Mechanimal
RangerRedd
I'm not angry, just dissapointed, confused, and worried that it will ever be as good again. That's my honest initial reaction to this change, reporting otherwise would be dishonest of me. I can, and likely will, be charmed into accepting the "more realism" aspect, eventually, hopefully.Thats because all of the angry ranting users treat the experimental branch as a stable finished product instead of what it actually is. Occasionally we’ve had folks say that TFP should just regularly update the latest_experimental as they develop so that people can witness all the designs steps and changes as they occur. That would be madness. Too many people just don’t have the patience and temperament for changes.
There were so many changes like this one implemented and then reverted or fine tuned over the past year and a half that the QA team tested and dealt with that if some of you had experienced would have resulted in weekly forum blood moons.
when a change happens the QA team does not rant based on the change log and what they suspect will be the result. They test and give evidence in data, screenshots, and video. They don’t immediately revert those changes and play it how they want. They experiment with it and report their results.
I see a lot of hypotheticals based on worry and fear and not a lot of evidence to back up whether your base designs are actually no longer viable. I watched one video that was provided of Kage and it seemed like he coped just fine.
Despite the assumption that TFP changes things due to complaints, I can assure you that they change things due to compelling evidential feedback.
Interestingly, the evidential feedback being given presently is a very compelling argument to nerf bars to match the plates and pole HP. Red’s screenshots show a very clear picture and the several posts stating that bars can be placed back to back for 2x HP just like plates is a powerful point that I’m sure the devs will consider if bars actually were an oversight.
Again I am in the "prefers realism" camp, but I have much higher expectations of it. It's just super easy, almost impossible not, to fail. I cannot fathom how this new "shape/mass reflects HP and Structural Integrity" variable can be realistically implemented without entirely new super complex simulation level algorithms taking into account volume and mass distribution and how shapes of blocks effect each other. Talk about taxing your engine, jfc. But I also don't expect the devs to go that far... and THAT is the problem. There will inevitably be pieces that fail and shouldn't, and those that hold up and shouldn't. So now we have to learn nearly 1,400 shapes and their unique properties, when before they were just all the same and all was fine, build, go! Now it's a mess that may never recapture that feeling.
I can see how there are people that want this, and have wanted it before, my being one of them, but I am an actual realist, thus I do not think it is possible with the current engine, tools, and existing hardware. That's why I was happy with the existing compromise, this engine is already a step ahead from a voxel engine like Minecraft in it's implementation of Structural Integrity in the first place, even though it is only on a per block level... is THAT going to change. Is the structural analysis now going to take into account the geometry of each shape? No, would be nice but not going to happen on someone's desktop, this feels like a generic attempt to do that without actually doing it, and I am thus worried about the results.
But yeah, it is experimental, let's continue and see what happens, of course I will play either way, and have faith they'll end up somewhere fun/workable enough. But remaining silent on this would not be genuine of me as a player, and thus not helpful/informal to the devs, so this is my 2 cents.
Last edited by a moderator: