2121 replies to this topic

[zoot]

alkazar-ipse, on 10 October 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

@ bill:

I'd like to have an option to make my farms renew if wood available, sh.t on unit names
I also understand, that your suggestions might be long term, and not expected in next alphas, therefore:
Cuz irel rel dont want those names on MY screen (suggesting a checkbox in options shows I respect your wish, I just dont (profanity) share it).

Could you please stuff the vitriolic language? It doesn't really add anything to the discussion and only helps polarize people from moving on to other topics.

Edited by Jeru, 10 October 2012 - 10:30 PM.
Profanity

[Jeru]

Everybody please refrain from using profanities.

Next person I see using the s-word, f-word etc. is banned with no further warning.

[Gumble]

Hi there dev team. I was just wondering if it was possible to have some sort of in-game buildable bridge/mole that you can use to cross over water. I was interested in doing some scenario design using 0AD around Alexander the Great's campaigns. The Siege of Tyre is what I had in mind where he built a mole between the mainland and the island of Tyre during his 9 month siege. I thought it would be brilliant to be able to recapture that in a real-time scenario but I don't know whether that would be possible in using 0AD's design features. Most scenario editors I have encountered don't have this capability to build usable bridges in-game.

[Pedro Falcão]

Gumble, on 17 October 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Hi there dev team. I was just wondering if it was possible to have some sort of in-game buildable bridge/mole that you can use to cross over water. I was interested in doing some scenario design using 0AD around Alexander the Great's campaigns. The Siege of Tyre is what I had in mind where he built a mole between the mainland and the island of Tyre during his 9 month siege. I thought it would be brilliant to be able to recapture that in a real-time scenario but I don't know whether that would be possible in using 0AD's design features. Most scenario editors I have encountered don't have this capability to build usable bridges in-game.

You can always mod the game to do your bidding. But, answering your question, no, we don't have bridges yet.

[FeXoR]

Pedro Falcão, on 17 October 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

You can always mod the game to do your bidding. But, answering your question, no, we don't have bridges yet.

Well, there are bridges (look map "bridge demo") but they cannot be build ingame.

[FeXoR]

Since docks can be placed well ingame and bridges would have to be placed similar I don't see why not. However, I'm not working at that part of the code so it's the decision of developers who do to add this feature. It will be some work for sure and I don't think it has the highest priority but I think it's worth a thought.

Sorry for not saying " I'm already working on it" but that's just not the way open source projects work .

[Sighvatr]

That's why I sometimes don't think there is a point in making suggestion on this game too. The developers suggest to the fan-base that they should attempt to create their suggestions into contributions for the game.

[Pedro Falcão]

Sighvatr, on 18 October 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

That's why I sometimes don't think there is a point in making suggestion on this game too. The developers suggest to the fan-base that they should attempt to create their suggestions into contributions for the game.

Don't forget the developers aren't paid, they are doing this game because they are fans of it already. But since they don't get paid, they can only do what is comfortable for them to do and i don't blame them for this. This doesn't interfere, though, on the fact that two heads think better than one, and that we may have had experiences they didn't.

[feneur]

Sighvatr, on 18 October 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

That's why I sometimes don't think there is a point in making suggestion on this game too. The developers suggest to the fan-base that they should attempt to create their suggestions into contributions for the game.

A suggestion for exactly how to do something is one thing, wanting to change the entire way something is done this late in development is another. It's simply not an option in more or less all cases. But, and this is the main reason someone might mention that "you can do it yourself": unlike most games where you're forced to have things the way the developers decided in this case it is actually possible to change things to be the way you like them

[jshand2012]

This message is really for the developers, however, others involved with the project are welcome to get involved.

For gamers who do not have a 3d graphics card will find it very hard to play the game well, as the graphics are not rendering properly and they are very slow. is there a way this program could detect the graphics card's abilities, and let the user know if their graphics card is compatible with the game.

[feneur]

jshand2012, on 22 October 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

This message is really for the developers, however, others involved with the project are welcome to get involved.

For gamers who do not have a 3d graphics card will find it very hard to play the game well, as the graphics are not rendering properly and they are very slow. is there a way this program could detect the graphics card's abilities, and let the user know if their graphics card is compatible with the game.

It already does that to some extent, and we hope to make the detection better (and eventually set just the settings a player's graphics card can handle) as the development moves along. You will definitely always need a graphics card with 3D capabilities though

[feneur]

Lion.Kanzen, on 23 October 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

i dont have one XD and play fine, except the Lag for Pathfinding and CPU Processor.

You do have one, otherwise the game would not run However you might not have a dedicated graphics card but rather one that is integrated with the motherboard, that doesn't mean it isn't there/doesn't support 3D though

[greenknight32]

Some onboard graphics can be pretty good - but it uses some of your system RAM for graphics, leaving less available for other tasks. Maybe you need to add more RAM.

[lilstewie]

I remember reading about this, but dont know which thread. Are you guys going to add scaffolding animation when the building is being built?

Edited by lilstewie, 30 October 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[fcxSanya]

lilstewie, on 30 October 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

I remember reading about this, but dont know which thread. Are you guys going to add scaffolding animation when the building is being built?

Yes, there is a Trac ticket for this: #1581.

[MajorYokoYurik0]

First off, a bit off-topic, but I really have to praise you guys for having such an incredible game on Linux! KD Truly awesome job!

Now, I was wondering about the AI though. I know the AI is very much still in development ... along with most things, but the game is very much playable ... much more than anyone would expect in an "alpha" anything. The way I see it, on straight-forward maps, AI is quite challenging. I'm not sure, but the problem seems to be that the AI can perform actions at a rate faster than a human can (or in some cases, ever could). I've seen the problem in many open source RTS games. I was thinking that maybe a time delay between AI actions could help? Be it constant, or a random period of time, based on a player-defined range of delay times. What do you think?

[quantumstate]

The AI isn't performing actions particularly fast. We do plan to add difficulty levels but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Basically if we just straight limited the actions to your action rate the AI would be at a disadvantage unless we added more code to do things like send units to gather as a group (which is what a player does), similarly the AI doesn't use rally points because it can just instantly assign them when trained. So you can see that most of the faster action rate goes into making the code simpler rather than any particular play benefit.

There are some possible techniques that a 0 A.D AI could use which would be exploiting the faster actions per second, none of the existing AI's do this however.

[thetopi]

I don't know if this has already been considered but how about adding a tide system.
btw, the water in the game looks fantastic
This would be an awesome addition to ocean maps.

Just a suggestion...

[Geek377]

During the Latin exam today, there was a question regarding Cato and Carthage and then I started thinking and long story short: perhaps give the Romans the ability to deposit salt on fields which either leads to random death of one of the field owner's units or the death of one of the units harvesting the field to create a starvation effect. Ideally I would like sieges in which a walled settlement starves and all units within the walls just die.

[longtomjr]

Geek377, on 19 December 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

During the Latin exam today, there was a question regarding Cato and Carthage and then I started thinking and long story short: perhaps give the Romans the ability to deposit salt on fields which either leads to random death of one of the field owner's units or the death of one of the units harvesting the field to create a starvation effect. Ideally I would like sieges in which a walled settlement starves and all units within the walls just die.

Yeh that will be cool... And mabe a spie systim like in setelers... Where you go in and get a list about all units and rescourses of the player... it will be cool... then only high level military and other spies can catch one another... Mabe only for capains to get info... Then you can have a tech CounterEspionage and Espionage... Espionage make the spie only visible to the enemie's higher units and increase spie speed... Presicely the opposite for CounterEspionage. Could make the gamplay better or more interesting...

I would also love the Idea of different formations having different atvanteges... and disadvanteges