Question about Yolol

[zgrssd]

I know I put:
- The code onto a Yolol Chip
- The Chip into a socket
- And the Socket is connected via a cable* to the signal network*
- In order to affect a device, the Yolol has to set it's device field

Now the question is how this setting of a device field propagates? As I understand it it will transmot to ALL devices in the same Signal Network. To use a Networking term: it is broadcasting to all devices, letting them decide if the command is for them (they have a Device field named like that).
Wich raises the question: How do we seperate systems? So that one doors "open" button does not affect every door in the ship.

In order to not have another device in the same ship affect I would have to:
- put it into a seperate Cable network altogether
- rename the field on the other device so the order not longer matches it
- put a (then very poorly named) Network Relay (https://wiki.starbasegame.com/index.php/Network_relay) into the cable, to cut off the Signal Network. Propably I would prevent the signals of the "Door Subnet" to go into the ship.


*As I understand it there are the Signal, Power and Resource Networks.
Cables connect Power and Signal
Pipes Connect Power and Resource

[zgrssd]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

And to discuss answer a) (and my proposal to have an ingame code database to look at and chose from): what is "public"?

Here an example for something that is Public:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/454120/discussions/0/1640915206450267436

Anotehr thing that is public:
https://wiki.starbasegame.com/

What other defition of public do you have? And how much more public can something be?

[Arrclyde]

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Just ignore that they've already confirmed plans to have an in-game market that allows players to access it without direct trading functionality or even needing to be logged in to sell their items. So you can build a pre-made setup that just needs a power supply and sell it there and even if you're not online to "ask" for help someone will be able to check the game store and find what they want there already set up with basic programming, and can modify it to fit their needs better.

I don't ignore those mechanics. I just don't think that those systems are are better solution than having a more accessible system for that. To me it looks more like a work around for something that isn't implemented yet. Just like using cargobeams to "dock" a smaller ship to a bigger one because there are no real docking devices (plates, rings, landing gear) in yet.

But sure. Maybe you are right and the general gamer loves to depend on others when it comes to building in a mmo heavily focused on custom made ships.

Why do i have the feeling that there are some programmers/coders speaking that see their "virtual wealth" in danger if the system gets more accessible for a wider audience?

[zgrssd]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Just ignore that they've already confirmed plans to have an in-game market that allows players to access it without direct trading functionality or even needing to be logged in to sell their items. So you can build a pre-made setup that just needs a power supply and sell it there and even if you're not online to "ask" for help someone will be able to check the game store and find what they want there already set up with basic programming, and can modify it to fit their needs better.

I don't ignore those mechanics. I just don't think that those systems are are better solution than having a more accessible system for that. To me it looks more like a work around for something that isn't implemented yet. Just like using cargobeams to "dock" a smaller ship to a bigger one because there are no real docking devices (plates, rings, landing gear) in yet.

Yet?
No "Proper" dockign devices in YET?

Why would we need something as primitive as landing gears if we have a cargo beam?
Why would I want to downgrade from that?
Star Trek did not go back to Grapplers after they had tractor beams either.

[obliviondoll]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Just ignore that they've already confirmed plans to have an in-game market that allows players to access it without direct trading functionality or even needing to be logged in to sell their items. So you can build a pre-made setup that just needs a power supply and sell it there and even if you're not online to "ask" for help someone will be able to check the game store and find what they want there already set up with basic programming, and can modify it to fit their needs better.

I don't ignore those mechanics. I just don't think that those systems are are better solution than having a more accessible system for that. To me it looks more like a work around for something that isn't implemented yet. Just like using cargobeams to "dock" a smaller ship to a bigger one because there are no real docking devices (plates, rings, landing gear) in yet.

But sure. Maybe you are right and the general gamer loves to depend on others when it comes to building in a mmo heavily focused on custom made ships.

Why do i have the feeling that there are some programmers/coders speaking that see their "virtual wealth" in danger if the system gets more accessible for a wider audience?

You're presenting a scenario where the options are:

1. Everyone can accessibly do every part of the building process themselves.
2. Only the "elite few" can ever finish building a ship unless they have a friend online to help.

When there is an option 3 which has been presented and explained in multiple places and repeatedly provided for you as an option, and you KEEP sticking to only options 1 and 2, you're being intellectually dishonest to keep pushing for something that it (still) looks like you're the only one asking for right now.

I've shared information about the game with a friend who's a huge fan of Space Engineers and Starmade (with Starmade having a much more "physical object oriented" system of simulating code logic, and who used to play LittleBigPlanet and LBP2 with me on PS3 and used the logic systems in those games. He isn't expecting me to do all his coding for him, nor is he planning to learn YOLOL for himself, but he's come to the conclusion that Starbase looks awesome and fun and he thinks he'll be very much able to get crazy fun ships put together using the systems we already know about in the game.

[Arrclyde]

Origineel geplaatst door zgrssd:

Yet?
No "Proper" dockign devices in YET?

Why would we need something as primitive as landing gears if we have a cargo beam?
Why would I want to downgrade from that?
Star Trek did not go back to Grapplers after they had tractor beams either.

Now you are joking right?
Have you seen the boltcrackers video about how to park a ship into another one. The video is obviously cut together because it takes so long, is inefficient, horribly inaccurate and looks like "meeeh, good enough" workaround.
Sorry but those "antiquated" docking plates and landing gears work way better and way more elegant than this. At least what i have seen (have to say other games, though i don't want to compare here)

I don't know about you, but i prefer flying in, lining up, slowly descend until the plates dock and secure the ship, instead of:
Flying in, lining up, hope nobody moves the ship, leve the ship hovering in perfect position, go to the button to activate the cargo field or the three touching cargo beams.... and all in reverse when taking off.

And i wondered what do you need autolanding script for. :-D after seeing how to park a ship inside another one i know why and hoped that there is more polishing coming to flight and docking mechanics and controls (needed IMHO).

Well if you argue that this is the way it should be (clunky tries of half way parking a ship in another needing landing scripts) than it stands totally against what LindaFB said about scripting that it is not needed for enjoying most parts of the game. I don't actually define "buying and flying prefabs" as most parts of the game. For everything else like getting even most basic tasks done you need scripting. Especially if you want to be creative building ships.

I am really curious now how that will evolve until early access starts.

[Arrclyde]

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

You're presenting a scenario where the options are:

1. Everyone can accessibly do every part of the building process themselves.
2. Only the "elite few" can ever finish building a ship unless they have a friend online to help.

Whats wrong with option 1? As it grands the game the biggest possible audience while option 2 (your option 3 is actually option 2 with big IFs and only under certain circumstances) limits the audience.
What is wrong to open up systems for more than a specific type of players?

I am glad you have one friend and that ypu would want to help him out. That is two people out of over half a billion possible players (customers) here on steam. But your example is highly subjective and no general solution for everybody.

Edit:
How do you know i am the only one advocating a more accessible system? Because of this one discussion here? So one against two is the deciding factor for a game that could possibly be played by hundred of thousands of players?
Just because people don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.

[zgrssd]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

You're presenting a scenario where the options are:

1. Everyone can accessibly do every part of the building process themselves.
2. Only the "elite few" can ever finish building a ship unless they have a friend online to help.

Whats wrong with option 1?

You literally explained why it does not work in reality.

[Arrclyde]

Origineel geplaatst door zgrssd:

You literally explained why it does not work.

How is that bad or does not work? Care to elaborate?

Is it just the fear you can not start a monopoly on selling complex ships in a virtual imaginary economy, or slitting that business only with a few?

[obliviondoll]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

You're presenting a scenario where the options are:

1. Everyone can accessibly do every part of the building process themselves.
2. Only the "elite few" can ever finish building a ship unless they have a friend online to help.

Whats wrong with option 1? As it grands the game the biggest possible audience while option 2 (your option 3 is actually option 2 with big IFs and only under certain circumstances) limits the audience.
What is wrong to open up systems for more than a specific type of players?

I am glad you have one friend and that ypu would want to help him out. That is two people out of over half a billion possible players (customers) here on steam. But your example is highly subjective and no general solution for everybody.

Edit:
How do you know i am the only one advocating a more accessible system? Because of this one discussion here? So one against two is the deciding factor for a game that could possibly be played by hundred of thousands of players?
Just because people don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.

Nothing is wrong with SOME games existing that do option 1.

The problem is when no games exist that do anything EXCEPT option 1. Because that should NOT be the only kind of game that ever exists. Not every game should be catering to the majority, because then you leave gamers who want literally anything else without an option.

What you're proposing SOUNDS nice, but disregards the reality of the market, which is that there are already hundreds of millions of games out there which try and cater to everyone. And 99.99999999999% of them are worthless trash. Trying to be the 0.0000000001% that isn't is a much harder market to break into and succeed in than being the 50% of solid games in a less oversaturated corner of the market.

Overdoing streamlining to the point of dumbing down to appeal to "everyone" negates the value of the game to the people it could sell to, and doesn't significantly raise its appeal to people who weren't interested in the core premise.

[Arrclyde]

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Nothing is wrong with SOME games existing that do option 1.

The problem is when no games exist that do anything EXCEPT option 1. Because that should NOT be the only kind of game that ever exists. Not every game should be catering to the majority, because then you leave gamers who want literally anything else without an option.

So you are in favor of starbase to become a game that excludes players to become a boche game attracting only a small minority.

Personally i think such selfish players don't deserve any game. And it is not selfish to give as many different types of players options. But it is selfish to take away options or denying options because of lower personal reasons.

And 99.999999% of trash ganes is only your opinion. Seeing that some of those games habe a decent size or even big fan base makes it a "you problem", not a problem of the game or the games quality.

So i guess we really have to agree to disagree. I personally can not favor such a reasoning. Especially since nothing is taken away. Just because there is a easy way and some people see them selves forced to use is not a problem of the game but rather a "self control issue" and therefore a "them problem".

That kind of reasoning is just wrong un my eyes. So i will stop discussing reasoning at this point and will only discuss methods of improvements of the ingame programming.

[obliviondoll]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

So you are in favor of starbase to become a game that excludes players to become a boche game attracting only a small minority.

No, I'm in favour of it doing something that actually makes it stand out to appeal to a specific market instead of being something that COULD HAVE been successful but tried to hard to be generic trash.

Please quit with the strawman arguments. They don't acheive anything.

Personally i think such selfish players don't deserve any game. And it is not selfish to give as many different types of players options. But it is selfish to take away options or denying options because of lower personal reasons.

You mean selfish like insisting that every game should be made for one target audience only? Instead of asking that varied games exist to appeal to games with varied tastes, and to give those who individually have varied tastes options for something different from the usual when they switch game?

And 99.999999% of trash ganes is only your opinion. Seeing that some of those games habe a decent size or even big fan base makes it a "you problem", not a problem of the game or the games quality.

Ummm... no. Look at the few billion reskins of the same 5 or so flash games out there. Look at the few billion trash-tier RPGMaker games that show up for $2 or $5 and maybe one in 10,000 is actually remotely close to having anything unique about it and maybe 1 in 100 of those does something unique that actually works. Look at the "big" games like the several Iron Man games that flopped, or Anthem, or the EA Battlefront games, or 75% of Ubisoft's lineup in the past 5 10 years and try to tell me those aren't trash with a straight face. Yes, some of them have playerbases, because they're the latest re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release of something that was great a decade ago and is getting less and less impressive (and often somehow less and less POLISHED with each release too) with each year they charge money for the same thing.

So i guess we really have to agree to disagree. I personally can not favor such a reasoning. Especially since nothing is taken away. Just because there is a easy way and some people see them selves forced to use is not a problem of the game but rather a "self control issue" and therefore a "them problem".

And now you're resorting to strawman AND ad hominem AND false equivalency all in the same argument. Cool story.

That kind of reasoning is just wrong un my eyes. So i will stop discussing reasoning at this point and will only discuss methods of improvements of the ingame programming.

Actually had an idea on this.

What about an (optional) autocomplete feature? When you've got the YOLOL chip plugged into a device, any device property (like the "DoorState" or "ButtonState" things) accessible in the current data network shows up as an autocomplete thing when you type the : and the first 2 or 3 letters. And if you type the first couple of letters of a command it shows up to confirm you're typing a real command out? Could even have (again, optional) modes which flag variables/properties in one colour, commands in another, etc. so you can see whether something you typed is being identified as an actual YOLOL function or just a random block of text.

[zgrssd]

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Nothing is wrong with SOME games existing that do option 1.

The problem is when no games exist that do anything EXCEPT option 1. Because that should NOT be the only kind of game that ever exists. Not every game should be catering to the majority, because then you leave gamers who want literally anything else without an option.

So you are in favor of starbase to become a game that excludes players to become a boche game attracting only a small minority.

Very few people have a crippling inabilti to admit when tehy out of their debt, use pre-written code, or wait some time for an answer.
Only those very few people are "excluded".

[WILDCATreactor]

Origineel geplaatst door zgrssd:

Origineel geplaatst door WILDCATreactor:

a problem solved as simply as "Door[x]State"

separating the Networks means separating the POWER, which means you need individual generators for every separate network

Please name your source for THAT claim.
Because it directly violates what I wrote and was confirmed by the devs.

data networks wiki states cables carry data and power, dev video describes changing the naming fields for device value sets, quote me the bit you got that contradicts, please, sifting through posts is tough

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

@LindaFB:

Origineel geplaatst door LindaFB:

The points about accessibility are very good and I've linked this thread to the development team, but as I am not a programmer or an expert with accessibility matters, I unfortunately am not the right person to ask about this in more detail. :') Sorry guys! I'll let you know if I get an insightful answer from someone else in the team, but not making any promises at the moment.

Due to all respect, but a programmer might not quiete be the right person being able to evaluate if a programming language is "easy and acessible" for the average gamer.

Coder friend got some jollies out of watching the YOLOL vid, says it's basically just Visual Basic, which is about as easy as coding gets unless you're using one of those coding-for-kids programs where the functions are packaged up in interactive puzzle pieces to teach the logical structure behind statements.

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Still wonder why it is a bad thing if more people can use more parts of the game than just a selected few. Besides that those who want to play the game because they can feel special because they can do what only a few others can.

That's a hell of a prejudice, you're rocking there.

[WILDCATreactor]

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Most simple thing to unterstand is probably: have an alternative UI that uses symbols for every object and every action that can be performed in game. Than have a field for typing in a value, or even better (accorting to the explanation of how sliders work) have tose sliders in the symbol (0-100, and the one 0-50 <=> 51-100).
Of course this means a whole lot of extra programming on ypiur side. But in terms of accessibility and user freindliness i think it might be worth it.

Thing is, while this is "simple" from a casual player standpoint, it's "dumbed down" and actually takes most of the value away for many people interested in the idea of YOLOL being part of the game. When someone else can just drag and drop a few pictures and get the same result as coding, there's no point keeping the coding option, because you already designed a shortcut to skip having to include it. That kind of mechanic is cool, and would be great in the right game, but it would take away a lot of the appeal that the current system offers. And no, "it's optional" doesn't negate the problem, because it isn't about a player losing an option, it's that some people are specifically interested in a game where that option doesn't exist. This feels like the same kind of thing as the demands for easy mode in Sekiro. It's missing the point of why YOLOL is cool, only it's worse than Sekiro easy mode because there's an ACTUALLY GOOD way to do this that caters to those players who don't want to learn to code.

The most simple thing - which is simpler to implement on the dev side as well as providing simple solutions for players who want them - is to give players the ability to buy pre-made "basic" systems. Build your ship frame out, figure out where you want the doors, then buy "plug and play" doors. All they need is power coming into an input socket. Plug the wire in and the door just works. Same thing can be done with a lightswitch, except that has a short wire with the light connected. If the wire's too short, detach the light and add more wire between them, then plug in a power source, and it just works.

Really? So every door and lightswitch is preprogrammed? You just build your ship, place a door and a borading ramp, fit in a couple of lights and hook up a few switches with cables and you can switch on lights with switch a, while switch b opens the door and switch c lowers and closes the bording ramp?
The way it looks like if you don't have to write code to make things flyable you are only be able to have open cockpit vessels, with fixed weapons and no moving parts without using Yolol. That is not the fun in a building game i assume.

NOTE: this was where your typo was. You had "/qoute" instead of "/quote" at the end of the piece of text you had been quoting. It's easier to spot in a desktop browser than on mobile.

They definitely SHOULDN'T make the game so that EVERY door, lightswitch, etc. is pre-programmed. That would literally negate the existence of YOLOL. But if they create pre-built ship parts like my "plug and play" idea above, then you WILL be able to buy ones that ARE, or buy blueprints (once the blueprint system exists) to make them from materials you gathered for yourself.

On top of that, they've already confirmed there's a pre-existing WIDE RANGE of pre-built ships you can buy and fly. That's "not the fun in a building game", but it's still plenty of fun in an open world space MMO with a dynamic destruction engine. It lets players who don't care to start with building have a quick and easy step into the game where they can just get on with flying their own cool spaceship before learning the mechanics for scratch-building a ship. And as development continues, there will be players designing and building more ships, some of which might become purchasable by anyone interested. For many players, the fact of seeing what other people can do with the system can be even more fun than what they themselves can manage.

And there is potential for great trouble. Some people might think about something that you have to learn and look up instead of being intuitive and learnable by doing, it is bad gamedesign. Especially if you have to use external sources like the forum or a wiki side. Only the more dedicated and interested players do such things. In singleplayer titles people stop when things become a hassle. In MMOs you have people inzeract with one another and teach each other. But i wouldn't bet on that as the only or the best way to get a game mechanic out to the playerbase.

I really really really ask kindly for a better, more intuitive, user (non coder) friendly, more accessible UI and system. Not as only option but as an alternative. Don't want to take away the fun in writing lines (i know people that enjoy that).

NO, having a game manual and instructions and a properly-implemented tutorial for advanced gameplay mechanics is NOT bad game design. For a detailed and intricate game with core systems as complex as even a super simple and streamlined programming language, having good tutorials is GOOD game design. And having mechanics that are complex enough to warrant complex tutorials is good game design catering to a specific niche audience which this game is already appealing to.

Having ways to get pre-made systems that don't require coding knowledge is a good idea. Leeting people replace the YOLOL interface with an alternative "dumbed down" set of drag-and-drop visuals is a negation of the reason many players are interested in the game.

A lot of gamers actively WANT a game which we can learn more about as we play. A lot of gamer parents want games they can get their kids into which can help them learn things which are applicable to real-world skills. If I had a kid interested in programming, there are already a bunch of games with drag-and-drop picture logic puzzles you can learn some of the basic principles of programming from. This game looks like it will let you learn a simplistic programming LANGUAGE, not just the logic process behind one. And taking away from that with a drag-and-drop interface the kid can just click over to the text version of whenever mummy or daddy looks in would spoil the value for a parent interested in helping their child learn from the game.

RE: Plug-and-play doors/lights

This is a market solution waiting to happen, people can either sell their code/chips and the instructions to use them, relying on quality and reputation to push market value and consumer awareness- OR Entrepreneur 2 can sell you door/hallway/light modules wired and programmed- OR Entrepreneur 3 can come in and code your ship for you, probably using plug-and-play code they bought off E1 or using their own in-house solutions, meaning they also might have to be trusted to wire your ship up for you.

And there's always options 4: buy a ready-made ship, pay for a custom design, or pay for customisations on a stock model.

Origineel geplaatst door Arrclyde:

Origineel geplaatst door obliviondoll:

There is STILL a solution built into the game. Pre-made elements you can build your ship from with pre-scripted YOLOL chips. Some provided by the developers (like the pre-made ships that already exist), and others provided by players as time goes on.

And again, as a builder myself who likes to build and design from scratch that is almost the worst of all possible solutions. So i wait and see if anything changes/evolves.
But i don't see me playing a astroid mining slave to get some cash to buy prefab stuff instead of laying down a frame and start building and fitting the vessel i want to build. Looking up scrips on ships in a showroom to duplicate certain functions on my own ships might be a way. But that certainly has a work around flavor to it in my opinion.

So it comes down to perspective. To you that is a "simple solution", to me it is not.

I mean, I'm not a coder either, but I do plan on digging through stock chipsets and watching the coder subcommunity to pilfer bits and pieces of functionality from. It's the same thing as stealing and modifying design elements from another builder, only instead of structure, you're stealing meaning and order. Asking to remove or hamstring "strong" coding and bypassing the technical bottleneck it provides to "one-trick pony" play, is like asking them to remove the durability mechanics on hulls or make one thruster able to perform any kind of maneuver instead of needing to place multiple in opposing directions.

Origineel geplaatst door Citizen #S9-23:

So i'll just point this part out here, EXACTLY this, what i propose and agree with is simply this, a system that is easier to learn, my proposal was not to create a drag-n-drop system to replace the ENTIRE coding language, but to simplify more basic functionality, for example, functionality to move a robot arm, functionality to move objects along rails, really boil that down to movement, open/close, on/off, the basic stuff, things that regular Joe Bloggs is going to want to do, but is going to be at a loss for how to do them without additional learning/resources.

Aaaah, okay, that's my view I'm expecting to have some means of accessing others' code even if it means watching a chip market or whatever. Thank god there's no real way to implement in-game DRM.

[zgrssd]

Origineel geplaatst door WILDCATreactor:

Origineel geplaatst door zgrssd:

Please name your source for THAT claim.
Because it directly violates what I wrote and was confirmed by the devs.

data networks wiki states cables carry data and power, dev video describes changing the naming fields for device value sets, quote me the bit you got that contradicts, please, sifting through posts is tough

I am sorry for quoting a full sentence to make your mistake not stand out so much. As you do not seem to like me being that nice, let me fix this:
"separating the Networks means separating the POWER, which means you need individual generators for every separate network"
What is your source for THAT claim.

Where do you get that wierd Idea the Network Relay (wich is actually more of a misnamed seperator/filter) cuts power?
Or where do you get the idea the network relays are not a thing, despite me literally mentioning it in the opening post?
It really makes discussions hard if you make problems like that up from thin air.