h a l f b a k e r yYou think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Vector path idea. It would totally depend on the tasks and how novel,fun or clever they are at evolving the objects. Probably new, would be the crucial one. |
|
| |
This sounds a lot like minecraft, except that it seems to have
something to do with artefacts of graphical algorithms, so
that it places at its centre things which are usually incidental
and marginal. |
|
| |
That process, focusing on marginal things, is often a source of
interesting thoughts - but I'd like to see some more details
here. What is the anomaly to which you refer, exactly, and
how is it related to the rules or mechanics of the game? |
|
| |
What [pert] said, followed by 20 question marks. |
|
| |
I also think we don't have enough information to evaluate
your idea. A lot depends on what else you're thinking.
Maybe you could describe how you morph your item, and the
sort of tasks you need to complete.
I'd also like to know more about the environment, and the
style of the game, but those are probably less important and
might evolve during development. |
|
| |
But a Cube is already optimal; what possible reason could there be for changing it ? |
|
| |
// build a device to escape // |
|
| |
You cannot escape. Resistance is Futile. |
|
| |
So basically instead of focusing on items like in Minecraft
you could focus on shapes. So you could split the cube into
triangles and use that and then combine the triangle to a
cylinder and make a watering can. Its all about shapes. |
|
| |
The anomaly would be the cube itself. You can split it and
everything but it will just grow back i guess. So if you cut it
in half. One piece will be a triangle and the other will be
the cube. |
|
| |
I dont really have too much planned. Its just an idea I had
and if you have any suggestions on what to do. |
|
| |
I don't really know about the tasks, do you guys have any
ideas? |
|
| |
Not really, "We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school." as Mr. Stoppard says. |
|
| |
Yes, but with a tetrahedron it's a right bugger to get into the vertices to clean out the dust. Even with a top-of-the-range Dyson and a modified crevice tool, it's still awkward. Cubes are much easier. |
|
| |
So do you guys think this is a good idea or not?, it might not
be a cube but for now it is. |
|
| |
There are several possible answers to that; we will leave the task of enlightening you to [kdf]. |
|
| |
I keep reading the title of this idea as Graphic Anatomy |
|
| |
A Dyson Sphere is a hollow planet constructed around a
sun such that all of the sun's energy is utilized and none
of it goes wafting off into open space. It was invented by
vacuum cleaner designer Freeman Dyson who was forever
trying to get dust out of corners and finally gave up,
invented the Sphere, and became immediately famous
and broke. |
|
| |
God does not play dyson with the universe |
|
| |
[+] for an outstanding annotation, in the same league as our contribution to "Spaceframe Mountain". |
|
| |
// Shit. A joke isn’t funny if it needs explaining // |
|
| |
That should be "A joke is shit if it's not funny", shrley ? |
|
| |
// let that be a lesson to you - // |
|
| |
Or rather, let that be the first lesson to you; you will be taught many others. Those few that endure the halfbakery's "education" regime may eventually be permitted to take an examination - there is a small prize for the highest score. It's called "survival". |
|
| |
// NEVER ASK FOR EXPLANATIONS. // |
|
| |
... or to borrow money, or how to make a light sabre, or why perpetual motion isn't possible, or how [xenzag] came by that hideous deformity, or where the repulsive smell is coming from (the answers to those last two questions are inextricably related). |
|
| |
But whatever, welcome to the asylum; we hope you enjoy your stay. |
|
| |
//I keep reading the title of this idea as Graphic
Anatomy
— theircompetitor, Aug 29 2020// |
|
| |
Hence the reason you're here...hahahaha |
|
| |
// slowly morph the cube or like duplicate it or something
// |
|
| |
You might need to build a sort of counterfactual physics engine,
based on the thinking of Empedocles, in which all properties of
matter were based on the shapes of its atoms, which were
assumed to be very small platonic solids. |
|
| |
^True that, choose your fabric, that will limit your tools and their number which ultimately controls the direction and scope of the tasks. Still, a vast amount of code development is needed. |
|
| |
Get a fabric or even just a tool or task that the public go crazy over and success will come your way. |
|
| |
[kdf] your light saber doesn't work? Did you fiddle with
the Dial-a-Yield control? Perhaps a new Shipstone is
needed... these things are rather hard on batteries. |
|
| |
Always figured the idea to be fairly simple, just a pulsed
laser, perhaps a 3 nsec burst would create a beam a
meter long. |
|
| |
//a pulsed laser, perhaps a 3 nsec burst would create a beam a meter long.// |
|
| |
Well, you would get a beam ~1m long... which would be leaving the hilt at 300,000km/s, so not a "sword" so much as a "gun". |
|
| |
You could save money by having a dyson hemisphere: there is a powerful suction device mounted at the end of the hemisphere which pulls all of the star's radiation into the hemisphere. 100% capture with only 50% materials cost. |
|
| |
Brilliant. And would it also pull in wayward debris with
the radiation? I do so hate having interstellar dust get on
everything. |
|
| |
Apart from the four glaringly obvious violations of the laws of physics and orbital mechanics, we forsee some implementation problems... |
|
| |
What happened to our newcomer? [8th], have you
frightened off yet another possible addition to our, er,
esteemed group? |
|
| |
No, don't think so ... after all we did actually use the word "welcome" in one of our annotations. |
|
| |
That's not exactly trolling, or overt hostility (yet). We blame [kdf] for being snarky, and [wjt] for being opaque and incomprehensible. |
|
| |
//So basically instead of focusing on items like in Minecraft you could focus on shapes. So you could split the cube into triangles and use
that and then combine the triangle to a cylinder and make a watering can. Its all about shapes. |
|
| |
Okay.
I'd suggest having a suite of basic primitive operations which may be applied to the object. Probably many of these would be effectively
matrix transforms. Others would cut the object in various ways (vertically; diagonally; shave a sliver off one side ...) or combine two
objects in some manner - perhaps add, subtract, intersect & so on..
A large part of the skill of the design would be to make the tools intuitive and easy to use. |
|
| |
//The anomaly would be the cube itself. You can split it and everything but it will just grow back i guess. So if you cut it in half. One
piece will be a triangle and the other will be the cube.// |
|
| |
//I dont really have too much planned. Its just an idea I had and if you have any suggestions on what to do.//
//I don't really know about the tasks, do you guys have any ideas?// |
|
| |
A puzzle game would be easiest... build the shape indicated, tangram style. Maybe not the most fun, but it would be a reasonable
demonstration of the technology. |
|
| |
yeah, a puzzle game seems more fun. so you would carry
the cube around with you for each level. Should there be
some sort of tool system? So at first, you can only mold it
with your hands. Then you can mold a knife and be able to
cut things. How does the tool system sound? |
|
| |
also for a puzzle game, it would be better if the cube only
grows back after each level. so you only have a limited
amount to work with. |
|
| |
//yeah, a puzzle game seems more fun. so you would carry the cube around with you for
each level. Should there be
some sort of tool system? So at first, you can only mold it with your hands. Then you can
mold a knife and be able to
cut things. How does the tool system sound?// |
|
| |
I guess it's a concept which is always going to be more suited to puzzles. Although what
that means is open to
interpretation.
But - if you're making it - what I suggest is: |
|
| |
1) Go for a minimum possible implementation puzzle game to start with-
* Just the object(s) and tools, no interactive environment.
* Each level starts with a cube, objective is some target shape
* Limited moves to reach goal, only some tools may be available. |
|
| |
Look at some similar casual games, like the factory balls series g.g. on Kongregate to get
inspiration, before flash gets
knobbled. |
|
| |
2) Release the game, however you're doing that, and get some feedback.
(Of course, most of the feedback you get will be garbage and hate-mail.) |
|
| |
3) If you're happy with it and think there is mileage left in the concept, perhaps you could
use it as the basis for a
puzzle adventure, portal-style. I.e. Some sort of environment to move around and use your
tools to interact with. It
might be nice to progressively unlock tools by building components using the system itself,
but you'd have to figure out
how that would work.
Perhaps there could be large, static equipment performing functions in the world, and if
you copied their
configuration you could make portable versions you could bring along with you. |
|
| |