ACE_Jackal

The Clusterizer - Official Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

well, what are your plans on the player facing presenation of say multiple world maps?

<inserts my terrible paint job from older thread>

3mpLb4F.png

Edited by Tinnis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With this tech does that mean adventure zones can have entrance caves / portals and thus be decoupled from the mainland? If that’s possible maybe we can have public dungeons, or is it the intention for adventure zones to substitute for dungeons? I know one of the bigger hurdles was “digging” into the terrain for unity and hollowing it out to create a subterranean looking biome, but maybe this could be the solution.

Fighting against  players for tusker / olthoi dungeons on dark tide in asherons call was some of the better experiences I had in an mmorpg

Edited by Helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinnis asks a question I brought up when you guys discussed this tech briefly in a live stream.

It was mentioned that gates could potentially have multiple zones connecting to and from them. How do you plan to address the UI aspect of players selecting where to go? Do you plan on naming each "zone" uniquely so that cartographers can create functional maps? If zones aren't labeled, it would be incredibly difficult to understand where you are going (or where you came from) when the zone count climbs into the mid double digits. I suppose this could be avoided if you created an interface showing the navigable map of the campaign which highlighted where you are at, and where your potential destinations available to you are.

Just curious how you plan on showing this in-game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Version 5.8 will be add a lot of new map features such as an improved map and (hopefully) a cluster map for seeing how the zones are connected.

@Hanseshadow will we be seeing real-time data on the zone map showing the faction/guild that controls each objective? 

How will fog-of-war work on the Cluster maps? Still need to be explored?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to be a great tool good job! 

Will certainly be interesting to see the different ways this tool, and consequentially this tech, will be used in the future. 

For now all I’ll say is make an island just big enough to fit a massive fortress on and call it Aincrad. 

Go on.... indulge a fan boy :P

Thanks,

Fabulex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tinnis said:

well, what are your plans on the player facing presenation of say multiple world maps?

<inserts my terrible paint job from older thread>

 

We kicked off a team to explore what the final cluster map will look like.  So, our plans are being planned.  Should they be auto-generated or painted by hand?  I prefer auto-generated, but we need to prototype the cluster map out and see how good it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Helix said:

With this tech does that mean adventure zones can have entrance caves / portals and thus be decoupled from the mainland? If that’s possible maybe we can have public dungeons, or is it the intention for adventure zones to substitute for dungeons? I know one of the bigger hurdles was “digging” into the terrain for unity and hollowing it out to create a subterranean looking biome, but maybe this could be the solution.

Fighting against  players for tusker / olthoi dungeons on dark tide in asherons call was some of the better experiences I had in an mmorpg

Adventure zones are meant to have more "dungeons" (forests, canyons, etc) than siege zones.  Adventure zones will still have areas you can conquer (outposts/forts), but not as many (or any) siege keeps.  5.7 includes our new rune gates, which allow players to move between the different types of zones.

Share this post


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

Tinnis asks a question I brought up when you guys discussed this tech briefly in a live stream.

It was mentioned that gates could potentially have multiple zones connecting to and from them. How do you plan to address the UI aspect of players selecting where to go? Do you plan on naming each "zone" uniquely so that cartographers can create functional maps? If zones aren't labeled, it would be incredibly difficult to understand where you are going (or where you came from) when the zone count climbs into the mid double digits. I suppose this could be avoided if you created an interface showing the navigable map of the campaign which highlighted where you are at, and where your potential destinations available to you are.

Just curious how you plan on showing this in-game. 

Right now, we're not placing multiple gates to different zones on a gate parcel.  It's been discussed, but my current process is a separate gate parcel for going to a specific zone.  I haven't written the rune gate placement system, yet (I did some planning today, though).  What I'd like to do is name the parcel "Gate to <insert zone name here>", so it's clear where the gate goes.

On top of that, I have a design for placing the gate in the world nearest to the cardinal direction that it shows on the cluster map.  For example, if a gate goes to a zone to the northeast, then the gate should be placed in the zone on the northeast of the landmass.  The connection line on the cluster map should give you a clue to run to the northeast until you find the gate.  Admittedly, some odd shaped maps might mean you need to explore more than usual to find the gate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, miraluna said:

 

@Hanseshadow will we be seeing real-time data on the zone map showing the faction/guild that controls each objective? 

How will fog-of-war work on the Cluster maps? Still need to be explored?

 

 

How it's displayed is currently being planned, so where the data is displayed and how it will be displayed is still up in the air.  We definitely want the campaign information on the cluster map and the zone map.

I haven't worked on fog of war.  I know it was turned off, because we only stored fog of war data for one zone.  With the cluster system, you could explore part of one zone, gate to another zone, and the fog of war would be explored for an area you hadn't visited.  I don't know what solution will be made for that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Hanseshadow said:

Right now, we're not placing multiple gates to different zones on a gate parcel.  It's been discussed, but my current process is a separate gate parcel for going to a specific zone.  I haven't written the rune gate placement system, yet (I did some planning today, though).  What I'd like to do is name the parcel "Gate to <insert zone name here>", so it's clear where the gate goes.

On top of that, I have a design for placing the gate in the world nearest to the cardinal direction that it shows on the cluster map.  For example, if a gate goes to a zone to the northeast, then the gate should be placed in the zone on the northeast of the landmass.  The connection line on the cluster map should give you a clue to run to the northeast until you find the gate.  Admittedly, some odd shaped maps might mean you need to explore more than usual to find the gate.

First off, thanks for responding @Hanseshadow, its fun discussing this stuff with the person developing it. I wanted to give you some more clarity on what had been explained (sorta) in the most recent live stream talking about this system.

JTodd had mentioned that he was concerned that one gate connecting to only one other gate, might lead to "Crowded" zones where gates were everywhere.  To solve this he had an idea where a single gate could connect to multiple other gates. This was what spawned Tinnis's diagram, and my own question, seeking to understand how such a system might work. If this system did exist, it would lead to complications at the interface level, where you'd have to name each "zone" (so you know where you were going/selecting). Without this, a player wouldn't have any idea where he was going, and navigation through 20+ clustered zones would be difficult to say the least. Imagine trying to catch up to a group, and not knowing what named route they took.

I personally think your current implementation is much simpler and solves these issues of needing new UI components to address the overcomplicated destination selection problem. Similarly, the idea that gates are geographically placed to indicate where they lead to is also an intuitive way to help explorers and cartographers explore cluster maps. It just "makes sense". 

If JTodd's concerns are valid, that the gate parcels are too big and having 5-10 gates on a "hub" zone would take up too much space... I'd recommend looking at shrinking the portals themselves. Gate parcels should be 1x1's, with only the "portal" as shown in some of the early concept art... 

theambush_watermarked.png

and...

Ban_Portals.png

These images were more in-line with my expectations on the physical design of portals. Simple "windows" that someone could click on to travel through. I'm sure the current structures were merely placeholders, but I don't see any reason why multiple windows couldn't be placed in a 1x1 parcel like the image directly above showcases. Surely the gate parcels could hold these smaller window assets easily? Even 5 to 10 of them if you wanted.

Anyhow, my point was merely that your thought process on portals is spot on with my expectations of the Runegate/Moongate/Portal system;

  • Gates are 1:1, one entrance leads to the same one exit everytime.
  • Gates locations on the zone map mean something, in this case, a gate on the north, travels to the next zone north of the current one.
  • Navigating portals is not subject to random destination rules
  • Mapping the Campaign Worlds and visually representing them for your guild (using Photoshop or whatever) will be easy because of the above selections

Using the system you've proposed, it should also be fairly easy to draw arrows connecting island zones to one another on your in-game Mapping system. This would help new players navigate through the system. These arrows, however, should only show up after actually using the portal and having the fog of war cleared from both connecting runegates.

Kudos to this design. This clears up a lot of my concerns. I only have one question remaining;

Is it possible to allow Players to "cast" runegates, proximally to the edge of a map, to connect to an island without needing to rely on a fixed runegate? This will likely be an excellent way to bypass gate camps that are so common in EVE Online which uses a similar system for travel (and for bypassing gates).

 

P.S: @Pann, Hanses replies did not trigger/get added to the Devtracker API.

Edited by Scree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hanseshadow said:

How it's displayed is currently being planned, so where the data is displayed and how it will be displayed is still up in the air.  We definitely want the campaign information on the cluster map and the zone map.

I haven't worked on fog of war.  I know it was turned off, because we only stored fog of war data for one zone.  With the cluster system, you could explore part of one zone, gate to another zone, and the fog of war would be explored for an area you hadn't visited.  I don't know what solution will be made for that issue.

Personally, I would prefer that Runegates had multiple Portals. I'd also prefer you not attempt to simulate proximity and direction for the relationships between zones. They are broken hunks of dying worlds, floating in endless mist. They don't need to be near each other or have directional relationships. You also don't need to represent all the Runegate-routes on one handy map.

Share this post


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

Is it possible to allow Players to "cast" runegates, proximally to the edge of a map, to connect to an island without needing to rely on a fixed runegate? This will likely be an excellent way to bypass gate camps that are so common in EVE Online which uses a similar system for travel (and for bypassing gates).

 

P.S: @Pann, Hanses replies did not trigger/get added to the Devtracker API.

I haven't seen any planning for being able to gate between zones without a rune gate.  I think there were some water cooler design discussions, but I'm not aware of a design that has been written up for personal gates.

Our current system teleports players from the gate onto a 256x256 meter rune gate parcel.  The landing points around that parcel are random (much like landing around a gate in Eve randomly places your ship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hanseshadow said:

We kicked off a team to explore what the final cluster map will look like.  So, our plans are being planned.  Should they be auto-generated or painted by hand?  I prefer auto-generated, but we need to prototype the cluster map out and see how good it looks.

Should take a peek at how https://www.thebrain.com/ deals with relationships.  May give you some good ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scree said:

P.S: @Pann, Hanses replies did not trigger/get added to the Devtracker API.

1

Thanks for the heads up. We're getting him added to Dev Tracker. (It has to be done manually.) We also noticed that the Testing > 5.7 threads weren't showing up in Dev Tracker and that will be corrected as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hanseshadow said:

Should they be auto-generated or painted by hand?  I prefer auto-generated, but we need to prototype the cluster map out and see how good it looks.

In the brief time I was playing EVE, I found the DOTLAN maps (http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve) to be much more useful for navigating around and providing info than the in-game star map (https://webimg.ccpgamescdn.com/kvd74o0q2fjg/1OHu2NDuxKWkSSKOOGYCMM/4cdf5dc8f95a34120a405442b3ebb2c2/3dstarmap.png_w=1280&fm=jpg). So there's an example of functional > pretty :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember using those, too, until I wrote my own map system for myself (I used to play Eve a lot).  In other news, the Clusterizer is done today, aside from a bug I need to track down in the next few minutes. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay!

Now its just a matter of time before players figure out how to camp the crap out of runegates and make everyone suffer for invading sovereign territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 2:00 PM, Scree said:

Yay!

Now its just a matter of time before players figure out how to camp the crap out of runegates and make everyone suffer for invading sovereign territory.

Camping chokepoints is always a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zolaz said:

Camping chokepoints is always a good thing.

It's not fun, when it's the only gate between you and your destination and you can't rally help to break the camp.  We'll keep an eye on camping issues.  However, camping a gate is a valid tactic to reduce support from arriving, when a keep is under siege.

The next map we have designed has multiple gates on the beachhead going to different zones (however, this can change...we haven't tested it, yet).  All of the zones have at least three or more gates leading into them.

If someone on your faction lets you know that a gate is camped, you can go around the zone through other gates and then gate back towards your destination from a different direction.  Your faction could choose to counter a gate camp by circling around behind them or simply continue on to your destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.