Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TrashMan, Jul 9, 2018.
Looks fun to me, and would buy, but need to make some progress on learning/building C++ . . .
You need to learn C++ just to play one game? That is nuts.
Of course, I'm probably misreading your meaning.
If you've got the patience to wade through 41 tutorials, more power to you. My kids, step kids and grandkids took all mine.
And thats why OP should go to this game, have their block by block construction of things, including individual guns and systems, and we can have a nice sleek game of exploring and space ships.
Muck it. It just looks too much like the digital equivalent of crack cocaine. I'm diving in . . .
As long as we're in the business of making far future weapons systems resemble the antiquated systems of the past we should go further. In the Age of Sail ships' cannons were muzzleloaders. They were charged with black powder that was carried from the magazines by young boys known as powder monkeys. Therefore, in the interest of realism I insist that all weapons be muzzleloaders. We must also have NPC powder monkeys to haul the charges from storage to the guns in real time because realism.
On Hard mode, there will be no projectile weapons. Instead, ships will ram each other in accordance with hundreds of years of RL naval warfare.
The thing is, ramming always works .
Any ramming you can walk away from is a good ramming.
That just sounds so wrong on so many levels.
Still, it's true.
How can anything be so wrong and yet still seem so right?
Are you quite certain that's the way it would be on 25th century space ships? Or could you allow that it may be so vastly different in the far flung future from current day battleship systems so as to practically look like fantasy from a contemporary point of view?
Here again, we're comparing contemporary real life to 25th century real life. They're not comparable because one side of the equation is as yet unknown... that is, if no one's constructed a time machine yet and can fill in the devs on how things will work.
Now listen, I very much appreciate your yearning for more complexity, and am very happy that you posted your thoughts. These discussions not only make the forum more lively, I think it also benefits the devs to be able to ingest all this feedback.
I too really want to see an improvement in flight model aerodynamics and control mechanics, but NOT so much for the purpose that it resembles either todays reality, or a conceptual conjecture of future reality, but only that it improves the 'feel' of controlling your ship, has a better simulation of 6 degrees of freedom - that floaty, airborne feeling - ultimately inducing a better sense of immersion to the player. But I can guarantee you that I do NOT want to think about or learn up on proper flight procedures - usually found explained in hefty, tome-like Pilot Operating Handbooks - concerning handling routines for various weights and balances... NOT when I'm playing Empyrion.
Your ideas concerning ammo loading from magazine blocks I find a bit too complicated for EGS. I'll have you know that I'm in the minority, and am a staunch supporter of physical conveyor tubes... not inside blocks, but SE style, their own set of blocks. Why not just remove the Magazine blocks and simply have any/all ammo boxes recognized by the central automation system as a virtual all-in-one Magazine to feed all turrets? This would make a (desired by a few of us) conveyor tube system much more manageable, and hopefully, palatable to other players.
Directed to the community, I really don't know why so many people think having conveyor tube blocks equals ponderous complexity. It doesn't have to. It can be made to add just a tad more engineering into the design mix with which to engage our logic flow when building, yet be at a level simplified enough so as not to require a masters in engineering. Sorry folks, I just don't see the issue. PN is not at all overly complex... and it follows closely what SE does. I certainly don't think SE's problems stem from its simple conveyor system. I only see setting up systems like this amounting to nothing other than more fun and engaging game play. But that's just me...
And please, don't get me started on the "Oh crap, now my 5 star, 6000 subscriber CV is obsolete," issue. I say get over it. Stop looking back and dwelling on past successes. Move forward. Embrace the evolution of development. You are designers - some of you so talented that your designs make the rest of ours look like they were built by toddlers. Press on and build new and better ships. You are designers, this is what you do, this is what you take enjoyment in. You're never going to stop designing and building. Unless you've given up, and are content to wallow in the grandeur of your aging, obsolete relics... beautiful as they may be. Sheesh... please continue building and making progress. Build 10000 subscriber ships!
I found creating ships in space engineers to be fun and rewarding but also incredibly frustrating due to needing to make most floors and walls 3 blocks thick due to the physical conveyor system. SE scratches my engineering itch but Empyrion is really where my creativity has been allowed to shine.
Don't get me wrong, I would love a robust and capable automation system, I'm just a strong proponent of making it mostly GUI based so the creative freedom that Empyrion ship building offers is maintained and expanded.
Of course during alpha we all make content with the expectation that it may eventually become outdated and need to be updated. The game must evolve and it has been.
The difference is that unlike pretty much any other change that the developers could come up with, requiring a full physical conveyor system will render 90% of workshop content completely impractical to use or update. Most other changes or additions can be edited into existing blueprint designs, but requiring a physical, block based conveyor system requires completely rebuilding new ships from scratch with much larger physical dimensions to accommodate the conveyor system and the one block thick walls that protect or hide it from view on either side.
It would severely hamper the creative freedom that gives Empyrion one of its edges over the competition.
Of course we could just make conveyor blocks have the same shapes, textures, and looks of the existing blocks but then why not just use a GUI system and assume it's built into the hull blocks anyway then?
in an ideal case, yes. And ideal is it when people without any previously learned knowledge (especially highly specialized knowledge like engineering) can build intuitively and succeed. Yes. That is the definition of a good game for most people.
And design for you has to do with efficiency, not with creative design. For me it is the opposite way. Function has to follow design. I actually really oppose the idea of engineering in those creative building games. Simply because of one thing: when ever there is ONE way to build most efficient it will become to only viable way in the middle and long run. That hampers creativity. And i mean creativity where it belongs: looks, not "problem solving". People want to solve technical problems via engineering should really play engineering games.... not building games or survival games with building elements. And there is a huge difference between building and engineering.
And you propose a more realistic way of weight handling for "Balance"? You do know that a significant higher energy consumption leads to needing more generators, fuel tanks and fuels cells. Still don't know to which bad outcome that leads? I know you are smart and know what i am talking about.
I am oppose to the idea that massive advantages can be gained through engineering skills/knowledge. That is NOT balanced at all. Balance is when you provide tools that everybody can use without any previously learned knowledge, intuitively. Especially in a game that has way more features to it. I already see those "engineering nerds" already complain about the new survival and gathering mechanics taking away from their time to engineer things..... *roll eyes*
How would you define it? You are the one who brought that wold up, but you used the wrong word to begin with. The proper word would be FICTIONAL.
And I immage you polled all the playerbase and explained exactly how hte mechanic would work beforehand?
Peoepl have the anoying tendency to project and assume too much.
No, compeltely different mening.
Versimilitue means making a setting believable and consistent. It does not have to mirror reality.
For example, anything that does not exist in the real world is not considered real, but can be considered believable or "realistic".
Fantasy often means not even trying.
There are also games that do survival already, do we really NEED those mechanics?
You're not making a good point. What does similar games or mechanics existing have to do with this game? Nothing, other than they can be used as refference to learn.
And again, argumentum ad absurdum. You're creating a strawmen to fight. No one wants to get that deep into engineering, and might I remind you that you can ALREADY do that - all you have to do is forget to put in enough thrusters. OR generators.
Ok, what makes you think YOU are more suited to give suggestions?
Attacking the person, not the argument?
Assuming to know me, chap airmchair psychological assesment, assumption of my work, routine and to crown it all, attempt at Argumentum Ad Populum by trying to claim what "all hard working men" want?
You're hitting all the red flags in a debate m8.
Call me when you actually have an argument.
1. It's not complexity for the sake of complexity. Why do you keep lying, when there's CLEAR gamepaly benefits?
2. Do not assume you're a majority.
3. If you consider ammo feed non-intuitive, then you're beyond hope. Perhaps bows and arrows are an engineering challenge to you?
4. What makes a game better is subjective, and you have as of yet provided a SINGLE argument to support your claim. I told you what it adds. The only reply agaisnt it so far "it makes the game slightly more complex! I do not want to think" and "But I'll have to tweak my ship in an ALPHA! Oh, the humanity!"
One of the First thing you need to learn is how to READ and understand what someone is proposing, because that is not true and I repeated myself numerous times.
Of course, no one is stoping you from making a ship 3 times bigger, but that would in no way be a requirement. Yet, despite me repeatign that many time, seems that people who don't like the idea REAAAAAALY want to hang onto that false tidbit.
It's hard, so dont' do it? Is that it? That is objectively a bad advice to give to anyone, especially here, since it's quite simple false. You're arguming agasint whatever mental image you have, not my actual suggestion. This is beyond frustrating that people just skim over the suggestion adn then assume the worst
It's not a real simulation, it's not complex, it does not require massive procesing power.
I specifically went for the simplest and cost-effiecent approximation method. I worked on both games and mods so I know how things work on that end. Perhaps if you looked at my other suggestion you'd see they are far mroe sensible and cost-effictive to implement thatn 99% of the suggestion made around here.
Why complicate things?
All the system needs to do is check wether a turret is connected to a magazine when re-loading. There's a very simsple Search algorithm for such things.
Why simluate physical movement of items/shells?
To goal isn't a perfect sinmulation, but rather a approximation that adds tpo the gameplay, but is simple enough to not be resource-intensive or too hard to implement.
People often suggest hard things without thinking - liek crews moving on the ship and doing stuff (which woudl require pathfinding on a moving object) - rather than starting from simpler implementations - like just having them do stuff, even if in standing place.
Why should developers bother at all?
Let them just make a moddable engine and let players create all the content!
Who said that?
Since when are armor blocks empty inside?
@TrashMan "It's hard, so dont' do it?" *sigh* Your interpretation.
*sigh* I have not had one argument against a need to recreate blueprints after a "good" change of game logic.
*sigh* You seems to ignore the teleport technology in this futuristic fantasy universe.
*sigh* Several previous discussions about mass/weight/item_transport
*sigh* They might look as simple changes, but most have major impact in game logic, the consequences of changing core functionality
Keep in mind the total amount of calculations/processing needed in a game. What the minimum requirement for hardware are to be.
Conveyor/tubes/pipes need tracing logic to figure out if connected or not, also during fights and if damaged/destroying such blocks.
But that is only 1 part of it, the other is what a majority feels are fun to play with and not.
A major issue is if a change in game logic is not optional. Everything suggested as possible to have as an option most do not oppose.
Also to change or add something the devs need to use time (= money) on it, cost vs benefit (worth hire more devs?), sacrifice of other game elements, prolong release of finished game. If seen as a core change, then even more important to think it through. So up to the devs/owners of the game.
*sigh* After some postings, what do you see as the majority wish and understanding regarding implementing your/similar suggestions?
I see the game becomes less fun.
DANG yer good at poking my will to reply LOL
Now, before i answer, i really really need to get this straight: I am NOT conducting a personal attack on you, i am putting forth MY point of view about the subject, which you should have searched for before making your suggestion, in the wrong forum category. (There's a section for suggestions...)
NOW!... onward, even though i said i was out.. (Forgot to unfollow duh! :-/ )
Fantasy, fictional, fake realism yadda yadda.... according to your vocabulary, which doesent really intimidate me, but annoys me, as english is not my main language, doesent matter. I am pretty certain you know exactely what i mean with my choice of words.
As for polling the entire playerbase.... nah, i just joined 3 years earlier than you, (2015), and know quite a bit more about the games background thrugh that exact fact. Fairly simple really :-/
I had to google that really strange odd word you call "Versimilitude" ... you try do the same, and look at the first result
Now, i might get personal, but not with an ill intent;
you might feel fancy, better-knowing and allmighty, making use of fancy words.
however, you forget that most of us, kinda dislike that, simply because there is no need, we don't get the intended meaning, (use my translation of "Versimilitue" as example..)
Look at how you argue over things and respond.... countersending (? spelling..) like crazy.... I have ZERO issues, debating a suggestion at all. Heck, brainstorming a suggestion, really only benefits the devs, as the result, often, leads to either a BRING IT!! ... or, the opposite.
However, such debate has to be on a level, technically formulated, where everyone knows exactely what you say.
Imma retract my former statement of stopping to follow this subject, simply because im pretty curious as to what your reply is.
Same as you hitting all the red flags. All i am missing is that stupid non argument "you just don't want to work in a GAME" or "you just are to lazy to think in a game".... o w8 m8, you already did hit the last red flag which disqualifies you from discussing in another manner.
Don't hit red flags if you really want to discuss.
Which benefits? I only saw your opinion what you would like better and what YOU gain out of it in a gameplay perspective.
I never did. Read carefully. Might want to check other posts i wrote.
But to ask you something: do you really really really think any group of more enthusiastic group of player of any game on any forum is in the majority? When even in games like WOW (where your server login is also your forum login for the official) or on plattforms like steam (same as WOW, no playing a steam game without that account, but with you can also post on their forums)? Blizzard stateted years ago that only less than 15% of all active users communicate on the forums even though every body has a chance to.
So don't make the mistake to think anybody posting on the forum is in any major group of players. You are not, as much as i am not. But to know what the majority of gamers want it helps to see how other products did that and look for the surveys that back up what is the most played version/feature. It is pretty sure to say that people wanting more complicated and complex stuff are in a tiny minority.
What did you say about red flags? Another one, and even based on something i did NOT say like you understood it. Don't expect a serious discussion on that level.
You just love those red flags you talk about a lot. You only told what it adds for YOU. What makes you think that things YOU like are liked by others (not to speak of the majority). And actually if you just wouldn't read words you don't like while skipping text i gave numerous hints.
oh sure.... you can just make the conveyor block and do not cover it up by armor to weak points for others to hit. Logical.
Or well you can have conveyor/connection blocks have the same HP as armorblocks.... but then their specific design would break the lines of a fine looking ships if not covered. Well then you could make connecting blocks look just as armor blocks..... if you reach that point, i wonder why implement that if that would be exactly like it is NOW?
To make logical connections between devices that are breakable to cut off supply chains, like you said would add depth to the gameplay in fights, and NOT break the looks of ships those connection blocks would need to have the same HP as different armor blocks to fit the spaces a normal armorblock would occupy to make a connection between devices AND would need to have the same looks (plus exchangeable textures and shapes). Ok, now we can have those logical connections between devices without having to make those ships bigger.
The problem with this whole idea is, that this "added gameplay depth" you propose vanishes. You can't hit the supply chains and break them because you don't know where to shoot to do so. PLUS it wouldn't work anyway to hit a special chain..... if connecting blocks look the same and have the same HP as armor blocks, what is stopping people to build more than one chain to a specific devise? Or even the whole ship out of those specific connection ships?
Even IF they only build more than 2 chains to each device, the most efficient way to stop a certain device (your example: turret and ammo box) form doing what it is doing and break the supply chain is, like it is now already: hit the device directly.
Still don't understand what i mean with adding complexity for the sake of complexity? Because that is what your suggestion is doing. Armor blocks already fulfill those functions of multiple supply chains to a single device.
Disconnected pieces staying in place and functioning is just a matter of time to vanish. Just as stacking/hiding thrusters that work (you know, want to stop a ship from moving forward => shoot out the rear thrusters). Well at least for the last one it is a bit more complex. Simply because they need to add a possibility to adjust a ships acceleration other than ADD MOAR THRUSTOOOORS (like booster blocks which give thruster more power without needing to point in any direction).