Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2017
Or stop your hissy fit over your forum stats, this goes both ways...
Even if people disagree and hit that button, they have no obligation to post their reasons. Besides... If they don't come up with counterarguments, it does not mean you are automatically right or wrong. So why be bothered about that tiny little integer in a forum database
And now look at it, we're off-topic and it wasn't my fault \o/
You're projecting, Kouji. It's not about statistics and nobody's having a "hissy fit".
It's about someone putting the effort in to writing a post and wanting to know why people disagree with it. That's how conversations work.
Simply hitting the "disagree" button without giving any reason as to why you disagree, is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I'm not listening" and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
People generally come to forums or discussion boards for, you know, discussions. Simply hitting the disagree without putting any words behind your conviction is a slap in the face of the very point of forums.
The disagree button is nothing but a meaningless little whine. And that's annoying for anyone with half a brain cell who wants to engage in proper debate or discussion. It's isolationist to individuals, extremely divisive to a forum community, and immediately puts a pointless, competitive slant to every single post. It's a terrible, terrible system.
(Personally, something has to be really, really inane for me to hit that disagree button, because it's nothing but a pathetic little ego boost. Agree and Awesome should be the only buttons available. If you disagree, then disagree properly like a grown up.)
Look at my very first post on this thread. It's nothing but facts, not my own opinions. I stated clearly many single player games which remain challenging, which was the entire point of the post. People have disagreed with it, and I have no idea why. I can't even see anything in the post that people could disagree with.
So obviously I'd love to know what it is those people have disagreed with, so we could perhaps have a dialogue about it.
Are they disagreeing with those games being challenging? Are they disagreeing that survival games have little replay value once you know the mechanics? Are they disagreeing with my advice to stop playing and wait for 1.0 so you enjoy it more?
I have no idea. Their "disagree" is meaningless because it has nothing backing it up.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited March 2017
How the hell am I projecting, people on here always tend to get riled up by those silly little buttons and stats. when they are merely a cutesy way of doing something, without really getting involved, but either want to semi-troll or just make a statement... YouTube like/dislike buttons are quite similar and people get up in arms over those as well, which is so damn pointless. I for one have NEVER complained about them and I happen to be just too damn awesome it seems
"Projecting" Get out of here you boob
People are lazy fucks, some just want to make a statement without putting the effort in. Hence those buttons are perfect for them. Not everyone gets on here to have discussion. Most are just here to read and think.. Meh that's "good/wrong/awesome" -> Button pressers. TBH sometimes those little icons do have a shred of truth behind them... Heheheh or can cause a mob mentality, I find both hilarious
Now we're completely off-topic, might as well go here now o/
The game is IMPOSSIBLE the first few times you play. The whole point is to explore and discover everything. maybe after I've played the game 9 million times It'll be easier, but it's basically impossible without the wiki.
The game is IMPOSSIBLE the first few times you play. The whole point is to explore and discover everything. maybe after I've played the game 9 million times It'll be easier, but it's basically impossible without the wiki.
Yeah that is kinda a thing that ALL these games have in this genre. I tend to call them wikivivals...
The game is IMPOSSIBLE the first few times you play. The whole point is to explore and discover everything. maybe after I've played the game 9 million times It'll be easier, but it's basically impossible without the wiki.
How can it be impossible when you can't die? Respawning means it's the exact opposite of impossible.
Yeah that is kinda a thing that ALL these games have in this genre. I tend to call them wikivivals...
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't think I've ever used a wiki for a game. Why would you want to cheat like that?
Is it because I grew up playing Monkey Island for hours and hours on lazy Sunday afternoons, making absolutely no progress because I couldn't work out what to do with that bloody rubber chicken?
You gotta be kidding me. Freedom and Creative modes exist to cater to the explorers and builders. The other modes don't need to have that same focus. There should be a mode that emphasizes survival, for the people who don't want a free ride through the game. As things stand, with no credibly threatening enemies and with hunger and thirst being as challenging as getting wet in a rainstorm, the only challenge the game presents is in finding enough titanium to build a base.
Subnautica is a very pretty game and it's entirely understandable that many people just want to explore the world with little to no risk, and I don't think that should be taken away from them. But the game has a mode selector for a reason, and providing a mode or two that tweaks things to make a challenging, hostile world is not an impossible, or even unreasonable, request.
That's an unfair POV. Freedom is easier because it takes out gameplay and leaves one with no reward for finding anything relating to food and water, and Creative isn't truly a mode at all.
Personally I am in favor of customization options a la Don't Starve, with possibly some modes as difficulty guidance. Just making the game all-around harder (Freedom as is would also be affected by stronger and more aggressive critters) is a selfish way to go.
No, you're right. What I should have said is that the current difficulty should remain as-is, to be the easy mode for people who want resource management but not significant difficulty, while new mode(s) should be added above that to provide greater challenges.
And I did say that I think the settings should be tweaked per-mode, rather than globally. So enemies being more aggressive in a harder difficulty setting wouldn't need to ruin the experience for people who are more interested in exploration.
They at least have the "ya need this to get here" bit on track
- Going deeper, git some modules
- Need some defense against that big bastard, get toys
Tiers, like RPG's, potentially this has no limit and is very easy to balance out for what you want the player to do or be able to do. But as I said the resource generation is too easy to max out
I do hope we'll eventually get more scripted events, with dangers as well. Kinda how, um... Terraria does, get to a certain tier level or meet other requirements and you'll have to deal with some kind of scripted event...
Yeah, entirely agreed, the tiers feel very good. It's just too easy to skate up through them and reach the end, is all.
(Edit: realized I borked up formatting my replies to the quotes, whoops)
Yes, yes, disagree with all my posts and provide no rebuttal thereof.
Disagreeing doesn't make you correct. This game needs more challenge; it's not going to survive at launch as it is because of how open they've been with everything. We practically know what's going on. The least it needs is a challenge.
Some people want a challenge, some don't. It would be cool if they made difficulty modes in Subnautica. (maybe something that would be added sometime between now and 1.0, since it is considered a survival game.)
OP, you are making no sense. Your complaint, as I see it, is that something you have spent many hours learning and becoming an expert on is no longer something you are not an expert in. You are a contradiction of introspection. The only way to address your complaint is to re-write the game. Move every fragment, re-map every biome and change the story. You are in effect asking for Subnautica 2.
My advice, as this is a thread asking for input from the community: Leave. Return at no point in time. What you ask will never become reality. Your complaint is selfish and your expectation focused on yourself.
I've never heard a more absurd reply in this forum.
First of all, it makes the assumption of the OPs intent. That the only way to make rhe game challenging is rewriting it. That assumption is ignorant. They want to have the game be challenging despite having visited all the biomes and being an expert. And you proceed to attack the OP for having the opinion YOU asserted on them. Now you're just making an a** of yourself.
Second, your call it selfish (for an opinion he never really stated) to make IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GAME!!! What is wrong with you people? Do you want this game to die at launch? Because the legitimate concern is that everyone has already traversed the game and already knows the story by now. Nobody is going to buy the game at launch because we already been through the buggy mess ourselves. Without a difficulty spike at launch, I doubt most of you would play the game more than a few times after Launch unless you force yourself to or when an update happens that adds a fish or two.
God forbid they make a game challenging, especially a game with survival elements! God forbid we have a little more innovation. Please try to expand outside your narrow thinking and see the bigger picture of all this.
Now go sit down and take a chill pill before going on an unjustified tangent.
Reading @JudgeRhadamanthus 's comment made me double-check to see if I had hit disagree (something I normally hesitate to do); turns out I missed it. Good thing I checked. @JudgeRhadamanthus I know I can only stand for my own opinion on this, but:
My advice, as this is a thread asking for input from the community: Leave. Return at no point in time. ...Your complaint is selfish and your expectation focused on yourself.
Right back at you. While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't agree with the attitude. "But this is the Internet! I do what I want!" Congrats. You're part of what makes the Internet the cesspool it sometimes is. "Oh, lighten up! I'm entitled to my opinion!" Yup, and I'm entitled to mine. I mean, is this so hard:
OP, you are making no sense. Your complaint, as I see it, is that something you have spent many hours learning and becoming an expert on is no longer something you are not an expert in. You are a contradiction of introspection. The only way to address your complaint is to re-write the game. Move every fragment, re-map every biome and change the story. You are in effect asking for Subnautica 2.
See what happens when you remove the personal attack? It just becomes you stating your opinion, like a decent human being. Speaking of which,
The Unknown Worlds community is a place for human beings to be nice about, friendly towards, and respectful of one another. Here are some guidelines for posting on our forums and acting in our community:
Please behave politely at all times. That means refraining from swearing and disrespectful comments (racist, homophobic, religious, etc.).
Be a decent human in general: Don’t flame, troll, or be mean to other people
Our admins will, in the worst cases, ban accounts and IPs for bad behaviour.
We hope you meet many great new friends both online and offline because of our games. It’s good to have you with us.
First of all, keeping the creatures competent against your unstoppable machinery isn't making the game harder, it's making the game equally challenging on all levels. You are still at threat, your threat level has not shrunk as you go deeper. When (if) they add Cyclops damage I believe that can negate a lot of that, but it doesn't take away many of the hand holding and frankly mind-boggling decisions the Devs have made.
"People complained about Med Kits. I guess we should make a device that automatically creates an unlimited supply of health for you (I swear if that stays at launch I'll be salty enough to make Subnautica the Dead Sea...)"
"Plenty of fish in the sea, but we need plants that don't require water or sunlight to grow and can provide a near infinite supply of food and water with no further effort required."
Trying not to sound mocking, I appreciate the work the Devs have done, but these decisions in particular turn from easy to cake-walk in matter of moments. Balance is something that requires Trial and Error, stuff I have yet to see but a few times with Creature Aggression.
Second of all, too tough is fairly subjective. Some people just suck at games; that's why many of them have difficulty settings. Play on easy. Get through the story if you want, explore if you want. But making the base game easy is no way to make a game; making it hard is no way to make a game unless you're Dark Souls. You always want that middle ground and take into consideration the kind of game you're making.
So yeah I don't think this game will do well at launch because there is nothing to show for at launch. They've shown it all already, and I don't think the game is going to get anymore of a spike in popularity. This is a problem with any Early Access game, especially if the game is Singleplayer and tries to tell a story it's like... well by the time the game is fixed and everything people have already heard or experienced the story. Tried to keep away myself when the story was being implemented but of course this being a public forum I was bound to be spoiled. So I decided not to bother. And that affects the experience. Simply a bane with Early Access once they hit a popularity spike mid-development. Sadly Subnautica already hit the spike so I don't expect much else to follow.
Both here and on Steam there are (or have been until recently) topics on the game being too tough, or at the very least having too high a learning curve. Just because we find it a walk in the park doesn't mean it is or that we shouldn't look at the needs and wishes of people who don't without chopping off entire sections of gameplay. (Might be this is easier for me to say because I'm a fan of adventure games in all the genre's forms - including exploration - and, well, the principles of survival games, so whichever way SN leans will be good with me. I don't get the impression that's the case for you.)
Don't share your dislike for medkit fabricators, but that might be because they are the only healing tool we have. If we had some sort of direct equipment, like a healing vat or for all I care a meditation cushion to speed up/trigger the passive healing factor, okay, then medkits would become an on-the-move luxury you can choose to stock up on or not, but as is it wouldn't be balanced to see it gone.
Do sorta agree on land flora management. I don't care for water and sunlight because I'm willing to believe the base takes care of that (would be fair if plants stop growing if the base is out of energy) but I'm waiting for plant food to become a (repeated) requirement.
Perhaps I see this wrongly, but I'm getting the impression that the words "challenge" and "difficulty" are used with limited concern for what that means to everyone. I know I'm not interested in seeing the game become more difficult if you ask it like that, but if the question is if I'd like to see the gameplay expanded with more give-and-take, sure! I look forward to the Cyclops becoming vulnerable (I think everyone does?) and hope post-V1.0 damaged equipment from flooding/fire will be implemented, think the suits becoming damaged is an idea with merit, have some own opinions on management angles to be explored, and so on. Stuff like being hunted, higher NPC-inflicted damage, more expensive recipes (notwithstanding some recipes right now probs are placeholders), however, don't sound good to me. A difference between longterm strategy and shortterm strategy. Might be worth keeping those two separate in further talk.
make a device that automatically creates an unlimited supply of health for you
Kinda have to agree with this. Its incredibly useful early on, so a middle ground of having a number of health packs in lifepod storage at the start and removing this? It's kindof a pain to craft though so there is some balance there perhaps?
"Plenty of fish in the sea, but we need plants that don't require water or sunlight to grow and can provide a near infinite supply of food and water with no further effort required."
Has this been hashed out already somewhere? I agree with you, but we would need a balance between survival gameplay and turning the game into a 'farming simulator' kinda thing (I love me a farmin' simulatah, but on top of everything else might be a bit much). There are already complaints about timers where food/water is concerned so I'm not sure adding to that would be good, but we could definitely use a bit more depth where these are concerned.
Perhaps blueprints for grow lights that use a certain amount of power per minute that allows indoor growing? Add power consumption to the alien containment unit?
Personally, I'd like to have the things separate early on and require a bit of maintenance in the mid-tier when you unlock things, but then move on to having things fully automated later (using water from the alien containmnet unit, which should be nitrogen rich, to fertilize and water crops. Having a feeder tank to keep the fish in the ACU fed and happy) or be able to provide food for herbivores by placing the right plant in the tank (kelpvines for peepers and hoverfish as an example) to meet that need.
Maybe I mentioned this in the other thread, but what about making the medkit fabricator use all excess energy while it's fabricating? So every time you use a medkit, you have no extra power besides the reserves until a new kit is finished? Or something similar. Sort of like how water filtration machines work?
Maybe I mentioned this in the other thread, but what about making the medkit fabricator use all excess energy while it's fabricating? So every time you use a medkit, you have no extra power besides the reserves until a new kit is finished? Or something similar. Sort of like how water filtration machines work?
How about any player who wants it to be harder, just not fabricate and/or use the Med Kit Machine.
(or any other part of the game you find too "simplifying')
Why the Hell do the Dev's have to do ALL the work just for you???
Jeebus-St.-Freebus,
There's a gazillion ways to make the game harder, even now in its unfinished state.
Go figure it out for yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the game as the Dev's decide to present it, now and in its final form.
Holy Crap-a-doodle.... so many whiney posts lately it's like listening to two year olds argue about who's gonna get the last cookie.
Maybe I mentioned this in the other thread, but what about making the medkit fabricator use all excess energy while it's fabricating? So every time you use a medkit, you have no extra power besides the reserves until a new kit is finished? Or something similar. Sort of like how water filtration machines work?
I dont think it should use everything, that would prevent its use on the cyclops, which I think is reasonable. Just a points per minute drain... which is how I thought the filtration machines worked? Did they change it or am I just confused?
Yeah that is kinda a thing that ALL these games have in this genre. I tend to call them wikivivals...
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't think I've ever used a wiki for a game. Why would you want to cheat like that?
Is it because I grew up playing Monkey Island for hours and hours on lazy Sunday afternoons, making absolutely no progress because I couldn't work out what to do with that bloody rubber chicken?
I only use it for recipes, because the ingame inventory/builder GUI's of most games suck, having to switch between your building menu and your blueprint menu. Now I just have the wiki on screen 2 and the game on screen 1. It's more a convenience thing rather than cheating in this case IMHO
Both here and on Steam there are (or have been until recently) topics on the game being too tough, or at the very least having too high a learning curve. Just because we find it a walk in the park doesn't mean it is or that we shouldn't look at the needs and wishes of people who don't without chopping off entire sections of gameplay. (Might be this is easier for me to say because I'm a fan of adventure games in all the genre's forms - including exploration - and, well, the principles of survival games, so whichever way SN leans will be good with me. I don't get the impression that's the case for you.)
I strongly suspect that a great deal of the perception of difficulty is because the game declines to teach you anything about itself. If the PDA contained hints, such as "hey, silver is found at deeper depths" or "maybe you should check caves for sources of crash powder" or the like, the game wouldn't present such a brick wall to new players, which would be very good.
I'm an advocate for increased difficulty settings because as it stands, the game is not replayable in any meaningful sense. Once you grind through the learning process and the mysteries of the ocean wear off, the game is revealed as a trivial exercise in resource gathering. And trivial exercises in resource gathering can be repeatedly engaging if there's an element of novelty, but the choice to go with a static map means the available novelty is finite.
Structurally, the only source of replayability available to Subnautica is in difficulty, because enemy spawns and behavior is one of the few things that the game's design will allow to be randomized. (Though with that said, I devoutly hope that randomized locations for resource nodes can be in the cards later in development, because that would help keep things feeling fresh.)
The developers have a really tough decision to make. Do they spend THOUSANDS of hours making the game harder for one player? Or, do they continue improving the game so the game will appeal to a billion new players who buy the game. Tough choice. I'm not sure which way I would go.
hard core should have more hostile fauna, and respawns with full inventory drop. problem solved. giving leviathans the ability to damage a cyclops might help too.
The developers have a really tough decision to make. Do they spend THOUSANDS of hours making the game harder for one player? Or, do they continue improving the game so the game will appeal to a billion new players who buy the game. Tough choice. I'm not sure which way I would go.
It's also worth remembering that for us alpha/beta players, many of us have been playing this for many months, perhaps even for a year or more, and so we have had a lot of playtime to get used to the game and what it has to offer. To us the game may be easy as we know it inside out. To a new person who plays it without having seen it before may find it a lot more difficult to play.
I still remember the first time I played the game. I didn't know about the fabricator in the lifepod. So, I exited the lifepod and was swimming around the ocean just admiring the scenery. Then, I got the message about the Aurora blowing up that said I needed to get 1,000 meters from the ship. I thought that meant I needed to swim for my life 1,000 meters away from the Aurora. I remember swimming all the way to some island. I don't remember which.
All I have to say is... The folks who work on the WIKI are AWESOME!!!
So, yeah, the game is definitely a much different experience for a first time player versus someone like me who has now put maybe 150 hours in the game.
Comments
Even if people disagree and hit that button, they have no obligation to post their reasons. Besides... If they don't come up with counterarguments, it does not mean you are automatically right or wrong. So why be bothered about that tiny little integer in a forum database
And now look at it, we're off-topic and it wasn't my fault \o/
It's about someone putting the effort in to writing a post and wanting to know why people disagree with it. That's how conversations work.
Simply hitting the "disagree" button without giving any reason as to why you disagree, is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I'm not listening" and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
People generally come to forums or discussion boards for, you know, discussions. Simply hitting the disagree without putting any words behind your conviction is a slap in the face of the very point of forums.
The disagree button is nothing but a meaningless little whine. And that's annoying for anyone with half a brain cell who wants to engage in proper debate or discussion. It's isolationist to individuals, extremely divisive to a forum community, and immediately puts a pointless, competitive slant to every single post. It's a terrible, terrible system.
(Personally, something has to be really, really inane for me to hit that disagree button, because it's nothing but a pathetic little ego boost. Agree and Awesome should be the only buttons available. If you disagree, then disagree properly like a grown up.)
Look at my very first post on this thread. It's nothing but facts, not my own opinions. I stated clearly many single player games which remain challenging, which was the entire point of the post. People have disagreed with it, and I have no idea why. I can't even see anything in the post that people could disagree with.
So obviously I'd love to know what it is those people have disagreed with, so we could perhaps have a dialogue about it.
Are they disagreeing with those games being challenging? Are they disagreeing that survival games have little replay value once you know the mechanics? Are they disagreeing with my advice to stop playing and wait for 1.0 so you enjoy it more?
I have no idea. Their "disagree" is meaningless because it has nothing backing it up.
"Projecting" Get out of here you boob
People are lazy fucks, some just want to make a statement without putting the effort in. Hence those buttons are perfect for them. Not everyone gets on here to have discussion. Most are just here to read and think.. Meh that's "good/wrong/awesome" -> Button pressers. TBH sometimes those little icons do have a shred of truth behind them... Heheheh or can cause a mob mentality, I find both hilarious
Now we're completely off-topic, might as well go here now o/
The difficulty and replay value of Subnautica
You bring the lube.
I MEANT AND NOT SCREW IT UP \o/
Yeah that is kinda a thing that ALL these games have in this genre. I tend to call them wikivivals...
How can it be impossible when you can't die? Respawning means it's the exact opposite of impossible.
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't think I've ever used a wiki for a game. Why would you want to cheat like that?
Is it because I grew up playing Monkey Island for hours and hours on lazy Sunday afternoons, making absolutely no progress because I couldn't work out what to do with that bloody rubber chicken?
No, you're right. What I should have said is that the current difficulty should remain as-is, to be the easy mode for people who want resource management but not significant difficulty, while new mode(s) should be added above that to provide greater challenges.
And I did say that I think the settings should be tweaked per-mode, rather than globally. So enemies being more aggressive in a harder difficulty setting wouldn't need to ruin the experience for people who are more interested in exploration.
Yeah, entirely agreed, the tiers feel very good. It's just too easy to skate up through them and reach the end, is all.
(Edit: realized I borked up formatting my replies to the quotes, whoops)
Some people want a challenge, some don't. It would be cool if they made difficulty modes in Subnautica. (maybe something that would be added sometime between now and 1.0, since it is considered a survival game.)
Reading @JudgeRhadamanthus 's comment made me double-check to see if I had hit disagree (something I normally hesitate to do); turns out I missed it. Good thing I checked. @JudgeRhadamanthus I know I can only stand for my own opinion on this, but:
Right back at you. While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't agree with the attitude. "But this is the Internet! I do what I want!" Congrats. You're part of what makes the Internet the cesspool it sometimes is. "Oh, lighten up! I'm entitled to my opinion!" Yup, and I'm entitled to mine. I mean, is this so hard:
See what happens when you remove the personal attack? It just becomes you stating your opinion, like a decent human being. Speaking of which,
https://unknownworlds.com/subnautica/community/
Perhaps you should re-read item #2?
There's no place to go but down the rabbit hole of argumentative reactions.
It's never going to end well.
< shrug >
I'll never forgive you.
Both here and on Steam there are (or have been until recently) topics on the game being too tough, or at the very least having too high a learning curve. Just because we find it a walk in the park doesn't mean it is or that we shouldn't look at the needs and wishes of people who don't without chopping off entire sections of gameplay. (Might be this is easier for me to say because I'm a fan of adventure games in all the genre's forms - including exploration - and, well, the principles of survival games, so whichever way SN leans will be good with me. I don't get the impression that's the case for you.)
Don't share your dislike for medkit fabricators, but that might be because they are the only healing tool we have. If we had some sort of direct equipment, like a healing vat or for all I care a meditation cushion to speed up/trigger the passive healing factor, okay, then medkits would become an on-the-move luxury you can choose to stock up on or not, but as is it wouldn't be balanced to see it gone.
Do sorta agree on land flora management. I don't care for water and sunlight because I'm willing to believe the base takes care of that (would be fair if plants stop growing if the base is out of energy) but I'm waiting for plant food to become a (repeated) requirement.
Perhaps I see this wrongly, but I'm getting the impression that the words "challenge" and "difficulty" are used with limited concern for what that means to everyone. I know I'm not interested in seeing the game become more difficult if you ask it like that, but if the question is if I'd like to see the gameplay expanded with more give-and-take, sure! I look forward to the Cyclops becoming vulnerable (I think everyone does?) and hope post-V1.0 damaged equipment from flooding/fire will be implemented, think the suits becoming damaged is an idea with merit, have some own opinions on management angles to be explored, and so on. Stuff like being hunted, higher NPC-inflicted damage, more expensive recipes (notwithstanding some recipes right now probs are placeholders), however, don't sound good to me. A difference between longterm strategy and shortterm strategy. Might be worth keeping those two separate in further talk.
Kinda have to agree with this. Its incredibly useful early on, so a middle ground of having a number of health packs in lifepod storage at the start and removing this? It's kindof a pain to craft though so there is some balance there perhaps?
Has this been hashed out already somewhere? I agree with you, but we would need a balance between survival gameplay and turning the game into a 'farming simulator' kinda thing (I love me a farmin' simulatah, but on top of everything else might be a bit much). There are already complaints about timers where food/water is concerned so I'm not sure adding to that would be good, but we could definitely use a bit more depth where these are concerned.
Perhaps blueprints for grow lights that use a certain amount of power per minute that allows indoor growing? Add power consumption to the alien containment unit?
Personally, I'd like to have the things separate early on and require a bit of maintenance in the mid-tier when you unlock things, but then move on to having things fully automated later (using water from the alien containmnet unit, which should be nitrogen rich, to fertilize and water crops. Having a feeder tank to keep the fish in the ACU fed and happy) or be able to provide food for herbivores by placing the right plant in the tank (kelpvines for peepers and hoverfish as an example) to meet that need.
$.02
How about any player who wants it to be harder, just not fabricate and/or use the Med Kit Machine.
(or any other part of the game you find too "simplifying')
Why the Hell do the Dev's have to do ALL the work just for you???
Jeebus-St.-Freebus,
There's a gazillion ways to make the game harder, even now in its unfinished state.
Go figure it out for yourself and let the rest of us enjoy the game as the Dev's decide to present it, now and in its final form.
Holy Crap-a-doodle.... so many whiney posts lately it's like listening to two year olds argue about who's gonna get the last cookie.
smh
I dont think it should use everything, that would prevent its use on the cyclops, which I think is reasonable. Just a points per minute drain... which is how I thought the filtration machines worked? Did they change it or am I just confused?
I only use it for recipes, because the ingame inventory/builder GUI's of most games suck, having to switch between your building menu and your blueprint menu. Now I just have the wiki on screen 2 and the game on screen 1. It's more a convenience thing rather than cheating in this case IMHO
I strongly suspect that a great deal of the perception of difficulty is because the game declines to teach you anything about itself. If the PDA contained hints, such as "hey, silver is found at deeper depths" or "maybe you should check caves for sources of crash powder" or the like, the game wouldn't present such a brick wall to new players, which would be very good.
I'm an advocate for increased difficulty settings because as it stands, the game is not replayable in any meaningful sense. Once you grind through the learning process and the mysteries of the ocean wear off, the game is revealed as a trivial exercise in resource gathering. And trivial exercises in resource gathering can be repeatedly engaging if there's an element of novelty, but the choice to go with a static map means the available novelty is finite.
Structurally, the only source of replayability available to Subnautica is in difficulty, because enemy spawns and behavior is one of the few things that the game's design will allow to be randomized. (Though with that said, I devoutly hope that randomized locations for resource nodes can be in the cards later in development, because that would help keep things feeling fresh.)
QFT
It's also worth remembering that for us alpha/beta players, many of us have been playing this for many months, perhaps even for a year or more, and so we have had a lot of playtime to get used to the game and what it has to offer. To us the game may be easy as we know it inside out. To a new person who plays it without having seen it before may find it a lot more difficult to play.
All I have to say is... The folks who work on the WIKI are AWESOME!!!
So, yeah, the game is definitely a much different experience for a first time player versus someone like me who has now put maybe 150 hours in the game.