Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Pretty much everything is a one-off build, if for no other reason than that no one will be building exactly where someone else is, Even the "quest"-inspired bases at Longkeep are all over the place; some people build in the town itself, others build in the middle of the large clearing to the East, and still others build as far from the town as possible.
Another facet that makes me think a blueprinting system is the wrong way to go with this game is that Enshrouded is not a factory/production game; If anything, it's almost the opposite. Building is a core part of the gameplay, and eliminating the "personal touch" in a given build for the sake of...
wait a second...
Now that I think about it, what is your reasoning for wanting to rubber-stamp buildings all over the place?
If you don't like building, feel free to repair and use the existing structures... or even just drop a Flame Altar in The Blue Goblet's attic or basement, add some storage and workbenches, and call it a day.
A couple of reasons. First being that if I put a lot of time into a building that I want to keep, but then want to restart a game, I can rebuild said building and/or change it as I like it over time. Granted I might still need to find the materials to build it outright or over time, but it would mean that if I built something I can rebuild it easier the next time.
Second is community aspect. Some people sure might want just an easier time to get a better looking structure. Some people are just REALLY good at building stuff in these types of games. Or you might want to show something you built in single player off with a friend in multiplayer. Or even simpler, maybe you want to set up a quick small outpost away from a main base, and having a blueprint just makes it that little bit faster to do. So really there are a lot of reasons both single and community based that blueprints might help with.
Also they said it best:
Even if it's for smaller parts you could make custom blocks for structures that allow faster building of more complex structures. Or structures that might be more time consuming to do by hand each time but if built in sections via a blueprint could be made easier. Such as say a nice looking bridge.
Just because it isn't a production or factory type game doesn't mean blueprints of structures couldn't be useful. Just being able to save your own work you might have sunk time into the first time but may not be as keen the second would make sense as well.
I build one in the kindlewastes overlooking the ghost glider town, i thought i was gonna build something small, like you said just an outpost, like all my bases i kept building and letting my imagination take control, turns out i made a freaking tower and an oasis on top of that hill, if i had a blueprint i would get lazy, "plant" that outpost there, same as the one i had before and call it the day.
Let's not have the devs spend blood and sweat on this only to leave us in tears.
Idea might seem brilliant. Placing down said blueprint is often an absolute horrorshow.
The difference in terrain and elevations might cause pieces and part of the base to get stuck / clipped in ground.
Result is likely an introduction of Z-fighting or the placement itself has a serious affect on terraforming that it causes a hick-up for all players on the server. You can shave off the tip from an entire mountain with a blueprint.
Z-fighting is a well known cause for games that include base building to severely stress the engine, your own CPU and noticing a lowered FPS in and around said base.
If you know you're the sort of person who gets inspired to add more and more when you start building something simple but would feel tempted to use blueprints anyway, you would simply need to either exercise some restraint and avoid using blueprints, or accept that maybe the temptation to use blueprints means you don't actually enjoy building things all that much after all.
How about "no"?
The blueprints will add nothing valuable, and require a lot of effort on the devs' parts that I would much rather they put toward the stuff they've already promised us.
I didn't mind the "slightly larger modular pieces, with which to build cool buildings in a particular style more quickly and easily" idea that Merder put forth... but I will die on the hill of opposing "plop down a building and move on". That specific mechanic has ruined more games than it has helped... by a fair margin; as I said earlier, the only games it's actually useful for are the ones where building at scale is required to interact with the mechanics, such as factory/production games.
Do the anti-blueprint people feel the same way about creative modes in building games? A lot of people just want to freely build and see how far they can push their designs without gathering resources. I see no issue with that because even though I'm not usually a creative mode type of person I know that's fun for a lot of other people.
If people are worried that they would not be able to keep from ruining their own game by using blueprints, make it a feature that is off by default, signifying that using them isn't the "intended" way to play the game.
Urging the devs to spend their time and effort making a feature that many do not want instead of working on the already published roadmap is disingenuous, at best.
Yes, there is a creative mode for those who desire to build without acquiring the materials. I would not be completely averse to allowing blueprints in that mode, but I feel the devs have many priorities that should take precedence... such as fulfilling the promises they have already made in the form of their published roadmap (which does not include blueprints).
That seems like a reasonable workaround, at first glance... and if the feature already existed (or was planned), I might agree with you. However: the feature does not already exist, and would, at best, be 116th on this list: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1203620/view/520829437562848343
Why don't you let the devs finish the game as currently planned before you start trying to turn it into a different game? Who knows, you might even like the game they envision.
Totally willing to consider this solution; blueprints are not part of the default Minecraft game, either, despite being part of your experience with it - those were choices you made, not choices you're attempting to force on the Minecraft devs, and not ones that are universally included in Minecraft itself.
You wanna mod your own game until it looks more like "factory builder in the sky"? Knock yourself out. I don't want the devs wasting their time building the tools for you to do that, though... at least, not before they make good on the promises they've already made.
I actually LOVE this game. It's easily the best survival-crafting game in the last couple of years. I don't want the devs to prioritize blueprints, either in the form that OP proposed or in the more limited form that I proposed. I simply think that having OP's version wouldn't ruin the game for anyone (unless they let it) and would enjoy having some tools to make complex builds with repetitive parts easier.
Do you really think the almost 700 hours i have in this game were expend killing and looting?
I was just saying that if you add the temptation most people will get lazy and miss the biggest part of the game, i might get the temptation too, but i have build a lot of bases already, i wouldnt trade any of them for a blueprint, its personal right?
Everyone has their taste and quirks, thats whats good in the game base building, i never entered another server and found the same base over and over again, guess what would happen if blueprints were a thing?
To be frank, that sort of mentaity could be levied against any quality of life feature. Auto stacking, sorting, building from base inventory, setting spawn points, and ect. could all be argued as "making players lazy" when it comes to playing a game. Heck, snap to grid building could be seen as the height of "lazy" since you don't have to work as hard to make pieces align when building.
However we have all those elements because one it respects player's time, and it makes the game more fun. Plus, again, it's just quality of life and one of those nice things that you can choose to use or not.
The, what, two people in this thread who said they didn't want it don't really count as the "many" by most counts. While your opinion is valid and your own, that doesn't necessarily mean most wouldn't want it or be against it being present.
Nobody is saying "drop everything and make this now. Your tone suggests a disingenuous argument that this feature would need to take priority over anything. Yes completing the game itself is more important than having blueprints. Depending on how the game was made and how it's tracking placement of player assets however would depend a lot on how much work this sort of thing would take however. Because essentially the game ALREADY makes blueprints because every time you load a world it keeps track of what you built, deformed, and such as it is.
Making a system where you can manually copy an player structure and re-post it, with added user interface elements such as resource costs, would indeed be more work. How much would depend on the devs and how they built the game. But lets not pretend it's asking for the moon here.
Which a lot of things preobably were not planned in terms of quality of life, but player feedback and suggestions made them that way. That's half the point of "early access" and why we have had access tot he game all this time. Let's not forget that the devs set up a suggestion center themselves for similar reasons. Just because it wasn't planned doesn't mean the devs can't decide it's a decent idea or incorporate it at some point. Even if that point might be post launch.
I really don't understand your fear of "factory builder". First of all if you don't want to engage something like that if it were added, then don't. But I am not sure why you think players building off shared buidling blueprints would impact your ability to play the game or the game as a whole. Personally in other games I have used such blueprints to learn, inspire, and challenge myself in terms of building. Or in other words, I engaged with the game possibly longer than I might otherwise because of the blueprints.
Other than "it's not on the roadmap", what exactly is your reasoning that such a system would be bad? Again, nobody is saying this has to be an "at launch" feature.
Well, now this I could envision becoming a problem, what with the aforementioned people who aren't interested in building. It would be a little obnoxious to repeatedly see the same duplicated bases on public servers...