RWG can we go back to experimental?

[Viktoriusiii]

So this is a discussion for the users, but a question for the mods/devs.

 

Mods/Devs:

could we in theory get the RWG of A17.0 experimental back?

The one where snow was north, forest in the middle and desert in the south?

 

I never quite got why this was removed. RWG worked perfectly, it had a sort of predictability to it and it felt awesome to just walk 3 kilometres through the forest without changing biomes 10 times.

Would this be possible as a RWG option? ("Navazgane; Random World; random fixed Poles;") if so please dont delete the code.

because while I hated nearly everything in the experimental, this was the only thing I really quite liked.

 

 

Forum:

what is your opinion of the "ordered" RWG?

Would you use it when it would be an option? Did you have any issues with it?

It would be far superior to what we have right now wouldnt it (talking about 17.3 experimental, it would obviously be better than 17.2 )?

[SnowDog1942]

Yea I love the idea of having things placed randomly in the same place every game.

[Viktoriusiii]

Yea I love the idea of having things placed randomly in the same place every game.

 

this might be the stupidest thing I have heard this week...

and yes I get what you were trying to say.

It's just so strange to me that someone would think that a slightly more predictable world dictated by "logic" would somehow not be random anymore.

 

Like... if you like small snow biomes next to a burnt and a desert biome, sure be my guest. I do like the random placement as well. Before I experienced it I was also very confused about this descision. But it feels more natural. Biomes are bigger, you dont wander through 6 biomes just to find one you like and since the biomes was coupled to the hightmap it also looked pretty awesome (it looked more like navazgane with desertcliffs and big snowy mountainranges instead of a random mess)

 

I also do like it random don't get me wrong.

And if you don't that is fine. Your reason was just not making any sense.

[Scyris]

I'm not a big fan of the biome layouts in 17.3 myself, it just seems well, way to random. I prefer a17.0's as well you know snow is north, desert is south, forest is the center, but the poi's in these biomes were randomized, as well was the size of each. I looked at a map for a17.3 and just went "WTF is this crap?" when I looked at the biomes image in the generated worlds folder.

 

I also find the biome switching every short walk to be annoying, especally with the weather survival system the game has. With how snow can be bitter cold yet its right next to a sweltering hot desert. 5 Steps into either biome and massive temperture changes. Honestly? I might just mod the tech coat to have 80/80 heat/cold protection and be done with it. Sure I still have to loot one in game, but once I do I can forget about that stupid pointless system entirely. I face palmed when I seen weather survival on the patch notes when it was initially put into the game, I've never liked those kinds of systems, unless its only surviving ONE type, but having to swap clothes etc for 2 diff types, especally in rwg when its like super random right now in biomes is just annoying and it adds nothing of value to the game.

 

TBH I wish the games options when you start or continue a game had more options, like ability to turn on/off weather survival, same for food spoiling if that becomes a thing.

[n2n1]

This is similar to the first version of the generator in A9, only even more primitive.

But in A9 there was some landscape and variation of city streets.

What is now - it will be replaced, it's crap.

So it makes no sense to discuss what is now.

[KingSlayerGM]

I don't like snow in the north and desert in the south. A16 rwg was way better

[unholyjoe]

everyone is intitled to their opinion but i kinda believe... RWG -> Random World Generator is simply doing what it is intended. But we do have the xmls to where any change can be made to give a player what he/she wants to experience.

 

i mean seriously tho... doesnt "Random" means Random - "and not knowing where something will be placed all the time". which is again as i stated... the intent thus creating a world in which players do not know where things will be and promoting exploration in game.

 

or do i miss what "Random" means?

 

i do know this will be read the wrong way but so be it... because it is not written to criticize how someone wants to play.

 

also for the original question... if a previous alpha was declared stable and or kept in the opt in list, then yes you can go back.

[KingSlayerGM]

everyone is intitled to their opinion but i kinda believe... RWG -> Random World Generator is simply doing what it is intended. But we do have the xmls to where any change can be made to give a player what he/she wants to experience.

 

i mean seriously tho... doesnt "Random" means Random - "and not knowing where something will be placed all the time". which is again as i stated... the intent thus creating a world in which players do not know where things will be and promoting exploration in game.

 

or do i miss what "Random" means?

 

i do know this will be read the wrong way but so be it... because it is not written to criticize how someone wants to play.

 

also for the original question... if a previous alpha was declared stable and or kept in the opt in list, then yes you can go back.

 

But pure randomness is undesirable. It results in just unusable noise.

 

Rwg is randomness in accordance with a set of rules. Atm the rules are broken, and they were much better in a16

[unholyjoe]

But pure randomness is undesirable. It results in just unusable noise.

 

Rwg is randomness in accordance with a set of rules. Atm the rules are broken, and they were much better in a16

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random

 

 

 

and my comment is merely what Random is suppose to mean.

[canadianbluebeer]

We get that it is random, and that's the part we don't like.

 

I alleviate it a bit, just by changing the percentage of the biome generated. Doesn't totally fix it, but

I do get a lot of continuous forest.

 

Doesn't have to be static snow-forest-desert top-bottom, but larger areas of each so that it at least looks like it makes

some kind of sense, instead of a quilt.

 

just my 2 coppers.

[Weazelsun]

Hm... I started back in A15 and thus have a bias for the the current RWG, where biomes are essentially placed around like splotches of paint. I like it because it doesn't require me to make multiple trips to the south for plant specific things like aloe.

 

However, on the other hand though, the way it is in the current A17.2, is also nice because I most likely will spawn in a forest biome and thus have a more easy way of starting out. I also like it since it seems logical snow in the north and desert in the south.

 

The only thing I would want more specifically is to have the wasteland biome and burnt to spawn instead on the outer layer of the map, to indicate that is where the rad zone is. Rather than having to find it out the hard way by going to far south, east, north, or west in either direction.

[OldManBrian]

Bah, we need map generation options like in civ games. They've got all the pieces there to do it, so I think it will probably happen down the road after the generation engine is more finalized.

[OzHawkeye]

Bah, we need map generation options like in civ games. They've got all the pieces there to do it, so I think it will probably happen down the road after the generation engine is more finalized.

 

Though I'm not normally a fan of an ever expanding Options menu, I certainly hope that Gold ships with an in-game screen for map generation. It's so fundamental to a players enjoyment, and not every player will know how to re-configure the XMLs, that it makes sense to me for TFP to spend some time building an in-game screen that allows players to tweak the map generation, along general lines of "more of this, less of that" sort of thing.

[Tin]

But pure randomness is undesirable. It results in just unusable noise.

 

Rwg is randomness in accordance with a set of rules. Atm the rules are broken, and they were much better in a16

 

A16 (and prior) the system was a resource pig, that had a lot of makeup on it, to make it look prettier, but it was still a pig.

A17.0, .1, .2, .3 is unfortunately in a unique place, in that the old system isn't fully compatible with the new system that's being worked on.

The rules themselves aren't really broken. It just rules made to work with what it had to work with, to make something decent out of all the limitations that the transition phase is putting on it.

Till we get the full new system in place, it is what it is. It's neither good, nor bad. It's definitely not great, but it's also definitely not the worst either.

I personally don't want to go back to the old system, although I'll miss the familiarity of it. It was very limiting, but at the same time pretty versatile, but for every change made to make it gen better, it brought performance issues, that affected everything in the game. The old system could be made to be very pretty, and appealing looking, but at a pretty decent cost to performance. Which means, smaller towns/cities, less zombies, less decorations etc,.

 

Hopefully, when we get the full new system, it'll surpass the old, in many ways. The past pics that MM showed of it, is very promising. At least, as far as what the eye's see.

At least that's my take on it..

[KingSlayerGM]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random

 

 

 

and my comment is merely what Random is suppose to mean.

 

Dude, read my post instead of linking the dictionary definition, and maybe the conversation would be constructive.

[Guest]

thus creating a world in which players do not know where things will be and promoting exploration in game.

 

The current RWG doesn't really promote exploring though. Just walk in a random direction for a few minutes and you'll probably traverse every biome in the game.

[hotpoon]

what is your opinion of the "ordered" RWG?

Would you use it when it would be an option? Did you have any issues with it?

It would be far superior to what we have right now wouldnt it (talking about 17.3 experimental, it would obviously be better than 17.2 )?

 

Yes, I agree and that type of set up also lends itself to having harder biomes for end game (like how Conan Exiles does it). That way casuals and builders can stay in the easy biomes for longer and those that want hardcore difficulty can move to the more difficult biomes sooner, for greater reward of course. If everyone decides how to progress their own game at a speed they are comfortable with, people will be happier. It just makes more sense. TFP won't have to hear complaints about seeing green zombies spawning too soon and so forth.

[AtomicUs5000]

I think I would rather have biome defined by the average elevation above sea level of some randomly defined regions as opposed to always knowing where a biome is going to be in a random gen.

[Odetta]

Just get rid of Burning Forrest as a main biome, make it a sub biome and put something better in. It's just wasted space at this point.

[Weazelsun]

Just get rid of Burning Forrest as a main biome, make it a sub biome and put something better in. It's just wasted space at this point.

 

I really wish we had more sub-biomes. Like the plains was a sub-biome of the desert and was unique since it was fairly flat.

[Morloc]

Just get rid of Burning Forrest as a main biome, make it a sub biome and put something better in. It's just wasted space at this point.

 

The forest has some of the easiest denizens, good visibility at night and is an excellent place to search for your first cooking pot, pipes, and acid. With the burnt homes and trash piles it's a good place to loot at night for extra items/XP if you're not quite up to the task of fighting Zs at night yet.

 

I get why there's not much in the way of POIs there, but I suppose it could use some "features" to liven it up. Flame columns from underground gas lines/pockets, an occasional cinder-block garage without a roof, small sections of old stone walls or wrought-iron fence.

 

 

-Morloc

[zombo]

Random world THEME's are needed.

 

The old style could be 1 such theme. Another theme could be water world, or hell froze over, or the dunes of despair. My fav theme of course would be Window's vista- cause nothing is more scary then that.

 

 

Nothing will look quite right imo- until we have good roads. Highways, ramps, ditches, guardrails, powerlines, billboards.

 

The road system is to me, one of the biggest things holding this game back from that next level of feeling real.

[Birkenhoff]

this might be the stupidest thing I have heard this week...

 

This is how interesting discussions begin.

[VegetarianZombie]

I really miss the giant hub cities at 0,0 from long ago, you know SOME predictability isn't bad even in a random world.

[pApA^LeGBa]

17.0 was the worst. No exploring needed. Boooooring af. I would simply wait for A18 and if you really need better maps that you just make them yourself. Didn´t really get into that yet, but there seems to be some nice tools for creation.