Planet Panic has so many issues that it basically needs to be remade. But that doesn’t mean the whole gameplay feel will change. Judging by the trello card, it’ll be even wackier than it is now.
https://trello.com/c/JUWYtXem/242-make-planet-panic-great-again
But between all the issues and the one map available, there’s a lot keeping people from playing it.
See this thread for some of the issues with the gamemode:
Pretty sure he just meant that you’re tl;dr was just as long (if not a bit longer) than your main post, so it really wasn’t a tl;dr at all.
Pretty sure he just meant that you’re tl;dr was just as long (if not a bit longer) than your main post, so it really wasn’t a tl;dr at all.
It comes down to perception in the end :3
In regards to Planet Panic, I just don’t see or feel the issues past what I mentioned (the clip on that feedback falls in line with “balancing teams” more or less, and needing more to the map.
I thought Mac might be too hard on himself with that one, it’s good where it is in terms of core concept, it just needs those enhancements. I’d like to see them keep how it is, just enhanced a lot. But of course everyone will have different views.
I guess to make it simple - I don’t think the concept of the game mode is rushed (aside from that team balance tweak), rather the map is what the problem is due to how basic it is (incredibly linear). That distinction is a key player here, at least in my view.
Edit - It is worth mentioning that that is what EA is for, for us to test and give such feedback on modes, so I don’t believe the choice to have put it out was bad exactly.
By starting from scratch, I meant on the gameplay part. The art style, music, and all that is definitely something we’ll be keeping with Planet Panic. The gameplay needs lots of work. It is definitely going to be wacky. What we have planned is a lot more over the top than released so far.
So, the API is the code that allows things to interface with it. Basically, we have: games can be started, loaded on a screen, rendered on a screen, played (with input), heard (sound effects), and it all works in the game itself. You can make a Lua based (Lua is a scripting language) arcade game and play it in the actual game. There’s still work to be done, but the huge core parts are finished.
Once the API is done, then we can start coding the 2D Lua games. There’s other types of Arcade games as well that aren’t 2D and that framework is also done. But, of course, the actual games need to be made still. We have to make gameplay code, gameplay design, 2D art, sound effects, and music for all the games. Then, we have to test all that and tweak it and iterate (over and over) until the games are at a stage we can release them at.
I don’t really find it fair to compare us to ARK. Our game is completely different, our team is completely different. We aren’t going to have any similar results with this game. I’ve followed a lot of Early Access games myself and they all have vastly different goals. Our goal with Early Access is to get feedback and to let people play the game while it’s being made. We have the scope of the game already set in stone (pretty much most of the scope is advertised on our Indiegogo). We are just choosing what feature should come before other features at this stage.
We have internal goals and internal deadlines and meetings every week, we’re not just tossing things together left and right. There’s a method to the madness.
For example, Halloween was a test of features we’re going to be using in the future constantly, such as: the dialogue system, the minigame system, the plaza event system, the cooking system (the cauldron is actually cooking with one ingredient), the metal detector/fishing system (forgotten remains), and re-theming the plaza (for seasonal events). So, while it may seem like it was a limited time event, pretty much all the features created are going to be used for future planned features. We used Halloween to benefit our end goals.
There’s a couple issues with doing things in large chunks like that for video games, in my honest opinion.
Firstly, things don’t always require the entire team and thus putting everyone on “X Project” will end up with lots of wasted time. Our artists usually finish before our programmers and if they’re just sitting there waiting for the programmers, then they’re just wasting their time. The reverse could happen where the programmers are waiting for artists to finish up, as well.
Secondly, bugs gotta be fixed and jumping around to solve bugs is necessary. A lot of times bugs take longer than new features and bug fixes will push back development of new features naturally (there’s only so much time in a day).
Thirdly, developer burnout. Burn out is a real thing and if you’re constantly working on a single project, you’ll end up with lack-luster effort put forth towards the project. And then you end up with a bad project.
And lastly, we’re running an Early Access game. We need to maintain a healthy player base. The game is being sold as-is and we want to invite new customers to a game that updates regularly (with fixes and features they enjoy).
You got me there, pal.
Wish I was as cool as you.
Original post - 546 Words
TL:DR - 441 Words
A summary should be way less than half of what you wrote, not more than 4/5 of the word count. All you did was reword your original post and completely went against the purpose of a summary. You could’ve easily shortened it to your basic points and outline of the argument provided but instead all it turned out to be was a rehashed argument you already made. It’s not perception, it’s ignoring what a summary should be.
TL:DR
You didn’t make a summary, you put it in different terms.
Some interesting info! I hope you will keep the ball capture / shooter aspect of Planet Panic though, and the kitties and puppies flying in saucers because it’s cute lol.
The info for the technical stuff is good. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate that info every 2-4 weeks into a detailed breakdown for players to better understand some of this stuff, just a suggestion 
It helped a lot with understanding.
Yep, I saw most of your plans for what you aim for by end of EA. It will be interesting to see what happens after EA, in terms of additions, because so much more could be added to that list. I used ARK as an example simply because it is well known, and most are familiar with the failures/issues. The concept of branching out into a ton of things I think was still a good spot for comparison that most would easily understand, I know other games have done this too, but I can’t recall the names off the top of my head. I just don’t want to see TU fall to the same mistake is all, you guys definitely have a lot of sub-categories making up a game in terms of features.
You mentioned wanting to get a lot of people to play. I notice that 300ish online seems to be around the max player count. Back when I found TU, it was solely due to looking up the “minigolf” tag. TU deserves to have a larger player base, and it would help with Virus and stuff having more activity on the game modes (I think I mentioned that in a post before) That, and more money for more TU features. I still have no idea how you guys do it on the $15 entry fee + initial funding campaign, considering development costs, such wizardry lol.