Share this project


Share this project

Camelot Unchained is a counter-revolutionary RvR-focused MMORPG from Mark Jacobs and CSE set in a post-apocalyptic yet familiar world.
Camelot Unchained is a counter-revolutionary RvR-focused MMORPG from Mark Jacobs and CSE set in a post-apocalyptic yet familiar world.
Camelot Unchained is a counter-revolutionary RvR-focused MMORPG from Mark Jacobs and CSE set in a post-apocalyptic yet familiar world.
14,873 backers pledged $2,232,933 to help bring this project to life.

Real-time Armies (Evening Update #2, April 10, 2013)

Hi everyone! Andrew here.

In my first update last week, I showed off some of the rendering tech we want to use for Camelot Unchained, and talked about why we need to build a renderer and certain other components ourselves: Off the shelf, there's nothing that scales up to the epic battles we want to create.

Then, our art team showed off two of the races we're planning to put in the game: The Tuatha Dé Danann and the Vikings. There's some great concept art in those updates, as well as high-quality models for in-game.

Obviously, the next step is to put them together -- so we did! There are some further refinements and optimizations to the engine, and plenty more to be done, but I'll let the video speak for itself. 

The next step for this, in terms of showing off what we want to do, is to hook this up to the networking layer of "CSE SmackHammer" from last week. We're working hard on this and a whole lot more, but for now, enjoy the show!


p.s. - We'll have a part 2, with even more video, first thing tomorrow morning.

  •  project video thumbnail
    Replay with sound
    Play with

  • Image 238786 original


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Jace Carlson on April 15, 2013

      You guys who don't know what collision detection is... never played EQ1 where a Troll/Ogre stood in a doorway and stopped EVERYONE from going past him ;)

    2. Missing avatar

      Thomas A Hutto on April 13, 2013

      ME TOO! CD even if you have to write all assembler code and scale the game back some. Ill wait another year even after delivery if MJ will promise its coming. He alrdy has my money so what the heck am I saying.

    3. Kris Anderson on April 13, 2013

      I agree with the many others about collision detection. I liked what werwolfe said and concur.

    4. Missing avatar

      Werwolfe on April 13, 2013

      Give us collision detection. It should be possible to hold the line against an enemy attack, not just have people randomly charge right through you to steamroll your archers. Just as with environment interaction, it is much better to give players, just as you would rocks or trees, a physical presence on the field.
      Breaking the enemy line should be an actual event in itself, like carving a canyon in the terrain, physically manifested by a change in your options for movement across the battlefield. If it means scaling battles down a bit, then what are we talking about? From a thousand or five hundred down to four hundred? Three hundred?
      Big battles are excellent, but they are meaningless if they devolve to a team deathmatch with no reward for planning or foresight, just mindless twitch-gaming. We need ways to control the field, and collision detection, making your cannon fodder a meat shield, is one of the best ways to do that.

    5. Tenebrus on April 12, 2013

      I definitely see how full time CD is not something that is conducive to lag free large scale combat. But... One person brought up the idea of CD-like abilities. Take "knockback" for instance. You can simulate short term CD with a "0 distance" knockback mechanic, that might not necessarily be as resource intensive as an "always on and every gets it" CD. Or as the poster below stated "wall" type abilities.

    6. Missing avatar

      David Schrank on April 12, 2013

      I would rather have collision detection at all costs. In warhammer that feature made battles so much better. You could implement strategies, it made playing melee classes a lot more fun and multi- dimensional.

      Terrain and Summon able walls would rock also. This would be different and fun. I want a tactical pvp game where player decisions create as much variation as much as new maps.

      Don't have random foot holds. Let players have ladders that can be blocked and burnt. If a castle is breached tanks should be able to sacrifice them selves to prevent entry.

      Wizards given time could summon walls while the tanks keep people out. The more interactive the better.

      Plus its frustrating when another person runs threw you then spins back and then attacks. Its not realistic and its annoying.

    7. Patrick T. Marasco on April 11, 2013

      Andrew, very much like that you mentioned "no two characters should look alike" I hope that stays true for when the game goes live. Also like that you mentioned crafters can create unique looking items. All good stuffs.

    8. Hunter Wild on April 11, 2013

      Great goddamn job!

    9. KimGee on April 11, 2013

      My suggestion was along the lines of the ability lasting ~10 seconds with a cool-down (beginning with the triggering of the ability) of 20-30 seconds...perhaps longer (like you said, Kappen, to facilitate more strategic use of the ability).

    10. J.R. on April 11, 2013

      @Etienne That sounds like a possible compromise. Just make an ability that causes CD to trigger when a tank needs to block. Should be better than every character always running checks for it. It could be on a long timer, 20 or 30 minutes, so they're not being fired off constantly. I'm sure tanks don't like the sound of that, but I wouldn't mind the return of the long timer for strategic use.

    11. KimGee on April 11, 2013

      @Etienne, I posted a similar suggestion a few comments ago lol

    12. Etienne Ramstein on April 11, 2013

      Maybe the collision detection could be used only in specific cases, for example an ability for warrior classes to stand and prevent any ennemy to go through them. It would retain the strategic aspect of the "shield wall" without adding a lot of useless calculations. The trick would be that instead of checking each and every character positions vs each other, only the warriors with that ability activated would trigger a check if someone is trying to go through them, and if yes, "bump" them back a meter or two in the opposite direction. So it would more a "pulsing pbae pushback" than a real collision prevention, but would create more or less the same result.

      Not sure if that works though ^^

    13. Missing avatar

      Jason Haefner on April 11, 2013

      CD is nice, but it's in part what made Warhammer Online's RvR lagtastic and what brought the servers down constantly. CD is resource intensive. Unless some code magician has figured out a way to do it w/o adversely affecting gameplay in RvR situations, it should not be in CU.

    14. Slaughty8 on April 11, 2013

      Like I said, Collision Detection will cause insane problems vs what we want and what CU wants to achieve. 500 vs 500 battles with Collision Detection are probably impossible with keeping performance we all want. I think CollDet is possible but at a huge cost of performance. I would instantly throw away CollDet for a smooth and great 500vs500 battles.

    15. Chad Stovern on April 11, 2013

      great update andrew! very excited about your engine coding prowess! ^_^

    16. Archie Sokolik on April 11, 2013

      It's not morning anymore, Andrew... where's our update?

    17. xavier muylaert on April 11, 2013

      i think everyone who asks for collision detection never played DAoC where there was no collision detection and it wasn't needed there.

      as long as there are no caps on the amount of people that can be hit with an AE, col.det. is not needed because you can make walls of AE and CC at choke points.

    18. Missing avatar

      Jiiub Rorgash on April 11, 2013

      I also think we need some kind of collision, otherwise battles will just become blob wars and not real battles... i think its worth testing once people can log in and run at each other.

      Im sorta playing GW2 WvW only, and its just blob vs blob, running around, hitting at everything, no real fighting in the big fights.

    19. Missing avatar

      Jiiub Rorgash on April 11, 2013

      Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! the Future is bright, gonna be a fun year starting 2014 :D

    20. Andrew Tucker on April 11, 2013

      friendly fire would never work and should never ever be implemented.

      Collision detection is good for tank walls in keep defences but in open battles a nightmare. I opt for none to keep this game smooth.

    21. Missing avatar

      deleted on April 11, 2013

      The author of this comment has been deleted.

    22. KimGee on April 11, 2013

      Also, this ability should not be a toggle ability. It should, when activated, last for a certain amount of time and then the cool down should be double that. So if the ability lasts for 10 seconds, the cd should be 20 seconds.

    23. KimGee on April 11, 2013

      Regarding collision detection: how about a compromise? Perhaps give tanks an ability that creates a barrier mimicking collision. But it isn't on all the time, it's something they have to use in reaction to an advancing force. And I wouldn't want to see ridiculous knock-back with it.

    24. Missing avatar

      blackdaze on April 11, 2013

      I don't think collision detection is needed.. In daoc for instance you really didn't want to be standing in the open near a doorway. You would have 20 spears and a bunch of nukes raining down and would likely die. It was more about guerilla tactics. However, I do like the idea to avoid those melee battles where its run into person/stick turn/back or side style... Always thought it was kind of cheap (even if I was the one doing it :p)

    25. Ken Pereira on April 11, 2013

      Well, if there is going to be collision detection because it makes the game more realistic (combat-wise) and makes for greater defensive strategies, then why draw the line there? How about, adding "friendly fire?"
      If people think it's silly that a DPS can run through a shield wall and head towards the clothies in the back, then isn't it equally silly that the clothies behind the shield wall can lob hundreds of ligtning bolts and fireballs and arrows literally through their own defenders causing no damage, only to hit their opponents standing toe to toe with the melee and having them take damage from it?
      At some point there has to be a line. Where should it be?
      Personally, I'd love collision, but I'd also love friendly fire. Past experience leads me to believe that friendly fire is a pipe dream. Too bad though. Seems like a poorly aimed catapult should/could have hilariously catastrophic results to your own team.

    26. Naezgul on April 11, 2013

      Collision detection is going to lead to few victories by the aggressors. I played WAR for a short time...throw some tanks at the door...maybe nine....and 4or 5 healers prevented any deaths
      They will have to figure one thing out.......

    27. D Yashkir(Thelg/Tlear) on April 11, 2013

      Thing with collision detection is that it adds a huge amount of processing to the server and in tight spaces like forts it can be a huge issue

    28. Turk
      on April 11, 2013

      I need collision detection for the whole 3 way , and trinity mechanic to really work imho. Also while it is nice watching the models walk around, bloom, lighting and particle effects are needed to really see things in progress

    29. Missing avatar

      deleted on April 11, 2013

      The author of this comment has been deleted.

    30. Brandon on April 11, 2013

      I'm on the "I want collision detection!" bandwagon. As much as it's hated on, WAR was easily one of my favorite MMOs that I've ever played. The collision detection system in the game, while it did cause some odd network/other issues, it gave a distinct feeling of defense... Of not being able to just send a DPS running through a warrior, screaming, to hit the backlines of a fight.

      Fights became "realistic", in the sense that your healers and ranged DPS stood behind the tanks while the tanks pushed forward towards the objectives. In the better fights, the Ironbreakers and Warrior Priests became a wall against a storm of zerging Choppas, while Rune Priests and Archmages in the backlines.

    31. Missing avatar

      James Gilbert on April 11, 2013

      Keep up the good work; the tech is progressing so quickly. I pledged and am really excited about CU. I'm trying to get the rest of my old time DAOC amigos to pledge as well!

    32. Missing avatar

      Thomas J. Litwinski on April 11, 2013

      Thanks for all your hard work. Take the entire team out for some pressed duck!!!!

    33. Missing avatar

      Adam St. Pierre on April 11, 2013

      Wow! Looks great for something done so quickly, even with the unrefined animations!

      Well done, and keep it comin'!

    34. Thomas H. Thomas on April 11, 2013

      If this was done on the quick, Man, we are going to really enjoy this! I am stunned.

    35. James Brainerd on April 11, 2013

      Great work on the tech demo! Look forward to seeing the next step and eventually see some basic combat between the Realms!! I know everything is a work in progress building this engine but you guys are doing a great job so far.

    36. xavier muylaert on April 11, 2013

      on collision detection.
      while DAoC didn't have collision detection (if you discount a shield to the face), it had some of the best options to block choke points with just a few against many (i'm speaking about up to 10 times more enemies than defenders). CC and AE damage could form effective 'walls' on stairs, doors, openings in walls etc.

      i have no opinion about whether it should or should not be included in CU. in games like GW2 it's not possible to form those walls of AE damage and CC due to the limit of 5 targets for each effect used. without the limit of 5 targets, a few can really stop many.

    37. Missing avatar

      lf on April 11, 2013

      no collision ='(

    38. Dennis Wynjadal on April 11, 2013

      Wow, I can't believe the leaps and bounds you guys are doing in the tech. Very nice to see!
      I can't wait until I get to know about what classes you are thinking about. If there's one thing I love to delve into and analyze its that :D

    39. Slaughty8 on April 11, 2013

      I am not sure about Collision Detection, because it will cause insane problems with what we (players and CU) are trying to achieve with the game, so massive 500-1000 players battles. WAR had many problems because of collision detection. WoW/GW2 doesn't have collision detection in PvP and they won't implement it for obvious reasons. Yes, it does give alot of tactical use, especially barricading and protecting healers and so, but it is almost impossible to write correctly that it won't cause any problems.

    40. Randall B. on April 11, 2013

      I agree that collision detection is a must, I don't see how tanks in PVP would be viable besides the boring fallback of "Give them more health".

    41. Peter Eriksen [Aragone/Dezpot] EU on April 11, 2013

      The Engine Work is looking to be realy prommising at this stage / rate!
      keep up the good Work and the great updates!

    42. Goras on April 11, 2013

      Seems to be a very good job ! I'm looking forward to watching the same battle with collisions and maybe fights (i know it's not for tomorrow lol). I'll support your project until the end of time !!!
      I showed your videos to my prog trainer for the massive battle, it's very interresting !
      Keep going !

    43. Missing avatar

      Emil S on April 11, 2013

      If there was one thing WAR did exceptionally well it was its class design, you could tell what's the profession of a certain character just by glancing at it, and armor sets were done in such a way that each higher tier looked like a natural progression of the earlier set and maintained the overall feel of the class. Please draw heavily from it in this regard.
      What it didn't do too good I think was the itemisation itself - every member of the same class was getting the same set of armor in the exact same moment, and that was causing the feeling of everyone looking the same.

    44. Ironknuckles on April 11, 2013

      Awesome job Andrew! I like the way you talk too :) Are you Canadian by chance?

    45. Missing avatar

      Christian on April 11, 2013

      Looks really great, keep going :)

    46. Steve Mato on April 11, 2013

      Like the loads and look forward to seeing more on the character customization Mark mentioned. Too many times Ive wanted my character to be unique but it only ends up looking like everyone else.

    47. Oliver Black on April 11, 2013

      What is really awesome is what Mark was saying : Andrew has been working on this engine for only one month..
      So, when I see this kind of demo, after only one month of work, I think it's really really encouraging !
      Good work guys :)

    48. Dude on April 11, 2013

      you'd think having hundreds on characters on screen should have been priority for other realm-pvp based games already, but nooooooo...

      anyways its looking good and i hope that the engine can take advantage of high end gaming systems, multi-threading and sli when released, to even improve the display quality for people who have those systems. after all we're on pc, and not on toaster (console), and CU being an exclusive PC title it should really support upward scalability and hopefully run as good as possible as opposed to some console ports.

    49. Jean-Francois on April 11, 2013

      great stuff.

      As a lot a people asked, I'm also in favor of player collision for a few reason.

      1) it adds another layer of tactical decision on the battlefield
      2) it gives tanks a real awesome job
      3) positioning and situational awareness becomes paramount (see 1)

      It still "bugs" me to see Adrew demoing on his mac and not have a native OSX client (I know it might be coming) but on the other hand I'm sure that the new iMac I just bought will run the game smoothly :) So I'm happy.

    50. Missing avatar

      GassMann on April 11, 2013

      Looks really good, for a test this early stage.
      A couple of questions. 1) Real physics? How much will the players engage with the environment? Lets say a boulder from some kind of siege machine lands beside you, will it affect you, and will it leave an imprint in ground?
      2) Footprints in the snow and mud? Will we be able to track players in their bootprints through the environment?