Jump to content
Stray Fawn Community

Lurkily

Moderator
  • Posts

    1,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Lurkily

  1. One if gate plus one per additional thruster grouping can activate say, both turn left and turn right thrusters to assist forward thrust. (If w, forward thrust, CCW forward thrust, and CW forward thrust, in this case.)  You'll need a few more to ensure that if you thrust forward, AND try to turn clockwise, that the counter-clockwise forward thrust cuts out.

  2. I think the intent is for explosive decouplers to be a separate part; but you have a point, if explosive decouplers are intended, you can just parent parts to a child of the decoupler.  There's no reason to keep this behavior at all, save to litter the map with decoupler parts.

    1 hour ago, Ookami-sama said:

    I still fail to see any use for a setting that would allow to detach the decoupler with or without the children components. It only has a weight of 1 unit, not like it can irremediably compromise the working of any sort of craft.

    2

    Everything you're saying is reasonable, and pretty much in line with what I've been saying.  It wouldn't be a comprehensive change; but if it is a trivial change on the dev's part, then that is how I would prefer them to work.

    If it's not a trivial change to make, then there are other things I'd much prefer they spend time on first.

  3. For instance, say you have a deployable drone that you only ever need one of.  But building it throws you off balance, and you can't manuever it to the spot you need to leave it without weaving around drunkenly.  As I've done with factories, you can add thrusters to the decoupler to balance the thrust when you build.  But those thrusters will throw the deployable's balance off, so you'd like them to be decoupled as well, and just discarded, rather than leaving them attached to the deployable.

    Maybe you want to drop several deployables from one decoupler.  Its uses aren't comprehensive, but it seems like it might be trivial to implement, and it does provide a capability you can't easily replicate another way.

  4. I usually consider an idea by first questioning the need for it, poking holes in it.  Hence why I tend to try and curb some ideas by diverting to things I think are more necessary, but would also cover the same circumstances.

    I can't really poke a hole in this one.  This is simple, uncomplicated, seems straightforward to implement, and provides an additional capability that can't easily be reproduced any other way.  You can sort of hack this in by using a factory instead of a decoupler, but it's a clumsy option.

    Definitely in favor.

    • Like 1
  5. 8 hours ago, Alpino_WILL_STEAL_ oats! said:

    The game won’t remain as sandbox as it is right now. Stuff like this is almost confirmed.

    I know I've heard the devs talk about an eventual transition to progression mechanics, but things do change, and it's been a long time since I've heard talk about that.  But then, I was on hiatus awhile during the Great Laptop Disaster.

  6. I like A.  Anything at all to make the galaxy more alive.

    As for C, aren't all planets procedurally generated?

    I still like the idea of the universe changing in response to your completion or noncompletion of a mission, though.  It's less like a galaxy and more like a board game's playing field, right now; every square on the game board is static and unchanging.  It doesn't feel like a living place at all.  

    I know you don't like making an existing, accessible mission harder in response to noncompletion.  What if we provide access to a challenge, instead of making an existing mission more challenging?  What if certain routes (NEVER blocking progress - always just a link to a single dead-end system that can't possibly impede your route to the wormhole) are locked, and only pop-up missions can grant access to these systems?  

    Within those systems, you might see much more challenging missions, but you also might find more rewards.  (Part unlocks, when some kind of progression is implemented, or large ore reserves.)

    • Like 1
  7. The IF block is currently our solution to that.  Give your thrusters tags instead of keys - for example, strafe left, leftward CCW thrust, and leftward CW thrust.  (Clockwise and counter-clockwise.)

    Now you can use if blocks so that when you hit 'A' to strafe, it activates both your left strafe, and the thrust toward the left that you'd also use for CW and CCW turning.

    An object can also have BOTH a tag and a key, which also provides multiple activation criteria.

    Be aware, there is a drawback; I'm sure you're already aware, but I'll mention it anyway.  You can only effectively use one kind of thrust at a time in this setup.  If you need to turn fast, you have to stop strafing, because your strafe includes thrusters that negate part of your turning force.  In many of these builds, if your turn left/right thrusters are forward and back, (tank controls,) you can't turn well while under thrust.

    I'm personally a big fan of enabling things like this, but I think logic is the way to do it.  I think logic and sensors, making drones that can respond intelligently to your needs, is the core of Nimbatus's appeal.  I'm hoping, instead of modifying inputs this way, to see logic modified so that it isn't so awkward in construction.

    • Like 1
  8. I'm assuming that the game won't always remain so much like a sandbox - but it's perfectly possible I'm mistaken in that.

    If I'm not, eventually we're going to have to involve strategic decision making - that means balancing risk and reward.  Right now, the only risk the game incurs is that you can lose your progress in completing a single mission - maybe five minutes of time.

  9. I notice some issues with snake egg missions and bio barrel missions sometimes not having the requirements to fulfill the mission, or players destroying too many barrels without knowing it. 

    Why not resupply the mission?  Drop a bio -barrel from space if fewer than three remain.  Have the snake lay an egg every five minutes.

    This opens the way to having to fight over collectibles with an enemy intent on destroying them all, and snake eggs hatching larval snakes (which you can destroy, I hope)  if you leave them alone. 

  10. Okay, so apparently these forums take the earliest post as the TOPIC when merging posts.  I wanted to add my suggestion to ManTheMister's thread.  Instead, my earlier topic supplanted his. Here is a link to his suggestion, originally posted not as a comment, but as a feature request: 

    So that the content of what I posted previously (but was less popular) isn't lost, my suggestion follows:

    I would like to see missions that alter conditions on a planet.  I think this would contribute to the galaxy seeming like a living, breathing place, instead of just a playing field.  Maybe there is a significant corp presence (multiple transmitters)  or maybe snake eggs (but not a snake) are present where they shouldn't be. Failure to take these missions soon will permanently change conditions on that planet.  

    For instance, in the first mission, you might have a research base and more corp guns/drones as an additional mission to the default mission.  With the eggs, you might have a snake present and eggs to destroy along with the default mission. Maybe some failed missions would add bio barrel pollution for you to clean up. 

    The passage of time should be measured in completed missions.  Visiting a planet and returning wouldn't count, but if you complete (let's say, oh, something arbitrary like ...) three missions without getting to the pop-up mission, it counts as failed, and changes conditions there permanently. 

  11. I agree - I don't think it should be an ugly grind. (Though we already do have to grind for upgrade availability, and we seem mostly agreed that it is a rewarding mechanic, with suggestions to treat other parts the same way - TNT, energy, etc.)  I don't want to BLOCK the player.  

    The key is to introduce a new player to simple concepts by providing access to simple parts.  This gives them a chance to build something that works without confusion, and without the fear that they're neglecting important things by not using available parts.  You don't get people dumping it because it's confusing right from the outset.

    You set the hook in other words. Let them get their footing.  Unlocks can be provided with as much or little ease as you like after that, and provide an additional reward and accomplishment to form the proper addiction. :)

  12. I've actually built something for ALMOST this; cirularizing a planet as you strip mine it, so your miner can move faster.  I was hoping for adjustable altimeter targets, to make strip mining this way more plausible.  I may end up making a ship with twenty altimeters and a metric butt-ton of logic, instead.

    In the meantime, I'll consider this.  I may use a lower altitude - the hopper gets in the way, sometimes.

  13. I'm actually in favor of paid part unlocks.  The drone construction can be information overload when a new player jumps in; limiting them to basic parts with some cheap initial unlocks can ease them into more complex builds, rather than dumping every capability on them at once.

    Some of it, like some sets of logic parts, can be bought in groupings, and it doesn't have to be expensive.

    I also think that we'll eventually have to limit the extent of drones so that you can't just put a thousand guns and engines on the field your first game in.  I feel like that, too, is something you should earn.

    Remember, a good game balances expanding challenge with expanding skill and capability.  Eventually, the game should have a growing challenge - and the player will need growing capabilities to match that.  We can't just give them everything at once.

    • Like 1
  14. I'm not entirely sure what you mean - its use in logic wouldn't let you scroll through inputs.  It's really just another mouse button, when it comes to input and output detection, even if it's physically actuated a bit differently.

    I fully agree with being able to scroll through tag lists, though.  That would be really great.

  15. That's pretty much it.  It dumps one output if it's higher than a target altitude, and another if it's lower.  There's a tolerance in the middle, where neither is activated.  The altitude is represented as a percentage of the planet size, if I recall.  0 is the diameter of the planet - 100 should be twice that, and 0 should be right down to the core.

×
×
  • Create New...