Trego

  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

92 Excellent

About Trego

  • Rank
    Member
...

Recent Profile Visitors

914 profile views
  1. Well, you answered your own question there. I suppose if you write enough words it's difficult to avoid answering your own questions eventually. What if I don't care what you care about? Then it's a battle of who could care less, which I will win because that's one of my favorite songs and I learned how to play it on the piano but with a Mozart-like twist, and someone once told me that Mozart is a genius-level composer. However, that person has literally never decided anything in his life, so I'm not sure we can trust his decision on Mozart's talent level, as he denies making it in the first place. I'm glad we can agree on at least one thing, though: "why people stop playing ONI[leave]" isn't relevant to a discussion about why "There's a clear progression, at every step we're bleeding players." (A quote from the first comment of yours that I replied to), but Mozart's talent level, on the other hand, now that's relevant. let's just agree to agree and let the rest stand, eh?
  2. Yes, but you implied I said the opposite of my actual point, which is much much worse than if it'd just been that you'd said they shouldn't. No, it's not irrelevant, because that's not how a sample works. A sample, in general use, is when you find a representative subgroup, of known size, of the entire population, also of known size. Here we have some percentages, based on a subgroup of unknown size and probably not representative. Also, these arguments are not independent, they are each related small flaws which all add up to one large flaw. I honestly don't know but you appear to have managed it. No, the statistics are not good enough for multiple reasons, which I listed already, with numbered points and everything. For examples of how we could have better statistics,not even considering the achievements sample issue at all, I'll reiterate from my earlier numbered points, this time I'll use capital letters to really change things up: A. We could have statistics where we simply ask a sample of former players why they quit playing, instead of have to guess why since we only have statistics on achievements. B: We could have statistics where we compare ONI to other games in the areas you're mentioning, to give us a more concrete basis for comparison. The problem with looking at ONI in a vacuum and not comparing it to other games to judge player retention is that these players are quitting to play other games, they're not quitting because of some platonic ideal of ONI that it's not measuring up to. You may not care about how well those other games do, but your argument is fatally flawed if you don't take that into account. But you must admit it does appear, to the outside observer, that you have? Anyways, this particular exchange has almost nothing to do with my original comment in this thread at this point, which isn't surprising since it seems so often that you're responding to some other person entirely, or just going off on a tangent? I'm not really sure, but good luck with whatever it is you're attempting to accomplish here.
  3. That's a blatant strawman, not only are you not 'agreeing' with something that no one said; that strawman is pretty much the opposite of my actual point, which is that people should carefully consider not skipping past the first 20 hours of ONI by looking at outside help because it's a super fun stage of the game--and you can't go back and play your first 20 hours again if you regret that choice later. Your point, that ONI's player retention is too low, is somewhat symmetrical, in that a player who tries ONI and then decides to give it up permanently probably isn't coming back. Here are the problems that I see with your argument: 1. As someone pointed out, achievements aren't tracked in sandbox mode; without statistics about how many players use sandbox mode we're just guessing as to what achievements actually mean. 2. Without relevant statistics about other games retention, it's hard to interpret the numbers you mention. Maybe ONI is actually doing great at retention compared to other similar games? 3. You have apparently decided that people are quitting because the game is too complicated--what if people are quitting because they are following your advice and using premade modules and finding that path boring? These are both just guesses about other people's experience. How are these wildly aimed guesses better on relying on our own actual experience? 4. In the absence of the above statistics, we kinda have to stick with our personal opinion about the game. My personal experience, having played many similar games, is that ONI is extremely newbie friendly already, comparatively. Yes, my point is based on my experience. However, in the absence of 'good enough' statistics, our only choices are to rely on our own experience, or make guesses about other people's experience. There's a trend on our society to put down the former choice, and then pretend that the latter choice is somehow 'scientific', but that's pseudo-science at best.
  4. Playing on a computer someone else built, with an operating system someone else designed, then loading in a game Klei made, is already a lot of imitation. Yes, all those guitarists were imitators before they were creators, but the point of the example is that at some point they decided to teach themselves and become creative, and that's when they found joy in music. If players copy modules to learn how to build a stable colony they've sucked the joy out of the best part of the game. That's just my opinion, but I would suggest rethinking which part of the musical journey ONI is attempting to reproduce. I personally have played ONI for thousands of hours, and I've spent more like ten thousand hours playing musical instruments, and my opinion is that ONI is trying to replicate the feeling you get when you've put in hundreds of hours of practice already and you're moving from novice to intermediate level. Playing ONI is a way to start being creative now, without having to spend all that time building in muscle memory first. If you had to spend hundreds of hours building muscle memory before you could get creative in ONI, why would you play it, over spending those hundreds of hours not being creative learning a musical instrument and coming out of it with an actual skill, or something comparable like learning to weld, or rock climb, etc?
  5. As Steve8 pointed out, in the current game this would mainly be for rockets. Since the DLC is coming out pretty soon with a big change to rocketry, and possibly other uses for hydrogen, that situation might change.
  6. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen in the real world is steam-methane reforming. This consists of combining steam with natural gas/methane at around 900 Celsius, with a nickel catalyst, to produce hydrogen and CO. You can then combine the CO with steam with a rust catalyst to obtain further H2 and CO2. We could have a fun late-game machine for ONI based on this process, inputs of steam and methane, outputs H2 and CO2, call it something like 'methane cracker'. You would have to carefully balance this machine vis-a-vis the current natural gas generator/electrolyzer/hydrogen generator/steam turbine machines to neither obsolete them nor be itself useless, but I think it would be a fun addition nevertheless.
  7. On all the Arborias I've looked at so far, rushing rust deoxys or just rushing electrolyzers was a very viable option.
  8. There is a similar exploit possible using battery charging and shutoffs controlled by automation, that kabrute discovered back in January. I'm not sure your picture actually demonstrates this, or any, exploit, however. Sending 2k of power over a conductive line and then via transformers to two normal wire lines each powering 8 refrigerators works without batteries, and without exploits. original exploit thread:
  9. No, your post was clearly meant to be funny. I'm still trying to figure out the intended tone of Risu's response.
  10. why is everyone trying to tell me what I'm saying today? That's not a fun game. It is true that the energy requirements to electrolyze 1 kg of water per second are probably closer to 120 MW, than 120 watts, but that's not what I was saying before. But yea, since the power requirements are already close to a million times too low... So you're saying that the relative power required to heat or cool the water is relatively insignificant next to the existing power errors, and therefore you don't mind it at all, nor do you think the fixed output temperature is stupid. Okay then.
  11. No, because it's energetically more noninclusive.
  12. High temperature electrolysis is the future. Thermolysis is ONI's future. (Apparently at around 3000 Kelvin and with the right pressure, water spontaneously decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen: thermolysis)
  13. Multiple inputs with one output usually works fine, sometimes it bugs out and i figure out why, sometimes it bugs out and i never do. You probably could have fixed it by just removing one pipe section and rebuilding it, if that's the case, but it doesn't hurt to overengineer with extra liquid bridges to help the pipe code out.
  14. it looks like you have multiples inputs and outputs on the same pipeline. In general, that's a good way to mess up pipelines, so not really a bug as a pipeline design error. If that pipe coming from the left is another input as I suspect, then try demolishing the end of it where it merges in, and merging that other input in with a liquid bridge instead. that will usually get your throughput back to full, bridges are useful for that purpose as well as their normal purpose.