When less is more - placement over quantity

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:12 pm

Yeah, I will most likely update Pushing the Limits with an actual level. At least once I figure out what to do with the next one. It seems to be taking considerable time to come up with ideas that seem difficult or impossible to do with the current script AI, but are actually quite easy once you figure out how to script it. I will add a level showing what I meant with the pushing the limits first episode in just a moment.

trickstapriest · Post by **trickstapriest** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:16 pm

Redsatori wrote:Also, if you are really interested in how to make things move in some not-so-average ways, let me know and I will see what I can do to help you. I started a mini-series on these boards called "Pusking the Limits:: Abstract ZF concepts and techniques." I will be adding more to it as I have time to do so. If you see something in particular you'd like, or you think of something you'd like to implement but don't know how to, you can either message me here, or use the Pushing the Limits thread to postyour questions. I am always happy to help with any efforts to make this great game better.

Those levels certainly look interesting. Doesn't tell me how it's done, but it does give me an idea of what might be possible. Unfortunately, I use more experimentation than math, tinkering around. I noticed a few things that -should- work, unless I'm missing a mathematical error somewhere, that produces some weird results. Might just be my laggy computer; it comes up with some slight angle deviations.

I'll try seeing whether I can build some levels with all the parts, see how much it lags, and have some basic rotations I'll substitute after I inquire with you with others.

Although I'm wondering how many 'rotators' it takes to do some of those. I'll see what questions I have when I put a few tests together.

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:23 pm

Some of them take quite a few rotating parts to make it work properly. Most of it takes quite a bit of trig to figure out starting and ending angles. I have filled probably 5-10 pages with diagrams and formulae on the few that took more to figure out. If you have any questions about them, I will be here to help. I don't mind sharing my techniques, especially if you can do even more interesting stuff with it.

BTW, I just made the first example level for Pushing the Limits. You can view it here.

Geiss · Post by **Geiss** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:24 pm

Redsatori wrote: I will add a level showing what I meant with the pushing the limits first episode in just a moment.

Thanks Redsatori, that made a whole lot more sense. I just played and the idea of "deathstar thermal port" was quite interesting. There was a level not too long ago that featured a satelite that stopped moving every 2/3rds of a rotation, was that one of yours?

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:29 pm

It wasn't. That one was by Mouzi I believe. But it works on the same principle. It requires three parts: the primary rotator, the secondary rotator, and the satellite itself. Just imagine that pushing the limits one without the forcefields and the two parts that stick out from the center of the core. And increase the speeds around the board. Also, you can vary the second rotator's min/max angles to change where it will stop. Putting in say, -60 to 60 degrees would stop it every two-thirds of the circle and -30 to 30 would stop every third of a circle. At least theoretically.

Geiss · Post by **Geiss** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:35 pm

I'll give that a try, thanks Redsatori. Lets move our discussion of Pushing the Limits over to Redsatori's thread so that other people can find it all in one place.

I just tried my level with mouse aim and keyboard movement. It took some getting used too but I almost never fail to win now, lol.

At its peak rating Four Corners was at 4.5 stars which makes it the level of which I am most proud. Its stablized at 4 stars now but who am I to complain when most levels never rise above 3 stars? Thanks for all your comments everybody, I appreciated the ratings and the feedback from you guys a lot.

Geiss · Post by **Geiss** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:58 pm

I'm wondering whether or not to add one spread shot in the middle of Four Corners, what do you guys think?

I made a poll in one of the other sections about control setups but I'm suspecting that most use the default controls of auto aim and mouse move. Played this way my level is very hard and the sucess rate of about 20% would seem to support that idea

It used to be much lower but I started testing out mouse aim with keyboard move and learned how to beat my own level in about 30 seconds... For mouse aim users my level is almost a walk in the park, though a nicely put together walk in the park.

Which brings me to an interesting design question about target audiences. Do I change my level to make it harder/more appealing to mouse aim users or leave it the way it is for the benefit of the autoaim users?

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:00 pm

I think the biggest thing is finding a balance between the auto aimers and mouse aimers. This is probably the hardest part about creating a good level. I generally lean towards mouse aim, as that is the way I play. I do adjust lives accordingly to make it so that auto aimers also have a chance.

Post by **Mouzi** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:14 pm

http://zetaflow.skylogic.ca/ZetaFlow.php?ID=2999

The rotation in this one is awesome but I cringe to think about how much work and math that took to finish.

:D Actually I haven't used math pretty much at all in my levels.
Except maybe in the rotation pausing one.
But it was pretty simple addition and substraction math :P
(Btw, all of my levels can be found here)

EDIT: My rotation pause level is done in a bit more complex way than the one in the "pushing the limits" article.

Post by **swartzer** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:14 am

I did like "Four Corners". It's a nice example of minimalism, which is a principle I desperately need to learn. I keep trying to create complex levels and then giving up and deleting them because I can't make them work how I want, and I'm out of time, and I can't stand the idea of letting people play an incomplete level.

Generally I prefer playing levels to creating them.

So, major kudos to you all for taking level design seriously. We need more of that and less of the "I want to make a cool level but I don't know how so I'll crap spreaders and lasers all over the place" business.

trickstapriest · Post by **trickstapriest** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:56 pm

Mouzi... I loathe your contest level on general principle! Not really.
I have something resembling a good idea for a level, but it may involve lots of invisible parts because it might need a number (4+) horizontally moving pieces. I'm just wondering how you accomplish them; I've tried a few times but I can't seem to get an idea of it.

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:02 pm

trickstapriest wrote:Mouzi... I loathe your contest level on general principle! Not really.
I have something resembling a good idea for a level, but it may involve lots of invisible parts because it might need a number (4+) horizontally moving pieces. I'm just wondering how you accomplish them; I've tried a few times but I can't seem to get an idea of it.

There are two ways to accomplish horizontal type motion. One of them is more like a small portion of the arc of a very large circle (like in my space invaders clone.) The other keeps all the pieces a lot closer together, but doesn't allow a steady pace for the pieces. They go slower as they approach the end of the line.

P.S. My space invaders clone is actually more of a section of a hyperbolic arc and takes far too many rotators to get it sufficiently straight. It also took me two days of trig calculations to get it to work properly. That, however, is another story entirely. And it still shows signs of being an arc, however minute they may be.

trickstapriest · Post by **trickstapriest** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:30 pm

Yeah... I can see how that would work. I'm more going for a minimalist style here (as per the level design), and I guess a slowing down wouldn't (in theory) kill my idea any. It might even be more visually stimulating.

But, how is it accomplished? I imagine it's two rotators, but...

Redsatori · Post by **Redsatori** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:57 pm

I will make a Pushing the Limits post in just a moment. I will describe horizontal motion of varying types, although I won't include the hyperbolic motion, as it is quite complicated and requires about 6-7 rotators off screen in order to make it work properly.

Edit: Actually, it will be a little while before I am able to write something, as I have some stuff that just came up. I will, however, write up the article as soon as I get back. Also, there is a post somewhere on the suggestions section that descrobes Mouzi's version of horizontal motion. I forget what post it's in however.

trickstapriest · Post by **trickstapriest** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:09 pm

No problem... I'm trying to dig out Mouzi's, but I can't seem to locate it. I'm playing with a pair of designs, but one of them will probably involve anywhere from four to six rotators for a horizontal slide... even if they use two, plus the one rotating, I may just write it part of it off as using too many pieces. Will see how it comes together though...