Page 4 of 9

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:36 pm
by XDTM
Monsters don't have to be coded necessarily to hijack rounds. They can be an external force without being all the round is about.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:38 pm
by Iatots
Why do you have to write yourself in a corner with a crash land scenario?
You are cutting away the entire universe and all its possibilities for a reset device with a timer, and you think that will make people feel more attached to the station?

Cutting away bloodcult in a literal eldritch planet setting but leaving other antags mostly unchanged makes me think you haven't put much thought into them.

The last stand end scenario being lavaland zerg waves with xel'naga/ necron pylons feels clichè and prone to being real stale really fast.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:38 pm
by Okand37
Hey man, space station 13 is just ambiguous, no one said that the station couldn't be on a planet in space! Checkmate!

Anyway, all things considered, as long as everyone is going to have fun I don't really see the issue, and I think it'd be lots of fun.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:41 pm
by NikNakFlak
I wish Luke communicated better because I dislike having to agree with points of view that he conveys badly.
pkpenguin is on my team though right?

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:42 pm
by Bombadil
Hell i think Blood Cult should BE in the necropolis. The source of all the horrific spooky monsters is a crack in time and space inside an old alien research facility that pierces multiple dimensions including Nar'sies domain.



So instead of cult having to summon Nar'sie from a rune they have to begin a long ritual summoning process like Ratvar. Hell make it so they want to beat the monsters and enter the necropolis.


Also yeah the Last Stand every round does sound kind of lame.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:43 pm
by onleavedontatme
PKPenguin321 wrote:Basically, do you guys know what railroading is? I'd hope you do


Every round of SS13 ends with the escape shuttle or the station exploding. It's the journey that's the sandbox, not the destination. I already gave vague ideas for other ways to end the round in the OP as well (and I have a couple more) but I'd rather get something functional first before going insane with feature creep and promising the moon.

Also I forgot to answer this earlier because there are so many posts in this thread but

>people dont come to play lavaland

I know they don't. But we saw the same thing with the gateway, which we had to disable for being too popular. A disproportionate amount of people will elect to fight shitty AI mobs rather than hover around half AFK in their department waiting to get shot in the head. People clearly crave some sort of struggle and goal to work towards.


Luke Cox wrote:Nobody wants that.


"How do we make X job matter" is one of the most common threads on the forums and there is a growing list of people who want to contribute to what I outlined in the OP, so that clearly isn't true.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:45 pm
by XDTM
I'm thinking of this change as "replace empty, large areas of space with interesting stuff to do instead". I don't agree with some proposed elements like ever-increasing monster difficulty or the removal of cult or cargo, but otherwise it'll basically add a new area to play with, and that sounds fun.

Luke Cox wrote:Nobody wants that.

I'm pretty sure i saw some people want that in this thread though.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:47 pm
by Luke Cox
NikNakFlak wrote:I wish Luke communicated better because I dislike having to agree with points of view that he conveys badly.
pkpenguin is on my team though right?

Fuck you I put Plato to shame.


I can see what you mean though, I prefer to get straight to the point. I really should try to flesh things out a little more and organize better.

Kor wrote:"How do we make X job matter" is one of the most common threads on the forums and there is a growing list of people who want to contribute to what I outlined in the OP, so that clearly isn't true.


What if we just made X job matter

XDTM wrote:I'm thinking of this change as "replace empty, large areas of space with interesting stuff to do instead". I don't agree with some proposed elements like ever-increasing monster difficulty or the removal of cult or cargo, but otherwise it'll basically add a new area to play with, and that sounds fun.

Luke Cox wrote:Nobody wants that.

I'm pretty sure i saw some people want that in this thread though.


A few people might, but I would be very shocked if the playerbase as a whole accepted it.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:48 pm
by danno
Luke Cox wrote:Children are funny. What I get from that is "I know you're right but I can't concede defeat". Does slightly disturb me that the server saw fit to give someone like that a position of power though.



must get you pretty heated, huh ツ

SS13 isn't going anywhere dumbass

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:49 pm
by onleavedontatme
Luke Cox wrote:
What if we just made X job matter


That is what I'm doing, glad to have your support.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:51 pm
by Luke Cox
Kor wrote:
Luke Cox wrote:
What if we just made X job matter


That is what I'm doing, glad to have your support.

But you aren't, you're just gutting everything and remaking it from the ground up. Your overhaul of engineering was great. It was a measured solution that kept the core of the department while making it more engaging. We need more of that.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:52 pm
by ShadowDimentio
If he removes cult I'm instantly and permanently against it, cult is our best mode.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:57 pm
by onleavedontatme
Nothing is being gutted except the literal emptiness outside the station.

And I guess the escape shuttle and cargo.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:57 pm
by Iatots
It's only empty because you are not filling it.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:58 pm
by Luke Cox
Kor wrote:Nothing is being gutted except the literal emptiness outside the station.

And I guess the escape shuttle and cargo.

That's quite a bit actually. You're gutting and remaking the entire gameflow.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:00 am
by captain sawrge
Iatots wrote:It's only empty because you are not filling it.

Yes he is. Read the OP

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:00 am
by onleavedontatme
Iatots wrote:It's only empty because you are not filling it.


This thread is literally about filling it.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:01 am
by Luke Cox
Saying he's not "filling" it is kind of dumb. The whole issue is what he's filling it with.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:04 am
by PKPenguin321
Kor wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote:Basically, do you guys know what railroading is? I'd hope you do


Every round of SS13 ends with the escape shuttle or the station exploding. It's the journey that's the sandbox, not the destination. I already gave vague ideas for other ways to end the round in the OP as well (and I have a couple more) but I'd rather get something functional first before going insane with feature creep and promising the moon.

Not necessarily, we do have revs/wizards/blob (less so with mulligan) that end on antag death, and we used to have gangs that ended with a dominator coming to completion, and while both cults use the shuttle the actual "end" of the round is often with the summoning of an elder god. Actually, I think station self destruct or nuke ops are the only ways to blow up the station.

I think a gateway could work as a way to end the round, but I don't think the planet overhaul is a requirement. I would be fine with a map, and you've said it would be a map already, so I'm okay with seeing how this plays out. I just want to keep it known that redefining underlying aspects of the game like what's being proposed as the long-term goal isn't necessarily a super good thing, and if you want to play a completely different game, why not just play a different game?

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:06 am
by Iatots
My mistake for understanding "space the literal cosmic void" instead of "space the surroundings".
You can stop dogpiling now.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:06 am
by onleavedontatme
Maybe I should have made it more clear in the OP but saying "unchanged" after all those modes that end in antag death means they still end in antag death.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:33 am
by Cyberboss
I haven't read this entire thread yet so forgive me if someone has suggested this.

This idea doesn't seem so far fetched that it can't be implemented as a sort of super-gamemode on our existing code base. Hell, I think we could even do the station crashing in real time if someone wants to make a short animation for it (a la nuke detonation). That way you could have the best of both worlds at the discretion of config settings.

I like Kor's idea. I'm not in favor of abandoning sandbox station, but I'll gladly take this opportunity to expand on it.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:34 am
by danno
Sorry, Kor.
I don't like this so you can't do this anymore.
Project is cancelled, everybody

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:45 am
by NikNakFlak
stop shitposting dannno, we get it, you're edgy

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:01 am
by Luke Cox
Kor is welcome to try, he's just wasting time that could be spent on something that'll actually happen

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:02 am
by NikNakFlak
Luke Cox wrote:Kor is welcome to try, he's just wasting time that could be spent on something that'll actually happen

You are making the wrong argument here. They will succeed, you shouldn't be arguing that they can't pull it off, argue why it's a bad idea and killing the flavor of the game etc, and if you can't convince them, its gg

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:05 am
by Luke Cox
NikNakFlak wrote:
Luke Cox wrote:Kor is welcome to try, he's just wasting time that could be spent on something that'll actually happen

You are making the wrong argument here. They will succeed, you shouldn't be arguing that they can't pull it off, argue why it's a bad idea and killing the flavor of the game etc, and if you can't convince them, its gg

I don't doubt that they can do it on a technical level, I doubt that they can get the playerbase to accept something like this.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:11 am
by Qbopper
Holy fuck the level of reading comprehension here is making me look like a university professor

The goal here is to create something interesting for the crew to do while they wait for an antag to come and griff them, nothing more, nothing less - you may disagree with the method here, that's fine, but

Image

You're quoting luke, who is also seeming to miss the point entirely, not Kor, who is asking "what is being scrapped" because he also doesn't see where this ridiculous idea is coming from

Luke then goes on to say

Luke Cox wrote:I'm going to put this in big obnoxious letters, because it's the major fault here and nobody is discussing it:

Space Station 13 is a sandbox game, with nonlinear progression and most conflict coming from PvP elements. The proposed Planetary Station is a traditional game with linear progression and most conflict coming from PvE elements. These two games are mutually exclusive.



I'm going to be blunt: I am seriously starting to doubt Kor's motivations behind this. It sounds like he doesn't like doing his job dealing with player conflict, so he just wants to rip it out. Plus I think lavaland being successful has completely gone to his head.


out of some ridiculous belief that Kor is just buttmad that he has to do his job, and completely seems to be missing the point that this MAP is to give the round some purpose beyond "wait for antags to reveal themselves" and create interesting and dynamic gameplay scenarios from a sandbox situation by giving something for antags to throw a wrench into

This map does not remove antags

This map does not replace antags with PVE

This map does not remove ANYTHING by existing

I have no problems with people not wanting this map in the game for valid reasons, there are actual points you could make

"I can't read the OP or multiple people telling me I can't read" is not fucking one of them

Luke Cox wrote:I read the OP, multiple times, and my criticism stands. You want to put the station on the lavaland or another similar planet, make activating the gateway the goal, and have waves of PvE mobs attack the station. Antags will be an afterthought if the gateway dominates every round. Most conflict will come from mobs. You might not explicitly state this, but I don't see how anyone can think that PvP elements will be the primary source of tension.

Dealing with "OOC conflict" is a policy issue. It is also part of your job. Do it or resign.


This is genuinely laughable. An admin wants to promote a healthier community and lessen the workload for the admin team by creating new content, and you think "do your job" is a valid response? For real? Do you tell people who are attempting to make their jobs easier IRL by doing something to lessen the amount of work "do your job"? Disliking the map concept is all well and good but this perspective is just ass backwards and I can't sympathize with you at all

The point about moving to more linear progression instead of stories built by the actions of individual players is still very much valid and instead of addressing that you've dismissed him me as not reading the thread.


I still don't think this is a valid defense because multiple people have clarified that the focus is not intended to be put on the PvE aspects, they serve as a backdrop to give the crew some interesting gameplay beyond "wait for antags to show up". In fact I'd argue that they could create more gameplay scenarios - say the crew decides to send out a patrol or two to thin out a herd before it decides to attack, or something like that. Antag A could head out with Target B and attempt to use the environment to his advantage. Target B could turn the tables and use the monsters to get the antag off his back if he's smart. There's MORE stories that can be built with this system, it doesn't suddenly take away existing gameplay

XDTM wrote:I think that everyone's thinking that the PvE element will always be the round's focus, which doesn't need to be true. It could be something to deal with on a similar level as station power is, aka don't ignore it or everything stops working, but it only takes a few people to do it, and can be done better for greater rewards.

PvE actually becoming an emergency threat should be a rare or very late round event, in my opinion, but it has its place since it does get the crew acting together, plus it's a nice way to see job rewards come to use.


Pretty much sums up how I (and I like to assume the other people in favour) see the PvE elements - they ADD, not REDUCE gameplay choices, and are not the focus of the round

Luke Cox wrote:More obnoxious giant text, because nobody gets this either:

Currently, antags are the main source of conflict in a round. Having no built-in goals makes each round a blank slate to be molded by the crew and the antags. With the proposed changes, the gateway and waves of mobs will be the main source of conflict as the round is built around them. Antags will be an afterthought.


Yes, you're right, antags are currently the main source of conflict in a round. That wouldn't change as I've said a thousand times now. Having built in goals allows non antags to do something with their time, and provides interesting opportunities to throw a wrench into the works. The fact that murderboning is so prevalent should be an example of how the game has gotten. People still use antag to create interesting gameplay, but for every unique round I've seen someone do I've also seen a double esword dickhead on lowpop slaughter everyone. The proposed changes are in flux and have not been started yet, and the proposed changes also have the monsters as a background threat. Like I said earlier, if you play DF and ignore the game hoping to see the fun things that the dwarves do with eachother, you'll just die right away. Dwarf Fortress is likely a bad example because now people will think "oh, so it's literally impossible and everyone dies a lot" despite the point being that the PvE becomes negligible and internal threats are the problem, though. Antags are an afterthought in what way, exactly? How does giving non antags a goal change what antags have to do?

Luke Cox wrote:This isn't Rimworld. Rimworld is a terrible analogy for this. This is Left 4 Dead with one of the players having friendly fire enabled.

captain sawrge wrote:autism


>I can't handle people disagreeing with me REEEEEEE


I'd say you're having some trouble with people disagreeing with you, too. The problem people have with you is that you seem dead set on completely missing what people are saying and refuse to believe that this idea can exist in some form that is a gentle enough touch to add to the game and not become the focus of the round. Kor sums it up nicely when he says you aren't even on the same book as anyone else. I don't understand how you can fail to read anyone's posts so hilariously badly.

Luke Cox wrote:
Kor wrote:
Luke Cox wrote:You might not explicitly state this


Then please stop telling me I'm planning on doing it then. You keep saying "Left 4 Dead" which means you aren't even in the same book let alone on the same page.

Luke Cox wrote:Do your job


I am. There are more ways to deal with rulebreaking than just arguing and banning people forever.


I get wanting to cut down on OOC conflict, and that it can arise from mechanics too, but gutting the game isn't the way to go about doing this. I'm not arguing against this out of malice, I want you to understand why it isn't going to work before we devote development resources to it. I'd rather you pour all this effort into making what we already have better.

Once again, literally who is suggesting anything be gutted or removed? I'm fucking floored as to how this keeps coming up, the only people bringing it up are detractors of the idea

danno wrote:Witness the impotent forum minority as he faces the insurmountable power of the foe list
How he crashes upon it like a wave upon a rock

why do you speak so confidently about something that doesn't exist yet
Are you a precog? Why aren't you doing more important things with that power?


Children are funny. What I get from that is "I know you're right but I can't concede defeat". Does slightly disturb me that the server saw fit to give someone like that a position of power though.

Hey, I don't agree with danno, let's call him a child and ignore anything he says because it can't have any merit or value to it, right? The fact that anyone else agrees with him is irrelevant he's just a ~child~

I'm speaking confidently about this because it's common fucking sense and I'm amazed that more people aren't pointing this out. This isn't rocket science. People came here to play SS13, and Kor wants to fundamentally change what makes SS13 what it is. Nobody wants that. He's trying to solve a non-issue.

Once again, you're insisting on something that is just blatantly false. The idea is to add to the game, not to change it. This isn't "scrap boxstation and existing antags, PvE only, fuck you if you disagree", and the number of people pledging support and excitement about the idea shows that people DO want this idea. This just continues to prove to me that you're not reading at all, how can you miss the growing list in the OP of people who want to contribute


There are people coming up with valid things they don't like or think should be changedi n this thread. You've done nothing but miss the point completely and blow the thread off the tracks. Once again, no one is saying this should replace or remove any gameplay elements from /tg/ as a whole and anything specific (eg. no cargo or whatever it was Kor said) is EXCLUSIVE TO THE MAP BEING DISCUSSED HERE

This thread is fucking embarrassing and is the first thing /tg/ related to make me actually annoyed. One last time, because someone will misquote me/not read what I'm saying: I am not criticizing dissent against the proposed plan. I personally think it could use some tweaks before being developed. There are valid criticisms to be made and that is the entire point of the forums, to discuss the idea. That being said, I'm not going to listen to people who are ignoring the OP/everyone in the thread that they've misinterpreted the idea, and I can't make it any clearer that this is fucking ridiculous. Even people on the side of "I don't like this idea" are admitting that they'll look bad if they agree with luke

you know things are bad when I'm starting to resort to personal attacks like this, come the fuck on guys

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:26 am
by TheColdTurtle
Local man goes completely insane!

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:28 am
by Qbopper
TheColdTurtle wrote:Local man goes completely insane!


p much

sorry for the wall of text, I'm just getting really annoyed

and to anyone who is capable of reading but still believes focus will be taken away from pvp and put on pve: I fundamentally disagree, and don't see the issue with pve getting some love anyhow

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:31 am
by danno
You know
you're pretty alright qbopper

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:34 am
by Qbopper
danno wrote:You know
you're pretty alright qbopper


I don't know if I want to print this out and frame it or drink bleach

We should really get back on topic though, I've contributed enough to the derailment

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:36 am
by Slignerd
We should just crowdfund a copy of Evolve for Kor

I know it's free now, but let's just crowdfund it anyway.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:37 am
by onleavedontatme
I don't see how playing the tank fight from L4D repeatedly relates at all to this.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:39 am
by TheColdTurtle
Really though I enjoy this idea, it will probably give people something to do once they do their work, if they do their work and not just be shit all round.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:39 am
by Slignerd
Wasn't the selling point of Lavaland adding some brand new tank fights?

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:54 am
by Luke Cox
Like I've said, Kor is welcome to try this but the playerbase isn't going to like it. The end goal is a fundamental rework that will consume the majority of development resources, not just a new map (which is what it'll just start out as). Kor himself has said this. He has explicitly said that certain elements will be removed. You're either not reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse, Qb. I'm questing Kor's motivations because the goal of this seems to be to focus the game on PvE conflict (yes, I'm aware that antags aren't technically being removed. I'm saying that they'll be an afterthought rather than a driving force) and he's made it clear before that he doesn't like dealing with OOC conflict even though that's his job.

I'm not saying that this idea can't exist. I'm saying that it won't fix anything, will make /tg/station irrelevant in the grand scheme of SS13 as a whole, and that it will not be well received by the playerbase. It shouldn't be pursued.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:02 am
by Qbopper
Luke Cox wrote:Like I've said, Kor is welcome to try this but the playerbase isn't going to like it. The end goal is a fundamental rework that will consume the majority of development resources, not just a new map (which is what it'll just start out as). Kor himself has said this. He has explicitly said that certain elements will be removed. You're either not reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse, Qb. I'm questing Kor's motivations because the goal of this seems to be to focus the game on PvE conflict (yes, I'm aware that antags aren't technically being removed. I'm saying that they'll be an afterthought rather than a driving force) and he's made it clear before that he doesn't like dealing with OOC conflict even though that's his job.

I'm not saying that this idea can't exist. I'm saying that it won't fix anything, will make /tg/station irrelevant in the grand scheme of SS13 as a whole, and that it will not be well received by the playerbase. It shouldn't be pursued.


"I'm questing Kor's motivations because the goal of this seems to be to focus the game on PvE conflict"

Then we fundamentally disagree, I don't see this happening ever - some work being put into one element of the game does not mean it will shift to be based around that feature exclusively. SS13 didn't become a mining simulator when lavaland was added

"he's made it clear before that he doesn't like dealing with OOC conflict even though that's his job."

Do you think any of the admin team like dealing with OOC conflict? How is an attempt to minimize it a bad thing? This stance is just not something I can follow

"Kor is welcome to try this but the playerbase isn't going to like it."

How could you possibly speak on the behalf of the playerbase? I've seen more people in favour of the idea than against it

"You're either not reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse, Qb."

lol

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:13 am
by Luke Cox
I'm calling you obtuse because you're directly contradicting things that Kor himself has said. He said that while this will start off as a map he eventually wants it to become the primary focus. You said that it's just a "MAP" and that we're overreacting over nothing. In his own words:

Kor wrote:To everyone asking:

It would start off as its own map, but long term it'd be very limiting and time consuming to try and develop/balance the game around both and one or the other version would die out.

I wasted a lot of time and did lots of shitty hacky code to keep asteroid playable after adding lavaland to calm people down but that isn't something thats viable to do forever.


"Then we fundamentally disagree, I don't see this happening ever - some work being put into one element of the game does not mean it will shift to be based around that feature exclusively. SS13 didn't become a mining simulator when lavaland was added"

This bit here is where I don't think I'm getting through to you. This is not "one element". Moving the station to a planetary setting, having PvE mobs constantly attack the station, and making the crew's gameplay revolve around powering a gateway is a fundamental mechanical change. Lavaland was contained to one department that sorely needed reworking. It gave players a choice. As PKPenguin said, this is railroading the game in a single direction. I feel that I can confidently say that the playerbase will reject this because people enjoy the freedom that this game affords. People like to set their own direction and make their own fun rather than having a set routine of tasks spoon-fed to them. Planetary Station eliminates what makes the game fun.

As for Kor's motivations, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that he's too averse to dealing with OOC conflict to the point where it inhibits his ability to do his job. It's subjective, I admit.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:18 am
by Qbopper
I interpreted that differently, probably incorrectly now that you point it out, as something akin to ""balance changes would be made for it exclusively at first", but I don't see how that results in the game being ruined on other maps

I still disagree on the idea that this idea railroads people

Last point wasn't really on topic and I shouldn't have addressed it anyways

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:18 am
by MMMiracles
The idea seems kickass, although the idea of it eventually becoming standard and replacing space maps is a little concerning to me. I know it'd be a pain in the ass to manage two completely different variants of the game at once, but taking the space out of ss13 just seems... wrong to me.

What about downstreams who don't want to go to lavastation? The push to lavaland for mining wasn't as big of an issue as it just revamped mining and I didn't see many complaints about making mining interesting, but this is a pretty hefty scenery change to push on everyone else, even if you managed to get the playerbase on board with it.

Despite that, I wouldn't mind helping with the mapping aspect of it. Seems like a lot of potential for stuff like dilapidated structures of old civilizations for scavenging/hiding in.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:24 am
by Luke Cox
MMMiracles wrote:The idea seems kickass, although the idea of it eventually becoming standard and replacing space maps is a little concerning to me. I know it'd be a pain in the ass to manage two completely different variants of the game at once, but taking the space out of ss13 just seems... wrong to me.

What about downstreams who don't want to go to lavastation? The push to lavaland for mining wasn't as big of an issue as it just revamped mining and I didn't see many complaints about making mining interesting, but this is a pretty hefty scenery change to push on everyone else, even if you managed to get the playerbase on board with it.

Despite that, I wouldn't mind helping with the mapping aspect of it. Seems like a lot of potential for stuff like dilapidated structures of old civilizations for scavenging/hiding in.

This is another one of my major issues with this. Lavaland wasn't all that radical of a change and it added excitement to a previously monotonous job. Like it? Great, put shaft miner on high priority. Don't? Cool, play any other job. With this, you're part of lavaland whether you like it or not. If this was just a map that wasn't the default, I'd be fine with it. But Kor himself said that's not an option. It's one or another, and everyone is here to fuck around in an atmos simulator, not play some PvE survival game with the occasional player trying to kill you.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:26 am
by Gamarr
This is a drastic change of gameplay and flow. This is not a bad thing but do not think that the playerbase, here, is going to stay. What you propose is basically a different server much like the other ones around. It will be using the code though with a differing focus of objectives and environment will bring around different focuses in what is fixed/implemented and looked at. Just accept it is divergent.

What you need to decide now is if it is worth pursuing to yourself and accepting that it will Not be tg's SS13. Provide for what some people want and people will come. They just won't be the people you're used to.

One note about the concept is how aggressive the environment is. As part of the environment default this might not be so good. A rich flora/fauna, sure. Some hostile, but a round type could be of aggressive plant-life/whatever, just not.. constantly.

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:35 am
by ShadowDimentio
It all boils down to one question: Are you willing to bet it all on this decision, Kor? If you get to the other end of the tunnel and this doesn't end well for any number of reasons, the server will suffer bigtime, and a revert will just mean burning months of your hard work. Are you willing to accept this if it comes to be reality?

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:37 am
by Qbopper
I'm now regretting my wall of text post, though I still believe this idea has merit and shouldn't die

I don't know what's best for the server or this idea, but I really wouldn't like to see it get shut down over miscommunication or something similar

@Gamarr, I believe that was the plan (to have some aggressive threats but not an all oit assault)

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:40 am
by onleavedontatme
Qbopper wrote:I'm now regretting my wall of text post


It was a good post

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:42 am
by Shaps-cloud
ShadowDimentio wrote:Are you willing to bet it all on this decision, Kor?

if you had...

one shot...


or one opportunity.....



would you take it?

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:44 am
by Luke Cox
If Kor really wants to pursue this seriously, he's going to have to create his own fork

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:44 am
by danno
someone should have reverted your birth how could you actually type that LMAO

Re: Planetary Station """""design""""" document

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:45 am
by ShadowDimentio
Not in this game, half the bullets are duds and the other half are the wrong caliber, the gun'll fucking explode.