Potter
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Potter
-
-
Nice videos, Brynn!
+1 looking forward to your teaser video.
-
Very nice report! It would give everyone, who is not following the forums regularly, a good snapshot of progress and what to expect in the next alpha ;-)
-
Great selection! Congrats vts! May your interest in 0 AD continue on and on ;-)
-
* instead of showing a big (incomplete) list of maps that takes up loads of space, we could use a dropdown which serves the same purpose. We have too many maps to show on screen anyway, in a single control.
showing the list in a dropdown might not be handy as scrolling a long list in a dropdown is often awkward. a scrolling list is more usable...
-
No it isn't. It's a test animation done by Emjer using motion capture hardware and software.
real interesting! So, in that case, does that mean that doing animations in future will be more easier
-
@myconid
You really really rock!!!
I have thought that the previous 0 AD already looked wonderful. But you have proved me wrong by making it more and more stunning. I am glad that you are doing this ;-)
-
i like it. It is in the right direction!
Now that we have some extra space...
Are we going to start distinguishing between the different types of maps: like scenarios, random maps, etc - maybe with a dropdown above the map preview?
-
Just wanted to say the rock mountain screenshot above looks fantastic
+1. I really really like the new look of cliffs !!!
-
The correct answer is 25 minutes.
WOW! Looks amazing what a simple effect can do for the game ambience...
-
I like the combined name though in my mockup. The generic/specific being separated in the other one looks weird.
Agree! It looks weird...
-
I like the placement of the unit portrait, the reduced stances, experience bar shown under the unit portrait and the way carried goods is shown!
But, i feel that the player name is shown more prominent than the unit name. It should be the reverse.
And, i dont see the armour/attack stats. Where would that information be shown?
-
The unit panel is getting too crowded now! What about moving the "Action buttons" to the right area (construction panel), maybe with a different heading implying they are different from the construction icons.
That would really give breathing space for the central unit panel
-
What about this updated mockup?
I have moved the "carrying resource" icon under the portrait.
And, we can also switch the locations of generic name and specific name, if we need more space for specific name...
-
Here is the assertion I keep getting, on the Windows build only
From the message "path uses both slash and backslash", Looks like somewhere there is a mismatch with path separators (which is slash for mac, linux and backslash for windows )
-
Also I would like to add that the Persian Temple is Zoroastrian and, despite being a small religion, I don't think any Zoroastrians were offended by the destruction of their temple
(I know that there are a lot more Hindus than Zoroastrians in the world, but nevertheless nobody was offended). The destruction of temples is also historically accurate-- For example: the Temple of Jerusalem, among other famous religious sites, was sacked many times in antiquity by the Romans, Assyrians, and Babylonians. I do understand the harm it might do to devoutly religious people, but, as Michael said before if they have a problem with seeing a holy building destroyed, they might not want to play the game.
Just to make things clear, I am not against including Indian temples ingame. As said earlier, destruction of temples is historically accurate and can remain in the game.
What I suggested was to not include recognisable Major GOD STATUES within the temples... Temples can still have statues of minor gods and other sculptures.
Please, lets not get distracted with this! Lets continue discussing abt the awesome Mauryan Indian civ...
-
I do not think anyone will have an objection to destruction of temples and altars so long as the destruction of statues of Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti is not shown.
+1. I fully agree.
And, considering that small gods like Indra, Agni were worshiped more during the Mauryan period (the religious sects of saivism and vaishnavism were just becoming popular during Mauryan period), this viewpoint will be more historically accurate than using statues of major gods like Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti..
-
Also, maybe we could include some kind of a Vedic (early Hindu) altar as a unique building. Here are some photos:
http://upload.wikime...9/91/Yajna1.jpg
http://brahmag.com/images/altar2.jpg
http://www.lakeisler...tar_Stephen.jpg
Some of those images are later altars, but they just give you a sense of the structure of the building... maybe it could be about the size of the Iberian "revered monument."
I don't support this idea! We must remember that Vedic/Hindu religion is a living one (Still being followed in India) and hence must steer clear of hurting sentiments. AOE 3 made the mistake of including religious buildings, which lead to hurting sentiments of the several players...
A generic temple would not hurt much! but, one that includes statues of recognisable gods is sure to stir something, which we may need to avoid.Players usually dont like their gods razed to ground by enemy armies!!!
So, if we need an altar, please make one without having recognisable god statues.
-
buildings videos
-
-
With the "tech tree" method, the user will have to go to a completely separate screen away from the action. Can't get more distracted than that. There's also the problem that the same arguments you are making could be made for unit training.
Hmmm, yes. Going to a separate screen can sometimes be distracting depending on the situation - when i am in the midst of a war. Good catch! How do we get a compromise between both the cases ...
One idea! The tech tree can be split based on the buildings. And, in each building, there will be an tech icon that when clicked will show a small popup (not a modal dialog) showing the tech tree corresponding to the building. This will enable us by proving extra space for showing relationship, while not distracting from the game action...
They would be completely different screens. I don't see how they could be the same screen.
The latter point is an important one. We will need separate dialogs for e.g. diplomacy, and already have it for chat, so I don't see why adding it for research would be any different. That doesn't say that's the only option, I just can't see what makes research so different from e.g. diplomacy/chat/objectives that it isn't an option.
I actually meant a single screen with different tabs for diplomacy, chat, tech tree, etc.
Usually, having a full screen for things will have extra space than a dialog, that we can put to good use...
But, considering our case, where the central game screen is of paramount importance and the user should not be distracted from the action, i agree that having a separate screen can be a distraction to game play. So, having them as a dialog also makes sense here
-
The huge problem with the tech tree idea is that it is not integrated with the game... at all. It's just this extra layer. Selecting the building to research the tech integrates the procedure into the rest of the game.
But, considering that integration comes with distraction (the user has to go and select the building to research tech) and confusion (it would not be clear about how advanced the tech tree is), i think it would be better to go with a separate tech tree screen. And, in each building, there can be link button, which launches the tech tree screen with the current building focused...
Such a screen can be used for various other things like diplomacy functions, etc
-
Also, the menu button just looks oddly placed. The menu could be moved over to the center; the emblem could activate the menu. While the user hovers over the emblem, a transparency mask is applied with "MENU". On click, a neat banner could animate and present some options. Thoughts?
I agree that the menu button looks out of context!
But, merging it with the emblem will more chaotic, as it would not be discoverable and tries to combine two things (user-oriented actions) and emblem (civ specific actions) which are not related!!!
But, I agree that the emblem can be put to more use, but it must be civ-specific! Maybe, when clicked, it will show the statistics on the current workers, units, like below:
Workers on Wood: 12
Workers on Stone: 0
Workers on Food: 34
Workers on Metal: 0
Workers Idle: 20
Elite units: 4
Infantry : 24
Archers: 30
Units Idle : 7
-
- Not modular, making it difficult to eventually have configurable UI options.
- This UI has modules that can be configured with different behaviors through an options screen. On the left is the Selection Module, showing the selected entities. In the middle are various tabbed modules based on what kind of objects you have selected. On the right is the Minimap Module with various buttons
- This UI has modules that can be configured with different behaviors through an options screen. On the left is the Selection Module, showing the selected entities. In the middle are various tabbed modules based on what kind of objects you have selected. On the right is the Minimap Module with various buttons
I assume that you mean to say
Top Left - Selection module showing selected entities
Bottom Left - Tabbed modules based on selected objects
Bottim Right - minimap
Is that right? I was searching for something in the bottom middle, when you said middle
And, why not show a tabbed module attached to the right-side minimap, instead of the small icons shown. I feel they are too small to click and if we want to add more icons, it becomes problematic!
Anyway, I think this new UI is in the right direction and just rocks!!! Keep it going, team
You don't show your idea of a global research display in the upper right corner, intentional? I thought it was a good idea.
I really like this idea of a global research display panel. Current game design where i have to shuffle thro diff buildings to research is a little annoying
The interesting thing is that if you look at the current UI, training units and researching techs are displayed in the same space (they are also the same simulation component, ProductionQueue). I think we should keep that aspect, it's nice to see at a single glance what is queued in a building - independent of choosing to train/research new things.
I have another idea, keeping the new tabbed UI. Why not display the full queue in the space for "Selection Module" (aka Top Left).
This will show all working queues of all the buildings at a glance, instead of the user going building by building.
- Not modular, making it difficult to eventually have configurable UI options.
-
Scenarios should probably use whatever player color the designer assigns, while random maps (and the 'skirmish maps' we'd like to have) should allow players to choose their colors.
Instead of restricting player colors like that, why not give an option to the scenario designer so that he can restrict the players from changing colors, but if he doesnt mind, the players are free to change their colors?
Tournaments after each alpha?
in General Discussion
Posted
Neat idea! And, if we can follow with an analysis of who did what wrong moves, it might also be a good learning session. I really really like this idea ;-)