Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Jex =TE=]

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.

LOL small minds invent excuses far beyond what their intelligence can understand. I'm never using MC so there goes your silly point. I wouldn't use it even if it was in first person because it's a hack of an update and cheap and gives magic pips to your ship.

If you're down with magic in a game fine, fill your boots. Other players see this as the joke that it is and will no doubt hold off purchasing S3 which hurts your cause, not mine. But keep insulting the players that are here so they spend less money on the game because that's a really good tactic for future development.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I just do not understand why people hate on immersion. Ifor you are not inmersed in the game, doesn't matter what kind of game it is, then you will not like it and it will. If the gameplay is good it will be immersive.

So all those people cropping on the people who want immersion, you are basically cropping on yourself.

Poor gameplay is unimmersive, good gameplay is.

You tell me what you want.

The thing is that there is no such thing as 'immersive' in general. If you want it to be 'maximum immersion', you'd need to be mortal. You'd need to deal with hunger and thirst. Waste recycling. Insurance companies would work way different, the current system is super arcadey. You'd need to pass extensive licensing tests. Loading a cargo ship will take hours if not days. In short, a truly immersive game is not fun for anyone. At all. Which means it isnt about immersion vs fun. "its not immersive" or "its not realistic" is meaningless here, because the very core concepts and foundations of this, and every other, game are simply not realistic or immersive.

So why are some things 'realistic' and others not? Because its a game. And the devs have to balance real realism/immersion with 'fun'. So noone can claim they want the game to be realistic/immersive. At best people can claim they want this game to be realistic/immersive in regards to some specific aspect. At which point it becomes so arbitrary that its just better to discard the notion at all and go right to just saying what you want and what makes it fun for you.

But people who claim they want a feature because it is realistic are kidding themselves: there are plenty of features that would be realistic but very crappy, and other features they love (like being immortal) are thoroughly unrealistic. Such is the nature of gaming.

 

[Goose4291]

Have you tried to use a turret in a vehicle that is turning and weaving constantly? Turrets in WWII bombers worked because the bombers flew in a straight, level, path. Why don't you boot up Battlefield 1, get in a plane as a gunner and tell the pilot to make tons of turns and loops. Then see if you can actually hit anything.

It worked in the Millennium Falcon because it's a movie.

Pretty much this.

Talking someone onto a target which is moving in 6 degrees of freedom while the firing platform is moving in 6 degrees of freedom wouldnt work.

 

[xondk]

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

If it wasn't for your last line you made a good argument.

Here's the thing though, there's no reason at all for third person other then "I like this more" and when it comes to that, it is frontier's choice.
And as for third person for turret control as now, seems to make sense? but for actual third person pilot e.t.c. controls, well see below.

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

I don't know about that, third person adds absolutely nothing to the game, you don't get extra situational awareness or anything else, you get to see your ship, and said ship even blocks directly ahead of your camera.
I really do not see what the actual argument for third person is, I mean granted there's no way I can keep up with all pages with as fast as this thread is going.

But honestly, it seems like there's been no real argument WHY third person is needed, other then "I want third person flight" and when it comes down to something you 'like' with no real advantage to it other then that? then why should they waste dev time on that?
I'd love to hear actual arguments or linked to them if I missed them, for why third person is needed, first person and radar already gives you all the situational awareness you need, if you can't figure out how to keep an eye on your radar, then third person is not going to help that. Other then I guess when people are super close which at that point its no point at all?

Course thread was about gunner initially which it seems fine for as is.

 

[Zambrick]

I'll ask you as well then. We should get rid of life support too right because to hell with realism? Let's not bother with travel and just be allowed to hyperjump anywhere we want. I mean we can telepresence everywhere now so I don't see why we can't hyperspace anywhere too. Let's also add a instant heal potion so when we die it heals us and we don't die but a DB bobble head comes over and wraps us up in a nice, warm, soft blankey and gives us a dummy to suck on so we feel safe and then we're alive again but we teleported somewhere safe.

BTW if it wasn't for people yelling at FD about instant transfers we'd have a massively broken game right now and just for the record, FD implemented something nobody ever asked for! LOL - we stopped them breaking their own game and then wanted ship transfers to at least affect their real time counterpart (as in, take the same time it would take us to fly it) and also sending ships ahead of us which is also perfectly reasonable but no, after we saved the game FD decided to implement it the worst possible way so blame them.

Nobody asked for Power Play and nobody wanted it.
Nobody asked for CQC and nobody wanted it.
Nobody asked for the stupid Engineering Meta and nobody wanted it.

Those are the things that nobody asked for.

Instant transfers would do nothing to the game unless you choose to let it offend your fine senses. That is your problem and nobody elses.

Your strawman argument attempts are sad.

You want a strawman argument to counter yours. Well seeing as how you want so much realism and consistency, How about you fly back to Sol system start at earth turn off your FSD and then fly and meet me at Sirius. If you started that journey at launch then you should be close enough to Jupiter to see it. I will see you in several thousand years.
Goodbye and take your realism with you.

 

[Fishy]

Pretty much this.

Talking someone onto a target which is moving in 6 degrees of freedom while the firing platform is moving in 6 degrees of freedom wouldnt work.

Because a gyroscopic seat and a link to the flight control compensating every flight input would be unheard of?

 

[Zambrick]

We might be able to do the whole 3d extrapolation of the environment now, but we do not have the technology to transmit it directly into a user's brain nor do we have the technology to produce visible spectrum images from thermal sensors.

um VR helms now. The ones I am using now. No need to 3d extrapolate anything as a Camera will do fine. You know like they do right now? The ships sensors however already do the tracking so I dont see what the problem is.

There is no conflict with anything being argued. Drone Technology has been around for 20 years. It is very effective and it works. Yet somehow this is somehow blowing peoples minds.

Speaking of drones I just flew mine over the cube wall and shot my deskmate with the nerf dart launcher that is attached. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt imagining this. Now I must go because I can hear the sharp buzz of a counter attack coming my way.

 

[GG7]

Have you tried to use a turret in a vehicle that is turning and weaving constantly? Turrets in WWII bombers worked because the bombers flew in a straight, level, path. Why don't you boot up Battlefield 1, get in a plane as a gunner and tell the pilot to make tons of turns and loops. Then see if you can actually hit anything.

It worked in the Millennium Falcon because it's a movie.

Precisely the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread!

Wanting that kind of perspective is all well and good, but from a practical standpoint in THIS GAME, I don't see how it would be very effective. I can very well picture those very same people currently complaining about FD's choice whining about that if such a system had been chosen.

I have no doubt that FD weighed all the possible interface options and in the end went with the one they felt would be the most effective and playable within the current flight model, and how most players tend to fly their ships during combat.

The level of armchair game development that goes on around here is always a source of much amusement for me. The utter cluelessness of most of the negative comments is mind blowing.

 

[Goose4291]

Because a gyroscopic seat and a link to the flight control compensating every flight input would be unheard of?

Which would pretty much boil down to an even worse version of autoaim than we're about to have and also would require even more bandwith to achieve as turret postion data would be being bounced all over the place.

Turret views in multiplayer only work well in slower paced games, or ones where the platform has limited manuverability.

The only way they'd work is with a ship thats prepared to fly steady, which elites Arcade flight model coupled with FA-off modes doesnt really encourage.

 

[Fishy]

Which would pretty much boil down to an even worse version of autoaim than we're about to have and also would require even more bandwith to achieve as turret postion data would be being bounced all over the place.

Turret views in multiplayer only work well in slower paced games, or ones where the platform has limited manuverability.

The only way they'd work is with a ship thats prepared to fly steady, which elites Arcade flight model coupled with FA-off modes doesnt really encourage.

Well, with a stabilised gyroscopic mount, you'd basically be aiming like you do with fixed beams. No need for auto-aim. After that, obviously, it'd certainly be less effective than an all-turrets-at-once since it'd require to swap from a turret to the next depending on the flight paths. It just to say that the moving platform thing is a red herring. Turret stabilisation is trivial and pretty much required.

 

[Zambrick]

Which would pretty much boil down to an even worse version of autoaim than we're about to have and also would require even more bandwith to achieve as turret postion data would be being bounced all over the place.

Turret views in multiplayer only work well in slower paced games, or ones where the platform has limited manuverability.

The only way they'd work is with a ship thats prepared to fly steady, which elites Arcade flight model coupled with FA-off modes doesnt really encourage.

Is Arcade the newest word that is being used to demean this game? Or are we assuming this is an Arcade game?

Perhaps all of you real life Sidewinder and FDL Pilots currently flying around the galaxy in 2017 can let us know. Is it like an arcade game? Or is it like the real thing that you fly in the real world?

But yes I agree turret controlled fighting only works in things like WWII bombers and whatnot.

Calling out the Millennium Falcon as being realistic example is also pretty sad.
Pssssstt. I will let you know a secret... Star Wars didnt happen either. Its not real. Elite Dangerous was not designed or conceived by George Lucas.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, with a stabilised gyroscopic mount, you'd basically be aiming like you do with fixed beams. No need for auto-aim. After that, obviously, it'd certainly be less effective than an all-turrets-at-once since it'd require to swap from a turret to the next depending on the flight paths. It just to say that the moving platform thing is a red herring. Turret stabilisation is trivial and pretty much required.

You forget that the ship already does this without a Pilot present. All weapons track and fire when possible. So whats the dif?

 

[RamirezKurita]

um VR helms now. The ones I am using now. No need to 3d extrapolate anything as a Camera will do fine. You know like they do right now? The ships sensors however already do the tracking so I dont see what the problem is.

There is no conflict with anything being argued. Drone Technology has been around for 20 years. It is very effective and it works. Yet somehow this is somehow blowing peoples minds.

Speaking of drones I just flew mine over the cube wall and shot my deskmate with the nerf dart launcher that is attached. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt imagining this. Now I must go because I can hear the sharp buzz of a counter attack coming my way.

If we already have VR helms, then 99% of the current stuff we see in-game wouldn't make sense any more, as we would be spending our time in VR looking through a camera mounted on the headset without even any image enhancement or overlays. Why would be need a fancy holographic HUD if we are already wearing VR headsets? Why would we need the full telepresence if we could just remote control things via VR headsets?

The ship's sensors do indeed do the tracking thing, however they do it by looking at thermal signatures, not visible spectrum signatures. We know this because of how silent running works, you obscure the heat dissipation vents and thermally isolate the outer hull, which prevent the emitting of large amounts of IR radiation (plus a touch of visible for ships that are running really hot).

All the immersion crowd really wants is consistency. To have an internally consistent set of technologies with clear logical reasons for stuff happening. It's a hallmark of even barely-decent writing to have a setting where stuff operates according to internally consistent mechanics rather than everything just going by author handwavium. Star Trek infamously wrestled with this very issue with regards to the transporter technology, as episode storylines sometimes required limitations, modifications or extra features adding to the transporters to make the episode function, which added additional rules for every single episode and series of Star Trek afterwards as they had to adhere to this limitation to keep the transporter technology consistent rather than it just being a literal plot device to be used, abused and discarded.

Consistency doesn't necessarily imply a full set of realism, just things to be logical and believable. Obviously, we are dealing with a Sci-Fi setting with incredibly advanced technology, so not everything will be readily obvious as to how and why it works, however limitations and effects should be consistent across all implementations of a particular bit of sci-fi kit, as well as making sense within the setting as to how and why it is implemented.

 

[MajorHavoc]

A 3rd person view from an indestructable camera drone that moves at high speed around the ship on all axis allowing a massive tactical advantage whilst in combat is going too far imo. When the telepresence gun camera view opened I was expecting a view from a gimballed camera on a small retractable mount positioned above the bridge or on the underside of the ship. Another sim element slips away for game play convenience, is this a new design direction ?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sorry OP, but i didn't catch your suggestion for how FD should have done it.

Was having a similar discussion the other day, where someone mentioned how stomach wrenchingly vomit inducing it would be to sit in a turret trying to aim while the pilot is flinging the ship around, especially for players in VR. How should the gunner position work with all turrets in a way that is easy to use and visualize and wouldn't induce vomitus?

Would be interesting to hear.

Still, its all moot, FD have done what they have done, and they are not going to change it at this point.

 

[Goose4291]

Well, with a stabilised gyroscopic mount, you'd basically be aiming like you do with fixed beams. No need for auto-aim. After that, obviously, it'd certainly be less effective than an all-turrets-at-once since it'd require to swap from a turret to the next depending on the flight paths. It just to say that the moving platform thing is a red herring. Turret stabilisation is trivial and pretty much required.

Im sorry to say but firing from a moving platform against a moving target isnt a red herring for this disucssion.

Have you tried to fire and track a fast moving target with 6 degrees of freedom from a slow moving one with only 4, and with a trained ops team talking you onto the target in real life? I have. And it aint easy.

Thats without doing similar speeds to the target, or having a extra 2 degrees of freedom to contend with.

Even in games have a look at the 'Rolling Thunder' 90 man tank battles the ArmA community used to have, and watch some of the youtube vids. People who play slow turret based games/do it in real life (like another couple of friends of mine) struggle with it. Its not something I can see the Elite community either being comfortable or happy with.

- - - Updated - - -

Is Arcade the newest word that is being used to demean this game? Or are we assuming this is an Arcade game?

Perhaps all of you real life Sidewinder and FDL Pilots currently flying around the galaxy in 2017 can let us know. Is it like an arcade game? Or is it like the real thing that you fly in the real world?

But yes I agree turret controlled fighting only works in things like WWII bombers and whatnot.

Calling out the Millennium Falcon as being realistic example is also pretty sad.
Pssssstt. I will let you know a secret... Star Wars didnt happen either. Its not real. Elite Dangerous was not designed or conceived by George Lucas.

- - - Updated - - -



You forget that the ship already does this without a Pilot present. All weapons track and fire when possible. So whats the dif?

Zambrick.

I think you actually need to read my post. Im agreeing with you, nor did I call out star wars as a 'realistic' example

 

[CMDR Ofan]

Im sorry to say but firing from a moving platform against a moving target isnt a red herring for this disucssion.

Have you tried to fire and track a fast moving target with 6 degrees of freedom from a slow moving one with only 4, and with a trained ops team talking you onto the target in real life? I have. And it aint easy.

Thats without doing similar speeds to the target, or having a extra 2 degrees of freedom to contend with.

Even in games have a look at the 'Rolling Thunder' 90 man tank battles the ArmA community used to have, and watch some of the youtube vids. People who play slow turret based games/do it in real life (like another couple of friends of mine) struggle with it. Its not something I can see the Elite community either being comfortable or happy with.

- - - Updated - - -



Zambrick.

I think you actually need to read my post. Im agreeing with you, nor did I call out star wars as a 'realistic' example

Can't rep again. +1 Virtual

 

[Zambrick]

Im sorry to say but firing from a moving platform against a moving target isnt a red herring for this disucssion.

Have you tried to fire and track a fast moving target with 6 degrees of freedom from a slow moving one with only 4, and with a trained ops team talking you onto the target in real life? I have. And it aint easy.

Thats without doing similar speeds to the target, or having a extra 2 degrees of freedom to contend with.

Even in games have a look at the 'Rolling Thunder' 90 man tank battles the ArmA community used to have, and watch some of the youtube vids. People who play slow turret based games/do it in real life (like another couple of friends of mine) struggle with it. Its not something I can see the Elite community either being comfortable or happy with.

- - - Updated - - -



Zambrick.

I think you actually need to read my post. Im agreeing with you.

No I am really asking. I am seeing it pop up everywhere today. Is it the new buzzword? Like Get Gud or Carebears or whatnot.

I agree with you as well. I was just pointing out how absurd it is for anyone to think that anything we do in ED is a simulation. I probably should have put a being sarcastic remark or something in my post. I am Not disagreeing with you at all.

 

[akaliel]

You want a strawman argument to counter yours. Well seeing as how you want so much realism and consistency, How about you fly back to Sol system start at earth turn off your FSD and then fly and meet me at Sirius. If you started that journey at launch then you should be close enough to Jupiter to see it. I will see you in several thousand years.
Goodbye and take your realism with you.

Best thing I ever read, I salute you, sir.

 

[Goose4291]

No I am really asking. I am seeing it pop up everywhere today. Is it the new buzzword? Like Get Gud or Carebears or whatnot.

I agree with you as well. I was just pointing out how absurd it is for anyone to think that anything we do in ED is a simulation. I probably should have put a being sarcastic remark or something in my post. I am Not disagreeing with you at all.

Its fine. To be clear I think Elites flight model is 'arcade' like (ie not realistic and quite simplistic) with a little bit of complexity given to it by FA off.

I dont think is a bad thing. I think the reason youve seen it a bit today is that you dove into my "I admit my mistake, Elite is not a 'space sim' game (as in the genre, not the literal sense)" thread.

 

[Zambrick]

If we already have VR helms, then 99% of the current stuff we see in-game wouldn't make sense any more, as we would be spending our time in VR looking through a camera mounted on the headset without even any image enhancement or overlays. Why would be need a fancy holographic HUD if we are already wearing VR headsets? Why would we need the full telepresence if we could just remote control things via VR headsets?

The ship's sensors do indeed do the tracking thing, however they do it by looking at thermal signatures, not visible spectrum signatures. We know this because of how silent running works, you obscure the heat dissipation vents and thermally isolate the outer hull, which prevent the emitting of large amounts of IR radiation (plus a touch of visible for ships that are running really hot).

All the immersion crowd really wants is consistency. To have an internally consistent set of technologies with clear logical reasons for stuff happening. It's a hallmark of even barely-decent writing to have a setting where stuff operates according to internally consistent mechanics rather than everything just going by author handwavium. Star Trek infamously wrestled with this very issue with regards to the transporter technology, as episode storylines sometimes required limitations, modifications or extra features adding to the transporters to make the episode function, which added additional rules for every single episode and series of Star Trek afterwards as they had to adhere to this limitation to keep the transporter technology consistent rather than it just being a literal plot device to be used, abused and discarded.

Consistency doesn't necessarily imply a full set of realism, just things to be logical and believable. Obviously, we are dealing with a Sci-Fi setting with incredibly advanced technology, so not everything will be readily obvious as to how and why it works, however limitations and effects should be consistent across all implementations of a particular bit of sci-fi kit, as well as making sense within the setting as to how and why it is implemented.

And since everything you stated as being fantastical already exists and is being used, I dont see what your problem is. We do just use VR headsets to remote control things. Telepresence is just a tool being used to make the human in the room feel comfortable with the fact that his or her ships systems are being controlled remotely. There is a completely logical and explainable reason for everything in this patch.

However this just boils down to people complaining because its a change. If you deny this, then you are fooling no one. You like things the way they are and you dont want them to change. You want 50 hour trips to meet up for some ship time romance or something.

Nobody has provided one single argument against the new update that isnt anything but an opinion. It has no grounding in fact in real life nor the game. Its just your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion however I will be damned if you try to force your opinion down my throat.

Meanwhile you have been provided with dozens of in game reasons for these changes to make sense but you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and stamp of the floor.

Essentially you are asking for this to new system to be this game best abduction simulator on the planet to date. So you and your pal fly out to Formadine rift and he logs out for 3 weeks. Now you are screwed. Darn this already existing instant galaxy wide network that we have. Wish I could have figured out a way to use that instead of being kidnapped.