Also elements are gonna be added, guilds too.
And the water thing is a problem, from many grief experiences that had happened. So they’re looking for suggestions for how to handle water
Its something to be reported. But iron and Cooper might be from being cooked in different furnaces
Does[quote=“Dzchan94, post:7, topic:7614”]
being cooked in different furnaces
[/quote]
change some sort of data with the colorid? or is this a seperate thing. I haven’t noticed. Is it intentional then?
Not sure, that’s something a dev might be able to answer.
I’ve noticed if you have different color index sedimentsry and make mass on a machine. It will acquire the color index of the first block. What I suppose might happen is you’re burning iron and copper with wood or peat and its acquiring the color index of those. I might be completely wrong too. It was an old issue with iron and copper. But i haven’t seen it happen for a month and more already. So I believed it was solved.
As copper, iron, coal and some other blocks all hold the same color index, no matter the planet
1 Like
I’d have to deny that. I’ve had metal bars from the same furnace and the same planet refuse to stack. Seems like it has more to do with me having smelted them during separate play sessions.
Oddly, I’ve had cooked meat that wouldn’t stack earlier suddenly decide to stack later. I don’t know how an ID of that type would suddenly change to conform, but…
1 Like
Placement indicator works just fine in testing. (I remember it’s dodgy in live).
There’s a skill to unlock that.[quote=“kelleke, post:1, topic:7614”]
An element system can be added and monsters can have certain weaknesses against some and strengths against some.
[/quote]
There is a ready elemental damage/resistance system - simply not implemented yet.
Ok I just tried it. One has been burned with coal, and the other has been burned with ancient trunk, on the same furnace. And as you can see they have different colors. One being (0) and the other (1)
this is a difference my eye can’t notice so I have to believe the numbers 
Having a different color number, doesn’t mean it’s a different color. For instance starter planets materials all have different color indexes, but it doesn’t mean they’re different. I remember on my my color index post, they mentioned how some colors in some moon and ring planets might change in the future. So Color index, doesn’t mean it’s a different color in appearance, it just means it has a different Color Index
1 Like
Good to know. I thought different color index always means different color.
Anyways, is it still the case that when you mass produce something from blocks of different colors, the entire output will have a color of the first block from the input?
It’s kinda like this.
I place a block of sedimentary from Solum and 71 from sedimentary from Therka, the mass 50 sedimentary stones will come out with Solum color index as it was placed first.
Now I have 50 remaining from Therka and 22 from Berlyn, that mass 50 sedimentary stone will come out with Therka’s color index. So on and so on.
Basically it acquires the color index from the first block of the single, bulk or mass used.
1 Like
Now that’s pretty interesting. I didn’t notice that but the iron is the same wasn’t it? Kind of illogical that it’s used for same stuff but can’t stack.
It works the same, even though it doesn’t stack. It’s weird for me too.
I just use those “special” iron first, so that it solves the issue of having iron that doesn’t stack.
1 Like
Sorry, but your tree-epos, I think, is not so good for implementation. Boundless is an MMO game, if it would be so easy to cut a tree, you can not find any of them after the game is released. I think that the tree-system is now fine.
About the second list:
You need to understand that the game is in development and most of your proposed things are on the way to implementation.
(Except for obvious things, such as sorting and autopackage, which they never implement 
)
- Beginners area, they rework the drop-system I think, you need a little patience.
- buckets are ready to go.
-
ore radar and coordinate gadget. I truly hope that developers will throw out any of the existing gui elements that show coordinates even in marker information. You’re just trying to find an easy way, but if you play more than a few hours, you’ll start to feel this game and find out where you can find everything you want! In the end, on some of the first places, this game is about exploration!
- the placement blocks is not so critical, you get used to it.
- durability, again just fine, I do not think that you need to add or modify something.
-
creatures HP, again just fine, at long and medium distances, you do not see it, but in the short range you see the HP bar, or do you want to see running around HP bars?
- guilds and elements on the way.
-
certain movement gadgets - on the test server you can test the high jump, double jump and climbing, all this stack will give you the opportunity to jump to a height of 8 blocks! that’s COOL! And I’m also waiting for rocket boots!
2 Likes
Not really that much easier. In addition, people only need so much wood, and it logically ought to be faster to harvest than stone and etc. Pretty much any construction material other than perhaps sand is harder to harvest.
-1: People don’t need so much wood that they would cut down absolutely everything.
-2: Trees regrow in what, eight hours? Are you seriously trying to say that people would cut down most or all of the trees every eight hours just because it’s easy? That would never happen.
As for reasons FOR a better tree system:
-1: Flying treetops and/or leaves are weird, illogical, and ugly.
-2: Improved realism, if you’re in to that.
-3: Safer, saner full harvesting than climbing to the top of a tree and then cutting your way down from the top.
The only serious reason against it would be:
-1: Increased processing demands, particularly with very large trees. But really that should be left to the Devs to decide whether it’s realistically implementable or not.
Edit: wow hashes make everything bold 
You will be surprised, I guarantee! 
Trees is not only for building its fule for furnaces and spark source. No one will go mining coal or peat if he can go dig four blocks and get whole tree with 300 blocks in.
2 Likes
No, I really wouldn’t be surprised.
Wood is horrid, horrid fuel for furnaces and spark. It takes about 12 pieces to be equivalent to one piece of soft coal, hence coal mining is much, much more efficient, especially since you can use stone hammers. Also the OP specifically said trees beyond a certain size should not be harvestable this way, and we both know you’re talking about literally the largest trees in the game when you say 300 blocks.
In addition TO THAT you wouldn’t even be able to harvest even the medium trees without fancy silver/gold/titanium/gem axes (depending) and it wouldn’t be a quick 3-4 chops per block. REALLY, you should go back and re-read the op, since literally 75% of your objections are already countered there, I can clearly see that you didn’t read it entirely before responding, which is both a discourteous and dishonest thing to do.
1 Like
nope, i read whole post.
When I said 300 I was exaggerateing, you had to understand this, and exaggeration here just for contrast. But this does not cancel what I said above.
Here is the topic about fuel …a-coal-miners-guide-spark-and-furnace-values-included…
Soft Coal - 0,55/cycle
Wood Trunk/Timber - 0,2/cycle
And dont forget that for 36 trunk you get 50 timber in mass crafting
and for what you need to easily cut tiny trees? if its not hard to cut it one by one block
P.S. when i started, i used tonns of wood, thousands of tonns
I think with the upcoming beacon fuel changes, where leaves are used as the early-game fuel source, being able to cut down entire trees, by simply cutting out 1-4 blocks, would be way too over-powered.
This to me is a little contradictory, in that if you can’t cut down big trees without having better tools, then all the small trees would be cut down very easily and people would just stock-pile leaves for their beacon fuel… I could essentially cut down an entire forest with a half decent axe in a matter of minutes.
Surely the floating islands on various worlds partly fall into this category as well then… along with some players builds that defy the laws of gravity.
If you’re going for realism, then the trees would not instantly fall down and break apart into neat travel-sized blocks, you would need to manually cut them up piece by piece. This would require a physics system to determine which way the tree falls, if there are other trees in the way etc.
The trouble I see with these first three statements is that now you have 3 quintessentially different ways to cut down a tree… which, personally, I feel breaks the consistency behind the player expectation of how things are supposed to work. Also, to me, sounds like a lot of unnecessary development overhead.
I agree with this, and would like to see different durability of trees (hard wood, soft wood etc.), but I think to achieve this, there would need to be a lot more varieties of wood - currently there are only 3 types, which are used for various tree sizes, across all of the planets.
This is the intention - it was changed to “all tools affect everything equally” a few updates ago, when work first started on the “statributes” system. It will be changed back to this at a later date.
Leaves do take a lot less time to cut on the latest test builds, so it is already in the pipe-line.
Regarding not being able to step on leaves - I’d have to say that I don’t agree here … tree canopies do not just consist of leaves, but branches as well.
Please also discuss topics and not people … it does not help your argument in any way, by targeting the person and not the subject being discussed. Courteousness goes both ways.
4 Likes
You read the “easily” part, but you skipped the
“the durability cost of ALL blocks (leaf and wood alike) should be paid when done so and this should not be able to be performed with a Totem on all trees”
and
“Gigantic trees should not be affected by ground-ties-cutting (as that would be too easy to down and too destructive)”
and
“Trees should have tiers and not all trees should be able to be cut with all tools with the same amount of strikes.”
No, 300 wasn’t an exaggeration for the larger trees. I’ve gotten nearly 400 wood out of one tree I harvested. That you don’t know this indicates that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
All of these things are clearly dampers on the “easy” part.
As to the “versus coal” part, you realize that one wood is 4 spark, and one hard coal is 1,000 right? it takes more than one of even the gigantic trees to equal two pieces of hard coal. Hard coal is definitely the go-to for spark, for time, for tool durability, etc. As for burning it in furnace, no one uses coal in a furnace (once they know what they’re doing and/or have access to compact-peat harvesting locales) so it might be more of a competition there. Still, virtually no one is smelting upward of 1,000 pieces of metal/meat/glass/etc. in a day, let alone everyone doing it, so there’s no way people would cut down all the forests, let alone at the absurd rate of 3 times a day that you blithely try to imply is realistic.
Your objection wasn’t about tiny trees, this is called moving the goalposts.
1 Like