[POLL] Debate (healthy) in the Dev team! Can we help?

HYBRID1313

So, as of recent, Charlie and Hugh (two UWE peeps) made a few tweets about how there is a debate*, if you will, amongst the team about planned features. The features are whether the Cyclops should catch fire when damaged and sink, or if it should flood and then sink.
A poll was made by Hugh.

https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/834877706219032577

In addition, there's a string of tweets discussing these features and what not:

https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/834877152579366912

Charlie and Hugh seem to really want this, with Hugh's reasoning being this comment's summary of what it could be:

https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/834878561789980672

Why don't they add it themselves? Because that's up to and only possible by the Coders, such as Scott, an UWE coder who would prefer to implement the fire version of Cyclops damage, as coding the flooding could quite easily become a nightmare.
Now, in reply to a fan's comment, Hugh says that they're trying to persuade peeps like Scott within the team for the flooding sequence. Perhaps we can help?
Which would you guys prefer? Answer below! It might act as a good persuasion card
- Cheers,
Hybrid

* - Edited

HYBRID1313

Made a mess and had to bump up a mistake of mine, so now I'm bumping this up to overtake that error. What a mess I made, sorry everyone haha

Fathom

Why not all of it? It catches fire at some parts, starts flooding in others and goes down in smoky bubbles. All depends on what hit you and where. Add in a Auto Repair Upgrade to have it patch holes (one at a time at Welder speed) and an Extinguishing System Upgrade, putting out fires (one at a time at Fire Extinguisher speed), both costing upgrade slots and power. Of course, if your Power Cell banks catch fire, you lose power, so those systems may fail you.

HYBRID1313

Fathom wrote: »

Why not all of it? It catches fire at some parts, starts flooding in others and goes down in smoky bubbles. All depends on what hit you and where. Add in a Auto Repair Upgrade to have it patch holes (one at a time at Welder speed) and an Extinguishing System Upgrade, putting out fires (one at a time at Fire Extinguisher speed), both costing upgrade slots and power. Of course, if your Power Cell banks catch fire, you lose power, so those systems may fail you.

Hugh tweeted that they only have the time and resources prior to 1.0 (hopefully not after 1.0 as well) to implement ONE of them

Fathom

I'll vote for flooding then. It's more in line with what Seabases do when damaged. They can add fire post 1.0.

DrownedOut

It's a tough one because I'd rather back the people who actually have to implement the feature, plus fire would actually give us some use for fire extinguishers outside of the Aurora. But with the gameplay as it is right now in regards to bases, flooding makes more sense and ultimately it's important to provide a consistent game experience.

Sorry, people who do the coding.

Avimimus

Could one not have some smoke and spark effects like are used in the Seamoth and PRAWN?

I'd like to see repairing bases require resources - that is the improvement I desire (e.g. welding requires having iron in inventory). It'd make it more challenging to raise the hulk.

DaveyNY

I'd rather They do which ever one continues to keep the game on track for a late Spring v1.0 release.

Even if that means doing neither till after v1.0 releases.

HYBRID1313

Yeah. The poor coders would have a lot of work set out for them if they went with flooding - I can understand why they would want fire.
I also imagine they have a lot of other things to code, however I'm sticking to my guns

Casual_Player

I think fire would be more intersting. Could also have a computer board message saying the life support systems on the Cyclops were failing - and then the oxygen starts being consumed.

HYBRID1313

Casual_Player wrote: »

I think fire would be more intersting. Could also have a computer board message saying the life support systems on the Cyclops were failing - and then the oxygen starts being consumed.

Mmm, yeah that is a planned part of the fire idea - having the oxygen be consumed rapidly.
Even so, whilst that would be interesting, I still reckon that having to seal different parts of the Cyclops to prevent the sinking/spread of the flood and having these floods change its centre of gravity/buoyancy would be more interesting.
Additionally, flooding would fit with this image showing the concepts of future Cyclops features and some of its WIP features:

https://twitter.com/hugh_jeremy/status/833807020507566080

Imagine having your Cyclops mauled to death by a Seadragon because you were ill prepared, only to return to a lifeless husk of what was once your sub, which you can now enter through the shattered dome/cockpit. Would be amazing.

Skope

Why not both?

You could have different situations on whether it catches fire, or sinks.

For example, if a Reaper were to attack the Cyclops, it would eventually catch fire.

Then if the Cyclops runs into too many things, or goes below it's crush depth, it starts flooding.

Both of them are great ideas, I don't see why they would have to get rid of either of them.

HYBRID1313

Skope wrote: »

Why not both?

You could have different situations on whether it catches fire, or sinks.

For example, if a Reaper were to attack the Cyclops, it would eventually catch fire.

Then if the Cyclops runs into too many things, or goes below it's crush depth, it starts flooding.

Both of them are great ideas, I don't see why they would have to get rid of either of them.

This is the sucky thing; they only have time and resources for one of them
I'm not sure if this is only in regards to prior version 1.0, or if it's for the foreSEAable future too...

TheRelmLord

Have Both Of Them. Simply Have The Systems Fail, Wires To Become Damaged Causing Electrical Fires, Glass Damaged Before Breaking Causing Flooding, And Worst Case Scenario Is Probably Being In An Area With A High Amount Of Fire And Water. Plus Being Stuck In That Area.

phantomfinch

I would like the fire option as the smoke fluidity would work the opposite of water, where it would accumulate on the top and slowly sing to the bottom of the sub.

zetachron

Looks like that common sense would dictate to use "flood & sink", while coding it would risk a long delay implementing the new Cyclops improvement with all the new functions. Maybe the new Cyclops would even need 2 more months of updates until the flooding works, while a simple smoke & fire & sink would get a sure implementation soon. An optimal post 1.0 final implementation would probably use fire and water emergencies.

Lets see the 2 different implementation possibilites about what happens when the Cyclops gets hit and the shields are down:

Fire emergency

1. hits cause internal fire, purgable with extinguisher
2. fire rises the smoke level and spreads
3. fire damages machines, fixable with welder
4. final chain explosion turns Cyclops into wreck filled with water and sinking

Water emergency

1. hits cause breaches, fixable with a welder
2. breaches cause flooding
3. flooding rises the water level and starts tilting the sub
4. water level causes sub to sink

Combined Water & Fire changes

• exploding machines causes breaches too
• the sub only sinks when flooded

Unfortunately this poll has only two options. My suggestion is:


Seperate the Cyclops improvements from the emergency handling. Do a first simple Cyclops destruction that needs almost zero implementation to get a first damagable Cyclops with all the improvements. The quick damage implementation could be a simple system shutdown at 0% sub health together with an automatic sinking. When the sub hits the floor it gets replaced by a flooded wreck model once the player has exited.

Then start a long and stepwise improving fire & water emergency implementation that will take time but look very good. It will include fire & water spreading and explosion artwork like with the Aurora turning into a wreck.

Iteration could be like:

1. Update 1: The new Cyclops systems 2.0 with simple destruction & sinking
2. Update 2: Fire & Smoke FX, Simple Flooding, Wreck Art
3. Update 3: Advanced Flooding and Tilting
4. Update 4: Explosion FX like the Aurora, Implosion FX

phantomfinch

zetachron wrote: »

Looks like that common sense would dictate to use "flood & sink", while coding it would risk a long delay implementing the new Cyclops improvement with all the new functions. Maybe the new Cyclops would even need 2 more months of updates until the flooding works, while a simple smoke & fire & sink would get a sure implementation soon. An optimal post 1.0 final implementation would probably use fire and water emergencies.

Lets see the 2 different implementation possibilites about what happens when the Cyclops gets hit and the shields are down:

Fire emergency

1. hits cause internal fire, purgable with extinguisher
2. fire rises the smoke level and spreads
3. fire damages machines, fixable with welder
4. final chain explosion turns Cyclops into wreck filled with water and sinking

Water emergency

1. hits cause breaches, fixable with a welder
2. breaches cause flooding
3. flooding rises the water level and starts tilting the sub
4. water level causes sub to sink

Combined Water & Fire changes

• exploding machines causes breaches too
• the sub only sinks when flooded

Unfortunately this poll has only two options. My suggestion is:


Seperate the Cyclops improvements from the emergency handling. Do a first simple Cyclops destruction that needs almost zero implementation to get a first damagable Cyclops with all the improvements. The quick damage implementation could be a simple system shutdown at 0% sub health together with an automatic sinking. When the sub hits the floor it gets replaced by a flooded wreck model once the player has exited.

Then start a long and stepwise improving fire & water emergency implementation that will take time but look very good. It will include fire & water spreading and explosion artwork like with the Aurora turning into a wreck.

Iteration could be like:

1. Update 1: The new Cyclops systems 2.0 with simple destruction & sinking
2. Update 2: Fire & Smoke FX, Simple Flooding, Wreck Art
3. Update 3: Advanced Flooding and Tilting
4. Update 4: Explosion FX like the Aurora, Implosion FX

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the cyclops is powered by batterys that aren't made from lithium of Samsung phones, they wouldn't explode. Since the cells are made of batteries (which is confusing since a battery is made from many cells) and those batteries are made from copper and a form of acid to hold a charge, there is little risk of fire since copper isn't very reactive.

HYBRID1313

zetachron wrote: »

Looks like that common sense would dictate to use "flood & sink", while coding it would risk a long delay implementing the new Cyclops improvement with all the new functions. Maybe the new Cyclops would even need 2 more months of updates until the flooding works, while a simple smoke & fire & sink would get a sure implementation soon. An optimal post 1.0 final implementation would probably use fire and water emergencies.

Lets see the 2 different implementation possibilites about what happens when the Cyclops gets hit and the shields are down:

Fire emergency

1. hits cause internal fire, purgable with extinguisher
2. fire rises the smoke level and spreads
3. fire damages machines, fixable with welder
4. final chain explosion turns Cyclops into wreck filled with water and sinking

Water emergency

1. hits cause breaches, fixable with a welder
2. breaches cause flooding
3. flooding rises the water level and starts tilting the sub
4. water level causes sub to sink

Combined Water & Fire changes

• exploding machines causes breaches too
• the sub only sinks when flooded

Unfortunately this poll has only two options. My suggestion is:


Seperate the Cyclops improvements from the emergency handling. Do a first simple Cyclops destruction that needs almost zero implementation to get a first damagable Cyclops with all the improvements. The quick damage implementation could be a simple system shutdown at 0% sub health together with an automatic sinking. When the sub hits the floor it gets replaced by a flooded wreck model once the player has exited.

Then start a long and stepwise improving fire & water emergency implementation that will take time but look very good. It will include fire & water spreading and explosion artwork like with the Aurora turning into a wreck.

Iteration could be like:

1. Update 1: The new Cyclops systems 2.0 with simple destruction & sinking
2. Update 2: Fire & Smoke FX, Simple Flooding, Wreck Art
3. Update 3: Advanced Flooding and Tilting
4. Update 4: Explosion FX like the Aurora, Implosion FX

I tend to agree, however; 'We only have the engineering resources to do one' - Hugh

phantomfinch

Why not have the engine overheat, catch fire and shutdown when going at the maximum speed for a long amount of time, this would allow predators to attack the ship so we could keep the hullbreaches

Skope

HYBRID1313 wrote: »

zetachron wrote: »

Looks like that common sense would dictate to use "flood & sink", while coding it would risk a long delay implementing the new Cyclops improvement with all the new functions. Maybe the new Cyclops would even need 2 more months of updates until the flooding works, while a simple smoke & fire & sink would get a sure implementation soon. An optimal post 1.0 final implementation would probably use fire and water emergencies.

Lets see the 2 different implementation possibilites about what happens when the Cyclops gets hit and the shields are down:

Fire emergency

1. hits cause internal fire, purgable with extinguisher
2. fire rises the smoke level and spreads
3. fire damages machines, fixable with welder
4. final chain explosion turns Cyclops into wreck filled with water and sinking

Water emergency

1. hits cause breaches, fixable with a welder
2. breaches cause flooding
3. flooding rises the water level and starts tilting the sub
4. water level causes sub to sink

Combined Water & Fire changes

• exploding machines causes breaches too
• the sub only sinks when flooded

Unfortunately this poll has only two options. My suggestion is:


Seperate the Cyclops improvements from the emergency handling. Do a first simple Cyclops destruction that needs almost zero implementation to get a first damagable Cyclops with all the improvements. The quick damage implementation could be a simple system shutdown at 0% sub health together with an automatic sinking. When the sub hits the floor it gets replaced by a flooded wreck model once the player has exited.

Then start a long and stepwise improving fire & water emergency implementation that will take time but look very good. It will include fire & water spreading and explosion artwork like with the Aurora turning into a wreck.

Iteration could be like:

1. Update 1: The new Cyclops systems 2.0 with simple destruction & sinking
2. Update 2: Fire & Smoke FX, Simple Flooding, Wreck Art
3. Update 3: Advanced Flooding and Tilting
4. Update 4: Explosion FX like the Aurora, Implosion FX

I tend to agree, however; 'We only have the engineering resources to do one' - Hugh

Which is odd. They've done the effects for both situations, they would just need it to be tweaked to affect the oxygen, actually be played when the Cyclops is affected by a certain outward force, and probably improve sinking.

Other than that, it's all pretty much there.

zetachron

phantomfinch wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the cyclops is powered by batterys that aren't made from lithium of Samsung phones, they wouldn't explode. Since the cells are made of batteries (which is confusing since a battery is made from many cells) and those batteries are made from copper and a form of acid to hold a charge, there is little risk of fire since copper isn't very reactive.

The more important thing of my post was the suggestion to iterate the development, starting with simple things.

But a bit tech talk:

1. Subnautica batteries have 100% lithium cell behaviour when recharging. There is no memory effect.
2. Subnautica batteries are either Li-Cu based lithium batteries or advanced copper batteries that outperform the lithium ones.
3. Even non lithium batteries can explode. Who can predict that futuristic copper based ones won't?
4. We don't even know what will happen with the alien tech based ion batteries.
5. "It's only a game."
6. The descendants of the inventor of the Samsung Note 7 batteries joined Alterra's battery dev team.

scifiwriterguy

Flooding is really the only practical answer that applies to the garden variety Cyclops. The thing is made from titanium, plastics, and glass. By and large, the sub just isn't flammable. (If you're around a fire hot enough for titanium to burn, you have more serious problems than putting it out. Death comes to mind.) Burning titanium is hotter than hell, and pouring water on it doesn't put it out; it causes an explosion. For added fun, you'll also have toxic air as a result of the fire. That fire extinguisher you used in the lifepod won't put out the fire, it'll probably just kill you quicker.

If your Cyclops catches fire, the words "abandon" and "ship" better move up to the top of your vocabulary in a hurry because if they don't, "dead" and "duck" will be.

Flooding, though, is a real and present hazard inherent in subs that isn't likely to go anywhere. Since the Aurora gives us plenty of reason to have extinguishers (and opportunities to use them), a flooding Cyclops really only makes sense.

Hugh

Hi guys, I thought I'd just clarify that there is no 'turmoil' or 'disturbance.' We have lively debates about the direction of the game and they are normal, healthy, and productive.

Often we'll conduct these debates publicly, e.g. on Twitter, in order to bring in outside input. Which is exactly what is happening in this thread, which is wonderful!

But again, don't worry. We actually do work very well together and rarely is there actual 'turmoil'.

Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!

HYBRID1313

Hugh wrote: »

Hi guys, I thought I'd just clarify that there is no 'turmoil' or 'disturbance.' We have lively debates about the direction of the game and they are normal, healthy, and productive.

Often we'll conduct these debates publicly, e.g. on Twitter, in order to bring in outside input. Which is exactly what is happening in this thread, which is wonderful!

But again, don't worry. We actually do work very well together and rarely is there actual 'turmoil'.

Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!

Haha sorry! That's just my poor choice of words for a title
I've seen many of this debates before on twitter and I think it's lovely how you UWE peeps can disagree frequently, but get along so well

Obraxis

Hugh wrote: »

Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!

He's a Mac User now. His opinions are invalid. <./joke.>

<font color="green">Razer</font>MasterRace

HYBRID1313

Obraxis wrote: »

Hugh wrote: »

Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!

He's a Mac User now. His opinions are invalid. <./joke.>

<font color="green">Razer</font>MasterRace

Mac user?! *Gasp* traitor...

The new Macs are pretty nifty though

Hugh

@HYBRID1313 @Obraxis

I assure you that while my day-to-day computing now happens on a Mac, my X99 custom-water-cooled beast is still in charge

scifiwriterguy

Hugh wrote: »

Hi guys, I thought I'd just clarify that there is no 'turmoil' or 'disturbance.' We have lively debates about the direction of the game and they are normal, healthy, and productive.

Often we'll conduct these debates publicly, e.g. on Twitter, in order to bring in outside input. Which is exactly what is happening in this thread, which is wonderful!

But again, don't worry. We actually do work very well together and rarely is there actual 'turmoil'.

Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!

Constructively-conflicting opinions are best in nearly every situation. Groupthink leads to poor results. Glad to hear that even at this point in development, the developers are still engaged in energetic debate.

But @Hugh, seriously, buddy we...we're concerned about you. I mean, you have the right to live your life as you like, but while using a Mac seems like fun now, you're really only hurting yourself and your loved ones in the long run. We don't want to tell you how to live, but believe me when I say that regret is a terrible thing. I know, you're thinking it's too late to give up the Mac, but, buddy, I was a Mac user, too. I can admit that. But I turned my life around, and you can too! We're all here for you!

HYBRID1313

Hugh wrote: »

@HYBRID1313 @Obraxis

I assure you that while my day-to-day computing now happens on a Mac, my X99 custom-water-cooled beast is still in charge

Well now I'm just conflicted.

DaveyNY

HYBRID1313 wrote: »

Hugh wrote: »

@HYBRID1313 @Obraxis

I assure you that while my day-to-day computing now happens on a Mac, my X99 custom-water-cooled beast is still in charge

Well now I'm just conflicted.

Well, now I'm hungry...

I'm having a MAC Attack!

HYBRID1313

DaveyNY wrote: »

HYBRID1313 wrote: »

Hugh wrote: »

@HYBRID1313 @Obraxis

I assure you that while my day-to-day computing now happens on a Mac, my X99 custom-water-cooled beast is still in charge

Well now I'm just conflicted.

Well, now I'm hungry...

I'm having a MAC Attack!

How about an Apple?