hyperion
-
Posts
894 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by hyperion
-
-
11 minutes ago, borg- said:
We have created a subforum for this and so far most people who criticize with harsh words here, have not posted anything there, so how do they think of helping?
Which isn't open for posting ...
At least it's better then all private as in the past.
-
A quick search says likely in /var/snap/ and ~/snap/ , this may well be distribution/installation specific. You can also try to run "find ~/ -name user.cfg" in a terminal to get a list of possible candidates.
-
@BoredRusher isn't wrong, maybe the wording is.
There was a huge amount of gameplay changes late in the development cycle. Lot of changes in a single release are bound to cause some displeasure. I understand the eagerness to get everything in last minute when the last release was long ago so hard to blame the "balancers" for this. But less could well be more and something to keep in mind for a25.
Another point is most of those changes seem to be based on gut feeling. As the involved people are pro or at least knowledgable players gut feeling produces on average decent results. Let's say 80% good 20% bad for arguments sake. Out of the 20% one or two brain farts will inevitably mix in. Bad changes are always a lot easier to notice and are what agitates people. Getting hostile towards people pointing out what they do not like is similarly toxic.
A poll won't work. My impression is the effects of some of those gameplay changes aren't even well understood by the "balancers". Having people with even less of a clue vote will make things only worse. Well, you could at least blame the community at large instead of the few where things go wrong.
@BreakfastBurrito_007, the "stable system" is partially intended, no more bonus for advancing civ, no exponential growth of economy techs, the changes to techs in forge etc. There are even plans to reduce the territory influence of city phase.
To use your analogy, it's not yet a valley, more like flat ground, instead of a hill as in a23. I agree that those changes brings it's own slew of issues.
-
1
-
-
Miles, pounds, gallons have been eliminated, what does it mean for the US?
-
1 hour ago, vladislavbelov said:
For example Raspberry Pi, or platforms that still support only OpenGL1.5 and not higher.
It runs ( ... out of memory) on pi
pi has Vulkan support https://www.cnx-software.com/2020/12/04/mesa-20-3-released-with-raspberry-pi-4-v3dk-driver-panfrost-bifrost-support/
opengl 2 is like 15 years old.
1 hour ago, vladislavbelov said:Not quite right, in that case we loose only people which think that if a game doesn't use RTX or something similar then it's a bad game. Because the game is playable on the modern hardware, even with scaling.
Text isn't readable on 4k, so in my book close enough to unplayable, but yeah still better than the pi example I linked above
Well, there is indeed an undocumented/inaccessible gui.scale parameter which sort of works good enough but 99% of potential users will have dropped the game at that point.
Also rtx isn't relevant here as this is about the gui, the viewport is plenty good enough if we ignore some old ugly maps.
-
1
-
-
Setting it to 0 in autociv prevents death animation as well.
On 04/03/2021 at 11:38 AM, hyperion said:There could also be sort of a best of both, ie. the corpses only enter the FIFO after the death animation was played fully.
-
12 hours ago, vladislavbelov said:
For gamers - yes, for our audience - I doubt. A lot of people are far behind modern technologies. Sometimes I've been asked what do we do to support toasters. I'd love to switch to Vulkan and more modern techniques. But it's impossible at the moment to target mainly for 4K.
What even constitutes a toaster? Pentium II MMX?
The problem with the must support toasters mentality is it discourages people from actually working on a new GUI or working on the renderer.
As for 4k, if the GUI is optimized for FullHD and font scaling is implemented the experience would already be much better than currently.
You could also say that to support a couple toasters you loose users of better hardware.
-
2 hours ago, OptimusShepard said:
Hm, nearly a half of the players seems to prefer on/off. But what is meant here? Does "Off" mean zero corpses, or does "Off" mean a fixed limit of corpses, e.g. 100?
It's indeed not well defined here, but you can think of it as either normal decay or no corpses on the ground at all. Meaning the removal of a single corpse (decay animation) isn't randomized but behaves consistently.
Why fixed number of corpses can match on/off is probably because there are already people used to it due to autociv. Guess otherwise the bias would be even stronger towards on/off.
-
1 hour ago, vladislavbelov said:1 hour ago, Palaxin said:
Would make a great cheat/easteregg
I have in mind a much more cheaper shader for that
Real ascii art shader or a pseudo QVGA shader?
-
In descending order of importance:
- It signifies the game isn't dead yet.
- No longer violates security policies in Linux distros and can be packaged again.
- No longer just broken on recent macs.
- My pet peeve feature: hot key editor was added.
- Improved artwork.
- MSAA / CAS
Next would be the first negative so I stop here.
Thou overall more changes for the better than for the worse.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Stan` said:3 hours ago, hyperion said:
Hardcoding it to 30 seconds is fine I guess, I think the switch should be either use PROJECTILE_DECAY_TIME or remove right after impact animation was played.
In the on/off case for corpses the same config value could be used here, thou I'd prefer a separate one in either case.
Do you think there is a big impact on performance for arrows?
I estimate the gain would be of about the same order as for corpses. Less complex meshes but much higher number.
Edit: Also less controversial, so less of a headache to get through a review
1 hour ago, faction02 said:Having corpses is interesting from a gameplay perspective, it can give useful indirect information especially in early game
While true, unreliable and rather insignificant. I guess you could ask @nani to add support for a toggle graphics setting hotkey to autociv. So you have the normal/expected decay times during early game and can easily switch to low quality settings once the game starts lagging.
-
No wonder there isn't a mod for this as it's handled solely by the core (c++).
42 minutes ago, Stan` said:const static float PROJECTILE_DECAY_TIME = 30.f;
Hardcoding it to 30 seconds is fine I guess, I think the switch should be either use PROJECTILE_DECAY_TIME or remove right after impact animation was played.
In the on/off case for corpses the same config value could be used here, thou I'd prefer a separate one in either case.
-
First of all, thanks for working on this. I guess there will be a noticeable difference in playability for people with weaker hardware.
One thing I noticed in the video is you exclude projectiles from this "disappear early" treatment. Projectiles should have a similar impact due to the large number and are less noticeable than corpses. So have less visual impact if they disappear.
As for the main question, I'd go with on/off. While this random (intermediate) disappearance is indeed quite odd looking that isn't the only reason. Just playing the death animation without a decaying corpse has the advantage of removing most of the gorge and I suspect there are people who would choose this option for this reason instead of performance. At least you can advertise it as such.
There could also be sort of a best of both, ie. the corpses only enter the FIFO after the death animation was played fully.
PS: the link asks me to login to phab.
-
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildAndDeploymentEnvironment#Futuredesign
There is git lfs and when switching to git you rewrite history anyway, so stripping all build artefacts can be done right then. The reminder is hardly an issue for git. But yeah it's some work but long term I see only benefits.
-
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
While including campaign code in A25 will be a big step forward, I hope people don't get too excited about it, as yet there will be only 1 simple tutorial campaign available. The kind of campaigns that people will actually want and expect will be some ways off. *
*Speculation
I play since a13, back then to my liking only two major features were missing to make it a complete game, one is the hotkey editor, the other campaign mode. Important is that they are available. Just like hotkey editor needs more love I don't doubt the same will be the case for campaigns.
2 minutes ago, wraitii said:with a better tool than SVN
Actually what happened to the git migration that was decided upon many years ago?
-
2 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Well if the list of features that are gonna make it into A25 are known then it could. Due to the very nature of this project it's a bit hard to tell.
Well, how is the name of a24 related to a24? For a23 it's even obvious how it's not related. As for a25 nothing will trump campaign mode.
-
50 minutes ago, Freagarach said:
The behaviour mentioned by @hyperion is more difficult to fix.
Not sure this needs fixing, a reasonably known but hardly used easteregg.
-
3 minutes ago, Nescio said:
The problem with forum polls is that once you voted, you can't vote again. And more options will probably suggested in the coming months.
There is no point in waiting for months, ideally commit r24939 would have already contained the new name.
1 minute ago, wraitii said:We probably should reset it a few weeks before release then, good point.
Then you should have a poll for a26 instead
-
29 minutes ago, Nescio said:
I'd be fine with returning siege rams to the army camp and perhaps moving them from the arsenal to the forge as well, removing arsenals for factions that only have rams. However, I don't think army camps should be able to produce artillery.
I have no strong opinion on whether Roman camp should produce sieges or not, all I'm saying is only game play should matter in such a decision on not history/realism. As for the free houses, it's a shame, this is a real unique trait gone with no replacement in sight.
-
Maybe you are in the same team with the AI, then you obviously win on start.
-
46 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Fortresses weren't usually recruitment places and siege equipment was usually made on the site of a siege, or prefabricated at some dedicated workshops or camps in some instances if I'm not mistaken. These things might not be totally out of place for the Romans, but don't really apply to anyone else to my knowledge.
Yes I agree that the most logical place to produce sieges would be the Roman army camp which is placed in enemy territory. But that one can't produce them any longer either.
-
The video is rather funny but I guess this is a bug rather than a feature.
I'm referring to garrisoning and un-garrisoning on the other side, if you chain a couple buildings you can transport your troops at incredible speed across the map.
-
24 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
That's really not what 0 A.D. is about. We all know that classical RTS format doesn't lend itself well to simulator level realism nor to historical accuracy, but the point is, we try, and to a degree succeed, in bringing something that is at least rooted in history. That's kind of the whole point of this game. A fun RTS with more than just a historical veneer... There's abstraction, and then there's fantasy. Abstractions are unavoidable. But we try hard to avoid fantasy (we have mods for that).
So lets take the changes to fortress then. They weren't just garrisoned when the enemy was already at the walls. So they obviously provided living space, as such dropping pop bonus is historically wrong. They were places were soldiers trained by virtue of being garrisoned long term as such removing unit production is wrong. Having a forge / workshop within the walls was probably common as such removing sieges and tech research seems historically wrong.
The argument of historically accurate I see used when doing one thing and when doing the opposite alike. Game mechanics really should be about game mechanics only.
Well, I appreciate this historically accurate when it comes to unit/structure visual design, naming, voice acting and in future for campaign background.
-
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:
But why focus on these random things like walls for the Iberians (why do they get walls, of all people?). Free houses for Ptolemies (why should they get free houses, of all people). Why should only Macedonians have arsenals? I'm personally in favor of differentiation through unique tech trees.
Walls, free houses, etc are major differences in civs while unique techs are at best minor differences. I'm also in the camp of major differences are preferable over minor ones. As for justification, what else other than it's more fun is needed. The argument of realism/make sense is crappy in my book as the game is to far from realism to begin with due to it's very nature. Vision range, building a city where only a couple hundred meters of surroundings are known, shooting through obstacles and many more come to mind. We even have sci-fi elements like teleportation, so really anything can be done as long as it's fun to play.
[POLL] Corpse Removal Option
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
A variant that wasn't discussed so far is to make the time of disappearance configurable. For instance corpses stay for 5 seconds (use slider for slider sake!). This way the the information corpses provide remain reliable while avoiding the visual oddity of the corpse limit approach. The performance gain would also be similar in most cases.