Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, Atrik said:

The "advantage mechanics" are disable by default, and can be enabled in the "EcoPanel" menu of this GUI builder. So if you don't want them, you just don't enable anything in there.

 

 

But I will say I enjoy the GUI customization screen. Hadn't seen that before. I wish you would focus on adding things like that to the base game. You are indeed talented at this. 

[DesertRose]

31 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Right now you can accomplished the same by using the "Order one unit" command

Well, the issue with that method is that right now it's very hard to see how many Farmers work on which Field.

Maybe this could made more clear by adding 5 gather points on a Field where each Farmer has to do.
Like

. . . . . . .
. X . . . X .
. . . . . . .
. . . X . . .
. . . . . . .
. X . . . X .
. . . . . . .

Basically there are 5 invisible "trees" placed at those "X", and each "tree" has a maximum of one Farmer.

Edited March 10 by DesertRose

[DesertRose]

I mean, when I looked through the options offered by ModernGUI and saw the option of "Queue in idle buildings first" I was baffled that apparently is not how the game already behaves.

[guerringuerrin]

13 minutes ago, Emacz said:

@Atrik has talent! I'm not sure if they allow him to add things to the base game.  People have very strong recations and beliefs to some aspects of ModernGUI and I feel treat Atrik in an unfair manor because of that.  I for one am a big supporter of adding some of his GUI aspects to the main game.  I think its more visually pleasing, and easier for people with not great eyesight.  

I guess that’s a bit like life, right? A person can be many things at the same time. It’s also true that we are a very small community, so frictions naturally arise. Also, I don’t support encouraging hatred. And I think @Atrik has contributed many positive things, even if there are some aspects I don’t like.

Personally, I consider the automation features in ModernGUI’s training system a clear advantage, and we have discussed this publicly many times. Aside from that, all the GUI aspects of the mod are really great. The configuration wizard is excellent.

In my view, a game that allows you to configure the GUI the way you like—the more freedom it gives you, the better the user experience. Of course, there can be some nuance regarding how far certain visualizations might also be considered an advantage, although I see that as a relatively minor issue.

Edited March 10 by guerringuerrin

[Guest]

Thx @Atrik, should've split advantage from updating the GUI, one for the looks and one for QOL type of thing for those that prefer playing it like that. The game does need some ease of readability when it comes to multiplayer.

[guerringuerrin]

8 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

I mean, when I looked through the options offered by ModernGUI and saw the option of "Queue in idle buildings first" I was baffled that apparently is not how the game already behaves.

Yes, the vanilla training system has many limitations that, in my opinion, are a form of malfunction. I think that frustration can lead users to look for alternatives. In fact, I’ve been working on a mod that always prioritizes empty barracks, and my goal is to have it implemented in the next release (PR #8483). While respecting the “no automation principle”, I believe removing unnecessary limitations is something positive.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

16 minutes ago, DesertRose said:

Well, the issue with that method is that right now it's very hard to see how many Farmers work on which Field.

Maybe this could made more clear by adding 5 gather points on a Field where each Farmer has to do.
Like

. . . . . . .
. X . . . X .
. . . . . . .
. . . X . . .
. . . . . . .
. X . . . X .
. . . . . . .

Basically there are 5 invisible "trees" placed at those "X", and each "tree" has a maximum of one Farmer.

This could be a neat way to replace the less intuitive diminishing returns feature. As long as the spots get filled by proximity to the storehouses, and the farmers choose the move to the closer spots if they are vacant. Lots of stuff to implement for this tho.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This could be a neat way to replace the less intuitive diminishing returns feature. As long as the spots get filled by proximity to the storehouses, and the farmers choose the move to the closer spots if they are vacant. Lots of stuff to implement for this tho.

Just add an outline to indicate how full it is, from red to green. [Can change colour in setting for the colourblind]. Hmm... then again this needs further ways to identify easily.

Edit; Whoops I thought they mean't how to identify how full fields are, since I sometimes miss some numbers.

Edited March 10 by Tapothei

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Just now, Tapothei said:

Just add an outline to indicate how full it is, from red to green. [Can change colour in setting for the colourblind]

Not precisely related to what I was discussing, but i think that would conflict with HP bars.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

22 minutes ago, Emacz said:

@Atrik has talent! I'm not sure if they allow him to add things to the base game.  People have very strong recations and beliefs to some aspects of ModernGUI and I feel treat Atrik in an unfair manor because of that.  I for one am a big supporter of adding some of his GUI aspects to the main game.  I think its more visually pleasing, and easier for people with not great eyesight.  

He already is adding things to the base game. All one has to do is make Pull Requests. Other people criticize the code to improve it, or a design discussion occurs so that the design is honed and refined and meets the criteria of the game. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This could be a neat way to replace the less intuitive diminishing returns feature. As long as the spots get filled by proximity to the storehouses, and the farmers choose the move to the closer spots if they are vacant. Lots of stuff to implement for this tho.

This can be a compromise between what we have now (which kinda sucks, not gonna lie) and the "wandering farmer" of Age of Empires. 

[DesertRose]

24 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This could be a neat way to replace the less intuitive diminishing returns feature. As long as the spots get filled by proximity to the storehouses, and the farmers choose the move to the closer spots if they are vacant. Lots of stuff to implement for this tho.

That's actually something I wanted to say, but I feared that the walking distance is too small to replace the 10% diminishing return.

[Atrik]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

All one has to do is make Pull Requests.

It's a bit more complicated then that however. It's not just about good will.

• There are things that I can do in a mod that won't be accepted in vanilla, like dropping support for minuscule screens.
• The time spent on developing anything for vanilla is of a large order of magnitude (often even two) longer then for a mod, due to requirements, process, need of communications..
• Reviewer availability is scarce and mismatch with your own motivation and availability creates a even bigger gap between making something in a mod and for vanilla.
• Some ideas are very often initiated in the mod as a totally buggy POC, and refined over time since you can immediately play test it (or dropped). Which is something you cannot really do with vanilla.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Just now, Atrik said:

There are things that I can do in a mod that won't be accepted in vanilla, like dropping support for minuscule screens.

That's not necessarily true. It's definitely a discussion we can have. 

Your other points are 100% fair. My main reasons for starting DE. 

Collaboration, especially online collaboration, can be very frustrating at times. But what you can do (which you've already done and which I've done) is use your mod for experimentation, etc., then parse out bits and pieces you think would serve well the base game and make PRs. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I like the distributed farmers idea. There would be lots of gameplay ramifications for eco efficiency and vulnerability to raids.

One outstanding point is the slot ("trees" as mentioned by @DesertRose) priority per farmers. Instead of some script that would place each additional farmer at the best possible slot depending on dropsite and farm orientation, slot prioritization should be done based off the path the farmer takes to access the farm when tasked to farm on it (whichever slot is closest).

Edited March 10 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Seleucids]

@Atrik @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI want to touch on the recent discussion regarding our development workflows and how best to align our modding efforts with the vanilla codebase. I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability. The reality is that there are definitely valid differences between the timelines for mods versus full game integration, particularly when it comes to compliance and QA scrutiny.

However, as we move forward on larger project deliverables, our goal is to streamline the process without sacrificing quality. I am proposing that we introduce weekly alignment sessions on Microsoft Teams to keep everyone synced with QA and product management. This would allow us to surface blockers earlier and ensure our technical direction remains aligned with the broader roadmap. Regarding the specific debate on mods versus pull requests, standardising our integration protocols can actually help bridge the gap you mentioned regarding reviewer availability. By centralising these reviews within a PR workflow, we create a more predictable pipeline for feedback and refinement before code enters the core system.

This is a collective effort to improve how we scale our development operations. If we can establish these regular touchpoints and adopt a shared development standard, we should see fewer integration headaches  and faster cycles for feature releases. I would love to hear your feedback on how you think we can implement this in a way that respects the workflow differences you are facing while still moving us toward greater consistency.

 

[Atrik]

24 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability.

Tiny precision, I wasn't trying to blame the process  I saw how it works well to generate hardened quality code, the time reviewer spend to read your (sometimes sh!ty) code is never to be taken granted --thanks by the way @Vantha, @phosit, @Stan` for the reviews on my PRs --.

But simply the additional time to be spent on trying to get any feature into the game (again the 1-2 order of magnitude larger of work isn't a exaggeration, add to this waiting time) create a very real limit to what you can get done, even over a large time frame.

Your suggestions to try to organize the collaboration although nice, can hardly solve this dilemma.

 

Edited March 10 by Atrik

[AlexHerbert]

On 12/7/2004 at 7:34 PM, deaconwar said:

How do you guys guys think being able to use smilys in the game would affect it.

or being able to use smilys http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/uploads//emoticons/default_biggrin.png in the chat room

This is already possible, isn't?

Can be done with characters like =P

[Guest]

As far as I'm aware, there doesn't seem to be a way to cancel producing mass amount of units in a building, so my only choice is to manually click cancel and its annoying in multiplayer where input lag is present as well as mistaking a batch number or wrong unit, so solving it by a click of a button would be nice. I've made an issue already on github.

Edited March 11 by Tapothei

[Vantha]

@Atrik

I can relate to the points you mentioned, actually, because I felt a similar way when I first started contributing to this project. What I can tell you from my own experience, though, is that things tend to run smoother and quicker over time, as you would become a more regular contributor and also learn how things run and what to look out for in implementations.

Of course, making mods will always be faster and allow for more creative freedom, this is an essential aspect of the opens source philosophy, so I completely understand if people want to take that path. I welcome anyone who wants, though, to also open a PR and try to get the changes into the game, I think with git now it's easier than ever. I always try to work on those PRs as soon as I can, but of course it can take some time, it's important to think long-term I believe. And I'll admit that it can be difficult for me to find the balance between making it easy for the contributor and ensuring the best possible code quality.

@Atrik E.g., I'd love to eventually work on the wall snapping you implemented a while ago, if you feel like it.

[Stan`]

50 minutes ago, Vantha said:

@Atrik E.g., I'd love to eventually work on the wall snapping you implemented a while ago, if you feel like it.

If you do, please consider this too => https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1190 I think it would be really nice

 

@Atrik thank you for switching to the contributing side, it's very appreciated. My goal was to get all the modders on the main team eventually so the lack of speed would be curbed by the sheer number of people  It did and did not work out at the same time; so many areas to work on

 

 

[Perzival12]

15 minutes ago, Stan` said:

My goal was to get all the modders on the main team eventually so the lack of speed would be curbed by the sheer number of people  It did and did not work out at the same time; so many areas to work on

Once I figure out how to use git, I might consider adding some of Hyrule’s features to the main game, like spawning and stun.

[Atrik]

58 minutes ago, Vantha said:

@Atrik E.g., I'd love to eventually work on the wall snapping you implemented a while ago, if you feel like it.

6 minutes ago, Stan` said:

If you do, please consider this too => https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1190 I think it would be really nice

Yes! I also finely got it working almost perfect. There is just a couple things to clear and the feature tend to awaken a pre-existing bug. But it's very satisfying to use so definitively a must have in vanilla! Since I'm currently playing with it through moderngui, I think there are a couple things that would be also nice to have included, like what @Stan` linked. Overall maybe not a too small PR, so I'd maybe try to have the current big ones I have opened done and merged first (don't like the idea of having rotting PRs ), I enjoyed when we got things done for formations together, and I'm looking forward to get this rolling again!

16 minutes ago, Stan` said:

@Atrik thank you for switching to the contributing side, it's very appreciated.

Thanks @Stan`!!
'switching' sounds a bit like there is a wall between the two  and sometimes I also read comments that make it look like it's a sort of vs.
Modding allows for people to get used to the 0AD code, experiment and learn. That's was the case for me, and for others like @guerringuerrin. I'm also not planning on stopping modding and in general, want to use it as a way to try a lot of things, and select the best ones/ the one that can be implemented into vanilla. Mods also can be used to patch some bugs in between releases, and of course just to mention them, the total conversions are a subject on their own.

[Atrik]

11 hours ago, Tapothei said:

my only choice is to manually click cancel and its annoying in multiplayer where input lag is present as well as mistaking a batch number or wrong unit, so solving it by a click of a button would be nice. I've made an issue already on github.

In the meantime this get addressed, autociv--or ModernGUI-- have the a hotkey for it : "autociv.production.queue.clear".
Assigned as Alt+R by default.

[guerringuerrin]

24 minutes ago, Atrik said:

In the meantime this get addressed, autociv--or ModernGUI-- have the a hotkey for it : "autociv.production.queue.clear".
Assigned as Alt+R by default.

I'd love to add this to the training system improvements