Well it's fine for me (and surely others) if it allows us to get more content. After getting out of Early Access they could keep separate "public" and "experimental" branches, and only merge builds when everything is perfect. And I'm not going to address what's fine and not with going to 1.0 because the developers have made enough statements on this. They will continue development, and many players are fine with that.
Though I didn't see anything about it in the post, I am assuming going to 1.0 means a complete restart of a server is necessary? like with all major updates? I was also curious that since they are stating they have their foundation plan mostly set now, that if major updates past 1.0 will also require server resets or if the plan is to update incrementally without need for a restart?
I don’t know the method, but I think someone mentioned that there is a way to save your “stuff” if not the game itself. Something about loading it all into a CV or base, saving it, then spawning that specific item into the new game. Again, I don’t know the technicalities of it, but at least it may allow players to “restart” quite a bit ahead of the curve “stuff” wise.
Empyrion devs are awesome, they added/adding so much content. Having said that, its an open world sandbox game, and as 99% other sandbox games out there, creating and keeping your world is very crucial. Most(99%) open world games DO NOT require total wipes to bring new content, dlc, bug fixes. You get to keep your save and get the new stuff(After full release). There are ofcourse some ''accidents'' or balance wipes but that is usually only in the multiplayer side of the game.
I only play a few open worlds, like Minecraft & 7D2D. I know that when they do major changes they also recommend restarting.
Like how many years ago, when they were basically in their early state, i have only Minecraft. It seems to me it might be something that doesn't affect a lot of people. I just dislike the choice between keeping my world or having to restart to enjoy all the new. I always wish in a game i can have both, even if i have to wait for a few years development. I am not gonna post about this anymore. If there was something official on it, it would probably be already mentioned in first page.
With the release of 1.16 for Minecraft (23rd June 2020) many people had to delete the Nether file to get the full affect if the release. With 7D2D when A18 came out (8th July 2020) it was advised to start a new world. Personally I don't mine starting a new world as I like the starting afresh with the new things I have learned but I can understand some not liking to restart.
You probably already know this and might not be related to your situation but it may help others; You can blueprint even partial builds of ships or bases so they can be brought back into a new games start. It helps eliminate the frustration of restarts that are close together time wise. These can also be published, I make the view private since it's just for me. It also doesn't hurt to copy your blueprint file somewhere else "just in case". (If on PC, not sure about console)
You need to set the game to creative, which means only SP or CoOp restarted temporarily as SP: Change game mode console "cm" Remove the core of the BP and replace with admin core Save the BP (I do as new name), making sure to check "Save Damage State" Spawn in new game, go creative, console "sbp" and spawn BP Remove and replace admin core with regular Use "cm" again to return to play, restart game as SP or CoOp. This only preserves inventory and BPs, not quest/level progression
Updates normally don't affect blueprints. In fact I completely "cleaned" my Empyrion folder at some point to make a fresh install, and by some mysterious magic all my blueprints were in there with it... To add to what you just mentioned : Starting a new game means re-doing a lot of things, but we can use cheats to avoid grinding our way back to where we were each time. It will not complete quests started, but I think the way quests are done we can start them and simply "manually" complete steps and the next ones should be triggered normally. It is context dependant, but at least it can save some time if the player only has to move to X playfield to trigger the next chapter, or to activate X device in a specific POI.
You're right about "normally" but I have had a few occasions where I needed to actually re-subscribe to my own blueprints in the workshop.
I agree, but I also disagree. I cannot think of a single feature or piece of content in this game that "seems rushed" but perhaps that is because I've been playing it on and off for ~5 years. During that time, I do believe that 90% of the "content" in this game (setting aside the "Motobike" which is eternal and unchanging, irritating, just useful enough that you cannot manage to kick the habit, but OH SO annoying . . . like your own personal screeching Nightmare machine . . . combine the motobike, the chainsaw, the scorpion, the "Abomination" formerly known as Nightmare, the harvester attachment for the HV, and perhaps a dash of creepy or plant creature and you'd have the most nerve-jarring, brain-concussing shockwave of sound . . . the PRC could use it to torture dissidents . . .). The look of the machines? Most all of them have been changed . . . twice. The way the inventories work? Changed at least once and I think in fact twice (one minor one major change). Crafting recipes? Pretty much all changed, in some cases repeatedly. I can still recall when you used "Grain" to make "Plastic" and before "Carbon Fiber" had even been discovered! Hah! I can even remember them days back before "Bio-Fuel!" All this to say: Yes, many features and pieces of content and gameplay dynamics in this game are a bit rough around the edges. But almost NONE of them were ever "rushed."
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with this. Being busy is no excuse to impose TERRIBLE design decisions that are likely to drive players away from the game just when it would be ideal to be drawing all the old players back and new ones too. Whatever the circumstances surrounding their introduction of the despawning ships, there is no excuse for it, players are fully justified to gripe heartily and woe to the IP owners who fail to realize how, where and why their "bread is buttered." Being a game developer isn't easy. Sometimes you've got to hustle, and skip sleep, set family or other real life demands aside, etc. But the rewards can be tasty if you manage to sell enough units, and that is the ONLY thing these developers should be focused on: THE ONLY THING! HOW DO WE MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL UNITS WE SELL. That despawning ship crap is likely to provoke an increase in refund requests, NOT move more units.
I supose that is because you missed the introduction of W/V that was released for the xmas sale even tho almost lee experimental testers told them of issues that made it nearly unplayable. Almost all of the purposed changes purposed by the people that played experimental were eventually implemented over the next 2-4 weeks after the "regular" players blew up on here. The logistics component of that update has still never been addressed. We can do it all over again with CPU that was rushed out for some deadline, I am guessing a sale as well. Many of the changes that the Alpha test group and experimental testers suggested were eventually implemented although not as many as for W/V. CPU is still a hot mess but way better than its form on the rushed release date. and we can just look at the "Orbital Patrol Vessels (OPVs) spawned by the Space Base Defense (SBD) reinforcements mechanism as soon as a POI calls for help." introduced without considering how it would work on MP servers and then hot "fixed" in such a way as to cause all the recent walls of text and sarcastic comments. yes, I guess you are correct they never rush anything out. Spoiler: It is just this. They always rush everything out
It sounds like they may have been "rushing" things a bit more in recent years. One thing I've noticed about these folks over the years (and of course people change so these observations may have grown stale): they have a vision. But they are not always exactly certain how to bring it to life. They fiddle a bit this way, then they fiddle a bit that way, but eventually they seem to figure out a good "happy medium." I guess in the time you've been playing, you've seen more bad than good, but from my perspective the game is enormously improved compared to its bare origins. To be honest, I think you make way too much noise about "CPU." Just turn it off and shut up about frankly If you don't like it: DON'T USE IT. Same for mass volume. I personally like both features, though whether they are perfectly adjusted right now in vanilla I couldn't say. I stopped playing vanilla! Now the despawning ships thing is different. They say "you can adjust it" but I haven't looked, and clunking around in a yaml file is certainly not the same ease of use as on/off switch in the game options pane. Who the hell knows what is up with these folks! I have no idea who they are, where they live, or how they feel about this project. I'm just happy to have got as much play out of the game as I have, and--HONESTLY--if they all just said "We're done. No more development. We will in the next 6 weeks, try to expose as much of the guts of the app in the API as possible so there is a prospect for modders to keep the project going, and we will address any grievous game breaking bugs at any time in the next few years, but we have decided to start fresh with an "Part Deux" version of this game and put all that we've learned to good use!" I know from personal experience that when a project starts to get on in age, into the millions of lines of code, tens of thousands of assets, etc., **** can get pretty badly fucked up and going back to undo/fix bad architecture and design decisions that were made early on can seem almost worse than just taking a bullet in the brain. In this case, because they are using someone else's engine, they've had to deal with a whole 'nother load of constant crap from "coping" with how the Unity folks feel is the proper way to structure a game application. Not to mention the thing is written in C# . . . ewww . . . Now then, I DO NOT, imagine that this is how bad things are for this group, but maybe a bit like that. They have been working on it for five or six years, eh? That is a long time, and maybe they are just tired of it.
cool, what is it? I like M/V except for Mass determining max speed rather than acceleration. as for CPU most of my time is on servers that have it on so no choice but to not play on those servers. but the bigger problem is that even with it off there are lots of effects from it. You are never free from CPU even with it off. If CPU did something like the original proposal by Geostar I think I would like it. As it is now it is just a reminder that I have been lied to.
Design decisions are by definition a choice made when making a game. I do not think it is possible to objectively state that any particular design decision is Terrible without knowing the intention of the designer. A player's perspective has to be restricted to "is this game design a type I wish to play?" If the player is part of your intended market, it is probably a good idea to consider any criticism they offer. However, if adjusting your game for their criticism means you have to seriously deviate from your Vision for the game then you may want to re-define your intended market as that player may not actually be part of your target audience even if you initially thought they were. You are correct about being a game developer not being easy and the rewards having the potential to be nice. Everything else in this section is a reflection of the priorities you would likely have as a Game Developer. It is not, and can not be, a definitive fact about the priorities of Every Game Developer. Game Developers are individual people, individuals always have their own perspectives on how important something is and that perspective will often differ from the perspective of somebody else. Sometimes a collection of Individual game developers will have enough common ground in their perspectives, priorities, and visions for a game to work collaboratively on a title. If they trust each other enough (usually as a result of meeting and forming friendships in school) then they may form a Game Development Company for either one or potentially more titles that are worked on in collaboration but they still remain individuals. Their is at least one professional developer that appears far more concerned with making sure her games reach a particular audience, and with the potential games can have for changing the world, then with making money from them. I do not know if you are a Game Developer but I am currently in school to become a Game Developer (specific degree is Game Design, specific goal is eventually being an independant developer) I have hustled to complete work, I have skipped sleep to get an Assignment turned in on time. I have not and do not think i ever will neglect family, or even serious problems among those few people i consider close friends, so i can address an issue in a game i am developing or turn in something on time. My priority in developing is making the kinds of games i want to play a reality, and telling some of the stories in my head through the medium of video games. Yes i would like to see the games i create make enough money i do not need to continue to work as a Janitor. However I would rather keep making games in my spare time that stay true to my goals and have to continue to work as a Janitor then neglect those i care about [the real world obligations you talk about setting aside] or make a game i would not want to play.
