No Block Allowance

Should This Feature Be Changed?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Drew Wilbanks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
2
Likes
0
Points
103
#1
I have made the tech of all techs and was pumped to complete more missions, but at this point, I have to remove blocks from my tech just to charge my batteries with the wireless charger. This is an issue in my opinion and I see why that feature exists, but wish for it to be removed or an option for it to be turned off or on.
 

Potato

Tinkerer of Titäns
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
1,141
Likes
2,204
Points
525
#2
Tough luck though, since the devs already said that block allowance is made so that consoles can handle Unity...

Although, I got an idea that might help you out: make the game automatically replace a block with a block you already have on your cursor. You can tell the devs that. :)

@Matt, any ideas? I kinda understand the hassle of removing blocks just to charge.
 
Likes: JimmyBlether

Drew Wilbanks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
2
Likes
0
Points
103
#3
I see where you're coming from. I was just hoping that the lag caused by a ton pf blocks could be entirly your fault, I think it'd be great if it just alerted you that it might gat laggy past that point. Worth a shot.
 

Lost Ninja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
1,208
Likes
859
Points
520
Age
43
Location
Yorkshire Dales under a rock.
#4
Don't to see why it can't be a feature that can be disabled. Make it clear to the user that saves/games/experience might be affected by turning it off and withdrawing support (much the same as they do for modded saves or (I think) modded games). Perhaps even have it turned on every new save and not an obvious option to turn off. But it does strike me as odd that one of the most important aspects of the PC game has been emasculated.
 
Likes: ZeroGravitas

Zeena

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
199
Likes
657
Points
505
Age
26
#5
Sony and Microsoft have standards much higher than PC, and this was their requirements - and it's a good thing, too.

Many players may not realise they have loose blocks/techs they're not using which would then slow down gameplay, and they would result in countless reviews calling the game 'laggy'.

I understand you want absolute freedom, but we believe the block limit allows for large enough Techs to be built.
 

Baconus_Yum

Administrator
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
1,563
Likes
1,595
Points
525
Location
Elsewhere
#6
Sony and Microsoft have standards much higher than PC, and this was their requirements - and it's a good thing, too.

Many players may not realise they have loose blocks/techs they're not using which would then slow down gameplay, and they would result in countless reviews calling the game 'laggy'.

I understand you want absolute freedom, but we believe the block limit allows for large enough Techs to be built.
TBH, I think the block allowance should be increased a bit.
 
Likes: Skyward Saint

Zed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
1,256
Likes
1,187
Points
515
Age
38
#7
Sony and Microsoft have standards much higher than PC, and this was their requirements - and it's a good thing, too.

Many players may not realise they have loose blocks/techs they're not using which would then slow down gameplay, and they would result in countless reviews calling the game 'laggy'.

I understand you want absolute freedom, but we believe the block limit allows for large enough Techs to be built.
Perhaps an amenable compromise (if possible) would be to code different block allowances for the base versions of both Xbox1 / ps4 against their enhanced (PS4 pro / Xbox 1x ) versions given their vastly improved performance (in TFlops) as mentioned here.
 

Heketea

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
31
Likes
28
Points
410
Age
45
#10
I was commenting on this in another thread yesterday, didn't take the time to go there at the moment, but did watch closer last night.

For some reason, the anchor blocks have 2 different BA values depending on how they are used.
For example, a GSO Fixed Anchor has a BA of 2 when attached to a block without deploying the anchor.
If the same block is placed with the result of the deployment of the anchor the BA cost goes up by 200, with a net cost of 202.
This seemed to be the case on randomly chosen anchor type blocks, always resulting in the 200BA uptick in cost.

So;
If you want to auto-mine 4 nodes, then you will chew up 800BA without doing anything.
If you build a base, any anchor block that decides to deploy it's anchor due to the proximity it is to the 'ground' will chew up an extra 200BA each time this happens.
If you build 1 supper rolling base that uses 4801/5000 BA, then convert it to Anchor, you cannot. (And 5000BA is the cap at this time)

I can kind of support disconnected anchor blocks deploying their anchor.
I can not support a connected structure deploying anchors for blocks without any control on my part. Especially when the block logic does not support reconnection 2 anchored areas that get broken apart...different rant for later.

Please consider any (or all :)) of the following for us console players;
  1. ADD logic to prompt an anchor if adding and anchor block to an already anchored tech.
  2. REMOVE the anchor cost from all anchor blocks,
  3. REMOVE the anchor cost to any anchor block connected to an anchored tech,
  4. REMOVE the BA cost from Anchor blocks and instead, ADD the anchor cost to all CABS instead, and require a cab on any anchored tech
 

n2galactic

Spammer of Megatons
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
40
Likes
42
Points
120
#12
I very very very highly recommend block limit be either removed or drastically increased. This "feature" has been impeding my game progress more than the enemies have, yet it's supposed to be for my own good.
 

DrShadox

GeoCorp worker
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
329
Likes
383
Points
175
Age
30
#13
When reading some comment , it sound like this "feature" was added to annoy players , but it's only for avoid you console crash (or burn).

If Devs did that , it's wasn't for fun , they did tests and things like that you know...

In the worst case , maybe they can add a slider for change the limit a bit , with a pop-up windows warning changing that will may make issue (or worst) happen , and accept this change from the user's pars include the renunciation of lawsuits if the system came to be damaged.

But i think it's easier for them to keep the current system like that, if really people don't want a limit , so buy it on PC.
 

n2galactic

Spammer of Megatons
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
40
Likes
42
Points
120
#14
When reading some comment , it sound like this "feature" was added to annoy players , but it's only for avoid you console crash (or burn).

If Devs did that , it's wasn't for fun , they did tests and things like that you know...

In the worst case , maybe they can add a slider for change the limit a bit , with a pop-up windows warning changing that will may make issue (or worst) happen , and accept this change from the user's pars include the renunciation of lawsuits if the system came to be damaged.

But i think it's easier for them to keep the current system like that, if really people don't want a limit , so buy it on PC.
I could agree if there weren't other serious causes of lag in the game. Enemy techs can come in groups of 5 with mountain-sized GeoCorp monstrosities covered in 3-pounders. That causes colossal FPS drops, so what are the devs doing about that? And, what about rendering terrain? That drops FPS too, so why not put a limit on how big the worlds can be? Now obviously that would suck, but so does having a block limit.
 

DrShadox

GeoCorp worker
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
329
Likes
383
Points
175
Age
30
#15
I doubt the world is a FPS eater because its made by "chunk" (like in many game) and these chunk are unloaded when you are far of them , but i can realy judge the game on console since i play on computer.
 

WhitePaw2002

Modding Husky
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
1,856
Points
505
Age
17
Location
North-east America
Website
github.com
#16
I do believe there is a better way to address this situation. Right now, the current system is fairly flawed as far as I know. Situations that shouldn't be significant to performance are becoming problematic to the enjoyment of the game due to the block allowance.

I don't know how many times I'll say it, but when I think of performance and object limits, I'm always brought back to LittleBigPlanet. And I finally found an example
upload_2018-8-20_2-19-51.png
upload_2018-8-20_2-18-48.png
upload_2018-8-20_2-17-30.png
(The thermometer begins to flash red)
 

Flan

PAYLOAD STUDIOS
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
23
Likes
49
Points
120
Age
25
#18
Perhaps an amenable compromise (if possible) would be to code different block allowances for the base versions of both Xbox1 / ps4 against their enhanced (PS4 pro / Xbox 1x ) versions given their vastly improved performance (in TFlops) as mentioned here.
I am fairly certain that both Sony and Microsoft have rules that prevent games having gameplay differences between the Pro/X versions and base versions. The idea is that all players get the same game, just with different levels of graphics.
 

Zorgomol

Not a Number
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
155
Likes
260
Points
270
#19
I am fairly certain that both Sony and Microsoft have rules that prevent games having gameplay differences between the Pro/X versions and base versions. The idea is that all players get the same game, just with different levels of graphics.
This, by the way, is the maximum certainty a developer can have in public about such things. At least I'm fairly certain about that. Probably. Don't quote me on that though.