7daysguy Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 If the virtual zombies don't interact with the world in any way until their chunk is loaded, exactly what is the difference between keeping track of them constantly and spawning them in with the chunk load? By the way, the correct answer is "It makes no difference." It is just more work for the CPU to track constantly with no actual in game benefit. Unless I'm completely missing the point of course. When you clear an area of zombies then run slightly out of range then come back and there's new zombies, it's jarring and gives you the feeling like "Hey, that's not right". It's not long before you realize you can force zombies to despawn instead of fighting them, or shuffle their types and locations for your benefit. There are systems already in place to simulate the idea that the zombies are persistent, there are multiple spawns per day per chunk which are all running on timers to give the effect that you can actually clear an area and it will take a while to repopulate. For one thing, that kind of CPU could be saved just by having a simulation closer to the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7daysguy Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Changing the bedrock layer to lava might excite things a bit. Make bedrock 2 kms deep and I'm SOLD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pille Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 There are systems already in place to simulate the idea that the zombies are persistent, there are multiple spawns per day per chunk which are all running on timers to give the effect that you can actually clear an area and it will take a while to repopulate. For one thing, that kind of CPU could be saved just by having a simulation closer to the real thing. I agree. Apart from this, simulating the movements of a few thousend virtual points (zombies) would be a joke for modern cpus (unless the update interval for their positions is very high). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Make bedrock 2 kms deep and I'm SOLD! 2kms ? 7200 Km/h I like the idea to reduce max High and this way max deep a bit. Finally i start my buildings from bedrock to make my buildings not underdigable But no idea how exactly, this i will research when i start my 16.4 mod I think Soil from 7 -> 15 Average Ground deep from 60 to 40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 Ooorh, you get all the perks... Can't wait to ride that thing I wonder how many parts it'll need, and how many will be loot only. The chain seems like an obvious loot object, and the headlight (if any). Any other ideas? If things work out for vehicles like they are for guns then parts are going away. Mods will be the new assembling game and will work to make your bike different than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkfoxx117 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 If things work out for vehicles like they are for guns then parts are going away. Mods will be the new assembling game and will work to make your bike different than mine. So they will look cosmetically different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Between my tease and Kinyajuu’s musings we’ve had the best A17 discussion so far... Agreed. If any of this is still trying to be figured out at TFP, they definitely have more perspectives now. - - - Updated - - - So they will look cosmetically different? I think he was talking about mod variety. Akin to Fallout 4 mod variety. Maybe you want dmg boost, maybe range boost, maybe accuracy boost, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 How about this idea for SI instead of the granite layer... Players can construct a foundation out of new foundation block. The foundation can only be one block in thickness (foundation blocks cannot be placed upon other foundation blocks) and once done and activated all the blocks involved merge into a single multiblock slab. Anything built upon that foundation calculates its SI to that foundation and ignores anything below the foundation. But the foundation itself is subject to normal SI rules down to bedrock and is extremely heavy and so could not be supported by stilts or rooftops so it couldn't be used as a ceiling nor could someone suspend it and hang a base from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 So they will look cosmetically different? too soon to know. Its still really early and only being developed for firearms at this point as far as I know. But the plan is to extend it to all things that use quality if it goes over well for weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 How about this idea for SI instead of the granite layer... Players can construct a foundation out of new foundation block. The foundation can only be one block in thickness (foundation blocks cannot be placed upon other foundation blocks) and once done and activated all the blocks involved merge into a single multiblock slab. Anything built upon that foundation calculates its SI to that foundation and ignores anything below the foundation. But the foundation itself is subject to normal SI rules down to bedrock and is extremely heavy and so could not be supported by stilts or rooftops so it couldn't be used as a ceiling nor could someone suspend it and hang a base from it. Why not just roughly apply the same rules to Granite. And don't allow players to place them. Player placeables tend to be the easiest to find ways to use them outside their intended design. Where the Granite idea, which I still think is a fantastic idea for Caves, Caverns, and Tunnels as part of World Gen, makes it so at best you can work within their constraints of initial placement. And as far as the foundation idea, it's kinda no different then saying the top layer of dirt/terrain is where SI starts. Regardless of how easy it is to collapse. I guess if I wanted to mess with that foundation concept, I'd just build a metal frame and then attach the foundation to the top of it. Or, a metal frame, dirt blocks, then the foundation. Granite. No extra digging challenges. Simply Stone that acts like bedrock for SI purposes. And not a simple layer across the world. But dynamically built when underground air pockets are created in either World Gen or by Digging Zombies (or any AI that may ruin the structural integrity of the world around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I think we could need a floating block that has 100% SI that can only be destroyed by a special admin tool The block himself can only be found in the Creative menue. So the Gamemaster/Admin are the responsible persons who can decide if such a block in the unique case would be a exploit. Finally it is impossible to make a Block that "understand" sensefull/immersive/fair/allowed placement. I think finally the Gamemaster/Admins are responsible anyway, so why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I think we could need a floating block that has 100% SI that can only be destroyed by a special admin tool The block himself can only be found in the Creative menue. So the Gamemaster/Admin are the responsible persons who can decide if such a block in the unique case would be a exploit. Finally it is impossible to make a Block that "understand" sensefull/immersive/fair/allowed placement. I think finally the Gamemaster/Admins are responsible anyway, so why not. Admin managed blocks? As some one who's hosted in the past, hell no. Don't make me have to do more than setup the server and tweak the fun points. I wouldn't want to have to manage individual blocks and figure out all the ways to mess with it and try to counter them. I'm willing to bet those would be yanked out of the blocks.xml in a heart beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrique Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 How about this idea for SI instead of the granite layer... Players can construct a foundation out of new foundation block. The foundation can only be one block in thickness (foundation blocks cannot be placed upon other foundation blocks) and once done and activated all the blocks involved merge into a single multiblock slab. Anything built upon that foundation calculates its SI to that foundation and ignores anything below the foundation. But the foundation itself is subject to normal SI rules down to bedrock and is extremely heavy and so could not be supported by stilts or rooftops so it couldn't be used as a ceiling nor could someone suspend it and hang a base from it. This is just like IRL!!! I like this idea that way we can have tunnels and zeds underground!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Finally it is a Block that exploits the system but is only used within the rules. The point is that i cant imagine a programmable set of rules that would cover all cases. The question is how responsible the players are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Finally it is a Block that exploits the system but is only used within the rules. The point is that i cant imagine a programmable set of rules that would cover all cases. The question is how responsible the players are. They're not responsible at all. And everyone hates each other for it. At least that's how the forum reads. :-p - - - Updated - - - This is just like IRL!!! I like this idea that way we can have tunnels and zeds underground!!!!! Not really. Every modern building that didn't have a great land survey done (or none at all), that ended up sinking, was because of an air pocket or soft materials pocket underground. Foundations, IRL, are only as good as the ground they sit on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 I like the idea of building a foundation first and then framing and upgrading from there. So, yes, you could still build on bare dirt but then your SI would be calculated from bedrock instead and subject to tunnels below. Just taking a page from Ob’s book and spitballing... 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosterone Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Sounds like a revamped spider zombie. I think that instead of having them climb up walls they should just have 'em jump high. Plus, then they don't need to worry about fixing the bad looking anamation for when they climb walls. I mean, it looks like minecraft spiders climbing up walls. This. And the possibility they use other zombies to jump higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I like the idea of building a foundation first and then framing and upgrading from there. So, yes, you could still build on bare dirt but then your SI would be calculated from bedrock instead and subject to tunnels below. Just taking a page from Ob’s book and spitballing... 😀 Oh I absolutely like the building strategy of putting a foundation down first. All my buildings have foundations. I hate living on dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 I like the idea of building a foundation first and then framing and upgrading from there. So, yes, you could still build on bare dirt but then your SI would be calculated from bedrock instead and subject to tunnels below. Just taking a page from Ob’s book and spitballing... �� I think that idea of players needing to build a foundation (to build a solid fort) and having the SI calculate from it is a great Idea! and everything else that doesn't use a foundation is calculated from bedrock. How hard would it be to add a some blocks with a <property name="foundation"/> or something and anything above that block gets its SI calculated from it? Could even put them in a foundation category in the crafting menu. Along with a tutorial beginners quest on how and why to use it. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted October 20, 2017 Author Share Posted October 20, 2017 They're not responsible at all. And everyone hates each other for it. At least that's how the forum reads. :-p - - - Updated - - - Not really. Every modern building that didn't have a great land survey done (or none at all), that ended up sinking, was because of an air pocket or soft materials pocket underground. Foundations, IRL, are only as good as the ground they sit on. Yes and no. It depends on how close to the surface the air pockets are but for gameplay purposes all tunnels could be ignored until a large enough excavation close enough to the surface could cause a collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Of we're talking about making structures cooler, can we lose the grid snapping requirements for at least deco and crafted blocks, excluding terrain and core building crafted blocks? Having all our couches, sinks, lights, end tables, beds, chairs, etc placeable as a snap to grid placement rule is annoying and really doesn't help the immersion factor. That and overlapping into the air portion of another block would be cool. Meaning, if I want to put a wall lamp snuggled up next to an empty area of my work bench, sometimes how I build a structure would make that look way better. So like some placement padding for all blocks with air in their model and a final placement offset stored with the block I placed. And then rotation offsets too so I dont have to only place a light or table at exactly one of these 32 angels. - - - Updated - - - Yes and no. It depends on how close to the surface the air pockets are but for gameplay purposes all tunnels could be ignored until a large enough excavation close enough to the surface could cause a collapse. Why do you abandon your own granite idea! 😭 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanedaSyndrome Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Zombies won't even appear near your base if you are not in the chunk making it active. Hm, well it might mostly be an issue when playing with friends sharing the same chunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackelmyer Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Hm, well it might mostly be an issue when playing with friends sharing the same chunk. That's... actually a pretty valid point. Especially important for earlier game play when you can't make defenses that can blast away a wandering horde or screamer spawns before they completely wreck your base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KanedaSyndrome Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Alternatively you could just have a forge room underground then you won't get screamers and still be able to build up top it's the best of both worlds. Actually exactly what I do, I have an underground crafting room with bed and storage, then I have a killzone directly on top of it, entrance is a tunnel with a shaft displaced about 100 meters away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal Deluxe Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Why do you abandon your own granite idea! �� lol If a idea envolve to something different it would be wrong to do it not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.