The Star Wars: Imperial Winter Eyecandy Thread [56k warning]

[Warlord Zsinj]

How would you represent them visually? This has been something that has been troubling me for the map that I am working on.

[hrmph]

So the mod won't work with metal patches? I'm confuzzeled.

[Gnomre]

In the same way S44 'doesn't work' with them.

For our own custom maps, we just need to think of something a bit more fitting than bare metal since you're not mining anything. Ultimately the game would technically work fine if you used tits for metal patches

[rattle]

Sounds good to me.

[yuritch]

For the desert map, you can make those 'important areas' contain things like wrecked sandcrawlers or droids half-buried in the sand (or escape pods from destroyed starships, etc.). So one side wants to secure them to extract information that may be there, and the other side wants to prevent it (by securing the area, too).

[Warlord Zsinj]

Sure - there's lots of ways to make areas strategically important in terms of the map concept.

But the difficult part is how you visually represent to the player using some sort of iconography "this is where you need to build your territory control marker" - and it has to work in a way that is both explanatory, but not immersion-breaking. A difficult task.

[smoth]

How would you represent them visually? This has been something that has been troubling me for the map that I am working on.

not sure, I thought the becon was fine.

I was going to things that would make a good LZ, solid ground patches with obvious airpad markings, concrete flats in between buildings that would be good places to setup artillery. Old ruins that would make a good fortification. Things like that.

Hell one of them was going to be a rocky outcropping that would give great LOS.


The reason flat and solid surfaces along with entrenchments are important is because this IS a desert with loose sand and little cover.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Certainly, I think that'd be a good way to indicate strategic zones. But there still needs to be some sort of decal on the ground that explains to the player "you need to stick your beacon here, on this spot".

Unless you go for not having any visual reference, and only use the F4 metal distribution screen. But as we've seen from players, they prefer having visual representations always there (ie through metal patches).

A few ideas that I had were:

- A split imperial/rebel logo
- Some sort of scifi marker replacing a metal patch (example, example)
- Some sort of feature that can be built over, and is perhaps removed once the beacon is built. Something like a coloured flare, or whatever.
- A designed aurebesh character worked into some sort of circle, or whatever. Sort of representing "Checkpoint A... Checkpoint B", etc etc.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Here is a quick mockup I've made, using both the sci-fi circular marker and the aurebesh idea.

I'm at work, and they only have photoshop elements here, so it's pretty rough given I didn't have much at my disposal (and have the boss patrolling ), but you get the idea.



That would be a bit bigger then a metal patch in-game

[smoth]

http://www.carlsguides.com/pictures/daw ... 3start.jpg
(minus the flag)

I was thinking I could model up a quick strategic point marker, it would be something units would ignore but have a glow map(I can use your texture) to draw attention to it.

what do you think?

also though, marking the spot is a good idea also, that way I can make it look like a scout used spray paint and marked the area. The main reason I wanted to do a glowmap was so it would be really obvious.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Sorry, Smoth, I'm a little confused having never played DoW. What exactly am I looking at?

I'm guessing the thing in the middle is probably some sort of flag, and the thing on the ground is a decal.

All I am suggesting is to have the decal (like an updated metal patch). Functionally, I'm not sure if a physical feature would work (atleast, one that wasn't minimal like a flare), because currenty we have our troops build "beacons" on the ground, which create a holographic image of the player faction above. This would conflict with any features already on the ground.

Also, a groundscar is nice, I feel, because it is kept abstracted away from the functionalities of the game. Because it does not physically exist in a gameworld (as opposed to say, an obelisk territory zone marker or something), I feel in the players mind it can be kept abstracted in the realm of the 'player HUD' rather then something that the units are actually interacting with in the gameworld. This sits well with our abstract concept of territorial control, I think.

Just to clarify in case it was confused, I intended for the above groundscar to work so that the character in the middle was changed for (ideally) each metal patch, or if that is going to be a massive pain in the arse (don't know how your metal distribution is planned), atleast changed often enough that you aren't going to see two of the same characters together on the same screen. See the variant below.

[Guessmyname]

Sorry, Smoth, I'm a little confused having never played DoW. What exactly am I looking at?

When smoth said 'minus the flag' he was being literal. Remove only the flag/banner-thing, and you get the DOW strategic point.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Ah, I see. Well, what I said in my previous post still applies; I think I'd be more keen to see just the groundscar, for reasons listed above.

[smoth]

not just flag, remove the whole post and all. Just the flat platform.

if you want a basic graffiti image I can do that to.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Personally I prefer just the groundscar; I can't imagine any logic for there being these platforms lying around for troops to conveniently slot in their control beacons; the groundscar is abstracted away from that, because you can assume that it is simply part of your command HUD as the commander, and that only you and not your troops on the ground can see it.

But it's your map, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Talk to Gnome about getting the functionalities of our holobeacon system working with your 'platform' system, if you're keen on doing that.

(Using a groundscar system also retains more functionality with other mods)

[smoth]

the groundscar would get covered if there was any thing exploding over the ground. that is why I was wanting to opt for something that was more then just texture.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Are you sure?

Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology. By "groundscar" I mean "painted directly onto the map texture in photoshop, prior to packing with mapconv". Surely metal patches don't disappear after there's been an explosion above them?

[bobthedinosaur]

make it a transparent barely above ground square feature

[Warlord Zsinj]

I think just as a normal metal patch-style image on the map would work fine. The problem with a floating square texture is that it'll clip or float if the ground is not perfectly flat, which is reasonably common on most maps, but even more common on maps that have destroyable terrain.

[smoth]

groundscar textures may cover it that is what I meant. If I do it as a glowing feature with transparency you will see it clearly and it cannot be obscured by ground texture.