Messages

26

Forum discussion / Re: [Suggestion] MG calendar

« on: 22 August 2013, 16:00:31 »

Yes but the commercial games do lots of publicity and get more players very fast, especially if the game is free.

Where have you seen "Megaglest 1.8 released on December 2013" or something like that?. Most commercial games get notices eveywhere in the web.

27

Forum discussion / Re: [Suggestion] MG calendar

« on: 22 August 2013, 13:33:29 »

I think the same as you. I've posted suggestions related to this in the forum: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=9081.0
The problem its currently a great part of the strategy in-game is being fast doing "click" instead of the real strategy.
Anyway, this is offtopic.

Tanks to be agree with me!!

28

Forum discussion / Re: [Suggestion] MG calendar

« on: 22 August 2013, 11:32:34 »

Yes, making publicity is the way to go, but think about a new user. A new user that enters megaglest.org for first time:

• Reads game description
• Downloads the game
• Look at the options in the menu
• He think: It can be played online!
• Enters the lobby
• Hello?
• -No asnwer-
• Anybody here?
• -No asnwer-
• Closes the game
• He forget about the game. It becomes another useless software for him.

And that's rhe reason of the limited number of players in Megaglest. Think about it.

29

Forum discussion / [Suggestion] MG calendar

« on: 21 August 2013, 16:03:25 »

Hi again, as you can see in-game, it's difficult to play an online game with more than 2-3 human players without waiting for hours in the lobby. We could add a "Scheduled games" section in the main page that contains an interactive calendar showing at what hours will be games to get there and play together. It is done sometimes by creating a thread or  a new like "Multi-player sessions this weekend".

Also, you don't have to code the calendar as i'm sure that doing a quick search like "PHP Interactive Scheduler" you can find lots of calendars already coded. And you can use google calendar too (easiest way XD).

Also, making it visible in-game or making the calendar send dynamic alerts to the clients would be a point too.

30

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 28 July 2013, 19:32:35 »

My idea on how to do this is create a class "AttackSimulator" or a thing like this in the AI that tries all combinations and gets all resulting hp and ep for your allies and enemies for all units in all target combinations and finally returns the best target for each unit controlled by the AI.

This seems to be very CPU costly (especially with large amounts of units) but i think it isn't necessary to calculate all the variables exactly as float / double  data types. An integer calculation should be fine.

I want to (try to) learn C++ in-depth so if anyone tells me how the .patch files and all about that works, i'll try to do this myself.

31

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 27 July 2013, 20:14:41 »

A great improvement to the AI would be that units that have ranged & splash attack order targets by priority:

• The units that can deal more damage to your team (+ priority)
• The units that if get attacked by the splash damage, the attacker would damage itself (- priority)
• The units with larger size (+ priority)
• The units with more armor. The armor is calculated for each attack (or i'm wrong) so if the attack deals lots of damage, is better to attack armored foes. The less armored units can be killed by weaker or more machine-gun units. (+ priority)
• The units with more benefit from damage multitplier (+ priority)

In fact, that can be extended (with some tweaks and addings) to all attack types and strategies for the AI. It would be great that when a unit has multiple targets to choose get in sync with all units in range to deal the highest damage possible calculating the damage each unit will get for all possible cases and to eliminate enemy units that will deal more damage first (eliminate a catapult first than a swordman but if there are 8 swordmands that a catapult can hit all with a shoot, then the catapult focus swordmans).

Do you get my idea?

Anyway, (question to the MG developers) is this going to be implemented in the game AI?

32

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 27 July 2013, 16:17:25 »

I haven't looked at the ai code but i think the CPU AI already creates a list of attackable units. If it dosen't, how does it choose target if there are multiple?

33

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 27 July 2013, 13:44:27 »

A great improvement to the AI would be that units that have ranged & splash attack order targets by priority:

• The units that can deal more damage to your team (+ priority)
• The units that if get attacked by the splash damage, the attacker would damage itself (- priority)
• The units with larger size (+ priority)
• The units with more armor. The armor is calculated for each attack (or i'm wrong) so if the attack deals lots of damage, is better to attack armored foes. The less armored units can be killed by weaker or more machine-gun units. (+ priority)
• The units with more benefit from damage multitplier (+ priority)

In fact, that can be extended (with some tweaks and addings) to all attack types and strategies for the AI. It would be great that when a unit has multiple targets to choose get in sync with all units in range to deal the highest damage possible calculating the damage each unit will get for all possible cases and to eliminate enemy units that will deal more damage first (eliminate a catapult first than a swordman but if there are 8 swordmands that a catapult can hit all with a shoot, then the catapult focus swordmans).

Do you get my idea?

34

Closed feature requests / Re: [Invalid] Units should be able to have an aura

« on: 27 July 2013, 10:03:35 »

As for re opening this thread I want ask why this was marked as [Invalid] without any reply. I think it isn't such a bad idea. Can anyone answer why adding auras is a bad idea?

35

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 15 June 2013, 14:26:28 »

Yes but it only have to be done once and will imporove the modding possibilities. Anyway, are my modifications a good idea?

36

Feature requests / Re: Megapack Balance

« on: 15 June 2013, 07:56:20 »

You can look at my post for an idea balancing magic: https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=9081.0

I think magic is completely unblanced.

37

Closed feature requests / [Invalid] Units should be able to have an aura

« on: 6 June 2013, 19:22:36 »

Units should be able to have an aura that affects nearby units in a range (default range can be the sight of the unit) which can influence all properties of a unit positively and negatively (properties like HpRegen, Attack Speed, armor, movement speed, Ep regen, attack distance, resource harvesting speed) Upgrades should be able to handle auras too. For example, an upgrade makes an aura more powerful or an aura that requieres an upgrade. Upgrades should be able to affect specific units (if possible not units only by name for example an aura that affects only units below 10% of their hp)
And another parameter should be: enemies only, allies only and all
Also another parameter to specify if the aura stacks with other auras (unique (cannot stack), stackable)

The first application of this (in my opinion) can be to balance magic.
That's the changes that i would do:

• An aura applied to the library: Increases Mage tower's production speed (a little) (stackable)
• An aura applied to summoner's guild: Increases HP regen to combatent units (unique)
• An aura applied to archmage tower: Increases mining speed of initiates (unique or stackable) (if it is stackable there is a reason to build more than one, and this is interesting)
• An aura applied to archmage tower: Increases EP regen to archmages (unique)
• An aura applied to archmage tower: Increases armor of mage tower in a specific amount to make consolidated magic bases less vulnerable to an air rush attack (unique)

I know that some people is going to say that magic is already balanced but it's not becouse if you do a game CPU vs CPU never win the magic faction. I know that magic is focused on quick rush but if your rush fails the game can't be lost for you. Also, is very predictable that a magic player will attack early and you can start buildng a barracks (for example) and produce few units quickly to prevent that easily.

If you agrre with something but disagree with other thing, please say it.
I wait for your answers and please, be constructive.

38

MegaGlest / Suggestion on how to get more people to test development builds

« on: 18 May 2013, 21:44:07 »

I have a suggestion  for get more people testing development builds. You can create a page on megaglest.org like "help testing the game" where there is a link and a timetable or something with scheduled test games and explaining there that they can report the bugs in the forum and talk via IRC.

I think source code & development builds should be more acessible and organized in the webpage. Have you thought about creating a github?

39

Closed bug reports / Re: [lacks info] Unknown version, Windows 7-64: Unspecified headless server crash

« on: 18 May 2013, 18:27:33 »

Yes, i'm agree with that, but i thought that the latest stable version always had all bugs (identified) fixed. What does i have to do to fix this problem in my headless?

40

Closed bug reports / [dupe] Unknown version, Windows 7-64: Unspecified headless server crash

« on: 18 May 2013, 07:13:20 »

Compiled using: VC++: 1600 on: Nov 23 2012 00:38:33 platform: Windows endianness: little
The problem is that the headless server crashes in the middle of a game, kicks everyone and restarts. I don't remember the error message but it wasn't the typical "async error".

I hope that this help to slove the bug!

Sorry for my bad english (I'm catalan)