Option to see outside of houses with default looks.

Nemo Herringwary posted a solution in the other thread that seems to be spot on but was getting buried in all the other comments.

So I thought I would bring it out to be seen on its own.

Basically we could just get an option to show all houses in there default state from the outside if we choose too.

Players that only want to see normal buildings without all the decorations can just check the option and never see immersive breaking decorations.

Then everyone is able to decorate however they feel without worries.


A win win as I see it.

 

Would help frame rates for older computers as well. A win-win-win.

 

I would like to see optional plot opt in/out for houses you really want/don't want to see, but otherwise yes, this idea seems a simple way to avoid eye sores without limiting individual creativity and aiding those on lower end systems.

 

Scenario:
- Player has crafting stations on his lot
- You turn off his lot decorations
- Someone who hasn't turned off his decorations uses the station

What do you see? Some player just standing there doing the crafting animation next to empty space? Ok, so you may think, hey that only affects my game. Really...

Scenario #2:
- Two players are in Open PvP and fighting
- One player turns off all lot decorations for every home

Is that player exploiting the system to "see" through objects that the other player can't see through? How does that affect the cover system for combat since it uses line of sight calculations, which that player clearly now has an unobstructed line of sight.

Nothing is as simple as it seems. There are plenty of edge cases where the logic to handle this sort of thing can be crazy and the solutions to solve each of those gets even more crazier, creating even more edge cases to solve.

 

The amount of time any player will spend staring at another player crafting is extremely minor, and compared to the disgust they would feel (if they've actually turned that plot off) to the wider ugliness of the plot itself, seeing someone there occasionally doing a minor animation is going to be a welcome price to pay in exchange for not seeing Ankhs piled sky high outside their home every time they return to it.

Regarding the second example however, you are misunderstanding how software calculates the existence of items; visual rendering is likely on a different system to physical existence; an item is still "there" for software even if it doesn't draw it to screen output, and so Line Of Sight will still be broken by an invisible to the player item because the game calculates that separately, and is thus equal in software operation to each player.

In order for it to have an influence on the way the players experience it, that is what each sees, they have to be operating under different code sets, in this case, one player has to be on the plot, and thus rendering visible the decoration, and one with the option turned off outside of it, rendering it invisible. But the practical result would only be that he won't have a visible clue as to when Line of Sight is being broken, but the player inside will... the LoS however will still be calculated by the software independent of both.

Of course, PvPers being famously determined to win at any cost, I imagine the majority will turn of deco rendering everywhere combat can possibly occur to eke out the smallest performance advantage whilst running around cities. And we do not know as yet whether firing into house plots is going to be allowed anyway; it may be that even if the house is PvP enabled, it's only in set areas of the house (basements maybe), or both participants have to physically be in the plot itself; In a much earlier Alpha, I suspect it was not possible to shove an NPC into a house plot, as I tried for some time to kidnap Winslow and lock him in one without success... he simply wouldn't go over the invisible plot border by the door. It may simply be that the entire outer wall of a plot blocks Line of Sight for players too at release, and prevents UO type house hiding.

But even if it doesn't, we still then have a simple answer to even your second example. House decoration doesn't count for Line of Sight for PvP attacks. Rendered or not, none of it acts as anything but a physical barrier inside the plot. Basic house structure counting for LoS yes, because all can see that, but oracle heads and ankhs etc on the plot simply aren't obstacles as such for LoS, so players can shoot through them whether they can be seen or not.

Immersion breaking? Again, a little, but much less than it would be to have gravity defying platforms of death hovering in the air, which will apply every possible advantage a determined to win House PvPer can dream up; and frankly this is the real issue. Individual players have proven over nearly 18 years of MMO experience now they're the worst judges of what is good for the overall whole anyway; just as we as a species in real life aren't too, as we refuse to stop eating and consuming even as we trash our wider future. People want the rights of individual freedom but pay no attention to the responsibilities which come with that. People would rather "win" at a game, even at the cost of killing it for everyone that follows them, than lose occasionally but get to play a second time. Thus being able to shoot through an oracle head is a very, very small sacrifice to be made to keep the wider game healthy; because honestly, I don't think people who don't want to see restraints placed on their creativity really care about what happens to the game outside of their own experience. They see another player say "I don't want to see that" and their answer is "leave then" without understanding what players leaving actually means for them too.

I'm not saying you personally are behaving that way Smack; but from a design point of view, the answer to your examples is not to abandon limitations, but simply tighten them up and accept the compromises that have to be made for them to work. If we were a species of angels, unrestrained freedom would be an undeniable good. We're not though, so it isn't.

 

The LoS wasn't a misunderstanding, it was an open question to the devs since we can't assume how they're doing things underneath. You're assuming that the object being invisible implies it still exists in the world for collision calculations. It implies the devs have the ability to make all object geometry and textures transparent on the fly. We know from the bug with windows in the early releases where you can't see through some or see only one way through some while others were transparent both directions. That is a property of the object, not done dynamically on the fly. Imagine they now need to tweak every single object in the game to make things "invisible". We're making a lot of assumptions that does require some clarity.

Actually, the cover system does take into account the very objects you just mentioned:



In any case, I think the point was lost in my commentary: this is a lot of work just to appease subjective tastes. It's very likely not going to happen since it creates more problems than it solves and has domino effects across multiple systems that yet need more solving. The very fact that we're having these discussions prove it's not as simple as the OP suggests.

 

"Flag LoS = No"

That's as complex as it is, depending on what the name of variable associated with the items in the code is. I'm not assuming anything, that's how software works. It codes for a set of conditions, and then responses for those conditions. Water in software doesn't have "wet" as a value, unless you flag it for "wet". And then software has to set up what "wet" does with regards to everything else. The line of sight code is already in game, as will the "hit boxes" of where an items influence extends too... and for some, that will already be set as not at all; at a guess, I expect Player Ghosts already have the No flag for Line of Sight. You can't block someone's shots by haunting them, by design as Ghosts are intended to have no "physical" presence.

There's not much extra code then, you simply have to turn LoS off for items on a plot when the player isn't on the plot. Visibility too, for that matter. The only extra code will be setting the server to spot when you are not actually on a plot. And that most likely will be a variant of the code which decides if the owner is on it, and activates their ability to decorate there...

In the case of cascading systems however, you're making the classical Zeno's Paradox argument for a permanently moving, thus impossible to reach point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

And it's one that is easy enough to disprove by simply getting up and walking towards something; that new distance, new issues appear doesn't mean we can't overtake, and go far beyond the aim we started the race with. In the case of code then, yes you may create a new problem that every second tuesday of the month an Avatar's hair falls off and they become a Were-Darkstarr... but maybe the players like that, or prefer that to being humiliated by the tortoise. And it doesn't matter, if they also get to beat that tortoise, that is, they get to do what they set out to do as the race was set originally.

You are frankly then, using the lack of perfection to argue for something I rather suspect you don't want to happen, rather than the realism or otherwise of whether it can. An Achilles that would rather not start the race than risk having to prove the tortoise is easily overtaken. And that's fine if that's how people feel; but it doesn't address the fact that if you don't run after it, the tortoise will be eating your lettuce... or in the case of Shroud's player base, finding pastures new because it really is something people feel passionately about.

Better then to give them the options they need to live in peace together, wouldn't you say? Isn't that a tortoise worth chasing after?

 

While I see these potential issues. It really is all just a trade off. If someone can choose to turn off everything then so can everyone else. If it is turned off by both parties then not only will you be able to see but you also will not be able to hide.

 

Really hate this idea for the following reasons

- Mechanics as explained by Smack
- Poor use of development time
- Breaks the principle of a persistent dynamic world

 

Sure, if it can be done easily, they can even toggle it all off whenever you enter combat mode. But I guess that sort of defeats the whole purpose of their cover system mechanic. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense that it works in some cases but not in others. But more critically, that you can turn off LoS (cover system) on-demand, which was touted as a key feature they were adding for combat (taken from their experience in Tabula Rasa).

 

I think it is actually easier to just not allow players to stack items that high....like the ankhs.

 

I don't know... I don't think even the players who find decoration to be a problem really would end up liking it that much. Either you're talking about a mass switch to turn off all player decorations. or one for just individual houses like an ignore switch. Most probably wouldn't want to turn off all decorations, and turning off individual houses would turn into a bit a chore.

I would go back to what smack is saying..

Isn't there a possibility of really basic, non-discriminating rules everybody can agree on that would make it much less of an issue in the first place?

 

One of the main things backers have been rewarded with is housing and the housing system is what attracted a decent percentage of those backers. Turning off, hiding and/or giving the houses a default look would be a massive groin punch to those people. Removing visible customisation and variation robs a percentage of the population of their PRIMARY purpose for being here. You will look at my garden and you will LIKE IT! *shakes fist*

 

Themo Lock, your garden will be in New Britannian Homes and Gardens Magazine.