It's interesting to compare the development time between Starbound and Terraria

@Skarn and @Drakearth: stop arguing semantics or I'll start handing out warnings.

 

It has improved, and it still is.
Terraria(suprisingly) actually has quite a bit of content but not that many enemies in 1.0, you only had Eater of Worlds, Eye of Cthulhu, and Skeletron as actual bosses with zombies, worms, skeletons, slimes, corruption mobs, jungle mobs(bats, vines, and hornets) as well hell mobs.

The thing Is starbound's procedural generated mobs seem to lack something I really do not know exactly what they are lacking...

Your not responsible for the fanboyism, its an affliction similar to nostalgia goggles.

For some reason I kept thinking this was a debate and not a discussion (reading comprehension failure yay!)

Granted it would be an extra few steps to take care of the starbound campfires.
However, campfires in terraria came out in 1.2 so it really didnt bother the 1.0 release.

Not talking trash talking, just something that logic dictates should have been in when they decided to add a temperature. Maybe they will come back to it later.
As well as more types of armor to counter such problems.

The plot should have already been started on, same with the lore. Yes it could be a factor, but, it is something that should have been worked on and solidified prior to and entering beta stages.
Most sandbox games are used to make art or can be an extension of art. What we are seeing is basically lineart drawing with a number system where you have to fill in a certain color number on a room sized page before you can color the rest.
It just rubs the wrong way when you put rails on a sandbox especially when it considers getting armors which are very important to game-play. The progression gates are what i believe to be a negative factor on development time.

An example of recolored blocks serving a purpose would be the corruption, and the jungle (keeping this 1.0 since i failed to register this.) The corruption was an infectious recolor and it dictated the spawning of mobs that relentlessly chased after the player. If there were a certain amount of jungle blocks or corruption blocks it dictated what kind of mob spawned there.

In later versions they denoted other changes but with the op lets not go there.

Arkitech

Oops, this is mildly embarrassing. I didn't read the op and was more focus on the most recent posts. This is apparently what get for sleepily forgeting that i did not in fact read the op.

Will do.

 

I just wanted to make a point about this, that I haven't seen anybody make:

Even if you had two different devs making exactly the same game independently, I can guarantee that they would not take the same amount of time, and it would be unlikely that the time taken by each would even be in the same ballpark. There is, of course, natural variation in the speed at which two people can work, and that is one part of the difference, but it's not the only one, or even the main one. A bigger issue is the path which is taken by each dev.

I'd imagine that most people are familiar with writing an essay. There isn't any single correct way to write an essay. As long as you address the topic given, and reach your conclusion, then it's a valid essay no matter how long it is. Two essays on the same subject may well reach exactly the same conclusion, yet one might be twice as long as the other, and take twice as long to write. It's pretty much the same as development in that there isn't any single correct way to write a program, and two people writing a program to do the same thing will almost certainly come up with different programs to do so. (And yes, one can easily be twice the length of the other for non-trivial tasks.) Also similar to essay writing is the possibility that you might start writing and find that what you are writing doesn't lead the way you want it to, and you need to scrap it and start again. Combine this with the idea that writing a game is closer to writing a book than an essay, and you can start to get some serious differences in the amount of time needed by two different people.

 

Seriously? How much more subjective do the mods plan on being around here?

The moderation here is getting ridiculous.

Part of a successful and productive argument is nailing down the terminology that you and your "opponent" don't agree on. As a person with extensive background in mediation and behavioral therapy, I know that a large portion of that disconnect comes from a misunderstanding of what the other person means with their word usage and descriptions. We call this semantics--or, in another way of seeing it: the meaning of what you are saying.

You telling people to stop arguing semantics is the same as telling people to stop trying to understand each other. You are a moderator, not the sole judge of what argumentative approach is appropriate (unless someone is being crass/trolling). These two are having an adult conversation, you have no business injecting your bias into their approach.

Go ban some people who are posting porn or cussing up a storm. Stop popping in and breaking down arguments just to flex your mod power. It makes you look rationally impotent. Come back to this when people are actually being inappropriate.

I guess you could probably ban me, since me saying anything to you is against the rules (yay oppression!), but it needed to be said. You guys are way too puffed up these days.

 

The progression isn't even completed yet, my argument was to the speed of development. This game is not feature complete, so technically the beta hasn't even started. They needed to completely rehaul the system, but now they are just making other things like mining more linear to compensate to it.

As for the second, Their failing to reach two deadlines is what makes me suspicious of this. But, I'm optimistic about the end. I can't lose any more money and I'm not even really mad anymore. Just kind of bitter because the game hasn't really made any progression. It has changed, but not progressed.

 

It was derailing the thread. That's all I need to say.

 

How so?

It's a thread specifically about the differences between Terraria and Starbound, and they're arguing about the differences between Terraria and Starbound.

 

Perhaps you missed this part 'That's all I need to say' If you continue to argue this point you yourself will b derailing the thread and it will have to be locked, not that I'd complain if it was locked. My answer to the thread title is 'No it's not'

 

Not that it's my original point, but since you mention it: the idea of enforcing topicality itself is ludicrous.

I can't imagine how much interesting information and opinions are missed out on because people are too scared to go a little off-topic. Steering conversation and judging what is "on-topic" hardly seems like an appropriate use of a moderator. If anything, it only welcomes overzealous behavior in the sources of authority here. As it is right now, THEY decide what's appropriate to talk about. Is that not incredibly weird to you?

So far, I've only seen this type of moderation used as a tool to shut down discussions that were critical of the game. Someone says something of a criticism, and another person comes in and "derails" the conversation with trolling, and then the thread is locked down.

 

If you want to branch out you are more than welcome to start a new thread, and the Moderators are more than happy to have you and others do this.

 

Then in this context, the two parties involved should open a thread called "The semantics of our individual words in our previous discussion on the difference between Terraria and Starbound production times"? What happens when they agree on their terminology and meaning, and start the next phase of their argument by discussing the philosophical/logical points and counter-points of the main arguments they each have? Do they start a new discussion with an "appropriately named" title? Furthermore, what's to stop a different moderator with a different definition of "acceptable" from deleting the thread because there's already a similar active thread? This isn't a hypothetical here either. I saw this happen and received my first ban ever for questioning the moderation.

You don't see the problem there? Where exactly does one draw a line on what's acceptably within the topic's parameters? Is it a case-by-case basis, determined solely by the moderators? How does that make more sense than allowing the parties involved to make that decision?

There's so much tip-toeing around here, the only people not getting banned/warned look like the Stepford Wives. There's a reason why all the Starbound forums have a very negative reputation of being an echo-chamber.

 

Thanks.

I agree with you, its this kind of thing that gives these forums their reputation for being heavily censored. You honestly don't see this kind of heavy moderation on any other gaming website that I know of, usually reserved for religious websites and political forums. I personally have never experienced a ban (even a limited one) for being "a jerk". Its pretty amusing.

 

@Josheru you see -- the probelm with arguing semantics is that, well, you don't discuss them -- you have to argue them. Because they're semantics and they don't actually have much evidence that backs those viewpoints. But the real killer, is that semantics often takes a topic and shifts it to arguing about that topic to things that are loosely associated with said topic. This pattern continues until the conversation becomes Terraria/Starbound development parallels to parallels of things that no longer even remember the original thread. It's a slippery slope -- and it's also a sign that a thread has pushed the limits of it's ability to draw clear, concise, constructive points out of it's participants.

Actually -- you can question Moderation as you want through the appropriate channels in the appropriate way. For example; you don't question moderation in a Starbound/Terraria development thread or in a General Discussion forum for Starbound.

You, sir, were actually banned because you said something along the lines of "Nuke your company" among other hostile things in a thread (that happened to be in the wrong section anyways). Not because you were questioning moderation.

If you want to discuss moderation further -- you can PM me or @demanrisu . If you think we're terrible people for moderating the way we do, you can post a thread discussing it in website feedback/issues forum. Though I do suggest if you go that route to try to keep your thread clean of flaming this time around. Or go straight to @Ordona or @mollygos

But seriously, guys. Not the thread for moderation talk -- it's not the topic. Don't derail.

 

I would love for everyone to see what it was I said that got me banned, but the proof was conveniently wiped off these forums by the moderators. I was banned because I said your PR department needed to grow up, and I said it specifically because of this kind of moderation. When I tried to discuss it with deman in private chat, he/she completely ignored me, so don't pretend like you guys are willing to talk this out. You're not. And before anyone decides to remove the proof of those interactions, I have them screen-capped to avoid the same toxic revisionism that happened with my ban-inducing post.

It's gotten to the point now that I screencap all interactions on here, since it's clear I can't trust the moderation going on. Your libelous statement about how I allegedly said to "nuke" your company is proof enough to me.

 

We know you would love everyone to see it. It was a thread that just flamed Chucklefish and stuck in a few pockets of moderation disappointment which is why is was deleted. We have screen shots of it though -- if that helps your case. Not that we'd show here of course. But you were temp banned for the flaming -- not for the almost-feedback about moderation.

Sorry Deman didn't get back to you -- you still have the option of going to Ordona, Molly, or posting your feedback publicly. So long as it's appropriate. You even have the option to come to me with any issues.

Additionally -- remember that Chucklefish is not "my compnay". I don't own it. I don't even work for it. I volunteer. Moderation is all volunteers that get no compensation and choose to moderate so that blatant rule abuse doesn't overwhelm the forums.

So now you're getting warned for derailing after I JUST requested you come talk to moderation privately or start a feedback thread in the appropriate location. However -- I'm going to give you 0 points so you're not 3 day banned and you have a chance to actually take my advice to heart.

 

The private message system is here for a reason, they could continue it there.

 

I think this thread has outlived its shelf life. Unless anyone has something productive to add to the conversation, I'll be locking it shortly.

 

At the risk of getting in trouble, I have to address this:

If we're going to tell people to have those discussions in private, where, again, do we draw the line on what's relevant? People can gain a lot from watching a discussion/argument unfold. It helps to spread interesting opinions to more than just one person at a time. At this rate, why are we even discussing anything not in private discussions?

The relevance of such a discussion is entirely subjective.

 

The topic of the thread is where you draw the line.

I think that's it for the thread. Thanks everyone for participating.