Well now i HAVE to go and look on steam haha
A quick comment to all this yay sayers versus nay sayersâŠ
There can be no light without darknessâŠ
In my worldview, you have a solid foundation for your presence SA
Thanks.
Well now i HAVE to go and look on steam haha
A quick comment to all this yay sayers versus nay sayersâŠ
There can be no light without darknessâŠ
In my worldview, you have a solid foundation for your presence SA
Thanks.
That is a lot to cover, I am going to take my sweet time responding to this.
Ok, I accept your decision and judgement.
As for your question: It was honestly no more than curiosity. You refered to it as your opinion, and i wanted to know what that opinion was, that was it.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Look, this is stuff we can have productive conversations about. I will respond to these in a separate post later. Thanks for bringing them up.
I acknowledge the existence of those threads, thanks for reminding me, and I take those sentences back. I canât exactly remember what they were called, so I have trouble finding them to come back at the nuances of why and how the were shut down, (which Iâd like to look at for myself). I will reply to this topic when/if I find them.
This also measn that I will adress the following point in general, and not in this specific case. Feel free to ignore it if it doesnât apply.
It depends on how these âstill n developmentâ-comments were made. It is normal, after all, in normal discourse that people try to convince others with differing opinion with facts and arguments. Just the fact that someone counters your statements doesnât mean that what you said is now gone or ignored (it only might, and then only to some, depending on how factually well-founded the couter was), but that youâve engaged in a healthy discussion where facts like these are supposed to be weighed. If instead the comments were like, it is still in development so shut up, then you are completely in your right.
Without the threads to look up I canât completely determine whether this point is apt in the discussion, but I wanted to mention it because I feel it is sometimes forgotten by people in the current internet landscape.
Now, this is where I donât understand some people. It has been demonstrated by the dev comments in multiple places that they do indeed LISTEN to all the comments @SirAstrix, even yours. Just because they do listen does NOT mean that they are REQUIRED to do it. Just maybe they donât agree, or maybe more players than just a couple have shown that they donât either, or maybe it is something that may come in the future. Listening to SUGGESTIONS is not the same thing as agreeing to add them.
Personally I do not want pvp in this game. I donât want my town and buildings and hearthlings destroyed by another player. I have no problem with those that do, though, and even if it is not added in to the main game, it would probably be relatively easy to add through mods once the multiplayer is up and running.
At that same point it may very well be added as an option for those that do want pvp. I think the argument of the devâs donât listen to the community or that they say one thing and then months later do something else is childish at itâs core. Some things may not be possible with what they currently have to work with, maybe in the future it will be. Weâre just going to have to wait and see.
I supposed if I say this itâs not secret but here goes! Various engineers (Tony, Carl, Angelo) have actually tried this in the last year. The diagnosis is that itâs currently death-by-1000-C+±related-papercuts. Like, C++ is supposed to work the same on windows and on mac but⊠it doesnât. So it just involves like, finding a bunch of errors and then fixing them so the code still works on both platforms. Unfortunately, C++ is at the heart of a bunch of systems so it would require a lot of testing.
I myself donât care about multi-player but I do care about needing mods to enjoy playing the game.
I have played normal with both RC and Asendancy. I have watched a footman having been fully healed by the cleric, pick up another footman that needs to be taken back to town and placed in a bed for the herbalist. Drop the footman and run back to the cleric while he finishes healing the other footmen. I watched the footman drop the comatose footman three times after being fully healed. I couldnât tell you if the comatose footman ever made it back to town because I quit and deleted the save from pure frustration.
I have horrible luck with the RNG. Iâm always getting 1 mind, 1 body, and 6 spirit when new hearthlings join the town. I see mods that fix the poor stats but I donât play with mods.
I wonder if this game is only going to be enjoyable with mods.
I play all Bethesda games without mods and they are fun to play mod free. Iâve had the experience where a game needs mods to be enjoyed. Fallout 3 New Vegas is boring without mods. I had someone on steam who tried F3NV without mods and that person came back and agreed with me that the game was no fun without mods.
So my worry is, are the devs going to depend on mods to make their game fun to play?
Itâs not quite that
It is a game that fun to play to certain people and not so others with some middleground, thatâs pretty much every game thatâs ever made
The whole thing with making mods is there for two reasons
A good example is Minecraft, itâs enjoyable on itâs own and you may not even know that mods exist, you play the game with mods and now itâs unplayable without them same goes for multiplayer for MC
They didnât exclude guns from Minecraft because they depended on modders to add them, it was that Minecraft doesnât need/fit with guns,
Guns donât belong there
The reason SH wouldnât have things like PvP is not because they depend on modders to add them, itâs that PvP is Not something that is fitting.
A setting where players fight and the town building is something competitive and intense does not belong in SH that the devs vision, and even if that vision is different from yours or someone elsâs itâs still a valid and strong point to make
They donât want SH to be a PvP game, so they donât add them themselvs, only players that will to get them will get them through mods, normal people that enjoy the experience will not feel like theyâre missing out ehen they donât click the âturn on PvPâ button
Though i do agree that we need more general content in furniture and such, the gameâs core Design is something the Devs decide on, and it is absolute, you can give feedback, but it is their call in the end
So what youâre saying is the game is only for some players? Not for RTS players, not for time management city builders, and not for people looking to enjoy the game without multi-player or mods. That cuts out a lot of people which would put a large dent in the gameâs selling points.
Lets put it another way, Some of the charm of some games is the ability for the community to add in their own content. Games like that appeal to a wider player base because theyâre flexible enough to see that not everyone will enjoy the stock game. I personally Love stonehearth without mods. I love it with mods. I love making models and seeing how all the nuts and bolts of the game work, but thatâs my tastes, for you, you donât like mods and thatâs ok, but it might mean you never have access to say pvp or maybe a playable race of fox people, but thatâs ok too.
But honestly i think we have lost sight of the OP topic. Maybe itâs time to close this discussion eh?
To try and not beat a dead horse here, let me ask about the situation of diagonal walls with the new editor. When the majority of people were asking about it, and we get a response of deal with it, howâs that listening? Youâre correct that they arenât required to do what we say, but at the same time, review anything from 2017, especially the second half, and thereâs multiple upon times where userâs comments werenât taken into consideration.
And there it is people. the statement we get over and over again when something is said against the development.
I pray to Rayya that they donât as thatâs what Minecraft did. I canât say now, but back when this was asked a couple years ago, we were told they wouldnât go down that route.
My only argument to this is that the original pitch had PvP in it. It didnât get removed till later.
That it did, player vs player city raids.
Do note however, that doesnât mean there will be direct pvp, if you read the fine print it clearly outlines the conditions of said pvp.
Will the PvP be opt-in?
Yes. You absolutely do not have to participate in PvP if you donât want to. Also, even if you do participate, only a copy of your city gets uploaded for other people to play in. Life in your local city goes on as normal.
Repeatedly brushing it under the carpet isnât going to provide a solution. Porting is going to require a lot of testing, like everything else in the game. Isnât that why there was a stretch goal?
It seems itâs unlikely to get any easier, so kicking the ports further down an already unknown length of road isnât a solution itâs a cop out.
This is a problem of Team Radiantâs creation when the decision was made to accept pledges from macOS and Linux backers.
At some point development of the Windows version is going to slow because of the ports. After nearly five years, why not now?
I get waht you mean, but really is there another way? Lets say they said they wanted a peacful city builder, and the players say they want PvP, but if the gameâs core values were to to focus on the town, people in it and the community, adding any sort of violant competition would compromise that value, and what can you do? Change the core values of the game? But thatâd be a different game.
They are ultimately making StoneHearth the StoneHearth that is true to itâs creators, thus meaning some suggestions and ideas will have to be answered with an absolue No, such as blood, violant interaction with other players, children, ect
And it isnât ignoring the player, even if you listen your answer can still be No, all you need to let the players know is that it either doesnât match with what the game is, or that it compromises itâs core values.
Well, pretty much Yes (except the multi-player part, they mean to make the single-player experience as gokd as it can be) iâd say itâs the same way you donât make a city builder for FPS players, RTS and SH might look similar, but theyâre not the same type of game, it doesnât mean that the RTS playstyle is inherently bad, or that itâs just ignored.
if youâre looking for a game where you use tactical and fast-pased thinking to beat your enemy, youâre in the wrong place - if youâre looking to manage and automate every pary of your town and make your citizens super efficient machines, youâre in the wrong place.
What is True however is that IF you want to play it that way, get some handy mods and youâll have the customized gaming experience you wanted, and THATâS why they say itâd be a good mod, but not good for the game
Give you an example?
I love city building games and i really like Minecraft
Guess what? Thereâs a mod that makes Minecraft into a city builder (it actually exists) and i loved it!
BUT, does this mean Minecraft shouldâve been a City builder? Absolutely not right?
Minecraft is Minecraft and it stands as it is
The Modâs job is to change Minecraft into a city builder, something that is NOT inherently Minecraft
This is how it is with mods for SH
Needing mods to enjoy SH doesnât mean that SH needs thise in its base game, itâs that YOU need it, and thatâs why it exists out of the base game, thatâs why itâs made by the players and not the developers
This is an extremely important thing to be aware of.
The Mod is NOT part of the game, by adding the mod you are not upgrading or enhancing the game, you are enhancing the Experience by Changing the game, by adding a mod, you are no longer playeing the game, you are playing the modifyed version made by the mod
And if that experience is the base YOU can have from it? then that is YOUR StoneHearth, not inherently More Valuable nor is It Less valuable, it is the experience you wanted out of the game that was different from what you wanted
UmâŠthey did do exactly that, with exactly PVP. Compare their current direction to the Kickstarter campaign. On top of that, these were topics that started:
This wasnât one incident or a misunderstanding, And yeah, theyâve changed their direction a couple times. So why stop now?
But as far as whether theyâre listening to us or not, I guess weâll have to agree to disagree or this argument will continue forever.
Itâs kinda one of the genres the developers labeled the game with. Kinda hard to say it isnât that then.
This was actually argued a few months ago when a player asked for a definitive way to beat Ogo. Again, thatâs exactly what this game is, as there isnât a set way to defeat the game due to the RNG. So with the random generator, you have to be tactical and think on your feet as things can change randomly.
I agree the game is labeled as a RTS. The devs canât just randomly give labels and not have those elements in the game.
This wasnât one incident or a misunderstanding, And yeah, theyâve changed their direction a couple times. So why stop now?
well iâd argue that the âwhy stop now?â is a pretty bad argument (no offense of-course) it is true that the game is plenty different from what we started with in some regards, but that doesnât mean that they Have to change it again.
i will bet even if the Entire community wanted SH to be a more bloody and violent game, theyâd say a firm No
for the cases above the reasoning could be that the argument against the idea werenât compelling enough to go against the plan, as i said this isnât a place where we truly vote for features to be in or out, we give our opinions and it can be shot down however strong the following. we all wanted to see children and marriages in the game, but then the edge-case of children dying became an issue that halted this movement, that issue couldâve been a core value of the game that was decided to be kept
just to add in my view here
SH has always been a city builder game thatâs more or less slow paced and peaceful even with occasional goblins and kobolds invading, the Devs decided that the focus of the game was the town that the players build and the people inside it, and also that itâd be a family-friendly game for the most part.
the problem with PvP would be that the player who has built this town and made connections can be and could be encouraged to destroy someone elsâs town, their people and the stories they built, and that was against their core value and it promotes the player to consider Hearthlings as things to kill and troops to attack with, and this again would collide with the idea that Hearthlings are people to connect to and care for
Itâs kinda one of the genres the developers labeled the game with. Kinda hard to say it isnât that then.
this may seem like a bad argument but iâd say the entire notion of labeling games a genre is in many ways problematic and misleading, as so many games cross the boarder and have to be fit into an odd genre that doesnât really represent what the game does
example : Portal
often Portal (and 2) is labeled an FPS game, but if you ask the players many of them would say itâs a puzzle game, yet many people still label it as an FPS game purely based on the fact that itâs in first person and it has something that shoots things. the problem is not that the game has that label as much as the image it provokes, as the âFPSâ title often brings the image of a game where you shoot enemies to kill them in some setting, yet portal is really anything but that.
i think SH suffers the same problem, as technically itâs not turn based or card based, so itâs real time
itâs somewhat tactical so it is a tactics game, but it definitely doesnât fit in the common sense of an RTS which would bring up games like StarCraft and stuff like Supreme commander or C&C
if someone says âThe RTS audienceâ technically speaking youâre referring to players that play games that are real-time and strategic this would include games like Clash Royale and iâd even say that MOBA games fit into this category
long story short i would argue that SH does not have a Genra, it barely has a control scheme genre that can fit aside form city builder and the RTS label might as well just be a label that represents how the camera moves
the comment that âBecause itâs an RTS gameâ has as much power as saying the reason is that it has a high up camera view
This was actually argued a few months ago when a player asked for a definitive way to beat Ogo. Again, thatâs exactly what this game is, as there isnât a set way to defeat the game due to the RNG. So with the random generator, you have to be tactical and think on your feet as things can change randomly.
i mean iâm not here to put stops on all your arguments or naything but thereâs an argument to be had so iâll keep it up as i still stand for it.
it is true that the Ogo fight(an the other org chief fights for that matter) have a lot of tactical thinking to do
but i donât think you can disagree that those tactical decisions are far different from the typical idea of an RTS game like the ones i stated above, it is tactical, but the thing i want to put emphasis on is âFast-Pacedâ because iâd say SH can have some intense moments, but overall it is not a game that is âFast-Pacedâ even if you try to pick every single part of it that is fast.
the Ogo and Chief battles are more of a test of your understanding of the game than your split-second tactical reactions, as if you start to understand how your military works you can pretty much leave them to fight and come out victorious 9 out of 10 times and even thatâs putting it lowly
not to offend you but i would say that the arguments you brought up here hold little strength to me since they try to focus on a âpartâ of the game more than the whole
because âbut THIS part is violentâ , âBut THIS part is called this!â , âBut THIS is how the camera is held!â
it almost like how you could argue that the Earth is flat it you sat itâs accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 and completely ignore things like time zones and seasons
i think the real question we should have is âWhat is StoneHearthâ as that is the question that will define everything, as it is the only way to judge a game at itâs best, not as an RTS not as a CityBuilder, but as a game of itâs own, what is it
I agree the game is labeled as a RTS. The devs canât just randomly give labels and not have those elements in the game.
as i stated above i agree that itâs extremely misleading but iâd say they have little choice?
because even though if between RTS and CityBuilder iâd say itâs a CityBuilder more than an RTS
but if you asked me if itâs a CityBuilder iâd say itâs not really that, Ant-Farm seems to be the closest? but even that isnât really it since we have a lot more focus on individual Hearthlings and they arenât suppose to be just simple worker-Bees
âŠand once again the insults start. I hate this community anymore.
âŠand once again the insults start. I hate this community anymore.
what no i didnât mean it like that, iâm trying to say that i think weâre tackling this the wrong way.
i feel like we need to give more respect to the developers (not that we disrespect them now)
and understand that our job is to provide ideas for improvements that is Chosen by the devs
and also the whole genre thing i feel like is just⊠not right.
not wrong per-say, but not⊠accurate
âŠand once again the insults start. I hate this community anymore.
I think youâre being over sensitive, youâre being disagreed with, not insulted.
I do agree that PVP was a core element of the KickStarter, one of the major stretch goals ($300K). Came after Mac and Linux ports ($200K)