Posts by JF91

With the new building system allowing you to drag construction elements when placing them in 3D, I find myself accidentally making mistakes like this. I tried to make a single thin layer of wooden boards on the roof. However I then went into the underneath room to discover that I accidentally placed like 50 layers of the thin boards instead of 1, and I now have thousands and thousands of elements to slowly deconstruct with my pickaxe......

Is there an easy way to limit the dragging to just one axis (as it is with blocks in java) when placing to avoid this issue? So we could do a single horizontal layer for example. If not that would be a very handy feature IMO. Also is there any fast way to clear this mess? This will take hours with a pickaxe.....

(sorry english) I know it has been mentioned in the past but we badly need portcullis, medieval style doors, and drawbridges (already in java)! If all of them could be resizeable they could be super versatile. Also if there was a couple of options for textures, the java drawbridge is great but there is only one option for textures, so sometimes it does not match the other textures. Everyone loves a good castle build!

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.

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.

Love the Sleds/Carts idea. Add in a movement speed penalty while towing those and we have a great way to move resources. Effectively just a mobile crate right? Great for extending mining trips, or moving raw resources to a new building site all in one go.

Quote from Avanar

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.

Display More

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.

Quote from Avanar

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.

Quote from Avanar

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.

Quote from Avanar

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

Display More

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.

Imagine a multiplayer sever, where with the current system a griefer and come in and with 5 minutes work collecting stone, spam 32x32x32 blocks across the map. It takes only seconds for one player to turn a beautiful server into a huge ugly mess. The clean-up would not take that long, but it highlights how overpowered the scaling system is when resource cost is not altered accordingly.

Quote from Avanar

That is no logic from your side I am not against costs. Just increasing costs sounds to me unnecessary. Yes, its realistic but where is the point?

My logic is very clear, I would like a game world that at least loosely resembles reality, where resources and construction element size scales together.

Your logic is there is no point in the costs being accurate, so what is so special about the current costs and level of grind that you are ok with? If accuracy is not of value, and grinding is a bad thing, why not slash the costs even further? You clearly see some value in including a grind if you don't want the cost to be removed completely. I don't understand, all I am suggesting is to make the level of grind consistent irrespective of the block sizes you choose to build with. Removing the ability to build giant stone monoliths from a couple rocks. The total amount of grind to gather resources stays the same as it always was! The only person who has to grind more is the person who was planning on building using oversized blocks, and I cant see how this is a bad thing.

Quote from Avanar

We are not even having a finished building aspect. I am sure (or i hope so at least) some type of material will need to be processed before you gain it in the future. i.e. roof tiles might need wood instead of stone and that wood needs some work first. Or tiles made from clay might need to get burned in the fire first.

Wait, I thought you said there is no point in realism? And adding extra grinding is "unnecessary"? Why is realistic production chains needed then? Why are you so against a basic change to make resource costs a little more realistic, but at the same time suggesting large grindy production chains for additional realism? Do you want a realistic game or no? You seem to want a game where half of it is realistic, immersive and grindy, and the other half is a glorified creative mode where you can generate resources out of thin air to place enormous construction elements at minimal cost.

To be clear I would be in favour of the things you propose here, I just don't think both ideas are mutually exclusive. We can make more interesting and immersive production chains AND make our resource costs make sense at the same time.......

Quote from Avanar

Raising the costs individually for each block when its placed sounds like a extremely difficult task to me. You already crafted a block and that block has certain capabilities. Im not sure if it would be as easy as you imagine for the game to calculate how many additional ressources or blocks you need when placing it.

I cant say I know exactly how difficult implementing this in unity is, but the game already gives us the current x, y, and z dimensions of each construction element when it is placed. It is a simple task of multiplying these 3 already existing values together, and rounding up to the nearest integer. Reds above comment suggests that this is not an issue technically.

However I can guarantee you that this is a much easier task for red than reworking the production chains of different block types, adding in additional tools, animations, work benches etc etc to do your alternative solution.

Quote from Avanar

im not sure its really necessary to increase the costs. that will just cause unnecessary grinding for stone and wood. and whats the use?

By your logic here, what is the use of having any resource cost at all? It is just unnecessary grinding for stone and wood, as you say. We are talking about survival mode, this implies some level of realism. Buildings need resources, and those resources require effort to gather, and larger structures should need more resources than smaller structures. In my opinion the ability to build a large simple but effective roof using 1 single unit of stone or lumber damages immersion in a survival game. All I am suggesting is that we scale things to resemble the current java balance of resources vs construction element size, it wont be any more grindy than the java game in its current state.

We already have creative mode for people who want to remove the grind of resource gathering and get straight down to building. The entire nature of survival games is to introduce some time consuming elements to achieving your goals.

I think it is fine to have a minimum cost of 1 stone even for smaller blocks, we don't need to be dealing with fractions of resources. Just round every calculation up to the nearest integer value, problem solved.

Red I was just thinking, is there any plan to scale the resource costs for blocks in survival mode now that they are completely resizable? It is now possible to build huge crude stone structures out of a couple of rocks or the wood from 1 tree. It cant be done at the block crafting stage since the scaling happens after that point, but maybe when you place down the construction element the number of blocks consumed is scaled to their size? For example placing a 1x1x6 beam could take 6 of that block type, where a 1x1x2 would take 2 etc etc.... As we have it now, the resource cost will kind of incentivise huge low detail structures over more interesting high detail builds which IMO is not a good thing. if I build using small blocks I feel like I am just wasting huge amounts of resources.

Quote from SighBorg

red51 or whoever might know, is water planned for an upcoming release? So far the new RW is looking VERY nice. Thank you.

I believe water comes with the world generation update, so a little while away. First we will get multiplayer, afterwards we will get world generation.

Oh I see, yeah a little stronger refraction might look a bit nicer. Or even better, a few different options ranging from high to low refraction? Hopefully that does not mess with performance.

Quote from Ash_lee

No, I wasn't talking about mirrored glass lol

I am not quite sure what you are talking about then? If you want double glazed glass you can already do that in java by just placing two panels with your desired spacing?

Ash are you talking about the kind of windows we see on skyscrapers etc? Where they are almost mirrored, so from the outside you cant see in, but on the inside you can see out? (see attached image)

In the past I have tried to build modern skyscrapers in java but the glass is not very good for it. This image I stole from another player (credit sg-1), but you can see right in.

Maybe if it was possible to alter the strength of the mirror refraction?

Quote from Groovaholic

Glad to know it's now working and like i said sometimes just restarting the game helps (don't ask me how) but it has helped me a few times in both versions.

I mean it was working one way for 4 or 5 reboots of the game, started working differently briefly, and now back to how it is. So I have no idea what is really going on XD

All of a sudden things are now behaving like they did in the java version, the whole construction element sits above the ground. very confused haha.

Thanks for the reply red! I do see what you mean when it comes to placing directly on land to work as a foundation, as blocks work in java. However as someone who mainly builds with beams in java, the behaviour is very different. Maybe if there was a toggle or something?

In reply to above, in java with beams the behaviour is definitely not the same. In Java if you stand on a flat surface with the grid on, the object will sit flush against the nearest grid line in Z dimension. If that aligns with the floor, it will be flush (see the screenshot from the java version for proof, grid on left, no grid on right, both beams are same height above ground). In the unity this is not the case. It also has nothing to do with grid size, in the bottom image from the unity version I have demonstrated this. The left beam is with grid off, then the remainders are with grid on but with each different grid size (from max on left to min on right). As you can see, grid size has nothing to do with the positioning in the Z dimension here.

Of course you can freeze the object with ctrl and then manually position it how you want it, but that is a ton of work compared to how the java system worked, its not the best option.

Also just a pet peeve difference in construction between java and the new version. When you hold a construction element, say a beam, with the grid turned off by default it sits flush with the surface you are pointing at - this is like the java version and I like it. However if you turn grid on, the beam goes through the surface you aim at, leaving approximately half the beam above and half below your cursor. This makes it really annoying to place vertical beams of the desired height when the grid is on. In the image attached, the two vertical beams are the same length. The one on the left is placed with grid on, right with grid off.

red51 when do you plan on incorporating terrain modification like rake/sledgehammer/laying dirt/stone? Is that coming as a patch to the building update or with a later build like multiplayer or terrain generation?

Or does it already exist and I am just missing it?