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.

Update 01.142 - Revised Building System

Discussion in 'Change Log' started by Drui, Jun 30, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. RobberFly Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    Some ideas on how to improve the building system:
    • It needs to be made apparent in-game that you can still slot individual blocks.
    • There should be a default game setting to control whether block selection for groups is remembered.
    As it comes to remembering block selection for a group, since the player can still slot individual blocks, there is no reason that I can think of to have the default behavior be anything other than to remember the last selection. If a player wanted to frequently alternate between two blocks in a group, they would likely slot those blocks separately rather than scroll through a group. If a player wanted to use a single block for a while, then use a few others to make minor alterations, I suspect they would likely be happy to scroll through the group.

    Block rotation gets more complex, because there are prominent use-cases both for having rotation apply to all blocks in a group as well as for rotational memory applying only to one block in a group. The same goes with when rotational memory should reset.
    • There should be a default game setting to toggle rotational memory for all blocks.
    In my modest opinion, rotation should be remembered for all blocks in a group by default.
    • If the player wants to apply rotation to a single block in a group, they could hold down a button as they are rotating that block (e.g., shift + pg dwn, pg up, etc...).
    The player should also be empowered to chose when to toggle rotational memory.
    • A single keypress could toggle rotational memory for the currently selected block (e.g., ~) , while a multi-keypress (e.g., shift + ~) could toggle rotational memory for all groups.
    If rotational memory is toggled for the currently selected block, its rotation would reset and then also not be remembered when the player switched away from and back to that block. Similarly, if rotational memory was toggled for all groups, rotation would be reset for all blocks and not persist through any block selection. The player should also be able to toggle rotational memory off for all groups, and then enable rotational memory one block at a time.

    It sounds a bit complex in terms of user experience, but I believe it would be intuitive in practice. It's an addition of a single keypress and a multi-keypress to control rotational memory, and then two settings in the game defaults that likely wouldn't need to be changed by many players.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. g4borg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    271
    Seriously? I think you sir have only been introduced to web-projects yet. Or the management tricks, which sell you incredibly simple software as something incredible.


    I can tell you, what the problem is with stable/dev branch release:
    Some people are lazy. And they hate change. And keep more energy and emotions in finding arguments, why they are rightfully pissed about learning new workflows.

    Especially if we are still arguing about it patches later.

    --

    This being said, the new building system seems a bit optimizable for me, so I am happy, I am still on "stable", as I also hate change. I am also lazy.
    But the ModAPI now needs my attention.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. DS_Marine Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    494
    I have to fully agree.
    Setting a fixed timeframe for a project like this is just downright stupid. You can do that for a standard project were you have a fixed set of needs and you project a timeline for finishing it. But this is a dynamic project. New features are added all the time, and you get to have them without paying extra. Yet there are a lot of stupid people that complains about it.
    THE only time when you can start counting, is when Keen decides to call it a day (or well, call it a game) and the project is closed to new features. There they can look at the current open bugs and calculate a timeframe to finish.
    You know, they would get more $$ in the short run if they finished this project long ago and sell you DLC with features like planets. Maybe some ppl prefer to go this way, paying more but having a more stable product. But most of the people are cheap and wants to get all they can for their money. So if you are in this group, then don't fking complain about the game not leaving alpha.
    Finally, I would love that the changelog thread were about the changes in the game. All the alpha/stability/timeframe nonsense should be either deleted by moderators or taken to another thread...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Dan2D3D Moderator

    Messages:
    1,004
    Hi Guys!

    There will always be somone arguing, it's normal because we are in a public forum, so try to be kind and respect other users opinions please.

    See forum rules 11 and 12.
     
  5. anders w Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    178
    to those of you who need more range when placing blocks in creative.

    hold down ctrl and scroll... the same as when you paste in BPs :)
     
  6. Vanguard Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    Let's not make this personal, but I've never touched a web project in my life... either way, web projects, embedded, games, apps, in the real world have a timeframe, project plan, budget, and people...

    Setting a fixed timeframe for a project isn't stupid, it's the first thing a project manager does... I can absolutely assure you most of the big successful titles have targeted release dates, i.e. mid-summer or just before Christmas (sadly this is also the reason for so many day 1 bugs and successive patches). By your logic, NHL 2016 could come out in 2021... now THAT would be downright stupid. So yeah, you develop a goal which includes features and a release date, all based on a budget. Then you staff that requirement to make it happen. This is why I highlighted earlier there should be a better distinction between kickstarter and early access, or a better expectation set by the developers. Maybe it's just me, but my opinion of kickstarter is, I have a great idea, not sure how long it will take or exactly what it will cost, but invest it me if you like where this is going, and I'll do my best to make it happen. Early Access is more of: We are an established development firm with a relatively mature product that we want the community to have early access to for pre-release feedback, testing, and to help shape the final product through feedback. By mature in this context I mean I have a working game/engine with functionality and playability, not a set of screenshots and artistic concepts.

    Also, regarding timeframes, the reason it's important to have timeframes in game development is that it doesn't take long before technology makes a game obsolete. People like sexy graphics. There are countless games out there that maintain a legacy based on how they got the functionality right, but the graphics are so poor by today's standards, people just can't look at it anymore, even if it's a 2D UI. There are die hard fans still playing it, but it ain't making anyone any money. I can state examples if you wish, but the bottom line is this... companies that go for feature richness and "getting it right" before delivering instead of a fixed timeline fail. Look at the steamgraphs and you'll see that the company got a bunch of players up front, and then they have to spread and stretch that funding over the course of 2-3 years. Eventually the well runs dry and we often end up with something that's incomplete or unpolished instead of the utopian goal that had set out for. Now take a different approach, like, ugh, Farming Simulator 2008... Out it comes. The key to games like that... rich modding community to fill the gaps. Next year, Farming Simulator 2009. What's new? Not much according to previous owners, a little prettier, few new tractors... Next year, 2010, same deal. It's still going strong and exists today. Why?

    Imagine Keen released SE 3 years ago for $30. The following year, SE 2.0... another $30, and again. The difference is, they would have 3 times as much cash by now, assuming most players repurchased, which I'd argue is actually usually the case. We "could" have potentially 3 times the feature richness in the product by now given the extra capital they would have to spend on it, and since the game provided a more stable release cycle, the modding community would be even richer than it is today since they wouldn't be as burdened to keep them updates. SE already has a rich mod community so overcome lack of features between releases. Look at the steam workshop and sort by popularity... a good chunk of the top modders have posted "Shelving this for awhile due to x y z, I'll come back when it's more stable", and now we have mods of old mods coming out, which makes compatibility a nightmare because I need the old and new mod for comparability with my BPs (armor ramps anyone?). Minecraft exists today due to the modding community, as many of the new titles do. Right now, a good portion of the complaints are people asking for certain mods to be mainstreamed into the game, and the other half is people yelling back, just download the mod. If you know it's going to be a year before any major feature becomes mainstream, the mod becomes the standard on how to get it done by nature.

    You going to tell me that you couldn't see yourself getting 30 bucks worth of entertainment out of this game in a year!? If the answer is no, then the game just isn't for you...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. g4borg Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    271
    Web Projects ain't something bad, so it was not to insult, but they can take around the timeframe you mentioned. 1-1.5 years is _nothing_ if you speak about development of a software project. And in the end, it is always a question of where you scale: you can scale in manpower, if the project can be split - which is why most software is written enterprise style - to keep a timetable. Or you have to scale the timetable, to scale with the manpower. The more you develop actually bleeding edge "know how" software however, the less you can split manpower, which is why variable timeframes are very common in the software world, and most "really successful" and great pieces of software have been released that way.

    Fixed timetables is nice for games from a big gamestudio, where most parts are just put together, and released. However, those customers, probably arent the same who bought space engineers, and medieval engineers. Also, releasing version based "releases" like SE 2.0, 3.0 etc. would have not made people buy more of them, it would have just totally destroyed their reputation.
    Also in those big game companies, you have usually people working on the engine in the background between the titles, who work way longer, and way less "timetabled".

    Also don't forget, how many years actually nowadays they need to fix their released software after release just to work.

    The more btw. a tech company develops truly own solutions for Software, the more it will diverge from your "capitalistic" management style. In fact, even "release versions" are slowly abandoned as a selling base. Even all our operating systems changed to rolling releases. The time where you see a software project as done and sold, is simply over, but some aren't really grasping this yet.

    I am pretty sure, Keen has timetables. Nobody said they should release those to the public.

    Also dont forget: there is a difference between announced games, that get released ~1 year later, and early access games, where you can peek into the development, that is usually hidden to you in other titles. 4-5 years of development for a bigger game, especially the first game in its line, is nothing but normal and even counts as relatively fast. Imho, Keen has a good speed aswell. Well except that I would have put more emphasis on networking and cross platform development from the start, but that is an idealistic question.

    Anyway, I just reacted because I find it rude to insult management, just out of personal impatience, and the proposed 1-1.5 years sound like nothing to me. As many customers are tech-versatile, probably a lot would have left the ship, if they heard, they plan to do such a big ambitious project in so little time.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Vanguard Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    Your comment about personal impatience made me take pause and check myself. Reason being is that, after over 15 years in software development, I now work as a consultant who, in a nutshell, help companies to let go of their legacy paradigms and embrace the concepts of rolling releases, agile methodology, continuous integration and continuous delivery. I read your statement and had to ask myself if I was being a hypocrite. From my years in the field you can derive that I'm old school turned new, but like every generation, I don't see eye to eye with how the latest generation is "changing the ways". One thing we all learn in life is that nothing is free, and the one thing this generation wants, is everything... now! To your point about "nowadays they need to fix their released software after release just to work", what I see with the latest "methods" is that you deliver functionality more frequently, but the cost is stability and reliability. The question is, are we really getting ahead? Taking my approach from my earlier thread, if a company releases a version every year, or alternatively delivers frequent functionality throughout the year, at the end of the year, you have the same level of functionality... The difference is clear because we witnesses it daily in the forms of patches, quality and mostly reliability suffers. From the "capitalistic" management perspective, the difference is, I make $90 / user over 3 years vs $30, and as of today, we would have the same level of functionality with either model (and I argue more for the capitalistic since I have more funds to further develop). The reason your comment gave me pause is because I'm willing to give a years worth of patience for something that's going to work, and work well, rather than be spoon fed solar panel on/off features for a year. So it's actually frustration, not patience. You might argue that I can just go stable and wait a year, but that's where the feature gap filling suffers because the modding community suffers in this paradigm, and today, lets be fair, mods make games. Minecraft, great example, who the hell plays vanilla MC? It's a bit of a mess for this example because they are on the rolling release method however in this case, the modding community illegally decompiled, hacked, slashed, and created their own platform (i.e. Forge/bukkit) to create a layer of stability and took matters into their own hands and make it what it is...

    We can have a dialog around this all day, and I'm sure there are pros and cons on a case by case, but the old school in me still loves the days where I didn't know what a patch was, and if I needed one, I needed one, not one a week. In almost all of the early access and kickstarts (with the exception of Star Citizen) I've been involved in, the community is constantly raging about quality and features, steam reviews go to hell, uptake on the game tanks, and it dies. This crave for "now" and impatience is what in fact does it in...
    Some big companies try to blend old and new, and release a little more often, and then backfill with DLC to keep things current. DLC is also often raged about, how we are now paying for features that should have been core, the story's not long enough, blah blah.
    Then you look at old school-ish yearly release cadence, i.e. CoD, BattleField, Arma, etc... they make a killing, and release next gen, awesome (biased), games that push technology to its limits. Peeps are kept busy in-between with the mod community (i.e complete overhaul like DayZ, new campaigns, new units, etc).

    Trying to keep an indie software house as a cute little software house is like trying to be environmentally friendly in a virtual environment :) You'll get a cute little game and they'll go broke. I realise you feel that most peeps would abandon the 2.0, 3.0 method, but if the extra cash infused an entire next level of functionality in the following release, it would be hard to ignore. 584,735 people bought Farming Simulator 2015, it's like 2013 with trees, which was already available as a mod, and the mod did a better job. 506,713 owned 2013. Criminal... Now, if only we could get a software company, like, say, KSH to take that kind of capital, and deliver something non-criminal... imagine where SE would be today with an extra $10 mil a year or so...

    Edit: Just wanted to add that I appreciate the open dialog without it getting ugly. I really like the game, and my comments are certainly not intended to bash the developers or it's current state. I'm only looking to have a dialog and create constructive feedback/criticism to help this title see the light of day! I'm not raging or asking for a refund ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. CCampbell Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    28
    What if you're new and done know they exist? or don't know the name .
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. J Kuyper Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    43
    Great Update. I really like the new block placing system.

    I do have a small suggestion, though. I would be really helpful / cool if you could color code the "bounding box" when manipulating blocks.
    Right now, a red bounding box could be either "you can't place that block here" or "this is the block you are attaching to" This can be confusing, especially when you're up close to the placed block. A green bounding box means, "you can place that block here"
    It would be clearer if the "this is the block you are attaching to" bounding box color was blue. And when you're placing the block as a new grid, it would be cyan. (The specific colors aren't really important, as long as they're different.)
     
  11. Apsyc Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    108
    In the G-menu, there's a "+" on blocks with variants.
     
  12. Sheetonbed Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    I dont even have the new building system even though I am running the latest update. Do you have to activate it in some kind of option?

    This is how it looks for me:
     
  13. RayvenQ Moderator

    Messages:
    562
    Either you've loaded up an old world, or, you aren't running the development version. On the main menu, bottom right, what does it say about the version you're running?
     
  14. Sheetonbed Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    I am probably not running the development version. Down in the corner it says "01_139_009 64-bit Build: 2016-07-01 03:15.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Krougal Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,012
    The world doesn't matter, it's the game version.
    So many people are confused because the version notes ingame (main menu & Steam) are always for latest build, which has been dev to date, even if you are running stable.
     
  16. RayvenQ Moderator

    Messages:
    562
    World does, or at least did matter, maybe they fixed it with the hotfix, but if you loaded an old world, you'd get the old system not the new one.
     
  17. Krougal Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,012
    Well, as usual because we have no clue whatsoever what is done in hotfixes because no changelogs, it's hard to say. I'm not sure if I have the new or the new new. I've got a mix of old and new worlds. I've definitly seen the 1st iteration of the new menu, I've also seen some things they changed in hotfixes (for example they ungrouped thrusters). Makes it very hard to know what bugs we should be reporting or not, but then you're probably in the same boat as the rest of us.
     
  18. Bleh Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    51
    Super hate the new build system
    is the old one still an option? If this makes it to stable without the old one being an option you're going to just drive players away out of frustration who are used to the old one.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. Emperor Bladeor Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    1
    I like certain parts of that update a lot, for example, being able to make ships by just clicking outside of a ship/station, however, I have had an issue of not being able to place bricks from distances which used to be fine earlier. This makes it very difficult to add large bricks.
     
  20. TAz00 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    Still not liking the new system. Scrolling past 2-3 types of blocks, vs single key stroke to select a block you want. How is that better?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Smurfy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    4
    I'm having serious issues to start any new station in deep space now. Since large blocks placed in space with no connection to an astorid are allways starting a new large ship.

    It seems to be possible to place any blocks with a terminal option to convert that new large grid into a station.
    I dont like this change because if I'm starting a new station I usally start with the sealing of a station and not every station has a block with terminal acess to change its class.

    Maybe you should change that every new large grid starts as a new station first (and now as a large ships) because every large ship has blocks with terminal acess later to change it back (but not every station has).
     
  22. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,724
    You now have a new character tool called "place new station" (in develop branch, at least).
     
  23. Smurfy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    4
    I see! It's not in the stable version so far but I'm glad that this option is coming back.

    Thank you
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.