Forums » Suggestions
I agree, this is not a something that needs to be done right away. But as you said, this will add a lot more sectors, even if only two rows (one above and one below) were added. What I'm saying is to make it a 15x15x15 and then add angles on the ecliptic so that some planets rotate off axis from the sun, like is most solar systems. Also, for a system like Latos for example, the binary starts could be in corners like they are but one high and one low and the asteroid rings could be on an angle as well, making for a much more dymanic course plot line. the sectors coudl be filled quite easily with the current content, just needs to be though of in 3 dimentions. But again, I dont' see the need right away, but definitely yet another feature that could be added to maket he game that much better overall.
Clickies, to read previous discussions about 3d/2d nav/universe maps.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/7968
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6900#84968
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6514#80930
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/7968
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6900#84968
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6514#80930
I'm aware of the previous conversations Thanks… mumbles something about post diviers…
Heh... gives me something to do during 12 hour work shifts. ;)
I feel your pain beolach. I'm about 2/3 of the way through an 11&1/2 right now.
A 3D space would not necessarily require whole new planes of empty sectors. There could be single sectors containing interesting locations which are outside of the ecliptic. This would be interesting, but probably not worthwhile from a gaming perspective right now given how much new navigation infrastructure would be required.
Instead of a new 3D nav system, I think it would be fun to play more with the idea that the 2D system is merely representational, and vary the sector maps away from a strict grid. Since I'm apparently going to draw graphics for VO today instead of do any actual work, here's what I'm thinking of:
http://www.wylfing.net/vo/radial_sector_map.png
That gives me a much better feeling of going places in a solar system. The "lone" sectors are points off the ecliptic.
Instead of a new 3D nav system, I think it would be fun to play more with the idea that the 2D system is merely representational, and vary the sector maps away from a strict grid. Since I'm apparently going to draw graphics for VO today instead of do any actual work, here's what I'm thinking of:
http://www.wylfing.net/vo/radial_sector_map.png
That gives me a much better feeling of going places in a solar system. The "lone" sectors are points off the ecliptic.
yes, curved sectors eminating from a point in the middle would have been the way I would have created a 2d grid for the map, but it's till 2d, and space is NOT 2d, and I'm well aware that the devs wanted to do 3d to begin with but lost it due to money and time (two very bad reasons in my opinion). 2d is OLD SCHOOL, this is suppost to be an inovative game. Try and break some ground with it, don't fall prey to the investers!!
It makes perfect sense to have a flat system map. Check out our solar system. How many planets do you see which are not on the same plane as the rest of them?
Johnhaw, where the hell are you getting this bull about what the devs whanted to do and what they didn't want to do?
WHY would they want a three-dimentional map?
Johnhaw, where the hell are you getting this bull about what the devs whanted to do and what they didn't want to do?
WHY would they want a three-dimentional map?
@Genka
Direct copy past from this link -> ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6900#84968 )
>Regarding the nav map: "incarnate"
Our original concepts for the nav map are basically what you describe. We wanted it to be fully 3D, and actually implemented some early versions of it like that. Unfortunately, we scrapped this plan when we ran low on time, and resorted to the "simple, effective" 2D map for the time being. It is noteworthy that we plan to add a full "exploration" expansion, which will require a dynamic universe map/chart, so we may revisit the 3D universe map design.
I wish we didn't have to abandon so many of our desired concepts, but.. the limitations of a 4-man development team on a very limited-time budget made it necessary to take some shortcuts.
Regarding sector design:
Actually, our original design called for a sector system that was not user-visible. Sectors essentially ran behind the scenes and distributed load based on various algorithmic perceptions. This would be superior in many ways, and is how we'd probably go about it if we were to redo things (or make a major universe architecture revamp).
The reason why it was implemented this way was more due to financial and time constraints, and a need to try and get something "Working". The existing sector system is simple and effective, both from a gameplay and server cluster perspective. Plus, this game evolved from something very simplistic (single-sector deathmatch), and although it always had the scope of an MMO in mind, we nonetheless still retain some aspects of those early designs.<
Direct copy past from this link -> ( http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6900#84968 )
>Regarding the nav map: "incarnate"
Our original concepts for the nav map are basically what you describe. We wanted it to be fully 3D, and actually implemented some early versions of it like that. Unfortunately, we scrapped this plan when we ran low on time, and resorted to the "simple, effective" 2D map for the time being. It is noteworthy that we plan to add a full "exploration" expansion, which will require a dynamic universe map/chart, so we may revisit the 3D universe map design.
I wish we didn't have to abandon so many of our desired concepts, but.. the limitations of a 4-man development team on a very limited-time budget made it necessary to take some shortcuts.
Regarding sector design:
Actually, our original design called for a sector system that was not user-visible. Sectors essentially ran behind the scenes and distributed load based on various algorithmic perceptions. This would be superior in many ways, and is how we'd probably go about it if we were to redo things (or make a major universe architecture revamp).
The reason why it was implemented this way was more due to financial and time constraints, and a need to try and get something "Working". The existing sector system is simple and effective, both from a gameplay and server cluster perspective. Plus, this game evolved from something very simplistic (single-sector deathmatch), and although it always had the scope of an MMO in mind, we nonetheless still retain some aspects of those early designs.<
and 2 of our own planets are off axis in our own solar system, look it up.
hmmm, I kinda like the idea of a radial system map. It wouldnt be that hard to adapt to our current coordinate system. just make 16 arcs, each 16 sectors long [ or maybe 32 arcs each 8 sectors long?]. we can allready zoom in and out on the map after all so having the map get larger wouldnt be a problem
You identify the arcs with a series of numbers around the outside, and each circular "row" out from the center with a letter, A-whatever starting from the inside.
The area around the sun becomes a non-sector, and you have to plot a course around it to cross a system.
The only problem i can see is that the systems with dual suns would become complicated, maybe impossible.
You identify the arcs with a series of numbers around the outside, and each circular "row" out from the center with a letter, A-whatever starting from the inside.
The area around the sun becomes a non-sector, and you have to plot a course around it to cross a system.
The only problem i can see is that the systems with dual suns would become complicated, maybe impossible.
Oh my. Two planets. I missed my estimate by one! Oh, how will I ever live this horrid mistake down!
Wait. I never told anyone I thought only one planet was off. I'm saved! No-one will know! All I have to do is make a mean post about how the two planets aren't really that far off, and that if you count every single of the 'roids in the asteroid belt that makes two planets out of millions!
I could even point out saturns and jupiters rings, which are mostly flat! Success!
Wait. I never told anyone I thought only one planet was off. I'm saved! No-one will know! All I have to do is make a mean post about how the two planets aren't really that far off, and that if you count every single of the 'roids in the asteroid belt that makes two planets out of millions!
I could even point out saturns and jupiters rings, which are mostly flat! Success!
blah blah blah
Spellcast: multi-star systems aren't a problem -- this is just a way to map interesting space. Nothing says the pole has to be over a star. Also, you don't have to plot a course around anything, since the current warp technology zips you straight from any one sector to any other sector.
The real reason for radial sectors is to encompass solar system territory that I think is interesting: far-out Kuiper belts and so on. In the diagram that I drew, all the inner sectors are planetary space, and the outer sectors are "cometary" space out near 40 AU.
The real reason for radial sectors is to encompass solar system territory that I think is interesting: far-out Kuiper belts and so on. In the diagram that I drew, all the inner sectors are planetary space, and the outer sectors are "cometary" space out near 40 AU.
Wylfing, the only reason i mentioned not being able to navigate across the sun is because you cant click on those sectors anyhow. Besides, it just looks as if its begging to have a sun in the non-sector right there in the middle.
>The only problem i can see is that the systems with dual suns would become complicated, maybe impossible.<
This is not as bad as you think. A binary star system has a center of gravity that the two suns rotate around. Use that point as your center of map and think of the two suns as "planets" around that point. Everything else in turn becomes satalites of the suns and so on. The circle may need to be enlarged a bit from the square look but a circle could still definitely be used to do binary, trinary, etc. systems.
This is not as bad as you think. A binary star system has a center of gravity that the two suns rotate around. Use that point as your center of map and think of the two suns as "planets" around that point. Everything else in turn becomes satalites of the suns and so on. The circle may need to be enlarged a bit from the square look but a circle could still definitely be used to do binary, trinary, etc. systems.