Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

0 A.D. Gameplay Team
  • Posts

    2.764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

Posts posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. On 31/01/2025 at 5:26 AM, Meister said:

    I had up to 10 fps, but when it came to a 200 pop situation, it was more like 0.5 to 1 fps. I played with lowest graphic settings, which used to get me 20-40 fps on a26. I tried both OpenGL and Vulkan, no notable difference detected.
    Any idea why it is so much slower now?

    are your a26 numbers including autociv? The feature that turns off bodies is pretty impactful when big fights are happening.

  2. Could we schedule a "fast PC" TG for this weekend? I expect that those with really slow computers or adversely affected setups like @Meister are slowing turns for everyone, leading to many reports from players that otherwise have good performance. However, I have never really tried to verify this is the case.

    If we get a 4v4 where everyone has ideally >20 fps (min) in combat demo huge (found in scenarios -> demo maps -> combat demo (huge)), we can make sure that this is really the cause.

    I'd like to do it on Sunday, maybe when we did the a27 RC test, 18:00 UTC.

    @MetaPhyZic @BreakfastBurrito_007 @Ginnungagap, and any others that have good performance in a27.

    • Like 1
  3. Its true, your fps is changing quite a bit.

    Do the stutters happen in combat demo huge? (Scenarios -> Demo Maps -> combat demo (huge))

    if they don't, I think they might be because of someone else in that game slowing things down for everyone. For example, when the women are stopped, the walking animation is still playing smoothly.

  4.   

    9 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

    You are right - apologies for misplacing the proposal in the wrong thread! An also, before we add the visualization of such aura we need to implement the feature in the game mechanics.

    Just a few more words on the visualization concept: Obviously, this cannot be an "aura marker" like for the temple or towers as the terrain is not a selectable unit. For me it would appear most intuitive if I place the fields in a greener area in the desert, e.g. around an oasis, and not onto pure sand or rock area (same for paved areas around CC and roads of course - or is there a penalty already?).

    I am aware that we do have already the prepared farmland terrain feature (looking great and inviting to build a farm) on non-desert maps. On desert maps, this might look strange if an oasis would be surrounded by prepared farmland with trees on it. Could we possibly visualize good farmland by slightly darker sand with a bit of green? I mean basically, the area surrounding the oasis itself should be suitable up to a certain distance.

    In addition we would then also need kind of a tooltip for such things (could be part of the tips & tricks page by @Vanthaand @ShadowOfHassen.

    8 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

    I think the best way would be to "teach" the player about the different areas as a general feature in the game. So when you placea new farm you'll have different shades of green depending on the area and how much 'productive' it would be: a bright green for good areas (maybe green biomes or near a farmstead) and a desaturated value the farther you go. At that point, is already clear that a desaturated green when you build means: "not much productive" 

    Continuing this in a more appropriate topic.

    I get that placing farms in deserts is unrealistic. However, introducing a soil quality (and water availability, which I have seen suggested) system based on terrain simply doesn't fit with the abstraction level of the game. In multiplayer, it would probably just be annoying to worry about whether or not you can expect the normal amount of food from a farm.

    However, rather than penalizing farm placement depending on the terrain (desert, snowy, mountainous) for all maps, it could be made "opt-in": it could be set it up as a neutral feature of certain skirmish maps for which it is the focus of the map.

    I.e Add two "well" structures in a valley that cannot be destroyed, but only captured. These provide a 30% farming bonus in a 50 meter radius. Players descend from opposing mountain ranges to take control of the wells.

    • Like 4
  5. 1 hour ago, Acero said:

    I dont know if the fix is a simple xml template change or something more complicated. In the former case, maybe a comunity mod would be all we need to fix this long lasting problem.

    @real_tabasco_sauce

    I think it could be done in a mod. However, after seeing how the com mod split the community in a26, I think a different approach should be taken. If bugs are fixed in the community mod, then it becomes the better version of the game to play, leading to pressure for each addition to be a guaranteed improvement and decreasing the experimental potential of the community mod. I'll lay out my proposition for the community mod in that discussion.

    My understanding is that its too late to fix stuff like this for a27, but it absolutely can be fixed for release 28.

    • Like 4
  6. On 23/01/2025 at 9:37 AM, Gurken Khan said:

    The punctuation is effed. Every description I looked at had periods where I expected commas. Did it get verschlimmbessert automatically? Also "structure" capitalized?

    I hope this release doesn't get rushed out the door.

    How is it effed? I don't see these periods in your screenshot. Look closer? Or maybe highlight them for us?

    I don't remember the description for Boudica being changed in this alpha (edit: 3 years ago for hero garrison, 5 years ago for boudica aura). I think Structure might be capitalized because classes typically get capitalized in descriptions.

×
×
  • Create New...