Jump to content

Alpha 26 Pre-release/Release Candidate Build Testing


Recommended Posts

On 08/06/2022 at 8:10 PM, Gurken Khan said:

The 'ta' in 'Shao ta' should also get a capital letter, like the 'Ta' in 'Fangyu Ta'.

It's "game grammatic" or chinese really use capital characters for this words? Because at internet most of pīnyīn "ta" use little letter.

Wizard Tower – 法师塔 – fǎshī – wizard tower

Archer Tower – 箭塔 (jiàn)

Bomb Tower – 炸弹塔 (zhàdàn )

Edited by Jethew Goldgrub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jethew Goldgrub said:

It's "game grammatic" or chinese really use capital characters for this words? Because at internet most of "ta" use little letter.

I was just going by "game grammar" (as I perceive it). Like "Sentry Tower" for example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a lot of scripting errors playing git version

commit 52094b6f62041c8c03cbdd9909cc1794c08bfb49 (HEAD -> master, upstream/master, origin/master)
Date:   Tue Jul 19 05:00:53 2022 +0200

 

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384
oldPos is undefined
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:384:9
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:290:8
  PETRA.NavalManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/navalManager.js:832:42
  PETRA.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:2282:20
  PETRA.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:118:11
  m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:64:7
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384
oldPos is undefined
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:384:9
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:290:8
  PETRA.NavalManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/navalManager.js:832:42
  PETRA.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:2282:20
  PETRA.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:118:11
  m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:64:7
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384

...

 

interestinglog.html commands.txt metadata.json

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, andy5995 said:

Got a lot of scripting errors playing git version

commit 52094b6f62041c8c03cbdd9909cc1794c08bfb49 (HEAD -> master, upstream/master, origin/master)
Date:   Tue Jul 19 05:00:53 2022 +0200

 

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384
oldPos is undefined
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:384:9
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:290:8
  PETRA.NavalManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/navalManager.js:832:42
  PETRA.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:2282:20
  PETRA.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:118:11
  m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:64:7
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384
oldPos is undefined
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.onBoarding@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:384:9
  PETRA.TransportPlan.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js:290:8
  PETRA.NavalManager.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/navalManager.js:832:42
  PETRA.HQ.prototype.update@simulation/ai/petra/headquarters.js:2282:20
  PETRA.PetraBot.prototype.OnUpdate@simulation/ai/petra/_petrabot.js:118:11
  m.BaseAI.prototype.HandleMessage@simulation/ai/common-api/baseAI.js:64:7
ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/petra/transportPlan.js line 384

...

 

interestinglog.html 947 kB · 1 download commands.txt 4 MB · 1 download metadata.json 904 kB · 1 download

@Langbart

, @Freagarach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New report, a release blocker I think. In these screenshots I was firing at a Fort (that was *partially* obscured by FOW) with a Mace catapult.  Note the game time in the upper right. I start firing about 19:55. Continuous fire until around 23:32, but no damage appears in the fort's health bars.

When I units in range to completely clear FOW, the fort instantaneously shows as destroyed.

 

commit 3ed74c4c4924fae6ad6d0c4c8698faed362d465b (HEAD -> master, upstream/master, origin/master)
Merge: 29f53fe203 08e6d4f254
Date:   Wed Jul 27 05:00:36 2022 +0200

 

@chrstgtr

@Stan`@wowgetoffyourcellphone@Freagarach@Gurken Khan@Langbart

 

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h31m35s709.png

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h31m57s008.png

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h32m05s818.png

Edited by andy5995
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, andy5995 said:

New report, a release blocker I think. In these screenshots I was firing at a Fort (that was *partially* obscured by FOW) with a Mace catapult.  Note the game time in the upper right. I start firing about 19:55. Continuous fire until around 23:32, but no damage appears in the fort's health bars.

When I units in range to completely clear FOW, the fort instantaneously shows as destroyed.

 

commit 3ed74c4c4924fae6ad6d0c4c8698faed362d465b (HEAD -> master, upstream/master, origin/master)
Merge: 29f53fe203 08e6d4f254
Date:   Wed Jul 27 05:00:36 2022 +0200

 

@chrstgtr

@Stan`@wowgetoffyourcellphone@Freagarach@Gurken Khan@Langbart

 

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h31m35s709.png

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h31m57s008.png

vlcsnap-2022-07-28-23h32m05s818.png

I think this has been around for awhile. 
 

It’s a bit annoying, but not the end of the world in my opinion—it can be overcome with a little scouting to provide more vision. But others may feel differently

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I think this has been around for awhile. 

I think so too. I don't think it's ideal that you can't see what you're doing/what effect it has. Probably in most cases you have some fighting around your siege so you'll see the castle's health go down.

Maybe I should check whether women still can't see the core of a Theatron when they're building it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to look at catapult attack range vs vision range. Part of what is causing the issue is that vision range is relatively static, while attack range can be extended dynamically based on the height map. Making the height map affect (e.g. extend on higher elevation) the vision range dynamically was deemed too resource heavy to have in combination with the attack range effect. So, the game designers had to pick one over the other and chose the attack range effect since that had more bearing on gameplay.

Others on the team can feel free to correct me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

We need to look at catapult attack range vs vision range.

This issue seems like it's almost not directly related to attack vs. vision range, but instead more of a problem that the status/health of a unit is not being updated if it's partially obscured by FOW.

 

  

11 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I think this has been around for awhile. 
 

It’s a bit annoying, but not the end of the world in my opinion—it can be overcome with a little scouting to provide more vision. But others may feel differently

 

Probably much more serious a problem, and much more confusing, for new players.

Edited by andy5995
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, andy5995 said:

This issue seems like it's almost not directly related to attack vs. vision range, but instead more of a problem that the status/health of a unit is not being updated if it's partially obscured by FOW.

 

Yes and no. The reason that it's not being updated is because the center of the object is not within vision range. Updating the status of an object that is only partially visible will probably take more programing majiks and possibly be performance heavy (detecting edges instead of a single origin point). But I'm not a program duder.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The reason that it's not being updated is because the center of the object is not within vision range.

I believe there are currently efforts to generally lower units' vision rage; if that gets through I expect these kind of issues to increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I believe there are currently efforts to generally lower units' vision rage; if that gets through I expect these kind of issues to increase.

Not really. It's only really a big problem for ranged units, especially ranged units whose vision range doesn't adequately exceed its attack range. A melee unit attacking the building will be right next to it, meaning the center should be within vision range, even if the range is smaller, and the building's health should update just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

I hate that towers can ungarrison units to inaccessible terrain and then they're just stuck there. If at least I could garrison them again...

0ad-castoff.jpg.cd3490f32d21e214d13f59a599a89d9f.jpg

Not sure why we don't do a height check as part of ungarisoning @Freagarach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

I believe there are currently efforts to generally lower units' vision rage; if that gets through I expect these kind of issues to increase.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744#201916

I am not lowering vision of all units. Just lowering cavalry and champion cavalry down to 80 for infantry/cavalry balance.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Freagarach said:

The catapult is some kind of artillery, so isn't it logical that one can shoot beyond its own sight?

I don't think so. Is there any basis to say that ancient artillery shot farther than the human eye could see? That would be miles, which I don't think is true

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catas were used to attack long distance target. This is valid for within vision ranges as well as out of vision range buildings. For without vision ranges let's take an example.

Lets take historical context -  Player2 (defender) has a city surrounded by walls. Player1 (attacker) explored the city and found out that certain building exists at certain places. He goes outside the walls and start attcking player2. He knows that player2 builidng exists and he will attack untill he wants to stop. He would have no way to know whether or not building destroy until he is able to see. 

Now in our context (0ad context)

  1. Walls are useless so we are incorporating the same by allowing them to attack outside of player vision range. 
  2. Units firing catas are on same horizon as other units fighting, so they will not be able to see where catas attack are lending becasue of fog of war. But what if there is no fighting at all and catas are shooting alone, they should see the building. Well, we don't have that handling so we introduced fog of war by default.
  3. When catas are on elevated ground their vision range is increaed so I think that is managed but still there is possibility of FOG, but again we don't do such checks.

Distant target are hard to identify with human eyes when env is even slighty foggy/dusty etc. Since, wars always will have messy env so it make snese to have concept of FOG, hence our current implmentation. 

I'm fine with current implementation. Feel free to comment.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/07/2022 at 1:46 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
On 30/07/2022 at 4:58 AM, Freagarach said:

artillery, so one can shoot beyond its own sight?

Doesn't track, since in the real world even in ancient times you could see much further than your catapult can shoot.

Let's be aware of the tactic of "indirect fire", which consists of high angle fire at a target obscured by hills, walls, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire

Edited by Norse_Harold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • maroder unpinned this topic
  • Stan` unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...