1. #31
    ozy's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,791
    I think an easy way around a beta testing scenario for ugc tracks would be to use a "beta" tag in the way the "ninja" tag is used and would put those tracks into a dedicated beta feed.

    Ideally a beta track would then be held from showing up in a creators search feed somehow (that would be the only tricky/extra coding part really?)
    Or an automatic or timed removal could be figured out somehow I reckon

    If uploading a beta/test version I'd imagine it would only be uploaded to gain certain info from certain individuals and it's presence in a beta feed could easily be communicated manually.

    But best to keep them out of regular feeds altogether imho.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    Haven't been on here in a long time.

    But once a trials player, always a trials player

    I'd personally love to put my own little addition in the UGC section by suggesting the ability to import our own track editor assets into the game itself (PC only, unfortunately) and have the ability to upload said assets to a track central style database! Now of course this is highly ambitious ontop of all of the UGC that is already present, but sometimes I feel that the pre-defined objects can't quite nail that desired look within a track.
    Being an motivation deprived game development student, this would also personally give me the oppertunity to flex my asset creation skills!

    Love to here what you guys think
    Share this post

  3. #33
    UbiSkyBear's Avatar Community Manager
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    334
    Originally Posted by StormPsykoz Go to original post
    Is the object scaling feature going to be implemented in Fusion?
    Unfortunately we cannot implement a scaling feature in Fusion as it would impact many aspects of the game with some pretty big consequences. For example, the subtle impact it would have on the physics within levels would be enough to break every replay in the game.

    Originally Posted by StormPsykoz Go to original post
    Is the scaling set to only 3 measures (50%-100%-150%)? Or will we be able to choose any measure in that threshold?
    The image is just an example of a scaled object. The goal with the feature is to allow users to scale objects freely.

    Originally Posted by mrjorts Go to original post
    One thing I'll say on the editor objects topic is that I think it's cool to assemble a wish list to see what objects are the most requested, but I think it will always be important to be able to re-envision the objects in the editor to fit your theme, and that was one of the biggest differences between Evo and Fusion for me. In Fusion all the objects were smooth and glowy and futurey in a way that was hard to work around. Objects in Evo were more "generic", but they didn't draw attention to themselves so it gave track creators more freedom to make subtle suggestions if they wanted the track to feel one way or another.
    Thank you. This type of feedback is something we are thinking about. It’s important to us to provide a wide variety of objects so that builders of all skill levels have the tools they need to bring their ideas to life.

    Originally Posted by mrjorts Go to original post
    To add to the scaleable parts idea, which is really useful, I think it would be neat if primes could be parameterized in more ways, like being able to put a length and separate diameters for each end of the part so that cylinders could become cones and squares could become pyramids of different dimensions. Kind of like the Kerbal Space Program Procedural Parts mod, if anyone is familiar with that.
    This is a very interesting suggestion. We will be happy to discuss the possibilities with our 3D team.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    Some smaller suggestions for the editor:

    Extra buttons / Change bike while testing

    LB/RB = cycle checkpoints = great
    D-pad up/down = cycle drivelines = rarely necessary
    But for testing with different bikes, you must quit testing, navigate to the laggy bike selection, restart testing... I wish that was easier.
    Option 1) Use D-pad up/down to cycle bikes instead (only if loading bike models is really fast, otherwise cycling through them will be annoying)
    Option 2) Open a bike selection menu while holding a button (or D-pad down) - for example when pressing B you reset to checkpoint as usual, but when holding B for half a second a circular bike selection (like a "weapon wheel" in action games) comes up and I can quickly select a different one with the right stick, then reset to the checkpoint with a different bike.

    Default bike

    Currently we only have the option to allow several bikes and players will default to the last bike they used before loading our track, or we allow only one bike to enforce it.
    It would be nice to be able to allow several bikes, but define one bike as the default one.
    For example, I would like to release Rabbit-tracks but still allow players to use the Viper if they hate the Rabbit. But currently nobody will look for the Rabbit if the Viper is allowed and selected by default.
    Also please don't default to the Roach as test bike in the editor when I am building a track where it is not even an allowed bike...

    Confirm allowed bikes

    When publishing a track, medal times are displayed on the final screen to make sure you didn't forget to set them.
    Do the same with the list of allowed bikes to make sure we didn't forget to uncheck impossible ones we never tested.
    Share this post

  5. #35
    no response to any of my suggestions?
    Share this post

  6. #36
    XXXSTEPH59XXX's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    443
    Very good ideas were proposed by the members, one would need that another system of notation of track I like, I like not.
    I think that would be needed a system of notation of tracks as Trials Evolution.
    For the part(party) editor he(it) would be interest to be able to modify the color of clouds and stars.
    This could inspire creator's large number on the atmospheres of their tracks.
    Share this post

  7. #37
    First congrats to all people that got the honor to work for redlynx and Rishaanvb in perticular as his advice was always helpfull and honest.

    For suggestions i think most has already been said as for myself i would love to see a feature that allows to put reverb and delay effect on every sound we want.
    And if i can do some wishfull thinking adding a lowpass/highpass filter and an ADSR envolope would be icing on the cake but even just a reverb would allow for lots of different atmospheres to be created.
    Share this post

  8. #38
    UbiSkyBear's Avatar Community Manager
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    334
    Thank you for all of the suggestions so far. We continue to share them with the teams to determine what is possible. This is a process that can take a lot of time so unless it’s something that we’ve already discussed and have an answer for then we won’t be able to respond to many individual suggestions, at least not quickly. We did see a few things we can respond to now though:

    Online Co-op Editing
    A few of you mentioned this and it was touched upon in the article and the podcast. This type of feature is simply too big. Sadly, we do not have the time or resources to develop co-op track editing. However other features that could help players collaborate have been discussed. Along with some of the other suggestions you’ve all made here we have some other possibilities regarding creative collaboration.

    Originally Posted by Jonny Go to original post
    Track Challenges
    The level of logic knowledge required to actually implement such a system from scratch (as well as the time it takes) is FAR greater than simply having a single logic tile dedicated to track challenges (which is how they work in single player levels).
    There is no magic challenge tile in the editor that builds challenges for you. All of the in-game challenges in Fusion are built using the same logic tools you all have in the editor at home. The only difference is the final step which tracks the challenges out of the track. If your challenge is to find some hidden objects, for example, you still need to build the logic that recognizes when you’ve found an object and keeps track of how many you found. Even if we are able to add a challenge-feature for UGC tracks, the builder would still need to create the logic to support that challenge.

    In-Game Economy
    This is a very big and complex topic but improving the in-game economy is something we are conscious of. However, since this impacts much more than just UGC then it will have to be a topic for another day. What we can say now is that we have to be very careful about how we allow players to transfer in-game currency between each other. If any aspect of the system is open to abuse it could easily negate any effort we make to improve the in-game economy. It’s a lot to think about, and we’ve had many ideas, so expect to hear more on this later on.

    Lastly, we’d just like to mention that we see a lot of suggestions here that have been discussed in the past. A few are even features that at one time or another were in the plans for previous Trials games but had to be cut. Thank you again for all of your suggestions and your incredible passion for Trials.
    Share this post

  9. #39
    Originally Posted by UbiSkyBear Go to original post
    There is no magic challenge tile in the editor that builds challenges for you. All of the in-game challenges in Fusion are built using the same logic tools you all have in the editor at home. The only difference is the final step which tracks the challenges out of the track. If your challenge is to find some hidden objects, for example, you still need to build the logic that recognizes when you’ve found an object and keeps track of how many you found. Even if we are able to add a challenge-feature for UGC tracks, the builder would still need to create the logic to support that challenge.
    I know that, What i meant was there is a single event tile that you basically trigger when a player completes a challenge. Without this, players have to basically build their own interface on top of the already required logic for the actual easter egg. There aren't many people who can do this, and even most of those who can (like myself) have no interest in doing it when it offers only a local challenge. You may use the argument that there's no difference, but in the mind of the player, someone is FAR more likely to be interested in a challenge that is saved and trackable over some little local challenge that is removed the second they leave the track.

    That being said, you didn't completely shoot down the idea of track challenges in the upcoming game, so maybe there is hope...
    Share this post

  10. #40
    I totally agree with Jonny. It makes challenges way more interesting if they can be checked off and persisted as part of your track performance, like for the in-game tracks in Fusion.

    For example, I implemented a recurring simple challenge of finding some hidden objects in some of my early tracks, cramped the challenge description into the track description, and my logic turned some lights from red to blue at the end of the track. Nothing too exciting, but a nice addition. However, I cannot see whether people actually cared about it, because replays with challenge attempts are hard to find and usually already overwritten by faster runs without challenges, and then I lost interest in adding these extra gimmicks at some point.

    So the ideal solution would be to store an additional replay whenever a challenge is completed, available from the track leaderboards in some way, along with the information what challenges the player has completed across all runs.
    But any minor steps in that direction that can be implemented with less effort would of course also be welcome.
    Idea for an "economy solution": A little icon next to the medal on the leaderboard that is added when a "challenge completed" logic tile was triggered (or a variable increased or something) during the run.
    Share this post