[Spaced Out! Update] - 464793

[n_t_p]

1 hour ago, goboking said:

Here you're praising the presence of alternative solutions to a problem.

And here you're bashing it.  Is collecting resources via rockets instead of colonizing planetoids any worse than using an oil refinery rather than building a petroleum boiler? 

Maybe I should take a bit of my own criticism and adapt to change instead of complaining for things to go back to the way they "used to be". Let's just straight up embrace the new mining system. Nix the superconductive asteroid and let fields be the niobium source in the game. Remove fullerine from fields so we have to use both systems. Tree feeding for isoresin, POI mining for niobium and planetoid mining for supercoolant. That makes each one unique, as they should be since they're the best materials in the game.
 

2 hours ago, Swoop5994 said:

having fun doing it the hard way i guess.more options the better i think but there are balance issues of course the game is not complete yet.

I want to be perfectly clear, what I've been trying to get at this whole time is that there's a fundamental juxtaposition between the development of a high quality game and klei's business interests in making a marketable game. Klei responds to player feedback clearly, and doesn't care so much about making a good game as one that will drive sales. That means making people happy, a simple majority according to the disposition of the player's feedback. The disposition of the player's feedback is overwhelmingly immature. This is why there are numerous threads demanding blatant exploits get reinstated, difficulty gets removed and changes get reverted. The playerbase - especially on the forums - can't look past what the game is doing and see what it does for them as they play it. It's some sort of wish fulfilment and it's why germs got nerfed into the ground. I don't know why or how the culture in the community got to be like this, but when the game development process begins to internalize and reflect it that becomes a problem.

So no, I'm not going to do things the hard way. I'll gladly do them the right way though.

Literally just play on debug. I play on debug all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's plenty interesting just to build something and see how the sim works. I also understand what an exploit is and how basic game theory works, and would never ever demand the real game change to fit a playstyle based on exploits or debug tools.

[babba]

53 minutes ago, n_t_p said:

Maybe I should take a bit of my own criticism and adapt to change instead of complaining for things to go back to the way they "used to be". Let's just straight up embrace the new mining system. Nix the superconductive asteroid and let fields be the niobium source in the game. Remove fullerine from fields so we have to use both systems. Tree feeding for isoresin, POI mining for niobium and planetoid mining for supercoolant. That makes each one unique, as they should be since they're the best materials in the game.
 

I want to be perfectly clear, what I've been trying to get at this whole time is that there's a fundamental juxtaposition between the development of a high quality game and klei's business interests in making a marketable game. Klei responds to player feedback clearly, and doesn't care so much about making a good game as one that will drive sales. That means making people happy, a simple majority according to the disposition of the player's feedback. The disposition of the player's feedback is overwhelmingly immature. This is why there are numerous threads demanding blatant exploits get reinstated, difficulty gets removed and changes get reverted. The playerbase - especially on the forums - can't look past what the game is doing and see what it does for them as they play it. It's some sort of wish fulfilment and it's why germs got nerfed into the ground. I don't know why or how the culture in the community got to be like this, but when the game development process begins to internalize and reflect it that becomes a problem.

So no, I'm not going to do things the hard way. I'll gladly do them the right way though.

Literally just play on debug. I play on debug all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's plenty interesting just to build something and see how the sim works. I also understand what an exploit is and how basic game theory works, and would never ever demand the real game change to fit a playstyle based on exploits or debug tools.

That is an interesting read.

> "...This is why there are numerous threads demanding blatant exploits get reinstated, difficulty gets removed and changes get reverted."

I could inform myself about a million exploits, but I have never intentionally tried to use one in the game. Even in a million dollar esport match I would not cheat, same with real life sports or board games. I can only speak for myself, it is because I like the challenge and I`m not an exploit player in games. With ONI it IMHO makes little sense to use exploits ( for the motivation of some kind of "wealth" generation ), one could just use debug.

The only reason in life I would cheat for...is to help a suffering group or minority, to reshuffle balance.

ONI is a game which attracts a lot of builders, builders often cant have enough resources as they like to endless build. Building in the editor can also be fun, its an alternative way of playing the game...or to tinker with the various simulation(s) which run in this game, as contraption designer or math/physics/chemistry fan or playing just as random doodle fun person.

...but there is a lot of different players, performing all kind of personal play styles, which get attracted to this game.

> "...Literally just play on debug. I play on debug all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it."

Have you got the feeling that someone wants to tell you that playing in sandbox is bad ? You can play however you like

I find ONI is like Monopoly, the more often the players run over go...The more money is added to the game ( resources ). Like in life, endless printing of money and creating new virtual digits. Great play fun !

> "..and doesn't care so much about making a good game as one that will drive sales."

ONI is a very direct-in-contact-with-players game development and project approach, one can be pretty sure that relevant stake holders are working actively on this game title and have a big heart for games. I have worked with over thousands of game developers in my life,there seems to be a lot of development passion in this game. Normally a good game goes hand in hand with good sales, althought there is hundreds of things which can go wrong with a game project, team, sales, marketing, publishing, contracts, employees or a company.

> "...The disposition of the player's feedback is overwhelmingly immature"

Posts and input are surely valued as good by the community, if held in a constructive and positive tone...without degrading language - Any constructive user input is valued by sensible developer contacts.

> "...I don't know why or how the culture in the community got to be like this, but when the game development process begins to internalize and reflect it that becomes a problem."

Anybody can posts suggestions, ideas and start a discussion. At the end of the day Klei decides how to make the game and they choose their idea, information and change inspiration sources. Difficulty suggestions have been posted by many users in the past years, if you like...Encourage Klei or others and present your implementation or game change views in positive ways, as inspiration.

I find your first introduction paragraph about the game content really good written BTW.

Wishing you a nice time in the game and the forum,

dr. babba - Isotopes Facility 139, Hallucinations Manager

Edited May 25, 2021 by babba

[Swoop5994]

On another Topic they added creation of nuclear fallout at the collision points of 2 radbolt the stuff comes out at a whopping 4720 degrees (for a millisecond) but it seems to heat up quite alot with a bit of time.

Colliders are really a thing now !

here's a screen of the temp peak : https://imgur.com/a/UTOjNxs

There are uses to this. This is obvious

Thanks Klei !

[crbd115]

33 minutes ago, n_t_p said:

I want to be perfectly clear, what I've been trying to get at this whole time is that there's a fundamental juxtaposition between the development of a high quality game and klei's business interests in making a marketable game. Klei responds to player feedback clearly, and doesn't care so much about making a good game as one that will drive sales. That means making people happy, a simple majority according to the disposition of the player's feedback. The disposition of the player's feedback is overwhelmingly immature. This is why there are numerous threads demanding blatant exploits get reinstated, difficulty gets removed and changes get reverted. The playerbase - especially on the forums - can't look past what the game is doing and see what it does for them as they play it. It's some sort of wish fulfilment and it's why germs got nerfed into the ground.

This is sort of something I've been mentally wrestling with for a while. I do think it is true at least to the point with germs getting nerfed into something ignorable. At the same time though there's a lot of player feedback that is meant to be constructive that the devs have clearly paid attention to as well. For example finally indestructible poi will be able to be deconstructed without a mod or debug/sandbox. There is a lot of stuff though that the some of the player base seems to not understand in terms of what is good game design and what isn't. There are also many that seem to try to rationalize parts of a game that are unfinished as intentional design which drives me insane. Like the one post a while ago about making rocket walls destructible as a feature, and that in their mind since the devs hadn't completely removed it yet it must be a intentional feature.

Since mods exist at least there can be some player control over gameplay but I've never really been much a fan of that. Yes I do use mods from time to time but mostly I try to avoid them. Since you're really just trading the devs image of how the game should be for a random person on the internets image of the game and then mashing it with other mods till it is almost unrecognizable.

I do wish the devs would not pander to those that whine about things being hard or annoying to deal with when those are also the same people who say in other posts that they basically tend to treat the game as a duplicant ant farm. That they stare at for hundreds of cycles without attempting things they think are too hard. Not that that playstyle is wrong or bad. The point is that if they are the types of players who don't attempt to experience all the games features or avoid parts of the game they choose not to learn how to deal with. Then they are also the people who shouldn't be talking about game design or balance. The other side of that though is that if the devs start ignoring the community to avoid pandering then they also could ignore those with constructive ideas as well.

[n_t_p]

21 minutes ago, Swoop5994 said:

On another Topic they added creation of nuclear fallout at the collision points of 2 radbolt the stuff comes out at a whopping 4720 degrees (for a millisecond) but it seems to heat up quite alot with a bit of time.

Colliders are really a thing now !

here's a screen of the temp peak : https://imgur.com/a/UTOjNxs

There are uses to this. This is obvious

Thanks Klei !

Isn't that the temp ceiling? 

[babba]

@crbd115 - As idea, perhaps some kind of "Endgame balance thread" Those forumistas which are interested can keep it alive with their latest balance suggestions. Perhaps @n_t_p is interested in that ?

Edited May 25, 2021 by babba

[crbd115]

1 hour ago, babba said:

@crbd115 - As idea, perhaps some kind of "Endgame balance thread" Those forumistas which are interested can keep it alive with their latest balance suggestions. Perhaps @n_t_p is interested in that ?

Maybe. I have done a lot of game balance focused suggestions in the past but a lot of that group n_t_p and I mentioned before are very vocal and frustrating to deal with so I have been less and less interested in posting.

[babba]

1 minute ago, crbd115 said:

Maybe. I have done a lot of game balance focused suggestions in the past but a lot of that group n_t_p and I mentioned before are very vocal and frustrating to deal with so I have been less and less interested in posting.

I would find an updated balance thread compilation maintained by (editor?) players interesting. As survival mode player I have often started fresh, with the regular Klei map updates keeping coming.

[Gurgel]

2 hours ago, n_t_p said:

I want to be perfectly clear, what I've been trying to get at this whole time is that there's a fundamental juxtaposition between the development of a high quality game and klei's business interests in making a marketable game. Klei responds to player feedback clearly, and doesn't care so much about making a good game as one that will drive sales. That means making people happy, a simple majority according to the disposition of the player's feedback. The disposition of the player's feedback is overwhelmingly immature. This is why there are numerous threads demanding blatant exploits get reinstated, difficulty gets removed and changes get reverted. The playerbase - especially on the forums - can't look past what the game is doing and see what it does for them as they play it. It's some sort of wish fulfilment and it's why germs got nerfed into the ground. I don't know why or how the culture in the community got to be like this, but when the game development process begins to internalize and reflect it that becomes a problem.

So, you have access to this mysterious "right way" that will make a nebulously defined "high quality game" and the others here are "immature"? That is not the start of a discussion, that is the end of it and before it even really starts. Oh, well. 

[Calio]

no window breaking anymore? then I want BIG (32x32) spacecraft module 

 

[n_t_p]

6 hours ago, Gurgel said:

So, you have access to this mysterious "right way" that will make a nebulously defined "high quality game" and the others here are "immature"? That is not the start of a discussion, that is the end of it and before it even really starts. Oh, well. 

I think I've given plenty of reasons why the feedback being implemented is wrong. It's immature, it's gratification seeking, it's shortsighted, stubborn. I wouldn't mind all that, it's inevitable really, but when that feedback actually gets implemented it's a problem. If someone's throwing a fit on the forums and in this case being stubbornly attached to old dead features... that's something that should be ignored or worked around, not encouraged. For the devs to encourage the worst elements in their community like this is bad, and it seems to have been happening for a long time.

As for the "right way", I could go into game theory, difficulty curves, flow state, nurturing intuition, player expression, etc, etc etc but...

And yes, having a right way matters. Just the other day a new player was asking for advice and I literally didn't know how to help them because halfway through the conversation it turned out they were playing on Big Terra. Because it was "on the left" they thought that was the default. So all my advice like "use the chill from your slush geyser to cool your CSV" and "Go through your teleporter to get oil" actually didn't make any sense and just confused them. So then I have to explain how because they're on big terra I don't know what geysers they have and also they just don't get pips or arbor acorns. Combine that with issues of people outright recommending the use of exploits without clarifying that they're exploits and the lack of documentation in game and it makes for an extremely confusing and disjointed new player experience.

To their credit I think the devs understand the issues with the game have little to do with progression and more to do with fundamentals. Tooltips are broken, weird graphical bugs like hatch falling animation, immovable POIs that just get in the way, food hoarding... If we get screen pan unhooked from framerate and a pliers-like skill extension to plumber this game might be playable one day.

[spkthed]

Good grief.

[spkthed]

14 minutes ago, n_t_p said:

And yes, having a right way matters.

You will be much happier with life when you discover there are very few 'right way's, merely a (but usually several) best approaches for a specific need at a specific time.

Quote

Just the other day a new player was asking for advice and I literally didn't know how to help them because halfway through the conversation it turned out they were playing on Big Terra.

Maybe the joy in games like ONI is in figuring out the why's? Instead of telling people *what* to do, help them understand the systems in place and give generic advice, and make sure they understand the levers available. A game in which you can give people a walkthrough is boring.

[Gurgel]

 

1 hour ago, n_t_p said:

I think I've given plenty of reasons why the feedback being implemented is wrong. It's immature, it's gratification seeking, it's shortsighted, stubborn. 

Name-calling does not make an argument convincing. Also "gratification seeking"? Have you somehow forgotten this is a _game_? Same applies to "shortsighted", incidentally. This is not strategic infrastructure Klei is building here. And "immature"? Some people think that joy of a computer game is "immature" in itself, others think adults being able to play games and have fun at it is actually a sign of retained mental agility.

59 minutes ago, n_t_p said:

As for the "right way", I could go into game theory, difficulty curves, flow state, nurturing intuition, player expression, etc, etc etc but...

Ah, yes. And that gives you access to the truth? You seem to be unaware that there is a huge difference between theory and practice. You know,  a mistake a novice at this would make: Believing understanding of theory gives you truth about reality. I see that type of disconnect sometimes in my engineering students. It often comes with an overwhelmingly strong belief in just some particular theory or technology (like a specific programming language being all superior, but that never happens) and the only thing that I can do for them as an educator is to seed as much doubt as possible, because that stance leads to failure.

Any good engineer knows that anything that works deserves respect for that alone and theory be damned. Any good entertainer knows this as well. Theory is always a limited, abstract view of things that never captures everything. That is the whole point of theory: To allow handling a complex situation by reducing that complexity. Anybody good at using theory understands that and never relies on theory alone but always makes sure they have a good grasp of the practical side. Anybody good at this also knows that practice beats theory every time and that sometimes you have to amend theory or find that it does not apply to some situations and may even be misleading.

The actual reality is that there is no "right way" in engineering or in entertainment (or in life, for that matter), and often you have to try things out. But reality is also that there are always people that want to sell their particular limited view of things or delusion as the "right way" to others. These people are typically either fanatics or want to sell you something. It is never a good idea to listen to them.

 

And a proverb that captures this nicely: "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." 

[spkthed]

I work in the devops field and the first thing I have to do when bringing people onto my team is helping them understand that people do beautifully weird things. Can't assume that a 'bad' design is bad - it just means we probably don't understand the goals or why's first. Once we understand that, we can move to a few recommendations with pros and cons working back from the goals.

Had a series of these conversations yesterday in fact. Ironically, it literally is a part of maturing engineers that knowledge and understanding are wildly different things.

20 years ago I knew that Linux was the way, and that Microsoft and Apple were evil. Anyone who didn't understand that was probably a lowly Microsoft tech who didn't know anything or an Apple fanboy. Now I have a Linux server because it's quick to setup and I have to do it once a decade, a Apple Laptop because it just works, and I don't have to mess with boot or sleep or driver problems, and a gaming Window machine because Wine and Cygwin, and all of the other hacks out there are buggy. What changed? I realized that time was the thing I cared about most. I understood that different platforms have different strengths and weaknesses and that it was okay to set goals and work backwards from them removing your biases going in. I'm much happier now

[pether]

2 hours ago, n_t_p said:

I think I've given plenty of reasons why the feedback being implemented is wrong. It's immature, it's gratification seeking, it's shortsighted, stubborn. I wouldn't mind all that, it's inevitable really, but when that feedback actually gets implemented it's a problem. If someone's throwing a fit on the forums and in this case being stubbornly attached to old dead features... that's something that should be ignored or worked around, not encouraged. For the devs to encourage the worst elements in their community like this is bad, and it seems to have been happening for a long time.

First of all, it is really stupid to complain that somebody listens to your feedback. It is best way to ensure you will be ignored in the future, per your own request. If you have feedback, feel free to express it, but don't forbid others to do the same - and never ever say that devs are bad because they want to hear you or me.

Second, let me just say that I really appreciate that KLEI implements our feedback. I never saw this in any other game (not on this level) and I believe this should be encouraged as a golden standard for other developers. Sure, sometimes players don't know what they want, sometimes their ideas are not well defined or they have errors, but if 90% of community agrees on something it is probably a good idea for the game the community enjoys and might be tested out.

And about the space POIs - I really like multi base idea introduced in the DLC and I like how KLEI fixed issues with vanilla space program. DLC is more dynamic, more fun, strictly better than vanilla, and I love it! But I understand that game expansions expand the game (one may say it is in their name), and that means that systems present in the main game should be available for players who enjoyed them. And I believe that new system with space POI fits this philosophy really well - you can focus on multi-base games if you like it, but if you like vanilla space resource gathering and don't want to micromanage 10 bases at once you can play your way. This is also great way to bring back artifacts and introduce renewable resources that are currently missing. 

Is there a better way to do all of this? Probably. But it is not throwing the idea away just because. And I believe if you have some ideas how to improve the system to make it as good as possible for as many people as possible you should help devs with your constructive feedback. Propose something better. But you can be sure that when you say "implementing player feedback is bad, immature, the game is bad, you should ignore you players" you will be ignored as someone immature. Lets be better than this so we all can benefit from it, shall we?

Edited May 25, 2021 by pether

[spkthed]

14 minutes ago, pether said:

First of all, it is really stupid to complain that somebody listens to your feedback. It is best way to ensure you will be ignored in the future, per your own request. If you have feedback, feel free to express it, but don't forbid others to do the same - and never ever say that devs are bad because they want to hear you or me.

Second, let me just say that I really appreciate that KLEI implements our feedback. I never saw this in any other game (not on this level) and I believe this should be encouraged as a golden standard for other developers. Sure, sometimes players don't know what they want, sometimes their ideas are not well defined or they have errors, but if 90% of community agrees on something it is probably a good idea for the game the community enjoys and might be tested out.

And about the space POIs - I really like multi base idea introduced in the DLC and I like how KLEI fixed issues with vanilla space program. DLC is more dynamic, more fun, strictly better than vanilla, and I love it! But I understand that game expansions expand the game (one may say it is in their name), and that means that systems present in the main game should be available for players who enjoyed them. And I believe that new system with space POI fits this philosophy really well - you can focus on multi-base games if you like it, but if you like vanilla space resource gathering and don't want to micromanage 10 bases at once you can play your way. This is also great way to bring back artifacts and introduce renewable resources that are currently missing. 

Is there a better way to do all of this? Probably. But it is not throwing the idea away just because. And I believe if you have some ideas how to improve the system to make it as good as possible for as many people as possible you should help devs with your constructive feedback. Propose something better. But you can be sure that when you say "implementing player feedback is bad, immature, the game is bad, you should ignore you players" you will be ignored as someone immature. Lets be better than this so we all can benefit from it, shall we?

Strongly agree! This is an amazing game and everything so far in the DLC has vastly improved it. Or least it will when they're done implementing

[Meltdown]

16 minutes ago, pether said:

First of all, it is really stupid to complain that somebody listens to your feedback.

Authoritarianism, gamedev edition? "Devs should rule with an iron fist. Player masses are incapable on determining what do they like about the game and how should it grow and improve, so only strong will of developers may lead the game to its prosperity" kind of stuff?

[WeSaidMeh]

@Ipsquiggle Is there a chance that the "An ore got a melt message" problem (posted a lot on the bug tracker) can be looked into soon-ish? Quite a few people are affected and can't continue their colonies due to unavoidable crashes. (including me, I'm sick at home and sooo bored and eager to continue - pleeease? <3)

Edited May 25, 2021 by WeSaidMeh

[Lacero]

Some of us have the same thing with the Suit Tank crash.  I think I've sent a dozen reports a night in for it

It's weird how some of us hit one or the other so much.

Lets hope they get them both this week.

[babba]

I am very glad that the positive and constructive thinking users in this forum outweigh destructive forces and negative vibes. IMHO one can dislike game features and content, but should always remain constructive ( or funny ).

Interacting with others by the means of encouragement, integration and understanding, is always effort.

Edited May 25, 2021 by babba

[Yunru]

4 hours ago, n_t_p said:

As for the "right way", I could go into game theory, difficulty curves, flow state, nurturing intuition, player expression, etc, etc etc but...

But... You're not going to, because that would require having more than just an opinion. Got it, subtext read. 

[chrisbehk]

i'll admit i didnt read these enormous walls of text idk where y'all find the time for this

im pretty happy with how the dlc is shaping up but the fields that get mined need alot more UI information, although i think klei probably knows this. I've also personally banned using solar in my games because it makes alot of the game trivially easy, it might be a good idea to make it so that your starter asteroid and the other 2 main ones have less light getting to them (25% of the current amount?) and you get the full amount + meteors further out.

[babba]

I find the radbolt storage slider very sweet

[JoeW]

Normally, this is not something I would chime in on. Generally, I try to avoid dipping my hand into community arguments. But here I go. 

First, I must say - if you don't want to get involved with a game that will evolve though community feedback, you should likely stay away from anything in early access, and steer away from us at least until a full release. We do everything through community feedback. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the main reason being.... 

Second. We don't don't do ANYTHING because it's "the right way". I want this to be VERY clear. From day one when I became an employee at Klei Entertainment I was told "Don't do something because it's the way 'it's supposed to be done', do it because YOU think it's the way it 'should be done'. Then test it, adjust and learn from that". I can't stress this enough, this is part of our core DNA at Klei. There are some things that we have learned to count on though time but generally speaking, this is how we operate. 

When we make a game, we set out to do something, and then we adjust as we move forward. Every game we have made since starting Mark of the Ninja has been a drastically different game than what we initially set out to create. The majority of this is due to testing our own assumptions and then in adding and adjusting to that through community feedback. But I think there can often be some misunderstanding on how player feedback changes the game.

When we start a project, we set out to create an experience we want to give people. Sometimes we learn that the way we're going about creating those experiences needs to be adjusted. Sometimes we learn that the experience we are aiming for is incorrect entirely. Sometimes we find out that we're on the right path, but perhaps the path doesn't go where we intended it to. The players and their feedback tell us how we're doing at reaching those goals and inform us on what we need to do to adjust if we're not quite there. 

But "listening to player feedback" does NOT mean implementing things people often ask for. Simply put, player feedback tells us when we are and are not hitting the mark as we move ahead, or even sometimes to take a few steps back.

I can't speak for everybody in this case, but I would venture to guess that there aren't many people working at Klei that want to do things 'by the book'. It's simply not how we operate. 

At some point a project takes on its own life. The path is much more clear and player feedback helps us keep things in line with what it has become and we move forward. Everything adjusts, until we're done. I guess the TL;DR is that we build a game with our community, but ultimately it's up to us to decide where that lands in the end. 

That being said. Nobody should be on these forums telling anybody else whose opinions are valid and whose are not. If somebody has an opinion and they are being polite and constructive, then their opinion is something we want to be exposed to. But when you get mired up in bickering and arguing all it does is create noise. 

Finally, you don't need to pick each others arguments apart, let us deal with that. Discuss it, of course - but don't assume that we're taking anybody's suggestions whole cloth. We're not always going to do exactly what you personally agree with, but we're always going to do the thing we think is right, and if we're wrong. We'll adjust. That's what we do