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

Fifty shades of greyboxing - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Yes, but without voxels, you might have a section of wall that's either alive, or it's dead. With voxels, the enemy could destroy the top portion of a wall enough to basically make it into a sort of ramp, so that people can actually start breaching there. OR destroy the parts of the ramparts allowing the defenders to fire on you from cover.

 

However you look at it, destroying a whole wall (or even whole sections with just HP and no voxelization) HAS to take longer than destroying individual voxels of a wall. If it took an hour to take out 5 bricks on a wall, what would be the point of voxel destruction?

 

So, the general fact is, the more options you have in damaging a wall, the harder it is to defend that wall. And the fact that voxelization allows walls to be partially/gradually destroyed makes all the difference.

 

Doesn't mean it's suddenly super ultra easy to take down everyone's walls without them being defended. It just means it's easier to do so, than if your options were only "get this wall/section to 0HP, or don't." You can cause a lot more problems for the defenders in between "this wall is gone" and "this wall is totally fully here, doing it's job."

This is assuming that a wall is 1 vox thick what if its 7 vox thick?


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't necessarily be cheap, though. If it takes you X minutes to successfully destroy that ramp enough that it will be unusable by the attackers, then that's X minutes you're spending focusing on a ramp and not people trying to virtually murder virtual-you. Since a ramp is basically a wall that tapers into the ground, I'd imagine it's probably not a quick-and-easy task to destroy a whole ramp. That, and we might have siege ladders or other tools to use to climb things without just giving up hope because a ramp is gone. That, and once you destroy that ramp, you're stuck either down below with the attackers, or up above in a smaller place. If you can destroy the ramp, then the attackers can just sit back and destroy all the walls/supports for your capture point building, leaving you in less and less safety as time goes on. OR, they can just destroy the wall/floor behind the ramp, until it's a new ramp. If that makes sense.

 

Just things to consider, is all. I just mean that, something like destroying a ramp is only as cheap as whatever the attackers can also do with voxel destruction. 8P Strangely enough, being able to destroy that ramp would only be definitely cheap if other parts of the building were immune to voxel destruction.

what if after you put in the time to destroy your ramp it downgrades to a ruined version of a ramp that restricts passage to 1 player at a time this still allows a tactical advantage but lets travel happen.


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hey, just notice this...

 

What are all the colored / numbered boxes on the Centaur model?  Some kind of artist modeling black magic technique, or does it hint at a mechanic (hit boxes?) ?

OHHH hit boxes and damage modifiers


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

pang, on 04 Jun 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:snapback.png

That's one way to look at it, however what if that section of wall/door, etc. where a majority of the attacking force is gathered to attack, which is also where the majority of the defending force is located.

 

The remainder of the defending force is scattered along the remaining wall areas watching for attacks, that way if part of the attacking force shifts there attack to a different part of the wall to attack, the defending watchers can alert the rest of the defending force so an appropriate number can shift to the new attack location.

 

Now I'm not saying the smaller defending force will (always) end up winning the siege against a much larger attacking force, but they can, it would all depend on mechanics/rule set/etc. governing resurrections, resurrection locations, siege equipment, player spawns who join in the game later in the day, etc...

 

Lots of ideas today. Maybe a Guard Captain disp. that can detect damage to the keep on minimap.


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but it's also a lot harder to see what part of the wall's face is taking damage when you're standing atop the wall. It's not like the inside's gonna show a hole until they get far enough through your wall to start damaging the inside stones. Plus, being able to make small holes in the wall's voxels makes sneaky, sapper-type infiltrations much more possible. Maybe you have your main forces attacking in an extravagant fashion in a couple of spots, but you have a small team of stealth specialists sneak up to the wall in some dark corner, and either plant explosives or pickaxe the crap out of it or something.

 

Sure, having sections of wall with HP bars could still allow for something like this, but, there are still differences. If a whole section of wall "dies," that's going to be pretty blatantly obvious -- there's suddenly a gap in the entire wall. Whereas, if you just damage a part of a wall enough for individuals to slip through, it's a lot less noticeable.

 

Besides, the defenders versus attackers thing doesn't really deal address how you can break through the wall. Even with just one big 100m wall chunk with an HP bar, if the attackers are attacking that wall, the defenders are trying to stop them from attacking that wall. But, with voxels, there are a lot more places to actually damage the wall, and to repair, as opposed to "Just use repair abilities on this whole wall/10M section of wall." It's more precise circumstances for the defending force to worry about that the attacking force doesn't really have to "worry" about.

All to often in RTW it was a better strat to abandon the walls sometimes and focus on a more effective choke point INSIDE the castle(the streets usually). Don't think all the action HAS to happen outside.


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if after you put in the time to destroy your ramp it downgrades to a ruined version of a ramp that restricts passage to 1 player at a time this still allows a tactical advantage but lets travel happen.

 

I know there's a limit to multiquote, but you could couple at least 3 quotes into a post. beside that, yeah, it wouldn't even be necessary to maintain one voxel. assuming you want to limit the paths available to a wall or keep, you'd just destroy all but one ramp, that makes it easy enough for you to traverse, while also making it easy to defend, beside fall mechanism, if the fall mechanisms aren't too bad, you can blow up the last ramp after everyone is in and just jump out if needed.

 

I really hope we get more comprehensive castles though, I know the dilemma of third person viewpoint, but it would be nice if there were some tight spaces, viewpoint can change to first person just like any other action platformer when your in a crawl space or slip space. It would be nice if some of the paths up to the walls on many forts and castles were ladders and twisted tower stairwells. I know it can get complicated with large groups and full collision, but repositioning around a castle and coordinating with allies is part of teamwork. You can't show your talent and ability if there is no challenge.

 

Centaurs don't really need to be on wall duty, and ladders and stairwells can be made large enough for a Champion or Minotaur to use or pass in.

 

It would also be interesting to see race specific gates and defenses, like a Dwarven stronghold with many defensive doorways that Centaurs and Minotaurs can't pass though, and humans and elfs have to crawl in, without being able to fight correctly, giving Dwarves and Guneaceans the advantage in accessing and defending.

 

I mean, could you imagine the all Dwarven Guild of Dwarfurious in a Dwarven stronghold which had to be beaten to the ground because all the entry ways were too small?


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what is being seen, definitely cool to see an insight on the design process and it is a treat for people who are interested in going into this field to get some behind the scene looks. Thank you for this!

 

It all sounds really nice, but there definitely is some valid concern about how voxels will be integrated in the siege mechanics. Siege mechanics certainly is another layer of combat that needs solid execution ontop of the player combat as well so I see the interesting challenges here.

 

Do you guys have any ideas or proposal at all, like just a general idea of where you might feel best to attack the challenge of programming voxels with the greybox keeps? Just curious here!

 

I can only imagine how much more challenging it would be on a larger scale and that would require alpha testing on things like wall hitpoints and deterioration rates to get a better idea to make defense or attacking more sustainable but at the same time not an exertion/chore to attack/defend with upwards of 100+ players.

 

Btw the Knight animation was really nice and I liked the cape, it looked really natural, just as a compliment <3

Edited by Lastgirl~

The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters. - Audrey Hepburn “:♡.•♬✧⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾*+:•*∴
Read more at brainyquote.com/search_results.html#KTJ4dHyeiltlKOTM.99

mz_Yr9k_I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is assuming that a wall is 1 vox thick what if its 7 vox thick?

 

No it isn't. Destroying one voxel, whether or not there's another voxel behind it, has to take less time than destroying an entire N x N section of wall all at once by getting its HP down to zero. Or, if you'd prefer, voxels have to have less HP than an entire section of wall would have.

 

Also, if a given wall section is 100 voxels long (for example), and you're only putting a 28x28 voxel hole in it, that's only a portion of the whole section of wall. In other words, if the wall's not made out of voxels, and you give it 1,000HP, then you suddenly decide the wall's made out of voxels, then the total HP of all its voxels, added up, would still be 1,000HP. Just, now, you can destroy 10% of the wall, or 50% of the wall, or 70% of the wall, etc. So, you can still destroy the whole section, if you want. It's just a gradual destruction now, because voxels. You can make a hole just big enough for individuals to get through, or you can make a whole big enough for 2 or 3 people abreast can fit through, etc. You can make the hole as large as you're able.

 

Without voxels, you couldn't achieve the same dynamic level of wall-breaching without designating a whole bunch of different-sized modules of the wall to be "killed" independently of one another.

 

what if after you put in the time to destroy your ramp it downgrades to a ruined version of a ramp that restricts passage to 1 player at a time this still allows a tactical advantage but lets travel happen.

 

I dunno how that would happen if you've voxel-ishly destroyed the ramp, since that would mean free-form destruction. I guess you could make an indestructable ramp core, so that you could basically only destroy the ramp down to that core, which still is wide enough and functional enough as a ramp to let 1 person at a time go up it? *shrug*. That somewhat defeats the purpose of allowing voxel destruction at all, though.

 

All to often in RTW it was a better strat to abandon the walls sometimes and focus on a more effective choke point INSIDE the castle(the streets usually). Don't think all the action HAS to happen outside.

Oh, I know. We were specifically comparing defending the walls without voxel tech to defending the walls with voxel tech. Not just talking about defense of the whole fortress in general. That's why it was so specific to outside/wall action. 8P

Edited by Lephys

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed the individual properties (i.e. hardness, load capacity, hp, exc) will have to be dialed in to equal the equivalent of busting through the 1000hp wall in your example. After that is achieved it should actually be harder to raid because each "attackable" sized piece of wall will have a fresh "1000 hp" and all the defenders have to do is keep inching you around the walls so its a fresh spot every time :)

Edited by KRIPTIK

KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hey, just notice this...

 

What are all the colored / numbered boxes on the Centaur model?  Some kind of artist modeling black magic technique, or does it hint at a mechanic (hit boxes?) ?

 

 

OHHH hit boxes and damage modifiers

 

 

LOL.

 

No, that is a UV mapping texture to make it easier to line up textures on a model.

 

Source: Skilled graphics programmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the walls do not look real since they are too thick but i hope that would change with the time.

I think it's practical for some fantasy deviation, as magic and Minotaurs would change the way you live or build a wall, you typically want a wall to be obstructive, if one confessor can melt a foot of stone per minute, you'd make your walls several feet thick...


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heheh Pann moved me this direction as my question was pulled out of the Grey Boxing vid :)

 

How do you all think we protect the keep from us diggers?

 

When Blixtev was on the podcasts a while back he mentioned one of the values the campaign teams would see for maintaining combat crafters was keep improvement and repair. In the vid Jon mentioned that out in the campaigns we might find a keep that is in a crumbled state but repairable. Hopefully we see it cheaper to do 75% repair instead of 100% create of these things.  When Blixtev was asked about about the ability to defend the keeps he brought up the digging/sapping attack and how we could possible use stone on the floors to slow the digging a tunnel into the keep. 

 

So do you think its a take a stone, place a stone concept? Or maybe having 50 stones opens up a square X by Y that we drop down and its like a horizontal Tetris game where we try and use our stones as efficiently as possible? 

 

If i over shoot my target and end up coming up inside the walls but also inside a sub-building of a keep does that mean the floor of that sub building adds more effort? Might be worth it to come up out of sight.


Don't forget, the one EK that no one will judge you for looting your guilds treasury is Anhrez's Doober Shack. Where you can take those long con gains and 'simplify' them to more easily fit in your inventory. While you are unloading your hard earned winnings, swing by the Bazaar and pick up something to celebrate your genius.

LR0tCJt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how this plays out, looks great thus far. My question would be, how much control will the player have over the architectural style (and any resultant utilitarian (dis)advantages) of Campaign World structures and their progression from Rank 1 onward? If I stumble onto a partially ruined fort in a CW and renovate it, am I tied to the original architectural style or will I have some freedom to strategically customize my defensive structures? If halfway through a campaign my primary opponent shifts from squishy casters to heavy meat will I be able to adjust my defenses accordingly or am I locked in to decisions made early in the Spring? Will all Rank 3 Keeps look the same?

 

I'd love to see a "tech tree" for CW assets, specifically defensive structures. Player gets wide control of his defenses but with limited resources so he's forced to make tough decisions between, say, building a glacis or adding machicolations to his walls, or between square and round towers. Do you want to fill your walls with rubble and sand to help them withstand heavy artillery and battering or do you want taller walls with more favorable angles to increase enfilading fire? What about a moat or defensive foreworks? Certain choices lead to other options much like the Civ Tech Tree except that you can't research everything. If at some point, as in the scenario above, a guild is faced with the need to adapt their defenses to counter a new offensive strategy they can do so just like you can unlearn talents in many MMOs, once you've reallocated your building points appropriately you can finalize it and renovations begin. Could even add a "construction time" to the tech tree when re-allocating points so an owner could weigh the benefits of a renovation with the cost/time it would take to complete.

 

That would grant players maximum freedom without allowing for hooligan-shaped castles. You'd likely see cities and fortresses become more unique as campaigns progressed as well, each with its own set of strengths and weaknesses based on the decisions made by its' builder(s) just like one would in real life. It also adds structure to the timeline of progression so that a strongholds' defensibility keeps pace with players that, in theory, become more powerful as a Campaign progresses.


2eyfm20.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes me think of a customizable ring around each castle that can be populated with defenses (moats, spikes, exc...) It should be easy enough to map it to the structure so it conforms as the building upgrades and changes shape. Also as the structure is upgraded the band gets thicker providing more safety. Sorry just trying to get all the ideas out of my head, even the bad ones :)


KRIPTIKserratedv3_zps4ptlmh6o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes me think of a customizable ring around each castle that can be populated with defenses (moats, spikes, exc...) It should be easy enough to map it to the structure so it conforms as the building upgrades and changes shape. Also as the structure is upgraded the band gets thicker providing more safety. Sorry just trying to get all the ideas out of my head, even the bad ones :)

 

I love the ideas that would help create useful roles for campaign crafters not only helping create the Stone ring but could lumber be used to build a first layer palisade to slow the attackers? 


Don't forget, the one EK that no one will judge you for looting your guilds treasury is Anhrez's Doober Shack. Where you can take those long con gains and 'simplify' them to more easily fit in your inventory. While you are unloading your hard earned winnings, swing by the Bazaar and pick up something to celebrate your genius.

LR0tCJt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that this may seem nitpicking but it comes from castle or fortress designs in the middle ages. Bastions are towers built out at various points to provide enfilading fire along the front/base of the walls between those bastions. It was usually chambered at the summit to help provide cover for the soldiers in it who use bows and javelins as well as (possibly) boiling oil or even rocks. The 'extensions' on the walls as shown in the greyboxing are wide open both for use as firing platforms and enfilading fire but are also completely exposed for soldiers using them. The top of a castle wall should have a smaller 'wall' about 1 meter high across the entire width between bastions. This will allow crouching soldiers to move rapidly and safely across the top (at least from bowfire - the basic ranged soldier weapon). Artillery weapons (Trebuchet, catapult, onager are a different matter). The crenelations atop this wall allow for soldiers to move safely along the top of the castle wall and into position to 'pop up' at the gaps between the short extensions of the crenelations to use their weapons. They also provide for 'channeling, attackers to the gaps when they attempt to storm the wall physically. 

 

As the greyboxing stands, moving defenders across the top of the wall exposes them to attacker fire repeatedly as they move from block unit to block unit across the wall top. This is a minor point I suppose and the present design could be there for the 'fun game' factor with which I have absolutely no problem. I would rather have fun than be realistically enclosed. However since the 'realistic' design for the defenders is better it may well be needed because of the potential for 'voxel destruction' thru artillery and magic. Considering the time and resources (and lives) it would take to repair or improve a keep then taking it by an attacker too easily would tend to force more players into a simple mobile forces and no effort to try and build or repair any fortification.

 

This is just an observation, folks, so don't be too harsh in criticism. Discussion however is welcome (including disagreement).

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...