10 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaughn78]

So there was a bit of delay getting the fog of war up and working. Several files got mixed up and uploaded. At this point the correct files were sent to the Vault and are up and avaliable.

I have started working on probably the final update. It will include making the campaign compatible with the most  recent version of kaedrin's content. I have some improvements for the boulder toss, oozes (thanks to Lance Botelle), as well as several other issues found and reported by community members. I plan on having this update avaliable by the end of June.

With this update I am also looking at the fog of war and how it impacts play, both positive and negative. While I know only a few players have had the experience of the fog of war, I am still interested in the community feedback for this final update.

I have created a poll on my blog. Please answer the poll and either post a comments here or on the blog.

TAKE THE POLL

Currently I am using the active mapping as a default. The player must have the map open to remove the fog. A feat is avalaible "Expert Mapping" that will allow passive mapping, the fog will automatically remove with the map opened or closed. The requirements for the feat are level 3, spot 4 and survival 2. Mapping is not done during combat in either the active or passive mode. This is Lance's default and recommended state in his script to avoid performance issues.

Poll question:
What style of Fog of War do you prefer for Risen Hero?

1. Current style: Active with feat at level 3

2. Active with feat avaliable at level 1 during character generation.

3. Passive, no feat required

4. Something else


A bonus question:

If the feat is avalaible at level 1 or level 3 what requirements would you suggest (spot, survival or something else)?

**Edit**
The first companion will meet all the requirements once they reach level 3.

Lance's blog post of the fog

Modifié par Shaughn78, 09 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[Arkalezth]

I voted 2. Don't see the need for level 3 requirement, some classes won't have the required skills anyway. I think Survival is ok as a requirement, not sure about Spot.

Playing and moving with the big map opened is annoying, but since you can take the feat early and it works on companions, it's not that bad. I'd probably vote 3 otherwise.

The feat Track could also have some use with the FoW.

[manageri]

3.

I don't want to have to tell my party to tie their shoelaces, eat and drink every once in a while, hold the right end of the sword, or to keep mapping all the time, it really should be obvious. The FoW is good for not revealing the whole map too soon but that's all it should be - an anti-metagame tool, not a needless PITA.

The radius of the mapping also felt a little small to me when I was playing another mod with the FoW recently so I'd keep an eye on that if it's something you have the power to adjust.

[PJ156]

3 for me. Feats are rare commodities for all classes and the map too importatnt to start forcing persons down this path.

To use a feat for something I used to be able to do anyway would irk me somewhat.

PJ

[Morbane]

I have incorporated LBs FOW into my current project - I made it all Passive.

I Vote 3 for sure.

[manageri]

I just wanna add that a feat seems entirely wrong for this. Feats are supposed to be taken by and affect the characters, not the player, and all your FoW feat does is make it less of a PITA for the player. It's like having a feat that gives you more quickslots, it makes zero in character sense. I'd change it to an OOC option at the start of the game.

[The Fred]

Yeah, the thing is that having the map GUI open or not doesn't really reflect what's going on in the game world. I like the idea of having to have your characters get out their maps and get cartographing, but it feels contrived. We're assuming that the players are feeding and watering themselves and so forth, so I think it's OK to just pretend that they are mapping as they go.

[likeorasgod]

While I haven't played a Mod with the FoW yeat, I would say 3/4. Passive or maybe it adjust to a skill and the level you have depends how big of a map you got showing to you (N) should be visiable? While your (M) big mape should be show where you have explored since it isn't ment to show creatures, just features like a real map should.

[Arkalezth]

The Fred wrote...

Yeah, the thing is that having the map GUI open or not doesn't really reflect what's going on in the game world.

Agreed. I never understood the point of having the big map opened for mapping.

To clarify, ideally I prefer 3, it's much less annoying gameplay-wise. However, if the module builder really wants 2, I can wait for the feat if it's only for a couple areas (as it is right now, the first being a small one).

[Shaughn78]

This is definately helpful, thanks to everyone who has replied and voted so far.

Let us throw some minimap discussion in there.
Part of Lance's system allows builders to map maps unavaliable. A set gui screen "unavaliable" is showing instead of the current area.

For my camapaign I modified the minimap. I have removed the zoom in and out features. In testing the on exterior levels the default zoom is essentially line of sight with the default fog. If the player can see it (character or tactic camera view) then it appears on the mini-map. This will prevent the mini-map from seeing beyond what the character can see and beyound the cleared fog.
For many interior areas I have made the mini-map unavaliable. The main reason for this is the limitations in the NWN2 mapping. Without a solid door all the passage will show and even with the zoom removed a large portion of the map is shown in the minimap showing areas and passages the player should have no idea exist. This is also helpful in natural caves where having solids door just doen't make sense.

Fog clearing size is something I have no control over, as it is beyond my scripting abilities. I believe it was discussed with the original release of the fog and the implimentation would have been very difficult.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

Thanks Shaughn for using this system. I'm also glad my changes with the Oozes code was helpful.
Just a few pointers for everyone ....

1) The original concept was for "active" mapping because that is the style my own campaign employs. When the PCs start afresh in my campaign, they start reasonably "normal" and so even food rations are required to begin with (which another poster mentioned). So, there is a degree of basic "management" required in my campaign until the PCs have acquired the abilities to become "proper adventurers". It's just a different approach, akin to employing my own hard core rules (HCR). Those who like HCR would most likely prefer it, while others may not. Personally, however, I believe there are good reasons to require a feat to map well, even if it is a compromise to whether a PC can map at all! i.e. Why not make "Mapping" a feat required in the first place (for any mapping), let alone "active" or "passive"? Having the ability to map at all could be considered a "gaming tool" too far, so making it something that a player has to concentrate on (without the feat - Active) is not too much to ask in my opinion. With the "Expert Mapper" feat, they are expert orienteerers who can keep track with the least amount of effort (Passive).

2) A builder could even adjust the "active" / "passive" requirement by associating the requirement of the "Expert Mapping" feat to the game difficulty level if they were so inclined. In that way, players who like the idea of progressing in this way can play it as requiring the feat, whereas those that don't, would not have to. That, however, is a builder's choice to include in the setting or not. A builder could also provide a one off conversation to give the player the choice of active or passive at the start.

3) A player can still effectively get around the "active" requirement by opening the map and then using the "H" to clear all the GUIs. The map will continue to update even though it is not onscreen. It is suggested as a handy tip, but not as something to replace the "Expert Mapper" feat (if employed).

4) Like Shaughn, I have also adpoted the idea of removing the zoom buttons from the mini-map, as it can give away too much detail in some settings. I also agree with Shaughn that many interiors should have the minimap made unavailable for the same reasons.

5) From the FoW manual: "Is it possible to make the area revealed bigger? Answer: Only if you are prepared to rewrite the algorithm that calculates which squares are revealed according to the PCs position." Also, due to the block size, going one stage bigger may be too big. And making the blocks smaller to do this would means thousands of more lines of code (with the knowledge I have).

Thanks for reading.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 10 mai 2011 - 12:23 .