Well, "removal" as in the first sentence is the wrong word of course: The player would still be able to build horizontal settlements if he wished to.
Only to make it more understandable for non-german people :)
Und ja, ich bin immer noch Deutscher :P
Eh well:
>but I'm not sure it can be done...
Why not?
[Edit]
Well ignore the typos, I don't have much time today.
Still. This smells like we could get ourselves into a lot of trouble. Sooner or later the landscape will change and the "natural" leaning of the buildings will look really silly. And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off. Bamboo huts are cumbersome already. Now imagine having to adjust half you base after a few meteors dropped.
Look at the castle here. The author did work around the vertical parts to connect several unconnected castle parts which were not build in a perfect line.
With inclined buildings, the alchemy labour would be inclined to the elevator - and the castles would connect.
But yeah, I see your point as well, example: Inside a mine, there is no room for a vertical building, but diagonal the building would fit into it. Because of that the player will build a leaning building ontop of a vertical underground - that should be avoided.
>Sooner or later the landscape will change and the "natural" leaning of the buildings will look really silly. And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off
Hm, well I don't know. A small adjustment would be: the higher diagonal side would come down to the smaller if: No materials around the buildings are holding it, nor another building is doing that job.
[Edit]
I'm not sure if diagonal remains in a worn out landscape really look that bad, I'm still all for trying it out :)
>the alchemy labour would be inclined to the elevator - and the castles would connect.
But it could not connect to the tower above if it was inclined
>might be a nice riddle for one of you programmers.
No, the behavior of the castle parts is a design choice and belongs into the design document :P
PS: I don't like having the inclined-buildings stuff, but I DO like giving the player more building parts to make a weirder/more interesting castle
>as I'm currently trying to become clear on what to make out of Clonkonaut's suggestions.
Mh, I really don't know whether I like the idea that you can extent your castle from the inside. But I do like the idea that you can change the type of a wall or add/remove doors later (that is, first you build a tower - and if you extent your castle further you can remove that inner tower if you need to).
>Any specific ideas?
Thinking of Profpatsch's/Clonkonaut's suggestion: Special buildings could have some requirements. For example a fire/furnace could always produce smoke that you do not want in your castle. Give the players the ability to build a chimney through the roof of a castle part and hilarous castle design is ensured
- you have a "smoke-room" where you direct all the smoke instead of building the furnace on the highest level of your castle? Sure, why not.
- you use the chimneys as a duct for your electric lines? Sure, why not!
I was probably mainly thinking of stuff like hatches (like in CR), though. I really don't know whether I like the idea of Clonkonaut's noses, since you could do stuff like that already with loam (and actually require some thought/effort from the player if he wants great castles) - adding the graphical representation of a nose automatically could still be done.
I will probably have to think about that a bit more (what other kinds of castle parts other than walls, doors, towers, (hatches, chimneys) make sense)
> For example a fire/furnace could always produce smoke that you do not want in your castle.
Sounds nice, but this seems like a somewhat heavy-weight approach for something as simple as smoke hovering in the air. Maybe if smoke became more interesting gameplay-wise (smoke bomb?).
>Sounds nice, but this seems like a somewhat heavy-weight approach for something as simple as smoke hovering in the air.
>Maybe if smoke became more interesting gameplay-wise (smoke bomb?).
The smoke should hover in the air - but there should be a reason why you would not want that smoke to be IN your castle (can't breath in it, doesn't look nice, whatever). The coolest possibility would be that the smoke behaves like a material with negative acceleration, of course (aka, liquid physics, gogo!) ;)
My point here is just that I don't want to give the players artificial restrictions like saying "you cannot build that XY here, it needs a chimney!!!" when the player wants to build, say, a furnace.
I want the player to notice himself that he does not want the smoke in his castle and find an own way to work around that - without having artificial restrictions from the game.
(And hey, if you have such a "smoke-room", you could catch the smoke and fill it into smoke bombs, of course!!)
>Still, you wouldn't see it inside the castle, as material is drawn behind the castle walls.
yet! ;)
I know that probably noone is gonna change that anytime soon - what I wanted to say is that I would like the smoke to always behave the same (going up as far as possible and using small cracks that is).
The chimney is not "needed" for the furnace - but a player should see the benefits of a chimney and get to the conclusion himself that chimneys are good.
I don't ever want to see a message like "you cannot build a camp fire here, you need a chimney first!". Hell, I could even build a camp fire in my living room if I wanted to - whether that is wise is another question that is left for the player to decide.
>Still, you wouldn't see it inside the castle, as material is drawn behind the castle walls.
Still? Can't this be done? I mean, snow before the huts, water in the castles, earth from earthquakes in front of the entrances.. all this things were always annoying - fixing this would be definitly worth something.
>Also, castles could be behind every material.
Except background materials like tunnel.
PS: Is every material layer one render pass anyway or how does that work?
Multi-layer landscapes are on the todo-list for years. With 3d-models already requiring a fast GPU, we probably can at last get away with them. (The highres-landscape-option used about 128 landscape layers already, but mixing them with objects would have to be the default.)
But: Fundaments would not been seen as fundaments this way.
And if this whole thing causes problems we could arrange some sort of half transparent solutions for the problem cases (Earth in front of the elevator, but you can still see the elevator - or if we don't want this, objects could now be buried and hidden with this method. Objects causing this problems seem to be able to move around, perhaps a solution could be done this way as well).
like how would flints/bombs work? If you throw something, how would the game decide which layer it hits?
if you shoot at someone, not only can they dodge it, but will they be able to switch layers?(in the castle/tunnel?)-if they do, then dodging arrows-spears would be very simple and would handicap the projectiles effectiveness.
If your standing on a castle, and the other is standing on the ground, how can someone shoot at you-or you shoot back? because they are shooting from a completely different layer/land.
By the way couldn't decide where to post this reply so i put it here, ;)
>And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off. Bamboo huts are cumbersome already. Now imagine having to adjust half you base after a few meteors dropped.
By todays train travel boredom I met that problem while concepting another idea (well never mind now)..
The current (CR) building-falling behaviour is a nightmare. Currently the lighter buildings are already falling around: especially the windmill with water. Static castle structures fall around if their fundaments are broken, and cling themself to a single material pixel in the sky - also the anvil and similar structures often end up hanging on a pixel in the air - making them really hard to destroy and hard to use. Also the staircases are well.. behaving the same. If lucky you can teleport through the map, just with staircases.
We really need to change this.
And here we go: I actually wouldn't mind them falling around like in the inclined building idea, well.. if they work inclined, and if material will actually be painted infront of the buildings. The current vertex behaviour however is too accurate: A building shouldn't fall around just because one vertex has lost it's ground. Also it should be too easy to undermine settlements this way - fundaments will still be needed for some structures... inclined fundaments!!
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill