Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

State of Development, Open Development in Early Access, Changes to Release System, Xbox One

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by Drui, Mar 13, 2018.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    526
    I hope "Safe Zones" and "Player location/inventory saved on unceremonious exit" can be dissabled .....
    (Safe Zones i need not on my server [or to clarify, an other 'Safe Zone' funktionality would needed ..] and the other can be easy missused - and we come good without it alraight...)

    Regards
     
  2. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Wow, when I saw that email about new post and there was:

    Este fórum está se tornando uma comédia (E eu estou gostando disso)

    I got really scared... That your next step will be giving out merchandise in form of cursed rings and then you start conquering the world with a massive mace. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    People on discord were talking about it on the multiplayer channel at the time of the beta beta beta testing last thursday. In addition to the above things, they also mentioned blueprint directories. I don't even have a discord account, I just like mining it for candid developer/ex-developer/modder comments.

    Now this is likely a fruit of my wild imagination, that I arranged in Feb 2018 and was going to post on April 1 to troll people (before I got distracted):
    [​IMG]
    ;)

    The way they were discussed, if those features make it to the actual update without being cut, is that "safe zones" could be configured, like you would use one to enclose a base or space station for a faction. The other was intended to allow players who were temporarily disconnected to be in the vehicle or location they left without losing inventory/progress. No info yet on how that could be controlled/limited.
     
  4. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    526
    That the safe zones can be configured by admin i have read (thanks anyway :) )
    But the player save can on an survival server easy abused to manage bad situations - and so it can be disabled (at last on DS in config file ..)
    If you dont have an stable internet connection, you should avoid playing games where connection is vital - sure it can be always an interrupt , but how many count in an year IF you have stable internet .......

    Regards
     
  5. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    How? How can disconnecting save someone? I don't know where you see the problem.
     
  6. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    907
    Having a disconnect serve as a save/invulnerable state would cause "combat-logger" problems like in Elite Dangerous...

    Where the engineer comes under attack/Clang'd (TM), and treats the multiplayer world like he would with his own single player world... where- in his self entitled state of mind, whenever anything goes wrong or unacceptable its quickly resolved with a "nnNNNOPE!" and rapid unplugging of his computer... as a "do-over". [not a fan]

    Part of the thrill and excitement of MP is the consequence of things, mistakes, and loss. Its just more "real"
     
  7. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Ah, I see, you take the "location/inventory saved" too literaly. Like when you log out, character with inventory disappears and is stored in file until you logs back and then you again pop up in the world, like in most MMORPG games, now I see what you mean.

    The problem is that the information itself is very vague... I would take just the spirit of the idea "character and inventory persistence". Simply calling it "save location and inventory" is too general, misguiding and might lead to some conclusions, that are just plain wrong.

    Btw who was talking about " unceremonious exit"? Well, if I was designing something like this, I would probably not bother by it and used it for any kind of disconnect/logout and so on. Also it would be pretty unfair to players who log out correctly, don't you think? :D But I am not a designes, so what do I know. :D
     
  8. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    907
    yeah, I guess it would be hard for a server to decide whose grid belonged to the one just dropped.

    ... Though I'm still trying to get the joke of
    [​IMG]

    just dont get it... a 3d wrap of a 3x3x3 o2 generator? oh the horror!

    A minecraft-esque "Interior Plate golem"?

    Over Gribbley textures?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Actually even I still don't get what that should be :D And I think I would have known, if that was something, that matters. :D
    --- Automerge ---
    I think you were talking here about "location and inventory saving" of character, not grids :D
    I am just trying to imagine that hillarious situation when your friend logs in and suddently his ship pops in too at the same spot as you have your ship parked. What an explosion. :D
    Or when you built your ship with your friend, he logs off and suddenly half of the ship disappears :D Would be pretty hard to assemble, if his part was the middle of the ship :D
    --- Automerge ---
    How exactly do you think? I actually can't think of any other way (maybe you meant same thing as Calaban, but I rather ask). Might be useful to know potential problem.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    IIRC people said that the disconnected players remained in the world in a catatonic/AFK state, so I imagine it wouldn't rescue them from any danger. We shall have to see what turns up.

    Yes I arranged it to find a 3D wrap, but I don't think it is the O2 generator (it looks different). It does share the conveyor port arrangement style of the small grid O2 generator or gas tanks though.
     
  11. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    526
    @Petr Beranek
    the example Calaban given is an good "example" to show misuse of (often) good thinked enhancements for multiplayer gaming ....
    Sure - on an disconnect you realy cant say: if the connection lost or PC crashed - or have he faked this to avoid problems (as another example > the time is going on in the server world, even if the player where disconected is in stasis - so if he come back 2h later - the danger is gone ..).
    So i would (specialy for my Hardcore Survival Server) prefer an server side switch - if the server owner allow this on his server or not ...
    On my server it is today the rule -> PC/Internet problems is not the busines of the server - the player musst deal with it ...
    [if the player pc crash and he was in his car driving - he can still contact me , the admin, over TS(mobil) and say me "..pleas stop my car from crash" or anything like this for an other moving grid - have happen in the past more than one time - and here i know he have not try to misuse the help ... so we are basicaly happy with "not" have this feature]

    Regards
     
  12. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Man, I don't know, but if it were like Arcturus said, it does not seem so convenient to pull out their plug as the zombie would continue to travel with the grid into their doom. Or it would be still in the world to be killed and looted. Reminds me the times when i tried playing Rust and kept killing offline players sleeping on beach for meat :-D

    About removal of player off the world completely until he logs back, yeah, that would be really stupid and would be easily exploitable.
    --- Automerge ---
    This is the problem, everyone wants option for everything. But if you are to test everything thoroughly, you would have to test every possible combination of options. This means, that adding one checkbox would double the testing time. (basicaly everything can affect anything else) So I can understand, why some don't want to add new options. Also it is confusing for players that you have too much things to set up. Third thing is you join server, log out and when you log back, you will find they have disabled persistance the hard way. Imagine that frustration. Or there would have to be shown another icon somewhere when you search-for/join the server.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,508
    Just posting this here from the official Space Engineers channel.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Gustavo Julião Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    18
    Great I liked the video is getting good and if I'm not wrong vi (Server thread CPU) it seems they are listening to what people see asking for the time and good job. Would you like to show a gameplay with other things? like a small combat of ships with or even a beat with some particles being thrown? Thanks.
    --- Automerge ---



    If they can make a scene without giving a low SS, the server for min will be perfect.
     
  15. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    526
    @Petr Beranek
    mmhh - then i see here a misinterpretation of this (comming) feature ...
    "i" have thinked the player (or the grid with him if piloted) will "puff" vanish and come back on reloging ...
    If this only an "extended" disconnect, where the player is (as example) 5 min long still in the world and have an chance (by relogging in this time) to come back in his engineer (that is still in the world ..) - then it is a nice feature .... but again (sorry) only if the "wait time" configurable .... it should not too long, but on servers with many and large mods, it can take a good time to reconnect .... so i doubt "one time" will fit all configurations ...

    Regards
     
  16. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    907
    or it could mean safe zones = "within 5km of trading base all grids are indestructible"
     
  17. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206
    Like when your internet stops working, it is too late and you cannot wait another 4 hours as you have to wake up to work/school/whatever... Don't see a problem if the zombie stayed there for, I don't know, for example 24 hours, or week.

    Also when it gets too crowded, admins would probably be able to clear the server up. But this all are just speculations, who knows what there will be. :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. R-TEAM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    526
    @Calaban
    this "typ" of save zones we dont need on my server ;)
    (it is mainly for PVP focused action server imho ...)
    I would prefer an more subtile "safe zone" game machanic with an block to build and powered (values can be modded to the needing, if the mechanic here) that create an "zone" where drilling is much slower and block building disabled for non friendly player/fractions .. so you cant cheaty easy drill under an good guarded base (but dont disable this - it can be still an challange ..) and prevent from building obstacles/armored ways in the "zone" of an protected base ... so you musst disable the base first - the block should not to costly (resources and energy usage) but not to cheap, so that only important bases are protected this way ...

    Regards
     
  19. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    I also explained why your criticisms of my logic are based on faulty assumptions of your own. Have you ever heard of a logical inference aka deductive inference? Logical inferences are made all the time in court rooms all the time, to continue with that example. To give an example let's suppose someone is murdered and there are 2 suspects, John Smith and John Doe. Both men are repairmen that drive a 2015 Ford with their company logo on the side. A truck matching that description was seen in the area at the time of the murder. Mr Smith was the only person seen in the area at the time of the murder. Mr Doe's key was used to access the area the victim was found in at the time of the murder. Only Mr Smith appeared to have motive, and finally fingerprints belonging to both men were on the murder weapon. Although there is no definitive video showing Mr Smith carrying out the crime, I can logically conclude of our 2 suspects that Mr Smith is the culprit based on available evidence. Obviously that is not a 100% perfect example but you get the point I hope.

    In the case of our video, it's showing 2 rival factions having a modestly sized scrap over a space station. Faction B invades the area to try to steal it from Faction A. There is no evidence to suggest that the factions aren't equal. We see 10 people from Faction B disembark their ship as they a boarding the station to steal it from Faction A. Faction A then decides to make a break for it on a ship of their own just before it gets shot down. We then see part of the Faction A crew building a new ship that returns to retake their station from Faction B. Again there is nothing to suggest just from the footage alone that there are not at least 10 people on that ship Faction A flies back to that station. There is also no disclaimer to say the video is intended just intended to be a pretty action shot or so on. Thus from that video as it sits I could logically draw the conclusion that modest sized space battles between moderately sized factions are indeed possible in an average game. Absent of those disclaimers whether that's the case or not that is a conclusion most folks seeing the game for the first time could very well, and probably will draw.

    As to not being able to draw conclusions in a fictional scenario, that couldn't be any farther from the truth. In Star Wars when I see a Jedi and a Sith draw their lightsabers I logically can assume they're getting ready to fight each other. In the update video I linked I can logically assume that since Faction A is going back to the station that they intend to retake it. I highly doubt they were going back just for a friendly chat.

    That was directed at another poster my good sir and pointing out the flaws in his own logic. As for your english, you speak it better than quite a few native speakers where I live, so that you can take some pride in good sir.

    Where as some people may look at actual gameplay footage, not everyone will do so before purchasing a game. To many they will consider it a spoiler and therefore not want to view it before actually playing the game themselves. Respectfully good sir the argument you used here could also be considered tantamount to telling someone to watch a portion of the actual movie beyond the trailer to see if they want to actually view the whole thing, which brings us back to the spoiler argument above.

    I'm glad you actually brought up World of Warcraft as an example as it helps to illustrate the exact point I've been making the entire time. Anytime Blizzard puts a new cinematic trailer out there or cinematic in the game, it's made absolutely clear from their actions that it's exactly that, a cinematic. If it pops up in game I obviously know it's a cinematic made to look cool. If it occurs outside the game, their branding and little bits and pieces such as a release date for a patch or expac etc, all make perfectly clear that it's a cinematic and not advertising typical gameplay. Many games will even add a full on disclaimer in fine print saying that it's not a typical gameplay experience. As much as I enjoy Space Engineers, it doesn't do that. The only disclaimer you would need overall is one simply saying "video is not expected of typical gameplay experience," and there you go.

    You also say you don't know what I want to hear so let me make this as perfectly clear as I know how. Earlier in the thread after giving my 2 cents in regards to limits I posted up what my ideal situation for the game would be if given the power to make it happen. That situation I described with the 150k blocks was not necessarily what I expected in reality, but what I would like to see happen. In other words in my ideal situation I would love to be able to have modest space battles and such composed of a dreadnought, 2 cruisers, a destroyer, and a few fighters on each side as just one possible example. You then responded with this statement below:

    You guys show these update videos like the one I linked previously where a modest sized space battle is occurring of multiple ships attacking an enemy station, or the video with the 7 blue ships hitting their jump drives at once. You guys show these videos of all this epic stuff taking place and these bits of action. Yet at the same time you all but say if we want that sort of action that we play a different game because our PCs can't handle it. So if you're going to show all these epic battles and such in the update videos or so on, yet turn around and suggest if we want that sort of thing to play another game, then I've got to ask the very important question here.

    If you're going to show all of those epic things happening, yet turn around and suggest that if we want those things you're showing in the videos we go play another game, what exactly are your intentions for the game? What exactly should we be expecting if not something in line with that sort of thing? If you're also going to suggest most computers can't handle that sort of epicness then what exactly should people expect to need in terms of computing power for this game? What exactly are we supposed to want as players? I don't expect to be able to have a battle on the massive scale as EVE Online, but if I can't expect to at least match what's shown in the update videos of a modestly sized battle, then what can I actually expect? What is the motivation of people to buy the game and play it and my motivation to recommend it, if we can't even expect to match the very things your videos are suggesting because the game itself is as limited as you're suggesting?

    What I'm wanting to hear is clear cut examples of what I can realistically expect if I can't realistically expect what you're showing in your own videos at least.
     
  20. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,600
    Frankly there's a very good chance they don't really know that themselves yet, meaning that their answer would probably be something like "as much as we can manage"... :p
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  21. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    459
    How are there so many people like this out there? You act as if KSH has done something novel or nefarious. Link me any gameplay video (from the developer) that shows only what a mid-tier-or-lower system could handle. That is not the point of those videos. It's to show what's possible and to help sales. This isn't rocket erm... engineering. My point in regards to this was 'let the buyer beware'.

    Yes, acceptable building limits should be determinable and publicized, but that point has already been made. Stop beating a dead horse and bloating the forum with your verbal diarrhea.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Petr Beranek Developer Staff

    Messages:
    206

    Yeah, I know, but it is always good to read everything. You never know what you will miss. ;)
    --- Automerge ---
    I got this for games that relies on story. For games like SE, Minecraft, Terraria, Besiege, Robocraft... basically all sandboxes... where story elements are minimal or non-existent and where you can get creative, it is good to see the limits before buying. And spoilers are either minimal or none at all.

    For story driven games, where spoiler can ruin your whole playthrough... Those games are usually not so sandboxy. Performance heaviness usually does not come from "building too much" in these games. Also you must not look at the end of the game in those gameplay videos. :D
    --- Automerge ---
    If there is one thing to take from Starcraft 2, then it is quote: "Perfection goal that changes. Never stops moving. Can chase, cannot catch." Abathur

    There will always be ways to improve. But some improvements can have drawbacks. Wanna great boost in performance? Turn of all physics... but you will lose all interactions with everything... There needs to be balance in everything... and often times when you optimize something, many things break and fixing it deoptimize some other things. At least me, as junior programmer, I don't have that much experience to predict how much it can be pushed. Some optimizations that are already in place would sound to me like insane things (not in the "impossible" meaning, but in "that will change and break everything" :D) and something too risky year ago, yet they works (after some time of intense fixing :D ).
    --- Automerge ---
    Such things are easy for consoles where everyone has same specifications, but for computers? That's way harder as most people have custom built PCs. It would have to be measured on all possible combinations of HW. There is nothing like "average PC". When I saw the variety of HW players use (in crashlogs), some had components that I expected to be already half-fossilized, some have components I can only dream of. Also HW still improves so it would be necessary to still test on new stuff... and When you change something in game, then you would have to make all the measurements again from beginning.

    Something like this have some meaning when it is determined that everything is finished, that nothing will change anymore.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    If that's the case then imo it would clear up alot of confusion and frustration if they simply come out and say "Point B is what we're shooting for but may only make it to Point A realistically." I may not like the thought of only making it to Point A but I would have more respect for them being honest about it up front, than to let everyone get their hopes up only for it to fall short. No one can deny they've done work on the game as they clearly have and I'm sure are continuing to do so. I still think alot of confusion and frustration could be cleared up with better communication.

    I'll tell you the same thing I told the other guy, read what I said in previous posts slowly as you're letting it fly straight over your head all the way from here on Earth all the way to the Alpha Centari system. Much of what I said to him can also apply to your own criticisms as your own criticisms are based on faulty logic and missing my entire point just like his were. Secondly, you are not the gatekeeper to what is a valid criticism and what isn't. Show me anywhere that I have said Keen was outright trying to rip people off as I would love to see that myself since you think you know more about my own posts than I do. What I've been saying is they need to be more open with what people can realistically expect and transparent about it. The way they are going about it now can and does lead to alot of the confusion and unrealisitic expectations.

    You also shot yourself in the foot with your own point and proved the exact point I've been making the entire time. In your quoted statement above you say: "That is not the point of those videos. It's to show what's possible and to help sales." As I said previously I fully expect they're going to try to make it look all nice and shiny to try to sell the game to people. Every company tries to upsell their product or service as the best as that's the nature of the beast. An example I gave previously involved a bit of video editing software. If I'm in the market for software and I need one that can do A B C D E, and find one that says it does A B C D E F G, then I fully expect that it's going to do A B C D E F G. If however I get the software and it can only do A B C but not D E F G, then we're going to have problems and it's that kind of thing that gets companies sued. As I also said thankfully that's NOT what we are dealing with when it comes to Keen nor do I have any intentions of suing them, nor does anyone else for that matter.

    In the video I linked it shows a modest sized space battle between 2 opposing factions over a space station. By your own statement you said and I quote again "That is not the point of those videos. It's to show what is possible and to help sales." At the same time they're showing what should be possible, I've all but been told if I want an epic battle on a similar scale, I may as well go find another game as the average computer can't handle it. So I had to ask the question, if that's been shown as something that can go on in game with little to no issues as their video suggests, yet being told by a developer that sort of thing is not intended, then what IS intended. What ARE we supposed to expect if those sorts of videos aren't reflective of that? All of these issues that I've named could easily be solved by putting a small disclaimer in fine print that says something along the lines of "video not representative of average gameplay" or something to let folks know the average rig might not be able to handle that sort of thing. Finally if the average rig isn't able to handle that sort of thing, then the minimum specs to handle such a thing need to be given. To show folks a video that suggests to them they can do it, with no mention of needing a higher powered rig to do so when in fact they do need a higher powered rig, is intellectual dishonesty. It's NOT fraud or illegal, but it definitely doesn't look good. This is why in alot of commercials, such as Red Bull being a prime example, they have little disclaimers saying "Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings," or so on. This is so it doesn't give false expectations. From my impression of Keen they are not the type to intentionally mislead people, but they do need to be more clear on their expectations for the average game, what specs are required to do some of the things they showcase in their own videos, and what folks can expect from the game overall. Personally I don't see what's so unreasonable about being able to match the very modest and basic stuff they're showing with no issue in their videos, or expecting a small disclaimer if it's intended for higher powered rigs. At the end of the day you're welcome to whatever opinions of my posts you want, but it doesn't make them any more or less valid.
     
  24. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    459
    If you want to cherry pick my posts, fine. Until you are capable of understanding why it is unreasonable to ask KSH to set a brand new standard in marketing just so you don't have to use common sense, and are willing to respond to all the valid criticisms, than that is what makes your posts less valid, no matter how pointlessly verbose they are.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. AlfieUK4 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    65
    If the bulk of early access players were demonstrably sane and reasonable people then maybe, but more likely Keen would get crucified for not delivering B when they said they could :)

    Think of it more like the chief engineer, Scotty, from Star Trek, he always underestimated and over delivered. If you know you can definitely do A you say 'I can do A', then go off and try to reach B. If you can reach B you say, 'hey look, I managed to do A and more', otherwise you still deliver A and no one is any the wiser.

    If you think back this is similar to what happened with planets, Keen said they weren't going to do them because they were too hard, they messed about with the idea a bit and found that they could make them work, so they gave us planets, and almost everyone was happy. More recently we've had teasers for things that have been put on the back burner and people are up in arms about it. I don't think almost total silence about their plans was a good idea, but telling us they're shooting for the stars and not delivering would probably not go over well either.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    What I responded to and quoted was the entirety of your previous post which is clearly visible in the in the quote itself for all to see. Whether folks agree with what I've said or not is another debate/thing entirely. Instead of trying to rebut what I've said, you defaulted back to the "you're cherry picking" argument and have not attempted to rebut anything I have said. I explained to the previous guy why his criticisms of my logic at that point were faulty as I have done with you.

    I'm also not sure what kind of marketing they have where you live, but around here where I live what I'm saying isn't a new standard at all, but simply holding to the one already present. As was stated earlier in this little debate, there are plenty of commercials out there which have disclaimers in them such as "actor portrayal, non-attorney spokesperson, not actual gameplay footage, Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings, results may vary, several sets used" etc. These disclaimers are put in place to prevent people from getting any false ideas and to understand what they're seeing is strictly an advertisement. Take the actor portrayal arguments and the non-attorney spokesperson that you may see in a personal injury lawyer's commercial. They have to put these disclaimers otherwise everyone calling them up would be expecting several hundreds of thousands of dollars and that their legal case is a for sure win. In the Red Bull example, that disclaimer had to be added so that people knew it wouldn't actually give them wings and do stupid stuff because of it. In some toy commercials you may see the disclaimer "several sets used" with something like a Magic Sand or Kinetic Sand commercial if anyone remembers those old things. If they didn't have that disclaimer people would order the product expecting this massive beer keg sized load of the stuff, only to be pissed off and disappointed that they didn't get what they thought they were getting. If you see a disclaimer that says "not actual gameplay footage" then you understand that it's not reflective of the actual in game footage and just an action shot to make the advertisement look pretty. These disclaimers are put in place so folks understand better what they're being advertised and to try to curb any false expectations and so folks don't feel like they've been scammed. Before protections like this were put in place companies and sellers could claim anything they wanted up to and including, if someone takes this magic multi-vitamin elixer pill that you will become immortal.

    In the instance of Space Engineers, if someone is viewing the game for the first time trying to decide they want to buy it, one of the big things they will check is the update videos as they're easily available. In seeing those videos there is no disclaimer to say "not a typical gameplay experience" as just one example. Once they see these videos they're going to get it in their heads that they can match that level of epicness with no issues, whether they actually can realistically or not. Another argument thrown up to that point earlier was "why don't they check for actual game play videos," which was a fair question. In short some won't do so because they will feel it's a spoiler. For this post let's cover that base that I didn't do previously and assume they actually do check gameplay footage and so on. Obviously they'll see the absurdly large structures and outlandish types of games, but they will also see some of the normal types of games also. When they compare the videos using non-outlandish items to the update video footage, they could reasonably conclude the video was shot in game. Thus they will get the wrong idea that they can reproduce it in game without many issues, only to find out they need a rig almost completely dedicated to SE. When they find this out they're going to come on here to the forums and report these issues as bugs, when in fact they're not actually bugs. Thus leading to frustration for other community members and devs alike. Yet a simple little disclaimer somewhere in the video in the fine print stating "not typical gameplay experience," could solve these issues. Point being they put up videos showing this level of epicness, only to find out later perhaps that it's not intended for a standard game or without a heavy duty rig. That then led to my question of can we actually expect from the game if we can't expect to be able to match the basic update videos if nothing else. If they're going to show those kinds of epic battles as something that can happen in game, yet say that's not intended for the average game, then why show it other than to make the game look pretty. If that's the case of making it look pretty then that needs to be made clear.

    I don't see what's so unreasonable about expecting a little bit more transparency, especially considering I shelled out cash for a copy of the game. At that point I have a right to at least ask the question. I don't expect them to spill all of their trade secrets or anything even close to that. I would however like to see them at least say "this is what we're shooting for," and go from there.

    Save that we're not even seeing them say "we can do A but are shooting for more." If it was just that at this point, okay I know to expect A and if they make it to B or even C then that's just icing on the cake. Like I've said prior I don't expect full on fights to the scale of EVE Online as the hypothetical I've been using, but when their videos showcase a modest space battle that was clearly shot in game or using game assets, I would think I can at least match their basic update videos with little to no issues on an above average rig. Yet at the same time I've all but been told not to expect to be able to match that. So that raised the question, if their video is showing things at point C with no issues, yet I'm being told not to expect to make it to point C, then what can I realistically expect to get to? If they said, we have A done, we're 75% done with B, and after that are going to try to shoot for more, yet weren't able to get more, then okay I know they were at least able to deliver to point B with no problems.

    If a company for sure says "we are going to do B" but then doesn't deliver, you are correct people are going to get pissed. Around here that's what we might call "counting the Hens before the chickens hatch." You are definitely correct, they need to work more on their communication. They wouldn't even need to say "we're shooting for the stars at point B," but simply giving folks something and saying "we're shooting for better performance" or what have you would at least be something. Right now it doesn't look good.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    459
    And that is why you fail.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    379
    So expecting to know what I might reasonably be able to see in a game I paid cash for and thus helped support is considered unreasonable, good to know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Burstar Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    459
    This has been a major leap forward for Captainbladej52. I think everyone in the community that is participating in this topic should like the above post to show support for his growth as a person and communicator. Well done sir. Take a bow.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  30. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,068
    Well, Keen has made it clear more or less what you should not expect, things such as liquid water and airtight asteroids, orbital mechanics, aerodynamics sun in center of universe, lasers, shields, transporters...

    There's a lot of stuff you might be expecting that you probably shouldn't such as an economic system or being able to grab hold of things with your character's hand or a story...

    I think at this point it's pretty safe to say that if you don't like the game already, there's not much else they are likely going to do that will make you love it. You really can't expect much more than what you can already get now either vanilla or with mods. I won't say expecting anything more is unreasonable. Just unlikely.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.