Build is unstable, some tests have failed - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Leaner diff again. This goes back to just allowing an arbitrary template, and allows that template to specify a parent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Query statistics tracker before transforming.

In D3801#165095, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Interesting. Essentially a way to apply stats without having to use weird auto-Techs. Also, a way to grab stats from multiple parent templates, essentially. Yes?

Honestly, while Athenian hoplites weren't bad soldiers (probably pretty decent for their time), they didn't fare very well when matched against other Greek hoplites from Thebes or Sparta. I'd rather this "Fourth Rank" idea go to the Roman Swordsman. The fourth rank being either the Extraordinarius, or (much cooler) a new Republican Centurion unit.

Higher pierce armor also makes them stronger vs. spearmen and pikemen, who still inconceivably use pierce attack. Something to think about.

What if we make subsequent towers and forts get more expensive? First ones, rather cheap, but eventually they don't become cost effective. Just an alternate idea.

Interesting. Essentially a way to apply stats without having to use weird auto-Techs. Also, a way to grab stats from multiple parent templates, essentially. Yes?

@nani and @gameboy Friends, I totally agree it's a pity to have done so much work on these shaders and let it all go to dust; but it's really pointless to try to continue with it, with all the hate I got, and the monkey-wrenching. The fact is my contributions are not wanted. Period. If you look at the comments on this patch, back to the beginning, note what I'm being asked for: separate patches for each feature... !!! Like, how much time was I supposed to spend on this? It would take me weeks of work to separate this into 3 separate shaders, individually debugged and diffed. It's insane.
Notice also how many thoughts, reports and ideas I presented here, about blurring, about shadows; and I got no reply. Silent treatment is what it is.
So, if my work is never going to be accepted, there's no point in continuing. I stopped the C++ work I was doing too, for the same reason.
And I also stopped looking at the wildfire engine for my own purposes, since I would probably not get any help with modding it.
And so I also stopped playing 0ad, for good measure.
Divorce.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Bigger update -> this introduces a "ParamNodeLayer" wrapper that's intended to allow loading more than XML as a paramnode layer, and might make it a bit easier to act on layers directly.

Sounds like a plan.

Agree with this.

I have never been in favor of different speeds for common units, for me ranged/melee must have the same speed, varying only in some cases. Anyway, it is a more pleasant situation that D3735 about camel rush.

I don't think there's a need to have all common units types have the same speed. In my opinion the more range a unit has, the slower movement speed it should have. That avoids endless hit and run opportunities by archers or slingers.
I think it's one of the main reasons why so many complain about archers in this release, as they can safely pick the fight, get a few free shots in and if they realise that it won't be favourable just run away. And unless the enemy was massing cav they can't be caught up to.

I'd rather have the wood gather rate matched to infantry not citizens.

I think it is unrealistic for men/women to have the same gather rates. Cutting down trees requires a lot of strength. Mining is requires a lot of strength. History shows that men were mostly in the woods/mines while women were mostly in the fields.

While it might be unrealistic, I think citizens/women having a better gather rate than men would make for better gameplay. Currently booming = turtling. That way greedy players going for a fast boom would atleast leave themselves more vulnerable and encourage aggression from other players, making the meta more than just full boom.

Definitely agree that the stonethrowers require a buff. They're currently much too vulnerable for how expensive they are and for their damage output. Increasing range should make it riskier for the opponent to try and snipe the stonethrowers. I also like that hp is increased instead of armor as it means that ranged units will still be capable of destroying them, but not as efficiently as melee units, hopefully making it less frustrating for newer players.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Fix tests, prevent frequent calculation of mere constant.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Removed template changes before committing.

(Sorry for the typo in your name, @Langbart.)

The problem with still showing the summary data is that a mod may change stuff to the level that an infinite stream of errors emerge. Or even block the ability to return to the replay menu. So as much as I would like to show the summary, I don't think it should be done.

It works and I find it useful. Thanks. In the GIF below I had four forges selected and started exploring all 4 items. This worked well. If I only selected 3 forges and explored 4 items, the order was slightly off, once I selected the fourth, it still explored all the things I had selected in the correct order, I just noticed this little visually awkward side effect. When two forges are selected, it does it twice.

Q: Who ever reviewing this: should it actually allow to see summary and check for compatibility there even if some statistics may be missing?

In D3787#164981, @wraitii wrote:

Are you referring to the actor format? the code?

The code.

In D3787#164978, @vladislavbelov wrote:

It seems or model infrastructure is overcomplicated and too coupled.

It seems or model infrastructure is overcomplicated and too coupled.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Make it easier to load an arbitrary number of 'compositing/filtering' templates.
To keep the loading efficient, it's good to have intermediate 'full paramnodes' to refer to as parent. I'm of a mind to completely split the parent & the compositor logic to make it more natural.

will focus on D3801 first

Seems to be fixed by rP25176 👍

In truth, this is too complex. It works well as a data metaparser, but that's not really what we need. See D3800 for a lighter, more usable rewrite.

In D3500#164930, @Angen wrote:

but you still hardcode "0ad"

but you still hardcode "0ad"

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Also console.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Add a version number to qualitylevels, mostly as future proofing. The actor version isn't changed, as it remains compatible.

What do you plan to do next, and what will you surprise us with?

I realize that now :)

(You don't have to abandon/recreate a new diff to make changes, you can just update an existing one)

I submitted an unwanted revision. I created a new one, I think I could have used the same one. I'm still very unfamiliar with arcanist/phabricator :)