Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Cobra1984]

Alright so the way I see it this post comes down to literally one thing, the idea that the third person view isn't physically possible and therefore breaks the nebulous concept of immersion. Third person view is physically possible and multiple examples have been provided throughout this thread of how it could be accomplished, therefore immersion isn't broken.

Ziljan, shall we start over? What is your point and what is your logical basis for believing you are correct?

The concern is that the third person turret is already halfway to having third person piloting.

Everything Frontier have said and done since launch suggests otherwise, and I'm having trouble buying that this is really what the argument is about - especially given the nature of the language used.

 

[Ziljan]

The concern is that the third person turret is already halfway to having third person piloting.

Everything Frontier have said and done since launch suggests otherwise.

I truly hope you're right. But I prepare for the alternative.

 

[Dabir]

I truly hope you're right. But I prepare for the alternative.

Why do you feel it is necessary to prepare for the alternative?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I do wonder what direction Frontier is headed next.

Do they even know themselves ? :S

Multicrew looks like a good way of bringing players together - beta will be the proof of course - hope it means I will install ED again

 

[House0fDerp]

I truly hope you're right. But I prepare for the alternative.

I'm still not clear on the idea of the negative here. As a hotas user, a 3rd person helm is largely cosmetic anyways since I don't have anything easy to adapt on my stick for camera control anyways (also I am terrible at abstracting my input direction from my direction of view).

Even more fundamentally the flight mechanics themselves remain unchanged.

What is there to prepare for?

 

[Soon(TM)]

If it's destroying your immersion then don't use it.

This immersion thing is funny.

It's ok to travel faster than light, it's ok to have Newtonian flight mechanics, it's ok for pilots to pull 25g turns, it's ok that space is static and no matter how close or how far you are from an object it always looks the same (light has a finite speed), it's ok to have telepresence the entire width of the galaxy with no latency ....

But it's not ok to have an external camera for pew pew????

LMAO

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Ok, got your attention. (Apologies to all the 12yr olds out there)

There are several parts I do like about multicrew, but I think I should adress
what bothers me about it at the first glance:

Its clear that FD takes the route here to an Arcade sort of gameplay which breaks
a lot rules of the ed universe, and one of them is that cam view.
I am not against the 360 view, what bothers me is that its not immersive in
the sense of being physically possible in any way. If FD would have
made it more schematic, so that the ship itself is a rendered wireframe and the spacebackground is replaced with something else, I would be able to believe
I have some sort of tactical view which is rendered by the ships computer.
But having like a "real" 360 degree cam which is not even existant (or can you shoot it down?) is by all means totally destroying any immersion (for me)
Sure, many of you will like it, but I had hoped FD would somehow maintain
some consistent ingame rules with their features.




Update:
In the thread I gave an example why for some players the fun can be spoiled be unlogical gameplay features:

In a movie, you expect when a person leaves the screen on the right side that it would appear after the cut on the left side. That`s a learned logic of how films work in general. If that doesn´t happen you might not really be able to put a finger on it, but it nudges on the back of your brain, and you might feel slightly irritated. Of course, editors use that in certain cases to make a movie more dramatic.

I think the same thing is happening in ED when certain rules are being ignored or put aside in favor of "fun-gameplay". Some (a lot?) players, get that uneasy feeling when the logic of the gameworld is compromised with certain (mostly new) additions which breaks ingame rules and therefore their fun is spoiled to some extent (some other compromises to gameplay have been accepted and are learned like instatransfer after death, etc.)

The solution would be for FD to find a compromise, where you still can have fun, but it won´t give you that nudge in the back of your brain.
In regard to the gunner view, it wouldnt hurt the fun, when you have a more holographic (however this is implemented - there were some nice ideas already mentioned in the thread) style of view, where you actually see a difference to the "normal/real" view of the universe. That would IMHO restore the immersion (still not solving the cmdr hologram transfers across the galaxy, but thats another story).

To be honest, this is how I interpreted that camera view in the first place - as a holographic or computerised rendering. I don't think the quality of the visuals need to be degraded for me to believe it's not a *real* camera view; it's perfectly feasible that the rendering be a photorealistic VR radar, especially in 3303.

 

[Cobra1984]

I truly hope you're right. But I prepare for the alternative.

That's absolutely fair enough and I could be completely wrong and would gladly and freely admit it. I just don't see it happening. I could see folks asking for it sure, but from what I've seen and heard from Frontier cockpit piloting is sacrosanct.
When it comes to the facts you have to take into account perspective - I might be standing on a mighty big mountain but to the guy overhead in the Cessna it's a piddly little rock.

 

[kofeyh]

Anyone who has the inclination can read the thread and decide whether this was evidence based or not.

But back to the topic at hand:

I think Frontier could provide some lore based explanation for how the 3rd person view is achieved. I like Mossfoot's explanation best so far.

Is it simply not easier to ask Frontier "please explain" rather than help draw out a huge amount of emotional baggage in a forum that thrives on it?

Military history is repleate with actual factual example of the concept of a "battlescape" and the ability to overlook it. Everything from trees, to observation towers, balloons to the dawn of radar through AWACS, high altitude aircraft, drones to satellites and so on. Our entire history is full of example of "third person" observation. None of that makes any actual outcomes any less real.

Drones fire on positions. That's very real. Even if that is viewed in third person. It's very, very real. To all involved. I think I've made that point and won't labour it.

Do we consider all manner of observation illogical and unimmersive just because it's not our own two eyeballs being used, in the confines of some type of container?

That's a rediculously narrow point of view, if you'll pardon the pun.

People are becoming very blinkered by what they believe should constitute "immersion" in this game. Facts are often the first thing to be compromised in the process.

And much of it can be resolved by simply asking the developer. At times they probably assume we think it's boring minutia. When in fact it'd probably clear a lot of assumption in the process.

 

[Ziljan]

I'm still not clear on the idea of the negative here. As a hotas user, a 3rd person helm is largely cosmetic anyways since I don't have anything easy to adapt on my stick for camera control anyways (also I am terrible at abstracting my input direction from my direction of view).

Even more fundamentally the flight mechanics themselves remain unchanged.

What is there to prepare for?

As I explained above, my past experience with space games is that the cockpit view is always the most disadvantageous because so much of the view is blocked. If you allow for 3rd person piloting, then that will be defacto the most optimal way to fly the ship.

-Easier to ram
-Easier to dodge fire
-Easier to see where your enemies are relative to your ship.
-See more of the sky
-thread tight spots in the landscape or floating structures
-etc etc

Anyone who flies from their cockpit will be gimping themselves. So anything where CMDRs are competing against each other will benefit from being in 3rd person mode. And anyone who flies the "old fashioned way" will be gimping themselves out of nostalgia or a desire for immersion.

 

[Angry Fish Smell]

People are becoming very blinkered by what they believe should constitute "immersion" in this game. Facts are often the first thing to be compromised in the process.

It's because they don't want "realism", they want "WW2 Era Dogfights But In Space" and all of the handicaps that implies.

 

[Winterwalker]

I think Frontier could provide some lore based explanation for how the 3rd person view is achieved. I like Mossfoot's explanation best so far.

I think you just did .. or Mosfoot just did. I had the same idea, actually thinking The Matrix, Bullet Time, in my case .... a composite view made from external sensors, put together as an advanced targetting system with a model of the ship layered in, to give the view axes. It works for me defintely and I'm very keen on believable (high end futuristic science fiction) technologies + real world physical constraints.

The concern is that the third person turret is already halfway to having third person piloting.

Everything Frontier have said and done since launch suggests otherwise, and I'm having trouble buying that this is really what the argument is about - especially given the nature of the language used.

I don't think so actually. The design problem is, how do you make turret guns useable when the platform (the ship) can be moving around? You'd be all over the place? Whether the view we saw yesterday works out, we have to wait and see from beta (some VR users are concerned about sickness last night) but however that works out, my feeling is Frontier would have had to go 'through' this gunner view anyway, because it adds image stabilisation. Re-skinning it may (or may not) be a question for later, depending on how well people get on with it but I liked it personally, thinking it will be useable, (fun) and works from Mosfoot's Lore pov above.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

It's because they don't want "realism", they want "WW2 Era Dogfights But In Space" and all of the handicaps that implies.

In that case we might as well have propellers instead of thrusters.

 

[House0fDerp]

As I explained above, my past experience with space games is that the cockpit view is always the most disadvantageous because so much of the view is blocked. If you allow for 3rd person piloting, then that will be defacto the most optimal way to fly the ship.

-Easier to ram
-Easier to dodge fire
-Easier to see where your enemies are relative to your ship.
-See more of the sky
-thread tight spots in the landscape or floating structures
-etc etc

Anyone who flies from their cockpit will be gimping themselves. So anything where CMDRs are competing against each other will benefit from being in 3rd person mode. And anyone who flies the "old fashioned way" will be gimping themselves out of nostalgia or a desire for immersion.

With the exception of maybe dodging fire (which it actually largely about enemy orientation that sight) and obstacles not present on the radar, the highly forward focus of the flight model still leaves in front to be the best direction to look in my opinion, especially when factoring in fixed weapon dps supremacy and gimbal firing arcs.

Also, as expressed through the comments providing lore explanations I don't think we're in a situation to tie 1st person in exclusivity to immersion.

I think you're overplaying the detriment here if any actually exists.

 

[Tsao Nima]

As I explained above, my past experience with space games is that the cockpit view is always the most disadvantageous because so much of the view is blocked. If you allow for 3rd person piloting, then that will be defacto the most optimal way to fly the ship.

-Easier to ram
-Easier to dodge fire
-Easier to see where your enemies are relative to your ship.
-See more of the sky
-thread tight spots in the landscape or floating structures
-etc etc

Anyone who flies from their cockpit will be gimping themselves. So anything where CMDRs are competing against each other will benefit from being in 3rd person mode. And anyone who flies the "old fashioned way" will be gimping themselves out of nostalgia or a desire for immersion.

but all competition is consentual in practice; if someone feels something is unfair they can just switch modes or quit. why would this be an actual problem? and why isn't it equally possible for Frontier to go the other way and give a 360-degree first person view? if they did that, would that be a problem?

 

[Ziljan]

It's because they don't want "realism", they want "WW2 Era Dogfights But In Space" and all of the handicaps that implies.

That is actually a very valid complaint. I'll grant you that. The reality of the game is built around WW2 Era Dogfights in Space for sure. So any deviation from that somehow feel less real than a logical approximation of reality.

For instance, why have externally mounted glass cockpits if the view was just going to be a virtual external cam view? Why not go for a more "Rogue System" type approach?

 

[Nuarb]

This is such a silly derail to a silly thread. Frontier has never, ever hinted that they would put in a 3rd person view for piloting your ship. They've gone out of their way to say only the gunner can use that 3rd person mode. There is not one scrap of *evidence* that says they'll ever implement such a mode.

Its ok to be worried and scared that someone might change something you enjoy, but accept it for what it is, baseless fear, and don't treat it as if you're coming at it from a point of logic as something that will inevitably happen. Slippery slopes are not a logical argument for a reason.

People might as well get worked up that because they eliminated cargo items for engineering blueprints, that pretty soon no mats at all will ever be required and anyone can get any mod they want with whatever stats they want for free at any time. It's such a silly thing to waste your time worrying about.

 

[Ziljan]

but all competition is consentual in practice; if someone feels something is unfair they can just switch modes or quit. why would this be an actual problem? and why isn't it equally possible for Frontier to go the other way and give a 360-degree first person view? if they did that, would that be a problem?

In regards to a 3rd person PILOT mode: I don't see why competition being "consensual" matters? If I want to win, I have to "consent" to playing the game in a way that kills my sense of being of there. That's not really consent though is it? Isn't that more of a form of coercion?

Yes if Frontier had gone with a Rogue System style cockpit form the beginning with a 360 view and a full DCS style sim, I would be extremely happy. But they based the reality of the past 2 years on WW2 sims, so that is the fabric of "reality" they've created. It has nothing to do with realism though. It's more akin to JK Rowling changing the rules of magic halfway through the Harry Potter series.

 

[Angus]

Well that didn't take long before somebody mentioned immersion when talking about a new feature. [wacko]

Deal with it. Elite has always been about immersion and it doesn't become less valid because a bunch of lightweights are running around the playground shouting "immershunn" and giggling.

 

[Blaize Meduenin]

For those sayin there is no slippery slope...

1 Frontier said wont be a 3rd person cam
2 Frontier add debug cam
3 full 3rd person view and 3rd person gunnery gameplay

The slope has been going for the last 2 years, if it continues the only next and final step is 3rd person piloting

Now personally I like the 3rd person cam, but to say there is no slippery slope in evidence you have to be blind