Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#91
KingMoo wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:27 am
#unpopularopinionalert

So much negativity for a toolset update.

+1 for tools. Correct direction to speed up modding work.

I support this update 100%

Go Team Josh
I'm in this camp. Keep on plugging away Josh and team! :thumbup:

It's interesting to me to read posts that offer Josh advice - or commands - on what he must do in order to get the game out. I hadn't realised there were so many accomplished indie game devs amongst us! No doubt Steam/GOG is littered with LT forum members' games. Also, the concept that what we write here has any bearing on the lad was pretty heavily criticised when I made pleas for positivity during the Great SilenceTM, and yet now the community must be heard or the game is doomed? Interesting. :think:
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#92
mcsven wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:40 am
KingMoo wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:27 am
#unpopularopinionalert

So much negativity for a toolset update.

+1 for tools. Correct direction to speed up modding work.

I support this update 100%

Go Team Josh
I'm in this camp. Keep on plugging away Josh and team! :thumbup:

It's interesting to me to read posts that offer Josh advice - or commands - on what he must do in order to get the game out. I hadn't realised there were so many accomplished indie game devs amongst us! No doubt Steam/GOG is littered with LT forum members' games. Also, the concept that what we write here has any bearing on the lad was pretty heavily criticised when I made pleas for positivity during the Great SilenceTM, and yet now the community must be heard or the game is doomed? Interesting. :think:
I actually did work on several commercial games, and there are also several people here who work in the IT industry professionally and who know how to give advice on project management and development.
That does not mean team-Josh has to follow our "instructions". But pointing out problems (as they appear from an outside perspective) can be helpful.

This community is fortunately more mature than many other forums. (observable by less one-liners, and less hate-talk)
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#93
Why does Josh need to build tools? He has a forum full of them.

Ayo! Seriously kidding guys. It just made my brain laugh so I needed to say it out loud. Well... type it silently on the internet in a dark room.

So, scope creep. Seen a lot of talk about it. Huge problem in just about any project. The client always expects more than you thought they wanted.

I think what we are seeing and have seen is that Josh is also the client. He loves this game and wants it badly. Usually in 2 party transactions, a contract outlines the terms of delivery. And when you are the client of your own project and are not being hugely disciplined in your progress then there is nothing to impede scope creep. There is no SOW for development and delivery deadlines.

So what we will find is that LT 1.0 will always be more than what it is at the moment of evaluation. So pull a Linus Torvil and open source this bitch.

Kidding?

Anyways, my recommendation. Sit down, sketch out your timeline and requirements. Pad in 1/3 in additional time to each task, then give that timeline to a responsible individual with $2000 amd have them donate it to EA games if you fail the timeline.
Last edited by MyNameWuzTaken on Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#94
mcsven wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:40 am
It's interesting to me to read posts that offer Josh advice - or commands - on what he must do in order to get the game out. I hadn't realised there were so many accomplished indie game devs amongst us! No doubt Steam/GOG is littered with LT forum members' games. Also, the concept that what we write here has any bearing on the lad was pretty heavily criticised when I made pleas for positivity during the Great SilenceTM, and yet now the community must be heard or the game is doomed? Interesting. :think:
Well, for example Flatfingers is a software development project manager with quite a bit more experience than e.g. Josh, so yes, I do think his advice on software development project management has merit :ghost:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#95
mcsven wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:40 am
It's interesting to me to read posts that offer Josh advice - or commands - on what he must do in order to get the game out. I hadn't realised there were so many accomplished indie game devs amongst us! No doubt Steam/GOG is littered with LT forum members' games. Also, the concept that what we write here has any bearing on the lad was pretty heavily criticised when I made pleas for positivity during the Great SilenceTM, and yet now the community must be heard or the game is doomed? Interesting. :think:
Sarcasm aside, the advice and criticism from people is coming from a good place: we want to see Josh succeed and release the game. As others have stated, the constant tool development and engine tinkering/scrapping has completely hampered finishing the game. Given the choice, I'd rather have a great game with good modding potential than have no game with the worlds best modding tools.

I'd like to draw your attention to the following:
At this stage, much of the graphics technology has been completed, most of the core engine is in place, and many of the procedural algorithms are well underway. Gameplay is the largest part of what remains, and I fully intend to make gameplay my burning focus for the rest of the development process. Gameplay is king, I recognize that! Limit Theory will not be about graphics (although they will be good!). It will be about gameplay. Deep, rich, engaging gameplay, just like the space sim genre deserves.
These are Josh's words from the 2012 Kickstarter. Let that sink in for a second - here we are, over five years later, and the same statement is being repeated back to us for the nth time. Gameplay was clearly the focus of Josh at that time, and somehow that's been lost. Even from my programming ignorant viewpoint I get that tools might help implementation of gameplay, but they won't create the gameplay itself.

It's time to bring that statement to fruition.

EDIT: I'd like to add that Tal is doing a great job keeping the community informed and having Adam and Lindsey interacting with us is a great boost. Keep it up. :)
Image LT Backer Number: 647 of 5449.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#96
Tycow wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:11 am
EDIT: I'd like to add that Tal is doing a great job keeping the community informed and having Adam and Lindsey interacting with us is a great boost. Keep it up.
Thanks, Tycow. I've been doing my best. :P I honestly believe things will improve from here. I wish I could say why I believe that, but under the NDA agreement Josh laid out, you'll have to wait for his next devlog (which, by the way, I'm not actually sure that it'll be today). I'm not worried though, and as long as Josh keeps working, gameplay is coming soon. I'm also pushing very hard for a public roadmap, which I hope will happen soon.

The outcry from the community is completely understandable, I think, and even merited. Josh said gameplay, then he makes another tool - and everyone is tired of seeing tools. :P But I think it's still one step closer to the goal of LT being complete. Maybe not as big a step as could have been made, but it's still a step nonetheless.

Edit: No, definitely no devlog from Josh today - he's currently at a family event. Only just found out.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#97
Game creation isn't an easy task. Some developers have teams of programmers/artists/content creators etc, can and do take years to create games. (and some don't always turn out great or even get cancelled), Josh was pretty much on his own up until last year. He is still learning and doesn't have years of industry experience to fall back on to help navigate his way round potential issues, so setbacks and delays can and will be expected, so I'd cut him a bit of slack.

It's his Game, we bought into the idea and the vision, so yes we are entitled to be critical at times, but I'm sure he and the team are working as hard as possible to get it out there as soon as they can.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#99
Talvieno wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:11 pm
Thanks, Tycow. I've been doing my best. :P I honestly believe things will improve from here. I wish I could say why I believe that, but under the NDA agreement Josh laid out, you'll have to wait for his next devlog (which, by the way, I'm not actually sure that it'll be today). I'm not worried though, and as long as Josh keeps working, gameplay is coming soon. I'm also pushing very hard for a public roadmap, which I hope will happen soon.

The outcry from the community is completely understandable, I think, and even merited. Josh said gameplay, then he makes another tool - and everyone is tired of seeing tools. :P But I think it's still one step closer to the goal of LT being complete. Maybe not as big a step as could have been made, but it's still a step nonetheless.

Edit: No, definitely no devlog from Josh today - he's currently at a family event. Only just found out.
Thanks for the reply, Tal. If you say things will improve, I believe you. Also, thanks for still pushing the roadmap idea for us. :)
Image LT Backer Number: 647 of 5449.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#101
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:02 pm
No, I think Lindsey and Josh plan to have a fair number of ship "classes". Capital ships are logically the next point to go - after you figure both the largest and smallest ships out, (most) other ship types can be built somewhere between those - depending on what it is you're making.
Yep!

I'm working on the capital ship algorithms right now. I'm not 100% done with fighters, but I think it's good to experiment with both fighters and capital ships to discover new algorithms that could be useful to both. Last week, I wrote a algorithm that will find anchor points on shapes using a raycast, which will prevent unattached pieces and opens the door for attaching details and lots of other fun stuff. I came up with it while trying to figure out how to add small patterned details to capital ships, but it'll be useful for fighters too. This is a good example of why working on them both before finalizing either helps development ^^ And hopefully, nailing both the smallest and largest cases will make the middle-sized classes easier.

More in my devlog this Friday ;D
Ship Inspiration Pinterest!! (send me stuff)

"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#103
Beyond Fighters and Capitals, what are the specific classes you're looking to have implemented for 1.0?
My guesses would be more or less:
Light Miner
Heavy Miner
Courier/scout/small cargo
Large Cargo
Mobile trade/repair/respawn hub
Mobile refinery/assembly plant
Science vessel/scout
Small Carrier/Drone carrier
Large Carrier
Carrier Support/escort/destroyer/artillery

And then since you'll have to return to stations at some point, beyond modular mixed-use stations, some specialty stations might include:
Refinery-assembly-shipyard combo (raw materials go in, fully armed and equipped ships come out)
Space Castle (heavily fortified and shielded home base for patrols and trade hub)
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, March 9, 2018

#105
Well I think it's about time to set into stone the list for what exactly is going to be in 1.0. More can be added later, and I can think of a dozen more specialized ship and station classes, but having those 12 basic ship classes (incl fighters and Capitals) should broadly cover just about any aspect of the promised gameplay and I'd consider just those 12 good enough for 1.0.

Not to mention that a set-in-stone lets people have a much more solid (pun intended) feel for exactly what is done, and exactly what remains to be done, which is something we've been craving for years.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron