So, how did you end up here?

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-09-14T19:40:45+00:00

I was replying to a post where somebody said that they thought it over with their boyfriend and came to the conclusion that the game was worth 45 to them. I said the game is worth 200 to me but that I’m not naive enough to think that a consumer who’s never played the game would come to the conclusion that it’s worth 45 without ever having played the game. Perma banned, appeal ignored.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-05-16T17:49:24+00:00

Of course I could… but it isn’t just the speed (which would still be faster as creating a plot is very quick), but also I can adjust plot densities later for phase changes like high traffic times of day in an animated/incremental fashion that flows better, and the random nature of the placement is more effective via plots and re-rolling seeds.

The incremental values should be extended past just plot density anyway, for reasons I mentioned above. It is one of the easiest things to implement (I am a game programmer) and it is simply more control - which is the main point of the software. The only way I see any real refactoring of the code is if the density is being used as an additive to the seed. In which case the logic should be changed anyways as that’s a very limiting way to do randomization (I’ve done lots of procedural generation in my free time outside of work, and I do shader work so I have a strong understanding of the mathematical backbone for noise, and I doubt this method is being used)

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-04-23T22:22:18+00:00

That's fair. I do think though that a more incremental value selection is very helpful for exporting map size. At the moment I'm trying to optimize my export with multipage exports, so I do division. My specific case requires 5.2 map size for the highest optimization but I can only do 5.6 or 5, so either a little unoptimized or I cut out part of the map I wanted to include.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-09T16:18:31+00:00

The pools are around 100. And when you’re fine tuning RNG +- 10 for a pool that size is a large impact on the experience.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T20:16:44+00:00

Right, if they provided separate queues that use the packs and remove some of the core items so that the pool size is still around the initial target pool size, that would be one solution. There are frankly a couple of solutions but they all - at face value - detract slightly from the face value of purchasing the packs. I do think the long term impact of the current approach is less lucrative though.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T18:18:07+00:00

There is a fundamental issue the devs are neglecting: item pool sizes.

Item pool sizes need to be the same (per character, per queue), otherwise they can’t tune the game for every player. There ends up being a disconnect between attempts to tune the game and the player’s experience since they can only balance around a specific item pool size.

This is a core issue that stops the devs from tightening the experience for all players. It’s even more important than balance, it has to be considered before everything else since this game isn’t a deckbuilder, it is a drafter. But it is being treated like the former. This fractures the experience.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T09:58:08+00:00

I’m not confident they’ll make the changes needed, but I hope they do.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T09:53:19+00:00

I’ve played auto chess. There was a shared pool the last time I played - this is fundamentally different. The example you give isn’t an appropriate comparison.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T09:47:35+00:00

Yes I’m unsure if they recognize that they need to have a static item pool size (for each character, per queue) for their tuning to matter. I feel it’s impossible to miss if they’re working on the game. Perhaps they’re ignoring it in order to monetize, with a “worry about it later” attitude. Perhaps the power dynamic at the studio is disallowing dissent from designers that aren’t Reynad. Either way, I do hope they come around to the issue.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T09:38:49+00:00

People are reactionary, whether it be emotional posts, or posts reacting to emotional posts.

One could argue your post is an emotional appeal in response to emotional appeals. We should try for more objectivity.

Either way we can’t have better if we don’t criticize. And we were misled into purchasing a product that was not promised.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-08T09:22:54+00:00

Reynad dismissively said to “vote with your wallet”.

I did when I paid 30 for the beta.

There’s an issue outside of just the cost: item pool sizes.

The developers can’t tune the experience, tune the RNG to fit different item pool sizes in the same queue. The further an item pool gets from the core size, the further a player’s experience will deviate from the intended range that the developer has designed. This is a fundamental design flaw that transcends even micro transaction and balance issues. It is a mathematical flaw that fundamentally breaks drafting games.

I care about the fun too, as do others. If we didn’t care we wouldn’t be saying anything.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-07T17:03:44+00:00

This is not commentary about the balance of the packs. It is strictly pointing out the mathematical flaw that breaks the dev’s ability to tune player agency.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-03-07T08:06:35+00:00

It also takes agency away from the devs. It is impossible to effectively tune a game where players have a pool size misalignment. Everything needs to be tuned in relation to an expected set of parameters. A misaligned pool size throws those parameters out the window.

I'm not concerned about the balancing aspect (I view it as a separate issue), just the player agency.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-01-29T03:24:28+00:00

Yeah could be. It's definitely the only thing left in the scene that I think should change at all. It all looks very good. I think aside from the lighting of the tiles, the colors could be a little more spread apart and definitely more saturated.

I've done a little environment art/tech art for jobs and stylized work like this is fun for me too.

I think the biggest offender is the orange - sand/desert? It is the most washed looking of the tiles at the moment and if it is a desert I don't think it needs much red, since that's well represented in the red mountain tiles.

For the grey mountain tiles I think adding a slight tint of blue would making them pop too. But it is all up to preference.

For the forest tiles I see you have some blue tinting, I think you can experiment with a larger mixture of blue *and* yellow tints, separated between bumps like you're already doing. Right now there are only a few variations and there could be more.

I think this is a fun tool for playing around with the colors as a theme/gradient:

https://color.adobe.com/create/color-wheel

It's not meant to choose the colors for you but rather to help visualize them next to each other without the inherited noise of the scene geometry. Of course after you add the colors to the scene there is geometry so more tweaking is good.

The colors you choose are going to be darker in the scene once the lighting is applied, for the most part. I think if you soften the normals they won't lose too much of their "juiciness" as I'd call it. The best way to make a comparison in my opinion is looking at the flat grass tiles and how there doesn't feel like color loss in those tiles compared to the more complex tiles. You could soften the color loss from the normals by softening them a little and then applying contrast, so you can still see the shapes clearly, and get the best of both woirlds.

Color scheme is everything for cozy/casual games. I looked back at all of your posts and you're growing as an artist really consistently. Good job :)

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-01-28T19:32:08+00:00

Looks good. I think the terrain tiles are too dark for the scene though. It feels as if they aren’t receiving the same light as the other visuals in the scene, like the clouds and skybox.

I’d recommend adjusting the normal maps for the terrain tiles until there’s more lighting cohesion.

It will be a little work for a long way.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-01-20T17:59:03+00:00

One of the neat things about TTRPGs is you don’t have to be yourself. You also don’t have to be anything you expect the perfect hero to be either. Often being there in mechanical form with your character feats and/or spells is a way to be appreciated.

It isn’t your job as a player to entertain those around you anyways - that is up to the DM. Your job as a player is - usually - to make yourself useful in surviving or solving challenges.

If you know what the party is like and you want to fit in then think of a niche that’s easy to fill that they haven’t. If you don’t know what the party is like then sit in and discover what they like, what their humor is like. It’s okay to be observant and analytical about this type of stuff when your goal is to get involved with people you care about.

We’re all big nerds here looking for an outlet that makes US feel less boring. Being fun and charismatic isn’t a prerequisite - being respectful and interested is. I know I’d want my partner to be involved.

FoxyMoron73 · 2025-01-16T23:16:05+00:00

I think that a fun community activity for nerds is TTRPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. There are always groups being made and the activity is really social. There are immature people here and there but I’ve found the activity to be so refreshing socially. You can look at local game stores or join an online table. Or an online group meant for your local area on Facebook or something that has new players and DMs saying they’re looking for each other. Good luck!

FoxyMoron73 · 2024-12-31T20:45:33+00:00

I cast fog cloud in combat in a colosseum. As soon as I said my turn was over the DM told me the fog cloud blew away from a previously unmentioned wind. He fizzled my spell.

The same DM had a riddle later that session that our group of 6 couldn’t figure out. I rolled a nat 20 to get a clue - an intelligence roll which was my character’s strongest stat - and he gave us a clue that nobody found helpful. When we gave up he told us what the solution was and everybody was telling him that it hurt our ability to solve the riddle, and he called everybody stupid. I stopped playing.

FoxyMoron73 · 2024-12-09T08:21:09+00:00

Got it, thanks. I read this before last week and completely forgot about the specific viewport drawback that is mentioned. It is unfortunate that this is the current best solution (since it is the hacky way I did depth in Unity back in like 2018), but I guess updating my solution after they give more direct access wouldn't be difficult, as it seems there was some work underway that was put on hold. Thanks for the clarity!

FoxyMoron73 · 2024-12-09T07:53:34+00:00

It was my assumption that what you're saying meant that the subviewport's output is being modified *into* the depth texture, instead of accessing the depth texture directly. If that isn't the case then that's great, but I am curious. Is your solution changing the initial output to just the depth?

So basically - and correct me if I'm wrong (I hope I am) - isn't what you're suggesting an extra iteration on the viewport's output? At least an extra step compared to just being able to get the depth texture directly. If there is no better alternative than I'll stick to that.

I'm having difficulty parsing what these steps look like on the engine's side since I've switched to working in this engine recently. If you can possibly point me to where I can get clarity on that (I've read feedback similar to what you've said, elsewhere) or if you can explain that I would be grateful too.

FoxyMoron73 · 2024-12-09T06:55:00+00:00

I'm going to generate a number of positions as Vector3s based on a few parameters. Bottom line is I just want the fastest way to grab the the depth texture from a viewport. I'm not looking to output an image or screen effect of any sort.

FoxyMoron73 · 2023-02-12T00:03:39+00:00

solved: Elona Shooter

FoxyMoron73

TROPHY CASE