AstroBubba

"Tumbleweeds" a bit pointless?

Recommended Posts

I'm a bit puzzled by the "Tumbleweeds" in the game (no spoilers!); the make it really hazardous (storms on top of them!), but they don't seem to be there as a foil to some rare resource or undertaking you need to gather/do.

Maybe the devs have other plans in the future, but at the moment they don't seem to serve any useful purpose, other than just being a regular (yet unpredictable) annoyance that simply makes you want to go elsewhere, rather than need to work through/around them.

Just another, minor, example of the lack of counter-balancing ideas in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the concept. I wish each planet had their own version of them. They are fun (how can you say they are not fun?) and when playing MP they can be hilarious to watch as well as watching your mates try to dodge them. I also wish they came in different colors. It would also be cool if we were skilled enough to catch one, capture one it could lead to a source of energy as it constantly moves and moves and moves trying to escape. Like a huge atom!

Again, you are completely incorrect about your consistent counter-balance argument. You don't see the fun, the potential fun or the expansion possibilities this type of item can bring to the game today and tomorrow. I think you have a lack of imagination issue rather than a counter-balance concern. IMHO, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AstroBubba said:

I'm a bit puzzled by the "Tumbleweeds" in the game (no spoilers!); the make it really hazardous (storms on top of them!), but they don't seem to be there as a foil to some rare resource or undertaking you need to gather/do.

Maybe the devs have other plans in the future, but at the moment they don't seem to serve any useful purpose, other than just being a regular (yet unpredictable) annoyance that simply makes you want to go elsewhere, rather than need to work through/around them.

Just another, minor, example of the lack of counter-balancing ideas in the game.

Are you talking about the spiky balls flying around Arid or the box storms happening on Terran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 5:49 PM, The Touch of Grey Gamer said:

I like the concept. I wish each planet had their own version of them. They are fun (how can you say they are not fun?) and when playing MP they can be hilarious to watch as well as watching your mates try to dodge them. I also wish they came in different colors. It would also be cool if we were skilled enough to catch one, capture one it could lead to a source of energy as it constantly moves and moves and moves trying to escape. Like a huge atom!

Again, you are completely incorrect about your consistent counter-balance argument. You don't see the fun, the potential fun or the expansion possibilities this type of item can bring to the game today and tomorrow. I think you have a lack of imagination issue rather than a counter-balance concern. IMHO, of course.

Games live & die by the amount of thought that is put into them.  Astroneer is a weird hybrid of a tech-tree/gathering RTS-like paradigm, mixed-in with an open-world concept, but the devs haven't put quite enough thought into how those two somewhat disparate ideas work together.

Basically, Astroneer uses time as the "currency" in the game that you need to invest while researching since the research items are fairly trivial to acquire, but there's no underlying counter to time as there is with an traditional RTS (as your opponents prepare for battle in parallel with you, if you lollygag, you lose).  The research time is a completely arbitrary effect, that has really no purpose in the game, other than to simply drag-out what will eventually occur, with absolutely no difference in end-result.

It's over-arching concepts like this that the devs are missing, and honestly really, should be part of the game outline before the first line of code is written.  Good game design is not about "programming" as much as it is about the experience and how the player becomes invested in it.  The programming should be the execution of the concepts, not the other way around.

Edited by AstroBubba
sp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AstroBubba said:

Games live & die by the amount of thought that is put into them.  Astroneer is a weird hybrid of a tech-tree/gathering RTS-like paradigm, mixed-in with an open-world concept, but the devs haven't put quite enough thought into how those two somewhat disparate ideas work together.

Basically, Astroneer uses time as the "currency" in the game that you need to invest while researching since the research items are fairly trivial to acquire, but there's no underlying counter to time as there is with an traditional RTS (as your opponents prepare for battle in parallel with you, if you lollygag, you lose).  The research time is a completely arbitrary effect, that has really no purpose in the game, other than to simply drag-out what will eventually occur, with absolutely no difference in end-result.

It's over-arching concepts like this that the devs are missing, and honestly really, should be part of the game outline before the first line of code is written.  Good game design is not about "programming" as much as it is about the experience and how the player becomes invested in it.  The programming should be the execution of the concepts, not the other way around.

You are more intelligent than than all the devs collectively?
You know of the concept of 'balance' but the devs do not?

You joined the forum on 1/10. I'm amazed the game made it through pre-alpha without you.
You are just so arrogant. You honestly think your posts about balance is the first time the word has ever entered the System ERA studio? 

I've tried, but you are now the third person I've had to put on ignore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Touch of Grey Gamer said:

You are more intelligent than than all the devs collectively?
You know of the concept of 'balance' but the devs do not?

You joined the forum on 1/10. I'm amazed the game made it through pre-alpha without you.
You are just so arrogant. You honestly think your posts about balance is the first time the word has ever entered the System ERA studio? 

I've tried, but you are now the third person I've had to put on ignore. 

You completely underestimate how badly entire teams can screw-up a game with poor vision and lack of planning.

The past is littered with failed games that were published without decent planning and oversight.  It's really not that hard for a "team" to colossally screw-up this process.  Misplaced focus, hubris and mismanagement will almost always inevitably lead to failure.

Edited by AstroBubba
sp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Indomitus1973 said:

Sure are a lot of armchair quarterbacks on this board.

xD So true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2018 at 5:24 PM, The Touch of Grey Gamer said:

You are more intelligent than than all the devs collectively?
You know of the concept of 'balance' but the devs do not?

You joined the forum on 1/10. I'm amazed the game made it through pre-alpha without you.
You are just so arrogant. You honestly think your posts about balance is the first time the word has ever entered the System ERA studio? 

I've tried, but you are now the third person I've had to put on ignore. 

hahaha  Welcome to the club Astrobubba. ;)

The only thing I'd add to your op,  is that the "game" is still in design, what we've seen so far is work in progress, what we can do, not what we will do.  There is no story yet, no progression, just ideas.  I think people get too hung up on the idea that making a game is set in stone with every mechanic and change made.  Whilst this is certainly true for big multi million dollar accounts, where you spend $3 million on a project, you can't really just go back and redo it.  You either continue.. sell what you can and make what you can back (aka NMS) or you loose all that effort and paid expenditure. (many Games and TV series get shelved every year like this)   But if it's done in small increments, you can pop out a new bit of artwork, a new basic mechanic or design and get feedback on it, improve it, make small changes, it tends to work.  And slowly the idea of the over arching game improves.

At the moment Astroneer just needs to work, I expect there's alot more work already done on it, that's left out for the time being, theory on the board so to speak, I mean we've been a year now.. surely they do work besides just employ people to make little moving objects.. 

I wonder if people think that there will come a time when the devs just up and say "well, now we're done, thanks for your time but now we're moving onto a new project" this can certainly happen, but I don't honestly feel this is what will happen here.  We'll see a fully fleshed out game in Astroneer, just like we did with Sub Nautica and a year ago you'd have seen similar decisions made by the mass uninformed in their forums as well.    Even nms has become a game.  And it was dumped on by everyone the world over.

What you said is certainly true for games like Mass Effect Andromeda  huge amounts of work and overall a pretty awful game, if you take the time to disect it.  If you just play it, it's alot of fun. And that's really the jist here.. do you play games for fun or just to pull holes out of them?

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martin said:

I think people get too hung up on the idea that making a game is set in stone with every mechanic and change made.  Whilst this is certainly true for big multi million dollar accounts, where you spend $3 million on a project, you can't really just go back and redo it.  You either continue.. sell what you can and make what you can back (aka NMS) or you loose all that effort and paid expenditure. (many Games and TV series get shelved every year like this)   But if it's done in small increments, you can pop out a new bit of artwork, a new basic mechanic or design and get feedback on it, improve it, make small changes, it tends to work.  And slowly the idea of the over arching game improves.

Now imagine what would be possible for a multi-million dollar project that utilizes this "small increments and feedback" approach...

...that's what SES does with Astroneer. (They have/had more than double of $3 million available for this project.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

feedback is key.  Yet, lately that feedback has dwindled to a small trickle.  Wonder why?  Probably because the game mechanics keep changing too radically pushing players away rather than drawing them in.  Think about it for a second...  Maybe setting some gameplay aspects in stone is not a bad thing after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nargg said:

feedback is key.  Yet, lately that feedback has dwindled to a small trickle.  Wonder why?  Probably because the game mechanics keep changing too radically pushing players away rather than drawing them in.  Think about it for a second...  Maybe setting some gameplay aspects in stone is not a bad thing after all?

You have zero facts to back up your claims. It is just your opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now