Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Tinnis

Moon gates to travel between continent (40x40) maps

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

a cell is 128m X 128m

a zone is 40 by 40 cells [1,600 cells]

Tyranny is 160 of the old cells... right? not the new ones.. i may have blundered a bit in muh maths.


"Float like a Butterfly.... Sting like a Misplaced Decimal Point" - Xarrayne 2018

YouTube Channel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jtoddcoleman said:

The target location/destinations are not fixed.  Each gate has multiple possible destinations, and in addition, you arrive at a randomized location in the target cell.  And before you ask, no, you won't be able to jump inside a castle or stronghold.  Those won't be valid locations.

Todd

 

Is the "target cell" fixed?

Can you clarify what you mean by possible destinations? I hope we won be teleporting to far away continents or random places. Tinnis map is what i assume would be okay but it seems you guys are talking about more than 2-3 targets which seems a little over the top.

It is a little confusing to explain but what i mean is that i hope we wont see faction bases, area X or area Y as possible destinations since in that case it turns more in a fast travel than a portal to another continent. It should only port you to the continent and leave the rest to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Destrin said:

Tyranny is 160 of the old cells... right? not the new ones.. i may have blundered a bit in muh maths.

<deperately looks up the work of past tinnis, cos he doesn't remember>

hQGPJ5w.png

yes! old tyranny is 160 vs a zone of 400

new cell size would be 640 on tyranny out of 1,600 zone

assuming past me know stuffz

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finland said:

@DustFinger No bro. Continents will be linked by moon gates but remember that CF is a pvp game so ppl will just camper the moon spots to gank ppl. This will kill the game like happend for other games. An open big world with multy connected regions (without a loading screen) is the best choice. 

Like famously-dead-game, Eve Online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fefner said:

bigger the better, Daoc had no problems with large a scale map or did eso, both with no instances apart from dungeons. Eso map seemed smaller because you could port to a keep that your realm owned but if you took that away it was a huge zone.

The original daoc frontier was by  far the best with no ports, took a while to get across the zone which made speed classes important even though they migh have weakened your group setup. This will make planning group disciplines important. Big maps also helps to spread the action up meaning less lag.

Speaking as one of the original alpha-1 testers of DAoC that was in daily contact with the dev team in 1999 (kinda the same situation as here and now), the backend tech for the map was running each "zone" as a separate server-process on a single hardware-server. For example, the "Frontier" was actually made up of six or seven "zones" per realm, plus four or five almost completely water-filled zones separating them. So it's wasn't really one big seamless zone.

The servers would hand off players between each other as they crossed from zone to zone. And then each "server" (world) was a cluster of physical hardware-servers that each ran a number of server-processes. I still remember how excited the dev team was when they figured out how to run multiple server-processes on one piece of server-hardware, because it meant seamless loading between "zones", and made the world feel like one giant zone. (As opposed to how EverQuest was doing it - with a "loading" screen between zones.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tinnis said:

will we ever see moongate like entities to make EK to EK more immersive?

the current lobby presenation is .......eh

could be far more visually appealing design wise, rather than feelling like browsing TF2 lobby servers :P [with about as immersive names!]

Spoiler

 

e.g. going back to more of the look for the 'worlds' and universe art presentation etc

eternal-kingdoms.jpg

 

 

Now that you mention it I'm hoping we'll get the option to enter campaigns from one way moon gates in our EK's. So like high import campaigns you have huge pack animals and baggage trains going through these big gates that are only open for a day or so.

 

Maybe gates are a POI of sorts that occur naturally in each campaign world zone, and they're called Moon Gates because they move with the cycles of the moon?

AUMJHuj.png

In any case, the further we can get from lobby based world swapping and towards immersion the better.

Edited by baerin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really weird that this is the first time we are hearing about this. I actually think this creates for interesting mechanics in terms of controlling movement between "islands". The randomness of where you'd pop out is the only downside to it. 

Regardless, this really needs an expansive article covering the topic and not 3 offhand comments by devs to fully explain this system and its design necessity.


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. /r/showerthought:

following along the theme of the name - have you considered making some gates only active at set in games times and/or seasons? [e.g. "nightime gate only" or day etc]"

[see also previous question about if players have to say repair gate ruins before they work as well etc]

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Scree said:

It's really weird that this is the first time we are hearing about this. I actually think this creates for interesting mechanics in terms of controlling movement between "islands". The randomness of where you'd pop out is the only downside to it. 

Regardless, this really needs an expansive article covering the topic and not 3 offhand comments by devs to fully explain this system and its design necessity.

I don't like to talk about stuff when it's still being figured out.  That's one of the most unfortunate aspects of a crowdfunded projects; you have to make bold prognostications about systems and features long before you start working on them, and inevitably things change (technical limitations, resources available, design underpinnings, whatever) that force changes or open up new opportunities.    Sometimes those changes are good (like finding the resources to move from archetypes to Race/Class) and sometimes they are painful (crap!  the strongholddesign was based on the assumption that building placement would use lots, and we ended up more freeform placement.  Now we need to add "tokens" to limit the number of buildings per parcel.)

I've taken the philosophy that, ultimately, my job is to give you guys the best game that I can.  If that means we have to change things, we change them.  Some people will get upset because they don't agree with a particular change, but if the game is good that's what really matters.  (And conversely, if we check every box exactly as stated at the beginning -- but the game is terrible -- we're screwed.)  So by that logic, my #1 priority has to be the quality of the game experience.

Todd

ps. yes, this will be the topic of a future Tu/Th update.


J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't have a problem with loading when going through a moon gate.  You are moving to a different continent after all which could be completely different from what you were in to begin with.  Since it drops you at a "random" location, I would hope they have windows where it switches the location so everyone who goes through within the 5 minute window will all go to the same spot which will prevent groups from being split up.  Or have some sort of mechanic to keep guilds/groups together when using a gate.  Being there are multiple gates, it would be hard to camp all of the gates all of the time.  You would be spreading your force out kind of thin depending on how many gates there are.  

Also, as Soulein mentioned, 40x40 is bigger, but Being that Tyranny is about 1/3 the size, it doesn't feel all that big.  Maybe 60x60 would be better?  I would hate for it to scale up too much and cause performance issues, but at the same time more room is always nice especially if there are more places to explore.


 

Formerly known as - AmazingTacoBurito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jtoddcoleman said:

I don't like to talk about stuff when it's still being figured out.  That's one of the most unfortunate aspects of a crowdfunded projects; you have to make bold prognostications about systems and features long before you start working on them, and inevitably things change (technical limitations, resources available, design underpinnings, whatever) that force changes or open up new opportunities.    Sometimes those changes are good (like finding the resources to move from archetypes to Race/Class) and sometimes they are painful (crap!  the strongholddesign was based on the assumption that building placement would use lots, and we ended up more freeform placement.  Now we need to add "tokens" to limit the number of buildings per parcel.)

I've taken the philosophy that, ultimately, my job is to give you guys the best game that I can.  If that means we have to change things, we change them.  Some people will get upset because they don't agree with a particular change, but if the game is good that's what really matters.  (And conversely, if we check every box exactly as stated at the beginning -- but the game is terrible -- we're screwed.)  So by that logic, my #1 priority has to be the quality of the game experience.

Todd

ps. yes, this will be the topic of a future Tu/Th update.

A totally fair assessment of how development goes. We've been on the good side of the exchange (race/class split) and the bad (time spent figuring out combat/5.4 delays as a result of race/class split, etc). 

Like I said, I'm actually okay with this system primarily because the current game doesn't really have the geography/terrain to truly support choke points. Mountains are almost entirely passable and as a result the idea of placing a city to your advantage thus far has seemed impossible (beyond the obvious proximity to resources consideration).

Chokepoints like EVE jumpgates , in my opinion,  actually adds a few dimensions to the game. Not saying I'm thrilled of the change, but the ability to construct these moon-gates one day, might prove to be equally as interesting. Imagine islands that have no connecting moon gate, and you decide to colonize one. A discipline could be created that allows you to randomly teleport in the current campaign, with the potential to land on one of these continents. Further, it could teleport your whole group, offering unique means of infiltrating an enemy who thinks themselves safe by camping all of the entry points. 

Not a fan of instantaneous travel, but if you add a random destination component to it, it couldn't be abused to circumvent current designs around transporting materials, etc.

Lots of fun things to consider with this design that previously just weren't interesting considering the map designs.

P.S @jtoddcoleman: You've been largely absent from the official forums lately (stealthing behind the whale-forum paywall). I appreciate you gracing us plebs with your presence :P

Edited by Scree

Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scree said:

P.S @jtoddcoleman: You've been largely absent from the official forums lately (stealthing behind the whale-forum paywall). I appreciate you gracing us plebs with your presence :P

yeah it's been hard for me to keep up with the forums.  as you know (but others might not) though I'm pretty active on twitter, so that's another avenue if you're trying to bring something to my attention.

Todd

 


J Todd Coleman

ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.

Follow us on Twitter @CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook

[Rules of Conduct]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moongate system in UO was great (and underappreciated because recall spell made travel so easy). Would be cool if the destination outcome could be tied to something - moonphase, time of day, discipline power, item.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, miraluna said:

The Moongate system in UO was great (and underappreciated because recall spell made travel so easy). Would be cool if the destination outcome could be tied to something - moonphase, time of day, discipline power, item.

I agree. I like this method of imprecise control over your destination over it being completely random. SB's system was similar in that there was a circuit you needed to follow, you couldn't get from anywhere directly to anywhere, sometimes you had to go through multiple gates to get to your final destination.

Super old image:

vorringa.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...