PC Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

Developer Discussions: Alpha 17

  • Newly Updated

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Check out the newest reveals by Madmole

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Over 100 new perk books with set collecting and bonuses

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
You're missing the point. A higher quality level weapon or tool should perform better than a lower quality one. Mods should do unique things, not add x% damage.
Click to expand...
just wanted to say I agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't like the mod system as it is that's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't say the higher quality weapon isn't any better better or doesn't do more damage than a low quality one because it is and it does.
Click to expand...
Semantics, and you understand the point he was making lol. A higher quality weapon does, in fact, not do anymore damage than a lower quality weapon. A higher quality weapon has the potential to do more damage than a lower quality weapon due to the extra mod slots.

 
There is truth in jokes: "Guns don't kill people... it's the bullets".

Unless the firearm has a hole in the barrel or the rifling is shot to hell, then a newer gun will not do more damage.

The longer barrel might cause more damage and a full choke will cause more shot to hit the target, but everything else is game stuff.

Now some special Ammo can make a serious change in damage.

 
just wanted to say I agree 100%
Click to expand...
I go to a hardware store and buy a cheap hammer expecting it to last 1 year before the handle breaks. I look at the expensive hammer and know it will last a lot longer. That is the mentality I take to this alpha and it works for me.

Adding paint to a gun to make it stronger makes no sense BUT adding a layer of paint to the Ice breaker on an arctic explorer ship makes it stronger, so why not add a lick of Jotun paint on your club for increased durability/increases the hardness of the club? It works IRL.

 
Personally I don't see a difference. The next update could just as well be "Anxious Squirrel".
Click to expand...
There USED to be a difference. Young developers, self funded start ups and Early Access all but destroyed that structure. At one point build numbers meant the difference between hotfixes or major changes.

Now in todays climate they are meaningless.

EDIT- Should clarify this is for the public. Internally one would hope build numbers still have structure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I go to a hardware store and buy a cheap hammer expecting it to last 1 year before the handle breaks. I look at the expensive hammer and know it will last a lot longer. That is the mentality I take to this alpha and it works for me.
Adding paint to a gun to make it stronger makes no sense BUT adding a layer of paint to the Ice breaker on an arctic explorer ship makes it stronger, so why not add a lick of Jotun paint on your club for increased durability/increases the hardness of the club? It works IRL.
Click to expand...
I try not to assimilate realism into my thought process when it comes to games. It just opens a topic that no one wants to discuss. If we want realism, remove: zombies, stacking 6000 would in a backpack, etc.

I get the point you are making, I just think basing the game off realism is bad road to go down. We (me included) tend to only use the realism argument when it's in our favor, and dismiss it when it's not. That's why I stay away from it.

 
Why is the damn max inventory of vehicles capped at 90 Slots.

Makes playing nomad a pain in the ass and makes it impossible (not enjoyable) to play as maphopper (transfer character and vehicle to the next seed)

 
just wanted to say I agree 100%
- - - Updated - - -

Semantics, and you understand the point he was making lol. A higher quality weapon does, in fact, not do anymore damage than a lower quality weapon. A higher quality weapon has the potential to do more damage than a lower quality weapon due to the extra mod slots.
Click to expand...
I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.

I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.

 
I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.
I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Higher qulity = less repairs needed

 
does this mean that water is fixed? no more holes in water?
Click to expand...


If they fixing water together with RWG, I will sacrifice my first born to them.

(high hopes though - water has been the bane to my eyes since the dawn of days)

 
If they fixing water together with RWG, I will sacrifice my first born to them.(high hopes though - water has been the bane to my eyes since the dawn of days)
Click to expand...
Madmole recently said one of the reasons raised bridges were being used is because of clipping issues with water. If water has clipping issues with blocks then I find it doubtful that water has had a major physics overhaul.

 
I understand the point perfectly. "A higher quality weapon should perform better than a lower quality one does." I agree and they do when modded. I think the counter argument is the one arguing semantics. You can have an opinion that you find it more fun to find a weapon that's better with no mods and that is fair enough but a Q6 gun is objectively better than a Q1 one.
I'm not arguing against your personal sensibilities, I'm arguing against the point that weapon quality is useless in A17 which seemed to be the main point of the discussion.
Click to expand...
I didn't argue for or against it to be honest. I do think that a higher quality weapon should perform better without mods, however, I never argued that. Nor have I said that higher tier weapons are worthless. I stated the fact without mods, they produce the exact damage. I have argued nothing more than that, in fact, I argued that the higher tier weapon has the potential to be better.

That was it.

- - - Updated - - -

Higher qulity = less repairs needed
Click to expand...
I've found that the repairs are less frequent, however in the long run use the same amount of repair kits. I repair a tier 2 weapon more frequently using less repair kits. I repair a higher tier less frequently for a considerably larger amount of repair kits.

Either way, evens out in the end in the amount of repair kits used regardless of the tier.

 
There USED to be a difference. Young developers, self funded start ups and Early Access all but destroyed that structure. At one point build numbers meant the difference between hotfixes or major changes.
Now in todays climate they are meaningless.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.

 
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.
Click to expand...
Just wait until someone slaps a catchy phrase such as "agile authoring" onto it. All the managers will want to use it then because it sounds like it can do back-flips. Never mind if it's actually usable in a real world context... it sounds cool.

 
Just wait until someone slaps a catchy phrase such as "agile authoring" onto it. All the managers will want to use it then because it sounds like it can do back-flips. Never mind if it's actually usable in a real world context... it sounds cool.
Click to expand...
Already been there, seen that. :)

The problem with Agile is that nobody seems to understand what it means. They think it means "as fast as possible" or "we don't have to write acceptance criteria" or something - basically, that it's an excuse to be a cowboy. That's not what it means.

For a while our team even had a dev manager that believed this, and it was not pleasant. (No documentation, no tests, knowledge siloing... the works.) He's gone now, fortunately, though he left behind multiple project codebases that nobody really understands.

...That has little to do with semver though, that versioning system is straightforward enough for any PM to understand. In my experience it's the guys who started versioning in the 90's that are resistant to it - they types that go "every new release is a new major version and everything after it is a patch" or some such.

That's a byproduct of the old waterfall way of doing releases, IMHO.

I'm not implying that any of this applies to TFP of course. Just my own observations/experiences.

 
Don't disagree about the game industry (which I can only observe from the outside). But in every other software industry, people use semantic versioning pretty consistently. And, in my experience, it's the young developers who are keen to use it, and the old fogeys who coded Delphi in the 90's who are resistant.
Click to expand...
Don't you rag on my Delphi...

Also...I'm not that old...really :upset:

Granted it was for a school project/assignment...I guess it was probably old even for them at the time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top