guerringuerrin

I know that some multiplayer platforms and games implement file integrity checks to prevent malicious code or cheats disguised as mods. I’m not saying that would necessarily solve anything here (we know how easy it is to hide mods in 0 A.D.), but I also don’t have enough knowledge to take a strong position on it. I was mostly wondering whether removing it could introduce other problems. Your explanation helps clarify the situation. My original comment was more about the idea that this feels like a solution that lets modders skip some basic precautions, rather than addressing a real engine issue. I understand that this can be somewhat subjective. I see. The point I was trying to illustrate is that, regardless of where the mod is downloaded from, its correct functioning depends on it being distributed properly: the same file structure across all download sources, and the correct download link in the case of git. Not through Code -> Download ZIP, but by creating a release that appears on the right side of the repository page. Also, if I remember correctly, this caused issues with Feldmap in the past when different versions were used, resulting in OOS. Not trying to make a big issue out of this. Thanks for the explanation!

Ok, I understand your point. I have a few questions though: From what I understand, in your first example the issue would only exist on the modder’s machine, since end users would all receive the same file structure. Is that correct? If so, this seems like the most justifiable case for not checking file integrity, since it only affects a development environment and not distributed copies of the mod. Seems very similar to the previous one. A user cloning the repository would obtain what is essentially the “final” structure of the mod that would later be distributed, right? I see your point about downloading the repository as a zip from git, which adds the -branch suffix to the directory name. But couldn’t that be avoided by creating a release? That would appear on the right side of the repository page and users could download the packaged version directly. This case also seems similar to the first one to me. Users downloading the mod from mod.io would all receive the same package, and therefore the same file structure. Am I right? It’s true that I haven’t worked on incompatible mods (I only contributed something very small to the community-mod, the changelog). However, we’ve been using Feldmap for years and this has never been a problem in practice, largely for the reasons above: users end up downloading the same file structure. The only exception I can think of is when someone downloads the source code directly from the repository (using the “Code → Download ZIP” button). But I always assumed that option exists mainly for people who want to develop or inspect the code, not for end users who just want to install the mod. For that purpose, isn’t the release mechanism intended? In my humble opinion, an end user shouldn’t have to deal with technical issues that are inherent to development workflows. It seems more reasonable for the modder to be responsible for distributing a consistent packaged version of the mod.

Isn't it unusual to allow the same mod to have a different file structure for two different users? Couldn't that generate false positives? Aside from my question, this seems like a rather forced solution aimed at solving a problem that doesn't really exist. Modders should provide a simple way for users to obtain their mods. Besides, it doesn’t seem like a serious issue. It’s just a matter of learning how to properly create a .zip/.pyromod and providing clear instructions to the end user.

Could you check fire damage from Cartha Fire Inf Jav and Iberian Champions Jav Cavalry? Some time ago I read somewhere they actually ignore armor. Edit: also you can check Han crossbows poison damage

hi, @DesertRose. It is highly recommended to use one branch for each change/feature you want to make. On windows I mostly use Git Bash (it's console) but for some stuff I use GitExtensions https://gitextensions.github.io/ I hope this can help you, last comment.:

This is true, at lease by checking the stats in-game. Only Will to Fight affects Elephant melee attacks.

That was fast, @Tapothei! Thanks for putting in the effort to learn how to create a PR. You could get a source-code editor like Visual Studio Code to make things easier for you. Also, when creating a PR that solves an issue, you normally want to include this in the PR message like this: "Fixes #8781" I'll try to explain the basic Git workflow as simply as possible. I'm still learning myself, so there may be a few details I’m overlooking. The usual workflow is to fork the repository, clone your fork locally, and create a branch for your changes ( You don't want to work directly on the website for practical reasons). You commit your work and push the branch to your fork. Each contributor works on their own fork. Once the changes are ready, you open a pull request from your branch to the upstream repository, where the maintainers can review it. Also, right now your changes are on the main branch of your repository. `Check this: Normally main should not be used for development. Instead, it is kept in sync with upstream (the official 0 A.D. repository), and new changes are developed in separate branches. Pull requests are then opened from those branches. This is an example of a PR from another contributor, notice his PR comes from another branch, called "lazy-actual-size": This way your main branch always stays clean and can be used to create new branches. Otherwise, if main contains previous work that wasn’t merged, those changes could end up included again in future pull requests. An if you later want to work on something else and sync your main branch with upstream, you may run into problems because git will detect local changes that don’t match upstream. By creating separate branches from main, you isolate each set of changes. This makes it easier to keep main clean, revisit your work later, and work on multiple things in parallel. I also noticed that your PR contains many separate commits. Like this: In these cases, it is usually recommended to squash (git command) them into a single commit. This makes it easier for maintainers to review the changes and keep a clean history of the proposed modifications. I know this might seem completely confusing right now. But if you plan to keep contributing, learning it will make things much easier in the long run.It can take months and plenty of frustration to get comfortable with the basics of git. So if you decide to learn it, be patient with yourself. It gets a little easier every day. Well, I don’t want to overwhelm you any further. You’ve already made it this far, and that’s worth recognizing. Thank you!

@trompetin17 I realize this is the same branch as the issue I have to test so I guess I have the chance to give it a try of this great project!

indeed this is somewhat a strategy in mid/late games. unfortunetly is not very seen these days

@DesertRose You might find this interesting

i was just about to say that what is the cost multiplier, @DesertRose?

That would be great, @Obelix!

I mean, seriously. it really sounds like you didn't follow this thread at all. Have a good day bud

Yes, the issue is that I cannot answer for the historical inconsistencies of the game or for the decisions made by the development team. I'm not even a member of the team. I'm just a civilian male ( just a joke ) I did not propose this change. However, I consider it a positive one, and I believe it aims to reflect what I already mentioned regarding agriculture. How many people do you think are actively working on this project? Many changes are proposed and driven by one or two individuals and later accepted by the team. Regarding Cleopatra, correct me if I’m wrong, but her reign was roughly around year 0 (there is no year 0, but you get the point). I’m not familiar enough with the exact temporal scope of the game to speak confidently about that. A quick online search places her reign between 51 and 30 BC. Either way, invoking a separate contradiction doesn’t really move this discussion forward. If this is an “insignificant change,” then it should not be a major issue either—unless it actually breaks something or has negative side effects (such as the lack of distinct voice lines). Some have argued that it adds clutter. But is that due to the lack of voice lines, or the models themselves? It could simply be a matter of personal preference. At this point, there’s not much more to add. What I questioned was the appeal to historical rigor taken to an extreme and that as this is a game "every change should affect gameplay". I believe that has been made quite clear.

He is not my friend, nor is anyone else who has spoken here. What we all have in common is that we are part of this community. In that sense, we are colleagues. I am not responsible for their opinions, and I am not responsible if members of this community who agree with you choose not to explain to the rest of us why they think it’s a bad change. You did, and that’s valuable.. We simply disagree on what adds something and what doesn’t. End of story. I agree with you, and I have tried to remain focused on the substance of the issue, despite some unfortunate wording on my part. Yes, it is very annoying to have to respond to many people at the same time. I would feel overwhelmed. I also hate 3v1 unbalanced mainland, by the way I think we have both made our arguments very clear. I don’t believe there is anything to gain from continuing this discussion just to repeat them.

You are right. I should have chosen my words carefully and not be part of unneccesary jokes and comments that only added noise to the discussion. I'm sorry for that. I mean it. That was my fault. I have no problem with free expression. Critiquing an argument is not censorship. Here I need to defend my position, because I genuinely think this is an exaggeration. Does having a few birds flying around really add nothing to the game? Or having three different models for the same unit? By your definition, none of that would add anything, and I disagree with that premise.There will always be a cut-off point somewhere. You can always argue that something is unnecessary. That’s why I don’t think it’s a strong argument, because by that logic, something will always be “missing.” This project aims to be historically accurate. And I do believe this adds something to the game. It may be meaningless to some people, perhaps even to the majority; we don’t really know. But I think it helps reflect what I mentioned before about families and communities being central to agricultural life. But you are right, we can disagree. Have a good day.

I tried but I fail. I have a new challenge now. It's called find the male or beyond the clutter

I wonder why you don’t bother to explain why it’s a bad change.

Tabascos link:

haha they even talk about 0ad in the chat. interesting

Normally there is no official patches/bugfixes between releases. Last version we had the community-mod which is sort of an "official mod" that was intended to fix this kind of bugs and also balancing issues. I don't know if we will have community-mod for this release. All these stuff depends on very few members of the community and sometimes it can't be hard to do the work. Keep in touch in the forum and there might be some news about these in the next months

Look, if you felt attacked or ofended in any way, I apologize. I don't want to portrait myself in an innocent way nor my intention was to attack you. I discuss arguments in a public forum about a public matter that many players are discussing. There's no need to tag me for me to answer you about what you put here. I didn't insulted you I didn't ordered you to shut up and is OK if you don't like the change. I'm not here to change your mind. But yeah if your argument is: I answer this is nonsense, or "this doesn't make sense". Because is an overexaggeration (or however is it spell. Not using chatgpt to avoid unnecesary comments) that leads anywhere. Why? Because you can use that argument to almost everything the game, which leads to doesn't even have a game in the first place. Yes, the change has some historical ground and I told you: And about this: Yes it adds confusion and nothing else. That's my point. I agree about the audio feedback, not about the models or because naming has changed from women to civilians Yes, I wanted to bring this up because that's kind of a very characteristic mechanic of the game and it's a naming used for years, and even today. I get your point about "talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology." I'm a real player too. I play almost everyday, for years. Yes in lobby we commonly say "bring your army", "javs", "javcav", "make soldiers" etcétera. Still I've seen ppl in lobby start using civilians for former women and they are not robots. You say "civilian" is artificial and I argued that too. What about "villagers", would be better? Less artificial from your POV? Is honest not ironical question. Women are still there and I don't think someone had the intention of removing them or undermine them. Because, as we were discussing here, the intention were not political. Were historical. I don't get if this is some kind of joke or irony. As far as I know there has been aura damage and other types of auras for a long time

How dare you....

Hi @Riley S. You are doing nothing wrong. I believe this is a bug from R28. You can check it out here: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8735

It's not about "let them be equal to men". They are not showed as equal.