Pilots do have access to a TPP view
EDIT: oh, you meant to shoot turrets as well. Sorry !
Last edited:
Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?
- Thread starter MyHammer
- Start date
Pilots do have access to a TPP view
EDIT: oh, you meant to shoot turrets as well. Sorry !
Pilots do have access to a TPP view
EDIT: oh, you meant to shoot turrets as well. Sorry ! And you're right.
TPP pilot view called "Vanity Camera" is not equal to gunner view. If Frontier can add TPP view full UI, radar, shields, weapons etc. it will be equivalent.
Hm, like 160t of sensors ? I guess those have a use now...
Personal preference. Both forms of remote controlled turrets.
No actually, because the gunner does not drive the ship and in mutlicrew, the pilot does not control the turrets.
Says the person graciously overlooking that instant FTL communication across the ingame galaxy has been a thing since at the very least 1.2 "Wings".
Last edited:
No in order to see how you have no argument, obviously. Can you explain how you don't get this? Perhaps this is why you're struggling to get the concept of evidentiary weight that you're sorely lacking whilst others here have crushed you with theirs. Maybe you're still trying to crawl out from under it which is why you haven't responded yet
Last edited:
opps wrong post
Last edited:
You mean its more like this?
[video=youtube;AV0nEYjItmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV0nEYjItmo[/video]
Last edited:
Since the whole game is based around WW2 combat (Inside Visual range gun focused combat) I don;t see why this is different. And the idea of the Star wars gunner positions would work with 1 dorsal position that used all dorsal turrets, and 1 ventral that did the same down there.
Last edited:
yep I think by now its clear the scepticism against 3rd person combat is not coming out of nowhere, and the implementation for turret multiplayer is a change from before.
Imo I´m wondering that Frontier choose this way of doing it, and regard it as a drop in quality and said bluntly substandard solution compared to the core mechanics and
gameplay.
Agreed and pretty much what I have said from the start.
Irish?!? Irish?!? Scottish please. I mean it's nowhere near as insulting as English but still....
However, you do have a point about the Beluga, I would now say it's defendable, not rthe 'Run Away, Brave Sir Robin Category'
I think it's simply a case of being an easier way to do it, what with the new camera modes. 2 "features" 1 development process.
Adding a turret view, while preferable, is unlikely to have driven the changes we're getting to the camera.
Yup, cheaper and easier imo. Certainly not for the best experience which tied well into the base game.
Last edited:
Yeah. The only thing that I'm taking as a positive from this is that it hopefully allows them to free up time to catch up on season 3 development. At least, that's how I'm making peace with it.
The same technology that lets me view commodity prices remotely?
- - - Updated - - -
That would open a can of worms... Sensors are completely different to communications devices.. aka metal detector vs mobile phone...
Those in favour of the third person view must surely accept that, from a development and implementation point of view, it's the easiest/simplest solution for FD to do? Right?
So you are happy then that FD are choosing the easiest/simplest solution to implement a feature development? (basically the same reasoning behind the solution to multi-crew)
Would you be happy if all future developments took this route? Implement whatever is the simplest solution. Forget developing any real substance, just slap something together and the customer will be happy.
THAT is the main issue here. It's a cheap solution that could easily be seen as a downturn in the enthusiasm FD has for the game as a whole. We're only into the second season of a supposed 10 year plan and they give us this overly simplistic implementation of a key game area - what does that say for the potential future? What's the point of them going the extra mile with anything in the future if their customers are happy with the arcade solution they are given...?
Why bother with any real substance in that case.
Those of us who want the depth of game originally promised, those of us who, yes, want immersion in a game, those of us who've been here for a long time etc. etc. have been somewhat ridiculed in this thread and others of late for our views, our age perhaps, our choices. But, I guarantee you this one thing, we are the ones that will be around playing this game through the seasons and supporting it long after those happy with and calling for simple, "fun", instant action solutions are long gone.
So you are happy then that FD are choosing the easiest/simplest solution to implement a feature development? (basically the same reasoning behind the solution to multi-crew)
Would you be happy if all future developments took this route? Implement whatever is the simplest solution. Forget developing any real substance, just slap something together and the customer will be happy.
THAT is the main issue here. It's a cheap solution that could easily be seen as a downturn in the enthusiasm FD has for the game as a whole. We're only into the second season of a supposed 10 year plan and they give us this overly simplistic implementation of a key game area - what does that say for the potential future? What's the point of them going the extra mile with anything in the future if their customers are happy with the arcade solution they are given...?
Why bother with any real substance in that case.
Those of us who want the depth of game originally promised, those of us who, yes, want immersion in a game, those of us who've been here for a long time etc. etc. have been somewhat ridiculed in this thread and others of late for our views, our age perhaps, our choices. But, I guarantee you this one thing, we are the ones that will be around playing this game through the seasons and supporting it long after those happy with and calling for simple, "fun", instant action solutions are long gone.
It's amazing how the forums have flipped 180 on that. Maybe it's time to ask if anyon'e stupid enough to want an autopilot again
It's amazing how the forums have flipped 180 on that. Maybe it's time to ask if anyon'e stupid enough to want an autopilot again
Yes, please I'm utterly stupid enough to get an auto pilot, give it to me...
