ShadowOfHassen

Yay a new release! -- I'll try to get the flatpak ship shape as soon as I get access. I don't think I'd be the best to spearhead this, but I think we could do something really cool with our socials once we start getting the encyclopedia into the game-- which should be a28 (hopefully)

We got 24 new tracks? Clearly those aren't in my music folder. Now I really want to try those out.

Aren't they all made by Omri? Yeah, it's just a little bit more-- is it still in the art repo? I've been meaning to pull the new full soundtrack and get it set up nicely so I can listen to it while doing stuff.

Forging a city state is a good one-- The soundtrack as a whole is a banger. I listened to 0 A.D. soundtrack and portal music as I wrote my first book that didn't deserve to be burnt with fire. Because it was Medival Fantasy, I favored more European/ Hellenistic sounding tracks, and those are still my favorite. I'm not sure I understand the difference between lyrical and ambient, I don't know a lot about music other than that it sounds good.

I'd do it for all and make it default for the map-- but if you don't have a playlist for the map, it defaults to the civs. That way, map designers can pick 3–5 tracks that reflect the area they're making.

Yeah that would make the most thematic sense. Personally, I'd add it to the Helenestic civs too because I play those too and really like the song. That does make sense-- it'd be kind of immersion breaking to hear something like Ammon Rah, if I played the Britons, or even Athenians. I don't think we have that problem, though? I wonder if we should have the map dictate the playlist first, then the civ because sometimes the map designer might have a specific song in mind. (I really wouldn't mind listening to Ammon Rah if I was Britons playing in the desert maps). Also looking forward to the campaigns, I'm pretty sure we'd want to dictate what music we want to play in a campaign then leave it up to the civ

It's not linked to one of the civs? Not even the Britons?!? That's a crying shame! Forget A27 feature freeze, we need to fix that! Oh, how did you find it, just listening to the soundtrack while working?

Wow. That is not a small community, granted that's not huge but that's a decent size.

It wouldn't have a story in the traditional three act structure but it would have an introduction to the civ and show the specific mechanics of a civilization

Yeah. Just like a short mission with each civ to get players used to mechanics. You really wouldn't be able to do justice to a lot of the cool stories with just a single mission, so just give an overview of the history. Just to reiterate, this is a different project idea not the same as the idea before.

How about instead of that after the tutorial campaign, we have a different campaign called the practice campaign where there is one or two missions for each civilization which just gives a basic overview of the civ, both gameplay wise and historically-- make it totally without stories and just a narrator giving the overview. It wouldn't be a ton of work long term and that would be a good second campaign to ship.

We might want to make some changes in between the three scenarios just minor ones but that’s beside the point… keep up the good work and make sure to back the map up!

Yes it would be exciting to fight. all I'm saying is that if there isn't a lot of information, we can get the battle to be as big as you need for the game. Things in general will need to be adjusted for scale. Quite a few battles had troops in the thousands on both sides, but that won't work with a population cap of even 500, so events will need some adaptation anyway. So have your final battle as big and exciting as you want. :-) (In reason of course)

Sounds like a good plan just don't worry about the size too much. Scale in 0 A.D. isn't exactly 1:1 to real life anyway.

That sounds like a plan we’d just have to design scenario 3 so the player couldn’t conceivably brute force their way to victory without becoming allies but we should be able to figure that out .

Perhaps … we should teach alliances last I remember we were going to just have an allied group help you in one of the scenarios but this could work to as long as @Vantha and @Lion.Kanzen are ok with it

The only thought I have is make the other tribe be the aggressor so in the tutorial the player doesn’t have any moral quandary about attacking

I’m pretty sure @Vanthahad a 4 scenario plan that we had worked out . Or am I getting things confused?

I thought we already had an outline on what we were teaching in each scenario...

Yeah you’re right. we already have a rough list of what we want to teach so we’ve kind of already done that , we’re just keeping the other stuff in mind while be build the maps. what I think both you and @Vantha are touching on is on the story to gameplay slider rts usually focus more on game play and I agree. But we can still do a pretty good story while we’re at it. but obviously with the tutorial gameplay and game mechanics first .

My first RTS was Age of Empires 3 and even know the Knight's of Saint John campaign is probably one of my favorite stories in video games. (Nostalgia mostly, but it was pretty good)

So what if we had a kind of overview when you start the campaign, a section called historical background, then we have a description that shows up in the scenario selection area and during loading and finally there is some dialog/ objective information in game. I mean, in a single scenario you might have multiple objectives I.E. destroy the tower, build a civic center, train 10 hopilites, and you kind of need to get the player to realize they need to do that.

Well yeah, skipping it is useful. If I'm stuck on a mission, I don't want to have to read the beginning of the scenario over and over

In my mind, there are three ways to convey information in a video game (i.e. Plot) The first way is atmospheric story telling. I.E. there's a skeleton right next to a dark cave. The player then gets the impression that something dangerous is there. The second way is lore dumps. This could be a book or terminal in game, or the loading tip. They're nice to know information that flushes out the world. It's not necessary, though, and you can not look for it and ignore it. The final way I think information is given is direct information given to the player that is necessary for them to complete and/or understand the game. I call this dialog, though there could be a better way to say it. Basically, it's the thing that says. "Hey, Player, you need to get these elephants over the alps" Now, of course you could do this different ways. You could have a description before starting the scenario "One day Hannibal decided he wanted to take his elephants to go visit Rome, and to do so he needs to get over the alps" Or you could have direct dialogue (which is how you meant dialogue) like: "Hi Hannibal, what do you want to do today?" "Well, I've been thinking and I kind of want to take my elephants to go see Rome." "Well, first we'll have to get them over the alps" I wrote the examples rather silly, but I think you get the basic point. For scenarios for 0 A.D. We'll often need to make it very clear to the player what they need to do. And in those cases I think direct dialogue would be better. There's a rule in writing that isn't always right called show, don't tell. And I do think showing what is happening in cutscenes and dialogue is better than just telling with a text box that says. "Move the Elephants across the alps" I agree with @Lion.Kanzen with the translation. We wouldn't probably have voice actors, so that would give us a bit more wiggle room if we just have written dialogue to help address at least the silence problem. The only problem is you'd be brought out of the game whenever there's dialogue because you'd have to read it, so we'd probably use it sparingly anyway, mostly at the start and end of the scenarios.

Yeah, at least for the moment... It would take some coding, but it'd be the best thing we can do currently...