[CF-Devel] Suggestion.

[Mark Wedel]

 The idea is interesting.  One question obviously is - is it easier to set up
something like that, or jsut expand the map by hand/script?

 The main problem is the resulting map that may get generated and how it mixes
in with quests and the like.  Some quests say 'find the caves near the south
edge of the main mountain range' or the like - if that mountain range is now
someplace else, or does not really exist, such messages become pretty useless.

 You also need make sure the map generated fits in - you probably don't want a
case where the world now ends up as a bit of islands and no easy way to get from
one to another.


>
     
      Advantages.
     
     >
     
      1.  Infinitely huge and detailed maps can be mathematically generated, with
     
     >
     
      none to very little drive space used to store the map.
     
     
 Note that the current world map uses about 700k (and I note that probably 10%
of that is overlap spaces).  So even if the new map is 100 bigger, that amounts
to 70 MB - yes, a bit of space, but on most any modern systems, I can't see that
being much a bigger.

>
     
      2.  Ability to easily increase the size of the outdoor map at a later time.
     
     
 Well, maybe.  The world map is obviously going to have entrances to dungeons
and the like - these dungeons need to lead back out to the same place - they
need to use some coordinate to do that.  IMO, a bit of the effort in expanding
the world map is not increasing the scale, but updating all of those exits to
the new paths.

>
     
      3.  Map would be an adventure for everyone, because of areas unexplored by
     
     >
     
      everyone.
     
     
 Debatable.  Presumably, no matter what the scale/generation, people know that
they want to go to certain places (eg, the dungeon that is located there, or the
south east corner, or whatever).  So while the terrain the player is travelling
through may end up being different, the important pieces will remain in the same
places (eg, dungeons, etc).  And unless the map is infinitely large, in any
case, places will probably get explored.  And while that is an interesting idea,
unless there are interesting things on all areas of this infinite map, you
really want care.

>
     
      4.  Autosmooth possible.  After generating the map, Tiles could automatically
     
     >
     
      be replaced by transition tiles to remove the blocky-ness from the maps.
     
     
 This of course could get programmed into the editor.

>
     
      5.  The map would use a universal coordinate scheme.  Thus monsters could
     
     >
     
      track players through map block without worrying about map transitions and
     
     >
     
      portals.
     
     
 With the new map tiling code, this currently works.


>
     
      Disadvantages.
     
     >
     
      1.  Don't know exactly what kind of hit generation a map block on the fly
     
     >
     
      would cause to the server.  May result in a pause for everyone when a person
     
     >
     
      moves across maps.
     
     
 Other thoughts:

 The map as a whole has to be consistent.  If you have a player starting in the
far east, and another in the far west, the system must be such that as they move
(and new map gets generated), if they meet, the transition makes sense.

 Second, it would seem most likely that each server would generate this world
map (or areas) once, and not again.  Otherwise, it is hard to explain why that
mountain range that used to be there is not there anymore.

 Third, computer generated maps are pretty much never as good as human ones. 
Presuming you do as you say and some features (eg, rivers and the like) are put
in the over ride maps, you know have the problem that a river may run through a
mountain range because the generator put a range where a river was running.


>
     
     
     >
     
      Other features I would like to see:  In (client/server) map design(I don't
     
     >
     
      need the server setup or the map editor to design maps, just a client, and
     
     >
     
      someone to give me design permissions for their server),
     
     
 This basically involves putting pieces of the editor in the client and/or
server.  the problem I see is that it doesn't really gain anything - presuming
for the editor to do much useful, the lcoal side (client) will need to know
about most of the arch's.  Whats the difference of having the client download it
over its linke to the server vs the user download it via ftp?  

>
     
       Large maps loaded
     
     >
     
      as tiles.  this would be the best for the above map design scheme, 
     
     
 This can be done in the new map scheme.  Note that the user has to make the
different tiles - the server won't load just a portion of the map.  Doing the
latter doesn't make a lot of sense, as it makes loads and saves a lot harder and
more time consuming, resulting in possible pauses in the server as it process
that.

>
     
      Multi
     
     >
     
      server capability(Different maps run on different server, One server is
     
     >
     
      authority on player stats)
     
     
 I have yet to see a compelling reason to do this, and lots of reasons not to
(complication, syncrhonization, more points of failure)