But there are auto-turrets, and spikes that could be used to protect a home from just such an attack. I for one, am hoping there are some planets inhabited by giant Dune worms that can destroy entire rooms with one bite. I'll build an outpost on stilts. Some of us don't enjoy a peaceful life on the moisture farm.
Tunneling creatures looks good on paper, but my worry is encountering tunnelers on a desert planet. On one hand, somewhat easy to yoink resources as the sand falls. On the other hand, a partially caved-in planet and that is assuming that the player's computer doesn't die from so many tiles being moved at once. Anyway, I like the idea, but perhaps it'd be best to restrict the tunnelers to certain planet and/or biome types.
This sounds great. I wonder if this will partially lead into captured monsters and their attacks and evolutions. I have chests full of little creatures I hope to evolve and use for battling later on. Can't wait to see what is next!
Tunneling related cave ins are just part of the planet's danger, aren't they? A small exception can be made for light materials like sand, since a tunneling creature would glide right through it. Tunneling doesn't have to be instant death to blocks. Light damage will simply reveal cracks on the tiles, and any unmined block naturally regenerates back to full. Only a constant tunneling from many many creatures would be enough to deal permanent change. Dirt has a scarily high endurance too, enough to survive constant fire blasts from the dragon. Presumably player created blocks would be even tougher to break.
What are you talking about...? You are not making much sense in reply to what I have said. I never said peaceful, that is assumption. I never said non tunneling, at least not to that extreme. Unsure what you are referring to finding difficult, you obvious misunderstood; which happens a lot of what I say at times. Hazards searchable or identifiable I did mention, however that is already something being implemented, even if "working" towards that function. Never mentioned anything of low level players, don't know where you drew up that from. Definition of hard is subjective to each and every individual. To accuse grow up to some one, means you have a little growing up yourself to do. People are always growing and expanding themselves to adapt to what we know at this world; whether real life or gaming. I don't know what you are getting at with that last sentence. Some how I think you misunderstood what I meant by finding "Home" sometimes being long tedious and/or annoying at times. The less tedium the better I say, at least in the process. What's wrong with having an option to turn off or on such a feature? There are plenty ways the off part can still work in principal & design, as well it being on. There more options some games have, within reason, can invite some that play a certain way or two. After all this is for the most part similar to a sandbox type of game, hence it having elements of sandbox without it being one itself.
Actually, this seems to be the main sub-topic of discussion. And, so far, it looks to me like there are more who are concerned about the negative impact of digging blocks than there are those who fully endorse the idea without any such concerns. To be fair, though, perhaps someone should start a poll... [hint, hint...] It is a legitimate concern. Some of us loathe the idea of monsters that can aribitrarily dig up the planet, potentially destroying our bases and turning the planet into an ugly, tunnel-filled mess. These sound like excuses to me. While I can see how many would find it "fun", just like many find destructive meteors fun, there are others who don't share that sense of "fun". Exactly. Not everyone has the same play style, find the same aspects of the game fun. And there will always be certain things some players will find extremely annoying or frustrating, while others won't. Just saying, "if you have an issue with it, just move to another planet" does, in fact, come off sounding rather off-putting. Good point. There has been a rather huge negative response to how meteors can completely wreck homes and tear up the landscape. Many players will completely avoid any planet with meteors. How is it the players fault? Then, by that logic, it's also the player's fault if he builds a base on a planet with meteors. Many players get quite upset when that happens, considering there's not usually an immediate indication of this danger. As Tamorr said, for players who are picky about finding their "ideal" planet for their home world, it can be a very big deal. And things like meteors are, indeed, an obstacle. It's such an obstacle that many will mod their game to either remove meteors or make them less damaging. That's just... sad that so many players have to mod their game or avoid a large segment of the universe just because many find this aspect so annoying, if not impossible to deal with. If it has clearly been made known that any aspect of the game is such that it upsets a large segment of the player base, if not the majority, then this should be taken into consideration by the devs! To do otherwise would be negligent. While there should definitely be obstacles and difficulties to colonizing certain worlds, it should not be a black and white where a world either has difficulties one can deal with, or the difficulties are so extreme that it's either too dangerous or very few would find it worth the effort. This I can agree with. This is needed. However, that alone is not enough if it makes so many worlds unfit to colonize. Many of us have expressed concerns about monsters with a digging special. Even Metadept expressed some concern in his blog about the potential to dig up the planet so much it turns into a mess. While many of us are not entirely against the idea (myself, included), most of us seem to think it'd be okay under certain circumstances (such as making it rare or limiting the destruction of blocks). Grow up? Not everyone likes hardcore gameplay and not everyone wants Starbound to be like that. Let me guess: Do you consider those who don't like meteor planets to be "wimps"? Actually, I don't think this would work as an option one can disable/enable. There'd have to be a default. And if it's on by default, it could (depending on implementation) still upset a lot of players - especially since multiplayer servers would tend to use the default. The only solution, I think, is some sort of compromise. That is, nuisance digging instead of planet-busting and base-destroying digging. (I might accept digging to breach a base, as long as there are some dig-proof materials.)
I for the most part agree. i do say an option if no other alternative is done. Of course there would have to be a default, that is the whole point of setting up a game to play. Even though most settings pertain to optimization towards the various computers out there. Those are the most important one overall, but it is not to say there shouldn't be options for gameplay. Many games I have played have had reasonable options for the most part in that area. I am always up for an alternative ideas and such, as those are the things that will make or break the certain part of the game as a whole. So thinking outside the box as the devs do and I presumable think they do, is a good thing. That and their sense of making the game enjoyable to as many as they can. (after all not everyone has the same tastes.) I would still play either way, since I like the concepts they have presented, and their overall expectations of their end product. To be as easily entertained as I am with patience & energetic thoughts that boil in my creativity, is an interesting combo. Although I can not say I articulate well enough at times. >< Some thing I need to work on. So to base a game with the multitude of the crowd and beyond is the best way to go, as that would attract many you would not expect at times. I think you clarified what I was getting at a whole lot better than I could at this time. thank you.
If I'm correct this is one of my first posts, but hey, i actually have input that i think would be helpful for once. As far as the burrowing ability goes, the blocks they "burrow" could instead of being destroyed changed to a sort of 'background' type block, turning back after a certain amount of time if the monster doesn't maintain them (like an actual burrow would). Also, the types they could burrow through could be based on the strength of the monster. for example, monsters on an early game planet might not be able to dig through steel blocks, but what about an end-game level monster? its probably strong enough to dig through steel, but not rubidium or something for example. this encourages players to be considerate of the level of the planet they're building on, while still giving the burrow ability some merit and strength (while also not making it overpowered, at least in my opinion)
@Petrescue10 I would say Tier 1 is dirt only, then Tier 2 would add wood and similar, next stone, and then start running through the metals & ores. Would seem feasible at least. A decent way to go about it I think. By the end it would be seldom materials you would have to in the very least make a foundation out of in order to stop those sort of mobs. Well it is in addition to what you said anyhow.
The argument against burrowing creatures, that I see, boils down to the assumption that it would upset a majority of players. That does not seem to be the case. Other than a couple of very outspoken opponents, the comments I see are more to the effect of "cool" and "nice" and "I'd love that". People tend to have a filter that only shows them what they want to see, rather than what is. Most of the players that I can see want the burrowing, and think it would be a good idea. The other argument against it is that you couldn't just dirt-pen monsters and slice them up with impunity. That is a childish argument. Surrounding creatures with dirt and then attacking them is a broken exploit of the game mechanics, and one that the devs obviously did not intend and are trying actively to prevent, what with their talk of burrowing creatures, and taking out the ability to attack creatures through walls in a previous update. They don't want that to be a valid strategy anymore, and that is obvious and appreciated from people like me who like balanced, challenging games. The best burrowing type mechanic, as I see it, would be as mentioned where the blocks only take slight damage as the creature swims through them, not being destroyed at all, and depending on the actual strength of the creature they can only borrow through certain materials. That would prevent Desert planets from lagging out due to collapsing sand tunnels, keep player homes safe so long as they are build on a solid foundation, and yet give the Fun experience of having a creature pop out of the ground at you when you thought that you were all alone. Don't worry too much. No matter what gets added, if it really is something that destroys your enjoyment of the game, you can always mod it out, like people have done with meteors, pixel loss, and hit points. There will always be a "creative mode" mod out there, for people who want to use the game instead as just a sandbox, and don't care to actually play a game in the first place.
Tunneling creatures won't be on every world! It is very obviously a mid tier ability that is unsuitable to use against new players. So saying that you don't like them because you HAVE to face them is a lie. Avoid worlds with tunneling creatures, and the feature is PERMANENTLY turned off. You don't need a game option for this. Burrowing creatures don't have to deal damage to sand-type blocks at all. It's already loose material, so the creature can tunnel through it with ease. Any other block type can suffer a little damage, perhaps breaking if far too many creatures converge on the same point. How tough are player made materials vs. dirt blocks? A creature that can barely hurt dirt blocks won't be able to deal ANY damage against a proper base. I consider surprise asteroids an incomplete feature. Asteroids come from space. The player comes from a space ship in space. Therefore asteroids are a hazard you should be able to see and identify (and even intercept) with very low level tech. If players can find and deal with asteroids, then building a base inside an asteroid zone becomes their choice. No, it's not. It is very clear you desire a safe world without any real hazards to deal with. That is exactly what a Threat 1 world should be. Safe, agrarian, and peaceful. Players who want dangerous worlds can move up the threat chain. Higher threat worlds should absolutely mean dealing with dangers/mobs/hazards that put fear in a player's boots, and more treasure to go with it. The devs plan to have all the threat levels present in a single galaxy. So if asteroids and tunnel monsters are your thing, stick to threat 4+'ish worlds. If those features are too intense, stick with T1. That's the way it should be.
New monster behaviours are important to the game's atmosphere. If it's too easy, or too simplified combat then obviously it will feel like it is lacking in depth. So I'm glad you guys are improving the monster behaviours, it's looking good so far. I agree with these thoughts. Although I would like to add that there should be a method of rebuilding structure at the cost of pixels (in-game currency) or something similar, in order to make up for a great loss. For those times when you are not entirely sure how strong you have to build your structures in order for them to survive on x environment. As an example, if the meteorite rain only occurred every 20th night on that planet, and you started building a large structure from stone materials or similar, and as you are done or nearly done it all comes crashing down after having spent around an hour or longer of building. It would make sense to have some method of reconstruction at that point to make up for great losses at the expense of in-game currency. Maybe a tool which you could highlight an area of the screen and copy/paste the blocks within the highlighted area for x amount of pixels per block, amount of pixels required either depending on block type or not.
You obviously do not understand at all. You do not even know what my "Ideal" Home would be. If I wanted something that peaceful I would mod in creative. That is something I am not too fond of using for this instance. All I am hearing from you is more excuses that are pretty much repeats of what you said before. So I don't feel like repeating what I said. It is obvious my articulation failed in your case. Having an option for something like this is not a taboo. Breakable blocks or terrain damage period could be an option if all else fails. It is not a bad idea, it is just a last resort reserved for something if alternatives are not made. I do like alternative. What you are talking about is I should not experience the game. I actually want burrowing creatures, just want them done right. That is why I added onto a progressive suggestion for it. I really prefer things to be progressive, as that is what the game is all about. To say avoid the planet due to this or that, obviously does not understand certain things fully. Which means you are focused on only one way to play and don't even consider how others play. So I am tired of repeating to rudeness. you dont' know how things are going to be setup exactly, that is all but a guess. At least until it is in game, and we get to see how it is laid out. At least I am keeping an open mind for all that is mentioned alternatives.
But this game is not about giving YOU, Tamorr, your one and only ideal world. It is about providing US- the everyone who plays Starbound- the widest range of game play options possible. The way Starbound is set up, it allows for every possible type of world and challenge to be available to the player if they so CHOOSE it. That's what the threat system is best suited for- Things which are more dangerous/unpredictable/undefendable are considered higher level threats. The world gets classified as a higher threat world because it is more difficult to survive on threatening worlds. It's a simple and straightforward system for anyone to understand. If you do not like what a particular world has to offer, the answer is simple. Don't go there. No one will care that you were overwhelmed by a mechanic which isn't even difficult for a mid level player to deal with. You mean the "Can go through X materials at tier Y" system? That's terrible. Here's a proper progressive system: Low tier: They don't do it. At all. Don't even worry about it. Mid tier: Some creatures can burrow through things, doing burrowy things. They might get mad and break out of a cage, or slash you in a way you didn't expect. High tier: Are they ghosts? Living plasma? Did they just teleport in through solid duranium? Sensor readings are off the charts!
It is still an idea. Didn't say it was the best. Also you are still misunderstanding me. You are drawing assumptions of myself which are wrong. I didn't say it was about me personally. Ideal world and ideal home world are 2 totally different things. So I don't quite understand what the first paragraph is even about when concerning me. Also there are more than 3 tiers throughout the game. There is challenge throughout the game and it progresses, this I know already. So what of it. It is part of the game. To progress. And I still see that repeat of don't go there a poor excuse, seeing as it isn't much relevance to my ideal home world, however it does have a small bit of relevance to the building universe that I have set my goal as. Of course go here or there, but doesn't mean I don't want to see such. I am just hoping it will be done in a way to benefit the majority. That much I do agree on. It is all a matter of balance. Also it is not a terrible idea just probably not the best. I don't see why it would be that absolute horrid, even as an idea. After all that is all it is. You have not even mentioned compromise or alternate ways they could go about it. What I am hopeful for and what will be are two separate things. Same as your idea, that is more of hopeful as it is for what I think might be ok. Nothing wrong in that. what will be is what the devs do decide upon, and that is what I will go by once it is in game. After all they have their own ideas, as well us suggesting this or that. So taking in consideration is a good thing. I am at least seeing it as many ways as possible, including your idea, since right now this is the time to do so. I am in no way saying it should be this or that. As I am entitled to nothing more than playing the game as the devs put out. That is how I see it. I just want to see how the devs go about this or that, and play the game as it will be when it is finished. I apologize for the confusion, but like I keep mentioning I am not so well at articulating my thoughts/meaning/words.
Monsters "may" "might" "could"... yeah that's some great design there. We're all happy to read that you know what you wanna do. See you next century, when the game is actually released.
This. I agree. I think High-Tier planets should not be meant for colonization by the weak and unprepared. You should have a plan, and even then, the plan should go wrong at least a few times. Based on the descriptions of impervium-tier craftables it is the most elite of the materials. As such, it should not be easy to acquire. Moreover, it should be protected by creatures that would scare you. When left to their own devices, high tier creatures should remain docile and content (read not use their most destructive abilities). However, when facing unknown invaders that try to destroy their nests with ugly unnatural structures and kill their young for food, they should have ways to retaliate (Edit2: only use block destroying abilities against the player). I for one think player-made structures should be the MAIN target of destructive abilities. How else do you expect a planet's creatures to stand a chance against turrets with mini-guns (after all, these are a viable option against most bosses). However, this could be activated through a planet-wide agro rating. Players that seriously upset the balance of nature by strip-mining a high tier planet should expect heavier resistance from local carnivores that just lost all their food base and now are starving (read punch you through a mountain and level your home for stealing their meal). This said, burrowing or teleporting through solid Duranium should not be an option. A dual system of destructive and non-destructive burrowing would make more sense. Non-destructive burrowing through softer blocks like dirt, sand, snow and ice should minimize damage to planets. Meanwhile damaging all other blocks on initial contact would trigger a check for material's suitability for the current world. Wood should be fair game for mid-tier monsters and brick should be destructible on high-tier planets, forcing a player to search for better construction materials such as magma, concrete, meteor stone or metal (90's movie Tremors has a pretty good example of scary but survivable burrowing worms). Furthermore, in my opinion, burrowing should be the least damaging attack and would have some type of signal before it executes (shifting/shimmering dirt effect in immediate vicinity). I would also prefer seeing most damage to blocks coming from airborne, jumping or ramming animals, where player has a choice between letting the attack do it's damage and taking care of the source of the problem. Finally, repair bots, turrets, electric fences, impenetrable walls, moats and traps should all be viable options for safeguarding your base even on the most inhospitable of planets. Survival should be difficult, but possible. Edit1: Spelling & TLDR: Possible methods for mitigating block damage 1. Planet-wide "agro" rating for triggering widespread/frequent use of block destruction abilities. 2. Burrowing through dirt, sand, snow not destructive. 3. Option of using "indestructible" materials with high health and advanced base defenses. 4. "Signaling" all block damage/AOE abilities.
I don't see why I looked at your other posts. All you've ever done is compain about the AI in the game, and now that they are working on it, you are complaining that their language isn't strong enough? They won't say "monsters will ..." because the monsters will all have different attacks, so they "may" do this, or they "may" do that, depending on the AI loadout. With players like this, who needs enemies?
