Future changes vs existing levels

Onjit · 2016-10-10 04:12:26

I was talking about this with a few others on IRC, and the following question arose

To what extent should existing features/worlds/etc be taken into consideration when implementing new changes?

Should the dev team make a push to seriously reform the game, fixing ugly textures, improving physics, etc when making future updates? Even when it is at the expense of existing worlds?

I'm of the opinion that cosmetic changes are alright, in the sense that either all decorations or no decorations should have backgrounds, (rather than having some with and some without, as we have currently). I also think that there are several textures that need a rework (recent mine pack is a good example). There are no real gameplay changes I can think of at the moment (apart from actually removing lag).
These changes would alter some people's worlds, and it's understandable that they would be upset that their work has been changed. However, I do not think that the dev team should be afraid of radical change, just because of a select few cases.

I was curious as to what you guys thought, I'm sure there are many more sides to the problem than I have presented/thought of.

hummerz5, Koya, AlphaJon, kubapolish

Slabdrill · 2016-10-10 05:11:04

I agree that only cosmetic changes should be done.
I don't think glitch fixes should be done because I sometimes leave a random secret "exploit" involving a glitch in my worlds.

Master1, kubapolish

Nebula · 2016-10-10 05:23:26

inb4 Original SMB3 vs Ravatroll's SMB3
I like new changes

RavaTroll · 2016-10-10 14:15:19

If new physics are introduced, it should be toggable in world option to allow building worlds with better physics and still have old worlds available and playable.
Minimap colors should not be altered tho. We have new blocks to add diversity to art.

SirJosh3917

Napakeun · 2016-10-10 19:56:34

Retexturing in-game blocks is in my opinion always okay (I also agree some blocks would really need some rework in them). Maybe we should have a special place on the forums to discuss retexturing these blocks and even give our examples. An official topic for suggesting your own versions of current in-game blocks could be nice?
Recoloring blocks on minimap shouldn't happen because it destroys minimap art.

Tomahawk · 2016-10-10 22:02:58

I'd say the playerbase isn't large enough atm for potential changes to be a considerable issue. If something improves the game going forward then it's worth it.

rgl32, MartenM, 32OrtonEdge32dh, 21Twelve, AlphaJon, Onjit, kubapolish

N1KF · 2016-10-11 19:08:52

RavaTroll wrote:

If new physics are introduced, it should be toggable in world option to allow building worlds with better physics and still have old worlds available and playable.

I think that would only make the physics more inconsistent and confusing.

Koto, kubapolish

21Twelve · 2016-10-11 19:16:13

How valuable are our worlds? Would any of you truly consider losing your precious progress (all of which can be remade) with the reward of consistent aesthetics/improved gameplay?

My answer would be absolutely, gut Everybody Edits in any way that will help its dwindling future.

RavaTroll wrote:

If new physics are introduced, it should be toggable in world option to allow building worlds with better physics and still have old worlds available and playable.
Minimap colors should not be altered tho. We have new blocks to add diversity to art.

Please no.

Koto

Tomahawk · 2016-10-11 22:24:21

Tomahawk wrote:

If something improves the game going forward then it's worth it.

Though I'll rage if the current glitches like 1x1 hook get fixed.

Koto · 2016-10-17 22:56:11

Certain maps and map owners can always be worked out together, so as not to destroy the entire history of EE, but these physics are old man. An update should be OK. We don't want to alienate our player vase, but we also cannot alienate new players.

Onjit

N1KF · 2016-10-18 02:01:24

A wise-ish man wrote:

Obviously, none of you people have invested much time into making levels. Us level creators who have been here for many years, have invested thousands of hours of meticulous effort into our levels, at least in my case. To change the physics would be like crapping on all our hard work, and in no doubt, I would leave the community in a flash if the physics were to be changed. What makes you think that suddenly making you jump 3 blocks high will magnetize new players to this basis? Newsflash: it won't do jack diddums. How about instead of trying to recucitate the dying cow that is EE, provide us a way to make away with the levels we have spent so many hours in to and put them into a level editor: either make an offline level editor for EE in which we can export our levels as single-player "games" or simply make it easier for us to retrieve the level .json files that Atilla has already paved the world for, so that we can simply boot up our .json files into a program (preferably made to suit GameMaker) that the developers make that mimics EE's physics.
If the devs don't do this, can someone please make such a program so that all one would need to do would be to import a .json file of your world into a program that simulates EE's functions except single-player? I know that you guys have already invested time into making EE Unity friendly, but please, this feature seems to be the ultimate solution to everlast EE, as seems to be your ultimate goal. Whatever you do, please don't change the physics. Dozens upon dozens of hours of mine have already been thrown into the trash by updates by the careless new mods. I know, it was MY fault I spent the effort to make quality levels, it was MY fault I invested such large amounts of time, I know: but please, please, I beg of you, don't make all those hours go to waste.
I speak on behalf of all who have spent large efforts on their works created on EE.

I think this person makes a good case for keeping the same physics. What do you think?

Freckleface, RavaTroll, kubapolish, Norwee, Master1

shadowda · 2016-10-18 02:47:23

make Halloween fences morphable

Onjit

Norwee · 2016-10-18 20:18:04

Physic change do not.

skullz17 · 2016-10-18 22:59:06

I think cosmetic changes are fine. As for gameplay, we should do what we can to keep the fun glitches. Sometimes there will be a glitch which doesn't really have any purpose, but the fix for the glitch either ruins levels or removes a fun glitch. I would say that we should consider whether it is really necessary to remove the glitch. If it's not really that annoying, then I say we should leave it in. If it really needs to go, then it should be fixed and we just deal with the consequences.

21Twelve · 2016-10-19 04:32:31

skullz17 wrote:

I think cosmetic changes are fine. As for gameplay, we should do what we can to keep the fun glitches. Sometimes there will be a glitch which doesn't really have any purpose, but the fix for the glitch either ruins levels or removes a fun glitch. I would say that we should consider whether it is really necessary to remove the glitch. If it's not really that annoying, then I say we should leave it in. If it really needs to go, then it should be fixed and we just deal with the consequences.

I would rather be able to expect what particular block arrangements do rather than build around 'fun glitches'.

Onjit, BuzzerBee, Badoosh, Koto

skullz17 · 2016-10-19 21:01:08

222Hockey222 wrote:

skullz17 wrote:
I think cosmetic changes are fine. As for gameplay, we should do what we can to keep the fun glitches. Sometimes there will be a glitch which doesn't really have any purpose, but the fix for the glitch either ruins levels or removes a fun glitch. I would say that we should consider whether it is really necessary to remove the glitch. If it's not really that annoying, then I say we should leave it in. If it really needs to go, then it should be fixed and we just deal with the consequences.
I would rather be able to expect what particular block arrangements do rather than build around 'fun glitches'.

Well you are comparing the benefit of one with the drawback of the other. Of course when you say it like that, your argument leans to one side. But personally I would rather avoid breaking levels than provide a bit of convenience for new players. I would also rather confuse new players than break levels that old players made.

Also, I would argue that it's not just about breaking or not breaking old levels. The same glitches can continue to be used in the present and the future. Because they're fun. I also think they make the game feel more interesting for new players because it encourages them to make a larger investment into the game so they can have a deeper understanding of the mechanics.

Master1

Onjit · 2021-09-15 12:28:46

this thread is now closed

goodbye

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-10-10 04:12:26, last edited by Onjit (2016-10-10 04:12:36)

Future changes vs existing levels

To what extent should existing features/worlds/etc be taken into consideration when implementing new changes?

#2 2016-10-10 05:11:04, last edited by Slabdrill (2016-10-10 16:32:21)

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#3 2016-10-10 05:23:26

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#4 2016-10-10 14:15:19

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#5 2016-10-10 19:56:34

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#6 2016-10-10 22:02:58

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#7 2016-10-11 19:08:52

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#8 2016-10-11 19:16:13

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#9 2016-10-11 22:24:21

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#10 2016-10-17 22:56:11

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#11 2016-10-18 02:01:24

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#12 2016-10-18 02:47:23

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#13 2016-10-18 20:18:04

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#14 2016-10-18 22:59:06

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#15 2016-10-19 04:32:31

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#16 2016-10-19 21:01:08

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

#17 2021-09-15 12:28:46

Re: Future changes vs existing levels

Board footer