Not logged inOpenClonk Forum
Up Topic Development / Scenario & Object Development / Forces of Nature
- - By Matthias [de] Date 2012-07-12 03:47 Edited 2012-07-12 03:50
Another concept thread! Note that there is not a large quantity of New And Shiny in here, but this topic struck me as important enough to write it down somewhere and discuss upon.
This time, I want to tackle the topic of seasons and climate change during the game, and how it could affect the gameplay.

Let's establish some basic understanding for ingame time first: Clonk has some sort of time-distortion (always had). Trees grow in a matter of minutes, animals grow to full even faster, seas freeze over and melt again while I finish my research on gunpowder, but only half a clonk-day passed by. That's okay really, because usually, nothing of that is in the center of my focus. It's not realistic, but we can't have trees take 50 real time years to grow big enough to make a catapult of out them.

We might want to keep check on consistency between seasons and day/nighttime, though. It might be weird to have a year pass by before even half a day passes by - at least if we want to give the impression that clonks live on a planet somewhat resembling our earth.

The really nice thing about Clonk is that every scenario might apply different scales on those seasons or even ignore them completely. There are tropical islands which always have summer, some RPG which uses day and night only along a narrative, some cave where its mostly dark and cold, you name it. So note: If we tie (even important) factors of gameplay to seasons, weather or daytime, this will never really bother scenario designers, since they aren't forced to stick to some standard time-rhythm. On the other hand, we give them a tool to challenge the player without dropping unfair events on them. Seasons, as well as day and night, are cyclic: No suprise in summer coming after spring.

Speaking of unfair events - we have those, sometimes; The disasters. They were in the weather-tab as far as I remember, so I'll lose a few words of disapproval. Disasters were seldom used in an appropriate way. You could defend against meteorites by building some bridge with concrete on top over the whole map, but that's just if you wanted to play for 6 hours anyways. Lightning had a trade-off in which it could power magic towers, but you couldn't always build these. Also it could strike from a clear sky at any season. Volcanos: Ugh. All of these might provide short-lived hectic fun in melee scenarios, as they can tip situations around in ways that border on the comical. An otherwise more skilled player could be defeated because of "bad luck" with a stray meteorite in a skylands fight or something. I'm not saying that these kind of scenarios are "bad" or "unfair" - but that "otherwise skilled player" surely will, because the situation was out of his control completely. Same with single-player scenarios: No fun in watching 8 Windmills and all of your 31 time-honoured trees burn to the ground in 8 seconds because of that one lightning bolt that somehow branched across the whole screen. You can't reasonably control or prepare against some randomgenerator deciding to spit out the number "screw you and all your efforts". So: Let's try keep these situations out of the "serious game", someone (Timi?) will make enough scenarios purely relying on those mechanics sure enough.

On to examples of things which don't put the player before a heap of broken glass. Most of them do not exist yet. It's also more of an collection of ideas from here, meant to show off a few possibilities.

Day & Night:
Starting with this one because it's most likely the smallest unit of time.
Animals: Some sleep at night, like wipfs or birds, some come out only then, like some mean predators and fireflies.
Light: Well, this is mostly Peters territory, so maybe he could chime in on that. We had talked before, and there were thoughts of making a players sight entirely dependent on light. So at night, you can't see. Well, except for where you put that giant steam-engine driven search light, maybe. It's a pretty bold limitation there, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter.
Landscape: Seasons affect temperature, and that in turn freezes water or melts ice. And maybe it's so cold that even the ground freezes, only the silliest farmer would try to plant his wheat now.
Farming: The harvest will prove much poorer in the wrong months. Better to do it in autumn.
Vegetation: In Winter, plants grow slower and won't bloom (so, no fruits).
Animals: Wipfs burrow into the earth for hibernation. In spring, though, they'll build a nest and procreate. Birds will leave during the winter months. Hot summers come with an increased zap population.
General: Winters days are darker and shorter. The more night you have, the more stuff can be done unnoticed by the enemy.

Weather:
It's the same as in the real world: rainy mild springs, rainy hot summers, rainy stormy autumns, rainy rainy winters.
A long dry spell in the summer could endanger your crop, maybe it's time to think about some artificial water supply. Stormy autumns will prove perfect for your wind energy farm. You did install those lighting arresters, of course. You could also try an air ballon rush to your enemy base once the wind is right. Heavy rain might extinguish your torches, and under those thick clouds the night is even darker than before. Lightning - We can keep that one if if's not as annoying. As it's announced by a purple skies and growling thunder, you won't be caught off guard entirely. Also it could maybe just short-circuit some hit building for a short time instead of destroying it, and split trees instead of setting them on fire.

Ambience: There's a lot that can be done with sound and visual effects here. I really think that something as plausible and natural as seasons, day and night, weather and climate can help tie the game together an incredible amount. We certainly don't need some text jumping into your face at the beginning of a scenario telling you that it's summer (Yes there are games that do that). You can see that, the sun is high, everything is bright, there's fruit and foodstuff, there are these froglike things at the pond and also butterflys. As soon as the sun starts to set, the forest will be populated by chirping glowing bugs. (Maybe you should catch them and craft some lantern from them). Same goes for the other seasons and the other "forces" - since their effect and their appearance is so very known to the player, all the stuff happening around them is self-explainatory. This is strongly tied to the aesthetics task force.

So I think giving the forces of nature more significance is a smart thing to do. With the right amount of attention, this feature could enrich and polish the game experience at the same time.
Reply
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2012-07-12 07:53
+1, especially the visuals. That might add some more feeling.
Also I like the implied other hurdles. Berries in autumn mean no berries from winter so summer and that means that you hopefully have stored enough grain, etc.
Parent - - By Clonkonaut [ie] Date 2012-07-12 10:17
I agree mostly.

> Day & Night:


Differing behaviour for animals is no real problem I think. The thing about predators is that I can't really think of anything good. Minecraft and Terraria solve this by just using Zombies. In my proposal for Raiders I wanted to use ghosts. But I'm kinda out of ideas for some general foes. I'd opt for something supernatural because that rids us of the explanation of what these things do during the day. Supernatural stuff can just disappear and respawn at night. Otherwise you might be able to wipe out the bad guys during a day and then live happily ever after.
About the lights, you'd really want to be able to conquer this problem very early in the game. Maybe ineffectively with torches or your firefly lanterns. What definitely is not fun at all is having to wait for a night because lights are ridiculously expensive and your progress just isn't advanced enough.

> Seasons:


Having seasons affect gameplay is a fair enough idea. What really is the pain is to look after balancing. In the past, I had this weird Year Speed slider and was never really sure about where to set it to. But it was okay since the only bad thing was water freezing over (not always bad though). But having such grave effect on the gameplay will make the decision really difficult. Especially problematic is how fast should a season be? Make it really slow like half an hour and a game will finish in autumn before first winter. When the scenario is about growing crops you'd be again really pissed about having to wait until winter's over. Make them really fast like 10 minutes and I have no real time to prepare for stormy time and hard winter. Combining this with day/night shift is again another huge task. How many days does a season have?

> Weather:


Again difficult. Say a season is 20 minutes long. What exactly then is a long dry summer? This could be a matter of minutes. 6 minutes of no rain is fine but the seventh is killing your crops. No time to react to that, not a chance to prepare. Constructing a water supply could even take half a year. Long term mechanisms like "autumn is generally more stormy" are okay.

> Ambience:


I'd love to see this but I'm wary about the outcome. I can see that fruits are growing and animals do not hibernate, okay. But how do I spot "the sun is high"? If you want to show a sun object in that back like our moon, altitude is completely scenario-height dependent. Apart from that, no idea how to show a player what's going on. Another bad thing is that actually heavily stressing on the passing of time can lead to the player recognising how weirdly fast everything happens. 5 minutes of extremely fast growing plants, 10 minutes time to harvest and woosh everything starts dying. It wasn't too bad in the past because most of the times when water started to freeze over again I could hardly remember the last time it did. But the more time affect the game, the more I'm aware of it. The whole game could feel like playing through a time lapse.
Also you say we don't need something to say the player which season he's in. But then all the effects need to be super obvious. When I'm in autumn and didn't closely pay attention to when it started, I might wondering how much time is left and if it's sufficient to grow crops or if I'll just waste them. So I'd want something to tell me "it's late/early autumn".
Reply
Parent - - By Matthias [de] Date 2012-07-12 13:07

>The thing about predators [...]


I did not necessarily mean that those actually prey on clonks, but on other animals. See, in Minecraft, Night is more or less pretty stupid. In the beginning, it limits you enormously, for you don't have a weapon or shelter. Then, on the other hand, as soon as you have those, night practically becomes irrelevant, because for the rare case where you do explore the forests at night, you are pretty much able to kill everything ever. I don't want to give our night the notion of being a purely bad thing, so I didn't really plan on spawning "mobs". I think purely aggressive mobs force the players hand a bit ("Oh this scenario has night so I need to build my standard anti zombie set of buildings and weapons asap."). I think Minecraft gives a bad example of this: I can't go ahead and start by building my farm. I'm almost forced to make a shelter and light first.
In Clonk however, I need to be able to have scenarios with peaceful nights as well, so ideally, I'd leave the "mob-matter" in the hands of the scenario designer. I'd rather introduce more subtle stuff in the standard pack. Spiders which put up nets, which in turn can give you silk could be an example. Hedgehogs maybe.

>About the lights, you'd really want to be able to conquer this problem very early in the game. Maybe ineffectively with torches or your firefly lanterns. What definitely is not fun at all is having to wait for a night because lights are ridiculously expensive and your progress just isn't advanced enough.


I totally agree on this: Nothing more stupid in Minecraft than to have to wait through 7 minutes of Zombie Night because you didn't find coal for torches yet. I'd rather solve this by actually having a tiny standard light on the clonk, so that nights don't become show stoppers if you don't have any torch. Naturally occuring light sources could be nice as well.

>Especially problematic is how fast should a season be?


This would vary for each scenario, I think. If I know my scenario takes about 4 hours to complete, I might want to have 2 years covered by that. That setting will do no good for something as fast paced as CoFuT, though.

>you'd be again really pissed about having to wait until winter's over
>6 minutes of no rain is fine but the seventh is killing your crops.


Yeah, good points. Especially since at first time playing, I can't know how fast time will actually go. I guess we don't get to be too harsh then: Crops won't die, but only wield different amounts when harvested. So you can ignore watering in summer, at the cost of efficiency. Which is maybe okay, because you don't even need that much wheat in this scenario. So seasons would affect farming, but won't entirely hinder it.

>The whole game could feel like playing through a time lapse.


Might be, but maybe then it's sufficient to just set the time speed slower. Nothing wrong with a scenario only covering spring and summer in the most cases. Worst comes to worst, we'll just have more Scenarios that don't change much during one play session. That's not bad at all, it's not necessary to have every season in every scenario.
Let me point out again that actually advancing the time is optional. If I, as your Settlement Scenario Designer, want to bump up the replay value of my scenario, I might just shuffle the season at the beginning and then leave it at that. So this time, it's autumn, so I can maybe just build a wind park instead of steam engines, but I'll have to come up with a plan to deal with all that rain as well. Maybe I wan't to discourage farming but nudge the player into the direction of collecting mushrooms from those caves, so I'd choose a winter scenario setting.

>But how do I spot "the sun is high"?


Gamma settings, brightness of the "sun" light source, lenseflares...

>But then all the effects need to be super obvious


Well, I think looking out of the window usually does the job of getting a good estimate of the time of year. Clonk might not have enough nature in it yet to really do that, though - even our trees are evergreens, so the most obvious thing - coloring the trees leaves - doesn't work yet ;) Like stated above, seasons shouldn't affect gameplay too much. If I have to keep track of the time to be able to successfully grow wheat at all, we might as well call our game "Agriculture against Seasons Simulator 2012", that's not what I intended. Especially since I think that farming in itself is not enough fun to make it a "hard" part of the game.
Reply
Parent - - By Newton [de] Date 2012-07-12 13:24

>Naturally occuring light sources could be nice as well.


Crystals in caves (not as material but as destructable objects)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-07-12 14:24
Not sure what you're trying to say, but I had planned to spawn some lights on crystal material, just like the sparks currently. Could probably even put that together, which might lead to crystal giving off very "dynamic" light. Would just have to make light pass crystal, which is an easy change. Well, we'll see how it looks eventually.
Parent - - By boni [at] Date 2012-07-12 15:33
He means something like this. Glowing crystals, lighting the underground.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-07-12 16:22
Ah, okay. Well, then my point is that we don't need to make them objects, I guess.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2012-07-12 16:26
How far was Sven with custom material shapes that follow the texture? :)
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2012-07-12 16:13
A side thought on the speed of seasons:
How many seasons do we need and want?
Maybe it becomes more reasonable if we have only two seasons: Warm and cold.
The time between warm and cold would still exist, but it would not classify as a season on it's own.

That would mean: Still the natural side of the middle-seasons (more wind, for example) but not the notion of a season (for example, you couldn't say "this crop is only harvestable in autumn" but rather "this crop grows during the warm season and is probably ready for harvest after that - at least it stops growing when the temperature is below X").

That could be easier to communicate to the player, because the general environment does not change it's appearance every 6 minutes (spring -> summer -> autumn -> winter) but (in this example) only every 12 (warm -> cold -> warm -> cold).

The seasons would be mainly classified by temperature then. That means: Plants would not say "I grow in spring and summer" but plants would say "I grow above X°".
I admit I have not completely thought through this, but it might make a lot of things easier if we only go by temperature. (winds could still be stronger between temperature 0° and 15° for example)
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-07-12 14:16 Edited 2012-07-12 14:26

> Let's try keep these situations out of the "serious game"


-1

I don't think that's a good idea. We aren't trying to build an e-sport here, so fairness isn't really an issue. Guess what, if there's something people remember from, say, Dwarf Fortress, it's how big disasters wiped them almost completely. To the seasoned player, these mechanics are nothing but a senseless annoyance - but for new players, it's actually part of the fun. It makes the mechanic "human".

And I beg to differ on that you couldn't control them. There's always a spreading of risk that you can do - selecting good locations for windmills, making sure you don't have large uninterrupted tree lines. I personally don't like volcanos and earthquakes myself - but that's primarily because they just make the scenario converge towards the ugly side.

Bottom line is that I would vote to try to fix visual problems, and possibly do a bit of tweaking so safe-guarding against disasters becomes more predictable (say, have the lightning perform actual path-free checks).

> Seasons


Hm, the problem with seasons is always that we can't really make them last much longer than days. Both seasons and daylight have the same issue that we can't have them pass too fast - or the player will feel chased - nor too slow - or the player would grow bored waiting for it to end. I feel like the absolute maximum we can make a "year" last is 2-3 days. Keep that in mind when talking about making Winter nights longer.

Note this doesn't have to be a bad thing - I think it could work great if the ice freezing / melting or wipfs coming from hibernation would always coincide with the sun rising. If a scenario settled for 2 we'd have a nice period of spring day - summer night - autumn day - winter night.

Edit: Yeah, like Clonkonaut said essentially. Sorry for repeating the point :)
Parent - By Dragonclonk [se] Date 2012-07-12 14:42
Could be a bit difficult to implement but what about if floating islands are not affected by earthquakes?
Reply
Parent - By boni [at] Date 2012-07-12 15:43

> disasters


I agree and at the same time disagree a bit. In general you hate it when everything is ruined or the scenario becomes unplay-/solveable because of a meteor/lightning/vulcano. But as Peter said, they also create diversity and a challenge. I think the right way would be to "defuse" them. Lightning has to be more predictable (some kind of counterplay, and I really like the visual part), or maybe change the randomness into a more forgiving randomness. Add a check if the lightning/meteor would hit an important building, and if it does, get a 2nd random-number. Should reduce the occurrences of lightning destroying windfarms a bit.

> all that season affects this and that gameplay element stuff


As CoN already said, and you already gave in, I wouldn't have seasons affect the game too much. I think the right balance would be around "noticable if ignored, but not crippling".

> Visual stuff


I'd love for seasons to look different. One aspect that always annoyed me is that the ground always looks the same. I'm talking about the Earth itself here. In winter, it should take a slightly blue-ish shade, in summer a red-ish, in spring it should look greener! It'd also be cool if earth would be covered by a small grass-layer. Fresh green in spring, a bright dryish green in summer, brownish in autumn and none in winter.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-07-12 17:12

> Light: Well, this is mostly Peters territory, so maybe he could chime in on that. We had talked before, and there were thoughts of making a players sight entirely dependent on light. So at night, you can't see.


I'm not completely sure, btw, on how we might want to handle the night. Should Sky stop being transparent at night? Probably not. Should objects still be dark in front of it? Probably. If we make the Sky black at night this would mean that you can see enemy Clonks as black shadows passing over the star background.

Hm. That even makes sense, in a weird way.
Parent - - By Pyrit Date 2012-08-08 02:10 Edited 2012-08-08 02:13
In winter, there should be ice flowers on the screen. It could look like this (and it should be behind all the menu icons of course):
Parent - - By Dragonclonk [de] Date 2012-08-08 14:01
I like this idea. But it needs to be very subtle. Perhaps sometimes a few ice flowers appear on the screen and fade out.
Reply
Parent - - By Pyrit Date 2012-08-08 20:04
I made it so obstructive to give the viewer the idea of being in a snowstorm, where they literally can't see their hand in front of their face. That way it would contribute to the gameplay, instead of just looking nice. But on the other hand it could be an annoying expierience to see not so well...^^
Another thing that has come to my mind in this moment is the fog of war. How would it look like if you are in a cave and 75% of the screen are pitch black? Perhabs move the ice behind the FoW?
Parent - - By Clonkonaut [ie] Date 2012-08-08 20:12
Reply
Parent - By Pyrit Date 2012-08-08 20:44
I hope it will be like this some day! :)
Parent - - By Armin [de] Date 2012-08-08 21:00

>a snowstorm, where they literally can't see their hand in front of their face.


For such a snow world I would propose white fog of war (FoWColor=15132390, like in Clepal) and a decent reduced viewrange.

@the image above
hm btw i have the feeling that many new games (mostly wannabe highend ego shooters) are using such effects like lenseflares, blood, red or black&white damage gamma, rain water, tonnes of other strange camera impediments, MotionBlur and so on to hide the lacks of quality in their games. And in a side scroller game I would, even more, decline it to see them in really each scenario to be honest. I prefer a clear view. That's why I love the light new HUD, too.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-08-09 16:41 Edited 2012-08-09 16:54
White FoW is one of the things that that will probably not work with my approach, btw. If I remember correctly, it was quite a special case in CR already.

Edit: For the record, I also don't like the idea of seeing it as viewpoint restriction. With free zoom, the player would just zoom out until the viewpoint matches what he wants to see - and if we scale the restriction accordingly, he'll zoom in until it's no longer visible. In any case the player would work around it more or less awkwardly.

My vote would be to implement is a subtle "background" effect. Think of it like the HUD freezing or something.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2012-08-09 16:47
Does that explicitly mean "white FoW" or rather "any color other than black"? :o
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-08-09 16:50
Any color other than black. The problem is that I want to unify this with shading - so this would change the color of, say, the gradients on material and 3D objects as well. The result would make no sense at all.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2012-08-09 19:33
Be sneaky and call the dark red touch on everything "ambient light in my lava cave" then ;)
Parent - - By Sven2 [de] Date 2012-08-10 09:52
Why would it not work? Is it so much harder to have an extra shader path? Since shaders can be compiled at runtime, the code path for colored FoW doesn't even need to exist in the regular case.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2012-08-10 11:33
Extra shader path wouldn't be too hard, no. And *maybe* the whole thing can be hacked in. But once we have directional light, things might get a bit weird, to say the least.
Parent - - By boni [at] Date 2012-08-08 16:35
A little bit too obstrusive in your picture, but a really good idea nontheless.
Parent - By Pyrit Date 2012-08-08 20:06
There could also be raindrops on the screen when it rains. Some scenarios in CR already use it. It should really be a standart thing, imo.
Up Topic Development / Scenario & Object Development / Forces of Nature

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill