Return to “General”

Post

Re: Zones

#122
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Or you just do
max(1/ri^2*ai); 1<=i<=n
Yes, that quickly gets you the strongest influence, from known values.

You could vector-ify the scalar field mentioned previously, to cover however many influences (factions) you need, and feed that into your max() function to obtain the dominant 'owner'.

There are lots of things that can be done with this: if your vector field is the result of computing potential cooperative structures (based on networked affiliations), you'd get a better picture of potential power - that too is very GPU-able.

It's worth remembering that the player would only perceive influence information based on data that is known to the player. So you wouldn't see a zone of influence for NPCs that are hidden, nor those based on statistics of faction resources that you couldn't possibly know about. Influence is all about perceived power, so you could set up a massive cardboard fleet for massive power, until knowledge invalidates the ruse.

I'm not suggesting all the above is implemented; it's just an exploration of what might be relevant to the notion of localised power.

tl;dr: An easy way to cut through this detail is to subscribe to territorial claims, which might not necessarily correlate perfectly with the actual power required to enforce those claims.
Post

Re: Zones

#123
Sasha wrote:I also think dividing space into a 3D grid would look a bit messy. Too many lines (personal opinion)
And now I can finally say: Nope! (2:00+) :ghost: :D

Elite: Dangerous shows how 3D grids can be elegantly done! Holy crap, this game is shaping up to be beyond awesome.

And not only does it show how well 3D grids can be done, it also shows how 3D starmaps can be done well too. So I will post this in the starmaps thread too.
Post

Re: Zones

#124
Josh has now talked about using hierarchical scenegraphs to expand the number and types of zones in a star system.

That probably doesn't mean overlapping zones of different types, as I'd like to see. But it still opens up the question: what are some different kinds of zones that might be fun to have in Limit Theory?

Here's a quick list of some possibilities. It's not meant to be complete or expected to be "correct"; as always it's just a starting point for discussion. What kinds of zones do you think would be fun for LT?
  • Stationary
    • Star
    • Asteroid field
    • Nebula
    • Dust cloud
    • Debris field
    • Wormhole terminus
    • Planet
      • Planetary rings
      • Moon
      • Planet surface
        • City
      • Planetary station
    • Asteroid station
  • Mobile
    • Space station
    • Flagship
Any zone can have a factional owner.

Thoughts?
Post

Re: Zones

#125
I put this in the devlog discussion but perhaps here is better...
Engagement Zones
Demilitarized Zones
+50% speed zones
-15% mass zones
All non stationary objects move to point X with acceleration Y zones (fake gravity wells) :shock:
All non stationary objects with equipment X move away from
point Y at acceleration Z zones (great for solar sails or beaming energy to an object to move it)
Wormhole exit and entrance zones of any shape you like, not just a sphere
Custom constructable zones with a variety of effects that can be combined if you do the research necessary, and have the right materials (trade lanes anyone?)
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Zones

#126
Zones
- that cause shield depletion
- HUD distubance
- random system failure
- information loss (on science ships :twisted: )
- little explosions (flak fire)
- mine fields
- temporary lightnings (nebulae)
.
.
.
and weapons that create those zones dynamically. :shh:
Post

Re: Zones

#131
Scytale wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:just something that made me think of influence zones merging/separating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM4Xi-GMAcU
This is an opportunity for me to post an irrelevant video from a conference I attended a few years ago
The "ballistic projectile moving through leg" looks REALLY painful. :?

Ps. Hope I never get shot on duty... :silent:
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Zones

#132
Now that Adam has mentioned taking a new look at how the "zone" feature should be designed, I thought it might be fun to reopen this thread for new thoughts.

The two things that I'm still really hoping for are 1) zones can have multiple tags (owner, terrain type, ore type, political form, legal form, etc., etc.), and 2) zones can overlap. Given those two features, zones become incredibly expressive of gameplay content. To reiterate this in a little more detail:

  • Zones are spherical, with a central point of interest and a radius of effect.
  • Zones have owners (the owner of the central point of interest) with a default of "None".
  • Zones have types (asteroid zone, station zone, political, etc.).
  • Zones of different types can overlap.
  • Zones of the same type with the same owner can overlap.
  • Zones of the same type, but different owners, cannot overlap.

Cornflakes disagreed with that last suggestion, and I thought his objection was reasonable -- allowing similar zones with different owners to overlap could create "zones of contention." In a political sense, that maps to how the real world works. I'm just not sure how you implement that in a game with so many other things that need doing! (And what the gameplay effects should be.)

Any other suggestions for zones? What kinds of fun do you think zones should enable for LT players, and how might these capabilities be designed and implemented?
Post

Re: Zones

#133
Flatfingers wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:37 pm
Cornflakes disagreed with that last suggestion, and I thought his objection was reasonable -- allowing similar zones with different owners to overlap could create "zones of contention." In a political sense, that maps to how the real world works. I'm just not sure how you implement that in a game with so many other things that need doing! (And what the gameplay effects should be.)
(havent yet read up again on what my stance was back then, working from memory, so it may be inconsistent with my past statements)

i'd just personally find nested zone(ownership) mechanics interesting and enriching.

you may have rights to enter a country, but that doesnt remove all private ownership of ground.

the system belongs to the local empire, some company may owns the asteroid belt and some secion of the belt may be rented out to a third party.
(Bhagaba system -> Bhagaba Asteroid Belt 3A -> (Belt north quadrant) -> Claim #2132)

each (sub-)zone with its own supremacy values computed from the supremacy values of the zones/assets it contains.

if incompatible zones collide (say two rivalling corps build stations near to each other) the zones could deform metaball like.
(however to define incompatible. non friendly owners? contradicting local rules? :shrug: )
or just (metaball)merge and initiate normal supremacy mechanics



... now with more thought im confused about how i wanted to differentiate between generating subzones and zone mergers....
:think:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron