Ship Shapes can be brought back!

The last 30 posts have consisted of arguing whether or not adding in a new game feature would be substantial work or not. Despite a game dev explaining that it would be substantial work, there still seems to be disagreement on this.

Can we just clear this up now, so we can actually progress the idea?

• Adding ship shapes is not an easy task. Period. If you're not a developer, then you don't have the best perspective, so stop arguing otherwise.*
  
• "Just adding" for the sake of experimentation is a waste of time, because:
  
• There isn't strong support from the community for this idea. Make a poll if you'd like, but I'm predicting that the general community opinion on adding ship shapes right now would turn out to be rather reluctant.
  
• It's still not entirely clear how this idea would flesh out. Scroll up and you'll notice a bunch of ideas have been proposed for this concept. Even if the devs were to add in this feature, how would they know what to add? The exact workings of this feature are still very vague. Just because you're saying "this is how the feature should be done" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else agrees with you.
  
• Is it doable? Yes, but only with strong backing from the community -- which is currently lacking. Think about the devs like contractors working to build a hotel. Why spend time and effort in building a hotel that has multiple different blueprints and is being actively protested by citizens? Get the blueprints together and work with the citizens or else it's all pointless.
  
• But there's good news. Stop talking about whether or not this feature can be added in right now and start figuring out how to make it really good. Not just okay, but fantastic. Continue to brainstorm ideas and designs. Keep the ball rolling with discussions. Play out exactly how ship shapes would affect the game and its elements. As someone who has experience in planning and organizing projects based on user feedback, I can say that it's much easier to implement a project when it has all of its bases covered.
  
• And if nothing else, have some respect. Nobody is entitled to anything. If this feature ends up in the garbage, so be it, pack up and try again later or move onto another idea entirely. C'mon, let's be reasonable about all this.

*I'm not a dev either, so this makes me look like a bit of a hypocrite. I think the difference is that what I am saying is generally equivalent to what is being said by people who are developers, at least in this thread.

That's four to seven hours on an idea that we aren't even sure we like, and that's not counting programming it in so that your ship changes shapes on module change, and making it work across the network and such.

Exactly, but it would be client side. Well it depends if the client recieves the modules from other players.

But ship shapes would be weird and could remove the classic shape :/

The last 30 posts have consisted of arguing whether or not adding in a new game feature would be substantial work or not. Despite a game dev explaining that it would be substantial work, there still seems to be disagreement on this.

Can we just clear this up now, so we can actually progress the idea?

• Adding ship shapes is not an easy task. Period. If you're not a developer, then you don't have the best perspective, so stop arguing otherwise.*
  
• "Just adding" for the sake of experimentation is a waste of time, because:
  
• There isn't strong support from the community for this idea. Make a poll if you'd like, but I'm predicting that the general community opinion on adding ship shapes right now would turn out to be rather reluctant.
  
• It's still not entirely clear how this idea would flesh out. Scroll up and you'll notice a bunch of ideas have been proposed for this concept. Even if the devs were to add in this feature, how would they know what to add? The exact workings of this feature are still very vague. Just because you're saying "this is how the feature should be done" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else agrees with you.
  
• Is it doable? Yes, but only with strong backing from the community -- which is currently lacking. Think about the devs like contractors working to build a hotel. Why spend time and effort in building a hotel that has multiple different blueprints and is being actively protested by citizens? Get the blueprints together and work with the citizens or else it's all pointless.
  
• But there's good news. Stop talking about whether or not this feature can be added in right now and start figuring out how to make it really good. Not just okay, but fantastic. Continue to brainstorm ideas and designs. Keep the ball rolling with discussions. Play out exactly how ship shapes would affect the game and its elements. As someone who has experience in planning and organizing projects based on user feedback, I can say that it's much easier to implement a project when it has all of its bases covered.
  
• And if nothing else, have some respect. Nobody is entitled to anything. If this feature ends up in the garbage, so be it, pack up and try again later or move onto another idea entirely. C'mon, let's be reasonable about all this.

*I'm not a dev either, so this makes me look like a bit of a hypocrite. I think the difference is that what I am saying is generally equivalent to what is being said by people who are developers, at least in this thread.

Are you a writer, sky_lark? So always come up with huge "articles" 0.o

But yeah, totally agree.

Are you a writer, sky_lark? So always come up with huge "articles" 0.o

Haha, yeah my posts always end up huge. Not really sure why.

[raptor]

@sky_lark

It is a pleasure to read your prose.

[watusimoto]

raptor and I tried some of the earlier proposed ship shape changes because we thought it was a cool idea (cube, bird-of-prey, millennium falcon). We started by using them to differentiate between bots and humans.

But we were wrong. It just didn't turn out to be a good change. I'll talk to raptor about seeing how easy it would be to add a temporary INI setting to allow you guys to turn on alternate ship bodies locally, just so you can see for yourselves.

It's an awesome sounding idea. We tried it. It sucks.

(That said, I do like some of the proposed bodies in the drawing posted here!)

raptor and I tried some of the earlier proposed ship shape changes because we thought it was a cool idea (cube, bird-of-prey, millennium falcon). We started by using them to differentiate between bots and humans.

But we were wrong. It just didn't turn out to be a good change. I'll talk to raptor about seeing how easy it would be to add a temporary INI setting to allow you guys to turn on alternate ship bodies locally, just so you can see for yourselves.

It's an awesome sounding idea. We tried it. It sucks.

(That said, I do like some of the proposed bodies in the drawing posted here!)

I think what some people (myself included) hear that the developers say that this idea isn't a very good one, but have yet to hear a reason why this idea "just didn't turn out to be a good change." Could you possibly elaborate more on what particular aspects of this feature are not living up to expectations?

agreed welaborate more why were they not efficent?

also if it becomes cliented and not server sidesd then can we inrease the limnit from triagles and try some of my ideas like the rounded W with a long middle a U shape a circle or a ziggurat design?

agreed welaborate more why were they not efficent?

also if it becomes cliented and not server sidesd then can we inrease the limnit from triagles and try some of my ideas like the rounded W with a long middle a U shape a circle or a ziggurat design?

No i do not want this game to turn into something out of a Dr. Seuss book.

why not they would still fit the theme and only the user would see it.........

why not they would still fit the theme and only the user would see it.........

Time and effort on the developers' behalf.

raptor and I tried some of the earlier proposed ship shape changes because we thought it was a cool idea (cube, bird-of-prey, millennium falcon). We started by using them to differentiate between bots and humans.

But we were wrong. It just didn't turn out to be a good change. I'll talk to raptor about seeing how easy it would be to add a temporary INI setting to allow you guys to turn on alternate ship bodies locally, just so you can see for yourselves.

It's an awesome sounding idea. We tried it. It sucks.

(That said, I do like some of the proposed bodies in the drawing posted here!)

Elaborate on why "it sucks"?

[Quartz]

(That said, I do like some of the proposed bodies in the drawing posted here!)

Thank you sir

agreed welaborate more why were they not efficent?

also if it becomes cliented and not server sidesd then can we inrease the limnit from triagles and try some of my ideas like the rounded W with a long middle a U shape a circle or a ziggurat design?

No i do not want this game to turn into something out of a Dr. Seuss book.

you need to read green eggs and ham a few 1000 times thne come back to this thread ty XD.

yes please give feedback on qwhy it doesnt work admins.

[watusimoto]

Amgine suggested alternate bodies would only be for local players' use. I have no objection to this, but I don't entirely see the point. In fact, if you can build from source, you could try this today as, I believe, the alternate body code is still in there somewhere.

The reason it sucked was that it was disorienting and, well, just didn't seem right. It's hard to elaborate on what is essentially an aesthetic judgment call.

As I stated earlier, I would like to let you see for yourselves so you don't have to take my word for it.

[bobdaduck]

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

Amgine suggested alternate bodies would only be for local players' use. I have no objection to this, but I don't entirely see the point. In fact, if you can build from source, you could try this today as, I believe, the alternate body code is still in there somewhere.

The reason it sucked was that it was disorienting and, well, just didn't seem right. It's hard to elaborate on what is essentially an aesthetic judgment call.

As I stated earlier, I would like to let you see for yourselves so you don't have to take my word for it.

I would like ship shapes for local use.

[Quartz]

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

...Dude, that is an awful metaphor. xD

Amgine suggested alternate bodies would only be for local players' use. I have no objection to this, but I don't entirely see the point. In fact, if you can build from source, you could try this today as, I believe, the alternate body code is still in there somewhere.

The reason it sucked was that it was disorienting and, well, just didn't seem right. It's hard to elaborate on what is essentially an aesthetic judgment call.

As I stated earlier, I would like to let you see for yourselves so you don't have to take my word for it.

You bet, I tried the 3 ship shapes once, they look quite good.

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

haha

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

+1

[Quartz]

I'm a big Apple fan, but the day Apple makes a good mouse, I will shit a brick.

raptor and I tried some of the earlier proposed ship shape changes because we thought it was a cool idea (cube, bird-of-prey, millennium falcon). We started by using them to differentiate between bots and humans.

But we were wrong. It just didn't turn out to be a good change. I'll talk to raptor about seeing how easy it would be to add a temporary INI setting to allow you guys to turn on alternate ship bodies locally, just so you can see for yourselves.

It's an awesome sounding idea. We tried it. It sucks.

(That said, I do like some of the proposed bodies in the drawing posted here!)

I liked cube

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

DAT AINT NO CUBE


IT RECTANGULAR PRISM!

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

DAT AINT NO CUBE


IT RECTANGULAR PRISM!

DAT AINT NO RECTANGULAR PRISM

IT PENTAGON PRISM

DAT AINT NO PENTAGON PRISM

IT SHITTY MOUSE.

Where are we going with this?

[Little_Apple]

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

DAT AINT NO CUBE


IT RECTANGULAR PRISM!

DAT AIN'T LOOKIN LIKE NO RECTANGULAR PRISM TO ME

Its like we replaced your mouse with a cube.

It technically still works fine, but it feels wrong.

DAT AINT NO CUBE


IT RECTANGULAR PRISM!

DAT AIN'T LOOKIN LIKE NO RECTANGULAR PRISM TO ME

IT PENTAGON PRISM

[Little_Apple]

pentagonal?

It is actually an irregular pentagon prism. We can observe 5 sides to the side of the mouse, which indicates that it is a pentagon (which has 5 angles). Just sayin'

[Little_Apple]

irregular pentagon-AL

sowy

Someone lock this god damn thread.

[kaen]

Sure thing, OP