Amen!
Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?
- Thread starter MyHammer
- Start date
Amen!
Speed is entirely relevant, at a range of less than 100m a DBS goign at half a km/s is going to flit past yout turrets field of view faster than you can react, additionally faster than you can switch from one turret to another, it's highly relevant and the flaw in the system you are not considering.
Stuff in Arma cannot move like that or at those kinds of speeds which may be why you are not looking at the offest between this and human reaction speed. Being able to switch turrets is not enough with a limited FOV when tracking targets at that speed at close range with tumbling newtonian movement. Every time you switch turett your point of view is different and you have no time to orient and open fire before it's gone again.
It's not about whether I like it or not it's an argument based on practiciality
He's also not considering that the enemy target isn't the only object that's moving.
In the case of two Cobras with engineered 300-400 m/s top speeds, jousting in combat, a gunner with a fixed first person perspective that requires him toggling between only two top-mounted turrets is essentially going to be unable to hit anything at all. Both ships are both too fast and too agile, meaning that a human gunner is going to far far far worse than simply letting the AI aimbot do the turret shooting.
And given the Cobra isn't even able to have SLFs, meaning the gunner role is literally the only multi-crew role, by changing the gunner camera to FP you essentially kill MC for that ship by rendering the gunner a mere spectator with an extra pip.
Speed is entirely relevant, at a range of less than 100m a DBS goign at half a km/s is going to flit past yout turrets field of view faster than you can react, additionally faster than you can switch from one turret to another, it's highly relevant and the flaw in the system you are not considering.
Stuff in Arma cannot move like that or at those kinds of speeds which may be why you are not looking at the offest between this and human reaction speed. Being able to switch turrets is not enough with a limited FOV when tracking targets at that speed at close range with tumbling newtonian movement. Every time you switch turett your point of view is different and you have no time to orient and open fire before it's gone again.
It's not about whether I like it or not it's an argument based on practiciality
Slave the top turrets to an upper hull targeting camera. Slave the bottom turrets to a lower hull camera. Thereby reducing the amount of switching views and still providing enough firepower on the target without feeling overly dumbed down and gamey. Even increase turret damage/tracking/rate of fire to offset the potential brain tracking problem if that is apparent. There's loads of simple options and work arounds other than a 3rd person outside of hull ship view.
Last edited:
Speed is entirely relevant, at a range of less than 100m a DBS goign at half a km/s is going to flit past yout turrets field of view faster than you can react, additionally faster than you can switch from one turret to another, it's highly relevant and the flaw in the system you are not considering.
Stuff in Arma cannot move like that or at those kinds of speeds which may be why you are not looking at the offest between this and human reaction speed. Being able to switch turrets is not enough with a limited FOV when tracking targets at that speed at close range with tumbling newtonian movement. Every time you switch turett your point of view is different and you have no time to orient and open fire before it's gone again.
It's not about whether I like it or not it's an argument based on practiciality
Have you ever been in a airplane flying with 100MPH? I can assure you you will experience it as fast, speed is not relevant because it's compared to your surroundings. I don't care if our ships travel with a billion MPH or just move along with 50 MPH, your time to react are always according to your surroundings.
Some of the modded ships can fly 1200 m/s that is around Mrk 3.5 most of the ships are around 500 m/s (boost) = Mrk 1.4, try dog fighting in DCS (also have multi crew) and you will see that is fast too. So your arguments are off the rails here, I'm sorry but it's just plain wrong.
I get it, you like it, we don't have to agree about it, but please don't come with this nonsense.
It's 3rd person, this game is marketed as a first person game - people purchased it on that basis and are now being sucker punched with this.
You say its game play reasons, its not - the SRV turret prooves that it isn't, there is no game play reason for it being a third person camera. As others have said, there is no reason that ship turrets are not first person.
Yup, and I avoided it for that very reason. I don't do mixed, I buy first person and expect first person, I avoid third person titles for the most part. A game that cannot make its mind up is of no interest to me. The last game with mixed elements like this took me 1000's of hours of modding to rid myself of those third person elements, something that is not an option with Elite.
Again I purchased this game as it was advertised and marketed as a first person space game. This feature does not tie in with that. To be honest the entire MC feature seems a like a wasted effort as it fails to deliver any of the things people want from it, including simple pick up and drops offs... Thats pretty poor. Clearly it needs to go back into development for more than one reason.
Last edited:
Not the way NPCs or humans fly them, thats the thing it isn't straight line travel like a plane restircted by atmosphere, both ships are moving freely with only vague ralation to each other trying to get targeting solutions on each, using thrusters etc. That's pretty much the method to pvp battle - hunting for better position. FP view turrets are rendered useless by this. Fairly sure FD came to this conclusion too otherwise you would see repeats of SRV turrets, they likely designed and tested it and realised it's useless.
Speed is entirely relevant, at a range of less than 100m a DBS goign at half a km/s is going to flit past yout turrets field of view faster than you can react, additionally faster than you can switch from one turret to another, it's highly relevant and the flaw in the system you are not considering.
Stuff in Arma cannot move like that or at those kinds of speeds which may be why you are not looking at the offest between this and human reaction speed. Being able to switch turrets is not enough with a limited FOV when tracking targets at that speed at close range with tumbling newtonian movement. Every time you switch turett your point of view is different and you have no time to orient and open fire before it's gone again.
It's not about whether I like it or not it's an argument based on practiciality
Agreed.
You cannot realistically expect players to operate turrets on an individual basis when ships can pass you by at hundreds of m/s. Combine that with the lack of a reference point (like the ground) and the motion (e.g. spinning around) of the ship (which the gunner isn't in control of) and you get a recipe for disorientation. Then add onto that the fact that you'd have to flit between cameras!
What would the gameplay gain be there? More awkward. More disorienting. More frustrating. Less time actually shooting, more time trying to use the right gun. And the gain.....erm....looks less arcadey and fits better with the established first person interactions. Too many cons, too few pros in my view.
Except the practicality of this is both very likely, a) unusable, as he probably won't be able to do any damage and b) therefore not fun.
It's all well and good to want more coordination in multi-crew. I too can get behind that sentiment and I also feel that FDev creating a couple more unique roles would help to facilitate this aspirational goal more.
However, I don't believe hobbling the gunner's perspective in the existing MC implementation is going to achieve more coordination between players at all. If anything it will render the gunner role so useless that it only gets ignored and unused by players, meaning MC gameplay becomes limited to only ship capable of launching SLFs... i.e. defeating the whole point of the MC update, as only an even more limited group would be able to enjoy it.
Wow, ok if that's how you feel, just ignore (button) me but you won't get me to not talk about basic principles of FOV and relative motion because you are boxing my view in ( incorrectly ) as in support of something you don't like purely because I am pulling at the strings of your idea.
Then if you don't like it, i.e. an insignificant distraction within the overall ED game package, then avoid MC and your game will still be a FP game.
You're argument is nonsense.
He is right though. Your point is mostly moot.
I paid for this content and expect to be able to use it within the scope of the game and how it was marketed - i.e in first person. I feel the same about the SRV turret. Both need to be reworked and this third person nonsence put to bed. I'd even be happier with a screen in the cockpit used for the turret views in both inship turret role and srv than a slapped on "becuase its quick" third person camera.
I feel the same about yours. I have played games with multicrew ships with first person turrets and can't see any valid point in your arguments. Yes, a god cam turret is better than an enclosed first person one. But hell a god cam in any situation is better than a first person one... doesn't mean its the right camera for the job, particuarly in a a first person focused game.
Last edited:
nvm, delete pls
Last edited:
He's got a point though. Fixed beams are very useable when according to your theory on relative speed it should be impossible.
For the immersion fans this completely explains the concept.
Why couldn't the ship scan and represent the view to a cmdr in 3rd person?
You could even replace the ship models with fresh fruit firing unicorns at each other,which would look weird but is completely possible with future tech.
Tbh, you're argument here makes no sense.
It's about the relative motion of objects travelling at fast speeds, each with a full 6 axis of rotational motion and direction in which they can travel. Any human that can operate a fixed turret on one of these objects and reliably shoot a target on the other with more time-on-target than the standard solo-mode AI turret is cheating and using an aimbot.
Humans simply don't have the manual dexterity to track a fast moving target on a fast moving fixed platform that are both bobbing and weaving and rolling trying to evade each other's fire.
May I suggest you try something to prove this? Go and buy the last Battlefield game on PC, log-in and get in a tank and try to use the fixed FP turret to shoot down a fast moving aerial target. You will quickly see how difficult it is... not imagine that your tank isn't a stationary ground target, but another fast moving aerial target but instead of being in a planetary battleground with a fixed frame of reference (i.e. ground and sky) you're in a 3D space with no fixed FoR, therefore both you and your target are able to pass each other from every possible direction and angle imaginable. Now add in more complex flight mechanics like FA-off and lateral/vertical thrusters for circle strafing... now tell me how easily you think you'll be able to hit anything with that FP view?
- - - Updated - - -
Limitation to the extent that they make something unworkable aren't good or even reasonable game design. Your point is moot.
Because then glass canopies wouldn't have to be a thing. And because if the ships systems were smart enough to do that, they wouldn't lose track of a silent-running ship since it's still in plain obvious view (well, unless silent running ships do disappear from the 3rd person view when sensors lose track of them). Seriously, stop trying to explain it. It's there, it's for gameplay, that's it. It has no explanation.
Games like Guns of Icarus Online show us, that cooperative multi-crew can be great fun.
But an Anaconda e.g. shouldn't have just one Gunner. If there aren't enough players, then the AI should fire unmanned guns.
That way the gunners have to be in constant communication with the pilot and there is true coop-gameplay on the ship.
If we look at what the gunner does in ED based on what we have seen, it is actually a very boring job. Point at target and keep fire button(s) of choice pressed.
From time to time asking the pilot to steer a bit more left or right or whatever. That'll get old very quickly.
The second problem I have is the instant teleport to someone's ship. That's just catering to the impatient unable to plan. And the instance finder.
It's really not what I'm looking for in a space sim. It's what I'm looking for when I'm playing World of Warships, Warframe, etc...
That's the kind of fun I'm looking for when I play those games. But when I play Elite Dangerous, I find fun in being in a SciFi-Space Sim.
Where I can't just "hop into a round" because my character is 2000 LYs away.
In any case, that's my opinion. I know I'm not the only one feeling that way. And I think the lack of interest in CQB should show Frontier, that their game perhaps doesn't cater that much to the... "quick round" crowd.
btw, just as a side remark:
The times have changed, demographics show that gamers these days are not geeky teens, but evenly distributed to age up to 55 by now. Adults have less time to play and less time to post on forums. Younger people have more time, but less money to spend.
And I'm not saying that all the youngsters want quick rounds and all the adults want 'realism'. I'm saying in that vast group of possible players, you could go either way and find a fan base. But if you mix it up too much, you'll annoy both.
Just my two Euro cents. I could be totally wrong.
But an Anaconda e.g. shouldn't have just one Gunner. If there aren't enough players, then the AI should fire unmanned guns.
That way the gunners have to be in constant communication with the pilot and there is true coop-gameplay on the ship.
If we look at what the gunner does in ED based on what we have seen, it is actually a very boring job. Point at target and keep fire button(s) of choice pressed.
From time to time asking the pilot to steer a bit more left or right or whatever. That'll get old very quickly.
The second problem I have is the instant teleport to someone's ship. That's just catering to the impatient unable to plan. And the instance finder.
It's really not what I'm looking for in a space sim. It's what I'm looking for when I'm playing World of Warships, Warframe, etc...
That's the kind of fun I'm looking for when I play those games. But when I play Elite Dangerous, I find fun in being in a SciFi-Space Sim.
Where I can't just "hop into a round" because my character is 2000 LYs away.
In any case, that's my opinion. I know I'm not the only one feeling that way. And I think the lack of interest in CQB should show Frontier, that their game perhaps doesn't cater that much to the... "quick round" crowd.
btw, just as a side remark:
The times have changed, demographics show that gamers these days are not geeky teens, but evenly distributed to age up to 55 by now. Adults have less time to play and less time to post on forums. Younger people have more time, but less money to spend.
And I'm not saying that all the youngsters want quick rounds and all the adults want 'realism'. I'm saying in that vast group of possible players, you could go either way and find a fan base. But if you mix it up too much, you'll annoy both.
Just my two Euro cents. I could be totally wrong.
Yup, that's going to be pretty cool for screenshots. The debug cam is a pain to use.