Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Maybe it being absolute is a bit too much. But having a general rule of thumb could be a good thing Yes, I agree with that. At some level, it has to be assumed that the outside scale isn't completely uniform - a player isn't as high as the town walls, etc. Instead, I think we need to recognize that there are different scales about. What annoys me with such scaling - for buildings, I'm not speaking of objects the size of a bottle or a sword - is that it prevents abstracting the visual representation of the game from its logical one. So, although generating a 3D view (or a 2D isometric one, or any other view than the top-down 2D view) from the data grid sent by the server would technically be not too hard, those scaling issues make the result rather ridiculous :). I'm also worried by the risk of wasted work: who can tell we wouldn't need to change scales again in the future ? If we wanted to fix all the scales, we could probably do that, but would probably be a major undertaking, (...) But that also starts to get into another discussion - one which we could have, but something I think we'd probably be looking at more for the 3.0 timeframe. I tend to think that it is better to handle the whole scaling issue at once, instead of taking the transitional route - rescaling buildings alone would already mean a lot of work, both graphically and 'mapically'. Fixing all the scales later would probably mean fixing buildings again, and thus difficult work on the GFX would have been wasted (it isn't as if we had a lot of graphists... :)). I suppose that is true for everything 'the sooner the better', but there is the issue of finding time to do so. OTOH, this is one of those things that doesn't require programming experience to fix. Yeah - maybe that's the biggest problem - it is easier to code a monster than to draw it :). I guess that we could proceed by not changing any of the current maps, but building a parallel set of renewed ones (maybe linked to the old ones in a way or another, so that they can be tested by players ?). So that could be a change not arbitrarily fixed for a given release, but something that could replace the old maps once it is ready. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Mark Wedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe it being absolute is a bit too much. But having a general rule of thumb could be a good thing - otherwise things become inconsistent in weird ways. One 2x2 house could enter into a 80x80 building, where a 3x3 house enters into a 40x40 - that type of thing. I like the idea mentioned earlier of trying to keep them within a range. The ranges could even overlap somewhat. Say a house one block wide on the outside could be 1-15 tiles wide on the inside, while a two-block-wide house image could be 10-25 inside, a 3-block house 20-35, and so on. (Or some other set of ranges that fit better with the current buildings.) The bigger the building is on the outside, the bigger it would *tend* to be on the inside, but map designers would still have room for creativity. If for some reason you want a larger map inside your small building, give it a huge basement. :-) Also, there is some limit on how big multipart images can be - I'd have to look at the map protocol, but I think right now it is somewhere in the 6-8 space range. This could be fixed in various ways. I don't know if there's a limit on tile size, but there's a 1-byte limit on images sent to the server in MAX_IMAGE_SIZE. If you raise that, you soon run into MAXSOCKSENDBUF, which is currently 12239 bytes. (I discovered those when I converted the Demon_Lord into a single image and it was considerably larger than that before compression.) I was able to compress Demon_Lord, which is a 4x8 image, to 7841 bytes, but it only has two colors, so I'm guessing a more colorful image would be larger. In any case, I'm sure those limits could be raised, but it's something to consider. Also, do many players still play on an 11x11 map view? Buildings that are 5x5 or so would make that map feel *very* crowded. Maybe we could assume that by 2.0, all the clients would be capable of displaying a larger area than that? -- Aaron -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/ ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Aaron Baugher wrote: I like the idea mentioned earlier of trying to keep them within a range. The ranges could even overlap somewhat. Say a house one block wide on the outside could be 1-15 tiles wide on the inside, while a two-block-wide house image could be 10-25 inside, a 3-block house 20-35, and so on. As a brief note, I'd be inclined to say the recommended size should start greater than 1. Unless of course we have a 1 tile house outside, where the house takes much less than the full tile image ;) Also, there is some limit on how big multipart images can be - I'd have to look at the map protocol, but I think right now it is somewhere in the 6-8 space range. This could be fixed in various ways. I don't know if there's a limit on tile size, but there's a 1-byte limit on images sent to the server in MAX_IMAGE_SIZE. If you raise that, you soon run into MAXSOCKSENDBUF, which is currently 12239 bytes. (I discovered those when I converted the Demon_Lord into a single image and it was considerably larger than that before compression.) I was able to compress Demon_Lord, which is a 4x8 image, to 7841 bytes, but it only has two colors, so I'm guessing a more colorful image would be larger. I'm thinking, that for 2.0 it may be desirable to use a separate port for media (images anyway) transfer, and perhaps we could even consider http for that part (though I'd say that if we wanted to use http, we'd want to optimize things by using cgi and GET parameters, or perhaps a micro-http-server specialized for serving cf images via http (after all, non-standard-complient http can be very simple ;P)) Also, do many players still play on an 11x11 map view? Buildings that are 5x5 or so would make that map feel *very* crowded. Maybe we could assume that by 2.0, all the clients would be capable of displaying a larger area than that? Well, so far as I can tell, I'd estimate around half of active users use gcfclient2, and a majority of the others using gcfclient, meaning a significant portion of the users are on a map view probably not bigger than 15x15, which is the biggest I can usably get the gcfclient view at 1280x1024 resolution. I believe though, that for 2.0, we should consider depreciating, if not removing, gcfclient and the x11 client. Also, Gros/Lauwenmark apparently has a major update to jxclient just about ready, which looks to me like it could be promising to eventually become a prominent, if not the most prominent, client in my opinion. I believe that for 2.0 we should be able to assume that the client should be able to display at least 15x15 or so, at any resolution that client intends to support, but beyond that we should try to keep our options open for 2.0 clients for now I'd say. Another thought is, do we want to toss the 'classic' tileset? On that same note, would it be worth just plain removing tileset support in order to simplify things? Alex Schultz ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Aaron Baugher wrote: Mark Wedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there is some limit on how big multipart images can be - I'd have to look at the map protocol, but I think right now it is somewhere in the 6-8 space range. This could be fixed in various ways. I don't know if there's a limit on tile size, but there's a 1-byte limit on images sent to the server in MAX_IMAGE_SIZE. If you raise that, you soon run into MAXSOCKSENDBUF, which is currently 12239 bytes. (I discovered those when I converted the Demon_Lord into a single image and it was considerably larger than that before compression.) I was able to compress Demon_Lord, which is a 4x8 image, to 7841 bytes, but it only has two colors, so I'm guessing a more colorful image would be larger. There are certainly different things that could be done. One would be to have a separate server/process that serves the data file - that could be desirable for other reasons. I'd probably also be good to really force caching to be the standard also. But this is also a different discussion. Also, do many players still play on an 11x11 map view? Buildings that are 5x5 or so would make that map feel *very* crowded. Maybe we could assume that by 2.0, all the clients would be capable of displaying a larger area than that? I don't know how many play on 11x11 (could look at the logs and figure it out). However, one discussion was to have the map size be closer to 19x19 and not the max of 25x25 it is now. 19x19 is still good size, but start put down houses that are 5 spaces big, you may not see a whole bunch. This could also lead to other areas - the town walls should appear higher, trees perhaps bigger, etc. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Mark Wedel wrote: Aaron Baugher wrote: Also, do many players still play on an 11x11 map view? Buildings that are 5x5 or so would make that map feel *very* crowded. Maybe we could assume that by 2.0, all the clients would be capable of displaying a larger area than that? I don't know how many play on 11x11 (could look at the logs and figure it out). However, one discussion was to have the map size be closer to 19x19 and not the max of 25x25 it is now. 19x19 is still good size, but start put down houses that are 5 spaces big, you may not see a whole bunch. I don't really think it would be a problem, not seeing a whole bunch on an outdoor map, provided that the town was still easily navigable. Actually, I believe that larger buildings would make the buildings more visually distinct at quicker glances, and thus would improve navigability, counteracting the negative effects of only seeing a smaller area. In addition, perhaps a little fog-of-war-minimap overlaid in the client or something along those lines could work nicely with it, but I certainly don't think that'd be necessary for that scale to work. This could also lead to other areas - the town walls should appear higher, trees perhaps bigger, etc. Hm, nice idea there. That would also fit well with the things about things visual height differing from the area they take on the ground. Alex Schultz ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Mark Wedel wrote: But I think that is a bit low - there would never be use for any 1 space buildings. a 20x20 seems reasonable. I think to be clear, you need a range, like 15-30/space. In that way, it becomes pretty clear how big an object should be - if 31, that is 2 spaces. Otherwise, if you just say the scale is 20:1, does that mean a building that is 30x30 should be 2 spaces by 2 spaces? What about a building that is 21x21, etc. I'd say ranges certainly do make sense. Personally, I'm not sure 10x10 would be so bad however. To me it seems that outdoor buildings with a scale matching the 10x10 scale would be more immersive. Despite that though, I think it would be best to see some mockups of each scale to get an idea of how it would feel to play with. - doing more multisquare (4x3? 6x4?) buildings. This would mean making towns bigger in the bigworld, but at the same time it would make the whole scale more coherent i think I think we need to be careful here - based on the map size (and past discussions which says 25x25 may in fact be too large), you don't want to make buildings too big. Otherwise, the player only ends up seeing 2-3 buildings. But maybe that isn't a bad thing - then at least towns could get big enough to start to be interesting and/or confusing. Well, IMHO it could be a good thing, provided it was well done. So long as it's just as (or more :)) visually interesting, and it doesn't impair navigation of the city much, then it'd have the effect of making things feel more immersive. I'd be wary of actually re-doing existing towns - moving apartments and other permanent maps about starts to get messy. However, no towns could use the new scale. And for some towns, a bunch of small empty houses could get replaced by fewer buildings that actually have stuff in them. Well, one could target re-doing of existing towns at 2.0, we could create true bound-exits where one exit refers to another's location regardless of if they move, or thirdly there is the option of just designing the redid town specifically so the old perm apartment exit was to the right place. Any of those three options would fix the issue IMHO. Alex Schultz ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Alex Schultz wrote: Mark Wedel wrote: But I think that is a bit low - there would never be use for any 1 space buildings. a 20x20 seems reasonable. I think to be clear, you need a range, like 15-30/space. In that way, it becomes pretty clear how big an object should be - if 31, that is 2 spaces. Otherwise, if you just say the scale is 20:1, does that mean a building that is 30x30 should be 2 spaces by 2 spaces? What about a building that is 21x21, etc. I'd say ranges certainly do make sense. Personally, I'm not sure 10x10 would be so bad however. To me it seems that outdoor buildings with a scale matching the 10x10 scale would be more immersive. Despite that though, I think it would be best to see some mockups of each scale to get an idea of how it would feel to play with. It just seems to me that if 10x10 is chosen that there would be very few to none single space houses. I can't think of many maps that are 10x10. Another question on this could be height - if a map is multiple floors, after how many floors should the icon depict some height (I'm not thinking about basements/dungeons, but second/third/fourth floors). With the bigimage support, an object can have height without an enlarged footprint - a tower could appear to be 2 spaces high, but still only have a 1x1 footprint. - doing more multisquare (4x3? 6x4?) buildings. This would mean making towns bigger in the bigworld, but at the same time it would make the whole scale more coherent i think I think we need to be careful here - based on the map size (and past discussions which says 25x25 may in fact be too large), you don't want to make buildings too big. Otherwise, the player only ends up seeing 2-3 buildings. But maybe that isn't a bad thing - then at least towns could get big enough to start to be interesting and/or confusing. Well, IMHO it could be a good thing, provided it was well done. So long as it's just as (or more :)) visually interesting, and it doesn't impair navigation of the city much, then it'd have the effect of making things feel more immersive. Yes - bigger cities would be nice. Also, cities that have less empty houses would be good. While it may not be realistic for every building in town to be a map, from a gameplay perspective, it makes exploring more interesting. Also, the 'xyz is closed' is a misleading message to new players - if I saw this, I'd think 'so when does xyz open', thinking there could be time based events, etc. If bigger buildings were done, it could also make sense to add more 'blocksview' spaces to the maps - I shouldn't really be able to see the street behind the one I'm in if its full of big buildings. Individual blocksview type arches would be needed, as if you set it on a multipart building, it becomes the property of the entire building - more likely, it should be set on just the portions of the building away from the street (maybe those should also block passage also - don't know). I'd be wary of actually re-doing existing towns - moving apartments and other permanent maps about starts to get messy. However, no towns could use the new scale. And for some towns, a bunch of small empty houses could get replaced by fewer buildings that actually have stuff in them. Well, one could target re-doing of existing towns at 2.0, we could create true bound-exits where one exit refers to another's location regardless of if they move, or thirdly there is the option of just designing the redid town specifically so the old perm apartment exit was to the right place. Any of those three options would fix the issue IMHO. True - if redone for 2.0, that would work fine, as we'll probably be making enough other incompatible changes that it would be a start over type of scenario. At some point, someone actually investigated doing everything in one scale - that'd certainly make the towns big, but probably too big relative to the current size of the continent. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] House sizes
Hello. What would everyone think of: - deciding that eg one outside square translates to eg 20x20 squares inside. There may already be such a measurement, but I'm not sure it's that formal - doing more multisquare (4x3? 6x4?) buildings. This would mean making towns bigger in the bigworld, but at the same time it would make the whole scale more coherent i think Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.free.fr [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'aléatoire !] ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] House sizes
Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. What would everyone think of: - deciding that eg one outside square translates to eg 20x20 squares inside. There may already be such a measurement, but I'm not sure it's that formal IIRC, there was some measure, like each outside space is 1 chain. A chain is somewhere between 60-100 feet. If one wanted to try and unify scales, one could use that as a base. If each indoor space is 10', then for each tile outside, it would correspond to 10 tiles inside. But I think that is a bit low - there would never be use for any 1 space buildings. a 20x20 seems reasonable. I think to be clear, you need a range, like 15-30/space. In that way, it becomes pretty clear how big an object should be - if 31, that is 2 spaces. Otherwise, if you just say the scale is 20:1, does that mean a building that is 30x30 should be 2 spaces by 2 spaces? What about a building that is 21x21, etc. I'd personally like some more buildings, simply because some buildings are getting re-used for different things (the guild building is used for guilds, but also the bank and some other buildings). But some could also just get changed with existing images - to me, the building currently used for the zoo could be a good bank building (it looks like a fortified building, which would make sense). Could even be interesting to have different guild buildings for the different guilds. And unique buildings for more of the religions (some of the ones in scorn are just re-using generic house images, etc). - doing more multisquare (4x3? 6x4?) buildings. This would mean making towns bigger in the bigworld, but at the same time it would make the whole scale more coherent i think I think we need to be careful here - based on the map size (and past discussions which says 25x25 may in fact be too large), you don't want to make buildings too big. Otherwise, the player only ends up seeing 2-3 buildings. But maybe that isn't a bad thing - then at least towns could get big enough to start to be interesting and/or confusing. I'd be wary of actually re-doing existing towns - moving apartments and other permanent maps about starts to get messy. However, no towns could use the new scale. And for some towns, a bunch of small empty houses could get replaced by fewer buildings that actually have stuff in them. There also isn't any reason that the world has to be static - one could certain envision various buildings showing up outside the town walls (town no longer big enough), or a new section of town built with a new section of wall, etc. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
