You should see some of the bases I've seen, then. They already have multi-floors, usually made from various objects bolted together 
Not a picture perfect fix, but it does the job
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Well, yeah, there are... workarounds. But like you said, it's not necessarily pretty.
Nothing is easy when it comes to changing/adding to bases. Your suggestion would take quite a bit of effort.
Trust me I feel your frustration when it comes to base items, but I am also realistic in what can be done with such a garbled mess of coding
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
Well, that's the thing - it wouldn't take any changes to the code {probably}, only changes to several 3D models.
Quote:
Yup. Changes to models in the Base-edit interface and the base itself.|
Originally Posted by Quinch
Well, that's the thing - it wouldn't take any changes to the code {probably}, only changes to several 3D models.
|
What does that require?
You guessed it;
Code changes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
There's a difference between code and game assets.
Let me try to simplify - let's say that there's a bit of code that tells the game, "go fetch me that wheelbarrow from the third shack on the right", and the game will go do that. Now, let's say that we take the bright green wheelbarrow that is there, and replace it with a red one. The code won't care - it'll go "okay, here's a wheelbarrow, imma go fetch it". The exact properties of the wheelbarrow - color, size, wheel squeakiness and so on - don't matter, as long as the wheelbarrow itself is there. Of course, if you change the wheelbarrow into something silly, like a color or a temperature, the code will just go "what the heck, I can't pick this up!" and throw an error, but as long as the object itself is there, the code will blindly go and use it, regardless whether it's told to get something something as simple as a floor tile, or something as complex as a redesigned NPC.
Quote:
So yer a programmer for CoH...and have seen the base code huh?
|
Originally Posted by Quinch
There's a difference between code and game assets.
Let me try to simplify - let's say that there's a bit of code that tells the game, "go fetch me that wheelbarrow from the third shack on the right", and the game will go do that. Now, let's say that we take the bright green wheelbarrow that is there, and replace it with a red one. The code won't care - it'll go "okay, here's a wheelbarrow, imma go fetch it". The exact properties of the wheelbarrow - color, size, wheel squeakiness and so on - don't matter, as long as the wheelbarrow itself is there. Of course, if you change the wheelbarrow into something silly, like a color or a temperature, the code will just go "what the heck, I can't pick this up!" and throw an error, but as long as the object itself is there, the code will blindly go and use it, regardless whether it's told to get something something as simple as a floor tile, or something as complex as a redesigned NPC. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
I can see... the code... </Claptrap>
Anyway, no. But I am familiar with some of the most absolutely basic programming concepts.
Quote:
The part of the concept that you're missing/unaware of is that none of the original programmers who worked on the bases are still employed at said company anymore and, like in many cases, they didn't consider properly documenting things from what I've heard over the years. Just about any change that has been attempted afterwards seems to result in serious negative ripples. At this point, it would take a complete rewrite of the code along with the extremely likelyhood of LOSING all existing bases in the process.
|
Originally Posted by Quinch
I can see... the code... </Claptrap>
Anyway, no. But I am familiar with some of the most absolutely basic programming concepts. |
It won't take a complete rewrite of the code to go in and alter a few textures of existing items. They would need to dance around the code carefully, since it's a packed minefield, but it's not that extreme. We've received new features (item lifting and rotation) and items (hacked telepad) within the past few issues, which proves that it is possible to make steps, although careful and tiny, to improving base building.
So I could see something like this happening, and it would be cool, although not that big a deal, either. I'd rather see them figure out how to design entirely new items and implement those instead without breaking the system, tbh.
Quote:
If memory serves, the experiments you mention exclusively involved changes to base functionality, such as auction house access and similar upgrades. On the other side, asset addition and modification seems to be much more feasible - and I present vet items like weapons, posters and similar base decorative objects, added {I believe} long after the Cryptic/PS split as evidence.
|
Originally Posted by WanderingAries
Just about any change that has been attempted afterwards seems to result in serious negative ripples.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WanderingAries
The part of the concept that you're missing/unaware of is that none of the original programmers who worked on the bases are still employed at said company anymore and, like in many cases, they didn't consider properly documenting things from what I've heard over the years. /snip/
|
This isn't an excuse. I'm sure they've still got programmers capable of reading code and making sense of it. What is more accurate to say is that they don't see any profit in doing things for bases. I -guarantee- you if someone in marketing saw a means of making a -regular profit- off of rewriting or adding base items.....it'd be done in half an issue/update!!
You would not need to add any kind of code to put a picture on the opposite side of a 3D texture object. The side is already there, it just doesn't have anything on it so it is invisible. Fixing that is all on the 3D object artist(s). All they would have to do is check it into QA and have QA look at the items and say "yep, that's 2 sides".
No code is involved at all. Everything is already there.
Changing what items do requires code, but not "painting" an already-existent 3D object.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
You've seen the code for bases and you know that it is absolutely, certainly, that simple? |
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
You would not need to add any kind of code to put a picture on the opposite side of a 3D texture object. The side is already there, it just doesn't have anything on it so it is invisible. Fixing that is all on the 3D object artist(s). All they would have to do is check it into QA and have QA look at the items and say "yep, that's 2 sides".
No code is involved at all. Everything is already there. Changing what items do requires code, but not "painting" an already-existent 3D object. |
Quote:
Whoah, deja vu.
|
Originally Posted by VoodooGirl
You've seen the code for bases and you know that it is absolutely, certainly, that simple?
|
Sure, changing a texture on one object sounds easy assuming everything is built and designed they way you are expecting. But as others have said, many times they have tried to make changes to the bases, something else unexpected has broken, and they've said several times that the base code is not documented well and no one is completely sure of how it all works together, which leads me to believe the base code is NOT designed and built the way you would expect it to. If it were designed well and clearly, documentation shouldn't be an issue. My tech lead always taught me that if you NEED to put a comment and document it to understand it, then there's a good chance it could be written/designed better, or its some complex math equation calculation or business logic. That would lead me to think the code is that complex and/or designed and coded that strangely or poorly that no one else can figure it out without a significant time investment.
For example of a possible issue, maybe someone decided it would be a good idea to add some logic for optimization or something to say never even try to render the back sides of walls or floors or ceilings because they should never be seen. If that's the case then there's a pretty significant code change involved and not just adding a texture or updating a model. Do I know that's the case, no, I haven't seen the code, but its one of millions of possible issues. My point is just because you think its simply adding a model doesn't mean that your assumptions on how the code should work are correct. Some code, especially legacy code going back 10 years can be VERY interesting. Not that the idea wouldn't be cool, but it could be a much bigger thing than you think.
A 3D object has all its sides even if they are invisible.
I know this for a fact because this is a fact of designing *all* 3D objects in *all* environments.
You simply cannot have a one-sided 3D object (then it's not 3D, izzit?), especially if it's as simple as a flat "floor" piece. Literally all it takes is putting an image on the other side of the floor piece to make it not invisible.
There is no code to alter when adjusting the pictures visible on a 3D object. It's all done in some 3D image creation/editing software.
However, they seem to be totally allergic to bases so I'm not surprised they haven't put forth the three hours' work it'd take to fix the few objects that are invisible from certain directions.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
However, they seem to be totally allergic to bases so I'm not surprised they haven't put forth the three hours' work it'd take to fix the few objects that are invisible from certain directions.
|
As they've said on a few Community Coffee Chats (if you've ever been bothered to watch or to read the forum follow ups on it) they have said, repeatedly (if you've ever cared to a do a forum search,) that they do have things planned for bases. And, if you ever bothered to research it, they've commented on the fact that the code is, indeed, a garbled mess left by a previous coder who didn't bother to leave notes. So the slightest change causes the whole pyramid to collapse, figuratively.
You guys keep saying "code"... I don't think you guys know what "3D object textures" are. I think ya'll should research "3D object textures" a bit. They don't involve code if the items are already implemented.
(While we're in the suggestions forum: I wish there was a way to block images in a user-by-user basis.)
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
You assume that how it is everywhere else is how it is also done for bases. But I can assure you, that when it comes to bases, it probably isn't that simple.|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
You guys keep saying "code"... I don't think you guys know what "3D object textures" are. I think ya'll should research "3D object textures" a bit. They don't involve code if the items are already implemented.
|
But, I'm sure y'all know better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
(While we're in the suggestions forum: I wish there was a way to block images in a user-by-user basis.)
|
It's called: Add User To Ignore List
Quote:
As you are my friend, I do not want to add you to my ignore list. The images you post, however...
|
Originally Posted by VoodooGirl
It's called: Add User To Ignore List
|
But speaking of "code".
As a programmer and object designer (nothing fancy mind you, but I used to make stuff for The Sims and a few other games I played), I know that "painting" a "3D object" isn't as simple as it may sound. It really comes down to how those "3D objects" are "coded". Sometimes you can just open the object in a compatible editor and change the color/opaqueness of a side and ta-da, done. Sometimes you have to open the code of the object and edit it directly. None of knows what the case is for base objects (or any object in game for that matter). Some of us may have some pretty educated guesses, but they are still guesses.
And then comes the work of making the changes. Let's assume it's an easy change; that you can just make a quick and easy change to the object. How many objects are there? Where are they? What does the code call them? That's a lot of work, as in time invested, to make a change like this. And if making the changes is not as easy as some would think, that makes the work more difficult, and the time invested greater.
So no matter now you look at it, this really isn't an easy change/fix.
Quick suggestion that might not take much effort - now that we can freely move base objects vertically {woohoo!}, the concept of multi-story bases is feasible. Except - all the flooring items are transparent when seen from below, probably because nobody ever expected them to be seen from anywhere but up. Thus, simply adding a bottom surface to the two-dimensional objects {just mirror them, if nothing else} might make ceilings possible with theoretically very little trouble.