Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Marek streams suggestion

Discussion in 'General' started by Light_gemini, Jan 22, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Agreed.


    The majority of the blocks are indeed placeholders. From what I understand from an earlier post by one of their artists it takes about a week for one person to finish one block. So I'd assume there is a workload problem, something they're trying to solve with the modular approach you mention. I think modularization might be a good idea. Depends on how the finished products end up. It would be a pity if all blocks end up looking pretty much the same, but it could also end up looking really good making it obvious that all devices are made by the same manufacturer. I can't wait to see the results.

    As for throwing manpower at a problem, I can only really speculate, I've never been in a situation where that would be an option, but it seems to me you would quickly end up in a "too many cooks" problem, creating as much of a mess as you're trying to clean up.
     
  2. StyleBBQ Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    73
    Agree w OP's suggestion; spend some serious hours trying an asteroid based, 1x everything single player survival. Then same for a planetary start. While I think their, apparent, current focus on MP is good & seemingly very needed (can't play MP myself, no bandwidth), not sure if time spend on SP should be sooner or later as no idea which really impacts which more at this point.

    Comparing SE to Minecraft is painful. I started MC about 3 years ago, SE about a year. So MC definitely has several years on SE for features/polish. That said, and disclaimer, -definitions- matter, Mine"craft" met my, subjective, expectations. Space"engineers" really hasn't. It's the "engineers" bit that I'm painfully missing, and hearing what Marek said about 'engineering blocks' really dashed my hopes. Though I -do- appreciate that he was straight forward about it and just said no more.

    When I read his blog on the roadmap, though I was pretty surprised, it really clarified the dis-connect I've been feeling. Now, before putting out a hit on me, I -do- know English isn't his first language, so it may be, though I don't think it's likely, that what's there is significantly different that what he would say in his native tongue. If that's so, then I'll apologize in advance.

    From blog, "The development cycle of a game is complex, but its core idea does not differ from the development of the majority of products that are out on the market today. I will give you an example to understand this better. Let’s assume that you are producing a car. The first thing you do is assemble all necessary parts. After this phase is done, you take the car for a test drive. You identify any possible issues and then you fix them. After all issues are fixed and the car is functioning properly, you add the final touches – painting, polishing, etc. Then you are ready to start selling the car. The same principles apply to our games."

    No engineer I've worked with or been taught by, be it Mechanical, Electrical, Software, Civil, etc., would say that. The first step 'engineering' step is always the same; basically, what does 'it' need to do? Ok, he said "car", by that let's assume a 4-wheeled, road going only, gasoline powered passenger car. <--- see how many massive assumptions there are? Maybe he meant a traincar, or intended an electric passenger car, but off-road capable, etc. I know, he was just simplifying the steps. What about the 2nd/3rd steps? Depending, those are either; can we make money on this? or Is this possible? 4th is usually fleshing out "Must be able to" & "Must not do". 5th, if a consumer product, is likely initial 'concept design', maybe a 1/4 scale clay model for wind testing. Maybe here, if you're General Motors, you would start selecting parts, trying to use as many 'off the shelf' bits as possible to keep costs down. Okay, I've beaten this horse quite enough. Point is, for me, what those few sentences in his blog clarified, again, for me, is simply that he doesn't think like an "engineer". And I quite honestly don't intend that as a criticism. He's a very creative guy, thus it makes sense that he would think in a creative way. One of my sisters is an artist, makes her (quite good) living at it even. She always got straight A's in school, AP everything, yet she has to bribe me or pay someone to fix simple things around her house, because she just doesn't think that way. (still tease her about not changing AC filter for 18 months after buying her house; she'd called AC guy because AC 'wasn't working').

    Maybe if I hadn't gotten a degree in mechanical engineering I wouldn't be so sensitive to the 'e' word. So, I'll own that these were/are my own _expectations_, and as one genius once said, "Expectations are premeditated resentments." I still _want_ hinges, rails, winches, etc. But now I think I understand _why_ I won't be getting those, and it's simply that the way I want to solve problems is very left brain, and SE's primary designer is a right brain thinker, so he won't see things like I do, and vice-versa.

    For those I've unintentionally pissed off, my sincere apologies. Writing this actually really helped to clarify my epiphany; I knew I'd understood something important, but couldn't quite say it.

    So, SE's not going to turn into a hard-core engineering challenge game. Damn. I really want one of those. But understanding this now allows me to let it go and be at peace with what SE -is-, and that's a pretty dang decent 'Space Ship Designers In Space!', w mining and jihadist canines to spice things up.

    I think I've earned a beer; seeing things from the 'right' side always hurts me brain, heh ???
     
  3. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    No, he's not thinking like an "engineer". He's thinking like a software engineer. He's trying to explain something that is inherently true of software engineering. It is very difficult to compare with most other forms of engineering, not because it's any "better" or "more advanced" or anything like that, but simply because it's so different. Things are so unbelievably intertwined, and changes occur very often that affects modules that "should" have been fully completed. In fact there is no such thing as a "finished" module until the entire application is complete. You must always keep in mind that what you do right here, in one end of the application, could possibly change the environment so that the code you wrote on the complete opposite end may no longer work.

    Another community member made a quote I really liked:
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Nobodyhasthis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    222
    Not going to argue. Got your point. However have you considered that logic only involves two people. What about the the third party suppliers or the customers?

    The technology that supports hinges, rails, winches, etc. Does not come from keen for example. This means they be stuck with some limitations that can't be fixed quickly. It has also annoyingly recently changed hands and has broken the modding supply chain. There may be other business decisions going on that undermine the engineering options. SE's primary designer may be holding back because he has other considerations. All that said. I agree with you overall. It just had to speculate because we can't really know all the facts. That being said your analysis of what we do know is pretty fair.

    To helped to clarify by an epiphany; When it comes to good engineering. The accountants call the shots.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. StyleBBQ Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    73
    That's likely a very appropriate clarification. And shows my bias. Not sure even if 'left' & 'right' is appropriate either.

    Last 15+ years I've been in IT-Security, all *Nix based firewalls, NIDS/IDS, etc, etc. So the massive dependencies are absolutely real, that I know. In IT-Sec we constantly fight those dependencies, some even going so far as to build bastion hosts with only self-executing fully compiled processes, just to eliminate as many "libraries" as possible.
    And simple things like when I write a script every call possible is fully pathed, no assumptions or relative references. Or the many, many hours on the phone w Sun/Oracle/Etc clarifying patches, then lab testing for all the "real" dependencies, sheesh, though, tbf, usually their patch notes are verbose and complete, but every once in a while... and that 'once' is once too often when you're patching fw's that secure a major FI.

    I'm most certainly _not_ a programmer, and have no issue with what you've said. Just adding some background so when I say, "I can (sort of) feel their pain", I'm not kidding & it's sincere. And I truly didn't intend insult in my post. I'm, at heart, a hammer & wrench, Robinson Cursoe guy. Maybe Marek is too.

    So maybe this is fair: were it my ideal game, I'd want to have working hinges, rotors, winches & all kinds of other 'basic' engineering bits that let me build all kinds of contraptions. I haven't found my ideal game here, but it's got a lot to offer in other ways, and not stressing over the 'lack of x', is a relief.
     
  6. StyleBBQ Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    73
    All too true my friend, all too true! And very valid points earlier as well. No disagreement here.
     
  7. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    I guess I should have added that I do see your point of view :) I am by no means insulted and I feel confident I'm speaking for the majority of other developers too when saying that. I don't blame anyone having your view, because it really does require seeing it for yourself before you understand it. I had your exact attitude when I first started out as a professional developer, but quickly learnt otherwise. It is counterintuitive, there's no denying that - but unfortunately it's a fact of life.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. StyleBBQ Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    73
    I appreciate that LordDevious. There was a fair amount of 'chain-of-consciousness' in my post, and though no insult was intended, re-reading it, well I can come across as a biased SOB for sure :p Thanks for ignoring that and reaching out to politely provide some insight.

    You are a Gentleman Sir!

    (oh damnit... if LD is female I am soooo cooked!!)
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. McTraveller Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    118
    Interesting thoughts here. But I have to say, that I think that part of the reason the software industry is in the state is it in is because it has eschewed so many aspects of "traditional" engineering. It's particularly sad to me, because much of my career has been in systems engineering and control software - so I am quite aware of how it's not just in software that engineering projects suffer badly if the interactions between components are not respected.

    I'm also quite aware of the fact that certain early-project decisions (e.g., using Havok) can have ramifications for the course of the project. As much as we'd all like faster speeds or better compliant components, the choice to use Havok has put certain inherent limitations in what we have available. I can appreciate that.

    What troubles me, though, is that I agree with those that were hoping for a more "engineering" based sandbox game in which to build spaceships. I am in the crowd that feels the vision has been muddied, given things like planets; they inherently take away from the concept of building spacecraft. I'm not saying this is wrong, it's just a cloudy vision and has left probably a large portion of the fan base somewhat... weary and disappointed.

    My personal wish is that we'd stop getting new features, or even fixing cosmetic things like particles or glass, and instead have another serious round of bug fixing, balance, and core mechanics tweaks. It's sad that we are still suffering from broken pistons and rotors, and each "patch" to fix them ends up breaking other things, such as the recent thing where rotors don't even like to attach to rotor parts. Mining glitches, falling through planets, basic stuff like that. Goofy UI things, like not auto-focusing on input boxes, sloppy positioning of the cursor when you click in a text box to drag-highlight, and that persistent thing where sometimes you have to click twice on the Production Tab to get it to register. Clean up that stuff... make the core game solid.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. DaveAllen10 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    53
    Honestly I think the game suffers mainly from too little staff to work on it. I mean, they have only 40 people for SE and ME. So that's a problem. And not to rip on ME but it is currently barely a game at all and right now is just taking resources away from finishing SE, which has a lot more potential...and is making them far more of their sales. Also, what the hell is Miner Wars and is that further taking up the staff's time?


    Also I agree with your comment on engineering. The focus has been lost in favor of dumb simplicity. The base game NEEDS to incorporate mods like Realistic Thrusters (applies thruster forces to a point on a ship, not uniformly) and Atmospheric Drag and Reentry, and Aerodynamics. Right now the world just doesn't feel right without those things.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Nobodyhasthis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    222
    Again because we are are speculating here. It is hard to confirm or deny any approach.

    Just forget Miner Wars. It is an old finished project from the one man band days . Those that know the background company history a bit more can argue about the use of the word "finished" here of course. Let alone get into the MMO concept spin off. However it is all water under the bridge now. Lessons learned.

    Manpower is just one variable. We can put a numbers against it so it easy to speculate some what. An increase has been considered and growth has happened in the past.

    It has been said more that once that teams are separate. There is a minor overlap sure but it has be brought up before that there is two teams. Ironically this has sometimes made things go faster. Bigger maps for ME. No problem. Lets use the source code from SE to see if we get planets. Compound blocks in SE. Well we have a team of advisors there too. Unfortunately saying the code can be ported is terribly simplistic to the problems involved. However the general principle of how to proceed is all a team sometimes needs. One thing is for certain there needs to be a more generic set of in house development tools.

    As for throwing in more people. Well this kind of sums it all up.
    A very logical analysis as always.

    This is an option for finishing the blocks near the end. It can be done by brute force. Think of this as outsourcing the problem. Here we thrown in the money and do it with less time. The trouble is as @LordDevious is quite right to assume the quality can be lost. Which means you have to go back and have another round of debugging which takes more time and money. There is also a loss of resources spinning up (Brief/HR/Legal). In the end there is also no guarantee of a better result that doing it in house with more time. Especially when experience from another house project shows a new technological approach. It is a tough call that depends on the exact technical details and surrounding project constraints.

    Throwing in more people is an option however it also may be counterintuitive not to. Again this is all speculation here so hard to say either way.
     
  12. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    Couldn't agree more with both Merek playing a full out survival mode game from scratch and with the above comment.

    I too feel this is a very real danger. The game suffers from scope creep. It roots have always been in creating spaceships and engineering things for these ships. Planets are great to give us a new location to test/use our creations but ultimately it's just a new setting with slightly different physical rules.

    Here's hoping we can get back to engineering ships.

    Very much hope Merek gets the message OP.[/QUOTE]
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Nobodyhasthis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    222
    Your are absolutely correct. :tu:

    The number of times they said no to planets. It is was not game focus. However we kind of kept on asking for them. The outside market was pointing there. Ironically using some of SE as a concept. Without getting into a massive debate over the Ansoff analyst and without total knowledge of the technical decisions. Conditions and opportunities. It is still fair to say they probably had good reason to change their minds introduce major scope creep. Trouble is to fix everything we need to know all the variables. Those variables get added to when more stuff gets added.

    The solution is to lock the scope again and go back to fixing stuff. The trouble is from an outside observer it looks like nothing is getting done now. The flow of new features has stopped. Publishing a road map of what needs to be done is a pretty bold move. Especially when people will expect new features to appear on it. In my experience customers always react negatively to scope locking. Especially after period of scope creep. They go total crazy over scope reduction when the realities beyond anyone's control limit the project.

    I hope they stay the course through the dark days and eventually come out with the game (or tool kit) people expect.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2016
  14. Light_gemini Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    671
    I was against having planets back then. I saw it too much to possible handle and speed limit would make it unviable. Im glad that a developer surprised me pulling it off, for a change.

    I though that having the game play in supposed alien star system in its infancy, with gigantic astetoids fields yet to form up into planets would offer a new scenario uncommon in normal space games were everything seems to have to revolve around planets.
    I wonder what could have been done with all the time spent on planets instead of evolving the space game. I still dont give up on wanting more space features and I hope Marek do realize how mucj should be done in the space area.
     
  15. Cronos988 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    545
    Ok, first off I should say that I am basically ignoring PVP Multiplayer in my analysis, since we have neither the technical structure nor the actualy gameplay to support anything but small scale cooperative MP. I have a short summary of my reasons at the end of this post.

    As to the main point, it is true that you don't actually get creative mode freedom, but you do get into a sitution where you are basically playing a purely creative game where you are artificially limiting yourself. Once you are established, the only thing keeping you from simply placing blocks like in creative is mining and refining resources, but that is just a time sink. There is no challenge or finesse involved in building more drills and more refineries.

    That is true. And I am not actually advocating a classic survival focus for SE. What I am interested in is a more loose concept of "survival" that's not about surviving as an astronaut but about building and maintaining large spaceships. Some parts (e.g. oxygen) have something to do with keeping you alive, but the bigger part should be about keeping your ship and it's machinery "alive" and functioning well when faced with different tasks. The overall term I keep using isn't "survival" but "structure". The game needs a structured set of challenges and rewards the player can choose to engineer stuff for.

    Yes, and most of these games are actually pretty bad (as games), only working off the unhealthy desire to acquire bragging rights and to "defeat" weaker players. In any event, Space Engineers isn't really build for that kind of PVP survival.


    You're right that vanilla Minecraft is actually pretty shallow. But as I said above, Minecraft was the first of it's kind (being played by a large audience). It's not a standard you can measure a game against in 2016. Minecraft, when it came out, was a very elegant way to combine creative gameplay with a "survival" structure, where you had to work for your stuff. But it too had to constantly evolve and add new things players could challenge themselves with.

    I am not looking for competitive survival, though. I am looking for the kind of game we have in the early hours to be extended significantly.

    I don't quite agree. The ability to play Multiplayer fluently doesn't mean the Multiplayer gameplay will actually be any good. I have been on relatively stable PVP servers, but even without the technical problems the game design problems, which are to an extent shared by all games that try to combine building with multiplayer are clearly visible. To put it simply, there is no reason to interact. Cooperation with strangers is dangerous, comes with the difficulty of aligning your building plans, and offers no significant advantages. And there is even less reason to engage in competitive play. You mostly have too much invested in your creations to risk them in any way, and there is no risk-reward structure to incentivize fighting anyone who can actually fight back. The only thing that has a positive risk/reward expectation is raiding offline players, which is obviously terrible as well. Minecraft has the same problem, even ARK does. The only way to make it work would be a more RTS-like approach like in From the Depths.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    I don't mind that planets were added, I simply don't want them to become an excuse to change the focus of what the core game is about.

    Making spacecraft.

    After the exploding dog update, it scared the hell out of me because it seemed, the beginning of a shift in design. Their answer on how to challenge the player, a creeper? I guess the difference to me is the natural challenge vs. some made up enemy that is...well...obvious.

    I would much rather be challenged with a very risky atmospheric re-entry process (where my ship could potentially burn up if not piloted/designed correctly) over some exploding creatures running around on the ground.

    They could spend the next 2 years trying to fill their planets with things and not end up with a decent experience to the core gameplay.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  17. Levits Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,122
    Well, I certainly can agree with that. But unlike the video shown for ME and how their compound block system works, the actual construction aspect using SE's blocks would be rather limited. There just aren't that many blocks in the game (other than the ones that you mentioned) that would be able to use this. <of course even those few would greatly benefit from being able to have them placed within the same block space. But again, when it comes to how the majority of the blocks connect, there is very little space left. Regardless, I can agree that if this can be done with little effort then it would certainly be very useful.
     
  18. Light_gemini Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    671
    Hasnt anyone thoght that ME way of compound blocks require 2 or 3 or 4 models for a single block? Even if you combine existing blocks someone had to sit and think what blocks to merge and someone has to create the new blocks of merged blocks.
    And they are very short on people already. Keen would nevet accept it.

    Lord devious idea of letting blocks be placed together if not physically touching is better for everybody instead of ME compound blocks
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. frannic Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    315
    If we would just get a way to access the functional blocks on 1 position like @LordDevious mentioned (4th column) i think the modders will do the graphic side of things.
    Something like i access 1 block and in the gui i choose wich one to control.
    For example if i want to control the programmable block or the light above it.
    But the game just has store that there are 2 functional blocks at position x,y,z
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    Incorrect. Medieval Engineers compound blocks work by rendering all "large grid" blocks out of conglomerates of "small grid" blocks. Each combination of blocks doesn't get a unique model.

    Thus, the problem isn't "time spent modelling blocks", it's the load on the physics engine when all those "small blocks" move. Same issue that exists with "small ships gone wild", more or less.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Vaskadar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    357
    Procedural missions would be totally badass. They have some of the foundation and the potential to make them, but there are a lot of issues that need to be overcome.

    Bounty Hunting, search and rescue, trade, distress beacons, research and development, planetary exploration, defending positions, fighting off pirates. Procedural missions would do a lot for the game's longevity after getting your operation up and running.

    Minecraft, as a broad example has a sort of "questing" system with procedural dungeons, bosses, and player interactions that make it all more interesting, and there's a unifying theme. It's not exactly procedural missions like those found in Elite: Dangerous, but having more to explore and a more structured game makes it feel like there's more content. Having platinum exclusively in space makes getting offworld a major step forward. There need to be reasons, even if somewhat contrived, to go places and do things in a sandbox environment.

    Diamonds and redstone are resources only obtainable in select locations and layers in a minecraft world. Making specific resources obtainable only in specific locations gives some level of progression to the game that makes it substantially more interesting. Having dangers related to going to certain places (where valuable resources are contained) gives reason to designing things a certain way. It gives reason to do more than just construct a base, build ships, gather resources.

    What incentivizes players to go to other planets other than just to go?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Perhaps there's not many blocks, but the blocks that are will have a huge impact. Just sensors, lights, text panels and button panels alone would help me personally immensely. Unfortunately there is certainly an effort involved since while getting this to work within the grid class itself is easy, it directly affects the API. This is the major drawback of this suggestion, however it is still vastly simpler than a complete ME compound block system, which would affect the API even further as I understand it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  23. g4borg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    271
    I think I understand with this what you miss. Keeping the ship running, more of an abstract logic game after the ship is built. Yes I can totally agree on that, however this would be yet another layer to build. Interestingly, our minds go in similar directions there possibly.

    Where I do have to say, your arguments are somewhat subjective however, is, if I skip this information, and only focus on what you wrote about multiplayer; something like DayZ would work quite well in space engineers.
    As software engineer i also have to disagree about your observation of previous titles: network challenges presented by this game (logical block building, spiking micro-mmo-data if ships arrive) can be solved today, aswell as the physical problems (collisions on an mp server), but of course, simulation of collision will always be expensive.
    However correct syncing of all data, and a good fps protocol in its own channel, which keeps jittering and weird jumping around away, is totally possible. Especially if you view it from the perspective you just said: see the ship after its built as something "that works" and "that can break in different metas", where it becomes necessary to adjust, align, and repair the ship in various ways, maybe even integrated into the fighting system.

    You are right, that simple offline base building becomes a problem aswell, but actually, it wasnt a big problem either in minecraft or dayz, the network bugs of arma killed the latter more, or missing linux database bindings, because base building was more of a bugfest, which is also largely to the fact, that it was a scripted mod of a finished engine. minecraft servers usually die because you cannot bring your creations to life, people are building houses, but there is no lategame for multiplayer, only broken exchange of items. so i think, multiplayer would work a lot better, simply because of internal faction systems, automated scripts possible, npcs easier to integrate (guards or dealers), etc. - you have to understand, the beauty of the multiplayer survival comes out of what the players can do, not what the game has dictated on them. With that in mind, the resource game for me is fine, but adding something that brings your creations more alive, like you say, and allow you more finetuning and maintaining, isnt a bad idea. You have to realize however, the game will always in the end be about the limits you impose on yourself, if you play solo.
    Survival Sandbox in solo game is called "Rogue", its a different kind of game, throwing you back to the start if you fail. A Sandbox Survival always ends either in you becoming rich and all powerfull, or locked, there is no way to prevent that.
    And that is my point, to understand survival games, you have to understand, they are built for multiplayer, always, as survival is a team effort, and the wolf of men is man.
    Even if now I see that your demands for a more in depth survival system have merit (but also could come by mods)
    Still, for me the devs should focus on finishing the multiplayer experience, before we can talk game elements.
     
  24. Cronos988 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    545
    Good to hear ;). And yeah it would be more work, but it's what the game needs IMHO, it's the thing that should have been developed right from the start. It's not that we lack content per se. What is lacking is the connection between the different systems. A coherent whole instead of isolated features.

    Oh, I am sorry if I haven't made myself clear, I don't disagree that it's technically possible. I just doubt you'd get really fun gameplay without a massive redesign of the game.

    Sorry, but I disagree. In Minecraft, offline raiding is totally a huge problem, as it is in ARK and any other similar games. The problem is either bases are essentially defenseless, which means everytime you go offline you risk loosing everything, or they are completely immune, at which point you'd be better off playing Counterstrike or any other dedicated FPS game. That the bases are lifeless in the endgame is just a symptom of this underlying problem: People don't invest in their bases beyond the essentials because they either loose them every night or the bases are mostly irrelevant in actual combat.


    It might be integrated, but it still hasn't got all the systems it needs (e.g. more detailed ranks and alliances)

    I am not sure how you think these things are special in SE or how they help solve the problems I outlined?

    But what is the game about if you play Multiplayer if there is no reason to engage with any other players? There needs to be a reason to actually play together - and i don't mean playing with a bunch of friends you already know, I mean engaging in some kind of interaction with strangers you meet ingame. If the game doesn't provide the basics for interaction, how is interesting multiplayer supposed to result?

    Well obviously you cannot play any game forever. That doesn't mean the current amount of gameplay to be had in SE is fine or that there is no point in adding gameplay.

    No, sorry, I simply don't agree with that. There is tons of great singleplayer survival games, and many survival games that actually have MP are still better in singleplayer. The only thing that makes most survival games better is small scale co-op play with friends, but that generally makes all games better, so it doesn't mean much.

    I don't think mods alone can do it - the game lacks the necessary mechanics, it's not interconnected enough.

    How do you "finish" the multiplayer experience without game elements? Unless you mean just experiencing relatively lag-free server.
     
  25. Zyfe Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    I was actually going to use Minecraft as a comparison as to WHY SE is so boring and Minecraft isn't...

    If SE had even half the stuff that Minecraft had, it would be full of "things to do".
     
  26. Thedevistator Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,942
    I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Even if it was a static grid the system you proposed would still be very performance costly and not worth it.
     
  27. waterlimon Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,499
    Small blocks have nothing to do with the large block grid. Small blocks make small block things, large blocks make large block things. Just like in space engineers.

    Compound blocks are just two large blocks that exist at the same position.
     
  28. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    Not as Keen themselves have explained it, no.
     
  29. Thedevistator Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,942
    Let me ask where? And if it's a video what time?
     
  30. Lord Wraith Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    i never caught Marek's steam while he played SE, but from what i heard most of what he did was go around slamming the red ship into the blue ship, not building in survival, just playing in creative, now i have played this game for over 3000 hours, both creative (for construction of finished ships to put on the workshop and uses in my survival world) and YES I WAS ONE OF THE GRAND PRIZE WINNERS WITH W4STEDSPACE PLANET CONTEST, (SOL3 planet drill and Ore Carrier), so when i play in survival constructing bases both in space and on planets, (i'm playing survival in easy start 1, survival single person and survival MP on a (very bad) server), which means i know alot about the problems that SE is having, (YES THERE ARE ALOT OF PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW) and yes Marek should play both creative and survival, and perhaps, after a time, he might have an idea of what the community faces, the types of problems that seem to drive alot of people daft (and i include myself in that group at times), i have never played minecraft, but know about it (just the basics) and have only play one type of sandbox game (that being SE) so in someways my knowledge is limited to what i personally know, and what i know is that the game still needs something more, what i don't know, i understand the frustrations of people, when they say WHAT'S THE END GOAL, what do i do now, now that i have all the resources that i'm going to need now and forever, where do i go now, what is left for me, i find this thought deep even in real life, why am i here, what is my purpose in life, what should i do now, etc.
    Games like HALO which have a finished (and yes polished) story line, guide us around allowing us to reach their finish line however we wish, but it is still THEIR finish line, there is no where else to go, for SE the finish line has not even been set yet, PLANETS, MP, scenarios (started ok not finished give you that one) have all been added to the game since it first came out (ok 2 years is a long time in testing) but what i'm trying to say (maybe not well) is when Keen and Marek first started out to make SE and ME did they think that the game would go this way or did they have other ideas, which ever way you look at it, change on this level not only takes time but can cause alot of problems to get right, most game's developers don't change tack during this phase of the game, they have an idea of what the game should look like and work towards that goal, things get better, smoother, better looking, less glitchy, but they don't added new and more complicated things in, so i guess the real question is where does Marek want to take the game, after all he created it, and what does he want for us, do we the community (beyond a few) have a real say in the matter, or are we going to be kept as the silent majority, what would i like for SE, yes i would like to see Marek play in survival (and no, not an easy start, but the star system(with mpcs added)), yes i know that time is limited for him (you can't run a company and play, trust me on that one) but for a CEO to understand the product he (and his company) sells, he must play the game as other do, perhaps when he has reached that point, where he too has all the resources that he will ever need or want, and there is no where else to go, perhaps then, he might understand what the community is feeling. But be warned if he does do this what will he release on us next in the game!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.