Messages

31

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: Thoughts on New Crafting/Spells

« on: June 29, 2012, 07:53:59 AM »

My current problem is with the new crafting and spells is that I don't feel any incentive to do any missions (and I like missions), since the rewards aren't of any use any more. The "improvements" higher rarity spells have don't seem massively significant, making it so that I might as well just use the easier-to-get commons, which I can buy outright without doing any missions. I suspect a big part of this is that by making ingredient stashes transfer across continents means I can pretty much just buy everything outright (since I've never finished a continent without a lot of spare ingredients picked up from getting to missions, going after unlockables, and general exploration). Another part is that spells are now really cheap, so it's not going to put much of a dent in the stockpile to buy a lot of spells.

(While I like that you can get by without missions if you like, the balance in importance between missions and exploration has swung too far in favour of exploration - really, both should be viable options rather than forcing one or the other.)

I do agree that inventory shouldn't transfer between continents. It obviates absolutely everything in the new system. It would also help if there were more uses for ingredients, perhaps in the new city-building stuff that's coming up.

Other than that, I have to say I like the new system. Map missions are like 'semi-freebies' that allow you to possibly get a spell you wanted without crafting. This makes it such that if I'm bored of missions (which I mostly am), I can ignore them until I actually feel like doing one. However, I think it makes the most sense to limit the number of missions at 7 or so max. This means that not every spell is on offer as a 'freebie'.

I would really like to see more activities that ask you to clear out entire areas like unlocks. It's really fun to clear out an area of monsters once in a while.

32

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 28, 2012, 06:49:37 PM »

One issue with the "move missions into the world" concept is that a lot of players need a lot of direction.  We even had reviewers who would go through the tutorial, get to the world map, and still not realize there were missions out there for them to do, assume the game had no direction, and shelve it.

Needless to say, we didn't try to reach that far down to hold hands (we're not even sure how we could get through in a case like that), but there's also a legitimate reason to have some pretty prominent "you could go here next" pointers.

That said, I agree it shouldn't be flooding the screen with missions; for a long time we had it start with 2 missions per continent and work up to 7.  That may have been too few, but our usual practice of doing big changes like a binary-search instead of incremental ones does sometimes lead to situations like this

Well, as a simple suggestion of how to solve that problem, what comes to mind is that the survivors could be attempting to detect opportunities through whichever magical or technological means they have at their disposal, and they could display "missions" on the map that were actually part of a room in that terrain. So maybe you have a room where allied critters are fighting against enemies and you can get something out of helping them, and that pops up on the map with information about it to help direct the player. The mission's appearance would be random, so you'd still find tons of these little things wandering around, but if you were after direction that'd be available.

You could even have an NPC in the settlement (I think a human character would be more fun than an Ilari, though YMMV) who can suggest goals (maybe with a little two-frame talky head!!!) but who you can totally ignore if you want.

The problem from my point of view is the explorable world often feels pretty sterile and samey. You have all these cool game mechanic ideas but they're all locked away in missions. I'd just like to see those game mechanics appear in exploration because that's the part of the game that really interests me.

This is exactly my feedback from 2 months ago (http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=7745#c24169). I agree 100%. Make the missions appear as organic tasks for chunks that are modified to be like that mission. One chunk could have meteors falling, etc and would need you to take care of it. But it would involve exploration and it would benefit from the world's randomness.

33

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 28, 2012, 04:10:25 PM »

Keep in mind, there will still be crafting. So, if you really can't find a spell you really want in missions, you will be able to craft it.

My personal experience is that I get sick of a mission type after doing it 4-5 times. I don't get sick of looking for crafting ingredients though. The new system does kind of allow the missions to be seen as an optional part of the gameplay or to be completely ignored, which makes me fairly happy. I'd be even happier if there was a way to toggle off map missions completely. Then I'd have the odd secret mission for guardian scrolls, and crafting for the spell system, which would be perfect.

34

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 28, 2012, 07:47:30 AM »

One thing with the missions is, we want players to be able to (at least usually) have mission types that they actually enjoy playing on the board. I think under the new system, having lots of available missions will be even more important, since it will be the primary source for spells. With so many available spells, you need a lot of missions in order to have a chance at your favorite.

Yep. And that's pretty much what I was talking about.

35

Off Topic / Re: Dwarf Fortress videos

« on: June 28, 2012, 07:16:56 AM »

This game always sounds amazing when it's described by people who play it. Maybe I should watch those videos and finally learn it.

36

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 28, 2012, 05:59:28 AM »

EDIT 2:  As for the bit about your guy going super-fast...... I'm thinking that's probably not supposed to be the case.  I've been playing this to death since it released, and I've never, ever seen this problem.   Hell, even if I'm far into a world and have a lot of enchants, I usually still think my characters are a little too slow.   This might be an issue for Mantis, perhaps?

Maybe he is using a bronze age character? If he has like 50% incresed movement speed from enchants he should be about as fast as stormdashing with a ice age character without enchants. Or is the speed bonus handeled as a 100% bonus instead of double base speed?

This was a minor point and I shouldn't have thrown it in there -- ignore it.

37

Off Topic / Re: Drox Operative

« on: June 28, 2012, 05:13:55 AM »

Didn't realize that we would take the sub-forum title "off-topic" so literally for these threads

King

Seriously. If you guys want to keep talking about whatever it is you're talking about, please branch into another thread.

38

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 28, 2012, 04:59:05 AM »

+1 again.

I must've said this a hundred times, but the game's biggest strength is targeted exploration in random environments. If the missions could be seamlessly integrated into that exploration (and the random environments) rather than be discrete, the game would become significantly more enjoyable IMO.

It seems that they are targetting refactoring the tier/level, spell system, and reward structure for this release. Maybe mission system refactoring can be for a future release later on down this beta cycle.

Should they of done this in a different order (instead of one of those three, focused on the mission system for this release instead)? Maybe. But they didn't and this is what is up for 1.104.
Mission system refactoring maybe a good idea for the brainstorming forum to get some ideas lines up for this next beta cycle.

In terms of what is lined up, I'm withholding my judgment until the notes on the refactoring of these systems are finished. Maybe there is something big that we haven't seen yet that will address some of the concerns described in this thread, but we haven't seen them yet because the notes aren't finished.

Well, I had no idea that big changes were coming. Most of these changes seem really good, especially the random spell stats, which is similar to ideas I had pushed for in the past (http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=7341). However, one change that seems to be coming is that missions are even more central than they were before (since they give you spells), and the best part of the game, which is targeted exploration, is being relegated to only being for stronger spells if you want them. That change sounds like it MAY be one that strengthens what is IMO the weakest part of the game (missions) and weakens the best part of the game (randomized targeted exploration). My opinion on this isn't new. I've posted many things about this including this suggestion http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=7649 and this http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,10648.msg104419.html#msg104419 and this http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=7745#c24169. I've pled for missions to become integrated into the game world rather than be discrete or that the focus should shift away from them by making them optional and bonus.

To be quite honest, I've stopped playing AVWW. The main reason for this is that currently, when I start the game up, I get 20 missions littering my map. There's no reason to explore because virtually everything (I have plain gems, and enchants don't excite me) can be obtained from missions. I look through the missions, finding a whole bunch of canned content that I don't feel like doing. And then I lament the fact that the missions obviate the need to explore the procedural world. Oh, another thing I lament is the way my avatar has gotten so fast via enchants, that it makes his animation + the whole world animation wonky and makes me too fast to be comfortable. And then I quit.

So you see, when I happened upon the changelog, and when I saw Vinraith's comment expressing exactly my feeling, I suddenly thought that maybe I wasn't the only one who viewed missions as the weakest part of the game, and I had to show my support.

39

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 27, 2012, 08:28:35 PM »

I also want to reiterate people's concerns re: missions. Some of them are fun but they're often the opposite of why I play the game: for the cool procedurally-generated world and exploration. I think I'd rather see the gameplay elements of the missions broken up and scattered through the explorable world instead of them being stuck in hermetically sealed exploration-free zones.

+1 again.

I must've said this a hundred times, but the game's biggest strength is targeted exploration in random environments. If the missions could be seamlessly integrated into that exploration (and the random environments) rather than be discrete, the game would become significantly more enjoyable IMO.

40

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: A Concern Re: Removal of Settlement Stockpile in 1.04

« on: June 27, 2012, 03:17:25 PM »

I'm trying to wait for any real comment until after everything's in and documented, but I have to admit that I'm really concerned that the collection/crafting stuff (my favorite part of the design) appears to be de-emphasized in favor of the mission stuff (probably my least favorite part of the design) in these changes. Maybe I'm wrong about that as I don't have the whole picture yet, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

+1

I would like to see ALL missions give you side things like guardian power scrolls and perhaps settlement buildings, while crafting should be the main way to get spells. Also, reduce missions so I don't have 300 of them littering my map. 5 visible ones + the secret ones are more than enough.

The rest of the changes seem good so far.

41

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS

« on: June 27, 2012, 07:29:59 AM »

I've gotten stuck in an overlord tower facing this guy (meaning I'm still stuck and have been for about 3 weeks). And he's just a regular boss. Completely OP IMO.

42

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: [FILLED] Looking for artist(s) to develop new style for A Valley Without Wind.

« on: June 27, 2012, 07:28:12 AM »

I don't think a DEMO is a plus. Kickstarter sells hope ;p Most kickstarters are fully based on hope, most don't even have a design document before starting a kickstart. now THAT is absurd... but i am blabbering...

I think there's some truth to that. So long as a game is a promise or an idea, it has no limits -- it fills up your imagination with potential. Once there's an actual product, the reality sinks in, and you start to find flaws. It's much less exciting to fund something that's real, even though it's a more sound business decision.

43

Off Topic / Re: Drox Operative

« on: June 26, 2012, 07:55:15 AM »

Excellent comments Wanderer. Can't wait for them to show up on the Soldak website.

The reason for moderation is that the Soldak forums used to be littered with tons of spam. Not sure how Arcen manages it.

44

Off Topic / Re: Which Classic Computer Games should I play?

« on: June 26, 2012, 07:53:45 AM »

Dungeon Keeper (I also liked the second one) is unmatched in its particular style of fun.

I can't get an emulator to actually RUN that game properly.  I seriously wish someone would buy the IP and just rebuild Dungeon Keeper on a modern box.  Don't get fancy, none of the randomly annoying stuff they put into II, just good clean Hero Smashing fun.

I have a year-old gold edition of Dungeon Keeper 2 and it runs like a dream... for about 20 minutes, then it crashes. I managed to play about three and a half hours, saving every ten minutes and restarting whenever it crashed, before even my saintly patience wore immensely thin.

I'm still waiting for someone to release a new version just so it will run on a machine built in the last ten years.

If you've got StarCraft II then a chap named Bibendus is currently developing "Hive Keeper": http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/hive-keeper/. The single player beta is actually pretty damn good!

It's crazy how much Dungeon Keeper 2 clicked with me. I think you'll have better luck running it on OSX or Linux using Wine nowadays -- people on GOG constantly complain about it. I actually think a lot of older games run better with Wine.

I really want a fully working open source remake of DK2. Looks like somebody starting writing it and abandoned it a while ago. (OpenDungeonKeeper) I'd love to have keeper AI that actually challenges you.

45

A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 / Re: [PAID] Looking for artist(s) to develop new style for A Valley Without Wind.

« on: June 26, 2012, 07:45:54 AM »

@Nanashi

Unity doesn't have a 2D renderer (all modern engines actually don't) and the performance of 2D engines (Direct Draw....) is abysmal. It is always faster to render a 2D sprite in a 3D engine than it is to render it in a 2D engine.

AI War 1.0 was Direct Draw based and it ran pretty dang terribly compared to now Direct Draw is also end-of-life. Microsoft explicitly said not to use it anymore because broad compatibility is no longer a given. Microsoft says to render to polygons instead. With hardware acceleration this is up to 100 times faster too ;p

Anyhow, as a 3D engine unity doesn't care about what comes in, if it isn't DXT compressed it renders it to uncompressed image state with whatever bitrate the image had and then pushes it to the GPU wasting memory in the process (2 images are in memory, compressed and uncompressed which as you can imagine is a nightmare for ram usage). Lowering the colors to 256 works imo, as engines take it as it comes, so 512x512 * 256 colors would indeed use less ram and vram. That means even if you index it down to 3 colors, the image is loaded as a 256 color image and uses that much ram/vram the other 253 colors would then be considered black, still use the memory as if it was a full 256 color image ;p

Hence, converting what can be converted to 256 colors might be worth considering and it may be worth a test whether this lowers ram and vram usage or not, it is very well possible unity converts it to a specific color mode internally no matter what we put in.

Sorry guys. 256 colors doesn't work on modern GPUs. There's no support for 8-bit color -- 8-bit color by definition is always indexed since the color value itself can't describe an RGB triple. So you have to index into a palette of 256 colors, which are either 16, 24 or 32 bits. The PSP can do this (for example) for efficiency. Modern graphic cards don't bother supporting it, possibly because it complicates shader architecture. So you have to take that 16 or 32 bit palette and fill out the whole texture with those values, losing all the savings in the process.

2D game engines like ScummVM use SDL which on Windows translates to DirectDraw calls. These calls are slow, but for old games running at <20fps it's fine. Even ScummVM though is moving towards OpenGL (from a GSoC project a few years back), which is basically the same way of rendering 2d sprites in 3d. You get huge advantages from doing this, including rendering speed boosts, free bilinear filtering, free aspect correction, etc.