Will my pre-1.0 blueprints work for 1.0, in light of the new video?

[bronze cypress]

I just saw in the new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zr9s2Z5bFM) that some profiles of wiring have changed. (I would say their "shapes" but that would be confusing. I mean their form factors.) I'm halfway through my MAM (I had already started it when I heard about 1.0 coming soon) and don't want to have to start over...! 😱 I saw it was previously said that the blueprints will work, but now I'm confused. Are both profiles going to be available, or will I need to redo some of my wiring, or will blueprints work not at all?

[neon ridge]

If Tobias realizes how bad the 2 floor stacker and unstacker are in time (it might be too late), your MAM blueprint may just mostly work in the new version. But it will probably need a few tweaks

[bronze cypress]

Where is that confirmed? So I can make sure I'm following it 🙂

[neon ridge]

Nowhere?

[bronze cypress]

Oic. Do devs read these questions, then? Lol

Maybe I should make a Feedback instead?

[neon ridge]

Yes. Eventually...

[median moss]

On it!

[median moss]

Yes I do 😄

[bronze cypress]

Thanks! Maybe we can have both versions? Make the "flat" ones a researchable thing? But then I suppose that would require matching them to the new art. IDK your behind the scenes, just glad it's on your radar. Let me know when you have an answer, please? I'm going to be trying to work around it in the meantime by leaving extra space, which might be awkard lol

[median moss]

I think we might change it to 1 layer but more intuitive layout

[plain wasp]

I don't think the 2 floor stacker is that big of a deal.
(Yeah I get it might be for all you TMAM builders, or those with crazy wire contraptions)
but I wouldn't mind having to re work the wires on my mam...

[jolly wigeon]

What about "current layout, but with top/bottom clearly marked"?

Literally the only problem with the current one is that it's hard to tell which side is up and which is down on the stacker without putting a test shape through it, and it looks identical when flipped so you can't tell if you've reversed the inputs or not without a test shape. Rather than change the wiring, how about just making it clear, with coloured marking or by making the shape asymmetrical, which side is Top and which is Bottom just by looking at it?

(and the same in reverse for the unstacker)

[median moss]

We worked on a new concept now:

I think that's a fair compromise?

(icons are missing ofc)

[jolly wigeon]

And it's 1x1x1? That looks much better!

Any chance of leaving the original functionality intact and only changing the labels? Something like this?

(please forgive the MSpaint. Graphic design is my passion!)

[median moss]

considered it but I think I would want to use the opportunity of 1.0 to do a more intuitive layout? I.e. I think when it's a left + side input it's a bit more clear?

[jolly wigeon]

Yeah, I suppose if you want to break existing functionality this is probably the last "good" time to do it.

Thank you for your responses to feedback on this, it's really great to see.

[plain wasp]

not sure I'm a fan of the one floor...
if we are breaking existing functionality anyway, I'd say go for the 2 floor

~~Tho it would be nice to have 6 way wire connections to help with compacting 😉 ~~

[median moss]

TBH I think the 1 floor makes more sense, because on the 2 floors it also looks a bit weird to be so tall for a wires building

[plain wasp]

yeah, it does look a little weird being that tall, but it's way more obvious to new players, and it matches the actual stacker.

[jolly wigeon]

"your circuit diagram cannot be on a single layer" is, I think, less intuitive.

IMO: It's not supposed to be a 1-1 reflection of belt patterns, it's supposed to be a readable/followable diagram. I find the 1x1x1 that takes an input on the side to be much easier to understand, looking at it, than a 1x1x2 that takes inputs on two layers.

[spare rain]

Now it matches 66% to both the straight and bent stackers. 😀

[upbeat valley]

And here i was with my 2x1x1 solution Well, if it goes back to 1x1, i'm very happy ofc 🙂

[plain wasp]

I'm just thinking of new players, yes I know it doesn't need to be a 1-1 reflection of the shape buildings, and I can read the 1 layer one just fine. (I'm good with it either way)
But even if the 1 layer is made "more readable" new players will still be confused, just like they were in S1 with the stacker on the physical layer, they had no clue what side was what even tho the building had very obvious arrows, and the tooltip showed them exactly what it did.
2 floors will be way more obvious to anyone to immediately see how it works.
and I think it's kind of neat that it matches the actual shape building.

to make it not look as strange on 2 floors you could make the top half of it way shorter, no need for it to extent that high above the top wire.

~~Just give both options 😉 ~~

[spare rain]

That will work great. The spots that are tight will take minor rework and most other places the wires are a T anyways or are where they're chained so will be nicer:

Stuff like this will be easy to reroute wiring to avoid the dreaded warning. 😄

[spare rain]

What did I do this time?

[upbeat valley]

Stuff like this will be easy to reroute wiring to avoid the dreaded warning
I really not wane do this

[spare rain]

⚠️ Warnings are bad.

[spare rain]

HIdden warnings are worse.

[upbeat valley]

lol

[plain wasp]

if I can't see them, they don't exist

[spare rain]

That's the problem. They've saved me lots of time hunting for stupid mistakes. I want to see them and legitimately get rid of them. Some are false positives, but I'd rather deal with those than miss real warnings.

[spare rain]

Made room for the new output location to not trigger a warning. Forgot that the signal transmitter was being used as a diode so had to stay...

[neon ridge]

"Top is on the side" is way easier to remember than "top is on one of the sides 😉 "

[spare rain]

"Top is on the side" is still technically correct for the old version. 🤣

[neon ridge]

Would you prefer if the 2 floor buildings were bent or straight (like they are in the alpha)? (I think both are a (bad) joke, just curious what you think)

[plain wasp]

doesn't matter to me really. I guess as far as ease of connecting them, having the inputs on adjacent sides (e.g. North/East) may be easier, but that wouldn't be as intuitive for understanding the inputs

[neon ridge]

Yeah when your MAM isn't 120k+ buildings of just wires, you probably couldn't understand

[plain wasp]

right, I get you guys with TMAM's will hate it...

[neon ridge]

It's still a breaking change, but this ^ turns a massive nerf into a slight buff, which is nice

(Nerf and buff here are used in terms of QOL, not something like multiplayer balance)

[spare rain]

It still breaks things, but not too difficult to rework the wiring as long as it's not crazy super tight. And most people are fine with warnings. 😄

[neon ridge]

Should simulated painters and crystallizers also be larger than 1x1 in your world?

[spare rain]

Why would painters be larger than 1x1? They'd just need three bidirectional fluid signal inputs/outputs. 😄

[neon ridge]

Can those bidirectional I/O ports only relay color signals? 🤔

oops that could be useful

IMO, the logic should be the puzzle, not the building layout (only to a certain degree though) nvm idk how much I really think this...

[ebon sun]

it also feels better when compared to the simulated painter/crystal/shape analyzer, I can be content with reworking my wires for that one

[bronze cypress]

Speaking as a new player myself, the single-layer stacker did not faze me at all, except that the old version is not clearly marked which side will go on top, and I had to just try it before I could use it.

[spare rain]

It was like a USB plug. Nope. Flip. Nope. Flip. Yes!

[bronze cypress]

Personally, I can deal with a different one-floor design. At least it doesn't mean moving everything that was above or below my sim stackers.

[ebon sun]

yeah, agreed

[spare rain]

The new side input/output is going to be trivial to deal with 99.9% of the time.

[neon ridge]

The new (1 floor) layout is much better. like a lot more powerful (maybe too much?)

(Specifically the unstacker) yeah both of them

[spare rain]

Why more powerful? They both lend themselves better to chaining.

[neon ridge]

Did you intend to answer your own question?

The stacker can be chained while making a turn too!

[spare rain]

I don't consider that powerful. Just allows for a slightly more compact layout.

[dapper steeple]

The new 2-floor stacker definitely is the most intuitive, but I wouldn't say the 2-floor unstacker is that much more intuitive than a 1-floor design. A brand new player might still be confused how exactly the layers are unstacked (like does only the top layer of shape get separated, or only the bottom, or through the middle and do crystals break etc). Ik the descriptions can help, but like you said this doesn't always suffice.

Also like Tobias wrote they stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest. Sure a new player might better understand simulated stackers/unstackers but could get stuck on every other that isn't as straight forward. By keeping it consistent, new players are eased into this new system, forcing them to learn the underlying logic, with less risk of them forming a bias toward only using that single building because it feels clearer, and more incentive to understand and engage with the full set.

So i don't see much of an issue even from a novice's perspective, part of the fun is taking time to fully understand how something works by tinkering around 😉

[plain wasp]

Should all shape buildings be one floor also?
I know some people complain that they aren't, but the majority of us agree that it was a good change and added a nice challenge to designing layouts, and I thought it would add another nice challenge to the wires layer... idk (yeah, I get wires are already challenging enough for new players)

I'm mostly just playing devils advocate here, I do kinda prefer the 1 layer one, but thought it would be neat to have it mixed up a bit, and if it was 2 floors from the very beginning, no one would bat an eye at it.

[spare rain]

Hey! I'm usually the devil's advocate... or the devil himself.

Having the wire be one floor only lets the more easily coexist with building layouts that have 2 floor buildings. But with only three floors, a 2 for building 1 for wires split is a good balance. And I disagree on two floor sims being a challenge. They were downright hostile to certain dense designs.

An optional advanced part of the game that's a challenge for advanced players being very difficult for new players is fine. It pushes the new players to learn something.

[spare rain]

Not all buildings need to be super obvious to exactly what they do to new players. It's a game. Part of the fun is learning how things work. When a person goes to place a sim unstacker, they read the description to see what it basically does, place the building, and then sees exactly what it does. If they hooked it up wrong they play with it until they figure it out. That's fun. From that point on they know what it is and can hook it up properly each time.

With the old model this was not the case. You would still get it wrong half the time. The new models, both 1 and 2 floor, solve that. You can place them correctly 100% of the time.

The issue is that the two floor new one has many negative aspects. The new 1 floor version has pretty much no drawbacks other than the minor output position change which is not a problem for 99.9% of designs to rewire.

[spare rain]

Yes. Just adding markings to the old one would have been sufficient to get placement orientation at 100%. The output/input move is an improvement with minimal impact compared to the two floor version.

One stated goal was less buildings to maintain.

With that constraint, I'm happy with the new 1 floor version.

[neon ridge]

This is the biggest problem with a 2 floor layout to me: #💬shapez-2 message

Making it harder to think about circuits is not healthy for the game. (It's hard enough already)

[spare rain]

I skip the "compact into 3 floors" step. 😄

[neon ridge]

I often skip it too, depending on constraints.
You can't even do the 1 floor layout when two of the buildings won't allow it.

[spare rain]

Yup. Some of the designs need 1 floor layouts because each floor is doing something else.