Weekly Update #56

#4

Yeah that’s what we’re going for.

4 Likes
#5

So that leaves 1-2 months for…

Is that not quite optimistic?

1 Like
#6

We’re talking baseline Alpha implementations of these systems. Think of it as a “minimum viable product” - there’s going to be a ton of additional work to be done on all of those systems during the Alpha. As for the launcher, installation runtime, etc the scope of that work is relatively small insofar as the Alpha is concerned. Once again there will be additional work that must be put into them for Beta and of course the final release.

2 Likes
#7

Ok thanks.

#8

I have to agree that the buildings keep looking better and better each time. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#9

In the future, a statement of completeness would undoubtedly help set more accurate expectations. This is the sort of thing that I was talking about in another thread, where INS tunes their presentation of information. So while it may be obvious to you that an alpha release with all those systems would be alpha quality for each system, saying

[quote=“INovaeKeith, post:1, topic:5190”]
This will include the implementation of the resource system, capital ships, teams, radar/sensors, turrets, and new weapon systems.[/quote]

doesn’t really convey that sense - as evidenced by @hrobertson’s comment . The key phase there is “the implementation of”, which connotes that this is it, this is THE implementation of those systems. It suggests completeness or finality. Just change “the” to “an” and it’s an entirely different statement. Saying “an implementation of” communicates something far less definitive. Being explicit by saying “This will include an alpha-quality implementation of” would be most clear.

It’s a nuance, but one well worth watching in future statements.

1 Like
#10

I respectfully disagree with JB’s opinion and call out “nitpicking”!

implementation/ɪmplɪmɛnˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the process of putting a decision or plan into effect; execution.

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t agree that Keith is being misleading in any way. As consumers, we understand the concept of Alpha implementation being the first round, and (importantly) version numbers.

We are currently on build 0.1.8, which is obviously nowhere near a v1.0 release. Therefore I propose the devs just emphasise this number for each iteration and let people pick up on the pattern!

Think KSP or Minecraft and how their versions changed. It was easy to follow.

1 Like
#11

I like the asymmetric design of the top right and bottom left images.

2 Likes
#12

You like to watch, me too.

3 Likes
#13

I don’t think anything has been misleading and I knew the answer before i asked the question, but i felt it was important to ask anyway.

See the Gameplay Design Details thread (dev access required) - for anyone without access, don’t worry, the thread contains no gameplay design details… just a statement from Keith that they’re not going to design the gameplay, they’re just going to ‘do it’ then iterate…

My right eyebrow is in a permanently raised position regarding the ‘plan’ for gameplay these days.

1 Like
#14

[quote=“hrobertson, post:5, topic:5190”]
So that leaves 1-2 months for…[/quote]

Yeah, there are also a few unknowns that still need to be adressed. Like planetary collision meshes on the server side, which I explained in another thread a while ago, which is definitely a challenge performance wise.

The good news is that a lot of the basics of the new gameplay already exists in a form or another. It’s still far from a complete implementation but there are already some of the required things in place. Team based gameplay for example has been partially implemented since the Kickstarter but was disabled due to the lack of active players to fill the teams. That’s why in the current prototype you have players with green indicators and others in red, for example.

Structures already have hit points and could get damaged, but it’s also disabled due to most of it being client-sided and having no damaged state assets yet.

The new weapons are already a WIP in the networking tests, as I explained in the past weeks, I’ve been experimenting with auto-aiming turrets or missiles AI. They don’t have special fx or particles ( being a network test ) but the core of the code is ready to be promoted to the main game.

The web infrastructure is already in place, and while there are bugs to fix, it’s come a long way already. It still requires incremental patching, a couple of smaller features and a visual skin to look professional, but behind the scenes everything is already working. This had to be done anyways before we could do a release, so we decided early that it was better to solve it in the early stages of the project and let it mature / be stable, rather than implement it at the end right before release and encounter unexpected issues right before release which could cause delays.

Basically, if that wasn’t clear yet, our development strategy has been to solve the technical challenges ( with the biggest unknowns, time-wise ) in the first half of the development and to do the easier and lesser time consuming ones ( everything being relative of course, as there can be design challenges too ) in the later half.

7 Likes
#15

What are you even talking about… are we at grammer school? You’re either too smart for your own good or I’m an idiot… and yet, I tend to think neither. idk I must be lost within the context of bs

#16

As long as you are committed to putting the time into solving those design challenges in Alpha until the gameplay is as it should be, then I’ll feel happier.

My concern with not putting any time into them now is that we’re going to reach mid 2018 and go into beta with whatever implementation we have at that time even if it still needs significant work.

Don’t mind JB… think of him as a wisened old man in a rocking chair on his porch with a shotgun in his lap.
Sometimes he comes out with insightful remarks and you can go and sit with him and have a productive discussion, other times it’s best to just keep on walking. :smiley:

1 Like
#17

Get off my lawn.

11 Likes
#18

Wow the factory looks nice! And huuuge (if I got the scale right). Is that on the top picture on the top right a landing platform?

Would it be hard to add some dynamic to the texturing in terms of adding some dirt like sand or dust spots for example, ideally in the same color as the planet is textured with? That might make it look more associated with the surface where its located, at least when its a rocky or sand-like planet surface. I agree it would just be eye-candy, just an idea…

5 Likes
#19

I asked about this a few weeks ago but the thread got derailed…

1 Like
#20

Unfortunately I doubt we’ll have the time to do much in the way of graphics prior to the game shipping to retail. The items on our graphics todo list are pretty well fixed at this point.

6 Likes
#21

The ground bases will at least need some checking for common sense issues. For example, the shape of the crater which is home to Aresthia’s factory (the desert planet) means that some of the buildings are at weird elevations! Some appear slightly floating and there are pipes that should disappear into the ground but just stop in mid-air instead! A bit of fine tuning may be in order to check the placement of modules. :slight_smile:

#22

Meh, this is nitpicking in my opinion.
True, what you’re describing @Sab1e doesn’t look very good for a finished product… Then again, this is not a finished product :slight_smile:

For the moment, the base can be mostly located on flat terrain so that those small problems are hidden under the carpet.

What’s important now is to get all the prerequesites for a correct / smooth playing done, then get on the gameplay. The polishing will be done later.

1 Like
#23

Oh yeah, placeholder models were not elevated per module and they had no root extensions either. Military bases will be handled in same fashion as ground factories (there’s some tolerance for terrain slopes):

20 Likes