Jump to content

mimesot

Community Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by mimesot

  1. 1 hour ago, LordGood said:

    We're not planning on removing entities to my knowledge, but if that happens i think your map would simply throw a few errors into the console. I could be mistaken on that last point though.

    In case that happens ... just a console error but no visual representation any more ...
    Assume you removed the Ptolemaic wonder. Could I simply search my maps XML for the phrase "structures/ptol_wonder" and delete that entity section and it will be fine? Is a missing entity uid of any concern?

    One further question. If I have an actor that has multiple visual representations that occur with specific frequencies when you place them (like it is the case with various stones and grass patches), how does the map file "remember", which one was chosen. I can't see my map pick a random kind of e.g. short cretan date palm each time I load it, fortunately.

    Sorry, but I have a third question. It is an issue with my map, which you can see in some of my screenshots, but I think this can lead to a feature request if feasible. You surely noticed the black horizon on most flat angle screenshots, which is not very pleasing. I guess this this originates from some kind of compromise. The skybox is needed to create, well, a sky and the beautiful reflections on the water. On the other hand there is the equally beautiful circular map shape with its smooth transition into blackness, which you usually look upon from above. What if the transition wasn't into blackness but into transparency and the skybox had a much lower lower boundary. As the botton of the skybox is black, you wouldn't see any difference at the transition zone when looking down at a steep angle. At a flat angle the transition zone would look much slimmer (except the terrain was inclined steep upwards) and transition from terrain texture to sky texture. If the terrain at the map boundary was sloped downwards you would even get a hard horizon line. Is this possible? Does the engine support alpha values for terrain surfaces?

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, LordGood said:

    The detail in this map is gorgeous

    Just a word of warning, the Ptolemies and Athenians may see a change in art direction in the future. Native structures should still be available in the scenario editor, but it'll take a little bit of rebuilding if you continue developing this map

    Thanks a lot!

    I'm always glad to see that 0 a.d. evolves, and so will my map.

    Of course this rises a few questions: What happens if an entity is no longer available in the map editor? Is the map going to load or crash? Will there be some kind of dummy-entity, which replaces all obsolete entities of will it leave void spots? Will all current entities still be present after these changes, with just their visual representation altered? 

    Greeting
    mimesot

  3. Hi!

    26 minutes ago, Nescio said:

    Is the Nile shallow enough for units to cross it on foot at any spot, without needing any transport ships? If not, the map will effectively consist of a few unequal islands.

    Yes, the Nile has 6 shallow areas where you can cross it. As you said, if the parts of the map would be islands, this would be very difficult to balance. Their main purpose of the positioning of the shallow spots is to direct the flow of units across the map. The placement was particularly intended to provide three things: 1) To elongate the distance between Alexandria, Siani and Memphis as their starting positions are so close. This is of course irrelevant for the 1 vs. 1 version of the map, but it could potentially become even an 8 player map. 2) To reduce the  advantage of the north-south riverbank route regarding long distance travel time in comparison to the routes via eastern and western desert. 3) To make the the route from river Nile to the southernmost oasis via the valley of kings equally  convenient compared to the route via the great sand sea.

    27 minutes ago, Nescio said:

    Also, if you're interested in a bit more historical accuracy (feel free to ignore):

    • The Southern Levant (e.g. Palestine) was also controlled by Egypt in 0 A.D.'s timeframe
    • The Nile delta historically had seven major arms: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Nile_Delta_Surrounding.jpg
    • The North-South Suez canal did not exist, but a West-East pharaonic canal (dug by Necho II, Darius, Ptolemy II, Trajan, or someone else, depending on which source you prefer) connected the Nile with the Red Sea.
    • The Nile valley is great for agriculture, but lacking in other natural resources. Mineral mines and stone quarries were located in the mountains beyond the eastern desert (e.g. towards the Red Sea coast). Wood was imported from the Lebanon.

    I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable ignoring your remarks. In contrast, as I totally agree with you. The question is, what can we possibly implement within the boundaries of the game mechanics and map size.

    E.g. the Persian base on Sinai is just there to provide diversity. If we had the possibility to create a map twice as big, it could be extended to include the Zagros mountains.  Then the Persians could be used to represent the Parthians and the Seleucids could cover the area of Syria. I think there are two main problems with even bigger maps. The game, I believe it is the pathfinder, has troubles handling such large maps. It already struggles with the map size "giant" when you add more than four players. The second problem is that you would need to limit building to fertile areas or areas that are otherwise suitable: Otherwise you wold see huge deserts covered in civil centers and farms. I think a solution to this problem is currently out of reach. It it was possible it would shift the gameplay a little from tactical to strategic, as the time spent traveling on long distance routes and reconnaissance becomes crucial.

    The reason I reduced the Nile delta to two navigable arms only is again map size. The arms are thinner than the main river. The width of the main river was chosen as small as possible, but it had to big enough to allow two ships of the biggest ship class pass by each other. The arms therefore can't handle that sort of ship traffic. As a consequence I created two major arms. If I dug an East-West canal this means there were three navigable rivers in the delta. I am thinking about a way to place them without creating too much additional water surface. It would look odd if there was more water than land in the delta. Any suggestions?

    Indeed the wood of date palms is not comparable in quality to that of the cypresses of  Lebanon. Sure, you could create palms with less value in wood, but than you would has to introduce some kind of trade function for wood from external places or something like that. Do you have any idea on how to implement such a feature?

    Greetings
    mimesot

  4. 10 minutes ago, bb_ said:

    Based on the screenshots, the map looks pretty good already (however I am not a good judge in these matters), but I think you forgot to attach the map files, so none can download the map :(.

    Regarding the capture issue in the current svn (development version) there is an "uncapturable" flag, which might solve what you are after.

    Thanks for the hint. I would really love to be able to insert specific tags into the map-xml file, in order to affect just the specific item I want to manipulate. This would be much easier than to create a separate entity file for each modified enity class. Currenlty thhe xml can only store xy coordinates and orientation, right?

    9 minutes ago, Loki1950 said:

    Nice but you did not actually attach the files for download at all:blink: it takes awhile to get use to the forum software:angel:

    Enjoy the Choice :)

    You were just faster reading than me inserting all that stuff ;-)

    • Like 1
  5. Hi there!

    You guys are awsome :-)

    @Skhorn

    22 hours ago, Skhorn said:

    Indeed, thanks for the suggestion! I would like to ask you further, if there is any comprehensive list of the XML-tags. I opened quite a lot XMLs yesterday but i didn't stuble across the one, which wowgetoffyourcellphone came up with ... like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

    <VisibleInAtlasOnly>true</VisibleInAtlasOnly>
    22 hours ago, Skhorn said:

    Beware, that if you want to share your map, you gotta share those files too.

    It is always good to be reminded of possible pitfalls. Is there an elegant way to do so? As the root folder of 0 a.d. appears not to have a fixed relative path regarding the maps folder I cannot simply create a self-extractinng zip. How does the game remain consistent among different players? By just adding files, not modifying existing ones, does this alter the game in a way it becomes impossible to start multiplayer games? I would have to place a big warning sign on my map then. 

    @wowgetoffyourcellphone

    19 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    You could copy the code from this and then make the obstruction whatever size you want and the Atlas-only visible actor whatever you want.

    placement_obstructor.xml

    This is a great template. I will incorporate it. Thanks a lot.

    @stanislas69

    16 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

    You can render a unit invulnerable by setting a flag in the templates

    By "a flag" do you actually mean something like

    <invulnerable/>

     

    • Like 1
  6. Hi!

    Thanks for the fast response.

    Wow, I really like that game as a game, but now I am absolutly amazed how every thing about these entities (except for meshes and such) is human readable and tidily hierarchically structured. (OK, right now I am asking myself why they mixed xml and json). You just need to know that the entity file inherits every property from its parent and you can just overwrite one, including the actor for the visual representation. I just created an indestructable, uncapturable seleukidian library with the looks of a the macedonian library. This is really awsome.

    Is there a way to remove the health but keep the option to capture it?

    And in case I want an object, which is impossible to capture: Is there a Way to remove the capture points bar?

    I realized that there is a parameter looking like this, which I can possibly use to place a special stone in the desert/mountains which blockss alll building.

      <Obstruction>
        <Active>true</Active>
        <BlockMovement>false</BlockMovement>
        <BlockPathfinding>false</BlockPathfinding>
        <BlockFoundation>true</BlockFoundation>
        <BlockConstruction>true</BlockConstruction>
        <DisableBlockMovement>false</DisableBlockMovement>
        <DisableBlockPathfinding>false</DisableBlockPathfinding>
        <Static width="100.0" depth="100.0"/>
      </Obstruction>

    I will try that tomorrow.

    Thanls again and good night!

    mimesot

     

     

     

  7. Hi!

    I am currently having a lot of fun with the 0 A.D. map editor.

    One thing I noticed, when placing objects was that I can move my units through all actors. Only entities are blocking the path. If I have a desert stonnemine, these large chunks of rock can only be placed as actors, all units are moving through. I could place a stationary entity object right beneath it to block the path, but then that entity object would be a gaia object, which you can either mine or destroy, which thus does not reslove the problem. Is there any way to have e.g. blocking actor or to define an entity as indestuctable or to have a dummy object, flat and small enough to hide it beneath rocks and gaia-buildings?

    The second question is wether there is a way to make terrain, which is flat but still not usable for building something upon it. Like when creating a lava lake. I especially would like to prohibit farms on desert and rocks.

    Thanks and kind regards

    mimesot

  8. Hi!
    That trick, adding a path

    On 7.1.2018 at 5:43 PM, elexis said:

    binaries/data/mods/public/art/textures/ui/session/icons/mappreview

    like this added a map preview for me. But what is the necessary resolution for the image. My preview appears too large and stretched as well.

    Kind regards and thanks

    mimesot

    EDIT: I looked into the public.zip in binaries/data/mod/public and found the previews there to be 512x512px with the actual mappreview occupying roughly 400x300px in the upper left corner. I rezized a screeny accordingly and added the black space. What is this black space for? Anyway, it worked out perfectly.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...