But I give you the benefit of the doubt to start with, and take your objections seriously.
If Josh hadn't told us he was ripping out the Limit Theory Script Language (in which, presumably, some or all of the warp rail functionality was implemented), I might agree with you.Dromeda5 wrote:I would certainly agree with 100% that was said. But two years ago. I mean, it makes a lot of sense that investing so much time into a replaceable feature like warp-lanes was clearly a mistake. However, two years after their were pretty much fully implemented, what is the point of such argumentation? Or does anybody think that after two whole years not even warp-lanes were finished? 1) if they are fully finished, which is the obvious bet since they were already pretty finished last time we heard of them, then why the hell would be any waste time to have them? The time-cost is already paid;
But I don't know how much switching from LTSL to Python invalidated the LTSL script code. Maybe not much at all, in which case, sure, if it's in there, leave it.
If the Python code is significantly different though -- which is not an unreasonable guess since it's been how long now since that switchover with no word from Josh? -- and a lot of stuff would have to be pretty much rewritten from scratch, then my comments apply.
I'm assuming a lot of the LTSL script code is no longer valid. That may not be an accurate assumption.
Thanks for checking on that. Nope, it's not the only reason -- as I describe above, I'm speculating that the latest period of silence is because it's taking time to rewrite a lot of stuff in Python. If so, then if it were up to me I wouldn't rewrite the warp rails code because I don't think it contributes nearly as much fun as do the other features I listed.Dromeda5 wrote:2) it seems to me that deep down, the whole argumentation is because you would like planets to rotate and move and you judge the warp-lanes as the main obstacle for that.
Would I like to see planets rotate and orbit? Absolutely! I've never hid that, while also saying these features would also need to show value for the cost to code them. I've even proposed an alternate way to implement warp rails that could allow for rotation/orbiting.
But your insinuation that this is the "whole" reason for my low assessment of the utility of warp lanes is wrong. In my opinion, they just don't offer nearly as much gameplay bang for the coding time buck as the other features that I listed as higher priority.
I think we may have different definitions of what "core" means.Dromeda5 wrote:it amazes me deep into my soul that someone classifies "procedurally generatable ships/stations" in LT as something "could live without if necessary". Those are core things that have defined LT since the beginning.
The metric I used for my prioritization is pretty simple: how much does Feature X contribute to what Josh described in the Limit Theory Kickstarter relative to its likely cost-to-implement?
What I took, and take, from that project description as truly being "core" is an extensible sandbox game set in a "living" science fiction universe, in which players will have the freedom to interact with that living, dynamic universe in multiple different ways. I don't see ships and stations being procedurally generated as core to that vision.
That said, Josh did explicitly list ships and stations as being procedurally generatable, so there's some support for your position.
But it's been nearly four years now. If it were me, I would absolutely be prioritizing what has to be implemented to achieve the true core vision and what ought to be added in a post-launch patch.
So are procedurally generatable ships and stations something that "ought" to be in Limit Theory? Sure.
Could I live without them if that's necessary to get an actual v1.0 Limit Theory, containing the features that matter most to the "feel" of the game that Josh described, into the hands of backers sometime in 2017? Yes.
Hence, "Ought To Have But Could Live Without If Necessary."
I think that prioritization is completely defensible.
Let me refer you to what BFett actually said, which is what I was responding to:Dromeda5 wrote:For a game that has been clearly a victim of feature creep, I see it as out of question to even consider the idea of Josh adding even new stuff like planets rotating or moving or crew management.
My point being, BFett didn't ask, "What features should Josh include or exclude?" He asked us, the uninformed masses, what we'd like to see in the beta and what we wouldn't mind not seeing.BFett wrote:What are the features you would not mind missing from a beta build? What features must be in the beta?
That's purely a matter of subjective opinion, not marching orders to Josh.
So I offered my opinions, with absolutely zip-point-zero expectation that Josh will even read them, much less consider them, and even much less actually follow any of them.
If you disagree, cool. Let's see your prioritized list of features. I promise not to criticize them as though I'm worried that Josh might alter his development plans.