How should minifactions (natives) be implemented when done?

[Mega Mania]

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.

Only on phase 1, a nomadic mini faction or pastoral mini faction can only pack and unpack their settlement during phase 1. When they reached phase 2, they'll automatically relinquish their ability to migrate from one place to another.

[NoMolester]

But then why making them "minifactions" better adding them as normal full playable factions in a DLC if they take almost the same amount of work to be done.

[Andrettin]

But then why making them "minifactions" better adding them as normal full playable factions in a DLC if they take almost the same amount of work to be done.

I tend to agree. A big part of the point of a minifaction, it seems to me, is that other peoples could get representation in-game without needing to have the entire amount of work required for a full faction.

[NoMolester]

When converting buildings is implemented, minifactions could be just a set of gaia buildings scattered around the map in small towns (guarded by some minifaction specific units) that need to be converted to your faction for you to train their units.

Doesn´t require extra coding (once the converting is done) it doesn´t require extra anything, except for the design of the buildings and guardian units and the random map code that adds them into the scenarios.

Make all the minifactions units available for all factions, but the buildings necessary to train them not available; so when you convert the building of a minifaction, their units are already available to you and you can train them, but obviously only from the specific building you just converted (you can't build it, only convert it so the only way you can have that unit is converting the building)..

[Mega Mania]

But then why making them "minifactions" better adding them as normal full playable factions in a DLC if they take almost the same amount of work to be done.

Not all of them could make it to DLC, some of them could hardly become a nation or they served as vassal of a certain superpower. But some of them have the potential becoming playable faction in a DLC if a certain faction have the following conditions:

1. A regional superpower

2. Have a standing army

3. Have a strong economy to maintain an army and the ability to build a proper defensive structures like walls, tower, outposts and forts.

4. A politically united nation that have the ability to draft its people for military service or manual labor and capable of collecting taxes, maintaining civil justice and public order and keeping government documents.

5. Culturally advanced (for example: have a state religion) and capable of building monuments and spreading influence to other nearby nations or tribes.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Mega Mania

[NoMolester]

The point is not if the civilizations were important or advanced by their time, but the amount of work for them to be done. Creating a civilization no matter the historical importance is equally difficult, and making minifations that are as complete as normal factions (and programming the IA for the packable and unpackable tents) would be a lot of work that wouldn't have any sense if the player is not able to play them.

You are suggesting minifactions that are as compplex and hard to make as a normal faction, even with its own diplomacy, what would be the point in having these complex almost 100% playable minifactions with all the work if they are not playable by the user, the only thing differenciating them from a normal faction would be that you can't play with them.

So, instead of proposing a viable solution for minifactions (less time, less money, less work), you are proposing that some factions would be unplayable, more or less like making the athenians and spartans unplayable and there you go, we have two new civilized minifactions, that makes no sense in game development.

Better get rid of the minifactions and make them all full playable than making an almost full playable faction that is unplayable just for the sake of having "minifactions".

The problem is that it represents a lot of work and time (and money!) to make a civ so we can't have all secondary civs as complex as a normal faction so we have to think a way of including them in the game without having to make too much work.

Your proposal requres almost the same amount of work for a minifaction than for a normal civ. Logic tells us that, if this it requires the same amount of work,better make it a normal faction and have no minifactions at all.

Your proposal is like saying, "Hey, instead of minifactions lets just make more normal factions and make them non playable, also, lets program a whole new feature that only non playable factions will have: movable tents". That doesn't solves the problem: How to add more civs with less work.

Edited October 30, 2013 by NoMolester

[Mega Mania]

As i said before, not all are playable because they could barely become a nation, for example: The Huns, they plunder any cities they encountered and they kill or enslave anyone as they wish but the fact is that they relied heavily on raids, extortion and war to support their fragile regime. Imagine a faction who have little or almost no proper economy at all in 0 AD become a playable faction and the reaction of the players

What i proposed is that 0 AD should have a diverse mini factions where some mini factions was able to act like a normal factions while the majority cannot.

You seems to ignore the fact some major factions in 0 AD are nomads.

And there's one thing, this is just a discussion whether the team accept or not is in team's decision and why so serious since we're not the one that makes decision?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Mega Mania

[SDM]

NoMolester has a point. Being a nation isn't even a criteria to becoming a playable faction to begin with (see Athens and Sparta).

If the work required to make a minifaction is equivalent or greater than the work required to create a playable faction, then the minifaction should either be made a playable faction or scrapped. I am not commenting on the specifics of your idea, but this axiom should be a factor in developing a minifaction as opposed to a playable faction.

Diversity is a great if it can be implemented in a reasonable fashion. What is considered reasonable is for the content creators to decide. But from a player's perspective, a minifaction that acts exactly like or very similarly to a normal faction but is unplayable is very far from being reasonable.

The point of this thread is to discuss/debate the merits of ways to implement minifactions. We should therefore be serious in discussing how minifactions should be implemented; and if we see something we believe to be a bad idea, we should respectfully point it out and explain why the idea is bad. The alternative is groupthink, bad ideas/implementations, and uninteresting monologues.

Edited October 31, 2013 by SDM

[Mythos_Ruler]

Good post SDM.

I'll make mention that the Huns will definitely be a playable faction for Part 2. Their impact was absolutely huge and it would be a shame not to include them. The fact that their gameplay would need to be radically different than most other civs is not a negative point in the least. In fact, we're looking forward to that challenge when it comes.

[stuman92]

Mini nats were a good idea in aoe3 but they didnt make then that useful except for inca.....which made them bland and take up map space. So if you plan on including them make them useful and worth something to fight for.

[Donner]

The mini factions could remain as exclusively non player entities in the standard skirmish and campaign games with the full factions. However, I would suggest that a special game mode in which all players are exclusively playing mini factions be created. This would allow the mini factions to be played without the game imbalances that would be caused if the mini factions were pitted against full sized civilizations. This would expand the gameplay options of the players and attach higher value to the creation of the mini faction (which, at least with the impression I am getting browsing through this topic, seem of little more importance in the current forms they are taking in this discussion to the gameplay that the deer which are currently prancing around the game environment).

Edited November 5, 2013 by Donner

[oshron]

Good post SDM.

I'll make mention that the Huns will definitely be a playable faction for Part 2. Their impact was absolutely huge and it would be a shame not to include them. The fact that their gameplay would need to be radically different than most other civs is not a negative point in the least. In fact, we're looking forward to that challenge when it comes.

for its time, i think AOK did a pretty good job differentiating them from other civs: the Huns don't build houses, and start with their maximum population because they're nomads. for Part2, this could go further with the Huns having "mobile" buildings--amounting to mobile dropsites like the Ox Carts from AOM and the ability to "deconstruct" buildings and "move" them. for gameplay purposes, the Huns and other nomads could be justified by saying that they're taking a break from their constant travel and have setup a primary camp in one part of the map from which they'll project their forces (i believe i used this example for nomad minifactions)

another thing i suggested once is that the Huns could be made more unique by making so that the Huns--and only the Huns--can use their ranged cavalry while in motion

[Lion.Kanzen]

Move to gameplay( please)  the concept need be discuss.