Jump to content

Developer Discussions: Alpha 17


Roland

Developer Discussions: Alpha 17  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

    • Newly Updated
      1
    • Check out the newest reveals by Madmole
      0
    • Over 100 new perk books with set collecting and bonuses
      0


Recommended Posts

You're missing the point. A higher quality level weapon or tool should perform better than a lower quality one. Mods should do unique things, not add x% damage.

 

If you don't like the mod system as it is that's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't say the higher quality weapon isn't any better better or doesn't do more damage than a low quality one because it is and it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My greed says "Forget Alpha 18. Change the Alpha moniker to something meaningless and just keep developing it forever."

 

Selfish I know, but this game has truly been one of the best expenditures on entertainment I've had.

 

^^ This person gets it

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the point. A higher quality level weapon or tool should perform better than a lower quality one. Mods should do unique things, not add x% damage.

 

just wanted to say I agree 100%

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

If you don't like the mod system as it is that's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't say the higher quality weapon isn't any better better or doesn't do more damage than a low quality one because it is and it does.

 

Semantics, and you understand the point he was making lol. A higher quality weapon does, in fact, not do anymore damage than a lower quality weapon. A higher quality weapon has the potential to do more damage than a lower quality weapon due to the extra mod slots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is truth in jokes: "Guns don't kill people... it's the bullets".

 

Unless the firearm has a hole in the barrel or the rifling is shot to hell, then a newer gun will not do more damage.

 

The longer barrel might cause more damage and a full choke will cause more shot to hit the target, but everything else is game stuff.

Now some special Ammo can make a serious change in damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just wanted to say I agree 100%

 

I go to a hardware store and buy a cheap hammer expecting it to last 1 year before the handle breaks. I look at the expensive hammer and know it will last a lot longer. That is the mentality I take to this alpha and it works for me.

 

Adding paint to a gun to make it stronger makes no sense BUT adding a layer of paint to the Ice breaker on an arctic explorer ship makes it stronger, so why not add a lick of Jotun paint on your club for increased durability/increases the hardness of the club? It works IRL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I don't see a difference. The next update could just as well be "Anxious Squirrel".

 

There USED to be a difference. Young developers, self funded start ups and Early Access all but destroyed that structure. At one point build numbers meant the difference between hotfixes or major changes.

 

Now in todays climate they are meaningless.

 

EDIT- Should clarify this is for the public. Internally one would hope build numbers still have structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I go to a hardware store and buy a cheap hammer expecting it to last 1 year before the handle breaks. I look at the expensive hammer and know it will last a lot longer. That is the mentality I take to this alpha and it works for me.

 

Adding paint to a gun to make it stronger makes no sense BUT adding a layer of paint to the Ice breaker on an arctic explorer ship makes it stronger, so why not add a lick of Jotun paint on your club for increased durability/increases the hardness of the club? It works IRL.

 

I try not to assimilate realism into my thought process when it comes to games. It just opens a topic that no one wants to discuss. If we want realism, remove: zombies, stacking 6000 would in a backpack, etc.

 

I get the point you are making, I just think basing the game off realism is bad road to go down. We (me included) tend to only use the realism argument when it's in our favor, and dismiss it when it's not. That's why I stay away from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just wanted to say I agree 100%

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

 

 

Semantics, and you understand the point he was making lol. A higher quality weapon does, in fact, not do anymore damage than a lower quality weapon. A higher quality weapon has the potential to do more damage than a lower quality weapon due to the extra mod slots.

 

I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.

 

I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.

 

I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.

 

Higher qulity = less repairs needed

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they fixing water together with RWG, I will sacrifice my first born to them.

(high hopes though - water has been the bane to my eyes since the dawn of days)

 

Madmole recently said one of the reasons raised bridges were being used is because of clipping issues with water. If water has clipping issues with blocks then I find it doubtful that water has had a major physics overhaul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.

 

I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.

 

I didn't argue for or against it to be honest. I do think that a higher quality weapon should perform better without mods, however, I never argued that. Nor have I said that higher tier weapons are worthless. I stated the fact without mods, they produce the exact damage. I have argued nothing more than that, in fact, I argued that the higher tier weapon has the potential to be better.

 

That was it.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Higher qulity = less repairs needed

 

I've found that the repairs are less frequent, however in the long run use the same amount of repair kits. I repair a tier 2 weapon more frequently using less repair kits. I repair a higher tier less frequently for a considerably larger amount of repair kits.

 

Either way, evens out in the end in the amount of repair kits used regardless of the tier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There USED to be a difference. Young developers, self funded start ups and Early Access all but destroyed that structure. At one point build numbers meant the difference between hotfixes or major changes.

 

Now in todays climate they are meaningless.

 

Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.

 

Just wait until someone slaps a catchy phrase such as "agile authoring" onto it. All the managers will want to use it then because it sounds like it can do back-flips. Never mind if it's actually usable in a real world context... it sounds cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wait until someone slaps a catchy phrase such as "agile authoring" onto it. All the managers will want to use it then because it sounds like it can do back-flips. Never mind if it's actually usable in a real world context... it sounds cool.

 

Already been there, seen that. :)

 

The problem with Agile is that nobody seems to understand what it means. They think it means "as fast as possible" or "we don't have to write acceptance criteria" or something - basically, that it's an excuse to be a cowboy. That's not what it means.

 

For a while our team even had a dev manager that believed this, and it was not pleasant. (No documentation, no tests, knowledge siloing... the works.) He's gone now, fortunately, though he left behind multiple project codebases that nobody really understands.

 

...That has little to do with semver though, that versioning system is straightforward enough for any PM to understand. In my experience it's the guys who started versioning in the 90's that are resistant to it - they types that go "every new release is a new major version and everything after it is a patch" or some such.

 

That's a byproduct of the old waterfall way of doing releases, IMHO.

 

I'm not implying that any of this applies to TFP of course. Just my own observations/experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.

 

Don't you rag on my Delphi...

 

Also...I'm not that old...really :upset:

 

Granted it was for a school project/assignment...I guess it was probably old even for them at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.

 

If you think Delphi is old...what would you think about people like me that got started programing stuff back in 1984+ on the Intellivision Master Computer , Apple II's , Tandy , Vic 20s , Commodore 64's...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...