Stranded III Dev. Blog - Comments
Offline
now that you've done basic architecture assets, its very easy to add modules and buildings from that, so i look forward to see your progress
i certainly hope to see more difficulty options as well, perhaps more replayability in the random maps?
Forum
Projects Stranded III Dev. Blog - Commentsnow that you've done basic architecture assets, its very easy to add modules and buildings from that, so i look forward to see your progress
i certainly hope to see more difficulty options as well, perhaps more replayability in the random maps?
Anyway, keep S3 alive
Quote
My old "solution" to this was to simply declare that all items are very precious in Stranded III and that it rarely happens that you have a big amount of the same item type.
That scared me a lil when I was reading and I feel relieved that you won't go with such approach. That would practically eliminate any chance of having a sort of "endgame" server or game which would cripple the playability after a while.
When it comes to same item values and stacking, I think you should go with the retro approach of just having "Apple" "Rock" "Stick" "Leaf" and instead expand on the items -usable tools or just items used on OTHER recipes- and buildings you can create as a result. But if you're decided on having different attributes for same items, all I can think of is just limiting the amount of attributes of each item. Or just adding new items that have the attribute you want to have. So instead of having "BlaBla" and "BlaBla (flammable)", have "Blaugh" which is similiar but is flammable, however that can also get out of hand very quickly.
i would suggest doing what minecraft/terraria did; seperate "enchanted" items by their attributes as opposed to one single stack.
also i highly doubt moving to another engine is a good idea, after some 6~ odd years of development, the least you can do is be less ambitious, and add more features later.
SIII will not be a paid product (as far as current plans go)
so why not just down your expectations until later in development?
As you said, a huge stack of ammunition with exactly the same attributes would take an unnecessary amount of memory. That’s the only down side with the most flexible visual-only-stacks. Having four crystals, on the other hand, in different colors and shape: one huge and heavy, the other one small and the key to a old dwarf-crafted door, the third one enchanted with the power to make your swords more effective and the last one being your precious memory of a previous quest – well I’d say, it’s completele impossible then to save any memory space by creating some average values, isn’t it?But which items would need both? Would you ever scroll through a list of 100 different rocks in order to choose the best for the next tool? Or is it really necessary for the different pieces of meat to carry individual nutrition values? And if each and every item is very individual, just take a number of keys to different doors, will you ever reach great numbers with such an item?
So you could just divide the items in two groups (fully stackable and visual-only-stackable), but I guess that’s very limiting. I would suggest the following. Maybe I’m not using the right coding terminology, but if an item was a class, which could include a limitless number of sub-classes, so that each small change in an attribute would create another sub-class. If there are 99 normal type ammunition but one golden zombie-killing ammunition, then this would require only two sub-classes. Of course then it would be stupid to give each stone an indivudal size on a continuum. But once again – would that be useful? Maybe you need to differenciate between 4 sizes. Or even ten. Still better then the pure visual-stack-only way. This is similar to what Joelda suggested with the minecraft-enchated-item-seperation. So if you have within 20 normal apples your one weird burning apple, then yes, this one deserves another category. If the mushrooms appear in the world in every random size, then no, they don’t deserve to get individual stacks (maybe two, alright: fully grown and not fully grown).
In my opinion that would require two things:
Attributes can be assigned “irrelevant for stacking” --> inventar stacking removes attribute (e. g. mushroom size). Attributes can be of limited value options (e. g. integer number from 1 to 4 for rock sizes).That way all flexibility is restored and it’s in the responsibility of the one defining each attribute, not to allow for crazy, unnecessary amounts of parallel stacks.
TL;DR: There are RFS (relevant-for-stacking) attributes and not-RFS attributes. The game stacks all items with the exact same RFS values and uses visual-only-stacks otherwise. Tada!
different textures that are all compatible with each other would do the job, and it would be easy to create them by making one texture and changing it but keeping the outer edges the same multiple times to come up with multiple compatible seamless textures.
thanks for covering me @
Assassin moder: Sure @
Assassin moder: had a valid argument but @ Jawohl: , you're just pulling on straws for drama.It's up for DC to decide if to use that idea or not, seriously, stop cyber-bullying one another.
You're just degrading this community and AFAIK you're trying to help it.
edited 3×, last 07.08.19 08:31:57 am
I think many of us thought the game would release much sooner than 2020
EDIT: With no nose the model kind of looks stupid in my opinion. Maybe with some more detail to draw the attention away from the nose or maybe a default nose that can be turned on/off. It just looks like something is missing on the face.
edited 2×, last 18.09.19 09:21:09 pm
Mami Tomoe: I'm not really a huge fan of that anime stuff. Sorry. A middle ground between having a nose but not really.
Also I noticed. It might not be the missing nose, but the fact that the face takes up the entire head (the eyes are in the forehead which looks stupid)
edited 2×, last 20.09.19 01:14:45 am