Marck

Members
  • Content count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Marck

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. That is weird, because I tried it myself after your comment and it does work for me. I am able to use a dynamite explosion to remove a platform with a printed module and a platform without a module (i.e. you only see the hologram outline of a to be printed module on it). However, I am not able to remove a simple node that hasn't been made into a platform yet. But that is just because I am unable to place a stack of dynamite such that I can reach its ignition button; instead, with every click, the node tries to extend into an additional node. I am using the Steam version of the game with a saved game that has been created after the latest patch 158 on a Windows 7 computer. Are you placing the dynamite onto the building which you want to remove, or onto the ground next to the building? As far as I know, the dynamite needs to be attached to the building.
  2. If a feature existed or had been introduced that is suffering from a balancing issue caused by hydrazine trading (a trading economy, for example), then the issue should be removed, of course. Also, it would be obvious why a feature is changed or removed, when another known feature is negatively affected by the feature in question. But we have nothing to that extent right now, and the patch that removed the feature did not introduce anything in that area. So why spend precious development resources on a feature that does not have any impact on any of the existing features or the features that are subject to the remainder of the same patch? It just appears to be inconsistent and counter-productive. Maybe this is really all about improving the communication between SES and us players. If they had explained that they are planning to introduce a feature that is negatively impacted by hydrazine trading, then there would have been no speculation in the first place. But even then they could have left the existing feature in until they actually introduce that new feature. Sorry for polluting your video history. I hope that you nevertheless differentiate between the content of a message and the form of its delivery.
  3. Just in case anybody is still interested: Jim Sterling says it better than I ever could when he talks about Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's Smart Steering in his Jimquisition Show installment "Mario, Take The Wheel" (starting at 3:30). Please watch at least until 11:45 to get the full point. (If you are watching the whole video and are wondering: No, I do not mean that "Thank God for me!" line.) Thank you.
  4. Since patch 125, it is possible to destroy base buildings with dynamite, see the patch notes:
  5. In what way is the design changed for people that don't like the intended game play when hydrazine trading is available? With that feature available, the design is unchanged, the intended game play is still there. The only difference is that there is an option less in the game now. Nobody is asking for changing the gameplay or for adding something new to it. The point is to leave in an already existing option for an additional way of playing the game. Please give a convincing reason why this is bad, in what way this has a negative impact on the intended game play whose signifying feature seems to be to not include hydrazine trading. That intended game play does not include hydrazine trading when you ignore it. Why can't everybody (including the developers) just ignore that feature, why must it be removed? It is optional after all. This leads directly back to the question that is asked in the topic of this thread. Variety is good. Options are good. We already had variety and it has been removed. I want to understand why, because it seems so unreasonable to me.
  6. @Kantanshi If you can't see that I actually take your arguments and explanations seriously and then reply to them in turn with honest (counter) arguments, then I agree with you that we are done with discussing this topic. There is no point in continuing in that case. I am not trolling you, I just do not find your arguments convincing. Maybe there is a good reason for the removal, I just can't see any such good reason in the speculations mentioned in this thread so far. That's another main reason why I am very interested in getting to know the actual reasoning of SES for removing that feature, instead of discussing speculations about it.
  7. @Kantanshi Actually, I was trying to point out that an element which you consider to be a disadvantage for the future development of the game can actually be seen as an advantage in that very area you describe. Maybe I should use a positive wording to bring the point across: A part of the player base might not play Astroneer "the way it was intended to be played", but they are nevertheless playing Astroneer. Because there is an option that makes them enjoy the game. These players might not use every aspect of the game, but they are using at least some aspects of the game. And when they find it worthy to play the game, chances are that they will also report on their experiences and on bugs they encounter in the parts of the game that they do use. Without that option, they might not be there and not contribute to the development at all. So an option for alternate gameplay besides "the intended gameplay" could actually help to grow the number of players/customers and therefore actually might be a business advantage. And to be clear about this: Personally, I prefer to explore instead of trading hydrazine. I simply like to have options for different play styles in a game like Astroneer. And I fail to see anything negative about having the option of hydrazine trading in the game. Once again: Why do you care if someone is being "lazy" when playing? (Seriously? Somebody is playing a game for himself/herself? And is being lazy about it? How dare this person? ) Why does anybody care at all about how somebody else plays the game? There is absolutely no harm caused by this option, not to any player, not to the game or its development, not to any business. Nobody and nothing is "abused" or "exploited".
  8. I am glad to hear this, and looking forward to that info.
  9. I am not asking or wanting to lead or steer development. I do not even necessarily want hydrazine trading back. I want to know more about the reasoning for the decision to remove it. That's why I ask, because I want to learn more about the developers' vision. SES published long blog postings about new or changed features like augments and the research curve. I am very grateful for that. But I think the removal of features should be an equally worthy subject to post about. Because it gives us insight into what the developers' vision actually is. I want more insight into the developers' thought process regarding the game.
  10. Here's my reply to an earlier thread with the same topic explaining why I don't think this is a bug:
  11. The intention of this thread was not to continue the speculation but to get some more substantial information. So please, let's refrain from repeating here the discussion that has already been done in numerous other threads. I give you the benefit of being a moderator on this forum, so I take your reply as a quasi official one. Does this imply that there will only be a single play style in Astroneer? Astroneer will never be a sandbox game supporting various different play styles? That's disappointing, but I am glad to learn this early about what to expect. On a more general note, you all may have not realized it but this is the first time since Astroneer has gone Early Access that a feature was deliberately removed from the game. Without any word of explanation from the developers. To be honest, I expected something different when SES stated: "Over time, this will lead us to a game that you, as a community, have built with us. [...] The future is bright and we look forward to building Astroneer with you!"
  12. As far as I understand you, you are saying that new players who would enjoy hydrazine trading but don't know that it once was available would play the game "as it was intended to be played". But players who don't like the "intended gameplay" will try the game, see that they do not enjoy it, and will head elsewhere. Those players are lost for the development of Astroneer. They might have stayed when they had found an option for alternative gameplay which they do enjoy, for example hydrazine trading. Your scenario is basically using the same assumptions as the idea that you can force existing players to do the "intended gameplay" by taking away the option that made them enjoy the game in the first place. It simply does not work. All you do with that is scaring away the players who do not enjoy the "intended gameplay".
  13. Thanks for referencing that posting from Adam, I had not seen it yet. Just to make it clear, I do favor the exploration aspect of Astroneer. But I also like to have options for different play styles in Astroneer. Hydrazine trading was one such option. And I think that removing it is the opposite of improving Astroneer, even for its development as a whole, as I tried to explain before. It's true, we are all doing guesswork about the reason behind the decision to remove that feature. To me, this decision just does not make much sense, because the circumstances make it appear inconsistent, as I tried to explain before. Therefore, I posted a direct question to SES in the hope that an answer might shed some light on what is actually going on:
  14. Let me start by stating that I like Astroneer in its current state. Even if development stopped forever right now, I would continue to play and enjoy the game. Fortunately, development continues and I like to see options for various play styles in a game like Astroneer. The trading of hydrazine was one of those options. But you removed that option. And we do not know the reason why. You may have noticed that this topic spawned some discussions, with quite an amount of speculation. Could you, please, tell us your reasoning for the decision to remove that particular feature?
  15. You are right, and I agree with you. But I don't see how this applies to the feature of hydrazine trading. SES deliberately removed a feature. We don't know why. It is all conjecture. If the intention was indeed to make us players concentrate on some particular aspect of the game, then this is an obscure and ineffective way of doing it. (I refer you again to my earlier posting: That change is inconsistent, too, because with the same patch, they introduced new features that potentially keep players from doing an alleged "core gameplay". And they spent time, as little as it may be, to remove a feature that does not impede on anything. I won't call this "focused".) Players who enjoyed the removed feature are not encouraged to play the game differently. Instead, they most likely are just disappointed. Such players tend to play the game less, not report bugs, and not share their game experience. And that surely won't help the development of the game. It would have been way more focused and effective if SES kept the feature and simply told us "Our goal is X, so we want you players to concentrate on testing Y" (or just "We want you to concentrate on playing Z").