View Full Version : An Idea To Fix the Corpse Problem
Add a "Corpse" option that allows you to change the amount of corpses that can be on screen at once, ect.
Like for example:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persistent Corpses: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-<and so on>-Unlimited
(Once Corpses Exceed this limit, the first corpse will decay (and then the next and the next)
Decay Time (For lack of a better name): 10sec-20-30-40-50-60-2min-<and so on>-Forever
(Once a corpse has been on for the set amount of time it will decay)
Corpse Decay on Screen: [ ]
([ ] is a check box)
Persistent Boss Corpses: [ ]
(This applies to all bosses, including mini bosses)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an option like this you can customize how many corpses can be active at a time, thus allowing people with high-end computers to pile as many corpses as they want, while allowing people with low-end computers to not have a game full of lag with so many corpses.
having settings like that would have to mean the corpses were physics disabled otherwise there would be discrepancies with other players, unless you could walk through all corpses.
It would be fine for single player, but it would simply mean disabling all physics and collision with corpses which would be even more distracting than having them decay imo (nothing like completely obscuring your character like stepping into a bosses body).
Well since corpses don't really affect game play from what we know, you should be able to disable them from appearing on YOUR screen, but it won't apply to others.
And this is just an example.
nothing like completely obscuring your character like stepping into a bosses body
In my example there's an option to turn that off (check box).
Well since corpses don't really affect game play from what we know, you should be able to disable them from appearing on YOUR screen, but it won't apply to others.
And this is just an example.
In my example there's an option to turn that off (check box).
Huh? You didnt have a checkbox to turn off physics for corpses.
And let's take an example here: I have the corpses remain at the maximum length, but my partner in a mp game doesnt. So on his screen the giant boss just dissapeared, so he proceeded to walk straight through said giant boss corpse, which shows up on my screen as disconcerting clipping.
If corpses didn't affect the game play at all they wouldnt have to even have a dilemma about this, but they do because they wanted physics affected corpses, corpses that move when hit, bounce, fall, slide down cliffs etc. and ultimately affect each other. If your suggestion was put into play they couldnt affect each other, there would be massive clipping issues (probably with the player, but definitely with other corpses, other players and other monsters.
I mean, they could do it, but it wouldn't improve anything in terms of continuity (There would be massive clipping issues) or help solve the problem of having physics enabled corpses.
Huh? You didnt have a checkbox to turn off physics for corpses.
"In my EXAMPLE"
What I'm saying is that corpses, etc. won't make a difference if one person allows them while another person doesn't, it isn't like the corpses are going to damage you if you touch them or anything.
As in the corpse viewing options affect each individual player when on B Net.
Meaning only you will see a lot of corpses if you allow it, see them fly around, etc.
But if someone disables them, they won't see any of them flying around, and since they don't impact the actual game play (Not game performance). But you will still see yours.
Hmmm, I never really experienced any lag related to corpse count, not even on my older computers.
What would happen if someone changed options mid game? So if they had 5 persistant corpses and then switched to 3? I assume 2 would decay automatically? What if they then switched back to 5? Would they get those corpses back?
This also raises a question about what might happen for skills that require corpses. In D2 terms, this means skills like redemption, raise skeleton/skeleton mage, dire wolves feeding, find item/potion, revive, grim ward and corpse/poison explosion. A few thoughts come to mind:
- Depending on the class, the player might be changing the options on a regular, sometimes multiple times while playing the same class (eg in D2 terms, a necro might toggle the corpse count to be 10 to begin so he can get his army, then toggle it down during gameplay, then back up again if he needs his army again, etc). This in itself might not be an issue if the game can handle it fine.
- More importantly, let's assume the following:
You're a class that requires corpses and you're teamed with someone that also requires corpses for his skills. You have a lower end computer so you've reduced your corpse count 5, while he has a higher end one and therefore has 20 corpses on his screen. What if he picks some corpses at random for his skills and chooses the only ones you can see (or if it's like redemption, and the game simply picks some random corpses)? He probably wouldn't notice since he has heaps on his screen.
Boss corpses have to stay unless its some cool animated decay resulting in the spawning of more monsters like from the GPvid where the siege breaker assault beast spawns skeletons upon decay.
The biggest flaw imo is that the corpses float around like on ice (as seen when the witch doctor is presented).. wheres the friggin friction?! Also, why cant they tune the physics to a realistic level... when the barbarian brings down a wall on a bunch of zombies a piece of wood tumbles away and rolls around like a balloon
They should just implement an optional setting on how long you want corpses to last and problem solved.
Feramors
23-07-2008, 13:07
Shoot. The Myth games had persistant corpses. and that game came out...mid 90's?
Come on, Blizzard. Catch up, here.
(yes, I know they said it was something they're looking into, don't jump down my throat about that one)
They should just implement an optional setting on how long you want corpses to last and problem solved.
Please re-read the TS post and become aware of the frivolity of your post
Shoot. The Myth games had persistant corpses. and that game came out...mid 90's?
Come on, Blizzard. Catch up, here.
(yes, I know they said it was something they're looking into, don't jump down my throat about that one)
As already pointed out the difference is that D3 will be using the Havok physics engine which Im guessing The Myth didnt include... corpses will have to be stacking when they gain physical attributes (which they are lacking as live monsters in order to make walking amongst corpses less of a hassle). However I dont think its impossible to make corpses stay indefinetly but its no piece of cake especially if you want to avoid wierd unrealistic physical behaviour. Also when the corpses stack you will walk thru the heaps and become partially or entirely buried in them. I reckon it would look quite retarded...
Sein Schatten
23-07-2008, 14:47
What would happen if someone changed options mid game? So if they had 5 persistant corpses and then switched to 3? I assume 2 would decay automatically? What if they then switched back to 5? Would they get those corpses back?
- More importantly, let's assume the following:
You're a class that requires corpses and you're teamed with someone that also requires corpses for his skills. You have a lower end computer so you've reduced your corpse count 5, while he has a higher end one and therefore has 20 corpses on his screen. What if he picks some corpses at random for his skills and chooses the only ones you can see (or if it's like redemption, and the game simply picks some random corpses)? He probably wouldn't notice since he has heaps on his screen.
-Depending on implementation. Might be possible. Alternatively you have to restart the game by changing this setting so this is a non-issue.
-No problem. You have a list with references to corpses. The list fills up from the left to right. And the right most corpse gets used. With list A 5 elements max and list B 10 elements max. List A uses the rightmost corpse then, of course, the reference gets deleted in list B and the elements to the right get moved to thge left by one place. If list B uses a corpse that is higher then 5, no problem.
This also raises a question about what might happen for skills that require corpses. In D2 terms, this means skills like redemption, raise skeleton/skeleton mage, dire wolves feeding, find item/potion, revive, grim ward and corpse/poison explosion. A few thoughts come to mind:
- Depending on the class, the player might be changing the options on a regular, sometimes multiple times while playing the same class (eg in D2 terms, a necro might toggle the corpse count to be 10 to begin so he can get his army, then toggle it down during gameplay, then back up again if he needs his army again, etc). This in itself might not be an issue if the game can handle it fine.
- More importantly, let's assume the following:
You're a class that requires corpses and you're teamed with someone that also requires corpses for his skills. You have a lower end computer so you've reduced your corpse count 5, while he has a higher end one and therefore has 20 corpses on his screen. What if he picks some corpses at random for his skills and chooses the only ones you can see (or if it's like redemption, and the game simply picks some random corpses)? He probably wouldn't notice since he has heaps on his screen.
From what we know in Diablo 3, their isn't any corpse skills.
With that said if they did introduce corpse based skills, they'd probably make corpses decay like they do in Warcraft 3, making them static and sprite-like.
-No problem. You have a list with references to corpses. The list fills up from the left to right. And the right most corpse gets used. With list A 5 elements max and list B 10 elements max. List A uses the rightmost corpse then, of course, the reference gets deleted in list B and the elements to the right get moved to thge left by one place. If list B uses a corpse that is higher then 5, no problem.
So assuming I'm reading this correct, it sounds like the newest corpses would be used by the skills. If this is the case, then it would cause the issue I mentioned, since the player with the lower corpse count would always see the newer corpses (the older ones would degrade once his limit is met). It would be better to use the older corpses for skills.
Unless I missed something (only just hopped up :coffee:)
From what we know in Diablo 3, their isn't any corpse skills.
And we know very little about D3 at the moment, and with the volume of corpse skills in D2 I would like to think there are going to be some in D3. It's a valid assumption which needs to be thought of for potential ideas (and much better than assuming that there's no such skills at all)
And we know very little about D3 at the moment, and with the volume of corpse skills in D2 I would like to think there are going to be some in D3. It's a valid assumption which needs to be thought of for potential ideas (and much better than assuming that there's no such skills at all)
At the rate the corpses are destroyed in one way or another (falling off of bridges, fading out, etc) I think it would be more reasonable to assume that in the current build there is no corpse skills, and unless the corpse decay rate is somehow increased there wont be corpse skills in future builds.
"In my EXAMPLE"
What I'm saying is that corpses, etc. won't make a difference if one person allows them while another person doesn't, it isn't like the corpses are going to damage you if you touch them or anything.
As in the corpse viewing options affect each individual player when on B Net.
Meaning only you will see a lot of corpses if you allow it, see them fly around, etc.
But if someone disables them, they won't see any of them flying around, and since they don't impact the actual game play (Not game performance). But you will still see yours.
I was just letting you know that your EXAMPLE wouldn't work and would imply creation of a lot of other problems, particularly when networked with other players.
They will impact things like clipping and other corpses moving etc. For example what if 2 corpses stacked on each other, which would make sense because they're physical objects in the game.
Under your system it would happen that for player A it would look normal, as his corpse duration was very high. For player B it would look stupid because he would see a corpse floating on nothing.
you run into a similar problem with boss corpses and clipping. If they aren't worried about clipping and simply let mobs all stack in the same spot, where the player can walk through them, and they can clip things like walls then the example would work. But if they had no worries about clipping then they would probably not have any problem with corpses remaining for longer, because they wouldn't be physics enabled.
In short, your EXAMPLE wouldn't solve the problem, and simply wouldn't work with physics enabled corpses.
SlechtWeerBeer
24-07-2008, 05:15
In short, your EXAMPLE wouldn't solve the problem, and simply wouldn't work with physics enabled corpses.
We have a winner!
raveharu
24-07-2008, 05:24
I think Blizzard IS doing something, here's a quote taken from Bashiok.
Aw, of course we care! A large part of my job is specifically to ensure that the valid concerns, comments, and critiques are brought to the appropriate people's attention. That doesn't mean that every idea or suggestion is something we agree with, or are going to base changes on though. There's a point where, as a game designer, you have to stick to your guns and know that your choices and direction are what's best for the game and ultimately those that will be playing it. There's a point where you have to be confident that you're making the right decisions. So at the end of the day you're staying true to your vision and design, and doing what's best for the game.
A good example of us paying attention though was the concern and thread about corpses not sticking around long enough. I read that thread, brought it up, and some discussion was happening on it. Later our lead tech artist Julian was reading through the replies, and got some ideas of how we may want to keep corpses on screen a little longer. Now we're playing around with some changes that shouldn't have a huge performance hit, while still keeping the corpses on screen for variable amounts of time. Hopefully it works out.
Would any experimentation for corpse decay have happened had it not been brought up on the forums? I don't know, maybe, but we're not just dismissing good, valid, and well reasoned concerns.
As I said not every suggestion, comment, or idea is going to be considered, but we're definitely watching and reading.
So anyway you can stop posting your all so "magnificent ideas" . Blizzards knows what to do.
I was just letting you know that your EXAMPLE wouldn't work and would imply creation of a lot of other problems, particularly when networked with other players.
They will impact things like clipping and other corpses moving etc. For example what if 2 corpses stacked on each other, which would make sense because they're physical objects in the game.
Under your system it would happen that for player A it would look normal, as his corpse duration was very high. For player B it would look stupid because he would see a corpse floating on nothing.
you run into a similar problem with boss corpses and clipping. If they aren't worried about clipping and simply let mobs all stack in the same spot, where the player can walk through them, and they can clip things like walls then the example would work. But if they had no worries about clipping then they would probably not have any problem with corpses remaining for longer, because they wouldn't be physics enabled.
In short, your EXAMPLE wouldn't solve the problem, and simply wouldn't work with physics enabled corpses.
you seem to be under the impression that the corpse positions need to be the same on both computers, when it doesn't.
Why would there be a corpse 'floating' on nothing..?
So anyway you can stop posting your all so "magnificent ideas" . Blizzards knows what to do.
Blizzard likes input from those who play their games, that thing he was talking about only came up because people complained about it.
A good example of us paying attention though was the concern and thread about corpses not sticking around long enough.
Paying attention to those who complained about the corpses not lasting long enough.
...
One of the great things about Blizzard is they actually listen on what the players have to say.
Under your system it would happen that for player A it would look normal, as his corpse duration was very high. For player B it would look stupid because he would see a corpse floating on nothing.
Player B would have picked that setting, so he would have to deal with it.
If player A wanted lots of corpses on his screen, they'd be their. But if player B didn't want any corpses there, on his screen they'd all disappear on HIS screen. If player C wanted lots of static corpses on his screen, they'd all be static on HIS screen. It wouldn't affect the other players at all, corpses don't affect game play besides being rag dolls and eye candy.
You guys are nit-picking at an example I made in 2 minutes, what my point I've been trying to get to is for blizzard to make an option about corpse control. My example, was just that: an example. If blizzard was to do something like that, they'd polish it and polish it until you couldn't complain about it.
Player B would have picked that setting, so he would have to deal with it.
If player A wanted lots of corpses on his screen, they'd be their. But if player B didn't want any corpses there, on his screen they'd all disappear on HIS screen. If player C wanted lots of static corpses on his screen, they'd all be static on HIS screen. It wouldn't affect the other players at all, corpses don't affect game play besides being rag dolls and eye candy.
What you aren't understanding is that it won't solve the problem.
If player B has a floating corpse then that means the server and player b's computer still have to keep track of a physical object in a spot, the only difference would be that it isnt rendering a 3d graphic for it.
So your 'solution' wouldn't affect the system requirements or server load in any way, shape, or form.
But it would have huge implications in the world of clipping.
And this may be nitpicking, but I think putting something in the game to solve such a minimal problem as corpse duration length should make the game look better and more immersive, not less and particularly when the situation doesn't solve the problem of the technical requirements.
Sorry if that's nitpicky.
SlechtWeerBeer
24-07-2008, 12:20
It's kinda like this: You ahve 2 corpses on top of each other, and they're always in the same spot for every player.
So, if player A can see up to 1603 corpses, he will probably just see the 2 corpses laying atop each other
Player B runs W 98 and can only see 3 corpses laying. He only sees the corpse on the top, which is floating.
It is still laying atop the other corpse. It will still interact with the ragdoll invisible corpse, because everything is the same for everyone. Thusly it's mainly broken eye candy... and sharp. I'm with 5zigen on this.
Sein Schatten
24-07-2008, 14:39
I think Blizzard IS doing something, here's a quote taken from Bashiok.
So anyway you can stop posting your all so "magnificent ideas" . Blizzards knows what to do.
Good to know. :)
Excuse me now. I need to whine more about static outdoor areas. :D
It's kinda like this: You ahve 2 corpses on top of each other, and they're always in the same spot for every player.
So, if player A can see up to 1603 corpses, he will probably just see the 2 corpses laying atop each other
Player B runs W 98 and can only see 3 corpses laying. He only sees the corpse on the top, which is floating.
It is still laying atop the other corpse. It will still interact with the ragdoll invisible corpse, because everything is the same for everyone. Thusly it's mainly broken eye candy... and sharp. I'm with 5zigen on this.
the corpses are not synchronized between clients. why would it be? theres no need for it be the same, seeing as how corpses don't affect gameplay in any way. there could be corpses in completely different places for each client, and it wouldn't make a difference.
the corpses are not synchronized between clients. why would it be? theres no need for it be the same, seeing as how corpses don't affect gameplay in any way. there could be corpses in completely different places for each client, and it wouldn't make a difference.
If corpses dont sync with clients you still run into huge clipping issues, either with other monsters or players. Because monsters and players are synchronized with clients. If corpses arent you have player a walking straight through boss C on payer b's screen and it would look incredibly silly, particularly if it's just in an attempt to make corpses stay longer.
If corpses dont sync with clients you still run into huge clipping issues, either with other monsters or players. Because monsters and players are synchronized with clients. If corpses arent you have player a walking straight through boss C on payer b's screen and it would look incredibly silly, particularly if it's just in an attempt to make corpses stay longer.
I agree, boss corpses would indeed need to be synchronized, whether gameplay affecting or not. That said, you could get away with handling the smaller corpses entirely client-side, as we've already seen that the ghoul corpses don't clip with the player model after death.
I'm sure if their was any clipping issues, Blizzard would be able to fix them.
Sein Schatten
26-07-2008, 00:31
I'm sure if their was any clipping issues, Blizzard would be able to fix them.
Then let's hope the D3 dev team is better then WoW's. ;)
stillman
26-07-2008, 00:56
What about this: In the time it currently takes for corpses to disappear, they progressively get covered with more and more maggots and flies. By the time they would completely be gone from the screen, we now see just a big mass of maggots. This would reduce the number of polygons needed for each corpse, as we wouldn't need to see well defined limbs and such. When you lob a fireball at the "corpse", the small number of polygons making up the "maggoty corpse" are shaken around by the explosion, like a body would move but with less rag doll detail.
So, can't they just reduce the number of polygons?
It would break the immersion (I'd think) for the bodies of enemies to suddenly go from a high poly count to a low poly count.
Unfortunately, most of the "corpse strain" comes from the skeletal physics, not the polygon counts. Implementing multiple levels of detail (LoDs) for each model does help a bit when you have a lots of models (or very detailed ones) at a distance, but in this case it wouldn't have as big an impact because even lower poly models typically have the same animation skeleton inside. It's the whole arms-and-legs-flopping-wildly-without-elbows-and-knees-bending-backwards thing that gets them in trouble processing-wise.
I think it'll be a good idea if after a certain amount of time the corpse will lose it's ragdoll effect (if ragdoll effect lags the game), so basically the corpse won't disappear after 2minutes, it'll remain on the field but it will lose its ragdoll effect
mince pies
27-07-2008, 02:43
Sorry, but why is corpses disappearing a problem? It doesn't interfere with the gameplay in anyway whatsoever. Have I missed something?
ill logic
27-07-2008, 03:58
Sorry, but why is corpses disappearing a problem? It doesn't interfere with the gameplay in anyway whatsoever. Have I missed something?
Yep.
Bashiok: "We remember fondly those situations where you've just completely obliterated a camp of Fallen, and as you're picking up items - marvel in your destruction. That's a feeling and part of the gameplay where if we can realistically keep some of it without sacrificing features or having insane system requirements we'd definitely like to, but no promises."
There are two "underlying policies" to be served here:
1) Ragdoll physics contributes to the game
2) What Bashiok spoke of contributes to the game
You've expressed no interest in the second; some people are interested in it. "Corpse Problem" may be a poor choice of word--the problem is not that the disappearance of corpses interferes with anything.
The problem is in reconciling the two and is what Blizzard is "playing around with" now.
we could ww the complainers and then see how long they want their corpses to lay around bwahaha >:)
seriously though, the corpse option is viable in a sense...though it would have to set the corpse count for everyone to the lowest setting of all players in game...any factor that desynchs the players and the server is a huge window for system and game crashes...which is a bad thing...and by the sounds of it blizzard is well on their way to "fixing" the issue and have probably heard all these arguments a million and a half times...they know what we think and are doing what they think is best for the game...personally i like the idea of corpses sitting around to i can knock them around and blow them up some more...more carnage from those that are not quiet dead yet...
Sein Schatten
27-07-2008, 14:33
personally i like the idea of corpses sitting around to i can knock them around and blow them up some more...more carnage from those that are not quiet dead yet...
This reminds me. In Oblivion my companion died while we were fighting in a cave. His corpse bugged out a bit and he was constantly bumping from the ground to the cave ceiling. Back and forth. :D I had to cast some AoE spells to stop that. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.