'Finish line' or something

There should be no official method to show the finish line, it should be obvious to the runner, assuming the mapper does a good job. He can make it look however he wants, as it's always been: text on a wall, a line on the ground, simply obviously the end of the map.

Yes let's stick to how it's always been and try not to change stuff at the risk of improving things! .. ps: this isn't a "best practice" thing or to force mappers to do anything, this would be done automatically by the game.

Not sure about the end, maybe just some particle effect like in Portal? I did have an idea for the beginning though. I've been trying some surf maps in cs:go and I'm not sure how it works, but some maps have text scrolling on the floor at the start of the map. I thought it might be cool to have the name of the map there to mark the start line.

Got a youtube vid or something of what you're thinking of? Never actually played portal..

Funny, me and pneu discussed this just 2 or 3 days ago. The idea we both agreed would be nice is to have the remaining time (a countdown) compared to your personal best*, somewhat transparent, floating on the finish line. He also suggested the same idea would be implemented on checkpoints..*This bring me to another point, (perhaps best brought up in it's seperate thread); Will we have options to choose who's time our checkpoints/finish line reference? In Warsow we have a /diffref command, allowing you to choose either personal, world or server.Personal comparing to your personal best.World comparing to the 1st placeServer comparing to the best time set on any given server since the map was voted. (Though in the 1.5 update, we meant to change this to compare it to the best time of anyone currently on the server)edit: Oh, and we also have /diffref player <playerID>, however this only works for people currently connected to the same server as you, which makes it pretty useless. Thouggh it wouldn't be if you could choose to compare to anyone from the toplist, regardless of if they're currently connected or not.

or ..no? :P

O_O it's a pretty good game. I tried to recreate the effect in some of my maps. Here it is very briefly in a video + the explanation from the game: T: Posting links is also a bitch on this forum. EDIT: Worth noting that in Portal it's not a flat effect. If you stand in the beam you can kind see the particles flowing through you. Round 5 in DFWC2012 also had a cool effect towards the end: http://youtu.be/rtYYQL27vUM?t=33s

http://youtu.be/hln-D2WETRg?t=25s

Well, if it's a standard finish line that encompasses the entire width/height of a standard hallway (most common fashion), then a floating text or shader animation might be fine. But what if it's an odd setup? What if the finish line is on a tiny platform, on a map like boris_pie? Or if it's really small? On the ground? What if more than one face is visible?While I don't really disagree wholly with the idea of having some way to make the end trigger visible, I don't think there's anything that will work in all scenarios, and not look  stupid in some. The fact that you can see triggers ought to be enough.

Yes let's stick to how it's always been and try not to change stuff at the risk of improving things!

by Dinius

This seems to be a common motto xD

Regarding what KittenIgnition said; Will ProjectRIK allow maps made for other games?If false, then mappers can just account for how the finish line looks in RIK and map accordingly.If true, then I still don't really see a problem with having the finish line animated in some way, wether it be some sort of flashy animation, like stealth suggested, a timer, like I suggested, or both.If it's a "landing" finish (finish on the ground) the animation can just be horizontal, especially if there's some sort of glow to it, so that it's not limited to 2 dimensions, it would likely still look good. Same goes for multiple finish lines, multiple faces, and wether the finish line is big or small. Or am I missing something?

In general the goal is to not port maps from other games. We don't really want all those defrag maps ported to RIK too. Then again I guess Piercy already did that, so I have no idea on what we stand now.And before someone asks why don't we want thousands of defrag maps in RIK, the answer is simple: We've played through them all and want to play something new.

We've had this talk many times with Dinius, but I never remember the outcome of it. My view for allowing comparison to other person's checkpoint times is NEVER. Half of the fun is to find your own route, and most annoying thing in a game like this is when you find unique route, but someone else sees it and just strafes it better. If every players' checkpoint times were visible to anyone, it would only make "route-stealing" easier, as you could pinpoint where the "skip" happens. It is enough for you to know the players' overall times to beat, there's absolutely nothing fair in breaking them down in steps.

We've had this talk many times with Dinius, but I never remember the outcome of it. My view for allowing comparison to other person's checkpoint times is NEVER. Half of the fun is to find your own route, and most annoying thing in a game like this is when you find unique route, but someone else sees it and just strafes it better. If every players' checkpoint times were visible to anyone, it would only make "route-stealing" easier, as you could pinpoint where the "skip" happens. It is enough for you to know the players' overall times to beat, there's absolutely nothing fair in breaking them down in steps.

by huPo

I partly agree, but some alterations must be made to keep that fair, though. Something like letting the player choose wether to be a public or private runner, perhaps. Since, otherwise, you'll have an advantage in being on the same server as the rec-holder when he's playing. Being able to see which route he uses through spec, or just watching him extrenally.

This also is a question of mindset toward the game.A big part of the warsow community feel as though they work together in trying to achieve the best time possible. Suggesting routes to each other, comparing times with eachother and watching eachothers demos etc.Another part keeps everything as private as possible, stops playing as soon as someone's spectating them, never watches other peoples routes, gets very frustrated about route-suggestions and strictly avoid our "demo" server (a server we have that automatically records and uploads the best run performed on that server for each map)The necessary differences would be, that I can see is:A private runner can not be spectated (preferably he cannot spectate either?). He's invisible to other players on the server.It should not be an option to compare to his checkpoints.The opposite goes for a "public" runner.If a private/puiblic option is available, maybe we'd have a good chance of everyone getting what they want out of the game?

I partly agree, but some alterations must be made to keep that fair, though. Something like letting the player choose wether to be a public or private runner, perhaps. Since, otherwise, you’ll have an advantage in being on the same server as the rec-holder when he’s playing. Being able to see which route he uses through spec, or just watching him extrenally.

This also is a question of mindset toward the game.A big part of the warsow community feel as though they work together in trying to achieve the best time possible. Suggesting routes to each other, comparing times with eachother and watching eachothers demos etc.Another part keeps everything as private as possible, stops playing as soon as someone’s spectating them, never watches other peoples routes, gets very frustrated about route-suggestions and strictly avoid our “demo” server (a server we have that automatically records and uploads the best run performed on that server for each map) The necessary differences would be, that I can see is:A private runner can not be spectated (preferably he cannot spectate either?). He’s invisible to other players on the server.It should not be an option to compare to his checkpoints. The opposite goes for a “public” runner.If a private/puiblic option is available, maybe we’d have a good chance of everyone getting what they want out of the game?

by QaleQ

That sounds like a dream. Cool idea.

Will not allow CONVERSION of maps from df to RIK. But "re-mastering" as pier did, i.e. either re-making it or just converting the .map and working form that. Fixing up things to be better with RIK physics, re-styling it, etc, is fine.OBVIOUSLY the mapper could either set a special key for the trigger to ignore auto-effects, or the game could detect a too small trigger or whatever as well...

For the last few years I've only really played games (or mods) I've made myself :P:P But yeah, cool stuff. Newest dfwc map, the 2074 one, has sth very similar to that portal thing too :)

Needs some thinking.. Some people will most certainly like the "private" kind of stuff..

Every player has option to block spectators and become invisible whenever they want. It's something decided years ago.

I realize we've gone off track with this, but not being able to port maps from a game such as Q3 is a bit of a waste, it doesn't matter that we've played them, some maps would be really fun with new physics, mainly for freestyle IMO.Now back to timers: You can allegedly already show triggers, so there's no need for an automatic style for the finish line. It's already there in the form of what I imagine would be similar to a translucent red texture.Maybe a mapper could have map-specific override shaders, so they can make their triggers look however they want?

checkered flag see through texture.

Methinks we'll replace that tjmod functionality with just a "private" setting along the lines explained by mr ale. So no separate specblock and hide etc commands, just a "private" setting, and if you use that one, your checkpoint times are hidden as well :)

Do add specblock however. Often there's only one player you don't want to see you.

But then you might hurt that person's feelings if ONLY that person isn't allowed to spectate you.

Will you be able to compare checkpoints freely to any public player?If so, being able to somehow see who's private and who isn't makes sense, so that you dont have to try to compare checkpoints to a player, and possibly fail, to know wether he's private or not.I also think the privacy setting should be on a per-run basis (as in, db would read your privacy setting upon setting the time), to make it as fair as possible to the community.If you play public for a few months before deciding you want to go private, your old public runs should stay public. Otherwise the people that had access to compare checkpoints to- or see you perform your old runs, could have an unfair advantage on those maps.---On a sidenote; I retract my idea that private players should not be able to spectate others.If you care about why, read below, otherwise you can ignore the rest of this post :PAt first I thought a "private" flag could work as somewhat of a status symbol, showing you achieved your time without external help. But the more I think about it, the more I realize it could never reliably mean that.Even if they couldn't spec/see others, people could still:

• go public momentarily, "steal" route ideas and go back to private to set a rec.
• hear others talk about routes in teamspeak/chat.
• see routes in uploaded demos/videos of people's routes.

I can think of some solutions to the first two problems (though not any "fool proof" ones), but the third one won't ever be "fixable". Therefore, being private can never guarantee no outside help was used, and thus shouldn't be associated with any extra status.

Yes, naturally.Private mode would of course be on a per-run basis.E.g. only a list of player's time available for comparison or sth like that.A once set public run will also remain public, yes.--Yes, I agree, never wanted to prevent priv ones from speccing in the first place:P The main point of the private kind of stuff is to hide your route the times you find a "special" route you'd rather keep to yourself. This system has existed in some form since 09 at least, and has worked pretty good. Will add some features and simplifications to it and stuff will be good :)