ALPHA 50C ALPHA 50C: WE WILL MASTER THESE EMOTIONS

Because the game is still in development I see all these things as expected.

If they're still a problem in the game once the game is out of development then, yes, I would be more frustrated.

 

Still in developpement is not an excuse. ( After 2 years ) There s differents distinct stages.
Screenplay are some, building mecanisms an anothers.
Attrition of the first could affect the second, and it s ok about calibrating research or grop.
But don t about plug 1 mine which rules ok, and 2 more which will be endless wells of planks until the infinite and beyond without reason.
No more than inconsistant Altar building, or a bad scheduling in carpenter list could made more spectral cabinets than the characters themselves.
Because, it means it become unplayable. It s more than frustrated or not.
We could accept some ponctual non sens for new furnitures, because need to be "test" before its real finality. Amused and affectively support all attempts of screenplay events, even it s fail. Because it could be nice for the drama.
But some elementary mecanisms and functionality need to be enduring for basic play.

 

There isn't really a "one size fits all" method of game development, and for a game like this (with so many complex systems), they need to iterate in the way that makes most sense for them -- a way to make sure they don't break too many things by "fixing" too many other things at once. They're a small group running on full steam. Some content is purposely taken out for a while (such as cults and eldrich happenings) in order to build a new backend system to support much more interesting, robust content later on. The workshop problems you mentioned are actually being fixed now, which will in turn support a cool new conduit system with snoots. Snoots!

Much of the polish will come toward the end.

 

Not sure to understand. Apologizes about my lack of english.
The problems i mentioned and lots of others are not fixed at all.
It s why i m talkin about.

But don t misunderstood, i love the game spirit and i wish to support it.
Just considering that it suppose to be "playable". I m not talk about polish. or may be we don t consider the same things about polish.
Polish is good for calibratring system about characters variations and events. For the less Barber, Chapel etc ... Eldritch ...
No about planks production or scrolling windows ...

 

I meant to say that the workshop production problems are being fixed now (maybe they already are), and will likely be in the next experimental build soon. Today would be awesome, but I have a hunch it will be more like next week. Lots of code had to be re-written.

A lot of the other things you mentioned such as the sinking cabinets usually work, but they break when other things are changed. The scrolling issues could be part of UI redesigns, for example. Then they get fixed again later -- then they may break again in a different way. That's the nature of developing a game like this. They can't always just "lock down" perfect mechanics from the beginning, because so much is connected to everything else. It's a process of iteration. From build to build (and we get them VERY frequently), things will break and get fixed, including things that may be considered more important to you.

 

Thank for your answer.
Ok, it s a semantic question, i see.
but they break when other things are changed.

But we are agree. If you read me before, you saw that i ve consider this developpement aspect with all empathy.
Empathy which i don t share with the others industrial majors from games market.
That s the point i ve request in my first post. i asking for internal Gaslamp testing session before publishing. Fix the "they break when" mostly if "they already are"
At "minima" They can't always just "lock down" perfect mechanics from the beginning, May be but it must be done at minima anyway.
Carpenter is the first step, it must be rules ok perfectly in any case.

Not only because, even it s experimental way, i m not suppose only attend a convention encorders from far away. but playing a little bit.
In confidential, reason of my friendly resquest, reveal a commercial aspect. Last week several friends seeing that i was playing it, Ask me "how it is ?" ...
Guess that i answer ? i was really embarrassed, beetween my love, and something looking like's your own reply. And so ...
Did you get the point ?

So, i don t want make flamin post around that point, i say the fact, and my feeling. That s all.
Apologize for that disturb, i prefer sincerely positiv intervention from some over player like Alavaria. Or may be yours. This is another way to say the things.
But so can - be more directly and pointedly, rather than repeat what everyone notes, or to consider that the constraints of rewriting code, to remind our friends that they do not lose sight the essential.

With all my support.

 

Oh, no worries, I can tell you're not trying to be negative about the game or the devs, and your enthusiasm for the game is clear. This community is very friendly and I can see you'll fit in just fine.

Honestly, I know very little about game development. All I know about how this game is developed comes from reading all the weekly dev blogs (some of which get pretty technical), interacting with the devs here (who are very forthcoming about their process and progress), and playing every single build since the game was in "earliest access" back in the old days.

I understand it makes it a hard sell to friends with issues like the carpenter problem, but from what I've seen, most people just play through that because everything else is still compelling. You can still make things work. It isn't super-efficient, but it isn't game breaking either. So, it went on the back-burner because that system needed a huge code re-factoring. Rewriting the code may not have made sense until it was clear how the workshops will co-mingle with other systems later on. But you're right, explaining that to friends isn't great. That's where the emphasis on "early access" comes in. It's true that other EA games may be able to lock down core features sooner, but they might not have the same complexity or design ambitions.

Anyway, welcome to the wild ride.

 

I've started getting into trading lately, and I've noticed that the portion of the + and - buttons on the trade station that actually works when you click on it is incredibly small compared to the actual size of the buttons.

 

Of all the ones you pick, EA games?

 

EA, presumably, as in early access, rather than the spawn of Corporate Evil...

 

The ministry said I was mad, mad for building a colony in the middle of the desert. Virtually no timber, few ores, no berries, fungi, or other wild consumables to forage! Well, I showed them! It wasn't easy. Colonists had to travel halfway across the map to collect logs and several workers said they would rather starve than have another bowl of chili stew for supper, but we persevered!




There were many deaths. Mostly bandits and foreign invaders.


We've even established some lovely hilltop luxury estates for our betters


And made vast strides in the field of agronomy (through a single scientist who, despite having researched EVERY possible crop in the biome and several improvements, is still 'terrible' at science)

 

Why, my fishy neighbours? Why would you do this!?

(Edit: ack, it's a 50B shot, not 50C...)

 

There is no way you needed that many windows to max out the building quality.

 

Let there be light!

 

Known. There is however no kill like overkill...

 

Having that bug where the building is in a different place to the layout blueprint. Apologies if this is known but I was sure this one had been fixed (although I dunno why I think that) so wanted to raise it!

Edit: Also in that save in the naturalists office people keep walking through the wall facing the stockpile where there is no door.

 

I don't know if this is new to this revision, but I'm not able to cancel kitchen orders anymore; further, when I reduce the amount of the standing order, the counter can actually go all the way into negative amounts.

 

For what it's worth, I'm fine with saving time on your guys' end and having to deal with "good enough".

What is more time-efficient for you? Make sure the experimental builds are solid via internal testing and then releasing it, or cut corners on the experimental build testing, release it as "good enough", and then hotfix any major problems if we run into them?