Newcomer Feedback#1: Names are intimidating

If anyone does have a Word document of all of the in-game info, (hint Kael...), I can dress it up a bit and set it up as a pdf file for distribution.

(I tend to like to read stuff on paper rather than through the civlipedia)
 
I think the blurbs on the website are a good sized chuck for ease of comprehension and completeness. After we finish those, I can go through and add one more paragraph of strategy. Do the same with religions, and we could have a quick start guide there.
 
I'm recently new to this world of FfH. And FfH was new to everyone at one time ('cept for the desingers). This game is deep and I have much more to learn about the mechanics of Civ and Religion combos etc. I use the Wiki and Civilopedia ALOT! But as far as just the flavor aspect... for me it was like reading the first book in any rich fantasy series. When I first read "The Eyes of the World" I knew nothing of the Wheel of Time world. I had to learn as I went. And I have a strong weakness towards remembering names, particularly for those that are difficult for me to pronounce. It is always a challenge when I explore a new world. Particularly worlds as rich as WoT.

Personally I think the flavor of FfH is fine as is. Actually I think it is far more than fine! I really enjoy the history of FfH Civs and I appreciate their uniqueness. As a fan of fantasy realms I wouldnt want it any differant. For me learning about the FfH World was no greater feat than learning about any new fantasy world. I would say though that learning the game mechanics of FfH is tougher than learning Civ4. But that to is a great thing in my book. FfH goes way beyond vanilla Civ4 as it introduces Many new game mechanics. The Civ and Religion combos still seem endless to me as a veteran FfH noob.

All that said, I think Mouseover info and an expanded Sids Tips would be a great help to those just begining their FfH experiance. Until then the Wiki and Civilopedia are more than adequate even though they do require some minimal investment of time.
 
I'd argue that this mod is easily better than Warlords, and possibly one of the best things i've played in a long time. I'd hate to see it have a smaller user base than it deserves when with a few accessibility tweaks it could gain a massive, massive audience.

I'd argue that if it were a purely generic fantasy mod, it wouldn't have the already "massive, massive audience" that it does. We've all played 100 different generic fantasy games and enjoyed them. It takes something a little deeper to gain the sort of following FFH2 has.

In a more constuctive vein - the same goal could be served by a redesign on the Civ-selection screen. Perhaps a subtitle/summary for each race ("Calabim" - "A vampiric aristocracy" etc), and the usual "Dawn of Man Advice" on the selection screen itself.
 
Mind if I steal some of these for the wiki?

I certainly do not. I have not been covetous of my words thus far on the forum and I shan't begin now.

Though, I spat those out with much thought - much and many tweaks would be necessary if meant to provide real insight into strategy and flavour simultaneously for ease of transition and emersement.


For one, when I started, I didnt ahve a clue what anything did. To me that meant "I guess I have to try them all"

That took 4 months - as I immediately fell in love with the Ljosalfar. Mmm, I loves mi elves.

But I do empathize with the newbery. Thusly something that isn't a depredation of names/titles/flavour, but breifly and in plain terms explains that flavor might not be out of the question.

Besides - leaders have Traits listed blatantly - there is no "flavor" in traits as they're purely mechanical in nature. What they DO creates flavor, but not the names themselves on display.

Therefore - listing "common strategies" known by all gamers (or easily inferable) wouldn't be out of the question.

If I'm looking at the Doviello and I read some traits and the text on them - it would not be difficult to read a single sentence that instructed me that these were barbarians and are primarily war faring and generally to be played aggressively. No more than it would be difficult to stipulate that gold = life for the Khazad.

Its a simplification of explanation i think might be a good compromise, instead of the removal of flavor texts themselves.

-Qes
 
I think the blurbs on the website are a good sized chuck for ease of comprehension and completeness. After we finish those, I can go through and add one more paragraph of strategy. Do the same with religions, and we could have a quick start guide there.

Thank you, I feel less crazy now. If that could be made available on the civ-choice screen. You're golden. Perhaps a mention of "common" (though by no means necessary) religious compliments could be mentioned. Like the Ljosalfar and Fellowship, The Khazad and Runes, and of course - the Sheiam and the Veil.

-Qes
 
If we are gonna talk about more things that remind of other Fantasy worlds. The religions remind me of the 5 colors of Magic.

White: the Order, Blue: Octopus Overlords, Green: the Leaves, Red: Runes (though Red is probably chaotic evil/neutral while RoK is good, but both have Dwarfs at least) Black: the Veil

(The cult also has similarities with the Red, more so than Runes in many ways)

They aren't similar to 100%, but the likeness is there.

EDIT:
And one thing that would help tremendously for new players is if EACH civ got a trait similar to how Hippus gets the Horselords trait. For example:

Calabim could get Vampiric as trait, which lists some of their unique stuff. Khazad could get Mountain Dwarves as trait, Luchiurp could get Golem makers as trait, etc etc.
 
Besides - leaders have Traits listed blatantly - there is no "flavor" in traits as they're purely mechanical in nature. What they DO creates flavor, but not the names themselves on display.
Au contriare, the traits are listed by their names, fallow, ingenuity, sprawling, even vanilla traits like organised or financial are flavor descriptions. Of course, iirc, the mechanical effects are listed as well, which is in essence what some are asking for with civ descriptions. But we will be keeping names above those "practical descriptions" that are tied to the specific world.
 
*sigh*

There is a balance to be walked between "flavour" and "recognition".

I'm sure the mod makers will find it.

The sarcastic replies are neither helpful, nor particularly witty, and I assume are not from the makers of the mod itself, and therefore utterly ignorable.

Implying that my suggestion for more recognition is a request to remove all flavour is not only incorrect but will also discourage everyone from bothering to post their feedback at all.

I agree with you, and love hearing this sort of feedback, don't be put off.

Design in general is trying to find the sweet spot between two unfun (to most players) extremes. No decision will be quite perfect for everyone but if we are creative and really think about it we can usually come up with solutions that make it significantly better for people that prefer one end of the extreme and doesn't detract from the other.

So I understood everything you were saying and I am very interested in making FfH more accessible (without losing its flavor). It doesn't have to be about the specific example and good designs can achieve both goals. So far I would love to:

1. Put more data on the custom game selection screen. Im not really sure how to do this.

2. Provide a "manual" online, in the game and in a printable version that hits all the high level concepts. We will probably need to wait until the game is done to dig into this to deeply, though the website is a good introduction and the wiki has tons of detail.

3. Make scenarios that allow the players to learn more about the civs as they play. I know what you are thinking, you dont like scenarios. I think you may surprise you with what we can do in a scenario, and how much fun they can be.

4. Reduce the amount of objects/mechanics in the game. We will always have tons of new stuff to learn. But we have to get it down to a few things per civ so that a player can play a civ for a few games, learn a few thigns each time until he really feels like he has mastered them. Then go on to another civ and do the same.

From the begining I wanted a game with tons of new mechanics and features. But presenting the player with 100 new features is just to overwhelming. So we created the 21 civs, each to be a holder of a small portion of those mechanics (and some global ones that everyone has).

Right now we are in the middle of the project, so we are adding stuff and trying it out. But by the end the stuff that works will be made as streamlined and easy to understand as possible. The stuff that doesn't will be removed and we should be left with a game with set global functions and 21 civs each with a subset of a managable number of special functions you only need to really know when playing them.

We will get there.
 
Personally I like how the game is right now,(of course I've been playing since the early to mid stages of FFH1:D ). Try to think of yourself as the leader of the civs, of course you're not going to no everything about them when you first start, but you eventually after many games/partial games you will have every civ and their abilities down by memory. You don't need to how to say the names or know what they mean just match the name or color with some theme in your head. The leader heads are also helpful in determining what each civ can do. For starting players who have no idea who do be just spend about 20 minutes before you play and browse the pedia or just pick one that sounds cool, you'll pick up on it soon.
 
The FFH wiki page never opens for me ... perhaps there are too many of us out there trying to access it? :)

I agree that a scenario as a tutorial would be a great but it sounds like your plans for the scenarios in general will act like tutorials and I can't wait to try them.
 
I don't know how the civ IV engine works so this probably is not be possible, bit, if the lead pics for the civ selection screen and diplomacy screens come from different sources the bottom the the leaders picture in the civ selection screen could say what they do.
 
Back on the topic of names, Morgoth always causes me some cognitive dissonance when I run into him due to the Tolkien association. I bet I'm not the only one. I can never take Beeri Bawl seriously either because his name is too close to Beer Brawl, and Luchuirp is a silly sounding civ name.

I like most of the other civ names though, they're a lot more evocative than generic names like Dwarves, Elves or Pirates would be.
 
1. Put more data on the custom game selection screen. Im not really sure how to do this.

Currently the "leader pull-down" is the only way to select your civ in the custom game and multiplayer screen. Is there any way to make the Civilization pull-down display a list of all the civs and then constrain the leader list to that civ's leaders when you select a civ? I think that would go a long way toward making the custom game screen more user-friendly. It still take a few minutes to remember who is whom when I have to remember 20+ leader names rather than a few civ names.

2. Provide a "manual" online, in the game and in a printable version that hits all the high level concepts. We will probably need to wait until the game is done to dig into this to deeply, though the website is a good introduction and the wiki has tons of detail.

Kael, I have experience with InDesign, a program for doing layout design for publications. Once you get to the point where you have manual type content, I could work to set up a layout and format for it.
 
Au contriare, the traits are listed by their names, fallow, ingenuity, sprawling, even vanilla traits like organised or financial are flavor descriptions. Of course, iirc, the mechanical effects are listed as well, which is in essence what some are asking for with civ descriptions. But we will be keeping names above those "practical descriptions" that are tied to the specific world.

That's exactly what I meant. The fact that highlighting a trait would tell you the mechanics. Highlighting a civ name (or it being somewhere in the text) revealing general strategy or "feel/style" would be useful.
-Qes
 
Back on the topic of names, Morgoth always causes me some cognitive dissonance when I run into him due to the Tolkien association. I bet I'm not the only one.

Thank you. I conpletely forgot about the Tolkien Morgoth, and couldn't figure out why I was instinctively prone to treat him as evil.
 
It came via *band for me, but I still find myself expecting him to be nasty sometimes too.
 
Death is a neutral sphere. (which is the Sidar (Morgoth) sphere)

The magical uses of Death magic are evil though.
 
Eh. Personally the complexity and depth of the FFH universe is what got me interested in it in the first place. I wouldn't give up a scrap of this flavour for more ease of play. It only takes a few playthroughs and you'll know all the names, but over-simplification lowers the overall tone of the game.

A perfect example of why not to do this is the difference between Morrowind and Oblivion- Oblivion was 'dumbed down' and the mechanics were a lot easier to understand, but it's gameworld suffered in terms of originality and interest because of this. In Morrowind the dwarves were 'dwemer' and had a rich backstory, separating them from traditional tolkienesque creations. In Oblivion however they became just 'dwarves' and all the mystery surrounding them was lost.

Basic explanation of mechanics is still a bit hard to find (how many people post here asking why they can't build song of autumn with a Gprophet...), but I'm sure that'll be addressed when the mod is more complete.
 
Back
Top Bottom