![]() |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Quote:
The easiest, and I say easiest only in relative terms cause it's still not easy by any subjective measure, is to randomly generate a quadrant with no warp points. You can then move the already populated systems around where you want them and add in the connecting warp points. But be prepared to take a long time and pull much of your hair out in the process. It's DULL work. I have gone as far as starting a game on a map with no warp points and using in game stellar manip to create the warp points for special maps. That's how truely bad the editor is. Geoschmo |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
"...that's how bad the editor truly is."
Hence the reason for my (somewhat lengthy) post in the editor thread a few pages down. I started working on a symetrical map that was to be as balanced as a map could be: All warp points were located at the same position in each system; 3 or 6 planets in each system...1 (or 2) of each planet type; the atmosphere throughout the galaxy was the same (so players would need to take the same atmosphere as each other); all percentages were the same on each planet in a system (some systems were higher, some lower); all planets were the same size; no planets had moons. But it became a nightmare! In anger, I deleted it. |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
you people are too much sometimes.... I was showing this thread to people at work... They were laughing as well.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
I mean it in the funnest way.... Its what I like about this place..... I smell NEEERDDDDDDDD http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Sounds like the map editor needs an overhaul. That said i like maps with warp points that are many in number ie at least 8 warp points leading into each system.
You need choke points but perhaps you need fewer of them and a more open map ? |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Quote:
|
Re: Maps, theory discussion
In the summation equations, what are the terms x, y, N, m, n, and l?
The first equation looks like the proof for the commutative property of a convolution between x and y, i.e. if you convolute x with y, it gives the same result as y convoluted with x. How does this relate to the quadrant maps? And what do fourier theorms and bandwidths have to do with the maps. Why are we using a continuous integral from minus infinity to plus infinity, when the quantity we are discussing is not continuous but discrete. The summation should suffice, shouldn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Nerds are tasty but they're bad for your teeth. I think they're just globs of sugar with a bit of color and artificial flavor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Maps, theory discussion
Hmmmmm..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .......It seems that I may have created a monster here......er......maybe more than one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.