"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
I think to some extent it is possible but in terms of flight and dogfight the changes made are fundamental to how you play it.
The new changes make it much more of a visual experience, which feels better and allows stuff as precision targetting (targetting components and such), but the implications of skill are not as high, say strategy-wise.
The old model was fighting an UI target as you hardly ever saw the enemy ship due to the huge distances, but that felt more "realistic" or something. So It's not exactly a situation where you can have both, they did those decisions and that was bout it.
Now when it comes to say engineering, having to play multicrew with multiple players, or you can solo at the sake of an higher inefficiency, that sort of reality is there, but obviously can't also dumb down the game so you solo big ships just cause you feel like it and don't have to organize with friends/guild to crew up, prepare and go do X or Y.
Very mixed first day. On one hand I think it played well and looked great. At least on New Babbage. When we moved to Area 18 it got laggy for us. But it was opening day so I give that a pass.
On the other hand…. Seems to be totally missing QOL stuff. Travel between planets took a long time. Could not figure out how to change my home residence. Even after going to the med center and selecting to make the new area my Rez spot, somehow after I logged out on the new station, when I logged back in I was back in my starting bed. Grouping in general seemed hard as we were in different instances. Was told to log to main menu (which is why it annoyed me to login back where I started).
Back to the first hand… once we were in game friends and in a party, when we logged in we were in the same instance. Also, the Constellation ships look awesome. Would love to try them with a group… but now for the dagger through the heart.
One of my group can’t play. He tried to install all night but kept getting error 3001. He fully uninstalled. He followed the guide on that error. But so far no luck. If he can’t play… our journey ends tonight.
My friend had a similar bug, he was able to fix it but it took him quite a bit of effort. I think it stemmed from him trying to delete his USER folder but he deleted some shaders as well. Sorry to hear about the hold up for your crew to play. SC is definitely a game thats better enjoyed with friends and little bugs like that really mess the party up. Just a heads up, you can invite people in game with f11 and the friends tab.
p.s.
I played 3.23 and was hoping for better performance. 3.23.1 is runnning like a dream. I am having some weird bugs here and there but the performance and server stability are starting to resemble an actual game. I hear the next hotfixes are going to make it even smoother. I did some missions, the ai is actually challenging now that the server tick rate is fluid enough for the AI to work properly. Now with AI working and tons of new missions and the game running smooth enough for combat to be pleasant, I am having fun. I have been waiting and trying every patch and mostly just being patient but it seems like now is a good time to start learning the game and having fun playing it.
Star citizen has the best visuals around by far. Now I can enjoy them with decent frames, so stoked
Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there. Will have to see how they build on it.
But this has been the status of SC for many years now. It's always been playable to some extent even back when it was just you walking around your ship in the hangar. However, is that a "game" or just a tech demo? Seems like over a decade later it's still just a tech demo. It's a lot of ideas that would work in an actual game without it being an actual game. Maybe one day they'll put all the pieces together. I'll be sure and include my login credentials to my kids in my will.
Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there. Will have to see how they build on it.
But this has been the status of SC for many years now. It's always been playable to some extent even back when it was just you walking around your ship in the hangar. However, is that a "game" or just a tech demo? Seems like over a decade later it's still just a tech demo. It's a lot of ideas that would work in an actual game without it being an actual game. Maybe one day they'll put all the pieces together. I'll be sure and include my login credentials to my kids in my will.
Every time I read one of your post about SC my immediate thought is that you are stuck quite a few years in the past and haven't given SC a recent honest shake and instead are just regurgitating the same tired, old, no longer accurate commentary.
To be fair anyone saying it's still just a tech demo is grossly out of touch there no other way about it.
I mean I just can't believe your being honest in that opinion and have given it a recent try and/or are not letting bitterness with how long this has taken to get to this stage overly color your opinion and I say this as someone who backed the game for the single player version before this blew up with all the feature creep which has me quite annoyed too.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there. Will have to see how they build on it.
But this has been the status of SC for many years now. It's always been playable to some extent even back when it was just you walking around your ship in the hangar. However, is that a "game" or just a tech demo? Seems like over a decade later it's still just a tech demo. It's a lot of ideas that would work in an actual game without it being an actual game. Maybe one day they'll put all the pieces together. I'll be sure and include my login credentials to my kids in my will.
Every time I read one of your post about SC my immediate thought is that you are stuck quite a few years in the past and haven't given SC a recent honest shake and instead are just regurgitating the same tired, old, no longer accurate commentary.
To be fair anyone saying it's still just a tech demo is grossly out of touch there no other way about it.
I mean I just can't believe your being honest in that opinion and have given it a recent try and/or are not letting bitterness with how long this has taken to get to this stage overly color your opinion and I say this as someone who backed the game for the single player version before this blew up with all the feature creep which has me quite annoyed too.
I have played it recently and still have some of the same game breaking bugs it had years ago...so being honest...It's still a tech demo, until they release 1.0 in actual working state it will always be a demo. This game gets a lot of hate for very good reasons.
I have played it recently and still have some of the same game breaking bugs it had years ago...so being honest...It's still a tech demo, until they release 1.0 in actual working state it will always be a demo. This game gets a lot of hate for very good reasons.
Sorry but no..... cause a game has some game breaking bugs, during an alpha doesn't make it a tech demo. Saying such just goes to show people don't know what a tech demo is and are majorly exaggerating and trying to paint something as worse than it is.
There no need to straight up lie if you wanna hate on something, there lots of games which I dislike and will sometimes "hate on" but I wont try and claim they are tech demos or input some kind of false narrative like that.
Here's some food for thought.... a tech demo doesn't really have enough to it to even have "game breaking bugs".....you can't say it has bugs that "breaks the game" if you can't admit there's an actual game there to be broken in the first place.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
This is always such an interesting question for me - how far can a multiplayer game be tailored to each player's taste? Challenges in implementation notwithstanding, the presence of other players in a game raises the stakes on personalization. Whether competing or cooperating, players assess all the strengths and weaknesses other players bring, be it in personal skill, character skill/class/equipment, or choice of playing style. If clicking skills instead of using hotkeys was a factor for some, I'd imagine things like realistic space flight vs gamified space flight would also become a point of contention.
Now, if you're someone who wants to play the game doing your own thing and enjoy a personal challenge, maybe you pick the more realistic option and don't care what others pick. But what if you are someone who enjoys competition and the challenge of figuring out a more realistic space sim? When the game provides a more streamlined, "gamified" alternative for others to use in the same game-world, it automatically kills that option as the more realistic mode becomes less competitive. You simply wouldn't have that particular experience catered to in that case.
To be clear, I'm not against options or saying having options is a bad idea, just pointing out that I don't think there is a design that caters to every play-style in a multiplayer game and that's ok, because the options available to other players in a multiplayer game are part of the context that shapes your experience regardless of what choices you intend to make.
"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
There's a difference between more theme park and more arcade, both of which are aspects of more gamified. Of the two, being less arcade is going to turn off more players, so my guess is they will tone that element of the sim down which is what you seem to be suggesting.
If we have a themepark Squadron and a MMO game which is quite sandbox but "arcade enough" that would be a good balance. But as we have talked about here balance and the connectivity of game elements is all, they have to nail that down.
"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
This is always such an interesting question for me - how far can a multiplayer game be tailored to each player's taste? Challenges in implementation notwithstanding, the presence of other players in a game raises the stakes on personalization. Whether competing or cooperating, players assess all the strengths and weaknesses other players bring, be it in personal skill, character skill/class/equipment, or choice of playing style. If clicking skills instead of using hotkeys was a factor for some, I'd imagine things like realistic space flight vs gamified space flight would also become a point of contention.
Now, if you're someone who wants to play the game doing your own thing and enjoy a personal challenge, maybe you pick the more realistic option and don't care what others pick. But what if you are someone who enjoys competition and the challenge of figuring out a more realistic space sim? When the game provides a more streamlined, "gamified" alternative for others to use in the same game-world, it automatically kills that option as the more realistic mode becomes less competitive. You simply wouldn't have that particular experience catered to in that case.
To be clear, I'm not against options or saying having options is a bad idea, just pointing out that I don't think there is a design that caters to every play-style in a multiplayer game and that's ok, because the options available to other players in a multiplayer game are part of the context that shapes your experience regardless of what choices you intend to make.
I believe the point I made about the "simplified" system maxing out at 90-95% efficiency mitigates what you posted about being "competitive". Any people actually focused on that competition would of course be using the harder system to squeeze out that 5-10% advantage.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
In Elite Dangerous you could turn flight assist on or off. It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
In Elite Dangerous you could turn flight assist on or off. It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
After the first couple of space station docking disasters, no one's ship would be allowed to dock with a space station manually. Computer control, local pilots, tugboats -- some other system would be used.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
In Elite Dangerous you could turn flight assist on or off. It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
After the first couple of space station docking disasters, no one's ship would be allowed to dock with a space station manually. Computer control, local pilots, tugboats -- some other system would be used.
In ED you could use a ship slot for auto docking.
That said the flight model in ED is VERY different from in SC. ED the flight model is planes in space however even so someone that pvps often and is able to master flight assist off vs someone that cannot...welp they will kick the arse of pretty much any pilot that has to use flight assist on.....
Even if you are not pro at it but can master it a little vs someone who cant you will kick their arse......most people try to learn to use flight assist off as a toggle so they can do a trick where you boost away but are able to FA off do a 180 to shoot backwards at w/e is following or just crossed paths with without losing any speed/momentum then 180 back fa on to maneuver away again etc.
As an example you are pvp and end up in a jousting position where you and the enemy are flying straight at each other while shooting, once past each other the FA On pilot has to take time to roll/turn his ship back towards you (as in do a 180) which isn't that quick with FA on while the other fa off guy just holds down the toggle button flips his ship 180 degrees so he can keep shooting at you while his momentum pushes him further away and his opponent is trying to turn around, when done he lets go of the toggle and does w/e he need to...point is that's lots of free shots at the fa on guy.
Just saying in SC making a "option" for more sim vs more arcadey is likely be be very, very problematic considering how they want combat to be especially in larger multi crew ships and maintain any kind of proper balance....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
This is always such an interesting question for me - how far can a multiplayer game be tailored to each player's taste? Challenges in implementation notwithstanding, the presence of other players in a game raises the stakes on personalization. Whether competing or cooperating, players assess all the strengths and weaknesses other players bring, be it in personal skill, character skill/class/equipment, or choice of playing style. If clicking skills instead of using hotkeys was a factor for some, I'd imagine things like realistic space flight vs gamified space flight would also become a point of contention.
Now, if you're someone who wants to play the game doing your own thing and enjoy a personal challenge, maybe you pick the more realistic option and don't care what others pick. But what if you are someone who enjoys competition and the challenge of figuring out a more realistic space sim? When the game provides a more streamlined, "gamified" alternative for others to use in the same game-world, it automatically kills that option as the more realistic mode becomes less competitive. You simply wouldn't have that particular experience catered to in that case.
To be clear, I'm not against options or saying having options is a bad idea, just pointing out that I don't think there is a design that caters to every play-style in a multiplayer game and that's ok, because the options available to other players in a multiplayer game are part of the context that shapes your experience regardless of what choices you intend to make.
I believe the point I made about the "simplified" system maxing out at 90-95% efficiency mitigates what you posted about being "competitive". Any people actually focused on that competition would of course be using the harder system to squeeze out that 5-10% advantage.
Oh, sure, you can try different ways to balance it out but that also makes it a different experience. It's like basketball having a 3-point shot. Where you draw the line is a matter of tuning. My point is that in multiplayer games, particularly MMOs without matchmaking or other systems attempting to "balance" the players themselves, how you tune this value can impact its enjoyment for different people. Let me give an example.
Say I'm a player of average aptitude and skill compared to the population and let's assume I enjoy the challenge of trying to navigate a simulation of traveling, exploring, and fighting in space. Now imagine two games. In Game A, there's only one system for controlling your spaceships so everyone in Game A has to figure out the same things. Given that I'm average in skill and aptitude, my performance will likely be average as well in Game A. Meanwhile, in Game B, there is an option to play using a simplified system of controls, but at some cost in efficiency. If I choose the more challenging mode, how will I perform against someone of equal skill who doesn't? And how will that tuning hold up across every skill-level in the game? Whatever the "efficiency" value, someone will be rewarded or punished for the choice. It's practically impossible to balance.
Again, that doesn't mean it is bad or doesn't work, and many fun game systems are impossible to balance, but rather the experience is just different. Basketball with a 3-point line is different, and how far back or how close that line is would also make it different. A game with options, and even handicaps or "efficiency" scores for tuning and balancing absolutely works, but it is a different experience in a multiplayer context. And I agree that providing options allows the devs to cater to a wider audience. Make a game too rigid and fewer people may be interested, but give people options and more people may find something they like, so the community may be larger. It's just that all those additional people and all those extra options may not serve the experience everyone is looking for, and I get that too.
"Actually, seems like they still need to "gamify" it some, but the engine works and the foundation is there."
This was a concern of mine years back when I watched a development video of theirs. They are creating gameplay systems, but the systems need to be connected up (and doing that well is not easy) or you won't even have a fully fledged sim. This leads into the question of how much of a game as opposed to a sim will it be? The fact they intend to release a second title which is more game like leads me to think this will be firmly on the sim end of the spectrum.
Generally the game having part of its community being sim based, they're not really into gamification of the game into more linear paths.
The sandbox sim makes it into some sort of game like say truck simulator or microsoft flight sim, but that is generally not appealing to many others that will get into the game and just be "what do I do?", as it will not tell you to go anywhere or do anything.
The 3.23 patch is both popular and unpopular depending on who you ask, the more sim players got kinda triggered because a simplication on the space flight & combat that does open the game to more players, makes it feel more arcade to them.
Either either some group is going to be unhappy, but I think the game is going on a direction where it keeps sandbox but cuts back on sim elements, and will stand its ground on the PvP aspects to drive economic competition, which feels to me is part of them focusing base building mechanics too.
I have never really understood the argument (in any game) that you cannot satisfy BOTH sides of the "simplification" argument. Just make it user adjusted settings. If you WANT a sim where you have to be an expert engineer in order to run/maintain a warp core then toggle those settings on. If not, turn them off. You can also make it where the "simplification" side can max at 90% - 95% efficiency for systems or something.
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
This is always such an interesting question for me - how far can a multiplayer game be tailored to each player's taste? Challenges in implementation notwithstanding, the presence of other players in a game raises the stakes on personalization. Whether competing or cooperating, players assess all the strengths and weaknesses other players bring, be it in personal skill, character skill/class/equipment, or choice of playing style. If clicking skills instead of using hotkeys was a factor for some, I'd imagine things like realistic space flight vs gamified space flight would also become a point of contention.
Now, if you're someone who wants to play the game doing your own thing and enjoy a personal challenge, maybe you pick the more realistic option and don't care what others pick. But what if you are someone who enjoys competition and the challenge of figuring out a more realistic space sim? When the game provides a more streamlined, "gamified" alternative for others to use in the same game-world, it automatically kills that option as the more realistic mode becomes less competitive. You simply wouldn't have that particular experience catered to in that case.
To be clear, I'm not against options or saying having options is a bad idea, just pointing out that I don't think there is a design that caters to every play-style in a multiplayer game and that's ok, because the options available to other players in a multiplayer game are part of the context that shapes your experience regardless of what choices you intend to make.
I believe the point I made about the "simplified" system maxing out at 90-95% efficiency mitigates what you posted about being "competitive". Any people actually focused on that competition would of course be using the harder system to squeeze out that 5-10% advantage.
Oh, sure, you can try different ways to balance it out but that also makes it a different experience. It's like basketball having a 3-point shot. Where you draw the line is a matter of tuning. My point is that in multiplayer games, particularly MMOs without matchmaking or other systems attempting to "balance" the players themselves, how you tune this value can impact its enjoyment for different people. Let me give an example.
Say I'm a player of average aptitude and skill compared to the population and let's assume I enjoy the challenge of trying to navigate a simulation of traveling, exploring, and fighting in space. Now imagine two games. In Game A, there's only one system for controlling your spaceships so everyone in Game A has to figure out the same things. Given that I'm average in skill and aptitude, my performance will likely be average as well in Game A. Meanwhile, in Game B, there is an option to play using a simplified system of controls, but at some cost in efficiency. If I choose the more challenging mode, how will I perform against someone of equal skill who doesn't? And how will that tuning hold up across every skill-level in the game? Whatever the "efficiency" value, someone will be rewarded or punished for the choice. It's practically impossible to balance.
Again, that doesn't mean it is bad or doesn't work, and many fun game systems are impossible to balance, but rather the experience is just different. Basketball with a 3-point line is different, and how far back or how close that line is would also make it different. A game with options, and even handicaps or "efficiency" scores for tuning and balancing absolutely works, but it is a different experience in a multiplayer context. And I agree that providing options allows the devs to cater to a wider audience. Make a game too rigid and fewer people may be interested, but give people options and more people may find something they like, so the community may be larger. It's just that all those additional people and all those extra options may not serve the experience everyone is looking for, and I get that too.
I guess the difference in perspective is that I don't need nor want to see "balance" in everything. If someone is doing something more challenging than I am, then reward that. I can always chose to do that if I want, but I sacrifice it for convenience.
But more fundamentally I'm talking about things like automated landing vs having to manually guide you ship through a hangar bar and land it. If people want to do that, let them, but why not make it so that people who want to remove that tedium can do so? And before we go down the "It's realistic" path, remember that this is a game that lets me rent and crash space ships and instantly respawn.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
In Elite Dangerous you could turn flight assist on or off. It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
And it is exactly the kind of system that Slapshot mentions: FA off is hard to master but gives that edge in combat to people who do. Those who do not care for the advantage have FA on and play the game just fine as well.
More realism does not necessary give players who fly/play that way an advantage. It is typically quite the opposite in fact. Look at BF and Arma for example.
Interesting Reddit thread talking about some of the same items I listed. If you read the part about drinking I think that’s a great example of something they need to “gamify”. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/5cl7fVGHig
On another note, our wayward team member may have gotten his install issue fixed. We were deep in Valheim last night so didn’t test but our journey in Star Citizen might not be over yet!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
In Elite Dangerous you could turn flight assist on or off. It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
After the first couple of space station docking disasters, no one's ship would be allowed to dock with a space station manually. Computer control, local pilots, tugboats -- some other system would be used.
This is exactly my sentiment. We're not far away from self-driving land vehicles and AI assisted "everything". By the time we've figured out how to travel the stars the concept of WW2 style flight controls will be ancient history.
Even today, as you mention, ships don't navigate into port. The larger the ship, the less likely it will happen. Even smaller ships like submarines and frigates are ferried by tug pilots.
Interesting Reddit thread talking about some of the same items I listed. If you read the part about drinking I think that’s a great example of something they need to “gamify”. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/5cl7fVGHig
On another note, our wayward team member may have gotten his install issue fixed. We were deep in Valheim last night so didn’t test but our journey in Star Citizen might not be over yet!
Yes I am not a huge fan of the "eating" survival mechanics so much either...this need to drink stuff needs to be toned down IMO.
I would be curious to know what did it to fix your friends issue with the game not installing btw!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Interesting Reddit thread talking about some of the same items I listed. If you read the part about drinking I think that’s a great example of something they need to “gamify”. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/5cl7fVGHig
On another note, our wayward team member may have gotten his install issue fixed. We were deep in Valheim last night so didn’t test but our journey in Star Citizen might not be over yet!
Yes I am not a huge fan of the "eating" survival mechanics so much either...this need to drink stuff needs to be toned down IMO.
I would be curious to know what did it to fix your friends issue with the game not installing btw!
I dont know. When he popped onto Discord we were fighting for our lives against 2 Trolls so he just said he "thought" it was fixed as it seemed to install. I'll try and find out.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I think SC deserves a ton of blowback for their schedule, funds, lack of promises and such; however, most of the air is taken out of those criticisms if you're allowed to try the game for free.
I think SC deserves a ton of blowback for their schedule, funds, lack of promises and such; however, most of the air is taken out of those criticisms if you're allowed to try the game for free.
If you spend after a free trial, that's on you.
Totally agree on the newer pledges. But lots of folks bought based on the initial promises and also for Squadron 42. But yeah if you buy it now, you own that 100%.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Interesting Reddit thread talking about some of the same items I listed. If you read the part about drinking I think that’s a great example of something they need to “gamify”. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/5cl7fVGHig
On another note, our wayward team member may have gotten his install issue fixed. We were deep in Valheim last night so didn’t test but our journey in Star Citizen might not be over yet!
Yes I am not a huge fan of the "eating" survival mechanics so much either...this need to drink stuff needs to be toned down IMO.
I would be curious to know what did it to fix your friends issue with the game not installing btw!
I dont know. When he popped onto Discord we were fighting for our lives against 2 Trolls so he just said he "thought" it was fixed as it seemed to install. I'll try and find out.
So I didn't quite follow everything he did. Apparently he wiped the HD he had the game on, ran the Registry command shown earlier in the thread. Manually searched and deleted any file he found from any post on the internet that MIGHT fix it. Fully reinstalled and it worked.
So I'm sure it was one thing, but I don't even think he knows which one it was.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
I mean, lets remember here that this IS a game. I mean, lets remember that I can simply respawn on death (and other items like that)...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The new changes make it much more of a visual experience, which feels better and allows stuff as precision targetting (targetting components and such), but the implications of skill are not as high, say strategy-wise.
The old model was fighting an UI target as you hardly ever saw the enemy ship due to the huge distances, but that felt more "realistic" or something. So It's not exactly a situation where you can have both, they did those decisions and that was bout it.
Now when it comes to say engineering, having to play multicrew with multiple players, or you can solo at the sake of an higher inefficiency, that sort of reality is there, but obviously can't also dumb down the game so you solo big ships just cause you feel like it and don't have to organize with friends/guild to crew up, prepare and go do X or Y.
My friend had a similar bug, he was able to fix it but it took him quite a bit of effort. I think it stemmed from him trying to delete his USER folder but he deleted some shaders as well. Sorry to hear about the hold up for your crew to play. SC is definitely a game thats better enjoyed with friends and little bugs like that really mess the party up. Just a heads up, you can invite people in game with f11 and the friends tab.
p.s.
I played 3.23 and was hoping for better performance. 3.23.1 is runnning like a dream. I am having some weird bugs here and there but the performance and server stability are starting to resemble an actual game. I hear the next hotfixes are going to make it even smoother. I did some missions, the ai is actually challenging now that the server tick rate is fluid enough for the AI to work properly. Now with AI working and tons of new missions and the game running smooth enough for combat to be pleasant, I am having fun. I have been waiting and trying every patch and mostly just being patient but it seems like now is a good time to start learning the game and having fun playing it.
Star citizen has the best visuals around by far. Now I can enjoy them with decent frames, so stoked
But this has been the status of SC for many years now. It's always been playable to some extent even back when it was just you walking around your ship in the hangar. However, is that a "game" or just a tech demo? Seems like over a decade later it's still just a tech demo. It's a lot of ideas that would work in an actual game without it being an actual game. Maybe one day they'll put all the pieces together. I'll be sure and include my login credentials to my kids in my will.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
If we have a themepark Squadron and a MMO game which is quite sandbox but "arcade enough" that would be a good balance. But as we have talked about here balance and the connectivity of game elements is all, they have to nail that down.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It was the difference between real world physics and getting significant help from your ship.
It was a cool feature - I turned it off and it took me literally days to get to where I could land a ship safely.
After the first couple of space station docking disasters, no one's ship would be allowed to dock with a space station manually. Computer control, local pilots, tugboats -- some other system would be used.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
But more fundamentally I'm talking about things like automated landing vs having to manually guide you ship through a hangar bar and land it. If people want to do that, let them, but why not make it so that people who want to remove that tedium can do so? And before we go down the "It's realistic" path, remember that this is a game that lets me rent and crash space ships and instantly respawn.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/5cl7fVGHig
On another note, our wayward team member may have gotten his install issue fixed. We were deep in Valheim last night so didn’t test but our journey in Star Citizen might not be over yet!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If you spend after a free trial, that's on you.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So I'm sure it was one thing, but I don't even think he knows which one it was.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018