Riftbreaker 2

[White Lion]

If there will ever going to be Riftbreaker 2.0, then I would like to suggest features related to Resource Management, much like those that exist in Satisfactory game or Infraspace game, but without the conveyor belts or roads.

In Riftbreaker 1.0, the map is enormous. We have plenty of space to build our base. But 80% of the base contains only power generators. Although it feels fun in the beginning, it will eventually feel boring and tedious, due to lack of variety of items that we can put in our base.

So the solution is to have more complex resource management aspects in order to add variety to our base. You can get some ideas about some production chain concepts from those 2 games above. No need for the distribution aspects, like roads, rails, or conveyor belts. Just add variety of items that can occupy our entire base. Thus it also means that the power generator output should also be increased significantly as well, so we can save space in building them.

If you can successfully integrate resource management concept within Riftbreaker, then it will be a lot more fun due to additional challenge available. So the game will have story-driven missions, free exploration activities, resource management, swarms of enemies to kill, and a ton of upgrades available. It will have the highest replayability value in Steam.

It will become the best game in the world which can successfully combine the following concepts:

• Action
  
• RPG
  
• Base Building
  
• Resource Management
  
• Tower Defense

[ArcBlue]

They're still working on coop... dont distract them with ideas of abandonment for this game in favor of making a new one, please!

[White Lion]

Originally posted by ArcBlue:

They're still working on coop... dont distract them with ideas of abandonment for this game in favor of making a new one, please!

I doubt coop is going to be successful world wide. The game involve huge quantity of polygons and tons of shader effects. Those enormous data cannot be transmitted online easily and quickly. Only players with dedicated bandwidth of 20Mbps or more can really enjoy it.

In US + Europe, it might be ok. But in Asia, 90% of players can never enjoy it.

[Unrealtairo]

If coop is to make the series a success it would need to come from RB 2 at this point. The hype is pretty much all gone.

Hopefully they take the framework for RB 1 coop and use it for RB 2.

Also hoping RB 2 is FPS mode like Outpost (But without the insane level of flaws outpost has)

A little Satisfactory influence would be nice yea.

The DLC we're getting in RB is pretty underwhelming, it's just tacked on the same way the DLC in something like ffxv dlc is. It doesn't extend post game one bit (Which people have been asking for since before dlc 1) Which IMO is not the way dlc is supposed to be.

So if they leave RB1 for 2 I'm fine with it, the dlc we have here ain't the way.

[Gorem]

Originally posted by ArcBlue:

They're still working on coop... dont distract them with ideas of abandonment for this game in favor of making a new one, please!

It feels right that on my Steam this comment was posted on April 1st.

Because its a joke if people think either coop will ever be in this game, or that it will have any effect on it. The fact that it has DLC holds this game back from being more successful already.

It would have been better for them to focus on a better Riftbreaker 2 then make DLC for a dead unpopular game. The original game did not need more to do before the original end. Both the underground and the extra Morphium content should have happened after the end to give us something to keep doing. Instead they are just placed in the middle, during the easiest part of the game. The game is too easy with how resources work that even making it as hard as possible without mods means only the first wave is hard. As soon as you get some artillery or rail guns it is on easy mode no matter what difficulty you are playing on.

Riftbreaker has many many flaws that the DLC do not fix. They should move on and make a sequel. and coop would need to be in RB2 at launch.

[Soli]

Haven't popped here in a while.... Gotta say -- I don't even see how COOP will contribute to the game's enjoyment.

The major problem Rift Breaker has, is that there's not a whole lot to do anyway, and its focus is a bit muddled. RB is an action-orientated game, it's not factorio or Infinifactory, or whatever, even if it seems like it on its shell.
The gameplay loop is mostly about exploring the map and blowing ♥♥♥♥ up.
Further more, the #1 thing that prevents you from finishing the game within 1 hour, is just simply because the game slows you down with very slow tech timers. Otherwise, the game is pretty empty gameplay wise (it also doesn't help the "explore this new biome" missions feel like randomly generated maps that have absolutely nothing inside of them).

The only way I can see this game benefiting from COOP, is in survival-mode, or by implementing a new rogutelite gamemode where you continue to delve into random maps, with random objectives, etc.
Otherwise, what the frig is there to do with 2+ people, in a game where most of the map feels empty, and building-wise, there's not a whole lot to do anyway once you know what you're doing?

If they are going to make RB2, I hope they'll design the game a bit better, in that sense.

P.S: I do agree this game is lacking massively in terms of resource-management. Even farming is mostly seen as a "cute bonus", not something necessary or worthwhile, not really. It's just a Sims-esque activity that's cool to have and mess around with, but overall it's just tacked onto the game. It's not really needed at all. The game's resources are way too streamlined and easy to come by for its own good.

[Perahoky]

NOOOOO stop this annoying resource management logistics ♥♥♥♥! i hate it! its boring and annoyingg and confusing. there are enough resource logistics game out there! got play dyson sphere project!

[Perahoky]

Originally posted by Xtreme:

Originally posted by ArcBlue:

They're still working on coop... dont distract them with ideas of abandonment for this game in favor of making a new one, please!

I doubt coop is going to be successful world wide. The game involve huge quantity of polygons and tons of shader effects. Those enormous data cannot be transmitted online easily and quickly. Only players with dedicated bandwidth of 20Mbps or more can really enjoy it.

In US + Europe, it might be ok. But in Asia, 90% of players can never enjoy it.

how do you know what you are talking about? are you an expert? do you know their engine? do you know how netcode works? did you write a single game/software?

if you would know anything about software engineering than you wouldnt talk about "plygons" or "shader effects" in terms of netcode.
So stop it, Please shut up talking about things you dont know. polygons or shader are not a subject of netcode. Dedicated netcode doesnt even have a reference to graphics at all.
I'm sick of people talking about stuff out of their range.

[White Lion]

Originally posted by Perahoky:

Originally posted by Xtreme:

I doubt coop is going to be successful world wide. The game involve huge quantity of polygons and tons of shader effects. Those enormous data cannot be transmitted online easily and quickly. Only players with dedicated bandwidth of 20Mbps or more can really enjoy it.

In US + Europe, it might be ok. But in Asia, 90% of players can never enjoy it.

how do you know what you are talking about? are you an expert? do you know their engine? do you know how netcode works? did you write a single game/software?

Yes I have such experiences and technical knowledge. I'm making a game right now for smartphones & PC.

Simple minded immature kids, should just shut up & stop being toxic!

[Soli]

Originally posted by Perahoky:

NOOOOO stop this annoying resource management logistics ♥♥♥♥! i hate it! its boring and annoyingg and confusing. there are enough resource logistics game out there! got play dyson sphere project!

Even if any future installments do not require fractal resources (resources that require resources that require...) -- For the very least, having a touch more complicated resources acquisition process would add more spice to the core gameplay loop.
Currently, acquiring more advances resources is just: go to this map -> put a mining outpost -> return.
There's very little to no depth to it at all, which also begs the question why is it even there?

I'd be more happy with having more layers to the game.
(And no, adding "more enemies" doesn't really cut it...A gamemode overhaul mod would be the more correct direction tbh. If I had the time and ideas to run with, I'd actually try to do something about it.)

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Soli:

Currently, acquiring more advances resources is just: go to this map -> put a mining outpost -> return. There's very little to no depth to it at all, which also begs the question why is it even there?

It allows the player to start over and build a new base from scratch as many times as they wish. They get to keep a bunch of bases for as long as they want 'em. And they can choose among various biomes with different hostiles and resources.

[Soli]

Originally posted by cswiger:

It allows the player to start over and build a new base from scratch as many times as they wish. They get to keep a bunch of bases for as long as they want 'em. And they can choose among various biomes with different hostiles and resources.

Well, yeah. And that's extremely shallow.
You don't really change how you play the game, or have to learn new things in order to keep playing the game -- you just....Start over, but with extra things.

That being said, for a first playthrough, I admit that level of variety is enough. You can sink in dozen of hours into the game, finish it, uninstall it, and be happy with it. But not for replayability, nor for COOP.

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Soli:

Originally posted by cswiger:

It allows the player to start over and build a new base from scratch as many times as they wish. They get to keep a bunch of bases for as long as they want 'em. And they can choose among various biomes with different hostiles and resources.

Well, yeah. And that's extremely shallow.

Your opinion isn't mine. Perhaps you should play something else?

[Raven]

Originally posted by Xtreme:

Originally posted by ArcBlue:

They're still working on coop... dont distract them with ideas of abandonment for this game in favor of making a new one, please!

I doubt coop is going to be successful world wide. The game involve huge quantity of polygons and tons of shader effects. Those enormous data cannot be transmitted online easily and quickly. Only players with dedicated bandwidth of 20Mbps or more can really enjoy it.

In US + Europe, it might be ok. But in Asia, 90% of players can never enjoy it.

You do understand a lot of the stuff doesn't need to be replicated? For starters the client doesn't need to know where every single polygon and shader is on the server (if that was needed we wouldn't've been able to have MMORPGs made), it just needs to know where an enemy or a building or a terrain feature is and what it should be doing with them. Then the client can handle stuff like physics and shaders without needing to burden the network with it. The biggest network load will come from having to know the locations of hundreds of enemies simultaneously, though since this is a PvE game those can be updated relatively slowly (compared to PvP games) if needed, even if that will introduce lag related issues if done poorly.

[Soli]

Originally posted by cswiger:

Originally posted by Soli:

Well, yeah. And that's extremely shallow.

Your opinion isn't mine. Perhaps you should play something else?

..."Your", as in "editorial, you". I was talking about the game's players in general.
Anyway, I don't hate the game. But I think they designed it with a lot of mixed signals.

[White Lion]

Originally posted by Valvraven:

Originally posted by Xtreme:

I doubt coop is going to be successful world wide. The game involve huge quantity of polygons and tons of shader effects. Those enormous data cannot be transmitted online easily and quickly. Only players with dedicated bandwidth of 20Mbps or more can really enjoy it.

In US + Europe, it might be ok. But in Asia, 90% of players can never enjoy it.

You do understand a lot of the stuff doesn't need to be replicated? For starters the client doesn't need to know where every single polygon and shader is on the server (if that was needed we wouldn't've been able to have MMORPGs made), it just needs to know where an enemy or a building or a terrain feature is and what it should be doing with them. Then the client can handle stuff like physics and shaders without needing to burden the network with it. The biggest network load will come from having to know the locations of hundreds of enemies simultaneously, though since this is a PvE game those can be updated relatively slowly (compared to PvP games) if needed, even if that will introduce lag related issues if done poorly.

It basically depends on the game engine itself. Logically what you're saying is what I also have in mind. But unfortunately intensive 3D games will do a lot more than your simple idea.

If the game engine enforces 100% full synchronization, between the server and the client, then it will have to transfer all of data from server to client as well. The result is, whatever you see in London, will be exactly the same that you'll see in Tokyo. But if the game engine does not enforce 100% full synchronization, then whatever you see in London can be totally different than what you see in Tokyo.

Let's take particle effects as an example. It basically consists of an emitter, multiple random vectors for particles, and shaders applied for each vertices. Normally particle effects will just generate random vectors for each vertices. No one will even notice it anyway, because the effect seems coherent.

If the particle is heading for vector [1,2,3] in [x,y,z] coordinate for a player in London, then it might be heading for vector [3,1,2] in [x,y,z] coordinate for a player in Tokyo. It can also be heading for a vector [2,2,2] for another player in New York. This is what will happen if the game engine let the client decide instead of the server. Special effects like lightning strike, laser beam, smoke, or fire, will contain thousands of particles. So it can produce a different result for each player if the game engine let the client decide on the vectors for each particle.

So if you want the game to present exactly the same output for each player instance, in the client side, then a lot of data needs to be transferred from server to client through network. But if not, then the output for each player instance will be slightly or moderately different from one another.

If you're an experienced game developer, then you'll understand what I mean.