Alpha 21 Dev Diary

[Adam the Waster]

1 hour ago, zztong said:

 

The web tells me there are 33 swamps in AZ. I don't know any of them personally. Perhaps all/some/many are man-made and the pictures don't necessarily give me a creepy remote bayou feel, but maybe there's enough to say "sure, let's do a swamp biome" ... ?

I looked at some but I'm sure they could take creative liberty with it and you also gotta think how it would realistic look in game.  Like the water biome 

 

Make it 2 skulls, have crawlers and maybe naturally spawning feral zombies or even spider zombies thicker trees, dirt, sand and gravel on the ground.  Water alots of dirty stinky water

[beerfly]

Guys, not a big thing, but : 

Spoiler

 

 

[FramFramson]

Uh... what's with that preview image, lol?

[Dreyseth]

 

damn!  that is some hellish moves!!

[BADxW0LF]

On 2/19/2024 at 10:06 PM, Fanatical_Meat said:

If you want a finished game DO NOT BUY EARLY ACCESS GAMES. 
it is perfectly fine to want a finished game, it is perfectly fine to have your own wants & needs. Buying a game that is clearly stated as not finished/complete and complaining that it’s not finished or complete is not fine.

I understand that, but how can a game just continue to be in Early Access and NEVER finish? How is that an acceptable business model?

[BADxW0LF]

On 2/19/2024 at 7:28 PM, Adam the Waster said:

This alpha should help out with optimization

It hasn't from what I can tell. Rendering on the game when I'm on a faster vehicle is terrible. Cars will spawn in the middle of the road when I'm a foot away from them or won't even spawn at all and I will hit an invisible car.

[zztong]

8 hours ago, BADxW0LF said:

I understand that, but how can a game just continue to be in Early Access and NEVER finish? How is that an acceptable business model?

 

They're still in business. Isn't that the true measure of a business model?

 

You might consider their development practices to be atypical for software development in the gaming industry. (It isn't atypical in the wider world of software development.) That doesn't mean it is unacceptable. Your argument is what my friends call a "Dogs Playing Poker" discussion. (Is it art, or not? -- There's no right or wrong answer.) You're essentially expressing an opinion that "it's not art."

[Adam the Waster]

8 hours ago, BADxW0LF said:

It hasn't from what I can tell. Rendering on the game when I'm on a faster vehicle is terrible. Cars will spawn in the middle of the road when I'm a foot away from them or won't even spawn at all and I will hit an invisible car.

I ment alpha 22

[Fanatical_Meat]

14 hours ago, BADxW0LF said:

I understand that, but how can a game just continue to be in Early Access and NEVER finish? How is that an acceptable business model?

It does it just stays early access. There are no promises given.

Early access is a risk, the game could never “finish development” or it could become something you don’t like. Early Access has risks and one needs to be comfortable with that risk.

[HB_H4wk]

https://www.anyplaceamerica.com/directory/swamps/az/

 

swamps in Arizona.

 

[Riamus]

18 hours ago, BADxW0LF said:

I understand that, but how can a game just continue to be in Early Access and NEVER finish? How is that an acceptable business model?

Considering we are seeing significant visual improvements (art, animation, etc.) both in A21 and in A22, it is a good indication they are nearing gold.  So saying it'll never finish is untrue.  Games can often take 5-10 years to complete.  You just don't notice because they often will have multiple years of work done before they even announce the game.  And even once announced, you can have many years before it's available to play.  Early Access is for people who want to play something before it is finished and are willing to accept the risk that it might not be what they like once it's finished, or it might be released as gold with so many bugs that it's unplayable, or it might take a long time before release, or it could be dropped and never released.  These are known risks when you buy any Early Access game.  If you aren't willing to accept those risks, you should avoid Early Access games.

[meganoth]

On 2/25/2024 at 5:26 AM, BADxW0LF said:

I understand that, but how can a game just continue to be in Early Access and NEVER finish? How is that an acceptable business model?

 

For the players it has advantages too, so many or most of them support TFP in this. They get something like a slightly buggier games-as-a-service game that keeps changing into a somewhat different version every year (because of all the changes and feature redesigns), but without the costs.

 

Since you have performance problems you might see it different. But performance problems just mean your hardware isn't good enough for the game. Because of it using voxels for the whole world down to rock bottom it needs a lot more CPU power than other games of comparable graphics quality. Many players here play the game with FPS above 100 and have no problems driving the motorbike at max speed. You are correct though that the view distance is quite limited.

 

 

Edited February 26 by meganoth (see edit history)

[scootyman]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:37 AM, Laz Man said:

In A22, road paint has a new property on it that allows players to replace another block over it so you no longer have to destroy it first.  You guys can thank Faatal for that qol change.

 

I noticed that this block property you're talking about is already applied to grass in the game. There are many other blocks that should have this property too. Namely, small stones, wild cotton/flowers, and trash decor, which are also tedious to remove when building a base.
 

Another block-placey feature that could use some attention is the one that makes certain props snap to the top of non-full blocks. Potted plants, backpacks, "pile"-type loot, and others already do this, which allows them to be placed on things like slanted roofs and half-blocks without them floating. It's a great feature for decorating, and when I come across it in POIs I start to forget I'm playing a voxel game. Frankly, a lot more props need this property. Most props should have this property, since there's never really a situation where a prop would look better suspended above the ground. The most frequent situation in which the lack of this property on some objects stands out seems to be on the first few nights of a world when you don't have a designated base yet and decide to camp on top of a building. Since many of the safe POI roofs are made of half blocks, you can end up having to look at a floating bedroll, campfire, and chest for the whole night. And at this point I'm probably being nitpicky, but it would be cool if props also did this on terrain blocks (sitting neatly on top of the visual terrain height). Block shapes would still mush the terrain into its "true" form (so you would still be able to flatten an area using wood frames) but a chest placed on the road/grass wouldn't sink into it.

[Teck]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:30 PM, HB_H4wk said:

https://www.anyplaceamerica.com/directory/swamps/az/

 

swamps in Arizona.

 

As someone who has lived in various parts of Arizona for nearly 40 years, I can promise you that any statements of "swampland" in this state are misleading at best.  Even referring to the site linked above does not accurately portray the areas.  I can't speak to all of them, but for example, I have been to pecks lake north of cottonwood many times, and the supposed "swamp" there is much closer to marsh, but is often bone dry.  The same can be said of Pittsburg Point near Lake Havasu.  The cluster on the east side of the map is in around the Baldy Peak area with noticeably more rain fall, but it is of higher elevation mountain ranges that, again, couldn't be described as swamp.

 

I don't want my insights to be evidence of my argument against adding swamp biomes to the game per se, but using it as evidence of actual existence of swampland a la Louisiana bayou or Florida everglades is simply incorrect.  It is not even close.  I think biome inclusion discussion should reflect value to the game environment because it is already an unbalanced representation of the Arizona landscapes as it is. 

Edited May 6 by Teck
refocus to game feature from correcting misleading nature descriptions. (see edit history)

[Roland]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:44 AM, Teck said:

I think biome inclusion discussion should reflect value to the game environment because it is already an unbalanced representation of the Arizona landscapes as it is. 

 

I think a swamp biome for a future DLC would be amazing regardless of any connection to Arizona reality. It doesn't have to be added to Navezgane. It could simply be for randomly generated maps. A biome covered in knee-deep murky water where zombies could be spawned prone beneath the surface would be terrifying. They could fill the biome with primarily crawlers and burnt zombies that they alter to have blue/green slimy tint instead of the red burning parts like they are doing to create alternates of all the other zombies. All basements would be submerged. It would add an incredible value to the existing game and so would be a great inclusion, imo

Edited May 10 by Roland (see edit history)

[Teck]

On 5/10/2024 at 7:46 AM, Roland said:

 

I think a swamp biome for a future DLC would be amazing regardless of any connection to Arizona reality. It doesn't have to be added to Navezgane. It could simply be for randomly generated maps. A biome covered in knee-deep murky water where zombies could be spawned prone beneath the surface would be terrifying. They could fill the biome with primarily crawlers and burnt zombies that they alter to have blue/green slimy tint instead of the red burning parts like they are doing to create alternates of all the other zombies. All basements would be submerged. It would add an incredible value to the existing game and so would be a great inclusion, imo

 

I can definitely see the interesting dynamic this could bring to gameplay.  Unfortunately, I think a water rework would probably be needed for in order to fully capitalize on this.  I know water has been pushed multiple times, but I do hope it still gets revisited somewhat soon.

[TWORDY]

On 5/10/2024 at 3:46 PM, Roland said:

 

I think a swamp biome for a future DLC would be amazing regardless of any connection to Arizona reality. It doesn't have to be added to Navezgane. It could simply be for randomly generated maps. A biome covered in knee-deep murky water where zombies could be spawned prone beneath the surface would be terrifying. They could fill the biome with primarily crawlers and burnt zombies that they alter to have blue/green slimy tint instead of the red burning parts like they are doing to create alternates of all the other zombies. All basements would be submerged. It would add an incredible value to the existing game and so would be a great inclusion, imo

 

I don't honestly think that biomes themselves should become a separate package behind a paywall. I would rather see biomes available to all playerbase... but such an update might include some thematic outfits, skins, 1-3 weapons, and even a vehicle that might potentially come with a biome update... but, please do not divide the playerbase as a whole.   

[Roland]

16 minutes ago, TWORDY said:

 

I don't honestly think that biomes themselves should become a separate package behind a paywall. I would rather see biomes available to all playerbase... but such an update might include some thematic outfits, skins, 1-3 weapons, and even a vehicle that might potentially come with a biome update... but, please do not divide the playerbase as a whole.   

 

The inclusion of a new biome would most certainly require a restart and not work with current saves so it couldn't be something that was pushed out as an update. They almost certainly would have to make it a DLC giving gamers the choice to manually download it and have to start a new world. That doesn't mean that it has to be a paid DLC. They could do just as you said and make it a free download with some accompanying thematic outfits and skins that they charge for. However, I doubt something major like a new biome would simply be pushed out to everyone as an automatic update.

Edited May 16 by Roland (see edit history)

[Riamus]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

 

The inclusion of a new biome would most certainly require a restart and not work with current saves so it couldn't be something that was pushed out as an update. They almost certainly would have to make it a DLC giving gamers the choice to manually download it and have to start a new world. That doesn't mean that it has to be a paid DLC. They could do just as you said and make it a free download with some accompanying thematic outfits and skins that they charge for. However, I doubt something major like a new biome would simply be pushed out to everyone as an automatic update.

I don't think this is correct.  It would be no different from downloading a mod that adds a new biome.  If your current save doesn't have that biome, the new biome in the mod wouldn't have any effect.  Since the existing save doesn't use the new biome, it wouldn't affect anything to have it available.  It would only be an issue if a biome that is used in a save was either removed or changed.

 

The only way I could see it being an issue is if they wanted to update Navesgane or existing pregen maps to use the new biome.  That would need to be done through a DLC because of needing a new game on those maps.

Edited May 16 by Riamus (see edit history)

[Roland]

Currently, the game supports keeping saves from previous versions. They appear in red. So if you have a save from A20 it shows in your list as red and unplayable. If you revert your game to A20 then those old saves become playable and any A21 saves turn red. 
 

I won’t say you’re wrong because you may be right but it could be that with an update loaded that includes a new biome it might make old saves incompatible while that update it loaded. If so, then it would be better as a dlc which could be manually included or removed rather than an auto update that makes customers have to go into the beta list to revert to an earlier version. Maybe it could be as simple as selecting/deselecting it from the top menu, I don’t know. 
 

If you’re right and it wouldn’t in any way affect or deny access to current saves and they would just ignore the new content then I agree that it could be just an auto update for everyone. 
 

I wouldnt care much either way if it meant new biomes. 

[Gamida]

Just trying to get a handle on this. So if a new biome was put out as a new DLC would that mean it is also for servers?

And if it is for servers then would I be correct in saying that if you don't have it then you wouldn't be able to join a server that did?

And if it wasn't free, wouldn't that be cutting off a lot of server availability to those who don't or can't get the DLC.

Again just spit-balling here as I am not sure how this DLC stuff will affect the game.

[Riamus]

1 hour ago, Gamida said:

Just trying to get a handle on this. So if a new biome was put out as a new DLC would that mean it is also for servers?

And if it is for servers then would I be correct in saying that if you don't have it then you wouldn't be able to join a server that did?

And if it wasn't free, wouldn't that be cutting off a lot of server availability to those who don't or can't get the DLC.

Again just spit-balling here as I am not sure how this DLC stuff will affect the game.

Yeah, that would be the problem with it being in a DLC.  If it was released as part of a general update, everyone would have it unless they don't update.  I'm sure they could make it so it doesn't break an existing save considering the save wouldn't reference it at all.  The same might say it is the wrong version, but as long as it loads like we see in minor alpha updates (e.g.  .1 to .2), it should be fine.