Loot Conventions

[Baddcog]

I searched the forum on loot values but didn't really come up with much.

 

Probably not a huge deal at this point but probably needs looked into by the team before release.

 

I'm adding loot defs so I thought I'd post my thoughts.

 

Obviously the main thing we are aiming for in loot is the ability to easily recognize it.

 

Values : seems to be the one factor that is most important. I've added alot of skins to the loot.def file. I did this so we get consistant loot values. Other wise the author would create a gold ring and have to choose a skin and change the value for a silver ring. Of course we can't stop an author from choosing any value they want, but most likely will stick to convention if it's easy.

 

Probably the most important reason to have standard loot values is for the players. Often times at TTLG someone would be looking for that last 75 gold. It was easy for someone to say: gold goblets are 75, look here and there, a coin stack and a plate would be 75, ect...

 

Anyone can double check my values and give input. Basically on things like rings and coins silver = 1/2 gold. Also I tried to make diamonds the most expensive with emeralds second, opals, down to less precious gems like amethyst.

 

I didn't change any existing values, just tried to base ne values off of the existing items.

 

Moveable/Static Loot : In my forums search I came across a thread or two talking about this. I think this is old news but would like to hear what you all currently think about it.

I think at one point the team wasn't sure if it should move or not, due to explosions blowing it out of reach, whether or not the mover would work with loot, ect...

All these issues seem to have passed so I suggest we get rid of static loot, is there a reason to still have these entities? (other than it already being used in maps?)

 

With the exception of the scepter, statue loot, religious symbol and the diamond all of the loot models have collision models. I can add collision for the scepter and the statue as they are ase. The diamond needs retex so I can do that and add collision, although it will then be an ase.

Someone else will need to add collision to the religious obj.

 

I think bonehoard has some static loot which would be better as moveable anyway. I couldn't reach so I shot 10 arrows and it never budged.

It was a gold vase which doesn't appear in the loot list but should. I suppose angua just added loot props for that map.

 

Also, I'd like to get more opinions on the gem textures. I want to replace the diamond and ruby textures of old with these.

I've got one thumbs up so far (from PinkDot?)

 

the big blue thing is my diamond, the little white thing is the old one. of course there are several sizes...

The tex on far right is meant to replace the ruby (small red next to large red)

The red on left turns out to be a bonehoard specific shader.

 

--EDIT--forgot to mention, the small red gem with my tex needs remapped, it would look more like the large one.

[Tels]

Static vs. moveable:

 

* large loot pieces (vases, statues etc.) could be moveable, so if the player or AI bumps into them, they move

* small loot pieces (coins, rings, silver spoon) shouldn't be moveable, or explosions etc will blow them all over the map. Plus, what would be the advantage of being able to move a silver ring by bumping into it or shooting an arrow (if you can hit it) into it?

 

As for the textures, I don't know, I leave it to your judgement

[Baddcog]

Well, the reasons stated in posts that I found on my search stated that if the player blows up loot and can't find it it is there fault.

I can agree with that, first how many times you gonna use a fire arrow in a bedroom, ect... where something like a ring might be found.

 

The main reason I can think of having this small stuff being moveables is if it's in a drawer, the drawer is opened...

I haven't tested it yet so I don't know, would a non-moving ring move with drawer?

Would that just be a reason to have a moveable ring when most rings should be not moveable.

 

I think you are right though. small things like rings and gems should probably be static for the most part just to keep issues like loot falling into oblivion and a player not being able to complete a goal because of that. A vase or goblet would be easier to find.

 

silver spoons will NOT be loot as discussed in a previous thread. IMO they should be moveable as they are anyway. There was a big discussion when I tried to get a good collision model for a tray. Opinion at large is as many items as possible should move.

I think small loot items fall outside this catagory since they can be hard to see and if frobbed they got to inventory. Player can't move 'em around.

[Tels]

Well, the reasons stated in posts that I found on my search stated that if the player blows up loot and can't find it it is there fault.

I can agree with that, first how many times you gonna use a fire arrow in a bedroom, ect... where something like a ring might be found.

 

It doesn't matter how unliky, stupid or whatever it is the player does (well, mostly . This is a game, and the game shouldn't make it very hard or even impossible for the player to complete the mission - and if you accidentily blow a fire arrow up in a bedroom and whatever you need for your objective is blown out of the window and out of your reach - well that sucks. So it shouldn't happen. (I see you agree with me on that anyway)

 

And given the unstability of the current physics code, even slightly bumping into a coin would blow it all over the place - just try walking into a candle to see what I mean.

 

The main reason I can think of having this small stuff being moveables is if it's in a drawer, the drawer is opened...

I haven't tested it yet so I don't know, would a non-moving ring move with drawer?

Would that just be a reason to have a moveable ring when most rings should be not moveable.

 

Dunno, needs testing.

 

silver spoons will NOT be loot as discussed in a previous thread.

 

Sorry, never read that thread.

 

IMO they should be moveable as they are anyway. There was a big discussion when I tried to get a good collision model for a tray. Opinion at large is as many items as possible should move.

 

I tend to agree, as it makes the game more interesting.

[Springheel]

* small loot pieces (coins, rings, silver spoon) shouldn't be moveable, or explosions etc will blow them all over the map. Plus, what would be the advantage of being able to move a silver ring by bumping into it or shooting an arrow (if you can hit it) into it?

 

The current fire arrow explosion is likely to be reduced once we've settled into proper mass settings, so the first one isn't a major concern unless players are being careless with their fire arrows or mines.

 

Secondly, if you put a static mesh on top of a moveable object, it will not react to physics, which means a ring on top of a book will hover in place if you move the book. That alone is a solid reason for making them moveables, IMO.

[Baddcog]

OK,

 

what we have right now is most loot items under both defs. moveables and static.

 

I believe a good majority of the static loot items were probably in place before moveables were working. When I added the newer loot pieces I had missed the loot_moveable def so I ended up adding them all to static first.

After I realized my mistake I moved them over to loot_moveables also.

 

I just wanted to wait and hear a few opinions before proceeding any further.

 

I missed your post Springheel so I had just been waiting to respond.

 

I suppose this would be a good time to remove the loot.def of all static entities. This might have an effect on maps. I think bonehoard might have some static loot.

My thinking is that if we want it all to move we should just get rid of the static stuff. If a mapper wants static stuff they can do that on a per mission basis. Otherwise we are probably going to see great inconsistancy as more and more maps are developed.

We can't force authors to follow any system but we can establish one instead of two.

 

I am willing to do this if you approve Springheel.

[Springheel]

I am willing to do this if you approve Springheel.

 

Well, that's not really an art issue, so it's not just up to me. My opinion was that having both options was not a bad thing, since there might be cases where you didn't want loot to be moveable for some reason (for example, the spilled purse would look pretty silly moving around but all the coins staying in the same place--so if you were putting it in a location where it wasn't affected by any other moveables, a static version might be appropriate). But your comment about setting a default standard is also valid. Let's see what others think.

[Baddcog]

OK, deffinately wouldn't mind others chiming in. I went ahead and added all my gems and just left the diamond and ruby alone for now. I suppose at some time we'll either ace em or release em.

 

I also agree that the coin and gem purses would look silly moving around.

This was my main contention initially (when I first joined) about moveable loot. Not too big a deal anyway. There are few loot objects that fall in this catagory, but coin stacks would be another, they'd also look silly moving as one piece.

 

There could be a few exceptions, but I also wonder if there would be a good way to def attach some coins to a purse so that they'd move seperately if messed with. The player probably wouldn't be able to pick them up in one frob, but they are spilt. More realistic anyway.

We could just have a prefab of a purse and coins.

 

That way everything could move, but it would be easy for authors to place and it would be consistant. A spilt purse of coins would always be say 50 gold. Then players wouldn't be confused if they are missing 50 of the total loot.

We'd have to ace the spilt purse model and just use the purse with seperate coins/gems.

[Sotha]

But your comment about setting a default standard is also valid. Let's see what others think.

 

As a mapper, I'd like to have both static and moveable loot since it offers more possibilities.

 

All the objects in the real world are (more or less) moveables, but still some of them can only be moved with fine manipulation, for example a trophy caught up in a fishing net. Firing an arrow on it will not make it come loose, but a moveable loot in the game might fall on the ground.

 

However, we should include a recommendation to generally use moveables in our modding instructions.

[Komag]

Well I don't think we want two big sets of objects, one list moveable and one list static, but I don't really think that's what's being discussed, is it? I just want the setting to be relatively easy to change, so mappers can change it for certain items here and there.

 

But in general I would think of just following somewhat realism common sense, such as a bed not being a moveable but a vase being moveable.

[sparhawk]

But in general I would think of just following somewhat realism common sense, such as a bed not being a moveable but a vase being moveable.

 

That's the only sensible definition. An object is a moveable or not because of depening on how it is used, not wether it may be loot or not. A statue or a painting, that is loot, still doesn't have to be a moveable, while it would be pretty dumb to make a purse static (as Springheel already pointed out).

[Springheel]

Yes, I agree that whether something is loot or not shouldn't really affect the decision of whether it is moveable. We should probably combine this and the other discussion of moveable keys into a single thread.

[Tels]

That's the only sensible definition. An object is a moveable or not because of depening on how it is used, not wether it may be loot or not. A statue or a painting, that is loot, still doesn't have to be a moveable, while it would be pretty dumb to make a purse static (as Springheel already pointed out).

 

Should then be beds/paintings etc. also moveables? I don't think it would make sense to make a bed moveable as:

 

* it could only be moved by great forces (barrel explosion?)

* D3 probably handles a static entity more efficient (esp.when combined with static shadow casting lights?)

 

For smaller things (chairs, etc), they probably should be all moveables. However, I have no idea how this will impact the playability - the player could just pile up chairs before some door, then outrun the stuck guards... and then stacking things becomes possible, too, meaning maps need to be defined so the player can't climb out.

 

For paintings, we also would need a way to specify their "joint", so a small force will just rotate the painting, not remove it from the wall. As far as I know, this isn't easily doable without making paintings an animated object, tho.

 

But I see it could be fun if the player could bump into a painting and then "rotate" it back to be straight.

[Baddcog]

OK, back to the point of this thread which is mainly

 

LOOT CONVENTIONS

 

I only brought up moveables here because I am working with loot. If you discuss moveables here they should ONLY be loot.

 

So far the only things anyone here has talked about in this thread is moveables.

 

I asked for opinions on loot amounts and whether or not peoiple liked the gem textures.

 

 

 

The only response to my question so far was that Tels didn't care one way or the other about the textures. Anyone else care to comment on the topic?

[Tels]

The only response to my question so far was that Tels didn't care one way or the other about the textures. Anyone else care to comment on the topic?

 

Looking again at that picture, I am still having difficulties with these textures, is the top row the new versions and the bottom row the old ones? *confused* Or are they all new?

 

Edit: Nevermind, read the post again The big diamong and the big ruby look really good, guess they look even better in game

[Springheel]

I think I already posted somewhere else that the new textures look decent.

[SneaksieDave]

Ditto all of that I was also confused by the pics, but the big diamond and big ruby look great. I assume that the painted-on(?) facet shine illusion might not hold up perfectly in a moving game environment, but it'll probably still look great.

 

Edit: I wonder if actual facet shine with a specular surface would work? I don't see why not...