Procedural map - layers

[DirectuX]

Following up on Cornelius stress-test, and issue #29

in order to avoid further strategic withdrawal, like from Durden to Cornelius, I would like to agree upon the essential gameZones the map has to hold.

As a start :

• river gameZones vs void gameZones
• lakes ( see #31 too)
• brooks

Do we need / want / keep:

• gameZones properties ?
  • depth of water
  • flow direction
  • flow strength
• waypoints
• banks gameZone
  • sand
  • grass
  • amphibian plants
  • dark soil
• locks
• unmoveable gameZone (may be difficult)

[petrSchreiber]

I think I need more detail on these parts, please (in any order, any time):

• locks - what are they?
• what is unmoveable gameZone?

I would say that there is not a single direction even within one game zone. I would say there would be one main current, but also some side ones, to make it harder/easier to reach goal in given gameZone.

[DirectuX]

the essential gameZones the map has to hold

I'm not asking here of gameZones properties but what should be stored/created by the generated map.

locks : it can take any shape but as an example : a door that needs a key. If the Pilgrim brings the key when reaching the door, it opens to the "next level"

unmoveable gameZone #34 : already discussed upon the swirls : would have been needed to "connect" rivers of different grounds. We already agreed to be not necessary.

[petrSchreiber]

Superb, thanks a lot for the answers - I would propose to keep the state in the first post up to date, if I may, I would like to ask for marking unmoveable gameZone as unmoveable GameZone for example.

[DirectuX]

I thought to close the issue (a question) as soon as the question is answered, and open one or more new issues (focussed to do) with label accepted.

[petrSchreiber]

Sure, we can go this way, but I wonder what to do with the original question on the board then? Remove from board?

[DirectuX]

it will be closed : it won't be displayed any more isn't it ?

[DirectuX]

Please look at the picture in #29.

As a start :

• river gameZones vs void gameZones (illustrated)
• lakes ( see #31 too) (illustrated)
• brooks (illustrated)

Do we need / want / keep:

• gameZones properties ?
  • depth of water
  • flow direction
  • flow strength
• waypoints
• banks gameZone (illustrated)
  • sand
  • grass
  • amphibian plants
  • dark soil
• locks (illustrated)
• unmoveable gameZone (may be difficult)

What I think to keep was illustrated. Please, what are your thoughts about waypoints and gameZones properties ?

[petrSchreiber]

Waypoints - I think there should be a current, which will flow strong through the main paths.

GameZone properties I put on my TODO list.

[DirectuX]

Waypoints - I think there should be a current, which will flow strong through the main paths.

This comment and the ECS Poc make me think : the answer to the current may be without waypoints: each water gamezone can a have a flowDirection property (%NORTH, %SOUTH, %EAST, %WEST) and a flow strength property. At map generation moment, we can store the value according to world's settings (a brook from a marsh ≠ a rapid, though they may have the same width) and according to the width of the water.

[petrSchreiber]

Let's get rid of waypoints - the proposed idea sounds good to me 👍

[petrSchreiber]

moved

[DirectuX]

I agree with these ideas, but the issue was about the gameZones data stored by the procedurally generated map. This comment may have better place in #33 ?

[petrSchreiber]

Good point, moved 👍 Will think about this one again 👍