Evasive Maneuvers Useless!

  • Dirtbag

    Posts: 2902

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    Advanced
    1. Ability to lose control of ship "spin" when removing flight assistance.

    2. The ability, at the moment in aircraft to do every type of flight style is too much power at no cost but the flick of a switch. There need to be a devide between fast or speed fighters, turners and 6DOF fighters, and its a choice you need to do in the hanger and not during the flight it self.

    While there is room for having an omni system, a specialized set up needs to be able to beet omni flight style.

    3. Meaningful trigger time, ammo is a good balance system, while overheating is expected its a cop out. as it removes a strategic element part of the game like logistics


    I am not going to argue all the points because given the 1 is BF3 and 10 is DCS I would like to see SC at around 6 ish.

    As to point 2 that actually is an good point it should require hanger setup and pre-flight setup with limited tweaking once you are flying. But the game is not even close to that level of customization. AC is a very very artificial environment, and really more of a tech demo/ back end testing system. But your point stands and is valid.

    Point 3 is a wee bit more difficult, with respect to energy weapons. Given a large enough power source energizing the weapons and dealing with heat are not a issue. You would always have sufficient power to run both, so heat is admittedly a simplistic method of handling energy weapons.

    What would be better once we have an actual power management systems, would be the ability to manage both weapons, and cooling. Better upgrades to the power and cooling systems would equal higher damage potential. Of course these would be required to improve your weapons as well.

    As for dealing with damage, I can see 2 basic systems weapons capacitors and cooling. Damage to capacitors would result in either a slower rate of fire or less damage done with the pilot juggling the systems to get the best damage output and rate of fire.

    Cooling is actually more difficult to compensate for as you may have reduce both damage done and rate of fire to keep your weapons functioning or risk more damage to both the cooling and capacitor systems.

    I do not what is planned for the future but this would make energy weapons far more interesting, but the reality is we start getting into an issue with controls. I only have 2 hands so the more options we have to manage systems in flight and during combat the more difficult control agnostics become. So managing schemes for mouse, joystick, game controllers and Hotas becomes a wee bit nightmarish.
    DES
  • Logical_Chimp

    Posts: 22224

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Once the power management system is fully functional (and usable in flight), I'd like to see the power available to most ships be dropped a bit (perhaps to the level of the original AC Hornet).

    This wouldn't significantly affect the average flyer - but it would make power management 'meaningful', and give it a bit more of an emphasis. I don't want power to be so short-supplied that you have to constantly jigger the setting to fire your gun then move, but at the moment there isn't really any major need to touch it.

    I guess I'm thinking back to the hold Tie Fighter days, when shuffling power between weapons, engines, and shields made a big difference (e.g. power up slightly on shields for combat, then dump it to engines to intercept the next group of ships quicker (or chase down someone trying to flee), then over-charge the weapons briefly to give them power quickly, then back to balanced for combat, etc

    You didn't *have* to play with the power to achieve that sort of thing, but it gave you an edge if you did.
    I'm not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.
  • Peanuts_Revenge

    Posts: 207

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    OMG! geek vs. geek in the house! I'll buy some snacks and coffee then read this thread lol

    Yep. Would be handy if we could lock our own threads to avoid things like this :)
  • StanleyCrube

    Posts: 11378

    Posted:
    Edited: by StanleyCrube
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    The one disingenuous part here I object to is the "craft with no mass". It has mass--just not the mass/thrust ratio and drag an aircraft profile has.

    The argument that "they must fly more like planes if they are to be fun" is where a lot of us just don't agree with you.

    If you keep in your mind it "must be that way" you will never be content with it. Embrace new and think outside aircraft profiles. Try approaching the game as someone who has never played a flight sim before and then imagine what "space combat" would/should be like from that perspective--instead of always pointing to aircraft game profiles and comparisons.

    Man...it was hard to say all that without breathing through my mouth. Whew!

    Stan


  • Xamindar

    Posts: 2361

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    OMG! geek vs. geek in the house! I'll buy some snacks and coffee then read this thread lol

    Yep. Would be handy if we could lock our own threads to avoid things like this :)
    Umm, this IS K9's thread and if you look at why he started it you'll see how ridiculous it was from the start. Allowing him to lock his own thread would just allow him to cover up his own stupidity. ;)
  • Goloith

    Posts: 7991

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    OMG! geek vs. geek in the house! I'll buy some snacks and coffee then read this thread lol

    Yep. Would be handy if we could lock our own threads to avoid things like this :)
    Umm, this IS K9's thread and if you look at why he started it you'll see how ridiculous it was from the start. Allowing him to lock his own thread would just allow him to cover up his own stupidity. ;)
    Lol
    Goloith's Streambadge
  • Jolly

    Posts: 1541

    Posted:
    Posted:
    This thread started with a complaint about something that doesn't exist.

    Generally I've found the gimballed guns pretty easy to foil - IF I'm paying attention, and the tradeoff is I often can't get off many shots of my own. A simple barrel roll (with a careful eye on your vector indicator so you're actually corkscrewing and not just spinning in place) does wonders for survivability; the downside for me so far is that I can pretty much only evade with it, not attack.

    Regardless, if you're under fire, this is a pretty good thing to keep in your pocket as a quick reaction.
    Ad Astra, Cum Honore
  • Jack-Oakley

    Posts: 511

    Posted:
    Edited: by Jack-Oakley
    Posted:
    Edited:
    To the OP, Travis Day did mention a while back (in an interview/pod cast) that he wants to change the green target to a lead indicator. So instead of always pointing your target to the green box which stays on the enemy ship, you would have to keep your target on the lead indicator which would change location depending on how the enemy ship is maneuvering.

    But that was a number of months ago (I'll try to find a link to the interview if anyone is interested), so maybe they decided against the idea.

    If anyone in CiG reads this, I think a number of people would love to hear an update from Travis regarding the lead target indicator? Is it still on the plans to be implemented or has it been scratched?

    EDIT: I haven't read the other replies here, I'm just replying to the OP.
    "My God, it's full of stars"
  • Galactron

    Posts: 154

    Posted:
    Edited: by Galactron
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    OMG! geek vs. geek in the house! I'll buy some snacks and coffee then read this thread lol

    Yep. Would be handy if we could lock our own threads to avoid things like this :)
    Umm, this IS K9's thread and if you look at why he started it you'll see how ridiculous it was from the start. Allowing him to lock his own thread would just allow him to cover up his own stupidity. ;)
    People can have their OWN opinion, the main topic here is Evasive maneuver useless, the homing thing is "Solved", read the whole thread, your comment proves how stupid and idiot you are xD

    Why would an op lock a thread when people are learning from it, if people like you can't contribute anything in this thread, then STFU lol

  • Toast

    Moderator

    Posted:
    Edited: by Toast
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    OMG! geek vs. geek in the house! I'll buy some snacks and coffee then read this thread lol

    Yep. Would be handy if we could lock our own threads to avoid things like this :)
    Umm, this IS K9's thread and if you look at why he started it you'll see how ridiculous it was from the start. Allowing him to lock his own thread would just allow him to cover up his own stupidity. ;)
    People can have their OWN opinion, the main topic here is Evasive maneuver useless, the homing thing is "Solved", read the whole thread, your comment proves how stupid and idiot you are xD

    Why would an op lock a thread when people are learning from it, if people like you can't contribute anything in this thread, then STFU lol

    Please read forum rule 1. No on the "stupid", "idiot" and "STFU" talk, please. Discourse here is supposed to remain civil.

    Please remember that while I may have quoted k9/Hiryu's post here, it applies to everyone.

    Thanks!
    Anything that I post as a moderator will appear in purple or orange. Otherwise, I'm posting as a backer, like you. I'm not part of the ship stats team, so I don't have answers to those!
  • Zhadum101

    Posts: 1819

    Posted:
    Posted:
    You know it is possible to trick the firing computer by making changes constantly.
  • RedPrime

    Posts: 3473

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    You know it is possible to trick the firing computer by making changes constantly.

    Apparently he doesn't get that, and no amount of explanation has managed to convince him so far.
    Primerus Redmane
    casrbanner photo 2syJ3WL_zpsvo8</div></body></html>
  • croberts68

    Developer

    Posted:
    Edited: by croberts68
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    I think a key part of space combat does boil down to "put the most guns on one target". I don't know why that is a put down. The issue is in achieving that goal. With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet. There are clearly good and bad pilots in Arena Commander and if you spend time watching the matches, looking at Twitch streams and reading the Arena Commander forums you could see the combat is nowhere near as simple and "casual" as you seem to think it is. It is just different than what you are used to. Arena Commander still has a long way to go - and with v0.9 there will be more features that will further add to the depth (and leader-boards that will show there is a clear skill hierarchy), then a lot more for v1.0 and beyond.

    However if you're looking for an atmospheric flight model in Star Citizen you are going to be disappointed - I made a deliberate choice to embrace what space combat maneuvering (at low speeds) would be like. Games should have their own personality. I don't want Star Citizen to be a rehash of other games. I think its great that Elite:Dangerous and Star Citizen have different approaches to the space flight model - that allows for diversity and difference in game experience (who wants to play the same game rehashed over and over again?).

    One other thing to consider is with Arena Commander people are only seeing a very small window into what the world of Star Citizen will be like. There's going to be much much larger play areas, much more need for system, energy and radar signature management, huge multi crewed ships mixed with small single seater ones, play geared to both cooperative play and single play, combat that works for both PvP and PvE. There's going to be plenty of stuff to challenge even the most skillful players but you also have to remember the game needs to be accessible - not everyone is a "simmer" - some people want to explore, some want to trade, some just want to sight see. My objective is to make it easy to get the hang of flight and combat but difficult to become truly masterful. I strongly believe the current design will deliver this in spades once all the features come on line.
  • INACTIVE_Divus

    Posts: 1363

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Sigh - please at least try to be a bit less condescending and obnoxious - just because people are seeing things in this game that you don't doesn't make us the blind ones...

    The only consideration i have is to the argument at hand, dont take it personal
    [hide]


    Correct - think of it as more akin to helicopter combat in this respect (and without the addition of much terrain to hide behind). This is a function of Space - it's big, it's empty, and there's no need to keep moving just to avoid dropping out of the sky. On this basis, positional warfare will have to work very differently.

    Yes they "should", no one is asking for an atmo game, but for depth, arguing its space or atmo is futile since its and in all honsty neither at the moment.

    But in an atmo flight you might need to consider 10 or more "data points" for you to achieve a good positional warfare, in SC "as it stands" its around 3 at max.

    so in other words saying its in space, does not mean it should be shallow, which once more by numerical facts it is "as it stands"
    [hide]


    Yup - as a stated temporary measure. 'Proper' radar system incorporating variable strength radar, variable strength signatures, shadowing, narrowing the radar scope to improve resolution, and other functionality is all planned, but not yet available. But you apparently already know this, so why you complaining?

    Yep, but the argument is on what it stands, what if can be in the maybe future, does not change the fact that AC as it stands is arcade "at best"
    [hide]


    Yeah - this is pretty poor at the moment (although it has nothing to do with the flight model, and has been acknowledged by CIG as something that needs to be improved)

    a dogfight, is a full weapon system "once more as it stands" its a colection between flight model and armament, if the armament negates the flight model "at them moment thats what articulated guns and binary missiles do" then the flight model is simply not worth the paper its on.

    This is the same situation that eveolved in EVE over the years, and it was a down hill climb where Devs re invented the wheel and it turned into dull game play.

    Gun A can hit 90% of the time = Fights too short not enough fun
    So lets increase HP to 900% = Getting more guns to shoot 1 guy

    Summery = pinata in space. Why move or use range or extend or do anything at all if you can simply OUT DPS some one with numbers/Guns
    [hide]


    Easiest game you've played, huh? And yet you're complaining about lack of evasion / how it's meaningless - despite plenty of others saying it works and they use it... Sounds like it might not be as easy as you think (or you think your 'Sim' experience should make you a God at SC - in which case I refer you to my previous point about having to adapt to new skills).

    The AC is quite simple, and pretty much predictable and repetitive at best. its simply down to who can hold or Aim the longest at a target and has more HP.

    Every kill is the same, and more or less but a game of "space chicken" with binary game play.
    [hide]


    You seem to be confusing 'Hit button 1, hit button 2, open window, press toggle Z' type gameplay as 'flying'. Mind you, from what I've seen of 'sim' games, they're not much different these days.

    If honestly you think that is what sim play is at the moment then you have no standing on commenting on what a dog fight is or how its supposed to.

    Put it simply, its much more than that, and SC can be much more than that with 90% less complexity and "boring stuff".

    There is a difference between what is a sim standard and a weapon system management.
    [hide]


    Except that it's the way you're using it. You're using 'casual' to denigrate anyone who doesn't play ultra-detailed 'sim' games (which are extremely niche within PC gaming, which itself is pretty niche these days). Using 'Casual' to cover people who play 'Plants vs Zombies' in a browser would be more accurate (albeit still denigrating them) - referring to people who prefer 'normal' PC games as casuals just makes yourself look bigoted.

    I should also say that CR has cheerfully admitted that SC is never going to be a sim in the sense of DCS - because other than a comparative handful of people, no one finds those games fun. It is going to be more Sim than BF4 (which probably isn't that hard), and less than DCS. Exactly where on that scale it ends up landing, we'll have to wait and see I guess.

    A casual player is a casual player, sim head is a sim head, not insults there what so ever, and nope no one is asking for DCS. getting offended by terms is getting out of hand. leave that SJW to tumbler it helps no one

    But if BF3 is a 1 and DCS is a 10 on depth? SC is "as it stands" its a "1" for now. the base is solid, and SC can be way more than what it is. Hence why we put time into those internet arguments.
    Very good posting!
    Thank you.
    HFmUZG1.gif
  • Zerat

    Posts: 3194

    Posted:
    Posted:
    quite often I capture the core.
    Run all they way back to the base and do not get hit.. Why ? I spin around and do not fly in a straight line. the targeting system goes crazy and rarely anything hits me
  • Hartmann

    Posts: 289

    Posted:
    Edited: by Hartmann
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    I think a key part of space combat does boil down to "put the most guns on one target". I don't know why that is a put down. The issue is in achieving that goal. With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet. There are clearly good and bad pilots in Arena Commander and if you spend time watching the matches, looking at Twitch streams and reading the Arena Commander forums you could see the combat is nowhere near as simple and "casual" as you seem to think it is. It is just different than what you are used to. Arena Commander still has a long way to go - and with v0.9 there will be more features that will further add to the depth (and leader-boards that will show there is a clear skill hierarchy), then a lot more for v1.0 and beyond.

    However if you're looking for an atmospheric flight model in Star Citizen you are going to be disappointed - I made a deliberate choice to embrace what space combat maneuvering (at low speeds) would be like. Games should have their own personality. I don't want Star Citizen to be a rehash of other games. I think its great that Elite:Dangerous and Star Citizen have different approaches to the space flight model - that allows for diversity and difference in game experience (who wants to play the same game rehashed over and over again?).

    One other thing to consider is with Arena Commander people are only seeing a very small window into what the world of Star Citizen will be like. There's going to be much much larger play areas, much more need for system, energy and radar signature management, huge multi crewed ships mixed with small single seater ones, play geared to both cooperative play and single play, combat that works for both PvP and PvE. There's going to be plenty of stuff to challenge even the most skillful players but you also have to remember the game needs to be accessible - not everyone is a "simmer" - some people want to explore, some want to trade, some just want to sight see. My objective is to make it easy to get the hang of flight and combat but difficult to become truly masterful. I strongly believe the current design will deliver this in spades once all the features come on line.

    This is not asking for a complete rework, turning it into an atmospheric flightmodel, or deleting what's there already. It's very easy to work within the parameter established already and bring significant improvement and depth without massive changes.

    Simple changes like increasing the max speed, increasing the time it takes to reach these speeds, reducing the turn time, increasing retention of energy/momentum etc. These are changes that can be easily made, yet improve things massively.

    Just because there are people doing better or worse, or because there are people high up on the leaderboards does not imply that there is a properly working skill factor. Any game no matter how poorly designed (just saying this as an example) will have people doing better or worse at it. That does not immediately imply that everything is working at maximum potential. I can be better or worse at any casual game, but that doesn't mean that it is as rewarding as a well designed, more hardcore game.

    While I understand there will be more ships and different things to do in the long run, these small ship dogfights will undoubtedly form a core gameplay mechanic as well. Having it be as deep, skill rewarding and tactically interesting as possible can only be good for the game.

    In the end it all depends on what you are going for. Certainly a functional casual experience exist at the moment in the small ship dogfight area. And if that is the goal then more power to you. But aren't we all hoping for this game in particular to take it beyond that point? All we're saying is that the tools are there to make this part of the game something that is truly unique. Make dogfighting something that can exist on its own merrits, rather then as an insignificant part of the whole that needs to be carried by complexity in other parts of the game.
  • SirScorpion

    Posts: 2600

    Posted:
    Edited: by SirScorpion
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    I think a key part of space combat does boil down to "put the most guns on one target". I don't know why that is a put down. The issue is in achieving that goal. With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet. There are clearly good and bad pilots in Arena Commander and if you spend time watching the matches, looking at Twitch streams and reading the Arena Commander forums you could see the combat is nowhere near as simple and "casual" as you seem to think it is. It is just different than what you are used to. Arena Commander still has a long way to go - and with v0.9 there will be more features that will further add to the depth (and leader-boards that will show there is a clear skill hierarchy), then a lot more for v1.0 and beyond.

    However if you're looking for an atmospheric flight model in Star Citizen you are going to be disappointed - I made a deliberate choice to embrace what space combat maneuvering (at low speeds) would be like. Games should have their own personality. I don't want Star Citizen to be a rehash of other games. I think its great that Elite:Dangerous and Star Citizen have different approaches to the space flight model - that allows for diversity and difference in game experience (who wants to play the same game rehashed over and over again?).

    One other thing to consider is with Arena Commander people are only seeing a very small window into what the world of Star Citizen will be like. There's going to be much much larger play areas, much more need for system, energy and radar signature management, huge multi crewed ships mixed with small single seater ones, play geared to both cooperative play and single play, combat that works for both PvP and PvE. There's going to be plenty of stuff to challenge even the most skillful players but you also have to remember the game needs to be accessible - not everyone is a "simmer" - some people want to explore, some want to trade, some just want to sight see. My objective is to make it easy to get the hang of flight and combat but difficult to become truly masterful. I strongly believe the current design will deliver this in spades once all the features come on line.
    @croberts68

    Thanks for the response, in my following posts i clarified that i my self also do not want an atmospheric flight.

    The topic at hand is simply put it, the flight model is just too good for Multi player and human behavior in combat. and please note that my whole argument is on what it stands now "as that is the subject at hand"

    This results in simplified combat situations, you feel less in control of a ship, its too obedient. In comparison with EVE "which is far more than a point and click when it comes to positional warfare" SC is indeed at least lagging behind it in terms of the amount of data points needed "in a different way" but the pilot work load is much more significant.

    The whole miss conscription about the arguments from the "sim" crowed, is that it will become DCS in space. But nothing can be further from the truth in that regards.

    The 3 main points we have concern with, are simply 1.acceleration rates 2.deceleration rates, and 3.Velocity vector change rates. all of which are beholden to lore and not to zero G or Atmo.

    Giving a longer breath to those systems provide a solid PVP environment in an un-predictable PU style world. Such tolerance if increased will reduce the "jousting" significantly.

    The second major issue is how combat is conducted, in terms of "putting guns on target", Its simply too easy right now gain a fire solution, this to me is a slippery slope. As the solution for extending the fights is buffing the HP, doing so will mean that flying a ship becomes less and less important, and trigger time and amount of ships on one target mean is far more important.

    Re inventing combat interaction, is something to be taken with significant consideration, as combat in SC by simply looking at it looks like a cube of angry bees and less than star wars or Battle star, or The trailers "sweeping combat with chase seen and people maneuvering"

    I have been siming competitively for 15 years and siming for a total of 20 years by now, and enjoyed all of the wing commander games, along with star lancer free lancer and the free space games. I also put in lots of time in casual games like BF3 and 4 and even high skill games like Tribes ascend. along with 8 years in EVE online. I understand the the frustration of players and how players conduct them selves in complex combat environments. "i am fortunate enough to spend a significant amount of time on this stuff"

    For arena commander, the system can work. But for a PU, there will be issues when the matching variables are not so easy and where respwaning means that you might have to travel a distance and deal with loss and consequence.

    a Solution for extending fights, is quite simple, SC has a solid foundation for that. I been wanting to explain this in an episodic videos showing the Devs here what can be learned and avoided from flight sims which have and i think it will be clear that what the sim community is asking for is more or less in line with SC, accessible and has nothing to do with atmo flight.

    Once more thank you for your response
    tMo1z4h.jpg
  • Goloith

    Posts: 7991

    Posted:
    Edited: by Goloith
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    I think a key part of space combat does boil down to "put the most guns on one target". I don't know why that is a put down. The issue is in achieving that goal. With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet. There are clearly good and bad pilots in Arena Commander and if you spend time watching the matches, looking at Twitch streams and reading the Arena Commander forums you could see the combat is nowhere near as simple and "casual" as you seem to think it is. It is just different than what you are used to. Arena Commander still has a long way to go - and with v0.9 there will be more features that will further add to the depth (and leader-boards that will show there is a clear skill hierarchy), then a lot more for v1.0 and beyond.

    However if you're looking for an atmospheric flight model in Star Citizen you are going to be disappointed - I made a deliberate choice to embrace what space combat maneuvering (at low speeds) would be like. Games should have their own personality. I don't want Star Citizen to be a rehash of other games. I think its great that Elite:Dangerous and Star Citizen have different approaches to the space flight model - that allows for diversity and difference in game experience (who wants to play the same game rehashed over and over again?).

    One other thing to consider is with Arena Commander people are only seeing a very small window into what the world of Star Citizen will be like. There's going to be much much larger play areas, much more need for system, energy and radar signature management, huge multi crewed ships mixed with small single seater ones, play geared to both cooperative play and single play, combat that works for both PvP and PvE. There's going to be plenty of stuff to challenge even the most skillful players but you also have to remember the game needs to be accessible - not everyone is a "simmer" - some people want to explore, some want to trade, some just want to sight see. My objective is to make it easy to get the hang of flight and combat but difficult to become truly masterful. I strongly believe the current design will deliver this in spades once all the features come on line.
    As one of the better pilots and possibly the pilot with the highest documented score of 70k points in squadron battle there needs to be more than simply putting more guns on a target. Right now the Hornet owns every ship and that's at 1/2 to 3/4 full potential. Since pitch/yaw/roll speeds are so fast the ship with the most guns wins. That I find incredibly shallow. I understand you want every ship to handle different, but if CIG would simply reduce the saturation on the flight model output on a per ship basis it would allow bulky ships like the Hornet to handle better, all the while slowing their pitch/roll/yaw. This would work wonders for rock/paper/scissor balancing. This would allow ships that are less armed, but more maneuverable a fighting chance. The best part of all Chris, is that it is 100% realistic with the current physics. Heck try out that Saitek X-55 Rhino HOTAS Y-Saturation on the stick axis and you will know what I mean.

    If you don't check this out:
    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/170750/dialing-in-the-x-55-rhino-h-o-t-a-s-for-maximum-accuracy
    Goloith's Streambadge
  • INACTIVE_Turban

    Posts: 2810

    Posted:
    Posted:
    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !
  • Jestunhi

    Posts: 13747

    Posted:
    Edited: by Jestunhi
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !

    From what I've read in other threads, the joystick is able to control the gimballed guns too:
    [hide]

    Have you tried mapping v_view_aim_yaw & v_view_aim_pitch to something on your joystick?

    For example, here's an XML mapping for a Saitek Cyborg Fly 5 which maps it to the hat switch (dated back in June, there may have been updates since):
    <actionmap name="spaceship_view">
    <action name="v_view_yaw_left">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_left" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_yaw_right">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_right" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_up">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_up" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_down">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_down" />
    </action>
    </actionmap>

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2794907/#Comment_2794907

    What you actually seem to be complaining about seems to be gimballed weapons and the limited controls / keymapping that we currently have (something which is due to be improved in 0.91).

    CIG Calix Reneau:
    I think we could experiment with making decoupled aim and flight more available, but I don't expect that we'll be removing coupled aim+flight. I don't agree that any "arcadish FPS feel" is intrinsic to the control setup
  • INACTIVE_Turban

    Posts: 2810

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !

    From what I've read in other threads, the joystick is able to control the gimballed guns too:
    [hide]

    Have you tried mapping v_view_aim_yaw & v_view_aim_pitch to something on your joystick?

    For example, here's an XML mapping for a Saitek Cyborg Fly 5 which maps it to the hat switch (dated back in June, there may have been updates since):
    <actionmap name="spaceship_view">
    <action name="v_view_yaw_left">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_left" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_yaw_right">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_right" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_up">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_up" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_down">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_down" />
    </action>
    </actionmap>

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2794907/#Comment_2794907

    What you actually seem to be complaining about seems to be gimballed weapons and the limited controls / keymapping that we currently have (something which is due to be improved in 0.91).

    I have mapped my hat for straffe, thank you. Please don't derail my question ;)
  • Goloith

    Posts: 7991

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !

    From what I've read in other threads, the joystick is able to control the gimballed guns too:
    [hide]

    Have you tried mapping v_view_aim_yaw & v_view_aim_pitch to something on your joystick?

    For example, here's an XML mapping for a Saitek Cyborg Fly 5 which maps it to the hat switch (dated back in June, there may have been updates since):
    <actionmap name="spaceship_view">
    <action name="v_view_yaw_left">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_left" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_yaw_right">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_right" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_up">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_up" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_down">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_down" />
    </action>
    </actionmap>

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2794907/#Comment_2794907

    What you actually seem to be complaining about seems to be gimballed weapons and the limited controls / keymapping that we currently have (something which is due to be improved in 0.91).

    I tried mapping this to my mouse axis on my X-55 and errored out.
    Goloith's Streambadge
  • Jestunhi

    Posts: 13747

    Posted:
    Edited: by Jestunhi
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !

    From what I've read in other threads, the joystick is able to control the gimballed guns too:
    [hide]

    Have you tried mapping v_view_aim_yaw & v_view_aim_pitch to something on your joystick?

    For example, here's an XML mapping for a Saitek Cyborg Fly 5 which maps it to the hat switch (dated back in June, there may have been updates since):
    <actionmap name="spaceship_view">
    <action name="v_view_yaw_left">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_left" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_yaw_right">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_right" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_up">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_up" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_down">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_down" />
    </action>
    </actionmap>

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2794907/#Comment_2794907

    What you actually seem to be complaining about seems to be gimballed weapons and the limited controls / keymapping that we currently have (something which is due to be improved in 0.91).

    I tried mapping this to my mouse axis on my X-55 and errored out.
    Like I said, that post was from back in June where the required command was just changed, you will likely need to read through the thread to find newer posts if that no longer works.
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    @croberts68

    Great to read you here, quick question if I may :

    What would you answer to someone saying that current mouse controlled gimbals allow mouse users to "cut corners" regarding the flight model when it comes to delivering firepower ? When joystick users have "to follow the rules" ?
    I'm taking into consideration the most common and accessible primary devices (Mouse vs Joystick).

    Thank you !

    From what I've read in other threads, the joystick is able to control the gimballed guns too:
    [hide]

    Have you tried mapping v_view_aim_yaw & v_view_aim_pitch to something on your joystick?

    For example, here's an XML mapping for a Saitek Cyborg Fly 5 which maps it to the hat switch (dated back in June, there may have been updates since):
    <actionmap name="spaceship_view">
    <action name="v_view_yaw_left">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_left" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_yaw_right">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_right" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_up">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_up" />
    </action>
    <action name="v_view_pitch_down">
    <rebind device="joystick" input="js1_hat1_down" />
    </action>
    </actionmap>

    https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2794907/#Comment_2794907

    What you actually seem to be complaining about seems to be gimballed weapons and the limited controls / keymapping that we currently have (something which is due to be improved in 0.91).

    I have mapped my hat for straffe, thank you. Please don't derail my question ;)
    I thought your question was why you couldn't do it. Do you really think pointing out that you may be able to do it is derailing your question?
    CIG Calix Reneau:
    I think we could experiment with making decoupled aim and flight more available, but I don't expect that we'll be removing coupled aim+flight. I don't agree that any "arcadish FPS feel" is intrinsic to the control setup
  • Peanuts_Revenge

    Posts: 207

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    I have mapped my hat for straffe, thank you. Please don't derail my question ;)

    Translation:

    Please don't answer my question with logic. I want all the things MY WAY and to hell with everyone else!
  • Rob0tnik

    Posts: 86

    Posted:
    Edited: by Rob0tnik
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Been saying it for a long time, nearly every simmer i know said that about AC as well, the entire flight sim community says that as well.

    But good luck trying to convince those casuals about it. There might be a chance that with X2 speed and 6DOF. but i wont put my hops up.

    AC and SC dog fight as is, will come down to who can put the most guns on one target "AKA EVE online". ED is not too different as well, only thing ED does is limit the turn rate "which is good in a way". but the guns them self in ED along with acceleration curves are also on the "arcade" style

    Before some mouth breather comes up with the "its in spaze" argument, i would like to make this argument a bit simpler.

    Gaining a fire solution on a target simply by the virtue of "turning around" in what is more or less a "craft with no mass" is not good for game play, and its twice as bad for game play in a PU style world

    I think a key part of space combat does boil down to "put the most guns on one target". I don't know why that is a put down. The issue is in achieving that goal. With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet. There are clearly good and bad pilots in Arena Commander and if you spend time watching the matches, looking at Twitch streams and reading the Arena Commander forums you could see the combat is nowhere near as simple and "casual" as you seem to think it is. It is just different than what you are used to. Arena Commander still has a long way to go - and with v0.9 there will be more features that will further add to the depth (and leader-boards that will show there is a clear skill hierarchy), then a lot more for v1.0 and beyond.

    However if you're looking for an atmospheric flight model in Star Citizen you are going to be disappointed - I made a deliberate choice to embrace what space combat maneuvering (at low speeds) would be like. Games should have their own personality. I don't want Star Citizen to be a rehash of other games. I think its great that Elite:Dangerous and Star Citizen have different approaches to the space flight model - that allows for diversity and difference in game experience (who wants to play the same game rehashed over and over again?).

    One other thing to consider is with Arena Commander people are only seeing a very small window into what the world of Star Citizen will be like. There's going to be much much larger play areas, much more need for system, energy and radar signature management, huge multi crewed ships mixed with small single seater ones, play geared to both cooperative play and single play, combat that works for both PvP and PvE. There's going to be plenty of stuff to challenge even the most skillful players but you also have to remember the game needs to be accessible - not everyone is a "simmer" - some people want to explore, some want to trade, some just want to sight see. My objective is to make it easy to get the hang of flight and combat but difficult to become truly masterful. I strongly believe the current design will deliver this in spades once all the features come on line.


    With Eve its point and click and with Star Citizen it is most definitely not.

    Tell that to those mouse players

    Even in the early stages of Arena Commander There are some amazing dogfighters out there - and if there was no skill involved it there would be no way that players in a Aurora or a 300i could beat a Hornet


    Really? Did you saw the same video as we did in one of the last AFTV where there was a "TOP 5" deads in AC? So pathetic, besides that at least 3 of the kills were just point and click with mouse and 0 skill insted of awsomez moves

    SC =/= AC, ofcourse not, but u can see the core of the 1vs1 pvp combat and is not good. Seriously, gimbaled weapons + mouse is just stupid unbalanced (as stupid it will be aiming with the rift/trakIR), period. I will play with a joystick anyways, but if u cant see there is a problem with that and fix it somehow better be ready for shitstorm.
  • Buckrodger

    Posts: 1520

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I have been sucked into this thread and must simply say this to the OP, this is an optical illusion. You have been fooled.

    Dev's need not freak out. The physics works just fine.
    UW3FwSo.png
  • Thirdstar

    Posts: 5526

    Posted:
    Posted:
    It's quite alarming that certain backers are attempting to shame Chris Roberts into changing SC by implying that the game is a casual, arcade game. Not only is that a fabrication, it's a fabrication with a very specific agenda.

    The hubris, the arrogance that is required to assume they know better than CR and the rest of CIG is staggering.
    xYDHaDU.png
  • INACTIVE_Turban

    Posts: 2810

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]


    I have mapped my hat for straffe, thank you. Please don't derail my question ;)

    Translation:

    Please don't answer my question with logic. I want all the things MY WAY and to hell with everyone else!
    I'm asking a question about what to think about the gameplay, not if I could bind gimbals to my hat. Which would not be a very good solution btw.

    So no, rebinding is not an option thank you. Plus, what would give me such a good precision uh?

    @Peanuts_Revenge : Can I ask a question ? Is it forbidden ? Should I ask for your permission next time ?

    Some people really behave like bullies...
  • Bertt

    Posts: 78

    Posted:
    Posted:
    You Sim guys are really serious about all this. I'm a casual, I really don't mind the "get the most guns on target" play style. There have been enough positive changes in alpha that I have every confidence CIG can make a great game, but maybe not one I want to play after seeing all this.

    It struck me that BDSSE does stand for Best Damn Space SIM ever. I think you guys have every right to want the arcade style cut out of SC. Can't really call SC a SIM otherwise can you?

    Maybe there will be a happy medium, but I don't see it happening. I can't see myself getting rolled constantly because the game evolves into a flight model that takes a massive time commitment for training. I guess I'll just be a casual in some one else's game. Kinda sucks to think about it.
  • Jestunhi

    Posts: 13747

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]


    I have mapped my hat for straffe, thank you. Please don't derail my question ;)

    Translation:

    Please don't answer my question with logic. I want all the things MY WAY and to hell with everyone else!
    I'm asking a question about what to think about the gameplay, not if I could bind gimbals to my hat. Which would not be a very good solution btw.

    So no, rebinding is not an option thank you. Plus, what would give me such a good precision uh?

    @Peanuts_Revenge : Can I ask a question ? Is it forbidden ? Should I ask for your permission next time ?

    Some people really behave like bullies...
    What would give you as high precision is using a high precision input device. You choose not to.

    That's like mouse users asking what would give them as many analog axis as a HOTAS user. They are limiting themselves by using an input device with only 2 analog axis.

    Rebinding is an option. It may not be one that you are interested in but it is certainly an option. There's a 52 page thread full of people helping each other with rebinding... I think that shows that people view it as an option.
    CIG Calix Reneau:
    I think we could experiment with making decoupled aim and flight more available, but I don't expect that we'll be removing coupled aim+flight. I don't agree that any "arcadish FPS feel" is intrinsic to the control setup
Sign In or Register to comment.