Contend Patch 1.1.0 Part 1 ideas

  • #21
    Quote from Kallizk

    i agree some changes are hard to implement on d3 and take alot of time, but a simple dye like this is not.


    Your ignorance is astounding.
  • #22
    Quote from Lohk

    Quote from Kallizk

    i agree some changes are hard to implement on d3 and take alot of time, but a simple dye like this is not.


    Your ignorance is astounding.


    Your age is obvious.
    Those Who Do Not Know True Pain Cannot Possibly Understand True Peace...
  • #23
    1) I'm sorry, Kallizk, but Torchlight GUTS or WarCraft JASS (even if you've used the latter extensively, which can be a nice introduction to little program-like code blocks) does not give you enough experience to judge how complicated a change in a program like "Diablo 3" is. Not just because a scripting language like JASS and a programming language like C++ (which, afaik, Diablo 3 was written in) have significant differences in particular when it comes to functionality and complexity, but also because of the sheer size. I don't know how many lines of code D3 has, but Blizzard unveiled 2009 that WoW had 5.5 million lines of code. And changing any line can affect whatever the other 5.499.999 produce.

    2) As far as I remember from the blue posts, the problem of legendary dye is not programming, but the design of textures. All legendary items were designed with static textures. The designers have to go back to the original files and make the designs "dynamic" such that the game engine knows which parts can be colored and what the colored effect looks like. Before something like this can be released it needs to be implemented for every color, every legendary item, and every set item. I guess it's just a time issue on the designers' side. If Blizzard pushed this forward it could (and should) definitely be done by now, but no Blizzard game ever put visuals first (except for the CGI trailers, but that's a different department and a different story).
  • #24
    Quote from Bagstone

    1) I'm sorry, Kallizk, but Torchlight GUTS or WarCraft JASS (even if you've used the latter extensively, which can be a nice introduction to little program-like code blocks) does not give you enough experience to judge how complicated a change in a program like "Diablo 3" is. Not just because a scripting language like JASS and a programming language like C++ (which, afaik, Diablo 3 was written in) have significant differences in particular when it comes to functionality and complexity, but also because of the sheer size. I don't know how many lines of code D3 has, but Blizzard unveiled 2009 that WoW had 5.5 million lines of code. And changing any line can affect whatever the other 5.499.999 produce.

    2) As far as I remember from the blue posts, the problem of legendary dye is not programming, but the design of textures. All legendary items were designed with static textures. The designers have to go back to the original files and make the designs "dynamic" such that the game engine knows which parts can be colored and what the colored effect looks like. Before something like this can be released it needs to be implemented for every color, every legendary item, and every set item. I guess it's just a time issue on the designers' side. If Blizzard pushed this forward it could (and should) definitely be done by now, but no Blizzard game ever put visuals first (except for the CGI trailers, but that's a different department and a different story).


    Completely correct. I just started teaching myself C++ (The Michael Dawson book) and something extremely simple such as texts is harder than I thought it would be. Because of that, I can't imagine how hard it would be to change every single legendary and set item, multiplied by 10 for every class and sex.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChB2_IPc-HVXbi0jS1Riljg
    ^ YouTube.Com/IceBleuGaming ! It's a thing! Check it oooout!
  • #25
    Quote from Bagstone

    1) I'm sorry, Kallizk, but Torchlight GUTS or WarCraft JASS (even if you've used the latter extensively, which can be a nice introduction to little program-like code blocks) does not give you enough experience to judge how complicated a change in a program like "Diablo 3" is. Not just because a scripting language like JASS and a programming language like C++ (which, afaik, Diablo 3 was written in) have significant differences in particular when it comes to functionality and complexity, but also because of the sheer size. I don't know how many lines of code D3 has, but Blizzard unveiled 2009 that WoW had 5.5 million lines of code. And changing any line can affect whatever the other 5.499.999 produce.

    2) As far as I remember from the blue posts, the problem of legendary dye is not programming, but the design of textures. All legendary items were designed with static textures. The designers have to go back to the original files and make the designs "dynamic" such that the game engine knows which parts can be colored and what the colored effect looks like. Before something like this can be released it needs to be implemented for every color, every legendary item, and every set item. I guess it's just a time issue on the designers' side. If Blizzard pushed this forward it could (and should) definitely be done by now, but no Blizzard game ever put visuals first (except for the CGI trailers, but that's a different department and a different story).

    People like to pretend they know more than they actually do. It's quite a sad human trait to be honest, and causes a lot of problems in real life, and not just in forums.
  • #26
    This is really getting off topic here :P
    i'll try to clarify my viewpoint so we can get OT, what i meant by easy to make this dye is because it does not need new textures or anything, just make it behave like salvage, except instead of getting mats back you get a dye with the destroyed item's name (ie:Dye of Echoing Fury) and when you use that dye on another item of the same type (1h mace in this case) you get an exact copy of that item with a different look (Echoing Fury's look in this case), destroying the previous item also ofc, simple as that...
    I did study some programming and spent alot of time on it, granted i'm no pro, but i'm 99% sure if implemented as i said this dye is one of the easiest things to make.
    Edit: since it behaves like salvage one would also get gems back in the inventory.
    Those Who Do Not Know True Pain Cannot Possibly Understand True Peace...
  • #27
    Quote from Kallizk

    Quote from Lohk

    Quote from Kallizk

    i agree some changes are hard to implement on d3 and take alot of time, but a simple dye like this is not.


    Your ignorance is astounding.

    Your age is obvious.


    How old am I?
  • #28
    Quote from Kallizk

    This is really getting off topic here :P
    i'll try to clarify my viewpoint so we can get OT, what i meant by easy to make this dye is because it does not need new textures or anything, just make it behave like salvage, except instead of getting mats back you get a dye with the destroyed item's name (ie:Dye of Echoing Fury) and when you use that dye on another item of the same type (1h mace in this case) you get an exact copy of that item with a different look (Echoing Fury's look in this case), destroying the previous item also ofc, simple as that...
    I did study some programming and spent alot of time on it, granted i'm no pro, but i'm 99% sure if implemented as i said this dye is one of the easiest things to make.
    Edit: since it behaves like salvage one would also get gems back in the inventory.


    Okay, so then you're talking about transmogrification.

    It's in the making: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6679558168#7

    But then it's really something that programmers have to do, not designers. And again, it's not as simple as you think. We don't know if items have a "layout" variable that can easily be switched, they might have to adjust item properties or even part of the engine to be flexible in terms of displaying an item's look. Anyways, they're working on it, but it's just not highest priority.
  • #29
    really love your ideas, fantastic job
  • #30
    Quote from Bagstone

    Quote from Kallizk

    This is really getting off topic here :P
    i'll try to clarify my viewpoint so we can get OT, what i meant by easy to make this dye is because it does not need new textures or anything, just make it behave like salvage, except instead of getting mats back you get a dye with the destroyed item's name (ie:Dye of Echoing Fury) and when you use that dye on another item of the same type (1h mace in this case) you get an exact copy of that item with a different look (Echoing Fury's look in this case), destroying the previous item also ofc, simple as that...
    I did study some programming and spent alot of time on it, granted i'm no pro, but i'm 99% sure if implemented as i said this dye is one of the easiest things to make.
    Edit: since it behaves like salvage one would also get gems back in the inventory.


    Okay, so then you're talking about transmogrification.

    It's in the making: http://us.battle.net...ic/6679558168#7

    But then it's really something that programmers have to do, not designers. And again, it's not as simple as you think. We don't know if items have a "layout" variable that can easily be switched, they might have to adjust item properties or even part of the engine to be flexible in terms of displaying an item's look. Anyways, they're working on it, but it's just not highest priority.


    No, i'm talking about the dye in the op's post :P although transmog is pretty similar.
    Ty for the old post, but i know they are working on it, never said anything to the contrary.
    Alot of blizz games have an engine that supports that (both starcrafts, warcraft 2 and 3 and diablo 2) no reason why d3 shouldn't.
    Those Who Do Not Know True Pain Cannot Possibly Understand True Peace...
  • #31
    Quote from Kallizk

    I did study some programming and spent alot of time on it, granted i'm no pro, but i'm 99% sure if implemented as i said this dye is one of the easiest things to make.

    You cannot be 99% sure if you have not looked at the source code.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes