The wedge pieces are well and good, but they can be aggravating to deal with when trying to connects ends together of something like a wall or building when mixing wedges with squares. We would really love an actual half square triangle piece. Something that would smoothly bridge foundations in an L like shape.
3 Likes
AHA! I too have complained about the same thing, but a more intelligent Exile than I pointed out that a corner to corner triangle piece is actually LONGER than the actual side of a block, which means they would have to make accompanying longer pieces of all the other building pieces that could attach to that longer side, alas tis a dream that will never become a reality. Still frustrating tho
4 Likes
This would be awesome really.
Which is why we need many people would like both kinds of triangles, equilateral and right-angle, they each accomplish different goals when building.
Sometimes an equilateral is better, sometimes a right-angle is better.
Oh, havenât seen this one in a while, time to explain it again 
I think you missed the most important part of what @NesterT2 explained:
What this means is that they canât just add the right-angle wedge foundation and the right-angle wedge. No, they would have to add a whole lot of other pieces.
So now you would have to have a wall and a wide wall, a doorframe and a wide doorframe, a window and a wide window, a fence and a wide fence, a crenelation and a wide crenelation, etc.
But wait, thatâs not all! What about roofing? What about pieces like âright-sloping inverted wallâ? What about attaching stairs and ramps to these pieces?
Think that covers everything? Weâre just getting started, because even if they did add all of those pieces â and by the way, thatâs a fuŃkton of work, because you canât just stretch existing stuff and call it a day, itâll look like shŃt â it wouldnât be one whole day before someone said âWhy canât I place an Argossean Vaulted Ceiling Inverted Corner (single) at the corner of a wall and a wide wall?â
Not to mention that, sooner or later, you would get someone complaining about how we need âwide foundationsâ and âwide ceilingsâ and âwide wedgesâ to attach to the wide side of the right-angle foundation, and the whole cycle of fuŃkery would start again 
Long story short, the amount of work involved is crazy and the combinatorial explosion in the number of pieces would make every playerâs life hell.
Sometimes learning how to build awesome things with the pieces you have is the real art 
6 Likes
Yeah, no one is arguing that the pieces would be useful.
The point is that if you use an equilateral triangle (PEB adds them to sandstone and insulated wood), you will not have any walls that are the correct length to actually be able to enclose them. IF Funcom was to spend time developing these, they would also need to make either extra-wide walls/doors/windows/fences, or do the same thing Multigun did and create âspacerâ pieces that fit on either side of the pieces that makes it look like an extra-wide piece.
We canât even get full item building sets anymore when a new set is released in the Bazaar (how many are missing wedges, or fences, or stairs). I doubt they would spend time developing this for existing sets, especially ones that were DLC. If they did, it would probably be a brand new set that works like this just for that set.
Donât get me wrong, itâd be great if they did. But itâs not just an âadd an equilateral triangle foundation/floorâ thing.
2 Likes
We could use a lot of different items tbh.
More rounded items, we could use half walls (walls half their height),taller wall pieces, the ability to make both sides of the walls the same (example: suppose i want both sides of my turanian wall to not have the floral pattern).
Wouldnât mind being able to stretch building items ei: resize.
Before i get too far off topic lol
Fact!
I wonât lie, when i started the game i had exactly the same thought, but my ancestor Pythagoras ruined my plans 
.
5 Likes
No, I didnât miss it, I just thought it was so self-evidently obvious that it didnât need to be disussed.
Having said that, Iâll cop to the idea that I overstated my case when I said we âneedâ these pieces. So Iâve edited my previous post to say, âmany people would likeâ.
I dispute that claim. Adding things like âlong wallâ, âlong doorwayâ, âright-angle roof cornerâ are not a âcrazyâ amount of work. Itâs work yes, but assuming the people who are doing this work are good at it then itâs decidedtly not a crazy amount, nor a crazy level of difficulty. Mind you, if FunCom were to assign this work to their least experienced people (which based on some of the recent offerings in the bazaar they seem to be doing) well then it would give the appearance of being crazy, but thatâs a management-decision-making problem, not an intrinsic technical problem.
If you donât agree with that logic then all you have to do is look at the many building mods for a variety of survival games, at which point my counter-argument starts to speak for itself. Look at mods like âCastles, Keeps & Fortsâ or anything from the âEcoâs Modsâ series (both of those are for ARK Survival Evolved) and it should become pretty obvious that one skilled person can accomplish a whole lot with building pieces. If modders can do it in their spare time then certainly a reasonably skilled employee can do it (again, not the newbies, someone reasonably skilled).
I argue that this is a backwards assessment. Adding pieces that are more intuitive to use, rather than forcing people to learn a bunch of janky workarounds for a building system thatâs incomplete and wonky, would be reducing the hell that players currently go through when they try to build anything interesting. Itâs a whole lot easier to learn the difference between âshort wallâ and âlong wallâ than to learn some of the absurd workarounds and snap-point-disco-dancing that are necessary to build using the current system. Adding more pieces to create a more robust buiding set would lower the learning curve, it would lower the skill floor, while still allowing for a high skill ceiling for the people who want to create the most complicated builds. I argue this would be a win-win for (almost) everyone.
You (and others who share your feelings) would always have the option to ignore and avoid building pieces that would âmake their lives hellâ, just like people currently have the option to ignore sorcery, or ignore spears, etc. No one would be forced to make more complicated builds, but it would make building easier for people who donât like to learn a bunch of workarounds, plus it would create even more interesting options for those people who enjoy building complicated setups.
Mind you, if what youâre trying to say is that you wouldnât enjoy that system then you certainly have the right to your preferences. Iâm not trying to dictate what you enjoy, nor am I trying to suggest that everyone would enjoy the additional options equally, nor that everyone would use them equally, and Iâm 100% in favor of people using only the elements in game that they enjoy. But I dispute that a more complete building system would create more hell for players, I argue that it would make building less hellish overall, and especially when attempting to make interesting buildings.
Thatâs how every sub-system of a game and the game mechanics works. Not everyone uses the dyeing system equally. Not everyone uses sorcery equally. Not everyone uses corrupted stats & perks equally. Heck, not everyone uses even the existing building system equally. Adding options to a game gives it exactly that, more options, that can be used by the people who enjoy them. If you (and people like you) wanted to keep building using only the existing pieces you would have the freedom of choice to ignore the extra pieces. But under the current system there is no freedom of choice for people who would like to use a more complete building system in the vanilla game, they are forced to find a constantly evolving set of workarounds to overcome limitations that could be relirved by a more complete building system.
You could apply that same slippery slope argument to everything thatâs ever been added to the game.
Sorcery - âsooner or later, you would get someone complaining aboutâ not having enough spells.
Weapons - âsooner or later, you would get someone complaining aboutâ not having the specific weapons they want to see.
Cosmetics - âsooner or later, you would get someone complaining aboutâ not having the specific culture/items they want to see.
Updates - âsooner or later, you would get someone complaining aboutâ not having classic servers.
All of these complaints have already happened, they are examples of things weâve seen on these forums. But in none of these cases should that be considered a legitimate argument for cancelling Sorcery, or limiting the game to just a few weapons, or refusing to publish cosmetic DLCâs, or stopping all development on the game.
Everything in the game has the possibility of becoming a slippery slope, but thatâs not a valid argument against considering additions and changes. It only seems like a good argument until you realize that it applies equally to every aspect of the game.
Beyond that, if a large enough portion of the player based wanted even more expanded building options, well then yes, FunCom might wasnt to consider more building pieces in the future. Thatâs something they might want to consider since making the game more enjoyable for the player base is what keeps people playing the game. It might end up being the case that âwide foundationsâ etc. would be a good addition to the game based if enough players enjoy the additions, or it might end up being the case that theyâre not. I wonât pretend to know the answer to that question, but the slippery slope argument doesnât help answer that question in any way. Just throwing that argument down on the table doesnât advance the conversation, Itâs nothing more than a false obstacle, not a valid point of discussion.
The valid questions to be answered are âwhat portion of the player base would used the new features?â and âhow much would they like it?â.
Speaking of making âevery playerâs life hellâ, forcing players to learn a pile of workarounds because the building system is incomplete and wonky may be an âartâ, but itâs an âartâ thatâs forced on people whether they like it or not. Having a more complete, more robust building system would waste a lot less time for players than the current system of being forced to figure out how to get around limitations in a building system thatâs incomplete and wonky.
You can dispute it all you want, but the numbers donât lie. Take just doorframes and limit the new feature to just the base game pieces and old cultural DLCs. You still have to create 16 new doorframes: sandstone, stonebrick, insulated wood, reinforced stone, black ice, Aquilonian, arena, Argossean, flotsam, Frontier, Khitan, lattice, Nemedian, stormglass, Turanian, and Yamatai.
Now do the similar math for walls, windows, fences, and crenelations at the very minimum. Thatâs more or less 80 new pieces and literally everyone will complain that they canât build roof pieces on top. Iâve seen Bazaar packs with fewer pieces than that.
So if you donât want this to be a half-assed addition, youâre looking at something like 200 new pieces. And weâre still talking about covering only the base game and old DLCs, without any of the Battle Pass and Bazaar stuff.
For comparison, the People of the Dragon DLC added only 41 new building pieces.
If you donât understand why I said it would make every playerâs life âhellâ, you couldâve said so instead of guessing.
Back before they introduced the construction hammer, I could ignore any building pieces I wanted to, because they were crafted from my recipe list and the nice thing about that UI is that it has a filter and a search.
Construction hammer, on the other hand, makes you scroll through all the pieces because Funcomâs idea of UI improvement is to (maybe) give you something nice while removing at least one crucial feature.
So no, itâs not about my âpreferencesâ or whether I âwouldnât enjoy that systemâ or âmaking more complicated buildsâ, itâs about the literal increase in the number of pieces cluttering your UI.
Itâs not a slippery slope argument. Itâs a geometry argument. The examples you give is about people asking for different features. What Iâm pointing out is that people would ask for the same thing again, i.e. to add even more of the same pieces again.
Thatâs the big difference here: weâre not actually getting anything qualitatively new, weâre just getting the same pieces we already have, but reshaped to fit the new geometry.
Funcom has already been adding new pieces weâve asked for â like curved walls and L-shaped stairs, for example â and that has been awesome. Iâve got nothing against that.
What Iâm against is cluttering our building system with replicas of new pieces adjusted to new proportions.
Incomplete and wonky? Have you played any other games with a building system?
1 Like
All i wanna know is why is Funcom not adding wedges ( both foundation and ceiling ) to any of the new build sets (aesir , lost dungeon and pyramid)?
3 Likes
7 Days to Die uses blocks, and it has Right Angle pieces, and it works out just fine. So does Space Engineers. Pretty sure Ark as well.
They wouldnât HAVE to implement new items into the menu, it could be a smart system that would automatically adjust the piece depending on being placed on a right angle or a normal piece.
However, I do concede that it would be an undertaking to make it happen. I would be almost as equally happy with round pieces to use in those circumstances.
We are just very frustrated with wanting âsmoothâ corners instead of always having to have right angle corners when we make things, and when we use wedges, its a royal pain to figure out how to get things to meet properly in the middle. Most of the time we end up just getting as close as we can and calling it quits.
1 Like
Sure, but the point of what you quoted wasnât to say that other games donât have that piece, itâs that if this building system is âincomplete and wonkyâ, you should try Fallout or No Manâs Sky or Valheim.
Which would require implementing that smart system. So now on top of adding a ton of new pieces, they would also have to add a whole new system so that the players donât have to deal with the UI nightmare.
Does that sound like something Funcom would do?
There are some. I wish there were more. And I wish even more fervently that they werenât so fuŃking frustrating to use. Placing a rounded Turanian wall is a nightmare.
There are tutorials for that. But even with those tutorials, you wonât be able to build something that is perfectly straight and only has curves where you want it. 
There is a way forward for the right-angle triangle, though. Someone mentioned earlier in the discussion that one of Multigunâs mods solves this by creating âspacerâ pieces.
So I guess Funcom could add the right-angle triangle and spacer pieces in some future BP or BLB content, for a selected style, like they did with Turanian curved pieces or Stormglass L-shaped stairs.
1 Like
Itâs worth noting, however, that Iâve also seen the volume of complaints Multigun used to receive on steam about not being willing to also create the (almost overwhelming) array of sloped roof options that would be required to allow sloped rooves on right-angled triangle sections. As far as I recall, Multigun handled this by just saying ânoâ (after a few attempts at explanations failed to sink in), and stuck with flat ceiling option only.
With the flat ceiling and wall âspacerâ option, theoretically Funcom could ârelatively easilyâ provide for right-angled corners. But I donât imagine it would be long before the calls for sloped rooves also began - and then itâs back to the same âmany pieceâ scenario you suggested above, or the perhaps even more complex âsmart buildingâ suggestion.
tl:dr 90 degree triangles would be nice, but any implementation beyond the most limited would likely require a major overhaul of the building system (or at least many additions) - and the most limited implementation is unlikely to satisfy many of those who want it.
Itâs also worth noting a couple of points about 7d2d - a) itâs a very different build system, where every block âoccupiesâ a full 1m cube, whether or not it appears to, and the entire world is constructed on a pre-existing grid.; and b) building in 7d2d is an absolute horrorshow now, precisely because of the sheer number of block shapes added. Imagine the CE construction hammer, but with perhaps 2-3 times as many tabs, each with 50+ different block shapes as small thumbnails that you need to squint at to even recognise which is whichâŠ
2 Likes
I can imagine. Thatâs why in my replies I kept harping on about roofing. The whole point of these pieces is to allow people make their building have nicer corners and if the roof is missing on the corner, it looks like crap.
Yep. Unfortunately, when it comes to roofing, you canât dodge the complexity by adding a âspacerâ roof piece. The nice thing about the wall spacer is that itâs only one piece that you can then use with a bunch of other pieces: walls, windows, doorframes, etc. But for roof, itâs a 1:1 relationship, so you donât save anything by introducing a spacer.
Still, what they could do is leverage the expectations theyâve set for Bazaar. Back in the DLC days, adding new kinds of pieces could only happen in context of a whole new building set. When it comes to Bazaar, theyâve already done this before, by releasing bundles that extend previous building sets.
So they could release a bundle that adds (for example) a Stormglass right-angle wedge and wedge foundation, a Stormglass spacer, and some Stormglass roof pieces that fit the new geometry.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.