|
| 05 Oct 2012 08:27 PM |
...about local bricks.
Questions: 1. Will they be taken away? 2. If so, why are they being taken away? 3. Is there a date estimate to that happening? 4. What will replace them (if at all)? 5. What can we, as developers, do to keep our games playable?
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2012 08:30 PM |
Doubt it. Too many games depend on them.
But I also doubt they'll do anything to make it easier to use them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 05 Oct 2012 08:34 PM |
| Meh. They're not exactly hard to use anyways. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
nate890
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21686 |
|
|
| 05 Oct 2012 11:16 PM |
| Pretty sure that there are gears in the catalog that include the use of local bricks, so I don't think local brick functionality will be removed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:22 AM |
"1. Will they be taken away? 2. If so, why are they being taken away? 3. Is there a date estimate to that happening? 4. What will replace them (if at all)? 5. What can we, as developers, do to keep our games playable?"
1) Yes 2) Because important people don't like them 3) Nope 4) Probably nothing 5) Yes, just don't use local parts. Most of the usage that I head people talking about for them is pretty hacky, and not the way you should be tackling the problem in the first place. For legitimate uses, no, there is nothing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Aerideyn
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Jan 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1882 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:33 AM |
Of course there is legitimate uses.
Just one, here you go: A player places a Land mine, only players on his team can see it. ie. the mine is made from local bricks.
What other ways can you possibly do that? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:33 AM |
@stravant
What? There are plenty of people who rely on local parts for client viewmodels in first person weapons, taking away all the hacky tricks would only ruin some of the awesome things I've seen.
I don't understand why "important people" don't like them? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
nate890
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21686 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:46 AM |
| There are uses ;P. An awesome, implemented use I saw was in Gollygreg's Teem Combat game, where there are doors that only people on the team (that the door belongs to) can go through and the opposing team cannot go through (allowing for protection.) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:52 AM |
"As far as local parts are concerned – this is something that we’d like to get away from. Our guiding vision for ROBLOX is that objects in ROBLOX act as you would expect them to in the real world, using physics. There’s no such thing as “local parts” in the real world. They also fight our network architecture – typically ROBLOX scripters don’t need to spend a lot of time thinking about what each client “sees” when they play the game: everyone sees everything. This simplifies a lot of game programming in ROBLOX. Today in ROBLOX, scripters use local parts as a last resort to accomplish some effect that you can’t get any other way. Our challenge is to make it easy to achieve these effects without this hack."
I think they need to go play some quake. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
nate890
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21686 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:56 AM |
"There’s no such thing as “local parts” in the real world."
I would agree, but this isn't the real world. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:56 AM |
"1) Yes 2) Because important people don't like them 3) Nope 4) Probably nothing 5) Yes, just don't use local parts. Most of the usage that I head people talking about for them is pretty hacky, and not the way you should be tackling the problem in the first place. For legitimate uses, no, there is nothing."
1. The reason you gave is inadequate. See #2.
2. That's hardly a reason to remove a feature. It's like committing mass genocide because of what people believe in.
3. Not a good sign.
4. Also not a good sign.
5. 1) Single player games 2) Less server load 3) Special effects 4) Other ideas suggested These are some of the ideas I came up with.
On a recent blog post ROBLOX mentioned that they usually didn't remove features unless they were a security/performance concern. For local parts, most people who manage to make them know the risks and understand the potential consequences. This feature should not be removed because there are very good ideas that are only possible with local parts implemented.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 12:58 AM |
"There’s no such thing as “local parts” in the real world."
Dreams and your imagination.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
nate890
|
  |
| Joined: 22 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21686 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 01:01 AM |
| The world isn't made out of lego, either. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
stravant
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 22 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 2893 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 01:03 AM |
There's no point in arguing with me. I don't agree with the removal, I'm just answering the question.
And yes, there is no way to replicate some uses of it. You'll just have to deal with it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
SN0X
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7277 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 02:07 AM |
I disagree with the "important people".
Local parts have many uses. I don't think I have to explain myself any further.
Just this.
Local parts have their uses... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 02:09 AM |
"Just one, here you go: A player places a Land mine, only players on his team can see it. ie. the mine is made from local bricks."
In the real world, everyone can see mines. I know ROBLOX isn't the real world, but, still... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
SN0X
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7277 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 02:18 AM |
Wait actually, I thought of something more important to say.
You made this game for the users.
Now say if you removed this feature. Who would be happy?
0 users. About 25% development team. (Dev team estimate)
How many games would break?
A lot.
Is this hack/feature a security problem?
No. At the moment local parts are known to be very secure.
But what if you kept local parts?
The scripting community, who drive your game, would be VERY happy. The majority of ROBLOX won't notice a thing and all their favourite games should still work.
What if you worked on local parts?
The scripting community would also be very happy. The majority of ROBLOX would notice their favourite games running a little smoother.
---
Ok, so conclusion: only you "important people" want local parts removed, but us, the secret important people who actually pay for you and create your virtual world's games, all want them.
OK, in no offense whatsoever (although this might seem rude), why don't you make a dev version of ROBLOX, called DEVBLOX, where you all do what YOU want to it, add dynamic lighting because your computers can handle, add ropes & all those beta features, play around with corescripts and remove local parts and anything else you don't like, and have no rules? Sounds fun to me, just get passed the fact that it might sound a little offensive.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
BAUER102
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5936 |
|
| |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 03:43 AM |
Stravant, if it isn't your idea that they should be removed, why don't you get a gang in the Roblox HQ and then a few days before they are to be removed roit the offices holding massive signs that say "If this was local, you wouldn't feel me hitting you with it!"
Why can't Roblox be more of a democracy between players and devs? We get little say in what happens. The blog user feedback things are nice but you aren't consulting the users on what they think of a feature. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
SN0X
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7277 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 04:42 AM |
"If this was local, you wouldn't feel me hitting you with it!"
LOL'D BIG TIME |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
HatHelper
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 02 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46305 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 06:34 AM |
| What's the point of this? At least release a max part limit upgrade before removing local parts. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
su8
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6334 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 06:35 AM |
@HH
You shouldn't even need more parts.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
HatHelper
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 02 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 46305 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 06:38 AM |
With your logic: Roblox doesn't need to make any more updates, release more items, or even have to log into the website. Just leave it as it is. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
su8
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6334 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 06:40 AM |
| Not at all, now tell me why would you need more parts? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0LED
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 224 |
|
|
| 06 Oct 2012 06:41 AM |
What's the point of local parts?
Special Effects Pseudo-"Render Settings" Less load times Less lag server sided etc.
Clearly advantages outweigh disadvantages...
Disadvantages of local parts: None that I can think of... Possibly few security holes.
☜▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬☞ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|