wraitii

The fact is having conflicting hotkeys with instant actions is a bad idea. The order of keypress will lead to different behaviour, which is inconsistent and unexpected. The solution is to avoid conflicting hotkeys, or have a 3rd action (such as a mouse click) to trigger the actual thing. There's actually no case I can think of where it's really problematic, except indeed this control group thing. Maybe there's a few other lurking, but I would somewhat doubt that.

I can confirm that, it's the new expected behaviour, which fixes other (unrelated) issues with hotkeys. However this remains fixable by fixing the control group behaviour to work more like normal selection. I made #6064 to fix this for A25. In the meantime, just release the # first. That seems weird, are you sure?

I think that's because of https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr78/rev/9fad778aa3291ef630338bc568453a79faa37089 It's already been reported at 5986 but for pratical reasons I haven't done the update for this release.

They do search for resources near the rally point (that hasn't changed). Really it's only annoying for trees on scarce maps, because units kinda move semi-randomly, but I wouldn't say it was great in a23 either - IMO 0 A.D. has annoyingly small forests on most maps.

Yeah that's exactly what happens actually. I think there was already behaviour to do that in A23, but maybe it didn't work quite the same. My recommended "fix" is to simply make more dropsites, because efficiency goes down very rapidly with walking distance anyways. This is something I'd like to fix for A25, but it's not that trivial

In "real life", slingers would have large ammo capacity, longer ranges, and much deadlier ammo against un-armoured troops, but I think they'd be far less efficient against shields. Pilum and javelins are few, short-ranged, but you don't stop one. Yeah that's my bad, UI isn't great there. I think players will find out via osmosis. --- Overall I think archers & can archers remain definitely a bit OP. Elephants are strong if left unchecked, particularly since unlike rams they can't be killed by women, so you need real units. ---- No idea about the house hotkey.

You should assume that no mods are compatible until they get updated, there's been a lot of changes. Modders will likely update quickly.

Can you clarify what you mean by "blurry"? Screenshot maybe? What OS are you using?

Yeah, we'll update the download links with a fixed package. Unfortunately the few that will download in the meantime will need to find the forums. We noticed an issue in the manual but not in-game unfortunately. Thanks for reporting this anyways

Hey everyone, Following the release of A24, we've had a number of issues reported. First, make sure that your game is clean and up-to-date: Deactivate all mods. your config file should read 'mod.enabledmods = "mod public"'. See GameDataPaths to know where it is Clear your cache. Likewise, consult GameDataPaths if you don't know how to do it This will fix most of the issues you're likely to encounter. Secondly, here are some know issues: Spanish translation is broken. The 'fix' is to switch to another language for now. We'll fix this soon, so you'll simply be able to re-download the game. [Fixed in the A24b release] There is a rare issue with garrisoning in formation (you're only affected if you don't use the formation walk override). This will also be hot fixed soon. [Fixed in the A24b release] There is a rare issue where ordering a unit to do the same thing twice can incorrectly keep queued orders issued in-between (see #6046) - the 'fix' is to order the unit to do something else in that case, but in general this should not affect gameplay much. Queuing 'AttackMoveUnit' orders for units currently in formation does not quite work: the order is not queued but executed right away Let us know if you run into other issues, Hope you enjoy the game

What locale are you using?

If I recall correctly, hero HP have been standardised to 1000. All gameplay changes are discussed at https://code.wildfiregames.com and you're free to give your opinion on any diff there. Keep in mind that this is the first release in 2.5 years, so it's a bit exceptional.

I do agree with the scouting and gameplay argument. However, the fact that civil centre can train military also kind of defeats the purpose of scouting - to an extent, the game is quite flexible anyways. If we want to change that, we kinda have to change the whole game. I'm not extraordinarily satisfied with the current gameplay situation, but I'm not certain adding an "archery range" would really improve things much, unless we actually go for an AoE2 clone - but I don't think that's necessarily entirely desirable, since AoE2 is alive and very much kicking. I think our gameplay would benefit from being more similar to Rise of Nations, since we already have the territory mechanic, but that also needs a number of changes.

Hm, this is quite odd. Points to an issue with your computer settings somehow. Any chance you could do the following: - try a LAN game with your brother, check if you lag - try to play another game in MP and see if your ping is higher than your brother

Hey. I don't see any particular reason why this should happen. One possible explanation is simply that some hosts are much farther away from you, physically, and thus you get lag? Which part of the world are you in? The disconnect issue should be mostly fixed with A24, which will release soon.

(also this would prevent siege & possibly ships from collecting treasures... Which may or may not be desirable). I don't really feel strongly either way beyond that. It makes sense, I can also see it as being un-necessary indirection. The dog template should maybe inherit from Soldier?

Reminds me of RTW loading screens

Welcome to the forums Unfortunately, we already have some of these I'll let @Stan` explain more of the onboarding process, I think, but on a macro level there are multiple ways you can contribute: In the forums, there are many discussions on a number of historical topics, including e.g. whether our art is historically accurate, civilisation rosters, the names of units, specific wonders that we could use, and really a number of other things. I'll point you to posts by e.g. @Sundiata , @Nescio or @Genava55 (amongs others, obviously). I think art review in particular might be of interest to you, and we have a whole forum dedicated to it We use Phabricator to make and review patches: https://code.wildfiregames.com. This include actual code patches, but also data files (thus texts). You'll find more information here https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GettingStartedProgrammers we also have an IRC chat room (see wiki page above).

There is a skybox, but no "terrain box", nor environment mapping, nor screen-space reflections, etc. This is largely why I abandoned my original shader: with the camera looking down, many things will reflect the ground, which is quite tricky to do correctly. We also just don't have that much that's actually reflective metal.

Well, it's harder than an auto-installer, but it is not that difficult. I think if you give it a decent shot you'll find that it works pretty well with the auto build. And yes, I do see that it could give more instant feedback. But it also means that any failed experiment impacts players. I'm not sure the tradeoff is worth it right now. BTW, for the curious, there were previous experiments with metallic shaders: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/19650-engine-questions/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-304957

git handles large binaries poorly, but svn has a special way of deadlocking itself now and then... Anyways, if you do want to give a shot at this, consider that it should work on mac/windows/linux and that it should probably support mac notarisation (at least be able to, down the line, since we don't at the moment.)

Yes, having a way to auto-update would be good. I just don't think it's that useful. Would an embedded svn/git be the way to go? Maybe, I dunno. I guess we'll take patches, I'm not going to be the one working on it anyways Anyways, people can and do already play SVN. It's really not that difficult. Fact is, putting the .zip files together is relatively trivial (and in fact jenkins now does she almost automatically).

What I'm saying is I think there is value in having a stable 'meta' for the game. I'm personally rather satisfied with a 4-6 months release cycle, not that we've had that in a long time. I am not convinced that an exclusively "continuous delivery" model is better. I can't say I'm 100% certain of this, though. Just not something I'm really looking at working on.

You're really not addressing my point. The technical side is trivial to an extent. The fact is that the gameplay would change, and that's not a good player experience. Changing the revision while joining a game, so you don't even know what you're playing? Absurd. That being said, including an easy way to auto-update, even with semi-regular releases, is likely a good idea. Whether it should be a priority, I'm not so sure. We'll take patches, should they be sufficiently well written.

I'm not convinced that we need to, or indeed should, switch to a "continuous release" model, to be honest. Yes, it has pros, namely more testing more often, but it'll make the game both less buggy and less stable. Further, for players, continuous balance changes won't be very good. There are advantages to periodic release - 'marketing', things like that. 'Real' companies do a bit of both, but video games that I know tend to work with semi-regular "patches", not actual continuous releasing. There's likely a good reason for that. It would also be rougher on modders, who would need to maintain their mod continuously to avoid issues (though of course, it somewhat makes it easier). I believe shorter release cycles (4-6 months) with an "svn" alongside, is overall a rather good model.