zztong

Ah, thanks for the tip. I was off thinking about "what is a smoke donut" and where would I find one. They don't sound very tasty, but they're probably low calorie.

My Prefab Editor does not have a SmokeGreenDonutRH block to place. I don't even have a block with "Smoke" or "Donut" in the name. Where did you get those POIs? Are they out of my modlet, or are they from some other effort where somebody has added value to them.

I hate to hear you are suffering. -- It would be easier to just play CP47 in using version 19.6 of the game. Converting CP47 to A20 just using the tools won't be very satisfying as the resulting POIs need a lot of work. You can read the edit history for this message if you want to know all the details. Stallion's been at this a long while and knows what he's doing. He's not holding up the release for arbitrary reasons.

I don't know. I've not played Darkness Falls. I don't know how maps are made for DF, if DF can work with modlets, or if DF POIs need any special support.

Here's a teaser... Navezgane Tribune and an elevated walkway connection to an Annex across the street.

You could go larger than 150x150 in the wilderness, but it does tend to decimate things like mountains. That's the common problem I run into with a wilderness idea is that I want lots of room because there's not as much reason to build up. I've partly thought about using "settlement" options to make for a "wilderness-like" experience made up of a number of POIs. I'd turn off the Trader, like the Western Town does. I think it needs TFP to implement custom Gateway Tiles to be viable. Plus, it becomes another really large project as you'd make a number of Tiles and a number of POIs. I understand needing a break from T5's. I've got one on my workbench now and a larger goal that I'm excited about, but larger projects can be so draining. I recognize there's a lot of player demand for T5's for late-game content. I also recognize there's a need for more POI diversity because folks crave that "new POI" experience and because folks want to push the boundaries of current map limits (bigger maps, bigger cities) which then must reuse content.

Just thoughts... There's a vanilla tile (rwg_tile_downtown_t) that has a Medium POI marker with a special tag (tdowntowntile). There are only 3 vailla POIs with that tag, so they are the only things that can land there: church_01, coursehouse_med_01, and remnant_church_01. Maybe you've got an idea for something that fits that spot. There's lots of T5 content for inside of cities and towns and very little late game reason to go out into the wilderness. Maybe you've got an idea for a T5 wilderness POI?

I'd like to see improved integration between RWG and modlets. Support for "Parts" in a modlet would be very handy.

I hear she's busy recording a dramatic reading of the A21 roadmap.

Hmm, suddenly the Parking Garages make more sense. Custom tiles aren't allowing for the alleys, so I end up with Parking Garages with vehicle entrance alleys smashed up against other POIs or Tile content with no access to a road. I've never seen a parking garage where the vehicle entrances are around back. I had been thinking the Parking Garages had the wrong facing.

I'm building a POI with unusual visual boundaries that may not be clear to players. (Normally, players are use to POIs with obvious boundaries, such as walls.) It would be easier than normal to wander outside the boundary of the POI and then fail a quest. This had me thinking it would be nice to be able to provide some extra instruction at the start of the quest and/or if you looked at the quest in your journal. This, in turn, led me to think it could also give POI designers a chance to slip in some backstory. Example: * Quest Tier: &TIER; * Warning: Quest includes unmarked outdoor boundaries. &TRADER; informed you this POI was once an active mine that kept &MAPNAME; supplied with iron, but it closed prior to the apocalypse and was rumored to be used by drug smugglers as a drop point. ... and in this case the game code would find and replace certain entities in the text... &TRADER; would become the name of the Trader who gave out the quest. &TIER; would be the quest tier coming from the POI's XML. &MAPNAME; would be the current map's name, like "West Glucose Valley". This text could live in the POI's XML file: <QuestText> &TRADER; informed you this POI was once an active mine that kept &MAPNAME; supplied with iron, but it closed prior to the apocalypse and was rumored to be used by drug smugglers as a drop point. </QuestText> To save having to revisit all the old POIs there would have to be some default text, like "The Trader didn't have any additional information."

I contribute to the CP so you can find my POIs as of Feb 2022 in CP48 when it is released. The differences between my modlet and my content in the CP are: Any POIs I release after Feb 2022 will only be in my modlet until CP49 gets released. I release content more frequently than the CP does. The CP has some slightly different RWG placement configurations of my POIs in order to support the CP's custom cities and to balance out placement all CP POIs. My advice to players (found in my modlet's release notes) has been to go with whichever is the newest. That is, if CP is newer then leave my modlet out of your configuration. But if my modlet is newer, then consider leaving my CP content out of the CP when you install it. I'm not sure what to recommend if you're doing extensive map customization or tailoring POIs to better fit into an extensive game mod. There's probably all sorts of issues to juggle. I'm happy to advise further if needed. My current plan is I won't be releasing anything new until after CP48 comes out. There's a larger project on my workbench that I doubt will be finished in March, and maybe not April either unless real life backs off. If CP48 isn't out by then, I'll reevaluate.

@Jugginator I see this is still listed as an Incomplete Report. What more can I provide?

@Jugginator I see this is still listed as an Incomplete Report. What more can I provide?

This has to do with how zombie volumes are defined and when Z's are placed. I think you have to be within either 1 vertical block or something like 10 horizontal blocks of the volume for the game to place the Z's. If it were a larger number for the vertical block you could/would see many more Z's get placed. I gather there's a performance issue related to that, probably affecting multiplayer more noticeably than single player games. POI designers can try to take this into account in places where this is most likely to be noticed, such as stairways. You could have one volume cover the stairway at all heights. Alas, it really depends on the POI. I wonder if perhaps TFP could make those distances configurable? That is, if you're running a single player game, maybe you could get away with a higher vertical distance?

Looks cool. I suddenly see a need for a Mount Fuji stamp.

Version A20.1-ZZ007 is now available. (The link is found in the first message of this topic.) It adds 16 new POIs (most of them small) and 1 custom Tile. This brings the total number of POIs in this modlet to 75.

@unholyjoe @Arch-Sage Yes, I was free of the problem the day I discovered it because I added the missing XML to my POIs, so I didn't notice that it was otherwise resolved. Awesome. Thanks for the fix and for the response.

@unholyjoe @Arch-Sage Yes, I was free of the problem the day I discovered it because I added the missing XML to my POIs, so I didn't notice that it was otherwise resolved. Awesome. Thanks for the fix and for the response.

@Jugginator Is there anything more I can provide on this report? What would be useful?

@Jugginator Is there anything more I can provide on this report? What would be useful?

Suggestion / Use Case: (see also, Testing found above) @Laz Man @Kinyajuu I would like to randomize the location of final loot within a POI. In this way, there might be 4 or 5 different locations that the final loot may be placed each time the POI is initially placed, or regenerated by a quest. What currently does not seem possible is that POI Designers cannot ultimately arrange the probabilities of placement for each of those Parts in a group such that they can be certain of an even chance of placement for each location. It appears you can get close, and you may end up with no loot having been placed. Discussion: A notable complication is that Groups of Parts are not defined discretely, but are collectively defined by their members. That means if the configuration of 2 of the Parts had a flag set indicating "Even Placement Within Group" was desired, but 2 other Parts did not, then which approach should RWG use? Ideally, choosing a Part to be placed in this manner does not depend on a Probability setting in the UI, but is the equivalent of picking a chip from a hat.

I have now tried to use this technique in a test case. It generally works, but could be improved. Details... TEST 1: I made a POI. I placed 4 "Loot T1" Parts in different locations. Gave them all the same GroupName of "loot." Set the probability of each to 20%. Results: I observed 5 different outcomes. I either saw 1 of the 4 picked and placed or I saw none of the 4 picked. This makes sense, as the combined probability of placement for 4 Parts at 20% probability represent a combined probability of 1.0 - (1.0-0.2) ^ 4 = 0.5904 or 59.04%. Thus there was approximately a 40% of none of the parts being picked. TEST 2: I modified TEST 1 so that the probabilities were 20%, 20%, 20% and 99%. The idea being that the 4th choice would always get picked if the first 3 were not. Results: This worked as I did not see any results where none of the Parts were placed. However, the 4th choice (with 99%) was picked most of the time, which makes sense. TEST 3: I attempted to tweak the percentages such that all 4 Parts might have roughly the same percentage of placement. To do this, I needed to pick a percentage for the first 3 Parts that would leave roughly that same percentage for the 4th Part even though I had to set the fourth part to 99%. I ultimately settled on 30%, 30%, 30%, 99% because 1.0 - (1.0-0.3) ^ 3 = 0.657 or 65.7%. That left a 100% - 65.7% = 34.3% chance of the last Part being picked. Results: While I did not see a case where none of the Parts were picked, I still saw the majority of the time the 4th Part was picked, rather than a more-even distribution. Conclusion: Since we're dealing with probabilities, it is possible TEST 3 really could lead to more-even distributions. More testing would be needed to see that. Still I suspect POI designers are not likely to want to go through the probability mathematics to balance out the odds of even placement. While configuring Parts, the Probability slider has 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% as easy stops. You can select any probability by clicking in the track. (Click-Drag in the probability slider produces NREs.)

@Jugginator I'm back in action. I've made a video to show the problem. You can find it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12PU0YjKjenE2J50MCoW7KpkxJBihLXj4/view?usp=sharing

@Jugginator I'm back in action. I've made a video to show the problem. You can find it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12PU0YjKjenE2J50MCoW7KpkxJBihLXj4/view?usp=sharing