Flexible joints should cost money!

[HaulTruck]

Flexible joints should cost money! Every top solution seems to be a wobbly bridge, that only works if it wobbles in the right way at the right time. Bridges should be stiff most of the time and solutions shouldn't depend if the bridge wobbles at the right time in the right way.

At the very least there should be a separate leaderboard for stiff bridges.

[I|III||I|||II|IIII|]

They can't offer what you're requesting. Vibration isn't equated for in this game. Joints that wobble like they do in this game would cause catastrophic failure due to vibration. Every single joint in this game wobbles. They're pivot points and as I learned today they're also weighted, so location of joints is the most significant thing you can change in your build, not the way the joint is designed/connected. A joints location will impact weight distribution and rotation.

[HaulTruck]

I am sure that there is some reason behind every part of the game mechanics and I'm new to the game (I played Poly Bridge 1 for maybe 4-5 hours in total) and I'm sure that most of the community loves the game just the way it is.

I mostly play because I want to build the best bridge I can build and then see how I'm doing on the leaderboard.

1-1 best solution is a road falling from the sky that catapults the car
1-2 best solution is a flexible bridge, which is fine if not for the fact that only works if you start with the bridge joints in certain positions, so it's start state dependent, which is a trial and error process
1-3 stiff bridge
1-4 stiff bridge
1-5 wobbly
1-6 underwater wobbly
1-7 wobbly

It doesn't bother me that the bridges are moving around as much as the fact that the success of the design depends a lot on seemingly chaotic starting states (seemingly, because they are chaotic to us, for the game are not chaotic at all)

I'll just stick to the levels that require stiff bridges, but it takes a lot from the pleasure of playing when you have to peek at the top solution just to see if you are interested in spending a few hours perfecting a design.

A separate leaderboard for bridges that flex less than x% would be the perfect compromise. For bridges with hydraulics, you can have one joint excepted for each hydraulic piston you use.

[Gatebase]

You are playing the wrong game if you want sturdy stable structures that make sense. PB1 was about insane contraptions and absurd stunts. PB2 is a successor true to that formula. I'm not a huge fan of this concept either (and I still maintain PB1 was wrongly advertised as a "bridge building simulator"), but that's the way it is. You are describing an interesting game. It's just not Poly Bridge.

Same with the leaderboards. Eliminating hydraulics is one of the most basic tactics, because they are very expensive. That of course leads to "bridges" that do not work a second time. The really cheesy stuff is honestly relegated to maybe the top 5%? Just play however you want. I have some internal standards as well, some approaches I will absolutely not copy because I find them incredibly stupid and lame. That just means accepting you won't place near the top. I don't think that is the game's fault, it's more the fault of people who maybe shouldn't have bought the game because they expected it to be something very different (I regretted buying PB1 and didn't pay money for PB2 but definitely wouldn't have bought it had I not received a code for free). To be clear, I think PB2 is a good game, it's just not really for me.

Your suggestion about movement is absolutely infeasible as you will discover soon if you decide to progress more. Springs are a new material making *everything* move. Some challenges take away hydraulics. Some hydraulic levels require moving huge structures. There is at least one level that needs to be solved with a seesaw (without any hydraulics). If the first 7 levels make you think the solutions are too unstable you are *not* going to be happy with the rest of the game.

Still, it's at least significantly better than PB1. PB1 had swing levels (the *worst* gimmick in my opinion). And PB2's leaderboards at least marks levels that break down (and will have a separate unbreaking ranking once they fix it). In PB1 to score well you would have to accept your bridge breaking, which I found significantly worse than the cheese that tops the leaderboards in PB2.

[HaulTruck]

Thanks for the answer. It seems that it is not exactly what I hoped for.

I can absolutely play it as a bridge building game, but I will have to give up on the leaderboard, which takes away a lot from the game. I wasn't aiming for the top, but coming back to a level to improve it to reach x% of the leaderboard seemed like a good, relaxing, challenge. Going back to a bridge to improve it knowing that I will never reach the top 20-30% doesn't seem like too much fun.

Just to be clear, it is not the moving parts that bothers me, but the fact that some moving bridges work or fail depending a lot on some initial state. A bridge that is moving and works every single time is still a contraption that deserves time to be spent on, but working find that random (to the designer) initial state that will let the car pass is, in my opinion, a waste of time.

[Gatebase]

Originally posted by HaulTruck:

Thanks for the answer. It seems that it is not exactly what I hoped for.

I can absolutely play it as a bridge building game, but I will have to give up on the leaderboard, which takes away a lot from the game. I wasn't aiming for the top, but coming back to a level to improve it to reach x% of the leaderboard seemed like a good, relaxing, challenge. Going back to a bridge to improve it knowing that I will never reach the top 20-30% doesn't seem like too much fun.

Just to be clear, it is not the moving parts that bothers me, but the fact that some moving bridges work or fail depending a lot on some initial state. A bridge that is moving and works every single time is still a contraption that deserves time to be spent on, but working find that random (to the designer) initial state that will let the car pass is, in my opinion, a waste of time.

I have some outliers, but I consistently score in the top 30%, most of the time top 10%. Placing well without making crazy or unstable bridges is definitely possible (I never use the sagging roads, I never ditch parts of the bridge into the void, etc). You might have certain clips in mind, but I don't even know about many solutions that would need seemingly random initial states (short of one level where swings get top scoring). Springs have some elements of that, but they are so new that everyone is still trying to figure them out, so they seem fairly unpredictable.
But highscoring is a different approach. Consider this: Material provides rigidity but costs money. That means if your peak stress is lower than 99% you still have money to shave off. So while they are technically stable, your highscoring bridges will go right to the edge of breaking down. That is usually not some grand design issue. More often than not it's just iterating existing designs, by replacing materials or nudging nodes around for a few pixels. Lots of trial and error until you have removed all the over-engineering and boiled it down to everything that is needed for structural stability. Admittedly at that point harmonics start kicking in and even changes to low-stress areas might cause collapse because the bridge starts wobbling. But that state is not really random - it's a destillation of a stable bridge.

Anyway, I'm definitely sympathetic to your complaints and share some of them. There are bad aspects for sure, but it's not *as* bad as you make it out. The player base is large enough and most people don't care about scoring or lack the skill, so decent placements should be very achievable.

Originally posted by EUNICE:

People always seem to have to criticize the top score. LOL

You would certainly know I'm counting the days until you get around to the only level where I currently hold the first place.

[Daredeviler_21]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

People always seem to have to criticize the top score. LOL

In PB1, they deserve to be criticised. People see you and think you're a hacker haha. Here, however?

OP, you have to understand this is a game, even in a legitimately "realistic" bridge building game, you're still going to encounter people who cheese the leaderboards (think akin to dangling road "bridges") If there's a way to cheese a level, it's going to be cheesed no matter what anyone thinks, not even a dev has a say on if it happens or not. I'm guilty of this too, since I once held the #2 spot in one of the levels for a short amount of time. However it is very easy to get top 10% with bridges that actually look like bridges, on the levels that don't require something "silly" like a jump or, god forbid spring based bridges. I still remember that "bridge lowers for dump truck" level. I hated that level. It was fun, but that level was hell for me. I had to learn how to spring. I couldn't for a very long time.

Also, a pure bridge builder will get boring eventually, a game of that type would have to keep things fresh not in the type of bridges or solutions to a level like Poly Bridge does, but in the aestetic backgrounds.

Watch PB2's trailer. You can literally see a crane pick up and move cars, if that doesn't make you stop and go "Wait...", take the lesson for next time to look into any game you want before you buy.

[HaulTruck]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

People always seem to have to criticize the top score. LOL

I'm not criticising the top score, just the way to get there.

In 1-16 I have a Top 40 solution. By the solutions posted it seems that a "real" bridge is what gets you on top. It was a lot of fun building it and it will be a lot of fun trying to keep my solution competitive.

For 1-06 I had a really uncompetitive solution until I peeked at the top solution. Now I have a top 1% solution too. But it was no fun building. Improving it implies randomly tinkering with the joints, set the simulation speed to 300% and hope this time the Vespa will make it. It is absolutely no fun improving it. My best solution for 1-16 that is a "real" bridge is $10500, it might be quite good or it might be way off, but I have no way of knowing as long as the top solution is $3900. Is it fun for me to chase a sub $10000 solution, knowing that I won't even see it improve my position since I already have an underwater wobbly bridge scoring me in top 1%? No, not really.

I would rather play a level that demands the simulation to be at 20% rather than 300%.

I can ignore the levels that I don't like, for sure, but most levels are like that.

Originally posted by Daredeviler_21:

take the lesson for next time to look into any game you want before you buy.

I still like the game and I consider it to be a great buy. I can definitely play the game the way I want, but not having someone to compete against takes half the fun away.

[Jacowboy]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

People always seem to have to criticize the top score. LOL

Well your solutions are always boring, tbh... sure, the cheapest/best, but meh... I mean kudos on always finding the exploits, but it's always the same across all these games.

And yes, I'm aware you can build really cool things... but whenever one sees the leaderboards it's just the boring glitchy/exploity things at the top...

[Jacowboy]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

Well your solutions are always boring, tbh... sure, the cheapest/best, but meh... I mean kudos on always finding the exploits, but it's always the same across all these games.

And yes, I'm aware you can build really cool things... but whenever one sees the leaderboards it's just the boring glitchy/exploity things at the top...

I doesn't use any bugs at PolyBridge2.
Extremely rude

I was talking about PB1 (and I'm sure I've seen you in other games)... you know what I meant, don't play coy.

And yes, technically you're using exploits... not "bugs"... but eh, I'm not gonna discuss semantics.

[Jacowboy]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

I was talking about PB1 (and I'm sure I've seen you in other games)... you know what I meant, don't play coy.

And yes, technically you're using exploits... not "bugs"... but eh, I'm not gonna discuss semantics.

This is the PB2 thread
haha

That wobbly bridge thing in PB2, yeah, it's still an exploit... haha.

But whatever, I don't care, if it's not you it'll be someone else... it's the devs fault for allowing it again.

[HaulTruck]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

Your exploit definition seems quite different from mine.

Don't take it personally, it is not your fault. You play by the rules, and you are the best. I'm sure if the rules would be different you would still be on top.

I haven't played the game since I started the thread. It is a good concept, great promise, but no fun playing it.

[Jacowboy]

Originally posted by EUNICE:

Your exploit definition seems quite different from mine.

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition:

"In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

As HaulTruck said though, again, it's not a problem with you, it's a problem with the game, since the game allows for it. I mean you could always not do it, but again, if it weren't you it'd be someone else, so it doesn't matter.

[Gatebase]

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

Originally posted by EUNICE:

Your exploit definition seems quite different from mine.

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition:

"In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

As HaulTruck said though, again, it's not a problem with you, it's a problem with the game, since the game allows for it. I mean you could always not do it, but again, if it weren't you it'd be someone else, so it doesn't matter.

"not intended by the game's designer" is a very loaded term for any sandbox-y game. The whole point of a physics sandbox is that players can come up with creative solutions even beyond what the designers could envision. I made a few campaigns for PB2 myself and deliberately designed the levels to be open-ended. And guess what, people came up with solutions I wouldn't have dreamed of. Are they exploiting? Hell no!

Besides, the devs are aware and fine with it. What makes you think these sagging-road bridges are against their intentions? Personally I find them awful, but I don't think they qualify as exploits. Developer reference:

Originally posted by Dry Cactus:

Originally posted by ajent101:

are those damn solutions that are just road acting like indestructable rope cheating?

Generally it's not a cheat, if you make a 'catenary curve' shaped bridge you can get very good load distribution, for short bridges with relatively small loads it can work well and is physically correct, but it only can work on a limited number of levels in the game

Originally posted by Blankz_:

on the topic, are you planning on fixing exploits like re-enforced road only bridges and spring cheese, and if so will the ranks just be removed or will bans be handed out for exploits as well?

A certain amount of 'cheese' with springs is something we had to accept, we tried to balance them in a way that they're useful and fun without allowing too much cheese, same goes for reinforced roads.
If we see that these become a larger issue than anticipated we could look at some changes, but it wouldn't involve banning players, perhaps preventing certain techniques from submitting to leaderboard.

[Jacowboy]

Originally posted by Gatebase:

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition:

"In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

As HaulTruck said though, again, it's not a problem with you, it's a problem with the game, since the game allows for it. I mean you could always not do it, but again, if it weren't you it'd be someone else, so it doesn't matter.

"not intended by the game's designer" is a very loaded term for any sandbox-y game. The whole point of a physics sandbox is that players can come up with creative solutions even beyond what the designers could envision. I made a few campaigns for PB2 myself and deliberately designed the levels to be open-ended. And guess what, people came up with solutions I wouldn't have dreamed of. Are they exploiting? Hell no!

Besides, the devs are aware and fine with it. What makes you think these sagging-road bridges are against their intentions? Personally I find them awful, but I don't think they qualify as exploits. Developer reference:

Originally posted by Dry Cactus:

Generally it's not a cheat, if you make a 'catenary curve' shaped bridge you can get very good load distribution, for short bridges with relatively small loads it can work well and is physically correct, but it only can work on a limited number of levels in the game

A certain amount of 'cheese' with springs is something we had to accept, we tried to balance them in a way that they're useful and fun without allowing too much cheese, same goes for reinforced roads.
If we see that these become a larger issue than anticipated we could look at some changes, but it wouldn't involve banning players, perhaps preventing certain techniques from submitting to leaderboard.

Again, I don't consider them cheats, and they're just boring and cheesy at best, but an exploit is an exploit, no matter how you or I feel about them.

Also, I was really talking more about the PB1 thing, but whatever, we're just arguing for argument's sake at this point.

[Gatebase]

Originally posted by Jacowboy:

Again, I don't consider them cheats, and they're just boring and cheesy at best, but an exploit is an exploit, no matter how you or I feel about them.

Why are we talking about cheats all of a sudden? And my feelings are indeed irrelevant, hence why I was sticking by your definition of exploit which relies on developer intent.