Z levels

[Sepkan]

I know your not a fan of z levels tynan, but I think it can work. My main issue with z levels in dwarf fortress and dwarf fortress in general is presentation, however I believe that you could pull it off and make it simple and accessible.

[Tynan]

I agree with you; you just have to add the words "with 9-18 months of work" to the end of what you said.

I don't think people want me to abandon the core game yet to work on this feature; there's still tons to do in 2D.

[Neurotoxin]

I don't think people want me to abandon the core game yet to work on this feature

Z levels confirmed after 1.0. Haha obviously kidding. It would be awesome having z levels but this game is awesome as is. It would just increase the awesomeness exponentially per available z level. I'd be happy with 1 up 1 down for trenches and overhangs but that alone would be like 75% of the work.

[UrbanBourbon]

On the other hand, if you look at a save file with a text editor, you can see coordinates for all the items on the map expressed in three figures, as opposed to two (X and Y coordinates). Now why is that if not for future reservation of Z-axis? 

For example:

Code Select Expand

<thing Class="Equipment">
<def>Gun_M24Rifle</def>
<id>Gun_M24Rifle2267622</id>
<pos>(107, 0, 28)</pos>
<health>100</health>
<forbidden>True</forbidden>

Position 107,0,28?
Oh, surely the 0 is completely redundant. 
Hmm... Oh... wait, is it a game engine issue? MUST all coordinates be expressed in three figures because the engine demands it? But... if so, why does the engine support 3 axes?

[forsaken1111]

Hmm... Oh... wait, is it a game engine issue? MUST all coordinates be expressed in three figures because the engine demands it? But... if so, why does the engine support 3 axes?

Isn't the game done in Unity? If so, it has native 3d support so all gameobjects would require a z coordinate even if it is just a zero.

[UrbanBourbon]

Hmm... Oh... wait, is it a game engine issue? MUST all coordinates be expressed in three figures because the engine demands it? But... if so, why does the engine support 3 axes?

Isn't the game done in Unity? If so, it has native 3d support so all gameobjects would require a z coordinate even if it is just a zero.

Right! Exactly! Unity REQUIRES a sacr-- ehh, the Z-coordinate (right?).

Obviously creating multiple levels would be its own challenge but would it wreck the performance? Personally, I don't think so but of course it depends how bigass of a colony the player would build. It wouldn't be any different from building the same bigass colony on one Z-level. The difference would be that the game wouldn't necessarily have to render the action that takes place outside the current Z-level, so having multiple levels could even HELP the performance.

We'd have to consider HOW MANY Z-levels would we allow and how much action do we allow to happen in other Z-levels. At least in the beginning there wouldn't be much action to calculate since air and solid ground are pretty static... Unless Tynan were to add swarms of birds or other flying objects. Liquids are also currently entirely absent, and liquids are a performance killer in Dwarf Fortress.

Then there's a whole other bunch of gameplay concerns, such as shooting from a higher elevation. Realistically height is an advantage in infantry combat but in pure mathematical terms gaining height also increases distance to the target, which in turn "logically" thinking would yield greater hit penalty... when it logically shouldn't. Good luck finding a balance with providing an appropriate bonus from height. And what about weapon range? Should a weapon's range be a strict sphere or should a height advantage enable increased ranges for all weapons? As the shooter gains elevation, what happens to the shape of the "bubble", and in this case "bubble" is a visual representation of a gun's reach. One thing is sure - it can't be a strict sphere. The "bubble" stretches as height is gained.

After that, we'd have to consider if mortar shells would have an actual flight path, and should there be a risk of unintentionally hitting tiles on other Z-levels. Should the pawns be able to target surface objects with mortars if the mortar was at the bottom of a deep vertical pit, but with eyeline to the sky. What if it's a narrow pit with barely enough room to get a non-vertical firing angle? Of course there could be a special case that if a pit mortar has X tiles dug out around it (and everything above it) on each Z-level, it could shoot anything, X being 1-4. But then again, could there ever be a possibility that a blocking tile would appear in the shaft and ruin the whole firing ability?

Also, drop pods. There would always be a chance that their payload would end up on multiple levels but that might actually be just a convenience problem. Double click to select the pod payload? Triple click?

Fall damage, climbing ability, pathfinding, cover from inter-Z-level gunfire, what else am I not thinking of? The existence of inter-Z-level floors which are infinitely thin in Dwarf Fortress?

[ousire]

I don't think the game really needs to add in lots of levels of movement up and down, it keeps the game nice and simple without needing to track up and down and up and down to find all your colonists and raiders

I would be in support of a system where the game had hills and trenches though. I think it wouldn't be hard to display all of that on one level visually.

For example, without having to need a button to move up and down Z levels, there could be a hill (similar to the mountains we have now, but you could see the top of them) in which a colonist could climb up, giving him a minor range boost while up top, but there would be movement penalties when you walk up and down the slope. You could make stairs or ramps to make movement easier. In the same vein, old dry river beds or dug out trenches could force attackers to move slower as they climb down and up.

[Jaxxa]

I don't think we will see a full Z axes added to the map but possibly a distinct number of level.

You could build a mineshaft building that would take you to caves that would be a distinct map x number of meters down. This would be a lot easier to do than full 3D as the only interactions would be through Mineshaft or similar. So most everything could stay the same.

[HatesYourFace]

I don't think the game really needs to add in lots of levels of movement up and down, it keeps the game nice and simple without needing to track up and down and up and down to find all your colonists and raiders

I would be in support of a system where the game had hills and trenches though. I think it wouldn't be hard to display all of that on one level visually.

For example, without having to need a button to move up and down Z levels, there could be a hill (similar to the mountains we have now, but you could see the top of them) in which a colonist could climb up, giving him a minor range boost while up top, but there would be movement penalties when you walk up and down the slope. You could make stairs or ramps to make movement easier. In the same vein, old dry river beds or dug out trenches could force attackers to move slower as they climb down and up.

What this guy said. Same effect for a lot less work. If levels are implemented it really only needs to be 1 up and 1 down and should be limited to some special objects imo. IE. Watch towers, Trenches, and the like. So basically some new buildings with special height themed effects (Watch towers give range/vision buff, Trenches give cover etc...) to give the illusion of different heights more so than an actual system which tracks Z-levels.

[longbyte1]

I don't think the game really needs to add in lots of levels of movement up and down, it keeps the game nice and simple without needing to track up and down and up and down to find all your colonists and raiders

I would be in support of a system where the game had hills and trenches though. I think it wouldn't be hard to display all of that on one level visually.

For example, without having to need a button to move up and down Z levels, there could be a hill (similar to the mountains we have now, but you could see the top of them) in which a colonist could climb up, giving him a minor range boost while up top, but there would be movement penalties when you walk up and down the slope. You could make stairs or ramps to make movement easier. In the same vein, old dry river beds or dug out trenches could force attackers to move slower as they climb down and up.

What this guy said. Same effect for a lot less work. If levels are implemented it really only needs to be 1 up and 1 down and should be limited to some special objects imo. IE. Watch towers, Trenches, and the like. So basically some new buildings with special height themed effects (Watch towers give range/vision buff, Trenches give cover etc...) to give the illusion of different heights more so than an actual system which tracks Z-levels.

I guess Z levels could work sort of like Pokémon, where there are pseudo-floors.. only the contents of the second floor are shown, not anything surrounding it or anything in the lower levels. So Z levels would only be useful for hauling or production, not for defense. Also, watchtowers and what HatesYourFace said could work as well.

[Damien Hart]

I don't think the game really needs to add in lots of levels of movement up and down, it keeps the game nice and simple without needing to track up and down and up and down to find all your colonists and raiders

I would be in support of a system where the game had hills and trenches though. I think it wouldn't be hard to display all of that on one level visually.

For example, without having to need a button to move up and down Z levels, there could be a hill (similar to the mountains we have now, but you could see the top of them) in which a colonist could climb up, giving him a minor range boost while up top, but there would be movement penalties when you walk up and down the slope. You could make stairs or ramps to make movement easier. In the same vein, old dry river beds or dug out trenches could force attackers to move slower as they climb down and up.

What this guy said. Same effect for a lot less work. If levels are implemented it really only needs to be 1 up and 1 down and should be limited to some special objects imo. IE. Watch towers, Trenches, and the like. So basically some new buildings with special height themed effects (Watch towers give range/vision buff, Trenches give cover etc...) to give the illusion of different heights more so than an actual system which tracks Z-levels.

I guess Z levels could work sort of like Pokémon, where there are pseudo-floors.. only the contents of the second floor are shown, not anything surrounding it or anything in the lower levels. So Z levels would only be useful for hauling or production, not for defense. Also, watchtowers and what HatesYourFace said could work as well.

If there were no interaction between Z levels, they'd lose most of their purpose from the outset; no trench warfare, no sniper towers, just more storage space. Seems like kind of a wasted effort for all the work that would have to go into it.

Something in the vein of DF's Z levels would, at least IMO, be more appropriate for RimWorld, though with a lot less levels than DF. I think 3 levels up and 3 levels down would fit well. Upwards, you have the option of up to 2 stories with an accessible roof, or 3 with an inaccessible roof, and downwards you could dig trenches, but still run tunnels below them to other parts of the defenses, so that your colonists can move about safely to where they're needed. Tunnels should require supports in the same manner as roofs in current RimWorld, but far more frequently, say 3 cells between, as opposed to 10 for a roof above ground.

As far as the effects of height on combat go, being elevated would decrease the effect of the enemy's cover, while providing some cover to the elevated pawn. Range shouldn't increase by much, a few cells at most, just enough to give you the advantage of firing the first shot, rather than slaughter your enemies with impunity before they can even get within range.

[HatesYourFace]

If there were no interaction between Z levels, they'd lose most of their purpose from the outset; no trench warfare, no sniper towers, just more storage space. Seems like kind of a wasted effort for all the work that would have to go into it.

Something in the vein of DF's Z levels would, at least IMO, be more appropriate for RimWorld, though with a lot less levels than DF. I think 3 levels up and 3 levels down would fit well. Upwards, you have the option of up to 2 stories with an accessible roof, or 3 with an inaccessible roof, and downwards you could dig trenches, but still run tunnels below them to other parts of the defenses, so that your colonists can move about safely to where they're needed. Tunnels should require supports in the same manner as roofs in current RimWorld, but far more frequently, say 3 cells between, as opposed to 10 for a roof above ground.

As far as the effects of height on combat go, being elevated would decrease the effect of the enemy's cover, while providing some cover to the elevated pawn. Range shouldn't increase by much, a few cells at most, just enough to give you the advantage of firing the first shot, rather than slaughter your enemies with impunity before they can even get within range.

I'd love to see that in the game but...it just doesn't seem feasible or economic. The beauty of making it "fake" and object oriented is ease of programming while still giving most of the desired gameplay. (IE. You could still have trenches, they are just a floor like any other that makes your guy look liken he's sitting in a trench while giving him a cover bonus but without actually modifying his Z level or height, Towers make the Pawn appear to be higher up and give him a sight/range bonus... same effect without actually creating any new systems.) In a perfect world where Tynan had infinite money and infinite time I'm sure RimWorld would have 1,000 Z levels... but, as it stands I think it'd be smart to go with the most efficient method assuming he does it at all. Actually having multi-floored colonies would be a very, very tall order. (Pun intended)

[Damien Hart]

-snip-

I get where you're coming from, but the problem I have is that approach is quite limited, as outside of towers/trenches there aren't that many applications for a system like that.

All in all, I can't help but think that it would feel like a temporary stopgap solution, rather than a full feature.

[LuciferNZ]

From a fellow programmers point of view - I completely see Tys point of view.
Its unfortunately not just an issue of adding 'another layer'.

How would the view/GUI reflect it?  Hide layers other than the one you're on?  Show all?  Go isometric (also with issues, and lots of programming time) - and then theres AI and performance issues (Going from 2D tiling/pathing to 3D would eat up a fair bit - but is doable)

9-18 months is actually a pretty conservative estimate from Ty, Id imagine it would also add extra time to any additional features introduced.

So, in essence, Ty has gone for the gameplay/efficiency route - in other words, adding a 3d dimension wouldnt fundamentally change the game in a sufficient enough way to warrant its addition (I assume )

[Kirid]

I only have one good reason to add another z-level. Second story buildings.
Rimworld of course has a huge western theme to it..
If you google image search "Old west town" you'll see that virtually every old western town has 2-story buildings.
The z-level idea has become a nope never argument, but I think it would really drive the western theme home.

Along with wooden porch overhangs and signs for the sides of buildings that say 'Jail' 'Saloon' 'Hotel' 'Bank' 'General Store'.
Not sure how far Tynan wants to take the western theme, but personally a western-themed game without second stories is like... California without gold.
When are we getting horses?