What about my name change suggestion? Norse specifically means from Norway. That's not gonna work, and that's 1 reason it didn't fit in MG at all.According to my cursory research (i.e. looking up the term "Norse" on dictionary.com and Wikipedia), "Norse" refers to the people and cultures of Scandinavia in general, especially before they converted to Christianity.
Zoythrus, luisconnelly, Psycho Hands, MightyMic, and have got a skype and dropbox setup and we're going to develop the "Norse" faction. The name can be decided on, we have plenty of time to get that locked down.Of course, I don't think any faction will be done by one person, people will offer to do certain things.
Elim, after or near the completion of Norse, I'd like to start working on Rome with you. How bout it?
The Axeman (not the thrower), should have the ability to harvest wood much like a Thrull (maybe even better than). It makes total sense, both in story and historically. They often used their axes to chop wood (and other sorts of things) when not in combat.
The problem I see is that the AI cannot play a worker-style unit with an attack correctly. I'm not sure about the Norse, but I was under the impression that battleaxes aren't generally used for cutting wood.
The Axeman (not the thrower), should have the ability to harvest wood much like a Thrull (maybe even better than). It makes total sense, both in story and historically. They often used their axes to chop wood (and other sorts of things) when not in combat.
Maybe in the story and Historically. But gameplay wise it is unnecessary float for no reason. I wholehearted oppose this idea forever.
(Sorry)
Two of their buildings will be upgradeable (morphable):I like, but bear in mind that the morphed building can't change in size and if a unit has a building as a prerequisite (in the way that a guard needs a blacksmith), morphing buildings makes it much harder to work those prerequisites in, since the new morphed unit doesn't count as whatever it previously was. A feature request allowing an "or" in those prerequisites (hovel OR cottage) would help. Or we can just have no units depend on that building, but could be potentially limiting.
Hovel -> Cottage -> Farm (greater Food production and HP)
Camp -> Fort -> Citadel (This is their only defense, need I say more?)
hey guys, here's a link to the Google doc! I would suggest that all factions have a doc.Agreed. By the way, folks, if you have a Google account, you can make comments on the document by selecting text to comment on and clicking the "insert comment" button (ctrl + alt + m). It provides an easy way to sort comments about the techtree. If issues regarding your comment are resolved, click the "resolve" button on the top corner of your comment to hide it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_exswRUbeQBSaQZD9CI0M2oYALsrnl2C353r-sI65g/edit
Personally I don't like the name Stave Church, and I think there should be Thor.
Personally I don't like the name Stave Church, and I think there should be Thor.
Stave Church is unique, and accurately related. It should stay, but what do you have in mind for replacement?
Thor? I think I'll put up a poll...
Personally I don't like the name Stave Church, and I think there should be Thor.
Stave Church is unique, and accurately related. It should stay, but what do you have in mind for replacement?
Thor? I think I'll put up a poll...
Why not "Stavkirke" ("Stave Church" in Norwegian)?
I'm not sure about using foreign words that wouldn't be commonplace. They make things confusing. Personally, I'm fine with Stave Church, but as always, we're open to suggestions, right?Personally I don't like the name Stave Church, and I think there should be Thor.
Stave Church is unique, and accurately related. It should stay, but what do you have in mind for replacement?
Thor? I think I'll put up a poll...
Why not "Stavkirke" ("Stave Church" in Norwegian)?
I won't get to UV the man before christmas, sorry. Anyone else is free to if they'd like.Woww great! This is one of the best building models for glest I've seen so far.
But I did finish my house last night (I think).
Here's a few quick snaps:(click to show/hide)
Any feedback is much appreciated. Especially the kind which helps me improve it.
There was a unit that we didn't add to the doc which Arch, Hands, and I had discussed - the Berserker. After the Stave Church has been created, Spearmen and Axemen could turn into these guys, which would get improved strength (across the board, so they lose their specialties), and maybe get enhanced HP and regen. As an added bonus, I was thinking about having them lose their "infantry" status, meaning that there's no effective counter (aside from just beating their skulls in).I like the concept of the berserker. I'm not sure what you mean by "lose their infantry status", though. Do you mean to give them an armour type that doesn't have the same weaknesses? Personally, while I think the berserker shouldn't care about pain, I don't think they should be more immune to damage. If anything, their extreme strength should be offset with weaker defensive. In fact, an interesting concept might be a unit with average HP, very high strength, very low armor (and possibly a more vulnerable armour style, such as organic), and a very high HP regeneration. The high HP regeneration would be the most interesting concept. They die fast if you concentrate on them, but if left alone, they can wreck havoc.
Yes, you're right, I meant that phrase as "they are no longer deemed 'infantry'."There was a unit that we didn't add to the doc which Arch, Hands, and I had discussed - the Berserker. After the Stave Church has been created, Spearmen and Axemen could turn into these guys, which would get improved strength (across the board, so they lose their specialties), and maybe get enhanced HP and regen. As an added bonus, I was thinking about having them lose their "infantry" status, meaning that there's no effective counter (aside from just beating their skulls in).I like the concept of the berserker. I'm not sure what you mean by "lose their infantry status", though. Do you mean to give them an armour type that doesn't have the same weaknesses? Personally, while I think the berserker shouldn't care about pain, I don't think they should be more immune to damage. If anything, their extreme strength should be offset with weaker defensive. In fact, an interesting concept might be a unit with average HP, very high strength, very low armor (and possibly a more vulnerable armour style, such as organic), and a very high HP regeneration. The high HP regeneration would be the most interesting concept. They die fast if you concentrate on them, but if left alone, they can wreck havoc.
At any rate, I always imagined berserkers as people who disregarded their personal safety for aggression.
I kinda think the citadel is too strong, and simply that we should only have 2 defense units. Especially considering this faction is supposed to have weak defense.Would be fine by me. The Romans should be the defensively strong faction, anyway.
I kinda think the citadel is too strong, and simply that we should only have 2 defense units. Especially considering this faction is supposed to have weak defense.Would be fine by me. The Romans should be the defensively strong faction, anyway.
The original plan was to give the player a choice: do I spend a buttload of resources to make this awesome defense, or do I use it to make an army? I wanted it to be Extremely expensive, to keep the number of defenses down, but yet if you could manage to scrounge up enough resources (and keep it alive long enough during the upgrade process), it would be worth it. Also, it's historically accurate - Vikings didnt like to fight for the same land twice.I kinda think the citadel is too strong, and simply that we should only have 2 defense units. Especially considering this faction is supposed to have weak defense.Would be fine by me. The Romans should be the defensively strong faction, anyway.
I think Romans should have highest defense and second highest attack, matched by a longer process to get to the most powerful unit.
I like the Njord's current tech-tree."Different" is what we strive for. We're keeping the Citadel.
It is actually something different rather than them just having "weaker defences". The whole building upgrade system is pretty nifty, I don't think it has really been done in Glest before. I also would vote to keep the Hovel-Cottage-Farm upgrade path, as that's something cool and unique too... Plus I ready have modeled the farm and started on the cottage...
Hopefully it will make me reminisce about my AoEII days...
So we're gonna give norse the best offense and the best defense because it's nifty? If we're gonna make a faction strong like that it should be the legion. They were actually that powerful.
Fine. We'll have to give the defensive building slower and weaker attacks, so they can't decimate an entire army before falling. They should be helpful, not the entire defense of the base. Oh, and big. Don't want to see them spammed everywhere. Perhaps we should set a limit of one citadel, two forts, and three camps?I can agree with the 1,2,3 limits; but I want defensive structures to actually be useful against an army (not just the Njord one). Since they're structures, they're going to be difficult to topple anyways, but I want a Citadel to be able to take a few hits from a few siege engines before being felled. If you allowed a Njord/Roman player to build a super defense, you deserve to suffer to take it down!
Yea, the max amount of defense should be able to fend off a lot. I don't like the idea of limits, then it becomes difficult to expand.Well, limits are generally bad, sure, but in the case of the citadel, it's too powerful to allow multiples in the same base. An alternative could be to prevent them from being built within x tiles of each other (thus ensuring that a second could only be in a new base), but that's not currently possible and seems overcomplicated. I think the limits work fine, especially since a base with a citadel and two forts is still a force to be reckoned with. An expensive force to be reckoned with. The cost of a citadel is enough that you could create a small offensive army.
@Hands: I'd like to switch your "farm" model to be the longhouse, and the "castle" model to be the barracks. Your longhouse model looks like a longhouse, no one in a million years would guess "farm", and I don't even think we have a 'castle' unit any longer.
[big]1. I could make a much better main building than that house model, I mean... its just a house man?[/big]I have to agree with Hands on this one.
2. Call it a Farm house instead of just a farm, it's a more unique name + makes sense! Names are easy to work around.
3. It's the size of Tech's farm.
4. It doesn't have a proper door.
Please let me have this one.
I was pondering the idea of giving the citadel to the Romans before....I think this is the best compromise. Others' opinions?
As I had mentioned before, I wanted to give the Njord a defense that was very strong, but the costs and time needed would make it a bit impractical, to keep the numbers down low.
To appease you all, what if I did this: I'll make the camp similar to the Defense Tower, but with a higher cost, lower HP, and a slightly weaker but faster attack. Then, the fort would be the next step up, but you'd need to have to invest a good chunk of resources and time. The fort wouldn't be uber powerful, but it could hold off an army until your troops could make it. How does that sound?
I'll also allow both the camp and fort to store resources (to make them mini-bases). Forts will also be able to put down its weapons and train Axemen, as a compliment to its slightly weaker status (and to get troops to the enemy as fast as possible, which is what they're all about [Romans will get to be able to do all of these things, but much more efficiently]).While I agree with letting them store a small amount of resources, I strongly disagree with having them produce anything. The main issue is that you can't attack while producing, and the AI is even worse at handling this. We'd end up with a useless defensive building.
Since they will have no "Towers," they're at a severe loss, since they can't defend a location without laying down a good deal of resources. I'm going to boost the stats of the Camp/Fort on the spreadsheet now, to reflect that they're going to be far above a Tower (in terms of defense), but just hard to acquire.They can't be too strong, though. We don't want an entire army to be decimated by a single building.
A fort will be strong enough to make your opponent think twice about attacking without anti-structure units.Since they will have no "Towers," they're at a severe loss, since they can't defend a location without laying down a good deal of resources. I'm going to boost the stats of the Camp/Fort on the spreadsheet now, to reflect that they're going to be far above a Tower (in terms of defense), but just hard to acquire.They can't be too strong, though. We don't want an entire army to be decimated by a single building.
I think it's time for us to define these upgrades.Armory:
I line em' all except:*sigh*
Bearded Axes (Since when could axes grow beards)
Immigrant Carpenters (sounds weird) How About: Advanced Carpentry
Wasteland Survival (Doesn't sound right)
Regardless, most people won't know everything and we don't want the upgrades sounding so funny to them do we?
Coding-related discussion has been split into another topic here (https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=8837) to keep it more organized. Have a nice day.:thumbup:
:thumbup:It depends on how much of my help the Hurricane Sandy recovery effort requires.
Will you be joining our endeavor sometime? 8)
Good guy John.:thumbup:It depends on how much of my help the Hurricane Sandy recovery effort requires.
Will you be joining our endeavor sometime? 8)
Make us proud! :thumbup::thumbup:It depends on how much of my help the Hurricane Sandy recovery effort requires.
Will you be joining our endeavor sometime? 8)
So, I've converted all of the data from the Google Spreadsheet to the XMLs, now what?DESIGN! Or create a working version with placeholder models.
create a working version with placeholder models.Brenton is already doing this. :thumbup:
Also, we need to structure the folders to share artwork. So all the models would also have to be in the same folder.There is a graphics folder to contain all the visual assets.
It's definitely there for me both on the drive and in my local folders. If it's still not working, perhaps restart Drive?
If that fails, go to Drive's options and choose to disconnect account and then re-sign in.
Oh, I see why. The folder lost its "shared" status.Thanks, Omega!I'm going to need your emails again.Should be all of them...