|
Buffis posted:I prefer to carve out my chairs from solid blocks of stone. I had the exact same idea, doing a sort of milling operation is far, far easier to me. Hell, I did the whale mission the same way, mill a perfect cube then get rid of the eyes/spine and extrude only meat/blubber logs for the processors.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Buffis posted:I prefer to carve out my chairs from solid blocks of stone. This is hella cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Buffis posted:This reddit thread has some pretty extreme examples of rotator abuse for low cycles: Uuuuuuuugh I have a lot of solutions I need to remake. God dammit. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Finally, a solution I am reasonably proud of. Not the top of the charts, but certainly in the 90th percentile in both cycles and footprint.
Bhodi fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
This game is amazing, but god rotators loving suck. I can't stand them. I guess it's early access for a reason because I seriously can't imagine rotators being unchanged in the final release. That being said, I'm going to continue putting up with them because jesus christ this game is fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
To those that have solved 6-2/relaxant formula 13: what the heck are the non-top cubes of the goal supposed to be? I can't really tell from the highlighted goal image, and the "your solution is wrong" message is zoomed weirdly and looks even more different. (Yes, I understand what the machine does).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:the "your solution is wrong" message is zoomed weirdly and looks even more different. You can rotate the stuff in that message box to make it more clear what the issue is. No, you're never told this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
GuavaMoment posted:You can rotate the stuff in that message box to make it more clear what the issue is. No, you're never told this. Thanks.. Doesn't help much, though --- it just seems to bug out on me: Is the bottom one supposed to be wood? Or filled in glass? And what about the one that looks transparent here --- it doesn't seem transparent on the goal image. Maybe. can't really tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Thanks.. Doesn't help much, though --- it just seems to bug out on me: Yeah, you got a display bug. It's (from bottom to top) wood log - filled glass doodad - the cap piece. 3 things total. e: quote:[ You could probably cut down on the footprint a tiny bit (and the cycles) by moving the conveyor belt to be up against that preexisting wall. Oh, also: 
President Ark fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
This is the first half of my solution for puzzle 3-3. It feels completely arbitrary which conveyor takes control when they're all pulling in different directions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Idiot posted:This is the first half of my solution for puzzle 3-3. This makes the game look a whole lot like spacechem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Idiot posted:This is the first half of my solution for puzzle 3-3. This is art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Idiot posted:This is the first half of my solution for puzzle 3-3. I believe the rules are that two conveyors pulling it in opposite directions cancel out entirely, and after that, one axis consistently gets priority over the other. You can see that in your setup - after the first rotation there's only one conveyor touching it, so that's straightforward. After the second rotation, there are two conveyors, and the sideways one gets priority. After the third rotation, the two sideways conveyors cancel each other out, so it moves back just like after the first rotation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
I wonder what Zach thought people needed all thet superfluous space in Javelin Point Defense for...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
how me a frog posted:I wonder what Zach thought people needed all thet superfluous space in Javelin Point Defense for... I though that area is the temple that is mentioned by the woman seeking to escape. It looks like there are ruins of arches and an altar at the end so it fits  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
3-3 is pretty fun; found another way to handle the rotation: Then went a bit crazy with it:  https://gfycat.com/AngelicInexperiencedHairstreakbutterfly
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Met48 posted:3-3 is pretty fun; found another way to handle the rotation: That is so beautiful to watch. I actually skipped that puzzle because I didn't know you could attach blocks to pushers/blockers. I'm so stumped by this whale level. I'm cutting the tail off and the very first bit of the front and then cutting it into four identical slices but I can't for the life of me figure a good way to break them down. I think I'm fretting too much about getting the maximum amount of output per slice, but it feels so dirty to do it any other way. EDIT: woop, solved it and finished the "story". Time to go back and wrack my brain and feel even more stupid trying to get top scores. Feel kinda disappointed that right as they introduce some other characters they don't give you any more story. Moog fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Man, I was going to post this later today. But yeah, lifters are handy for all kinds of cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Met48 posted:3-3 is pretty fun; found another way to handle the rotation: Something like that was my original plan but I can't stand how you aren't able to push anything on ground level. It'd be nice if you had more control over how objects attach to each other. Also it would be cool if you could activate rotators with the positive edge of a signal from a conduit. Rotators ought to have differently colored arrows too, orange on orange is really hard to make out from any kind of distance. Edit: Attachment control would also make conduit systems WAY more compact. Idiot fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Is there a block wiki somewhere or something ? I dont understand how the sensor block works , the one without the orange thing. edit:nevermind lmao its apparently just facing down
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Idiot posted:Something like that was my original plan but I can't stand how you aren't able to push anything on ground level. It'd be nice if you had more control over how objects attach to each other. Also it would be cool if you could activate rotators with the positive edge of a signal from a conduit. Rotators ought to have differently colored arrows too, orange on orange is really hard to make out from any kind of distance. Attachment control and rotation improvement are literally the only two things I think NEED 'fixed' before out of early alpha. The rest like logic blocks or whatnot I think are just things that would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Forer posted:Attachment control and rotation improvement are literally the only two things I think NEED 'fixed' before out of early alpha. The rest like logic blocks or whatnot I think are just things that would be nice. Eh... those things would just take away some challenge. I don't get why everyone is complaining about rotation, it's pretty simple. And it's not like there aren't ways around the attachment problem anyway:  Idiot posted:Something like that was my original plan but I can't stand how you aren't able to push anything on ground level. Why push when you can pull? (And also push on ground level) This is Not Alf XXX fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
This is Not Alf XXX posted:Eh... those things would just take away some challenge. That can be said of any block in the game, but with steam workshop you can say "this puzzle can't be completed using X blocks" so it evens out, you can make puzzles and then say now do it without X block or y block group or whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
I must be insane. It's the only explanation. Why do I do this to myself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
Before I finish my solution for Furnished Studio Apartment, could I get a confirmation that the wall piece doesn't need to be rotated 180 degrees? It seems that way from the top tile pattern, but I haven't tried yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
TheKnife posted:Before I finish my solution for Furnished Studio Apartment, could I get a confirmation that the wall piece doesn't need to be rotated 180 degrees? It does not need to be rotated. It comes out with the correct alignment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
TheKnife posted:Before I finish my solution for Furnished Studio Apartment, could I get a confirmation that the wall piece doesn't need to be rotated 180 degrees? I didn't even notice that, someone should send zach a message about it. Also no, if you did then it wouldn't be in the tier it's in. Edit: Buffis posted:It does not need to be rotated. It comes out with the correct alignment. if you don't see it now, He means the wall that the TV sits in, it looks like it's been rotated 180 degrees
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Stuff like this makes me wonder why the metric is footprint rather than parts used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
This is Not Alf XXX posted:Eh... those things would just take away some challenge. I don't get why everyone is complaining about rotation, it's pretty simple. And it's not like there aren't ways around the attachment problem anyway: rotators are just kind of clumsy pieces with annoying rules, especially with single block rotation. the fact that your ability to move things off rotators is limited makes them kind of lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Parts used is an even more annoying metric, because then you just remove all your conveyors and have the blocks make their way anywhere by stepping on the backs of their previously-created brethren.Concerned Citizen posted:rotators are just kind of clumsy pieces with annoying rules, especially with single block rotation. the fact that your ability to move things off rotators is limited makes them kind of lovely. Single-block rotation is easy though? (At least, it is since they patched it). It literally Just Works unless your factory is getting backed up somewhere after the rotator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
This game is already doing terrible things to me. Think I might have a close-to-max cycles on the shuttle propulsion unit level:  93 cycles with this. I followed the spacechem tournaments so I know that state machines are 9 out of 10 times the solution for speed. (Need to set up one of those gif creators to show this in action...) Olpainless fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Parts used is an even more annoying metric, because then you just remove all your conveyors and have the blocks make their way anywhere by stepping on the backs of their previously-created brethren. If you can make blocks move that way (it isnt as universally possible as you appear to claim) then thats just efficient engineering. Using lifters for horizontal movement is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Lifters for horizontal movement is really only an issue on that one stage, with those critters running around when not being actively moved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
how me a frog posted:If you can make blocks move that way (it isnt as universally possible as you appear to claim) I honestly can't think of a level where you wouldn't be either doing that, or deleting the majority of your conveyors because your multi-part piece moves just fine even when half of them are missing. Finding a way to fit everything you need into a single vertical plane is a cool engineering challenge. Minimising the number of parts you've used is 90% fiddly bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Lektor posted:Lifters for horizontal movement is really only an issue on that one stage, with those critters running around when not being actively moved. What critters? I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I honestly can't think of a level where you wouldn't be either doing that, or deleting the majority of your conveyors because your multi-part piece moves just fine even when half of them are missing. Minimal part counts require solutions that do complex things while being simple. Minimal footprint allows solutions that work by dumb brute force. Your gif is a simple lifter-pusher setup repeated 15 loving times. I don't find that very interesting or challenging at all, unless tediousness is part of the challenge. I'm not sure how rebuilding the same machine 15 times can possibly be less annoying than "delete every other conveyor block" or "design your conveyors to use the least number of turns" (which actually can be interesting engineering challenge).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Olpainless posted:This game is already doing terrible things to me. Optimizing cycles in this game isn't exactly like SpaceChem because you have a lot more parallelism at your disposal. You can get 91 cycles just by counting out 5 blocks and staggering their landing locations: http://gfycat.com/SilverEnchantedHuemul I don't think you can input more than 5 blocks per 6 cycles on this level due to the orientation. But it's possible to optimize the travel time more than I have. Jabor got 88 cycles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Relay Satellite without any lifters was an interesting puzzle. If you assemble the horizontal layers separately and then stack them, you have to keep the solar panels all on one level, which leads to some slow, cramped horizontal sprawl: http://gfycat.com/SharpFrailHerald If you assemble the central column first, you need a mobile welder or you have to wait for a solar panel to finish falling before moving toward the output: http://gfycat.com/YellowImpressionableBillygoat
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Jabor posted:Finding a way to fit everything you need into a single vertical plane is a cool engineering challenge. Minimising the number of parts you've used is 90% fiddly bullshit. My opinion is the inverse. Especially since you literally would do the having gaps in convayors anyway to minimize the footprint. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:00
|
|