[POLL] Debate (healthy) in the Dev team! Can we help?
HYBRID1313
Australia Join Date: 2016-04-01 Member: 215179Members
Australia Join Date: 2016-04-01 Member: 215179Members
So, as of recent, Charlie and Hugh (two UWE peeps) made a few tweets about how there is a debate*, if you will, amongst the team about planned features. The features are whether the Cyclops should catch fire when damaged and sink, or if it should flood and then sink.
A poll was made by Hugh.
In addition, there's a string of tweets discussing these features and what not:
Charlie and Hugh seem to really want this, with Hugh's reasoning being this comment's summary of what it could be:
Why don't they add it themselves? Because that's up to and only possible by the Coders, such as Scott, an UWE coder who would prefer to implement the fire version of Cyclops damage, as coding the flooding could quite easily become a nightmare.
Now, in reply to a fan's comment, Hugh says that they're trying to persuade peeps like Scott within the team for the flooding sequence. Perhaps we can help?
Which would you guys prefer? Answer below! It might act as a good persuasion card
- Cheers,
Hybrid
* - Edited
A poll was made by Hugh.
In addition, there's a string of tweets discussing these features and what not:
Charlie and Hugh seem to really want this, with Hugh's reasoning being this comment's summary of what it could be:
Why don't they add it themselves? Because that's up to and only possible by the Coders, such as Scott, an UWE coder who would prefer to implement the fire version of Cyclops damage, as coding the flooding could quite easily become a nightmare.
Now, in reply to a fan's comment, Hugh says that they're trying to persuade peeps like Scott within the team for the flooding sequence. Perhaps we can help?
Which would you guys prefer? Answer below! It might act as a good persuasion card
- Cheers,
Hybrid
* - Edited
Comments
Hugh tweeted that they only have the time and resources prior to 1.0 (hopefully not after 1.0 as well) to implement ONE of them
Sorry, people who do the coding.
I'd like to see repairing bases require resources - that is the improvement I desire (e.g. welding requires having iron in inventory). It'd make it more challenging to raise the hulk.
Even if that means doing neither till after v1.0 releases.
I also imagine they have a lot of other things to code, however I'm sticking to my guns
Mmm, yeah that is a planned part of the fire idea - having the oxygen be consumed rapidly.
Even so, whilst that would be interesting, I still reckon that having to seal different parts of the Cyclops to prevent the sinking/spread of the flood and having these floods change its centre of gravity/buoyancy would be more interesting.
Additionally, flooding would fit with this image showing the concepts of future Cyclops features and some of its WIP features:
Imagine having your Cyclops mauled to death by a Seadragon because you were ill prepared, only to return to a lifeless husk of what was once your sub, which you can now enter through the shattered dome/cockpit. Would be amazing.
You could have different situations on whether it catches fire, or sinks.
For example, if a Reaper were to attack the Cyclops, it would eventually catch fire.
Then if the Cyclops runs into too many things, or goes below it's crush depth, it starts flooding.
Both of them are great ideas, I don't see why they would have to get rid of either of them.
This is the sucky thing; they only have time and resources for one of them
I'm not sure if this is only in regards to prior version 1.0, or if it's for the foreSEAable future too...
Lets see the 2 different implementation possibilites about what happens when the Cyclops gets hit and the shields are down:
Fire emergency
Water emergency
Combined Water & Fire changes
Unfortunately this poll has only two options. My suggestion is:
Seperate the Cyclops improvements from the emergency handling. Do a first simple Cyclops destruction that needs almost zero implementation to get a first damagable Cyclops with all the improvements. The quick damage implementation could be a simple system shutdown at 0% sub health together with an automatic sinking. When the sub hits the floor it gets replaced by a flooded wreck model once the player has exited.
Then start a long and stepwise improving fire & water emergency implementation that will take time but look very good. It will include fire & water spreading and explosion artwork like with the Aurora turning into a wreck.
Iteration could be like:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the cyclops is powered by batterys that aren't made from lithium of Samsung phones, they wouldn't explode. Since the cells are made of batteries (which is confusing since a battery is made from many cells) and those batteries are made from copper and a form of acid to hold a charge, there is little risk of fire since copper isn't very reactive.
I tend to agree, however; 'We only have the engineering resources to do one' - Hugh
Which is odd. They've done the effects for both situations, they would just need it to be tweaked to affect the oxygen, actually be played when the Cyclops is affected by a certain outward force, and probably improve sinking.
Other than that, it's all pretty much there.
The more important thing of my post was the suggestion to iterate the development, starting with simple things.
But a bit tech talk:
If your Cyclops catches fire, the words "abandon" and "ship" better move up to the top of your vocabulary in a hurry because if they don't, "dead" and "duck" will be.
Flooding, though, is a real and present hazard inherent in subs that isn't likely to go anywhere. Since the Aurora gives us plenty of reason to have extinguishers (and opportunities to use them), a flooding Cyclops really only makes sense.
Often we'll conduct these debates publicly, e.g. on Twitter, in order to bring in outside input. Which is exactly what is happening in this thread, which is wonderful!
But again, don't worry. We actually do work very well together and rarely is there actual 'turmoil'.
Well, except when @Obraxis and I disagree about what the best PC specs are for our workstations. Then there's turmoil!
Haha sorry! That's just my poor choice of words for a title
I've seen many of this debates before on twitter and I think it's lovely how you UWE peeps can disagree frequently, but get along so well
He's a Mac User now. His opinions are invalid. <./joke.>
<font color="green">Razer</font>MasterRace
Mac user?! *Gasp* traitor...
The new Macs are pretty nifty though
I assure you that while my day-to-day computing now happens on a Mac, my X99 custom-water-cooled beast is still in charge
Constructively-conflicting opinions are best in nearly every situation. Groupthink leads to poor results. Glad to hear that even at this point in development, the developers are still engaged in energetic debate.
But @Hugh, seriously, buddy we...we're concerned about you. I mean, you have the right to live your life as you like, but while using a Mac seems like fun now, you're really only hurting yourself and your loved ones in the long run. We don't want to tell you how to live, but believe me when I say that regret is a terrible thing. I know, you're thinking it's too late to give up the Mac, but, buddy, I was a Mac user, too. I can admit that. But I turned my life around, and you can too! We're all here for you!
Well now I'm just conflicted.
Well, now I'm hungry...
I'm having a MAC Attack!
How about an Apple?