take is a slight decrease in gather rate and a slight increase in carry capacity would be acceptable, thou the current values are pretty fine already.
Comparing hunting vs foraging doesn't make much sense to me, having different sources produce at different speed is fine and even desirable. What should be questioned is the relative speed of hunting of cavalry vs citizen soldier and woman. I don't see a compelling reason why there should be a substantial difference for very short distances (~20m).
Having other units having the same gathering rate for hunting still leaves the cavalry as the optimal unit for hunting chickens by a bit due to faster walk speed and higher carry capacity but at least you'd have the choice of using the "scout" for scouting.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Lopess said:
I didn't quite understand your position. I think the best way would be in mixed citizen units, with women and men working in the field, while scouts do not believe that hunting is very different from something they could do, perhaps hunting should be less advantageous because they are agricultural, livestock civilizations yes, it must have a greater weight.
Just making gathering speed for food equal for all units will result in a noticeable paradigm shift. This should also bode well with the realism camp.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
if the problem would be to remove those farms from the civic center, I mean find a way to get the other post some incentives and some alternative ideas.
Well, as long as you must use woman to farm they will be around the CC, just like you can't use the scout for scouting as you need him to hunt chickens.
-
51 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
But now how do I get rid of the territory line on the minimap?
Shame, didn't think of that.
Looking at the code, this is handled in the core and I don't see a way for a mod to hook into it. Well, I guess an argument can be made for the minimap to be configurable to some degree from within the game. Like toggling displaying some resources or not. I haven't thought about what people actually might want to be able to do but adding borders to such a list would be trivial. Guess it's time to ask @wraitii if there were such discussions before and if adding this to a25 would be an option. Maybe @nani is aware of a general wish list wrt minimap as well.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I am not sure if I can do anything about the AI unless a programmer helps out.
Well, had a short look at the AI and it seems there is no easy fix as the territory concept is used for planning in many places. Might be easier to leave territory as-is and just not render the border (replace territory_border_mask.png). Then the AI will mostly play as it currently does and as players can place anything anywhere there is no change for them.
Long term this mod certainly would need it's own AI.
-
1
-
-
Gave it a try in SP. The AI doesn't build any houses or anything else for that matter, so not a challenge. Territory is still mentioned in different places like tooltips.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I don't see why this shouldn't be desirable. An alternative and/or complement could be a hotkey to cycle through the buildings of the same type as the currently selected one.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
can it be done with the code?
Most of all can be done if someone does the coding. Well, this suggestion doesn't seem well defined in the first place. For instance what happens when shuttling resources? Does patrolling give a bonus? There are plenty states to think through.
Then the premise is questionable. Harassing does most of it's damage by forcing a reaction or even overreaction. How does slightly increased vision range of woman change anything here?
DE has some outposts around the CC at start, so vision is guaranteed anyway. Something I actually wouldn't mind in vanilla. If added increased vision range for woman wouldn't change anything.
Last but not least, this is a rather complex feature just to make it a tad easier to snipe a woman or two between minute 3-6. Reducing the default arrow count would be more effective.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Nescio said:
What do you mean? One for towers and one for fortresses?
Dropping number limits (for both in the same patch) and one for increasing minimum distance. Beside the two changes not being more linked than most other separate commits, the two commit subject can actually describe all changes.
-
1 hour ago, Nescio said:
Some limits are functional, e.g. war dogs have an entity limit (of 20) because they require 0 population. Domestic animals ought to have a limit too, to prevent lag: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3777
As dogs and sheep don't count against the global pop cap a local one is fine. However 50 for sheep isn't enough. In a 300 pop cap game you may need over 40 corals to keep up with food production. So make it at least 100 if you really want to cap sheep unless you actually intend to nerf corral use.
3 hours ago, Nescio said:Towers and fortresses are already limited by their costs and minimum distance; having an entity on top of that is unnecessary, I agree: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3778
Beside those with hard distance limit like towers, there are also those with soft distance limit like lighthouse or Ashoka's pillars where a number limit is pointless. Add to that number limits for entities that are trivial to balance like embassies or juggernaut.
Also your habit of adding in unrelated changes kicked in again
. Please split such patches.
-
1 hour ago, wraitii said:
I'm reading some people that would rather have an indicator that "something" is firing in FoW. That's doable also.
The feature as-is is intuitive, there is no learning or reading up involved to understand what it is about. So -1 for flags from me.
1 hour ago, wraitii said:women who have a short vision range
Fixed: woman are depicted short-sighted ...
-
1
-
-
What happens when the archer stops firing? Does the revealed region get unexplored?
Well, as long as it doesn't result in vision ranges getting reduced I don't mind this feature, otherwise I rather don't have it.
-
6 minutes ago, Nescio said:
I can't say I like the hard limit of only 3 fortresses and 10 towers
Seconded. Any number limits except for heroes and wonder, which could be labelled natural, I'd rather see removed entirely.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, vladislavbelov said:
That does work in general, but it won't solve the performance issue. Our art is unoptimized for old hardware/API, we can't have a lot of drawcalls there.
So for recent (as in 5-7 years) hardware things are different? Besides better performance new features could be made available with a separate back-end?
For old hardware a (semi-)auto-generated mod dropping props/variants from actors and similar stuff could do wonders. I mean if you can't have shadows or decent water why care about premium art for models.
I agree with the sentiment of there should be guidelines for art, not for the sake of old hardware but reasonably recent low spec one. As in the game should be playable on a laptop with integrated graphics card.
-
On 25/03/2021 at 9:31 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Rename Metal to Gold. Adjust icons and terminology to match.
Spice, a homage to Dune, one of the oldest memorable games in this genre. Spice certainly was worth a lot in the 0ad time frame and I suspect used as a currency to some degree.
On 25/03/2021 at 9:31 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Capturing removed, except with specific circumstances (Catafalque Relics, for example).
Unless massively improved I'd like to see this in vanilla too
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, mysticjim said:
Because everyone who might ever want to play 0AD is a developer, right?
Well, most users are happy if they see the message when the join the lobby and see there is a new version or simply get a new version through their package manager. I'm not sure there is a check for updates function in the windows version though. with that you cover 99% of users.
Anyway what I meant is, for any power user interested in doing hyping all the info is readily available.
-
29 minutes ago, Lopess said:
I am not a multiplayer player, so I reserve myself not to comment much on this area, but I always feel that things keep going and coming back, I remember people complaining about how much the ram was OP and how unreal a working siege device was. kind of like a modern battle tank. This was changed to alpha 24, which is different now so that it doesn't become an inconvenience again?
In A24 sieges are still far to strong from a realism point of view, but to frail from gameplay perspective. Obviously you can't have both.
As for the mod, I like that it has a more or less coherent direction and not "there are some nobs we haven't touched in a while, so we surly need to do some tweaking".
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Yes, the PR could have been better. And yes from an external point of view, it looked like a rush. Internally though it was a three months agony. Anyway I am responsible for PR so I am the one to blame here. Sundiata tried to help, but it’s difficult for a non dev with a pay per MB internet to be active enough to catch up.
Seriously, anyone with just a tad of experience of how the development process / open source works had a relatively easy time to follow. As one of the external viewers myself, the release felt like there was a lack of experience with the process which isn't surprising given the circumstances, nonetheless there were no real blunders.
As for PR / communication, there is a certain obligation. The easiest way to take care of that would be a mailing list wfg-releases. Besides the canonical release announcements there is a need to properly communicate the end of merge window as early as possible. Everything else is extra and you guys did clearly more than required.
@mysticjim , portraying your enthusiasm longterm as you currently do I think is worth more than hyping a release. If you want there is https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha25 which shows roughly the release date (start of July) and what is already confirmed to be part of the changes.
About the claim that "social media work" would reduce complaints, well most of what I saw was healthy and what went beyond you won't be able to curb anyway and there is no need either.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wraitii said:
I would push towards dropping the 'alpha' from the name, but that doesn't mean it's quite ready.
And here I thought the alpha was part of the brand instead of the version
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, m7600 said:
Add baskets, pottery, and weapons in the porticoes of the front and the courtyard
I always find those randomly placed props rather odd. A basket in front of a regular house is still ok, but shields and weapons everywhere certainly not. Either you had them close by or they were stored more or less securely.
-
I really wish there was a rule of max 1 gameplay change per month.
-
1
-
1
-
-
What is talked about here is some tweaking, reworking could be being able to buy info about techs researched, how many troops there are, how many resources are stocked.
The issue with the current setup is, it's much cheaper and more reliable to just send a horse into the enemy base.
The advantage of being able to bribe any unit to share vision is mostly if your opponent plays hide and seek with his last one or two units.
-
2
-
-
Sorry for the late reply but had to browse some code first.
Found an old thread and there people were rather willing to drop old hardware if it makes sense going forward. We also learn that widelands started to require opengl 2.1 in 2014. I'd say the move was fair game back then if you had a decent argument in favour of it. Today just because is already a reasonable argument.
Requiring 2.1 for 0ad would allow for a major cleanup. First get rid of the reminder of FFP, then ARB/pre GL21, maybe gles (of the 17% you mentioned how many use gl4es). Then split render into include and opengl21 impl. Next improve split of render and graphics which seems quite messy currently. Once all api specific stuff is hidden behind the renderer interface you can add other implementations like vulkan or bring back gles if it still has value and someone is keen on working on it.
The current situation is subpar. There are vestiges of a partial rewrite long ago. Renderer has knowledge of some shaders while the intention was to have them independent(over-engineering?). There is even if GLES in if !GLES blocks (indicating it's even to complex for committers). Bluntly, a cluster@#$% that is hard to fix without making some cuts first.
Not saying you have to take the route I just outlined but there would be ample justification if you wanted to.
---
4K percentage should be slightly higher me thinks if properly supported, anyway automatically setting a reasonable value for gui.scale would already improve 4K support a lot.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I like these. What if by building a Wonder you unlock a 4th phase ("Empire" Phase, possibly), which unlocks these kinds of über technologies? Maybe each structure can have at least one 4th phase über tech, which is unlocked by building the Wonder.
The issue with with wonders becoming to important is footprint. Some civs might get screwed here.
Age of Empires IV
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Works especially well with elephants or giraffes in 0ad.
As for the cartoonish looks I really don't like them. But then I don't like the modern American 3D animation film style either.