安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
0 
檢舉此篇文章
This is a good idea but a bit of a technical challenge to implement. Right now the player can't open the menus to save the game, and your tutorial state isn't saved to the save game file so that wouldn't help. We added a system to make singleplayer mission state save to your save files, so we could do the same for the tutorial with a little work and maybe add a quicksave button.
The tutorial is actually divided into 9 main sections under the hood, but it's not possible to skip ahead and start at a particular section at the moment because the game expects you to be clicking things and performing actions. The alternative is that we could make it quicksave every time it moves on to a new section, and then when you load a tutorial save we make it load that section's tutorials from file.
The second option would be most feasible, it'll still take some dev time but is less challenging to implement and with less potential for weird save and load bugs since it only saves at about 9 specific points. For the player, it would occasionally pop up "Autosaving" during the tutorial and then if you quit or crashed you would have a save named something like "Tutorial: Part 4" in your autosave slot and could pick up from that point. Does that sound good?
Cheers,
-- Brendan, Lead Developer
Thank you!
I should clarify that technical challenge doesn't mean that I think the feature would be impossible or infeasible, it just means that it's not a quick fix and will take some dev time to develop. We'll have to add it to our development backlog and prioritise it next to all of the other features/improvements competing for our limited development resources.
The second option I suggested is the one that will take the least development time, but it's a bit of a compromise. If people are happy with that option, I can go ahead and add it to our development task list and then look into how quick it would be to add the first option.
Cheers,
-- Brendan, Lead Developer