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? (: > >>> > >> > > > > > > >