Re: CF: Map Zoom

["Mark Wedel" <>]

On Dec 18,  9:37am, James Cameron wrote:
> Subject: Re: CF: Map Zoom
> Preston F. Crow wrote:
> > Personally, I would like to see a larger playing area by increasing the
> > number of visible squares, not the size of the squares.  For
> > compatibility with existing maps, the maximum viewing distance could be
> > defined on a per-map basis and default to the current value.

 Yes - one of those nice things to do.

 Note that the current client/server protocol would allow expansion up to a
15x15 map without change to the protocol (however, I believe the clients are
hardcoded for 11x11).  To go larger than that, the protocol would need to be
revised to use 2 bytes for the coordinates (which would then allow 255x255
maps).  (actually, you could get trickier and use 10 bits which would allow
32x32 map size (probably plenty large), but unless there is something to use
those 6 bits for, it probably doesn't make much difference.  Although, maybe
those 6 bits (or 4 bits if we want to instead allow 64x64 maps just to be
really safe) could hold lighting information (after all, lighting affects all
objects on the space, so including it with the coordinates works fine)

 This actually may be more efficient than sending the mask bitmaps.  Would
certainly allow for the client to do prettier displays.



> Be nicer if the viewing distance did the brightness-modification trick
> used by some of those other games nowadays.

 If we go for large displays, partial los blockage could be done (tree blocks
50%, 2 trees block 100%).  Client could then handle this as desired.

 Question - if the above is done, should we try to differentiate los blockage
and lighting levels, or should we instead just figure out how 'viewable' a
space is?  a space with 50% los block and 50% lighting amounts to 25%
visibility?  Or do we want to keep them seperate?  Only reason I could think to
keep them seperate is if we try to render the spaces differently based on los
block compared to darkness.

>
> Also, should your pets or golem/avatars be a viewing point?

 Don't know about those.

>
> Perhaps a spell should create an invisible viewing point golem that you
> can direct through anything?  A new spell of "viewing?"  Sort of an
> "out-of-body" exploration.  Some limits might be useful; i.e. it can
> only go "through" one or two impassable map squares.  Or as many as the
> cube root of your level?

 Going through impassible spaces certainly can certainly change some of the
maps.  However, having an attribute for somet thing which block the player but
not 100% (like grates, doors, other things with air gaps) could be interesting.

 But both of these ideas makes for a lot of coding which can probably be better
spent in other areas.

-- 

-- Mark Wedel

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]