Choosing a faction

[skalen]

Okay, in no way do I know how to code or make models or have the time.. I am just a player who came up with an idea.

What if before entering battle there was a screen for us to choose which faction your are playing, but it looks much like WoW's character selection screen?

Something like this:

http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PzqJr9uhbVg/TsrMUgWWbSI/AAAAAAAAAWw/Pa_KfQqw9nU/s1600/character-selection.jpg#.UYhZ7ivwJhM

It would loo amazing if someone could do it . Or at least a sketch of it.

[Burzum]

That will make 0 A.D. a turn based strategy game than a full on RTS.

That's a bit similar to Empire Earth.

Your idea is TBS orientated and not keeping with this genre

Edited May 7, 2013 by Burzum

[Lion.Kanzen]

May be Mod forum you can try to do that. This art forum, for the main game.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[zoot]

What would be the point of a character selection screen? We don't have 'characters'.

[Lion.Kanzen]

This guy don't play 0AD. All day I'm asking why he post this in this Forum, with this content.

[feneur]

Please be kind to him, he's just making a suggestion And as far as I understand him he didn't mean to change the gameplay, but just wanted to suggest a different way to choose a civilization before you start a match

What if before entering battle there was a screen for us to choose which faction your are playing, but it looks much like WoW's character selection screen?

Are you just saying there should be a faction choosing screen where you can see more information about the faction and perhaps have an image of some of the important units/buildings? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?

[zoot]

Oh, right, he means a way to 'browse' through the factions in some manner, I guess.

[av93]

Maybe an iconic soldier standing in the screen... It would be great!

In Dawn of War, everytime you fight with a faction,in the main menu appears the commander unit of the civ.

But I think that devs have to focus in other things first!

[sanderd17]

I agree.

Including an easy way to access the history of a faction when you choose it and a screenshot of a city or army with that faction could help a lot. Currently, accessing the history of a faction requires you to get back to the main menu.

Something for the UI redesign I guess.

[skalen]

This guy don't play 0AD. All day I'm asking why he post this in this Forum, with this content.

This is my first post ever..

Please be kind to him, he's just making a suggestion And as far as I understand him he didn't mean to change the gameplay, but just wanted to suggest a different way to choose a civilization before you start a match

Are you just saying there should be a faction choosing screen where you can see more information about the faction and perhaps have an image of some of the important units/buildings? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?

Yes! Exactly what you described and maybe even more. The pre-battle screen seemed a bit rubbish when I tried it first.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I know, but we can help you to know about the Wildfiregames forums. Welcome, you can open a topic in off topic section to introduce sours elf to the community. You can talk about you, your interests, if you try plsy the game, your skills.

[sanderd17]

This is my first post ever..

This wasn't about you. Some post in between was deleted. It was about someone else who keeps making suggestions for 0AD that are already implemented, or don't fit with the kind of game 0AD wants to be.

[oshron]

Maybe an iconic soldier standing in the screen... It would be great!

In Dawn of War, everytime you fight with a faction,in the main menu appears the commander unit of the civ.

building on this, i think that a good way of making the selection screen would be in a similar manner to Age of Mythology (rather than Age of Kings or Empire Earth), with the civs organized into rows and columns in either squares or circles (one or the otheer) with edge stylizations, a portrait, and a map background which varies between civilizations, accompanied by the civilization's name, with a separate column along the right edge of the screen which gives some brief details on their best-known history (the Spartans get mention of Thermopylae, the Macedonians have Alexander's conquests, and the Carthaginians have Hannibal crossing the Alps). going into greater detail, the outermost edge of these selection images would be based on an iconic substance or art design to that civilization (like the edge designs on Greek pottery for the Hellenic factions), with a map of the area that civilization hails from in the background (so Balkan Peninsula for the Hellenic factions, France for the Gauls, North Africa for the Carthaginians, etc.), and a portrait of the most iconic unit of that faction, so the Macedonians get their Companion Cavalry, the Romans have a Legionary, the Spartans have a Hoplite, and so on. the unit portrait (which should probably be at least from the waist up) should ideally not obscure the map in the background. clicking on these pictures would cause them to become outlined in gold, perhaps with a sound signalling your choice (a generic rousing cry for all of them or a specific phrase for each one, along the lines of "Let's go!" or "To victory!")

[Mythos_Ruler]

building on this, i think that a good way of making the selection screen would be in a similar manner to Age of Mythology (rather than Age of Kings or Empire Earth), with the civs organized into rows and columns in either squares or circles (one or the otheer) with edge stylizations, a portrait, and a map background which varies between civilizations, accompanied by the civilization's name, with a separate column along the right edge of the screen which gives some brief details on their best-known history (the Spartans get mention of Thermopylae, the Macedonians have Alexander's conquests, and the Carthaginians have Hannibal crossing the Alps). going into greater detail, the outermost edge of these selection images would be based on an iconic substance or art design to that civilization (like the edge designs on Greek pottery for the Hellenic factions), with a map of the area that civilization hails from in the background (so Balkan Peninsula for the Hellenic factions, France for the Gauls, North Africa for the Carthaginians, etc.), and a portrait of the most iconic unit of that faction, so the Macedonians get their Companion Cavalry, the Romans have a Legionary, the Spartans have a Hoplite, and so on. the unit portrait (which should probably be at least from the waist up) should ideally not obscure the map in the background. clicking on these pictures would cause them to become outlined in gold, perhaps with a sound signalling your choice (a generic rousing cry for all of them or a specific phrase for each one, along the lines of "Let's go!" or "To victory!")

Yep, this sounds pretty good. I endorse such a selection screen. It'll have to wait though, but we'll definitely keep it in mind once we get around to making our "final pass" on the UI graphics and layout.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Good news Mythos, I'm happy for that. I want see the Developers report again, is very useful feedback to post in blogs and fan sites. Especially Spanish fan site.

Maybe a create a mosaic background or art visual style of Hellenic world.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[oshron]

Yep, this sounds pretty good. I endorse such a selection screen. It'll have to wait though, but we'll definitely keep it in mind once we get around to making our "final pass" on the UI graphics and layout.

glad i could help first the Hanging Gardens and now the selection screen

[oshron]

one thing occurs to me, though: depending on how many civs are added in the grand scheme of things, the AOM-style selection screen may need to be simplified a bit. there's currently ten civs, potentially eleven with the Ptolemaics (and personally i think one more should be added, the Syracusans, for an rounded, even twelve). this means the best arrangement of civs would be either four columns and three rows or three columns and four rows (i think four columns would be best)

now, if the Part 2 civilizations match the Part 1 civs in number, that's twenty-four civilizations and would call for some rearrangements to the selection screen, probably needing each selection icon to be sized-down to accomodate them

luckily, i have an idea for this, too this time, i'll give a very basic visual example

simply put, the selection screen in Part 1 is in greater resolution, ideally with each civ being organized into relevant rows (a little different in my example below) like this:

• Iberians - Romans - Syracusans
  
• Athenians - Macedonians - Spartans
  
• Carthaginians - Persians - Ptolemaics
  
• Britons - Gauls - Mauryans
  

for the record, i included Syracusans for the purposes of example even though they aren't a faction (yet) and the Mauryans are lumped with the Celts because every other row is already full

Edited June 6, 2013 by oshron

[Mythos_Ruler]

there's currently ten civs, potentially eleven with the Ptolemaics (and personally i think one more should be added, the Syracusans, for an rounded, even twelve).

We'd probably do the Seleucids for the 12th, then maybe add Syracusans and Thebans as Atlas factions (to go along with generic Celts and generic Hellenes).

now, if the Part 2 civilizations match the Part 1 civs in number, that's twenty-four civilizations and would call for some rearrangements to the selection screen, probably needing each selection icon to be sized-down to accomodate them

24 (total for both parts) is a good number. But about the selection screen, it's probable that there would need to be a scroll bar implemented anyway for lower vertical resolutions (1024x768, 1280x720, et al.), so we could just design the page with a scroll bar in mind, or design it with 1080p resolution in mind and add a scroll bar for anything less. But either way, it's not mandatory that all the information fit on one screen. We can use scroll bars and tabbed browsing.

[fabio]

I have some doubts in having so many civilizations in a game. Every new civilization adds a marginally lower value than the existing ones and will probably please only long time players (I played with few RTS games but I don't remember seeing more than 6 factions in a game). Rather than having 24 civilizations in the same game, with a similar amount of art work I'd prefer to have a second game with totally different content (medieval, WWII or something other).

[Mythos_Ruler]

I have some doubts in having so many civilizations in a game. Every new civilization adds a marginally lower value than the existing ones and will probably please only long time players (I played with few RTS games but I don't remember seeing more than 6 factions in a game). Rather than having 24 civilizations in the same game, with a similar amount of art work I'd prefer to have a second game with totally different content (medieval, WWII or something other).

For Part 2, I can't really see having 12 factions, but it's just a possibility. I like the idea of both parts having the same number of factions, but it's not 100% necessary. But anyway, I can't see removing any of the factions we've already created. Also, only a minority of players think we should have 6 or fewer factions. Most prefer more. And of those who say we have too many factions, a lot of them erroneously assume it takes away from programming time. One would have a point about balancing, but it's a challenge we can tackle semi-successfully, since our factions are closer to Age of Kings differences rather than Starcraft 2 differences.

[wraitii]

From my experience, in our genre, more is usually better. There are two reasons not to have more civilizations:

-if two civs are really similar (gameplay-wise mostly), they could be scrapped.

-if it introduces unbalancing.

Right now I do not think we have the first issue. Beyond art beeing fairly different, the "sister" civs play slightly differently ( most notably the Greeks) which is welcome as it offers more playstyles. As for the second one, it's mostly ok.

Given historical accuracy constraints, I think 12 is a really good number already, and it keeps things interesting.

[oshron]

I have some doubts in having so many civilizations in a game. Every new civilization adds a marginally lower value than the existing ones and will probably please only long time players (I played with few RTS games but I don't remember seeing more than 6 factions in a game). Rather than having 24 civilizations in the same game, with a similar amount of art work I'd prefer to have a second game with totally different content (medieval, WWII or something other).

i think this should ultimately be a goal of Wildfire Games, but for right now let's just focus on Antiquity, m'kay? i'd gladly talk about this at length, but this isn't the thread to do that in

For Part 2, I can't really see having 12 factions, but it's just a possibility. I like the idea of both parts having the same number of factions, but it's not 100% necessary. But anyway, I can't see removing any of the factions we've already created. Also, only a minority of players think we should have 6 or fewer factions. Most prefer more. And of those who say we have too many factions, a lot of them erroneously assume it takes away from programming time. One would have a point about balancing, but it's a challenge we can tackle semi-successfully, since our factions are closer to Age of Kings differences rather than Starcraft 2 differences.

personally, i think it would mainly just be fitting to have an even number of official civilizations to each part of 0ad, as well as being a good basis for future civs, e.g. a Part 2 civ has an equivalent in Part 1 (Athenians to Byzantines for geography, Spartans to Huns for militancy, Persians to Sassanids for culture, Indians to Mayans for odd-man-out, etc.), as well as again giving a nice round number. my suggestion of the Syracusans is also because designing them would be relatively easy given the three other Greek factions already in-game, as well as having a unique potential Wonder (Archimedes' mirror) and making a good candidate for a Learning Campaign. though they do share geography with the Romans, i think they're more unique than the Seleucids (e.g. Greco-Persians) but i see the reasoning for each, especially considering that the Seleucids are better-known than the Syracusans (everyone's heard of Archimedes, and know that he was a Greek, but probably not nearly as many know that he was from Syracuse)

Right now I do not think we have the first issue. Beyond art beeing fairly different, the "sister" civs play slightly differently ( most notably the Greeks) which is welcome as it offers more playstyles. As for the second one, it's mostly ok. Given historical accuracy constraints, I think 12 is a really good number already, and it keeps things interesting.

again, my personal suggestion is just getting a nice round number of civilizations

[plumo]

I still regret we didn't stick with our original 6 civs. Making these civs totally unique (with subfactions!) appealed enormously to me.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I still regret we didn't stick with our original 6 civs. Making these civs totally unique (with subfactions!) appealed enormously to me.

Disagree on 6. Since we split out the Greek sub-factions into their own factions, the Athenians, Macedonians, and Spartans play completely different than if they had remained as one generic Greek civ. The uniqueness of the Iberians is not impacted by splitting up the Celts and Hellenes, nor in adding Mauryans or any other civs,