• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

269 Excellent

About marioespinho

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I swear Mike want's to turn this game into "Word Gen Manager" or something... On-topic - i wouldn't be against a rework on how hunger works. Something more engaging but simple at the same time, like the farming update, would be nice.
  2. That i know, but won't they keep running forever torwards the item even if i trigger the event?
  3. Isn't it possible to build more pig houses to maximize the effects of the moon altar event? I thought you could build more houses to get more warepigs, but they all go home at dusk and don't come out.
  4. Sorry for necroing or posting in the incorrect part but, is it possible to set up a multi-shard world without a dedicated server?
  5. when you stand next to the crow at the florid postern, you have a crafting menu where you can get the tree.
  6. What's funny is that Klei could easily be like almost every other game company and either charge for the content that they put out or just don't put out anything at all, yet they do, in a regular basis, add content and new stuff to the game, only to be trashed by posts like this complaining that the free stuff ain't good enough.
  7. Seriously, you guys do this on purpose right? everytime i tell myself i'm gonna take a couple of weeks off ONI, you release something that make me jump back in and restart a colony. Damn you KLEI !!!
  8. I meant that those things would only be available to whoever purchased the DLC. But anyway, i don't remember any game that has a game changing DLC, to have some sort of way to let players choose what to add or not to the base game. Usually you either buy it and accept what it brings, or you don't buy it. With that being said, what would solve every issue that has been brought up would be a DST-like world generation menu, where everyone could choose what they wanted or not. But i have no idea if that would even be possible without re-writing the whole thing. It lags already when you get past half of the asteroids. I think that one of the reasons Klei decided to divide them was exactly for performance issues. If you add a big map instead of the smaller one we have, then i assume it will start to lag much sooner, since it's even the main asteroid that gets bigger, theu the one where you spend the most time in. well , not really. We build a petroleum boiler because refinery isn't 1:1 and we build sleet wheat farms because higher tier food gives more morale. Sure you have things like sour gas boilers and rockets, that we build mostly because there isn't really much to do lategame, but that isn't even the issue. If the whole thing about the bigger map is because people don't like the space travelling/management or the multi-asteroid swapping, then they wouldn't send rockets out "because they can, because it's fun to do so, and because the challenge of doing so appeals to them". They would send them just because they need the stuff ( wich doesn't really apply, because if you have everything you need on the main one, then you don't need to send them out ), or because they can do it ( wich i guess they would skip, since they don't like space in the DLC ). So why would someone play Spaced Out, even on a bigger map, since they will eventually have to deal with space travelling or multi-asteroid sooner or later, unless they don't want endgame stuff, as opposing to play on the base game and skip all that?
  9. @babba Vanilla had "invisible" planets. All you needed to do was send a rocket up and wait for it to come back with stuff. Now you have fully rendered landable planets, that, if we have what you ask for, will just be full of stuff you already have, apart from the rare materials. So you would be doing the same that you do in vanilla, except with extra, pointless, steps. Why one would choose this new method as opposing to the vanilla one? @Electroely Then i think it would make far more sense to simply request nuclear, critters, etc to be added to the base game for DLC owners, instead of a whole DLC adaptation of the base game. Even if you have a big asteroid, you will still need to deal with space travel and multi-asteroid management once you do go out to those planets, because space will still need to be tackel the same way. The only difference is that other planets will just be playable for no reason at all, wich is even a bad thing if we think how lag builds up with each extra planet we have to deal with. I understand what you are asking, but i think it would be far simpler to just add the new stuff to the base game instead of trying to adapt the "new game" to feel like the "old" one.
  10. @babba @Electroely If a starting asteroid has all that, then what point is there to even have clusters outside the main one? None, as far as i can see. If everything besides rare resources are in the main asteroid, then there is no point in having places to fly to anyway.
  11. After all this, i'm still confused with what you guys really want on the big maps. All the options i see make no sense or already exist. A) Vanilla style A A map with every resource on it and also having multiple geysers like the base game will render all of space pointless, since everything is on the starting asteroid. So all that is left is metaphysical trips to invisible planets to get late-game resources. This is already present in the base game, minus nuclear. B) Vanilla style B Same as before, but with extra clusters with the late-game resources in them. This, beyond the fact that would be a FPS killer, makes no sense, since all we would get is clusters full of stuff that we don't need since we already have them back home, only housing 1 resource or so, making space travel feel more like a chore than anything else. C) Spaced out Bigger map but with missing resources and less geysers. In my opinion, this only makes it so that we need to dig more in order to get to space or any of the geysers. This feels more like it hinders the early game and the process to even get to space, since we have to dig more in order to do the very exact same thing we already do now. ______________________________ Maybe i'm missing the point, but i really can't see the appeal of a big, vanilla like, asteroid with the current space mechanics. I understand the feeling the base game asteroids have, but in order to get those, we would have to make the whole space rework pointless, in wich case would make more sense to just ask for nuclear on the base game instead of bigger maps on spaced out.
  12. I also feel like this. Base game always felt like more like a waiting game than an exploring game when i went past the first couple hundred cycles. In spaced out, i saw myself even using basic tech after 200/300 cycles in, because i needed to adapt to a different planet, with almost no infrastructures in place. Or having to think how to dig in order to get to oil without suits. Or even having a real feeling of space exploration since i now have to manage a dupe's interaction with a planet instead of sending a rocket and waiting for it to come back. I felt like that a lot when i first tried the smaller maps. But over time i felt like i like the tradeoff more. Now it's more than just slap a volcano tamer, connect pipes and forget it. Managing how the resources get to the main base feel nice to me.
  13. I was replying to the quoted comment, wich mentioned people that could hate space travel. Well, if you don't have sucrose, you still have CO2 that fills the same purpose as a low tier rocket, right? So instead of requesting what isn't there, why don't those players adapt and play the game how it's supposed to be? To me it just feels that people have some sort of resistance to change, and instead of trying to go out of their comfortable zone a bit, they just complain until they have it "easy" again. Well, i'll just copypasta some of the negative reviews, so that we can have an ideia of the spaced out release issues: ---------------------------- "I hate this update. It adds very little, don't address the issues before the update and just made the game 10x more annoying to me" ---------------------------- "I do not suggest to buy DLC at its current stage. The original vanilla game is great!!! If you did not play ONI, just buy the vanilla game. DLC is not ready: there are a lot of bugs - I have "black holes" - game crashes every day. The content is meh and it looks like the devs went the wrong way in spite of feedback from beta testers (the last radioactive update really made me writing the negative feedback). There are some QoL improvements over the vanilla game - more plants and animals, better search menu for materials but all that is negated by: The starting world is very small and additional (currently 6) asteroids are tiny. If you combine all together, it will be much smaller than the vanilla game world." ---------------------------- "I personally believe it is not worth ~$14 (depending on your country) because if i paid ~$27 for the game itself, then the DLC should come free of charge or at least less than $5. The game is cool but not worth what it costs" ---------------------------- "You ruined my favorite game with a bad DLC. Plz fix Atmo Suits and research. Why not just add cool stuff? Why change the game? Will change the review to positive if you at least fix atmo suits." Summing it all up, "Why does this game have a lot of bugs, event though you stated SINCE THE BEGGINING that it was early acess? Also why did you charge for it whan you could have added it to the main game free of charge? Bleh, you made the game harder(different) and i feel 10x more annoyed by it" To me : Entitlement, refusal to change and complaints about something that is optional. These were some of the "most useful" comments, i didn't scroll down to see all of them.