Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About DaChibii

  • Rank
  1. ... Why are you under the impression that all POIs need to be stackable? Or that they can't have contextual placement. Any underground POIs would have to be designed to be stackable and thus be new POIs (since existing underground POIs have an above or surface component). Seriously.... You are the one that isn't getting it. The question wasn't asking about whether you can take existing POIs and throw them underground. It was if underground POIs were possible, which they are. By the way the game already does contextual checks when doing POI placement, so just add in a check to see if the POI can be used as a support POI underneath during RWG.
  2. It's only unsafe if the POIs are designed that way. And the whole point of POIs opposed to static builds are it allows the Level Designers and RWG great variety and ease in developing play areas for the players. So... as I stated before, it's a level design issue if the engine allows it, and programming issue if it doesn't. Basically so far your arguments and discussion have been to paraphrase... 'You can't do that because it would collapse.' But that's not an issue. It's like saying you can't stack houses on top of each other, and architects and engineers go... 'Yes. Yes you can if you design it that way'. The core reason behind any underground POIs would be a way to increase the play area of a world without increases the world boundaries or crowding the 2D surface space. Additionally, you could use it to develop additional paths for the player to navigate around the world (cave tunnels, road/rail tunnels, storm sewers, etc.). The idea behind modular and tileable POIs to make it easier for the RWG and make feel more varied and sort of normal. In the end these concepts are more for the developer and less about the player, since static authored content will always be superior to procedurallty generated stuff but purely authored content is just not scalable. So developers often make tools that help with the authored content that later get turned into procedural generated mass content tools or just released to the public and let the community make authored content.
  3. ... So what you're asking for is underground POIs that already break SI rules? Or stackable POIs that break SI rules? Because a POI isn't defined by its boundary but by it's shape. I mean you could break up any of the skyscrapers into smaller POIs and it would work.
  4. As an aside to the above. You can always set in ground blocks as part of the POI to act as a ceiling supports. I think if the programmers/engineers can figure out to make Pregen engine think in layers instead of a true 3D space, they could setup seamless modular POIs (similar to random gen Rogue-likes) granted then it would still be up to the level designers to make sure the seams are structurally sound and feel less AI created when placed next to each other. So instead of making a whole apartment building a single POI it can be several stacked on each other and the order be randomized for a little variety. Granted it won't flow as well as manually placed ones, but it can help add a little variation without having to create whole new POIs each time.
  5. ... How do you think the Skyscrapers are built in the game? Or any of the existing prefab POIs that exist underground. I mean you could put a whole skyscraper above a bunker POI, because the roof/ground is already structually sound. As I said... the only issue would be if the engine only allows for one POI per chunk because it only exists as a 2D plane, and not a 3D aggregate space. Other than it's only a Level Design POI issue. And to be fair, I bet the current Level Designers at TFPs can do this but either don't have the time, or the programmers haven't figured out how to do it efficiently (I bet they broadly know how to do it, but making it not run like garbage is a whole other issue).
  6. The SI issue isn't a engine issue, but a POI level design one. All you need to do is make sure the ceiling blocks of the sub-POI can be structural and support the weight (of anything) because remember SI is only checked horizontally. But I don't know if TFP wants to put the extra time into making sure of that. And then it's just changing the x/y planar zoning into a 3D chunk one if the subterranean POIs span multiple chunks (although that from what I understand is not an easy or simple task and is an engine if I recall correctly).
  7. I actually don't mind Th3s0n1c's automatic start suggestion, but I get the issues that was explored after the suggestion. Curious... could it work with two bounding boxes? A large one to reset at the POI and a smaller one inside of the larger one closer to the entrance that triggers the quest start? Additionally, this more an programming/engineering question related to Roland's issue with stuff resetting in plain view. Could instead of resetting the whole POI it just resets what's required for the quest? So like just the zombies for clears, or zombie spawns and the hidden satchel for clear/fetches? That way if a person has already looted the POI and end loot then they are just doing the quest for the quest rewards? Sort of separate POI loot rooms and quests from each other.
  8. Except we all ready have this in POI form: The Bear Den. The only difference is I'm asking for wilderness POIs (as part of my original repeatable non-Quest POIs idea). And people already do this in the real world with bait and blinds. Although, given the how this suggestion has drifted the OT... I might as well make a post the Pimp Dreams forum.
  9. I'm aware of that. That was just addendum to the original idea of repeatable POIs based on a timer (similar to how Air Drops function) but POI as a challenge/puzzle instead of just loot. I was suggesting an alternative option in addition to Animal Tracker that provides the same end goal but a different path to it, so other playstyles can enjoy instead of catering to just one.
  10. This might be a question that one of the CM can answer, but... Does TFP have any plans for repeatable POIs (outside or in addition to the current Quest mechanic)? Like could the Duke or White River faction have preset drop locations for trade caravans that reset weekly (or on a Airdrop timer) that players could use as a repeatable quest if they choose to do so? Then players would have a diversity of POIs (other than layout diversity) to choose from: repeatable Quest POIs, non-repeatable non-Quest POIs, and repeatable non-Quest POIs. I guess paper non-Trader Quests/Challenges sort of fit this role, but often I find those more of an achievement/challenge than a source of resources (like loot or XP). Ooooooo... You could even work this using the animals. So you could make a simple Bear cave POI with Bear spawns that resets with a timer (seperate, airdrop, or loot respawn timer). And it would feel sort of realistic in that just a new bear taking over the past bears space. Or maybe a small valley grove with Deer spawns. Mostly this is allow for players that don't want to explore for prey an option to get reliable animal resources, but at a cost of a being on a schedule. Opposed to the current RNG freedom option. I'm not advocating for the removal of the current system, but just an add-on to flesh out the wilderness and increase the options available.
  11. Well... This sounds like a public MP server issue, more than a co-op or SP issue. And if that case... then it's more an issue with new player placement then it's about actual POI resets. Otherwise, it's just a behind the scenes fix since it's doubtful a new player is going to loot every available POI before the quests run out. And if they do, then they don't need the quest XP or rewards since they've already progressed so much. And even then... it still doesn't remove the reset, it just places it at the end. Granted, if my suggestion actually got implemented (doubtful; TFP has a production schedule and process) a player would then get a choice: loot nearby POIs to trader for quick sales and risk losing out on close quests, or be more selective which POIs to loot so not to mess up the pool. At extremes a savvy player could exploit it to alter the available pool to their desire, but... that would be alot of effort.
  12. Soooo.... The cons of dying is a progression debt in the form of XP and a host selectable 'backpack/toolbelt drop/deletion'. The pros of dying is... resets all critical wounds, infections, and hunger/hydration. And possibly a fast travel mechanism. Progression debt is in relation to XP progression rate, which is why at higher levels it's easier to recover the lost XP. Since the game seems to be nonlinear growth as you progress (this is probably good). But since it's a flat rate it doesn't match up to XP rate and becomes less of a penalty. Maybe tie the percentage to gamestage, so the higher a player progresses the less times a player needs to die to hit the 100% debt cap? That way late-game players are more concerned with death than in the early game. The status resets are little more tricky for me, since it can easily be abused but at the same time can easily spiral in frustration to player. Maybe reset but have a 'Respawn Fatigue' effect that caps the max Food/Water (but not additive) so it's more effective on players that play well but less frustrating for struggling players. You could also tie in a critical wound vulnerability to it.... but that might be overkill since wounds since to stack up very fast already. And I wouldn't mind seeing an option that allows for decay on death (basically reduces durability by an amount) for the backpack and toolbelt. That way it can be used in combination with the "drop on death" feature for either a really hard experience, or give a cost to players wishing for the 'Fast Travel' way.
  13. Not that I'm really for or against POI resets, but.. the Trader could simply do a check to see if the POI has been looted when the quest is rolled, and if so just reroll until an unlooted POI is found. It can be as simple as checking whether the main stash has been looted, or a random combination of stashes, or even if the zombie closets are unbroken. And if no suitable POI is found then it selects the initial result and the player has to accept the POI reset. Really the only pro's of POI resets is that on small maps it allows for a longer times on that map. On other maps it's just a trade off between speed versus exploration (some players prefer speed progressing, while others prefer the joys of exploring new places). Personally, I prefer not to double dip but my cohorts prefer to. In MP it's way easier to stripmine a POI, since players can focus on one task (one goes to clear, the other follows behind loots, and a third immediately starting salvaging). So resetting is beneficial in that case because the travel time between quest POIs is more significant than the actual POI clearing time. So it's mostly a MP balance issue, which frankly TFP should be concerned with but that's such a pain to get right that I'm expecting that the game balance be focused around SP. And in SP it's not that much of an issue.
  14. In our current MP server, I'm the base builder. But that I means I have stop occassionally from base building, so I don't outlevel the rest of the group. This means that the base gets built in spurts, and I when I'm the not one building... I have to wait until the POI raiding party returns and then provide them with blocks to upgrade. This is why it becomes a chore... it's less playing a game and more managing the XP progression of a team. Yes, if the XP from upgrading blocks were shared it would be rather unbalanced.... but not from the sharing, but rather because XP award itself is unbalanced (well... it's balanced in that assumes the base builder isn't getting all that phat looting/scavenging XP or the combat is away from the base). If all other sources were shared (say except quest XP) then players wouldn't have to focusing on doing things together constantly, and instead group up when they want to (or can... if they have free time). Which then brings me back to my suggestion of giving the host an option on what XP gets shared, and if it's in relation to the distance of the award. So it would just have a diminishing returns rate. Of course, this is also a MP issue which can probably be modded in if the community really needs it, so I'm not really expecting anything from TFP. But I think in a sandbox game the more option a player has to fine tune their enjoyment the better. And TFP has been doing pretty well on that.
  15. I think it should be almost all actions should be shared. Or at list a toggle list of actions and let the player/host decide which actions should be shared XP. I also think there should be an option to have the shared XP in ratio to the distance of the action. So the closer to the target the more XP a player would get up to the 100%. Because it's more than just if a player is participating because there is an economy as well (a finite number of loot XP chances depending on settings). As well upgrading blocks is still one of the best forms of XP, so a builder can easily out level the rest (especially if the builder is the merchant). Trying to find to keep a co-op group within a reasonable range becomes a chore after awhile.
  • Create New...