I was thinking that I’d really like to have poles of varying thicknesses but I figured adding more variants probably wouldn’t be a good idea.
My suggestion then, is that we could be able to use a Transformation effect chisel on poles and beams to change their thickness. Currently Transformation chisels don’t do anything on poles anyway, so this could be a good compromise.
I don’t know how other people feel about it, but for me, the current thickness is fine most of the time except in specific situations where I’d like to replace blocks with very thick poles for “column” or “pillar” effects, such as here:
While I understand where you’re coming from, because of how I consider the semantic of a suggestion, I do not expect that my suggestion will be worked on, regardless of it being good or interesting or useful. I suggested this only because it was on my mind, but in reality I do not expect any change to be made for these situations. It’s a sort of wishful thinking, a “what if they could”.
I had both these thoughts too, hence why I didn’t mention it specifically.
And yes, I’d love for the totems to be added, been looking forward to them since they were mentioned on that post you linked.
I think that considering their cost, as meshes, it would be great if they offered a bit more flexibility. I’m not sure if there’s enough value to justify the time in development terms, but i have no idea what kind of time it would take.
I’d like to see some of the interactions cleaned up a bit too. Being able to make a “T” shape, for instance.
I see. That’s basically “throw all my ideas to the Suggestion wall to see what sticks”.
Personally, I don’t agree with that line of thinking.
When I make a suggestion, I try to present it as something easy to make, something doable with how I understand the game works, I find that more efficient. If needed, I add drawings, schematics. It’s also wishful thinking, sure, but it’s written in a way that says “if they ever wanna do this, I did all I could to make it clear”. Gotta remember that it falls on them to read-up all those suggestions and decide which ones are doable or not. That’s a big load of added work, if we all throw ideas without considering if it’s doable or fair to ask it. And then you have to consider the people who confuse “suggestions” with “complaints”, like the recent “REMOVE FOOTFALL FFS!” thread.
But that’s just my opinion.
I remember this thread too. Not sure if I reacted on it.
But photoshoping is one thing.
In reality, if you look closely at them, the textures on those poles and beams are made to have a resolution that works in tandem with the textures of the normal blocks. Scaling these models in X-Y would make them look distorted for sure.
I use a lot of stylish stone beams at my place. Those beams have both horizontal and vertical joints drawn on them. Scale in X-Y, half the joints will look stretched.
It would look cheap. Fan-made.
I think great things can come from even the smallest suggestion. Even if it’s unrealistic, a dev could see it and it could spark something in their brain and turn it into something that could work for boundless.
As far as OP’s suggestion, I completely agree. I think the poles and beams would look better with a little bit more thickness. I’ve used some as columns, but honestly I don’t love how they look as columns. They make great fences though. Maybe true columns are in the pipeline and will come out some time in the future.
That’s a weird thing to say! Especially if people weren’t around during EA, I only started playing in Septemer last year for example…
But this is not about furniture? And deco totems are still not thicker poles and beams?
Why is it too late to ask for changes to some things like this? People still ask for changes to footfall for instance. Anyway, I would most certainly use poles and beams more if:
I could make them thicker, I would love almost block size, current size and something in between those two
when connecting beams to poles the poles tend to stick out a bit, I don’t like that much visually
if I could attach signs to them without having a bit of dead air between the sign and the pole/beam it is attached to
These are all just minor QoL changes and shouldn’t be in the way of bigger content!
Why would they not be alright with that? And why would it change the quality? Quality of what exactly BTW?
That’s what the suggestion topic is for isn’t it??
Exactly! Not sure what your stake is in all this then?
Is it? You know the code inside and out and know for a fact this would add a ton of work? Perhaps one of the devs reads this, thinks it’s an excellent idea and can whip something up in 2 hours that works perfectly. Would’ve been a waste of a great idea if you try to squash future suggestions like this.
I really don’t understand your reasoning for the way you are reacting to this, but… that’s just my opinion!
While they might not want to change the existing poles since they are being used and some players may like them, they might be able to leverage the existing pole programming and add a thicker version without a lot of effort. This way we get more things to use in builds. I am always good with more options for builds.
I believe it’s too late because that update has been released. These poles & beams were in the pipelines for 1,5 years (even if you weren’t there to say they looked too thin), and they’ve moved on to other things.
I know sometimes we might think “oh, I would be able to do that myself in 2 hours”, but it’s not that easy to get things done in a video-game. Otherwise, most of the things that are not in-game but are in concept-art stage in the dev-art section would already be done.
I try to avoid mentioning it, but I’m a 3D artist, I have experience with game development and how things move along in the pipelines. I can tell you most of the props in the dev-art section, I could make them all super fast, and I’ve seen someone else post things he did on Blender. These models aren’t very complicated. That’s not the part that takes the most time. There’s something else going on behind the scenes that makes everything take ages.
Maybe they don’t have enough artists, not enough money, maybe they wanna nail the look of the things they put in the game at the concept-stage before going anywhere else, maybe a bit of all, I don’t know), but I’d argue it’s better for them to focus on the stuff that we’re still missing and that we know is coming.
When you look at the time they spend on concept-art, I’m pretty sure they would never be like “alright, let’s just scale those poles & beams horizontally”. I already explained how it wouldn’t look great for all of them because of texture stretching. Wonderstruck strikes me as a studio that tries to do things right, on the art side. So I’m pretty sure they would have to make new thicker models from scratch.
Now sure, if you’re fine with those thick poles & beams being released in 2 years, nothing more to say.
All I’m saying is there’s a mountain of things that should take priority before.
I would imagine that the frames would be able to be modified and they would have to change the layers. But I don’t work with their programs so I wouldn’t know how they have it implemented. And hey look at the forge. It’s changed/added new things a couple of times. Ff got reworked. Plot system might get reworked. They make holiday creatures. Parts of that needs to be redone. Maybe not the whole model but definitely whole sections.
I just wouldn’t say it will never happen. Maybe not right now but eventually it could happen. Maybe round the time we get totems or furniture.
Weeeeeell, yeah, but there’s a difference between tweaking values and code (like footfall or the plots) and making new 3D models.
They tweak the code for every single update, like when they adjust the values of blocks in the chrysominter.
And X-mas creatures are the same creatures, but with an additional model added on top. Like, there’s a point of fixation on the 3D model to stick other models on it. That’s the exact same method used to get weapons/tools in the hand of player-characters.
Ahh, so you’re saying that about 99% of the suggestions we give here are being ignored because they are about things that have long ago been implemented and that the devs have moved and somehow can’t do them anymore?
You do realise that is utter nonsense tho, right?
Plenty of changes have been made since September last year that were already in the game since release but they still found the time to change it…
You don’t say?
Really? Wow, learned something new, I thought that was always instantly in a game!
/s
Good for you!
I don’t mention it often either but I’m a software engineer by profession tho never worked on a game professionally I most certainly dabbled with it in my spare time.
Who will know more about how difficult something to code is, a 3d artist or a programmer? Hmmm, lemme think…
But, in all honesty we BOTH can’t know how difficult something is for any particular game if we don’t know the ins and outs of the CODE of that game. And even if we both have that code only one of us would be able to know…
yes, it’s called programming, you know, implementing the actual code…
Also concept art is flat, you as a 3d artist should know that a 3d game like Boundless needs 3d models before it can even be added to the game…
Exactly, then don’t pretend you do know what it would take to make these changes!!
I agree, what I don’t agree with is the way you replied to the OP basically telling him he shouldn’t post any thing at all…
Nope, not scratch, you should know, you’re a 3d artist, they can use the existing models and change them and/or use them as a base. We can’t possibly know how long one of their graphic artists might need to accomplish such a thing, we also don’t know if all the graphic artists are busy constantly, one might have a day or two with less time sensitive stuff and has time to squeeze this in and then we might see it sooner than in 2 years time.
That’s my point: WE DON’T KNOW
And you tell people that they basically should not post any suggestion since you, as a 3d artist, somehow knows for a fact they can’t implement this quickly.
Sure, but again, we don’t know if a graphic artist might be able to make something look really, really good quickly or not and you also don’t know if there’s a talented programmer there who then says “oh, I can add that in in two hours, no problem!”
TLDR; STOP suppressing sugestions…
Ahh hahahaha, a 3d artist thinking the graphics are more difficult than the actual coding!
Eh, it’s just that you’re always making towers of quotes (which in themselves take a lot of space on screen) only to be sarcastic. Whatever smart point you have to make is drowned in there. It’s a pain to read.
So yeah, bye.
@Goblinounours@Mayumichi I did quickly photoshop a couple of poles for a thread - it was done quickly & without consideration of how it would connect to beams, etc. So yes, it would take more than just widening them to make it actually work in-game. (It’s in this thread: Double Size Poles and Beams - #7 by Biv)
I think it would be cool if we also had chisels that could change the size of an item or it’s orientation:
