IM should stay... yes I said it! But it must be in a different form.

K-C

Posts: 736

Posted:
Edited: by K-C
Posted: -
IM should stay in SC. Yes I said it. It needs to stay for reasons of accessibility. However design that focuses on IM is the root cause of all issues with the flight model, controller balance, and a shallow flight experience, in my opinion, for this game. Now... here is why...

IM should stay in the game and railing against it, when it is now clear that CIG will not remove it, is pointless. If we accept the premise that IM will remain, or at least should remain then we need to look at its effect on flight, manoeuvring, tactics and ship interaction. IM promotes aim over flight. Flight is in fact a by product of aim in IM rather than aim being a result of flight. Flight thus becomes of secondary importance, and at the moment is rendered virtually meaningless.

Relegation of flight to a by product of aim is the root cause of all issues related to weapon balance, flight balance, flight experience and controller balance. It is why we keep getting endless updates with tweaks that result in an even poorer flight experience and an even greater emphasis on aim. The primary design issue appears to be that IM has been made the "standard" against which other control methods are measured. This is the direct cause of the controller debate and the direct cause of the shallow flight experience in SC. Looking at IM as the standard is frankly ass-backwards yet appears to be the current approach by CIG.

The focus must move flight back to the prime position in development not, trying to balance flight, weapons and everything else against IM.

If SC is to hold to its promise of skill based game play then the standard against which other methods of flight are measured cannot be the single most basic method of controlling a ship, otherwise you are trying to balance flight against instant and near perfect aim. This is simply not possible. It is this method that has dumbed down the flight experience and the sole reason that each update results in a worse and more shallow flight experience in this game.

So how can this be achieved?...

There must be a significant disadvantage to using IM. Not as we currently have, significant disadvantages to playing without IM. Flight must be promoted over aim not managed down to it. This is also the problem with the suggested methods to achieve controller balance, such as auto aim gimbals, aim assist etc. there is nothing wrong with these solutions, except that they maintain the focus on aim and not on flight. Introducing an aim based solution for the stick does not promote flying skill, it dumbs flying skill down to IM levels. They are about 'fixing aim for the stick' not about promoting flight.

The only way to refocus on flight and the skill required for flight is that IM must have a significant disadvantage. It should remain an option, but be clearly a first step to building flight skills, not a method of control to be overcome by building flight skills. It should allow accessibility but not domination. It could be as simple as a significant damage modifier for gimbals, not weapon sizes, but gimbals themselves in order to encourage players to progress to developing flight skills, (in this case with fixed weapons over and above gimbals). Separately controlled player or NPC turrets could be easily exempted from the modifier. This modifier would apply specifically to the single seat fighter pilot using IM. The game law could easily adapt to such a modifier, i.e. the single seat fighter pilot suffering the effect of his divided attention between aim and flight for instance.

A decent vjoy is also key, or doing this becomes a mouse nerf rather than a learning curve promoting flight. It would also incidentally encourage people to buy an SC marketed stick setup.

Until IM is seen as a first step to be built upon in the development of flying skills and modified to make it such, then the statement that flight in SC more closely resembles an fps is valid. The lack of depth in the experience of flight in SC will remain and the controller debate will remain. No amount of patching, no amount of tweaks will fix this issue until IM becomes the first step in building a skill, not the last word against which flight skill must be developed and balanced. IM should and must stay if it is a first step that allows accessibility, but only if it is a step on the skill ladder rather than the control method for instant success.

NOTE: there are many methods that might be employed to modify IM, the suggested damage modifier is used to illustrate the point not as a be all and end all solution.

EDIT: this idea does not allow for gimbal control for sticks that is the equal of IM. Nor is it meant to. Gimbal control would still primarily be a mouse 'thing'. I am NOT attempting to address that issue or I would have posted in the katamari.
  • Gecko

    Posts: 256

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Uh no, I disagree. IM works phenomenally for gimbals but a keyboard makes for a chunky n clunky flight control system. Toi sacrifice flight experience and gain an aiming experience. Just because one can't aim gimbals with joysticks doesn't mean that the IM should be changed; just cause you can't fly as incredibly with a keyboard as with a joystick doesn't mean we should remove joysticks.

    Where IM is the best Mouse + Keyboard system it seems that, for flight, that Dual joysticks seems like the most awesome flight experience. Should we remove the dual joystick option so HOTAS users can fly stick like an F16? (Rhetoric so please don't go ballistic.) This is similar logic.

    I'd like to suggest that we improve IM or MKB. If we could get a game controller that blends digital keys, with compression being read for degree of thrust, with the mouse for gimbal control and steering. Add in head tracking and this will be awesome! In fact, I believe as awesome as Dual Joystick + Pedals + Head Tracking in VR.
  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Edited: by K-C
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Uh no, I disagree. IM works phenomenally for gimbals but a keyboard makes for a chunky n clunky flight control system. Toi sacrifice flight experience and gain an aiming experience. Just because one can't aim gimbals with joysticks doesn't mean that the IM should be changed; just cause you can't fly as incredibly with a keyboard as with a joystick doesn't mean we should remove joysticks.

    Where IM is the best Mouse + Keyboard system it seems that, for flight, that Dual joysticks seems like the most awesome flight experience. Should we remove the dual joystick option so HOTAS users can fly stick like an F16? (Rhetoric so please don't go ballistic.) This is similar logic.

    I'd like to suggest that we improve IM or MKB. If we could get a game controller that blends digital keys, with compression being read for degree of thrust, with the mouse for gimbal control and steering. Add in head tracking and this will be awesome! In fact, I believe as awesome as Dual Joystick + Pedals + Head Tracking in VR.

    Lol don't worry, I am not so emotionally invested as to go ballistic because someone has a different opinion. I have played SC with multiple control types, including various stick setups and mouse combinations.

    I cannot agree that the mouse is a bad choice for flight control. Plenty of games have mouse control that is on par with stick. SC is not one of them, which is why I stipulated that a proper vjoy must be implemented. Nor am I advocating removing IM, sticks mice or any other control method, what I am advocating is skill development. One issue with IM is that it is OP compared to all other current methods. The major problem though, and the purpose of this post is that IM removes flight and skill development from the pilot experience. You don't become a great pilot with IM you aim. This does not mean a mouse pilot cannot develop great skills, there are a few superlative mouse relative mode pilots. Which considering the current vjoy speaks highly of the skills they have developed.

    Worse is that the balance issues being experienced, the lack lustre flight experience and several other issues can be directly related to a development process that looks upon IM as 'the mode' against which other modes are balanced. Having the simplest method as the most powerful method discourages skill building, it does not encourage it.

    IM leaves little or no room for skill development, or improvement, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of this game. All players should be encouraged to improve their skills and IM does not really allow for this. Thus IM should in my view, being the least complicated and least demanding method of controlling a ship, be modified to make it an introduction level of control on which, those interested in piloting can build skills upon, rather than a method where someone with little skill development can almost instantly compete with mouse and stick pilots who have invested huge hours to develop those skills.

    The concept goes against the idea of a skill based game.
  • The_Broken

    Posts: 4703

    Posted:
    Posted:
    War Thunder only used I'm for turret control.

    iM should not be for single seaters. Weapons officer should control gimballed guns or unmanned turrets. Not the pilot.
    Just call me Delta.

    Everyone has a price. Everyone. What's yours?
  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Edited: by K-C
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    War Thunder only used I'm for turret control.

    iM should not be for single seaters. Weapons officer should control gimballed guns or unmanned turrets. Not the pilot.

    I admit I have actively advocated against IM, stating more than once it should be removed altogether, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, and maybe it should not happen. I can appreciate a steep learning curve putting off new players, and CIG is a business. So a control method that allows a casual player to experience the game makes sense.

    What does not make sense is a control method that allows a 'pilot' to dominate an engagement using a control method that does not involve 'piloting'. A control method that in somewhat simplistic terms turns a ship into a turret, with little or no way to improve their ability as a 'pilot' in a skill based game.

    IM should remain to allow the casual player to experience SC, but it should be a stepping stone to increasing skill, not the end of the journey.

    Edit: not to mention that I have posted several times the IM is CR's way to chase his Freelancer white whale and straight out calling CIG, CR and BL dishonest for implementing a Freelancer style control mode.
  • AlanFord

    Posts: 15408

    Posted:
    Posted:
    How about we keep IM and ditch gimbals on anything smaller than a Cutlass?
    Novhag_zpsokashio3.jpg
  • Seb71

    Posts: 5282

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Uh no, I disagree. IM works phenomenally for gimbals but a keyboard makes for a chunky n clunky flight control system. Toi sacrifice flight experience and gain an aiming experience. Just because one can't aim gimbals with joysticks doesn't mean that the IM should be changed; just cause you can't fly as incredibly with a keyboard as with a joystick doesn't mean we should remove joysticks.

    Where IM is the best Mouse + Keyboard system it seems that, for flight, that Dual joysticks seems like the most awesome flight experience. Should we remove the dual joystick option so HOTAS users can fly stick like an F16? (Rhetoric so please don't go ballistic.) This is similar logic.

    I'd like to suggest that we improve IM or MKB. If we could get a game controller that blends digital keys, with compression being read for degree of thrust, with the mouse for gimbal control and steering. Add in head tracking and this will be awesome! In fact, I believe as awesome as Dual Joystick + Pedals + Head Tracking in VR.

    You can fly fine with a joystick and a mouse (mouse for yaw/pitch/gimbals).
    #MakeFoVGreatAgain
  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    How about we keep IM and ditch gimbals on anything smaller than a Cutlass?

    Hey Alan, I haven't seen you for a while :)

    I considered this when I formulated the op. I discarded it for a few reasons, not the least of which is CIG's apparent determination to keep gimbals. Which I think means gimbals on almost every ship. It also means gimbals cannot be experienced without a more expensive initial purchase or without spending time in the pu to raise the cash for a cutlass without the ease of use of gimbals. Nor would it address the lack of a skill development path. If IM were kept but became the first step in skill development, allowing new players to experience SC before making a conscious decision to develop flight skills by moving to a more challenging but also more rewarding control method then they make sense. However that means, of course, reducing the effectiveness of pilot controlled gimbals.
  • AlanFord

    Posts: 15408

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Kim | K-C said:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    How about we keep IM and ditch gimbals on anything smaller than a Cutlass?

    Hey Alan, I haven't seen you for a while :)

    I considered this when I formulated the op. I discarded it for a few reasons, not the least of which is CIG's apparent determination to keep gimbals. Which I think means gimbals on almost every ship. It also means gimbals cannot be experienced without a more expensive initial purchase or without spending time in the pu to raise the cash for a cutlass without the ease of use of gimbals. Nor would it address the lack of a skill development path. If IM were kept but became the first step in skill development, allowing new players to experience SC before making a conscious decision to develop flight skills by moving to a more challenging but also more rewarding control method then they make sense. However that means, of course, reducing the effectiveness of pilot controlled gimbals.
    K-C I figured you for a goner, glad to see you're not giving up so easily.

    I honestly think that IM gimbals is a bad thing for one man ships. IM must stay to make mouse work like a stick but we could get rid of gimbals in small ships or in all ships that don't have a RIO post.

    If LAM had custom curves, and if it was fixed so that it's usable with both mouse and stick, that would be great.

    So long as we have IM gimbals, especially with 2.6 changes to FM a stick will hardly ever be equal to mouse.

    Novhag_zpsokashio3.jpg
  • Ibly1

    Posts: 3346

    Posted:
    Edited: by Ibly1
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Kim | K-C said:
    [hide]

    IM should stay in SC. Yes I said it. It needs to stay for reasons of accessibility. However design that focuses on IM is the root cause of all issues with the flight model, controller balance, and a shallow flight experience, in my opinion, for this game. Now... here is why...

    IM should stay in the game and railing against it, when it is now clear that CIG will not remove it, is pointless. If we accept the premise that IM will remain, or at least should remain then we need to look at its effect on flight, manoeuvring, tactics and ship interaction. IM promotes aim over flight. Flight is in fact a by product of aim in IM rather than aim being a result of flight. Flight thus becomes of secondary importance, and at the moment is rendered virtually meaningless.

    Relegation of flight to a by product of aim is the root cause of all issues related to weapon balance, flight balance, flight experience and controller balance. It is why we keep getting endless updates with tweaks that result in an even poorer flight experience and an even greater emphasis on aim. The primary design issue appears to be that IM has been made the "standard" against which other control methods are measured. This is the direct cause of the controller debate and the direct cause of the shallow flight experience in SC. Looking at IM as the standard is frankly ass-backwards yet appears to be the current approach by CIG.

    The focus must move flight back to the prime position in development not, trying to balance flight, weapons and everything else against IM.

    If SC is to hold to its promise of skill based game play then the standard against which other methods of flight are measured cannot be the single most basic method of controlling a ship, otherwise you are trying to balance flight against instant and near perfect aim. This is simply not possible. It is this method that has dumbed down the flight experience and the sole reason that each update results in a worse and more shallow flight experience in this game.

    So how can this be achieved?...

    There must be a significant disadvantage to using IM. Not as we currently have, significant disadvantages to playing without IM. Flight must be promoted over aim not managed down to it. This is also the problem with the suggested methods to achieve controller balance, such as auto aim gimbals, aim assist etc. there is nothing wrong with these solutions, except that they maintain the focus on aim and not on flight. Introducing an aim based solution for the stick does not promote flying skill, it dumbs flying skill down to IM levels. They are about 'fixing aim for the stick' not about promoting flight.

    The only way to refocus on flight and the skill required for flight is that IM must have a significant disadvantage. It should remain an option, but be clearly a first step to building flight skills, not a method of control to be overcome by building flight skills. It should allow accessibility but not domination. It could be as simple as a significant damage modifier for gimbals, not weapon sizes, but gimbals themselves in order to encourage players to progress to developing flight skills, (in this case with fixed weapons over and above gimbals). Separately controlled player or NPC turrets could be easily exempted from the modifier. This modifier would apply specifically to the single seat fighter pilot using IM. The game law could easily adapt to such a modifier, i.e. the single seat fighter pilot suffering the effect of his divided attention between aim and flight for instance.

    A decent vjoy is also key, or doing this becomes a mouse nerf rather than a learning curve promoting flight. It would also incidentally encourage people to buy an SC marketed stick setup.

    Until IM is seen as a first step to be built upon in the development of flying skills and modified to make it such, then the statement that flight in SC more closely resembles an fps is valid. The lack of depth in the experience of flight in SC will remain and the controller debate will remain. No amount of patching, no amount of tweaks will fix this issue until IM becomes the first step in building a skill, not the last word against which flight skill must be developed and balanced. IM should and must stay if it is a first step that allows accessibility, but only if it is a step on the skill ladder rather than the control method for instant success.

    NOTE: there are many methods that might be employed to modify IM, the suggested damage modifier is used to illustrate the point not as a be all and end all solution.

    You hit the nail on the head but you're solution is impossible. It's like saying if you don't like how much water the glass holds then fill it to double capacity.

    You are right that IM is the standard but that's a requirement not a choice. Vehicle sims are based on limitations. Be it arcade or sim. How will my p-51 mustang fair against a fw 190d. What would I have to do differently in each to prevail? Or even in battlefield 1. What makes the light tank different? Can I operate it the same way as the heavy tank? Is it important to know and understand the strengths/weaknesses of the vehicle in the game? Yes, and it doesn't even have to be a sim.

    IM however is different. Because you can rotate (pitch and yaw) your vehicle faster than any ship can maneuver then all other stats are rendered moot. If you increase or decrease the pacing the only skill component you have to work with is aiming. This brings us to your point. Because of this if you now introduce limitations to vehicles so a vanguard and a hornet have different performance characteristics that matter that's great for the mouse relative players and joystick players but what have you done to balance because there is still a third player playing a different game. Their ship operates like an avatar in a fps. Their controller scheme overrides the limitations so any limitations imposed are just nerfs to everyone else.

    This brings us back to the glass analogy. You are probably saying now. What does IM have to do with it. Why don't you just impose the same limits on IM? Make it so you have to fly the ship with IM. Have the mouse control the ship instead of just pointing the guns and having the ship follow. Sounds great verbally but that's not IM anymore. If they want to get rid of the old IM, fix the vjoy and rename mouse relative mode IM mode I'm down with that. I'll even pretend to not notice so there's no awkwardness.



  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Kim | K-C said:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    How about we keep IM and ditch gimbals on anything smaller than a Cutlass?

    Hey Alan, I haven't seen you for a while :)

    I considered this when I formulated the op. I discarded it for a few reasons, not the least of which is CIG's apparent determination to keep gimbals. Which I think means gimbals on almost every ship. It also means gimbals cannot be experienced without a more expensive initial purchase or without spending time in the pu to raise the cash for a cutlass without the ease of use of gimbals. Nor would it address the lack of a skill development path. If IM were kept but became the first step in skill development, allowing new players to experience SC before making a conscious decision to develop flight skills by moving to a more challenging but also more rewarding control method then they make sense. However that means, of course, reducing the effectiveness of pilot controlled gimbals.
    K-C I figured you for a goner, glad to see you're not giving up so easily.

    I honestly think that IM gimbals is a bad thing for one man ships. IM must stay to make mouse work like a stick but we could get rid of gimbals in small ships or in all ships that don't have a RIO post.

    If LAM had custom curves, and if it was fixed so that it's usable with both mouse and stick, that would be great.

    So long as we have IM gimbals, especially with 2.6 changes to FM a stick will hardly ever be equal to mouse.

    No I have been reading along lol. I gave up posting lol, but I thought maybe I would give it another go.

    It is I suppose inherent in my argument that I have conceded that the stick cannot ever control gimbals as effectively as a mouse. I also have to admit I have campaigned heavily for the complete removal of IM as you know lol. The LAM solution may work to make gimbals equally usable on both devices. The real issue with gimbal removal is CIG. I just can't ever see them agreeing or they would have done it already. No... gimbals are here to stay. A decent vjoy however is easy to match to the abilities inherent with a stick and it's been done numerous times. The SC vjoy needs some serious work, it is terrible. Those mouse pilots currently flying fixed in its various forms are some seriously skilled pilots.

    I cannot however get away from this idea that IM is the single simplest method of control in the game. It is also badly op. Now some might say it is because weapon balance is off, or because the flight model has been slowed down, but I think the real truth is IM is just too simple and has no appreciable skill development curve. It never will because all you are required to do is place the cursor over an object and click your brains out.

    So what CIG has done is introduce a control method that is easy to learn and simple to master and simple to dominate with. Then leave the skill side of things to methods and controllers that are harder to learn and difficult to master. This is why IM is broken. IM should be a simple introduction to SC, to enable you to fly around (sort of) and to tackle basic opponents effectively. Anything more than a basic opponent should encourage the player to develop piloting skills and to interact with their ships, to learn its strengths and weaknesses and to establish strategies and tactics to overcome them. IM does not do this. There is no need to worry about piloting or tactics etc when all you need do is strap on some decent weapons and point, click and repeat. The skill ceiling is so low it qualifies as the floor. There is no balance method you can apply to fixed weapons on mouse or stick that will compensate.

    So IM, working on the assumption that almost every ship will have access to gimbals, is the mechanic that needs to change. It needs to change radically in effectiveness to encourage pilot skill development. Until this happens CIG will never achieve balance short of auto aim and most of us don't want auto aim.
  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Edited: by K-C
    Posted:
    Edited:
    @IBLY1

    Not being obtuse, I am not sure I understand your point. Unless it is solely that because one control method is more or less compatible to fps controls it can never be balanced against flight controls.

    I put the premise on the basis that IM is here to stay. If that is the case and it stays, then IM is what needs to change. Assuming I am correct and CIG will not remove IM then what needs to occur is that IM itself needs to be altered to encourage progression to more difficult skill based control methods. The size difference inherent in gimbal use is not effective due to a significantly higher time on target in recent patches. The only way I can see that happening is to reduce gimbal control in IM to an effectiveness level that is adequate for basic opponents but inadequate against anything more than this. Thus encouraging a transition from IM to more skill based play. Not introducing a limit to a particccular ship or ships but limiting the effectiveness of IM as a mechanic to a degree that promotes the development of a skill based system for flight. Put simply, if you want simple accessibility then IM is your baby, If you want to develop skill and compete with the best then fixed (in this example) is the only way to go because it promotes flight over aim, not aim over flight as IM does.
  • Igitur

    Posts: 61

    Posted:
    Edited: by Igitur
    Posted:
    Edited:
    IM with fixed weapons can stay, no problem. But IM + gimbals is an official cheat. It must go.


    Edit : I would add that, as a cheat, the issue only pertains to the MP aspect of Star Citizen. I wouldn't mind IM+Gimbals in SQ42, if that's needed for people to enjoy (and win) the SP campaign.

    Actually they could even keep gimbals, if automated for both mouse and stick users. That would be fair. The only real issue imo is the op manual aiming with gimbals. Another possible solution would be to reduce drastically the TTK, which would mitigate the problem.
  • SleepyWalker

    Posts: 4524

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Agreed that IM can stay, however gimbals must be changed in some way. alienwar has a list of ways gimbals can be changed. I do not agree with the entire list, but there are a lot of viable methods to altering gimbals into making a more fair and enjoyable experience.
  • K-C

    Posts: 736

    Posted:
    Edited: by K-C
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    IM with fixed weapons can stay, no problem. But IM + gimbals is an official cheat. It must go.


    Edit : I would add that, as a cheat, the issue only pertains to the MP aspect of Star Citizen. I wouldn't mind IM+Gimbals in SQ42, if that's needed for people to enjoy (and win) the SP campaign.

    Actually they could even keep gimbals, if automated for both mouse and stick users. That would be fair. The only real issue imo is the op manual aiming with gimbals. Another possible solution would be to reduce drastically the TTK, which would mitigate the problem.

    The issue of IM in SQ-42 has come up before and remains valid. Particularly when some rewards will carry over into the pu. The problem as I see it in SQ-42 is exactly the issue of rewards that carry over,

    In SQ-42 your character is a 'pilot'. So should the greatest level of rewards be available to a control method that has such a low skill ceiling? Or, should pilot skill be reflected in the award of those benefits? If IM remains as it is, then it will be far easier to complete SQ-42 in IM than with fixed. The majority of those using a very basic control method rather than a method that involves the development of a skill will receive a greater benefit simply because they chose to use a simplistic method of control. Again this is backward thinking for what is suppposed to be a skill based game, and a direct result of making IM the 'standard' and most effective method to play.

    Again I return to the basic premise that IM should be a starting block that allows simple access, but not be the definitive control method. While IM remains so utterly effective and so simple, then there is no (or at best, very little) skill development required. You instead have this weird alternate universe where every player using another control method is required to highly develop their skill sets to attempt to match the most basic form of play. Most will never achieve that making CIG's choices regarding IM an absurd premise on which to base flight and fighter combat.

  • Dunban

    Posts: 2967

    Posted:
    Edited: by Dunban
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I generally agree on most things said in the OP and what I am about to say pretty much falls in line with that, but I have to point out that I completely disagree with this statement.

    IM should stay in SC. [...] It needs to stay for reasons of accessibility.

    A) I know there are a lot of reasons to be disheartened, but this sort of capitulation towards evidently not working and inconsistent design is completely in the wrong place here. We, CIG and designers in general don't have to accept living with anything yet. Everything is and will remain to be subject to change. Frankly, a lot of you guys are seriously underestimating how far away we still are from anything that could remotely be called a release. (Now that is ironically enough a good thing.) That means there is massive amount of development still ahead and with that a lot of changes. Normally I'm not the kind of WK, but patience is the key word here. The vast majority of things is not in place yet. Not even remotely. That's a fact. So there is no need to be fatalistic. It is way way way too early to decide anything indefinitely yet (for or against). The devs know that. CR knows that. We should know that. What we tend to forget, is that we are all united in that we all want the game to be the best as it can be. A such we need to analyse things with maximum objectivity and stop clinging to personal preferences. That means we need to stop getting worked up with details and start looking at the big picture. Fair game design and future proof balance is good for the game. Consistent and intelligent game design with sensible customization options is good for the game. A satisfactory user experience is good for the game. Half-assery and foul compromises are bad for the game.

    B) "Accessibility" is not a good argument in favor of IM. The pilot's job is to pilot the vessel. (Otherwise he shouldn't be called the pilot.) This is/has to be an elemental design decision/goal! (This is something we have to agree on first.) As such "flight" is the primary gameplay aspect pilot gameplay has to revolve around. This is the logical continuation of the design decision/goal that has been set before. As such combat and gunnery comes after that. Now as excellently pointed out in the OP, IM puts aim first and flight second. Flight is an unconscious byproduct. Exaggeratedly put, an IM-pilot doesn't know how to pilot his ship, because he's not actually doing it. Therefore IM doesn't introduce a player to flight. It is in fact contradictory to the design goal. An IM user can't pick up a joystick, v-joy or any other first-order control method which is needed to pilot the vessel and to use fixed weapons and suddenly kick ass, no matter how much he mastered IM. As such we can't speak of "access" to being a pilot, when IM prevents the player from becoming exactly that. "Flight" and with that first-order control needs to be accessible. Not gunnery/aiming. It's even said in the OP.

    With that said: IM can stay for now maybe. But in the long run I absolutely don't see any future for it.

    (Edit: That doesn't mean of course that I KNOW there is no place for it in the future.)
  • TheFace

    Posts: 8503

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Uh no, I disagree. IM works phenomenally for gimbals but a keyboard makes for a chunky n clunky flight control system. Toi sacrifice flight experience and gain an aiming experience. Just because one can't aim gimbals with joysticks doesn't mean that the IM should be changed; just cause you can't fly as incredibly with a keyboard as with a joystick doesn't mean we should remove joysticks.

    Where IM is the best Mouse + Keyboard system it seems that, for flight, that Dual joysticks seems like the most awesome flight experience. Should we remove the dual joystick option so HOTAS users can fly stick like an F16? (Rhetoric so please don't go ballistic.) This is similar logic.

    I'd like to suggest that we improve IM or MKB. If we could get a game controller that blends digital keys, with compression being read for degree of thrust, with the mouse for gimbal control and steering. Add in head tracking and this will be awesome! In fact, I believe as awesome as Dual Joystick + Pedals + Head Tracking in VR.

    The only reason digital strafe controls are a mess is because of jerk ramp down specifically.

    O4uZhrB.jpg

  • Jezzail

    Posts: 1373

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I will never applaud the most foolish gameplay mechanic introduced in SC. If it stays it will stay with or without laudatio.
    Point and click = shallow. I'd rather have 20 golf swings in every "profession".
    Read all my posts in a loud and angry voice, as if I were writing in all caps, bolded and underlined. Your's sincerely, the worldeater.
  • Gwydion_Wolf

    Posts: 1722

    Posted:
    Posted:
    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?
    Only two great species take part in Massive, Organized, Warfare.
    Men, and Ants.
    0HgPPwm.gif
  • Jezzail

    Posts: 1373

    Posted:
    Edited: by Jezzail
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?

    Some say it's the control mode mouse users use per default.
    Others say it's a control method that uses a Vjoy in an invisible layer above the screen that controls two things at once: Ship orientation (Pitch and yaw) and direct gimbal control. Aka point and click aiming where pitch and yaw lags behind because there is a massive deadzone because apparently muscle memory is not a thing so it's unimagineable people could stop their orientation by correctly recentering their mouse.

    Yes my opinion on IM is very low.
    Read all my posts in a loud and angry voice, as if I were writing in all caps, bolded and underlined. Your's sincerely, the worldeater.
  • EremiticWolf

    Posts: 1392

    Posted:
    Edited: by EremiticWolf
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?


    *fixed thanks to Dunban*
    Interactive Mode. Where you aim your gimbals with the mouse and the ship follows.
    I NEVER LOSE, I either WIN or, I LEARN

    Use my referrel code and get 5,000 UEC - code: STAR-HJL9-N7RM
  • Dunban

    Posts: 2967

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?

    Interactive Mode. Where you aim your gimbals with the mouse and the ship follows.
    Fixed that for you ;)

  • Ibly1

    Posts: 3346

    Posted:
    Edited: by Ibly1
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?

    Interactive Mode. Where you aim your gimbals with the mouse and the ship follows.
    Fixed that for you ;)

    This is it Gwydion

    Interactive Mode. Where you aim your gimbals with the mouse and the ship follows.
  • EremiticWolf

    Posts: 1392

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?

    Interactive Mode. Where you aim your gimbals with the mouse and the ship follows.
    Fixed that for you ;)

    Thank you it's early in the morning. lol
    I NEVER LOSE, I either WIN or, I LEARN

    Use my referrel code and get 5,000 UEC - code: STAR-HJL9-N7RM
  • Igitur

    Posts: 61

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Kim | K-C said:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    IM with fixed weapons can stay, no problem. But IM + gimbals is an official cheat. It must go.


    Edit : I would add that, as a cheat, the issue only pertains to the MP aspect of Star Citizen. I wouldn't mind IM+Gimbals in SQ42, if that's needed for people to enjoy (and win) the SP campaign.

    Actually they could even keep gimbals, if automated for both mouse and stick users. That would be fair. The only real issue imo is the op manual aiming with gimbals. Another possible solution would be to reduce drastically the TTK, which would mitigate the problem.

    The issue of IM in SQ-42 has come up before and remains valid. Particularly when some rewards will carry over into the pu. The problem as I see it in SQ-42 is exactly the issue of rewards that carry over,

    In SQ-42 your character is a 'pilot'. So should the greatest level of rewards be available to a control method that has such a low skill ceiling? Or, should pilot skill be reflected in the award of those benefits? If IM remains as it is, then it will be far easier to complete SQ-42 in IM than with fixed. The majority of those using a very basic control method rather than a method that involves the development of a skill will receive a greater benefit simply because they chose to use a simplistic method of control. Again this is backward thinking for what is suppposed to be a skill based game, and a direct result of making IM the 'standard' and most effective method to play.

    I would personally remove IM+gimbals completely if I could, but I'm afraid that being too intransigent on the issue can only lead to our legitimate request being turned down flat.

    For instance, IM+G could be accepted as the easy mode in Sq 42 and as such be rewarded much lesser than the hardcore mode. On the other hand, if IM+G were SP only then, even with an equivalent level of rewards, people who completed the campaign the easy way would be forced to migrate toward a fairer (?) controller method in the PU, where their usurped skill wouldn't last long, so they wouldn't have won much.

    The important point imo is that IM+manual aiming with gimbals MUST be prohibited in the PU.

  • Fleashz

    Posts: 18

    Posted:
    Edited: by Fleashz
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Anyone can explain me what IM mode exactly is?
    I thought you were discussing about mouse and gimble gun. But why some people keep talking about removing it from game?
    For The Horde!
  • alienwar

    Posts: 6082

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Uh no, I disagree. IM works phenomenally for gimbals but a keyboard makes for a chunky n clunky flight control system. Toi sacrifice flight experience and gain an aiming experience. Just because one can't aim gimbals with joysticks doesn't mean that the IM should be changed; just cause you can't fly as incredibly with a keyboard as with a joystick doesn't mean we should remove joysticks.

    Where IM is the best Mouse + Keyboard system it seems that, for flight, that Dual joysticks seems like the most awesome flight experience. Should we remove the dual joystick option so HOTAS users can fly stick like an F16? (Rhetoric so please don't go ballistic.) This is similar logic.

    I'd like to suggest that we improve IM or MKB. If we could get a game controller that blends digital keys, with compression being read for degree of thrust, with the mouse for gimbal control and steering. Add in head tracking and this will be awesome! In fact, I believe as awesome as Dual Joystick + Pedals + Head Tracking in VR.

    The only reason digital strafe controls are a mess is because of jerk ramp down specifically.
    Digital strafe controls (and throttle) are a mess because of coupled mode. In decoupled they are fine (and jerk wasn't applied to decoupled for a long time). "Target Velocity" control for digital inputs is horrible. It is even worse when the thrusts are auto-zeroing (strafe).

    Jerk only accentuates the issue that has always existed since strafe was introduced in the early patches.
    CpG0fXM.jpg
  • SilverRook

    Posts: 1172

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Still not getting why we don't have a system that combines IM with traits similar to v0.8's aiming mechanic...

    Keep using IM as we do now, but simply allow guns to "lock-on" like they did in v0.8, with a (subject for balance) small radius around the pip. Basically, keep your target anywhere within the circle of that pip, and the gun will automatically make the necessary micro adjustments to ensure your shots connect.

    This way you eliminate the inherent aiming difference between mouse vs. everyone, while not eliminating the need for the pilot to actually aim at his targets.

    Mouse also seems to have an advantage in RM (relative mode), where all you need is a ship with fast enough turn speed and a set of 870 mk3s, and there you go, the universe is still your platter.
    So I propose a fixed centered gun lock radius for fixed weapons as well.

    This way it doesn't matter what your input device is, if you're good enough to put your target within the radius, your shots can connect.

    I strongly think some sort of iteration based on what we had in 0.8, can be mixed with what we have now, to settle this issue.
  • CommanderKevin

    Posts: 5824

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    *riases hand* just what is "IM" ?

    [hide]

    Anyone can explain me what IM mode exactly is?
    I thought you were discussing about mouse and gimble gun. But why some people keep talking about removing it from game?


    As others have explained, it's a shortened term for "Interactive Mode", the default mouse mode that allows you to control your ship with a Virtual Joystick-like control mode, but also allows you to point gimbals with your cursor. It is this last part, the gimbal control part, that causes the problem.

    Let's start by looking at the Virtual Joystick, or Vjoy "layer". A Vjoy works by converting the position of your cursor into a vector through the center of your screen or control area. The angle between your cursor and the center of your screen determines what direction your ship will rotate, while the distance between the two determines how fast your ship rotates. This is similar to how a joystick works, except that instead of moving a handle, you're moving a cursor. Because of the way the mouse is designed, however, it is much more precise than any joystick. With a properly-built Vjoy, this makes the mouse one of the best flight controllers you can get.

    SC's Vjoy, however, isn't very well built. It feels sloppy, it doesn't have any indication of its boundaries, it's unusable on wide screens, and above all, it's the wrong shape. This makes it more difficult to use and to learn, but doesn't drag down it's top-level performance too much. It needs to be fixed.

    Now, let's look at the gimbal aim layer. This is what causes the problem and is the only thing people are talking about when they say "Remove IM". Not the Vjoy, the gimbal aim layer. What it allows the mouse to do is aim gimbaled guns in a zero-order, 1:1 fashion. Wherever your cursor is, that's pretty much where your gimbals will shoot. The problem is, the mouse's precision, the very thing that makes it a great flight controller, makes it a phenomenal aim controller. It can acquire a target, track the target, and hit the target faster and more accurately than any joystick possibly can. The joystick can't aim gimbals as well as the mouse, which means that any time gimbals are more powerful than fixed weapons, which will happen no matter how well they're balanced, only the mouse will be able to take advantage of it.

    Now, to be clear, removing IM means only removing the mouse's ability to aim gimbals in that specific way. It doesn't mean removing the Virtual Joystick, it doesn't mean removing gimbals, it doesn't even mean removing manual gimbals. It only means removing that one specific part of that one specific control mode. After that, there are many solutions out there to replace it, from full automation to partial automation, to another, more balanced manual gimbal control mode.
    HFmUZG1.gif
  • Valdrin

    Posts: 524

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I don't think the joy stick controls have been finalized.

    Looking at the top 100 players however it seems almost a 50/50 blend of joy stick users and mouse users. So I don't see much of an issue. Player controls should be a preference and the idea of a joy stick user should just be better than a mouse user isn't how I think CIG plans things out.

  • alienwar

    Posts: 6082

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I don't think the joy stick controls have been finalized.

    Looking at the top 100 players however it seems almost a 50/50 blend of joy stick users and mouse users. So I don't see much of an issue. Player controls should be a preference and the idea of a joy stick user should just be better than a mouse user isn't how I think CIG plans things out.

    Leaderboards are a poor statistic to use as evidence of balance.

    There are:
    - meta ships that disrupt/hide potential imbalance
    - missile issues that don't apply to gunnery balance
    - secondary device imbalance like twin stick that gives an advantage over mkb
    - higher likelihood of joystick players putting in more hours and having more experience

    If anything, a 50/50 split would mean joysticks are at a HUGE advantage because that means a much higher percentage of all stick users make it to the top 100 than mice (given that in total there are a LOT more mouse players than stick). Because of this, and because that doesn't make much sense, I can confidently assert that leaderboard balance means shit. Too many variables.
    CpG0fXM.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.