Feedback and comments

[plumo]

What follows is a list of small bug fixes, comments and feedback. Do with it what you like ofcourse

Little bug:

- Fig trees have 500 food ( on Zagros Mountains) but the tooltip says:chop this tree for wood.

Comments:

-Maybe rename Matches ( in Singleplayer menu) to Skirmish? Sounds better and more RTS-like IMHO.

- What strikes me is that every civilization has more or less the same buildings and more specifically: almost the same amount of buildings. I loved the way Age of mythology handled it. Some civs build a lot, others build faster and quicker but less structures. Norse have moving stockpiles ( ox carts) etc. None of this seems to be found in 0 AD ( yet ?). I'd expect Roman settlements to be bigger (with more specialised buildings) than Celtic settlements for example, same with Iberians. Any comments on this view?

If 0 AD offers 6 unique civilisations, I don't think that the buildings should only have different models and skins but almost exactly the same function in every civ. Just my opinion.

[Mythos_Ruler]

What follows is a list of small bug fixes, comments and feedback. Do with it what you like ofcourse

Little bug:

- Fig trees have 500 food ( on Zagros Mountains) but the tooltip says:chop this tree for wood.

Easy fix.

Comments:

-Maybe rename Matches ( in Singleplayer menu) to Skirmish? Sounds better and more RTS-like IMHO.

Agreed.

- What strikes me is that every civilization has more or less the same buildings and more specifically: almost the same amount of buildings. I loved the way Age of mythology handled it. Some civs build a lot, others build faster and quicker but less structures. Norse have moving stockpiles ( ox carts) etc. None of this seems to be found in 0 AD ( yet ?). I'd expect Roman settlements to be bigger (with more specialised buildings) than Celtic settlements for example, same with Iberians. Any comments on this view?

If 0 AD offers 6 unique civilisations, I don't think that the buildings should only have different models and skins but almost exactly the same function in every civ. Just my opinion.

Agree. I think at first we wanted to stick with a strict roster of buildings and units because we didn't have a clear idea of how much work it would entail to do add or subtract unique building trees or unit rosters. Turns out it's actually quite easy when you have the right people on the team. So, we decided to go all out with the Carthaginians and make them truly unique in this aspect. We will probably experiment a lot more with this in the future.

[plumo]

An idea for the carthaginians:

The "embassy" is a good idea for the Carthaginians, although I wouldn't give them 3 different buildings for it . I mean, a little celtic hut in a carthaginian town doesnt look good.

I suggest using only one embassy building ( with a basic carthaginian look), but after you build it you get the choice between "upgrading" it into a celtic, italo-greek or hispanian embassy. When you select one of these three option the outlook of the building changes accordingly: with props, shields against the walls etc... But of course: it rules out two other mercenary factions. You can always convert it into another embassy if you require different units etc.

cfr. C&C Generals: the Strategy center

or embassies in AOE3: warchiefs

Edited December 2, 2011 by plumo

[Pedro Falcão]

An idea for the carthaginians:

The "embassy" is a good idea for the Carthaginians, although I wouldn't give them 3 different buildings for it . I mean, a little celtic hut in a carthaginian town doesnt look good.

I suggest using only one embassy building ( with a basic carthaginian look), but after you build it you get the choice between "upgrading" it into a celtic, italo-greek or hispanian embassy. When you select one of these three option the outlook of the building changes accordingly: with props, shields against the walls etc... But of course: it rules out two other mercenary factions. You can always convert it into another embassy if you require different units etc.

cfr. C&C Generals: the Strategy center

or embassies in AOE3: warchiefs

Good idea, but i think that the possibility of converting into another would make it just the way it is now: the player will build three different embassies.

[plumo]

@Pedro

There would ofcourse be a build limit ( only 1 embassy available) and it would take a few minutes to change from f.e. celtic embassy to Italian embassy

[Mythos_Ruler]

I can't speak for everybody, but I think we're happy with the 3 embassies. Any other ideas, though?

[plumo]

@Mythos

Check third post

[Mythos_Ruler]

@Mythos

Check third post

My reply is to the third post.

[iap]

I can't speak for everybody, but I think we're happy with the 3 embassies. Any other ideas, though?

Maybe I'm speaking just for myself here, but I wouldn't mind more buildings for each faction. I think, if made correctly, that it enriches the experience. In this game particularly, when all is made to "capture the feeling" of that era, making more buildings contribute to this feeling. It will make the village (or city, or settlement) more versatile... Well, you get my point.

But other then this I do agree that all the civs should be very different in their buildings and units or even (if it's possible) fighting strategies.

[Pedro Falcão]

Maybe I'm speaking just for myself here, but I wouldn't mind more buildings for each faction. I think, if made correctly, that it enriches the experience. In this game particularly, when all is made to "capture the feeling" of that era, making more buildings contribute to this feeling. It will make the village (or city, or settlement) more versatile... Well, you get my point.

But other then this I do agree that all the civs should be very different in their buildings and units or even (if it's possible) fighting strategies.

I couldn't find better words.

[Pureon]

I honestly think we are pushing each civ's individuality now. Mythos is putting a lot of effort into making the civs unique, and once technologies are added, the unique characteristics will be heightened.

By removing the 3 Carthaginian embassies we'd be removing uniqueness, I'd like them to stay personally.

[feneur]

I also think something like what we have now is good. We need to remember not to make the game too difficult to understand for new players. If you think about it there are quite some different buildings, all civs has at least one special building, and the only civ that just has one so far is the Celts, and for them you get two different fortresses depending on which sub-faction you choose (I know it's not a new building in terms of function, but at least it adds some variation). I don't think we should add any more buildings at the moment at least. If we find in Beta that new players easily grasps the current buildings and that new buildings would enhance the gameplay, that's another thing.

[Mythos_Ruler]

One building we could possibly add is a Siege Workshop for the Romans, to emphasize their siege capabilities (they'll have the best siege in the game, rivaled only by the Greeks).

[feneur]

One building we could possibly add is a Siege Workshop for the Romans, to emphasize their siege capabilities (they'll have the best siege in the game, rivaled only by the Greeks).

Ah, true. Was thinking about the Romans, but thought "Oh, but they have more or less two buildings already" =) But now that you said the above I'm reminded that (apart from generally most likely being used together) none are meant to be built "at home", so they'd not have something unique in their base. A Siege Workshop would be great

[plumo]

I didnt mean adding more buildings but for example combining the function of two different buildings into one building for a certain civ.

cfr. AOE3;

barracks + watchtower combined = blockhouse ( for the Russians)

[hhyloc]

Talking about the Roman, how about Stratopedon (Castrum) as a special building for the Roman? They'll act like "forward bases" and can be used as a defensive structure or a small version of the barrack to recruit soldiers.

[fiasco]

hhyloc: that's a good idea ; could act as a mini fortress of sorts, but I think there would have to be a limit on how many a player could build.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Talking about the Roman, how about Stratopedon (Castrum) as a special building for the Roman? They'll act like "forward bases" and can be used as a defensive structure or a small version of the barrack to recruit soldiers.

The Romans will already receive an Army Camp that can be built anywhere on the map, even in enemy territory. Catch is, it slowly loses Health.

[hhyloc]

hhyloc: that's a good idea ; could act as a mini fortress of sorts, but I think there would have to be a limit on how many a player could build.

Thanks! About the limit, a Roman army built many Castra in their march so perhaps for reality sake we shouldn't enforce a limit on this special building. On the other hand, a Castrum is basically a cheap barrack + fort in-game and allow player to build unlimited Castra might make the Romans overpowered consider how efficient Castra are and other faction's special buidings have limit.

The Romans will already receive an Army Camp that can be built anywhere on the map, even in enemy territory. Catch is, it slowly loses Health.

Great!

Edited December 4, 2011 by hhyloc

[Pedro Falcão]

Thanks! About the limit, a Roman army built many Castra in their march so perhaps for reality sake we shouldn't enforce a limit on this special building. On the other hand, a Castrum is basically a cheap barrack + fort in-game and allow player to build unlimited Castra might make the Romans overpowered consider how efficient Castra are and other faction's special buidings have limit.

These building limits should be thought about later, i think, when all buildings, bonus and balancing comes into a solid state. In AoK, for a sample, Castles were overpowered, technically, but in the heat of the game, they were not that OP just because they were expensive and could easily be brought down by one or two trebuchets. (this discussion makes me want to play AoK again...)

[hhyloc]

I agree, this is something we should save for later discussions when the balance aspect is needed and gameplay features are refined.

[fiasco]

True. It's something to keep on the back burner though.

Edited December 5, 2011 by fiasco