Foundations under attack (discussion)

[Pureon]

Or complete the construction themselves - a bit like capturing the unfinished building. That's probably getting too complicated though.

[Pedro Falcão]

I need some things clarified. (I hope this didn't sound arrogant, i am just confused)

- Will soldiers be able to take down buildings, in the 1.0 version of the game or will they only be able to capture, after all?

- If soldiers are only going to capture buildings, can they then dismantle buildings being built? Well, this does make sense, realistically speaking, but would it make sense in the gameplay? I mean, you already take a long time to build things, if the enemy keeps sending soldiers, it'll only be annoying, for if well managed, it can make you waste a lot of time, for when you're wasting time fending off the attackers, the enemy is building up his economy unconcerned.

- How many soldiers you'll need to build something faster than a siege weapon destroys (or tries to)? And what differentiates so much a built building with 1 of health left and a building 99,9% built as to not let it train units?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Pedro Falcão

[Mythos_Ruler]

I need some things clarified. (I hope this didn't sound arrogant, i am just confused)

- Will soldiers be able to take down buildings, in the 1.0 version of the game or will they only be able to capture, after all?

Soldiers can attack palisades, outposts, (and probably gates and foundations). They capture the rest.

- If soldiers are only going to capture buildings, can they then dismantle buildings being built? Well, this does make sense, realistically speaking, but would it make sense in the gameplay? I mean, you already take a long time to build things, if the enemy keeps sending soldiers, it'll only be annoying, for if well managed, it can make you waste a lot of time, for when you're wasting time fending off the attackers, the enemy is building up his economy unconcerned.

I would think that's the point of raiding, nay? You harass (i.e., "annoy") the enemy and make them waste time and resources.

- How many soldiers you'll need to build something faster than a siege weapon destroys (or tries to)? And what differentiates so much a built building with 1 of health left and a building 99,9% built as to not let it train units?

Game mechanics.

[quantumstate]

Another thing that struck me from playing the game earlier was that if we keep the current system we should add another progress bar, otherwise it is pretty hard to tell when a building will finish being constructed.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Another thing that struck me from playing the game earlier was that if we keep the current system we should add another progress bar, otherwise it is pretty hard to tell when a building will finish being constructed.

I think the rising and falling of the building could be the indicator.

[Apkallu]

i Suggest something, can i?, im new user here, but i was played the game last night, and see Territory flashing on, but the enemy player can construct yet farms, and other buildings as houses, mills,and Castles. but i i think, that dont be possibly without City Centre.

[alpha123]

My vote is for 100% health. That way it's obvious when the building will come up. I don't think you should be able to build an incomplete building, although I can't really put my finger on why.

At any rate, something needs to be done about the current system. I was playing earlier today and basically had a fortress pop up out of nowhere. The aggressor was overpowering my construction team and defenses, and yet somehow I managed to build it anyway. That doesn't quite seem right.

[quantumstate]

Summary of discussion if there is anything to add or I have failed to summarize a significant point please let me know. The Design Committee will proceed with a decision shortly.

[historic_bruno]

I think the rising and falling of the building could be the indicator.

I agree with this, it wouldn't be too hard to change the implementation, it could use the OnHealthChanged message handler to adjust the preview building's height. So I don't think worrying about that should be the biggest concern, but rather what makes the game most playable and intuitive

[stwf]

It may be too late to interject here but I'd like to vote for 100% health also.

It just makes real world sense, a Barracks can't be functional until its done, until then its just an empty building. Finish it, they move the equipment in. The it can keep producing until the health goes to zero.

As far as gameplay goes also, if you can't keep a building site secure then how can you expect to finish the building? Would a carpenter be able/willing to hang doors while arrows were flying around? And if an attack did damage to a building that damage would have to be repaired before construction could finish.

I like the rising and falling to indicate completeness, I also think it is good to only have one thing the player has to worry about, attacks are like negative construction, easy to visualize. As already pointed out an attack should be able to reduce a building site to nothing if so desired.

It would be crazy to finish a building that could then be taken down with a single arrow!

[zoot]

As far as gameplay goes also, if you can't keep a building site secure then how can you expect to finish the building? Would a carpenter be able/willing to hang doors while arrows were flying around?

Isn't that basically the job description of a military engineer?

[stwf]

Isn't that basically the job description of a military engineer?

lol I guess! But if the damage is being done faster than he can fix things even he would engage the enemy, then finish the construction.

[feneur]

I'm definitely starting to lean heavily towards 100% health=100% building completion (but of course not "unbuilding" the building once it's actually finished, it's one thing to not start to use the building until it's finished, but once it's finished you don't stop using it just because a window is broken ).

[wraitii]

The 100% health method has been committed as of [13263]