Lair Chamber: Storage - operation range increase

Hello,

As the title said, i really think that the operation range for Storage Chambers - Lair Silo - should be drastically increased.
My proposal aims for at least doubling the current operation range.

Reasoning behind this is that the the silos are usually way farther away from the tools than the biped counterparts.
We all know that a biped can place a shop and basically surround it with silos.
This is not the case for lairs. For this reason i think we should have better operation range for lair silos.
If this range is tied with the one for biped silos, I'm sure they won't mind the increased range as well.

For example check the plan for my lair, 1st floor.
You will see the T4 smelter shop has a t1 silo directly connected to it. Basically, that's the closest point i can connect a silo. Also it has marked the position of the Smelter Tool.
Now, last night i was standing right near the smelter tool and the silo connected to the chamber was OUT OF RANGE.
This is utterly disturbing, especially in my case when i was encumbered by a heavy load of Imbued Metal Bars and had the disk full as well.

PS. A range increase should be applied to the Lair Vaults as well.

I'd like to expand this to possibly all lair rooms that can store things. My specific issue is the T6 Lunus Hall. I can be standing IN the hall, on one of the walkways around the edges of the room, and I receive an Out of Range error when trying to access the storage therein. I'm IN the room itself.

That is a very very good point. Thanks walkerglassmire.

Changing the usable range is in part, a design decision, so I can't guarantee it'll happen.

I can explain a bit about how the distance for storage works, though.

Select a storage chamber, then /printpos. Those exact coordinates are the "hot spot" for the chamber (typically the center of the structure, at its lowest boundary). Now, imagine a sphere with a radius of 50m, and the hot spot in the center. You must be inside of this sphere in order to use the storage.

Why a sphere? That's the 3d distance. The only other choice is a cylinder, thousands of meters tall (2-d distance).

The (might require a little def file hacking) command /distanceto3 will give you the 3d distance between you and the selected object. This might be helpful in your situation. You might be able to find a place to stand that is within the machine engagement radius and storage radius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

The (might require a little def file hacking) command /distanceto3 will give you the 3d distance between you and the selected object. This might be helpful in your situation. You might be able to find a place to stand that is within the machine engagement radius and storage radius.

---

This sounds useful. How might one add it to (I assume) Commands_Player?

Thanks for the info Steelclaw.
Still the issue at hand is at least annoying.

It's not like we have the luxury to place the storage chambers at will. The connectivity and the sheer size of some structures make the current range way too small in my oppinion (and not only mine as it seems).

How many dragons you actually see using lairs, even their own lairs, to craft large quantities?
Close to None i'd say, since it is more easy and confortable to reach a biped plot with public shops and plenty of public silos that are always in range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

How many dragons you actually see using lairs, even their own lairs, to craft large quantities?
Close to None i'd say, since it is more easy and confortable to reach a biped plot with public shops and plenty of public silos that are always in range.

---

Twink grinders make dragon lairs invaluable given the machine bonus is slightly higher. Large quanitites means many levels far quicker.

As a maxed out dragon though I do prefer plots as I don't have to be running around the entire lair for parts- I can just silo grab where I'm standing. Crystalshaper excluded.

I'm also really irritated at larger structures like halls. In my T2 Helian hall I have to stand in an exact spot or I get that error message over and over. No comment on how picky the grand halls are.

Any feedback on this matter from the devs team, please? Even a "begone newb" would do (not really :))

Workin in my lair at a T4 Hall (last piece of the 2nd floor that also open access to 3rd and 4th floors) and every nite I had to run all over it for parts stored in various silos. I'm starting to find this very tiersome.

For me it seems that the operating distances for storage chambers (silos but also halls and lairs) were designed with biped plot/structures size in mind not with the impressive sizes a lair and its structures can get to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

Hello,

Chambers - Lair Silo - should be drastically increased.

---

I support this..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

PS. A range increase should be applied to the Lair Vaults as well.

---

But definitely not this.

FYI, this number is not something which can be changed for some structures and not for others. It is a set value that is hard coded, so changing it would change it for every structure in game.

Which, btw, has been done since the introduction of lairs at least once that I know of (the range has been increased, that is).

Thank you for the answer.
As I already said, the current range is enough for biped plots, but please please think to the dragon crafters too (the ones that actually build a lair not only for aesthetics - but to actually use it) - the limitation in silo placement due to lair connectivity and the size of the various chambers.

Hopefully you find reasons worthy for another increase and that it would happen rather sooner than later.


PS. Last post from me in this thread. I'm realizing that I start sounding like a spoiled kid. :rolleyes:

The two simplest approaches are to:
1) Use a 2-d distance at something like 70m. This will allow you to access any storage in your lair, from any chamber in your lair, as long as your x/y coords are less than 70m apart (about halfway across most lairs). The side effect is that you'll be able to access any storage in your lair from outside of the lair, including at 1800m in the air. This may not be such a bad thing, since bipeds already have the ability to access their storage from almost anywhere on their plot. It is a little unrealistic though.

2) Find some new value for the 3-d distance that works acceptably (propose a new value).

This isn't really a vote, so much as just trying to find arguments to accept one of the two approaches, or reject both, before undertaking the alternative -- building in support to configure the range on a per-structure basis.

For me it has never been the operation range that was annoying...

For me it was annoying that those chambers are a one-way street and always require a gazilion corridors...
T2-4 Storage Chambers go 1 or 2 levels down... Recreate the graphics to make the top floor act like a straight corridor (while visually you will walk across a bridge type thing like you stand on now in a T1 atleast), so you can walk through them in a long straight line.

4-ways are too much to ask, but 2 opposite exits would be nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

The two simplest approaches are to:
1) Use a 2-d distance at something like 70m. This will allow you to access any storage in your lair, from any chamber in your lair, as long as your x/y coords are less than 70m apart (about halfway across most lairs). The side effect is that you'll be able to access any storage in your lair from outside of the lair, including at 1800m in the air. This may not be such a bad thing, since bipeds already have the ability to access their storage from almost anywhere on their plot. It is a little unrealistic though.

---

I wouldn't mind this. The positives outweigh the negative for me. To be able to use my lair like a plot would be well worth it. In addition, I'd love to not to have to fight with my halls and stand in the right 5m square spot just to access it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonboy

For me it has never been the operation range that was annoying...

For me it was annoying that those chambers are a one-way street and always require a gazilion corridors...
T2-4 Storage Chambers go 1 or 2 levels down... Recreate the graphics to make the top floor act like a straight corridor (while visually you will walk across a bridge type thing like you stand on now in a T1 atleast), so you can walk through them in a long straight line.

4-ways are too much to ask, but 2 opposite exits would be nice

---

I like this idea very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

1) Use a 2-d distance at something like 70m. This will allow you to access any storage in your lair, from any chamber in your lair, as long as your x/y coords are less than 70m apart (about halfway across most lairs).

---

This is what I'm inclined to favor. As pointed out it'd put storage-accessing capabilities more on-par with biped plots. You might be able to reach "more" silos in a lair because they have multiple floors, but lair silos are harder to find space for in the first place, so I feel it'd even out.

As for the worries about lack of realism, we're already accessing silos (both biped and lair) through walls, around impossible bends, etc. Reality hasn't had a place in silo accessing in years. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

2) Find some new value for the 3-d distance that works acceptably (propose a new value).

---

(Because I'm an obligate Devil's advocate: ) Bump it up to twice what it is now and there'd be some good gains for relatively little work (assuming the distance is one variable that wouldn't have to be repeatedly replaced by hand or anything). 3x if you want to get wild. All those barely out of range structures would now be comfortably in range; at 3x you'd probably find the next level out of silos suddenly reachable from wherever.


One of the biggest objections I can muster to just increasing the Sphere O' Access Radius is that there's an unnecessary burden of guesswork and learning to it. When one is working with a biped plot, you only have to figure out how close is close enough to access things in a 2D context. I never had significant problems working out how close I had to get to things to use them when visiting biped plots. In lairs, you have an extra dimension messing with you. I've been working with my current lair on and off for at least a year by now-- more?-- and I still can't predict where I'll have to stand to access something until I've gone through a trail-and-error period. I have ten tier 1 silos in my lair, and as far as I can figure out the edges of their access radius are tied to the phases of the moon at the time of their completion or something.

I'm probably biased in some direction or another, but again, I'd rather see option 1 to solve the obnoxiousness of storage access. I don't think it'd be too uneven, since while lairs could theoretically stack up a whole bunch of silos in a small x/y footprint, we still have much more stringent silo placement requirements than plots do.


I think double-doored silos would also be amazing-- I could make silo hallways! They'd be SO PRETTY!-- but that sounds like it would involve waaay more work than editing some variables. It can go on the infinite wishlist right ahead of "winged khutits" though, right? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thicklesip

I've been working with my current lair on and off for at least a year by now-- more?-- and I still can't predict where I'll have to stand to access something until I've gone through a trail-and-error period. I have ten tier 1 silos in my lair, and as far as I can figure out the edges of their access radius are tied to the phases of the moon at the time of their completion or something.

---

Now that you mention it, I do have silos that are different. Some I *can* access seemingly across my lair. Others I have to be standing inside them and to the left otherwise I can't access them. There's no real consistency with them but I've gotten so used to the quirks of my own lairs that I forget they were there. The only reason I remember it is beause someone else had complained about them to me during the Delgarath mine project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptress

This sounds useful. How might one add it to (I assume) Commands_Player?

---

Whoops. Missed this. Yes, add to commands_player.def like you would setscale.

Code:

---

        {
                string name = "distanceto2"
                int numParams = 0
        }

        {
                string name = "distanceto3"
                int numParams = 0
        }

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shian

Now that you mention it, I do have silos that are different. Some I *can* access seemingly across my lair. Others I have to be standing inside them and to the left otherwise I can't access them.

---

That used to be the case, but should not any more as of late 2011. If you run into this situation, can you please verify your distance to the chamber in question with /distanceto3? (three, not two) Any distance over 50m should produce a "you are too far away" message. Any distance equal to or under 50m should allow the trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thicklesip

(Because I'm an obligate Devil's advocate: ) Bump it up to twice what it is now and there'd be some good gains for relatively little work (assuming the distance is one variable that wouldn't have to be repeatedly replaced by hand or anything). 3x if you want to get wild. All those barely out of range structures would now be comfortably in range; at 3x you'd probably find the next level out of silos suddenly reachable from wherever.

---

The variable is hard-coded in the simulation, so the less it gets changed the better. :p

Thanks. Your post just gave me some food for thought! The sphere of access is a persistent problem because we just really suck at estimating the boundary of the sphere on a plane that does not intersect the center of the sphere. In other words, ground floor is pretty easy. one floor up, not so much.

A quick glance at the code suggests that this third option is feasible:
1. As long as you're within the 2-d boundary of the plot, you are within range of its storage structures.

2. If you are outside the plot boundary, to access a specific structure, you must be within a 2d square formed by 100m sides and the structure in its center. (This is similar to a 2-d cylinder with a 50m radius, but the shape of the outline on the ground is square, rather than round.)

2(alternate). If you are outside the plot boundary, to access a specific structure, you must be within (2-d distance) 50m of the plot boundary.

Always happy to feed thoughts! I'll go try to print some distances tomorrow when I'm awake and rested and have topped my patience back up for the day. ;) My suspicion, prior to testing, is that whatever the silo decides is the origin points for distance checks is somehow uneven if/when this crops up-- but I'll abstain from judgment until I can reproduce it.

I'll also add, since you nailed WHY 3d shapes are such a pain in terms of access distance-- don't forget that there's a number of not-flat lair rooms. My T6 essence room has the machines elevated somewhat above the bottom floor; T6 stoneworking rooms barely give the proper floors a passing greeting before they take off into a million ramps every which way. And so on. Less an issue with T1-4 machine rooms, but I wanted to point it out.


My initial reaction to option 3 (ideally with suboption 2b: 2D distance check outside plot boundaries) is that it would be really good. "Redesign my lair because I'm no longer painfully constrained by machine room position to get some dang silos in there" good. No more running around lairs and halls trying to figure out where the heck it hid its access point. I could organize structure layout better. Wow. My only caveat at that point is that it must apply to plots too, not just lairs. (Suboption 1: 100m cube around access origin is bad because it sounds even LESS intuitive to use than the current "guess how far you are from an origin you don't know the exact location of" sphere.)

Hrm. On the one hand, like everyone who used to play this game in its heyday I am deeply suspicious of things being made significantly, unilaterally easier on players. On the other hand, I've never found the silo-machine layout/use juggle fun. It's only ever been a nuisance. I don't think the absence of flying into ceilings and dancing between silos and machines would be bad; on the contrary, it'd create more time for fun.

So my current opinion is:
3. = best: abolishes the annoyance of running back and forth around your property, complaints about accessing large structures.
1. = good: significantly cuts down on annoyance.
2. = meh: better than the status quo but underwhelming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thicklesip

My only caveat at that point is that it must apply to plots too, not just lairs.

---

Yes, that would be for plots and lairs.

Quote:

---

Hrm. On the one hand, like everyone who used to play this game in its heyday I am deeply suspicious of things being made significantly, unilaterally easier on players. On the other hand, I've never found the silo-machine layout/use juggle fun. It's only ever been a nuisance.

---

And that's where the actual designers get involved and we work out internally what will actually happen.

I think a good place to start evaluating making things easier is whether or not the reward for doing something difficult or frustrating is proportional to the effort. Or, to put it another way, does the difficulty and reward contribute to the play experience in a positive manner, or is it just taking the "N" out of "FUN"?

Well, it's not really a case of making things easier. More likely to make them slightly more convenient.

It's not likely that ALL are crafting using lairs machines/silos and want to have it easier. It's more on the side of: No one is doing it because it is a nuisance and it is much easier to do it in a human plot.

Out of curiosity is the game capable of detecting whether or not a player is within the borders of a plot/lair? If it is perhaps you could allow access to any structure on the plot when a character is within the border and fall back to the current method of detection for a character outside the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akrion

Out of curiosity is the game capable of detecting whether or not a player is within the borders of a plot/lair? If it is perhaps you could allow access to any structure on the plot when a character is within the border and fall back to the current method of detection for a character outside the border.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

A quick glance at the code suggests that this third option is feasible:
1. As long as you're within the 2-d boundary of the plot, you are within range of its storage structures.

2. If you are outside the plot boundary, to access a specific structure, you must be within a 2d square formed by 100m sides and the structure in its center. (This is similar to a 2-d cylinder with a 50m radius, but the shape of the outline on the ground is square, rather than round.)

---

Steelclaw can see the fuuuutuuuure...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

And that's where the actual designers get involved and we work out internally what will actually happen.

---

Yup, figured. I just wanted to chip in my opinion on whether the current property storage system is fun enhancing or fun reducing.

There's a small difference between what I proposed and what Akiron asked about:

Akiron asks about applying the existing radius of 50m from the storage structure if outside of the plot.

What I proposed essentially says "If you're within 50m of a plot, you are within range of all of its storage".

The former is a less noticeable change for biped plots. Unless you can somehow get more than 50m away from your storage and remain in your plot boundary, you wouldn't notice a difference.

The latter may improve the usability of (and demand for) plots and lairs a bit more than the former, though.

Also note that this change in radius would only affect storage structures; not NPCs or machines.

Let's hash it out a bit more. To help move toward an implementation, please try to get your comments in by 18:00 GMT-7 on Jan 26.

Yeah basically what I was suggesting is that access to structures from outside a plot/lair would remain similar to as it is now while allowing access to every structure when you're physically on the plot, my thoughts basically being so that someone can't just reach/access all the storage on a plot a couple plots over from their plot (or potentially even the storage of another lair from your lair).

The reason why I suggested to keep the radius for when you're outside the plot is simply because it would be annoying to suddenly lose access to all your storage if you stepped outside the plot boundries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akrion

The reason why I suggested to keep the radius for when you're outside the plot is simply because it would be annoying to suddenly lose access to all your storage if you stepped outside the plot boundries.

---

That wouldn't happen regardless of which implementation we went with. Access from outside the plot boundaries is one of the use cases that I'm trying to accommodate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiron

someone can't just reach/access all the storage on a plot a couple plots over from their plot (or potentially even the storage of another lair from your lair).

---

Would that be so bad or "too easy" though?

Keep in mind that the ability to access storage across plots currently exists between any two storage structures within 50m of each other. In the "all storage inside the plot" implementation, one could still stand at the edge of one plot, be in range of all storage on that plot, and potentially be in range of some of the storage of the adjacent plot.

I could see an argument being made that it cheapens the crafting experience, but what is the crafting experience? Should it involve juggling resources between silos with 10-second waits between actions? :p What about pooling the structure resources of your neighbors? ("Hey, since you used your space on shops, want to help me build a bunch of silos?")

There is probably no right answer, though in this case, a reasonable one is enough. This type of discussion helps refine ideas into reasonable ones.

Hey I was just making possible suggestions with the mentality of VI's typical standards. :P I have absolutely no problem with just making it 50 meters from the plot its self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steelclaw

What I proposed essentially says "If you're within 50m of a plot, you are within range of all of its storage".

---

THAT would be marvelous.

I would like to step in for a moment and make sure everyone is fully aware that no changes at all have been promised at this time. This is a discussion only and no decision to even implement it has been made at this time.

We do agree that it is a quite promising discussion :)
And we should also agree that something should be done in respect to this matter.

I'll bring some numbers into it - I know that everyone involved already is aware but it really put things into perspective
For dragon i put the blocksize needed to place the t3/t4 shop and the T1 lair silo and for biped i picked the size of the largest shop (stoneworking) and t1 silo from a nice istaria reference site
As you can see, the range for biped covers a respectable space ( more than 2 shops) while for dragons the distance from the side of the shop to the center of the silo is bigger than silo range (48+12.5=60.5) -- which can also be seen in the first post of this thread when i could not reach the nearby silo from the smelter tool

Code:

---

================================================
|        | silo size | T4 Shop size | Silo range |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Biped  |  6x6            |  19x20      |  50        |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Dragon | 24x24    |  48x48      |  50        |
 ================================================

---

Just an update: the various proposals are being discussed internally. Quiet yes, but don't worry, we didn't forget.

Thanks to you Steel and to the entire team too

Thanks for the update Steelclaw! I figured as much, especially once Amon popped in a page late to remind us that no promises were made.

Removed some posts and edited another.

Let's keep to the topic, please.

Any news on the matter on topic here?
I kept watching with great interest the news regarding the blight patches, but found nothing that touches lair-shaping.
Any hopes? :)

http://community.istaria.com/forum/s...1&postcount=30

Ah, I know I know - no promises have been made, but last word was that it is being discussed internally.
Was wondering if it is still under discussion.