English Stranded III Dev. Blog - Comments

1,664 replies
Goto Page
To the start Previous 1 2 ... 83 84 Next To the start
15.04.19 01:37:20 pm
Up
Jawohl
User
Offline Off
Fantastic stuff DC
now that you've done basic architecture assets, its very easy to add modules and buildings from that, so i look forward to see your progress

i certainly hope to see more difficulty options as well, perhaps more replayability in the random maps?
22.05.19 11:35:43 pm
Up
Assassin moder
User
Offline Off
Get rid of all progress with Unity? naaah, You can also check NeoAxis Engine which has a new version, very limited and basic for now...
Anyway, keep S3 alive
23.05.19 07:17:36 am
Up
Elfing
User
Offline Off
Quote:
My old "solution" to this was to simply declare that all items are very precious in Stranded III and that it rarely happens that you have a big amount of the same item type.

That scared me a lil when I was reading and I feel relieved that you won't go with such approach. That would practically eliminate any chance of having a sort of "endgame" server or game which would cripple the playability after a while.

When it comes to same item values and stacking, I think you should go with the retro approach of just having "Apple" "Rock" "Stick" "Leaf" and instead expand on the items -usable tools or just items used on OTHER recipes- and buildings you can create as a result. But if you're decided on having different attributes for same items, all I can think of is just limiting the amount of attributes of each item. Or just adding new items that have the attribute you want to have. So instead of having "BlaBla" and "BlaBla (flammable)", have "Blaugh" which is similiar but is flammable, however that can also get out of hand very quickly.
23.05.19 01:38:37 pm
Up
Jawohl
User
Offline Off
its certainly a difficult idea to implement
i would suggest doing what minecraft/terraria did; seperate "enchanted" items by their attributes as opposed to one single stack.

also i highly doubt moving to another engine is a good idea, after some 6~ odd years of development, the least you can do is be less ambitious, and add more features later.

SIII will not be a paid product (as far as current plans go)
so why not just down your expectations until later in development?
24.05.19 07:11:05 pm
Up
Klirkz
User
Offline Off
Isn’t the main problem that you have very different requirement for different items:

• As you said, a huge stack of ammunition with exactly the same attributes would take an unnecessary amount of memory. That’s the only down side with the most flexible visual-only-stacks.

• Having four crystals, on the other hand, in different colors and shape: one huge and heavy, the other one small and the key to a old dwarf-crafted door, the third one enchanted with the power to make your swords more effective and the last one being your precious memory of a previous quest – well I’d say, it’s completele impossible then to save any memory space by creating some average values, isn’t it?

But which items would need both? Would you ever scroll through a list of 100 different rocks in order to choose the best for the next tool? Or is it really necessary for the different pieces of meat to carry individual nutrition values? And if each and every item is very individual, just take a number of keys to different doors, will you ever reach great numbers with such an item?

So you could just divide the items in two groups (fully stackable and visual-only-stackable), but I guess that’s very limiting. I would suggest the following. Maybe I’m not using the right coding terminology, but if an item was a class, which could include a limitless number of sub-classes, so that each small change in an attribute would create another sub-class. If there are 99 normal type ammunition but one golden zombie-killing ammunition, then this would require only two sub-classes. Of course then it would be stupid to give each stone an indivudal size on a continuum. But once again – would that be useful? Maybe you need to differenciate between 4 sizes. Or even ten. Still better then the pure visual-stack-only way. This is similar to what Joelda suggested with the minecraft-enchated-item-seperation. So if you have within 20 normal apples your one weird burning apple, then yes, this one deserves another category. If the mushrooms appear in the world in every random size, then no, they don’t deserve to get individual stacks (maybe two, alright: fully grown and not fully grown).

In my opinion that would require two things:
• Attributes can be assigned “irrelevant for stacking” --> inventar stacking removes attribute (e. g. mushroom size).
• Attributes can be of limited value options (e. g. integer number from 1 to 4 for rock sizes).
That way all flexibility is restored and it’s in the responsibility of the one defining each attribute, not to allow for crazy, unnecessary amounts of parallel stacks.

TL;DR: There are RFS (relevant-for-stacking) attributes and not-RFS attributes. The game stacks all items with the exact same RFS values and uses visual-only-stacks otherwise. Tada!
Truth is not an opinion.
To the start Previous 1 2 ... 83 84 Next To the start