Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
1 
Denunciar este post
This is just straight-up not true.
There buy-out by Riot happened approximately 2 years before the devs announced they would be wrapping up the 1.0 release; and then work continued for a further full year after that announcement.
The game was nowhere near close to 1.0 when the announcement was made either, in fact, that's a big part of the whole point -- Riot looked at the state of the game, the money they were spending on its development, and their internal priorities and basically went "with this strategy the development of this game is gonna keep going forever, and we're not gonna throw infinite money at this side-project -- we bought the studio so they could help with the work on our other projects"; so they gave the Team Radiant devs a soft deadline and advised them to find a way to bring the game to some kind of cohesive satisfying storyline so that it could release as a full game.
That's why the devs cut (ill-advised!) feature ideas -- they weren't adding anything to the story that the game grew into. The original plan called for a frankly kinda silly mash-up of grand strategy mechanics and some of the most micro-manage-y content imaginable (e.g. beast tamer -- the only way that was ever going to be satisfying was if the player could choose which beasts were being tamed; who wants to take a break from running their thousands-strong empire to name + train individual kitties and bear cubs?), which the game had never actually supported; and the devs realised that pretty late in the development. Some of the ideas that were thrown around as stretch goals early on ended up being incompatible with, or outright antithetical to, the core gameplay of Stonehearth. PvP multiplayer? The devs built it, showed it off, and pretty conclusively explained why it was bad for the game and ruined the experience if you tried to even half-seriously PvP against someone.
You can't have followed the game too closely if you're just going to overlook all of that!
Stonehearth wasn't abandoned. Some of the ideas from the Kickstarter were, and that's a GOOD THING, because not all of the Kickstarter ideas were good ones! Personally I would have liked to see some of them come to fruition (multiple titans with different focuses/elemental effects, more factions to interact with even if they weren't playable factions); but having played the actual released version of the game I can tell you that the cut content like the magma smith, beast tamer, "pirates, ninjas, politicians" wouldn't have added anything by themselves. A diplomacy system would be nice, but it would also be a useless bolted-on dead end without the quests and campaign system and a full-fledged faction to have diplomacy with! Having 1 well-rounded NPC faction (Amberstone) to interact with is better than having a bunch of half-arsed ones! Having 1 satisfying final boss to fight with a range of mechanics (that tie in stuff across the whole game, not just "ankle chopping" with lots of soldiers as the devs put it) is far more satisfying than having a bunch of half-arsed titans that are just reskins of Zilla.
It's an unfortunate reality that not every idea thrown around in the initial design phase is gonna be good for the game in the long-term. Welcome to game development! Early Access lets you see those bumps upon the road as they come up... if Stonehearth had been a more traditionally developed game it just would have got cancelled with no fanfare the moment the studio executives realised that some of the ideas didn't work well together (or, worse still, it might have got changed so drastically that it lost all the things that people were originally interested in it for, and become a GAAS loot-grinder in an effort to recoup development costs.)
The game we got is, while not perfect, at least interesting. But thanks to people like you, we're less and less likely to ever see such a passionate team of devs take on this kind of big ambitious project again -- because we now know what happens when a team of passionate devs make a go of trying some big ambitious idea, and it usually ends with a bunch of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ coming out of the woodwork to slag off their game the second the initial hype wave falls off.
fact of the matter is no one is working on it other than the modding community
and the devs are somewhere else
abandonware it is and will be forever
That's not how abandonware works. Riot still holds the copyright; and since a big part of the reason that Riot purchased Radiant was to acquire the network code that Tom and Tony Cannon were building for Rising Thunder (the seeds of which can be seen in Stonehearth's own network code), I'd imagine that they'll hoard/protect that IP purely to protect their ownership of the early versions of that tech.
"Abandonware" is when the program either has no ownership (because the owning entity no longer exists), or when it's clear that the entity that nominally owns the rights to the program doesn't care about enforcing them.
You're also overlooking the original part of the discussion that details how the game was wrapped up into a cohesive finished product, not just dumped mid-project. That's a huge distinction! Sure it may not be the way anyone wanted Stonehearth to turn out; but it's a bit late to complain about things now -- you and everyone else had plenty of chances to get involved and help the game grow; but you (along with a large number of other so-called "supporters") wasted that chance to actually support the game when it mattered, and so the devs did the best they could with the resources they had.
Before you waste the rest of your life trying to drive people away from what remains of Stonehearth's community and potential, maybe reflect on the fact that some of us enjoy the game (warts and all) regardless of your personal vendetta?
So no its not a vendetta, I just hate when people straight up lie and defend games that are truly not worth the money, Just because they are trying to get a few more people into their small and dying community.
You aren't looking out for other people, only for your own agenda.
And you have been doing it for years now.
So to me, you are as much of a scammer as the devs of these abandoned and dying games.
And I find it really funny you are telling me "before i waste the rest of my life trying to drive people away" when you wasted your entire life trying to bring people to play these dying games. srsly, you've been doing it for years... with multiple games.... I might come occasionally to see what going on in the discussions and guess who is there on every single thread? that's you buddy.
such a silly thing to say, you probably don't even realize how delusional what you said is
As for the rest of the nonsense you wrote, i really dont care and im not gonna read all these paragraphs as most of it is just nonsense, and im pretty sure its your strategy to just spam bs and expect people to read it (or waste their time reading by it)
Devs left game with some of really big problems in core mecanics.
Like general store limit, attached to number of your sitizens; crutche to that problem not helping enough.
Or dying run-game after get 20+ sitizens; this is most weird problem; people complaying about they recomended system can handle only 20 sitizens, and i'm expected that my 4 time better system will handle at least 50, but it dying after 25.
In a simulation-heavy game, how "big" your processing power is doesn't matter -- what matters is how quickly the processor load is growing. The creation of new processor work + the build-up of unfinished work can grow together so quickly that even the most powerful hardware can't keep up.
It's possible for the game to stall on a "small" calculation that isn't being completed (because it's impossible to complete; which usually happens when the player creates a bad scenario), and that ties up memory in your computer. That can also keep building up until suddenly the "big" amount of memory is all used up.
The solution isn't 'better programming', because no amount of better AI will fix a scenario where the player e.g. keeps ordering more construction that uses wood but then does not order enough trees to be cut down. Or orders the trees to be cut, but orders so many cut down at once that there's nobody left to haul the wood. Both scenarios are the player's fault for not planning better around the resources they need (and the workers they have.)
When I first played Stonehearth, I ran into the same issues everyone else complains of. And then I learned how to avoid them. It's not hard! The only difference is that instead of blaming the game and calling it "broken"; I stopped to look at why tasks weren't getting done. As soon as I fixed my planning, performance got better. So I kept digging, kept finding ways to reduce overhead (e.g. make the tasks simpler for the computer to figure out), and like magic my game runs smoothly!
You confused number of processes with complication of processes.
That how number of cores works - if first core almost overloaded, it diliver part to second, then thrid, then fourth, etc, etc, etc.
Also saying "sistem", i meant not only number of cores, but also number of OM and processor's MHz (that one not 4 times, but still more then recomended). that suppose improve in-game numbers at least in double. But it's 25% - WTF.
And "stuned" processes not about me. I'm alway waiting when running big works ends. But game still dying on it's own.
Anyway, devs put those, and even bigger, numbers in game. So, some system must handle them, but no one did.
It is simply logical anyways. The old one core computers were built to be good handling only one program at a time. Multiple cores which are built to handle a plethora of smaller tasks are not built to be the do all be all when it come to running a single process to the max.
And you call me "millenials", but confused number with complication too.
Your sitizens are bunch of small processes. And this is 2015/18 game with multi-core in recomended. Game should used that potential.
Still no excuses that devs leave game as it is.
Problem is that I haven't confused anything. Unless you mean something else completely, which I do not understand right now.
The citizens are NOT small processes -- each citizen creates a large number of large/expensive processes on a frequent basis.
You clearly don't understand how multi-core processing works, and what its strengths and weaknesses are, if you think that more cores = automatically better at multi-tasking. I mean I can understand why you'd think that, plenty of hardware manufacturers advertise their products that way; but it's a reductive marketing pitch. In reality, more processor cores means more organisation (or "marshalling") of the data; which is fine when the data isn't required to be passed in any specific order... but when lots of the calculations refer back to each other in a complex logic, then all that time spent passing data around becomes a crippling bottleneck in itself.
Stonehearth generates a lot of information which is also very complicated, it's not an "either/or", it's both! And that's why you can't just shunt the data off to the next core to work on -- doing so will actually make more of a mess, because the game has to spend more time stitching the answers back together than it would just solving them in order.
The problem is exacerbated by the way that modern OS's expect every app to be spreading its data around; and so they have (seemingly) no concern for the OS itself uses up system memory. When I begrudgingly upgraded my PC from windows 7 to 10, all of my games suffered worse performance. I eventually tracked down how much RAM my computer uses JUST to keep Win10 running, and it's something close to 4GB -- which is ridiculous! When I was running Win7 it never came close to using up a full 1GB of RAM on background processes. That's before we get into how many CPU threads Win10 has spun up at any time (I've seen it literally use up every available thread in my PC a few times)...
Stonehearth doesn't run the way that some other games run, where you can just split it up into arbitrary chunks and solve the calculations asynchronously. Keeping everything synched is a key point of any simulation game -- if that synch gets disrupted, the simulation results change! And that's not "poor design" on the devs' part, it's simply the reality of deterministic simulation-based games.
On a final note: the devs did not design Stonehearth with the intent that players would always be doing large tasks that strain the CPU. In fact, when the devs reached out to players asking for laggy save files to try and diagnose all the complaints of lag (they did that multiple times throughout development), a frequent response from the devs was "wow we never expected that people would try to mine the whole mountain at once!" or "we figured that people would build their large castles in sections, not as a single gigantic blueprint!" -- and those reactions go to the heart of one of the actual design flaws in Stonehearth: the fact that because the game is SO good at figuring out how to cope with frankly rather silly decisions from the player, there's no warning of "hey you're actually doing this the hardest and stupidest way." The devs understood the limits of their game engine and designed a lot of clever fallbacks into it to help deal with unexpected situations; but the thing they overlooked is the fact that many players don't seem to care about learning why/how things break down, they're happy to just blame the AI/"poor design"/anything other than their own decisions and play-style.
I've said it before and I'll keep banging this drum: I also used to get lag and chugging and out-of-memory crashes and all that stuff. Used to, past tense -- even though I've moved to an operating system which is worse across the board for running Stonehearth, and I'm playing with ACE which adds even more for the game to keep track of, I'm still able to play without any kind of slow-down and run 30 citizens with no issues. How? It's simple: I paid attention to what used to cause problems, and found ways to prevent it! It's really not hard! The first hurdle, though (and I would guess the one that's impossible for so many players to overcome) is to realise that their own actions and choices and orders might be part of the problem. And maybe there is also an engine limitation involved too... but even then, once you know the limitation you can work around it! Again, it's really not hard -- e.g. one of the common "this will kill your PC if you mess with it" limitations is moving/changing large bodies of water (such as connecting two lakes together); but it turns out that it's really easy to get around that limitation: just build dams to hold the large lakes in place, dig out your connected bit, fill it up separately (using wet stones) and allow the smaller connection bit to merge into the larger existing lakes (use dry stones in the existing lakes to stop them from overfilling.) When you break a big job like that into smaller more manageable chunks, the computer doesn't struggle with it!
The thing that so many people forget about Stonehearth is that you, the player, are the one who's supposed to be solving the problems that the game throws up -- it's not the game's job to figure out how to make your orders work, you're supposed to do that before you give the orders. The game just runs the hearthlings as they go about the jobs you've given them. If you give them jobs that they can't do (or that they can, but it's gonna be a lot of work), then it's not the game's fault when it runs out of memory to keep track of all these complicated tasks.
1. At least buds suppose be a bunch of tasks. They making they own paths and business, so make it work that way have sence.
And they suppose be small, sompare to modern ShooterEnemyAI (and i mean good one, like in F.E.A.R.... but modern).
If they just big unsplitble claster of one hivemind - it's still devs fault, not an exuse, because they leave the game without rework it.
1.5 In case if you prepairing "if you think you know so much - make your own game" kinda arguement.
I can say that devs not leave source code to ACE team, like they did with fighing what even to get out from alpha. So they just abandoned game completly.
2. I know that then more cores active - then les each make MHz. But but in tottal it still more processing power, so with mine 3.6-4.4 x 8 it's more then requered 2.8 x 2. Shouldn't have problems in that zone, should handle numbers devs put is this game on purpose.
2.5 Yes. 30 buds can be enough - if you extremly lucky to not get any 2/2/4 criple. And you even have no propper way to get rid of them.
3. Okay, okay. People who trying dig whole map and build 9000 houses at once, are stupid. i agree, every senseble dude here agree, kinda. I'm build one house at a time, maximum keep 1-2 as ongoing blueprint, and not a fan of dwarf's fortresses.
But kinda not, because there is another broblem devs leave us with - refinements, and workers who need a lot tupes of it.
Every game of this type is going to hit this kind of wall eventually and in the end only the best computer builds are able to cope with it. You basically need to build a computer just for this (like I did) otherwise if you go with the "mainstream" builds (which are almost all built to handle FPSes) it just won't work.
And then, don't get me started on "gaming laptops"... *facepalm*