real_tabasco_sauce

We are back! It's strange to revisit this topic with the same task at hand. I'll be available 8:00 PM UTC this Saturday for some testing games. I might switch back and forth between a26 and the RC to get more players involved. link to the recent RCs: https://releases.wildfiregames.com/rc/

@Itms what commit are these RCs at on the release-a27 branch?

I've thought about it before. Its an idea with a lot of grey area. Should they block vision too? How would the implementation work to try to shoot over the walls? I'm sure it could work, but it would take a lot of figuring out, and I'm not sure if it fits with the abstraction level of the game. @Grapjas this could be something interesting to try out with your mod.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08409-6 potential for a civ/team bonus

I am most concerned about random maps. Skirmishes and scenarios are more responsible for being "pretty" imo, so if those should be reduced to ~40 maps of the upmost quality, I would be fine with it. With random maps, gameplay comes before beauty, so I'd hate to see good maps get junked because they look bad. You will notice with my very first post taking aim at river archipelago, I made a fan of this map upset. Personally, I think its better to keep these seldom-used random maps in the game unless they are truly redundant like Kerala. Well they already are in the options. With the quick-play mode, I meant to instead put a selection of the best maps into the limelight for new users to quickly get a taste of cool looking maps. Well, I'd argue not every random map needs an update. While I can only try to make maps pretty, I can definitely make them more enjoyable and balanced.

To be honest, its really not that many. The situation could be greatly improved without removal with: better organizing map categories like I tried to do ("Default" category problem), and folding 2,4,6, and 8 player versions of skirmish maps into one map. I think the redundant maps could be removed entirely, and maybe some of the niche maps like snowflake sea rocks could be a good fit for community maps. Also, we haven't touched on what is a "quality" map. I think for random maps, playability is the most important aspect, with looks being secondary. However, for skirmish maps, appearance is more important than it is in random maps. While some random maps do not look pretty, they are quite fun. I think for this reason and others, it would be just fine to have the highest quality maps be front and center to the user, like through quick play, but keep all the maps accessible in game setup and the map browser. So my issue isn't with organizing and cleaning up maps, its just with the "remove first" approach.

Right, but removing a ton of stuff, even just temporarily, is not a great approach to that. We have new civs, UI improvements, options, and graphics that all contribute to quality. I could improve at least 10 random maps by a28, probably more. If you do the same for skirmish maps, we are already close to "done". My point is it shouldn't be a big project or overhaul, but instead a continued effort to do better upkeep for maps.

afaik, running is just used for fleeing and for getting into formation. Acceleration is how quickly the unit gets to its top speed. I think the numbers are in m/s and m/s^2. i suppose you could make the speeds and accelerations realistic.

why not instead just improve the maps without removing them first? We can certainly remove truly redundant maps. If the concern is bloat and excess options confusing players, then a "quick play" option might be good with a pool of the maps and other options made more streamlined. This could be the basis for a ranked mode too.

I think we should have some sort of ranked play system with matchmaking for ratings. It should use a set map pool and a handful of other constrained settings (ie u can't make the map giant to throw off your opponent). The hold up is that it probably won't work well with a small player count.

have you had a report from someone without a rating? I wonder if ratings could not be the direct cause but one of a handful of contributing factors.

do you want info from players that haven't ever had this happen to compare? In my case, I have never had a rating with my account, so that is probably why.

well we want to make spamming accounts more difficult, but not at the expense of first time account creators. Having to register an account here to play multiplayer would probably stop lots of ppl from trying multiplayer.

I think with https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7047 , he will at least be less able to hold hosts hostage by threatening to leave if a spec he doesn't like isn't banned.

I know it’s just I was in the middle of something else and found it funny. I’ll make an issue.

Might be the funniest buglet I have ever found: 20241216-0630-20.5597295.mp4 When promoting entities in a formation, the formation standard decides to do the pathing first then all the cav catch up once the flag is at the destination.

well I don't see what else is selected in this screenshot, but the centurion is, and it should give its aura icons to units in its influence (not including itself).

maybe you could put a skeleton on top. maybe the skeleton could shoot a bow

we don't have a matchmaking system. So i don't see the point of a map rotation like that. Choosing half the maps to remove (temporarily) for the sake of organization is a bit confusing. Why not just improve organization directly like I tried and failed to do. If some maps are deficient, just improve them as needed. It doesn't need to be some big undertaking.

the ones i found all use "random maps", but maybe we are just the first to break from the status quo. I think its originally because resources are randomly placed. edit: that being said, the juice might not be worth the squeeze as there are a lot of "Random" to change to "Generated"

tree concerns addressed for random maps: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7319 this has been something i meant to do for a while, but this discussion reminded me.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7319 important proposed changes to the three least popular biomes! Improving the least popular biomes will make selecting 'random' biome more interesting. small baobab trees: 400 -> 600 wood giant baobab trees: 550,600 -> 1000, 1200 wood. india: less absurdly large forests, density remains the same. nubia and savannah: low density forests can spawn, very open layout remains. Players can start with the more dense woodlines and are later forced to take the less optimal trees. nubia: 1 out of 3 probability for a version to spawn with forests of baobabs! check out the screenshots in the git PR.

yeah we have been over this. Thanks @Gurken Khan. I maintain that rather than removing any maps except for redundant ones, they should be better organized. However, I tried and failed to do this, as the parts of the gui need to be refactored to do it properly.

@Itms is the balancers group leftover from phabricator? I don't see it when setting reviewers in a PR. I know @chrstgtr would like to be a part of it. I think @Feldfeld and I should be in it too.

g'day I suggest playing on random maps as these allow for customizing things like map size and sometimes the biome. The classic map is mainland, and most biomes are good on wood except for sudanian savannah and nubia.