That the light on the cameras is always on and not connected to silent running mode, may aswell be a bug and not the way it's meant to be. It is after all still early access and we will face some bugs and flaws along the way. They have to iron out quite a few things till release and I am sure they are aware that the cameras still can draw aggro.
But I read here, that you can turn the ligth on/off by left clicking the mouse. So you can use them without breaking silent running longer then a mouse click takes. What I do not know is if they stay off once you manually turned them off or if the reset to "on" each time you change cameras. But anyways this should help to only shortly pull aggro. Go to camera, click, turn light off...be stealthy again. Should work as a workaround for now or not?
You are correct on that front, however the point is invalid, as I did not state whether or not I thought the damage/creature scale was balanced. This is primarily due to the background information of this post that this damage scale would be balanced, therefore I felt it unnecessary to point that out, but it would appear it was for people like you - my mistake. You are, however, correct - it is highly imbalanced, especially with the Reaper leviathan being constructed primarily of muscle and cartilage, however that's where the needed balancing will come in. For clarification, I agree that it needs to a little more balanced. For the realism part, I was only touching base with those who said it was amazing how the sharks of that size could do any damage at all. Finally, it isn't a giant cube, it's hollow.
PS: With that whole molecular reorganisation thingo, more realism could be incorporated with physics once again. Much like a diamond with its crystal structure, it is very tolerant and resistant of PRESSURE, yet it is quite brittle. This molecular reorganisation thing could be related quite easily, as the molecules could have been arranged in a manner to resist pressure more so than direct forces striking the metal and causing vibrations along the hull, making it more vulnerable to damage, yet more resistant to pressure. Just a thought.
Also please don't feel like I'm trying to disrespect you or anything like that, just interested in our little convo and different perspectives.
Actually, I disagree there - your exact words were "Additionally, these 'issues' are perspective-based; I personally think this change added a lot to the game - it was way too easy." That came across at best as you saying you didn't think the damage balancing was an issue that needed addressing, or at worst that you thought the complaints were exaggeration.
Personally speaking, I haven't seen anything regarding the damage scale being addressed as needing rebalancing, or at least not as of yet. Also, again, considering the sub's differences from normal earth-day subs (designed for alien worlds, flash-printed as a single-solid block as opposed to several stapled-together parts, built from a fictional type of material blend, created using construction techniques that revolve around molecular manipulation, etc), it really does come across as being more fragile than it should be. Especially when you look at the cut-away and see how thick the walls are for the thing (especially around the top deck) - it's not hollow like an egg-shell.
Also... considering the scale of all the above, it really doesn't make sense to try and compare it to modern-day subs and say that "realism" would arise from comparing the two. Diamond, for example, is completely out-of-the question as is since it's supposed to be a rare mineral - as in, not something you could hope to collect enough to make a ship from, to say nothing of a brittle ship being ill-suited for a ship that's supposed to be rated for alien worlds and therefore built with the spicific consideration of facing hostile creatures in mind. Also, the Pressure Compensator (both MK 1 & MK 2) kind of invalidate that already, since they just add higher concentrations of the same material the ship's already made from to increase hull density and therefore pressure resistance, rendering the use of diamond needless.
And... no offense, but where did it ever come across like I thought you were disrespecting me? Disagree, yes, but disrespect?
That the light on the cameras is always on and not connected to silent running mode, may aswell be a bug and not the way it's meant to be. It is after all still early access and we will face some bugs and flaws along the way. They have to iron out quite a few things till release and I am sure they are aware that the cameras still can draw aggro.
But I read here, that you can turn the ligth on/off by left clicking the mouse. So you can use them without breaking silent running longer then a mouse click takes. What I do not know is if they stay off once you manually turned them off or if the reset to "on" each time you change cameras. But anyways this should help to only shortly pull aggro. Go to camera, click, turn light off...be stealthy again. Should work as a workaround for now or not?
No, it was in fact designed to be like that - the lights weren't made with silent running's mechanics in mind. Namely because silent running hadn't even been really worked out as a feature back when the cameras were added. So it's not a bug - it's a hardwired feature of the external cameras that, simply put, the devs probably overlooked when making the update.
Also, it doesn't seem like they're aware of it - hell, it hasn't even been brought up as a concern, even by the ones who say they playtested the features. Furthermore, that you can turn the lights off doesn't undo the alerted status of the creatures the moment you access them at all - by the time you flick them off, a boneshark's already taking a bite out of your Cyclops. To say nothing of how (A) few people even realize the cameras have lights, and (B) you actually have to click twice to shut the lights off; clicking just once only dims it but doesn't shut it down. Worse, this seems to reset every single time you not only access the cameras but flick through them - chances are you're either going to forget or react too slowly ; it's not a workaround so much as just more hassle that makes the Cyclops in it's current form ill-advised to play, or at least if you're expecting to enjoy/have fun with it.
@ThePassionateGamer You do realize you are just reinforcing what he said, things were thrown out without any though put into it. Mechanic wasn't designed for the way it is now yet it was just left there to rot with some obscure idea that one day, maybe, it will get fixed/balanced. We have a long list of things that break the game and they haven't been so much as even addressed or confirmed to being worked on... I don't want this to be a bugthesda game. If that is how this train is going to roll, I probably would have not gotten on.
You are correct on that front, however the point is invalid, as I did not state whether or not I thought the damage/creature scale was balanced. This is primarily due to the background information of this post that this damage scale would be balanced, therefore I felt it unnecessary to point that out, but it would appear it was for people like you - my mistake. You are, however, correct - it is highly imbalanced, especially with the Reaper leviathan being constructed primarily of muscle and cartilage, however that's where the needed balancing will come in. For clarification, I agree that it needs to a little more balanced. For the realism part, I was only touching base with those who said it was amazing how the sharks of that size could do any damage at all. Finally, it isn't a giant cube, it's hollow.
PS: With that whole molecular reorganisation thingo, more realism could be incorporated with physics once again. Much like a diamond with its crystal structure, it is very tolerant and resistant of PRESSURE, yet it is quite brittle. This molecular reorganisation thing could be related quite easily, as the molecules could have been arranged in a manner to resist pressure more so than direct forces striking the metal and causing vibrations along the hull, making it more vulnerable to damage, yet more resistant to pressure. Just a thought.
Also please don't feel like I'm trying to disrespect you or anything like that, just interested in our little convo and different perspectives.
Actually, I disagree there - your exact words were "Additionally, these 'issues' are perspective-based; I personally think this change added a lot to the game - it was way too easy." That came across at best as you saying you didn't think the damage balancing was an issue that needed addressing, or at worst that you thought the complaints were exaggeration.
Personally speaking, I haven't seen anything regarding the damage scale being addressed as needing rebalancing, or at least not as of yet. Also, again, considering the sub's differences from normal earth-day subs (designed for alien worlds, flash-printed as a single-solid block as opposed to several stapled-together parts, built from a fictional type of material blend, created using construction techniques that revolve around molecular manipulation, etc), it really does come across as being more fragile than it should be. Especially when you look at the cut-away and see how thick the walls are for the thing (especially around the top deck) - it's not hollow like an egg-shell.
Also... considering the scale of all the above, it really doesn't make sense to try and compare it to modern-day subs and say that "realism" would arise from comparing the two. Diamond, for example, is completely out-of-the question as is since it's supposed to be a rare mineral - as in, not something you could hope to collect enough to make a ship from, to say nothing of a brittle ship being ill-suited for a ship that's supposed to be rated for alien worlds and therefore built with the spicific consideration of facing hostile creatures in mind. Also, the Pressure Compensator (both MK 1 & MK 2) kind of invalidate that already, since they just add higher concentrations of the same material the ship's already made from to increase hull density and therefore pressure resistance, rendering the use of diamond needless.
And... no offense, but where did it ever come across like I thought you were disrespecting me? Disagree, yes, but disrespect?
First off, my apologies. The way I phrased certain sentences when writing my previous debate sounded quite disrespectful, in my mind, towards you, so I just wanted to place that as a disclaimer at the end.
Also, just for clarification, I was not suggesting the addition or inclusion of diamonds within the Cyclops' design as the realism that I was talking about, but as an example of how a different molecular structure can have different strengths and weaknesses, regardless of element. So, if the metal was rearranged in a crystaline structure. However, I can see where you are coming from with the higher density idea and the idea that it would be designed for alien worlds. Higher density part? Got me there. However with the built for alien worlds part, the Cyclops is stated as being a much more 'Civilian' sub with only the bare minimums as seen in the PDA, where it doesn't even have emergency ballast tanks to prevent sinking.
Oh and thanks for clarifying with that 'block' idea from your other post, I was a bit confused, but now I get what you mean. Yes, that in theory would be stronger from snapping or tearing, but the metal surface and what lies beneath it would be the things that are getting damaged, not so much the joints of the ship (unless it struck the joints or created a lot of force tearing apart the joints, but the Cyclops does not have them).
With the cut-away and the thickness of the hull? This can be explained with how only the outer layer of the hull and its near cabals are the only parts that get damaged, allowing for outside welding and full repair, rather than damaged the sub deep down. Although this does conflict with my ideas of how fires would start, with the upper cabals only getting damaged.
Moving on to the re-balancing! In my opinion, the Boneshark damage should be toned down a little bit and the Reaper damage should be increased a little bit. Just a tad bit, to the point where a single, stray boneshark won't be much of a bother, but a pack of 3 or 4 would be a minor concern. A lone Reaper should be a fairly worth concern, with upgrade models suggested when exploring their waters. Finally, Sea Dragons should be made so that they are a major, preparation requiring concern, with many modules necessary for relative safety and many precautions needed - after all, they are the biggest, baddest aggressive creature Subnautica has. However, I'm not sure the Devs are planning any more further balancing, but that doesn't bother me too much.
Finally, the part you are probably most looking forward to, my response to your first point.
Honestly, I don't really have a proper response... I suppose it comes down to my personal preference. I actually really like having to worry about a few Bonesharks, Reapers and Sea Dragons, along with putting out fires and repairing the Cyclops. For me, it's exciting and adds more gameplay and re-introduces that fear that I first felt when playing Subnautica for the first time in January of 2015. I haven't felt that fear from Subnautica in a long time, especially ever since learning all the creature patterns and attacks and how to dodge/prevent them. The fear and concern of losing my Cyclops re-sparked that excitement. Also, I kind of did feel like the complaints were an exaggeration, to a certain extent. However this does link back to me loving this vulnerable Cyclops, kind of making my point overly-biased. Following this, I did not feel like it needed to be balanced again for the difficulty (as I love it, personally), but more for the realism and reasoning sides of things. I know I am blabbering on, but for the wider community and not my selfish self, I feel like the balancing is necessary for the wider enjoyment of the game, regardless of player.
Anyways, that's a wrap from me, sorry about the long read. I'm longing forward to what you raise next
Cheers,
HYBRID
That the light on the cameras is always on and not connected to silent running mode, may aswell be a bug and not the way it's meant to be. It is after all still early access and we will face some bugs and flaws along the way. They have to iron out quite a few things till release and I am sure they are aware that the cameras still can draw aggro.
But I read here, that you can turn the ligth on/off by left clicking the mouse. So you can use them without breaking silent running longer then a mouse click takes. What I do not know is if they stay off once you manually turned them off or if the reset to "on" each time you change cameras. But anyways this should help to only shortly pull aggro. Go to camera, click, turn light off...be stealthy again. Should work as a workaround for now or not?
No, it was in fact designed to be like that - the lights weren't made with silent running's mechanics in mind. Namely because silent running hadn't even been really worked out as a feature back when the cameras were added. So it's not a bug - it's a hardwired feature of the external cameras that, simply put, the devs probably overlooked when making the update.
Also, it doesn't seem like they're aware of it - hell, it hasn't even been brought up as a concern, even by the ones who say they playtested the features. Furthermore, that you can turn the lights off doesn't undo the alerted status of the creatures the moment you access them at all - by the time you flick them off, a boneshark's already taking a bite out of your Cyclops. To say nothing of how (A) few people even realize the cameras have lights, and (B) you actually have to click twice to shut the lights off; clicking just once only dims it but doesn't shut it down. Worse, this seems to reset every single time you not only access the cameras but flick through them - chances are you're either going to forget or react too slowly ; it's not a workaround so much as just more hassle that makes the Cyclops in it's current form ill-advised to play, or at least if you're expecting to enjoy/have fun with it.
I think you overreact to the whole update and it's problems slightly. And for me somehting that's not working as intended in a game is a bug. If that bug came into existence by overlooking something or not is not the point. So the current camera behavior together with the silent running update is a bug for me nothing more nothing less. Even big AAA titles produce new bugs with new patches and that even after release. I don't get it why some players get so freaked out by it in an early access game without AAA personal and money to throw around. I am pretty sure they are aware of the problem and it will get ironed out before release. Just because they don't personally post a few lines for each little thing that may not work as intended, does not mean they don't know or don't care about it.
@ThePassionateGamer You do realize you are just reinforcing what he said, things were thrown out without any though put into it. Mechanic wasn't designed for the way it is now yet it was just left there to rot with some obscure idea that one day, maybe, it will get fixed/balanced. We have a long list of things that break the game and they haven't been so much as even addressed or confirmed to being worked on... I don't want this to be a bugthesda game. If that is how this train is going to roll, I probably would have not gotten on.
See my reply above + if you think early access games are the "trains" for you and you expect them to be shiny new freshly produced trains without flaws, then maybe you have the wrong view what early access is all about. Basically an early access "train" is one that has rough edges and maybe is loud or slow or runs on a bumpy track with its engine and waggons only partly finished yes. But it gives you a first impression of how good it can be once it is completed. If you can't stand riding an unfinished train that still has to face a few bumps here and there, I don't think you should have bought this train ticket this early then. And before you go all nuts about this reply. View it with some humor and you see that it was not meant to insult or attack you.
I'd view it as humorous if it wasn't such a cliched copy paste response when people just don't have an argument. It's same as "if you don't like it then leave" and it's variants. I got it because I was keeping track of the game and liked what was happening... been there and been burned before nothing new. Warframe went from revolutionary to some china garbage in less then a year. Bad comparison since this isn't being sold to a worst publisher on the planet from china while devs ban and bury the truth for a year until.... tada! china version is out ahead of everyone and enjoy your lottery boxes cheers! With the same mindset I got NMS... when they were being shot and flamed by everyone and they released their first big patch I gave them money just to say they got their head in the right place and they kept at it(i didn't even care much about the game... tho was pleasantly surprised nonetheless)... it's the opposite here.
But the point stands... there is one dev studio that I will give a pass no matter what they pull. But they spent 20 years being rebels and doing things exact same way despite what the world thinks, they earned that trust. This... I've only been keeping track of this for maybe year and a half at the most and I'm already getting a bit disappointed.
Bulk heads were confirmed as broken, promised to get fixed... what? 2 damn years ago? So how many years will I need to wait for other issues to get fixed at this rate? There are game breaking issues, beta is not a free pass to do what ever. Things have to be fixed or there is no point in calling it a beta/alpha/early access or what ever else. Again going to use Warframe as example that game is BROKEN, every hotfix they screw up and make even more bugs then they fix, even something as trivial as a hotfix to correct a codex typo can result in broken rendering, maps not working menus broken... and don't even get me started on their big patches(community used to shudder at the idea of big patch... it would take months to get it to playable state). Their universal excuse for the past 5 damn years was it's in BETA.
See notice how they're not saying "The Cyclops is too fragile and should be tougher", they're saying, quite literally, right there, that the fact that the Cyclops taking damage at all is a Dumb Idea and should be reverted to its previous (invulnerable) state.
Pretty much, they want a easy way to beat the game. Personally I like a challenge, it keeps the game interesting and keeps me playing if the game has challenge behind it.
Sorry, but all three of you are kinda wrong about that.
If you don't want the cyclops to be destructable, I'm sure you can find a way to mod it. Also, do you know how complex unity code is? Change one thing, create 50 bugs. Change those bugs, and you have another 50 bugs. Coding is NOT EASY, people: @Obraxis , could you post a screenshot of the cyclops code? I just don't want people to think coding is simple or easy to do. It takes YEARS of experience. It takes even longer to make a game like subnautica, and just because a certain few (e.g. about 3 people), are hating on the cyclops changes, it's really not that hard to pilot and survive. Ok, @The08MetroidMan, how many ingame hours do you have in subnautica? Not trying to be demeaning, I just don't want players that may not know how to do everything blaming their inexperece on the developers. Oh, and one thing: You can turn the camera lights off. Press the LMB twice.
See, notice the bolded part; it's not simply that the sub isn't invincible, so much that it went to invincible to incredibly fragile/went from one extreme to a worse extreme.
Okay you wanna play Bold and Parse? Let's do this.
Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed, let alone destroyed by just about anything? It's a dumb change and should be reverted.
Let's take a look at the parts that I took the liberty of bolding. The "Let alone destroyed by just about anything" is a modifier. The main thrust of the sentence is the first part I bolded. "Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed" is the main point he's making.
Combined with the second sentence "It's a dumb change and should be reverted" shows that the main point is NOT in fact that the thing takes damage too easily. To the OP, the relative fragility of the Cyclops is just icing on the Bad Decision Cake.
OP is insisting that it should be reverted. Which means restored to a previous state. Now... What is the only previous state of the Cyclops durability?
Well on Experimental it apparently took even more damage before another round of modification. But given the whole tone of the post, that's probably not what they meant. So reverting further back than that means...
Full Cyclops invincibility. You're honestly giving the OP far more credit than they deserve. This isn't saying "Ugh the fragility of the Cyclops is too much, it should be a bit tougher", this is a thread where someone's complaining about how the Cyclops isn't indestructible anymore.
And because you seemed to enjoy your Smug Sunglasses Emote-
Also, just for clarification, I was not suggesting the addition or inclusion of diamonds within the Cyclops' design as the realism that I was talking about, but as an example of how a different molecular structure can have different strengths and weaknesses, regardless of element. So, if the metal was rearranged in a crystaline structure. However, I can see where you are coming from with the higher density idea and the idea that it would be designed for alien worlds. Higher density part? Got me there. However with the built for alien worlds part, the Cyclops is stated as being a much more 'Civilian' sub with only the bare minimums as seen in the PDA, where it doesn't even have emergency ballast tanks to prevent sinking.
Well, not quite; less public civilian, more like private civilian or trained operators - it's not a military ship, but it's still not something just any civi is supposed to have (especially since it's supposed to be a three-man ship and, according to the PDA when you build it, only licensed and experienced pilots should drive the thing solo).
Oh and thanks for clarifying with that 'block' idea from your other post, I was a bit confused, but now I get what you mean. Yes, that in theory would be stronger from snapping or tearing, but the metal surface and what lies beneath it would be the things that are getting damaged, not so much the joints of the ship (unless it struck the joints or created a lot of force tearing apart the joints, but the Cyclops does not have them).
But that's kinda defeated by the whole "can increase the density on the molecular level" thing that the pressure compensators do; the metal surface shouldn't be that easy to damage if it can be made to withstand deeper pressures based purely on material density. Point being IDK it should be so easy for anything beneath a Leviathan to rip it open.
With the cut-away and the thickness of the hull? This can be explained with how only the outer layer of the hull and its near cabals are the only parts that get damaged, allowing for outside welding and full repair, rather than damaged the sub deep down. Although this does conflict with my ideas of how fires would start, with the upper cabals only getting damaged.
Same issue as above; the fact that the plates can be made to survive deep pressures through pure material density kind of clashes with that idea. Even if they can do damage, it shouldn't be that two or three sharks can equal or surpass the damage of a Reaper's bite.
I actually really like having to worry about a few Bonesharks, Reapers and Sea Dragons, along with putting out fires and repairing the Cyclops. For me, it's exciting and adds more gameplay and re-introduces that fear that I first felt when playing Subnautica for the first time in January of 2015. I haven't felt that fear from Subnautica in a long time, especially ever since learning all the creature patterns and attacks and how to dodge/prevent them. The fear and concern of losing my Cyclops re-sparked that excitement. Also, I kind of did feel like the complaints were an exaggeration, to a certain extent. However this does link back to me loving this vulnerable Cyclops, kind of making my point overly-biased. Following this, I did not feel like it needed to be balanced again for the difficulty (as I love it, personally), but more for the realism and reasoning sides of things. I know I am blabbering on, but for the wider community and not my selfish self, I feel like the balancing is necessary for the wider enjoyment of the game, regardless of player.
My issue with that is in how there's a difference between having to worry about the wildlife and said wildlife having no hierarchy of threat accordance. It's one thing to be worried about a pack of bonesharks, but you shouldn't have to fear them like you would a Leviathan - it makes it aggravating to deal with them and actually kinda lessens the sense of danger you should have when a Reaper passes you; you shouldn't look at it and think "he can't do more damage than that shark pack did, so why bother being scared?" At that point, it goes past, if not outright loses/, "that fear" because it's instead just frustration and stress as opposed to an actual exciting experience. For me, there is no such "excitement" because you have to go through this with everything as opposed to just leviathans, which takes away from both sides of the experience and make the Cyclops just feel flat-out not worth the effort.
I think you overreact to the whole update and it's problems slightly. And for me somehting that's not working as intended in a game is a bug. If that bug came into existence by overlooking something or not is not the point. So the current camera behavior together with the silent running update is a bug for me nothing more nothing less. Even big AAA titles produce new bugs with new patches and that even after release. I don't get it why some players get so freaked out by it in an early access game without AAA personal and money to throw around. I am pretty sure they are aware of the problem and it will get ironed out before release. Just because they don't personally post a few lines for each little thing that may not work as intended, does not mean they don't know or don't care about it.
No; personally, I think that kind of reaction is why games get put on early access and have forums to begin with - so that concerns can be heard by the devs. Also, that's kind of a misnomer - a "bug" is when something doesn't function as intended; a glitch in the code or a hitch in the runtimes. This is not a bug - this is a design oversight; a mistake made by way of two different sets of controls being designed one after the other without thinking how they'd play into each-other.
Furthermore... sorry if this sounds rude, but what you said sounds more an excuse than anything - saying "everything has bugs" doesn't automatically make it right to ignore them or act like the devs didn't make a mistake somewhere. Especially since, a lot of times, most devs never get to patching some of those bugs - and some of said bugs never even get noticed by the devs. Again I say; the devs apparently play-tested silent running before they released this... and missed this issue. Obraxis' post makes it seem like he thinks people's issues are with the ship not being invincible anymore, not that they think it needs more balancing. You are, simply put, just as much making an assumption as you say we are.
See my reply above + if you think early access games are the "trains" for you and you expect them to be shiny new freshly produced trains without flaws, then maybe you have the wrong view what early access is all about. Basically an early access "train" is one that has rough edges and maybe is loud or slow or runs on a bumpy track with its engine and waggons only partly finished yes. But it gives you a first impression of how good it can be once it is completed. If you can't stand riding an unfinished train that still has to face a few bumps here and there, I don't think you should have bought this train ticket this early then. And before you go all nuts about this reply. View it with some humor and you see that it was not meant to insult or attack you.
But your response is... well, kinda flawed in that regard. Because, honestly, that's precisely why games go on early access; so that the devs can get feedback on this stuff and fix it as they go instead of having to do it after the full release. Furthermore, it feels like you're actively ignoring what he said - there are parts of the game with issues that flat-out have not been fixed for over a year (one of which being that PDA's can clip through the ground and be impossible to pick up). None of what you said is an excuse for why the uneven issues should not be brought up or why people shouldn't want some form of acknowledgement that the devs even know it's considered a problem. To say it was "not meant to insult or attack you" is moot - the premise is still wrong, in my opinion.
If you don't want the cyclops to be destructable, I'm sure you can find a way to mod it. Also, do you know how complex unity code is? Change one thing, create 50 bugs. Change those bugs, and you have another 50 bugs. Coding is NOT EASY, people: @Obraxis , could you post a screenshot of the cyclops code? I just don't want people to think coding is simple or easy to do. It takes YEARS of experience. It takes even longer to make a game like subnautica, and just because a certain few (e.g. about 3 people), are hating on the cyclops changes, it's really not that hard to pilot and survive. Ok, @The08MetroidMan, how many ingame hours do you have in subnautica? Not trying to be demeaning, I just don't want players that may not know how to do everything blaming their inexperece on the developers.
... that doesn't change any of what I said, though; it's still a problem in the Cyclops's own design. It doesn't even fix the problem, because it's not that the sub is destructible that's the real issue - it's that the thing is so easy to break.
Also, I again point out that the complexity of unity code is a completely moot point - it does not factor into being able to make a simple response saying "we are aware this is a concern and are looking into it". Typing a response saying you'll look into it and the coding required to look into it are two separate things done at two separate points - the difficulty of one does not impact the other.
See, the thing I don't think you get is that I'm talking about replies. Replies to people's concerns are not coding - coding is when you actually get around to working on the problem, not what you do when just telling someone whether or not you're even going to bother. Heck, your whole point is practically tangential since literally nobody said anything about whether or not coding was easy - I said that giving a reply to people's concerns was easy; you're the only one that brought up coding.
Also... no. No that very much is demeaning to assume that playtime has anything to do with weather or not someone's capable of perceiving an issue in a game; that's like saying you'd have to play Umbrella Corps or Ride To Hell all the way through just to be qualified to judge if the controls were stiff. My playtime (close to 90 hours since buying it in Mid-October) should not automatically determine whether or not I can or cannot have an opinion on something. Also, no - considering the existence of several threads decrying this as an issue, it's not "about 3 people" who take issue to the balancing of the sub, especially since there is a massive imbalance in it's durability that silent running seems designed more to mask rather than address.
Oh, and one thing: You can turn the camera lights off. Press the LMB twice.
Not effectual - you have to do that with every single camera, you have to repeat the process every time you use the camera, and I think it even cycles back to "on" every time you rotate through the cameras. And if you're in an area chock-full of aggressive fauna, chances are you're never going to be fast enough to shut it off before something sees you - you should not have to go through such a tedious process just to use external cameras without risking your sub getting damaged even if in silent running.
Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed, let alone destroyed by just about anything? It's a dumb change and should be reverted.
Let's take a look at the parts that I took the liberty of bolding. The "Let alone destroyed by just about anything" is a modifier. The main thrust of the sentence is the first part I bolded. "Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed" is the main point he's making.
Combined with the second sentence "It's a dumb change and should be reverted" shows that the main point is NOT in fact that the thing takes damage too easily. To the OP, the relative fragility of the Cyclops is just icing on the Bad Decision Cake.
OP is insisting that it should be reverted. Which means restored to a previous state. Now... What is the only previous state of the Cyclops durability?
Well on Experimental it apparently took even more damage before another round of modification. But given the whole tone of the post, that's probably not what they meant. So reverting further back than that means...
Full Cyclops invincibility. You're honestly giving the OP far more credit than they deserve. This isn't saying "Ugh the fragility of the Cyclops is too much, it should be a bit tougher", this is a thread where someone's complaining about how the Cyclops isn't indestructible anymore.
And because you seemed to enjoy your Smug Sunglasses Emote-
Sorry... but you kinda made the same mistake twice, there.
See, the parts you bolded... are talking about why the devs bothered to take it out of invincible mode if it was just to shift it into such an unwieldy and tedious variant. Or rather, that they should take it back to invincible only if the current version of it is what they think it should be - that if they're not going to fix and rebalance the changes, it may as well have stayed what it was. i.e., it's not in fact a modifier - it is a statement that the current additions make it too much of a hassle to use and that, unless they're fixed, the only way anyone could use it is if it were still in it's invincible state. It's not that he thinks it should be invincible or even wants it to be; it's that he simply dislikes how the balancing works that darned much.
Contrast with the second sentence, where you also made another mistake of context; he is saying this because he feels the devs made a bad move in how they balanced things. It's not because that was what he wants/wanted, but because he dislikes the current version so much that, unless/until they actually balance it to be workable, it may as well not even be in the game to begin with - it, simply put, is precisely because it takes damage so easily; his point is that they shouldn't have bothered changing it if said changes were going to make it this easy to break - not that he wants it to be invincible or thinks it should be, but that as it stands the current alterations make it so unfulfilling to use that it'd have been better off gameplay/usability-wise not being changed.
Basically, OP wants it restored to the past state because he considers it's current state too fragile to be playable. Not that it should be invincible or that he wants it to be, but simply that it's previous state was more playable than it's current one in his opinion.
Simply put... I think you've completely misinterpreted the whole point; which is that the previous invincible build was, in his opinion, more playable than the current one. Not that he thinks the sub is or should be invincible, but rather that the current build is so fragile as to be not worth playing; in short, it is like saying "at least I could use the old version", yet you interpreted it as "it should have been invincible always!"
Ergo, I will end this off the same as before; with an emoticon that was supposed to convey an attempt at humor, not smugness -
And... I have added nothing more to this conversation because what I posted last...,
... was, most apropos.
Again, sorry, but you still haven't pointed out how that works; thread talks about the Cyclops being severely imbalanced, dev mistakes that as people wanting it to be invincible and nothing else. Again I say; how is misinterpreting the whole OP "apropos?" Especially if you're a dev?
Fun. Make a random rage post, come back to two pages of discussion. And yeah, I do think the cyclops should be destructible... but considering it's made of hardened titanium/plastisteel/space age stuff, it should take more than a random few sharks biting on it. How would said sharks even do damage to it? Surely the hull material is harder than their teeth. And I would expect them to just bounce off if they tried ramming it.
Fun. Make a random rage post, come back to two pages of discussion. And yeah, I do think the cyclops should be destructible... but considering it's made of hardened titanium/plastisteel/space age stuff, it should take more than a random few sharks biting on it. How would said sharks even do damage to it? Surely the hull material is harder than their teeth. And I would expect them to just bounce off if they tried ramming it.
Well then I'll fully admit that I misunderstood literally everything you said and apologize.
KISS, people need to use that more, if you don't know what that means then let me enlighten you, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID
You do realize that makes it sound more like you're insulting people rather than actually trying to help, right? Heck, if you want people to just be more clear with others, I think you already went off that path by saying something that could just make people mad at you - instead of saying "KISS", why not just say "can we all just get along" and get your point across more clearly? Heck, it's not even that I disagree that misunderstandings were happening, but isn't an acronym literally the worst way to say something since it's not a straightforward message?
I just think that we have to acknowledge the fact that the devs are working hard on the game. I assume sometimes shifting more work into development of new things sometimes fixing things that got reported as bug/glitch/not working as intended. They are pretty open to the community about what they do. The Trello cards show us what they are currently working on or not?
@The08MetroidMan@HiSaZuL I think I know why you are so passionate about this game and I am a gamer for long enough to see how "wrong" from a personal standpoint games can go in their early access phase. But please if you think there are things that are not known to the developers, check the bug report forum. If it is not mentioned there, post it there, submit a bug report via the ingame function by pressing F8.
I am pretty sure that they don't ignore those reports and that they will sooner or later try to fix each "real" issue on the list. Yes I just assume they do this but you can't proof me wrong here so I'd say give the devs some well earned trust that they are working on it. But each game has priorities and maybe they are focusing more manpower towards a release then into bugfixing right now. That does not automatically mean they ignore the bugs even if some of them are as you say in the game for a long time. Because even bug fixing has a priority system to it. Game-breaking things have a higher priority then cosmetic things or things that maybe could not yet be reproduced by the devs.
For me the game get's better with every update. Yes it still has its issues...but I don't think those will all be ignored. Call me naive but I think they will do alot of fixing in the polishing phase when all else is implemented. As long as this phase has not even started I'll be patient and wait for them to fix things. After all at least for me, the game is in a playable state so I see no reason to complain or poke them towards bugs they most likely already know about. I think you can't just demand a response to each bug-report. They simply don't have the manpower to answer each one personally.
I just think that we have to acknowledge the fact that the devs are working hard on the game. I assume sometimes shifting more work into development of new things sometimes fixing things that got reported as bug/glitch/not working as intended. They are pretty open to the community about what they do. The Trello cards show us what they are currently working on or not?
@The08MetroidMan@HiSaZuL I think I know why you are so passionate about this game and I am a gamer for long enough to see how "wrong" from a personal standpoint games can go in their early access phase. But please if you think there are things that are not known to the developers, check the bug report forum. If it is not mentioned there, post it there, submit a bug report via the ingame function by pressing F8.
I am pretty sure that they don't ignore those reports and that they will sooner or later try to fix each "real" issue on the list. Yes I just assume they do this but you can't proof me wrong here so I'd say give the devs some well earned trust that they are working on it. But each game has priorities and maybe they are focusing more manpower towards a release then into bugfixing right now. That does not automatically mean they ignore the bugs even if some of them are as you say in the game for a long time. Because even bug fixing has a priority system to it. Game-breaking things have a higher priority then cosmetic things or things that maybe could not yet be reproduced by the devs.
For me the game get's better with every update. Yes it still has its issues...but I don't think those will all be ignored. Call me naive but I think they will do alot of fixing in the polishing phase when all else is implemented. As long as this phase has not even started I'll be patient and wait for them to fix things. After all at least for me, the game is in a playable state so I see no reason to complain or poke them towards bugs they most likely already know about. I think you can't just demand a response to each bug-report. They simply don't have the manpower to answer each one personally.
True that! Give the devs some time. Yelling at them for things they already know won't make it happen any faster.
It makes sense with their roadmap to push all the content they want out the door and only keep it stable and running for testing. Then in the optimization phase, the rest of the team not involved in code fiddling can work on all the little bugs, inconsistencies and balance issues. When they're feature complete, they have the whole picture to work with, which makes getting everything just right so much more easy. Also beats twiddling your thumbs while the coders are doing optimization.
@ThePassionateGamer That statement goes both ways... unless you are developer you do not know and you can't prove which side is correct. Forums are there for discussions, sadly in this age peoples egos are too fragile and people can't deal with criticism or even opinions that differ from their own.
Short story, person voiced opinion about cyclops being made out of wet toilet paper which rendered the thing useless, I personally agree with it. Lots of hurt people came holding each others wounded apendages and demanding the heretics are exiled.
I've cleared entire field of bone shards under that underwater island... 5+ simultaneously, with nothing but a knife, I don't even need a bloody stasis rifle for it. A large submarine from future that was printed as solid chunk gets eaten in seconds and attracts everyone and their crippled grandmother if it moves just slightly faster then a fish in a desert. It is not useful... it holds no purpose in it's current iteration. You can defend your point that it can still be used and I will say that you can also carve a statue out of a solid chunk of granite with nothing but your finger and enough time, but that doesn't make it logical or even worth it.
I just think that we have to acknowledge the fact that the devs are working hard on the game. I assume sometimes shifting more work into development of new things sometimes fixing things that got reported as bug/glitch/not working as intended. They are pretty open to the community about what they do. The Trello cards show us what they are currently working on or not?
That's just it, though; "working hard" doesn't always equate to "doing the right thing." You can work hard digging a ditch in the middle of your backyard, but that alone means nothing if you don't actually have a reason why - let alone state said reason to any onlookers who voice concern about it.
@The08MetroidMan@HiSaZuL I think I know why you are so passionate about this game and I am a gamer for long enough to see how "wrong" from a personal standpoint games can go in their early access phase. But please if you think there are things that are not known to the developers, check the bug report forum. If it is not mentioned there, post it there, submit a bug report via the ingame function by pressing F8.
... I don't see how that changes or even challenges anything that was said, though. It's like saying that sending a photo of something you think is wrong to someone automatically means they've seen it and are doing something about it; it's just as much a presumption as you say our views are. Depending on scale of work and size of staff, you literally have zero evidence whatsoever to assume they're even looking at all of those, much less treating them all with equal effort or attention - the only way to know different is to actually have a response from them... and Obraxis' response in this page makes it seem like he doesn't actually know what it is that people are complaining about (i.e, he thinks people hate that the Cyclops isn't invincible as opposed to there being damage-balancing issues).
II am pretty sure that they don't ignore those reports and that they will sooner or later try to fix each "real" issue on the list. Yes I just assume they do this but you can't proof me wrong here so I'd say give the devs some well earned trust that they are working on it. But each game has priorities and maybe they are focusing more manpower towards a release then into bugfixing right now. That does not automatically mean they ignore the bugs even if some of them are as you say in the game for a long time. Because even bug fixing has a priority system to it. Game-breaking things have a higher priority then cosmetic things or things that maybe could not yet be reproduced by the devs.
But therein lies the problem; "pretty sure", "I just assume" - your statement is no less a case where you can't prove us wrong here, yet are coming across like you can. You're making assurances you cannot back up, just like you claim we have... but in our case, we have Orbaxis' above statement to base off of in feeling like the devs aren't actually paying that much attention to all the feedback, or at least not closely enough to get the full picture. You've no guarantee they even know this is an issue that needs to be fixed, let alone know to put effort toward it - and issues like this can be game-breaking if it's an entire aspect of the game that you're actively put off of (to say nothing of actual flaws in mechanics such as the auto-on lights of external cameras drawing creatures to you even when in silent running mode).
IFor me the game get's better with every update. Yes it still has its issues...but I don't think those will all be ignored. Call me naive but I think they will do alot of fixing in the polishing phase when all else is implemented. As long as this phase has not even started I'll be patient and wait for them to fix things. After all at least for me, the game is in a playable state so I see no reason to complain or poke them towards bugs they most likely already know about. I think you can't just demand a response to each bug-report. They simply don't have the manpower to answer each one personally.
Same issue as above, though; you don't have any confirmation of that so long as the devs themselves don't say it. It's less the idea you're naive, and more like how it feels like you're calling us naive for something you yourself are doing; assuming a full picture where none is given. According to the Trello, they did playtest Silent Running just like every other update - they thought it was fine to push out; as far as they're concerned, that phase is complete and they're moving to the next. And, again, if this wasn't an early-access game, you'd have had I point - but the whole purpose of early access is to give feedback and precisely to not wait for flaws to fix themselves since otherwise there's no guarantee the devs will even see them. It comes across like you're saying "well, I don't see an issue, so you shouldn't either!" - and I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I don't know any other way to put it.
Again, if not for pre-existing evidence to the contrary (Obraxis' own reply to this form), I'd have agreed. As it stands though, looking over a forum and taking note of what's said there isn't necessarily hard to do - it's not an issue of manpower but of time-management and prioritization, and it comes across like community feedback is somewhat low on that list.
...you don't have any confirmation of that so long as the devs themselves don't say it. It's less the idea you're naive, and more like how it feels like you're calling us naive for something you yourself are doing; assuming a full picture where none is given. According to the Trello, they did playtest Silent Running just like every other update - they thought it was fine to push out; as far as they're concerned, that phase is complete and they're moving to the next. And, again, if this wasn't an early-access game, you'd have had I point - but the whole purpose of early access is to give feedback and precisely to not wait for flaws to fix themselves since otherwise there's no guarantee the devs will even see them. It comes across like you're saying "well, I don't see an issue, so you shouldn't either!" - and I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I don't know any other way to put it.
Again, if not for pre-existing evidence to the contrary (Obraxis' own reply to this form), I'd have agreed. As it stands though, looking over a forum and taking note of what's said there isn't necessarily hard to do - it's not an issue of manpower but of time-management and prioritization, and it comes across like community feedback is somewhat low on that list.
And what did Obraxis say in his post (the only dev post so far in any topic relating to the current balance of the Cyclops to the threats facing it):
We have to balance the game. Having an invulnerable vehicle was never the intent.
If you still want to keep that, you can, just change your game mode to creative.
Understandable first para. Second para implies if you don't like that, you can play in creative mode.
No indication in any way to specifically reconsider wildlife aggression, detection of swimmers versus vessels, damage, or damage control on the Cyclop, or anything related. Only entries on the Trello about general balance and polish. Which covers a much larger domain that just these issues.
Unfortunately, the title of the post implies only a invulnerable Cyclops is useful. I don't believe that.
But I believe players need to better have control over the Cyclops and the risks they entail using it. Because right now using the Cyclops appears to be effectively limited by narrow passages, wildlife threats, and threats to swimming, the Seamoth, and the PRAWN when used, especially in conjunction with the Cyclops.
reposting this for people since i can't edit the op after a day which is dumb
And yeah, I do think the cyclops should be destructible... but considering it's made of hardened titanium/plastisteel/space age stuff, it should take more than a random few sharks biting on it. How would said sharks even do damage to it? Surely the hull material is harder than their teeth. And I would expect them to just bounce off if they tried ramming it.
Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed, let alone destroyed by just about anything? It's a dumb change and should be reverted.
See, notice the bolded part; it's not simply that the sub isn't invincible, so much that it went to invincible to incredibly fragile/went from one extreme to a worse extreme.
When someone says "let alone X", that's not a qualifier. He's not asking why you would build a cyclops that is easy to damage, he is asking why anyone would build a damagable cyclops at all. If that's not what he meant, then he can clarify, but that's what the sentence he posted means. The bolded part emphasizes how bad he thinks things are, but the "let alone" part means that even if the part after "let alone" were not true, he'd still be questioning why you'd build it.
requesting a mod lock for this stupid thread since the op can't be edited. gotta laugh at all the people super seriously replying to a 5 second rage post
We have to balance the game. Having an invulnerable vehicle was never the intent.
If you still want to keep that, you can, just change your game mode to creative.
Understandable first para. Second para implies if you don't like that, you can play in creative mode.
No indication in any way to specifically reconsider wildlife aggression, detection of swimmers versus vessels, damage, or damage control on the Cyclop, or anything related. Only entries on the Trello about general balance and polish. Which covers a much larger domain that just these issues.
Unfortunately, the title of the post implies only a invulnerable Cyclops is useful. I don't believe that.
But I believe players need to better have control over the Cyclops and the risks they entail using it. Because right now using the Cyclops appears to be effectively limited by narrow passages, wildlife threats, and threats to swimming, the Seamoth, and the PRAWN when used, especially in conjunction with the Cyclops.
That's what my biggest concern is; so far, Obraxis' comment comes across like saying "you want a different Cyclops, go to creative" - it doesn't make it look like the devs realize people's issues are with how destructibility is balanced as opposed to people wanting it to be invincible.
Comments
But I read here, that you can turn the ligth on/off by left clicking the mouse. So you can use them without breaking silent running longer then a mouse click takes. What I do not know is if they stay off once you manually turned them off or if the reset to "on" each time you change cameras. But anyways this should help to only shortly pull aggro. Go to camera, click, turn light off...be stealthy again. Should work as a workaround for now or not?
Actually, I disagree there - your exact words were "Additionally, these 'issues' are perspective-based; I personally think this change added a lot to the game - it was way too easy." That came across at best as you saying you didn't think the damage balancing was an issue that needed addressing, or at worst that you thought the complaints were exaggeration.
Personally speaking, I haven't seen anything regarding the damage scale being addressed as needing rebalancing, or at least not as of yet. Also, again, considering the sub's differences from normal earth-day subs (designed for alien worlds, flash-printed as a single-solid block as opposed to several stapled-together parts, built from a fictional type of material blend, created using construction techniques that revolve around molecular manipulation, etc), it really does come across as being more fragile than it should be. Especially when you look at the cut-away and see how thick the walls are for the thing (especially around the top deck) - it's not hollow like an egg-shell.
Also... considering the scale of all the above, it really doesn't make sense to try and compare it to modern-day subs and say that "realism" would arise from comparing the two. Diamond, for example, is completely out-of-the question as is since it's supposed to be a rare mineral - as in, not something you could hope to collect enough to make a ship from, to say nothing of a brittle ship being ill-suited for a ship that's supposed to be rated for alien worlds and therefore built with the spicific consideration of facing hostile creatures in mind. Also, the Pressure Compensator (both MK 1 & MK 2) kind of invalidate that already, since they just add higher concentrations of the same material the ship's already made from to increase hull density and therefore pressure resistance, rendering the use of diamond needless.
And... no offense, but where did it ever come across like I thought you were disrespecting me? Disagree, yes, but disrespect?
No, it was in fact designed to be like that - the lights weren't made with silent running's mechanics in mind. Namely because silent running hadn't even been really worked out as a feature back when the cameras were added. So it's not a bug - it's a hardwired feature of the external cameras that, simply put, the devs probably overlooked when making the update.
Also, it doesn't seem like they're aware of it - hell, it hasn't even been brought up as a concern, even by the ones who say they playtested the features. Furthermore, that you can turn the lights off doesn't undo the alerted status of the creatures the moment you access them at all - by the time you flick them off, a boneshark's already taking a bite out of your Cyclops. To say nothing of how (A) few people even realize the cameras have lights, and (B) you actually have to click twice to shut the lights off; clicking just once only dims it but doesn't shut it down. Worse, this seems to reset every single time you not only access the cameras but flick through them - chances are you're either going to forget or react too slowly ; it's not a workaround so much as just more hassle that makes the Cyclops in it's current form ill-advised to play, or at least if you're expecting to enjoy/have fun with it.
First off, my apologies. The way I phrased certain sentences when writing my previous debate sounded quite disrespectful, in my mind, towards you, so I just wanted to place that as a disclaimer at the end.
Also, just for clarification, I was not suggesting the addition or inclusion of diamonds within the Cyclops' design as the realism that I was talking about, but as an example of how a different molecular structure can have different strengths and weaknesses, regardless of element. So, if the metal was rearranged in a crystaline structure. However, I can see where you are coming from with the higher density idea and the idea that it would be designed for alien worlds. Higher density part? Got me there. However with the built for alien worlds part, the Cyclops is stated as being a much more 'Civilian' sub with only the bare minimums as seen in the PDA, where it doesn't even have emergency ballast tanks to prevent sinking.
Oh and thanks for clarifying with that 'block' idea from your other post, I was a bit confused, but now I get what you mean. Yes, that in theory would be stronger from snapping or tearing, but the metal surface and what lies beneath it would be the things that are getting damaged, not so much the joints of the ship (unless it struck the joints or created a lot of force tearing apart the joints, but the Cyclops does not have them).
With the cut-away and the thickness of the hull? This can be explained with how only the outer layer of the hull and its near cabals are the only parts that get damaged, allowing for outside welding and full repair, rather than damaged the sub deep down. Although this does conflict with my ideas of how fires would start, with the upper cabals only getting damaged.
Moving on to the re-balancing! In my opinion, the Boneshark damage should be toned down a little bit and the Reaper damage should be increased a little bit. Just a tad bit, to the point where a single, stray boneshark won't be much of a bother, but a pack of 3 or 4 would be a minor concern. A lone Reaper should be a fairly worth concern, with upgrade models suggested when exploring their waters. Finally, Sea Dragons should be made so that they are a major, preparation requiring concern, with many modules necessary for relative safety and many precautions needed - after all, they are the biggest, baddest aggressive creature Subnautica has. However, I'm not sure the Devs are planning any more further balancing, but that doesn't bother me too much.
Finally, the part you are probably most looking forward to, my response to your first point.
Honestly, I don't really have a proper response... I suppose it comes down to my personal preference. I actually really like having to worry about a few Bonesharks, Reapers and Sea Dragons, along with putting out fires and repairing the Cyclops. For me, it's exciting and adds more gameplay and re-introduces that fear that I first felt when playing Subnautica for the first time in January of 2015. I haven't felt that fear from Subnautica in a long time, especially ever since learning all the creature patterns and attacks and how to dodge/prevent them. The fear and concern of losing my Cyclops re-sparked that excitement. Also, I kind of did feel like the complaints were an exaggeration, to a certain extent. However this does link back to me loving this vulnerable Cyclops, kind of making my point overly-biased. Following this, I did not feel like it needed to be balanced again for the difficulty (as I love it, personally), but more for the realism and reasoning sides of things. I know I am blabbering on, but for the wider community and not my selfish self, I feel like the balancing is necessary for the wider enjoyment of the game, regardless of player.
Anyways, that's a wrap from me, sorry about the long read. I'm longing forward to what you raise next
Cheers,
HYBRID
I think you overreact to the whole update and it's problems slightly. And for me somehting that's not working as intended in a game is a bug. If that bug came into existence by overlooking something or not is not the point. So the current camera behavior together with the silent running update is a bug for me nothing more nothing less. Even big AAA titles produce new bugs with new patches and that even after release. I don't get it why some players get so freaked out by it in an early access game without AAA personal and money to throw around. I am pretty sure they are aware of the problem and it will get ironed out before release. Just because they don't personally post a few lines for each little thing that may not work as intended, does not mean they don't know or don't care about it.
See my reply above + if you think early access games are the "trains" for you and you expect them to be shiny new freshly produced trains without flaws, then maybe you have the wrong view what early access is all about. Basically an early access "train" is one that has rough edges and maybe is loud or slow or runs on a bumpy track with its engine and waggons only partly finished yes. But it gives you a first impression of how good it can be once it is completed. If you can't stand riding an unfinished train that still has to face a few bumps here and there, I don't think you should have bought this train ticket this early then. And before you go all nuts about this reply. View it with some humor and you see that it was not meant to insult or attack you.
But the point stands... there is one dev studio that I will give a pass no matter what they pull. But they spent 20 years being rebels and doing things exact same way despite what the world thinks, they earned that trust. This... I've only been keeping track of this for maybe year and a half at the most and I'm already getting a bit disappointed.
Bulk heads were confirmed as broken, promised to get fixed... what? 2 damn years ago? So how many years will I need to wait for other issues to get fixed at this rate? There are game breaking issues, beta is not a free pass to do what ever. Things have to be fixed or there is no point in calling it a beta/alpha/early access or what ever else. Again going to use Warframe as example that game is BROKEN, every hotfix they screw up and make even more bugs then they fix, even something as trivial as a hotfix to correct a codex typo can result in broken rendering, maps not working menus broken... and don't even get me started on their big patches(community used to shudder at the idea of big patch... it would take months to get it to playable state). Their universal excuse for the past 5 damn years was it's in BETA.
Okay you wanna play Bold and Parse? Let's do this.
Let's take a look at the parts that I took the liberty of bolding. The "Let alone destroyed by just about anything" is a modifier. The main thrust of the sentence is the first part I bolded. "Why would someone bother making it now that it can be destroyed" is the main point he's making.
Combined with the second sentence "It's a dumb change and should be reverted" shows that the main point is NOT in fact that the thing takes damage too easily. To the OP, the relative fragility of the Cyclops is just icing on the Bad Decision Cake.
OP is insisting that it should be reverted. Which means restored to a previous state. Now... What is the only previous state of the Cyclops durability?
Well on Experimental it apparently took even more damage before another round of modification. But given the whole tone of the post, that's probably not what they meant. So reverting further back than that means...
Full Cyclops invincibility. You're honestly giving the OP far more credit than they deserve. This isn't saying "Ugh the fragility of the Cyclops is too much, it should be a bit tougher", this is a thread where someone's complaining about how the Cyclops isn't indestructible anymore.
And because you seemed to enjoy your Smug Sunglasses Emote-
And... I have added nothing more to this conversation because what I posted last...,
... was, most apropos.
Well, not quite; less public civilian, more like private civilian or trained operators - it's not a military ship, but it's still not something just any civi is supposed to have (especially since it's supposed to be a three-man ship and, according to the PDA when you build it, only licensed and experienced pilots should drive the thing solo).
But that's kinda defeated by the whole "can increase the density on the molecular level" thing that the pressure compensators do; the metal surface shouldn't be that easy to damage if it can be made to withstand deeper pressures based purely on material density. Point being IDK it should be so easy for anything beneath a Leviathan to rip it open.
Same issue as above; the fact that the plates can be made to survive deep pressures through pure material density kind of clashes with that idea. Even if they can do damage, it shouldn't be that two or three sharks can equal or surpass the damage of a Reaper's bite.
My issue with that is in how there's a difference between having to worry about the wildlife and said wildlife having no hierarchy of threat accordance. It's one thing to be worried about a pack of bonesharks, but you shouldn't have to fear them like you would a Leviathan - it makes it aggravating to deal with them and actually kinda lessens the sense of danger you should have when a Reaper passes you; you shouldn't look at it and think "he can't do more damage than that shark pack did, so why bother being scared?" At that point, it goes past, if not outright loses/, "that fear" because it's instead just frustration and stress as opposed to an actual exciting experience. For me, there is no such "excitement" because you have to go through this with everything as opposed to just leviathans, which takes away from both sides of the experience and make the Cyclops just feel flat-out not worth the effort.
No; personally, I think that kind of reaction is why games get put on early access and have forums to begin with - so that concerns can be heard by the devs. Also, that's kind of a misnomer - a "bug" is when something doesn't function as intended; a glitch in the code or a hitch in the runtimes. This is not a bug - this is a design oversight; a mistake made by way of two different sets of controls being designed one after the other without thinking how they'd play into each-other.
Furthermore... sorry if this sounds rude, but what you said sounds more an excuse than anything - saying "everything has bugs" doesn't automatically make it right to ignore them or act like the devs didn't make a mistake somewhere. Especially since, a lot of times, most devs never get to patching some of those bugs - and some of said bugs never even get noticed by the devs. Again I say; the devs apparently play-tested silent running before they released this... and missed this issue. Obraxis' post makes it seem like he thinks people's issues are with the ship not being invincible anymore, not that they think it needs more balancing. You are, simply put, just as much making an assumption as you say we are.
But your response is... well, kinda flawed in that regard. Because, honestly, that's precisely why games go on early access; so that the devs can get feedback on this stuff and fix it as they go instead of having to do it after the full release. Furthermore, it feels like you're actively ignoring what he said - there are parts of the game with issues that flat-out have not been fixed for over a year (one of which being that PDA's can clip through the ground and be impossible to pick up). None of what you said is an excuse for why the uneven issues should not be brought up or why people shouldn't want some form of acknowledgement that the devs even know it's considered a problem. To say it was "not meant to insult or attack you" is moot - the premise is still wrong, in my opinion.
... that doesn't change any of what I said, though; it's still a problem in the Cyclops's own design. It doesn't even fix the problem, because it's not that the sub is destructible that's the real issue - it's that the thing is so easy to break.
Also, I again point out that the complexity of unity code is a completely moot point - it does not factor into being able to make a simple response saying "we are aware this is a concern and are looking into it". Typing a response saying you'll look into it and the coding required to look into it are two separate things done at two separate points - the difficulty of one does not impact the other.
See, the thing I don't think you get is that I'm talking about replies. Replies to people's concerns are not coding - coding is when you actually get around to working on the problem, not what you do when just telling someone whether or not you're even going to bother. Heck, your whole point is practically tangential since literally nobody said anything about whether or not coding was easy - I said that giving a reply to people's concerns was easy; you're the only one that brought up coding.
Also... no. No that very much is demeaning to assume that playtime has anything to do with weather or not someone's capable of perceiving an issue in a game; that's like saying you'd have to play Umbrella Corps or Ride To Hell all the way through just to be qualified to judge if the controls were stiff. My playtime (close to 90 hours since buying it in Mid-October) should not automatically determine whether or not I can or cannot have an opinion on something. Also, no - considering the existence of several threads decrying this as an issue, it's not "about 3 people" who take issue to the balancing of the sub, especially since there is a massive imbalance in it's durability that silent running seems designed more to mask rather than address.
Not effectual - you have to do that with every single camera, you have to repeat the process every time you use the camera, and I think it even cycles back to "on" every time you rotate through the cameras. And if you're in an area chock-full of aggressive fauna, chances are you're never going to be fast enough to shut it off before something sees you - you should not have to go through such a tedious process just to use external cameras without risking your sub getting damaged even if in silent running.
Sorry... but you kinda made the same mistake twice, there.
See, the parts you bolded... are talking about why the devs bothered to take it out of invincible mode if it was just to shift it into such an unwieldy and tedious variant. Or rather, that they should take it back to invincible only if the current version of it is what they think it should be - that if they're not going to fix and rebalance the changes, it may as well have stayed what it was. i.e., it's not in fact a modifier - it is a statement that the current additions make it too much of a hassle to use and that, unless they're fixed, the only way anyone could use it is if it were still in it's invincible state. It's not that he thinks it should be invincible or even wants it to be; it's that he simply dislikes how the balancing works that darned much.
Contrast with the second sentence, where you also made another mistake of context; he is saying this because he feels the devs made a bad move in how they balanced things. It's not because that was what he wants/wanted, but because he dislikes the current version so much that, unless/until they actually balance it to be workable, it may as well not even be in the game to begin with - it, simply put, is precisely because it takes damage so easily; his point is that they shouldn't have bothered changing it if said changes were going to make it this easy to break - not that he wants it to be invincible or thinks it should be, but that as it stands the current alterations make it so unfulfilling to use that it'd have been better off gameplay/usability-wise not being changed.
Basically, OP wants it restored to the past state because he considers it's current state too fragile to be playable. Not that it should be invincible or that he wants it to be, but simply that it's previous state was more playable than it's current one in his opinion.
Simply put... I think you've completely misinterpreted the whole point; which is that the previous invincible build was, in his opinion, more playable than the current one. Not that he thinks the sub is or should be invincible, but rather that the current build is so fragile as to be not worth playing; in short, it is like saying "at least I could use the old version", yet you interpreted it as "it should have been invincible always!"
Ergo, I will end this off the same as before; with an emoticon that was supposed to convey an attempt at humor, not smugness -
PS:
Again, sorry, but you still haven't pointed out how that works; thread talks about the Cyclops being severely imbalanced, dev mistakes that as people wanting it to be invincible and nothing else. Again I say; how is misinterpreting the whole OP "apropos?" Especially if you're a dev?
Reason why is because some of the comments here are just over complicating things instead of PLAINLY stating things.
KISS, people need to use that more, if you don't know what that means then let me enlighten you, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID
Well then I'll fully admit that I misunderstood literally everything you said and apologize.
You do realize that makes it sound more like you're insulting people rather than actually trying to help, right? Heck, if you want people to just be more clear with others, I think you already went off that path by saying something that could just make people mad at you - instead of saying "KISS", why not just say "can we all just get along" and get your point across more clearly?
@The08MetroidMan @HiSaZuL I think I know why you are so passionate about this game and I am a gamer for long enough to see how "wrong" from a personal standpoint games can go in their early access phase. But please if you think there are things that are not known to the developers, check the bug report forum. If it is not mentioned there, post it there, submit a bug report via the ingame function by pressing F8.
I am pretty sure that they don't ignore those reports and that they will sooner or later try to fix each "real" issue on the list. Yes I just assume they do this but you can't proof me wrong here so I'd say give the devs some well earned trust that they are working on it. But each game has priorities and maybe they are focusing more manpower towards a release then into bugfixing right now. That does not automatically mean they ignore the bugs even if some of them are as you say in the game for a long time. Because even bug fixing has a priority system to it. Game-breaking things have a higher priority then cosmetic things or things that maybe could not yet be reproduced by the devs.
For me the game get's better with every update. Yes it still has its issues...but I don't think those will all be ignored. Call me naive but I think they will do alot of fixing in the polishing phase when all else is implemented. As long as this phase has not even started I'll be patient and wait for them to fix things. After all at least for me, the game is in a playable state so I see no reason to complain or poke them towards bugs they most likely already know about. I think you can't just demand a response to each bug-report. They simply don't have the manpower to answer each one personally.
True that! Give the devs some time. Yelling at them for things they already know won't make it happen any faster.
Short story, person voiced opinion about cyclops being made out of wet toilet paper which rendered the thing useless, I personally agree with it. Lots of hurt people came holding each others wounded apendages and demanding the heretics are exiled.
I've cleared entire field of bone shards under that underwater island... 5+ simultaneously, with nothing but a knife, I don't even need a bloody stasis rifle for it. A large submarine from future that was printed as solid chunk gets eaten in seconds and attracts everyone and their crippled grandmother if it moves just slightly faster then a fish in a desert. It is not useful... it holds no purpose in it's current iteration. You can defend your point that it can still be used and I will say that you can also carve a statue out of a solid chunk of granite with nothing but your finger and enough time, but that doesn't make it logical or even worth it.
I ran out of popcorn guys, I ran out of popcorn.
That's when you know things have spiraled out of control.
On a serious note, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done with the Cyclops, and the devs are working on it.
No need for any worry.
That's just it, though; "working hard" doesn't always equate to "doing the right thing." You can work hard digging a ditch in the middle of your backyard, but that alone means nothing if you don't actually have a reason why - let alone state said reason to any onlookers who voice concern about it.
... I don't see how that changes or even challenges anything that was said, though. It's like saying that sending a photo of something you think is wrong to someone automatically means they've seen it and are doing something about it; it's just as much a presumption as you say our views are. Depending on scale of work and size of staff, you literally have zero evidence whatsoever to assume they're even looking at all of those, much less treating them all with equal effort or attention - the only way to know different is to actually have a response from them... and Obraxis' response in this page makes it seem like he doesn't actually know what it is that people are complaining about (i.e, he thinks people hate that the Cyclops isn't invincible as opposed to there being damage-balancing issues).
But therein lies the problem; "pretty sure", "I just assume" - your statement is no less a case where you can't prove us wrong here, yet are coming across like you can. You're making assurances you cannot back up, just like you claim we have... but in our case, we have Orbaxis' above statement to base off of in feeling like the devs aren't actually paying that much attention to all the feedback, or at least not closely enough to get the full picture. You've no guarantee they even know this is an issue that needs to be fixed, let alone know to put effort toward it - and issues like this can be game-breaking if it's an entire aspect of the game that you're actively put off of (to say nothing of actual flaws in mechanics such as the auto-on lights of external cameras drawing creatures to you even when in silent running mode).
Same issue as above, though; you don't have any confirmation of that so long as the devs themselves don't say it. It's less the idea you're naive, and more like how it feels like you're calling us naive for something you yourself are doing; assuming a full picture where none is given. According to the Trello, they did playtest Silent Running just like every other update - they thought it was fine to push out; as far as they're concerned, that phase is complete and they're moving to the next. And, again, if this wasn't an early-access game, you'd have had I point - but the whole purpose of early access is to give feedback and precisely to not wait for flaws to fix themselves since otherwise there's no guarantee the devs will even see them. It comes across like you're saying "well, I don't see an issue, so you shouldn't either!" - and I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but I don't know any other way to put it.
Again, if not for pre-existing evidence to the contrary (Obraxis' own reply to this form), I'd have agreed. As it stands though, looking over a forum and taking note of what's said there isn't necessarily hard to do - it's not an issue of manpower but of time-management and prioritization, and it comes across like community feedback is somewhat low on that list.
And what did Obraxis say in his post (the only dev post so far in any topic relating to the current balance of the Cyclops to the threats facing it):
Understandable first para. Second para implies if you don't like that, you can play in creative mode.
No indication in any way to specifically reconsider wildlife aggression, detection of swimmers versus vessels, damage, or damage control on the Cyclop, or anything related. Only entries on the Trello about general balance and polish. Which covers a much larger domain that just these issues.
Unfortunately, the title of the post implies only a invulnerable Cyclops is useful. I don't believe that.
But I believe players need to better have control over the Cyclops and the risks they entail using it. Because right now using the Cyclops appears to be effectively limited by narrow passages, wildlife threats, and threats to swimming, the Seamoth, and the PRAWN when used, especially in conjunction with the Cyclops.
And yeah, I do think the cyclops should be destructible... but considering it's made of hardened titanium/plastisteel/space age stuff, it should take more than a random few sharks biting on it. How would said sharks even do damage to it? Surely the hull material is harder than their teeth. And I would expect them to just bounce off if they tried ramming it.
When someone says "let alone X", that's not a qualifier. He's not asking why you would build a cyclops that is easy to damage, he is asking why anyone would build a damagable cyclops at all. If that's not what he meant, then he can clarify, but that's what the sentence he posted means. The bolded part emphasizes how bad he thinks things are, but the "let alone" part means that even if the part after "let alone" were not true, he'd still be questioning why you'd build it.
That's what my biggest concern is; so far, Obraxis' comment comes across like saying "you want a different Cyclops, go to creative" - it doesn't make it look like the devs realize people's issues are with how destructibility is balanced as opposed to people wanting it to be invincible.