CariElf

[quote who="tanafres" reply="63" id="2833338"] 50. Doesn't this mean that you can gain influence all the way up to the NPC city hub? Seems to nerf NPC factions pretty significantly; maybe have a special type of influence that doesn't trigger a 'get out' response? Would require a way to intuitively notify the player of the difference, though. Alternately, a 2-radius hard limit might be workable, though still nerf-y. 51. + 52. This is a huge improvement, but... how

[quote who="Loren1350" reply="87" id="2820318"] Well what I meant (re: gameplay and building placement) was that if influence/territory is a well-defined quality, perhaps the map tiles could be assigned ownership not only to a player but to a specific city. I am assuming that the "at least two tiles away" rule is meant to simplify the management of improvements-to-cities situation. If each city has its own territory influence that competes against other cities (even in the same nation),

[quote who="Loren1350" reply="82" id="2820256"]Your language of "marking" everything in the bounding rect imply to me that you've bypassed the Euclidean calculations. I'd suggest that for the sake of adjacent borders, you're still going to need a proper "distance" calculation to get things to work right. Personally I'd rather have a game use Euclidean distance for idealistic reasons, but Elemental already isn't a Euclidean game for units (see: treatment of diagonals) so you should

[quote who="harpo99999" reply="79" id="2820238"]carielf, in several of my games I have had a situation where my influence completely surrounded another faction's city and had actually forced the other factions influence to within it's city, at that point I was more or less expecting the other faction's city to switch to my faction, is this sort of situation going to be added in in future? harpo [/quote] It's not currently planned, but I personally would like to see tha

[quote who="puntarenas" reply="53" id="2819965"]A screenshot comparsion showing the outcome of different player's influence abilities would be nice or is this still to be balanced first?[/quote] If I have time to play without cheating, I'll make some additional screenshots to show the borders, etc. The way that the player's influence abilities work is that for every 100%, the radius of all your improvements will increase by 1. So if you have 200%, your city hub will eventu

[quote who="Alstein" reply="39" id="2819866"]This is going to be a nice new feature, which everyone will like, but no one will really give notice to since it seems really minor at first glance. Still, it's a good change. The question- will the AI be able to make use of this, and could autoplacement of tiles be set to make use of this? For me, that's the key to how useful this feature will be- though that may take work from Brad as well. [/quote]</p

[quote who="Fearzone" reply="18" id="2819628"]I don't recall anyone complaining about influence calculations. Except for occasional funkiness where lines criss-cross, it seems okay to me as it stands, and I'm not sure what problem this solution is solving. The main issue would be the implementation of influence. It is part of the fluff and one of the more enjoyable graphical elements of the game. It offers some movement and combat bonuses to the "home" team,

[quote who="_PawelS_" reply="11" id="2819602"]I think calling a player's territory/area of influence "Zone of Control" is confusing, because this name is usually used for a completely different concept in gaming.[/quote] Interesting. We've been calling it ZOC at least since GalCiv2, possibly GalCiv1.

[quote who="Lantros" reply="6" id="2819591"]Last picture looks really good. My english isn´t good, so i have to ask to be sure i understand it right. ZOC grows in the direction i build my citys, right? [/quote] Yes, it will with this new code. In the build currently available on Impulse, it doesn't really do that. [quote who="Aloriel" reply="8" id="2819594"] CariElf, your development style sounds like mine. Change something - see what

I might still be able to finish it in time for the first beta, but I really didn't expect it to take me as long as it did to get to this point either. I figured that all I'd have to do is make sure that all improvements had a radius of at least 1 and a default power. If the adjacent zones just work, all I'll have to worry about is the line code, and I can always commit it with pointy lines at first.

The Zone of control (ZOC) code has always been a bit odd since it was written for GalCiv2, with weird little bubbles, twists, etc. But it mostly worked in GC2, and I didn't have time to give it a lot of love when porting it to the new engine. The code to update the ZOC is also fairly inefficient, which is why it only updates at the end of a turn. The ZOC expands based on the influence of the city and the player's influence ability. It works by specifying

We have the technology already but it's currently only implemented for Multiplayer. You could actually create a multiplayer game with only AI players, but you wouldn't have quests or tactical battles. It would mostly require some UI changes in game, but we'd also have to consider how many saves we'd let you have stored in the cloud, etc. It's not on the schedule right now, but I'll ask about it getting on the schedule.

Is the image width greater than 1024 or is the size of the object > 1024? I don't think that the screen code likes textures with widths > 1024, but objects can use tiling or stretching to achieve a width of greater than 1024. Also, this code: Object.Left = (Object.Parent.Object.Width / 2) - (Object.Width / 2) centers the object in the parent object because the object's hotspot is always the upper left hand corner of it's bounding r

It crashed in the rendering code, which is usually either an out of memory error or a driver error, so I don't think it was specifically a campaign problem. I've got the battle guys looking into why archers are missing. You're not using any mods, are you?

[quote who="Vorell" reply="23" id="2798241"]When I go to multiplayer all the text is missing, I can mouse over and get the info, but can't see it without doing so.[/quote] Can you please put up your debug.err with pastebin or something??

[quote who="Vhorthex" reply="14" id="2797913"]When will coop Multiplayer be enabled? (2 Humans Vs AI) I'd love to participate to give feedback for the MP version, but I'm not the least inclined of playing a versus game. I'd hope that since Frogboy himself said that it would be the most enjoyable way of playing it, that you'd make it available. All the feedback that will be given if from versus games, I think Coop needs to be given some attention as well. No? R

This is the same bug as the one reported by Franciscus in the change log thread. We'll post a fix tomorrow.

[quote who="Franciscus" reply="10" id="2797864"] quoting post (...) + When you load a map from the world setup screen, it now updates the world size spinner (...) This is not working for the war of magic and the destiny's ember's maps. Not only their size is not showing, but when loaded they do not update the world size spinner (eg, it remains the last selected size) and even sometimes selecting one of these 2 maps results in a CTD - thi

[quote who="Flexscan123" reply="50" id="2797288"]We have been playing MULTI GAME several times by 4 or 5 ppl. 1.09b is more better than 1.08b. BTW, we may not often notice that a turn has already begun. We'd like to see message "Turn xxx start" in every turn. [/quote] We've also added a turn start message.

We've added in options to turn off the timer entirely and a slider to increase the turn time. They're currently only on the options screen under game options, but we'll probably be adding a multiplayer options screen to access off the world setup screen at some point.

Did you try switching to hardware mouse in the options?

[quote who="Iytzchizck" reply="26" id="2785955"]Will custom sovereigns and custom factions be added into multiplayer at some point? The customization features are such an integral part of this game, it's really a shame if they were to be left out of multiplayer![/quote] Yes. [quote who="zigzag" reply="32" id="2786769"]Carielf, what's the point (in terms of amount of gamestate information) at which you have to ditch something like a client-server model and implement a simultane

[quote who="1SuperG" reply="16" id="2785673"]Since you brought up pain... This 10 second timer thing either needs to be per game adjustable or needs to go all together. If another player simply wants to hit "Next Turn" and I'm trying to stage several events, I'm hosed if I can't make everything happen in 9 seconds. Also, I got locked up in my game where I couldn't end a turn at all. I could click on all sorts of things, but I could NOT progress the turn. 20 minutes

[quote who="impinc" reply="13" id="2785578"]I'm confused. Why play an online match 1 vs AI? I consider multi-player to be when more than one human is playing the game. It just seems like a weird option. Is the AI going to be different? [/quote] Currently, multiplayer games are the only ranked games, so 1 v AI allows players to try out multiplayer and gain ranking without having to jump into an all human game immediately, much like League of Legends has you play test games before

[quote who="Nikitosina" reply="1" id="2785229"]Thanks for the lection of old client-server technology. Why don't you run dedicated multiplayer server like battle.net but smaller? Give me your thoughts about this.[/quote] We are using dedicated servers. All players connect to one of our servers, and the first one to connect to the server is designated the host. [quote who="SmilingSpectre" reply="3" id="2785240"] quoting postNow, since turns are simultaneous, it's pos