To be honest... I am more in favor of the procedural generated voxel world as it was the iconic thing to be able to get easy lost and that was a big part of the game for me... I do understand the reason for the changes and for some of the concerns and challenges they have with the Voxel based procedural generation... But I dont think it would feel the same 🤣🤣... Tho... I need to experience the new map system before being able to give my real opinion on it 🤔🤔
> to be able to get easy lost and that was a big part of the game for me Wow ... I completely missed that. That's indeed a HUGE point! It was really possible to get lost forever, and that will completely fall away! :(
I think this is gonna be a great change to stationers adding biomes and reasons to travel perhaps trading stations it would really make the rover useful.
I have no infos about that, but here's a very new outlook of what's currently underway in Stationeers development - exciting stuff: steamcommunity.com/app/544550/discussions/0/4690027546082080355/#c4690027546082359522
On the one hand, it may be possible to navigate by landmark with the new terrain. On the other hand, I prefer games that aren't the same every time I play them.
There will be multiple maps per planet, plus community-made maps, and there will very probably be an increasing amount of procedural generation tools - maybe even eventually in the game itself. The hand-author mechanism leads to more possibilities - it's just sad that in the same breath, built-in procedural worlds will fly out the window, I wish they would not do that, even if those worlds aren't as good, at least the option would exist. Time will tell.
This sounds great, I’ll definitely take another crack at Stationeers whenever this comes out! Oh yeah, they address this and you talk about it later. 3:00 - It shouldn’t be hard to add some random variation to the landing coordinates when starting a new map, enough so that your starting location doesn’t seem identical every time. With authoring being “straightforward,” I would expect maps to be “big enough” even if they aren’t infinite - while nice in theory, there are practical limits to just how large an area you could explore and effectively utilize, even on an infinite map.
Now this is exciting! Looks hugely immersion boosting! Also exciting to see fundamental improvements rather than endless tweaking robotic arms or otherwise moving of deckchairs while Titanic sails on towards the ice field.
Don't know what people are complaining about this is a giant step in the right direction. ATM by the time I get my base looking halfway to good, it becomes unplayable. And that is with a PC several grades higher than recommended specs.
i gotta say i love stationeers eventhough its a quiet steep learningcurve, considering i returned it once some long time ago just to buy it again. When i first played it, i thought it was too difficult and it still is harsh but it makes fun. Spent 28 hours in the game so far and havent even managed to properly refill my oxygentanks without simply wasting filters but it takes time and many tutorials but its still fun if you have the patience and are willing to suffer through the tutorials feeling like you get nothing done
Too bad we can't re-upload the video data of a video post. I ironed out some small kinks and equalized the music a bit more before doing a final render (with and without music - in case some Content ID shenanigans force me to take this thing down in its current form) and archiving the project.
looks like stationeers would be going for seed map system that you can have random maps ( or ) input a specific seed number found before and play the same map over and over as the user wants most games that use map generation are using it to give players balance between replayability and efficiency
Really doesnt seem to be too many people making planets/maps. Not even modifying dead planets so we can play on current update. I'll be interested to see how they overcome the couple hour novelty factor that the last few major updates brought.
I have no 7-days-to-die background to speak of, so ... Why were they a failure? Because movement is so restricted due to the zombies? That would be different here. Or what was the reason? I mean, it sounds very appealing to me, it's an immediate mission/task, and it's even optional depending on what ore we're talking about or how you wanna approach the respective engineering solution.
I really hope they bring trains in some day. Considering they plan to encourage traversal, I can imagine it would make bases have a need to be much more vast in some ways. Plus, a train would be really cool!!!
Yep, they have various channels, one of them being the Suggestions channel. They also have a Bug report channel, where the developers regularly read. The devs show up relatively often. ---- discord.gg/stationeers ---- discord.com/channels/276525882049429515/277443989794324480/1302638092540317796 ---- There were 2ish reactions, but nothing of substance.
I don't mind the terrain change. I would like the option to be able to travel to other worlds from my starting world. Or to travel to different locations on my current world in a shuttle. Even if there is a loading screen, I think it would be great to be able to move from planet to planet with a ship. You would dock your shuttle with a rocket then launch into space and dock with a station or fly to another planet. Each planet could have 4 areas each and you could choose from space where to land, giving the illusion of a much bigger map. So many possibilities.
"Travel" (Maybe with a constructed ship (but one that doesn't give you in-flight experience.) from world X to world Y is planned, pretty sure without simulating the stations/worlds where you're currently not. Dean Hall even has a working prototype where you have a planetary base and one in orbit: 12:08 - The multiple areas per planet are a good idea, but I didn't hear anything about that. (They did something like that for ICARUS, so I'm sure it's at least in their mind.)
I like it - but am a bit concerned that it will be hand crafted, which surely would limit replayability. Perhaps in time they'll develop code that allows for procedural generation - other games have managed it before. Also - although the character models do have some appeal - would love to have those remodelled to be more realistic! Would be a good match for the new terrain.
RNG has never been an effective solution for replay ability. Although it is frequently utilized, that does not necessarily make it good. Would much rather play on a map that someone has put effort into rather than something the computer just pooped out, because it was that time of the day(month). lol.
@@ToadRoach If the ruleset in which the random values are infused is complex and meaningful enough, the outcome can be very good. Cases in point: Dwarf Fortress and biological Evolution.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos Yes, there are cases in which it is well done, however, your two cases are from very different games. I would say the random gen in 7D2D is a great example of random gen progressing really well, until you actually realize that the better it gets the less random its generation is actually becoming. For me every Stationeers map is different, but at the same time, they all feel the same. It is kind of like watching white noise on an old TV, yes, every frame is unique and different, but the overall feel is the same. It works well in games like DF, because the goodies and the baddies are encoded into the map, there is both risk and reward for exploration, something just not present in Stationeers ATM.
I thought the whole point of the new terrain system was so we could have rovers and the like, and that would enable expeditions. The main reason I was looking forward to the new terrain system was so I could see how far I could get with a rover and try different ways of getting further. Guess I will have to give up on that. Glad I had some warning. Great to see the game getting dev love though. Almost best game ever.
It's indeed getting a lot of love right now: They added in-world liquids incl. colors and mixing, a liquid vacuum tool, a floor hatch, are gearing up to implement nuclear, and are preparing for the fullprice expansion that allows terraforming. They're also now on ITCH.IO, where they get 90% instead of 50% of the revenue. - The new terrain system will bring a lot more performance, diversity giving reason to travel, hand-crafted design, higher voxel resolution, compatibility with the new liquids, possibility of rovers coming back (but not decided yet).
There's an interesting new discussion on Steam (which I suspect you already know) where CEO Rocket chimes in. "Terrain update and expeditions" steamcommunity.com/app/544550/discussions/0/4690027546078722448/
Maybe they'll insist on using rockets in the future. And/or maybe it'll be like in Astroneer where placing a certain mining device over a cluster of ores will yield a lot more than manual mining would have. I heard a few times that the Deep Miners will eventually no longer be the infinite source that they are right now. But we should not forget: The game as it is today is better than ever. That's not the result of a coin toss. I think we can trust these devs to keep finding the right form for this game. Also, while 4km isn't large, it's not the one true answer of how big maps will be, and they even said that the sizes can probably be different (with some kind of maximum, of course).
I think the other (non deep miner) mining buildings have an ore multiplier, but I don't think it's significant enough to be worth the effort. Partly why we go the deep miner probably.
@@TheYaMeZ I was so convinced to have heard something about the Autominers recently on Discord but couldn't find it. I believe it was something about "revisiting" them at some point, but I don't want to spread rumors. Yep, they could use some love. And the Deep Miners could just be changed from 500W to 3KW demand or something. I know, that robs convenience, and we do need a way to overcome the tedium of mining without having to go *very* late game (Rockets.), so a higher power demand seems reasonable.
The devs are going to sink this game, I have had this since it came out in 2017, clocked up 800hrs in like 4 months. They could have released this as a full working game 2 yrs after EA and just had some nice updates every few moths with new content. They did not and instead made change after change made and sold DLC and now they continue to go round and round doing stuff that is not needed and a complete waste of time. This is a great game but I feel that if they go down this road they may as well start looking for new jobs.
I have the feeling that they are kind of navigating a stormy labyrinth of decision making that stems from the product being a great novelty in gaming (and also being very good), which comes with a lot of new territory and the potential for things yet unthought/unseen by all, and since this thought process doesn't just happen in the mind but also in the programmed manifestation along the way, we can witness this occasionally chaotic and even aimless seeming pathfinding. They created something great because of how they think and do things - which must be a very different way, since the game is also very different - and I have high hopes for the future which we have no choice but to wait out patiently (while building stations in a game that's significantly different every year).
I'm totally on board with the high-resolution beta, will take away the cartoony crap in the current versions which has always been an emersion issue for me. I do hope they provide vehicles again and larger maps for larger planets 6X6KM, to 8X8 KMs, and maybe even smaller for moons like 2X2s, and of course more moons and planets. Alpha-Centari for example, I don't care for any of the current mods for exoplanets they are all irritatingly jagged. I think Rocketworks can do it better
Dood stop driming !!! if i want nicer non cartoony looki can go play difrent game and during the time the dev is wasting on this change game is daying as ppl are leaving !!! Gamplay is most inportant and atm is neglected.
really great video BTW, and the questions asked by the community to the devs were great questions. my thoughts are the update to the "graphics" of the world is a great idea. the idea of biomes are interesting, a finite map size is ok, personally the 4km2 seems small. but in reality, how far out do you go from base? ive been max 2km out from base cause i wanted to test out if the portable beacon had a distance limit. atm it does not seem to have one at least to 2km. it took me about 10 min of walking to get that far. if they add in rovers, then the map will need to be at least 16km2. an idea to solve the "world border", well worlds are round...... Im not saying make the terrain "curve" like astroneer, but if you any direction far enough you will be back where u started. as for hand crafted worlds, NO, keep it random. you did mention this the main problem with a "fixed" map is its fixed and replay ability is lost. i say keep it random generated and have POIs random like Space Engineers, Astroneer, Empyrion, Raft etc. in Space Engineers and Astroneer the worlds are fixed size but random gen. i dont mind adding some fixed POIs at certain placed (ie the gates in Astroneer), but make the rest random. Even Valhiem has a fixed map size but the world is random generated POIs are random and yes some parts are fixed ie the spawn point and 2 biomes but the rest are all random. adding in standing water will be really nice, but i can wait on that. and idk how the game engine will handle moving water. i cant think of a simulation game atm that has realistic water flow. yes many have water moving, rising, lowering, waves, flowing etc, but actual realistic water mechanics......if im not mistaken, thats why space engineers only water ice and not flowing water.
Thanks. / Yes, it was a fruitful discussion. / I like the idea of a graphical update, but my main desire is functionality and (Sadly rather lacking, e.g. when you''re too hot.) *expression* of said functionality. Graphical fidelity comes after, this isn't Far Cry whose gameplay is shallow so that devs would need to (And could easily.) spice it up with beauty. Anyway, I'll appreciate it when it comes, of course. I guess you meant 4x4 kilometers, and with vehicles then 16x16 kilometers, and I'd agree with that (at least 8x8) because else, ingeniously designed worlds or not, vehicles would quickly make us aware of how small a 4km stretch can be. Well, I can imagine to start in a corner of the map surrounded by "special" mountains that you can't get past, so you'd have indeed 4km width and also depth ahead of you - I can imagine that many maps will use this approach. World border: It may cause insurmountable technical problems for simulation and construction to loop the world area. I wish that were not so, because I like the idea, but this is probably a high hurdle to overcome. Hand-crafted: This is actually good. Think about it from a technical perspective: The software currently makes up the worlds on the spot and immediately spits them at the player. This is tight coupling. In programming (Which this is only loosely related to.), loose coupling is generally what you strive for, because the implicit required abstraction often allows for a wider spectrum of possibilities. It's more work to make happen, though, and comes with more processing overhead. Anyway, back on topic: So far, hand-crafted worlds are not possible at all. And what we have to understand is: Once hand-crafted worlds are finally possible, *procedural world are still just as possible as before!* Though they won't be in the game as a generator [right away]. We are gaining a possibility without losing the other, except like I said the worlds will be hand-crafted by default, so they will probably not ship a procedural world generator right away, but there's hope that they eventually will - and once the new terrain drops, which will EXPLICITLY come with the statement (and tools): "Hey guys, you can now hand-craft your own worlds!", many people (incl. myself) will surely take a crack at trying to write generators for this. I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment: We are losing the procedural worlds at first, and once they're back, they may not seamlessly be part of the experience and thus may not feel "official", or not so much like "THE TRUTH" (The shared experience of *the one* Stationeers that exists now.) - but I wanted to make clear that we're otherwise *gaining* possibility.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos i dont know a thing about programming/game designing. MIPS my first at it really! im asking you how hard would it be to make the "starting area" hand crafted but small like 1x1km or 2 x 2 (4km2) and the rest all procedural generated up to a max of like 81km2 (9x9) or some other max limit? it would be the best of both cases
In principle, it's no problem at all. How hard it actually is depends on where in the creation chain you wanna inject this, e.g. if we're talking height map only, reserving an area to be undisturbed by the procedural creation of the rest of the height map texture, that's a joke to implement, "anyone" could do that. But once we're in voxel and octree territory with RocketWerkz' binary world file, things get a lot more complicated (e.g. I have no clue at all what its data structure would be).
I didn't understand part of the video because of the voices (did you use AI voices?... I hope not) anyway, what I could understand sounds great! It would be nice go all the way around the moon (like in Dragon Ball and Kaito's planet xD) and be able to return to your base hehe. Thanks for the video!
The voice is just altered, not AI. I don't have good voice effects, so these changes may have been a bit much sometimes. They're clearly audible with headphones though ... heh ... Anyway: The worlds will MOST probably never be round, and it's also unlikely that they will ever loop (pac man), though that's way more likely than the other. Making them round would be a huge problem for the coordinate system (think e.g. of the Mercator world map projection that we all use, where countries in the north/south look WAY larger than they are), and 4x4 km is just too small to wrap around a ball without looking seriously goofy, and despite the ridiculous human models (that I still can't fathom), this game is trying to look serious.
:D Great! (And I actually made the CEO voice a bit louder in the final fix version of this video, but I can't upload it, because you can't replace the video content of an existing post, and uploading this again for a few small polish changes would obviously be asinine.) You're a real trooper for buying the game for someone else. It's kind of the obvious thing to do (if the available cash allows it), but what if they don't actually play it in the end? That's a big turn-off. (Also ... money.) ---- I'm currently working on a short video whose sole purpose/content is to increase awareness of the ongoing sale, and what the DLCs are about. I hope to complete it today, but I keep underestimating the editing time :P
This does smell alot like a Dean Hall thing. Things work pretty good lets change the engine and then re-add certain things over 10 years just like Dayz. So the rovers should be back in about 2037 😂
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos feature creep is also a cause of slow development. Tons of reworking also doesn't really help with getting income. Stationeers 1.0 release and starting with stationeers 2 would bring in plenty of funds tho. Alot of players including me would get early access on stationeers 2
@@TriuraniumOctoxide he left Bohemia interactive about 10 years ago. With millions in his pocket, a broken game and later confessed he was never planning to actually finish dayz. So dont give him to much credit. That 30 milion did partly contribute to the fact he was able to start his own company and development on stationeers but I am fully expecting stationeers to never make it to 1.0
@@samuraidriver4x4 Oh right - thanks for that. I do recall now that he left BI (had forgotten). I probably do give him too much credit, and do think of him as a bit of a legend. I'll re-evaluate that! Regardless of whether Stationeers gets finished, I've gotten 100's of hours out of it and will get 100's more, so I can't really complain. Would love to see it take off for its longevity, but recognise it is a bit of a niche market.
THIS... is the biggest mistake they will do. Procedural is everthing in these games... Refine the procedural or loose every player to zero replayability. FCK it was sooooo close to be a really good game.
Ore distribution will in most cases not be uniform like now, so if you want a lot of gold, you seek out that gold ore place on the mountain with the geysers, for which you need to build a little outpost for some reason I can yet think of. There can be alien structures or Loulan structures, like "the devs" said in the video. The finite maps will surely change the overall flavor of Stationeers development a little bit in the direction of missions and purpose, so ideas should pop up from all side, incl. the devs.
I absolutely disagree. Currently the worlds are just blobs. They have very little appeal, all the action is in building the base. I think this could make worlds a lot more interesting. I've played satisfactory for almost 900 hours with a single map, no random.
Apart from the infinity of it, we can still have that in the future. It'll take some "booting up" when this new time begins, but we'll sure eventually have procedural generation tools, and I mean even somewhat streamlined.
@@EsuZeno 1) The current terrain is incompatible with vehicles. 2) The current terrain implementation is slow and bad and held together with bandages, which anyone who has reloaded a Moon/Mimas save multiple times during one program session can attest to. 3) The worlds are indeed samey instead of allowing exploration and discovery, so a huge component of what a game can deliver and what people want is not present. The new form will allow hand-crafted AND procedural, while the current form ONLY allows procedural. RocketWerkz' Stationeers has a great community eager to create new worlds, but as long as only a bit of atmospheric settings, colors, and terrain parameters can be changed, the potential for a thriving world creator community is severely limited.
Whay are we pusing such a change to a game that is ok. Game play will not change with this change of map generator. Game play should by main priority to get Game runing. And for a Stantionner 2 you can do a change like this. Bringing such big change in to a game you got and some ppl are used to and then you lost more then 50%; no one get a game just because of a map generator ppl will join a game where you got gamplay !! Example you removed the Rove in game that was one of the Icon of the game in all pic; and gave nothing to replace it. talking of Icarus they added alot of thing that made no sens but when you end up adding and adding it started changing the game fealing nice for the Gamplay. In stationer you remove and remove and ghange to a poin that i dont recognise the game i payed for. Are we playeing a test Alfa of a game then ?
Dude, what the fuck. YES, you are playing a "test alpha of a game": It's Early Access! The priority is the development, not the currently playing players - though RocketWerkz have a high priority not to break people's savegames, but that will happen every once in a while, definitely when the new terrain comes out. The new terrain WILL change gameplay, explained in the video. Also explained in the video: The Rovers may have a comeback once the new terrain is in. The CURRENT terrain was too much of a problem for them, which is one of the key reasons why they were removed, so even from that angle, it's a good thing the new terrain is coming.
It's a pretty exciting game mechanic though. Not because of flowers or trees or lakes, but because in Stationeers we actively work with the atmosphere/climate of the planet, so if that would change, that could make a playthrough a lot more dynamic. Currently, it wouldn't do much, I guess, since you'd need a ridiculous amount of power (Nuclear is coming eventually.) and a lot of time (Unrealistic amount, but that would be gamified.) - so we wouldn't benefit from a changed atmosphere while we get to that endgame-kinda content of changing the planet itself. But who knows, there could be more content after that. What's already planned is hospital/hotel/care-kinda scenarios that build upon the already established idea that traders sometimes need the right environment that you have to create for them. We could be babysitting researchers (is what a dev said), we could have a hospital, hotel, etc. where we have to build the respective environment for NPC guests - and THAT kinda content could significantly be influenced by a changed planetary situation.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos it would also take a ridiculous amount of materials. If the planet is missing anything we need for life, then it has to be added from somewhere. Take Mars, Mars has very little atmosphere and what it does have is toxic. The mass of the Martian atmosphere is ~2.5 x 10^16 kg. Compare to Earth, which sits at 5.1 x 10^18 kg. Nearly all of the Martian atmosphere is CO2, on Earth only about 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. What I am saying is we would need massive amounts of oxygen and nitrogen to make Mars Earth-like. That doesn't even touch problems such as Mars only having about 40% of Earth's mass and no magnetosphere (meaning any atmosphere we add will get stripped by solar winds).
@@godsfavoriteant9293 I mean, Elon musks “simple plan” to terraform mars consists of: 1) nuking the north and south poles. Causing a rise in temperature. 2) that rise in temperature will release tons of frozen co2 that we presume is there. Which will heat the planet due to the greenhouse effect. 3) relying on either gmo or modifications to Martian soil, we can plant our earth crops in the co2 rich environment. Which will then make oxygen for us. Definitely easier said than done in real life, but that method could be implemented in the game🤷♂️
The absence of magnetic field would still be key. We'd waste that one opportunity to get an atmosphere on Mars - eventually, the sun (and thermal energy) would have stripped all gas away again.
![Space Engineers Survival (Episode 8) - Attack Drone Upgrades and Refining Outpost Stuff! [2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UQYk3ALcXz4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
To be honest... I am more in favor of the procedural generated voxel world as it was the iconic thing to be able to get easy lost and that was a big part of the game for me... I do understand the reason for the changes and for some of the concerns and challenges they have with the Voxel based procedural generation... But I dont think it would
feel the same 🤣🤣... Tho... I need to experience the new map system before being able to give my real opinion on it 🤔🤔
> to be able to get easy lost and that was a big part of the game for me
Wow ... I completely missed that. That's indeed a HUGE point! It was really possible to get lost forever, and that will completely fall away! :(
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos Most people with any direction sense would miss that!
I think this is gonna be a great change to stationers adding biomes and reasons to travel perhaps trading stations it would really make the rover useful.
I have no infos about that, but here's a very new outlook of what's currently underway in Stationeers development - exciting stuff: steamcommunity.com/app/544550/discussions/0/4690027546082080355/#c4690027546082359522
On the one hand, it may be possible to navigate by landmark with the new terrain. On the other hand, I prefer games that aren't the same every time I play them.
There will be multiple maps per planet, plus community-made maps, and there will very probably be an increasing amount of procedural generation tools - maybe even eventually in the game itself. The hand-author mechanism leads to more possibilities - it's just sad that in the same breath, built-in procedural worlds will fly out the window, I wish they would not do that, even if those worlds aren't as good, at least the option would exist. Time will tell.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmosCan't wait to mod in the krusty krab
This sounds great, I’ll definitely take another crack at Stationeers whenever this comes out!
Oh yeah, they address this and you talk about it later. 3:00 - It shouldn’t be hard to add some random variation to the landing coordinates when starting a new map, enough so that your starting location doesn’t seem identical every time. With authoring being “straightforward,” I would expect maps to be “big enough” even if they aren’t infinite - while nice in theory, there are practical limits to just how large an area you could explore and effectively utilize, even on an infinite map.
Now this is exciting! Looks hugely immersion boosting! Also exciting to see fundamental improvements rather than endless tweaking robotic arms or otherwise moving of deckchairs while Titanic sails on towards the ice field.
Nice voice modulation with Exiting News :)
I love this game! Thank you for the great update. Nice voice changes too! Until next time o7
Don't know what people are complaining about this is a giant step in the right direction.
ATM by the time I get my base looking halfway to good, it becomes unplayable. And that is with a PC several grades higher than recommended specs.
i gotta say i love stationeers eventhough its a quiet steep learningcurve, considering i returned it once some long time ago just to buy it again. When i first played it, i thought it was too difficult and it still is harsh but it makes fun. Spent 28 hours in the game so far and havent even managed to properly refill my oxygentanks without simply wasting filters but it takes time and many tutorials but its still fun if you have the patience and are willing to suffer through the tutorials feeling like you get nothing done
bringing back the "old" rover!!!!!
Too bad we can't re-upload the video data of a video post. I ironed out some small kinks and equalized the music a bit more before doing a final render (with and without music - in case some Content ID shenanigans force me to take this thing down in its current form) and archiving the project.
looks like stationeers would be going for seed map system that you can have random maps ( or ) input a specific seed number found before and play the same map over and over as the user wants most games that use map generation are using it to give players balance between replayability and efficiency
Really doesnt seem to be too many people making planets/maps. Not even modifying dead planets so we can play on current update. I'll be interested to see how they overcome the couple hour novelty factor that the last few major updates brought.
Most of their plan is fine with me. The only peice that I dislike is the ore's in specific areas only. 7 Days tried this and it was a disaster.
I have no 7-days-to-die background to speak of, so ... Why were they a failure? Because movement is so restricted due to the zombies? That would be different here. Or what was the reason? I mean, it sounds very appealing to me, it's an immediate mission/task, and it's even optional depending on what ore we're talking about or how you wanna approach the respective engineering solution.
I really hope they bring trains in some day. Considering they plan to encourage traversal, I can imagine it would make bases have a need to be much more vast in some ways. Plus, a train would be really cool!!!
That's a good idea, and so I just reposted it (Screenshot of your comment.) to the suggestions channel on the Discord.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos thank you!!! That's genuinely so nice. Also, they had a suggestions box?
Yep, they have various channels, one of them being the Suggestions channel. They also have a Bug report channel, where the developers regularly read. The devs show up relatively often. ---- discord.gg/stationeers ---- discord.com/channels/276525882049429515/277443989794324480/1302638092540317796 ---- There were 2ish reactions, but nothing of substance.
I don't mind the terrain change. I would like the option to be able to travel to other worlds from my starting world. Or to travel to different locations on my current world in a shuttle. Even if there is a loading screen, I think it would be great to be able to move from planet to planet with a ship. You would dock your shuttle with a rocket then launch into space and dock with a station or fly to another planet. Each planet could have 4 areas each and you could choose from space where to land, giving the illusion of a much bigger map. So many possibilities.
"Travel" (Maybe with a constructed ship (but one that doesn't give you in-flight experience.) from world X to world Y is planned, pretty sure without simulating the stations/worlds where you're currently not. Dean Hall even has a working prototype where you have a planetary base and one in orbit: 12:08 - The multiple areas per planet are a good idea, but I didn't hear anything about that. (They did something like that for ICARUS, so I'm sure it's at least in their mind.)
I like it - but am a bit concerned that it will be hand crafted, which surely would limit replayability. Perhaps in time they'll develop code that allows for procedural generation - other games have managed it before. Also - although the character models do have some appeal - would love to have those remodelled to be more realistic! Would be a good match for the new terrain.
RNG has never been an effective solution for replay ability. Although it is frequently utilized, that does not necessarily make it good. Would much rather play on a map that someone has put effort into rather than something the computer just pooped out, because it was that time of the day(month). lol.
@@ToadRoach If the ruleset in which the random values are infused is complex and meaningful enough, the outcome can be very good. Cases in point: Dwarf Fortress and biological Evolution.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos Yes, there are cases in which it is well done, however, your two cases are from very different games.
I would say the random gen in 7D2D is a great example of random gen progressing really well, until you actually realize that the better it gets the less random its generation is actually becoming.
For me every Stationeers map is different, but at the same time, they all feel the same. It is kind of like watching white noise on an old TV, yes, every frame is unique and different, but the overall feel is the same.
It works well in games like DF, because the goodies and the baddies are encoded into the map, there is both risk and reward for exploration, something just not present in Stationeers ATM.
I thought the whole point of the new terrain system was so we could have rovers and the like, and that would enable expeditions. The main reason I was looking forward to the new terrain system was so I could see how far I could get with a rover and try different ways of getting further. Guess I will have to give up on that. Glad I had some warning. Great to see the game getting dev love though. Almost best game ever.
It's indeed getting a lot of love right now: They added in-world liquids incl. colors and mixing, a liquid vacuum tool, a floor hatch, are gearing up to implement nuclear, and are preparing for the fullprice expansion that allows terraforming. They're also now on ITCH.IO, where they get 90% instead of 50% of the revenue. - The new terrain system will bring a lot more performance, diversity giving reason to travel, hand-crafted design, higher voxel resolution, compatibility with the new liquids, possibility of rovers coming back (but not decided yet).
There's an interesting new discussion on Steam (which I suspect you already know) where CEO Rocket chimes in. "Terrain update and expeditions" steamcommunity.com/app/544550/discussions/0/4690027546078722448/
Do not dare lock any locations behind story and campaign! I want to keep my sandbox experience! >:-(
4km² does not sound very big. Mostly concerned about the possibility of running out of ore unless there's some infinite source added
Maybe they'll insist on using rockets in the future. And/or maybe it'll be like in Astroneer where placing a certain mining device over a cluster of ores will yield a lot more than manual mining would have. I heard a few times that the Deep Miners will eventually no longer be the infinite source that they are right now. But we should not forget: The game as it is today is better than ever. That's not the result of a coin toss. I think we can trust these devs to keep finding the right form for this game. Also, while 4km isn't large, it's not the one true answer of how big maps will be, and they even said that the sizes can probably be different (with some kind of maximum, of course).
I think the other (non deep miner) mining buildings have an ore multiplier, but I don't think it's significant enough to be worth the effort. Partly why we go the deep miner probably.
@@TheYaMeZ I was so convinced to have heard something about the Autominers recently on Discord but couldn't find it. I believe it was something about "revisiting" them at some point, but I don't want to spread rumors. Yep, they could use some love. And the Deep Miners could just be changed from 500W to 3KW demand or something. I know, that robs convenience, and we do need a way to overcome the tedium of mining without having to go *very* late game (Rockets.), so a higher power demand seems reasonable.
The devs are going to sink this game, I have had this since it came out in 2017, clocked up 800hrs in like 4 months. They could have released this as a full working game 2 yrs after EA and just had some nice updates every few moths with new content. They did not and instead made change after change made and sold DLC and now they continue to go round and round doing stuff that is not needed and a complete waste of time. This is a great game but I feel that if they go down this road they may as well start looking for new jobs.
I have the feeling that they are kind of navigating a stormy labyrinth of decision making that stems from the product being a great novelty in gaming (and also being very good), which comes with a lot of new territory and the potential for things yet unthought/unseen by all, and since this thought process doesn't just happen in the mind but also in the programmed manifestation along the way, we can witness this occasionally chaotic and even aimless seeming pathfinding. They created something great because of how they think and do things - which must be a very different way, since the game is also very different - and I have high hopes for the future which we have no choice but to wait out patiently (while building stations in a game that's significantly different every year).
Agree with you !!
Production quality level: Cosmogenic deity
I'm totally on board with the high-resolution beta, will take away the cartoony crap in the current versions which has always been an emersion issue for me. I do hope they provide vehicles again and larger maps for larger planets 6X6KM, to 8X8 KMs, and maybe even smaller for moons like 2X2s, and of course more moons and planets. Alpha-Centari for example, I don't care for any of the current mods for exoplanets they are all irritatingly jagged. I think Rocketworks can do it better
Dood stop driming !!! if i want nicer non cartoony looki can go play difrent game and during the time the dev is wasting on this change game is daying as ppl are leaving !!! Gamplay is most inportant and atm is neglected.
This was the most confusing round of Simon Says I've ever played and I didn't understand half of the commands
A lot of work for a game with a max of 700 players and a low of 300 but it's welcomed.
really great video BTW, and the questions asked by the community to the devs were great questions. my thoughts are the update to the "graphics" of the world is a great idea. the idea of biomes are interesting, a finite map size is ok, personally the 4km2 seems small. but in reality, how far out do you go from base? ive been max 2km out from base cause i wanted to test out if the portable beacon had a distance limit. atm it does not seem to have one at least to 2km. it took me about 10 min of walking to get that far. if they add in rovers, then the map will need to be at least 16km2. an idea to solve the "world border", well worlds are round...... Im not saying make the terrain "curve" like astroneer, but if you any direction far enough you will be back where u started. as for hand crafted worlds, NO, keep it random. you did mention this the main problem with a "fixed" map is its fixed and replay ability is lost. i say keep it random generated and have POIs random like Space Engineers, Astroneer, Empyrion, Raft etc. in Space Engineers and Astroneer the worlds are fixed size but random gen. i dont mind adding some fixed POIs at certain placed (ie the gates in Astroneer), but make the rest random. Even Valhiem has a fixed map size but the world is random generated POIs are random and yes some parts are fixed ie the spawn point and 2 biomes but the rest are all random.
adding in standing water will be really nice, but i can wait on that. and idk how the game engine will handle moving water. i cant think of a simulation game atm that has realistic water flow. yes many have water moving, rising, lowering, waves, flowing etc, but actual realistic water mechanics......if im not mistaken, thats why space engineers only water ice and not flowing water.
Thanks. / Yes, it was a fruitful discussion. / I like the idea of a graphical update, but my main desire is functionality and (Sadly rather lacking, e.g. when you''re too hot.) *expression* of said functionality. Graphical fidelity comes after, this isn't Far Cry whose gameplay is shallow so that devs would need to (And could easily.) spice it up with beauty. Anyway, I'll appreciate it when it comes, of course.
I guess you meant 4x4 kilometers, and with vehicles then 16x16 kilometers, and I'd agree with that (at least 8x8) because else, ingeniously designed worlds or not, vehicles would quickly make us aware of how small a 4km stretch can be. Well, I can imagine to start in a corner of the map surrounded by "special" mountains that you can't get past, so you'd have indeed 4km width and also depth ahead of you - I can imagine that many maps will use this approach.
World border: It may cause insurmountable technical problems for simulation and construction to loop the world area. I wish that were not so, because I like the idea, but this is probably a high hurdle to overcome.
Hand-crafted: This is actually good. Think about it from a technical perspective: The software currently makes up the worlds on the spot and immediately spits them at the player. This is tight coupling. In programming (Which this is only loosely related to.), loose coupling is generally what you strive for, because the implicit required abstraction often allows for a wider spectrum of possibilities. It's more work to make happen, though, and comes with more processing overhead. Anyway, back on topic: So far, hand-crafted worlds are not possible at all. And what we have to understand is: Once hand-crafted worlds are finally possible, *procedural world are still just as possible as before!* Though they won't be in the game as a generator [right away]. We are gaining a possibility without losing the other, except like I said the worlds will be hand-crafted by default, so they will probably not ship a procedural world generator right away, but there's hope that they eventually will - and once the new terrain drops, which will EXPLICITLY come with the statement (and tools): "Hey guys, you can now hand-craft your own worlds!", many people (incl. myself) will surely take a crack at trying to write generators for this.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment: We are losing the procedural worlds at first, and once they're back, they may not seamlessly be part of the experience and thus may not feel "official", or not so much like "THE TRUTH" (The shared experience of *the one* Stationeers that exists now.) - but I wanted to make clear that we're otherwise *gaining* possibility.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos i dont know a thing about programming/game designing. MIPS my first at it really! im asking you how hard would it be to make the "starting area" hand crafted but small like 1x1km or 2 x 2 (4km2) and the rest all procedural generated up to a max of like 81km2 (9x9) or some other max limit? it would be the best of both cases
In principle, it's no problem at all. How hard it actually is depends on where in the creation chain you wanna inject this, e.g. if we're talking height map only, reserving an area to be undisturbed by the procedural creation of the rest of the height map texture, that's a joke to implement, "anyone" could do that. But once we're in voxel and octree territory with RocketWerkz' binary world file, things get a lot more complicated (e.g. I have no clue at all what its data structure would be).
I didn't understand part of the video because of the voices (did you use AI voices?... I hope not) anyway, what I could understand sounds great! It would be nice go all the way around the moon (like in Dragon Ball and Kaito's planet xD) and be able to return to your base hehe. Thanks for the video!
The voice is just altered, not AI. I don't have good voice effects, so these changes may have been a bit much sometimes. They're clearly audible with headphones though ... heh ... Anyway: The worlds will MOST probably never be round, and it's also unlikely that they will ever loop (pac man), though that's way more likely than the other. Making them round would be a huge problem for the coordinate system (think e.g. of the Mercator world map projection that we all use, where countries in the north/south look WAY larger than they are), and 4x4 km is just too small to wrap around a ball without looking seriously goofy, and despite the ridiculous human models (that I still can't fathom), this game is trying to look serious.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos thank you for your answer!
:D Great! (And I actually made the CEO voice a bit louder in the final fix version of this video, but I can't upload it, because you can't replace the video content of an existing post, and uploading this again for a few small polish changes would obviously be asinine.)
You're a real trooper for buying the game for someone else. It's kind of the obvious thing to do (if the available cash allows it), but what if they don't actually play it in the end? That's a big turn-off. (Also ... money.) ---- I'm currently working on a short video whose sole purpose/content is to increase awareness of the ongoing sale, and what the DLCs are about. I hope to complete it today, but I keep underestimating the editing time :P
honestly i don't like the idea of the quality, i prefer the low-poly version, it fits the general art style im sure many are familiar with
This does smell alot like a Dean Hall thing.
Things work pretty good lets change the engine and then re-add certain things over 10 years just like Dayz.
So the rovers should be back in about 2037 😂
If you want the project to develop faster, there first needs to be positive cash flow. Which there isn't.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos feature creep is also a cause of slow development.
Tons of reworking also doesn't really help with getting income.
Stationeers 1.0 release and starting with stationeers 2 would bring in plenty of funds tho.
Alot of players including me would get early access on stationeers 2
I forgot Dean Hall was involved and agree it is typical lol. Still - he has managed to keep DAYZ alive
@@TriuraniumOctoxide he left Bohemia interactive about 10 years ago.
With millions in his pocket, a broken game and later confessed he was never planning to actually finish dayz.
So dont give him to much credit.
That 30 milion did partly contribute to the fact he was able to start his own company and development on stationeers but I am fully expecting stationeers to never make it to 1.0
@@samuraidriver4x4 Oh right - thanks for that. I do recall now that he left BI (had forgotten). I probably do give him too much credit, and do think of him as a bit of a legend. I'll re-evaluate that! Regardless of whether Stationeers gets finished, I've gotten 100's of hours out of it and will get 100's more, so I can't really complain. Would love to see it take off for its longevity, but recognise it is a bit of a niche market.
THIS... is the biggest mistake they will do. Procedural is everthing in these games... Refine the procedural or loose every player to zero replayability. FCK it was sooooo close to be a really good game.
Procedural generation won't go away, it'll just take a backseat during the phase when the new system will be established.
I mean i completely agree with you but like whats there to explore in this game?
Ore distribution will in most cases not be uniform like now, so if you want a lot of gold, you seek out that gold ore place on the mountain with the geysers, for which you need to build a little outpost for some reason I can yet think of. There can be alien structures or Loulan structures, like "the devs" said in the video. The finite maps will surely change the overall flavor of Stationeers development a little bit in the direction of missions and purpose, so ideas should pop up from all side, incl. the devs.
I absolutely disagree. Currently the worlds are just blobs. They have very little appeal, all the action is in building the base. I think this could make worlds a lot more interesting. I've played satisfactory for almost 900 hours with a single map, no random.
Simon and all the other people sound like you???? Simon says....
Hm. I didn't notice, but now that you say it ... they do sound a bit like me.
They are absolutely taking a wrong turn here.
Your profile picture and your channel name aren't compatible.
So ... sunglasses are punk somehow?
Eveeyone in the comments is being quite dramatic i think this can be cool if they work on it right
Noooo kinda like how it is now
Apart from the infinity of it, we can still have that in the future. It'll take some "booting up" when this new time begins, but we'll sure eventually have procedural generation tools, and I mean even somewhat streamlined.
It's a solution to a non existent problem so weird they're just wasting resources on it when procedural is fine as is
@@EsuZeno 1) The current terrain is incompatible with vehicles. 2) The current terrain implementation is slow and bad and held together with bandages, which anyone who has reloaded a Moon/Mimas save multiple times during one program session can attest to. 3) The worlds are indeed samey instead of allowing exploration and discovery, so a huge component of what a game can deliver and what people want is not present. The new form will allow hand-crafted AND procedural, while the current form ONLY allows procedural. RocketWerkz' Stationeers has a great community eager to create new worlds, but as long as only a bit of atmospheric settings, colors, and terrain parameters can be changed, the potential for a thriving world creator community is severely limited.
Whay are we pusing such a change to a game that is ok. Game play will not change with this change of map generator.
Game play should by main priority to get Game runing.
And for a Stantionner 2 you can do a change like this.
Bringing such big change in to a game you got and some ppl are used to and then you lost more then 50%; no one get a game just because of a map generator ppl will join a game where you got gamplay !!
Example you removed the Rove in game that was one of the Icon of the game in all pic; and gave nothing to replace it. talking of Icarus they added alot of thing that made no sens but when you end up adding and adding it started changing the game fealing nice for the Gamplay. In stationer you remove and remove and ghange to a poin that i dont recognise the game i payed for. Are we playeing a test Alfa of a game then ?
Dude, what the fuck. YES, you are playing a "test alpha of a game": It's Early Access! The priority is the development, not the currently playing players - though RocketWerkz have a high priority not to break people's savegames, but that will happen every once in a while, definitely when the new terrain comes out. The new terrain WILL change gameplay, explained in the video. Also explained in the video: The Rovers may have a comeback once the new terrain is in. The CURRENT terrain was too much of a problem for them, which is one of the key reasons why they were removed, so even from that angle, it's a good thing the new terrain is coming.
I could do without terraforming. As it is envisioned by most people, terraforming is a fantasy.
It's a pretty exciting game mechanic though. Not because of flowers or trees or lakes, but because in Stationeers we actively work with the atmosphere/climate of the planet, so if that would change, that could make a playthrough a lot more dynamic. Currently, it wouldn't do much, I guess, since you'd need a ridiculous amount of power (Nuclear is coming eventually.) and a lot of time (Unrealistic amount, but that would be gamified.) - so we wouldn't benefit from a changed atmosphere while we get to that endgame-kinda content of changing the planet itself. But who knows, there could be more content after that. What's already planned is hospital/hotel/care-kinda scenarios that build upon the already established idea that traders sometimes need the right environment that you have to create for them. We could be babysitting researchers (is what a dev said), we could have a hospital, hotel, etc. where we have to build the respective environment for NPC guests - and THAT kinda content could significantly be influenced by a changed planetary situation.
@@OwnerOfTheCosmos it would also take a ridiculous amount of materials. If the planet is missing anything we need for life, then it has to be added from somewhere.
Take Mars, Mars has very little atmosphere and what it does have is toxic. The mass of the Martian atmosphere is ~2.5 x 10^16 kg. Compare to Earth, which sits at 5.1 x 10^18 kg. Nearly all of the Martian atmosphere is CO2, on Earth only about 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. What I am saying is we would need massive amounts of oxygen and nitrogen to make Mars Earth-like.
That doesn't even touch problems such as Mars only having about 40% of Earth's mass and no magnetosphere (meaning any atmosphere we add will get stripped by solar winds).
@@godsfavoriteant9293 I mean, Elon musks “simple plan” to terraform mars consists of:
1) nuking the north and south poles. Causing a rise in temperature.
2) that rise in temperature will release tons of frozen co2 that we presume is there. Which will heat the planet due to the greenhouse effect.
3) relying on either gmo or modifications to Martian soil, we can plant our earth crops in the co2 rich environment. Which will then make oxygen for us.
Definitely easier said than done in real life, but that method could be implemented in the game🤷♂️
The absence of magnetic field would still be key. We'd waste that one opportunity to get an atmosphere on Mars - eventually, the sun (and thermal energy) would have stripped all gas away again.