Question...

What is your opinion about the game turning into full 3D without needing a $2500 rig to run BC? Option for running the game both as a single client or through a web browser.

- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)

- Camera rotation and zoom in/out

- Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations

and many more...

We cannot imagine anyone being against such a transformation, but we value your opinion and it is something that will lead us towards some decisions as we want to evolve the game and turn to other platforms as well..

What do you think..?

RuneSlayer wrote:

What is your opinion about the game turning into full 3D without needing a $2500 rig to run BC?

3D is always a very risky & expensive choice.

My opinion is make other changes first, that will make the game more popular. ... 3d afterwards ...

---

RuneSlayer wrote:

Option for running the game both as a single client or through a web browser.

Yes, Please!  

---

RuneSlayer wrote:

- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)

I prefer strategic depth to special effects ... but thats me ...

A game, to be successful has to appeal to a wide variety of different interests.

To elaborate on this:

• A successful software product, and likewise, a game generally follows a 20%/80% rule;
  
• That is, most users, will use at most 20% of the features of a successful software product; while considering the other 80% "meaningless" or "not usefull" or "irrelevant"
  
• Its key to realize though, for the overall success of the product, it needs to have most of the features, as different segments of  users, will each want a different 20%!
  
• This can actually present a challenge to developers, as what they consider the highlight of the product (their favorite 20%), may in fact, differ from what many other users consider their favorite 20% ...
  
• The Linux community is a very good example of a community that has frequently fallen into the above mistake; thus limiting Linux to its current "niche" (though very successful niche!) role.
  

Thus a successful developer has to create a product that appeals to a much broader width than a single segment of users --- balancing all these segments & which to invest development resource is an extraordinary tough challenge.

Thus my view "I prefer strategic depth to special effects ... but thats me ..." means, I recognize I am probably in a minority here and the other segments of users are very important ... Still there are tons of games with special effects, and such a dearth of games with proper strategic depth ... so please retain & continue to enhance the strategic depth of Battle Conquest.

---

RuneSlayer wrote:

- Camera rotation and zoom in/out

As above "a very risky choice".  In my opinion more than 50% of games do this poorly -- its very hard to do this in a way that gives the user control of the battlefield, without making them dizzy (Camera moves too fast) or too complicated (its way way harder to make this intuitive than is generally imagined).

I'm not opposed to risk; in fact, risks need to be taken to be sucessful -- I'm recommending the risks be properly evaluated.

---

Runeslayer wrote:

- Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties

More strategic depth, more fun!

---

Runeslayer wrote:

- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations

and many more...

Nice graphics are always nice

---

Runeslayer wrote:

We cannot imagine anyone being against such a transformation, but we value your opinion and it is something that will lead us towards some decisions as we want to evolve the game and turn to other platforms as well..

What do you think..?

For the long term, I think its a great vision.

As a user, I am far more concerned about the short & medium turn & the viability of this game.

I believe the following two areas are of more importance to address first:

• Streamlining a lot of the current features, so as to remove a lot of the micro-managment currently required (battle templates, auto-heal, auto repair, easier trading ...);
  
• To decide what is the maximal power one user appropriately can have .vs. other users, and then to implement this into the game (right now this number is close to 100x or higher, which is very frustrating for newbies, who often feel their efforts are futile --- thus they leave the game).   Obviously the developers keep trying to adjust this number downward, the community (generally of older players who like the 100x+ power a lot) resists though very strongly.  I suggest getting this number closer to 20x or so -- and if people want to go above 20x then this can only be done more via communities and coordination with other players (i.e.: guilds, etc.).  This will require major development efforts (and communication skills to the current community!) -- but I believe is a far higher priority.
  

---

NOTE: A serious post by me for once --- please don't hold it against me!  *wanders off to go back to being totally silly again*

Those are all great...
... on a fast laptop.

*Stares at a serious post from Joyce in shock*

Well, you got all that right, sister!
Not sure if this phrase is appropriate here, but I think it expresses my thoughts correctly

This post holds a valid point - complete what you already started, then move on!

More on topic, I think community would like to know what you consider a minimum configuration to run your 3D engine. And to actually play the game, not "enjoy" lag.

Granted, you do not have all the information and therefore you have a lot of worries...

However, I will wait more until more people express their opinions and then I will provide more info...

I'd prefer a nice looking 2d game over a wonky looking or glitchy 3d game any day. Right now BC doesn't look perfect, but still quite nice for what it is. If you can make BC 3d and make it look really good without being significantly more CPU intensive than it is now and deal with all glitches that pop up (there will probably be tons trying to switch to 3d and adding z axis), than I'd say go for it. Otherwise, it seems like a huge risk and could destroy the game. Obviously I want the game to remain undestroyed. Only you guys know what you are capable of pulling off. I'd say, if you want BC to remain accessible, than make sure the average on-board video card for a 4-5 year old computer can run it without complaint. Otherwise I won't be able to play anymore...

Also, like Joyce says, I think there are some more important things to do first (everything in your recent topic you made, basically, and equipment profiles to save time equipping, etc).

I think i have to stick with Joyce on that one. Strategic depth before fancy graphics.
No matter how fancy the producers made pacman in the years after the great video game boom, they couldnt reach the hights of the original.
Those are very nice ideas, but those with strategic value like ground advantage on hills and guerilla tactics in the woods.
Archers and LIA should get an offensive buff while hiding in the woods, combined with a decrease of range for archers. HI and Cavs should receive a huge penalty on their defensive skills, at least when engaged in a melee in the woods. LI a smaller penalty.
Artillery should not be able to enter the woods and a receive a -2 speed penalty whenever trying gain the higher ground on a hill (which would increase their range, damage and to hit probability).
Every unit in the woods should receive a speed penalty as well and a defensive buff against ranged units outside the woods trying to shoot at them.
The higher ground should provide an advantage in every melee and an increase of range for archers and artillery.
Those would be huge changes, that would make the strategic part of the gameplay much more versitile.

But maybe thats just me and Joyce, maybe we hear from somebody who is more into fancy graphics than strategic gameplay.

maybe if there was enable/disable 3D cause sometimes you just want a faster game,(less lag) then a fancy CPU overheating, laggy view

I agree with Joyce's excellent post, I can't think of anything else to add. I'm here because I like strategy games not glorious high definition graphics. The depth of the strategy elements are far more important to me than look and feel.

Depth of play over depth of graphics ;-)

I do like the idea of hills, forests, swamps, and rough terrain. This would have strategic importance, just like in RL and not just. Units would have bonus/penalties for each kind of terrain type they travel through. Cav would be great for smooth and hills, but everything else would suck and rough would be like an object to them.


Also, would be interesting if our Heroes could combine into teams and go on their own quests?

RuneSlayer wrote:

What is your opinion about the game turning into full 3D without needing a $2500 rig to run BC? Option for running the game both as a single client or through a web browser.

- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)

- Camera rotation and zoom in/out

- Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations

and many more...

We cannot imagine anyone being against such a transformation, but we value your opinion and it is something that will lead us towards some decisions as we want to evolve the game and turn to other platforms as well..

What do you think..?

i am also fan of the total war series but as many other said, the edge of this game is not the graphics but the community, the guilds, the social game, the strategy depth of the game. there are many thing i know from total war that i would like to see here in BC(bridges fortress battles, formations), but you can do that in 2d... 3d is really not the priority....

Bblazer wrote:

maybe if there was enable/disable 3D cause sometimes you just want a faster game,(less lag) then a fancy CPU overheating, laggy view

I agree completely.

RuneSlayer wrote:

What is your opinion about the game turning into full 3D without needing a $2500 rig to run BC? Option for running the game both as a single client or through a web browser.

- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)

- Camera rotation and zoom in/out

- Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties

- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations

and many more...

We cannot imagine anyone being against such a transformation, but we value your opinion and it is something that will lead us towards some decisions as we want to evolve the game and turn to other platforms as well..

What do you think..?

Been asking for a Downloadable client for almost a year now!  

I would love to play this in 3D, as am sure many others will want to.

3D | Special Effects | enhanced graphics/animations
I dont think, that 3D would be "good" for the game.  I suppose 3D would need longer loading times, perhaps more lag, maybe detraction to sight,...
I personally like it, when games are not overloaded in this matter.
[e.g.: Unreal Tournament was an nice, straight game. The other, newer titles looked better, but "no one" played them.]

single client or through a web browser
Single client would be really nice, as it would make us undependent from Kong/Armor.

Camera
After the camera once is adjusted for best view, the function will be not be used pretty much longer.

Ground elevation
Can't really imagine, how this should work (bonuses/penalties).

Going through forests
Would make the game unneeded more complicated i think.

Great, we will get our own Total war online with blackjack and hookers.

9999 wrote:

3D | Special Effects | enhanced graphics/animations
I dont think, that 3D would be "good" for the game.  I suppose 3D would need longer loading times, perhaps more lag, maybe detraction to sight,...

Theoretically, a downloaded client will always take lesser loading time, since the content is already on your Disk, it just needs to be loaded into memory. Right now, the content is downloaded into your browsers cache every time you start a battle, load the game etc and then loaded into memory for execution.  

Imho, the game lives from the tactics aspect and not the fancy graphic. Fancy graphics may attract more customers - i like it as long it doesnt get the game slower or harder to play. Many play from work, so all the 3D stuff should be an option, not mandatory.

From my POV, what i want in the descending order:

- New Battle Modes (Destroy/Protect Object, Survive, etc.)
Make CP generation more diverse and less repetitive. Since it became the core aspect better have more fun doing it.
- Extra unique units per Race/Special units
Considering how painfully long one needs to get to lvl 20, id rather start with special units sooner than later.
- World Global Events/World Global Quests/Add more storyline quests
Nobrainer, encourage activity.
- Option to chose another race without losing all progress. Units kept, their level kept, research and items kept. Great. Amazing. Ppl will love it, even for gems.
- Arranged pvp and coops
- Dungeon Crawling for Heroes
- 3rd Faction/4 new Races
Yes please. Also paired with progresssaved account reset and i will stop worshipping Odin or the juju up the mountain and declare you to my favourite gods.
- Tactical bits: Extra Special Abilities/Battle stances for units/Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties/Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties/Fog of War
Great stuff, more tactical depth is what the game nourishes from.
- Guilds Voting System
For non dictatorship guilds the way to go.
- Extended Crafting System with items' slots
- Items Sets (Eg. Elmarion's Divine Set)
- Boss Fights (hopefully arranged too)
- Award gems in-game
- Scripting stuff: Camera rotation and zoom/Click on minimap/Autoscroll when cursor reaches edge of the map/Drag and drop selecting several units
- Rennovation of Auction House and sorting options
- Save Inventory Sets (4 Presets)
- Lore of the World
- Influence-Bounty System
- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)
- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations
- Transformation of City according to Buildings' level

EDIT: OH i cant believe i have forgotten the most important part that bugs me.
Make the end of the game possible and stop introducing more stalemate mechanics. We would rather have faster pacing game that resets the map every few months than an endless tugging war that is bare of any purpose. Give us a cookie for winning (like progresssaving race reset) and allow the game to end now and then.

Tibr wrote:

Imho, the game lives from the tactics aspect and not the fancy graphic. Fancy graphics may attract more customers - i like it as long it doesnt get the game slower or harder to play. Many play from work, so all the 3D stuff should be an option, not mandatory.

From my POV, what i want in the descending order:

- New Battle Modes (Destroy/Protect Object, Survive, etc.)
Make CP generation more diverse and less repetitive. Since it became the core aspect better have more fun doing it.
- Extra unique units per Race/Special units
Considering how painfully long one needs to get to lvl 20, id rather start with special units sooner than later.
- World Global Events/World Global Quests/Add more storyline quests
Nobrainer, encourage activity.
- Option to chose another race without losing all progress. Units kept, their level kept, research and items kept. Great. Amazing. Ppl will love it, even for gems.
- Arranged pvp and coops
- Dungeon Crawling for Heroes
- 3rd Faction/4 new Races
Yes please. Also paired with progresssaved account reset and i will stop worshipping Odin or the juju up the mountain and declare you to my favourite gods.
- Tactical bits: Extra Special Abilities/Battle stances for units/Ground elevation such as hills for example with relevant bonuses/penalties/Going through forests with relevant bonuses/penalties/Fog of War
Great stuff, more tactical depth is what the game nourishes from.
- Guilds Voting System
For non dictatorship guilds the way to go.
- Extended Crafting System with items' slots
- Items Sets (Eg. Elmarion's Divine Set)
- Boss Fights (hopefully arranged too)
- Award gems in-game
- Scripting stuff: Camera rotation and zoom/Click on minimap/Autoscroll when cursor reaches edge of the map/Drag and drop selecting several units
- Rennovation of Auction House and sorting options
- Save Inventory Sets (4 Presets)
- Lore of the World
- Influence-Bounty System
- Special Effects (fire, smoke, blood, magic, etc.)
- Obviously enhanced graphics and animations
- Transformation of City according to Buildings' level

EDIT: OH i cant believe i have forgotten the most important part that bugs me.
Make the end of the game possible and stop introducing more stalemate mechanics. We would rather have faster pacing game that resets the map every few months than an endless tugging war that is bare of any purpose. Give us a cookie for winning (like progresssaving race reset) and allow the game to end now and then.

^^^^
I agree completely with this. I would rather see more content added every few weekish then a large overhaul of the graphics from 2D to 3D. I do agree that a downloadable client would be great and probably help with some of the lag, but content will bring more players and keep everyone interested.

I belive that game need 3d to encourage new players to join it. Many of my friends refused to play after few fights due to graphics (i dont care about it). It would be very risky decision because many things can go wrong. Propably it will cost you much more money than 2,5k (you have to add devs time as a cost and possibility that some players will resigne from playing due to no updates).

New graphic engine will allow to implement new possibilities like indyvidual unit customization, but you will have to prepare some content to current players (new difficulties lvls, new crafting system, maybe new daily/race/guild quests) to occupy players during implemencing 3d.

I belive this game needs 3d if you think of expanding players base and sooner or later this system will be implemenced. The only question is if now or later.

I really like this game and will be playing regardless it will be 3d or not

I would actually prefer that it stay 2D. I like that this game reminds me of AOE and Civilization and that I can take my eyes off the screen for prolonged periods of time and come right back to where I was.

I agree with Tibr about his many suggestions for ways to expand the depth of the game. I think focusing on that aspect will yield greater dividends than converting it to 3D and the inevitable bugs and glitches along the way. If I want a 3D MMORPG I can go play WoW or about a dozen other clones.

I think the biggest issue right now is encouraging more new people to join, and trying to find more ways to fine tune the game so that new players are encouraged to stay. Couple that with adding additional features for the veterans and I think you will have many happy players.

New terrain types with effects on the gameplay are very welcome.

Better graphics for the sake of better graphics, well, not so much but that may be just me. Don't get me wrong, eye-candy will potentially get more people to play BC, which is a good thing. Too few active players as it is.
On the other hand, I, for one, think there are way cooler features on the published To-Do-List than just better graphics.

Thank you all for your posts, your opinion and your recommendations.

Now..my turn...

- We never said that by changing to 3D we will leave everything else behind. The thing is that with 3D we will be able to improve the aesthetics of the game, which is one of the most important elements in a game, whether we like it or not AND it will provide us the ground to implement all the new mechanics we want to add such as elevation, going through objects (such as forests), special effects such as forests burning, weather conditions, etc. etc.

To make a long story short:

i) 3D will make things look ..."prettier".

ii) With 3D we will be able to easier "present" new mechanics such as the ones described above.

iii) We are not going to delay the features presented in our To-Do list. We too believe that the main ingredient of BC is the battles themselves and therefore we want to build on them.

- Camera zoom in/out and rotation will not be automatic and therefore it will not be a problem. The user will be able to rotate the camera and zoom in and out in order to have a better view of the battlefield.

- As it was mentioned in my post, we are not going to create a client/game which will require a powerful rig to play it. Our aim is not to build Rome Total War II...There is already one out there and we simply cannot and do not want to compete with that. In the contrary, the game will be more stable and with much better performance than it is right now in Flash.

Also..

Joyce wrote:

To decide what is the maximal power one user appropriately can have .vs. other users, and then to implement this into the game (right now this number is close to 100x or higher, which is very frustrating for newbies, who often feel their efforts are futile --- thus they leave the game). Obviously the developers keep trying to adjust this number downward, the community (generally of older players who like the 100x+ power a lot) resists though very strongly. I suggest getting this number closer to 20x or so -- and if people want to go above 20x then this can only be done more via communities and coordination with other players (i.e.: guilds, etc.). This will require major development efforts (and communication skills to the current community!) -- but I believe is a far higher priority.

You lost me there...

I hope I was able to clear some clouds with this post...

RuneSlayer wrote:

...
You lost me there...
...

Somehow, I am not surprised, you are trying to make sense of that which has no sense...  

Anyway, so when can we expect a 3D Client?

Zep wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

...
You lost me there...
...

Somehow, I am not surprised, you are trying to make sense of that which has no sense...  

Anyway, so when can we expect a 3D Client?

Not anytime soon Zep, but it really depends on the path we will choose. There are several variables we will need to think about and we need to decide upon the best course of action.