![[la]](/mwf/flags/la.png "Lao People")
The texture chunks should look like their material IMO. The only thing that where there should be variation is in the shape (more round, more edgy)
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
I agree that they should have visual characteristics in common. I'm not yet sure if we should keep all current material looks, though. To remind myself I just started a scenario from last stable (I'm not playing very often :( ), and even though I concentrated on materials, I took 3 minutes to realize that the lump of coal I had in hand was in fact stone, that that granite barrier was actually stone as well. I remember I did some colorpicking for stone materials once and found that the distances in value between different stone textures is larger than that between darkest stone and granite.Hence, my proposal would be to go the other way round: try to find some cool shapes for resource items first which also go well into a texture later.
Ah by the way, I at least got my feet wet with those - just had no real vision of how to finish them or even set them into meaningful context with other ressources.https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19330718/oc_samples/crystals.PNG - Originally just a texturing exercise for myself, but hey, for reference...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19330718/oc_samples/clumpy.PNG - Also just something I tested a few modeling techniques on. Just what material IS this? :(
Some inspirational stuff: http://abload.de/img/ccf01042014_00001y5sfy.jpgI'd say that rock is smooth and ore is rough, coal is even rougher with very sharp edges. I know it's not very realistic since the rock chunks are blown out of veins as well as the ore ones are. But it does feel right to have rock smoother!
I'd make the coal roughly box shaped, like on this picture. See also google images.http://cdn.3news.co.nz/3news/AM/2012/9/26/270570/coal-mining-1200.jpg
Pushed Chunk_Wood and Planks today. Should've called the former "Log". Will do that later!Splitting trees (with the axe) will now provide you with the full amount of logs. You can start constructing right away as these logs serve as basic building material. From logs you can construct the more basic buildings and techs:
Flagpole
Foundry
Sawmill
Wind Generator
Chemical Lab
Tools Workshop
- the most basic buildings necessary -
Most of the basic tools and weapons.
For everything else that formerly needed wood to construct, you will now need Planks. Planks are made with the sawmill from logs. Sawmill thus is not necessary anymore for the most basic settlement tasks.
Cool! And that's where diamonds come into play!No, really. I like the direction this is going. It gives the players a lot more freedom at the start of a round. Currently it's still like 1.) build furnace 2.) build windmill 3.) build sawmill..
What's the plan with metal? Keep it as a "tool" or make it carry-heavy? I guess it should be carry-heavy as well?
It's going to be carry heavy, too. That's the last one on my list.
How do you make "basic" tools if a tools workshop already requires the planks?I like that you can't climb while carrying, but the control feels a bit weird. Maybe it's because the clonk still slides all over the place, for example when you jump on a slope the clonk starts running into that direction. Maybe turning up the friction of the bottom vertex can stop this, but idk if that's possible.
Ah, I forgot the workshop. You can construct it from wood of course and don't need planks.
Another thing I just noticed: Making planks is kind of boring... You chop, chop again and put it in the sawmill. Couldn't the sawmill make planks directly from whole trees?
Well, yes, it could. The idea however, was to kill the 'drag trees across the landscape, oh no they fall into every hole' part ;) But there's probably no harm done in reactivating the tree sawing. Although I'm not sure. Because the process is irreversible, you might be really annoyed if the sawmill snatched the one tree you wanted to cut into logs.
That's of course a problem. What if you can use either logs OR planks for basic stuff? Too complicated for the player?
Uh, yeah, but that is actually one of the challenges in the game. Without it, the process becomes more and more just "click to use tool" and "walk resources to destination" which is rather boring after a while. I think we should at least find some role or advantage of pushing trees around.
This is also a response to Clonkonaut, but I had to decide, so it goes here: The "tree gets stuck"-part indeed is a challenge. But we also have to admit that it is frustrating and only acceptable for us because we know how objects work internally and what vertices are (Or have seen enough trees fall partially through stuff to infer it ourselves). Real trees don't slip their roots under the bridge through a 4cm hole in the floor, so I would not venture so far as to call that "intended behaviour".
Before we think about the gains of the challenge, we might first come up with a way to conquer it. I agree with Matthi: Transporting a tree is something you can only master after knowing exactly how the tree will handle on the designated landscape part. Will it fall into this shaft? Will it get through this passage? Is it possible to push it up onto that cliff? If you know beforehand, you can terraform the landscape accordingly. Or plan ahead and actually construct the sawmill at the lowest possible point in the map.Conquering the challenge would mean to have any tool ready to lift a tree. Trees fall down only and at a certain point it's impossible to bring it back up again without heavy terraforming. That's really the only tool we have (and the hardest one to master). You can't use an elevator and the rope (my personal hope of solving this problem) did not get finished. You're stuck then: trees fall down and you can't get them up again.
In ending screenshots, it's quite a common sight to have lost trees somewhere at the bottom of the map. And in CR, rescuing trees was easier (using a wagon e.g.).
Non rescued trees can always be chopped to pieces now, so there is not really that problem. I always chop the trees that did not get to my sawmill to pieces.
Yeah, but knowing the vertices is something that just happens when you play and discover the game. It's a difficulty you learn to master after a while. I think it's good for a game to have those.It doesn't need to be a required element. For example, we could make it so sawing the full tree in the sawmill is more efficient in some way.
Hui, since I've started playing Clonk Planet I thought vertices are the spawn of the devil and a main weakness of the game.Getting stuck, impaling your clonks on flat surfaces, the damn fiddling around, etc... :/ It was always weird having only 2,3,4, or 5 solid points on an object and the rest was "open". But I'm ok with it, since it's apparently not an easy thing to solve, otherwise it would have been done long ago, I assume.
> Yeah, but knowing the vertices is something that just happens when you play and discover the game. It's a difficulty you learn to master after a while. I think it's good for a game to have those.
"Did you hear? Jim finally mastered pushing trees. I saw it in the replay, he straight pushed it sideways, then over a hill, and then - I'm not kidding - he made some wood from it. They call him 'Jimbonaut, Pusher of Trees' now! I better get back to training my push, my trees just keep dropping through the ground all the time."Let me know if you were actually being serious about knowing tree-vertices being a valuable part of the gameplay experience we're trying to create. I'll try to come up with a serious response then.
> Let me know if you were actually being serious about knowing tree-vertices being a valuable part of the gameplay experience we're trying to create.
I am. Pushing a tree into the sawmill always feels like a huge achievement to me, because trees are so heavy.
I find it much more interesting than being able to transport like any other resource, by pressing the direction key and waiting.
Sure it's not the most interesting thing in itself, but it's better than nothing and makes this resource unique. It also puts some constraints on how your settlement may be built, where you can dig holes, etc.
You're saying something else now: "Trees are heavy" is something else entirely than "Trees are weird things that glitch into the landscape all the time". Only the latter is caused by the vertices. Also, Clonkonaut even proposed to transport trees differently from other resources in his last posting. He mentions the rope or other tools that could be needed to lift trees uphill.Anyways, serious response: Pushing is a form of controlling the clonk. If it feels heavy while pushing a tree, good! Trees are heavy. If it feels weird, unpredictable and buggy, not so good. And having to know that objects use some contact points internally, and how many and where they are on a tree, that's just not part of the game. It is not, as well as knowing what kind of search function some object uses internally is not part of the game. Or exact positions in x- and y-coordinates, or how big some hitbox is. These are just the internal systems. The point of a game is to capsule those away. I have absolutely no objections of trees slipping into holes that they visually (and logically) fit in, but even then, one should keep an eye out as not to over-complicate the acquisition of a most basic resource.
What I always wondered: is having more vertices in some way detrimental? You could just add more along the trunk of the tree and in the top to prevent the most obvious glitches
At least in Clonk Rage there was a maximum vertices count - somewhere around 20 IIRC. I guess Vertices also cost quite a bit of performance concerning collision detecting, but I never actually had a game run slow because of too many vertices.
Added Chunk_Metal and thus, the basic materials are converted. There's still minor stuff left (cloth, gold bar, maybe seeds?). That what's left shouldn't be such a big impact on the gameplay though.ToDo list:
Make lifting faster.
Fix some weird behaviour when lifted object leaves clonk while being lifted.
Add the missing chunks / big objects.
After that some ironing out of the objects; remove all small items, rename IDs of chunks. And lots of testing.
Please not, it's a common weapon/tool after all. But I wouldn't mind if the material would spawn a "big firestone" from time to time, which would be like a much bigger explosive.
At least with the flintstone, idea wasn't to remove the small object but rather to have the big objects spawn from the material. You can use these, unhandy as they are or split them down (into regular flints) using the chemical lab. I'm not 100% convinced yet but it's worth a try. I'm tempted to implement your idea the other way around, have 1 out of 10 of these big flints instead spawn a small, handy one.However, for melee type scenarios or whatever, you are free to use the small flintstone. This one will definitely not be removed. As to the material change, this isn't fixed yet. When after testing we say 'nay', it's easily reverted.
So @Maikel:
Forgot that one! Will do that. I think I will name it "Terraflint"!
Well, if we dig out big-chunks, which turn into flints only using the chemistry lab.. What exactly was the point again of switching from sulfur material to flint stone?
You can use the big flints to mine, too, but they are far more dangerous than the small ones!So the fresh settler doesn't need the chemistry lab to get their settlement going - at least not if they feel brave enough to handle the big Terraflints! Only for more precise and safe mining, experts prefer the smaller Firestones.
(Also, people who shoot other people with catapults prefer the smaller ones.)
As Zapper said, the goal is to make the big ones more dangerous. So you gain safety in the chem lab. Super safety is gained by dynamite.If this works out, is subject to testing!
Ah - it has always been the other way around -, that's really interesting, I'm curious :)
Of course a bigger explosion is in general better/faster for mining and attacking also, so it would have to be "really" dangerous (not like a CR teraflint), so that the balancing really works this way. Or: You get from a big flint, so many small flints in the chemistry lab, that it is a lot more effective.
Of course a bigger explosion is in general better/faster for mining and attacking also, so it would have to be "really" dangerous (not like a CR teraflint), so that the balancing really works this way. Or: You get from a big flint, so many small flints in the chemistry lab, that it is a lot more effective.
Hopefully, carry heavy handling will do the trick for danger. You can't throw that far, you can't scale / hangle (so no dropping from high above possible). For a safe throw, you'd need to clear away much more earth.Greater effectiveness of the small ones is also planned!
>Hopefully, carry heavy handling will do the trick for danger.
I'd additionally make it scatter explosive splinters when it explodes. Or sparks that can ignite objects or something.
I like this idea!
Nameswise, I suggest "Firestone" for the big one, since it's the natural resource, and "Flint" for the small one.
I don't really like "Terraflint".
Nameswise, I suggest "Firestone" for the big one, since it's the natural resource, and "Flint" for the small one.
I don't really like "Terraflint".
I did a first round of testing, a new scenario I am making which has a very hard landscape to pass but still, after three hours of settling alone I managed to construct the following structures:
Flagpole (x2), Foundry, Sawmill, ToolsWorkshop, Elevator, Windmill, SteamEngine, InventorsLab, Armory, ChemicalLab, Pump.
So almost all relevant settlement buildings, however, it took me 3 hours, which is way to long, and most time is lost in just walking up and down again... so we did not really solve the issue of walking
around with resources at all. And why? In my opinion because:
* the structures are too expensive, especially the basic ones like flagpole, Elevator(needs 3Planks, but is essential for the lorry), Toolsworkshop needs walking around 9 times(including the tedious picking up)
* lorry is useless, you need to pick up the resource and put it into the lorry (bug: lorries don't catch carry heavy with their collection zones), so using the lorry is tedious and barely advantageous compared to just walking around.
The good thing is the clear separation between resources and items, no more having the inventory filled with lots of rocks or other materials.
If you want I can make a proposal for material costs for structures and vehicles, the way it is now is not the right balancing for sure.
Flagpole (x2), Foundry, Sawmill, ToolsWorkshop, Elevator, Windmill, SteamEngine, InventorsLab, Armory, ChemicalLab, Pump.
So almost all relevant settlement buildings, however, it took me 3 hours, which is way to long, and most time is lost in just walking up and down again... so we did not really solve the issue of walking
around with resources at all. And why? In my opinion because:
* the structures are too expensive, especially the basic ones like flagpole, Elevator(needs 3Planks, but is essential for the lorry), Toolsworkshop needs walking around 9 times(including the tedious picking up)
* lorry is useless, you need to pick up the resource and put it into the lorry (bug: lorries don't catch carry heavy with their collection zones), so using the lorry is tedious and barely advantageous compared to just walking around.
The good thing is the clear separation between resources and items, no more having the inventory filled with lots of rocks or other materials.
If you want I can make a proposal for material costs for structures and vehicles, the way it is now is not the right balancing for sure.
>including the tedious picking up
Why is "pick up" for carry heavy stuff connected to the interact-button anyways? Pick up should be "down" and "interact" should be just for... interacting.
And delete the whole pick-up animation, it's just an unneeded procastination.
The animation could be 5 frames, where after the third frame you can already start moving or something.
And yes the controls for picking it up should also change indeed
And yes the controls for picking it up should also change indeed
> Pick up should be "down"
We can think about another button but imho that shouldn't be 'down'. Because down simply is down and nothing else. It's bad practice to assign anything to the movements keys that's not 'movement'. It's already bad that we have 'pick up into unselected inventory slot' on the movement keys. In case we do implement a special 'pick up' button, that should go there as well.
Space is a very convenient key for that purpose. Always within reach.
In my testing round it was Space obviously, but that often interfered with all kinds of other interactions (but this was mainly a problem of using the Controls branch in editor mode, which is hell)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
