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
With this game once you get to a certain point you realise you don't need to take all the things back to the main base. I wouldn't mind another inventory upgrade though (I have T4 inventory so far).
No, I'm not. He's saying the current system which is you upgrade your storage as you progress through the tech tree, and it gets easier to deal with the amount of resources you need in the later game, should change. If you allowed Iron Ore to stack to two, the balance of the game would be completely out of whack.
You'd be able to fly around with at minimum twice as much stuff to build bases in the wild. If it's a much more normal level of resource stacking say 5 or 10, you could build pretty big bases with no problem.
Since the game balance revolves around the time you have available to do anything, as well as how far things are from where you want them to be, any item stacking would immediately throw it out of whack.
If you stacked to 2, your auto-crafters would have double the amount of resources within range. You would be far less likely to run out of anything.
Yes, he's asking for an enormous change to the way the game works, just because he doesn't like the entire way the game works. Which doesn't make sense. It's effectively unlimited storage because you can't reduce backpack size or the size of the storage crates, because that prevents you having the mix of food, water, oxygen and building materials you need to do anything at all.
I do not think you or the OP have through this through at all, and I do not believe those games did no balancing on their storage systems. What's the betting in No Mans Sky a recipe requires more than 3 units of stuff to build something? Oh look, a quick search shows that an Alloy Arch which appears to be a doorway, requires 25 Ferrite.
So they have stacking, but they require 25 times the resources. Do you get it? It's the same number, only bigger! They're using limitations on storage in exactly the same way. You've also probably not considered that the changes you're asking for require you know, work. And The Planet Crafter does have a somewhat smaller team than at least some of those companies...
Yes, having a higher Tier of storage, which you earn access to by finding a blueprint, and requires more 'expensive' resources to build and so on, is 100% a different request than stacking which means multiplying all storage/backpack slots by 2-5 or even more. Which, as I explained above, would break the game without also rebalancing it back the other way, by turning a building into requiring 25 Iron for a single unit or whatever.
at t2.5 it's kinda pointless. or rather, once you get drones it's pointless. building more extractors trumps having more storage.
same with clean base, once you get autocrafters you can just put the storage a floor above/below. don't even need doors in those rooms since the drones will fly through the wall.
While I have not played all of those games you have listed, I agree that No Man's Sky, Factorio and Dyson Sphere Program all have stacking inventory for items. However, crafting in those games often requires many multiples of several resources to produce a single item or intermediate resource. Even Foundry has a similar game mechanic.
That said, while I have only played about a dozen hours of Planet Crafter, many of the early tier components or equipment usually require less than four resources which includes duplicates. Your starting backpack has a dozen inventory spaces; even if you only had a x2 item stack size, this would effectively make your starting backpack as spacious as a Tier 3 (T3) version although slightly limited in resource variety.
As others have pointed out, part of the gameplay is making decisions on what to carry in your backpack for your pending exploration and, just as importantly, what resources to prioritise collecting when on said expedition. Not every item needs to be salvaged from the nearby crashed spaceships nor do you need to gather all your resources at a single location. Changing this mechanic would have a significant impact on the whole balance of the game. For example, the space food resource is limited and cannot be created from any of the abundant resources you can collect from the planet's surface. Allowing a x2 stack size for items within your backpack would mean that you are effectively doubling the length of time until you become hungry.
While I cannot directly influence how you play the game, there are numerous options that the developers have already included which allow you to customise your gameplay including the reduction of the rate of vital depletion. Adjusting that setting to 0.5 would be nearly equivalent to doubling the space in your backpack since you would be able to collect the same quantity of resources while using the same amount of energy, hydration and oxygen. The only difference is that you would have to spend twice the time.
However, to each their own.
I beat the game easily without any mods at all.
If inventory management is too hard for you, then stick to Fortnite.
The OP didn't say he wanted the game to be easier, to be able to craft twice as much or build twice as much. Just that he wanted inventory stacking, without stated regard to the total carriable amount. A list view would accomplish this with absolutely zero gameplay effects, once and done.
If your concern was actually that this would somehow enable players to haul back twice as much compared to present, then I'd be very surprised that someone "gaming from the 90's" hasn't ever heard of a weight limit. I guess only us 80's gamers ran into that when calculating encumbrance with pen and paper; gold actually had weight.
You've also probably not considered that I am not asking for this, but that would require actually reading and responding to what a post says rather than the straw-men you constantly set up. The OP is the one asking for this, I was merely calling out your dishonest posting because it was so egregious. Work on your reading comprehension before you start accusing and berating others again.
Which is for the best really, since you've misattributed who said what. 'fraid you need to read the thread again, chief.
True the original poster (OP) did not explicitly state that they wanted the game to be easier; however, nor did they explicitly state that they wanted encumbrance limits implemented.
But, one has to ask themselves, why even ask for inventory stacking if encumbrance limits were also to be simultaneously implemented which essentially make the game play the same as it already does.
Many on this thread, therefore, have made the assumption correct or not that the OP was making the statement that he or she wanted the developers to add inventory stacking to the game without making any other balancing game play modifications. Using this as a starting point, they have tried to state logical and rational reasons both for and against this modification being made.
As this is a discussion thread, I could have perhaps phrased it better since I was using the global 'you' (meaning anyone) rather than the specific 'you' (meaning Wiawyr).
While I cannot directly influence how one plays this game or any other, I enjoy playing games in the manor that the developers intended prior to considering outside modifications. However, I would certainly agree that not every player enjoys every gaming category / style and, for them at least, incorporating modifications may make a significant difference. In addition, once one has played through a game then modifications can make an additional play through enjoyably fresh and different.
But again, to each their own.
Ease of use and convenience, very straightforward answers. As I already said; list view. One need not ask themselves repeatedly when a sufficient answer is presented, unless they already have the answer they want firmly in mind. Again, there was nothing said about changing the gameplay; that was assumption on yours and others' parts to enable crowing about how bad and awful the OP must surely have been, and how their own experiences invalidated the straw-men they were attacking.
One has to ask themselves, why even ask oneself when one could just ask the OP and find out the correct answer instead of guessing and assuming? Lots of preaching, not much listening.
And as you earlier agreed, those making such assumptions are more interested in reaffirming their own, obviously correct choices rather than looking to understand or discuss. Again, lots of preaching, not much listening.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. That said, considering you quoted my post in your reply and then repeatedly said "you, you, you" while here you're saying "one", yes, you could have. That's a specific you, not a global one. Since this is starting to veer off topic, I'll just cap it off.
tl;dr Item stacking or lack thereof in inventory screens is a deal breaker for the OP. Being able to set the inventory to "List View" for convenience and ease of use seems like the most appropriate suggestion as it would have zero gameplay impact.