/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

blah ble blu blah bloop

Games in a better place now than it was 2-3 years ago dont @ me

On behalf of my responses, I apologize for my passive-aggressiveness. I have the problem of being short-sighted in debates until I sit on it for a bit. A bit of wisdom I've learned recently. Don't be closed for discussion about change and don't be short-sighted about changes as I was.

That being said, I completely understand why some things have been changed in the past year despite it going against my arguments. I have been looking at some code that has been changed or removed. Removed code that is so borked that It shouldn't exist and some code that is so fucking pasta It shouldn't work at all. Removing or changing code could prove beneficial in the long run. The mechanics might be gone but the ideas still remain and I believe we might see the singularity or cloning again in a new revamped system sometime in the future. However, I would still strongly recommend trying to communicate with the player base in some level-headed manner, With the player base doing the same.

from what i know, we have no problems bringing back the singularity as an engine, just after we get power to be fun and meaningful with the SM. much easier to start in one place.

Jaredfogle wrote:from what i know, we have no problems bringing back the singularity as an engine, just after we get power to be fun and meaningful with the SM. much easier to start in one place.

Indeed, We need more interactive mechanics that don't involve *Fill Plasma canisters, Hook N2, Atmos Alarm,Turn on Lasers, Done with engineering*. Engines that require maintenance more often would be a good start. Perhaps a start would be making plasma canisters empty very quickly in the SM.

Idk, I was interested about the turbines replacing collectors idea. Wherever did all that fuss go?

nobodys coded it yet

Jaredfogle wrote:nobodys coded it yet

The story of almost every change people really want

Pandarsenic wrote:

Jaredfogle wrote:nobodys coded it yet

The story of almost every change people really want

Perhaps if they would work on it instead of sitting talking about how much they want it...

I was going to make a joke about that sounding like work, but tbh it sounds like less work than the usual method of trying to convince people who already code, but who don't have any emotional investment in the idea, that it's worth putting their time into.

pay them money, taht's what I do

Jaredfogle wrote:nobodys coded it yet

the tg method:

1) Recognize system/object/thing exists that is difficult to tweak/change because of interconnected systems
2) Remove thing
3) Assume that someone will step up and code something to replace it with something that adheres to the design document

worked for medical

I mean it is just a "fun" edition, the effort/result ratio isn't that outlandish anyway.

legoscape wrote:However, I would still strongly recommend trying to communicate with the player base in some level-headed manner, With the player base doing the same.

Much easier said than done for at least two reasons. First off, the playerbase isn't a hivemind. Different people are going to have different opinions about everything. Boiling that down to just approve/disapprove is idiotic. There's issues of degrees of concern. Maybe 70% of people like a feature a little bit but the other 30% fucking loathes it. If you just ask a binary yes/no poll, you won't capture that. You have to actually talk with people, but then you run into problems of overrepresenting highly motivated responders and underrepresenting less motivated ones. So there's no "perfect" method of gathering feedback, you kind of just have to get what you can and parse it.

But the bigger issue, quite frankly, is that most player feedback isn't terribly useful. It's something like "I don't like cobbychem" "ok why?" "because I want the game to be simpler and it's too complex". Great, but being more complex than you want isn't actually a problem. It's a problem for you, sure, but not a problem in the absolute sense. There can be specific issues brought up and resolved, such as balance or how hard it is to do something or a specific process being unfun or the impact it's had on the larger game or even the entire feature is failing to achieve a design goal or whatever, sure, that's useful feedback. But most feedback is basically just "I dislike X and would rather have Y." Which is the design equivalent of listening to a musician's rock song and going "I don't like rock, you should make country music instead."

EDIT: There's as link in my signature that sums up my opinions on the matter.

How would you rate stuff like "I don't like X because it's heavily reliant on alt-tabbing to the Wiki for [recipes/order of steps/materials/etc.]"

i file it under "stuff i already know and yell at people to fix"

We know it's bad, but it's like a warm kind of bad that's hard to get away from

If it's any consolation, the chemistry tutorial machine seems like a huge step in the right direction. A chemistry recipe book somewhere on the station (and optionally a hint about non-reactive buffers to pad pH during reactions) and it'd be pretty well complete on in-game content, I figure? Then the mastery is "What is actually useful to make and what's the best way to make it at high purity." And plumbing adventures.

there's a big button in the top right of chemistry dispensers to look up every recipe, its ph, its active temperature range, etc. it has a few ux problems but it's there

oh shit there's a button that has it color code reagents from red to blue based on their pH too

What the fuck this is awesome every department should be like this

ik im the one who asked them to do it