CF: RE: Size scale vs. time scale and new graphics

[dragonm <dragonm@leech.org>]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Andrew Michael Noelle
To: 'crossfire mailing list '
Cc: dragonm
Sent: 9/9/99 2:58 PM
Subject: Size scale vs. time scale and new graphics (was Re: CF: the
begining of  crossfire)

dragonm wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wedel
> To: crossfire mailing list
> Sent: 9/8/99 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: CF: the begining of crossfire
> 
> <snip>
> 
>  I agree.  I think in the end, at least 2 scales will be used - indoor
> and outdoor.  Note one other suggestion which will likely be done is
to
> increase the viewable size from 11x11 to 17x17 or something similar.
> ----------------
> <pounce>  While we're on the subject of increasing the number of tiles
> visible, how about increasing the size and color depth of the tiles as
well?
> What we have now is still intensely affected by the font scheme that
used to
> exist to display graphics.  That worked well 8 years ago, but isn't it
time
> to update?  I think I mentioned the fact I know an artist who has
expressed
> an interest in doing a rework of the graphics.  I anticipated a howl
of
> resistance to that proposal, and disclaimed it even as I suggested it,
but
> all I saw was stony silence.  Is that approval or disapproval?  :)

    Sounds good to me.  Two scales sounds reasonable.  Anybody here
remember Interplay's "Wasteland"?  That game had three size scales with
three time scales.  It was a single-player game, so it could change the time
scale any way it pleased.  Moving the same distance on one map as on a 10x
larger map took the same amount of game time, but 10x as much real time.  I
don't think that would be reasonable for crossfire.  It would mean reducing
movement speed on the world map by the ratio of the indoor and outdoor
scales.  I forget what was suggested for that ratio, but if we assume
something on the order of 20:1, a player with a speed of 1.00 (extremely
fast) would be reduced to 0.05 (agonizingly slow) and anyone with an average
or slow speed wouldn't move more than once per minute on a time-scaled world
map.
    Of course, this is a game we're talking about, so the laws of physics
are subject to the designers' whim.  A world map with a spatial scale of
20:1 might have a time scale of only 2:1  Once transportation is
implemented, things like horses could be created with time-scale modifiers,
so that on foot a 20:1 map might have a 10:1 time scale, but a player with
an ox cart might get to move at 5:1 and a player on horseback 1:1, based on
the transport's speed and encomberance of course, not the player's.
----------------
You've never driven an ox cart, have you.  :)  I have, in New England.  Oxen
walk slower than people.  :)

In any case, I'm kind of confused here.  You and Mark seem to have two
different concepts of "scale."  Your definition seems to involve zooming out
on the same map, whereas Mark's definition seems to involve switching to a
different map with a different ratio of tiles per square meter in order to
represent indoor scenes at reasonable granularity without severely impacting
outdoors by vastly increasing the data load to maintain the same scale.
Basically retaining the existing setup for shops and other buildings, so far
as I can tell.

I think what I'm understanding as your concept has already been objected to,
at least in theory.  There has been the complaint that a world map would
remove a lot of the fun of the game because a lot of the entertainment is
exploring the unknown.  Your proposal makes short work of exploration.  By
all means, implement transportation with a faster movement rate than
creatures on foot, but don't make two scales of the same map.  The map
makers won't thank you for it, and at least one player won't thank you for
it.  :)
----------------
    As for increasing the size and color depth of the tiles, I'm all for
it.  If you're thinking of increasing them to double their current size
or more, you might want to also keep the current image size for use as
inventory icons.  And you don't want to increase their size too much, or
performance on maps with unusual graphics will suffer.  If size is
increased at all, it might be a good idea to implement a server switch that
requires clients to cache a minimum number of images, if not all.
----------------
That's good to hear.  We have one response.  Wake up, you slugs, and answer.
:)  I had indeed been thinking of at least doubling tile size, but that's
far from set in stone.  I've been consulting with the artist, and his
opinion and the test results he comes up with will be significant.  I'm
definitely keeping in mind performance.  We'll make sure it doesn't clobber
low-bandwidth players.

DM
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]