- User Since
- Jul 28 2017, 4:19 PM (139 w, 1 d)
Aside from this I got idea how this could be unlimited number of players.
You would need to store inside PlayerData an array of m_data and work with the value based on index you get.
Lets say you store m_data as u32. So if you get index 0 - 16 you get first item from array. If you get index from 17 - 32 you get second item from array and substract 16 from index.
@Feldfeld anything against? If yes do we agree that camel traders need to have the same footprint, one or another?
Fri, Mar 27
some more comments
Fixed in rP23560
please split footprint changes from name changes
else I agree, footprints should not be smaller than entity
it shouldn't really matter whether they are on foot or ride a horse, chariot, camel, or elephant.
Well it matter for citizen-soldiers and champions.
Maybe they could start at 500 hp and use the same scaling as champions for example.
At first sight it looks good because it removes bunch of duplication, however it hides cost change from templates. Also it would not be shown in structure tree and right clicking to trainable unit. (Side note, I think you need to put that technology somewhere to work if I am not mistaken)
Thu, Mar 26
data passed inside timer are not used so removal is ok and it eliminates object creation.
SelecAnimation takes only 3 parameters DEFINE_INTERFACE_METHOD_3("SelectAnimation", void, ICmpVisual, SelectAnimation, std::string, bool, fixed)
Did not have time to get into it yet, so pointing only style.
Nice catch :)
Changes are complete.
Changes are good following similar cleaning patches and keeping CC for json.
Wed, Mar 25
I wanted to avoid copying the same function to another two classes.
That line was not intentional. I planed to remove it in next update or commit.
Following functions already checked if unitmotion exists.
Mon, Mar 23
moving out of queue
Sat, Mar 21
Petra does not use Chasing string in her codebase -> ok.
@Feldfeld whats your opinion ?
Dunno if we need it in vanilla. It rewards players to not use their units directly?
Only citizen soldiers are able to promote so having them garrisoned for most time will hurt economy of the player. And experience gain is not so fast as in combat.
[16:18] <Freagarach> One could perhaps check the timer every time the rate is computed?
[16:19] <Stan`> could be delete this.trickleTimer
[16:20] <Freagarach> That too, and var -> let ;)
@Feldfeld any objections ?
Fri, Mar 20
the former will stop in its tracks
Need to fix tests.
Tue, Mar 17
fix linter comments
Mon, Mar 16
caption change event is triggering rebuild, so solution would be possibly override.
Sun, Mar 15
Comparison to number is done correctly.
cancel CHASING timer
What could be done is to have %(statusName)s: %(tooltip)s, %(effects)s, %(interval)s, %(duration)s %(stackability)s defined in template.
But duration and interval can be changed through aura or technology, what makes 4 options defined in template and 4 ifs in code what will make it easier to read.
Downside is 4 strings for every template.
Mon, Mar 9
nothing braking i can find just by reading the code
Sat, Mar 7
16:02 < elexis> I dont know why forEach was used there other than consistency, with the function above, perhaps there is a reason, but if there is, its not clear to me 16:03 < elexis> otherwise I dont see any syntax error 16:03 < elexis> no objections that is 16:04 < elexis> (performance doesnt matter here since its only one call per click, but the difference might be relevant in areas that are called per entity per turn) 16:06 < elexis> (for (let cmpUnitAI of GetFormationUnitAIs(data.entities, player)) would be the alternative)
mainly for that, whole file is using .forEach with GetFormationUnitAIs
Starting entities are garrisoned correctly.
Saving map in atlas again does not rewrite Garrison element.
There is no other map to be updated.
Single way how to define garrisoned entities in map file.
Sun, Mar 1
desired effect by "multiply": 0 sounds like "replace": 0
It would be nice to solve the whole ticket here. Are you up to that task?
use new icon
Feb 27 2020
Feb 26 2020
Feb 25 2020
It is correct to allow templates decide if friendly fire is enabled instead hardcoding it.
Changes to code are complete and correct.
All required templates have been updated.
Test are passing.
can you request review ?
Feb 24 2020
windows build was fixed