Jump to content

myou5e

Community Members
  • Posts

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by myou5e

  1. I think it's worth talking to some cybersec experts about this. I think it can be done if it's limited to XML.
  2. You can filter out anything that's not an xml file. If you have a defined, declarative language with only expected strings and a defined file format then everything else can be filtered out. I haven't looked at XML security, but I know the Dhall language is actually designed as a programmable declarative secure configuration language. I'm guessing XML is more secure because it doesn't have things like addition or subtraction(just attributes which tell you to do it which can be type checked).
  3. What if you implement this feature, but only for the templates folder? This way no arbitrary code, just XML! As long as you check xml strings for "xml injection". I think the XML modification allows for custom balancing and the file downloads would also be very small. I think this could free up time for devs so you don't need to have endless discussions about balancing.
  4. Moving to Git, is reasonable, especially as it could become symbolic of a more distributed development culture. Moving to Github, though, has downsides. One of course, is supporting a Microsoft product, but on a practical note, there are some specific Github features that could not be migrated if the project moved away. Gitlab is reasonable(and currently the goal,, if I'm not mistaken), because being self hosted, we can't actually lose any such data except from negligence, which would not even be dangerous as every developer still has a git history.
  5. I think to have a core Engine that the developers focus on, then synching mods like you suggest, would give tremendous ability for new content and version to be explored. I think it will bring new life to the game and take a burden off the Core team. This would allow "hardcore version" to be implemented by modders without the need for officially endorsing that version. Then, it will be easy to "let the market decide", so to speak
  6. Some games allow you to to download maps from the multiplayer screen. If mods could be applied like this, just like a "use map settings", then I think mods could take off a lot better. One problem with this could be the size. This problem could be alleviated, maybe, by including more community art that is not yet in the main game but could be referenced by mods and therefore wouldn't require downloading. Some kind of check for identical files would speed things up. I have tons of other ideas for decreasing things like file sizes and numbers, like even using the new "mixin" feature for templates.
  7. I think the Hardcore Mode crowd aren't interested in developing new pathfinding. More like balancing units, which is much more easily done. If some other person or group is nominated to maintain the multiplayer version it might actually decrease pressure on the main developers. I would support the split for this reason. I don't really think that it's a divisive thing or will fracture the community. I think in many games the single player is different to multiplayer. I remember playing games, I think it was Red Alert 2? Where you could only build 1 Tanya at a time, but in single player there was no limit
  8. I don't see anything we are disagreeing on, probably, except the name. But for the reason you just mentioned i think "hardcore mode" is acceptable too. Rather than disabling joining a game, I think the host of the game should just choose the mode, and people joining the game would have to decide whether they want to join a hardcore or standard/single mode.
  9. For the multiplayer version I like one of: Multiplayer mode Arcade mode Competitive mode Balanced mode [Edited] Hardcore mode [Edited, Sevda convinced me] For Single player version I like one of Singleplayer mode Full mode Standard Mode [Edited] I think "simulation/realistic" is probably not clear enough. For multiplayer my preference is probably balanced mode. The reasoning is because the goal of the multiplayer is to be a balanced competition so I think it's the most clear. Hardcore, though a reasonable choice, sounds too aggressive to me, as if every unit will die after a single hit or you harvest resources instantly.
  10. I agree with this concept, I think a single player and multiplayer mode would also provide a healthy competition between the mods which gives people the chance to evaluate the differences. Yes you can just download another mod in the mods screen , but I think that when you start a multiplayer game, having a checked default "multiplayer mode" would be very helpful, because then everyone knows this is a mode designed specifically for competitive play.
  11. From my understanding there are Jewish people who actually take both sides of the debate so I don't actually see how it is necessarily antisemitic to take any particular position. Apparently the Jewish scholar Arthur Koestler argued for khazars being Jewish because he wanted to actually dismantle antisemitic attitudes which drew a continuity between Biblical Hebrews and the modern Jews.
  12. Things like Elevation Bonuses are a good way to change it from "largest army wins"(we have this already). Terrain bonuses are another, which I think were removed for some reason. I don't know why. Maybe to do with pathfinding? Things like Stealth and weapon switching could add more of this. We will have weapon switching soon, I think. I understand that stealth is actually pretty difficult to do well so I don't expect to see that for a while even though I would love it.
  13. I really don't like the APM thing. I want to strategically plan battles. Has anyone done a poll on this to find out how the majority of players feel about this? It was mentioned in the DD that they wanted to avoid "fastest click wins", but I don't know any RTS which in competitive play does not come down to this, combined with memorized build orders, and some knowledge of unit counters. To avoid this in a game I think requires careful thought. How do you even do that? I suspect it has to do with making a battle of equal numbers go either way, depending on how it gets carried out. Which requires more game mechanics, probably, to do that effectively. I also think that the improved speed of training units in bulk actually reduces the effect that CC downtime might have in Phase 1, I think this is good, because it reduces the penalty of accidentally not clicking "train citizen" at the right time as you can always use that extra food you saved to train faster.
  14. Well, as someone here has said, I think Grapejuice, I think it's really good to have what the unit looks like intuitively be good at what you think by looking at it. This isn't the same thing, but I think it's a related point and that's my goal. I guess it also allows more flexibility when new units or matchups come into play that you don't expect, you don't need to add more exceptions, because the stats already balance.
  15. I've never liked how certain units get a "bonus attack" vs other types. They need to have their damage types, range, HP, armor types etc and that is sufficient to make a counter. It makes the gameplay far more intuitive.
  16. Composition over Inheritence. IMO it's a better way to construct a set of objects that share properties. Inheritance specifies relationships between classes as a tree structure, but Composition more like a mesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance
  17. I sort of like this idea. Each decision maker gets an alpha, or two.
  18. What do you mean about micromanagement ? What does the current(very old) DD say about this?
  19. The Purpose of the DD(from what I know) is to guide and limit designers, developers, programmers, artists. Limiting can have very negative connotations, obviously, but the idea is that 0AD is not a First Person Shooter set in a futuristic space age. This would be one limitation put in place by the DD. A more specific limitation is on the artist to strive to make somewhat historically accurate depictions, but also to exaggerate them a little to make them clear.
  20. I've been talking to Stan about this. I really want to be involved here as it is something I think that I can do well. I actually do have ideas about features I want to add to vanilla, but they are not widely accepted now, so I don't think it's appropriate to add them to the DD. I do hope Stan likes and accepts my contributions. But obviously that's an ongoing process, will require revisions, will require updates, and he has no obligation to do so :-p. Here are two things that I think should be included For additional content civ and unit content. Summarizing how to contribute in a way that maintains balance. For example, someone wants to get Zapotecs added to the game. Well, what thought process do you go through to balance them? Sufficient art, unit, templates, buildings to make them interesting and comparable to other civs. Some comments on art style. Sufficient strengths and weaknesses that differentiate them enough to make them a worthy in game choice. One contribution I would like to make is a combat and Civ balance calculator that can calculate the winner of unit matchups. As well as calculate Civ strength and weaknesses based on template files and user input(an html form inside the DD which can tell you a Civ or unit strength based on the modifications you tell it). For the Development team. I think this part is the less clear. Where does the dev team want to go with the game in the future? Is avoiding "Fastest click wins" still a design goal? This requires thinking about how to actuate this. It may need new combat mechanics to give battles more strategic emphasis over numbers. So general ideas like this can actually drive the game forward into deciding which new mechanics should be used. Is removing repetition still a design goal? Building houses and farms and even walls takes time to click. There could be more mechanics to make an AI handle these things at different stages. You could make the AI automate the build order somehow, while allowing the human player high level control. Audience. Who are we trying to market to primarily? Because this majorly affects the vanilla settings, I think. The above two are intentioned as examples of how a design goal can affect the development and choice of additions to the game. Discussions need to take place between the DD Writers with Stan and others about this. @Stan`
  21. We were discussing this in IRC. I want to have them back for Documentation purposes. They can be excluded for the translators if need be another way. But I think they are good for game culture and mood etc.
  22. I want to agree with you but I think we deleted those :-p
  23. I admire your optimism. But how do you stop things from going wrong? You have 91 matchups I think with 13 civs? I think it's easier if you consider Meta to be part of game. I think Starcraft is the most balanced Asymmetric game, but they only have 3 civs with 6 possible 1v1 matchups. Any of those is very well balanced. But how can you test for 91? Only if some civs are "situational", which is the case in games like "DOTA" where you know there are good and bad picks. My point is you have to sacrifice something, I think it's usability given certain matchups and certain maps, biomes etc.
×
×
  • Create New...