PC V2.0 Storms Brewing Dev Diary

[Adam the Waster]

do agree with you though. Biome progression and storms were both great on paper but implemented in a terrible way. Temporary fixes for biome hazards should not be a shake, nor should permanent fixes be merit badges. I really hope they reverse the change for something far more realistic.

Weather and temperature was way better. And was immersive

It could have worked with the new armor

Post automatically merged: Today at 3:43 PM

Come on, man. Let the poor guy at least get 2.0 out the door first.

WHERE IS 4.0 THATS THE REAL QUESTION OR 5.0 OR 6.0

OR 7 DAYS 2 DIE

 

[faatal]

@faatal Hi there!
What are the chances of 3.0 being done before the end of the year? 0% 50% 100% (or should I go get a life? )
And what about 2.0 Stable? By June 30? Or even earlier maybe? How's the bug killing going?

As always...Thank you for supporting the forums.

I give small chance of 3.0 this year. 2.x releases will be coming and they take time also.

2.0 stable is looking good. Major bugs are basically fixed. Another experimental is coming. Plenty of small bugs, but stable will not be held up for them. Console players want to play too.

Post automatically merged: Today at 3:50 PM

yup, you did miss something lol. no worries. there is so much information out there that it is easy to miss. Each biome has a loot stage cap. So in the forest the highest loot stage will get to is 40. where as the wasteland is able to go above 250. So even if you have that kind of loot stage available, the lower tier biomes will just cap out.

Now supposedly the biome badges give a slight bump to the biome loot stage cap, but i am not 100% certain on that.

I smallish bump on each badge, but they do add up.

 

[faatal]

@faatal Has the 3-5 second delay on a dedicated server when a player joins/leaves been fixed?

No, as we don't see anything sounding that bad. We run dedi servers for our testers and I just asked one how bad it was and he said fraction of a second lag.

 

[Darthjake]

It was my impression that when the notice tells you to leave the biome it does not mean seek shelter in the biome. And who doesn't have wood frames on them?! lolz

I thought Lathan got the same message when he initiated the snow storm for the dev video, and he entered a POI to stop it, I'll test it, I've got some wasteland next door to my base.

 

[Jost Amman]

Glad to help, bro. Should be much better for you now.

LOOOK! Another developer from The Fun Pimps!!
GUYS, LET'S CATCH HIM BEFORE HE ESCAPES! EVERYONE HURRY UP! SORROUND HIM!

 

[schwanz9000]

*runs away*

 

[4sheetzngeegles]

@faatal

I have two questions one is two part.

Can you draw a rough idea of the line biome layout you spoke of using mspaint
just so I fully understand?

If you receive multiple planes, and they drop a crate in another biome do the
multiple icons stay until they can be retrieved, or should a player mark them?

 

[Riamus]

It was my impression that when the notice tells you to leave the biome it does not mean seek shelter in the biome. And who doesn't have wood frames on them?! lol

Considering they showed you in the dev diary how you can go into shelter within that biome and didn't suggest you leave the biome, I think it is pretty clear that they just mean what it says... seek shelter. That could be in another biome, but it certainly doesn't have to be. If nothing is nearby, you can build a temporary shelter or dig a hole and cover yourself. Do some mining while you wait.

What does combination DLC+free update model mean? That items added to the DLC are instead added to the free update but you can only get them if you have the DLC? Care to name a few since you say "most games"?

I played only a few multiplayer games who have released DLCs in the last years, all were coop and all needed everyone to be on the same DLC-level: Factorio, Mechwarrior5, Across the Obelisk. A developer has to really make an effort to allow such "crossplay" between different version and DLC-setups. And in co-op games there is almost no advantage for a developer to make any kind of pay-to-win possible.

WOW: You are correct. But MMOs usually tie DLCs to progression, so that in practice the players with and without DLCs are in totally different areas and the level difference makes it rather useless to play together. Only for PvP ganking it would make sense to go into lower areas.





I fully agree that pay-to-win in any form is despicable, but you seem to be against all DLCs just because some form of DLC can be pay-to-win.

DLC+free update is the model where they put out a patch at the same time they release a DLC. That patch contains all the necessary new things that allow you to play the game with others who have the DLC even if you don't. You can't use them, or you perhaps have a limited use of the things from the DLC, but they are part of the base game, allowing you to play the game with them even if you have different DLC. As long as the game isn't competitive or ranked, it usually doesn't matter who has what DLC unless the DLC makes changes to main game mechanics. As far as some examples, I am not at my computer, so can't really look through my games right now, but Paradox does this with some games, and as mentioned WoW does it if you want to see that it has been going on for a long time. As have start to move to this always online system, it gets easier and easier to develop games that have all content in the base game, but limit who uses it to who has the DLC. If I remember when I am home, I'll see if I can grab a few titles from my collection. I maybe am incorrect when I say most, or should have qualified it to most new games. And maybe it isn't entirely correct. I know a lot are that way, but without going through them, I may be incorrect to say most (i.e. over 50%).

Pay-to-win works in a similar way... You buy things that make you better but can play with people who didn't but them. Some of those might be microtransactions and some may be actual DLC. Yes, that isn't usually done in co-op games, but that doesn't mean a developer couldn't choose to try and get extra money by doing so. I don't think TFP will. But I had been responding to someone who thought there wasn't anything wrong with that in this game. Also, I know pay-to-win is by its own name something that relates to competitive play. I used it because I'm not sure there is another word for it that is used for non-competitive play. But selling DLC that offer better weapons or better armor or whatever is the same kind of thing, even if you aren't competing against one another.

You can even think of it as how TFP will do cosmetics. The cosmetics are going to be part of the base game so everyone can see what you are wearing. But only those with the DLC can wear them. Similar idea. They could easily sell a DLC that had better perks and that would be compatible with players who don't have that DLC, for a non-cosmetic example.

 

[ProlificPoultry]

I was thinking about the perks and how people are saying that they’re real busted but now a thought just came to mind about them. What if they’re not busted? What if they implemented these new damage mitigation perks to prepare us for the addition of bandits, particularly ranged ones? Suddenly they don’t seem so busted anymore when you’re taking ranged hit scan damage.

The new perks reminded me of some items from Risk of Rain, namely the rose buckler’s shield which reduces damage while sprinting, safer spaces which allows you to block the full damage of a single attack every 15 seconds, tougher times which gives a random chance to block a hit and the topaz broach which gives a temporary shield after a kill in the form of extra health.

Now these are two different games but given the large number of sources for getting chipped or chunked in Risk of Rain these items are generally seen to be busted but not unbalanced.

So herein, despite the addition of the new zombies I don’t think this is a good test of how balanced these perks are… yet. Like I don’t want them to be nerfed before we see what they can actually do against bigger threats. I feel like they probably make pvp a lot more enjoyable because fights can last longer instead of getting one shotted by a sniper rifle or mowed down by an m60

 

[Riamus]

I was thinking about the perks and how people are saying that they’re real busted but now a thought just came to mind about them. What if they’re not busted? What if they implemented these new damage mitigation perks to prepare us for the addition of bandits, particularly ranged ones? Suddenly they don’t seem so busted anymore when you’re taking ranged hit scan damage.

The new perks reminded me of some items from Risk of Rain, namely the rose buckler’s shield which reduces damage while sprinting, safer spaces which allows you to block the full damage of a single attack every 15 seconds, tougher times which gives a random chance to block a hit and the topaz broach which gives a temporary shield after a kill in the form of extra health.

Now these are two different games but given the large number of sources for getting chipped or chunked in Risk of Rain these items are generally seen to be busted but not unbalanced.

So herein, despite the addition of the new zombies I don’t think this is a good test of how balanced these perks are… yet. Like I don’t want them to be nerfed before we see what they can actually do against bigger threats. I feel like they probably make pvp a lot more enjoyable because fights can last longer instead of getting one shotted by a sniper rifle or mowed down by an m60

Could be. Though the devs have said they will be balancing those perks, so probably just wasn't tested before experimental, which faatal hinted at.

 

[zztong]

I'm surprised that the "biomes in a line" spawn isn't the default tbh. It's so much better from a progression standpoint

I'm trying that layout this time as well. I seem to be moving my base as I gain entrance into each biome.

As I have been playing, I've been trying to think of what percentages I'd prefer. I had been thinking from Forest to Wasteland, smallest percentage (forest) to largest (wasteland), but now I'm wondering if I make the Wasteland smaller if it will compress the cities together.

Now that you mention it, I have dreams for my next play through of doing a 4x12 km map using line that goes from forest on south to wasteland in the north. That would require me to travel through each biome to get to the next instead of just staying in the forest and dipping into each biome to unlock one at a time. I am curious to see what breaks when the map is not square.

That would be interesting. When I get tired of a traditional game I'll sometimes play a "sprint" where I try to get from one corner of a large map to the far corner in just 2 game days. The idea being that I get overcome by a pursuing horde if I don't make it in time. If you're entertaining alternative shapes, maybe a 1x64 km map would be possible? That's the same area as an 8x8 km map. Maybe 1km is too narrow for cities. Is that why you picked 4 km?

 

[avalonnn]

Could be. Though the devs have said they will be balancing those perks, so probably just wasn't tested before experimental, which faatal hinted at.

I have my day 16 int rush Int mastery crucible and I'm happy with it (Adv difficulty) Getting 2x points from books 50% of the time and an extra book in every container 25% of the time helped the skill rush.

 

[ZehMatt]

Built-ins are often slow as many do not inline. To make matters worse some like Mathf.Abs just calls Math.Abs so you pay for two function calls. I performance test these systems and check the generated assembly code in the editor and builds. I just rechecked my performance tests and same. I have been waiting for years for Unity to fix the slow float>double>float math operations in Mono on floats, but nope, even Unity 6 still does it.

Consoles do not have that problem as we use IL2CPP, but we can't for Win/Mac/Linux as that would break mods that change c# code.

Post automatically merged: Today at 3:40 PM

Actually, Allan is adding some of it back as we are seeing some progression issues. Experimental!

I actually measured that just today with Unity 6.1, the built-ins are better and codegen wise at least the integer versions are just 4 instructions with no branching which the "Fast" ones never achieve, ever, no matter how hard I pressure the code path. With those "Fast" functions you play against the little optimizations it can do, mono will replace Math.Min/Max and so on with intrinsics.

See code here for the intrinsics:

mono/mono/mini/intrinsics.c at 0f53e9e151d92944cacab3e24ac359410c606df6 · mono/mono

Mono open source ECMA CLI, C# and .NET implementation. - mono/mono

github.com

mono/mono/mini/mini-ops.h at 0f53e9e151d92944cacab3e24ac359410c606df6 · mono/mono

Mono open source ECMA CLI, C# and .NET implementation. - mono/mono

github.com

So I don't see how a hand rolled version can possibly be faster, also my own tests show the opposite effect which I measured in Unity (Mono), .NET Framework 4.7 and .NET Core 3, in every runtime the custom version is at least 10% slower, sometimes there is a gain of 40% which is not nothing.