Update 0.2: Building Update

The multiplayer update for the new version is now available!
  • JF91


    You are so much insisting on scaling up costs that you don´t see my point.


    Once again:


    - technically its difficult. Se Red51s post for that


    - scaling costs would make it more realistic but i see no point in doing that as there are other way to implement some realism into the game and give a challenge (see my suggestions for tools, processing, etc)


    - compare the effort (for development and ingame-grind) with the cases in which you have more realism. Your example with the roofing was a very good example. Though a rare one. In which cases do you have a real benefit from enlarging a block for the cost of 1 stone vs. enlarging a block for the cost of i.e. 10 stone?
    I really don´t see where higher costs will add to the gaming experience. For individual cases i am sure there will be a possibility (like with the PnB plugin currently for Java version) to generally raise the costs for producing a block. But scaling up with size is too far off (in my opinion) from a gaming experience. After all we want to enjoy a game, not build a real house.


    - In the end we can request and wish everything we want. But the final decision is with the development team and technical possibilities. Nothing wrong from your side to want something. But don´t be too much focused on it. Its a game, not Reallife

  • No, I see your point, I just disagree completely. I addressed most of your points in my previous comment, but I am going to address these points one last time and then move on.

    1) No, Red didn't say it was technically difficult at all. The only issue he noted is for blocks smaller than 1x1x1, and as I already made clear in my previous post, I would be fine with just rounding values to 1 in those circumstances. That is why I included the rounding up to the nearest integer in my calculation. It is not perfect but it is close enough, and far more accurate than what we have now.

    2) Why are you acting like we can only implement ONE change to improve realism, and we have to argue over which specific change is the most useful? We can add more depth and realism with tools and crafting, while ALSO scaling resources appropriately. These two points do not get in the way of each other in any way, they are completely compatible together. Having one does not mean we cant have the other. They are different discussions, I like your idea, I agreed it would be a cool addition, you don't have to argue against one idea to get the other!

    3) Even if it is not the case for you, for many people immersion is an important part of the gaming experience, and pulling a 32x32x32 block from a single piece of stone in your inventory is immersion breaking. LITERALLY EVERY ITEM IN THE JAVA GAME SCALES RESOURCE COST TO SIZE! Larger furnaces uses more resources than smaller ones. Full ladders use more resources than half ladders. Larger chests use more resources than smaller chests. EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE GAME scales resource costs with item size because it makes logical sense.... that is how our universe works and the game makes an attempt to recreate that. If you don't agree with scaling costs then that is your opinion, I wont change your mind. But at least be consistent with your idea and ask red to make a large chest and a small chest cost the same resources, that's effectively the world you are suggesting we have.

    4) Obviously suggestions are only suggestions, and red will build the game how he feels is best/most feasible. I am not too focussed on it, I made a very simple and logical suggestion, which it seems red has already considered internally before I brought it up.

    It is as if you feel the need to disagree with me over any point for no reason... It is infuriating. Let players make suggestions about the game without starting pointless arguments over nothing.

  • JF91


    Oh wow. Someone had a bad day :)


    Red wrote this :


    The problem is that you don't need stone to place a block, instead you need the actual final block in your inventory. So even if it requires 10 stones to craft a single block, this does not affect the cost of placing a tiny or a huge block (which is still 1 block regardless)...

    And right now the game does not distinguish between small and big blocks in your inventory - I'm afraid that would make the crafting and inventory way more complicated and unstructured (considering you have multiple blocks of different sizes in your inventory) :|


    For me that translates into : difficult to be achieved.


    Then... Where do you need a 32x32x32 block? It's not happening usually. And if so it's very rare and unique.

    I'm not arguing against that you may suggest whatever you want. Just i don't see where scaling resource costs will do any good.

    If you have a suggestion be prepared to discuss it.


    Java objects are a bad thing to compare as they are not scalable.


    In the end its a game, not a copy of realism.

    I also don't like things like i. E. Changing block shapes in inventory. I still don't, For survival at least.

    Just to avoid the impression i am not into realistic approaches at all;)

  • Sooooo you didn't even read my original suggestion in the very first post on this topic? Because I clearly described the solution to this - it is very simple. You scale the cost at the block consumption stage, not the stone cost. Placing a 1x1x6 block will consume 6 blocks, not just one. Nothing else has to change, the block consumption is the ONLY thing I am suggesting to change from the current system.

    Reds comment was in reply to a person suggesting we multiply resources by 10 to solve the issue for blocks smaller than 1x1x1, so we don't need to have floating point numbers for blocks. As I have said many times, simply rounding up to the nearest integer solves this problem completely, and IMO is a totally reasonable simplification - MUCH more realistic than what we have now. This is not a discussion about my suggestion, red is discussing someone else's suggestion and its difficulties. These difficulties do not apply to my suggestion in any way. Case closed.


    Then... Where do you need a 32x32x32 block? It's not happening usually. And if so it's very rare and unique.

    I'm not arguing against that you may suggest whatever you want. Just i don't see where scaling resource costs will do any good.

    If you have a suggestion be prepared to discuss it.

    Game development and world building does not work that way - it is not about only making the most commonly used parts of a game or world make sense. I used the most extreme example as the point - it is not about what the average player will do most of the time - it is about what the current system allows. It is the exact same thing with bug fixing, just because a bug is rare and only applies in specific circumstances, it is still important to fix it.

    I am prepared to discuss any of my suggestions. But when your criticism is "I dont see where scaling resource costs will do any good" with no further explanations of why accurate scaling is bad or justification of why the current system makes sense, that is just a personal opinion with no justification. Cool opinion man, totally fine, but it does not add ANYTING to the discussion. I mentioned many positives that will come from my suggestion, and red has said that they were already considering scaling costs because he appears to think there is some logic in doing so.


    Java objects are a bad thing to compare as they are not scalable.

    They are the closest thing we have to scalable items in the java version (other than beams and planks, and my suggestion equally applies to the java version).

    They are not scalable in your hand, but they are scalable in a cruder way upon creation because you can choose different sizes. And they set the ground rules of the rising world universe where larger versions of the same object require more resources than smaller versions. That was my point. Deviations from those ground rules make the rising world universe inconsistent and reduce immersion.

  • Can't find the Panini Settings.., where can i find it ?

    Unfortunately this isn't exposed in the settings yet, sorry for that! This will change with the next update, however, in the meantime you can either set a value in the config.properties file (find "Graphics_Panini" and set a value between 0 and 1), or alternatively type setoption panini <value> into console (e.g. setoption panini 0.5). To save option changes via console, type saveoptions once you're ready ;)


    the what? :wat:

    The latest update introduced a so called "Panini projection" (I know, it's a funny name) :D Basically it reduces the screen streching issue when playing on high FOV settings or on ultra wide screens.

  • red51 Can you give any info about which update will include some of the key survival elements needed for a properly playable survival server? A lot of things are only possible in creative mode at the moment. Specifically thinking about things like ore generation, farming and hunger, the basic set of tools and their functionality (rakes, axes, hoes, sickles, furnaces etc). Am I right to think that these features will not all be in place when multiplayer is released? Would they come with the world generation update maybe?


    I know there are a ton of different features which could be a lot of work to catch up to what we have gotten used to in our Java version servers.

  • red51 Can you give any info about which update will include some of the key survival elements needed for a properly playable survival server? A lot of things are only possible in creative mode at the moment. Specifically thinking about things like ore generation, farming and hunger, the basic set of tools and their functionality (rakes, axes, hoes, sickles, furnaces etc). Am I right to think that these features will not all be in place when multiplayer is released? Would they come with the world generation update maybe?

    It will still take some time until these things are fully implemented. Unfortuantely these things won't be ready with the upcoming multiplayer update :| Ores may be available with the world generation update (or some time after it), however, without some proper crafting mechanics (and tools to process the ores, like a smelter), they would be a bit useless :/ So the crafting update will be essential for this.

    Farming will probably be available after the world gen update: We first have to get a lot more plants ready (including different growth stages), but the world gen update is actually supposed to introduce various new plants.


    Hunger, on the other hand, is already implemented - but right now there is no proper way to get food (except using commands), so this is also something that will be improved with the world update (which introduces a few sources of food).

  • how long you think it will take until the unity version is fully playable

    Unfortunately I can't give a precise answer on this. Even if I say "it will be ready in x months", this wouldn't be very reliable at all :/

    It also depends on which features are essential to consider the game "fully playable": For people who are mainly into building, the game can probably considered "fully playable" once blueprints and the world update are ready. But there are also people out there who always considered the Java version "unplayable" due to the lack of content (or more precisely, due to the lack of content they particulary like), so for them, the new version needs to surpass the Java version in terms of content to become "playable" - which will obviously still take some time.


    The only thing I can say is that I definitely see the new version evolving. This might not be that obvious at first (mostly because some features which are mostly ready are still not accessible in the public version), but the pace at which this becomes a "real game" is steadily increasing. There is still a lot of work to be done, but the new version is definitely on the right track.

  • Thanks Red,


    100% understand, I think we forget that the features of the java version were gradually developed over 5+ years. It cant be a quick job to rebuild all those features from scratch, let alone all the new building mechanics we have.

    Yup! RW java is going to be a hard act to follow as it is already quite magnificent. :)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Create a new account now and be part of our community!