real_tabasco_sauce

@Grapjas made the original: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/18003-suggestions-for-0-ad/?do=findComment&comment=579557

Well, we could just scrap the 'walls delete trees' for the time being.

Were you in multiplayer? The crashes only seem to happen in multiplayer with a player opponent or spectator.

Also, did anyone observe a crash in a game where nobody played as romans?

@Norse_Harold what were your steps to try and reproduce the crash? Did you get any crashes with the patch you shared? lmk if you want to test something.

Well restoring return false was problematic as it would result in endless construction when building a wall segment on top of a tree. That being said, I was unable to cause the crashing after this change in 2 multiplayer games.

it would be interesting if this fixes the problem. Many of the problems have occurred when building over no entities, ie just building a farmstead when expected.

possible lead: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/pulls/4/files#diff-f8ba294e053371dce7a50759dae18522c3e0c09a:~:text=out the way-,// out the way,},-// The obstruction always

Its very hard to reproduce. It has happened both with and without spectators. The only common denominator I know of is the romans.

All the errors appear (so far) to be related to rome. The only code that touched Foundation.js was the wall destruction of trees. Maybe @Grapjas can help.

commands.txtmetadata.json here is a replay in which it happened. It doesn't end on a particular command. interestinglog.htmloos_dump.txtI saw it mentioned that it occurred when a spectator joined from the lobby.

Ok, the new version is out!

Personally, i think its pretty obvious.

Oh, right. It might be, there's another autociv feature that could be added to vanilla.

They can be muted in game and in observer chat. And it carries over from the lobby and vice versa.

If possible, it would be a nice touch to hide the observer flares of players you have muted.

Screen Recording 2024-09-03 155206.mp4 This is with a higher P value (P = 5, so +/-25% error) for demonstration purposes. To be honest I think its pretty close to ideal for xbows. I went with P = 4 in the PR: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/6960

I just added some hero balance adjustments Kush: Champion discount hero is now -30% for the axe champions and has no tradeoff. The debuff for enemy healers is now 100%. Nastasen has a higher damage buff which now also applies to elephants. Mauryans: Edict pillars have a smaller radius and can be built closer. Edict pillars now include a 10% movement speed buff and a +15 HP buff for traders and Human units. Persians: Xerxes is currently just a weaker version of the Gaul's viridomarus. Xerxes eco buff radius increases to 100 meters, and includes +25% build rate instead of +15%. Xerxes gains a range aura helpful for offensive tasks: Siege, Elephants, and champion infantry +25% HP. These auras are mostly mutually exclusive except for when using elephants and champion infantry for defense. Han: Wei Qing debuff against enemy cavalry radius increased to 45 meters to improve its affect versus ranged cavalry.

Well it can attack 1 unit at a time like the ram ship. When u want it to go boom, u start the burning and the ship gets faster and more agile. Then it go boom. So it think it will be interesting when u choose which fireships to ignite. For instance u may not want to ignite all of them, u may just need one to gain an advantage.

All the above counters are not hard counters. With good micro, arrow ships can beat an equivalent amount of ram ships. In general, fire ships and ram ships play pretty similar as they are both melee, except that ram ships do better vs arrow ships, and fire ships do better versus ram ships. in aoe2, pikemen "counter" knights but actually lose convincingly in a 1v1. The idea is its a resource counter, and its the same idea here. The civ that just has arrow ships (kush) is probably cooked in this balance, but tbh it was cooked before anyway. I'd be down to give them fire ships.

Ok, I went and did some pretty large changes to navy, really curious to see how this plays out: All ships have 1 population except for the siege ships. Arrow ships are somewhat expensive, general purpose ships. They are weak to ram ships and can kill fire ships quite quickly. They are also pretty effective versus land units. Ram ships are cheap and fast and can take out arrow ships (trade better than 1 to 1) and siege ships. Fire ships are very good against ram ships. They trade well in normal fire ship mode (damaging 1 unit at a time), and can instantly "add fuel" to quickly burn up, dealing damage upon death. It takes only 10 seconds for the ship to burn up. The ship is also a little faster when burning. Both melee ships are now capable of destroying docks in reasonable time. Siege ships do more splash damage with a larger radius so they are pretty effective against ships as well as buildings long as you keep them safe. The idea with the above is that civs with fire ships will be going after enemy ram ship or going after arrow ships to tip the balance in their favor. With ram ships, you can try to maneuver them to quickly destroy ranged ships and use your arrow ships to stop fire ships. I'm going to add an attempt to improve pathing at the expense of some ship overlap. After a round in the community mod, I'll do adjustments to the ship techs as needed.

No, I think the system is fine. The only "distortion" was that ram armor was skewed to be overly vulnerable to hack and nearly invincible to pierce. So the damage/armor system didn't distort anything, its just the values for rams were a little extreme.

Im not sure what part is "recent projects and solutions" Just to be sure, I am using Visual Studio not VS code. I can select it from the startup dropdown: It doesn't really do anything though, as I still need to open it. Its not that big a deal, I guess I was just used to switching between solutions and available views.

How do we feel about letting rams have comparable pierce armor to buildings (currently far greater), and slightly upping the hack armor (6 -> 7) The idea is to make rams slightly harder to destory with just a handful of antiram, and more forgiving if all you have nearby are ranged units. Obviously, you will still be in trouble if you task all your ranged units to try and kill a ram in the middle of a battle.

What should have happened? pyrogenesis.sln being hidden? Frankly, I liked that it was so readily accessible there.