Abram Jablonski

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Abram Jablonski

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Abram Jablonski

    True or False

    Ditto. Is that an intestines joke?
  2. Yeah... you're absolutely, completely, totally, unequivocally WRONG. In my opinion, your playstyle is totally normal, if maybe just a little bit more hard-core than mine. I also avoid tethers (and was very disappointed with the new update, where Oxygen Tanks became so easy to make). I'm also kinda bored with Terran (but... Terrain 2.0?), and Exotic is my fave, too. Let me tell you a story, young'un... In Ye Olde Days, Astroneer didn't have research points - it didn't even have a Research Station, or a catalog. You went out and explored to discover new stuff, and whenever you found a new type of "research chest", it unlocked a new blueprint, and opening chest types that you'd already found just gave you some random resource. It really was totally random though: black egg with a red X? this play through, it unlocks the Shuttle; another black egg with a red X? resin; hairy red pod? unlocked solar panel. Green slime thing? Drill Head. Totally unusable Drill Head. Like, the drill head was in the RNG goldilocks zone or something, and was always one of the first 3 or 4 things I unlocked. It was - in retrospect - kinda crude, and simplistic, and gave you things out of order, and was totally dependent or the whims of RNGesus. But it encouraged you to explore, and there was NO feeling of "grind" about it, despite the countless hours of just wandering around exploring and looking for new types of chests. Because as soon as you saw one of those at the bottom of a cave, you knew that you had found something new, and were immediately rewarded for finding it - it kinda felt like being a kid on Christmas opening a present, every single time you found a new one. So when we olden play'rs talk about encouraging exploration, that's often (part of) what we're harkening back to. Because it was different, and unique, and it was something that you could lose yourself in, casually, for hours. It's not going to happen, but I would LOVE to have that back in Astroneer. Don't get me wrong - I'm ok with grind, if it fits the game: I've played a lot of 7D2D, beating away at big stones with little stones, to make more little stones, and know it's grindy but I'm perfectly ok with it because it fits (and is an integral part of) the inherent narrative of that game. and after 70 or 80 days, I'm splitting those boulders with one or two hits, instead of the original 30 or 40. But in Astroneer, there's no progression or "levelling up". Essentially, your facilities and modules ARE your "skills", but they never get any better. And you know that a big part of continued engagement in a game is leveling up: players want to be better, stronger, faster, etc., as they progress through the game. Having to spend just as much time and as many resources, whether day 1 or day 100, to receive the same benefit, is - again, in my opinion - a design failure. What I'd like to see (barring just rolling research back to Ye Olde Days, with some tweaks and improvements) is the devs finding a balance where you can rush off - totally, foolishly, suicidally unprepared - to another planet if you want, while I can spend far too long researching and preparing and making it so I can do the same thing for a tiny fraction of the cost and risk.
  3. Pretty much all totally valid points... when I posted this, the thought was that there are a segment of the players that are more expressive than others, and that the game is tending to be adjusted to fit them. And that a lot of the people who are less expressive are hoping that the game will circle back around to being more exploration and less grindy, but not really shouting about it. So I was hoping to start a conversation about that, to give that segment a little more visibility... But, if you read through the forums and look for it, you'll see the "and others" part. And my "and others" response included "maybe there's a way that both sides could be happy". Take, for example, the apparent (to me) conflicts over the Trade Platform and Hydrazine Catalyzer - if you look at the comments from way back when, a lot of people were complaining about how their inclusion made stuff too easy, or that they shouldn't be available because they didn't fit someone's particular preferences (yeah, I know, I'm sorta making the same type of comments in the original post). So that was the squeaky wheel, even though the other side said a lot of "then just don't use it, and let us keep it". But you DO know what I'm referring to, when I say that some people are only arguing for/against something because it fits their preferences. So when I said "only if", I was referring to that: I'd like to hear responses that are less about "you should play my way" than they are about considering possibilities. Astroneer was originally a sandbox exploration game, and I used to spend hours on end, just exploring. Not because I had to, but because I could and wanted to. Because, originally, that was pretty much the big thing that the game had - and also because that was something that appealed to a lot of people. You, yourself, spoke about the "worlds within world" concept - I totally agree, but also interpret it as "going to a new planet should be a different experience". Yes, there should be the feeling of visiting someplace new on the same world, as well, but visiting another world should be even more unique and compelling. Having to struggle in order to even start that "new planet" experience would be a Goal that players could work towards... In the fantasy world of my imagination, I see playing through the starting planet, struggling to acquire resources, building out my basic subsistence, exploring a good portion of the world, gathering a ton of research and getting to a point where I can easily handle the current planet. And then you start reaching out to the other worlds - harsh, difficult worlds, where the Tundra winds are so great that the break the entry level wind turbine, or the Arid sun melts un-upgraded solar panels. Where you need to be advanced enough that you can import a bootstrap base that's smaller but functionally equivalent to the first one you ended up building on that starter planet. But where you still have to struggle, in different ways, to advance past that point. And once you master that? Yeah, setting up a new base on an easy world should feel easy, after you've dealt with the harder stuff - it shouldn't be the same level of work to build out your 5th base on the starter planet. Unless you're going to include micro-transactions. You... don't do that, do you?
  4. I actually am a dev, sooo... Cost-wise, turning off scrap could be cheap, or could be very expensive (depending on how they've got stuff coded up): if it recognizes the item you're scrapping, and can find the resource cost easily, then RNGesus (great term, by the way) can randomly pick half the resources that went into it and give you some of them back. If that's too hard because of the way things are written, then Shredders could just be something to get rid of stuff that's laying around, for the neat freaks. More importantly, though, turning off Scrap would let you trade resources with the Trade Platform, which is something I liked a lot better than "get resources; build stuff with resources; shred stuff for scrap; trade for different resources" - I'd prefer to just skip the intermediate steps. Catalog stuff.. whatever works, I just think that if you've been playing for hours and have done lots of (the right) research, then creating more-efficient / faster stuff would feel - to me - like I've made progress. Having to install upgrades feels like a bunch of extra steps. Likewise planets - I'd like going to another planet to be a new, different (harder) experience, that you need to be better-prepared for
  5. 1 & 2: You (and others) think the Scrap system is great... I (and others) think it's a horrible idea. In a more recent post, I suggested the option to turn it off, which would please both sides 3: Not what I meant - I don't like the idea of "Scrap currency", and would prefer the pre-Scrap mechanics of being able to use the Trade Platform to swap resources 4: My thought was that researching something would either make the blueprint available (and only available if you find an example), or unlock blueprints that are already in the catalog. 5: Currently, it's easier to build a Rocket and fly to another planet, than it is to build a Truck - that doesn't seem right to me. In fact, you need to build the rocket first, because of the resource-gating that was added. 6: The intent was to offer easy-to-implement changes - spending a bunch of research to unlock an upgrade (e.g.: a better, more efficient design) is a lot easier to code, and reduces (or at least changes) the later-game grind... again, something some people love, and others hate
  6. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update - September 6th, 2018

    I agree with everything you said, regarding the initial fanbase and the direction the game is headed, except this... I feel like the devs have been more responsive/reactive (to what the squeakiest wheels say about what the game should be). As for Free Play, I think something other than "all or nothing" modes would be better... Personally, I want a game that encourages and rewards exploring, rather than one that tries to force it... That being said an options menu (especially about the most contentious items) would be a lot closer to giving everyone what they want: Unlimited output from the Terrain Tool: on / off Unlocked tech: minimal / some / more / all Scrap: on / off (if off, then Shredders return some resources, rather than scrap) Hydrazine Catalyzer (or similar): on / off Limit Resources to certain planets: on / off Limit blueprints to certain planets: on / off Certain blueprints only available via exploration: on / off Just looking at it, that sounds like a lot of complexity, but all of them would be straightforward to implement: change the list / weight of available resources when generating terrain; or remove blueprints from the catalog; or check/don't check whether there's a canister on the terrain tool; or add a check to the Shredder logic to decide what it outputs. Stuff I'd also like to see (just to be squeaky): Research wrecked stuff to unlock blueprints Follow-on research to "upgrade" components: solar panels that generate more power, faster smelters or research chambers (etc.) Research that upgrades your suit, before you can visit other planets
  7. I posted this elsewhere, but wanted to submit it as an actual suggestion. These ideas would take very little effort to implement, but would either A) give players a sense of progress or B) fix things that I think are broken (and that, it seems, a lot of other people also want changed) Make base modules detachable from the platforms Get rid of Scrap Have the shredder "decompose" items (including base platforms/ modules), and return some of the original resources Allow players to trade resources at the Trade Platform Let players research found items/ wrecks in the Research Chamber (ex: if you find an extra-large platform, you can research it, and unlock its blueprint without spending bytes) Instead of forcing players to go to other planets, make getting to another planet a significantly-greater accomplishment than building a Truck Adjust shuttle and rocket research/ build costs Adjust resource availability See previous Trade Platform/Scrap comments Once unlocked, let players spend research points to unlock "upgraded" versions of modules, components, vehicles, etc. (doesn't upgrade existing items, but newly-printed items will be the most-upgraded versions available). Some examples: Battery/Solar/Turbine upgrades for more power output (preferably, with multiple upgrade levels - 2x, then 4x, then 8x) Oxygen capacity upgrade, as above, to consume oxygen more slowly Upgrades for modules like the Research Chamber or Smelter, that improve their "top speed" Research Chamber upgrade might also let it extract more points from research Atmospheric Condenser upgrades, where each upgrade level makes additional types of gas available - and the last upgrade allows it to create shuttle fuel Vehicle upgrades to make them stronger, faster, more agile, etc. If you like these ideas - or have other/ better ones of your own - please speak up, reply and discuss so the developers can properly gauge the community's interest. If you don't like them, feel free to speak up about that, too (but, please, only if your reason is something other than "that's not how I want play, so I don't want anyone else to play that way").
  8. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update - September 6th, 2018

    This is already happening: I used to recommend astroneer all the time... for almost a year now, I've been telling people to wait, and see if it gets better. And - from what I've seen - it's not so much that people aren't speaking up, it's that "survival sandbox" people are really emphatic/ forceful/ upset when they say "this is so wrong, how can you have a Hydrazine Condenser, people will never explore!!!". "Exploration sandbox" people seem to only push back when it's something they can't work around/ deal with, and seem more likely to just be disappointed, but hopeful that SES will fix it in the future. Mostly, though, it seems like SES can't decide what they want astroneer to be, and are throwing stuff out there to find out what sticks, and reacting to the squeakiest wheels. A few examples: Terrain as a resource? The Mineral Extractor is kinda interesting, but not sure it's a strong enough argument for nerfing something that was, up until that point, pretty much the main feature of the game Trade Platforms? Lots of yelling and screaming about trade values and minutiae, and just as much thrashing/nerfing from the devs Mobile bases? AWESOME but... now you need to pretty much fully build-out your non-mobile base, before you can get to the point where you can create a mobile base, and having more modules means you can't really have a fully-functional mobile base Scrap? Did anyone ever think that was a good idea, or was it just the devs misinterpreting posts? I heard lots of people saying "let us scrap stuff we don't want", but instead of "decomposing" unwanted modules back into resources, it turned into some kind of currency? "We're going to make people explore by making the game more grindy"? That's not exploring, it's gathering resources... Encourage us to explore, by putting interesting stuff out there for us to find...
  9. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update - September 6th, 2018

    Until you said you loved the wrecks and the feeling of desolation (which I kinda like too), I was 100% convinced you were being facetious. Everything you listed as "great", I consider a negative... I get that some people like the idea of astroneer as a "survival sandbox game", but I bought it back when it was an "exploration sandbox game", so I keep hoping the devs will eventually bring some of that back
  10. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update Feedback Megathread

    Totally agree - I think exploring should be because there are interesting sights to see, or stuff to find... or because you feel like looking for better resources or loot. It doesn't need to be one or the other, but Astroneer seems to be moving more and more towards trying to force everyone to follow the same path, rather than find/ explore their own.
  11. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update Feedback Megathread

    Also: Allow removal of modules from platforms For upgraded modules (to prevent multi-player issues, and avoid magic upgrades of existing modules), internally track their "level" - players would need to print the upgraded version (and, if shredders decompose modules, they could scrap their existing ones) Vehicle performance upgrades: top speed, torque, sharper climbing angle, etc.
  12. Abram Jablonski

    The Crafting Update Feedback Megathread

    Personally, I'm not going to "explore" very far if it's just to find resources - the game needs to provide better motivation (which, hopefully, is in the works with interesting discoveries, or alien ruins, or blueprints for alien technology, or... something). Likewise, I'm not going to keep playing if I never "level up", and have to grind just as much for the basics after hours of playing. Or if I'm forced to planet-hop just to get the basics. Some suggestions that would require minimal functionality tweaks, but would make the game a lot more fun/ satisfying (for me, at least): Get rid of scrap: have the shredder "decompose" items (including base platforms/ modules), and return some of the original resources Get rid of scrap, part 2: revert the Trade Platform so players can trade resources again Mid-/ Late-game, allow players to research upgrades, so they can "move past" the early-game grind. Some possibilities: Chemistry Lab upgrade, to unlock alternate formulas (so that a resource can be created multiple ways) Atmospheric Condenser upgrade, which allows it to create fuel Research Chamber upgrade, to extract more points from research Battery/Solar/Turbine upgrades for more power output (multiple upgrade levels - 2x, then 4x, then 8x) Oxygen capacity upgrade, as above Upgrades for modules like the Research Chamber or Smelter, that improve their "top speed" And, to encourage exploration: Let players research found items/ wrecks in the Research Chamber (ex: if you find an extra-large platform, you can research it, and unlock its blueprint) Instead of forcing the player to jump between planets, make it harder to do - (IMHO) getting to another planet should be an achievement (and a new, tougher challenge), not a requirement. Some possibilities: Shuttles are prohibitively expensive to research - but, if you find one while exploring, you can research it and avoid the expense Special suit upgrades are required to survive on other planets - also really expensive, but some of those corpses might be wearing one
  13. Abram Jablonski

    Research experiment

    Just to clarify: In this list, are those only blueprint unlocks, or were some of them resources you obtained in lieu of a blueprint? And was it the first research for each pod type/ the second, third, Nth one/ the first research of any pod type (had big pile on the ground but hadn't researched anything yet when you saved the game)?
  14. Abram Jablonski

    Open Question: Could you NOT trade Hydrazine?

    From what I could tell, there was a lot of talk/complaints about how hydrazine trading was bad, and I think they nerfed it (way back with patch 117) to try to level it out. But there were still posts along the lines of "Infinite resource loop exists" and "You can create a new base with only 7 resources" (not positive those were between 117 and 153, though), which kinda read like "this is still bad"... to me, that seemed like the driver for their decision to remove it altogether. My impression: "harder-core-but-not-Chuck-Norris" players were complaining about hydrazine trading devs nerfed it the players who liked trading didn't think the nerf was that big a deal devs killed it the people who liked trading are commenting a lot more devs are going to... ? But again, I'm guessing here - based in large part on my interpretation of the tone/content of the patch announcements and updates...
  15. Abram Jablonski

    Open Question: Could you NOT trade Hydrazine?

    My primary point was that it seems like people are being a bit too absolute about it, and putting forth some variant of "everybody should play the way the devs intended", and interpreting "the right way" in drastically different ways. The devs seem pretty open to the direction of the game... they've been really good thus far about reacting to what the community asks for. Unless the devs say "this is way we intend for you to play", it's all just conjecture on our part. And at this point, there is no early/mid/late game: there are certain mechanics that are in place, but there's no real progression to different phases. Removing functionality because a small (but vocal) segment of the players don't like it is not focus, and it's not consistent. It's forcing people who play the game differently to play the way you want them to. If you don't like it, you DO have the option to not use it and pretend it's not there. The people who want to play for a couple of hours for the sole purpose of building a base and trying out the augments don't have that choice anymore, though. I don't like using a shuttle to start a base on a different planet: either you shouldn't be able to turn a shuttle into a base, or you shouldn't be able to fly away once you have. Not both. I think it's kinda stupid, and it annoys me a little. But, y'know, there could be someone out there that loves it and starts a base on every planet with a single shuttle. My solution: I NEVER USE THAT FUNCTIONALITY, and I do other stuff instead. And Mr Astro RV Park Builder can still do his thing, too. We are talking about a game in pre-alpha. And there's no reason to remove functionality that a lot of players like, just to appease a small but vocal segment that thinks everyone should be forced to play a certain way. I can ignore the existence of features that I don't particularly like - I can't pretend something is back if it's been taken out.