Re: [crossfire] Graphism, tiles, size, and such
Hello. > I think when things were changed a while back so that image size & > footprint of the creature were not tied together, making hill giants 1x1 > footprint (and other similar tall creatures have a square footprint) was > either done or investigated, but not done or reverted back. For players, > higher density monsters tends to be an advantage (those AoE spells hits > more targets). I can't remember if there might now have been some map > breakage by changing this, and monsters could now wander to places they > were not envisioned going, etc. Don't remember those changes, but then I don't remember everything that happened on the project :) > There are also some other cases where monsters should be rectangular - > wyverns come to mind. But there really isn't good support for going from a > 1x2 monsters to a 2x1 monster as it changes direction. Note that "turning transports" actually fulfill that, in the sense that even if they are 2x2, they don't occupy all space depending on the orientation. Check the "/test/boat" map (just fixed a glitch there), the transport turns and can go through 1 height passage when horizontal even though it is 2x2. Granted, the code seems slightly hackish... So this could be expanded to monsters if needed and wanted, maybe making it even cleaner. > The gtk client at least supported resizing the images used for the map and > inventory. Good to know, then bigger pictures can be made for clients which would display bigger than 32x32 :) > As resolution has gone up (a 25x25 map at 32 pixels/image is > only 800x800), bigger images could certainly be done. I'm not sure the > correct size - whether 128x128 would be best, and then scale down would be > best way to future proof for a while? Disadvantage is size. Yes, really big pictures could be an issue... On the other hand, if we solve that size issue, then sounds may work the same way ;) > Multispace players will likely require lots of work (does every map now > need to expanded, because otherwise that 3x3 player won't fit down those > small passage or through small doors?) but things like what space does a > spell leave the player from? True. That's why it's idly thinking :) But as a first step current maps could be "tripled" at loading, to keep'em working... Not sure it'd be worth doing that, again :) > How about incoming spells, and does the > player end up taking more damage if many 4 of his spaces are hit by a spell > (I sort of recall this was the case for monsters) Yes, monsters take more damage per square hit, I think. > But I suppose it depends on what is the minimum reasonable 'unit' for most > things to me. For small monsters, I wonder if it would be easier to let > small creatures share a space - instead of the 'is there something alive on > this space', instead each creature could have how much of the space they > use. So small creatures might only use 25% of a space, so 4 of them could > be on the same space. Though I'm not sure how you deal with what image is > used for each of those creatures. That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to implement, and whether it is worth it or not... Best regards Nicolas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Graphism, tiles, size, and such
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:26 AM Mark Wedel wrote: > On 11/11/20 12:59 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: > - should monsters be only tiled squarely (eg 1x1, 2x2, etc.), and we adjust > the sprite to reflect the height Based on personal preference, I think that having rectangular monsters is interesting, and there is no need to force everything to conform to a square. > > - should we allow sprites to overflow on top of another sprite, so the > > height > > would appear (the hill giant would then be 1x1 with a 1x2 sprite adjusted to > > its feet) I would say no. CF already does well with non-overlapping sprites looking "good", I think adding overlapping sprites in any fashion is a huge effort for minimal gain. At the very least, it's a large shift in the project direction, and one that I wouldn't like. > > Another thought was wondering about making 48x48 (or 64x64?) sprites. > > I'm not saying to redo all sprites, but maybe clients could handle resizing > > from 32x32 to 48x48 when required or directly use a 48x48 sprite. This would > > allow to slowly rework some tiles as we feel it, introducing more details. Per SilverNexus' efforts, there is already some level of support for other sizes of sprites. I would suggest that effort toward other sprite sizes be limited to alternate tilesets, and if such a tileset was ever complete enough to be used for the entire game, then the client devs can decide if they want to make it the default, and if they need any fallback logic for missing sprites. > The gtk client at least supported resizing the images used for the map and > inventory. As resolution has gone up (a 25x25 map at 32 pixels/image is only > 800x800), bigger images could certainly be done. I'm not sure the correct > size - whether 128x128 would be best, and then scale down would be best way > to future proof for a while? Disadvantage is size. When calculating the "new ideal" size, remember that many screens are rapidly increasing not only resolution, but also density. Both 2k @ 27 inches and 4k @ 27 inches are rather common right now, and densities could increase even more, especially on laptops (4k @ 15 inches is not unheard of) > But I suppose it depends on what is the minimum reasonable 'unit' for most > things to me. For small monsters, I wonder if it would be easier to let > small creatures share a space - instead of the 'is there something alive on > this space', instead each creature could have how much of the space they use. > So small creatures might only use 25% of a space, so 4 of them could be on > the same space. Though I'm not sure how you deal with what image is used for > each of those creatures. I don't really like this idea, partly because I don't see much of a reason to have it. (We're still basically a Gauntlet/Nethack/LoTR, and I like it that way.) --DraugTheWhopper ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Graphism, tiles, size, and such
On 11/11/20 12:59 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. I've been thinking about game graphics, and I'd like to share some questions and thoughts. Monsters like the hill giant (I can also think of the ArchAngel, the Retributioner, some dragons too) have an incoherent size IMO. They are 1x2 in tiles, but that only reflects their height, not their "planar" size. So I'm wondering: - should we keep that behaviour - should monsters be only tiled squarely (eg 1x1, 2x2, etc.), and we adjust the sprite to reflect the height - should we allow sprites to overflow on top of another sprite, so the height would appear (the hill giant would then be 1x1 with a 1x2 sprite adjusted to its feet) Other ideas? I think when things were changed a while back so that image size & footprint of the creature were not tied together, making hill giants 1x1 footprint (and other similar tall creatures have a square footprint) was either done or investigated, but not done or reverted back. For players, higher density monsters tends to be an advantage (those AoE spells hits more targets). I can't remember if there might now have been some map breakage by changing this, and monsters could now wander to places they were not envisioned going, etc. There are also some other cases where monsters should be rectangular - wyverns come to mind. But there really isn't good support for going from a 1x2 monsters to a 2x1 monster as it changes direction. Another thought was wondering about making 48x48 (or 64x64?) sprites. 32x32 seems quite small with current resolutions... I'm not saying to redo all sprites, but maybe clients could handle resizing from 32x32 to 48x48 when required or directly use a 48x48 sprite. This would allow to slowly rework some tiles as we feel it, introducing more details. The gtk client at least supported resizing the images used for the map and inventory. As resolution has gone up (a 25x25 map at 32 pixels/image is only 800x800), bigger images could certainly be done. I'm not sure the correct size - whether 128x128 would be best, and then scale down would be best way to future proof for a while? Disadvantage is size. Been also idly thinking of changing players to be eg 3x3 tiles, so we could have really small monsters (1x1 tiles). But that would be quite a change... In this case, maybe on the opposite sprites could stay 32x32, or even go down to 16x16, but eg players would be bigger anyway. Multispace players will likely require lots of work (does every map now need to expanded, because otherwise that 3x3 player won't fit down those small passage or through small doors?) but things like what space does a spell leave the player from? How about incoming spells, and does the player end up taking more damage if many 4 of his spaces are hit by a spell (I sort of recall this was the case for monsters) But I suppose it depends on what is the minimum reasonable 'unit' for most things to me. For small monsters, I wonder if it would be easier to let small creatures share a space - instead of the 'is there something alive on this space', instead each creature could have how much of the space they use. So small creatures might only use 25% of a space, so 4 of them could be on the same space. Though I'm not sure how you deal with what image is used for each of those creatures. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] Graphism, tiles, size, and such
Hello. I've been thinking about game graphics, and I'd like to share some questions and thoughts. Monsters like the hill giant (I can also think of the ArchAngel, the Retributioner, some dragons too) have an incoherent size IMO. They are 1x2 in tiles, but that only reflects their height, not their "planar" size. So I'm wondering: - should we keep that behaviour - should monsters be only tiled squarely (eg 1x1, 2x2, etc.), and we adjust the sprite to reflect the height - should we allow sprites to overflow on top of another sprite, so the height would appear (the hill giant would then be 1x1 with a 1x2 sprite adjusted to its feet) Other ideas? Another thought was wondering about making 48x48 (or 64x64?) sprites. 32x32 seems quite small with current resolutions... I'm not saying to redo all sprites, but maybe clients could handle resizing from 32x32 to 48x48 when required or directly use a 48x48 sprite. This would allow to slowly rework some tiles as we feel it, introducing more details. Been also idly thinking of changing players to be eg 3x3 tiles, so we could have really small monsters (1x1 tiles). But that would be quite a change... In this case, maybe on the opposite sprites could stay 32x32, or even go down to 16x16, but eg players would be bigger anyway. Best regards Nicolas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
