Should the shelter or Seatruck be allowed to "connect" to base-components?
Boff
Sweden Join Date: 2018-08-12 Member: 242804Members
Sweden Join Date: 2018-08-12 Member: 242804Members
Subnautica used to annoy me that you couldn't make your Escape pod - a physical part of your base.
When I saw the shelter and how it had legs/power and was "stationary", I saw the door and port on the top and thought,
A cool, the dev's want us to use "this" as the base starting point.
But the components do not attach, do they?
And Now I'm playing with the sea-truck modules, and the same thought keeps hitting me, wouldn't it be cool if you could dock a sea-truck module onto a base part.
There would have to be an umbilical/soft-dock component we would have to stick onto our base, but then we could just "back up", and walk straight into our base.
What are your thoughts and ideas?
When I saw the shelter and how it had legs/power and was "stationary", I saw the door and port on the top and thought,
A cool, the dev's want us to use "this" as the base starting point.
But the components do not attach, do they?
And Now I'm playing with the sea-truck modules, and the same thought keeps hitting me, wouldn't it be cool if you could dock a sea-truck module onto a base part.
There would have to be an umbilical/soft-dock component we would have to stick onto our base, but then we could just "back up", and walk straight into our base.
What are your thoughts and ideas?
Comments
If the cyclops is meant to be a mobile base it makes sense that it can't be docked to bases, and that there isn't a topside hatch, but then it doesn't make sense that it's meant to run on batteries, or that it hasn't got any water/food production.
If it's not meant to be a mobile base, it makes sense that it only have a limited power supply that needs to be resupplied at a base camp, but then it doesn't make sense that it cannot dock.
The same applies to the seatruck. In that it is a truck, it's clearly not meant to be a base, but then again it has a construction module and hilariously small storage modules.
For a game that is so spot on in so many ways, they chose to be lackluster in the most random aspects.
And to be forced to maneuvre a Cyclops or Sea Truck manually could get quite annoying - Just like piloting the sea truck backwards to make it dock with other modules.
You won't be able to build your own base early on (creative mode being a possible exception). There's already a fix place where you'll find the habitat builder. And an audio sequence or PDA (can't remember) indicates that the devs have chosen this spot on purpose. So chances are low that you can simply craft one.
I already stated that I don't like the Sea Truck at all. And this is one of the reasons why!
(aside from the fact that trucks / trains are very common and I do play games to see something I don't see every day)
Because this is the 'natural' next step that then puts the whole concept of a stationary base into question.
I mean if the sea truck modules float, why can't the normal base pieces float as well? (a good way to get rid of base struts, right?) And if a sea truck module isn't that different from a corridor base piece, why can't I dock/undock the latter and move it around as well... heck, why not even make the whole base consisting of nothing but movable sea truck modules? And why not make the 'walls' (i.e. the sides) of a sea truck module customizable just the way you can customize corridor walls by adding windows, reinforcements, hatches, wall planters or even a folding bed or a grav-trap aquarium.
Because if there are two very similar concepts, why not remove one concept from the game?
But the cyclops was huge, the sea truck is not.
If the modules could have battery power, so they could be charged independently for oxygen production. That would be amazing.
And having the sea-truck float on the surface would be nice too.
It allows transport in narrow areas, it can act as a base, allowing players to remain self-sufficient, (almost),
The cyclops got so over-powered due free-reign to do-as-you-please, once you got marblemellons onboard, thermal charging and the loaded on ion batteries, you had not much to fear.
The seamoth just didn't have the versatility or "cosiness" of a base or Cyclops, and using it as storage the transport of cargo, (to start a base or move stuff around the map), was not a job the seamoth was designed to do. And then having it picked up by a Reaper and crushed like a egg when all that time and effor went into it, was heartbreaking.
So having the sea-truck torn up and modules scattered will be interesting.
The sea-truck is this happy middle-ground between the Cyclops and the seamoth.
It limits our construction and creativity options, but it forces the survival aspect back on the player.
It's going to make game design easier, as it limits the players options and limits design challenges of pacing (and gating) back in the controls of the devs, so the story can be tighter.
My last reply was about what DrownedOut wrote, not about your suggestion. But since we're at it:
To repeat myself: Keep in mind that players might try to dock a SeaTruck that has numerous modules attached to it. That's the reason why I wrote that moving backwards to dock the whole thing could become quite annoying.
And if the SeaTruck would 'snap in' like the modules do, it might cause unwanted collisions. F.e. if the SeaTruck is not 100% leveled with the base when you try to dock, the 'snap in' mechanism might pull the whole SeaTruck down to level it, causing it to collide with the seabed or other base pieces.
This might be considered an issue of the marblemellons (I only used bulbo trees btw), but has nothing to do with the Cyclops. Keep in mind that there might be a plant module for the SeaTruck as well. Oh and by the time you get the thermal charging and ion batteries, you already finished the game.
These kind of comments always makes me wonder why players are so fascinated by a mobile base. If you don't pick up resources - because they are only useful if you plan to expand you base - what's the point of a mobile base? What do you plan to bring with you, if you don't want to build something?
A few bottles of water and a few snacks already make you "(almost) self-sufficient". (So it's then only a matter of inventory space).
That's why I didn't miss anything when I built my base(s) at the most beautiful or extraordinary spot(s) I could find and explored the rest of the world with the Seamoth! Oh how I LOVE the Seamoth!
For me, the Cyclops didn't fail due to its size but due to the effort involved with this craft! I mean to build a base, a reactor and one or more cell charger just to refuel it, was a pure waste of my time! And although a power transmitter on the Cyclops would have already halved the pain, such a tiny little thing never made it into the game.
That's also the reason why I didn't like the deep lava sea and the lower lost river. These areas didn't add anything new and felt unfinished & enforced. So I'm glad they didn't make it into Below Zero.
The main thing I liked about the Cyclops: It felt like docking my shuttle to my own personal carrier.
And that's the point => For me, the Cyclops was my carrier! And carriers don't have to be combat-ready, maneuverable or have to fit / dock everywhere. That's why I didn't miss a docking option or a temperature gauge, just to squeeze out a few more miles per hour. What I I did miss though was an autopilot... just to cruise around while enjoying the scenery or walking around.
The SeaTruck however can't even provide this and is IMO in no way better than a Cyclops. If you really want the SeaTruck to be your mobile base, you have to string many modules together, making the SeaTruck just as long as the Cyclops. The SeaTruck however would then still be worse by design, simply because a variable length can't compete with a good mix of length, width and height, even if these dimensions are preset! I mean 2/3 of every SeaTruck module is wasted on the doorway. So give me a steerable multipurpose room or moonpool and I'd be happier.
The Seamoth also had the advantage that it comes with its own storage. Just jump in and you're ready to go. Try the same with the SeaTruck. You'd have to manually undock the modules that make up your "mobile base" and keep the ones attached that make up your fast exploration / scouting vessel.
For me, the "loss of creativity" is one major downside!
Being able to do what I want, when I want and how I want, is a central part of Subnautica!
I mean where's even the problem of designing a multipurpose SeaTruck module and make each side of the module customizable? Why can't I even decide if I want the bed on starboard or larboard side, or decide that it should be next to a window or part of a module with a glass ceiling?
But then again ... this might just render the normal base building obsolete...
So if I were to decide how Subnautica should have been, I would have just limited the diving depth of the main character. Such a tiny change, and the Cyclops would have already been WAY MORE USEFUL! And it would have added a whole new aspect to the game: A point in which the main character is completely 'dependant on' or 'rendered obsolete by' the tools he created. It would then require a Prawn Suit with a habitat builder arm to create a base anywhere down there.
And if the Cyclops would have had a few more interior customization options, I don't really see a reason why I'd ever implement a SeaTruck. Just as I had my own ship in KOTOR and SWTOR and really, really loved it, I'd be happy to have my own Subnautica Millenium Falcon ... completely without any modules.
Fair enough on collision issues, and I do believe those would cause some programming headaches, but I think if the external component would require free space the size of a moonpool, it could be done. Basically only a small locking area but with some outer posts serving as a landing strip guiding thing you'd have to maneuver through before any snap-ons will activate.
I can't say I agree with your dislike of either the Cyclops's controls or the Sea Truck's. Both go smoothly enough for me, and those times it doesn't work out, stubborn force has yet to fail. At most I'd like to be a little less camera-dependent with the Cyclops, but that's all. So, perhaps a dock would be a pain to you, but I don't think it'd be objectively so.
Just to add, I'm huge on building bases and I like to have a mobile base. I simply won't cover the entire map with bases, so for places I'd otherwise not spent much time in, a mobile base is ideal for a longer stay.
Also to add for perspective's sake, as much as there's people who consider the Cyclops absolutely useless within the gameplay present, there's people who consider the Cyclops to be so good it renders all of the basebuilding obsolete.
I think a Cyclops is larger than a moonpool, but sure, it can be done. That's the great thing about programming.
Just a simple question:
What do you think: How would a SeaTruck turn, if there are only two small turbines at the truck and none on the trailers? Where do you expect the center of rotation to be located?
So feel free to check the SeaTruck again and then compare it with the behaviour of a real life train or multi-trailer truck.
I'm sorry, but for me the SeaTruck is a failure, created by the illusion of maximum modularity. And at least for me, it doesn't even provide the likability of a camper van.
It's bigger. My suggestion isn't for the space the Cyclops would take up to be reserved, but to create checkpoints for the Cyclops's positioning that have to hit before it can dock. That ought to prevent collision too, give or take someone deliberately messing around.
Yes, a simple question (I view it as a lead module pulling the others? Admittedly, I have not tested beyond three modules and won't until more models are available), but one that I'm not sure I understand the point of. Am I correct you're talking about realism in response to me saying I have no trouble piloting the SeaTruck?
In order to make my previous statements more precise why I disagree with you, I added one of the reasons.
And to repeat this statement:
The SeaTruck's center of rotation is actually the player piloting it. And that means, all the trailers - and you can have way more than the 3 you've tested - sinply 'fly' through the water. Moving your camera view slightliy up results in all the trailers moving downwards quite fast, potentially causing them to hit the ground.
But sure, some players might not even care that the developers faked the movability of the SeaTruck by screwing physics up. But for me, the rather sluggish movement of the Cyclops was way more plausible. And btw: the center of rotation was at the center of the craft, the craft would try to level horizontally and turning the craft would take the mass of the craft and the resistance of the water into account.