How should minifactions (natives) be implemented when done?

[Unarmed]

So I made a research/concept thread concerning a African minifaction. I first had the idea of just making it a handicapped regular faction but I do not like it anymore. Anyway, I want to know what the developers and players think how the minifactions should be implemented when they are done. So here's a poll.

Two ideas from here:

By Spahbod:

One way to include these "mini-factions" would be capturing their "settlement". When capturing is implemented, we can place some gaia buildings around the map that train those faction-specific units. There could be some defenders too. It'd be up to the player to decide if he wants to capture the building, or destroy it. Maybe gaining some resources by doing the latter. This could add a new layer to the game in which the player has to decide if he wants to be able to train some new units, or he's going to pillage a settlement for a quick gain of resources.

By Unarmed:

You have two options:

1. destroying the settlement, when destroyed it leaves some resources or you gain resources automatically when the settlement is destroyed

2. you first build a outpost inside the settlement (like Age of Empires 3 but with a outpost)

You can choose again (idea is from Seven Kingdoms):

-attack but people will defend

-give them resources but this costs you resources

-by time it will be allied to you, this takes much longer than the options above, however it is free. Will not work if outpost is destroyed.

Whatever you choose, the settlement will become allied to you, unless the outpost is destroyed. You'll be able to train mercenaries and have upgrades (similar to Age of Empires 3)

With both these ideas there are settlements which do nothing unless you attack them (unless I misunderstood Spahbod). I think everyone agrees that's the settlement looks like several houses bunched together in these ideas (there could be some eyecandy in the settlement, little pieces of farms, animals, people, props whatever). If not speak out, but I don't think it's worth to make a poll for.

Maybe I forgot some ideas, or they were not clear enough for me to share.

Note that minifactions, better said natives, are not officialy planned. This is for if they would be implemented. Notice how I underlined if.

EDIT: though I guess the Theban faction could be considered a mini-faction.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah is important in orden to respect all views and gamer style we must set a buch options i would say is the gameplay rules.

[alpha123]

Yeah is important in orden to respect all views and gamer style we must set a buch options i would say is the gameplay rules.

Yeah, and in order to finish the game eventually we must not have a bunch of options....

Meh, I'd go with Spahbod's, but frankly I don't really care for this feature. Once capturing is implemented some scenarios could have natives, but that's purely up to the map designer.

[Unarmed]

Yeah is important in orden to respect all views and gamer style we must set a buch options i would say is the gameplay rules.

I forgot to say, I prefer it in the gameplay rules too. Though I can understand some people do not want it on their scenarios so I would like to have it both having it in the options for players and for scenarios optional for the scenario maker.

One reason for prefering Spahbod idea, is a very good one; when the capturing is implemented in the game it is much more easier to do it this way.

I prefer my own (second) idea. Because while I think it takes much more time to do, it has more depth in it. You have much choices:

-do I destroy, to gain some resources and or deny it to the enemy (Note that I shamelesly took this idea from Spahbod)

If not:

-do I give them resources, which means I need to pay but I won't lose soldiers

-do I attack, which means not having to pay but I could lose soldiers

-do I put the outpost there and wait till they alliance me? I might lose them if the outpost is destroyed.

Maybe someone has some good ideas to improve these two ideas, or ideas from other games. Or has a completely different idea. Feel free to share!

Yeah, and in order to finish the game eventually we must not have a bunch of options....

Meh, I'd go with Spahbod's, but frankly I don't really care for this feature. Once capturing is implemented some scenarios could have natives, but that's purely up to the map designer.

I can understand you. Tell me if I get this wrong, but you want the game very basic; gather, build army, destroy enemy.

No "side missions" so to speak. No other options that distract you from the task.

I think you could like more depth in combat, but more depth as in things like diplomacy and such "side missions", it's not something for you.

Do I got this right? I got the impression you are a hardcore (if I may say that) old-school Age of Empires player. Age of Empires 3 is something that would less appeal to you. I personally feel like the game could have more depth, so instead of; gather, build army, destroy enemy, I prefer the game; gather, ally that, let those kill those, trade with them, attack them, etc.

I hope you understand I'm not belittling you or something (if I did, sorry, not my intention). I can understand your view, I hope you also take into consideration some people would like more depth. But I feel you do, otherwise you would have said only no.

I do my best to take into consideration people that would like more depth like me, and people that prefer a more static game with certain gameplay. I said in another post I feel like 0 A.D. could use more depth, but that I feel like the depth should only be as deep as you would like to make it.

Say it if I got something wrong! I am making assumptions after all.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

The problem Alpha is when have all type players requesting gameplay from Blizzard, Rome Total War, Aok, AoM, all asking for the classic gameplay for own Rts. Put options to satisfacy many views. That why have templates, like a template where you play as Aok. Other custom , is a lot of work but all can love us.

Unarmed. Step by step, fist is important have capturing and convertion system.

Better Diplomacy system.

Other new Ai for Gaia actors.

But I like you join this project, discuss this encouraging all to ask. For now is all about bring new contributors, specially programmers.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Unarmed]

The problem Alpha is when have all type players requesting gameplay from Blizzard, Rome Total War, Aok, AoM, all asking for the classic gameplay for own Rts. Put options to satisfacy many views. That why have templates, like a template where you play as Aok. Other custom , is a lot of work but all can love us.

Yes, I edited my above post for this.

There are a high percentage of people who like what I think Alpha123 likes. But there are also players who would like new features/more depth/something new/something from another game like AOE 3, Praetorians, Empire Earth 2 etc.

I feel like both type of people (and if there are, other people) should be pleased. As long as it is doable or possible of course! My idea might be a bit too difficult/demanding to make.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

More options can bring more player and can enjoy for many time. When you discover all a game can do, you left it. We build a game with the same possibilities than Linux. I wuold say is this can never end, all what do their own version of the game, same happens with Linux. Or happens with Total War. Many version of the game for all.

[Unarmed]

More options can bring more player and can enjoy for many time. When you discover all a game can do, you left it. We build a game with the same possibilities than Linux. I wuold say is this can never end, all what do their own version of the game, same happens with Linux. Or happens with Total War. Many version of the game for all.

I'll tell a little personal story. I gave all of my classic games (Age of Empires, Lords of the Realms 2, Knights and Merchants, Empire Earth, I might forgot about one) away to a second hand shop, because it did not appeal to me anymore, not because of graphics, but the gameplay. The only game I still have is Seven Kingdoms, because while the graphics are worse as all the games I gave away, it has depth in it and so I want to keep it.

When I first heard of 0 A.D. I was very interested. But my interest kind of went away, because I felt like it was nothing new compared to Age of Empires. When I thought, let's try it out, and saw it had some new features. I was sold.

There are enough people who would be fine with 0 A.D. if it keeps very true to Age of Kings. But if you do that you might lose other players. (note the underlying of very true, keeping true to the game is a good thing!)

So what I advice to the developers to 0 A.D. to get the best out of this project keep true to the original games, but make it possible to also enjoy new features. I feel like we can please both type of players.

And I'll be honest. I can play something very intensely for several months, but if the game is repetitive and does not have that much depth, I could forget about it for a longer time than I played it intensively. (Fun fact: sometimes I am very passionate about a particular subject, I research much about the subject, post on the forum a lot, but then; I'm vanished from the forum and possibly on another doing the same thing)

New factions and units are always nice, but does not change that for me. I always try out mods for Company of Heroes that do this and are very enthiousastic about them when they are new. But what I do: I might try the mod in multiplayer a few times until I get bored (if it's the same as Company of Heroes but in a different setting (Modern Combat mod) or if the gameplay does not appeal to me (Blitzkrieg mod; a "realism" mod). What I do with new factions and units; I play a skirmish, check out and try out all the new goodies. When I'm done with the new stuff, I uninstall the mod.

My little story is not ment as a warning and certainly does not apply to all players, but I thought it was good to at least tell how I react.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

And is exactly I say in the past http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16928&hl=%2Bgood+%2Bgame+%2Bwhy+%2Bis&fromsearch=1

But is free project, the best way is attract more. Probably social media can. And have presence in mostly users page.

When I post that the team not are focus totally in Optimization, and many grey angry for my words. All my Topic is about same, bring more people.

read Project Governance Forum there are many Developer Decitions. do this game is very hard and all we put our passion.

[Unarmed]

And is exactly I say in the past http://www.wildfireg...is&fromsearch=1

But is free project, the best way is attract more. Probably social media can. And have presence in mostly users page.

When I post that the team not are focus totally in Optimization, and many grey angry for my words. All my Topic is about same, bring more people.

read Project Governance Forum there are many Developer Decitions. do this game is very hard and all we put our passion.

May I say that I'm really impressed by your involvement?

Attracting more is indeed very important. I did advertise on a animal forum I am member of, but only two replies. I thought free game would gain many views and replies, but no. I think I should have been more specific and put in the title "free 3d game", maybe they think it's a flash game. The two replies I got were very positive though: awesome! Very cool! Things like that.

Attracting more is important because more people would get involved in opinions but also by developing (developers speeding up the progress, improving the game etc.). Though I just said that I feel the developers are doing a great job of doing so (advertising I mean). So I'm not sure if the forum is not that populated because of that, I was kind of suprised this forum is not more active.

Though a mod in which I was active with and possibly still will, also has very little forum activity. However, this mod is ranked quite high on the top 100 of Moddb; place 42.

By the way, I also found out about this game by Google. I indeed searched "free Age of Empires like game", but I also keep track of IndieDB strategy games. But more often Moddb though. Even mods for games I don't have.

I will definitely read the project governance forum but I think I have done that already.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Unarmed

[Mythos_Ruler]

I would include "native" or "mini-factions" as post-release free DLC (probably as part of our post-release patches, to sweeten the deal). And then I would only use them in scenarios and skirmish maps, so that they can be used judiciously and uniquely by the designer. I'd rather they be a "special" feature of some maps rather than something that's used all of the time in random maps and whatnot. They could also be useful in campaigns.

To make sure they are actually implemented, it is best to think of ways to include them without much extra programming. Try to think of things that we are going to include anyway, then just build on those. For instance, best to think of a way to use the planned 'capture' feature and integrate that into your plans instead of coming up with a whole-new way of doing things. This way, your pet feature (in this instance, mini-factions) is easier to implement, making it more likely to be implemented. Just my advice.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Now I'm trying with Facebook Fan page. The mine is in Spanish. But you... Where are you? May be can do one in your own language.

[Lion.Kanzen]

A pack for extra gameplay.now we talk about Dlc is important have a patcher and user in Win and Osx can download things like battle net patcher or AoeO extra content. In patcher you can post some advertising. Is only a idea.

[Unarmed]

I would include "native" or "mini-factions" as post-release free DLC (probably as part of our post-release patches, to sweeten the deal). And then I would only use them in scenarios and skirmish maps, so that they can be used judiciously and uniquely by the designer. I'd rather they be a "special" feature of some maps rather than something that's used all of the time in random maps and whatnot. They could also be useful in campaigns.

I agree with you fully. These type of things would be the best for DLCs. I think focussing on the main "stuff" is more than enough work for you and the other team members.

I'm not sure if I agree on the special feature though. I'll get back to that later.

To make sure they are actually implemented, it is best to think of ways to include them without much extra programming. Try to think of things that we are going to include anyway, then just build on those. For instance, best to think of a way to use the planned 'capture' feature and integrate that into your plans instead of coming up with a whole-new way of doing things. This way, your pet feature (in this instance, mini-factions) is easier to implement, making it more likely to be implemented. Just my advice.

Good advice, I appreciate it. And I will start thinking about it.

Though it is quite challenging for me to think about it. I would like it to be interesting, refreshing and have depth. I look at it like this:

1. Easy to implement, but less authentic and limited in depth. (You can choose to gain resources, you can choose to deny it to your enemies, you can choose to get the units)

2. Harder to implement, but more authentic and more strategic depth.(You get the options like 1. but you get three options how to get the units which are also more authentic, and the outpost get's more strategic depth.)

I personally prefer the second option. To be blunt, I don't like the capturing, except for the destroying and gaining resources.

EDIT: If my idea would not be a option, I would prefer the Age of Empires 3 way over capturing.

I will try to come up with alternatives.

From a design view, it is very good to think of things that would be easy to implement, and see if it would be just as good as a idea that would be harder to implement, I fully agree. But do not make the mistake of favoring everything that is easier, just because it is easier. The game might turn into something bland and repetive.

(If I look at the design document and everything I read that is planned, I do not believe the game will turn bland and repetive. But I can't judge until I have played. Right now the game is certainly not bland, but it is repetive to my standards. I also feel like the game lacks depth right now, but I guess depth is something I personally like. Depth is not really needed I guess, Company of Heroes does not have that much depth to me, but the multiplayer can be really adrenaline rushing (dying means paying, games can be really close with points), something I never had with Age of Empires multiplayer so I doubt I would have it with 0 A.D. (this sentence not meant degrading)

Some of my concerns. Might not be shared by the majority.)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, this project is shaping up very nicely! Just some little concerns. I thought of talking about much more but I am already going way off topic.

_______________________________________________________________

EDIT: Removed and put into the right thread.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

This a Clever use of mini factions

Have a main faction as Gaul ( Arverni) and clone in other tribes like Aeduii, all celtic are same only change name and emblem,

[Nolanjoker]

wow, this is the list of faction in RTW2?

[Andrettin]

One idea is to, instead of having a settlement, having specific buildings which indicate what that mini-civilization is best at (and besides, having a settlement as a building is a tad strange). For instance, if a mini-civilization is renowned for its woodcrafting and archery, then its specific building could be an archery range or lumber mill, which would allow recruiting their archers and researching their arrow upgrades. This specific building could either be capturable or (as I would rather suggest) have it be usable by a player if he has units close to the building (perhaps this could be limited to special units, such as heroes). This would work more or less like neutral buildings (i.e. Goblin Laboratory) did in Warcraft III.

[Mega Mania]

What about the diplomacy between major factions and mini factions?

[Mega Mania]

My concept of mini factions:

1. Civilized mini factions - a settled faction that looks like a major faction in the game, have a civic center and able to build all kinds of building and train their own units even champion unit just like any major faction, capable to expand its

territory and have its own abilities to make diplomatic decisions.

2. Nomadic mini factions - a faction who have a mobile settlement or no settlement at all, some of these factions was able to pack and unpack their civic center as they wish, like the civilized mini factions have diplomatic stance that enable

them to forge alliance with human player or even non human player or vice versa they could wage war against human player or non human opponent. structures are less complicated than any civilized factions but

some of these nomadic mini factions was able to transform themselves into a civilized mini factions given a considerable time and resources.

3. Pastoral mini factions - a mini factions that have the trait of a civilized mini faction and nomadic mini factions, looks like a civilized mini faction but yet lacks the full ability of a civilized mini faction capable of making diplomatic decision

and have the ability to transform themselves into a civilized mini faction like the nomadic mini faction.

[oshron]

i think, for the purposes of gameplay, it would be easier to have minifactions stay in one place. for nomadic civs, it could just be reasoned that they decided to camp here for the time at which the match is taking place, or (if we look at it in the context of a game actually taking place over a long period of time, just abbreviated for the player's sake) that's a place where they stop annually to take a break from traveling all over the place

[NoMolester]

My concept of mini factions:

1. Civilized mini factions - a settled faction that looks like a major faction in the game, have a civic center and able to build all kinds of building and train their own units even champion unit just like any major faction, capable to expand its

territory and have its own abilities to make diplomatic decisions.

2. Nomadic mini factions - a faction who have a mobile settlement or no settlement at all, some of these factions was able to pack and unpack their civic center as they wish, like the civilized mini factions have diplomatic stance that enable

them to forge alliance with human player or even non human player or vice versa they could wage war against human player or non human opponent. structures are less complicated than any civilized factions but

some of these nomadic mini factions was able to transform themselves into a civilized mini factions given a considerable time and resources.

3. Pastoral mini factions - a mini factions that have the trait of a civilized mini faction and nomadic mini factions, looks like a civilized mini faction but yet lacks the full ability of a civilized mini faction capable of making diplomatic decision

and have the ability to transform themselves into a civilized mini faction like the nomadic mini faction.

1.- Then what would be the difference between a civlized minifaction and a normal faction?

2.- You would have to program the AI to decide when is convenient to pack or unpack a certain building and where to place it again.

3.- The same than 1 but without diplomacy

What about american conquest, they had 1 building an an army around the building, you could destroy them or occupy their building and start creating specific units of that building.

Just that instead of 1 building is a town with some eyecandy it can be predefined towns and a main building that you have to occupy in order to have access to that units, you have to defeat the guarding army before.

[Lion.Kanzen]

For now the most simply idea is like Empire earth 2 , have your territory near of them(mini faction).

And build a outpost or embassy in their territory.

The game thst have best gameplay with mercensry forces in old school RTS world was AOE 3.

[NoMolester]

AoE3 can't be considered "old school" per se but i know what you mean.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah because total war have best than they but Total war is not a real RTS.

[Mega Mania]

1.- Then what would be the difference between a civlized minifaction and a normal faction?

There is little difference between a civilized mini faction and a normal faction, since not all faction didn't have all the requirements (military, economy, political and cultural) to be a major faction, then it would be better they become civilized mini factions.