Well you can do without them maybe. But Funcom cannot. The amount of (justified) complaining this would introduce is off the charts.
Right now, if I go and build a structure that doesn’t “fit”, it’s my problem, my poor planning. The pieces available don’t prevent me from making sure it works. Adding pieces with variable side lengths would guarantee failed builds all over the place, unless matching pieces for all the rest were available. It’d be a nightmare.
Now this I can agree with. Common things like 4x4 squares, the six-triangle “circle” (and its bigger cousins) etc, available as “one piece” builds would be pretty sweet.
Particularly for things like Aquilonian, which could really benefit from more “flowing” designs on the floors than is possible with small self-contained units.
Perhaps you `re right. But let’s take a closer look. Of the proposed blocks, only one has a side of a different length. Yes, it might be worth adding for it, but not necessarily.
Your bad planning? The same can be said about the new blocks. If you planned it in such a way that it is impossible to do without the gates on the new blocks - this is your bad planning. No double standards, mate.
A simple example, why there is no ladder that is attached to a square block above and below to a triangular block? Yes I know. You can get around this, but the fact is that this is not.
Also with new blocks, you can bypass the lack of gates.
No, not really double standards. There’s a world of difference between having pieces with no corresponding roof, gate, fence etc etc (your proposal), OR having built yourself into a corner. The former is a game problem, the second a user problem.
As for ladders, those are entirely useless anyway, and I almost never bother with them.
I meant that you can plan the construction so that the gates were put on triangular or square blocks.
As for the roofs. This is really a problem. But it is possible to make flat transitions. For sure. For me, a flat roof in some places is not a problem. It is even convenient.
Well I think what this boils down to, is that to make this remotely viable, there’s a number of compromises that you’re personally okay with, but that Funcom couldn’t get away with. Which would place this squarely in “Ripe for a Mod” territory.
To play devils advocate on the desire to be able to construct the pre-joined “big-brothers” of common shapes … it would make stability calculations very complicated and more frequently lead to the “you can’t place here” notice requiring players to put in unnecessary supports… think about ceiling tiles being added for example…
Not to mention how frustrating it would be to expend the resources to make the larger piece only to find it can’t be placed due to sloped land …argh “not enough contact with the ground” …though it is equally as frustrating expanding one foundation at a time only to realise the ground has sloped more sharply than expected and you should have started with the first block at a different level or ran out of room…
And if funcom could not code it so it became separate pieces once placed then the following would be issues as well;
you want to destroy a small part of your base to expand etc and forget which were your big brother pieces and destroy whole sections instead of one foundation block … possibly destroying workstations or causing a cascading instability
And also the PvP aspect of being able to blow larger holes etc through destroying a big brother piece.
Just for funs anyone feel free to post ANY Survival Building game that has these pieces. On the condition that the game uses the Unreal 4 Engine along with a “stability” system. Good luck.
It’s a good idea.
Perhaps a special construction tool would help with this? A tool that would unite / disconnect blocks. This will add great benefits to the construction hammer!
For example, switching the mode with one button. A quick punch marks the blocks to combine. Bounce completes the merger.
Sorry, but I did not understand what you meant. Can you tell in more detail? Apparently, you think that you are well versed in the technical part of the kernel. Can you enlighten us?
Would it? I suppose it might. Not necessarily though, it’d simply be a larger piece with more sockets, and I believe stability is socket-based rather than “piece” based anyway.
Well yes, it’d have to be as versatile as the Foundation pieces (can be partially inside the ground level).
If it became separate pieces once placed, that’d defeat the point of it in the first place IMO.
I don’t see that as a problem really, one should always check the name of the item one is destroying. Carelessness when demolishing is a problem
Well that could be an issue I suppose, but since it’d be entirely voluntary to use them or not, I don’t think it’s a huge problem necessarily.
In general, such problems should not arise. After all, we are talking about combining foundations. and they are located on the ground. Therefore, stability in any case will be 100.
As a rule, they build up large vacant areas. Not buildings. Although it is wrong to deprive the opportunity to use something, only for the reason that the other may accidentally break his base because of stupidity.
Not sure what’s hard to understand. Find any game with all the building pieces you want, that uses Unreal 4 Engine along with a similar system to the stability system in game where you need supports etc to hold things in place.
But short version. Unreal 4 WAS NOT meant for the stuff Ark and Conan throws at it in terms of building heck things only recently improved on that front during development of Fortnite, but even Fortnite does not have the pieces you’re asking for and they don’t even have to consider stability calculations.
So basically, if the engine can’t handle it to begin with no amount of asking will work since it’s impossible without a new engine. Obviously the engine can handle complex shapes… But most of those complex shapes are singular usually solid models in the end. Not small individual pieces.
Side note being that I’d love to see these pieces as well, but realistically it’s a “developmental” nightmare.
You said that this is possible if you build up a solid texture.
Then can look at it differently? For example. Instead of establishing separate blocks, to build up from block. This will turn into a solid texture. True to change in one place will not work, yes. If only knock blocks out of a solid texture.
For some it would be much better. Carving from a single piece of the foundation. Even for two figures.
It’s definitely not of any priority or on our horizon right now. I can add it on our already extensive suggestion list but I doubt we would have time or manpower to dedicate to anytime soon even if we would consider it.
If I’m understanding you correctly, that would actually cause even more models needed to be created, since as far as I know there’s no dynamic way to merge models outside of 3d modelling software.
Sigh, sometimes I wish I spoke every language in the world would make communication so much easier.
Good luck.