Telescopic Pylon

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Mindl3ss, Jan 29, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WhitePaw2002

    WhitePaw2002 Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe

    Idea:
    Make an animated hook-shaped rod thingy with thruster press. (I feel like i mentioned something like this before)
     
  2. Mindl3ss

    Mindl3ss Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    I for one have a few things to say to the forum staff and developers outlook on the subject. In short I agree with reaper. I won't accept 'it can't be done' without seeing some sort of proof of failure.

    Second, in regards to the stance of 'it takes time to write a post explaining why things aren't worth doing' presented by dellamorte, this is part of your job as an intermediary between players and developers. I mean no disrespect, but have to say I feel slightly disrespected by this answer. Copping out on the players is negativity for negativitys sake. Or it's downright laziness, take your pick. Either way, both the players and developers work very hard to advance the ideas that make the future of Terratech, and quite frankly, both parties diserve better than a dismissive half answer followed by 'look it up'. You cannot rightfully expect people to pour throu two years worth of forum archives every time they have an idea pertaining to a constantly evolving game. If writing a paragraph of summary explaining why something cannot be done in detail is too much work, then I have no idea how you plan to manage a n entire forum based on the concept of cooperative development. Again I mean no personal disrespect, I'm just pointing out that it's a blanket disrespect to those of us willing to commit hours on end with no hope of quantifiable returns into the concept work which is normally done by paid staff at a game company. Now I am happy to do that work without credit or reward, but I don't think it's fair to have the intermediaries between us, the charitable think tank, and the Devs who put our ideas into coding, to be left to those who 'don't have the time'. It just an inappropriate stance to take on the whole system.

    Now if having the time is such a problem for the forum staff, allow me to be the first to volunteer my time to patrol the suggestions section and act as a dedicated go between for the Devs and players. I have no problem familiarizing myself with all of the concepts that have been laid out in the history of Terratech and I assure you I have ample time to thurroughly explain why certain concepts are unattainable. If you guys don't need the extra help, then I don't expect to see another answer to someone's ideas be limited to 'I don't have the time to write a paragraph, go look it up.' I am not in any position of authority to demand such, but I speak out of fairness or lack there of in what is supposed to be a cooperative system. I'm sure some folks will not take kindly to my outspoken response to this, but I will defend this stance. You all know by now that I won't bite my tounge when I see something I believe is wrong, and I firmly believe this is the most wrong thing I have witnessed in Terratech's history.

    Moving from forum management concerns back to the concept of hinges and telescopic pylons, I do have some questions as to why it cannot be done. First hinges. If the rendering system is grid based, then I get not having a perfectly flexible hinge. Stopping at say 45 degrees would not work, but if hinges moved from flat (0 degrees) to 90 degrees to 180 degrees would still keep everything aligned within the fixed grid, it would only require that hinges could not stop at points in between. The same concept applies to telescope pylons. So long as both opened and closed positions aligned with the grid and the pylon cannot stop mid-telescope then this completely conforms with grid based rendering systems. No?

    PS: if nobody on the staff wants to table the idea in a serious, cooperative fashion supporting ideas to make the concept work, rather than finding excuses for it not to work, then hold your tounges. Your silence will tell more than your words. The rest of us will take the time you claim not to have and commit it to improving Terratech.

    In conclusion, if my words seem venomous it's because they are. I feel as though within this thread a giant steamy dump has been taken on the collective genius that is Terratech's more active player base and the developers who rely on them to help conceptualizer their dream, and I simply cannot accept that this is payloads stance on their 'community driven' baby. I apologize for the imagery, but I simply can't think of a better way to put it. Though, I cannot speak for all of the forum staff, I am sure this isn't everyone's position on the subject of cooperative development. My goal here is not to shame anyone, not to disqualify anyone's opinions, or dismiss anyone's intentions, but to ensure that the wonderful cooperation we have enjoyed thus far in the development of Terratech survives and thrives. We all must make the time to enable this beautiful thing to continue to thrive as it has from the first day of Terratech to its final iteration.

    I am aware that parts of this post may be deemed report worthy, and if that does happen, good. This post was supposed to be attention grabbing. This issue of staff being pessimistic and dismissive toward the advancing ideas of the players has been growing from my observations, and will only continue to do so until the problem of staff 'not having the time' to seriously consider all aspects of players ideas, is rectified. By all means, send this post up the ladder. I didn't mince my words here, and I won't on such an important subject. Clearly I have good intentions even if I'm being a tad rough. The bottom line is that we the players pour our time and efforts into this project for free. We diserve no less from our appointed forum staff, chosen because they have the time and the drive to be the best of us in regards to the 'community driven' nature of Terratech.

    -Mindl3ss
     
  3. GamerParrish

    GamerParrish Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe

    This is physically impossible!
     
  4. NGreyswandir

    NGreyswandir Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    Do not make piston, make scissors lift
    [​IMG]
    This can work with mechanics that is used for GC Loader.
    EDIT: Just do not make it so fast. We need something to lift our tech, not to launch it to orbit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
    Zed likes this.
  5. Zed

    Zed Well-Known Member

    The Buckets in a manner of speaking act as doors and can be used to change the overall resting angle of a tech depending on design by holding the spacebar down for a version of "artillery mode"

    lil artillery.png

    normal.jpg
    artillery.jpg


    The issue becomes wanting to attach something to the moving "half" of block which would require dynamic sizing within the overall tech grid which as others above have mentioned is simply a coding nightmare as others above have pointed out with varying degrees of civility.

    I too have encountered this concern and feel that it could be remedied by a direct member of the Payload Studios serving as "Hatchet Man" for concepts conceived by the community whom are willing to take the time to articulate their ideas and share them here on the forums which have already been covered, are unworkable, or downright zany.

    By my understanding the primary focus of this forum is meant to serve as a conduit of communication between Payload Studios and their Customers; Needless to say Payload Studios does a better job of this than most Early Access Studios and perhaps spoils the community with three streams a week does not negate the fact that some aspects of interaction here on forums are indeed nebulous. (Examples such as each topic of the forum's main page does not have a specific Payload Studio's employee directly named as primary moderator with @Jamie serving as Global Moderator or posts like 'Suggestions in a sentence" where the original poster appears to no longer be active.)

    This is part of the Early Access Experience; for all we know a Solar Flare could go off tomorrow and none of any of this would be possible. That said, I do share some of the frustration with certain aspects of the "intermediary team" attempting to behave as a derisive gauntlet seemingly attempting to shield Payload Studio's staff from giving consideration to articulated posts crafted by members of the TerraTech Community.

    While this offer seems genuine and selflessly kind; the principles behind the development of a commercial product prevent this type of altruistic offer from being reasonable to be considered or even offered. In my opinion, only a member of Payload Studio's staff could serve the community in this capacity in order to maintain reasonable respect and culpability from the Terratech community.

    As long as the piece is similar to the Geo Scoops where is it not expected to move any other block other than itself (I.e zero attachment points on the other side(s) of the block) where the force exerted is upon either the biome surface or unattached blocks foreign to the tech upon which it is placed it seems possible; beyond those provisos it seems very unlikely to be permitted by the constraints of being unable to mathematically express. If you are aware of how to express this concept in a creative yet algebraically-valid way patent it immediately and apply for a job with JPL.

    Laudible Goals for the most part, and much of the sentiment expressed is valid however again boiling Terratech Down to its current state is a Commercial work in progress being funded by ??? with Early access being provided as a service to customers willing to partake in the project prior to its commercial release for their (the customer's) own reasons for which Payload Studios literally owes consumers nothing. In my opinion as I have already stated above Payload Studio has been, on the whole, exemplary in their level of interactivity with their early access consumer-base.

    Ultimately I agree, this point is provocative and hopefully generates internal discussion within Payload Studios and that clearer roles and responsibilities will emerge as a result; the only thing I would bring to your attention @Mindl3ss is that there is a colossal chasm of culpability between Moderators , Administrators, and Payload Studio's Staff Members. Regarding pushing this further up the ladder all I can do in that regard is do the following and hope that all three will deem this thread worthy of reply.

    @vincenz02k @Jamie @saiwun
     
    NGreyswandir likes this.
  6. Baconus_Yum

    Baconus_Yum Moderator Moderator Beta Deluxe Ex-Lemon King Sumo Champ

    These are some small points that I want to say on a personal standpoint.

    • Joints/Hinges is a commonly requested feature. In fact, one of the most. Do you think they would of tried by now?
    • We are literal tech engineers. If we see something not in the game, we can try and make it. Hooks have a lot more uses than just trailers ;)
    • We (the mods) are not the ones who confirm/deny features. In fact, we know just about as much as you. We don't know when ____ is coming out.
    • Terratech is a very active community. We used to have a commonly suggested features thread, however it was removed. Maybe we should put that up again ;)
    All I want to say is, everyone hears the suggestions. Every thread, no matter how small, can change the outcome of the game. The devs like feedback. They didn't go into EA just to get money. Everyone has a voice. No matter good or bad.

    -Baconus
     
    Masakari, ilikegoodfood and Zed like this.
  7. Mindl3ss

    Mindl3ss Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    Generating internal discussion was indeed my point in posting what I have said. Again I apologies for my sharpness, but when our governing body sees it fit to abuse its power someone has to stand up to it. Now I'll leave it to the administration to determine just what lines have been crossed here, by whom, and what should be done about it. im not above paying for my own actions, after all I did not HAVE to speak up. But the way I see it, Better I get in trouble than the community lose its cooperative nature. It's what makes the game great, and defending that is worth whatever I have to pay for it.

    Just one further point. Zed has stated that as far as community driven games go, Terratech is top notch and Payload deserves all the credit in the world for this. I wholeheartedly agree. This is why I feel it's so important to maintain that standard. Being the best of the best is no reason to start slacking off. Quite the opposite. When you are the strongest you've ever been you don't wake up and say 'well, I'm the best, I guess I can take the day off', you get up and do one more than you did yesterday. That's how you stay on top. I believe we just hit that 'day off' scenario, and I'm not afraid to give the needed push in the right direction.

    I know my tounge is sharp and flicks the air at the first scent of trouble, but I believe my intentions in all this are clear. I only wish the best for this game and this community.

    As always,
    -Mindl3ss
     
    NGreyswandir and Zed like this.
  8. streak1

    streak1 Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe Wiki Mod Canary Streak1

    If the addition of trailer hitches has taught me anything, its that it isn't really that they can't do it. They could make it physics-based like they did with the hitches, or maybe they could find some other way to do it. The problem is that they can't do it the way they want to without it creating a lot of work for themselves.

    The problem with mobile parts of techs like this is that if they wanted to implement it, they would have to choose between two options. The first is what I mentioned above, making it physics based, or doing it some similar way. Making it so the attached part functions as a separate tech. The problem with this is that the physics can be buggy, and they would have to put in a bunch of extra work to get multiple techs to share controls. Or, in the case of hitches, not share the controls at all.

    The alternative, and the way that they would prefer to do it, is to just make it a block like all the other blocks. You attach blocks to the pylon, and it just works. Snapshots are fine, controls are fine, everything works. The problem with that is you run into the giant hurdle of the tech system. Currently, blocks are aligned to a grid, always, never moving. Having blocks that can slide from one position to the other breaks that idea, so if they wanted to have pylons and do it "right", they would probably have to do a complete rewrite of the tech system. The system that the game is centered around. And they certainly could do that, but that would take a ton of work; work they could spend on other features.

    That's the reason they have a problem with the feature. Its not that they can't do it, its not that they don't want to do it, but that they don't think these sorts of features are worth the work required right now. Not when they have crafting to make, multiplayer to make, sumo to redo, and all sorts of other stuff. The game can go without pylons, but it can't go without crafting and multiplayer. They need to release the game eventually, right?

    But its just like water: its something that they are leaving out of the game for now to possibly go back to at a later date. And the perks of doing a tech system rewrite like this is that they could add a lot more features than just pylons. They could add hinges, mobile turrets, all sorts of stuff. All working with snapshots, controls, and AI. They just have other things they are working on now. That doesn't mean "no". It means "maybe later".
     
  9. Mindl3ss

    Mindl3ss Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    Maybe later with a viable explanation as to why has always been an acceptable answer to the community, as has it's not possible, so long as we know why.

    However, things like turrets, scoops and hammers already feature moving parts, rotational points, and extending peices I'm not sure I get the reasoning behind why these parts work when hinges and Pistons wouldn't. The issue is that techs are structured on a grid, so as long as the parts in question would only stop in positions that remain aligned with the grid it should be no problem. Iget why a piston that can slide to points other than collapsed and extended won't work without a heavy redesign, but the idea I'm proposing is a snap to grid design. Even rotational points should be within reach so long as they could only rotate to 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree positions. I get that there might be some coding to do, but that's part of programming. I don't think it's realistic to count the idea out when literally the entire comunity has suggested one of the three be in the game at one time or another.

    Even if that doesn't work, there is something else to consider. These three parts would dramatically increase the functionality of the construction system. The possibilities are nearly limitless. Sometimes you have to embrace a redesign when you realize you have limited yourself in a way that betrays what you were trying to accomplish in the first place. Is this game about multiplayer, or is it about being able to build things? Personally, I don't think the game is ready for multiplayer yet, and I wouldn't be sad at all to see it pushed back in favor of more construction options. I know it's already under way, and to re-think that decision right now would be both costly and time consuming, but For the same reasons why optimizing of the game shouldn't occur until it is more complete, I feel like jumping the multiplayer gun may be the most costly thing payload has yet done.

    I mean look at the campaign. Hawkeye grade 3 was just barely added, in game ai can't effectively use half of the components properly, let alone act out more than a circle strafe. Missions are dull and repetitive and except for a few lack the flavor of their designated corporations. The rewards system is somewhat random. About the only thing I feel seems remotely finished is the new crafting system, and let's face it, that's still in its infancy. (Third major redesign, by the way, for those of you who don't support the idea of major redesigns as the needs of the game evolve.)

    now this is just my opinion, but it's time to ask yourselves Devs, convenience or quality? I'm not asking you to change anything tomorrow, just consider my words.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  10. NGreyswandir

    NGreyswandir Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    Make pinned thread, locked for comments with approved suggestions ., working on suggestions and refused suggestions, with links to origin suggestion thread.


    So doors and pistons and all movable parts are actually possible but with connection on only one side!!! Just make them then!!!! It would be cool to have connection on both sides but if it is not possible, just make on/off switch that will stay on/off when we change vehicle and we will improvise from there. Give us door with one connection block and 90 set open position for 3/4/5 blocks with no connection, we will kiss you, give it sensor so friendly tech can run in fortress when chased by red and we will cry from happiness . Make all moving parts as GC loaders works and we will dance on forums. But until you do we will keep asking, as we all see loaders that work, and we want more moving parts to make better functions for our tech.
    And if you need time, tell us we will check it in six months, pin it in "in scope" thread in suggestions s cation of the forum and do it in six months....
     
  11. Baconus_Yum

    Baconus_Yum Moderator Moderator Beta Deluxe Ex-Lemon King Sumo Champ

    What do most guns, hammers, and rotor blades have in common? They all still fit in the grid system. That is why you need a giant square for the rotor blades.

    Payload works their faces off for us. The difference between having a crafting overhaul and a tech building overhaul is that you are not basically changing the way the game works. It could take MONTHS in order to get joints even in a prototype stage. Time they could spend working on slightly smaller things, that could add up to a lot more worth.

    In some final words, this thread has sparked up discussion. But let's not forget, Payload doesn't have 200 people working on it. It has around 15. Give them some time, and you might see the feature, might not. They are just not ready.

    -Baconus
     
  12. NGreyswandir

    NGreyswandir Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    This is small example how we can use pistons with no connection points on moving side. For this to work it can have ON/OFF switch or not...
    Point is to have angled ramp that can extend inward so you can climb to platform, or retract in walls on both sides so no access to platform is available (this include solving issue of blocks pushing each other when touching and friction issue of wheels on block, but we are not talking about them here).
    Only issue I see here, in technical way, is what happened if it have ON/OFF switch and you click both on ON.
    (sorry about messy sketch)
    Top.jpg
    Side.jpg
     
  13. Zed

    Zed Well-Known Member

    As mentioned in another post recently I personally have little doubt that the current static grid will remain a part of Terratech as it is both stable and highly functional. Within that system if more blocks were to be added which worked on the principles of the Geo Scoops (which will affect not only the environment with their hinge but also other elevated entities such as enemy / friendly techs if physics deem permissible but also attempt yet mostly fail at simpler tasks such as picking up and carrying resource chunks/ loose blocks within their bucket from A to B) such as but not limited to the following:

    Kick-stand Artillery platforms

    fold-down / out paneling

    multi-positional plow blades (think snowplows with left angle, centered, right angle)

    Emergency brake slab (@reaperx1 's door ) which could also provide significant air resistance when flying to make planes easier to slow and land.

    Others.

    While Payload is a relatively small team compared to AAA titles and is indeed seeking additional talent for the TerraTech project this alone cannot be used as justification regarding some if not much of what has been stated already within this thread. I personally was impressed recently with the efficiency and fluidity with which @Anton revived and polished the Geo Tread while livestreaming his efforts; an experience which leads me to believe that even the most complex of blocks which fit the current grid parameters discussed here and in other threads could be modeled and tested individually within reasonable time if those blocks add to the Terratech Environment.

    I too share some trepidation regarding multiplayer's development and implementation as issues resulting from including multiplayer into the original commercial release could be undoubtedly fraught with issues from lack of synchronization (i.e. Pax Imperia 2) to SoftIce Packeting (i.e. Diablo) however until I am able to experience Multiplayer for myself I will remain optimistic and reserve comment. Underlying point being is Payload seems to feel ready and as an EA community we are obviously eager for more content to help fuel our passions for their creative endeavor known as Terratech.

    Regarding @streak1 comparison to water biomes which have been mentioned since this forum's inception this is a possibility that it will be put off to the point of non-relevance (considering The Last Leviathan has tackled that biome) and outerspace has been now introduced in Lightspeed Frontier) however I suspect this not to be the case with the topics covered above regarding articulating motion blocks.

    This thread covers both topics of functionality and policy; hopefully both will be covered by their respective department groups of Payload studios; Coding and Art regarding blocks, community and upper administration regarding structure.
     
  14. Jamie

    Jamie Admin Developer . Moderator

    Unfortunately not. What you're seeing here is an animation - not a 'hinge'. Code work for adding hinge blocks (blocks that can move...and have an effect on other blocks that are attached to them) is massive. Definitely something we want to see in the game at some point...but not something we're going to dedicate too much time into investigating at this early stage.
    I'm afraid this is just how it is. Devoting time into presenting things that don't work is ridiculous right? Wouldn't you rather we spent our time on actually putting things into the game? lol.
    Everything we do while developing TerraTech is community led. Every decision that is made is based on "what will the players think of this?". It's my job to report back to the team with my thoughts on this - not the moderators. The moderators are here to ensure that the forums run in a pleasant and productive way - which they do an amazing job of. Replying to every wall of text posted on here with another wall of text explaining why we've made each and every decision is not something we plan on doing. Even if we wanted to devote dev time to that - it wouldn't be possible.

    The dev team jump on these forums whenever they can and throw their input where they feel it is necessary and useful. The fact that any of the coders, designers, artists etc guys do this at all is awesome -- as they all have massive task lists looming over them for this update, and the next 100 updates haha.
     
  15. NGreyswandir

    NGreyswandir Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe .

    Animation can not interact, load of Sumo tech prove it is not just animation, as loaders kick tech in the air. This kind of interaction is what can be made for pistons, or scissor lift.
     
    Zed likes this.
  16. Jamie

    Jamie Admin Developer . Moderator

    The physics on the block is maintained throughout the animation. So yes, it can. Attaching a block to this Scoop and expecting it to act as a hinge however - is not possible in the current system.
     
  17. streak1

    streak1 Well-Known Member Beta Deluxe Wiki Mod Canary Streak1

    The difference here is that the loaders are just one block. The loaders don't have a moving AP on the side of them that flips up and moves blocks when activated. The issue isn't the animation, but that separate blocks are connected to that animation.
     
    Zed likes this.
  18. Zed

    Zed Well-Known Member

    An Animated Hinge perhaps; where a stationary frame serves as base for a moving scoop bucket with physicality as @NGreyswandir points out above and is indeed demonstrated by my example artillery mode tech also contained within this thread.

    Also, as @streak1 points out above which agrees with statements I've made previously in this thread single blocks can have moving parts as already proven as long as there is no attachment point upon a moving portion of the block.
     
  19. tomo_cjt

    tomo_cjt Admin Developer Coder Moderator

    The Animation moves a physics collider (within it's allotted grid space, not outside of it) and this collision causes things to move. It VERY MUCH is an animation.
     
    Pink Kitty and Jamie like this.
  20. Zed

    Zed Well-Known Member

    While the Animation may determine the boundary box within which physicality effects can be applied I suspect terminology is becoming a hangup here in this thread. An Animation cannot have physicality yet in the realm of Programming in a virtual environment Animations can serve as the determining factor if a physical impact is or is not registered. (e.g. If an enemy encounters a shield bubble animation it is considered solid whereas the animation of a repair bubble merely acts as a trigger event for healing without the perceptible physicality.)
     
    NGreyswandir likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page