Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324
Results 346 to 351 of 351

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Why does HSL synthesis require manmade mats? Useless for exploration???

  1. #346
    Originally Posted by Siobhan View Post (Source)
    He's also solely responsible for the beige plague.
    Nah, the beigefication is a bug, a mistake, an accident. It's more due to incompetency and failed QA testing than anyone's purposeful decision. Although yes most planets now do match his hat.

    Originally Posted by Allchemyst View Post (Source)
    No matter how violently I disagree with this issue - and even more about the whole implementation of engineers - even the "lead" designer can't just run about doing whatever he wants. All mistakes are owned by a group of people.
    True. However, one person (especially one in charge) CAN correct the situation fairly quickly if they wanted to. All that needs to be done is to change the required material identifier in the routine from the man made material to one found naturally in deep space, just one variable value changed in the code and this whole issue goes away immediately. The fact that they (he?) doesn't want to do that can really only be interpreted as a purposeful slight against deep space commanders, typically explorers, as they are truly the only ones negatively impacted by this odd and out of place design decision.

    Imagine if combat players needed to travel to Sag A to find materials to synthesize shield cell bank charges, would that be a design decision which was fair or practical to the players who use SCB's?

  2. #347
    Originally Posted by Mengy View Post (Source)
    Nah, the beigefication is a bug, a mistake, an accident. It's more due to incompetency and failed QA testing than anyone's purposeful decision. Although yes most planets now do match his hat.



    True. However, one person (especially one in charge) CAN correct the situation fairly quickly if they wanted to. All that needs to be done is to change the required material identifier in the routine from the man made material to one found naturally in deep space, just one variable value changed in the code and this whole issue goes away immediately. The fact that they (he?) doesn't want to do that can really only be interpreted as a purposeful slight against deep space commanders, typically explorers, as they are truly the only ones negatively impacted by this odd and out of place design decision.

    Imagine if combat players needed to travel to Sag A to find materials to synthesize shield cell bank charges, would that be a design decision which was fair or practical to the players who use SCB's?
    I agree. Easy to fix. But it is unnecessary as there will be virtually no reason to use them. Which is a shame. One of the few OMG, panic moments is being taken away.

  3. #348
    Originally Posted by Mengy View Post (Source)
    True. However, one person (especially one in charge) CAN correct the situation fairly quickly if they wanted to. All that needs to be done is to change the required material identifier in the routine from the man made material to one found naturally in deep space, just one variable value changed in the code and this whole issue goes away immediately. The fact that they (he?) doesn't want to do that can really only be interpreted as a purposeful slight against deep space commanders, typically explorers, as they are truly the only ones negatively impacted by this odd and out of place design decision.

    Imagine if combat players needed to travel to Sag A to find materials to synthesize shield cell bank charges, would that be a design decision which was fair or practical to the players who use SCB's?
    Please remember so far I've been among the most virulent opponents of FD's decision on the matter. There's no need to argue with me on that point.

    What I was saying is, regardless of his status as "lead", there's 0% chance Sandro - or anyone else - can just impose their ideas upon the game. Those things are decisions made usually by a group of designers, and my instinct tells me they are inconsistent because those designers are unable to come to a proper comporomise. If roughly half the people around the table want explorers to be self-sustaining, and the other half dosen't, they'll have to settle for a third choice that satisfies either everyone, or no-one. You can't just disregard the opinion of half the people on the table either way. And look at what's happening : That's precisely the current outcome : Exploration lost binary stars encounters, and they don't need HS anymore, but those have been made useless, so it dosen't matter. Who's better for it? Who gained something? Nobeddy. Not even combat pilots. This follows nobody's "vision" at all.

    I'll tell you the way I see it : This is the kind of mistake that a single person cannot make alone.

    Design by commitee, as much as I hate that it exists, is essentially the bread-and-butter of game design nowadays, and it will specifically cause this kind of issue. Very creative people can be extremely stubborn, and that can lead to riddiculously messy situations. Trust me (as much as you can trust another bloke on the net), I've seen it. You can't "Correct", as you suggest, a situation when "correcting" it means frustrating half your design team.

    Also, as I've said, Sandro is the one who gets to be scapegoated because you see his face, but that dosen't mean he's presenting ideas or opinions that are 100% his all the time. The "lead" dev presents the conclusions of the dev team, not his own. And no company will ever let their lead dev say "Yeah, we went that route because tobby here was overly stubborn, but I kinda wish we'd done this instead".

    I intervened about that not because I disagree with people criticizing FD or their choices, I just wanted to point out criticizing one person specifically in this context is wrong both factually and ethically.

    Also, about FD disregarding exploration, I'll say this : It's clear FD hasen't even begun shaping exploration content. What we have is scenery, and like two dedicated mechanics. Placeholders, one might say. Over the last two years, FD has commited to developping combat as the one deep feature in the game, probably because user data suggests it's the content that's most favored by the players (No wonder ; it's the most well-rounded... Vicious circles hurray!). While the argument can be made that the game is better with at least one fully-fledged area of content, rather than having combat, exploration, trading, piracy etc all being 20% done each, I certainly wish they'd start seriously developping exploration itself. Until they do this, it will feel like they don't care, simply because most of their energy isin't being invested into it, and they're thinking about completely different stuff. I also wish they had waited for all of the game's aspects to be very well-defined before introducing story content like aliens, because that stalls mechanics development and makes us experience the story findamentally always in the same limited ways. - That being said, I really will be glad and thankful to FD for being proven wrong.

  4. #349
    Originally Posted by Allchemyst View Post (Source)
    Please remember so far I've been among the most virulent opponents of FD's decision on the matter. There's no need to argue with me on that point.

    <snip>
    Good post, although don't you think we explorers could be given a couple of bones just to show the potential of exploration. Or are resources at FD really stretched so thin as we cannot be shown an inkling of what FD might have planned for the rest of the game?

  5. #350
    Originally Posted by GunnerBill View Post (Source)
    Good post, although don't you think we explorers could be given a couple of bones just to show the potential of exploration. Or are resources at FD really stretched so thin as we cannot be shown an inkling of what FD might have planned for the rest of the game?
    As per the last paragraph of my previous post - of course. If anybody cares about my opinion, powerplay, engineers and thargoids should've waited until all the mechanics for the main gameplay elements had been implemented, and that includes fully developping exploration, trading, piracy, mining, the criminal underworld (The thing that dosen't exist right now that FD should create to have somewhere to send evil players to...), etc. Our ability to experience content is limited by the mechanics available. Few, unfinished mechanics = few, unfinished means of enjoying whatever story content there is. So to respond clearly : I think exploration should be done by now. I think all the resources that went into PP, engies and Thargs might just have been enough to produce life-bearing worlds we can land upon and develop scanning/research/sampling/prospecting mechanics, and the purpose of ED would've been much better served that way. There are SO MANY options for scientific research gameplay I can think of that would make exploration feel so bloody cool and important... *drools all over himself*

    I was not arguing that FD are right to not be doing anything about exploration (That would be wrong anyway, given the sweet new 20kly chain-pulsar route plotter they've added), but simply that pretending FD "Hates" exploration - or pinning the feeling on Sandro specifically - just dosen't make sense. I mean - of course, making the HS stuff self-sufficient would've been a graceful gesture, and doing otherwise - Yeah, kind of a slap to the face... But do not attribute to malignity what can be pinned on judgement mistakes.

  6. #351
    Originally Posted by Allchemyst View Post (Source)
    .... A lot of resonable things....
    Yeah, I agree.

    Also, heat sinks not using materials you can get outside of the bubble, it utterly silly.

    This thread is way too long, and should never have needed to happen.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324