[project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
- From: Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:39:24 -0500
I like respawn. Contra III style. You die: BACK IN THE ACTION!!! No BS.
But seriously, I don't think it fits with the paradigm of our goals for this
game.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I concur, I'm not into respawn. I like having to try to stay alive, and
> if you die you’re team lacks your assistance for the rest of the round.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *eric drewes
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:30 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
>
>
>
> Comparing America's Army to TF2, you either have to think about how to
> stay alive, or how to kill more efficiently. I wouldn't go as far to
> call it apples and oranges, but they are pretty different, and people
> can find fun in either one (or only one)
>
> My personal fun comes from finding out how to kill more efficiently,
> which can actually help you stay alive longer as a bonus.
>
>
>
> i would call AA to TF2 apples to oranges, two different styles of gameplay
> altogether, even in arena mode. believe me, there will be plenty of meat
> for you to sink your teeth into as far as finding ways to efficiently kill
> things.
>
> and if i can be honest about the healing/health system - frankly, i cannot
> stand the constant healing and having 9000 hp, etc. in rpgs. thats why i am
> working to innovate and replace it with a different system that i think will
> ultimately be more fun :)
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:46 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> basically it seems to me that everyone's argument is "but I want to be able
> to jump far!" because we're just looking only at the jumping issue.
> Overall, the game will be balanced to make heavy armor desirable for some
> circumstances, and some people may be willing to sacrifice being able to
> jump stuff to get that extra protection.
>
> I really think you guys aren't looking at the overall picture. this isn't
> a jumping game. being able to jump far is not a requirement for beating the
> game. heavy armor will have advantages in other systems to offset not being
> able to jump as far. just because YOU currently do not think you would use
> heavy armor doesn't mean we should eliminate it for the people who may be
> interested in using it all the time or in certain circumstances.
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:42 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> well heavy armor isn't just for the hero and no one is forced to use it for
> the main character, i don't want to just eliminate it because we wouldnt
> want to use it. I think its best to give the players the option to decide
> how they want to play without us dictating how we think their character
> should be - the design is meant to lead people into making their own
> decisions about what they want to do.
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> After reading the rest of the thread:
>
> Nick's point about taking off heavy armor is a very good one. Sure,
> we can leave that in and let people do that, but we could also leave
> that out and dedicate more time to other stuff that players will end
> up using.
>
> If we can figure out what players will like to use and what they
> won't, we're going to have that much better of a game!
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM, eric drewes<figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > cool, i think it is a good compromise :) also, i understand your concern
> w/
> > wanting an additional tier but maybe we can play with the jump distances
> for
> > traps and solve it that way.
> >
> > in retrospect and upon further review i think that the super jump would
> be
> > better at least 2x to create a distinct separation from normal jumping.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I like Eric's system. it is a hybrid of what everyone wants.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> as do all men (and some women)
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I wish women felt the same about relationships.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i guess a better way to say it is, i am all about value and bang for
> >>>>> the buck. i am for making things complex and intricate - as long as
> adding
> >>>>> that complexity provides more depth and fun. if its just complex for
> the
> >>>>> sake of making things more complex, i just dont see the point...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "we should make it as simple as possible and i am for simplicity for
> >>>>>> the record"
> >>>>>> You guys have no idea how true this is. You wouldn't believe the
> >>>>>> ideas and systems I had to rethink when coming up with a basic
> combat
> >>>>>> design.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> no problem :P hehe... yeah if it was an arcade game i would be in
> >>>>>>> total agreement that we should make it as simple as possible and i
> am for
> >>>>>>> simplicity for the record - as long as its not at the cost of
> versatility
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM, katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My bad E =P I have had no idea really how far/deep you guys were
> >>>>>>>> wanting to go (hence me saying I wasn't for sure. I though I
> caught a while
> >>>>>>>> back you guys mentioning launch on XBLA and I just got arcade in
> my head.
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification E.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> With my new understanding of the game =), I am on board with all
> the
> >>>>>>>> previously mentioned scenarious on abilities for jumping/armor,
> etc. Not
> >>>>>>>> that I wasn't before, I was just slightly concerned about
> overthinking
> >>>>>>>> simplistics.
> >>>>>>>> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
> >>>>>>>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 6:27 AM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> i want to explicitely thank chris, alan and katie for offering the
> >>>>>>>> counter points to my original thought, i really think having
> alternate
> >>>>>>>> perspectives of things will allow us to fully explore elements of
> game
> >>>>>>>> design like this and that it will ultimately deliver a better,
> more
> >>>>>>>> intuitive and most importantly more FUN gaming experience. I do
> not mind
> >>>>>>>> debating the points as I have done below because frankly, if I
> cannot defend
> >>>>>>>> the game design philosophy then the system we're discussing is
> probably
> >>>>>>>> broken and i need to work on it some more. besides that, it has
> been
> >>>>>>>> my experience in designing the combat with nick that when debating
> ideas
> >>>>>>>> like this it occasionally inspires great new ideas. I actually
> consider
> >>>>>>>> this to be a vital part of "pre-testing" so please, I encourage
> you to
> >>>>>>>> continue offering your insights and perspectives!
> >>>>>>>> To give you a specific example, your idea about armor making you
> >>>>>>>> slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid doing
> that
> >>>>>>>> in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled players
> >>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>> go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and will
> avoid
> >>>>>>>> things like that on purpose.
> >>>>>>>> - this is by design, we want to encourage people who are exploring
> >>>>>>>> to use lighter armor, it makes no sense to go on a journey into a
> mysterious
> >>>>>>>> temple that is bound to have traps, puzzles, etc. in full plate
> armor. We
> >>>>>>>> want that style of armor to be reserved for people who accept the
> penalty of
> >>>>>>>> speed/jumping for the enhanced ability to take hits without
> getting damage.
> >>>>>>>> this is a player choice.
> >>>>>>>> Also, having injuries slow you down will make players feel like
> they
> >>>>>>>> can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip the
> tables,
> >>>>>>>> and instead create armor that gives players more speed, but they
> >>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>> more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in the eyes of
> a
> >>>>>>>> player it can make a huge difference in gameplay.
> >>>>>>>> - also by design. We want players to feel like there are
> >>>>>>>> concequences to being injured and it should be avoided as much as
> possible.
> >>>>>>>> There are penalties for being injured or dying - that is a major
> part of the
> >>>>>>>> combat design here. We are trying to break away from the constant
> >>>>>>>> healing/ressurection that has been the common thread in most
> rpgs. we're
> >>>>>>>> trying to get away from the attrition system. more info on this
> below
> >>>>>>>> Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and have fun
> doing
> >>>>>>>> the things you imagine.
> >>>>>>>> - one of my favorite gaming experiences is america's army, and
> what
> >>>>>>>> makes it so great and so immersive is that you are constantly in
> fear of
> >>>>>>>> your life so there is actual tension on the battle field, its not
> like tf2
> >>>>>>>> where you run out, spam attacks and if you get killed, oh well,
> respawn. I
> >>>>>>>> love the idea of players figuring out the best strategies to stay
> alive and
> >>>>>>>> learning tactics and skills to do it. yes, it is a challenge - but
> that is
> >>>>>>>> what makes it so great! Another game I love, as alan pointed out,
> is
> >>>>>>>> gemstone. Gemstone was ruthless with one shot kills, getting your
> leg
> >>>>>>>> chopped off and not being able to climb stuff, etc. like there's
> areas in
> >>>>>>>> the game you have to take your armor off and be athletic enough to
> jump in
> >>>>>>>> order to make it over there. staying alive is a major part of
> that game and
> >>>>>>>> everytime you got hit, you would bleed and feel the effects of
> it. as a
> >>>>>>>> player you had to learn to adapt your skills and player style to
> prevent
> >>>>>>>> yourself from getting damaged as much as possible. this is a key
> element to
> >>>>>>>> the game design we are trying to go with. so to answer your
> question - yes,
> >>>>>>>> i think it'd be fun :P
> >>>>>>>> Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play
> arcade-ish
> >>>>>>>> style games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly)
> that we are
> >>>>>>>> trying to make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I like
> to take
> >>>>>>>> the easiest route possible to get to the next step. Not that we
> should flake
> >>>>>>>> on stuff. But we should make sure to not scrutinize/overthink
> things too
> >>>>>>>> much if that makes sense.
> >>>>>>>> - this is an rpg, not an arcade game! :P the emphasis is on
> >>>>>>>> exploration, not just going as quickly as you can to get to the
> next level
> >>>>>>>> (although you can if you so choose). what makes rpg's (and
> adventure games)
> >>>>>>>> fun for me is finding all the little secrets that are hidden all
> over the
> >>>>>>>> world. also, everyone is acting like 5 settings is so complex,
> really the
> >>>>>>>> first one is only for special case scenarios and isn't meant to be
> used
> >>>>>>>> during actual gameplay, and the 5th one is really only to serve as
> a special
> >>>>>>>> thing for use like spells, flying, etc. there are only 3 main
> ones, a weak
> >>>>>>>> jump for heavily armored players, a normal one for most people,
> and a long
> >>>>>>>> jump for people who choose to sacrifice armor for speed and
> manueverability
> >>>>>>>> I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be invisible /
> >>>>>>>> automatic to the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont
> jump as
> >>>>>>>> high or as far. The player might not know there are 5 levels of
> jumping
> >>>>>>>> ability, they might just realize "hey when i take off my armor i
> can make
> >>>>>>>> that jump to that cave i couldnt get to before" (and of course
> maybe an NPC
> >>>>>>>> tips you off to that fact). Or there are boots that have the
> description of
> >>>>>>>> "wear to be able to jump higher"
> >>>>>>>> -right, this is all an under the hood system. its funny because
> >>>>>>>> when i write stories, etc. i try to keep things as close to the
> vest because
> >>>>>>>> i like the reader to be surprised, i like keeping a mystery and
> something
> >>>>>>>> for them to discover for themselves. this is also true in my game
> design
> >>>>>>>> philosophy, give players a ton of neat stuff they can find out for
> >>>>>>>> themselves if they want to... the irony is, as a team we're ALL
> under the
> >>>>>>>> hood so i have to express all the hidden things to you guys so it
> can get
> >>>>>>>> made/discussed, but then everyone is like "oh that is overly
> complicated
> >>>>>>>> there's no reason for that!" without putting themselves in the
> shoes of the
> >>>>>>>> player who doesn't even know the system exists and that its just
> there for
> >>>>>>>> them to discover if they are curious and interested.
> >>>>>>>> 5 different jumps will matter only as much as we design the game
> for
> >>>>>>>> them to matter. In Diablo 2, the barb jump skill only let you
> cross
> >>>>>>>> certain terrain that wasn't walkable, so having so many different
> >>>>>>>> jump
> >>>>>>>> lengths was easily solved - just make the pits larger. If we can
> >>>>>>>> find
> >>>>>>>> an easy solution in our game - an equivalent to "just making the
> >>>>>>>> pits
> >>>>>>>> larger" - then we can add as many jumps as we want, and even make
> >>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>> scale into flying!
> >>>>>>>> I recently learned how to do the shinespark tricks in Metroid
> >>>>>>>> Redesign, and if we could make our jumps in the game require a
> skill
> >>>>>>>> curve somehow, that would reward the player for the ability to
> jump
> >>>>>>>> higher... almost like how in 3d Mario games, you have to jump
> right
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> you hit the ground again, within a certain amount of time, so you
> >>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> do the triple jump.
> >>>>>>>> -i actually view it as a really simple system that allows for a
> lot
> >>>>>>>> of neat versatility in game design and player strategy...
> something that
> >>>>>>>> allows for more skill based movement if people are interested
> because i know
> >>>>>>>> some crazy people (like nick) enjoy finding crazy challenges and
> trying to
> >>>>>>>> exploit gameplay tools to get into areas, etc. i think that is
> fun and
> >>>>>>>> great and should be part of our design. i picked 5 as the number
> so there
> >>>>>>>> would be differences between teh playing styles while keeping
> things we
> >>>>>>>> needed to design/test for to the minimum.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> okay so lets get down to brass tacks here (how much for the
> monkey?)
> >>>>>>>> (3 adunai points to whoever gets the reference)
> >>>>>>>> IMO we have 2 options:
> >>>>>>>> a) 2 jump system - 1 for armor too heavy for you (basically,
> >>>>>>>> non-jumping) and 1 for normal.
> >>>>>>>> pros: easier to design for, easier to test for, no need to think
> >>>>>>>> about armor choices for the player beyond "is it too heavy?"
> >>>>>>>> cons: less versatile, no differences between wearing
> >>>>>>>> light/heavy/medium armor for adventurers, no hidden areas only
> accessible by
> >>>>>>>> people who invest and discover ways to jump farther.
> >>>>>>>> b) 5 jump system - as illustrated above
> >>>>>>>> pros: more for the player to discover, another "tool" in our tool
> >>>>>>>> box, gives extra strengths/weaknesses when picking armor and
> character style
> >>>>>>>> cons: harder to design/test, may baffle some characters.
> >>>>>>>> now obviously i am biased towards B (the 5 jump system) so my
> pitch
> >>>>>>>> for it is, it'll be simpler in practice for the player/designer
> than it may
> >>>>>>>> seem to you right now, it's important for game balance between
> heavy/light
> >>>>>>>> armor, players can really just make sure they are at level 3
> (normal) and
> >>>>>>>> they will be able to get through the entire game without worrying
> about the
> >>>>>>>> difference in jump so i think there is zero bafflement chance, and
> it gives
> >>>>>>>> us another neat tool for desiging exploration and hidden stuff in
> the game.
> >>>>>>>> I am definitely open-minded and can be convinced to go with A) -
> so
> >>>>>>>> lets open it up to the forum and take a little poll and if you
> want to post
> >>>>>>>> comments/thoughts/ideas - then it'll give us more information to
> make a good
> >>>>>>>> and intelligent decision.
> >>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> i didnt have time to read everythign yet but basically here is my
> >>>>>>>>> take...
> >>>>>>>>> level 1 is basically a "your character is broken level" and
> doesnt
> >>>>>>>>> need to be designed for, its basically a penalty thing we can
> use. it is
> >>>>>>>>> the extreme
> >>>>>>>>> level 2 is needed to differentiate heavy armor from light armor
> >>>>>>>>> level 3 is what we will design for, it is "normal"
> >>>>>>>>> level 4 is to sepparate quick characters with ultra light armor
> >>>>>>>>> from people wearing normal armor
> >>>>>>>>> level 5 is a special case scenario type of thing
> >>>>>>>>> we're basically just designing the game for level 3, with maybe a
> >>>>>>>>> small amount of special case scenario areas for level 4/5 (like
> under 2-3
> >>>>>>>>> per chapter)
> >>>>>>>>> i really don't think that it is overly complicated at all and
> this
> >>>>>>>>> will be a SUBTLE thing, i.e. again, most of the things like this
> are only
> >>>>>>>>> designed for people who want the bonus, but dont have to have it
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Alan Wolfe <
> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> yeah actually thats a good point, i remember playin zelda and
> you
> >>>>>>>>>> see objects which are obviously repeated (ie black rocks in link
> to the
> >>>>>>>>>> past, or the docks in zelda 1 etc) and knowing "there is
> something up with
> >>>>>>>>>> those" but you dont know til you have the item. I forgot about
> that, that
> >>>>>>>>>> was kinda fun gameplay :P
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Chris Riccobono
> >>>>>>>>>> <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's part of the fun of Zelda and Metroid style
> games...
> >>>>>>>>>>> getting those items that make you able to do things you didn't
> predict were
> >>>>>>>>>>> possible, so then the player wonders what cool thing is gonna
> come out next
> >>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's a pretty cool idea for introducing game mechanics.. the
> >>>>>>>>>>> player doesn't know about them at all in the game until they
> actually get
> >>>>>>>>>>> the item for it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yeah totally i agree with you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we were talkin about this before, we were saying having lots
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> optional things to discover in a game makes it seem bigger
> because we don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> advertise what the "edges" are.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> so yeah totally, if we advertise there are 5 jump levels it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ruins the magic, but if the player discovers "wtf i jump
> higher now?" they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> might try to see just how high they can jump. Maybe they get
> to level 4 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never cap out at level 5, as far as they know the sky is the
> limit even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> though they are almost at the cieling hehe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Chris Riccobono
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, about the player not knowing there will be 5 jump
> levels,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would trigger the "yay I discovered something" emotion. It's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fun to learn how to do something to reach new places, you
> know?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Chris
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Riccobono<crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I do believe simplicity brings about the most fun when done
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > correctly!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I think part of the fun of a game is learning how to use
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > system,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > too, so when you can learn it very easy at first, you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > open to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > learning new mechanics as things go on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> You deffinately have a good point. Our game isn't arcadey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> per se but it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> a game where you can go deeper if you want but don't have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Like there will be lots to explore but it's all optional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> (Eric correct me if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> im wrong lol).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> invisible / automatic to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> as high or as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> far. The player might not know there are 5 levels of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> jumping ability, they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> might just realize "hey when i take off my armor i can
> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> that jump to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> that cave i couldnt get to before" (and of course maybe an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> NPC tips you off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to that fact). Or there are boots that have the
> description
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> of "wear to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> able to jump higher"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> But yeah there is deffinate wisdom to keeping it simple,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> especially keeping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the end result the player sees simple.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Someone should be able to pick up the game and be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> play without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> having to read some huge manual :P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the old saying "easy to learn difficult to master" yadda
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> yadda
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM, katie cook
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> arcade-ish style
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that we are trying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I
> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to take the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> easiest route possible to get to the next step. Not that
> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> should flake on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> stuff. But we should make sure to not
> scrutinize/overthink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> things too much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> if that makes sense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I like the opportunity to get a little bit deeper with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> game if I choose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to at the time, but appreciate when I don't have to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Usually arcades games
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> tend to be shorter in hours played. When I play a short
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> game, I don't wanna
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> have to invest a lot of time and deal with frivilous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> features. The easier
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the game the funner it is for me (for arcade/short games.
> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> hope this makes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> sense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:46 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 5 different jump levels is going to complicate things a
> bit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> more than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> we want. Try to keep in mind that the ideal is to make
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> game more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> fun. Ask yourself, will 5 different jumps enhance the
> game
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> enough to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> warrant the amount of coding, designing, and bug testing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> they will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> require?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> To reiterate what I tried to stress early on, we want the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> game to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> as fun as possible, as simply as possible. Having a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> complex game is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> great if it enhances the experience, but if it doesn't,
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> becomes a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> hinderance - just another game, in other words.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> To give you a specific example, your idea about armor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> making you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> doing that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> players will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> will avoid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> things like that on purpose.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Also, having injuries slow you down will make players
> feel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> like they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the tables,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> and instead create armor that gives players more speed,
> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> they take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> eyes of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> player it can make a huge difference in gameplay.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> fun doing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the things you imagine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > you know the kind of cool thing about this too
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > we could actually make situations that you couldn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > escape from, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > things like pits that when you fall into them you die
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > instantly and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > to the void.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > those are really mean (literally!) features but if we
> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > them sparingly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > in some kind of "i told you not to look in the box"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > situations that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > actually pretty funny.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > im not sure if you are down with it, but it would bring
> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > feeling of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > mortality :P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > ps i'll add the previous ideas to the wiki once i get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > home if no one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > else
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > has by then. I dont mind but just can't right now :P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> yes - harsh but like i said, its an emergency only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> option to be as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> last
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> resort... i think any other way of doing it will allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> too many holes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> exploits (such as exp or item farming, etc)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> so would you lose all exp, gold and items gained
> then?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> yeah i think that is what we';ll do, you can recall
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> the void at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> time but it effectively just restores a saved game
> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> you gain no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> benefit to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> it. We'll make this sort of a last ditch option, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> we'll try to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> design it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> so people never have to use it under normal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> circumstances
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> no, im just here to poke holes in your ideas <g>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> jk but no im not sure... other than perhaps the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> player can return to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> the void at any time, and the cost is that you've
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> lost all the time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> you've
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> taken to progress to where you are (ie you have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> walk back)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> wait i take that back, i'll have to think of a
> real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> solution. any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ideas?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ok
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> is recall always going to be available?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> recall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> ok sounds good. the lax attitude and not
> needing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> perfection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> make it alot easier to test and build. We'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> just have to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> sure and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> keep that in mind when designing things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> actually i think we will probably still have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> do a lot of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> testing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> with the various jumps to make sure people
> can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> get somewhere
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> they arent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> meant to be that they cant get out of - ie i
> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> enter this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> level 3 jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> area but i can't escape.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> what's your thoughts on that situation?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> well 2 things...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 1 - i am comfortable with the testing, i think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> it'll add a lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> the game - what do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 2 - alan i would really say we'd only need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> test for 2 things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> the ability for level 2 to get past areas that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> non-jumping route
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> through and to make sure tier 5 people can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> exploit anything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> we don't want
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> them too... i would say if a tier 3 person can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> find a way to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> get over
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> something designed as a secret for level 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> people, then that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> ok w/ me,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> and likewise with level 4 getting to level 5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> areas. if they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> can find a way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> to overcome the handicap, i dont want to stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> them :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and of course another option is we just
> design
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> it where fine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> tuned details like that aren't important
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> like if you can jump it instead of having to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> get a rope and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> climb
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> up, who cares!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> but shrug just wanted to point out this
> aspect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> solution!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea. It deffinately makes
> thigns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> exploration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> based since we could put places that you
> can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> get to while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> starting out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't a deal breaker but i want to
> point
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> out this will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> increase testing and designing time:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to be played with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> highest jump level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure they cant exploit anything they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be able
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to played with the
> lowest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jump level to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure the minimum we want passable is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> passable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * for maps which have a specific jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> requirement areas (ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> level 3 lets you get to this area) we'll
> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to play with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that level as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> well as the next level down to make sure the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one below can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> get up too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, eric drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you guys think of that scale? that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> way we dont have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> guess when we design and we have a baseline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM, eric
> drewes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a voice spoke from the mountain tops,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "and let it be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken, there shall be 5 different tiers
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability, one for hardly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any jump at all, the next for between the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current jump and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the previous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels not-really-a-jump, the third is
> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there now,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fourth for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump equal to 1.5x as high/far as the 3rd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a fifth that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is triple the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal jump - this will be reserved for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special facet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item boosts or a max
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100 quickness bonus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically it is like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 1) barely a jump at all, this will
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for incredibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fat characters (w/ the fat facet) people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with super heavy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't strong enough to wear, incredibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injured people,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people with snake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsos, etc :-P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 2) this is what people wearing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plate/heavy chain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or have relatively strong long injuries,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. etc. will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 3) most characters will have this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump, traps, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be designed with this as the
> minimum
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - though
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically we want it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a challenge for level 3 people. some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed so it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccessible without level 4 though, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing vital to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing the map -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, traps/jump areas that aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessible except
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through jumping should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use level 2 as a minimum.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 4) super athletic character with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light or no armor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this, they can reach special areas
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other 3 levels
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't, jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puzzles should be easier for level 4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 5) these characters are magically
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imbued or have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humanly agility, maybe they have little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wings, etc. by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passable traps, areas
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can only be reached via long
> distance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel, etc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these characters have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big advantage on all jumping matters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Kent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petersen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man, that sounds awful. At least we have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons and now know how to prevent them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw line rider had the same issues tee
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hee
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In line rider, people were exploiting a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to do tricks like gravity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wells and nose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grinds and other stuff.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we made the commercial version of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the game we had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure all the tricks were still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible and we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in tech dawg to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play it and make sure everything was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still kosher.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the parts that sucked - whenever we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optomized something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the game it would break all existing
> test
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps we had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made so we had to wait
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> til the very end of the game to make
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puzzle maps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, since the DS, Wii and PC all have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> floating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point math chips in them (and ds had
> diff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code), maps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't work the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on all the different platforms so we
> had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep sharing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be on the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform it was created on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its ok man ::shakes you:: the wars
> over,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nixon is outa
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office now
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petersen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Kent is having megaman flashbacks*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Alan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed! I'm going to re-iterate
> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said Kent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so people understand the importance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should figure out how high / far
> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to jump and how strong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muey importante~!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once we decide we can't change
> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rebalance any existing physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependant maps (ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skill jumps, gaps that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the player should or should not be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to jump over
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc) which is a total
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pain and could really be really
> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destructive to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our game having to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild and rebalance a whole bunch
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crap later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, lookin at you Eric, we should
> talk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalizing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything specifically you
> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure want the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player to be able to do? IE jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across a certain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, jump over a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain hight object etc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM,
> Kent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petersen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did you want to do for the
> first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trap? I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there would be 5 or so
> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking tiles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there would be one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct kind of tile (not the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diamond). Then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player would have to jump
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about through the tiles to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct ones. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured it would work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the ones that were on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenttest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your thoughts on that?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you get to into designing
> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temple I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly suggest that we nail down
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player control and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping physics. Let me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warn you from experience, if we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change how any of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that works your temple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become obsolete.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM,
> Kent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petersen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been really busy today and will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably be busy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next couple days. I would suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaving the trap
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas open for now. If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are willing to push on anyway
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have specific
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, send em my
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way and I will be happy to help
> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when I get a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Wolfe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man that's awesome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache User
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dhapache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> User:rorac
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message: Expanded a little on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> templemap, added
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> template code as per Kent's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advisement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Need a sign (next room is
> diamond
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path). Kent, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need your help to help
> build
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that part and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin putting traps in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallway (first right = first
> trap
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Files Changed>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U Scripts/Maps/templemap.lua
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Scripts/Maps/templemap_geometry.lua
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> ;>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> This e-mail is the property of Oakley Inc. It is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that
> is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein,
> to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>
Other related posts:
