Space Engineers - Say goodbye to Starmade and Blockade runner. - Games

I dunno, I have a few friends who say theyll only play the game once it hits MP, but I want there to be enough content to keep them there a while once they start playing, not like minecraft where we play for a few weeks, get bored, they "oh dude they added X" and wed play a little more then quit again.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;42896062]I dunno, I have a few friends who say theyll only play the game once it hits MP, but I want there to be enough content to keep them there a while once they start playing, not like minecraft where we play for a few weeks, get bored, they "oh dude they added X" and wed play a little more then quit again.[/QUOTE] This exactly. I'd prefer the game be mostly fleshed out before MP is added, just so it's not a half-baked multiplayer experience. Of course, I think the reason Minecraft was so drastically different between SP and MP is that, for the longest while, they had a split codebase. We can only pray something similar doesn't happen here.

[QUOTE=PredGD;42894268]idk I feel that survival mode should be done before multiplayer.[/QUOTE] Multiplayer first will keep the devs mindful of multiplayer support and feasibility. Less to rewrite later when considering how differently things work with networking involved. also it will give the game tons of youtube publicity

[QUOTE=Bletotum;42896095]Multiplayer first will keep the devs mindful of multiplayer support and feasibility. Less to rewrite later when considering how differently things work with networking involved. also it will give the game tons of youtube publicity[/QUOTE] yeah but what point is MP when all we're going to do is ram ships until that's boring? I agree MP is important but I'd rather we have working tools/guns and more complicated ship design aspects

To be truthful, I think multiplayer will provide a longer duration of play then guns would. Guns: Shoot your ships a bit, get bored. MP: Build a project with friends, fly around, race, crash into each other, launch from each others ships. ETC.

Actually, Bletotum brings up a good point. It's a fantastic idea to build your game with the netcode already in place from the start, rather than smash it in later. Again, Minecraft did that. The devs are still working out kinks that arose from having the game singleplayer only for so long into the development cycle, two years after multiplayer was released. Does anybody remember when boats and minecarts didn't work in SMP? Or that inventories were stored clientside until Beta? While it may not be the most fun thing right now, I think multiplayer is the most necessary thing for the continued growth and expansion of the game itself.

Actually Id have to say my vote is on rotating module with motor but only if we can bind control of the motors to the keyboard. Think of the possibilities. Doors that arent separate ships, hangar doors on carrier ships, transformers, [I]folding wings...[/I] and this the optimistic gmod sandbox nerd in me, but maybe even a hydraulic type system? if gmod hydraulics had ever worked properly, I would have probably doubled my 1000 hours in gmod in sandbox alone ...or halved it because things would have been easier. hhhmmm.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42896112]yeah but what point is MP when all we're going to do is ram ships until that's boring? I agree MP is important but I'd rather we have working tools/guns and more complicated ship design aspects[/QUOTE] But then they would have to recode everything when they added multiplayer sometime down the line. It's not as easy as turning it on, you have to make sure everything works properly across multiple clients. A proper multiplayer framework is far more important than some guns or tools right now.

Shit, let's be honest. I'd like to see almost all of those things. They'd be wise to focus on things that will increase their bottom line on the short term so they have the resources to keep working on more things. MP would be a good move. Whenever I try to proselytize Space Engineers to my friends, their first question is "Is there multiplayer?"

[QUOTE=bobsmit;42896242]Shit, let's be honest. I'd like to see almost all of those things. They'd be wise to focus on things that will increase their bottom line on the short term so they have the resources to keep working on more things. MP would be a good move. Whenever I try to proselytize Space Engineers to my friends, their first question is "Is there multiplayer?"[/QUOTE] I think we've found that the "build, craft, survive" system doesn't really work without collaboration anymore. You almost require a good multiplayer experience to have a chance with that sort of thing.

Pretty stupid poll. They've mixed in things that'd take less than a day (different coloured lights, glass windows) and mixed them with things that'd take a while. Most people haven't thought of that when voting.

[QUOTE=woolio1;42896225]But then they would have to recode everything when they added multiplayer sometime down the line. It's not as easy as turning it on, you have to make sure everything works properly across multiple clients. A proper multiplayer framework is far more important than some guns or tools right now.[/QUOTE] Oh I understand and agree but is there no feasible way they could do features in SP but mindful of the MP requirements?

i wonder if the current gravity generator system will be replaced somewhere down the line. it does the job at the moment but imo it would really be way more interesting if it functioned more like a spherical radius (like a planet) rather than an area that always pulls you strictly in one direction

[QUOTE=Cone;42896344]i wonder if the current gravity generator system will be replaced somewhere down the line. it does the job at the moment but imo it would really be way more interesting if it functioned more like a spherical radius (like a planet) rather than an area that always pulls you strictly in one direction[/QUOTE] building ships with spherical gravity would be a nightmare.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42896288]Oh I understand and agree but is there no feasible way they could do features in SP but mindful of the MP requirements?[/QUOTE] It would be fairly difficult considering that sometimes what may work in single player and SHOULD work in multiplayer may not always work when finally implemented. Or if that didn't make any sense- just because they are mindful of multiplayer when coding doesn't mean it will be any easier to put it in later on. Although personally I would prefer for survival and/or more features to be done first, I do think it best to implement it early on in order to create a more seamless transition between multiplayer and single player development, as well as create some well needed publicity and sales.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;42894073][URL]http://forums.keenswh.com/post?id=6626322[/URL] We are holding a poll for what the community wants in the game the most. Voters are more then welcome.[/QUOTE] All of those sound like they need to be in the game (although the rotation module with motor seems more interesting than without), so I'm assuming this is just what is going to help the devs decide what they want to work on in what order. Of all of those though, I do think the most important has to be the 64bit mode.

[QUOTE=Krazy Bomb;42896439]It would be fairly difficult considering that sometimes what may work in single player and SHOULD work in multiplayer may not always work when finally implemented. Or if that didn't make any sense- just because they are mindful of multiplayer when coding doesn't mean it will be any easier to put it in later on. Although personally I would prefer for survival and/or more features to be done first, I do think it best to implement it early on in order to create a more seamless transition between multiplayer and single player development, as well as create some well needed publicity and sales.[/QUOTE] I see, thanks for explaining that. I'd hate for this game to blow up due to that popularity and suffer from it in the development process however, but you're probably right that that is the best course of action.

I like gravity generators, hope those stay in in some form. More modules to destroy, more combat possibilities and things to go wrong in battles

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42896374]building ships with spherical gravity would be a nightmare.[/QUOTE] yeah i guess so. it would be nice to have something to use if gravity generators go down though, like magnetic boots or something. atm exploring destroyed ships means you have to use the jetpack, which isn't as fun

they should work on multiplayer currently because multiplayer is something that needs absolute months of tweaking before it becomes even remotely playable like how minecraft was basically unplayable for a year or so because the netcode was so bad

[QUOTE=Cone;42896865]yeah i guess so. it would be nice to have something to use if gravity generators go down though, like magnetic boots or something. atm exploring destroyed ships means you have to use the jetpack, which isn't as fun[/QUOTE] It would be fun to have realistic weightless physics. Once in a derelict, pushing off a wall and floating in the one direction until you grab onto another wall to stop. They have that a bit in the new inertial physics. I've been having fun bouncing around my half constructed ship.

Anyone figured out how to clone ships? I remember seeing a picture of a whole bunch of red ships in a line.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42897277]Anyone figured out how to clone ships? I remember seeing a picture of a whole bunch of red ships in a line.[/QUOTE] That was the developers image I think. But there was a tool someone made that was linked in here that allows you to move ships between worlds, and mirror along axis, delete, copy, that could work for you. I don't recall what page the link was on off the top of my head.

Damn mod support got literally no votes... Here's my order of things 64-bit first, full mod support for workshop, survival/guns and all that THEN multiplayer.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42897277]Anyone figured out how to clone ships? I remember seeing a picture of a whole bunch of red ships in a line.[/QUOTE] Someone made a save game editor in which you can clone ships and transfer them between saves: [url]http://forums.keenswh.com/post/dolly-the-ship-or-cloning-ships-for-fun-and-profit-6592019[/url]

So, when symmetry was introduced I took the opportunity to make two ships at the same time. Then I heard that they doubled the memory allocation... so what I did was I built it on a frame 96*13*16 blocks, put a bridge on top, added an engine room and gave it a cargo box some seventy blocks long. Using symmetry to make sure I had an exact copy and now I can drive them into each other. Should be fun. Here, I put them on the workshop because we're guaranteed to come across someone with a creative method of breaking them. [url]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=196057386[/url] Figured out how to reduce images :P [URL=http://imgur.com/eiZUEuI][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/eiZUEuIl.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://imgur.com/xdXlJW1][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xdXlJW1l.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://imgur.com/ZHfVhzX][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZHfVhzXs.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://imgur.com/aaZPKFK][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/aaZPKFKs.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://imgur.com/YkvXTwk][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YkvXTwks.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://imgur.com/XcNRdSG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XcNRdSGs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

How do you guys start building your ships? Large and small? I'm curious to hear. I usually turn that initial block into a small platform that I then fill with engines and build a box around, then I build a frame work out from that and then build the rest of the ship so the reactors are safely inside and well defended. I probably put way too many reactors in, but I build huge ships and use a shit fuck metric load of thrusters to move them around "quickly". small ships of mine usually turn out ugly, but i've been trying to build more sloped/rounded ships recently, semi ring style to make them more attractive

My small ships always start with the cockpit, then the wing shape, tail, thrusters, then reactors. The only large ship I built was the marianas, and I obviously started with the face on that one.

It really depends on what I'm going for- sometimes I start with the engines and work forward, other times I start with the cockpit and work back, but on small ships at least I almost always put in the cockpit first just because of how essential it is to seeing out of it (I like first person view). But a lot of my ships start out weird because I look at a lot of concept art for inspiration.

I have a tendency to build the general shape of the hull, after deciding a general application. I then make a shape I'm happy with. Then I start adding things like engines and fitting the interior inside the ship. Once I've added all the things I need I find the ship has these silly looking parts sticking out, but because of the layout of the parts I can then add the relevant looking Armour blocks and detail the ship in a way that makes it look better. Automatically that means a lot of details and styling choices have a reason to be there. My monstrosity up there is nothing more than a frame made up of 6 segments of blocks measuring 16*13*16. It was filled in to make it look smoother and more sturdy than a simple frame, and all the sticky out bits are just there literally to protect my engines. The ship took on it's own aesthetic and the only major feature I consciously gave it was the angled front end. Most other things are built out of necessity like "oh, that doesn't look particularly strong. Lets put a frame around the bridge or beef up those corners some more" Anyway, that's how I build. Maybe its not a great process, I hear of others making an interior and putting shell around the interior structure. Personally I'd need to see things like thinner blocks for interior walls, more "furnishings" like beds, food, things like that. Tables and chairs, computers and stuff. I'd love to see more equipment. The more of that then maybe I myself can start making interesting interiors to build insane shapes around. But yes, we need interior walls for large ships that are less than 2 meters thick. About as wide as the door panel would be perfect. [URL=http://imgur.com/qlfgjIt][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qlfgjItl.jpg[/IMG][/URL]