Jump to content

Wardion2000

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wardion2000

  1. Oooh. Crazy thought. Make a ship look like an asteroid.
  2. I didn't. I did, and DON'T go around misrepresenting me. Yes, there are two towers to view things from. You should try standing on the other one. I was critical of one part of your post, doesn't mean I was being critical of the others. vylqun is voicing an opinion based on what he knows. You are voicing and opinion on what you assume. Who says you'll get more than one character per account? Some will view that as reason alone to ALLOW multi-boxing others won't. Voicing your disagreement with either stance is fine. Giving a reason more that it's "ridiculous" or because you assume it will work another way is not. As to your last comment, I agree. I said as much, I pointed out how A.I. and scripting could make it an irrelevant point. I also pointed out how multi-boxing could be unbalancing if the game goes a different direction. If you don't see it fine. But not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't possible. And finally, If you don't agree with someone else's views on a subject, that's fine. They are voicing their opinions and concerns just like anyone else posting. If you have an argument and would like to debate the finer points of their stance feel free. Otherwise, your posts so far have been full of vitriol, smug rhetoric and contribute less to the subject at hand and more on what you feel about other posters. Leave that on the other side of the keyboard, please.
  3. I know it's "possible" I just don't know if it's allowed.
  4. I'm not sure it would be of great benefit either. Just throwing ideas out.
  5. The calculations wouldn't be done client side only the RESULTS would be saved there. It was an unconventional idea to relieve system stress server side. Nothing more. As for the database of blueprints, it would be necessary if all resultant data was stored client side. But I thought of it as a POSSIBLE solution. One that I largely dismissed because of all the problems it would create. Unless someone else had an idea to resolve it. Got any of those? If not you can pretty much ignore the post.
  6. In the DevBlog it was stated they planned to allow the Nanoformer on your arm to be used as a simple weapon shooting out materials or energy. (both, please?) I was wondering if anyone besides myself would like to see it capable of other tasks? For instance, The ability to grab a voxel of dirt and just drop it somewhere else as dirt. Could be useful to disguise fortifications, or hide in a covered hole. Also creating things on the ground could be a real pain if you can't fill in gaps for a foundation. Could it be made upgradeable somehow to not just pick up certain substances but also change the state of them? (Collecting water and then creating ice.) Can we upgrade the simple weapon function so it has more punch? Or perhaps the ability to make blueprint structures and constructs build almost instantaneously? "You wish to fight sir? Very well." ~nanoforms a robot gargoyle~ "I shall oblige you." Okay, I admit it. I am so going to play a frikkin Space Wizard when DU comes out.
  7. If you don't understand why they suggest a limit or why they put forth the idea in the first place perhaps you should ask before calling it "imposing" or "ridiculous". An idea or suggestion doesn't emerge from a vacuum after all. If they suggest something they may have been in a similar situation and want to point out possible downsides that they have experienced. vylqun makes an excellent observation on the need to travel between markets. Because something might be THERE in between. Could be bad. Could be good. The point is you won't know if all you are doing is logging between accounts. As for multiboxing giving an advantage in PVP? I could see it. Clever keyboard scripting and macros could make a formidable formation of ships. All with perfect coordination, timing, and targeting. You could literally have the perfect wingmen that way. At the same time, it may be a moot point as CaptanTwerkmotor suggests. A.I. ships and drones may make it an irrelevant concept.
  8. I would reserve making that assumption till we know how sophisticated they will allow scripting and DPU's. If it were to be totally free of restrictions you would be hard pressed to beat a well programmed A.I. drone. Instantaneous reaction time, Instantaneous decision making. Not to mention if I designed ships with A.I. piloting in mind I can skip certain aspects that a human pilot would find necessary. (cockpit, life support). And then use all that extra space for armor, weapons, extra thrusters, and gyroscopes. An A.I. drone can be designed to function with a minimum of parts and still pull off better maneuvering than a human ever will. For instance, you could make it without retro thrusters. Every time it wants to slow down it could flip a perfect 180, fire main thrusters, and then flip back without missing a beat. Yeah A.I. drones could be scary. Everybody just programs A.I. dumber for games so the player doesn't get embarrassed.
  9. Your statement is true. It would be less stressful if you ran it that way. Up to a point. It merely delays when those calculations are made. When those "certain conditions" are met all of a sudden it becomes a MASSIVE drain on system resources as it now it has to calculate all the values for the affected voxel parts at once. This factor could be compounded even further if multiple ships are being damaged in the same area simultaneously. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit just that it would require something else along with it to make it work. For instance, I thought a possible solution would be calculating that information before hand and it could be part of the blueprint. Especially if you limited it to voxel and mesh based "elements". All the calculations would be done already and on the client side. But this has the disadvantages of taking up an extreme amount of room on a players computer. (You would need all blueprint information, even for blueprints you don't have.) It would need micro updates occurring every time someone makes a blueprint, and it would be highly abusable by cheaters. So, more ideas? Possible solutions? Information from the devs that will address this entire thread?
  10. Would they neigh as you fired them?
  11. FTD design focused? Couldn't agree more. Ease of use? Dead on. Thank you for making it clear that is what you were trying to convey. Until now it felt as if you were making the claim that you can't engineer anything well with a single block style system and a multiblock system was the only solution. And since you were using Space Engineers (a game I know for a fact you can engineer the $#!+ out of) as an example. I felt hard pressed not voicing my opinion otherwise. So with that out of the way. More to discuss later then?
  12. Who's ignoring you? Point them out, I will entomb them within a prison I Voxelmance from my mind. Oh, and in response to your post I present for your entertainment these two new video links. Vanilla made chainguns in Space Engineers! (Link here and here) Both can have alternate payloads and firing speeds. I'm sorry no matter how many times I read your second paragraph I couldn't stop my brain from having a seizure. What exactly were you trying to convey? Because I didn't get it. For the thruster, You are correct! But pointing out every single component I can't alter cuts both ways. Can you customize your boat props in FTD for instance? (And no, size doesn't count I have different size thrusters as well) Pretty sure they're both fulfilling the same basic function too. All that shows is in both cases the game developers saw no need to include such sophistication. (yet) Finding a middle ground? This intrigues me. It is an interesting idea. You could have them be the BOG standard parts you initially have access to. Do you have any ideas how you would incorporate it into the skill system? As to your fourth paragraph. No more needs to be said by me. I think I've made my opinions known on this in previous posts.
  13. Your points are well stated, speak of experience, of both yourself and others, and make no assumptions about what is or is not true or possible. I congratulate you, Cornflakes. This is exactly what I look for in debates. I concede that most people do play S.E. just slapping components on. Few people make the jump to actually engineering things. I see where the disconnect in our views are now by your second and third statements. You are equating a reactor with an engine. Though technically this is true it is much harder to make it an equivalent example, due to the relation between power sources and thruster types in Space Engineers. For instance, If I used batteries on atmospheric thrusters most wouldn't think to draw a parallel at all. If I use Hydrogen thrusters I don't have an engine at all, just a source of fuel and a throttleable output (which almost no one uses ) to thrusters. If I make a gravity drive once again it becomes another fuel source. The ability to draw parallels is muddled even further when designing mixed systems. The gravity drive is probably the closest you could come when drawing comparisons to FTD's engine design stage. It has the same balancing act when it comes to efficiency, power, and size. (I do concede most people design only with acceleration in mind) Your fifth point leaves me wondering, though. Your statement pretty much contradicts itself. I would say to accomplish what you want in Space Engineers requires as much thinking as you NEED. (This was my general gripe about OmnipotentVoids blanket statements.) The people who make great, complicated, machines that work in Space Engineers are the artisans that fit on one end of a spectrum of skill, and their work deserves more than just being labeled as an exceptional "case". Your last two points make for an interesting argument. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with making a game simpler and more accessible to a larger player base. On the other, If the goal is to make a certain kind of game and then you change it to something that MIGHT be more popular? Er. I think this might create more problems than it resolves. Is it the multiblock system easier? Certainly. Will it work for what the game devs WANT you to be able to do in DU? Hmmm... ~shake, shake, shake~ The simple truth is we don't know enough about what the devs want to answer that question yet. It could turn out that a multiblock system is exactly what's needed for this game. Or every pro about a multiblock system might turn into a con because the of direction the game goes. We are kinda in the wind right now. What I do know is that a well done single block system can do everything a multiblock system one can. It might require skill sets not found in your average player but it can be done. And I say this with the full knowledge that even single blocks systems like Space Engineers don't always cover the things you want them to. But that's what updates are for..... And modding. Definitely modding.
  14. Greeting Timedragon! And welcome to the boards!
  15. Well since we have gravity in game. Maybe we can build jump gates near gravity wells? "Welcome to my jump gate fools! Hope you built your ships with an overabundance of thrusters. No? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!".
  16. Are you trying to bait me? ~sigh~ Okay. I don't think you read the post in question because if you had you would have realized you were echoing OmnipotentVoid's exact same sentiments and I had already provided a counter argument. With examples no less. Do you really want me to have a debate with you over the EXACT same things he said? Maybe you do. I certainly WON'T. Hence the "Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post." comment. And if you're going to quote me actually quote me. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what I wrote. Now if you would like to debate any other reasons in which the DU might benefit from a multiblock system over a single block system. By all means, fire away and we can debate til the sky falls down. Otherwise, I'm not going to repeat myself if all you are doing is parroting someone else. Because that would be two parrots and that's just silly.
  17. Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post.
  18. Behold! The Voxelmancer!

  19. In S.E. Just because someone accomplishes something with programming and timers doesn't invalidate it. So what point are you trying to make here? I've designed missiles that guide themselves, penetrate a ship and then open up to expose gun systems that shoot the ship inside out. Also, ones that release active thrusters to burn up components. (hilarity ensues if the target uses a gravity drive) No warheads required. Complex systems work just fine. (Example here) Sitting Flush? (Example here) People design gravity mass drivers that shoot scrap steel, stones. (Link here) Other player made weapons that aren't missiles. (here and here) Custom turrets ARE possible manned or automated. (Link here, and here respectively) Stating it's a pain is rather presumptuous. I don't find it a pain and I'm sure there are others who feel the same. People make turrets with weapons that have variable capabilities all the time. So it's not the same as a single block turret. DU plans to have LUA programming and DPU's. Which will allow you to do amazing things that can take ridiculously long time to set up..... If you're not particularly skilled at it. Or they can be largely ignored for those that like simpler designs. So I think this issue is already a moot point. Even if it weren't a moot point. Stating it takes a "ridiculously long time" as a negative connotation is a personal gripe, not an actual issue. Requiring programming skills doesn't exclude anyone. (And once again difficulty and the time it takes varies from person to person ) They can either learn LUA, a very simple programming language or get a script from someone who does know LUA. Ships designed around doing more than one thing really well? (Link here) Telling me scaling up a design means more of the same blocks also means little. For FTD you mention an in-game system upgrade that takes up the extra space so I can place my weapon on a turret Or upgrade its fire rate and damage, or upgrade the engine or more thrusters. How is that any different from me taking up more block space internally or externally to place MY weapon on a turret, Or upgrading the weapon for a better fire rate or damage (Clearly from the above links I'm not limited to simple weapon blocks) Or upgrading my gravity drive for more power, better handling or more acceleration. Adding thrusters? "click done" So while I may concede that FTD maybe easier to use, I find your statement that it contains more depth, is a superior ship design game and that S.E. is lacking in the engineering side a somewhat "lacking" assertion in and of itself. Oh and I don't think you are putting S.E. down, But from my above links clearly you can do all the things you say that S.E. can't. Also from the above links, you can clearly accomplish without multi blocks all the things you want them for with a simple block system.
  20. The purpose of the game as stated by the devs is a sandbox with certain creative freedoms. Big difference. There will certainly be restrictions, and not enough information has been put out for anyone to have an inkling what ALL of those creative freedoms might be. As for what is expected that players may be allowed create, envisioned or not, SledgeHammer what you wrote down is merely an assumption. Exploitative does not necessarily suggest cheating. Being able to repeatedly jump a wall to avoid an attack while an AI mob must find a path around is an exploit. You are specifically exploiting a limit in the game design. I might not be fighting the mob as intended but I'm certainly not cheating nor is it an unfair advantage if I was given the ability to jump walls in the first place. Exploits can exist and not be cheating. So once again, what can we expect in these types of situations? Will they change it if they feel it's unbalancing or let it play out as if it were some meta that might be countered by someone else's creation. Will they ignore it because altering it would change the gameplay of other in-game systems and simply expect players not to do it again? I have no idea. That is why I created this thread and asked those questions. Perhaps if I had been this detailed before you would have understood. So If anyone has an idea what that might be, by all means, please add to the conversation. If not please inform me if later you do have an idea about what that might be.
  21. He's right. There might indeed be harm in trying.
  22. I'm a big fan of Space Engineers, so I am undoubtedly biased. And I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this but I feel the need to after reading the first part of your post. I have seen many people who play the game simply tacking things on together or making ships that are simply functional or aesthetically pleasing. And then I have seen real artists. Those who put together sensors systems, engines, and drills in a manner that defies any simple explanation to make automated drones that mine asteroids and bring back the cargo and then do it again all at the push of a button. I have seen people design jump capable satellite systems with solar arrays that unpack themselves from a stable flight mode and unfold like a lotus flower to follow the sun creating an outpost over their next planetary conquest. I have seen vessels that have rotary cannons, player made torpedo systems that will deactivate their own warheads if a friendly target is about to be hit minimizing the accidental damage. I have seen rolling automated scouts. Rovers that are so well crafted that the can traverse any terrain in front of them. The list goes on and on. The point is anyone can tack parts together and make something that works in Space Engineers. But it takes a true Engineer to actually make something that works well and beyond the simple summation of its parts.
×
×
  • Create New...