PC Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

[beerfly]

I'm more excited about bodies of water large enough to require a bridge in RWG. One thing I liked about Nave was setting up next to a lake which provided an obstacle to navigation. It meant that there was an unexplored area the other side of the lake which I didn't get to until quite late. It broke up the generally circular pattern of scavenged POI's with a naturally occurring obstacle.
It does also raise the slight possibility that rivers have been added to RWG. I'm not sure about America but we have far more bridges going over rivers than over lakes.

At least you prevented the idea to die 4-5 times just to be able to build a (d)amn supports for a bridge that allows you to be connected with an area that is reachable in some matter of time and resourses without the bridge. I did it in RWG once and was proud of how usefull was to have the ability to manipulate RWG`s engine to prevent me to go somewhere. It was experiment went well. Death then wasn`t that much of a matter as now.

And I can`t wait for the new RandomGen. Do we all do ?

 

[Wardronex]

I think I see where you're going with this. Can you hook into the time with the updated modding system or perhaps have a countdown timer buff which randomly chooses a buff to apply?
Buff1 = 25%

Buff2 = 100%

Buff3 = 200%

Check which buff is applied once per hour. Apologies, but this is easier to show you in pseudocode.

float randomRoll = Random.Range(0f,100f);

if(randomRoll > 70f){

....<apply Buff3>

}else if (randomRoll > 20f){

....<apply Buff2>

}else{

....<apply Buff1>

}

Not sure how you'd achieve that with the cvars system, or even if it's possible, but that logic should get you the result you're looking for.

I hope that helps.

I'm fairly certain you would have to tie this into all containers item count

So if say ruff example loot container "cabinet" item count "1,3"

you would need to reference these to each buff to change each item count

so Buff 25% = item count "1,2" Buff 2 = IC "2,5" Buff 3 = IC "5,8"

Something like this should work but you will have to add to all containers

 

[The Gronk]

<snipped for space>

The last and possibly only time I've built a bridge the RWG biomes were distinct flat islands separated by a canal network. There was a city not far away and I was crossing that particular part of the canal very often. I remember it distinctly because my base looked like a land-locked concrete oil rig with a tall tower to spot airdrops above the treeline.

I'm hoping there are some taller mountains and wider hill ranges, assuming I didn't just have bad luck when the new system briefly appeared.

 

[gcomerfo]

You guys thought about adding particle effect blocks, so that prefabbers can set up scenes like this one?

Regardless of the particle math and optimization debates, that scene is amazing!! Gosh I would love to see the game evolve to that point. Firetrucks and cool variety of busy things! Great job!

 

[Wardronex]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1088224092614881280

Now IF they can only add this to roads and gravel paths to go through mountains.

To form tunnels and have debris/objects added when this occurs.

Would save a lot of the wonky vertical drops the roads and paths do now.

Would make a fairly spooky area to go into.

 

[khzmusik]

I think you're right about how the probabilities are applied, and I think that's the source of your confusion. You'd be right that A * B * C is how to get to the probability of a container being empty, but once you have that, the number of trials required to infer a bug in the system should be pretty low.

With due respect, I'm pretty sure your math is wrong too, or at least not as helpful as you might have thought.

First, I think you're treating open containers (with 0% chance of loot) the same as closed but lootless containers. Both are treated as "empty," even though they are very different from the player's perspective.

To see how this affects things, let's go with your numbers, as I understand them:

A = "Normal" odds of container being closed = 50% (0.5)

B = Loot Abundance modifier = 50% (0.5)

C = Odds of a non-zero # of items in a closed container = 91% (0.91)

Now, I believe what Gnomaana said is true, and the loot abundance modifier affects the percent chance of items spawning within closed containers. But I could easily be wrong so we'll try it either way.

If I'm right: for any run of 200 containers, statistically 100 of them (50%) will be open. The chance that any of the remaining 100 will have loot is B * C = 0.5 * 0.91 = 0.455 (or 45.5%).

So as a statistical average, the number of containers that will have loot is 100 * 0.455 = 46 containers (rounding up). 100 of them will be visually empty so you know you don't have to search them. So of the closed containers, 54 will be empty - more than half.

Now, let's say I'm wrong and the loot abundance modifier is for the number of closed containers. So the chance of a container being closed is A * B = 0.25 (or 25%). But the chance of each closed container having loot is still 0.91 (91%).

Out of 200 containers, the statistically average number of closed containers is 200 * 0.25 = 50 containers. Of those containers, 50 * 0.91 = 46 (rounding up) will have loot in them, the same as before. But 150 of those containers will be visually empty so you know you don't have to search them. So of the closed containers, only 4 will be empty.

Either way, that leaves 154 containers that will be "empty" even if loot generation is working precisely as it should. Sure, the chances that all 200 being empty is vanishingly small, but is the difference between 154 and 200 empty containers so big that players would notice?

But second, even this does not tell the whole picture. It's not as simple as A, B, or C. If I understand the XML files correctly:

* The same POI might have a chance of spawning different containers in the same location.

* Containers have different sets of loot, and each loot type has a different spawn count, and different percent chances of spawning.

* For most containers, there is some percent chance that additional higher-level loot will spawn, but not additional lower-level items, and the percent increases with game stage.

And all that only affects closed containers. I still don't know for sure what the loot abundance affects, or how the chance of a container being closed is calculated.

So the chances of accurately calculating the odds of 200 containers in a row being empty is far more complicated than anything we can do on these forums.

 

[The Gronk]

<snipped for space>

You could isolate the single variable by setting everything else to max or average. You can then check the contents of 200 containers for various values of loot abundance, You're looking at 600 to 1000 total containers but you should be able to see if the loot multiplier is applied consistently.

 

[Gnomaana]

With due respect, I'm pretty sure your math is wrong too, or at least not as helpful as you might have thought.
First, I think you're treating open containers (with 0% chance of loot) the same as closed but lootless containers. Both are treated as "empty," even though they are very different from the player's perspective.

To see how this affects things, let's go with your numbers, as I understand them:

A = "Normal" odds of container being closed = 50% (0.5)

B = Loot Abundance modifier = 50% (0.5)

C = Odds of a non-zero # of items in a closed container = 91% (0.91)

Now, I believe what Gnomaana said is true, and the loot abundance modifier affects the percent chance of items spawning within closed containers. But I could easily be wrong so we'll try it either way.

If I'm right: for any run of 200 containers, statistically 100 of them (50%) will be open. The chance that any of the remaining 100 will have loot is B * C = 0.5 * 0.91 = 0.455 (or 45.5%).

So as a statistical average, the number of containers that will have loot is 100 * 0.455 = 46 containers (rounding up). 100 of them will be visually empty so you know you don't have to search them. So of the closed containers, 54 will be empty - more than half.

Now, let's say I'm wrong and the loot abundance modifier is for the number of closed containers. So the chance of a container being closed is A * B = 0.25 (or 25%). But the chance of each closed container having loot is still 0.91 (91%).

Out of 200 containers, the statistically average number of closed containers is 200 * 0.25 = 50 containers. Of those containers, 50 * 0.91 = 46 (rounding up) will have loot in them, the same as before. But 150 of those containers will be visually empty so you know you don't have to search them. So of the closed containers, only 4 will be empty.

Either way, that leaves 154 containers that will be "empty" even if loot generation is working precisely as it should. Sure, the chances that all 200 being empty is vanishingly small, but is the difference between 154 and 200 empty containers so big that players would notice?

But second, even this does not tell the whole picture. It's not as simple as A, B, or C. If I understand the XML files correctly:

* The same POI might have a chance of spawning different containers in the same location.

* Containers have different sets of loot, and each loot type has a different spawn count, and different percent chances of spawning.

* For most containers, there is some percent chance that additional higher-level loot will spawn, but not additional lower-level items, and the percent increases with game stage.

And all that only affects closed containers. I still don't know for sure what the loot abundance affects, or how the chance of a container being closed is calculated.

So the chances of accurately calculating the odds of 200 containers in a row being empty is far more complicated than anything we can do on these forums.

I am pretty sure the open containers are just static blocks and have nothing to do with this. I could be wrong but I just don't see those as being involved in this. How would changing the loot abundance after the game starts work if they are? Once they are open that's it. They will never spawn loot.

Edit: Edited open to closed in first sentence so the post makes at least a little sense.

 

[NukemDed]

my name is mike and im a lootaholic

whew, thats out the way!

at loot = 200% (only because thats the highest setting) I find i have enough resource to squash the many irritating (for me) bottle necks that limit me being able to smash the zombies like some marvel/matrix/starwars power god that i know i am

i die plenty btw

at 200% you get 2 treasure maps when they drop. PAY DAY!!!!!

especially with grandpas awesome sauce. record is 7 levels selling diamonds etc in one go...

so instead of trying to smash your brain against how it works and such, why not choose a setting and just play?

dont forget to enjoy the game

 

[Bifferd]

Hey MM any word on what changes we can expect RWG in the next update. BTW the bridge was a great addition. I was also wondering if when RWG is completed will there be different options for world design types, like the continent you showed small islands total land or any number of other possibilities. Thanks for all the awesome work other than the state of RWG I have been pleased with the latest changes to the game although I do miss the old forge houses being in the game they were always my first base due to the size and building materials used in them.

 

[DUST2DEATH]

What's the rocket science behind dropping the bridge by 1 block, and then adding a plate to catch the new gap,so that the UNREALISTIC and BUGGY AS FRACK wedge isn't necessary?

+1000000

Bridges make my bus cry

 

[khzmusik]

I am pretty sure the closed containers are just static blocks and have nothing to do with this. I could be wrong but I just don't see those as being involved in this. How would changing the loot abundance after the game starts work if they are? Once they are open that's it. They will never spawn loot.

I think you're right but others here have told me I'm wrong.

Also, I think you mean that open containers are static blocks. Closed containers can be looted, and loot respawns after a certain time in-game (which resets on player interaction). So they are not static unless you have a different definition of "static" than I do.

On the other hand, I don't know for sure that open containers can't re-spawn as closed containers after a certain time in-game. I think you're right but I haven't tested it.

On a separate note: Just for fun I treated the A * B * C calculation like Boidster did, as the calculation of p in a binomial distribution.

If you do this, the probability of finding exactly zero containers with loot, is indeed very small: 3.7992477887769949487675892825024e-23.

But it is exactly the same as the probability of finding exactly sixty containers with loot. And for any number larger than that, the probability gets even more tiny, by several orders of magnitude.

For example, the probability finding exactly 75 containers with loot is 9.7368200730180311304928797350048e-32 - or roughly a million times less likely than finding no loot at all.

 

[Boidster]

With due respect, I'm pretty sure your math is wrong too, or at least not as helpful as you might have thought.
<snip>

I only meant to describe the correct math for calculating the probability of N closed containers being empty in a row when opened, given a known probability, L, of a single container having >= 1 item in it. I was specifically rebutting the idea that 20,000 containers (or thereabouts) would need to be opened before any determination could be made.

My math is correct (as was gnomaana's). My assumptions about the actual value of L and how it might be calculated are quite likely wrong (but it seems unlikely to me that L<0.05 or so, even on 25% loot abundance). I only chose my assumed values because they were easy to describe for the purpose of explaining how the probabilities work.

I've never really tested any of it, but I always assumed that a POI is a fixed design. An open kitchen cabinet is always in the same place in HOUSE_SMALL_2 (I just made that name up) as are all of the closed cabinets. >shrug< Could be completely wrong about that, but it wasn't really what I was wall-o-texting about.

 

[khzmusik]

I've never really tested any of it, but I always assumed that a POI is a fixed design. An open kitchen cabinet is always in the same place in HOUSE_SMALL_2 (I just made that name up) as are all of the closed cabinets.

That much I know is incorrect. I started enough Nav maps during the beta phase to test it.

If you go to a POI during one Nav map, then start a new Nav map, and go to the same POI, the cabinets (or whatever) that are open in one map can be closed in the other (and vice versa).

It was kind of a PITA for me, since I like to set up shop in the same Nav house, and in my current playthrough the house's fridge is permanently open (where it was closed on previous playthrough). Oh well, c'est la vie.

 

[sillls]

+1000000
Bridges make my bus cry

https://twitter.com/x/status/1088224092614881280

You should see this.

 

[sillls]

+1000000
Bridges make my bus cry

Building a better bridge tomorrow with today’s tools
Ever since I have gotten my bicycle, have been wanting to improve the bridge in the game. While it wasn’t a problem before mini-bikes and not really an issue even after that. The bridge is a real issue with the bicycle.

First of all, the gap of space can catch the tire, bringing it down so that it’s lower on the ramp before ascending. Then the ramp leading up at a 45% angle not also slows the bike but will put it at an odd angle. Plus crossing over this can sometimes damage it. This normally happens when you speed across it. But if you try to cross it at normal speed, you run the chance of getting stuck.

So I decided to build a new bridge that would be better for things like the bicycle. Getting next to the shore of a river, I placed wood frames so that they would be flush with the ground.

Leading off of that I used wood plates to help fill the gap between the blocks and the soil. Then to fill the rest of the gap, I used a hoe and used it to till the soil. This filled in the gap nicely.

The resulting bridge is much better on the bicycle and barely slows it down.

With some texture, it can look like a bridge.

To support the bridge I places flagstone supports every five blocks on either side.

Please see my screenshots below.

The first screenshot shows a standard bridge in the game. It also shows it next to mine.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1631131770

This second shot shows the work I did,

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1631132068

This final screenshot shows the bridge with some texture to it to make it look more natural.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1631132270

Please let me know what you think.

This.

 

[JaxTeller718]

Those particular particles are cheap. I don't use expensive particles. Besides, I'm not talking about someone overusing them, I'm talking about giving the vanilla world more atmosphere. The vanilla builders would use them judiciously I think. Modders already have access to them, but when I was making that scene for my vehicle mod screenshot, and I was looking from that rooftop, it seemed so BLAND without the particles... three little blocks giving so much more atmosphere.

Ill agree there, that scene is amazing for sure. I have not tried throwing particles on many objects, my only real experience with them is through the rads. If it can be done cheaply then hell yes go for it.

As an aside, with the talent you have assembled have you guys every seriously thought about trying to POC an actual game? I know you have the roster. And with what Im seeing you guys definitely have the mood and atmosphere down. Id buy in and support.

 

[Guppycur]

Like, using the unity engine? From scratch?

None of us has the experience. Medieval was as close as we got, and we did discuss making it a baked world, and a lot of systems were rewritten as best access to them allowed, but there's no way we could do it from scratch. TFP did 97% of the legwork we built off of. Might go down to 93% for book ii...

And, there were really only 2.5 of us full time on it.

No, we're all just making it up as we go along, hoping stuff works, like the everyone else.

Besides, we bounce ideas and help each other out, but there are only a handful of real programmers in the group...

Even dream teaming it, we'd need the base game imo.

 

[DaVegaNL]

Like, using the unity engine? From scratch?
None of us has the experience. Medieval was as close as we got, and we did discuss making it a baked world, and a lot of systems were rewritten as best access to them allowed, but there's no way we could do it from scratch. TFP did 97% of the legwork we built off of. Might go down to 93% for book ii...

And, there were really only 2.5 of us full time on it.

No, we're all just making it up as we go along, hoping stuff works, like the everyone else.

Besides, we bounce ideas and help each other out, but there are only a handful of real programmers in the group...

Even dream teaming it, we'd need the base game imo.

If you need a rock-expert, you know who to call!

 

[Guppycur]

If you need a rock-expert, you know who to call!

They're hard, and hurt when hit by them.

...is there more information to know than that?