Method to rearrange the city

[mucksterme]

Is the reason that they implemented it in Rise of Cultures because it would be easier to do from the start of a game rather than after the game has been out for awhile?

How are you not getting this ?
Like someone said earlier, I am no programmer or coder but I get it.
They would have to do a new rendering of every building in the game. Except I suppose the ones that are square ( 2x2 4x4 )
And not only would you need to draw a new plank factory but you would need to draw it's many changes through upgrades.

And stop repeating the fact that Inno advertised for 3D artists like that somehow proves something. They are probably being hired for some specific project that has nothing to do with your obsession that has been discussed to death.

And now traffic is moving and I'm leaving this car wreck.

 

[Lelanya]

How are you not getting this ?
Like someone said earlier, I am no programmer or coder but I get it.
They would have to do a new rendering of every building in the game. Except I suppose the ones that are square ( 2x2 4x4 )
And not only would you need to draw a new plank facory but you would need to draw it's many changes through upgrades.

And stop repeating the fact that Inno advertised for 3D artists like that somehow proves something. They are probably being hired for some specific project that has nothing to do with your obsession that has been discussed to death.

And now traffic is moving and I'm leaving this car wreck.

Brick walls come to mind.
Now you know why certain people are on my ignore list.

 

[crackie]

My position was always that it could be done and if they did not want to do it then that is all they had to say, I rest my case.

They've said it so many times, by so many different people, and in so many forms. It's even in the list of

"some ideas which, though many agree would make life easier, have been categorically ruled out by the Development Team since, if they were implemented, they would change the essence of Elvenar"

in the Ideas & Suggestions guidelines. How are you watching all the videos, reading what they have said in print, and somehow think this is contrary to "if they did not want to do it then that is all they had to say"? The one positive out of all this is I am thankful you are not in charge of interpreting the tax code.

Except I suppose the ones that are square ( 2x2 4x4 )

Those need to be regenerated as well. Remember, even in the boring scenario of a perfect cube that is identical on all sides, the light will not catch each side the same way. Every building in Elvenar is more complicated than a perfect cube.

 

[mucksterme]

Those need to be regenerated as well. Remember, even in the boring scenario of a perfect cube that is identical on all sides, the light will not catch each side the same way. Every building in Elvenar is more complicated than a perfect cube.

True
But I just meant there would be no need to make square buildings able to rotate

oh krappe
i got drawn back

run away muck run away

 

[ajqtrz]

Technically there are some things to understand about programming that might help. First, every independent thing in a program is an object. Each object is part of a class. Think, baking. If you bake you have a large group of things which "rise." That's what makes them light and airy. Some of those rise by yeast, some by starter, and some by baking powder. Each type of rising has it's own way of being and you have to use the right to get the results you want. But each also "inherits" the idea of being baked. (don't be too strict on this, there are no-bake breads). So whatever you know about baking you can apply to each of the types of bread, but there are also things you need to apply that are different for each type of bread.

Now each of the buildings in the game are objects. They are like bread recipes. They inherit certain things from their class. Evolving buildings are the same thing as any other buildings except they add an "attribute" or "characteristic" not in the general class of "building" They have all the attributes (characteristics and actions) of their parent, but they can also "evolve." Just as all breads (in our example anyway) must be baked, each building has the limits of it's general class. How this effects programming is that when you create an object, place it into a class (technically you don't actually place it, you make a new example of the class and then add to or alter it.,..way too technical here so just go with you place it in a class), you give it all the attributes of that class, including what it can and cannot do. Thus, if you didn't allow "rotating" in the class "building" at the beginning, you would need to revamp most of the game. More to the point though, is that even if you did allow rotating as part of the "building class," the rotated building would not be the same object as the original. What you would have is a new object. It may look like the original but in a rotated fashion, but to the program it's a wholly formed object of it's own and takes up the same amount of memory space as the original. So, when you "rotate" the building you aren't altering the object, you are creating a new one. And each object takes memory space, has to be drawn and so on. By adding rotating, you would double the number of buildings and that would take lot of programming and processing overhead. All of which would make the game more expensive to run and to maintain.

NOTE: For those who are more familiar with Object Oriented Programming, please excuse the wholesale simplification as any explanation that simplifies, distorts and sometimes even ignores some fundamental thing. The point here is that the resources needed to create rotating buildings (the graphics) are only a small part of the question. There's the impact of all those new objects on the overhead and that may be just too much for the processing budget, let alone the actual production budget.

Just my take.

AJ

 

[Sodbury]

There is a difference between not drawing a back side and not having the capability to rotate the building. Also there would be little need for a 3D artist to draw 3D buildings and props, if you are not drawing all of the sides of a building or prop.

I agree that many of the buildings look as if they've been created in 3D and then a particular 2D view was exported for use in game. So one might think that rotation is as simple as turning the 3D model and exporting the new result. Partly true.

It's probable that the 3D models were composed to look wonderful from a particular angle. From another angle, they won't be as aesthetic just through good luck. It is likely that only visible sides of the 3D models were properly detailed. Why spend effort adding rosebushes and window trim to a face will never be seen? It is also likely that once exported, many of the images had touches or corrections applied in 2D.

Do they use 3D artists? Yep. Does that mean all Elvenar buildings are ready to be seen from all angles? Probably not.

 

[Yogi Dave]

Technically there are some things to understand about programming that might help.

Another important thing about programming is it is relatively easy to write a program that does one thing, embodies one concept. However, it's a completely different thing to seamlessly combine a bunch of different things or objects to make a cohesive system, especially outside what was intended in the original design. That does not by any means say it can't be done or this was outside the scope. Just that the cost of coding with the resulting response time and space requirements of the system can grow fast if the concept has to be cobbled on.

Can it or can't it be done. That ability seems what the discussion has devolved into. Of course, it can be done. But the question is not can it be done nor even should it be done. It's do you want it to be done. My opinion is I don't think it would contribute to the enjoyment of the game; that it would make it simpler than I'd like by removing a basic challenge in it. Others differ on that. I wish the discussion would return more to that topic.

I hope, @Andy100 that this discussion won't deter you from participating in the forum. It's always nice to have a new voice added. We are often a contentious group, but we do find agreement in many topics.

PS: My expertise is not web or app programming. It's mainly been systems design and implementation of distributed monitoring systems for electric power generation plants and networks.

 

[Ashrem]

I already proved that sprites can be rotated, they are not stationary.

Sprites can be rotated. The art from which Elvenar sprites are made is not designed to the rotated. They could do it, they have chosen not to. They'e given reasons a couple fo times, players have proposed reasons many more times. We'll probably never know whether it was design, intent, or laziness.

Inno advertises for 3D artists to draw 3D buildings and props.

Inno has dozens of games, not just Elvenar

Inno is hiring 3D artists to draw 3D buildings and props, obtuse is right!

ibid

The bottom line is that they have the CAPABILITY to rotate these building...They don't want to add that feature to the game and that is all they should have said..."no, we don't want to add that feature to the game" Players would rather be disappointed then handed a bunch of bull.

That's not even close to the bottom line at all. Cars can drive 300 mph, that doesn't mean the bottom line is that Lada's or Hummers can drive 300 mph

Nobody has said that they want Elvenar to be FoE. We are just discussing 1 particular game mechanic.

Try saying that since the Bugatti Bolide can can drive 310mph, the Bugatti Veyron should be able to drive faster than 270mph and see how far it gets you to say "I'm only talking about speed, not the 1846 other design differences between those models" ^1

My position was always that it could be done and if they did not want to do it then that is all they had to say,

You stated several positions about why you think it should be done, most of which did not have anything to do with accepting any answer they might offer.

I rest my case.

We can hope, but past experience hints otherwise.

Notes:
^1) 1846 is a humorous stab at the notion that because two things are made by the same company they ought to be able to do a particular thing the same regardless of differences in design and implementation. 1846 is not a carefully researched number intended to reflect the actual number of differences between the Bugatti Bolide and the Bugatti Veyron. If you try to make a real point about that number being wrong, I will laugh at you.

 

[Dew Spinner]

Sprites can be rotated. The art from which Elvenar sprites are made is not designed to the rotated. They could do it, they have chosen not to. They'e given reasons a couple fo times, players have proposed reasons many more times. We'll probably never know whether it was design, intent, or laziness.

Inno has dozens of games, not just Elvenar

ibid

That's not even close to the bottom line at all. Cars can drive 300 mph, that doesn't mean the bottom line is that Lada's or Hummers can drive 300 mph

Try saying that since the Bugatti Bolide can can drive 310mph, the Bugatti Veyron should be able to drive faster than 270mph and see how far it gets you to say "I'm only talking about speed, not the 1846 other design differences between those models" ^1



You stated several positions about why you think it should be done, most of which did not have anything to do with accepting any answer they might offer.


We can hope, but past experience hints otherwise.

Notes:
^1) 1846 is a humorous stab at the notion that because two things are made by the same company they ought to be able to do a particular thing the same regardless of differences in design and implementation. 1846 is not a carefully researched number intended to reflect the actual number of differences between the Bugatti Bolide and the Bugatti Veyron. If you try to make a real point about that number being wrong, I will laugh at you.

I have a right to disagree with you and other Forum Members as long as I am not rude about it. If you don't like me disagreeing with you or other Forum Members and/or you think I have been rude to you or other Forum Members then you can always bring it up with the Mods.

 

[Ashrem]

I have a right to disagree with you and other Forum Members as long as I am not rude about it. If you don't like me disagreeing with you or other Forum Members and/or you think I have been rude to you or other Forum Members then you can always bring it up with the Mods.

We always have the right to disagree about opinions. Did someone say you don't?

Humans have a tendency to confuse opinions and facts when they make logical arguments in support of a point. Nobody has an inherent "right" to disagree about facts. When one draws a "bottom line" in their arguments they infer the claim that what follows is a fact.

They might have the capability to rotate buildings, it seems likely they don't. They could probably add the capability (at a not insignificant cost to them), they might not feel it's worth it, or they might have made previous code choices which make it difficult or impossible without writing the code from scratch. 'Bottom line', you don't know if they could have the capability and you can not make the factual claim that they do.

 

[Mirai]

Women tend to be more laid back (according to a recent psychology report) in gaming and thus to spend less.

That may be a funny way of spelling/reiterating the fact that "women are paid significantly less than men in equivalent professions" and also spend more on "pink tax" basic costs of living. I know it impacts my discretionary spending

 

[Dew Spinner]

We always have the right to disagree about opinions. Did someone say you don't?

Humans have a tendency to confuse opinions and facts when they make logical arguments in support of a point. Nobody has an inherent "right" to disagree about facts. When one draws a "bottom line" in their arguments they infer the claim that what follows is a fact.

They might have the capability to rotate buildings, it seems likely they don't. They could probably add the capability (at a not insignificant cost to them), they might not feel it's worth it, or they might have made previous code choices which make it difficult or impossible without writing the code from scratch. 'Bottom line', you don't know if they could have the capability and you can not make the factual claim that they do.

Yes and I believe you are doing this and again you can take this up with the Mods if you feel anything I have posted violated any forum rules.

 

[ajqtrz]

We always have the right to disagree about opinions. Did someone say you don't?

Humans have a tendency to confuse opinions and facts when they make logical arguments in support of a point. Nobody has an inherent "right" to disagree about facts. When one draws a "bottom line" in their arguments they infer the claim that what follows is a fact.

They might have the capability to rotate buildings, it seems likely they don't. They could probably add the capability (at a not insignificant cost to them), they might not feel it's worth it, or they might have made previous code choices which make it difficult or impossible without writing the code from scratch. 'Bottom line', you don't know if they could have the capability and you can not make the factual claim that they do.

In simple terms a fact is something you can verify by observation, rational thought and evidence and can be verified as true by any person willing to make the observation, think rationally and/or examine the evidence. Facts are only slippery if they can't be presented in a way that allows others to confirm their validity. Unfortunately, many use their sense of things to assume something is factual without actually examining the thing. For instance, if you are standing in the middle of Kansas (apologies to Kansas natives if this is offensive), you might very well think the world is flat. You sense it is flat since It presents itself as so. But a small amount of reasoning, observation and an examination of the evidence will lead almost all rational persons to conclude the world is not flat. And even in Kansas few believe the world is flat. Why? Because many have observed the rest of the planet, reasoned and thought about it, and concluded the world is not flat. It took a bit for some parts of the world to change their opinion, but eventually verifiable observations, rational thinking, and evidence led to a change of what was a "fact."

Notice though, the moment you begin to put facts together to rationally derive knowledge from the factual observations, you take one step away from "factual" and one step closer to theory. Most large, broad and not directly observable "facts" are just strong theories everybody (or most everybody) believe and take as factual only because they sense the weight of evidence, reasoning and observation is sufficient to say they are facts. In that case they are using the term "fact" as a rhetorical device rather than a statement of the actual case. Marxism, psychiatry, origins, capitalism, and a host of other isms may be highly predictive of human and natural behaviors, but they are too far from the observational data to be facts. Too many steps from the data to the theory exist to make them "facts," even if, in an effort to make them "facts" some describe them as such.

What usually happens when something that cannot be a fact is presented as one is that the person doing the presentation wants to bypass the whole, "go out and verify this" and have the audience just accept the theoretical statements as facts. It's a rhetorical device meant to support make it look as if the theory irrefutable. Sadly, no theory is anything but a theory and almost all of them are so complex they will probably remain, strictly speaking, theories for a long, long time....like forever.

So, while it may be that nobody has the right to disagree about facts, if what constitutes a fact is too broadly conceived we end up opening the door to such disagreement.

That may be a funny way of spelling/reiterating the fact that "women are paid significantly less than men in equivalent professions" and also spend more on "pink tax" basic costs of living. I know it impacts my discretionary spending

The reported fact of women don't spend as much on games may imply a reason for their doing so, but it does not logically follow that the reason you suggest is the reason. There would need to be a lot more study and reasoning presented to reach that conclusion. Personally, I don't know how much the impact of "women being paid significantly less than men" has on how much they spend on gaming but I do recognize the logic of the implied claim. On the other hand, in addition to discussing the possible connection between on line gaming spending we would also have to establish the reason or reasons women are "being paid significantly less than men" and determine which and to what degree those reasons make us morally culpable and if they can be changed or should be changed. In other words, the whole subject is quite complex and in this forum, probably not a subject allowed due to rules. Sigh.

AJ

 

[Silly Bubbles]

In other words, the whole subject is quite complex and in this forum, probably not a subject allowed due to rules. Sigh.

There's really nothing much to discuss. The same effort and result should be paid equally. Who performs the task is completely irrelevant.
Sigh.

 

[defiantoneks]

I know it impacts my discretionary spending

or maybe we're just more able to discern "discretionary" from other types of spending.

 

[Katwick]

I tried using cookies. But, 20 pounds later I found I kept losing buildings. They just seemed to disappear.

AJ

Sort of like canceling your new gym membership, because it's just not working out.

 

[Ashrem]

Yes and I believe you are doing this and again you can take this up with the Mods if you feel anything I have posted violated any forum rules.

I don't know why you think I'm worried about you breaking rules? Acting like an opinion is a fact isn't against the rules, it just doesn't entitle people to special treatment.

@ajqtrz that was (once again) an awful lot of text for a fairly specific point, and one which doesn't even apply to the subject at hand. There is nothing "broadly constituted" about the statement "The bottom line is that they have the CAPABILITY to rotate these buildings." They either have the capability or they don't, and no one outside the development team and a small circle around them know whether it's a fact or not, so it's not a valid opinion. It would probably be valid to say "they should."

 

[SoggyShorts]

that was (once again) an awful lot of text for a fairly specific point, and one which doesn't even apply to the subject at hand.

LoL glad to see after a couple of years I'm still not missing anything

 

[shimmerfly]

Oh no! I'm not in Kansas?
Geezzzzz.....

 

[defiantoneks]

Oh no! I'm not in Kansas?

what did i miss?
(looks around… still Kansas)