Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Many medical services are provided by AIs rather than human doctors?  More on AIMEDs here.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 44

Author Topic: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander  (Read 101392 times)

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #180 on: 11 Aug 2014, 08:55 »

Also, on ships, I understand that they lend the 3 base ships for now (Aurora, Jumpworks and Anvil ?) but when there will be more added, only those 3 will still be accessible to people that own no ships ?
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #181 on: 11 Aug 2014, 09:24 »

Also, on ships, I understand that they lend the 3 base ships for now (Aurora, Jumpworks and Anvil ?) but when there will be more added, only those 3 will still be accessible to people that own no ships ?

Aurora, 300i, Hornet

They aren't so much 'base ships', just the first 3 finished modeling/polishing to use for multiplayer.

You can't play at all though unless you buy a ship, the Aurora is currently the most 'starter' of the three with the cheapest game package.

If you bought something bigger/fancier they let you use one of those three as a 'loaner' until yours is finished and in-game
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #182 on: 11 Aug 2014, 10:22 »

Ah I see. I wonder how much money they need though. Don't they have enough already ?
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #183 on: 11 Aug 2014, 11:56 »

Ah I see. I wonder how much money they need though. Don't they have enough already ?

From what I've gathered the excess money is being used as a slush fund for when schedules get tight.  CR has basically stated they can use the extra money to expand development teams as big as they need to.

The MMO is also not a subscription model, once you buy in you get access forever, similar to things like Guild Wars.

Also they will probably hit $50 million this week.  Insane!

Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #184 on: 15 Aug 2014, 11:30 »

Live Stream from Gamescom in Germany in a few hours: some announcements/trailers to come

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #185 on: 16 Aug 2014, 07:58 »

"And lo... the seventh seal was broken, and hell was loosed upon the Earth"


$50 Million crowdfunding has been reached.

Prepare thyselves!


Some good stuff at the presentation yesterday, they are releasing a demo of the 'racing' mode in two weeks, sort of using your ships for mario-kart atmospheric racing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hN-0TrdUR0

I love that this is all part of one big game.  The gameplay looked fun, but of course just a single track and not much else for it right now.  The best player racers in the persistent universe are going to get sponsorship from the in-fiction companies and stuff, which just sounds super neat.

There's a lot of neat RP opportunities with this game, as so much of the gameplay will not be centered around pew pew.

They also released the latest in-fiction "commercial" for one of the larger ships, which focuses more on exploration and hauling than combat.

Much RP opportunities here, flying around with your buddies on the same ship, scanning planets, discovering new life forms!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-82TakEqk

and the page showing the variants of the ship here:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14080-The-2945-RSI-Constellation-Lineup

Still my absolute favorite 'commcercial' has been for the Freelancer class, which is making fun of American pickup truck commercials. Brilliant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO7RxsZpcKc


« Last Edit: 16 Aug 2014, 08:04 by Silas Vitalia »
Logged

Ché Biko

  • Space Buddho-Commu-Nihilist
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1166
  • I'll face the stars or the abyss.
    • Biko's Backstage Character Thread
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #186 on: 16 Aug 2014, 09:11 »

Some good stuff at the presentation yesterday, they are releasing a demo of the 'racing' mode in two weeks, sort of using your ships for mario-kart atmospheric racing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hN-0TrdUR0

I love that this is all part of one big game.  The gameplay looked fun, but of course just a single track and not much else for it right now.  The best player racers in the persistent universe are going to get sponsorship from the in-fiction companies and stuff, which just sounds super neat.
FFS, CCP won't even create Checkpoint mobile structures, or allow for medals that you can give to none-corpmembers. Ché may be in the wrong game.
Logged
-OOChé

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #187 on: 16 Aug 2014, 10:11 »

Some good stuff at the presentation yesterday, they are releasing a demo of the 'racing' mode in two weeks, sort of using your ships for mario-kart atmospheric racing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hN-0TrdUR0

I love that this is all part of one big game.  The gameplay looked fun, but of course just a single track and not much else for it right now.  The best player racers in the persistent universe are going to get sponsorship from the in-fiction companies and stuff, which just sounds super neat.
FFS, CCP won't even create Checkpoint mobile structures, or allow for medals that you can give to none-corpmembers. Ché may be in the wrong game.

They ran an early playable version of one of the multi-crew ships, all in engine. 

Ship gets attacked, run to the turret millenium falcon style, blast the enemies and save your crew: this is all in-game demo here, still looks rough but the concept is gold.  The game play itself doesn't look that exciting yet but this will be damned interesting when more people and multiple ships are involved, let alone the larger ships that are kilometers long and full of player fighters.

Oh another thing they've been talking about, you'll be able to 'hire' NPC's to help man your larger ships or to fly escort in their own ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1RXbZLHAI


They will also have create-able 'missions' for corps/others so there's a lot of RP sandboxing to happen here.

I'm just absolutely giddy with the possibilities of linking up with my friends on our own little adventure game and having adventures in the 'verse
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #188 on: 16 Aug 2014, 10:38 »

FFS space op authors should seriously stop with all those flashy coloured space backgrounds. We are not flying in the clouds, we are flying in the deep dark cold void of space... Old scify was ten times better for that. :/


The gameplay looked fun, but of course just a single track and not much else for it right now.  The best player racers in the persistent universe are going to get sponsorship from the in-fiction companies and stuff, which just sounds super neat.

Yes, it sounds neat, but you are aware there is no gameplay shown here right ? It's only scripted or hand moved ships and then added into a montage with nice backgrounds like it is done for cinema or tv.

It's a showcase of what they would like to do, much like Eve future vision was in its time.

They also released the latest in-fiction "commercial" for one of the larger ships, which focuses more on exploration and hauling than combat.

Much RP opportunities here, flying around with your buddies on the same ship, scanning planets, discovering new life forms!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG-82TakEqk


So we will be able to play good white conquistadors bringing civilization to primitive alien species ?  :P
« Last Edit: 16 Aug 2014, 10:47 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Silas Vitalia

  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #189 on: 16 Aug 2014, 11:10 »

Sorry I didn't link the racing game play,

they demo'd on stage with 4 players:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThfNFKxUn24

Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #190 on: 17 Aug 2014, 02:35 »

Ah now we are talking ! :P

The only thing that annoys me is that we don't seem to see other players on each screen... Are they not shown yet (like they all are running the same level at the same time but still not linked together ?), or are the distances too huge to see anything smaller than the environment ?

Edit : watched a bit of team deathmatch, and as long as you get your targeting cross near the target all the guns are automatically following it ? That sucks  :ugh:
« Last Edit: 17 Aug 2014, 02:44 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Samira Kernher

  • Soulless Puppet
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1331
  • Ardishapur Victor
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #191 on: 17 Aug 2014, 04:22 »

Edit : watched a bit of team deathmatch, and as long as you get your targeting cross near the target all the guns are automatically following it ? That sucks  :ugh:

Here's the thing with weapon tracking:

You can go one of two ways in how you design the damage model. Either you can go for high damage low accuracy, and require making perfect snap shots to eliminate your opponent. Or you can go for low damage high accuracy, where you need more consistent fire over a longer stretch.

The former is something that is often complained about by non-experienced players, as it gives them next-to-no time to react to oncoming fire and they feel they couldn't do anything to protect themselves (they could, of course, through better spatial awareness, but that's something you develop with time).  This increases the learning curve, and tends to result in few players actually sticking with the game as they get very frustrated. This damage model caused huge issues in JtL on SWG in terms of encouraging new pilots, leaving us with very little new blood (it didn't help that the net code was awful. This is also something important to consider when choosing damage model, and something I see Star Citizen is having issues with too in its MP, lots of 'warping' around). Many people who might have otherwise been interested in it gave up because they "died too fast" and "couldn't hit anything."

The latter method, low damage with high accuracy, tends to feel limiting and disrupts the flow of combat, preventing extreme manuevers and thus making you more exposed to the enemy's wingmen (you see this in SC videos, where the pilot flies straight and level to score multiple consecutive shots on their target), but it also gives newer players a bit more leeway in being able to respond. They will at least know they are being shot at before they die, instead of just exploding out of hand.

From what I have heard, Star Citizen is going in general with the low damage/high accuracy model. They want ships to be able to take a bit of damage. When you have this kind of system, you will absolutely need at least some minor weapon tracking. This is because properly-designed flight systems are not snap-movement like in an FPS, you cannot instantaneously correct if you miss a shot. Ships have inertia and drag and so making minor corrections for accuracy tends to result in you constantly overshooting. This is fine when you only need to land one or two big hits to win, but when you have to land a lot of smaller ones it makes the fight take ages and never go anywhere.

Now, personally, I prefer systems with no weapon tracking and high alpha damage. I find this is a bit more immersive. However I can respect the way Star Citizen is going as long as they don't go too far in the other direction (where it becomes impossible to shoot down good pilots because you will never keep them in your sights long enough to deal enough consistent damage to destroy them). And from what I hear, they are offering options in this area. I think I recall reading that you can reduce or turn off the weapon tracking if you like, and that the weapons themselves are designed with different tracking ranges (smaller damage weapons will start tracking the enemy as long as your crosshair is somewhere near them, higher damage ones require you to be very precise. O field of fire vs o field of fire). That's actually the primary reason I went with the Avenger, as I recall it was stated that its high damage nose gun has little to no tracking and the ship is basically designed as a jouster and marksman, flying really fast but having low maneuverability and dealing precise high-damage shots. Very much appeals to my preferred flight style in SWG, where the ship I flew was so big that it could absolutely not afford to spend any protracted time at slower speeds (totes plugging myself. Though that video actually is relevent to this post since if you compare it to a SC video (eg this one) it clearly demonstrates the benefits/issues of the high damage/low accuracy model vs the low damage/high accuracy model).

It should also be noted that weapon tracking does not automatically give perfect accuracy. In fact, in high degree turns there is a likelihood that the tracking will actually cause you to miss all of your shots because they are shooting at where the target was instead of where it is going to be. This depends on how robust the tracking system is, though--I haven't played SC yet so I don't know. EVE is a good example of a game with a very defined tracking model, as there is no manual aiming so hits are all done through the tracking calculations.

Anyway, yeah. Weapon tracking is not a casual/easy-mode mechanic, don't assume that just because a game has it that makes it a bad game. Weapon tracking in these kind of games is a method of achieving a desired damage model where the damage threshold for destruction does not necessitate extreme levels of direct damage.
« Last Edit: 17 Aug 2014, 04:57 by Samira Kernher »
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #192 on: 17 Aug 2014, 06:08 »

Weapon assisted targeting is a bad mechanism to me period. I don't find it gratifying nor even less fun to see the computer kill the enemy for me. I am not talking about low damage or high damage models, i'm talking about assisted targeting systems. The only weapon where I can see an interest with such a system is for non instantaneous weapons like missiles who will need a lock to work, and that the target has a chance to avoid. I don't want to see my skill dampened by mechanics allowing someone with no skill to beat my higher skill, and I wouldn't want to win against someone with better skill just because the program did it for me.

Now then, if they plan to add various levels of assisted targeting depending on the power of the weapon you use, that might be better, though I don't like it either. It will just mean that the higher the damage output is, the more they will be used by good players, where low damage easy weapons will be used by low skill players. It kills diversity in terms of weapons to instead push that diversity not between weapons and various gameplays anymore, but between player skills.

I still think that weapon automated tracking is just an artificial crutch to fix what the gamedesigners couldn't : to achieve a desired damage model. Rework flying models and targeting systems accordingly instead, the result will prove to be much neater.

Games like War Thunder do it perfectly right and are incredibly addictive since they also offer various gamemodes aimed at different kind of players : casual (arcade mode), players concerned about immersion and realism (realistic), and players concerned about full simulation (simulator). Don't get me wrong, as much as I really enjoy and admire the experience I can get in realistic modes, I spend most of my time on arcade mode where the most fun can be achieved, and that without any damn assisted weapon targeting. You missed your target because you didn't handle or plan your plane inertia and approach correctly ? Well too bad, that's where skill comes into play. And even with all the fun this gamemode offers, good or bad players get shot again and again and again, the only difference is the kill/death ratio, while in realistic mode, good pilots almost never get killed, except by good pilots, because well, it's realistic, and that's something I like too. But automated targeting ? Duh.

Also, small 7mm MGs who do low damage and tend more to cripple over time rather than kill (unless very lucky), are also the most accurate and have the less curved trajectory in that game. Above, 12mm will offer greater firepower for a lower fire rate and accuracy. And 20mm canons and above will prove to be very different kinds of weapons you generally use at point blank since otherwise they are of no use. All of those do not need automated targeting to achieve a desired damage model. They just offer diversity and a complete arsenal that brings different pros and cons to be used correctly in various different situations. They do not serve as a crutch to new players, and they do not spend their diversity into differences of skill, but into differences of gameplay.

If they are scared to scare novices out of the game like Eve tends to do, which I fully agree, then they can perfectly offer various levels of matchmaking, layered experience zones, etc. It works well.

Also, JtL seems to have changed a lot. When I played that broken thing, the gameplay was so dumb and simple that you just had to have a better PYR agility module than your opponent to win, since all decent weapons meant a direct kill at the first hit. That was a complete joke.


Edit : no, I will never assume that just because of it will prove to be a bad game, or just prove to be worse than without. It is just a matter of tastes and some people will probably greatly enjoy it. 
« Last Edit: 17 Aug 2014, 06:25 by Lyn Farel »
Logged

Samira Kernher

  • Soulless Puppet
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1331
  • Ardishapur Victor
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #193 on: 17 Aug 2014, 10:22 »

If they are scared to scare novices out of the game like Eve tends to do, which I fully agree, then they can perfectly offer various levels of matchmaking, layered experience zones, etc. It works well.

Ugh, please no more matchmaking and layered zones and what not. Them implementing any at all is already really quite silly and is the thing about SC that annoys me the most, as it destroys real dynamic gameplay. An EVE-like system with higher to lower security zones would have been a much better direction to go, rather than "I want to avoid all PvP, so I'll just set my PvP option to zero so I only get ambushed by NPC pirates while hauling!" Ugh. Gives me flashbacks to Pirates of the Burning Sea when, "There is no crying in the red circle," got patched into, "There are only smiles in the red circle! Don't worry about piracy in a game about pirates, traders!"

Quote
Also, JtL seems to have changed a lot. When I played that broken thing, the gameplay was so dumb and simple that you just had to have a better PYR agility module than your opponent to win, since all decent weapons meant a direct kill at the first hit. That was a complete joke.

Actually, it barely changed at all. That was one of the biggest problems with it as the developers ignored it for years--major JtL bugs would remain unfixed for half a decade, for example, if they were fixed at all. But as far as flight model goes, what you're seeing there is the same JtL that you played.

And what you're showing here is precisely the point I was making about certain damage models discouraging new players. With the damage model that SWG had, where it was very high damage with no assisted targeting, new players came under the assumption that they could not compete because they were so quickly destroyed by a single shot from the enemy's weapon, and couldn't hit anything themselves. They felt powerless and didn't know what they did wrong, which made them tend to blame the equipment rather than their own abilities (while equipment was certainly a factor, that's like saying that using officer mods on a pvp ship in EVE will guarantee that you win. Everyone here knows that isn't the case). The reality was that with the right choices and an understanding that those weapons were only dangerous if they could hit you (and thus that speed, size, and active evasion were vastly more important for defense than armor or shields), you could achieve success even with weaker equipment. When I started flying, higher PYR was at the time considered the be-all-end-all, but I and a few other bomber pilots deliberately said "fuck you" to them and favored a jousting speedy flight style, which ended up revolutionizing the standard loadout for larger ships and bombers and made higher speed lower YPR the go-to for those ships. It largely discredited the PYR-is-everything belief as an interceptor with a super high YPR engine couldn't do anything against a bomber that refused to engage in a turning fight with it; the interceptor's engine's lower speed meant that the bomber was the one dictating the range of the engagement. Sound familiar? People often say that games like EVE and flight sims have nothing in common, but many of the same tactics and strategies apply in both. You maximize what your ship is good at, and avoid fights that it is bad at. In JtL, as in EVE, you wanted to be the one to dictate range, you wanted to increase your own angular velocity while limiting your opponent's, missiles countered those high-transversal opponents that couldn't be easily hit by turret weapons, you slingshotted enemies that were otherwise difficult to get into a vulnerable position (in JtL we called it the pancake turn or the joust), and higher quality equipment helped but didn't make you a god (choosing the wrong type of equipment for your ship, however, would ruin your chances. Like EVE, you can't just throw everything and the kitchen sink on it and expect to do well). The main difference between the two games is really just that one had 0% aiming assist and the other has 100% aiming assist (and one had 100% manual flying and the other has 30% manual flying <.<).

What JtL needed, while perhaps not aiming assist (though a high accuracy/speed low damage weapon type would have been nice, both for newer players and old ones), was definitely more attention to the new pilot experience. They did nothing to teach or prepare new pilots for the PvP environment (with the biggest flaw being nothing that taught players how to use droid commands, which were the JtL equivalent of Overheating and even more important there than it is in EVE), resulting in players giving up when they tried and felt like they couldn't compete.


Back to the pros and cons of aiming assist. It is a fallacy to say that they are skill-less, or are 'just the computer killing your enemy for you'. Again, you're considering the aiming assist separately of the damage model, which is inappropriate. A good aiming assist system is absolutely based on the damage potential of the weapon. In games where good aiming assist exists, higher values are reserved for lower damage weapons while higher damage weapons have reduced or no aiming assist (in Halo, for example, the sniper rifle has a 1 degree auto-aim range, requiring it to be basically on the ball, while the needler, a weapon with very weak individual shots but high damage if all hit, has a 7 degree. Other weapons fall between those two). As such, the idea of an aiming assist is that it lets you apply a level of damage consistent to that of a large single shot, but over a slightly longer period of time. Thus, instead of being a binary hit or miss, it becomes a 'hit for full, hit for some, or hit for none'. Hits become graduated. It is, in essence, a DoT, which requires the player to keep their targeting cursor in a defined, if relaxed, area of space to deal full damage. This is a different sort of skill, but still skill. It is a skill in that in order for you to deal damage to your opponent, you must present yourself as a target to the target or their wingmen. Without aiming assist (and with a corresponding increase in damage-per-shot), a pilot can keep at constant movement, relying on snap shots. This makes it much more difficult to hit them. Using the JtL example, this allowed good interceptor pilots to sometimes survive for 20 minutes or more against a dozen pilots while still scoring some kills, because all they had to do was get a few good snap shots in during their evasive manuevers. With a weapon with high aiming assist but low damage, to kill something, you must line up, set up your shot, and hold it there for a few moments, exposing yourself to anyone nearby. In essence, with an aiming assist damage model weapon, scoring kills requires you to make a risk-vs-reward assessment. Can you afford to sit there, in a straight line, to deal your damage? This is the same assessment you make with missiles, though missiles trade partial damage while locking for a full, guaranteed damage if the lock is achieved.

Ultimately though the big benefit of aiming assist damage models is that it gives newer players (or even just less precise players, IE people with disabilities) the ability to feel like they are competing even if they're still ultimately dying. They still hit a few times, which gives them the feel of having some kind of agency. They might still "suck", but they accomplished something. And in low damage with aiming assist models they know they're being shot at and can react to it before they actually die. That's an option not afforded to them in high damage no assist games where they will die in one or two shots and where spatial awareness and proactive evasion are the keys to survival, both things that are not easily learned due to being skills that are built on reflex and instinct--it is like muscle memory. This is a difficult thing to learn without an instructor. Most players don't have that, and so feel they can't compete and thus quit.

That's really what it comes down to, proaction versus reaction. In a game with high damage and no aiming assist, it favors pro-active skills which thus benefits experienced players and hurts newer players as they don't have the pro-active "muscle memory" and can't react because they're already dead. In a game with lower damage and aiming assist, it can accomodate reaction instead of just proaction.

Now aside from aiming assist, there are other mechanics that gives the same potential. That would be refire rate and spread. Machine guns with extremely low damage but high rate of fire fulfill the same purpose as aiming assist in allowing a player to hit otherwise difficult targets with minimal effort. Shotgun-type weapons are similar, basically being high alpha versions of the machine gun.

I don't consider either of those options to be either superior or inferior to aiming assist. They are all good options. All are quite realistic for the setting of the game (aiming assist being targeting computers with automated weapon mounts), and all fulfill the same necessary function.

Quote
Now then, if they plan to add various levels of assisted targeting depending on the power of the weapon you use, that might be better, though I don't like it either. It will just mean that the higher the damage output is, the more they will be used by good players, where low damage easy weapons will be used by low skill players. It kills diversity in terms of weapons to instead push that diversity not between weapons and various gameplays anymore, but between player skills.

I see it offering quite a bit of diversity, actually.

Yes it is likely that higher skilled players will gravitate to the high damage low tracking weapons, while newer players are likely to stick with the lower damage high tracking ones. That's a good thing. It gives newer players something that makes them feel like they're competing, while offering something with greater power for when they decide to try taking the training wheels off.

However, this doesn't render those lower damage weapons useless. They are not 'newb-only' weapon choices. Those low damage high tracking weapons will be the go-to weapon even for vets for fighting small, highly evasive ships. This is called 'counter play', and is the same reason why missiles are very important. Yadda yadda "but if I'm highly skilled I should be dodge/evade everything!", I've heard that argument a million times by people upset that there was something to actually counter the powerful tool they themselves were utilizing (a super small, evasive, and fast interceptor in this case, that without proper counter can be virtually impossible to destroy). A highly evasive interceptor is built around evading fire. To have proper counter play, there needs to be weapons that can counter extreme evasion. In JtL, that was missiles. Missiles couldn't be evaded, but they could be chaffed. Once the interceptor ran out of chaff, or if they were too slow on their chaff, they were completely at the mercy of the missiles. In a game that has weapons with tracking capability, those weapons will be the counter to difficult-to-hit opponents. Of course, any ship that loads up the low damage high tracking weapon to counter evasion-tanking ships will become vulnerable to ships equipped with the high power low tracking weapons, because the ship with the low damage high tracking weapon has to line up in a straight line and maintain that for a lengthy time to deal damage--which makes it the perfect victim for the high damage low tracking weapon, which no longer has to worry about making deflection shots and can unleash its full damage potential against that ship.

That is diversity.


Some good videos to watch on this topic are here and here.


And I'm afraid I can't compare with War Thunder as I haven't played it.
Logged

Lyn Farel

  • Guest
Re: Star Citizen - from the producer of Wing Commander
« Reply #194 on: 17 Aug 2014, 12:26 »

What i'm seeing is not that high damage being the problem, but a very basic and limited gameplay, mostly tied to flight models that remain too basic and oriented only on a handful of stats, if not just 2 main ones : agility and damage, or speed and damage. Whatever. SWG combat has always been a laughable joke, either in space or on ground.

Anyway I understand better the model you present. It sounds rather good actually. If that is what they plan to do, of course.

Their flight models (the other most important thing) look promising and complex enough (unlike JtL). Whatever the weapon and damage models involved, that's what will bring tactical depth and tactical positioning important, as well as flying skills.

 


If they are scared to scare novices out of the game like Eve tends to do, which I fully agree, then they can perfectly offer various levels of matchmaking, layered experience zones, etc. It works well.

Ugh, please no more matchmaking and layered zones and what not. Them implementing any at all is already really quite silly and is the thing about SC that annoys me the most, as it destroys real dynamic gameplay. An EVE-like system with higher to lower security zones would have been a much better direction to go, rather than "I want to avoid all PvP, so I'll just set my PvP option to zero so I only get ambushed by NPC pirates while hauling!" Ugh. Gives me flashbacks to Pirates of the Burning Sea when, "There is no crying in the red circle," got patched into, "There are only smiles in the red circle! Don't worry about piracy in a game about pirates, traders!"


Mh, no you are right actually. I don't know why I mentionned those since I don't like them much either. I was maybe more thinking about something like... a tutorial zone, mostly. Which squadron 42 is supposed to be anyway right ? It should teach you the game, and by that I mean extensively, minus the multiplayer part. Not like Eve laughable tutorials. Something that should ask players a bit of skill and whatnot to finish the solo game before entering the multiplayer game.

And if they add the possibility to bypass the solo part to directly jump into the multiplayer part (they said only for vets before iirc, but they can change their mind), then it would be on the player to put the blame if he doesn't know how to fly his ship.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 44