|
ZenMaster posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0uYnwqlslU Pff. What a hack. It's almost as if he has a singular vision for what he wants to deliver.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Liu posted:does this sex scene have quicktime events Press SPACE BAR to use the "safe word".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Fair point, and I could see that making sense although I'm not sure how well that works with the idea of everything being wireless and internal to the ship. I would be more inclined to allow players to have ultimate freedom when changing between roles (Oh poo poo John bought it, somebody jump in that repair drone!) and instead make boarding be about limiting capabilities. For example players could decide to control the ship from a well armored and protected room, but that would mean leaving engineering, drone control, and sensors undefended. My goal with the design was to minimize player "downtime" as much as possible, and I consider walking down corridors to be part of that. One thing that could balance it is if players had the ability to disrupt internal communications (could be part of electronic warfare), and the ease at which communication is disrupted depends on your location. If you're controlling a drone far outside of Drone Control then your connection could be severed by a hack attack, but if you're physically inside Drone Control then your link would be much more secure. Well, the walk from one station to another only need last 10-15 seconds or so while running, not long enough to really be a pain, but long enough to make the player worry a little about what's going on outside while they're disconnected from the external sensors. I understand you want to reduce downtime, but a little downtime can have an emotional effect on the player that makes the game more satisfying and exciting. I guess my worry with your approach is that players would only really need to navigate around the inside of the ship while boarding was in progress, which would reduce the experience of actually feeling like you were in the ship rather than being a sort of virtual pilot. Anyways, I read this review a few weeks back of Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime, which uses similar mechanics. It's entirely possible that it wouldn't scale up that well into full 3D though! http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-09-09-lovers-in-a-dangerous-spacetime-review
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Tonight I will find HOT PVP ACTION I need to try to do that as well, when I'm done with this stupid report. I need more footage of mads for another video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
So do I just fly to a security post and hang around like a weirdo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:So do I just fly to a security post and hang around like a weirdo? In my experience, hopping between Port Olisar, Security Post Kareah, Covalex Shipping Hub, and the CryAstro Repair Station (God why do I remember those names, that could have been useful information) is the best way to run into people. The comm relays are pretty barren, but people tend to gather around those stations to Some players will also try and "interdict" you by opening their QT menu and watching what destination you point you ship at, then jumping in right behind you. It's a pretty common strategy, so if you jump in somewhere and then hear that "whoosh" noise of someone else jumping in, turn around for fight-times. If I'm having problems finding people I usually go gently caress around at Olisar until I see someone launch and then try to bait them into chasing me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
AP posted:That's very possible, I just don't think it matters. I'm certainly not basing my own viewpoint on anything that Derek or EightAce says, but more what CiG is doing in a context of a pump'n'dump almost ponzi that is beginning to get close to being, as they say at the SEC, 'rumbled'. EightAce is more icing on a particuarly enormous drama-cake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Chalks posted:That's where you start to tumble down the CR rabbit hole, gotta have a wide variety of diverse and fun jobs for players each with logical and rewarding progression. It's a balance nightmare before you even get to the normal combat and economic balance that every MMO has to cope with. That would be cool. I still haven't played Mount & Blade but I keep on hearing good things about it. I do agree that, whatever you come up, the scope has to be constrained so that once you have an idea it's locked down. HBS is definitely doing it the right way by creating a vertical slice coupled with the basic technical development before moving on to asset generation in a year or so. Dusty Lens posted:The fun factor diminishes super rapidly for each job in my experience. It is with some irony that one notes that SC does not seem to be a game that is focused on multicrew. The entire game is focused around the pilot, he has access to every control and the best you can hope to do is give someone else the ability to move shields around or to take firepower away from the pilot to ineffectively point it in another direction at a target that can effortlessly tank a pair of weak lasers with an 8% hit rate. All good points, and you're right about diminishing returns. Whatever the role is, it has to be as distinct and fun as the pilot. So in my little example being a drone operator is likely as engaging as being the pilot of the main ship, but being the engineer probably wouldn't be. In SC terms it's the difference between being the guy pushing buttons on the shield console vs the guy in the Merlin. Star Citizen seems to be going on the assumption that every mini-game will be created equal. The more that I think about it the more the I think the question to be asked should be "is this task something that benefits from a human, or is it better done with an AI"? Shield and power management seems to be something that would be better done by a computer; there's no real skill in making sure that the low bit gets reinforced or that the shields facing the bad guy are the stronger ones. At least assuming the system is similar to what's been previously done. I kind of like the idea of making starship combat be a relatively long distance affair, with ships trading shots and players doing a sort of cat-and-mouse with protecting and firing on components. Maybe systems take a different tack in my fake starship game. Maybe instead of it being about flying the ship a la Star Citizen or Elite, it's closer to a 3D FtL where you choose where your weapon systems fire and attacks are exchanged over a large distance. Shields could be sectional in nature and players have the choice of reinforcing certain areas (or even protecting a single component). Similarly weapons could be extremely precise and allow you to specifically target individual points. Who knows, that might provide some balance and interest to something other than being the pilot. Gerblyn posted:Well, the walk from one station to another only need last 10-15 seconds or so while running, not long enough to really be a pain, but long enough to make the player worry a little about what's going on outside while they're disconnected from the external sensors. I understand you want to reduce downtime, but a little downtime can have an emotional effect on the player that makes the game more satisfying and exciting. I guess my worry with your approach is that players would only really need to navigate around the inside of the ship while boarding was in progress, which would reduce the experience of actually feeling like you were in the ship rather than being a sort of virtual pilot. That's really cool, and makes for a compelling argument about individual stations in my fake space game. It would also provide some compelling arguments for various ship designs, offering an additional level of complexity based on whatever style ship you chose. Perhaps one style of ships has stations close together but doesn't perform as well, while another ship is incredibly powerful but stations are far apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Sillybones posted:I'll keep my 'told you so' in my back pocket then. Just exercise caution, Nerds. What, by not giving him money? I think we're covered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
SinJin posted:Press SPACE BAR to use the "safe word". Safe word is <<USE>>
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:All good points, and you're right about diminishing returns. Whatever the role is, it has to be as distinct and fun as the pilot. So in my little example being a drone operator is likely as engaging as being the pilot of the main ship, but being the engineer probably wouldn't be. In SC terms it's the difference between being the guy pushing buttons on the shield console vs the guy in the Merlin. Star Citizen seems to be going on the assumption that every mini-game will be created equal. The more that I think about it the more the I think the question to be asked should be "is this task something that benefits from a human, or is it better done with an AI"? Shield and power management seems to be something that would be better done by a computer; there's no real skill in making sure that the low bit gets reinforced or that the shields facing the bad guy are the stronger ones. At least assuming the system is similar to what's been previously done. I kind of like the idea of making starship combat be a relatively long distance affair, with ships trading shots and players doing a sort of cat-and-mouse with protecting and firing on components. The thing is though that being an engineer COULD be just as much fun if you take the time to build out each role in a distinct and gameplay-focused manner. My friends and I used to get together at my house every Friday night to play games and we would almost always end up playing Artemis Spaceship Simulator. While everybody had a favorite role, nobody had a role they refused to play. For engineering it could be something as simple as making sure the engineer had enough settings gizmos to fiddle with in order to fulfill their "I'm givin' her all she's got, Captain!" fantasy, but also equipping them with some kind of "repair gun" sort of like the welder in Viscera Cleanup Detail. That adds a whole new dimension of gameplay that makes the engineering position stand apart from other positions due to its focus on mobility and first person mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
What if EightAce is the CIG employee assigned to watch this thread? Perfect cover. Sandi: "What are the goons up to since I went to bed?" 8Ace: "Nothing... nothing at all..." 
SabinBlitz fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
    gently caress these people, seriously....
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
What CIG doesn't seem to realize about building out roles is that they need to be looking at it as though they are designing something with asymmetrical gameplay. Of course everybody is going to want to be their own pilot if the roles are homogenized and made entirely equal. The way to make roles appealing and interesting is to embrace their differences and focus them in a way that makes them stand out from other roles, much in the same way that playing as the marines in Natural Selection is vastly different than playing as the aliens. You want people to be ABLE to do any role, but you also want them to have a favorite role, and realistically with different ship manufacturers you could even tweak the roles just slightly enough that although the core functionality is the same the differences add a replayability factor that makes the game fun and engaging. Someone might be an MLG Engineer on Aegis ships, for example, but there's a different command input tree or user interface on RSI ships that would make gameplay varied and more engaging from ship to ship. All of these "off" positions can be fun if you ask yourself "What is the core sci-fi experience of an engineer (or pilot or weapons guy or whatever) that makes it cool?" Boil down all the ways the position is portrayed in movies and shows and games to one or two sentences that flesh out 10-15 minutes of really fun gameplay, and then iterate on that until it feels solid enough to build a set of mechanics on. Oh, and do all that BEFORE you build the ships or choose the the engine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
That looks a lot smaller than the x universe map. Just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
  https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6423905/#Comment_6423905
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:What CIG doesn't seem to realize about building out roles is that they need to be looking at it as though they are designing something with asymmetrical gameplay. Of course everybody is going to want to be their own pilot if the roles are homogenized and made entirely equal. The way to make roles appealing and interesting is to embrace their differences and focus them in a way that makes them stand out from other roles, much in the same way that playing as the marines in Natural Selection is vastly different than playing as the aliens. You want people to be ABLE to do any role, but you also want them to have a favorite role, and realistically with different ship manufacturers you could even tweak the roles just slightly enough that although the core functionality is the same the differences add a replayability factor that makes the game fun and engaging. Someone might be an MLG Engineer on Aegis ships, for example, but there's a different command input tree or user interface on RSI ships that would make gameplay varied and more engaging from ship to ship. I am now picturing Puzzle Pirates in 3D in space, and that's a game I'd buy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Doug Sisk posted:I am now picturing Puzzle Pirates in 3D in space, and that's a game I'd buy. Well I wouldn't be too hasty... I clearly don't understand games development 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:The thing is though that being an engineer COULD be just as much fun if you take the time to build out each role in a distinct and gameplay-focused manner. My friends and I used to get together at my house every Friday night to play games and we would almost always end up playing Artemis Spaceship Simulator. While everybody had a favorite role, nobody had a role they refused to play. True. For the 'repair gun' thing I thought that might be a fun job for the drone guys. It might actually be that "engineering" is actually a dedicated drone who runs around the ship repairing stuff and overcharging certain components, so that the "gizmos" that the engineer is fiddling with are actually things on the ship he has to access from the outside. Beet Wagon posted:What CIG doesn't seem to realize about building out roles is that they need to be looking at it as though they are designing something with asymmetrical gameplay. Of course everybody is going to want to be their own pilot if the roles are homogenized and made entirely equal. The way to make roles appealing and interesting is to embrace their differences and focus them in a way that makes them stand out from other roles, much in the same way that playing as the marines in Natural Selection is vastly different than playing as the aliens. You want people to be ABLE to do any role, but you also want them to have a favorite role, and realistically with different ship manufacturers you could even tweak the roles just slightly enough that although the core functionality is the same the differences add a replayability factor that makes the game fun and engaging. Someone might be an MLG Engineer on Aegis ships, for example, but there's a different command input tree or user interface on RSI ships that would make gameplay varied and more engaging from ship to ship. All very good points. The bottom line is that the gameplay has to be fun and carefully thought out, and not just tacked on like how multi-crew is with SC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:
It's no Starflight map 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Hello commandos! In keeping with our policy of release early, release often and hide the chairs its fatso, we bring you: I made a remix Goddamn why do I make music for the thread 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
I effortposted too hard and now I feel grief
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:I made a remix You and ewe2 are  level thread heroes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
 Does CIG poo poo out any video content today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
The loving backwards hands...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:*Pusher gives PC a slap* Now I really hope he just hits replace all. I would buy this game simply to hear someone say street intelligents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:57
|
|
: Ouch, that really intelligented!
: Well that's for embarrassing me last night. One would think someone aiming for citizenship would dress intelligently!
|
 What are they saying in chat Lesnick? Birds Sir. They want to know if the game will have birds. ... Procedural Birds are in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Why does Gary Oldman's twitter say Sandi Gardiner. Oh, that's actually her profile picture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
redwalrus posted:
I have to let you know: You made Tank Girl Barbie laugh  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty loving sure that's a boss in Darkest Dungeon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:I don't care if EightAce is full of poo poo. The dude is selling it and it's entertaining. Any rear end in a top hat can tell that the ship is listing heavily and that the captain is locked up in his cabin. EightAce is just letting us know that the Captain is making GBS threads into plastic bags and refuses to eat anything but apples that have been pre-chewed by his favorite parrot. It's inconsequential but very entertaining. I thought about multi-crew for SP. The only thing I could come up with was a chair attached by a springy spring off the back of the ship, where you could man a bird-gun turret (with full 360 degree rotational control). You would have small thrusters to counteract being helplessly yanked around. You would effect ship dynamics a small amount, but not so much that it would be obnoxious to the pilot. Since you're on a spring, you won't just get hard-whipped around by the pilots maneuvering, but you will slingshot around when spring reaches max tension. I have a feeling it would be pretty fun. Collisions would be hilarious. But yeah, as for standard shield/power-shunting/radar-manning, I always thought that sounded utterly funless when compared with just piloting a shep yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
redwalrus posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:- an important person was leaving (Patrick, confirmed in days) Specifically in this case it was an important person involved in the Beer email chain - of which there were only 2 CIG people involved, one being Patrick and the other being Sandi. That's basically him saying "Patrick is leaving" several days before it was announced. Without a doubt, EightAce has inside information - regardless of whether you think he actually works there, knows someone who works there, works in the same building and picks up gossip... he has inside information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
I think multicrew can be super fun and rewarding so long as the roles and expectations synergize well. The pilot either gets to play the part of putting the ship right where it needs to go so the guy manning the big guns really gets to drop the hammer in a way that reflects two people cooperating. Or the secondary seat guy gets to man an effective weapon that either doubles down on the role of the main pilot or provides a secondary type of damage. But when in doubt look to Mad Max and add more harpoons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Shield and power management seems to be something that would be better done by a computer; there's no real skill in making sure that the low bit gets reinforced or that the shields facing the bad guy are the stronger ones. At least assuming the system is similar to what's been previously done. I kind of like the idea of making starship combat be a relatively long distance affair, with ships trading shots and players doing a sort of cat-and-mouse with protecting and firing on components. That's pretty much what I was thinking. Engines/shields are boring but being a Weapons Officer could be made fun. In normal mode the pilot controls both the ship and the main weapons but if you had a weapons officer in your crew he could take charge of the main guns which would allow something akin to Fallout VATS, make the weapons slightly more powerful, allow you to target subsystems and assist targeting with a weak aimbot so that as long as your shots were hitting the target they would hit that specific subsystem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Wafflz posted:The loving backwards hands... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Toops posted:I thought about multi-crew for SP. The only thing I could come up with was a chair attached by a springy spring off the back of the ship, where you could man a bird-gun turret (with full 360 degree rotational control). You would have small thrusters to counteract being helplessly yanked around. You would effect ship dynamics a small amount, but not so much that it would be obnoxious to the pilot. Since you're on a spring, you won't just get hard-whipped around by the pilots maneuvering, but you will slingshot around when spring reaches max tension. I have a feeling it would be pretty fun. Collisions would be hilarious. Is SP the spiritual successor to Wing Commando?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
redwalrus posted:
i like this
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Wafflz posted:The loving backwards hands... i legitimately hate that picture because every since it was pointed out to me I feel like I'm looking at a lovecraftian horror with backwards hands
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
EightAce isnt a troll in any sense. at best hes an insider lolling it up and making the most of a bad situation. at worst he's a hype man for star citizens failure, just like the rest of us. even if his predictions are vague or non-specific, and if hes making them up, they all come true. thats the funniest part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:25
|
|
