Red Warlock wrote:

About Redlynne's comments on NRD - I mentioned during the video that NRD is the most recently complete district and I think still needs some fine tuning. The grounds are definitely the part that I feel need the most work still, and I think that's a good suggestion about getting more greenery in there. It's not too late to make changes, and as players get into the environment to look around, those are the types of things that we will want to learn from player testing - knowing if there are still some things that need adjustment.

/em sighs in relief
And here I was worried that feedback might be too late!

So going back to the original 2D street map view (with the crazy intersections that made you want to throw your hands up in horror) ...

[img]https://cityoftitans.com/sites/default/files/nrd_streets.jpg[/img]

What would you say to ... redefining ... some of those "streets" as being on multiple different height levels, so it isn't really a surface street map, but rather a "satellite view" of what the actual 3D space looks like from directly above ... meaning that NRD is "more complicated" than a simplistic street map would suggest (welcome to the future!).

For example, to illustrate what I'm talking about here (and yes, I'm going to Blue Sky™ Wishful Thinking this somewhat), let's say that this part of NRD ...

[img]https://i.imgur.com/ZaR2xRB.jpg[/img]

... was perhaps laid out a bit more like the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mall][b]National Mall in Washington D.C.[/b][/url], rather than as a place that needs to have buildings stuffed into every available square foot of space and completely paved over.
You could certainly have SOME buildings in the area, but a lot of it ought to green space and pedestrian walkways (gravel paths?) at ground level.
Please excuse the crudity of the drawing tools I have available to me (Preview application on my 2011 iMac) that I need to use to illustrate what I'm talking about in order to make the concept accessible.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/VcqJjnV.jpg[/img]

The idea is that the building "blocks" I've edited in there functionally abut the skyway lanes up in the air above ground level. This means that the primary entrance to these buildings (for foot traffic) is intentionally designed to use the elevated skyways.
Furthermore, the skyways that you see here are not all at the same height. Ideally you would want a ramping slope of elevations leading away from the district center (low close to the "atom" and higher farther away). Something like this ...

[img]https://i.imgur.com/s4SjCnB.jpg[/img]

Suddenly, those circular bits at the top start to make sense, because they're elevation loops between different heights of (walkable) skyways. Hopefully I can illustrate this properly/adequately using colors.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/pJeCBvW.jpg[/img]

The "narrow bits" of the "atom" could be left as green spaces ... possibly even managed tree parkland spaces, but with "electron orbitals" of walkable skyways ABOVE THE TREES (creating Treehouse Effect™) when looking out over the canopy of the forest below from the skyways over them in a 6 pointed star(-ish) arrangement. If you REALLY don't want to have to deal with intersections that have nasty angles to them for the "electron orbitals" ... there's no reason to have to keep all of the ellipticals at the same height.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/2Y4NyYm.jpg[/img]

Once you break yourself of the fundamental notion that the "street layout" of the original street map has to all be on the ground (2D) and start thinking in terms of "paving the sky" with walkable skyways (3D), you don't necessarily need to have have ground floor walk in access spaces anymore to buildings. Instead, you can simply have them "bridge connect" to the walkable skyways instead, leaving all the space that would otherwise be taken up with transport infrastructure (roads, rails, etc.) at ground level "open" for use as parks and green spaces in between all the buildings.

If this mode of thinking that I've laid out here (with Potato Drawing Skillz) "makes sense to you" as an Environmental Artist and/or inspires you to rethink how NRD could potentially be structured in 3D terms ... let's just say that I'm hardly averse to volunteering to join MWM (and I don't have any professional conflicts of interest due to non-compete clauses). As to whether or not my 11+ year old computer could even run the UE5 tools through Boot Camp is a different question ... one of those "the spirit is willing but the hardware is weak" kind of deals. At worst, I might have to do something akin to a "zoom call/screen sharing" collaboration type of thing where kibitzing and collaboration can happen in real time (just schedule and go). My point though is that I've gotten REALLY GOOD at architecting in 3D to build SG Base Space(s) in City of Heroes (using the limited base building tools there) and being able to "make spaces tell their own stories" just by looking at them and intuitively figuring out what's going on there.

Red Warlock wrote:

Gas stations we do have in some places, but I can add more of those too, especially now that we have nanite and it's not going to add weight to have those placed all over the place...

Don't want gas stations on every street corner in the city, but places like Alexandria, Old Bradford and Aurora should certainly have them ... while I wouldn't expect to see that many gas stations in Downtown.
Conversely, I would expect to see parking garages with charging stations inside them in Downtown, as well as perhaps a 40 stalls of superchargers at a single location in Old Bradford and/or Aurora (with easy highway access), plus presumably another similar location (maybe larger?) or two on the southern/eastern side of the inlet bay. Putting a bit 40+ stalls supercharger location near restaurants and entertainment (movie theaters, museums, sports bars, etc.) would certainly be the obvious consideration there ... although, for historical reasons, such a site doesn't necessarily have to be "perfectly optimized" and could instead be the 2nd or 3rd best possible location (because land acquisition for the 1st best location was not available in time for construction).

Likewise, if you're going to put [b]LETSA[/b] Electric Semi-trucks on the roads, you could have megacharger stations in the warehouse district(s) where pickups and deliveries get made, particularly around multi-modal transport hubs (such as Ironport across the bay).

Red Warlock wrote:

I'm about to head out of town for the weekend but wanted to respond to a couple things you mentioned there.

It's been a week.
Were you planning on updating the banner at the top of every page to remove the announcement about a (now) week past twitch stream?

After all ... a little follow up goes a long way ...

Red Warlock wrote:

I'm not following what the banner announcement is that you are referring to.

That's because someone else came along and fixed the banner (after I mentioned it) before you could get to it.

Red Warlock wrote:

First, I actually feel like the roads/pathways came out pretty good, (despite deviating from the original maps a bit), and they actually are layered in heights so that they create entrances to some building spaces at higher elevations... It's one of the aspects of NRD I think when you get in and have a chance to run around in, the pathways really are fun and 'feel' right (at least to me).

I'm ... less convinced by this argument.
I will certainly grant you that you've put in a METRIC [b][i]{{redacted}}[/i][/b] OF EFFORT into the NRD that you had in your stream ... because there is a lot of impressive stuff there. However, there are a lot of details that "don't look right" or which don't mesh well together when put into actual execution.

For example:
The skyways look ... impossible ... by which I mean that their post and lintel construction looks absurdly failure prone.
You've got these big FLAT bridge sections held up by spindly little toothpicks (in the center) that are spaced way too far apart to support the weight of the overhead bridges. What happens when a "stiff breeze" (let alone a Hurricane Atlas) comes along?
Short answer ... those skyway bridges turn into "wings" that uproot themselves from the ground and get flung into any nearby buildings.

Additionally, those skyways "work" when you've got clear skies and it's not too windy ... but because they're open to the sky (and I'm presuming you walk/bike around on top of them) as soon as the weather turns "mucky" they become death traps (higher winds at elevation, no protection from the elements, etc.).

In other words, I look at what you've got built in those skyways and it just LOOKS fundamentally WRONG in multiple ways.
Yes, they might be following (some) of the original map plan, but as Civil Engineering public works ... they just fail.

I have some notions on an alternative (which I'm thinking would work better), but any kind of realization/implementation of that would require both conversation and coordination.
I'm willing to do that, but I'm not assuming any kind of commitment on your end from the get-go (because the scale of the Urban Renewal necessary is going to be an immense task).
So the question then becomes ... do you want to have that conversation and see where it might lead? (Y/N)

Red Warlock wrote:

It's the ground areas between the roads that I think need some more love. They just look like they need 'something'.

That 'something' you're missing ... is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_green_space][b]GREEN SPACE[/b][/url].

NRD ought to be a place that "harmonizes" nature with high tech, the same way that [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Park][b]Apple Park[/b][/url] does, so that you don't wind up with a "sterile desert" of concrete, steel, glass, tile and everything else you've used to completely pave over the ground in order to make it utterly lifeless. As I mentioned above, having skyways lets you "pave the sky" (instead of the ground) while keeping the green space underneath.

Red Warlock wrote:

And I think the way you shared the building blocks sitting on top of the ground between the roads might be a good thing for me to consider in reworking the grounds some.

That was just a function of "get lemons, make lemonade" when it comes to making use of the street layout.
The excessively complicated part is working out the "3D-ness" of the skyways such that from a directly overhead view they present the original street plan (or as close as you can get to it) when the design intent works out towards being "almost all bridge work" rather than surface streets at ground level.

The follow up to that is then needing to figure out how those skyway bridges are supposed to "work" in a practical sense when it comes to Civil Engineering for all weather conditions.
You don't want the skyway bridges to "only be usable" while in daylight when you have fair weather.
What happens when it is foggy?
At night?
What about wind and rain?

Now, it's one thing to say "I don't think what you've got is fit for purpose" ... and another thing to say "I think I know what would be" ... so hear me out on this.

---

What you've got right now is basically single center post bridge work for pedestrian/bicycles only it looks like (not cars or freight trucks) set up in a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_and_lintel][b]Post and Lintel[/b][/url] fashion.

What you NEED instead ... is an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch][b]Arch[/b][/url] construction format, with 2 posts extending to the ground. With an arch, you can put a flat surface on top (the skyway) which actually overhangs the posts out to the sides (so the arch is narrower under the flat top). The posts are straight vertical, enabling them to have exterior elevators (and other access) on the outside of the support posts. The vertical access elevators run from ground level all the way up to the "topside" of the skyway above the arch. Extremely tall posts for the highest skyway sections include flying buttresses (I'm thinking 2 per vertical post at 60º angles outwards for strength and lateral stability) which do not exceed the width of the skyway "plaza" on top.

The arch construction then lets you build a suspended monorail under the center of the arch (for convenient fast transit) and then have a pair of "glass walled" tubes on either side of the suspended monorail suspended inside the arch at the same height as the monorail. These "tubes under the arch" provide public walkways and access "like a sidewalk" (literally) which are sheltered and protected from the elements (wind, rain, etc.). There are "stations" along the monorail route where the monrail will stop so that side doors can open between the monorail and the two glassed in tubes on either side, for boarding and exiting the monorail. Access to buildings in the district essentially branch off from these "glass walled" tubes on either side of the monorail line in the center under the arches between sections of the skyway.

The monorails aren't going to have the "grade tolerance" needed to shift elevation levels between the skyways, but the glass tubed walkways underneath can certainly do so. The combination then becomes one where you use the "big circles" as alternative routing for elevation changes by pedestrians, but not by monorails. The monorails simply "stay at their level" of elevation in the plan (keeping them "flat" for travel) and you just stack skyways on top of each other. That way, you can do something like this (vertically):

Skyway Plaza
Arch
Monorail
Post
Post
Post
Skyway Plaza
Arch
Monorail
Post
Post
Post
Ground

Idea being that you have 1+ arches and skyway plazas topping those arches above a single section, giving you a multi-level skyway at two different elevations.
You can't "do that" if you've got a single post in the center supporting bridges like you've got in the current iteration of NRD. The single post (in the center) construction of the skyways necessarily limits you to only building a single plaza at a single height, while using a twin post with arches system will enable "stacking" of skyways vertically on top of each other in (flat) horizontal planes, using elevator vertical access up and down the posts to change elevations.

Which is to say ... I've got an idea of how to execute the notion and concept ... but I lack access to the requisite 3D tools to demonstrate the idea "convincingly" at this stage, hence the desire to open a dialogue and conversation on the topic of this "level" of Civil Engineering and City Planning.
If you're amenable to such inputs, I'm reasonably certain that there are ways we could coordinate, discuss and bounce ideas around ... but that requires a commitment (from both of us) to pursue that dialogue.

So as I asked above, are you interested in pursuing such an option? (Y/N)
It's a big commitment (redesigning NRD, again?) and would take time and effort to achieve. Since I don't know your schedule and/or willingness to commit to anything, let alone how such communications and World Building could be coordinated, I'm just left with Blue Sky Dreams at this point and nowhere to go with them.

All I do know is that the NRD shown in your Twitch stream last week does not live up to my expectations or mental imaginings of what that part of the City of Titans [i]ought to be like[/i].

Your move, Red Warlock (and MWM more broadly).

Red Warlock wrote:

Redlynne - There's a lot here and I thank you for your thought and detailed critique and even more, your ideas for how to improve. I'm very open to the ideas and even the reworking. But I would like to approach it in this way.

And here I was thinking you were going to blow me off or make various and sundry excuses for why "nothing can be done" (because it's too late to change anything, it's too much work, etc. etc. etc., you know the drill).
Also, to be clear ... I have no desire for you to DROP EVERYTHING to devote undivided attention to this issue!

Patience is a perfectly acceptable response (in part because it gives more time to iterate and refine concepts and ideas in an analysis of alternatives).

Red Warlock wrote:

I think that those changes can be worked on after we make some further progress on other parts of the city. For instance, I'm halfway through building the airport right now, and I'd rather continue finishing the airport so we have a lot more area in what we have to share soon with everyone than re-engineer NRD (at this moment). I'm also starting work on Aurora, and I'd like to get those two districts moving, plus Rhinehart Park, and then return to NRD to make further changes.

THIS is a PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE response.
I have [b]no problem[/b] with needing to Take A Number And Get In Line for any kind of rework of NRD.
Circling back to NRD after you've "cleaned your plate" out at the Airport, Aurora and Rhinehart Park is an understandable and even DESIRABLE state of affairs.

However, in the spirit of "help me help you" there is obviously going to need to be a sort of common "descriptive language" used to conceptualize, formulate, present and explain ideas so that we're "in sync" and can work from a common frame of reference to discuss things (without getting in each other's way or causing more problems than the effort is worth). There are going to be constraints on what can be done (starting with polygon count and the like) when attempting to architect stuff and I would prefer such interactions to be fruitful rather than frustrating (for what ought to be obvious reasons). Finding that "harmony level" isn't going to be an instantaneous thing, or even an assumed thing ... hence the desire for a dialogue and conversation to refine concepts and ideas to improve on them before attempting to execute any of them within NRD in actual 3D.

In that respect, I feel no need to "wait my turn" with respect to theorycrafting and blue sky fantasizing about how to solve the problem of redesigning NRD.
EXECUTING any revisions ... however ... should definitely WAIT until you can circle back to NRD. That is both fair and reasonable, just to clear.

Red Warlock wrote:

At the pace I'm going, I believe I will have those remaining districts built in three to six months, and that's our entire launch area. (I'm NOT saying launch will be ready in three-six months, just that the districts we are building for launch I *think* I could have built in that time).

That's actually faster than I would have assumed. If I'm reading you right, you're talking about getting at least a first pass draft of 3 zones in 3-6 months. That's incredibly fast work!

Red Warlock wrote:

Somewhere along that way in those three to six months, I am hoping (and expecting, if all goes to plan) that players will get their first chance to come into the game and explore all of these built areas. For each district of the city that has been built, I consider all of them at this point to be a "phase one" stage in that district's building. I am going to need to go back and rework lots of the city areas.

I too am assuming that districts will require "bug fixing" and editing touch ups once "unfamiliar newbs" start crawling over every single part of the city that you have built up to this point. The sheer density and complexity alone of what you've done stipulates that there are going to be "errors" SOMEWHERE on the maps that will require corrections and rework. That's the point of Beta Testing, after all.

Red Warlock wrote:

Some of it is 'next phase' stuff, like making cars, blimps, rollercoasters etc. move throughout the districts. But some of it, I fully expect to be reworking some of what was built given feedback from players.

Perfectly reasonable and to be expected.
There's going to need to be a LOT of playtesting!

Red Warlock wrote:

NRD I expect to be something that will need some serious revision in this regard.

Agreed.
Hence why I'm placing my marker this early that I'm of the opinion that NRD is going to need a full blown Urban Renewal effort to almost completely overhaul the district in its entirety.

The individual buildings themselves may be perfectly fine ... but some rearrangement and reorganization of their placement and surroundings would seem to be completely in order.

Red Warlock wrote:

Building an amusement park or a downtown district are challenging, but building the future is even more challenging because people's vision of the future can range from Star Trek to Blade Runner to the Jetsons. Things like green space fit in the utopian future of Star Trek, but not as much in dystopian futures like Blade Runner. And players expectations for realism in the future also vary. (How much do you need to show barriers and guard rails for air scooters in the future?) There is a lot more room for interpretation on designing an urban future than other things we are going to build.

[b]“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”[/b]
[i]- Yogi Berra[/i]

I would stipulate that NRD ought to have more of a [url=https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/New_York_City][/b]Union Central in The Orville[/b][/url] kind of vibe to it. ([url=https://i.imgur.com/QdRlihb.jpg][b]Imgur link[/b][/url])
Yes, it looks futuristic ... utopian even ... but it still incorporates the "everyday" of green spaces into the science fantasy of a high tech future. A big part of what contributes to that impression is that greenery is incorporated into the buildings (rooftops, facades, etc.) in addition to "paving the sky" with elevated skyways.
I would like to think of NRD as the "hopeful" futuristic district in the City of Titans.

Meaning you can have a "more dystopian" futuristic district (more in line with Blade Runner and/or Akira, Bubblegum Crisis, etc.) south of the inlet bay dividing the city somewhere, giving you (at least) two bites at the apple of futurism in different regions of the city.
The mistake would be putting all your eggs in one basket (so to speak), with regards to Visions of the Future.

Red Warlock wrote:

So, I want to finish the airport, Aurora and Rhinehart Park before I go back and do major revising. But in the meantime, I would be happy to explore with you ideas for how we could rebuild parts of NRD.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/FMUMwOT.gif[/img]

Red Warlock wrote:

Things you are suggesting sound like a major project of reengineering, which I'm open to, if it seems like there are some do-able ideas being brought forward that we can incorporate.

I'm starting with an assumption of Urban Renewal.
Not quite a clean slate, but certainly reverting to "bare land" and working up from there for a lot of it. I'm assuming that large portions of what you've built can be "reused" and relocated ... but I figure that redoing the "access planning" of the skyways (and everything associated with them) is best done by laying them out FIRST in an otherwise empty district and then "fitting" the buildings into the spaces in between all those skyways. Stuff like the abandoned rail station on the ground could be left as is (or tuned up as having been there "first" before everything else got built), so it's not a complete Baby vs Bath Water kind of operation ... but I would like to revert to First Principles and go back to the original street view overhead map and work that out in 3D above the greenbelt and then figure out where to put in the buildings afterwards.

So I'm not talking about "a tweak here and a tweak there" for minor touch ups.
I'm thinking in terms of a 90% rework ... which is NOT a small task to be undertaken lightly!

Red Warlock wrote:

So, please do feel free to PM me with more ideas and I'd be happy to explore the concepts with you. It took the lore team many months (maybe longer than that) to develop the initial plans for NRD. If you want to share ideas with me for how to reengineer it, I'm happy to explore those ideas to see where they make sense. I just don't want to stop the progress being made on developing other parts of the city right now. (And honestly, I'm a little exhausted from building the first round of NRD and need to dive into other areas of the city for a little while to keep inspired and building).

I concur.
Come back to NRD ... later.

For right now, direct your efforts towards the Airport, Aurora and Rhinehart Park.
All I desire from you (right now) is a willingness to hear me out and consider and analysis of alternatives. Ideally, what I've got in mind is something you can intuitively grasp and realize relatively simply/easily (ha!) in 3D [i]when the time comes[/i] ... which will be months from now.

My tools to illustrate such ideas as I've got are effectively "potato level" ... but hopefully I can work around those limitations to present you with ideas and concepts that start to fall into place as a more cohesive "vision" than the daunting confusion you were presented with when looking at the original overhead plan rendered in 2D.

[img]https://cityoftitans.com/sites/default/files/nrd_streets.jpg[/img]

I figure than any efforts on my part to convey that vision and "sense" of NRD in 3D will require multiple iterations and rounds of feedback (because the first draft is rarely the best!), so having TIME to do multiple iterations.
One thing is definitely for sure though ... there is going to HAVE TO BE some "creative reinterpretation" of that "street" layout for the district in order to turn it into something that's not only usable but which also makes sense.

Red Warlock wrote:

Again, I really do want to hear your ideas and talk through what can be improved in NRD. I hope that thinking of this as a discussion for the next phase of work on NRD, to be started in 3-6 months, is something that you (and anyone here who has ideas of how to improve it) would be interested in. For now, I need to put down NRD for a bit, get other stuff built, get a fresh perspective on NRD again, and dive back into further work in improving it.

How does that sound to you?

It sounds reasonable ... equitable ... and is honestly more than I was expecting.
I accept your proposed terms. ^_~