I would love to be able to transition to a map without going through the storyboard. It would be awesome to have a dungeon delve as a side quest...kind of an Easter egg...something you don't have to do, but if you see it, you can do it.
I know we can add details to the existing map, but transitioning to a dungeon map would be awesome.
This is the best thread in the entire forum. It needs to keep getting replied to until it's sticky and the devs acknowledge it. That said, as a fellow game developer, I think its worth saying that the game is very very new by any standard and it would be unusual (as in, never has happened before) for a development team to implement all the grade A, necessary changes to a tool as complex as the Foundry this soon after launch. We as users have to remember that the dev teams first priority is DONT *** UP THE EXISTING BUILD. We can all work together to move the Foundry to a tool that we all love and use for a long time. That happened in the Bioware NWN community and it was really satisfying for everyone, both on the Bioware side and those fantastic people who developed mods. All that said, I'd really like to see a Foundry Developer sticky this and give us the most minor courtesy of "we hear you, but please be patient while we deal with so many problems at launch."
As a tangent, my personal preference of the one most important thing would be branching quest threads. The fully linear nature of the current story line is fundamentally limiting in so many ways. The second would be the suggestion about persistent variables to carry from one quest to another, at least with in a campaign.
All that said, I must finish by saying that the Foundry is really an incredible tool. Anyone who doesn't appreciate it has no idea what the background complexity of a multiplayer game looks like. I'm stunned that the features they did give work so well. Congrats Guys!!!
I must be a dwarf 'cause I'm working below the terrain so much.
I'd like to see layers added to the 2-D editor so that we could perhaps set Layer 1 is Y=0 to 1000, Layer 2 is Y=-100 to 0, Layer 3 is Y = -1000 to -100.
That way we could show only those layers we're working on currently.
I'm sure there are plenty of us below grounders working on "Timers" (since they aren't in Foundry (yet)), and those of us building "rooms" below the terrain (since we cannot transition between maps while maintaining state).
This is a suggestion for revamping the mechanics of how ratings and reviews of foundry quests are collected and used, and would require wiping the current ratings/reviews.
Game incentives for doing foundry quests would also need to be redesigned, as the current ones (daily + event) don't work, and in fact create a pressure that destroys author creativity as well as any chance a player review system has of working. I'm not including any suggestions on this as I haven't put any thought into it.
Change how reviews are collected and kept:
Reviews are no longer collected after the first time a player runs a foundry quest. Instead a system is created whereby players who register to be reviewers are the only ones who give reviews, And in order to give a review of a quest they most complete it X times over a period of a week, if they have done so at the end of that week they are prompted run the quest once more and at completion to create a review. Why? Because if reviews are to have any importance whatsoever they can't be done rashly, ignorantly, or lightly.
Upon completing a foundry quest (which is no longer "for review") for the first time any player may leave a small comment (which the author has the ability to highlight or hide as they see fit) and are prompted to choose one review of the quest that they feel best fits their own experience as well as the one they feel is the most unfit. Also a link to mail the author is provided if they want to send more in depth comments as well as a link to becoming a reviewer.
Make being reviewer a potentially desirable "thing":
As now, players would have to choose to become a reviewer.
There would need to be a game incentive for being a reviewer, something that is ongoing (not achievements), I would recommend a weekly foundry quest. The reviewer would need to review N number of randomly selected "for review" quests and be rewarded a healthy amount of AD for completion.
Players could follow reviewers, similar to subscribing to an author it would show a list all of their reviews with links to the quests and the reviewer would be given a small space to create a sort of reviewer bio, listing things they look for in foundry quests. Giving them a level of "popularity" similar to authors.
Reviewers would have access to additional commands, such as a "pause" button, a notepad which would be specific to each currently under review quest, a link to mail/message the author of the quest they're in.
The system can balance itself:
In order to leave the "for review" tab, quests would need X reviews.
If a quest comes to have fewer than Y reviews after leaving the "for review" tab, then it returns there.
"Best" tab quests would be decided by the ratings associated with each review adjusted by their ratio of "fit" vs. "unfit". Number of plays should not be a consideration as it becomes self-fulfilling by nature of being on the "best" tab, instead use just the adjusted ratings of the reviews as that should be a far better measure of "best". Popularity could determine the order of quests in other tabs.
Reviews are required to maintain a certain ratio of "fit" vs. "unfit" to remain "valid" or else they drop off the review list and become "invalid". A reviewer may re-review a quest on which their previous review became "invalid".
The author at any time may also choose one review as "fit" and one as "unfit" to create a little added pressure.
Reviewers would be required to maintain a ratio of "valid" vs. "invalid" reviews, failure to do so would suspend/ban their reviewer privileges.
As now, reviewers would also obviously not be able to review quests they authored.
I don't expect this would ever be implemented, it's fairly complex and I imagine it would take a lot of work.
But if anyone actually reads this I'd be interested to hear what you think, good or bad.
This is a suggestion for revamping the mechanics of how ratings and reviews of foundry quests are collected and used, and would require wiping the current ratings/reviews.
Game incentives for doing foundry quests would also need to be redesigned, as the current ones (daily + event) don't work, and in fact create a pressure that destroys author creativity as well as any chance a player review system has of working. I'm not including any suggestions on this as I haven't put any thought into it.
Change how reviews are collected and kept:
Reviews are no longer collected after the first time a player runs a foundry quest. Instead a system is created whereby players who register to be reviewers are the only ones who give reviews, And in order to give a review of a quest they most complete it X times over a period of a week, if they have done so at the end of that week they are prompted run the quest once more and at completion to create a review. Why? Because if reviews are to have any importance whatsoever they can't be done rashly, ignorantly, or lightly.
Upon completing a foundry quest (which is no longer "for review") for the first time any player may leave a small comment (which the author has the ability to highlight or hide as they see fit) and are prompted to choose one review of the quest that they feel best fits their own experience as well as the one they feel is the most unfit. Also a link to mail the author is provided if they want to send more in depth comments as well as a link to becoming a reviewer.
I think that you would very few reviewers in the scenario. Why? Because of the number of time they would need to run a quest before giving a review. You would have to run the quest a minimum of 3 times before you do a review. Probably more. I know I would not run the same quest 3+ times in a week just so I could review it. I would run it multiple times if I liked it. But not just so I could review it. And how is running a quest multiple time going to stop it being reviews rashly, ignorantly or lightly?
Make being reviewer a potentially desirable "thing":
As now, players would have to choose to become a reviewer.
There would need to be a game incentive for being a reviewer, something that is ongoing (not achievements), I would recommend a weekly foundry quest. The reviewer would need to review N number of randomly selected "for review" quests and be rewarded a healthy amount of AD for completion.
Players could follow reviewers, similar to subscribing to an author it would show a list all of their reviews with links to the quests and the reviewer would be given a small space to create a sort of reviewer bio, listing things they look for in foundry quests. Giving them a level of "popularity" similar to authors.
Reviewers would have access to additional commands, such as a "pause" button, a notepad which would be specific to each currently under review quest, a link to mail/message the author of the quest they're in.
What is the purpose of having the ability to follow reviewers? What good does popularity do if they need to run randomly selected quests to get the bonus AD. Don't you think that most reviewers would just run the randomly selected quests since they will need to run them multiple time.
The system can balance itself:
In order to leave the "for review" tab, quests would need X reviews.
If a quest comes to have fewer than Y reviews after leaving the "for review" tab, then it returns there.
"Best" tab quests would be decided by the ratings associated with each review adjusted by their ratio of "fit" vs. "unfit". Number of plays should not be a consideration as it becomes self-fulfilling by nature of being on the "best" tab, instead use just the adjusted ratings of the reviews as that should be a far better measure of "best". Popularity could determine the order of quests in other tabs.
Reviews are required to maintain a certain ratio of "fit" vs. "unfit" to remain "valid" or else they drop off the review list and become "invalid". A reviewer may re-review a quest on which their previous review became "invalid".
The author at any time may also choose one review as "fit" and one as "unfit" to create a little added pressure.
Reviewers would be required to maintain a ratio of "valid" vs. "invalid" reviews, failure to do so would suspend/ban their reviewer privileges.
As now, reviewers would also obviously not be able to review quests they authored.
You need to go into more detail of what "Fit" and "Unfit" and "Valid" and Invalid" mean.
I don't expect this would ever be implemented, it's fairly complex and I imagine it would take a lot of work.
But if anyone actually reads this I'd be interested to hear what you think, good or bad.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I disagree. I'd rather see an active community member repost this list as well as all of the suggestions in the 50 some pages. The OP hasn't updated their original list since the beginning of May even though they said it would be updated with additional requests from the community.
Can we please get some consistency in lighting options.
For example the Dungeon Room set, some assets have "Torches / No Lights", some have "Torches / No Lights / Skylights" and still others have "Torches / No Lights / Spell Plague / Torches (Blue) / Torches (Green)".
Consistency people, its the very bedrock upon which an form of continual development is based.
All room assets in a given set should have the exact same lighting options.
In fact all rooms in all assets sets should have all lighting options.
Jeez, why wasn't this built in from the beginning? Who built this - Mickey Mouse?
PS: And while you are at it how about letting us swap lighting schemes on "prompt" like other appear/disappear" options. Having to turn of any automatic lighting scheme, replace every light source manually, then set them all to disappear and be replaced with another set of manually placed light-sources "on prompt" is getting tiresome. And lighting changes are one of the few effects we have that can instantly change the "feel" of a room.
I could really use a water icon for the map... my next mission is going to take place on a ship and then underwater, and... well... yeah. There's no good map icon for that.
Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
i am working on my first foundry on live at the moment and i will say i have my own suggestions, i do agree with several that are on the first page and while i would love to read all the pages, 55 pages is a bit much to go through just to ensure i dont end up repeating someone elses suggestion so if i do repeat something someone else did say, im sorry, not trying to steal your thunder, just think of it as a compliment to your ideas.
this has been covered but i wanted to add some more ideas to it, in regards to 3d editing, trying to place small detail items in 3d mode is really a hassle, sometimes your head is in the way, sometimes you end up selecting something else, sometimes you have to jump up and put platforms around so you can get high enough to work on something only to have that object loose collision after accidentally mousing over it with your reticle.
i know that coding is hard (i tried getting into it but i dont have the ability for coding from complete scratch and such) and there is limits on what the developers can (and/or will) do but i would really say a way for you to just take control of the camera, outside the player body, is what is needed. if it were possible id really want something similar to what second life has for building things, but thats something thats already taken by them, you cant really rip them off or anything but the base concepts are what i think is needed. the ability to control just the camera, using your mouse to point at a spot, then pressing alt and clicking which enables the camera to orbit around that selected spot (while holding the mouse and alt down), pressing control or shift to allow for zooming.
here are a few other more minor things for 3d edit mode:
a snap to grid, press shift to activate snapping to every 1/2 or 1 foot increments on the scale (none of the x.32623), same with rotations
flying mode or a camera only mode to get close or high without building temporary scaffolding or having your head get in the way
better markers for lights which disappear once moused over (i have one target box thats like 5 feet below the actual spot the light is)
as for in the foundry editor itself, i would like to see a way to do multi level maps, sure i could build something completely from scratch on an outdoor map but that would use many more details, the walls would have to match up perfectly or they will have gaps, people might beable to mount when you dont want them to. another thing i would like to see is a "zoom to room" so we can edit items only in that room but not just from top down but from the side, this is most likely not possible however.
more smaller ideas for the foundry map editor:
an always on (either in the corner of the map editor or on the status bar) coordinate for your mouse and/or the selected object so you dont have to open the objects properties just to see where its located.
a relative to the room location system. if i want something to be 3 feet from the wall on both sides of the room for symmetry, so for a 40 long room i just add 3 to the object on one end and subtract 3 for the other end.
one other thing i would actually also like to see is the ability to do scaling on some objects, this would allow us to miniaturize some things or make something small much bigger. for example, lets say i want to have a mini diagram of a city as part of a quest, it currently cannot be done very well because all of the city details are all huge. be able to scale them down would allow this. in reverse lets say i want to have an npc thats trapped in a crystal ball, again, currently not possible to do or at least very hard to do and still give that depth for those few who do foundry quests for the story.
thats all i can think of at this moment, i may pop back over to suggest some other ideas, and to get another vote for some things that i can say for sure were already mentioned i too would like to see more rooms, more encounters (most preferred being single, hard boss like without massive extra adds and that we can put costumes on), more respawn points for those long maps (sorry 1 spawn and 1 respawn for a map that fills the full editor is insanely inadequate), better matching for mixing of room types (try matching dungeon and royal crypt, youll see missing walls that allow you to fall off the map).
0
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
a snap to grid, press shift to activate snapping to every 1/2 or 1 foot increments on the scale (none of the x.32623), same with rotations
flying mode or a camera only mode to get close or high without building temporary scaffolding or having your head get in the way
better markers for lights which disappear once moused over (i have one target box thats like 5 feet below the actual spot the light is)
Absolutely!
I'd like to see them completely ditch the hokey 2D excuse for an editor and switch to a real time 3D editor which has pan, rotate, zoom, etc. I hate having to load a preview mode each time to finely edit in 3D. I'd like to see that by default with the option to lock to a 2D plane for those who want a map-like editing experience.
I think that you would very few reviewers in the scenario. Why? Because of the number of time they would need to run a quest before giving a review. You would have to run the quest a minimum of 3 times before you do a review. Probably more. I know I would not run the same quest 3+ times in a week just so I could review it. I would run it multiple times if I liked it. But not just so I could review it. And how is running a quest multiple time going to stop it being reviews rashly, ignorantly or lightly?
That's kind of the point, being a reviewer shouldn't be easy, and that's why I mentioned that a game incentive would need to be created specifically for reviewers.
And reviews aren't done rashly if you're required to wait. They're not done ignorantly if you have to experience it multiple times. They're not done lightly if it requires effort.
What is the purpose of having the ability to follow reviewers? What good does popularity do if they need to run randomly selected quests to get the bonus AD. Don't you think that most reviewers would just run the randomly selected quests since they will need to run them multiple time.
They're both forms of incentive, some people are motivated by "fame" more than game rewards. And I expect some reviewers would want to review quests they choose. Remember we're talking over a week here, not a day. So 20+ foundries/week wouldn't be out of the question if the person enjoys them or the rewards are enough motivation for them.
You need to go into more detail of what "Fit" and "Unfit" and "Valid" and Invalid" mean.
"Fit" and "unfit" are the review selections made by players when the complete a quest for the first time, also by the author. It's similar to the method most user generated support websites use. But I wanted a push in both directions for reviews, "fit" pushing reviews toward the top (having the most impact on the overall rating of the quest), and "unfit" pushing them toward the bottom (having the least impact).
"Valid" and "Invalid" are more or less what they sound like. A "valid" review is one that would count toward the overall rating of a quest and would be displayed on the quest's "page". "Invalid" reviews would no longer apply to the quest in any way and would only be displayed on the reviewer's "page". ("page" being the window which displays information on the quest or reviewer)
I want a "Component Start" trigger. Right now, I can't play a sound (or do anything) based on when a player starts to interact with an object, only when they're done. (Likewise, I can't start a sound when a player enters combat, only when they complete it.)
Right now, I'm having to make do with placemarkers, but of course, that isn't that great. The sound plays when you get near the box, not when you're opening it.
Export: csv file for the main story line and dialogue sections... all in a nice neat, outlined format that can easily be imported in to excel, openoffice, etc. Along with this, export: entire map as a jpg file (although screen prints work now for a nice alternative)
Export: csv file for the main story line and dialogue sections... all in a nice neat, outlined format that can easily be imported in to excel, openoffice, etc. Along with this, export: entire map as a jpg file (although screen prints work now for a nice alternative)
An XML format would probably be better since CSV is meant for spreadsheet style data. XML would let you use it in Office as well as other software, sites, etc.
Small, sepia tone "maps" of the zone (or part of the zone) that one or more "X" marks can be placed by Foundry author. Zone "Landmarks" (mountain, large building, water, etc) can be auto-drawn (a very rough outline, description) from a limited selection of geometry objects.
These would persist, like created items, only within the quest.
<programmer hat on> Imagine if a created Item description contained:
#MAP
#931 #17 #223 #407 #22
...Instead of bringing up a description, would "draw" a sepia map
with "charcoal" messy outlines of each #object IDs, and if an
#object ID were a place marker, would draw a red X. <programmer hat off>
IMO these two are huge: Allow players to fly in 3d editing mode (some high up objects are too difficult to line up doing it at ground level), and give an option to make invisible walls visible in 3d editing mode, it is overly difficult to make an invisible wall work correctly and not be jumped/circumnavigated because its too low on non-flat terrain.
A bonus would be more allied encounter's, or at least more than just the guard's combat set. . I believe that would allow more dynamic storytelling.
Is there a way to remove slot presets from a stock character? I've been using a prefabbed NPC and all I want to do is remove her accessories (helmet, necklace, greaves) instead of building the character up from scratch. I find it to be a waste of time to edit the body proportion, skin tone, and hairstyle when I can just take a prefabbed NPC and just make some small modifications. I just want an option in the slot section that says "None" so that I don't waste too much time.
I would like to see retriggerable marker points. Right now it seems like once you step on them, their logic goes high and stays high. It would be nice to have the logic go low after your off of them so they can be retriggered. If your adding the ability to make them go low, they would then have two outputs, a high and low. It would then be possible to use that high/low feedback to trigger two things. For example, a player walks onto the marker point, logic goes high, an effect occurs and continues while on the marker. Once the player is off the marker, the logic goes low triggering the effect to stop. Each time the player would step on the marker, that same event would occur. You could use them to open a door with one marker or close a door with another and have that action happen each time. As of now, its a once and done deal. I would suggest making the retrigger functionality to be a drop down menu choice, trigger once or trigger repeatedly.
Also, multiple types of events as a trigger would be fantastic. Lets say I want to trigger a bookcase to appear in front of a doorway trapping the player in the room until they solve the puzzle. I want them to first talk to someone else, a specific NPC and dialog, then and only then when they enter that room do I want the bookcase to cover the door. I need a marker in the room to go high and be tied to the visibility side of the bookshelf but I also need that specific dialog to be reached as well. Sure the work around is just set the quests in that order and set a marker in the room, then use the marker feedback to trigger the bookshelf. It is however a bit limiting.
Im sure there is other things people can think of but those would be helpful I believe.
Re-triggerable might be hard to add. In the meantime, I would like it if we could add Appear When and Disappear When to markers, that would probably help a lot of us.
Find me in game with @DoctorBadger (Un)Academic Field Work Foundry Campaign: NWS-DAPZB2CTZ
Don't know if this has been discussed before but here goes. It seems to me almost every encounter I can place gives me some sort of humanoid creature; 2 arms, 2 legs and a head. Not even a two headed Ettin in the whole lot. What I would like to see, besides the obvious levers, Multi-NPC dialogs, attackable items and whole slew of assets already available in the game but not in the foundry, is a bunch of multi legged critter type beasties.
Carrion Crawler - absolute classic D&D monster
Bulette - I remember from the old days it kinda reminded me of a Stegosaurus or similar dinosaur
Purple Worm - Dune. need I say more?
Formians - ant people
I know people don't care about ambient critters; deer, oxen, moose, rat, and such, like I do, but how about crocodiles or alligators? I mean they DO have a swamp type map.
Giant Scorpions?
Speaking of dry arid land, off the topic of encounters, how about some real desert details or outdoor maps? There are only a few details which could be mickey moused to make a desert map, but it would sure be easier of there was just an entire map of desert like land. I mean you do have sand in the water maps. Help a Dark Sun brother out here.
I am on a roll here. OK, you have horses. Can I have a dead horse please? Seems even if I set their animation to dead and their behavior to corpse they are still standing there when I publish. Mounted NPCs? We've established you have horses, now, you have carts right? See where I am going with this? Well I am not going there in a horse and buggy, not atm anyway. I can understand you wouldn't add stuff like that for players, but how about a horse and cart / wagon NPC? Would be super for escort quests.
I seem to remember you could change a players appearance in NWN and disable their abilities. Heck I seem to recall the D20 team made it so you could have spaceship battles in NWN. It would be awesome, if possible without scripting, where you could change a players appearance so they turned into a .... I don't know something else. would provide extreme interest in quests, I tell you that.
You have a big sailing ship and it is real pretty. Is it dry docked? Cause it doesn't sway with the tide which seems unusual / unrealistic.
Comments
I know we can add details to the existing map, but transitioning to a dungeon map would be awesome.
As a tangent, my personal preference of the one most important thing would be branching quest threads. The fully linear nature of the current story line is fundamentally limiting in so many ways. The second would be the suggestion about persistent variables to carry from one quest to another, at least with in a campaign.
All that said, I must finish by saying that the Foundry is really an incredible tool. Anyone who doesn't appreciate it has no idea what the background complexity of a multiplayer game looks like. I'm stunned that the features they did give work so well. Congrats Guys!!!
I'd like to see layers added to the 2-D editor so that we could perhaps set Layer 1 is Y=0 to 1000, Layer 2 is Y=-100 to 0, Layer 3 is Y = -1000 to -100.
That way we could show only those layers we're working on currently.
I'm sure there are plenty of us below grounders working on "Timers" (since they aren't in Foundry (yet)), and those of us building "rooms" below the terrain (since we cannot transition between maps while maintaining state).
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Game incentives for doing foundry quests would also need to be redesigned, as the current ones (daily + event) don't work, and in fact create a pressure that destroys author creativity as well as any chance a player review system has of working. I'm not including any suggestions on this as I haven't put any thought into it.
Change how reviews are collected and kept:
Make being reviewer a potentially desirable "thing":
The system can balance itself:
I don't expect this would ever be implemented, it's fairly complex and I imagine it would take a lot of work.
But if anyone actually reads this I'd be interested to hear what you think, good or bad.
Okay, Panic.
I think that you would very few reviewers in the scenario. Why? Because of the number of time they would need to run a quest before giving a review. You would have to run the quest a minimum of 3 times before you do a review. Probably more. I know I would not run the same quest 3+ times in a week just so I could review it. I would run it multiple times if I liked it. But not just so I could review it. And how is running a quest multiple time going to stop it being reviews rashly, ignorantly or lightly?
What is the purpose of having the ability to follow reviewers? What good does popularity do if they need to run randomly selected quests to get the bonus AD. Don't you think that most reviewers would just run the randomly selected quests since they will need to run them multiple time.
You need to go into more detail of what "Fit" and "Unfit" and "Valid" and Invalid" mean.
Narayan
I disagree. I'd rather see an active community member repost this list as well as all of the suggestions in the 50 some pages. The OP hasn't updated their original list since the beginning of May even though they said it would be updated with additional requests from the community.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
For example the Dungeon Room set, some assets have "Torches / No Lights", some have "Torches / No Lights / Skylights" and still others have "Torches / No Lights / Spell Plague / Torches (Blue) / Torches (Green)".
Consistency people, its the very bedrock upon which an form of continual development is based.
All room assets in a given set should have the exact same lighting options.
In fact all rooms in all assets sets should have all lighting options.
Jeez, why wasn't this built in from the beginning? Who built this - Mickey Mouse?
PS: And while you are at it how about letting us swap lighting schemes on "prompt" like other appear/disappear" options. Having to turn of any automatic lighting scheme, replace every light source manually, then set them all to disappear and be replaced with another set of manually placed light-sources "on prompt" is getting tiresome. And lighting changes are one of the few effects we have that can instantly change the "feel" of a room.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
this has been covered but i wanted to add some more ideas to it, in regards to 3d editing, trying to place small detail items in 3d mode is really a hassle, sometimes your head is in the way, sometimes you end up selecting something else, sometimes you have to jump up and put platforms around so you can get high enough to work on something only to have that object loose collision after accidentally mousing over it with your reticle.
i know that coding is hard (i tried getting into it but i dont have the ability for coding from complete scratch and such) and there is limits on what the developers can (and/or will) do but i would really say a way for you to just take control of the camera, outside the player body, is what is needed. if it were possible id really want something similar to what second life has for building things, but thats something thats already taken by them, you cant really rip them off or anything but the base concepts are what i think is needed. the ability to control just the camera, using your mouse to point at a spot, then pressing alt and clicking which enables the camera to orbit around that selected spot (while holding the mouse and alt down), pressing control or shift to allow for zooming.
here are a few other more minor things for 3d edit mode:
flying mode or a camera only mode to get close or high without building temporary scaffolding or having your head get in the way
better markers for lights which disappear once moused over (i have one target box thats like 5 feet below the actual spot the light is)
as for in the foundry editor itself, i would like to see a way to do multi level maps, sure i could build something completely from scratch on an outdoor map but that would use many more details, the walls would have to match up perfectly or they will have gaps, people might beable to mount when you dont want them to. another thing i would like to see is a "zoom to room" so we can edit items only in that room but not just from top down but from the side, this is most likely not possible however.
more smaller ideas for the foundry map editor:
a relative to the room location system. if i want something to be 3 feet from the wall on both sides of the room for symmetry, so for a 40 long room i just add 3 to the object on one end and subtract 3 for the other end.
one other thing i would actually also like to see is the ability to do scaling on some objects, this would allow us to miniaturize some things or make something small much bigger. for example, lets say i want to have a mini diagram of a city as part of a quest, it currently cannot be done very well because all of the city details are all huge. be able to scale them down would allow this. in reverse lets say i want to have an npc thats trapped in a crystal ball, again, currently not possible to do or at least very hard to do and still give that depth for those few who do foundry quests for the story.
thats all i can think of at this moment, i may pop back over to suggest some other ideas, and to get another vote for some things that i can say for sure were already mentioned i too would like to see more rooms, more encounters (most preferred being single, hard boss like without massive extra adds and that we can put costumes on), more respawn points for those long maps (sorry 1 spawn and 1 respawn for a map that fills the full editor is insanely inadequate), better matching for mixing of room types (try matching dungeon and royal crypt, youll see missing walls that allow you to fall off the map).
Absolutely!
I'd like to see them completely ditch the hokey 2D excuse for an editor and switch to a real time 3D editor which has pan, rotate, zoom, etc. I hate having to load a preview mode each time to finely edit in 3D. I'd like to see that by default with the option to lock to a 2D plane for those who want a map-like editing experience.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
That's kind of the point, being a reviewer shouldn't be easy, and that's why I mentioned that a game incentive would need to be created specifically for reviewers.
And reviews aren't done rashly if you're required to wait. They're not done ignorantly if you have to experience it multiple times. They're not done lightly if it requires effort.
They're both forms of incentive, some people are motivated by "fame" more than game rewards. And I expect some reviewers would want to review quests they choose. Remember we're talking over a week here, not a day. So 20+ foundries/week wouldn't be out of the question if the person enjoys them or the rewards are enough motivation for them.
"Fit" and "unfit" are the review selections made by players when the complete a quest for the first time, also by the author. It's similar to the method most user generated support websites use. But I wanted a push in both directions for reviews, "fit" pushing reviews toward the top (having the most impact on the overall rating of the quest), and "unfit" pushing them toward the bottom (having the least impact).
"Valid" and "Invalid" are more or less what they sound like. A "valid" review is one that would count toward the overall rating of a quest and would be displayed on the quest's "page". "Invalid" reviews would no longer apply to the quest in any way and would only be displayed on the reviewer's "page". ("page" being the window which displays information on the quest or reviewer)
Okay, Panic.
Right now, I'm having to make do with placemarkers, but of course, that isn't that great. The sound plays when you get near the box, not when you're opening it.
An XML format would probably be better since CSV is meant for spreadsheet style data. XML would let you use it in Office as well as other software, sites, etc.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
These would persist, like created items, only within the quest.
<programmer hat on>
Imagine if a created Item description contained:
#MAP
#931 #17 #223 #407 #22
...Instead of bringing up a description, would "draw" a sepia map
with "charcoal" messy outlines of each #object IDs, and if an
#object ID were a place marker, would draw a red X.
<programmer hat off>
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
A bonus would be more allied encounter's, or at least more than just the guard's combat set. . I believe that would allow more dynamic storytelling.
Also, multiple types of events as a trigger would be fantastic. Lets say I want to trigger a bookcase to appear in front of a doorway trapping the player in the room until they solve the puzzle. I want them to first talk to someone else, a specific NPC and dialog, then and only then when they enter that room do I want the bookcase to cover the door. I need a marker in the room to go high and be tied to the visibility side of the bookshelf but I also need that specific dialog to be reached as well. Sure the work around is just set the quests in that order and set a marker in the room, then use the marker feedback to trigger the bookshelf. It is however a bit limiting.
Im sure there is other things people can think of but those would be helpful I believe.
oh and give teleporters some interact text so we can label there destination.
(Un)Academic Field Work Foundry Campaign: NWS-DAPZB2CTZ
Carrion Crawler - absolute classic D&D monster
Bulette - I remember from the old days it kinda reminded me of a Stegosaurus or similar dinosaur
Purple Worm - Dune. need I say more?
Formians - ant people
I know people don't care about ambient critters; deer, oxen, moose, rat, and such, like I do, but how about crocodiles or alligators? I mean they DO have a swamp type map.
Giant Scorpions?
Speaking of dry arid land, off the topic of encounters, how about some real desert details or outdoor maps? There are only a few details which could be mickey moused to make a desert map, but it would sure be easier of there was just an entire map of desert like land. I mean you do have sand in the water maps. Help a Dark Sun brother out here.
I am on a roll here. OK, you have horses. Can I have a dead horse please? Seems even if I set their animation to dead and their behavior to corpse they are still standing there when I publish. Mounted NPCs? We've established you have horses, now, you have carts right? See where I am going with this? Well I am not going there in a horse and buggy, not atm anyway. I can understand you wouldn't add stuff like that for players, but how about a horse and cart / wagon NPC? Would be super for escort quests.
I seem to remember you could change a players appearance in NWN and disable their abilities. Heck I seem to recall the D20 team made it so you could have spaceship battles in NWN. It would be awesome, if possible without scripting, where you could change a players appearance so they turned into a .... I don't know something else. would provide extreme interest in quests, I tell you that.
You have a big sailing ship and it is real pretty. Is it dry docked? Cause it doesn't sway with the tide which seems unusual / unrealistic.