Star Citizen (Wing Commander MP successor)

[Úlfheðinn]

Basically I hope they pay/payed attention to why Elite: Dangerous was so ****ing boring to play, so yeah, pacing needs to be good and hopefully they realize the game needs to be fun to play over a longer(ish) period of time.

 

[Jhessail]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would get the pacing "right". The game will be tedious and boring. Squadron 42 might be cool and exciting, since it's a single player game and they can skip/minimise the tedious bits but the actual persistent universe part will have a multitude of slow segments. I mean, just the landing on a planet - it's ****ing amazing the first time you do it, pretty cool the second time, kinda meh the third and by the fourth time you have to land somewhere you start hoping for a teleportation button.

The co-op/multiplayer aspect can reduce that tedium, it's not so boring to watch the landing if you can chat with your crew mates at the same time and so on, but for flying solo as a honest trader? Definitely boring and possibly Death by Realism as Llew said.

 

[Baguette Eater]

Yeah because the TW crew will totally fly solo and honest

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Space Bushido, mfker.

 

[Reapy]

Man jared better get to the right ****ing camera, and that player 3, GO FIRST PERSON! "Or, you could do that...".. Roberts cant really hide his inner douche, can he? Glad he is not my boss...

Really neat tech but I'm with everyone here that it looks death by realism.

Skimming through the demo was about al the gameplay I could enjoy out of it. How many players can they get in an area? What happens if 5000 players want to go to the same station? I couldn't imagine 10 players on that one they showed, 2 guys could stand still in that isle and block the way through. Would that npc trigger that made the guy call out to you work with 50 players passing by (maybe).

But anyway those are the building blocks, it is nice that they are least making something, though I have a feeling this is going to be a touch of a disaster, but honestly it is a nice framework for a single player game if all the mmo part doesn't pan out.

 

[Llew2]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would get the pacing "right". The game will be tedious and boring. Squadron 42 might be cool and exciting, since it's a single player game and they can skip/minimise the tedious bits but the actual persistent universe part will have a multitude of slow segments. I mean, just the landing on a planet - it's ****ing amazing the first time you do it, pretty cool the second time, kinda meh the third and by the fourth time you have to land somewhere you start hoping for a teleportation button.

I'm kinda bummed that flying spaceships is so damn easy. There's literally no skill involved. This in itself lends to the boring factor.

If ships actually took skill to fly (out of combat that is. In-combat is a bit better, but still mostly "Flying 360° Space Turrets Wooo!"), then things like planetary landings could be interesting, because you could, you know, blow up and die if you did it wrong. If each time you landed or entered atmo was a challenge with some potential for lose/damage, you could hone your skills by doing those repetitive tasks instead of just getting bored. Basically need some reason for me to stay engaged with what's going on, instead of wanting to take a nap. And watching scanners for signs of pirates doesn't count.

Not to mention that large ships like the Freelancer still zip around like mosquitoes during landing and close maneuvers. Though this is mostly because the 'precision mode' thrusters need to be toned down another 150% or so, so that ships actually look and feel like they have weight and inertia.

Much like flying choppers in BF2. It was hard to learn but oh-so-satisfying once you mastered it, and really ****ing fun to push the limits of flying every time you got into a chopper. ****ing barrel roles man!

 

[Arvenski]

I'm kinda bummed that flying spaceships is so damn easy. There's literally no skill involved. This in itself lends to the boring factor.

If ships actually took skill to fly (out of combat that is. In-combat is a bit better, but still mostly "Flying 360° Space Turrets Wooo!"), then things like planetary landings could be interesting, because you could, you know, blow up and die if you did it wrong. If each time you landed or entered atmo was a challenge with some potential for lose/damage, you could hone your skills by doing those repetitive tasks instead of just getting bored. Basically need some reason for me to stay engaged with what's going on, instead of wanting to take a nap. And watching scanners for signs of pirates doesn't count.

Not to mention that large ships like the Freelancer still zip around like mosquitoes during landing and close maneuvers. Though this is mostly because the 'precision mode' thrusters need to be toned down another 150% or so, so that ships actually look and feel like they have weight and inertia.

Much like flying choppers in BF2. It was hard to learn but oh-so-satisfying once you mastered it, and really ****ing fun to push the limits of flying every time you got into a chopper. ****ing barrel roles man!

I wish there was a game like Elite: Dangerous or Star Citizen that used a flight model like to like how you see fighters fly in the Star Wars movies, i.e. similar to the way a plane flies in the atmosphere, with ships having actual turning radii. The damage system would have to be different in order to work with this, so that one good burst of fire would destroy a ship, encouraging you to learn to fly well and keep moving. I know it might not be physically correct, but at least that would lend itself to some good, old-fashioned dogfighting and fancy flying. Hopefully that'd be more enjoyable and more skill-based than what we've got.

 

[Jhessail]

The flight model can be tweaked, easily enough, if the framework is solid. And everything they have revealed about their tech and processes points towards that. I really hope Roberts got over his obsession with film making when he flopped with the Wing Commander movie or, if it still lingers in his head, the Squadron 42 will get it out. Wouldn't surprise me if they had global variables that affect the flight model, considering they went to the length of creating an entirely new camera model so that the camera is actually on the player's head and not inside his chest like literally every other First-Person game and that the animations that the player uses are the same that are used for other characters. That kind of foundation-laying is completely irrelevant for creating a simplistic game, yet one of the teams spent weeks getting it working with CryEngine 3, getting consultation from Crytek people (apparently they actually hired some ex-Crytek staff).

I'm kinda bummed that flying spaceships is so damn easy. There's literally no skill involved. This in itself lends to the boring factor.

I get what you mean and you're absolutely correct. One saving grace is that the guys demoing it are staff members who have done it probably thousands of times and obviously they want to make a good show at GamesCom and other showcase events. Hopefully the risk of crash & burn is real by the time atmospheric entry becomes available for backers.

Roberts cant really hide his inner douche, can he? Glad he is not my boss...

Give him a break, he's naturally nervous on a platform and wants to have the best possible show.

How many players can they get in an area? What happens if 5000 players want to go to the same station? I couldn't imagine 10 players on that one they showed, 2 guys could stand still in that isle and block the way through. Would that npc trigger that made the guy call out to you work with 50 players passing by (maybe).

Instancing is the obvious answer.

 

[Orion]

Instancing is the only way a game of this scale is feasible right now, especially in CryEngine.

I'm kinda bummed that flying spaceships is so damn easy. There's literally no skill involved. This in itself lends to the boring factor.

If ships actually took skill to fly (out of combat that is. In-combat is a bit better, but still mostly "Flying 360° Space Turrets Wooo!"), then things like planetary landings could be interesting, because you could, you know, blow up and die if you did it wrong. If each time you landed or entered atmo was a challenge with some potential for lose/damage, you could hone your skills by doing those repetitive tasks instead of just getting bored. Basically need some reason for me to stay engaged with what's going on, instead of wanting to take a nap. And watching scanners for signs of pirates doesn't count.

Not to mention that large ships like the Freelancer still zip around like mosquitoes during landing and close maneuvers. Though this is mostly because the 'precision mode' thrusters need to be toned down another 150% or so, so that ships actually look and feel like they have weight and inertia.

Much like flying choppers in BF2. It was hard to learn but oh-so-satisfying once you mastered it, and really ****ing fun to push the limits of flying every time you got into a chopper. ****ing barrel roles man!

I wish there was a game like Elite: Dangerous or Star Citizen that used a flight model like to like how you see fighters fly in the Star Wars movies, i.e. similar to the way a plane flies in the atmosphere, with ships having actual turning radii. The damage system would have to be different in order to work with this, so that one good burst of fire would destroy a ship, encouraging you to learn to fly well and keep moving. I know it might not be physically correct, but at least that would lend itself to some good, old-fashioned dogfighting and fancy flying. Hopefully that'd be more enjoyable and more skill-based than what we've got.

But why? If you want planes in space you're looking in the wrong place (despite Star Citizen's ship aesthetics). 6DOF is an integral part of spaceflight in games like SC and E. The way to prevent "space turrets" is to provide hard counters to slow-moving ships. Now don't give me a funny look after reading this next bit, but despite what I just said SC has the potential to be more like planes in space if they do provide such counters. Naturally, ships accelerate fastest when they're going forward because their largest source of thrust is in that direction (main engines, ya know). If there exist counters to slow-moving (i.e. strafing or reversing) ships then the safest course of action is to never slow down, or to only do so when it's safe. That being said, one must remember that in proper spaceflight there's no drag, so once you get up to speed you could change your orientation in any way and as long as you didn't apply thrust your vector should remain the same. That means I could accelerate to top speed in a straight line, disengage any sort of inertial dampening, and then orient myself to face backwards, sideways, or what have you. The limitation is that to change my vector I would have to sacrifice speed.

The counters I've mentioned will come naturally as the game progresses, though their effectiveness is yet to be seen. The most straight-forward counters are bigger weapons. If I remember correctly, SC still only has up to class 2 missiles. I have a relatively small ship (350r) which can mount up to class 3 missiles, so even my little ship can't reach its maximum firepower yet with what's available. Just like in E, you should be able to counter slow-moving space turret wanna-bes with sheer firepower. Or, if you're smaller than they are, with maneuverability so they can't use their firepower against you.

 

[Jhessail]

Nice little bit about emergent gameplay:

 

[Llew2]

In regards to the earlier discussion about Death By Realism and being overloaded by tedious bits, I saw in a recent RTV that traders and haulers who buy and sell cargo at space stations will not have to load the cargo by hand. What they buy will be generated in the hold automatically.

In contrast, salvaging stuff in space will require you to move/load it by hand or by tractor beam, which will provide the core gameplay for the salvage/scavengers professions, and also pirates and raiders.

In this context it sounds like a cool idea, because in addition to destroying or disabling a ship you want to rob, you also have to pull off the looting part without getting caught. Could pose some fun gameplay scenarios where you'd need to bring buddies along to protect you while you loot your kill, and also give the victim a chance to call in clan or org mates to his last position, to catch the pirates while they are still picking over the wreckage.

Sounds like a cool idea for emergent gameplay, and I'm really curious to see how it'll play out.

I also want to know more about the mining profession and mechanics, and how much skill/gameplay is going to be built into it. From the sounds of it, it'll be more than just 'Park near X asteroid, hit "M" to mine, wash rinse and repeat', but I don't think they've showed off the details yet. 

 

[Orion]

Decided to play around in the 2.5 release, and after a bit I traded in my 350r for a Hornet Ghost (equal value ships, so it was free ) and the Hornet's HUD is currently broken. Thankfully the critical hud info is still visible on screens in the cockpit model, but the entirety of the floating overlay never displays.

Spoiler: Not my screenshot

Anything that isn't stuck to the model of the ship in this image doesn't appear in-game for me, except for the orange brackets around enemies. Thankfully with my FOV I can see more of the info displays at the bottom than you can in this screenshot, but I can't change my weapon groups or see my ship damage/shield status, etc.

Kinda goofy, to be honest, but aside from that it's actually nice being in a ship that isn't so damn fast. Because there are no S3 missiles still and the 350r can't mount weapons as large as the Hornet can, its speed advantage is currently irrelevant. You're often exposed to fire before you can shoot back in the 300s, and with how slidey flight is at higher speeds you'll often have trouble engaging slower targets as they can move unpredictably, while you're more-or-less stuck going in a straight line.

Also, whoever decided gimbals should not attempt to track a locked target is a moron. I legitimately do not understand the "ohmagerd I need pedals, a HOTAS, and an extra stick to play Star Citizen" people, but I feel like this was decided with them in mind. I have a right-handed stick and a right-handed mouse. I don't have a stand-alone throttle, my stick has all of 1 hat switch, and I just don't have the desk real estate to make much else work. My setup precludes me from using gimbals in Star Citizen, as the point of aim for gimbals is free-floating and moves relative to stick input by default. If I pull up, my gimbals aim up, and if I nose down then they aim down. If I don't touch my stick then I can control them with my mouse, but either I reach across the base of my stick with my left hand (taking it off of my throttle & strafe controls) to use my right-handed mouse, or I take my right hand off my stick to do it. Either way, I'm giving up my control responsiveness and my orientation must remain fixed as long as I'm aiming.

It should be just like E, where they'll move within their limits to automatically lead targets but they have a bit of wobble so they aren't terribly precise. I ended up using fixed weapons in E because I had a small ship that could fit two relatively large weapons, and I wanted long-range accuracy. Before that I used a smaller ship with a bunch of gimbal mounts, so I could get close-in and focus on staying in blind spots without worrying about keeping my nose directly on the target at all times. The point is, I had a meaningful choice in E because both were viable. In SC, I have to lock my gimbals and use them as fixed weapons, so I might as well go all fixed because then I can get bigger guns. I still believe that the greatest strength of E is its controls & UI, which with a TrackIR are sensational. I've never had that much fun just tooting around in a space ship.

 

[Arvenski]

http://www.pcgamer.com/eight-month-investigation-lifts-the-lid-on-star-citizens-troubled-development/

Apparently Kotaku made a long investigation into Star Citizen's development, including bringing to light a whole bunch of problems CIG had early on. I haven't read the full report; I've only read the PCGamer article linked above, but it's still an interesting read.

 

[Orion]

Anybody who didn't expect organizational & leadership problems in a project of this scale is a fool.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Investigative journalism, nay actual journalism in general by Kotaku? Oh this gon be gud...

 

[Arvenski]

And:
http://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-switches-from-cryengine-to-amazons-lumberyard/

 

[Baguette Eater]

Most interesting video, bit bothered at how long it takes to down someone, but that just might be Shack being bad at the game

 

[Arvenski]

Here's another video:

 

[Kevlar]

Anybody who didn't expect organizational & leadership problems in a project of this scale is a fool.

Sadly, it is quite hard to convince some people that the project may have been either mismanaged originally or simply the scope of the whole project grew to big to quick for them to handle. That is how I see it considering it has taken this long wherein the original kickstarter scope and scale it would have come out 2014 (of which I backed).

The little amount I have played of 2.6 thus far hasn't been the most enjoyable but I find that mostly due to the lack of game modes I would like to play as deathmatch and TDM aren't that appealing to me as I mostly play CSGO now.

That being said I still have faith in the game and believe it will eventually come out, I just don't know when that will happen.

 

[Orion]

Shouldn't be hard to convince people of feature creep, as Star Citizen set & met a ridiculous number of stretch goals. Naturally its scope has grown well beyond what they originally pitched on Kickstarter. Backing anything on Kickstarter is buying a ticket to play the waiting game. If you don't want to wait, don't buy a ticket.