ShadowOfHassen

How's the campaign coming?

Oh, I forgot, the interview was very good. Good job! I didn't know the formations were based off my favorite RTS Battle for Middle Earth-- will the 0 A.D. formations get bonuses eventually like in the game?

The thing with AI is it's very very derivative and even if you do it for just planning purposes it's going to be very similar to tracing over someone else's image. (Those two pictures are literally colorized faces of coins) and those icons look like things I can download off opengameart.org I think the complaint of copyright by now is a lost cause legally, so there is no worry about being sued. But I do think we should think about the potential costs. It's obvious that having a professional artist draw it will be better than tracing over any AI. The thing is most artists and other non-programming creatives hate AI with a passion(and for good reason) I'm afraid that using AI for 0 A.D. would scare people away. And while we'd get half decent art sooner, we'd be losing the chance of more artists later. But artists aren't here right now!!! Be patient I think after this release things may be turning up, we literally have the coolest open source game here if Battle for Wesnoth can get artists we can too. (I have some marketing ideas we can try with the encyclopedia and I might be able to get a history Youtuber's attention, but I make no promises.) That said, I do think AI art might be useful for prototyping and stuff, but I don't think it should be used for anything that is shown in the main game. To the point of music, we don't need that we have an amazing soundtrack, and if we really need more songs I know some guys. It might not 100% real instruments, but we'd not be getting that if we use AI anyway. I said from when the Encyclopedia was just a GitHub on my profile that I wouldn't be accepting any AI writing for the encyclopedia. The number one reason for that is the same with Art and Music, if you know what you're doing, the AI created content is very obvious compared to proper English. Even if I couldn't 100% detect it as AI, I'd probably a ton of edits because it's just terrible. I don't know what Vantha's feelings on it and as he's a very big part of the encyclopedia he might have different ideas, but I know I wouldn't be accepting anything that I knew was AI. Additionally (and this is a potential problem with art too). We want to be historically accurate and AI doesn't know how to be historically accurate, an article or picture of a hopilite would have to be scrutinized to be sure it was right-- We'd have to do all the research anyway on how it looked, and we'd have to know what to do in order to fix a bad image/article so we'd need the skills anyway to do that which begs the point why we'd start with that anyway. Again I think the art is OK for prototyping for things like DE (which I really need to get around to playing) but I really don't think anything AI generated should make it in the base game.

You can't understand how crazy it is to see the encyclopedia listed as a feature for the game upcoming. It won't be in A27, but we'll be able to get at least part of the encyclopedia out in A28. We want to do some reorganizing after Vantha and the other smarties get the UI figured out, but after that we should be ready to set up the stuff we currently have and writing more.

I don't play online games, but I love this idea!!! it's too late this year, but we should remember this and work with WFG to make this a bigger thing next year.

Offhand "shade" does sound better and I think it's right. If you want I can dig around the mythology books and see which ones use which word. Soul does have a connation of Christianity, or Hollow Knight

I think that would be better suited for a higher level campaign instead of the tutorial. Having the final attack against Rome should be climactic in a huge sense and in my opinion better when the player already knows what they're doing

That's a good idea. Hmm... well, I guess we'd have to do some brainstorming... It's just an idea, if the majority of people don't like it when it's a fully developed idea we can not do it.

Well the thing is the gameplay between single player and multiplayer should be reasonably consistent. Someone should be able to after beating the campaigns be able to jump right into the multiplayer and vice versa. Currently, in the campaign discussion we shot down half the suggestions because we didn't have a civilization. Making a new one we didn't want to do because A. of the work to make a visually distinct style, units, and bonuses like in the normal game, we'd have to make units that are reasonably work for a given civilization. The most effective way for that would be to make a generic civilization for each large group and base the civs off that, like a Greek one to cover Corenth, Thebian, etc. B. We'd have to balance these new campaign civs for every update you do for balancing the multiplayer games. Granted we could do meta balancing, and it'd be easier but still. To do the civs we'd still have to do it. So even after everything, in order to make this easier we'd have to practically make generic factions anyway. I don't see how changing the gameplay effects the multiplayer determinately, it'd just be different. Yes, it'd be a lot of work, but at least this way the ton of work could benefit the multiplayer people too.

Yeah. I know that Age of Empires 3 you played civilizations you can't get in the original game, but that just made me feel cheated (WHAT ABOUT MY HOOP THROWERS!?!) And it is a little excessive to have to design a completely new civilization for literally everything we'd want to cover. We don't want to get too much like Age of Empires, but what if we limit the strategy that players can do before phasing up? If the player has to make a decision on what alliance they want to take within the first 5 minutes, then the other players would know and be able to change the strategy. Well, that's easy enough, we just design them to play different.

This would be a LOT of work, but honestly, I'm for it. I agree with everything @Genava55has just said.

I'm kind of for that idea, I don't know if everyone would. At the very least genericing out the units would make it easier to do civilizations. It would have to be something a lot of people would have to agree on. (I'd also probably require us to redo the encylopedia, but that's OK) if you want we could open another discussion forum post on it.

So to kind of reiterate you’re thinking something like age of mythology where you pick a different god , but instead you eventually just pick a civilization to allign yourself with? that would drastically change the game but I kind of like it. That would solve some of our problems and make aging up a bit more game changing

I would suggest we make a document with information for each of the four scenarios containing exactly what players need to learn in what order, and make the maps to work with that. For example if the first scenario is just them exploring, we kind of need to know for how long and what they need to do, so we can build a map with everything. Plus we need to research the region and see what it looked like and figure out how big the maps we need.

So if we're in agtement, a PR?

You know, we could just put a kernel level anticheat... Maybe that'd help...

I like the Carthage one too. The basic outlines we made I think still work for that, and it fits our criteria. With the Thrace colonies, I was just trying to find somewhere with a fairly well known civilization that would fit, I'm happy we found something better.

That matches my criteria , I think.

Could work. Though, I don't think a colony from Alexander the grate would have any problem establishing itself. Alexander the Great had the manpower to get behind it. I don't want it to seem like I'm shooting ideas down or anything, just trying to point out (in my opinion) valid criticism.

I think we can use one. My idea still works, and some people have suggested other colonies that would work. We just need to settle on one and start scripting/ researching/designing.

I think he's saying that way, waaaaay back those were the planned campaigns. We can do whatever we want now.

Wait... I thought we were doing colonies that were founded by a civ in game. There's no Corinth civ, so how can we have a colony founded by Corinthians? If we are voting, my vote is for Cardia or another Athenian founded colony in the area of Thrace. But currently I've seen like 6 people participate off and on in this discussion, that's not that big for a poll.

That would be tricky. Something like how Battle for Middle earth did it might work, but if we did resources it'd be a nightmare to balance. You'd have to account for the player who narrowly wins a scenario and the player who wins the scenario with thousands of extra resources, and allow both to be able to enjoy the next mission.

It's a flaw. In age of empires i'd get a huge army and then in the next scenario have 5 men. Personally I liked the Lord of the Ring's Battle of Middle Earth's method of allowing you to bring all level 2 units with you, but I don't think that can happen in 0 A.D.

Well, going back to my original idea and combining it with your outline. In scenario 0 they scout. Scenario 1 they build up and get attacked. Scenario 2 they leave the colony to figure out who attacked them and meet an ally, and in Scenario 3 they have chased the enemy to his base and have to do a full out attack. Each time they have to build a new civic center and start pretty much from scratch.