The Metal Rod of Destruction

[Zoyx]

You missed the spirit of my post. I am in favor of removing this exploit (placing a joint in existing strut) from the game.

Destruction is fine, as long as there is valid physics being used.

[bagbro1]

I have no problem with destructive solutions in general, however using exploits/cheats that are not possible in the real world (like 2 objects in the same place) is clearly not within the flavor of the game.

[Armadillo Man]

Anyone can do whatever they wish with any level they download. However, breaking existing structures is cheap, cheesy, lame, etc..pick any derogatory word you like.

To me, it's pretty obvious that breaking things using the method outlined in the first post is an exploit or cheat (so I voted yes on the poll). However, breaking things using certain materials the way they were meant to be used, is not. It is simply an alternative solution (sometimes also the intended solution) to overcoming an obstacle.

In my opinion, there is no "right" or "wrong" solution in a game like this, and it seems most people here agree. I like being able to solve a level my way (using destruction or not) instead of the level designers way.

I don't see the point of passing judgement on other people just because they don't neccessarily agree with you. You seem to think one solution is more "honourable" than another - I disagree. As long as we both work within the rules of the game, both solutions are equal. One can be more elegant than the other, but clearly a destructive solution can be pretty elegant too.

Basically, if you want to impose artificial limitations on yourself while playing, that's fine by me. But don't tell me that your way of solving levels is in any way superior to mine. There may be just as much planning and thought behind my solution, and instead of disrespecting eachother we should just be thankful that this game gives us both the freedom to play with it as we wish. That's rare these days.

[BFC]

Basically, if you want to impose artificial limitations on yourself while playing, that's fine by me. But don't tell me that your way of solving levels is in any way superior to mine. There may be just as much planning and thought behind my solution, and instead of disrespecting eachother we should just be thankful that this game gives us both the freedom to play with it as we wish. That's rare these days.

There is no disrespect in anything I posted about this. My point of view is very clear, destruction is the easy way out. Unless the author intends it to be used, it shouldn't be. Regardless if you use a falling mass of some sort, a rod being forced out of the center of another mass etc.

If people want to take the cheap and easy way out, that is be all means their perogative.

You can pretty much destroy any level short of a void like level and circumvent anything any author puts in place. If the only goal of someone playing this game is to finish every level by using $2 woth of material then enjoyment for that type of person is via destruction.

Again I say, play the game however makes it enjoyable (obviously). I am just saying that destruction methods are not as impressive as non destruction methods on levels created without destruction in mind. Remember I'm just saying destroying existing structures is bad, destroying your own is not.

If this bothers you, then perhaps deep down you know that the destruction method was a cop out.

Apparently I did misunderstand the original intent of this poll so I will not continue to post here. Sorry for the hijack!

-BFC

[squint]

Destruction is the cop out? There was me thinking making a massive pulley out of cloth which goes from the ball to the end zone was the cop out ...

[tmcsweeney]

We seem to have reached an impasse.

I don't want to have to keep a list of authors who intend to allow me to break their level to solve it and another list of those who want me to play nice.

I've added a post to the feature request thread suggesting the addition of unbreakable bars to the level editor. I feel this would go a long way to resolving the issue of the authors intent.

Cheers
Tim

[Armadillo Man]

There is no disrespect in anything I posted about this.

Erm... "However, breaking existing structures is cheap, cheesy, lame, etc..pick any derogatory word you like." sounds pretty disrespectful to me. Anyway, let's forget about that.

My point of view is very clear, destruction is the easy way out. Unless the author intends it to be used, it shouldn't be. Regardless if you use a falling mass of some sort, a rod being forced out of the center of another mass etc.

I still disagree. In fact, I dislike the whole idea that the author wants to dictate how I am allowed solve his level in a sandbox-game like this. If you only want your own solution to be used, how about just not releasing your level to other people? Otherwise you're going to find that people think for themselves and find alternative solutions. Maybe they just send the ball flying over your wonderfully designed timed lift, or add their own piece of rope and timer to the thing so it doesn't start moving until they want to.

If you want to prevent destruction, you'll have several options available as a designer. You can limit my budget (these things tend to be expensive), use a bunch of anchor points, limit the type of primitives I'm allowed to use, et.c. Or you could just design in such a way that it makes no sense to destroy it. It's all in the design.

[squint]

This one is just taking the mick Who needs rubber, anyway?

http://rapidshare.de/files/22485021/sq_ ... u.lvl.html

[twelveways]

How about a $500 surcharge if the joint is placed within an object? seems like a reasonable amount to me.