Gryphon Rider != human

[turin]

Gryphon Riders are listed as humans, but their graphics clearly show dwarves riding them. I'd like to get this cleared up...

Having Gryphon Riders be dwarves makes the most sense to me, since the graphics are dwarves, they are allied with the Knalgans, not the Loyalists, and imho the idea fits in best with Dwarves, not Men.

However, there are some problems with this. For example, in HttT, you can recruit gryphon riders long before you meet the dwarves.

So, should we a) ignore the problems and switch them to race=dwarf, b) make two versions, one dwarf one human, and use one for HttT one for MP, c) leave them as human, and change the graphics, or d) (the path of utter indifference) leave them completely as-is?


If no one says anything, I might just go ahead and go with a)... although I'm not sure if I technically have the authority to do that.

[Neoriceisgood]

This asks for some mighty fine neorice editting time! (p.s I hate the new gryphons.)

[scott]

I remember weighing in on this a long time ago, but I don't remember what I said then. I vote for c. I can barely make out the dwarf anyway.

a and d don't fix the problem.

Choice b would satisfy the issues at hand but I think it constitutes a major philosophy violation. I think it is wrong to have to create two duplicate sets of units to feed a SP/MP schism. Another example would be when I was going to have to create a complete duplicate set of outlaws so I could make an outlaw campaign - using scab outlaws (but [advancefrom] was enabled so it all worked out).

Choice c would also technically fix all of the issues as long as the knalgan alliance still has humans. Recall that thread where we tried to once-and-for-all figure out how to make an all-dwarvish faction. The result was that the dwarves needed exactly what the outlaw humans gave them in terms of movetype and ranged attacks. When the effort turned into ideas for replacing humans with nearly identically capable creatures of a different race, it became clear that the dwarves would need something besides dwarves in their faction and that humans fit the bill just as well as any other race.

Remember when gryphon riders used to be elves?

Edit: I forgot to mention I wouldn't be down with a decision that involves significant revisions to Heir to the Throne.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Maybe they find a group of Gryphon Riders patroling the enemy lines or something...

[turin]

The effect on HttT would probably be minimal, and it could even help explain what I have always found to be one of the weak points of the HttT story.

Just don't allow recruiting on Gryphon Riders until you meet the free Berserkers on Mountain Pass... it will mess up balancing slightly (but not too much, since you aren't guaranteed to have gryphons anyway), but it will have the bonus of fixing the fact that right now, the gryphons hatch immediately from their eggs, fully grown and fully trained.

I wouldn't consider this a drastic revision of HttT. Scott might, though.

---

As I said above, I prefer a). IMHO, my above solution would allow a) to occur. In any case, though, something needs to be done - i.e., d) is not an option.

[Tux2B]

I'd say option b would be the most logical thing to do, but it may change some stats.
Another option is that you just use gryphons without riders, and have Delfador speaking to them, but that doesn't look like the best solution.

[Eleazar]

IMHO the simplest thing to do would be to make race=Griffin. The rider hardly shows up at all, leave his identity up to the logic of the scenario.
(in HttT i can assume it's being ridden by one of Konrad's minions, in MP i can assume it's being ridden by one of the members of my faction.)

[turin]

The main reason it needs to have a defined race is, for name generation, and for scenarios to filter on to see if a dwarf/human has done a certain action. It will also become an issue if either dwarves or humans get race-specific traits in the future.

Changing it to race=Gryphon will somewhat solve the second (since gryphon could be added, making it race=gryphon,dwarf or race=gryphon,human), but it doesn't solve the first. Unless we want to give the gryphon riders really generic names...

[Noy]

Actually, I'd like to see new art made for them... not to step on anybody's toes, but the perspective of the unit looks off. If it was done so that the individual was smaller and less visible... it would lend greater credence to eleazar's idea. I think logically as well, the Unit being a gryphon is more realisitic, since its essential properties are based on the gryphon's abilities (its movement, attack, ect) rather than a human or dwarf.

[Darth Fool]

The main reason it needs to have a defined race is, for name generation, and for scenarios to filter on to see if a dwarf/human has done a certain action. It will also become an issue if either dwarves or humans get race-specific traits in the future.

Changing it to race=Gryphon will somewhat solve the second (since gryphon could be added, making it race=gryphon,dwarf or race=gryphon,human), but it doesn't solve the first. Unless we want to give the gryphon riders really generic names...

I like Eleazer's idea. The name of the unit can be the name of the gryphon that is being ridden, not the rider. So, all we need is new improved graphics and a sampling of griphyon names.

[Doc Paterson]

Not entirely on the topic, but like Neo and Noy, I'd love to see these current Gryphon graphics done away with.

The old one was perfect in my mind, but, I think I'd welcome just about anything different from the current one....

[kangounator]

I like Eleazer's idea. The name of the unit can be the name of the gryphon that is being ridden, not the rider. So, all we need is new improved graphics and a sampling of griphyon names.

If the name of the unit is the gryphon's name the rider has no use to be and it could just be a domesticated gryphon and there's nearly nothing to change to HttT

[turin]

Domesticated gryphons? I don't like that idea at all...

[Jetrel]

Not entirely on the topic, but like Neo and Noy, I'd love to see these current Gryphon graphics done away with.

The old one was perfect in my mind, but, I think I'd welcome just about anything different from the current one....

The old one was unspeakably awful.

The new one was made primarily by fmunoz, and then edited by me. Francisco made it for the express reason that his old graphics weren't up to snuff (he made the previous version).

If neo wants to make a new one, he can go ahead and give it a shot. There's a crackin' good chance he'll pull it off. =)

not to step on anybody's toes, but the perspective of the unit looks off

It may, relative to other units, but we're doing a general correction of all of our units to move to that same perspective. Our units should not be drawn from a front-on perspective, as many of them previously were, but rather from a 30-45° above view.

Because of the scale and isometry of our graphics, this is not a major concern for humanoid units facing parallel to the screen - at 45° they would show a bit more of the head than at 0°, and our graphics are such that it's unclear what many of those units were drawn at. However, for larger units, this is entirely necessary.

Our horsemen, fortunately, fit this perspective, as do our wolf riders. The old gryphon, unquestionably, did not.

[Noy]

The old one was unspeakably awful.

Actually, I too thought that the original unit art it was better than the current version... and wasn't that bad at all.

not to step on anybody's toes, but the perspective of the unit looks off

It may, relative to other units, but we're doing a general correction of all of our units to move to that same perspective. Our units should not be drawn from a front-on perspective, as many of them previously were, but rather from a 30-45° above view.

Because of the scale and isometry of our graphics, this is not a major concern for humanoid units facing parallel to the screen - at 45° they would show a bit more of the head than at 0°, and our graphics are such that it's unclear what many of those units were drawn at. However, for larger units, this is entirely necessary.

Our horsemen, fortunately, fit this perspective, as do our wolf riders. The old gryphon, unquestionably, did not.

I do realize that you've been trying to do this, and this is my point... if it was at a slightly above view the rear would be a little different as would the wings and the legs. For example the rear hip attachment point is covered by the wing, yet it looks to be far too high given the rider's position... giving them an awkward look.

Another serious problem I see is the gryph's proportions. The head of the gryph and the rider look far too large, which makes the unit look impractical. The wings suffer the brunt of this as they look too small; a problem I think is compounded by the decision to give it a dynamic look through wing movement.

Furthermore, I understand why you want to have homogeneity for unit art, but is it necessary for it across the board? For most units I agree it works, because they are seen from a "god's perspective" of the battlefield. Yet flying units, like the bat (which clearly contravenes this rule) do not look out of place precisely because they are flying creatures, normally viewed from below, or level. Their alternate perspective emphasizes their flying movement because it mimics their nature, and highlights other aspects of the units, like their wings. Thats why nobody had a problem with the original gryph, and with the bat currently.

I'd urge you to reconsider this rule because I think it may lead to inferior unit images to be made for the game.