Terrain (OH stuff I JUST WENT THERE)

[The Resonte!]

so we're going forward by taking something away?

besides, there were bots before terrain left. see space guy's bots and amades (imo not that good, but a start.)

Pretty sure that destroying fossil fuels and such is allowing us to go forward in science.

what's space guys bots
and I think amades got fail-binned.
spamming the console or something and being abusable

also what does my quote have to do with anything ^
what's with me and horrible examples

what a bad example. you aren't even within a reasonable spectrum.
here are some better examples:

• researching before building residential areas on a swamp, that way people don't get mad when they're told "uh oh you gotta move!".
• removing a disease when it's first traced instead of allowing it to grow to a point where treating it will cause side-effects.

please gain more experience before you duel again.

no offense
but how does diseases remotely make people accustomed with them
people don't feel safe around diseases
we hate diseases
usually
your first one was a good example though
grats

ANYWAY
what's so bad about the internet being a place of disaster
we're literally killing people over the internet

so shouldn't we have destroyed the internet before we got accustomed with it?
man.

[Ad Bot]

[Tomcat]

Pretty sure that destroying fossil fuels and such is allowing us to go forward in science.

what's space guys bots
and I think amades got fail-binned.
spamming the console or something and being abusable

also what does my quote have to do with anything ^

you know nothing about the history of the internet.

your ignorance is astounding.

[otto-san]

you'd think developers would remove these problems at first instead of letting them accumulate and 'inhibit' more and more development. if these super slow terrain pieces made development 10x slower, why weren't they removed from the start?  i fully support the way people are voicing their opinions making these topics. this is what happens when you cut features that players are already accustomed to this far into a game's life. see: runescape wilderness riot

how would they know it'd be a detriment to development of features they haven't even started on yet? perhaps not even planned? that's not how coding works.

badspot didn't make the engine, and definitely didn't go into BL knowing the exact C++ workings of it. it was probably realised later on that they were becoming an inconvenience and waited awhile before pulling the trigger on removing them.

though obviously i'm not badspot and am certainly not close enough to any of the developers to know any of this for sure. it's just an educated guess.


voicing your opinion is fine, but a good few of the topics discussing this subject have been more along the lines of "whining". which is a blunt term for being bad at voicing your opinion.

if someone wants to actually put thought and research into their opinion and post an actual good argument that's fine

if they're just saying "ugh why did the devs do that please put it back god" i don't see why they should even be payed attention to


and terrain+interiors are actually pretty good for some reasons. but i think the logical weighing of good and bad (forsaking aesthetics for this because they can be pretty risky to include for this kind of thing) would suggest that after v21 changes, the game is probably not 'much better off', but not 'worse off'.

[Tomcat]

how would they know it'd be a detriment to development of features they haven't even started on yet? perhaps not even planned? that's not how coding works.

badspot didn't make the engine, and definitely didn't go into BL knowing the exact C++ workings of it. it was probably realised later on that they were becoming an inconvenience and waited awhile before pulling the trigger on removing them.

though obviously i'm not badspot and am certainly not close enough to any of the developers to know any of this for sure. it's just an educated guess.


voicing your opinion is fine, but a good few of the topics discussing this subject have been more along the lines of "whining". which is a blunt term for being bad at voicing your opinion.

if someone wants to actually put thought and research into their opinion and post an actual good argument that's fine

if they're just saying "ugh why did the devs do that please put it back god" i don't see why they should even be payed attention to


and terrain+interiors are actually pretty good for some reasons. but i think the logical weighing of good and bad (forsaking aesthetics for this because they can be pretty risky to include for this kind of thing) would suggest that after v21 changes, the game is probably not 'much better off', but not 'worse off'.

it is worse off, players with lower-end computers (ie kids, which are most of the blockland players) have to deal with stuffty fps while the plethora of vehicles we have go unused because vehicle collision with bricks is stuff.

[The Resonte!]

you know nothing about the history of the internet.

your ignorance is astounding.

then what is the history of the internet
help me understand where i went wrong

or keep being unhelpful and i'll never learn

but I am pretty sure amade's got fail-binned
and i don't know what space guy's bots are
so
help me out

it is worse off, players with lower-end computers (ie kids, which are most of the blockland players) have to deal with stuffty fps while the plethora of vehicles we have go unused because vehicle collision with bricks is stuff.

to be more specific
it's "Questionable"

[otto-san]

it is worse off, players with lower-end computers (ie kids, which are most of the blockland players) have to deal with stuffty fps while the plethora of vehicles we have go unused because vehicle collision with bricks is stuff.

I wanted to try and word it in a way that made it clearer what I meant, but I couldn't.

This is a really terrible way to put it, but I wasn't referring to specifically the end-user experience.

I meant the game as a whole. Like, as its existence as a game.

also the FPS argument is fairly invalid considering you can (and will always be able to) turn the features off and get the same (or at least roughly the same) FPS you'd get in pre-v21 BL

i guess you're referring to how those users can't enjoy shaders and the update is worse for that user specifically because they lost a feature and can't use a gained one by saying that though? yeah, that's p unfortunate


vehicle physics are one of the good things about terrain i was talking about. i completely agree there.

[Tomcat]

then what is the history of the internet
help me understand where i went wrong

or keep being unhelpful and i'll never learn

but I am pretty sure amade's got fail-binned
and i don't know what space guy's bots are
so
help me out

The internet, bbc boards, and usenet (not trying to be hipster, edgy or condescending here, though somepeople might read it that way.) were relatively okay before the unsophisticated masses showed up to clog up the 'net.

which are people whom have no clue about computers, networks, or the nature of the internet.

there was no so-called cyber bulling in the open before. nobody blew it out of loving proportion, you should be ashamed for even taking that term seriously.

[Tomcat]

I wanted to try and word it in a way that made it clearer what I meant, but I couldn't.

This is a really terrible way to put it, but I wasn't referring to specifically the end-user experience.

I meant the game as a whole. Like, as its existence as a game.

also the FPS argument is fairly invalid considering you can (and will always be able to) turn the features off and get the same (or at least roughly the same) FPS you'd get in pre-v21 BL


vehicle physics are one of the good things about terrain i was talking about. i completely agree there.

the fps argument is pretty valid because while you get the fps back you don't get a decent fort wars terrain map that isn't a bunch of stuffty gsf islands back.

[otto-san]

the fps argument is pretty valid because while you get the fps back you don't get a decent fort wars terrain map that isn't a bunch of stuffty gsf islands back.

lol that's not a problem with the game, that's a problem with the userbase

in some cases that kind of argument may be valid (i.e., in other games)

but in this one you can't blame the implementation of performance-reducing shaders+removal of interiors and terrain for the host's lack of ability to build a decent map


on a related note it'd be great if people started exchanging saves as if they were maps now. the gamemodes system allows for this.

[The Resonte!]

there was no so-called cyber bulling in the open before. nobody blew it out of loving proportion, you should be ashamed for even taking that term seriously.

yeah.
i can can't imagine somebody doing bull riding on the internet
now stop acting arrogant mr. bigshot

but cyber bullying is happening now
so yeah

also what does this have to do with bots

[heedicalking]

how would they know it'd be a detriment to development of features they haven't even started on yet? perhaps not even planned? that's not how coding works.

badspot didn't make the engine, and definitely didn't go into BL knowing the exact C++ workings of it. it was probably realised later on that they were becoming an inconvenience and waited awhile before pulling the trigger on removing them.

though obviously i'm not badspot and am certainly not close enough to any of the developers to know any of this for sure. it's just an educated guess.

normally i might agree that they wouldn't have realized that a feature would inhibit the implementation of future features, but in this case it doesn't seem like that was the problem the developers brought up.

These two features complicate Blockland’s code tremendously. That means we can’t add game features very quickly. They still have bugs in them (after years of work). They are slow, too - bricks are about 90% of their speed and can do a LOT more (explosions, events, in-game editing).

they realize that they are making bricks slow. bricks have been in the game for years. this is just a matter of code efficiency testing and has nothing to do with future updates, its about making the current game run faster. this could've been fixed from day 1 if they traced what was causing things to run slow.

"after years of work" shows that they've already known that t/i were buggy and bad. they've been putting band-aids on a tumor instead of removing it when it was first discovered. this is what happens when they wait. this is the end result of putting off problems like this.

features CAN be re-worked to be more efficient. see: "reworking the inventory system to be more efficient!" "reworking the game framework to support future updates!".

[otto-san]

normally i might agree that they wouldn't have realized that a feature would inhibit the implementation of future features, but in this case it doesn't seem like that was the problem the developers brought up.they realize that they are making bricks slow. bricks have been in the game for years. this is just a matter of code efficiency testing and has nothing to do with future updates, its about making the current game run faster. this could've been fixed from day 1 if they traced what was causing things to run slow.

"after years of work" shows that they've already known that t/i were buggy and bad. they've been putting band-aids on a tumor instead of removing it when it was first discovered. this is what happens when they wait. this is the end result of putting off problems like this.

features CAN be re-worked to be more efficient. see: "reworking the inventory system to be more efficient!" "reworking the game framework to support future updates!".

you're making valid arguments but they aren't extremely sound

he was saying bricks perform 90% as well as terrain; it was a comparison.

they were working on patching because they wanted to avoid removing them, i'd guess. these 'patches' would be the attempts at reworking you're talking about, and when they weren't working, it would be decided to just remove them instead of wasting more time on them.

i'm sure if they wanted to rework enough of the engine to fix them they probably could, but, as it was said, they'd been trying for years with apparently unsatisfactory results.

[Tomcat]

you're making valid arguments but they aren't extremely sound

he was saying bricks perform 90% as well as terrain; it was a comparison.

they were working on patching because they wanted to avoid removing them, i'd guess. these 'patches' would be the attempts at reworking you're talking about, and when they weren't working, it would be decided to just remove them instead of wasting more time on them.

i'm sure if they wanted to rework enough of the engine to fix them they probably could, but, as it was said, they'd been trying for years with apparently unsatisfactory results.

let's see what gameplay features were added after terrains were gone.

bots (shaky because they were already done.)

let's see what gameplay features were taken away.

decent vehicle collision
decent fps on 1-2km sized maps
decent dog fights, fort wars, etc.

let's see what we got.

shadows and shaders that add nothing to gameplay because 50% of blockland users can't use them.

[BuildaBox]

decent dog fights, fort wars, etc.

Like whoever said before, that's about the user base, not the developers. If you don't like the current servers then make your own.

[The Resonte!]

blibbity blop

essentially
what you're saying is
They procrastinated fixing/removing terrain/interiors

please come back when you have never procrastinated ever

let's see what gameplay features were added after terrains were gone.

bots (shaky because they were already done.)
Along with balls, Speedkart gamemodes, camera events, and a hell lot of bug fixes.

let's see what gameplay features were taken away.

decent vehicle collision
the vehicles were always like that with bricks
with terrain sure why not
decent fps on 1-2km sized maps
decent dog fights, fort wars, etc.
time to build your own maps
mwahahahahaha

let's see what we got.

shadows and shaders that add nothing to gameplay because 50% of blockland users can't use them.to be more specific
it's about 35%

Like whoever said before, that's about the user base, not the developers. If you don't like the current servers then make your own.

People might have reasons to not make servers, even if they have great ideas.

like Internet issues
too costly for hosting like RTB
and private reasons like hackers and viruses.