[project1dev] Re: Fwd: Re: procedural generation

  • From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:37:25 -0700

we could procedurally place enemies too maybe.

we'd have to figure out how that system would work but shrug.

Hey for modding the game, I think we can do that.  We'll just have to make
as much stuff as possible defined in scripts i guess.

We'll have to protect the scripts that the game comes with though somehow so
people don't just edit the game to cheat or make lousy rip offs :P

Can't wait to see the eq/items info (:

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:28 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Furthermore... I don't know for sure alan's perspective on this but
> ultimately I think it would be cool to sometime in the distant future to
> allow ppl to make their own maps and addons for the game (I love the modding
> community), so the procedural thing would help let even amateur map
> designers put out professional style areas...
>
> i have some notes re: equipment/items i'll post in a few
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: figarus@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:16:54
> To: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [project1dev] Re: procedural generation
>
>
> Important = imported in my last msg... Sorry
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:08:30
> To: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [project1dev] Re: procedural generation
>
>
> Alan, I'm amazed at your procedure layout.  Not only will your plan
> solve the problems of syncing models to each other in the 3d world,
> but it will help us all build intuitively, so we can be less hindered
> by what we don't know how to do.
>
> I would have never thought to create a system like this!  It could
> very well be something to distinguish the game on its own if done
> right.
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ok cool
> >
> > hopefully we won't hit many unforseen snags.
> >
> > the only thing i cant think of how to automate is lighting, maybe after
> eric
> > does a few lighting passes though he'll see some patterns or something
> that
> > we can automate even if only a "rough guess" that he can tweak or
> something.
> >
> > Cool, I'm glad you guys think it'll work too
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you have a great idea. I really like the idea of having people
> be
> >> able to shape out the design and touch up the art after the procedural
> >> generator is done.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Glad you like it!
> >>>
> >>> I'll wait to see if anyone else has any input about it but if we dont
> see
> >>> a reason that this wouldn't work, i think we should plan on making this
> >>> happen.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully i'll be able to convince shadows to help us, the extra pair
> of
> >>> hands on this stuff would really be nice.
> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:06 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> alan... don't post stuff like this while i am at work, I will be
> >>>> severely embarrased if someone sees me celebrating and weeping w/ joy
> at
> >>>> this awesome idea
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ok so... that game LOVE that i posted a link about has some really
> neat
> >>>>> ideas especially about the problem we will have of not being able to
> supply
> >>>>> art fast enough to keep up w/ content creation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thats what i think anyhow, it just seems like the process of building
> >>>>> is going to take a lot less tiem than the process of prettying up
> since
> >>>>> prettying is more involved (although adding enemies and scripted
> events may
> >>>>> make the process more on an even playing field).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyhow, i thought we could maybe brainstorm about the possibility of
> >>>>> making our game procedurally generated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we do figure out something, we dont have to do it right away, i
> >>>>> think it'd make most sense if we still built things by hand for a
> while so
> >>>>> we could still keep making progress instead of just being stopped
> dead in
> >>>>> our tracks (:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's a scenario i was picturing, one of the many avenues we could
> >>>>> possibly go down to make this work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) A builder goes through and makes a basic skeleton map like kent
> did
> >>>>> with the cave level
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) As the map is being built, the model used for the floor peice
> >>>>> basically defines what kind of art it will use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So for instance if you placed down a 4x1 tile model that was
> >>>>> "CaveFloor_4x1.ms3d", when you placed it down, it would just be a
> flat 4x1
> >>>>> tile that had a dirt texture on it.  Not pretty lookin, but it makes
> sense
> >>>>> when you look at it what it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) When the map loads, it fills in the details
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When the game loads the map, it looks at that cave floor model and it
> >>>>> knows a few things about cave...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a) cave floors aren't level... they have bumps in them
> >>>>> b) cave floors that border on nothingness have walls to keep players
> >>>>> from falling into infinity
> >>>>> c) cave floors have small rocks on them
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, it would take that 4x1 cave floor and generate a model on they
> fly
> >>>>> (or maybe choose randomly from some existing cave floor models) and
> place it
> >>>>> there.  It will find out where the walls should be and automatically
> border
> >>>>> it in walls.  Lastly, it will populate the cave floor with small
> rocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And when i say randomly i'm talking pseudo random numbers.  Basically
> >>>>> it will be the same random numbers each time for a given map that
> define
> >>>>> where these things go, so every time you went into a specific cave it
> would
> >>>>> be the same cave.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4) Artists can still hand-touch up the resulting generated map.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We'll really need an in game editor for this, but artists will be
> able
> >>>>> to take the fleshed out, generated map and hand tweak things by
> moving
> >>>>> things around, scaling them, rotating them, and adding new models in
> there
> >>>>> (ie models specific to missions and thing like that).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Basically those hand tweaks will correspond to extra script commands
> to
> >>>>> run after the map has been "fleshed out" by the procedural generator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Each environment will have it's own set of oddities we'll have to
> work
> >>>>> out... like a forest gets populated differently than a cave, and
> stuff like
> >>>>> that... so there are lots more details we'll have to figure out.
> But, i
> >>>>> think a system like this coudl work.  It would take a lot of coding
> but I
> >>>>> think it's doable and i think it's worth it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We would also need some base art for the procedural generator to
> work,
> >>>>> but that should be a lot less work than an artist having to pretty up
> each
> >>>>> map by hand i think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you guys think?  Also, any things you would change about it?
> >>>>> Or anyone have any better ideas?  Or disagree that this would be
> useful? (:
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Other related posts: