Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Ian Skippy]

It doesn't... that's the problem.

I think its fairly obvious that:

1) Some people like it. Yay for them.
2) Some people dont like it. Deal with it.

Beyond that there is just arguing about who is 'objectively right', which is just a stupid notion in this context anyway. Its fine to not like it, or want something else. I highly doubt something this central will change though, so brace yourself if you feel that way. To me the 3rd person gunnery station is fine, works MUCH better than a 1st person turret would work in practice and can easily be explained without going counter to lore. Again, feel welcome to disagree. Again, prepare not to see core things change.

 

[Don Alvarez]

Nice to see someone who can see the forest through the trees. I have no idea why people are defending this low rent implimentation or even going to the extent to make up reasons as to why it was done this way, when we can see from the SRV turret implimentation, 3rd person turrets are for cheapness and not due to game play reasons.

Because in the SRV turret view you only have one turret to manage, and the SRV is not twisting and turning beneath you and pulling FA-off maneuvers while you are trying to aim at a sidewinder 3km away. These are not 'made up' reasons, I just can't imagine a first person view that would actually be effective. But hey, I'm open to suggestions.

 

[BurnyBurns]

Head up - we're talking about third person turrets - not the debug cam. Turrets which are controlled by the player via a third person camera and not a first person one as per the games primary focus. Nothing first person about them - first person in this instance would be the total opposite of third person.

Ok, why is the first person thingie such a breaker for you?

Modern high end cars (!) are stuffed full of cameras and depth sensors all around them to allow for partially to fully autonomous driving. This is visualizes what they "see":

[video=youtube;VG68SKoG7vE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG68SKoG7vE[/video]

They reconstruct the immediate environment of the vehicle in 3D to navigate through it. Tesla has autonomous driving, Mercedes has autonomous braking including pedestrian/vehicle recogniztion and movement prediction and is going for autonomous evasion and eventual fully autonomous driving. We can probably safely assume that technology in Elite is a bit more advanced then that. If we go to the hypothetical "what if" lore explanation for a moment rather than just accepting that it's a game, a ship might have the same sensor systems +1000 years of improvements. Provided it's fitted with the appropriate processors it could do both, film and measure its environment and render an external 3d representation of the environment and (!) the ship for the gunner and display it by any means imaginable, ranging from a holo, to a plain old monitor, to some retina projection.

Assuming they went for that in-lore explanation, rather than just dropping a third person gunner cam. Would you still bang on about "3rd person was not part of the deal", even though it's theoretically already achievable by today's means within some limits? Limits being how far the camera can actually get away from the ship and how high the camera resolution and frame rate may be, but the former is also pretty limited for the gunner view and the latter can be science fictioned to arbitrary fidelity.

 

[Zambrick]

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).

Targeting drones you know like the ones we have today on earth not in space 1300 years in the future. Real arcadish isnt it. Somehow between now and the future everyone will forget all the technology we created in the past. In fact they created space ships in the past so now they cant produce any new ones as we have forgotten already.

Every statement and argument against the new feature was brought forth by either ignorance of the world you live in now, or more than likely just an attempt to get people to read your negative post. Being negative and argumentative over anything new is the latest fad such as the now defunct Get Gud crowd.

O and yes "fun Gameplay" trumps realism every time. Otherwise why play a game? Think this game will somehow prepare or train you for a future that will never be? The people who cant reconcile that this is Science "FICTION" game and not microsoft flight simulator.

 

[Kermit Laphroaig]

Ok, why is the first person thingie such a breaker for you?

Modern high end cars (!) are stuffed full of cameras and depth sensors all around them to allow for partially to fully autonomous driving. This is visualizes what they "see":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG68SKoG7vE

They reconstruct the immediate environment of the vehicle in 3D to navigate through it. Tesla has autonomous driving, Mercedes has autonomous braking including pedestrian/vehicle recogniztion and movement prediction and is going for autonomous evasion and eventual fully autonomous driving. We can probably safely assume that technology in Elite is a bit more advanced then that. If we go to the hypothetical "what if" lore explanation for a moment rather than just accepting that it's a game, a ship might have the same sensor systems +1000 years of improvements. Provided it's fitted with the appropriate processors it could do both, film and measure its environment and render an external 3d representation of the environment and (!) the ship for the gunner and display it by any means imaginable, ranging from a holo, to a plain old monitor, to some retina projection.

Assuming they went for that in-lore, explanation, rather than just dropping a third person gunner cam. Would you still bang on about "3rd person was not part of the deal", even though it's theoretically already achievable by today's means within some limits? Limits being how far the camera can actually get away from the ship, but that's also pretty limited for the gunner view.

This actual for-real life technology is not immersive and should be nerfed immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, no, nerfing for-real technology is dumb, so ergo...

- - - Updated - - -

Can we get back to the original point of this thread? Which I believe was to raise enough money to pay people who hate the new gunner cam to leave the game and stop ruining it.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Sorry - your point is? Your ship bunny hops? I'm not sure.



Wow someone who can see what I have done and played when they were not even there - fantastic skill right there dude. Will you be getting your own Marvel movie?

Real life RPGs being compared to a games scifi weaponary? Really.... Sci-fi beam laser with a 0 second fire to hit could carve up a ship flying in its fire range.... mmmmm.

You stated you'd "shot down aircraft flying by with an RPG before"

So my correction was in fatc, correct. You'd a) never held an RPG in your life let alone shot one at a passing aircraft and B) the one you fire in game are not even close to their RL counterparts.

Your the one that wanted to make a comparison about shooting things I just pointed out all you did was press a mouse button at the right time ebcause something you know the timing of allowed to you virtually kill an opponet in front of you.

But then again, I've killed millions of troops with a makarov in my time so I know what you mean about shooting things down so I guess you're right. Did I tell you the time I shot down a huey with a makarov? I think there's a video of it on youtube somewhere....

 

[Goose4291]

This isnt arma, ww2 online or any of the other games where turreted positions work.

The whole purpose of turreted mechanics being brought into a game is so that the player ship can continue to fight more manuverable targets than itself (like WWII online bomber or destroyer gameplay), but this relies on the ship in question not being manuverable enough in the first instance, and the game to be (relatively) slow paced enough to make it work. You cant talk your gunner onto a target thats moving around you unimpeded with 6 degrees of freedom and the firing platform is also doing similar swan dives at the same time. Its outside the realm for professionals, let alone people who casually play a computer game.

That said, the autoaim element is where my concerns stem from. This has, with engineers and the current meta, the ability to turn pvp into one click events, and further limits the chances of an open trader evading an attacker.

 

[Jex =TE=]

"Half the reason to ensure any 3rd person view can't be used effectively in a combat situation is for unfairness and forcing the path of least resistance on all players undermining all our work in the cockpit.

The second and arguably more important half is that a 3rd person way to play the game runs completely counter to the experience we're trying to sell; that is you, the pilot, experiencing space flight and combat from a first person view, the most immersive way to play the game."

Mike Evans - Designer- Elite: Dangerous. 22/11/2013

And now we have just that - a third person way to play the game in a combat situation. Something we were told would not happen.

owned +1

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, so the pilot has an effective 3rd person view with all the hud and expanded viewing angles in multicrew? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I saw yesterday was the gunner player being completely limited to the dps gimped turrets having a convenient 3rd person view to even be able to aim effectively.

Btw., when quoting, you also provide the link to verify said source, otherwise we could all make up quotes at will or take them out of context. As it stands however, that quote refers to the pilot, not a gunner role, that may or may not have been even planned at the time.

No there's no excuse. They meant the entire game to be kept in first person it says it right there. They even use the word "immersion" so why can't you just admit it's been said and now they lied and are going back on their word, again. It's clear what they meant and now you're trying to pick holes where none are.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Because in the SRV turret view you only have one turret to manage, and the SRV is not twisting and turning beneath you and pulling FA-off maneuvers while you are trying to aim at a sidewinder 3km away. These are not 'made up' reasons, I just can't imagine a first person view that would actually be effective. But hey, I'm open to suggestions.

And we care about that why? If you can't organise your ship and turrey crew to be affective who's fault is that? Get in first person turret and learn to play rather than take easy mode and have your hand held. Nobody cares that you might find it tough because the pilot is moving around - that's what happens in turrets! LOL - it is literally the definition of turrets and how they work but carebear Elite has to put out the blankeys and pillows for players.

- - - Updated - - -

Targeting drones you know like the ones we have today on earth not in space 1300 years in the future. Real arcadish isnt it. Somehow between now and the future everyone will forget all the technology we created in the past. In fact they created space ships in the past so now they cant produce any new ones as we have forgotten already.

Every statement and argument against the new feature was brought forth by either ignorance of the world you live in now, or more than likely just an attempt to get people to read your negative post. Being negative and argumentative over anything new is the latest fad such as the now defunct Get Gud crowd.

O and yes "fun Gameplay" trumps realism every time. Otherwise why play a game? Think this game will somehow prepare or train you for a future that will never be? The people who cant reconcile that this is Science "FICTION" game and not microsoft flight simulator.

So you agree to get rid of life support then and have us all able to breath or .... exist is space?

 

[lysan]

And we care about that why? If you can't organise your ship and turrey crew to be affective who's fault is that? Get in first person turret and learn to play rather than take easy mode and have your hand held. Nobody cares that you might find it tough because the pilot is moving around - that's what happens in turrets! LOL - it is literally the definition of turrets and how they work but carebear Elite has to put out the blankeys and pillows for players.

- - - Updated - - -



So you agree to get rid of life support then and have us all able to breath or .... exist is space?

STOP! making sense, we don't do that around here, it must be easy, instant and ......well you get my point

+1

 

[RustiSwordz]

I'm going to say this. forgive my bluntness.

To hell with the realism, immershun brigade. You have had it your way long enough. Way long enough. Well enough is enough.

The transfer fee, waiting times for moving ships was the worst time vampire decisions ever made to this game. Well it's about time the rest of us who want a bit of fun and don't have hours to spend to have what we want. 2.3 means we finally are going to get it. if you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. Don't spoil it for others who perhaps do.

2.3 will inject a huge increase of fun back into the game that sorely needs it. I can't wait to name my ship, make my character, team up with my clan on a big ship and go for adventures. I really can't wait.

If you don't like it, tough I'm sorry (well I'm not actually sorry) just don't use it and play the game your way and allow the rest of us to play it the way we want to.

@Frontier. Stick to your guns over this, seriously stick to your guns do not allow the time vampire misery guts to force you to make changes. Like you did before. Just don't allow it.

Rant over, that is all.

 

[SystemShift]

I think a lot miss the point, a 3d cam works but it in no way is going to be as much fun as turret cam, I think the turret view would be far more fun, the communication between pilot and gunner would be more, the pilot would have to for instance keep the target above the main ship or below , or the gunner would be asking to keep the target above or to the left right ect, the gunner would have to no when to switch from top turrets to the lower turrets wile the pilot try to evade being shot at but keeping the gunner happy.
The way it is now is just an easy way to play, almost like put the mouse pointer over the target and press the button.
I think turreted cam would be far far more interesting and fun.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Because in the SRV turret view you only have one turret to manage, and the SRV is not twisting and turning beneath you and pulling FA-off maneuvers while you are trying to aim at a sidewinder 3km away. These are not 'made up' reasons, I just can't imagine a first person view that would actually be effective. But hey, I'm open to suggestions.

So why does it have a third person camera? The SRV that is, as you say it clearly didn't need one. It was done for quickness and cheapness is my guess. Same with the ship turrets and that is not acceptable.

I think a lot miss the point, a 3d cam works but it in no way is going to be as much fun as turret cam, I think the turret view would be far more fun, the communication between pilot and gunner would be more, the pilot would have to for instance keep the target above the main ship or below , or the gunner would be asking to keep the target above or to the left right ect, the gunner would have to no when to switch from top turrets to the lower turrets wile the pilot try to evade being shot at but keeping the gunner happy.
The way it is now is just an easy way to play, almost like put the mouse pointer over the target and press the button.
I think turreted cam would be far far more interesting and fun.

Agreed.

 

[BurnyBurns]

No there's no excuse. They meant the entire game to be kept in first person it says it right there. They even use the word "immersion" so why can't you just admit it's been said and now they lied and are going back on their word, again. It's clear what they meant and now you're trying to pick holes where none are.

Oh, I give up. They lied. The infamy. The indignation! We should all have get our money back. And get a personal back rub by Mr. Mike Evans. The slimey, backtracking scumbag. Once we get an actual link to the quote, that is?

We should not use our brains, look at the quote, realize they're talking about piloting the ship and were hardly able to determine what multicrew would be like in 2013, when they couldn't even determine what roles it would eventually offer in 2015. And we should totally not use our brains and realize that an external camera for the driver or gunner is entirely plausible, even starting out with today's tech.

No, we should sheepishly assume that, if they once likened immersion to being stuck in first person and then backtracked on their statement in a limited manner (external beauty cam and gunner sight), it constitutes a betrayal of everything Elite stands for and the game we bought into.


Rather than asking Frontier what made them backtrack on the statement in such a fashion. There's an intersting explanation to be had here, giving inside into the development. But that inside is kind of irrelevant, if we just start feeling betrayed and cheated right away. Rather than just wait for the beta, try it out and determine for ourselves based on actually playing the thing if their choices make sense.

 

[Parratich]

I'm going to say this. forgive my bluntness.

To hell with the realism, immershun brigade. You have had it your way long enough. Way long enough. Well enough is enough.

The transfer fee, waiting times for moving ships was the worst time vampire decisions ever made to this game. Well it's about time the rest of us who want a bit of fun and don't have hours to spend to have what we want. 2.3 means we finally are going to get it. if you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. Don't spoil it for others who perhaps do.

2.3 will inject a huge increase of fun back into the game that sorely needs it. I can't wait to name my ship, make my character, team up with my clan on a big ship and go for adventures. I really can't wait.

If you don't like it, tough I'm sorry (well I'm not actually sorry) just don't use it and play the game your way and allow the rest of us to play it the way we want to.

@Frontier. Stick to your guns over this, seriously stick to your guns do not allow the time vampire misery guts to force you to make changes. Like you did before. Just don't allow it.

Rant over, that is all.

Very well said, here's some rep for you!

It is time to let everybody play their way. Multicrew, the gunner role is an optional, fun addition. If you don't like it, don't sit in the gunner's seat, simple as that.

Most parts of Elite already require significant time investment, so it's nice to see that they add more easily accessible features, which caters to people with little free time.

 

[Ian Skippy]

STOP! making sense, we don't do that around here, it must be easy, instant and ......well you get my point

+1

Or maybe because it makes ZERO sense to do what the immersion brigade wants. For some reason people here really, really, really cannot fathom the future in any way. It makes zero sense to have vision from a fixed position (never mind per turret) in a ship moving in zero G pulling 25g. Its not a realistic way to do it, its a dumb way to do it.

Now, if people like Jex =TE= would be kind of enough to just admit they dont want realism but rather their WW2-B17 fantasy, that already be less annoying. But this is getting either very dishonest or just plain stupid.

 

[SublimeAnarky]

I loved the gunner view and tip my hat to FD for making the effort to make more accessible and fun - a game that is otherwise extremely niche and time-consuming.

The first person promise has been delivered to the 'oh muh imuhshun' brigade (the first person experience in ED is still unmatched), it's important now to target the larger, broader audience that plays games for the social and fun aspect.

This does that. Kudos to them for making this decision. Do not roll back anything from what you've revealed so far FD.

 

[Kaa Mchorror]

I'm going to say this. forgive my bluntness.

To hell with the realism, immershun brigade. You have had it your way long enough. Way long enough. Well enough is enough.

The transfer fee, waiting times for moving ships was the worst time vampire decisions ever made to this game. Well it's about time the rest of us who want a bit of fun and don't have hours to spend to have what we want. 2.3 means we finally are going to get it. if you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. Don't spoil it for others who perhaps do.

2.3 will inject a huge increase of fun back into the game that sorely needs it. I can't wait to name my ship, make my character, team up with my clan on a big ship and go for adventures. I really can't wait.

If you don't like it, tough I'm sorry (well I'm not actually sorry) just don't use it and play the game your way and allow the rest of us to play it the way we want to.

@Frontier. Stick to your guns over this, seriously stick to your guns do not allow the time vampire misery guts to force you to make changes. Like you did before. Just don't allow it.

Rant over, that is all.

Allow me to retort. To hell with your smartphone instant gratification game play. The real vampires are the make it easy for every body crowd that water down games after launch. Have your bit of content locust before you move on to the next game fun elsewhere. Catering to the low end of the curve players is ebola to players that want even a little challenge. If FD keep watering the game down then I guess I'll find something else to play until your participation award kind show up and shed tears until you get your way before buzzing off to another game.

 

[Kermit Laphroaig]

STOP! making sense, we don't do that around here, it must be easy, instant and ......well you get my point

+1

Are you arguing that one thousand two hundred odd years into the future, things won't be easier?

This is a game where travel between stars is practically instantaneous, at the click of a button.

What now, man? Where is your logic now? WORKING FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE ITS AT.

- - - Updated - - -

If FD keep watering the game down then I guess I'll find something else to play until your participation award kind show up and shed tears until you get your way before buzzing off to another game.

Can't say I'd miss you, actually.

 

[Winterwalker]

Right then.

I like the MC hologram idea, instant gameplay. I like the gunner's view, but I'm post grad in Engineering.
(I am engineer and a sci-fi nut, I can make up lore memes, all day long for how these technologies might work.)

However they are technologies, right?
Or WOULD the "anti" immursion argument be OK with it, if ED was, "full of space unicorns"?

If it's NOT space unicorns and it is high tech futuristic equipment, then it should be recognisable as such (to everybody) or it IS space unicorns! ; Arthur C Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Are you posting, anti-Immersion?
You want a game 'full of space unicorns' .. Correct?

o7