Posts by Miwarre

This is my last reply (last famous word...! ), as I don't like the bitter taste this seems to leave. As @ArcticuKitsu rightly points out, many of the points he is raising are common in other games -- and he quotes a few of them.

This is precisely an important part of what I am trying to say (without success, apparently): the dungeon-mobs-raiders-creepers-... model is implemented in countless games out there; I grew fed up of this kind of games almost twenty years ago, I would find an n-th repetition uninteresting and eventually boring and I hoped for something different. If it would be fun for someone else, fine! Everybody is entitled of his opinion.

I am not necessarily after a relaxing, 'easy', unchallenging game; rather, I hope for a different model; it might be in the direction of 'realism' (even taking into account that virtual realism always requires quotes); it might include better physiology (how comes that you get equally hungry and thirsty by doing nothing, by walking, by running and by mining? or that freezing Arctic biome or very hot savannah do not affect your stats at all?); it might be something entirely different I cannot even think of and someone else may pop out with. But, please, please, not the same old game structure once again!

Personally, I would appreciate something which makes sense, where things do not pop up casually and obviously randomly, but have a sensible origin and a sensible goal, where actions count and have mid-to-long term consequences; where, for instance, the "civilisation progress" model which seems will be implemented and the surrounding world challenges integrate and do not stump on each other; and so on.

Actual reality (either modern or historical) is the easiest meter we have for this. But if someone comes out with a totally fantastic world which still sticks together and does not look as a hodge-podge of 'funny' things strung together casually, the result might still be great.

Lastly, about @zfoxfire sentence: "We're just repeating what we understand to be the will of Red51". I have great respect and appreciation for @red51 and the dev team as a whole, for the great job they did so far and, of course, this is their game and their ideas have precedence and the last word is their. Still, one of the points of joining an alpha project is the possibility to voice one's opinion and see if it might be of some relevance for the next development stages.

M.

P.S. About the lances: Not my field and I might easily be wrong, but those look to me like tournament weapons and, if I am not mistaken, to equip them specific rests are needed on the knight's armour front and on the horse harness (if harness is the right English word).

As thing are getting personal and apparently I am not able to explain myself, or my attempt to see the whole of the game as it seems to be expected to come out from comments and hints, or my occasional hyperbole (as the machine gun detail was), I think it is now better to agree we disagree and go on.

A first quick test shows that the two lists have the same number of servers (sensibly higher than before) and all the servers I know of are present in both. I did not check that the two lists correspond one to one, but this seems to be likely; the situation definitely improved.

THANKS!!

Of course, you are totally free to call it paranoia, please bear (pun not intended, or perhaps yes!) with me if I call it common sense. We'll have swords, cross bows and, who knows, machine guns. At the same time, I read that we will start with more or less a stick and a stone.

A sword against a bear or a lion is almost useless; a cross bow is useful, but perhaps a sizeable amount of game time will be needed until this technology is developed; in the meantime, any approaching big beast will be fatal. In any case, the game will amount to a rush to develop weapon technology, which is a very limited perspective, compared with even today, alpha Rising World: I might find interesting doing it once, perhaps twice; the fourth time would be utterly boring. Unless...

Unless the bear and the lion look like a bear or a lion but act like a small size dog or a cat, the human character is super-powered and can kill a big beast simply by throwing rocks, the recharge time of a cross bow is laughably short and so on. In practice, if the whole thing makes little sense and boils down to magic in disguise.

About the groups I described above: look at civilisations which only have short bows and spears (a few still remain or were at least documented before disappearing) and how they hunt large aggressive beasts; they do in group of 12-15-20: some try to push the beast toward a suitable place, some try to consume its strength and focus with dispersed attacks and finally some will, with some luck, kill it. And it seems the game will start at even a lower level than that. A single human being without a strong, quick, long range weapon against a lion is simply dead.

Yes, I noticed similar things with servers I know to exist and run and which I was looking for.

It seems there is some kind of limit (my alpha list usually ends at "E" or "F"); but not by number, as the two lists often display a different number of servers from each other and from one time to another.

I hope the dev team can figure this out, as it is affecting the access to many servers and the appeal of RW to new players.

Quote from ArcticuKitsu

We'll be getting bandits, yet be interesting to see barbarians tribes, regardless of the timeline. Mountain lion, wolves/wolve packs, & wild boars would be highly awesome & much welcomed. I'd happily welcome wolf packs, yet they'd have to be presence based provoked if they're to be added. The longer you linger the more likely they're to attack. Same with bears.

I wanted some roaming mini-bosses for the main world but people kept throwing tantrums that they're contained to dungeons. I'm still bitter about this because people ruined a nice survival moment, yet it's been turned more into Indiana Jones styles.........Yes, it's tedious yet there's always ways to push them to the side, yet they still push against having hostile mobs in survival roaming top-side. I hate that.

I am one of those "against"; if I ruined -- or helped ruining -- anything for anybody, I am sorry, it was not my intention. I have repeated several times that fighting bosses, monsters, bandits (bandits? from where?) and the like is neither my idea of survival nor, in my opinion, really fitting the current RW paradigm.

I would welcome a more strict progression of hunger and thirst (living in good health with 4 apples and 2 tomatoes a day is both too easy and unrealistic, even if I like the possibility of a vegetarian diet); some effect of biome climate (temperature, etc.) and health on the character stats and performance; even the occasional wild beast, with some caveats (see below). But turning RW into a fighting game would not appeal to me at all, and possibly to other too.

As I understand there are other perspectives, as much legitimate as mine, I would not mind any of these FPS-like additions, if they are optional and can be turned off on a per-world basis, as it already happens for other world parameters.

The caveat I was referring to above: a single human being is totally helpless against a bear, a tiger or a lion, unless he has very advanced range weapons. He cannot even run away, as those beasts can easily outrun him.

Either the RW character is turned into a super-hero with super-powers or a band of 12 to 20 peoples is required to hunt one of them, as it happened in pre-modern civilisations, using techniques and tactics which assumed a given, species-specific, behaviour from the hunted beast. If RW is going to implement this species-specific AI into the wild beasts and a reasonable number of peoples is easily available on servers, then this would make sense, otherwise even wild beasts would only be another kind of "magic mobs" in disguise.

Of course, these are just my 0.02 €...

The single player local world list already includes the seed of each world, while the server list does not.

I think an easy way to retrieve the seed of the world of a server might be useful. Sure, the server owner may find it in the server log and in the DB, but not any server owner is an IT professional (legitimately), and some might have no idea where to look and how.

Reasons for this can be:

1) The seed characterises the world and, even if not everybody is interested in it, it is a relevant datum about the world itself.

2) It happened to me that I would have liked to reproduce locally the specific terrain of a server, but I could not obtain the seed from the owner without bothering him too much.

Having this datum readily available would not raise any security or privacy issue, I assume.

Thanks for the reply and for looking into the matter.

Quote from YakMe

Surprisingly I think the dirt change is the best, love the hot box for dirt placement is not so hard to guess where it will try to add dirt.

I totally agree!

Without underrating the other changes (many of which I still have to try), the new grid for working on terrains is a GREAT improvement, as I like landscaping a lot. For an improvement silently sneaked among other, GREAT WORK, @red51.

Quote from zfoxfire

The night sky is certainly an improvement but it needs a long way to go still. [...] the side of the galaxy (milky way)....

This assumes RW world is located on Earth, which is surely possible, but not necessarily true...

Quote from BeamMeUp

Since we're talking about wish lists, I would also love a Dutch door, where the top and bottom open independently. An oversized barn door would be nice, too.

All would be rather easy to do ourselves, once the hinge-only gadget would be available.

The situation seems fluid, with servers coming and going with these updates.

However, there seems to be some issue with the lists themselves; some servers appear only in the "Alphabetical" list and some only in the "Player count" list. For instance, right now, the "LEVEL UP" server only appears in the "Player count" list and the "Rising Cityes" only in the "Alphabetical".

The details are likely to change, but since the last update I noticed that at least the number of servers is different systematically between the two lists.

No idea what a "pocket door" is (my pockets have not doors ); foldable elements are made with just a sequence of hinges; accordions are tricky, because they slide in a rail at the top (and at the bottom), but the articulations between the elements are hinges again. So, hinges would provide the base for a variety of things. Then, the more the better, of course!

Code-wise, the "simple door frame" concept is not simpler than the hinge-only concept, as both require to manage the addition of user-added elements to a moving (rotating) base, either (partially) visible or invisible; the former may even be more complex, as it would require variations at least in textures, which the latter would not need. From the user experience perspective, the hinge-only might be less obvious, but it greatly depends on how it is presented/described in the construction menus and lists.

Sure, as I said above, the hinge-only gadget would require a way to visualize it during construction, but there are already similar things in the programme, like the grid which appears only when needed (and requested), the door opening arrows which appear only while placing a door and so on. So, the hinge may be visualized with a conventional representation while holding an element of a type which can be attached to it.

Making the hinge gadget and the slide gadget two different elements or one single element with a parameter is an implementation detail which it probably better to leave to @red51 to decide, if he elects to pursue this path.

Great ideas, in any case!

Another thing I would like to have is a 'simple' hinge gadget, to place on a fixed element (a block or whatever) and to which to attach something -- made by the user with planks, beams, glasses and whichever else build elements will be available in the future -- which will hinge.

The hinge itself may even have no visible part (it would be quite small anyway) and would only appear while applying it (like the opening direction arrows while positioning a door). This would allow doors for houses as well as for wardrobes, cupboards, cabinets, ... two-part (left and right) doors, open-able windows, garden and fence gates and in general anything which rotates by a fixed angle on request... If @red51 is hearing...

Also a slide gadget would be quite useful, for sliding doors but not only. But I understand this would open even more cans of worms.

Just for clarity: sleeping is not supposed to save your work, this happens automatically every few seconds (as @red51 said). Sleeping only sets your re-spawn point.

Welcome to Rising World, Ella!

Respawn: If I am not horribly mistaken, by default, when you go back to a certain world you have already visisted, the programme should place you at the same point you were when you left.

1) Are you sure you did not generate a new world, rather than coming back to the one you were working on? The first time you enter a new world (new at least for you), your position might be whichever.

2) Are you sure your character didn't die? A dead character will respawn at a random location if a respawn point have not been set

The 'proper' way to fix a specific respawn point, it is to make a shelter, place it somewhere on the ground and sleep in it a few seconds. The shelter will become the respawn point of your character.

Map: no map is implemented in the software so far. There have been discussions about a map feature and different positions: someone does not like it, as it reduces the survivalist aspects; some would like a map showing only the places you have actually visited, some a map the player actually draws himself on, some (like myself) would welcome a simple map with just land markers.

Search the fora for more details about these discussions and to add your own position / feelings.

Sorry, forgot to thank you for the prompt reply. And, of course, I am glad the problem is already solved in dev!

1. To recollect already placed benches (and many other things) back into your inventory to place them again somewhere else, keep pressed the 'F' key for a while and you will get them back.

2. No sliding door (or else) at the moment.

(3.) Of course you can have ceilings, simply add a 'platform' of block at any height you like. The easiest thing is to build the wall before and then attach ceiling blocks to them at the required height.

You may try looking in the file named config.properties in your main Rising World folder (no idea where this folder is in OSX, Linux only here!).

In this file there are entries named input_selector_pgdown and input_selector_pgup (and even alternative input_selector_pgdown_alt and input_selector_pgup_alt) and see if they affect the Extended construction System.

EDIT: I agree with you, I'm not getting another M*******t based machine and I am content with my current OS. Still, OSX users seem lucky from a Linux perspective: it is not very easy to find games which under Linux run at all, be it friendly or not!

I have no 'inside knowledge' about development, but summarizing what appeared here and there in these fora, more animals seem definitely on the way.

Riding animals has also been spoken of, but I got the (rather vague) impression that it is going to happen after some other transportation mean (boats?), apparently for technical reasons.

Taming has not been spoken of by any "usually well informed" source yet, but who knows...