suggestions after playing alpha

[elvo 423]

greetings, crows

 

after playing some alpha i have two things (at the moment) that i´ve nobody seen talking about yet and which are bugging me a little...

 

1. "mountains"

 

the "mountains" we have feel extremely..."small" theres something about perspective and actual height of them thats reall off-putting

 

heres a picture of me looking at the horizon and seeing some mountains, nothing wrong with that yet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but i can get to the food of the "mountain" in less than a minute (49 seconds...)

 

 

 

the relation of view distance, height of the "mountain" and travelling time just feels...wrong

 

i think the "mountains" are waaaay too small, they dont feel like a challenge to climb or a strategic object in later play...

 

 

my suggestion: make them atleast 4 times as big, maybe even more and make them hard to climb

 

 

 

 

2. "jumping"

 

currently in alpha jumping forward moves you, who would have expected it, into the direction you are heading

 

the distance you are travelling feels about the same as if you were walking/running

 

yet if you are sprinting with shift the sprint does not give you any additional forward acceleration on jumping, you are just awkwardly jumping up

 

suggestion: give you the possibility to travel further when jumping while sprinting, it would reward correct usage of sprinting at the right time in a chase, for example if you jump over a river you will not be slowed down by the water

 

give this "sprint-jump" an internal cooldown of ~20 seconds or something, make it a strategic tool

 

 

 

 

peace

[Genocide 121]

If you want to climb real mountains, then go outside. Dont fix what isnt broken.

[elvo 423]

If you want to climb real mountains, then go outside. Dont fix what isnt broken.

they are definitely broken when i can just run up in a 90° angle, they should be a tactical element to build, lets say, your fortress behind them without having to worry about someone taking a morning walk up the mountain and jumping over your walls...

[pang 4,174]

Maps are rather small right now compared to what we should see in the CWs.

 

But yeah making land features taller, bigger, deeper etc, is something that will likely be tweaked as they go.

 

Agree though jumping is a bit wonky right now.

Edited January 1, 2017 by pang

[SemiMong 12]

The perception looks abit off yeah, in the second picture the mountain looks so big, then you go to it and just start blasting up it, its like a giant rock formation, with the wrong skin, nothing major though! Would love complex mountains to hide forts in like you say!

[Dirkoff 756]

I just think they need to 'tweak' the physics engine a bit to not allow players to climb steep inclines.

[SemiMong 12]

I just think they need to 'tweak' the physics engine a bit to not allow players to climb steep inclines.

As much as i would hate this (my hiding place to safely craft is in the mountains) i think this is what's needed for sure!, would make the mountains look a bit more realistic as well, stand at the bottom and look up to a giant mountain, which you then couldn't climb, would be a bit more believable than the current situation! 

[Gilgamer 803]

Maps are rather small right now compared to what we should see in the CWs.

 

But yeah making land features taller, bigger, deeper etc, is something that will likely be tweaked as they go.

 

Agree though jumping is a bit wonky right now.

I wouldn't count it.  I think the OP's observation might be the result of a short-sighted limitation of the parcel-stitching method of procedural generation.  Meaning, each individual landscape element likely has to be wholly contained within a single parcel, regardless of it's shape.  For mountains to be four times taller they would also have to be four times wider at the base or they would be stupidly steep, and it's my estimation that they simply won't fit within the current parcels. Maybe they can create new parcel shapes that are less elongated or perhaps one-off parcels that are much bigger, but they would likely have to re-write the code that places parcels if some vary greatly in scale.  Hopefully a dev will correct me on this, because scale and verticality are important aspects to me, for that sense of awe and immersion, and the OP's screenshots are very lackluster.

[elvo 423]

and the OP's screenshots are very lackluster.

in what sense lackluster?

 

 

 For mountains to be four times taller they would also have to be four times wider at the base or they would be stupidly steep, and it's my estimation that they simply won't fit within the current parcels. 

well they can just make it impossible to climb them, my point was that if they stay the size they currently are while being so easy to climb they can just remove them, wouldnt make a differecnce

 

i think about mountains ingame of a gameplay mechanic for sieging and strategic play, and they dont offer that at the moment

[th3gatekeeper 400]

Graphically, you might have some issues. 

It seems you want view distance to be further away. I have only dabbled in Unity a little, but I think it would require quite a bit of work in order to code mountains so they can be seen at a further distance. Moreover, you would need to add extra scaling at that distance so if you were playing at high GFX settings it wouldnt nuke your GPU trying to render all that from a super far distance.

TLDR: While I get what you are getting at, I also dont necessarily feel its a huge PROBLEM with the game. Its more a "polish" type thing that can either be done later, or ignored considering its such a minor piece of the puzzle to this game. Maybe Im just not the adventurer type... so its not a bid deal to me, but thats my 2 cents



Jumping: Yes its a bit wonky atm. I think they are still working on it. I know that if you stand still and jump and in the air hit "forward" you wont move forward. Its a rather awkward thing as well when trying to get ontop of things. So that could be improved too. 

[pang 4,174]

I wouldn't count it.  I think the OP's observation might be the result of a short-sighted limitation of the parcel-stitching method of procedural generation.  Meaning, each individual landscape element likely has to be wholly contained within a single parcel, regardless of it's shape.  For mountains to be four times taller they would also have to be four times wider at the base or they would be stupidly steep, and it's my estimation that they simply won't fit within the current parcels. Maybe they can create new parcel shapes that are less elongated or perhaps one-off parcels that are much bigger, but they would likely have to re-write the code that places parcels if some vary greatly in scale.  Hopefully a dev will correct me on this, because scale and verticality are important aspects to me, for that sense of awe and immersion, and the OP's screenshots are very lackluster.

Pretty sure that's not how it works that each parcel is self contained. I fully expect multiple parcels to make up mountain ranges and such. Also the procedural generation isn't just 100% automatic. It still gets a final dev pass before being used, so yeah they can and will adjust and tweak terrain as needed, IMO.

[Gummiel 506]

Pretty sure that's not how it works that each parcel is self contained. I fully expect multiple parcels to make up mountain ranges and such. Also the procedural generation isn't just 100% automatic. It still gets a final dev pass before being used, so yeah they can and will adjust and tweak terrain as needed, IMO.

Yep how I understood it too, basically the game procedually generate a world, and then a dev(or more) go over it to fix oddities to make it look right

[bahamutkaiser 2,378]

Lol, these discussions are so funny ????

[ecce 15]

Pretty sure that's not how it works that each parcel is self contained. I fully expect multiple parcels to make up mountain ranges and such.

 

I really don't think this is the case. Each parcel will need to be "terrain level" (think sea level except... flat grass) at the edges, so that they can fit next to one another. This means that the map will overall have the same height – height variation must only come within a given parcel. Take a look at the mountain range and caldera parcels below for an example; also note that no parcels with water features (such as the woodlands creek) have the water feature crossing the parcel boundary.

 

If features crossed parcels what would be the point of "parcels" anyway? A parcel is just a pre-packaged collection of cells that ensure that those cells are put together in a way that makes sense and allow the parcels to then be pieced together Tetris-style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pang 4,174]

I really don't think this is the case. Each parcel will need to be "terrain level" (think sea level except... flat grass) at the edges, so that they can fit next to one another. This means that the map will overall have the same height – height variation must only come within a given parcel. Take a look at the mountain range and caldera parcels below for an example; also note that no parcels with water features (such as the woodlands creek) have the water feature crossing the parcel boundary.

 

If features crossed parcels what would be the point of "parcels" anyway? A parcel is just a pre-packaged collection of cells that ensure that those cells are put together in a way that makes sense and allow the parcels to then be pieced together Tetris-style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your examples are self contained because they are meant for keeps and castles to be placed on the flat areas. That's not a mountain range either, just a platform to put a castle on basically.

 

Not going to dig for old news articles and updates because its not that important but we have seen actual mountain ranges and rivers and such extend to multiple parcels. So yeah I wouldn't take the few parcels we have seen and specific purpose made parcels as gospel as to how they will be in the live game.

[KrakkenSmacken 4,812]

in what sense lackluster?

 

 

well they can just make it impossible to climb them, my point was that if they stay the size they currently are while being so easy to climb they can just remove them, wouldnt make a differecnce

 

i think about mountains ingame of a gameplay mechanic for sieging and strategic play, and they dont offer that at the moment

I think your completely wrong.

 

There are several passes through the mountains that can not be passed more than a couple of people at a time, so would be a choke point in a fight.

 

Your also forgetting or not realizing that part of castle warfare and defense is siege equipment.  That don't jump.

 

Just because you can't see how they could be tactically used, doesn't mean other people can't figure out how to.

 

Want to prove it, go start a 5V5 on the steep sides of a mountain and see how much different it feels.

Edited January 9, 2017 by KrakkenSmacken

[Nivhawk 243]

I guess I'll throw my two cents into the pile. 

Simply, I think the near unlimited ability to climb the mountains should be tweaked. Perhaps adding a mechanic where players are unable to walk up mountains once the slope or grade is x%. 

If trees can't grow on those slopes I don't think players should be able to walk up there either.

 

[Jah 7,713]

Simply, I think the near unlimited ability to climb the mountains should be tweaked. Perhaps adding a mechanic where players are unable to walk up mountains once the slope or grade is x%. 

 

 

There are slopes in game that are too steep to climb.

[elvo 423]

There are several passes through the mountains that can not be passed more than a couple of people at a time, so would be a choke point in a fight.

 

Want to prove it, go start a 5V5 on the steep sides of a mountain and see how much different it feels.

im not talking about the foot of the mountain, im talking about the top of the mountains and the way up there (would rather not have a 5v5 with how laggy the server are anyways)

 

 

Your also forgetting or not realizing that part of castle warfare and defense is siege equipment.  That don't jump.

 

point still stands, i dont think you want an enemy in your base, if he has siege stuff with him or not

 

 

 

Just because you can't see how they could be tactically used, doesn't mean other people can't figure out how to.

theres no game mechanic ingame to prove the mountains "usefulness" yet, im just pointing to the possibility of a "big" flaw but i guess others will figure the tactics out? :^)

[elvo 423]

There are slopes in game that are too steep to climb.

fair enough, but there are too many "slopes" you should not be able to climb but still can