Jump to content

Blueprints still not useable to build larger structures


Mncdk1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seeing honeycomb when placing a blueprint is nice, but there's still no fine control over the placement.

If you are trying to place a static, such that what you're placing will seamlessly integrate into a larger structure, it's still impossible to do that with blueprints. If you just turn a few pixels to the side, the alignment will be off. The borders also constantly ends up being a fraction of a voxel either inside or outside the voxels of nearby cores.

Edit: Not to mention that blueprints seem to move 2 voxels when you use the arrow keys. Wtf.

 

Blueprints need to be able to snap to the grid of an existing structure, just like static cores do. When expanding a structure with static cores, it's easy to position a core on the existing structure by just moving the mouse over it, and then keyboard-move the core into place, because it snaps to the existing grid.

 

Make blueprints able to snap to existing grids that same way.

Edited by Mncdk1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have to understand is, that a BP is not meant to be some kind of blueprint for having a building placed next to your other building. It is more of a "way forward machine", like, what would it look like if you just build the whole thing, and without aligning it to anything. And the current BP System does that really well, it works.

 

NQ might think about thinking about maybe introducing something like what you suggest eventually, if they thought people actually wanted it. But until then there are things with higher priorities, like letting programming boards know the position a screen is relative to the button that started it, expressed as a quaterinion matrix list, via getScreenPostionRelativeToButton, a new video or the devs playing some other game and calling it DU, new guns to speed up the enemy, and globally reducing running speed to make pvp more balanced.

Also, if you don’t like blueprints, just don’t use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Gottchar said:

What you have to understand is, that a BP is not meant to be some kind of blueprint for having a building placed next to your other building. It is more of a "way forward machine", like, what would it look like if you just build the whole thing, and without aligning it to anything. And the current BP System does that really well, it works.

 

NQ might think about thinking about maybe introducing something like what you suggest eventually, if they thought people actually wanted it. But until then there are things with higher priorities, like letting programming boards know the position a screen is relative to the button that started it, expressed as a quaterinion matrix list, via getScreenPostionRelativeToButton, a new video or the devs playing some other game and calling it DU, new guns to speed up the enemy, and globally reducing running speed to make pvp more balanced.

Also, if you don’t like blueprints, just don’t use them.

Epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mncdk1 said:

Seeing honeycomb when placing a blueprint is nice, but there's still no fine control over the placement.

If you are trying to place a static, such that what you're placing will seamlessly integrate into a larger structure, it's still impossible to do that with blueprints. If you just turn a few pixels to the side, the alignment will be off. The borders also constantly ends up being a fraction of a voxel either inside or outside the voxels of nearby cores.

Edit: Not to mention that blueprints seem to move 2 voxels when you use the arrow keys. Wtf.

 

Blueprints need to be able to snap to the grid of an existing structure, just like static cores do. When expanding a structure with static cores, it's easy to position a core on the existing structure by just moving the mouse over it, and then keyboard-move the core into place, because it snaps to the existing grid.

 

Make blueprints able to snap to existing grids that same way.

That's disappointing but not surprising. NQ devs rarely get things right. Maybe on the tenth try. I wonder if they'll get it right by the time I can afford to respawn my bases. Not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gottchar said:

What you have to understand is, that a BP is not meant to be some kind of blueprint for having a building placed next to your other building. It is more of a "way forward machine", like, what would it look like if you just build the whole thing, and without aligning it to anything. And the current BP System does that really well, it works.

 

NQ might think about thinking about maybe introducing something like what you suggest eventually, if they thought people actually wanted it. But until then there are things with higher priorities, like letting programming boards know the position a screen is relative to the button that started it, expressed as a quaterinion matrix list, via getScreenPostionRelativeToButton, a new video or the devs playing some other game and calling it DU, new guns to speed up the enemy, and globally reducing running speed to make pvp more balanced.

Also, if you don’t like blueprints, just don’t use them.

 

The saddest part is... I don't know if you're serious, or if you just made all that up. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mncdk1 said:

you just made all that up

All made up, but referencing the style of some NQ quotes.

 

When asked about why the repair units does not repair, the dev said the user should understand that the repair unit is not a unit to repair things, but a "way back machine" for voxels, and goes into detail how the repair unit currently works (which we already know) instead of answering the question.

NQ really likes to mention how they maybe could consider starting to think about maybe doing something, but it is low priority.

Example:
"Will there be an ability to group territories and pay taxes for a group at once? It's very annyoing to deposit quanta for each territory when you have a lot of them."
"Yes, this could be a QOL improvement we can consider for the future, but there is no set date for that. "

And the advice to just not use them is mirroring the advice to just not play the mining unit game if you think it is too slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really upset when I hear "low priority" claims and see really pointless additions like virtual flies that add nothing but annoyance.  

We had a upvote site, what happened there?

 

If the player base wants a feature and votes it as high priority via a majority it would be good to see how or why NQ thought other stuff no one wanted was higher priority. What we see is a lot of comments of how things must have the correct priority. I really do want to know why or how stuff that lowers the players fun, adds nothing to the game but an annoyance is prioritize above things that factually have majority vote for inclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone read announcements anymore? 

 

"

Keep in mind, if the above solution is decided on, that an improved version of the Blueprint / Construct deployment tool available to all players will be implemented in-game at the time (or maybe even before) such a solution would be applied to the game.

Such improved version will enable players to have:

  • A preview of the Construct before deploying the said Construct from a blueprint (this feature should be available with Athena release).
  • An ability to auto-align the preview of the Construct on an already deployed Construct (this feature should be available a bit later after Athena release)."

 

I guess it's more fun to just complain blind also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 1:45 AM, Atmosph3rik said:

This is like the time they gave us a fuel intake element, and then it turned out to be just a tiny door.

 

Yeah, a tiny door that is one entire voxel thick just to rub it in!

 

I think this quote needs to be the go-to phrase to describe the incredible level of disappointment NQ manage to repeatedly deliver the (dwindling) player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...