[Spaced Out! Update] - 459902

[sakura_sk]

1 minute ago, crbd115 said:

Yes the sky is blue on a clear day. That's not its purpose...

It makes staring the stars at night more precious.

 

But on the planetoid front... I mean it serves the purpose of how to manage multiple close by colonies, how to travel using a rocket without dying immediately (not always..), how to work with rovers. It's not just a planet to do atomic research on.

[crbd115]

Just now, sakura_sk said:

It makes staring the stars at night more precious.

 

But on the planetoid front... I mean it serves the purpose of how to manage multiple close by colonies, how to travel using a rocket without dying immediately (not always..), how to work with rovers. It's not just a planet to do atomic research on.

You can do that on literally any planetoid. 

[Gurgel]

14 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

That's not a purpose, that's a simply a fact. Yes the sky is blue on a clear day. That's not its purpose...

As it is a _designed_ situation, it is due to a purpose.

[Electroely]

38 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

They are only disabled because I finished my research which I said. The whole point of what I said is you shouldn't be able to do everything on the first planetoid because it defeats the purpose of the third asteroid.

Its purpose is not just collecting radbolts.

Yes, you can collect radbolts much more efficiently with what the planet has, but the devs had mentioned when the mechanic was being introduced that it would be intertwined with the rest of the game's mechanics similarly to how every other mechanic is (power, temperature, piping, automation, etc). Wheezeworts and shine bugs give pretty safe levels of radiation; if they didn't want them to be sources of radbolts they would either make dupes much more susceptible to them or remove their radiation altogether.

I don't think the planet has one clear cut purpose, though if there was one then we would probably refer to the planet's description:

The planet has a very large amount of metal ores, and the 4 metal volcanoes (2 gold and 2 aluminum/cobalt) serve as a great source of refined metal, enough to phase out the metal refinery for consistent metal production if excavating it, transporting it and maybe cooling it are figured out.

It is possible to infer other possible purposes for the planet's existence, though, nothing else is particularly obvious.
I do agree with @sakura_sk on one of its purposes being the fact that it's very close; it serves as a great location for someone to dip their toes into creating multiple colonies that aren't connected via Gravitas tech.
And I do think that the planet is great for producing large amounts of radbolts; I don't use it for earlier research, but once I have a colony there I will set up a collector at the crushed satellite to fuel an atomic collider, interplanetary launcher and eventually a Radbolt rocket. Producing 3000 radbolts for late-game research is really annoying to do with just wheezeworts and space radiation.

[arvenil]

3 hours ago, crbd115 said:

This isn't an argument. Nor is it an option. Everyone eventually deconstructs as much of the POIs as they can. People need to stop posting, "DoN't LiKe It DoN't UsE iT." as if its an actual argument.

Hmmm, why not, I like the idea that I can deconstruct pois and use their materials, yet in 90% of games I choose not deconstruct any, for both, aesthetic and difficulty reason.

[Gurgel]

3 hours ago, crbd115 said:

This isn't an argument. Nor is it an option. Everyone eventually deconstructs as much of the POIs as they can. People need to stop posting, "DoN't LiKe It DoN't UsE iT." as if its an actual argument.

You know, you claiming this is not a valid argument does not make it so. 

I think it is a completely valid argument and I think you need to provide more evidence for your stance than "because I say so" in order to be taken seriously in this discussion. And, incidentally, I usually leave most POIs in place. 

[crbd115]

28 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

You know, you claiming this is not a valid argument does not make it so. 

I think it is a completely valid argument and I think you need to provide more evidence for your stance than "because I say so" in order to be taken seriously in this discussion. And, incidentally, I usually leave most POIs in place. 

I'm talking exclusively to the "don't like it don't use it" thing that people keep throwing around when they disagree with someone making a post. It, by its very definition isn't an argument because they are basically saying don't complain or disagree because the option to not play the game exists. That is not an argument that's just saying shut up  because I don't agree with you therefore your opinion is invalid. This public forum that exists solely to discuss a game that they paid for and enjoy, but since one person disagrees but they can't think of an actual counter argument they just say "don't like it don't use it". 
For example someone disagrees with a countries policies and decide to voice their opinions but someone else just says "don't like it then leave". That is not an argument.

[JRup]

10 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

"don't like it don't use it". 

That goes way back, I guess even earlier than Warp zone 1-2, oh, wait... wrong game.

Spoiler

↑↑↓↓←→←→B A then press Start

 

It all depends on how you want to clear/play the game, I guess.

[crbd115]

1 hour ago, Electroely said:

if they didn't want them to be sources of radbolts they would either make dupes much more susceptible to them or remove their radiation altogether.

People keep assuming devs intentions from small pieces of content in an unfinished dlc. They are constantly changing and rebalancing the game. Some things are just thrown in to get them working because if they add everything at once they would have to spend months finding all the bugs. That is why I made the suggestion I did based on what we have now. Right now it is simply too easy to get radbolts and finish atomic science in the early game. My assumption is that either they will decide they want to change something (maybe not even my idea) or they will add things later that solve this issue especially since I am not the only person saying this.

[Gurgel]

52 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

I'm talking exclusively to the "don't like it don't use it" thing that people keep throwing around when they disagree with someone making a post. It, by its very definition isn't an argument because they are basically saying don't complain or disagree because the option to not play the game exists. That is not an argument that's just saying shut up  because I don't agree with you therefore your opinion is invalid. This public forum that exists solely to discuss a game that they paid for and enjoy, but since one person disagrees but they can't think of an actual counter argument they just say "don't like it don't use it". 
For example someone disagrees with a countries policies and decide to voice their opinions but someone else just says "don't like it then leave". That is not an argument.

I disagree. It not only is an argument, it is a _valid_ argument, because "don't use it" is a completely valid strategy for elements of ONI. I use it myself regularly. For example, I dislike ranching. Hence I do not use it or use it only very rarely. Does not break the game in any way. Sure, for things that break the game when not used "don't use it" would be an _invalid_ argument (it would still be an argument, you are completely wrong on it not being one, sorry), but that is not the case here.

Your "then leave" argument is invalid, because it describes an entirely different situation. A similar situation would rather look like this: Say you are in a country where (non-essential) product xyz is freely available. You do not like xyz. Then you demand it is removed from stores. Somebody else rightfully points out that "if you do not like xyz, just do not buy it". And that _is_ the situation we are currently discussing here.

 

[Electroely]

24 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

People keep assuming devs intentions from small pieces of content in an unfinished dlc. They are constantly changing and rebalancing the game. Some things are just thrown in to get them working because if they add everything at once they would have to spend months finding all the bugs. That is why I made the suggestion I did based on what we have now. Right now it is simply too easy to get radbolts and finish atomic science in the early game. My assumption is that either they will decide they want to change something (maybe not even my idea) or they will add things later that solve this issue especially since I am not the only person saying this.

They are constantly balancing the DLC, which is why discussion is encouraged. They need to get a general idea of what different kinds of players think of the matter and work from there.

That being said, I'm also discussing the game based on what we have now. In what way is the radioactive planet supposed to be the source of radbolts you use for research? That's what you stated earlier, so you too are assuming devs' intentions from small pieces of content in an unfinished DLC.
I don't personally think that radbolt production is currently an issue; the pacing is good for the research aspect. The earlier technologies don't require too much other than interacting with radiation sources and a decent excess power source and the later ones are gated behind 3000+ radbolts, so you have to either be really patient and use a lot of power or figure out a more efficient radbolt source, which will also be useful for other technologies such as the Radbolt Engine, Interplanetary Launcher and hopefully other upcoming buildings like the Gamma Ray Oven.

[babba]

Thank you Klei, for making rockets now fly along the entire flight path...from the bottom of a deep rocket silo map.

...Building the Titan Missile Complex is fun now again and feels much more realistic !

...also nice engine flames on the star map

1000 kisses

Edited April 15, 2021 by babba

[SharraShimada]

18 hours ago, crbd115 said:

This isn't an argument. Nor is it an option. Everyone eventually deconstructs as much of the POIs as they can. People need to stop posting, "DoN't LiKe It DoN't UsE iT." as if its an actual argument.

Why? It IS an actual argument :P Just because YOU are annoyed of it, does not mean it annoys everyone :P

Yeah i know there are people out there, buying bananas although they cant stand them, and then they place them on the table and yell at them. Others just dont buy bananas and they are really really fine.

(btw. i do deconstruct the windows too. But i want to have the glass, so i dont have to ship it :P)

[Gurgel]

23 minutes ago, SharraShimada said:

Yeah i know there are people out there, buying bananas although they cant stand them, and then they place them on the table and yell at them.

You know, that sounds like a good idea for stress relief! Although I like bananas, so I will have to find something else to do it to.

[SharraShimada]

30 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

You know, that sounds like a good idea for stress relief! Although I like bananas, so I will have to find something else to do it to.

I heard cucumbers wont mind being yelled at them.

[crbd115]

17 hours ago, Gurgel said:

I disagree. It not only is an argument, it is a _valid_ argument, because "don't use it" is a completely valid strategy for elements of ONI. I use it myself regularly. For example, I dislike ranching. Hence I do not use it or use it only very rarely. Does not break the game in any way. Sure, for things that break the game when not used "don't use it" would be an _invalid_ argument (it would still be an argument, you are completely wrong on it not being one, sorry), but that is not the case here.

It is a valid argument when saying you don't like something that isn't a core system. It's not an argument when people are suggesting changes to something they think either needs rebalancing or changing. You don't like ranching and don't use it but that has nothing to do with if you were to suggest a change to ranching that would make you want to use it and someone said "don't like it don't use it" to dismiss your idea. They have nothing to do with each other. You already don't use it, but even if you did use it your suggesting an idea for changing it. Not just simply saying you don't like it.

[Gurgel]

21 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

It is a valid argument when saying you don't like something that isn't a core system. It's not an argument when people are suggesting changes to something they think either needs rebalancing or changing. You don't like ranching and don't use it but that has nothing to do with if you were to suggest a change to ranching that would make you want to use it and someone said "don't like it don't use it" to dismiss your idea. They have nothing to do with each other. You already don't use it, but even if you did use it your suggesting an idea for changing it. Not just simply saying you don't like it.

I am sorry, but I cannot even parse that. There seems to be no logic in your statement.

[crbd115]

14 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

I am sorry, but I cannot even parse that. There seems to be no logic in your statement.

How is there no logic? I'm saying they are two different situations. If I said I don't like something then sure don't like it don't use it applies. If I was suggesting a change then how does it apply? I'm not saying I don't like it, maybe I do like it but I want it to be better. Maybe I don't use it already like your example but how does that apply when suggesting a change? Them saying 'don't like it don't use it' doesn't mean anything in the context of posting ideas, because whether you use it or not isn't the point.

[spkthed]

I think the gist is that preferences are unhooked from suggestions which is valid. What's occurring though is people are intertwining these two things greatly on these threads.

For the ranching example, it would be like Gurgel saying 'I don't like ranching so they should remove it.'. That's not improving ranching, that's changing the game to match his preferences.

Also. I absolutely love the radbolt system. I hope they give us the option of high-powered (and/or expensive via radbolt) options for high throughput transports to other worlds.

[sakura_sk]

9 minutes ago, spkthed said:

For the ranching example, it would be like Gurgel saying 'I don't like ranching so they should remove it.'. That's not improving ranching, that's changing the game to match his preferences

The original argument was "remove POI usable glass" so... yes, I think the ranching example is comparable

[TuxSam123]

18 hours ago, Gurgel said:

I am sorry, but I cannot even parse that. There seems to be no logic in your statement.

I agree.

Edited April 16, 2021 by TuxSam123

[crbd115]

22 hours ago, Gurgel said:

I am sorry, but I cannot even parse that. There seems to be no logic in your statement.

 

3 hours ago, TuxSam123 said:

I agree.

I stated that there is a setting in which that statement is or isn't an argument. Its a about context and whether or not it is relevant and gave an example for both. If you think this isn't logic, then you either need to actually read it or your just using this as a dismissal because you disagree with it.

[babba]

On 4/15/2021 at 4:07 PM, SharraShimada said:

I heard cucumbers wont mind being yelled at them.

Only on a full moon Friday.

Dr. babba

[Gurgel]

4 hours ago, spkthed said:

I think the gist is that preferences are unhooked from suggestions which is valid. What's occurring though is people are intertwining these two things greatly on these threads.

For the ranching example, it would be like Gurgel saying 'I don't like ranching so they should remove it.'. That's not improving ranching, that's changing the game to match his preferences.

Yes. I and since it is perfectly possible to play without, I do not think I have any business suggesting ranching should be removed. I can "remove" it for myself without problem. Also, I know quite a few people do enjoy ranching so suggesting it be removed is not something I think would be acceptable. This is very much not only about me and what I want.

13 minutes ago, crbd115 said:

I stated that there is a setting in which that statement is or isn't an argument. Its a about context and whether or not it is relevant and gave an example for both. If you think this isn't logic, then you either need to actually read it or your just using this as a dismissal because you disagree with it.

I read it two times and could not make sense of it given the current context. That is about the limit I give a person. What I see looks very much like you just throwing a jumble of claims with absolutely no supporting arguments. That is not a level I communicate on as it is meaningless. And I said so. That you cannot deal with others having to be actually convinced with some real substance is pretty apparent. I think I will stop responding to you now, no need to escalate this.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Gurgel

[crbd115]

46 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

What I see looks very much like you just throwing a jumble of claims with absolutely no supporting arguments.

I gave examples how is that not a supporting argument? Do you want me to start quoting outside sources??

 

49 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

That is not a level I communicate on as it is meaningless.

Yet your the one claiming my statement has no logic without giving any reason. 

 

50 minutes ago, Gurgel said:

I think I will stop responding to you now, no need to escalate this.

The problem is your not the only person responding nor am I responding to just you. 

5 hours ago, spkthed said:

For the ranching example, it would be like Gurgel saying 'I don't like ranching so they should remove it.'. That's not improving ranching, that's changing the game to match his preferences.

I feel like this is an extreme example that might not be entirely accurate. Don't like it don't use it is more just towards people complaining. Saying "I don't like a movie" so the other person says "so don't watch it". Your example is "I don't like this movie so it should be banned".

In the context of my example was just if Gurgel had just said I don't like ranching. Then "Don't like it don't use it applies", he doesn't have to use it if he can get whatever he needs done without it. If he said he thought there was a better system for ranching or a better method and gave an idea with reasoning. Then "Don't like it don't use it" isn't an argument because it's a different context. It has nothing to do with what is being said.