What is problematic is different unrelated units looking similar and it can confuse many players
hi!
to be honest i dont really know the problem itself, so can u help me with some example images of "not good" skins that you mean? (i assime we have already such in game that is why you wrote)
1.Unit stance being similar should only b acceptable if they r related by upgrades like 1st tier, 2nd tier etc.
here again can you show me a "wrong" and a "good"?
because not sure what u mean by "stance", like is it standing or sitting, throwing or just holding and such or something else?
If they r not related by upgrade
you mean if the unit is not/has not a level up unit or not a "shop unit" (for gems) ?
2.If they r not related by upgrade but any other common theme like history, similar weapons or armor, at the very least stance should b different even if they look like they r using same equipment for the sake of coherency
ok i am lost again - what u mean? maybe a few examples would help me.
3. Also make cavalry leader units have different skin horses instead of the common horse skin used by rest of cav units in the skin pack
cavalry leader? what is that a "leader" ? you mean a famous leader like Jeanne D'Arc ? or not named ones but the one that has "leader" in its naming?
tell me a few examples so i undersstand what u mean.
eg. one thing i know Endru started to "mark" leader units (that has "leader" in its name) with a flag bearing appearance. these leaders are not necessary named (like Jeanne D'Arc) but with generalized name like "XY leader".
if this latter than the "flag bearing" is the thing you would require here?
4. For infantry leader its a must to have a certain feature that is completely different from other infantry in the skin pack (basically cosmetic things like flag, feather or cape)
if u mean here the "flag" than i see what u mean.
5. There should not b ANY unit that has the same stance as leader so that leader can stand out more
here again stance confuses me what u think.
in general i think skins and default skins should
1. HISTORICALLY CORRECT: most importantly as historical as possible (and this is the strongest requirement)
(eg. i know Endru started to shorten 1 tile ranged spears appearance vs. the 2 range spears - but that is not that good imho - historical apperance much more important than "visually showing" any proerly of the unit.
however if this "change" is not that much (so can still be seen as historcal) than ok.
(same tru for bigger shields for "shileder units" and the leader "markings" and ANY other unit property markings - they are LESS important than historical accuracy!)
2. ALL ENDRU WROTE in first post
-----------------------------------------------------
IDEAS i have about these!:
Anything we want to help for players should NOT affect any realistic looking skins, examples:
a) we want to help new players to know a unit(in skin) is this or that unit - than we should not change the SKIN to helop these pleayers, but maybe a new button in game to "TURN OFF SKINS" so all player all units will apear in default skins
b) if we want to "mark" leaders, than we could implement a marking for them (eg. unit selection circle would be different maybe?)
c) if we want to mark a melee unit has 2 range not only 1 range - than also different unit selction circle maybe?
or alternatively a new button to show "gizmos" over the units showing some special tarits of them.
so i would rather make such helper markings by "engine" (maybe even configurable to eg. a uit category or property like range check)
instead of changing the skins or efault unit images themselves - those should NOT be affected by these "player-helping" approaches.