OUTDATED: New skin packs and skins

[Endru1241]

check the viewtopic.php?t=13661 for actual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments regarding posting new skins or whole packs:

• Please do not change image names - those posted on the forum should have exactly the same name as images in game assets.
• Image width/height:
  - For normal units (1 tile on base): ALWAYS use 32x64px! (even if it is not that tall visually)
  - On bigger cases (96px or 128px) cases try keep the original size
  - Image width must remain unchanged. 32px must be 32px. Height needs to be 64px/96px or 128px.
• Name the pack it should be put into, even if it's new one and propose rarity, e.g.:
  Rarity: Common
  Skin Pack Name: Endru skins.
• Units must have proper team colors - pixels with colors R:255, B:255, as those are colored to distinguish to which player unit belongs.
• Units shouldn't stray too much from the game concept, so no sci-fi or fantasy stuff for regular units.
• Units should follow their original with
  - unit size (so a swordman is still same tall eg. not a giant swordsman)
  - same/similar equipment (so a swordsman is still holding a sword (not a bow or throwing axe))
  - same equipment size (if the bow is a longbow and that was 31 pixel long than on the new unit also should have the bow in about 31 pixel length)
  - similar general outlook, so e.g. if it is a supportive unit looking somewhat richer/fancier, than your regular soldier - keep that
• Unit look must be within era of AoS time period, so around late 16th century - the changes following the spread of accurate musket - are out of AoS scope.

[Stratego (dev)]

I love the skins being drawn - it is awesome!

i also thought we could also make some legendary skins too - where the unit is animation in its idle state.

this can be simple like
- moving smoke from the building chimney
- like flames moving (like on fire archer)
- like unit weapon moves a little here and there

so anything making the unit (unit skin) being animated.

[makazuwr32]

Like Alexander unit has in aof?

[Stratego (dev)]

yes as an example

[DreJaDe]

I tried to make an idle animation.

Is it okay like this or is it still not good?

-the sample is from one of my roman skins suggestions.

[godOfKings]

Make a single wide image with all the frames side by side, if for example, image is 32x64 and there r 8 frames, the animated image size should b 256x64 and each frame pasted next to each other in the same image canvas

[Stratego (dev)]

i think he knows it - he only asks if the animation is good or not.

i thin it is nice, but the movement seems not so natural - i saw these up down movements in some games so i know it is popular, but i thought some natural movements that a man really do while standing.
- eg. the feather on helmet is moving by wind.
- alo like shield moves (very slowly, and with only 1 pixel) left to right
- breathing is also good but i think with less movement (if this was berathing in the example than it is good but the movement is too big imho)

[DreJaDe]

i think he knows it - he only asks if the animation is good or not.

i thin it is nice, but the movement seems not so natural - i saw these up down movements in some games so i know it is popular, but i thought some natural movements that a man really do while standing.
- eg. the feather on helmet is moving by wind.
- alo like shield moves (very slowly, and with only 1 pixel) left to right
- breathing is also good but i think with less movement (if this was berathing in the example than it is good but the movement is too big imho)

Yeah, tried to make it look lively by being more "Bouncy" but all the movements there are only 1 px already. I don't know how can I make him look breathing anymore beyond that. In another example. I made it less bouncy.

The shield is actually moving only by 1px (up and down though).

Here's another example.
Although kinda faster movement. I can make it slower easily.

[Stratego (dev)]

actually i like it! - i would only tune the feathers as they should go down when head goes up and go up when head goes down - at least as i feel.

[DreJaDe]

actually i like it! - i would only tune the feathers as they should go down when head goes up and go up when head goes down - at least as i feel.

Here's a sample of the actual skin I was planning on making.

Made it not bouncy and the animation not much noticeable as possible.

There is a mistake on the shadow but that is only in the gif.

[Stratego (dev)]

i made a 5 minute attempt to try how a only-chest movement like breathing would look, for a 45 minute it is not that bed imho
the point is not moding the whole upper body up down, but a more natural look for breathing

[DreJaDe]

i made a 5 minute attempt to try how a only-chest movement like breathing would look, for a 45 minute it is not that bed imho
the point is not moding the whole upper body up down, but a more natural look for breathing

I actually don't think it's natural. A normal person would bloat their abdomen and not their chest. Which in IRL (and even in your animation) it's not noticeable at all unless you zoom so close.

The only way for breathing animation to work here is to honestly make it more exaggerated. Kinda like what I did with earlier example, I can make it more bouncy to make it like he's trying to breathe hard but it seems that you don't like that cause it would be too much.

[Stratego (dev)]

sure my 5 minute demo will not look good, i just wanted to show a way when not he "whole" body moves, but only the chest and maybe abdomen as you say "changes" with shadows or something showing a breath in and out.

maybe i try moving something else a little too.


and now i see how important would be to be 64px like in AOW/AOMW, we already have plans for that how

[godOfKings]

I think it is time to make some standard on making new skins from a player's gameplay pov

When a player is controlling many units, for him to immediately find the type of unit the first thing he would notice is the largest part of that unit body (like horse, armor) then the stance he is holding weapon and shield, then the part that is most in front, stands out and bright (like shield, weapon and helmet)

What is problematic is different unrelated units looking similar and it can confuse many players

Right now i only thought of a few rules that i think should b made universally standard

1.Unit stance being similar should only b acceptable if they r related by upgrades like 1st tier, 2nd tier etc.

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

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

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)

5. There should not b ANY unit that has the same stance as leader so that leader can stand out more

These rules that i propose r for the sake of multiplayer games and players not getting confused during battle involving multiple units, it doesnt consider the historical accuracy, or theme aspect for the skins being acceptable

Please give ur opinions if these standards should b accepted or not, if any new rules should b added, if some rules should b removed etc.

@Endru1241 @DreJaDe
@b2198
@Stratego (dev)

And mention any other player who also makes skins for aos for their opinions

[DreJaDe]

1.Unit stance being similar should only b acceptable if they r related by upgrades like 1st tier, 2nd tier etc.

There are many stances but even then... How much unique stances can we have before we run out?

Let's forget that for sec also and look at how much of the stances is usable to show the unit design properly?

What we wanted to show or highlight also limits the stances we can use. If you see my nordic warlord skin... Its one of the best stances I can give to show everything and still make sense. Shield, armor, the two handed axe, the cape.

Again, another addition to this is the canvas like spear unit mostly having to be shorter or always have a vertical spear in order to work.

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

Tbh, I think art style is the main factor here... And again... Back continuing my answer to number 1 as they are related.

Addition to that is the appearance of parts on the unit. Certain angles dont work for weapons and armor at least maybe its on my skill part but its still an integral part of what we can show.

If I decided to make skins for basically every single unit... This cannot be done... One of the reason why I never done it anyway. Not unless I change the art style of everything.

3. I can agree to that. But coloring horses is a pain.

4. Yup, basically do this everytime.

5. Again, like my answer on the first and 2nd. Maybe doable, not sure.

it doesnt consider the historical accuracy

It should

[godOfKings]

Even in same stance, it is always possible to make slight changes in the angle of holding weapons and bending arms to make a different stance, i will try to fix some of the stances i have problem with in ur viking skin pack and then u can see wat i mean

[Stratego (dev)]

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.

[godOfKings]

Stance: how a unit is standing while holding weapon or shield

What i propose is that two units in a skin pack should have exact same stance only if one is upgraded to other, like swordsman to broad swordsman

If they r similar units but not upgrades, like axe thrower and northern axe thrower- both r similar units but they r not related, in that case at least stance of one unit should b different so it doesnt look like its upgrade of other unit or anything

Mounted leader units like daimyo and centurion and lord have a different skin for horse than other mounted units in the skin pack, like u can have knight, shield knight lancer in the skin pack all use only one particular horse skin (suppose only black) but if there is also any mounted leader unit (like lord or condottiere) he will ride a horse with different skin (for example only white) its because horse is the biggest and most noticeable part of unit image,

one such image i consider a bad example in this case is the roman skin pack by drejade where centurion and equites ride same colored horse and in large multiplayer games involving many units, it cause a confusion giving first impression that both r similar in strength when centurion obviously has double the stat and turn cost compared to equites

Similarly infantry leader unit not having exact same stance as other infantry. For example taxiarchos and spartan hoplite both wear exact same equipment, if they also had exact same stance, then just a tiny detail of taxiarchos having black feather and spartan red feather wouldnt b enough to differentiate between them, but its because they have a different stance that we can differentiate between them.

This is the main reason i want this to b rule that units that look similar have different stance if they r not related by upgrading

Again these rules i propose r meant to compliment already existing rules for designing skins while also following the standard for default aos skins so that players in multiplayer games do not have trouble differentiating between units, especially when its a large skin pack involving many unit skins all following a common theme for armor design decided by the skin creator

[Stratego (dev)]

What i propose is that two units in a skin pack should have exact same stance only if one is upgraded to other, like swordsman to broad swordsman

If they r similar units but not upgrades, like axe thrower and northern axe thrower- both r similar units but they r not related, in that case at least stance of one unit should b different so it doesnt look like its upgrade of other unit or anything

why you feel this? i think it should be totally unrelated to being upgrade of each other or not.

Mounted leader units like daimyo and centurion and lord have a different skin for horse than other mounted units in the skin pack, like u can have knight, shield knight lancer in the skin pack all use only one particular horse skin (suppose only black) but if there is also any mounted leader unit (like lord or condottiere) he will ride a horse with different skin (for example only white) its because horse is the biggest and most noticeable part of unit image,

horse color is not good for that imho, but eg. more "jevelry" or visible armor or whatever differentiation is HISTORICAL to such leadung units is possible. if historically there is no ANY difference than we should not use either - but i think there is something always historically - we should use that imho.

one such image i consider a bad example in this case is the roman skin pack by drejade where centurion and equites ride same colored horse and in large multiplayer games involving many units, it cause a confusion giving first impression that both r similar in strength when centurion obviously has double the stat and turn cost compared to equites

here again a the question: historically they were same looking?

This is the main reason i want this to b rule that units that look similar have different stance if they r not related by upgrading

as i wrote above i dont feel this necassary - moreover i think random variations is good to have.

Again these rules i propose r meant to compliment already existing rules for designing skins while also following the standard for default aos skins so that players in multiplayer games do not have trouble differentiating between units, especially when its a large skin pack involving many unit skins all following a common theme for armor design decided by the skin creator

i can just repeat myself: i think we need OTHER ways to show similarity or differences (eg. leader have different seelction cirle or other ideas) - not the unit ART should be affected by these.

[godOfKings]

Its because units may look historically similar thats y i propose just stance and horse skins, the two aspects that are NOT affected by history, to b different

[Stratego (dev)]

ok but that kinda kills variations...

i suggest differentiation if needed (eg. leaders) out-of art ways.

eg. what if a nation/tribe hated white horses and we chose white horses to indicate...

we had this as "flag bearing" was alredy a problem as samurai had flags on them historically - and we used flags to something else.

[godOfKings]

Samurai in history would wear flags as they didnt have ff00ff coded uniforms that would differentiate them from other clans, but its not a problem for us players of aos since we can use ff00ff color code to figure out which players own which samurai, its y no other strategy games i played involving japanese civ ever use flag in their unit design, and just color the armour like how we r doing

[DreJaDe]

Samurai in history would wear flags as they didnt have ff00ff coded uniforms that would differentiate them from other clans, but its not a problem for us players of aos since we can use ff00ff color code to figure out which players own which samurai, its y no other strategy games i played involving japanese civ ever use flag in their unit design, and just color the armour like how we r doing

Actually, their armor themselves are team color

Ashigaru even more true. Like really, they are color coded in war.

[Stratego (dev)]

Samurai in history would wear flags as they didnt have ff00ff coded uniforms that would differentiate them from other clans, but its not a problem for us players of aos since we can use ff00ff color code to figure out which players own which samurai, its y no other strategy games i played involving japanese civ ever use flag in their unit design, and just color the armour like how we r doing

??
i am not talking about teamcoloring at all.
but i say if they wore flags by history than we should also draw flags - but now we are forced NOT to draw samirai flags, as "flag" means something in game - and this is not good for being historical.

[b2198]

I agree with GoK here. Skins should be easier to differentiate at a first glance without needing to closely inspect every unit for details, because when you're against an army of them, and you can't tell which unit is which, you have to select one by one to know who to target, which gets tiring very fast in large battles, and makes turns much slower to play when that happens (which is not that rarely, and not that hard to avoid either, as all issues I've found thus far arise from inside a cosmetic pack, instead of between 2 or more of them, so the cosmetic pack's creator only has to adjust a few images here and there to solve this).

Some examples I could find to show what I mean:

note: On a 0 to 5 scale, where 0 is I absolutely have to select the unit to identify which is it if I see one of them in a match and 5 is I can instantly distinguish between them at a glance.

1. Archer/Longbowman
   • Base skin: 4
     
   • Tempest: 2 (bow is almost the same size, looks like a slightly different archer skin, only recognizable if you have both skins and frequently use them)
     
   • Draxolan Marauders: 2 (bow is longer, arrow is a bit longer, but the rest is exactly the same, so it's still quite hard to distinguish)
     
   • Draxolan Guardians: 1 (in this one not even the longer arrow is present, so the only change is the bow size, which alone is VERY hard to notice when seen from afar amongst other units)
     
2. Roman Legionary/Roman Praetorian
   • Base skin: 5
     
   • 69th Cohort: 3 (the second one doesn't really look like a heavier unit than the first, which it is, it looks more like a different skin of the legionary, so to recognize easily you'd have to know these skins)
     
3. Equites/Centurion
   • Base skin: 5
     
   • 69th Cohort: 3 (similarly to the legionary/praetorian case, the centurion here doesn't really look heavier than than the equite, and both have some added similarities that aren't present in the base skin and pretty different from them, so to recognize them easily you'd also have to know these skins)
     

[godOfKings]

Damn i didnt know some archer skins were even worse

This is where my axethrower vs northern axe thrower comparison comes in, archer and long bowman looking the same even though they r different units

Like default archer and longbow skin having same stance is alright since their equipments r obviously different, but if skin equipments look similar then if their stance were different it would b easier to differentiate

[DreJaDe]

the second one doesn't really look like a heavier unit than the first, which it is, it looks more like a different skin of the legionary, so to recognize easily you'd have to know these skins

This is a wrong assumption, a Praetorian isn't heavier than a Legionnaire. Earlier Praetorian was picked for being better than normal. If I use Endru's way of reasoning. You could say that their higher stats is more due to being able to having better skills than normal legionnaire.

But onto your point. It's a matter also of perspective. I believe I have shown here that Praetorian having more extravagant look even at first glance which could mean them being more elite. Which comes my last point here. Both of them have the same use with one being the cheaper option. I believe I have shown that in the image below with great consideration to history.
[/quote]

similarly to the legionary/praetorian case, the centurion here doesn't really look heavier than than the equite, and both have some added similarities that aren't present in the base skin and pretty different from them, so to recognize them easily you'd also have to know these skins

I still dont get this... The purpose can easily be seen here. Actually, even better than the old one like Equite having the noticeable lance easily give its role. And again, Centurion isn't necessarily heavier than equite, they are just better.

For me, I still think it's the art style that make some people think this which Ive seen some time even in AOF and AOWW. If I use your sample like the legionnary to praetorian. This is quite easy to tell. So does equite to centurion. The difference in art style help so much in distinguishing them apart.

[godOfKings]

And yet, giving the centurion a different horse skin wouldnt make that huge of a difference on the overall skins, his armor and weapon would still b historically accurate, just player looking at the unit would instantly say, brown horse, that means equites, white horse, that means centurion, got it

A simple google search and i saw yellow, dark brown, white, black etc. color horse skins so its really unlikely for any particular civilisation to not have more than one color horse skins

[DreJaDe]

And yet, giving the centurion a different horse skin wouldnt make that huge of a difference on the overall skins, his armor and weapon would still b historically accurate, just player looking at the unit would instantly say, brown horse, that means equites, white horse, that means centurion, got it

A simple google search and i saw yellow, dark brown, white, black etc. color horse skins so its really unlikely for any particular civilisation to not have more than one color horse skins

It's not as simple for me as you think.

It part of the reason why I don't make the same style in most of my skins.

And currently, I think you saw how I draw cavalry now.

[Stratego (dev)]

About archers where both bow is same that is a problem in skin, yes.

If historically a longbow is longer by 30percent than it should be same on skins too.

So those are not having bigger bows simply a mistake in skin.

But the only reason they are not good is they are not historical in size, not the problen of some any other "rule" it should keep.

But yes, if units are different in eg weapon than the sprite should show that weapon nicely visible, so to be extreme:an archer should not put the bow behind himself, it must be visible.