The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Earthshine

Earthshine
Neo-ST said:
Dude...they REALLY don't need backing. They already have too much and despite that, the results are lacking.
If everyone would just stop throwing money at them, maybe they'd finally start moving.

Also, accepting the poor flight model would be the worst possible reaction from the crowd.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say "back" as in give them money to help out, I meant it would be nice to play the game but I'd not be happy with it if it played like it appears to now. I'm pretty sure I'll have to give them at least some money if I want to actually play the game (if/whenever that may be) :p

As for accepting the flight model...well, it doesn't appear to have notably changed since it was introduced 1 year (plus?) ago, so I wouldn't have high hopes of it going through a change any time soon or at all. I'm afraid I'm not the sort to object categorically to something because I don't like part of it. I'll weigh things up when it looks closer to a game and decide then whether I want to play it or not. I can't say for certain what I'll choose to do and whether I'll choose to accept something I consider sub-standard on the basis that other aspects are very good. It all depends, and it's too soon for me to say :)
 

Jezzah

Jezzah
Aye earthshine I'm of a similar view. I can loosely accept a wonky flight model if the depth and engagement in the rest of the game brings the bar up. Having said that I also agree with the poster above though that acceptance is probably not the thing to do.

It is worrying that if they can't get the FM working right then can they get any part working right in the long run. The ideas are all there and backed up by a soild premise and lots of lore and world interest already being generated. so one would hope that the game will eventually do all justice just hopefully not in 10 years times like ED has resigned itself to.
 

Earthshine

Earthshine
Jezzah said:
Aye earthshine I'm of a similar view. I can loosely accept a wonky flight model if the depth and engagement in the rest of the game brings the bar up. Having said that I also agree with the poster above though that acceptance is probably not the thing to do.

It is worrying that if they can't get the FM working right then can they get any part working right in the long run. The ideas are all there and backed up by a soild premise and lots of lore and world interest already being generated. so one would hope that the game will eventually do all justice just hopefully not in 10 years times like ED has resigned itself to.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Acceptance would feel a little like giving in but ultimately it's not us fence-sitters that are preventing (what we think is) positive change. I'm just not up for anything more than the occasional mildly concerned post in this thread :p
 

Zyll Goliat

Zyll Goliat
Pomerlaw said:
Do some of you guys still believe they will fix it for A.C. 2.0?
Click to expand...

FM&GP is almost identical as it was from the first days of the"pre-alpha",just remember what CR said about freelancer FM&GP and what was his true vision for it,let me remind you by quote the man's words- CR:"The final mouse controls, while good, weren’t the ones that I saw in my head (I imagined the game being like a FPS, but in space and having the same level of shooting precision)."...well fast forward to the SC and seems that CR finally get FM&GP and controlls that he always had in his mind....so back to your question NO I don't believe we will have FM&GP that are not twitchy,FPS oriented&turreting in space....well maybe multi crew ships will handle different but then again I give up on CIG talking miracles for the future of the SC...
 
Last edited:

ghcannon

G
Dang that video was paninful to watch, my eyes were drifting to the left when stopped it about a third of the way. It's not even nausea ... if this is how fights between some smaller ships looks like, they've got something horribly wrong. And it's a damn shame, cause having 2 awesome sims to play is better than having 1.
 

ghcannon

G
Yes, I'm lurking in this thread (and the katamari before they closed it) so I see the rage, but thought that it improved.
I'm all about 'gamification' over 'simulation', but this is just not a good game for me.
 

Neo-ST

Neo-ST
I'll be the first one to admit SC is a good game after all, once they solve all the burning questions, such as controller parity, interactive mode, flight model, etc.
 

Dr Wookie

Dr Wookie
Jezzah said:
Aye earthshine I'm of a similar view. I can loosely accept a wonky flight model if the depth and engagement in the rest of the game brings the bar up. Having said that I also agree with the poster above though that acceptance is probably not the thing to do.

It is worrying that if they can't get the FM working right then can they get any part working right in the long run. The ideas are all there and backed up by a soild premise and lots of lore and world interest already being generated. so one would hope that the game will eventually do all justice just hopefully not in 10 years times like ED has resigned itself to.
Click to expand...

I don't think that a rubbish flight model means that they can't get anything right. At least I sincerely hope that's not the case!

It could just be due to them wanting to keep controls similar between in cockpit and on foot sections. To me it just smacks of "I'm controlling a camera".

Even though I am disappointed with what we have so far, I am still hopeful they can make a good fun game.
 

Jezzah

Jezzah
Dr Wookie said:
I don't think that a rubbish flight model means that they can't get anything right. At least I sincerely hope that's not the case!

It could just be due to them wanting to keep controls similar between in cockpit and on foot sections. To me it just smacks of "I'm controlling a camera".

Even though I am disappointed with what we have so far, I am still hopeful they can make a good fun game.
Click to expand...

Oh aye Mr W. I sincerely hope that too. From my own point of view seeing the FM and the snags with the FPS side of the game it isn't confidence building after so long in development. I know it's 3 years or whatever and that isn't a massive amount of time but I wish they had concentrated in getting the SPACE part of the best damn SPACE Sim ever right before tacking on loads of other game types. The social module is .... A map. .... That you can walk around and do some preprogrammed dance moves in with some other people. It galled me recently to read a dev update on how exhausted the CIG team were after putting out the social module! C'mon guys this is silly.

Hope is the first casualty of failure unfortunately. I just wish that CIG and FD would join forces and really make a best damn <insert genre(s)> ...something. Something.
 

Pomerlaw

Pomerlaw
Dr Wookie said:
I don't think that a rubbish flight model means that they can't get anything right. At least I sincerely hope that's not the case!

It could just be due to them wanting to keep controls similar between in cockpit and on foot sections.
Click to expand...

Why would they want that!?
 

Varrag

Varrag
I must admit the combat in that vid looks horrible. Dynamics reminds me to old school twitch shooters like original Quake. Perhaps it's better when you're behind the controls.
 

Mr.Nowak

Mr.Nowak
I enjoy AC combat a lot. But Star Citizen's combat is going to evolve quiet a bit with AC 2.0.

For now it's way too short and way too quick because of the map and the design for the map combat.

Here is a good video to check out

[video=youtube;l-3I1WyOU6Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3I1WyOU6Y[/video]
 

303i

3
Once again this thread has gone down to picking on the flight model. Yes thrusters are getting nerfed, and the main thrusters will have more power. This has been confirmed multiple times. The component system should result in weight and mass changes within the ships. The flight model is missing various items such as fuel flow/weight, armor weight, and a few other things.

However, I'm really getting sick of people constantly trying to find the worst possible video to represent the flight model. From the outdated M50 video to the rubbish 1v1 on the other page. I too, can post a video of elite battles where people just fly around in circles. But that's no fun for anyone. Having the audacity to use said videos to judge the flight model when you haven't even played the game is just insulting. I'm pretty sure most of you would attack someone who watches a video of elite and then claims the flight model is wrong without playing the game.

The flight model is a preference. As much as I enjoy exploring in Elite, I find the flight model boring. Even in CQC I dislike it. The SC flight model is far more fun to me. But that's my opinion. There are thousands of people that prefer the E:D flight model, and there are thousands that prefer the SC flight model. From either side of the fence, the flight model on the other side might look "wrong", when in reality they're just different games doing different things. Not every space sim game should have the same flight model as Elite, that'd just be boring. Yes the SC flight model does have issues with controller balance, but it's not necessarily a bad flight model.
 

Helfix

H
Mr.Nowak said:
I enjoy AC combat a lot. But Star Citizen's combat is going to evolve quiet a bit with AC 2.0.

For now it's way too short and way too quick because of the map and the design for the map combat.

Here is a good video to check out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3I1WyOU6Y
Click to expand...

No surprise there that you enjoy it a lot, as you called the v.8 a perfect game.

The change in map size will have no effect on the gameplay. Just because you are in more of a closed off arena does not make it different gameplay compared to how it will be on bigger maps, especially if you do a lot of 1v1 matches.

As for AC 2.0 with multi-crew and bigger ships, we will see how that will change gameplay. Going by what was shown in gamescon demo, multi-crew ships might swat single seat fighters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom