Author Topic: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07  (Read 9829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« on: July 03, 2013, 11:01:50 PM »
You know what to do....

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2013, 10:14:08 AM »
Looks like this version is fairly stable so I will be working on V 2.0
Still dont see many score updates

rditto48801

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 149
  • Wait, this isn't Duna.
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2013, 11:43:58 PM »
I have been a bit distracted with other things of late, and have not gotten back to MC:C.
With having beat it once already, I am finding it a little tricky to get myself to playing it through again since I already beat it once.

Will 2.0 have anything like a sandbox mode, or more variation to the base layouts so each map doesn't have the same base layout? Or other things to help bolster re-playability value?


You seriously need to check the topic for Steam Greenlight.
I posted a few things there that you should probably address soon to help get more people pointed in the right direction if they do have interest in MC:C.
Boldly going forward, 'cause I can't find reverse.

Doctor Watson; Proving that being wrong means being one step closer to being right.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2013, 10:06:52 PM »
http://hyperkat.com/litterbox/index.php?topic=768.0

Player built bases, 64 km sq +

so .... yes to all above...


rditto48801

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 149
  • Wait, this isn't Duna.
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2013, 12:35:23 AM »
http://hyperkat.com/litterbox/index.php?topic=768.0

Player built bases, 64 km sq +

so .... yes to all above...

Ah, ok, I hadn't noticed the bit of player built bases before. I hope there are options to specialize or diversify bases, and not just choose what is built where. I will probably have some extra questions once the MC:C 2.0 sub-forum is unlocked.
Boldly going forward, 'cause I can't find reverse.

Doctor Watson; Proving that being wrong means being one step closer to being right.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2013, 10:47:31 AM »
I will have to make it as modules otherwise each player will have to get a 3d creation tool, build the parts, position them in the world along with all the parts like doors etc.
Just how far do you want to take this?
My idea is to build hubs, connectors and some other parts as a pre built sections and let you (? earn points to purchase the modules? ) work in progress

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2013, 05:34:59 PM »
Most games like this use snap points, where they will have a generic module and it will snap to a valid point on the grid when being placed.    After that I would guess customization could also be done with snap points where you could choose where a airlock or something goes.

<HYPER> sounds easy ..... but then I have to figure which polygons are in the way of where the airlock opening is and remove them, then store the poly list in a database ..... it's a bit more complicated that most people realize.....

Games that I can think used a system like this and were not done with a massive budget.... Vision Video games space station sim did this to pretty good effect.

 http://www.vision-play.com/products/game1/index.html  You were able to customize modules to some degree, and it worked well with gameplay.   (the sim itself is fairly limited but the ISS construction works well)   Other games that used a similar system would be some of the RTS's and things like sims and the like where elements inside the house and during construction would snap to valid locations.    It is not perfect, but it seems to work well in gameplay.

You can see a medium scale game here with them doing it. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGrn29_SFOo   Space ships of course are a lot easier to design than something on the ground but you can see how they have it snap into valid locations in order to make the design procccess easier for the end user, while still giving them a lot of control.   Obviously giving players this much choice would not be practical for a game developed by a single person, but very scaled
down I think it could work and be usable.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 09:10:43 PM by Hyper »

rditto48801

  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 149
  • Wait, this isn't Duna.
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2013, 10:39:39 PM »
Ah, a fellow SSS and GalCiv2 fan?

I would agree with snap points, and of having 'internal slots', since it would make things a little easier.
Another option would be a sort of grid setup, like the old game Outpost. (Mars? Try building on other planets in general)
There are the main structures, and 'tubes', the connecting passages (both strait and + shaped)
 
Although for MC:C, the connecting passages (like where the med bed/fridge is) is technically a 'tube' in the Outpost sense, since it is as much a connecting passage way as it is an occupied space.

For the airlock issue.
A 'doorway slot' for connecting sections and hub sections. This 'doorway slot' is made up of either a door (or open doorway for connected areas), or an 'end cap/wall section', and an adjacent 'interior slot' on the interior side. The doors would be slightly 'above' the actual 'opening' (so the 'frame' of the door fills the rest of the 'opening'), so they won't 'hit' the floor. The 'interior slot' is 'allocated' to an installed doorway, to make a 'you cannot put stuff here' type of zone. That way if any sort of doorway is in place, items cannot be put there and so won't block the door. If movable objects are there when a doorway/airlock door is set to be installed, the game relocates the item to the nearest empty spot/interior slot (or the closest designated area for putting carried items/equipment, like an equipment rack for example). If fixed equipment takes up the interior slot adjacent to an end cap, the interior module first has to be removed/relocated before a doorway can be installed.
Would that type of thing work?

Another thing to consider.
What all players could be allowed (or want to do) with setting up stuff base sections themselves.
One player might stick with the present setup that has structures with connecting passages. Another might want to focus materials on structures grouped together for optimal internal space (hope nothing bad happens).  Yet another might go with a decentralized setup, having two or more sections, each dedicated to certain aspects (hope the life support/power pipes between sections don't get damaged if life support and living spaces are in separate base sections). Another might do something redundant, and use their 'extra' initial allocated stuff to have two separate base sections each with their own life support (which raises its own issues if the ice deposits can only support two pumps, and require an option to operate separators at reduced capacity without shutting down due to limited water supply)

Secondary building locations would also be nice, for optional support structures/equipment. Maybe prototype vertical wind turbines (or extra solar panels) on a hill next to the main base (extra power, handy for an optional challenge, maybe some event or a 'donation' meaning the base is short one or more working RSGs), or a shelter/ELS setup near a major group of mineral deposit that are a fair distance from the base (who want's to go for off road driving in a rover during a storm if a suitable shelter is nearby?).

Maybe an option for multiple level structures? Would 'basements' or 'underground construction' or building partly into a hill be a viable option?

Also... Berths... we need berths. Be they double or triple berths or just single berths/beds. We have a toilet, but where are colonists supposed to sleep? Even if it is more for immersion/realism and not actually used. (Maybe a quick 'nap' to more quickly recharge the stamina bar? Have stamina drain slower but recover a lot slower to require rest to be a needed factor?). Hot bunking with a double berth basically means sleeping space for four. (like maybe placed where the waste containers usually are next to food prep in MC:C 1.x)

I also have other ideas in mind (probably best to hold off since they go beyond just basic base building). One of which is a 'main base' that the players deal with when it comes to requesting stuff to be delivered (like construction teams to build another base segment), and to open up other options/possibilities for missions and such.
Boldly going forward, 'cause I can't find reverse.

Doctor Watson; Proving that being wrong means being one step closer to being right.

profit004

  • MCCS Test
  • Mission Commander
  • ******
  • Posts: 418
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2013, 11:23:38 PM »
Yeah, I did not mean to imply that snap points would be an easy thing to program, just that is how these things are usually handled.  Simple things though can sometimes be nightmares to program, like removing an object cleanly from an order in the program I wrote recently required updates to close to 15 separate arrays and a bunch of calls to regenerate things that are normally generated on the fly, so I can understand how something that seems simple in concept can be very difficult to implement.   


That said, Hyper you are awesome and I am sure if you wanted to do it, you most certainly could....   I am just not sure from a game play perspective how much it would add at this moment now that I think about it...  Maybe if there was a player ran economy it would add more.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2013, 06:36:44 PM »
Snap 2 objects that have a common opening I can do and just did but to arbitrarily join sections  at odd points would be a issue. I built a base on the fly yesterday with nothing more than a primary location so that all works
Lets move this to a 2.0 thread.


Caduryn

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 07:23:01 AM »
Just got hit by a "Item vanished" Bug in Phase 1, both Items i need for the Radio Station just vanished after trying to pickup out of the Rover.
They still visable on the Rover-Ramp, but Cargo is empty.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2014, 08:29:42 AM »
Did you try to pick them out of the back or use the dialog?

Caduryn

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 01:36:29 PM »
Used the Dialog, clicked on them, they got out, but i got nothing in hand.

Ant it seems that the Rover got stuck just after that, he won´t move anymore, tank is full.

Hyper

  • Administrator
  • Mission Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 09:53:37 PM »
The rover is stuck because the items are holding it. Go to the rear and try to pick the item directly.

Caduryn

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: RELEASE ISSUES WITH VERSION 1.07
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2014, 10:18:24 AM »
Hm, interesting, but still a bug that need a fix.  8)