hyperion
-
Posts
894 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by hyperion
-
-
One could make a case that easier means one less item where players can make a difference to their peers. I don't particularly care here.
If you add this then the question how the handle other "conveniences" such as cancel / pause / reorder not just theoretically but with an intuitive UI needs an answer.
-
1 hour ago, Stan` said:
I think it was for the validation script (entvalidate.py) to be able to run.
Not sure why @wraitii added the js files though.
The advantage of it being a copy of public is easy to review patches and for them to be easily backported to vanilla.
I agree with @causative that a filter when building the mod for mod.io would be reasonable, tho I'd build it around git diff --name-status
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Palaiologos said:
Please explain this relation since I have trouble comprehending. Shouldn't the default simply be "baked in" at 0? The additional height is not accurately reflected in the range or it is???
A hopefully simple example:
Little Alice and little Bob are playing ball on top of Eiffel Tower. When passing the ball to Bob he fails to catch it and Alice shot falls all the way to the ground. Grown Robert picks up the ball, and has he is a grown up he has further range and is able to throw the ball all the way back to where Alice is if she where on the ground. Is Robert able to pass the ball back to Alice?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
Do you mean the circles visible around selected towers? Because those cannot be reliable with this engine.
Well, they wouldn't be just circles anymore. There was a patch for a more accurate range indicator at some point, don't ask me what became of it.
1 hour ago, ChronA said:I think the point is, if towers always have a +13 elevation bonus on top of whatever they get from terrain, why not just bake that into their default range? It changes absolutely nothing about the game balance, but it makes life easier for data miners and makes the stat card more accurate at a glance to the thing people actually care about.
Because it wouldn't be correct in the general case as was pointed out, whether this is of concern we can argue about. Just because some people don't understand the relation between elevation and range isn't a sufficient reason in my eyes to throw away what we have tho.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Silier said:
But we were talking about modio not the page where you are enabling mods
Pretty sure wow didn't mean to just touch the mod.io browser and leave the more problematic mod-selector as is.
As for the problem raised of figuring out what exists such a browser will be a sub-optimal choice anyway, it won't ever have more info than https://www.moddb.com/games/0-ad/mods and only covers a minor part of the mods available.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The voters would be players. I'm talking about the in-game mod downloader. Will 4Chan download thousands of copies of the game in order to troll the image voting?
An image can be packaged into the mod as well, no need to fetch it from somewhere else. If the mod is signed so is a bundled image. This covers the mod selector.
So this leaves what to do about a mod.io browser, relying on mod.io having the necessary tools and report mechanisms sounds good enough for now.
-
1
-
-
Right click, open with ... 0ad -> done installing
-
1
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
a26 or svn?
svn
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
By the way, I did a mod a while ago (50% slower fire rate, iirc) to test that and I really didn't see an improvement.
Don't know how you tested, anyway simply setting it to 10% to make the effect more pronounced and running combat demo huge I see quite the difference (actually more than predicted). Given that this change also has an effect on unit composition I'd expect an even more favorable result for regular game play.
-
On 31/03/2023 at 6:24 PM, chrstgtr said:
Bolts aren’t impacted here. They’re different from units as are buildings. Even if everything you say is true, then it still wouldn’t apply to something like an ele. Also, there’s a reason why bolts were banned in a22 in MP games and were changed in a23.
The tech I posted impacts bolt, structures, ships and ele archers all the same, whether this is as it should be is up for debate.
On 31/03/2023 at 6:24 PM, chrstgtr said:You’re missing the point in that everything changes whenever you change unit stats. It’s absurd to suggest that somehow range unit dps is an exception to that rule
I never claimed zero side effects, but there is a difference between a few and many all over the place. One possible side effect of the half dps change might be better performance of the game for example.
-
1
-
-
@nz., there was an issue with dns for a couple hours, should be fixed now. Give it another try.
-
On 30/03/2023 at 11:51 AM, chrstgtr said:
Buildings/siege will become relatively stronger because range units will no longer be able to clear the field.
Which is as intended, ranged units shouldn't matter much in straight up fights but having to make use of obstructions like natural chockpoints or walls to be really useful. If a micro god can get value from ranged units that's fine too.
On 30/03/2023 at 11:51 AM, chrstgtr said:Remember how you used to be able to counter bolt shooters by killing enemy units that were guarding the bolt shooter and then attacking the bolt shooter with melee? Guess what, now you can’t quickly kill the smaller army that is defending the bolt shooter, so you can’t approach the bolt shooter with your melee, and the bolt shooter now has no counter and is OP.
Bolt shooters also do ranged damage, so also affected by half dps. Btw, a couple alphas back you didn't even need a small army to defend a small mass of bolt shooters for them to be invulnerable.
-
49 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
It introduces a ton side effects--units vs builds, units vs siege, units vs units
ranged vs buildings, ranged vs sieges isn't meant to be a thing in the first place, ranged vs units is the whole point of this change.
-
6 hours ago, Adeimantos said:
Maybe instead of raising melee attack lower range attack (especially javelins). Or some of each.
It's the obvious solution without a dozen side effects. I still feel @Feldfeld suggestion of halving ranged damage as a start the most reasonable approach.
Those willing to test may drop the following into simulation/data/technologies
{ "autoResearch": true, "modifications": [ { "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Hack", "multiply": 0.5 }, { "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Pierce", "multiply": 0.5 }, { "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Crush", "multiply": 0.5 } ] }
Adjust multiplier as you see fit.
-
1
-
-
Assuming healers have large vision range would this not mean making healing ranged units rather tricky?
-
Ranged units have to high dps so let's change all else.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Quetzalcoatl said:
ps. I'd like to share more screenshots, but somehow the forum doesn't let me.
Probably because you are a new user, so some "spam protection" will be imposed on you for some time.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, benisen11 said:
What about upgrade with variants?
It would be kinda strange for wall variant to turn into different wall variant after upgrade.Possible but probably not worth it. Up to you tho.
The basic idea is to have a root actor which only defines an attach point and then use props (actors themself) for each "variant-group"
-
14 minutes ago, Nullus said:
I don't think that it should be possible to set organic units on fire, only structures, ships, and siege engines. Bodies are actually quite nonflammable, they won't sustain a fire.
Flaming pigs would make some sense, but agreed, in the video it looks like punctured oil vats on legs running around.
As for spreading fire, the computational cost for non structures probably isn't cheap either.
-
1
-
-
Check https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Manual_Cheats
You could also run two instances of the game and play lan multiplayer against yourself, ie each window controlling a player. Trivial if on LInux probably harder on Windows.
-
And what do you want to decentralize?
-
There are 2 points to be made.
First, it's not up to the community at large to decide, only the players in a particular game. Asking the community for consensus is unimaginable anyway.
Secondly, it can't be called cheating at all if you are open about your modifications.
PS: psychedelic trees and velociraptor chickens are a no-go, at least for me.
-
1
-
-
Had time to really dig into it. There are one or two bugs in enet depending on how you want to look at it, first enet uses MTU in a misleading way. Secondly during mtu negotiation on connect the server doesn't check for lower mtu and just uses the one passed by the client.
https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/132
-
1
-
4
-
-
https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/132
So at this point I suspect that enet doesn't take the 28 bytes for the header into account, this would still allow some vpn to work but not all of them within 1400.
So code digging it will be
Mainlog.html reveals too much sensitive information
in Bug reports
Posted
Even then, the one hosting still gets all messages.
Scrambling ip address, so the mainlog can be posted as-is is somewhat reasonable, but it won't help at all to prevent users to get the ip of peers.
The question is are you willing to pay for playing online, if there are enough such user then having dedicated servers might be an option. Then some "cheating" can be fixed, notably the quit rated game one.