Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Vorxian]

What is an "arcade action cam" and how does it differ from a "tactical 3rd person rendered view"?

It doesn't differ at all because it's the same thing just without the negative spin from those predisposed to dismiss it. It's being added because it's a decidedly superior solution to other options so far as this function is concerned. From an in universe standpoint it makes sense to have for that purpose.

It depends on who is the buyer and who's the seller. The sellers will always try to use eloquent language to mind wrestle the buyer into.. well.. buying.

You're looking at a brochure for a house, and one of the room blurbs says:

Here we have a fantastic example of an elegantly bantam, yet piquant personal area. This south facing living space has lots of ventilation, and boasts the room with the most sun throughout the day.

What's they're really saying.. at face value, is: it's a g tiny room that has no real practical use, made worse by the fact that it's a sun trap, and will melt everything in it during the summer season. At most, a storage room.

You have to look at things as they are...

"Tactical rendered 3d projection..." is basically saying.. 3rd person arcade view.

I am suffering from so much confusion about why a static turret view is so bad? Just choose a turret and optimizr your game play on it. Co-ordinate with the pilot to give you LOS, it adds more skill and co-operation. Automate other turrets in the ship if necessary, or bring in another crew mate to operate the underside turret etc..

Arcade in this case means game play and co-operation take a hit for a more arcade action flavored 3rd person / isometric shooter more resembling Iron Fire than Elite Dangerous.

[video=youtube;A6N3RxWCl2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6N3RxWCl2E[/video]

 

[Xender]

Coop may be considered as arcade gameplay concept, however putting multicrew into one bag with typical coop is wrong. Playing in wing is also coop... Multicrew should be treated in similar consistent way, without arcade game breakers (TPP camera, telepresence). It is possible to develop engaging, complex multicrew system with realistic approach - just look at Star Citizen. Frontier instead of creating multicrew system which is worth to try, created something simple and shallow and then they added simplified mechanics to lure players to try it. It is wrong approach, it killing the game na further development because it's clearly indicates that they will follow that path in future - path of simplification and shallow content. Then they will simplify game all the time to lure players to barren mechanics, because no one wants to spend time on something shallow.

 

[ShadowWolf Kell]

Nope - we are all hiding.

It's TJ's fault, amirite?

 

[Jex =TE=]

Has to be a reason for your continued posting. You dont make sense and your supposed theories are lies or fantasies. So however you wish to play it I dont care. Dont reply to something unless you have something to say. At least more than all the trolling you have done so far.

I surmise you are rep farming, willfully ignorant, a troll, or utterly uninformed. Or any combination of the previously listed items. Other than jibes at other peoples posts, you have produce nothing meaningful or backed by anything than your supposed word. Somebody else has to give me the links to the quotes you so wholly believe as gospel. I read said posts and your interpretations are both wrong and taken out of context of the post. Anyone that points that your interpretations are wrong or misconstrued ,then you attack them and still are not able to provide proper context or proof. Then you blame that person when you cant back up what you say.

So either troll another thread or put a complete thought of your own together. I dont care which.

His posts are perfectly clear and intelligently written unlike your own. Before you go fingerpointing, perhaps you should go back and read the extremely weak/off point posts you've made in this thread. There's very few people in disagreement here because the rest of us understand what's being said.

 

[Chrysophylax]

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?

Wrong, I must surely no such thing.

It's like you fail to realize 'simple' as a design goal is as worthy as any other goal, and doesn't have to necessarily follow from 'easy'. In fact, from personal experience, 'simple' is usually anything but 'easy' or 'easiest'.

 

[Ian Skippy]

MultiCrew in all, doesn't in my opinion improve the multiplayer aspect of this game.

That is such an absurd claim, I have no idea what the purpose of that statement is. Obviously people will use it and enjoy it. You dont (or at least, you claim so). Fine. Who cares, it has no bearing on your statement. Its like saying "Corn has not improved food intake globally because I dont like corn.". Its just plain ridiculous.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Wrong, I must surely no such thing.

It's like you fail to realize 'simple' as a design goal is as worthy as any other goal, and doesn't have to necessarily follow from 'easy'. In fact, from personal experience, 'simple' is usually anything but 'easy' or 'easiest'.

In the words of St-Ex, "... perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away ..."

"Simple" designs are usually anything but simple to achieve.

 

[Ian Skippy]

It depends on who is the buyer and who's the seller. The sellers will always try to use eloquent language to mind wrestle the buyer into.. well.. buying.

You're looking at a brochure for a house, and one of the room blurbs says:

Here we have a fantastic example of an elegantly bantam, yet piquant personal area. This south facing living space has lots of ventilation, and boasts the room with the most sun throughout the day.

What's they're really saying.. at face value, is: it's a g tiny room that has no real practical use, made worse by the fact that it's a sun trap, and will melt everything in it during the summer season. At most, a storage room.

You have to look at things as they are...

"Tactical rendered 3d projection..." is basically saying.. 3rd person arcade view.

I am suffering from so much confusion about why a static turret view is so bad? Just choose a turret and optimizr your game play on it. Co-ordinate with the pilot to give you LOS, it adds more skill and co-operation. Automate other turrets in the ship if necessary, or bring in another crew mate to operate the underside turret etc..

Arcade in this case means game play and co-operation take a hit for a more arcade action flavored 3rd person / isometric shooter more resembling Iron Fire than Elite Dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6N3RxWCl2E

Again, can you define words before you litter them through your posts? What does "Arcade" mean? Because obviously none of the official meanings of that word have anything to do with what you're saying.

"Gameplay takes a hit for more arcade" is such a totally content-less sentence, you may as well just not type it.

 

[CylonSurfer]

MultiCrew in all, doesn't in my opinion improve the multiplayer aspect of this game."

That is such an absurd claim, I have no idea what the purpose of that statement is. Obviously people will use it and enjoy it. You dont (or at least, you claim so). Fine. Who cares, it has no bearing on your statement. Its like saying "Corn has not improved food intake globally because I dont like corn.". Its just plain ridiculous.

Lets use the full statement for clarity shall we, its not like I didn't include the reason as to why I thought so. It also makes your "corn parody" quite absurd, it's nothing like what I said.

MultiCrew in all, doesn't in my opinion improve the multiplayer aspect of this game. The implementation prevents many social experiences from being possible such as taxi services to rescue operations. Its also extremely lacking in cooperative gameplay as no missions catering to this new mode have been created and rewards from existing missions are not even sharable between crew. All in all its extremely lacking and feels more like box ticking than anything else. You can MC up instantly (wow) and do pretty much nothing with that but RES hunt (wow)."

A corn based anaolgy which is representational of that particular paragraph from my post would be something along the lines of:

"The Food Ministry sold me corn today, it was all they would offer for my pre-paid food token. Other than fulfilling thier obligation to provide me with food, it does nothing to help me as it was under ripe and they provided no means for me to cook it. All I could do was take it home".

 

[Ian Skippy]

Lets use the full statement for clarity shall we, its not like I didn't include the reason as to why I thought so. It also makes your "corn parody" quite absurd, it's nothing like what I said.



A corn based anaolgy which is representational of my comment would be something along the lines of:

"The Food Ministry sold me corn today, it was all they would offer. It does nothing to help me as they provided no means for me to or cook it".

Dear Lord, that doesnt help you at all.

1) You claim Multi-crew doesnt improve multiplayer.
2) People look forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew
3) Ergo: you make no sense.

It means literally nothing that you can fantasize about other stuff that doesnt exist. Good for you! But to most people, improving multiplayer by adding new multiplayer stuff that people find enjoyable means multiplayer got improved. If we cannot even agree on that, I dont think there is a point in discussing anything whatsoever because this is what the basics of language, logic and reason mean.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Dear Lord, that doesnt help you at all.

1) You claim Multi-crew doesnt improve multiplayer.
2) People look forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew
3) Ergo: you make no sense.

It means literally nothing that you can fantasize about other stuff that doesnt exist. Good for you! But to most people, improving multiplayer by adding new multiplayer stuff that people find enjoyable means multiplayer got improved. If we cannot even agree on that, I dont think there is a point in discussing anything whatsoever because this is what the basics of language, logic and reason mean.

I feel you are still missing the important part of that paragraph you misquoted. Here it is again for you:

"The implementation prevents many social experiences from being possible such as taxi services to rescue operations. Its also extremely lacking in cooperative gameplay as no missions catering to this new mode have been created and rewards from existing missions are not even sharable between crew. All in all its extremely lacking and feels more like box ticking than anything else. You can MC up instantly (wow) and do pretty much nothing with that but RES hunt (wow)."

Ergo: you are not making much sense (to me).

I'd be happy to go into more detail as to why I feel the whole Multi-Crew update is lacking in any good multiplayer content (not that for a moment I feel you would give them the time of day) - just make a thread about it and I'll post there as not to further de-rail this discussion regarding the lackluster MC turrets.

I do agree with one point you made: People look forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew

Perhaps that should now be: People looked forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew, some people were disapointed by what was presented.

Afterall, this is not the only thread on that particular subject. I am though, happy that you are happy with it as others seemingly are at this moment in time.

 

[Nuarb]

Nope, not what I said above at all. My comment referred to quotes taken from dev comments which Zam has gone from saying, outright don't exist, to they're out of context, to they were made too long ago to be relevant, to now they were modified. Comedy gold.

I admit that I don't like the turret camera and believe that a first person implementation would have been better and inline with the impression devs gave in the form of comments here on the forum at the time myself and many others purchased this game. Be that bubble turrets manned in first person to promote cooperative gameplay between gunner and pilot, or some sort of in cockpit screen system the gunner viewed and controlled the turrets from.

Ah, two problems here though. Bubble turrets would never have worked in any capacity. The ships in elite aren't built for that, never were number 1, and number 2 unless you got 7 friends to join your crew (which, hint, you can't because the games networking would fall apart) you would be absolutely useless. The gunner would be as useless as an added potato peeling minigame. You would have no time on target as the pilot is spinning, you would be so disorented switching to different views that you would lose them again before having to switch to another view again, and you would hardly ever get a bead to hit them. The only way you could make it worth while is to make the manned turret so unbelievably overpowered so as to make up for the massive, massive maaaassive shortfalls you're introducing. Congratulations, your suggestion of manned turrets just broke the game. Oh wait I have a 3rd problem as well with manual turrets, everyone playing in VR (and this game is one of the top VR experiences, so theres a large and ever growing amount of us) would lose their lunch every second of gameplay.

Ok, so I've explained why your idea for ball turrets is incorrect and wrong, just a bad idea all around. Let me move on to the second part of that quote talking about sitting on your friends ship looking at a display, and explain how it is also incorrect and wrong. I'll repost this again so you can understand:

You're already in VR, why do you need to simulate sitting in a chair looking at your monitor when you can simulate the tactical display directly?








Heres a helpful diagram of why this is all silly.




Here's you:

Happy go lucky commander




Here's how you multicrew:

Notice either way you're seeing a virtualization, you're not really in either place. It only makes sense then to view a different virtual position, than to have virtual position #1 look at a worse tactical overview.

You are never in your friends ship. Your meat body has never set foot in those comfy co pilot chairs, its all a holographic VR experience. You are not there.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I feel you are still missing the important part of that paragraph you misquoted. Here it is again for you:

"The implementation prevents many social experiences from being possible such as taxi services to rescue operations. Its also extremely lacking in cooperative gameplay as no missions catering to this new mode have been created and rewards from existing missions are not even sharable between crew. All in all its extremely lacking and feels more like box ticking than anything else. You can MC up instantly (wow) and do pretty much nothing with that but RES hunt (wow)."

Ergo: you are not making much sense (to me).

I'd be happy to go into more detail as to why I feel the whole Multi-Crew update is lacking in any good multiplayer content (not that for a moment I feel you would give them the time of day) - just make a thread about it and I'll post there as not to further de-rail this discussion regarding the lackluster MC turrets.

I do agree with one point you made: People look forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew

Perhaps that should now be: People looked forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew, some people were disapointed by it.

Afterall, this is not the only thread on that particular subject.

I am not missing it. I am trying to explain why that is not an argument for the statement I responded to. I'll repeat it:

MultiCrew in all, doesn't in my opinion improve the multiplayer aspect of this game.

Whether you want taxi services, first person turrets, cooperative missions or anything like that has zero bearing on the simple fact that multicrew is an improvement of the multiplayer aspect of ED. Maybe you want different improvements. Or more improvements. Or both. Thats fine. You can debate that no problem. But that doesnt mean that multicrew isnt an improvement over no multicrew at all. Thats all.

And as for 'some people being disappointed': thats the ED forums for ya. Some people want instant transport into another ship. Others do not. That alone means that some will always be disappointed. Some want 1st person turrets. I do not. One way or the other, people will get disappointed. There will be plenty of Rage Topics when beta hits: The Dolphin doesnt jump far enough, or its tank is too tiny, or the agility not good enough, or it doesnt have 12 huge hardpoints, or maybe the cockpit doesnt offer the best view, whatever. This is all fine to discuss. But lets keep things in perspective: having multi-crew beats not having multi-crew, even if your ideal multicrew might be different. Having the Dolphin will beat having no Dolphin, even if your ideal Dolphin is different. Etc Etc.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Ah, two problems here though. Bubble turrets would never have worked in any capacity. The ships in elite aren't built for that, never were number 1, and number 2 unless you got 7 friends to join your crew (which, hint, you can't because the games networking would fall apart) you would be absolutely useless. The gunner would be as useless as an added potato peeling minigame. You would have no time on target as the pilot is spinning, you would be so disorented switching to different views that you would lose them again before having to switch to another view again, and you would hardly ever get a bead to hit them. The only way you could make it worth while is to make the manned turret so unbelievably overpowered so as to make up for the massive, massive maaaassive shortfalls you're introducing. Congratulations, your suggestion of manned turrets just broke the game. Oh wait I have a 3rd problem as well with manual turrets, everyone playing in VR (and this game is one of the top VR experiences, so theres a large and ever growing amount of us) would lose their lunch every second of gameplay.

Ok, so I've explained why your idea for ball turrets is incorrect and wrong, just a bad idea all around. Let me move on to the second part of that quote talking about sitting on your friends ship looking at a display, and explain how it is also incorrect and wrong. I'll repost this again so you can understand:

You're already in VR, why do you need to simulate sitting in a chair looking at your monitor when you can simulate the tactical display directly?








Heres a helpful diagram of why this is all silly.




Here's you:
http://i.imgur.com/B5S0bYT.png
Happy go lucky commander




Here's how you multicrew:
http://i.imgur.com/JPZWc8Y.png




Notice either way you're seeing a virtualization, you're not really in either place. It only makes sense then to view a different virtual position, than to have virtual position #1 look at a worse tactical overview.

You are never in your friends ship. Your meat body has never set foot in those comfy co pilot chairs, its all a holographic VR experience. You are not there.

Thank you for explaining the "new in game lore regarding the use of third person cameras" I was already aware of this I believe similar explanations were provided for the SRV and its turret before being retracted, or at least partially. I personally, have never at any point been discussing in game lore but rather the actual use of third person cameras during combat by the game engine. I hope that clears up any confusion in that regard.

 

[STARB0YY]

Blah blah blah muh imurshun. dont turn me hardcorr spacesim into mariokart! 12 year olds ruin this game omg.

There, can I have rep now?

EDIT: oops i called it a game, what i meant was of course hardcorr space SIMULATOR

 

[Nuarb]

Thank you for explaining the "new in game lore regarding the use of third person cameras" I was already aware of this I believe similar explanations were provided for the SRV and its turret before being retracted, or at least partially. I personally, have never at any point being discussing in game lore but rather the actual use of third person cameras during combat by the game engine. I hope that clears up any confusion in that regard.

Ah right, except for the part where you flat out said they should have a display you look at while sitting in the chair? I did quote that, I can quote it again if you'd like?

Edit, Actually you completely skipped the whole first paragraph I typed as well I believe, it was nothing to do with lore at all but how your idea for turret control directly is incorrect. I don't blame you, it was a long post with pictures, you might not have read it.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Yes, nothing to do with the new lore you are clinging to. I also never used the word "should" I instead offered what I thought may have been a better solution(s) which maintained the 'no third person cameras, its a cockpit based game' stance the devs once implied they had and many adopters from that time supported.

You can quote it as many times as you like if you want to look silly.

Blah blah blah muh imurshun. dont turn me hardcorr spacesim into mariokart! 12 year olds ruin this game omg.

There, can I have rep now?

EDIT: oops i called it a game, what i meant was of course hardcorr space SIMULATOR

Sure, if you came here to look and act twelve and use terms like 'imurshun' (whatever that means) have some by all means. You succeeded afterall.

 

[Nuarb]

Yes, nothing to do with the new lore you are clinging to. I also never used the word "should" I instead offered what I thought may have been a better solution which maintained the 'no third person cameras, its a cockpit based game' stance the devs once implied they had and many adopters from that time supported.

You can quote it as many times as you like if you want to look silly.

I admit that I don't like the turret camera and believe that a first person implementation would have been better and inline with the impression devs gave in the form of comments here on the forum at the time myself and many others purchased this game. Be that bubble turrets manned in first person to promote cooperative gameplay between gunner and pilot, or some sort of in cockpit screen system the gunner viewed and controlled the turrets from.

Look, I don't care one way or another about what frontier says the lore is. frontier says the lore is holo telepresence VR experiences? Ok thats fine, it gives an excuse for the gameplay to make sense, and gameplay comes first.

Direct controlled ball turret style operation is bad gameplay. It's a bad call cylon, a bad call. I just wanted to explain in detail why its bad gameplay, as well as why looking at a screen display also makes no sense in addition to being bad gameplay. Now, looking at a screen while sitting in a chair WOULD be good for VR users from a vomit standpoint, absolutely, but it would be worse than the current implementation we've seen so far, with having a direct tactical view.

Gameplay needs to come first, if something isn't fun, if its too difficult to set up so no one uses it, its bad gameplay.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Dear Lord, that doesnt help you at all.

1) You claim Multi-crew doesnt improve multiplayer.
2) People look forward to the added multiplayer enjoyment of multi-crew
3) Ergo: you make no sense.

It means literally nothing that you can fantasize about other stuff that doesnt exist. Good for you! But to most people, improving multiplayer by adding new multiplayer stuff that people find enjoyable means multiplayer got improved. If we cannot even agree on that, I dont think there is a point in discussing anything whatsoever because this is what the basics of language, logic and reason mean.

Perhaps we should look to you and ask why it is that you don't understand what he's saying whereas everyone else here does? Or shall we have another 5 pages of you floundering around claiming that people are saying things that are in your head and not what is clearly written down for all to see?

- - - Updated - - -

Look, I don't care one way or another about what frontier says the lore is. frontier says the lore is holo telepresence VR experiences? Ok thats fine, it gives an excuse for the gameplay to make sense, and gameplay comes first.

Direct controlled ball turret style operation is bad gameplay. It's a bad call cylon, a bad call. I just wanted to explain in detail why its bad gameplay, as well as why looking at a screen display also makes no sense in addition to being bad gameplay. Now, looking at a screen while sitting in a chair WOULD be good for VR users from a vomit standpoint, absolutely, but it would be worse than the current implementation we've seen so far, with having a direct tactical view.

Gameplay needs to come first, if something isn't fun, if its too difficult to set up so no one uses it, its bad gameplay.

OK well in that case you've opened a humungous door to get rid of all the following

- RNGineer grind
- Buggy wings
- Multicrew
- CQC
- Trading
- Mining (maybe)
- Combat

All of these things are unchallenging and you can watch TV as you "play" the game. According to "gameplay comes first" ED needs a massive overhaul on everything at the expense of internal logic which kills off players more thana few bad game mechanics ever would.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Look, I don't care one way or another about what frontier says the lore is. frontier says the lore is holo telepresence VR experiences? Ok thats fine, it gives an excuse for the gameplay to make sense, and gameplay comes first.

Direct controlled ball turret style operation is bad gameplay. It's a bad call cylon, a bad call. I just wanted to explain in detail why its bad gameplay, as well as why looking at a screen display also makes no sense in addition to being bad gameplay. Now, looking at a screen while sitting in a chair WOULD be good for VR users from a vomit standpoint, absolutely, but it would be worse than the current implementation we've seen so far, with having a direct tactical view.

Gameplay needs to come first, if something isn't fun, if its too difficult to set up so no one uses it, its bad gameplay.

Ah some progress, we both seem to understand what I wrote now. I accept your point of view, I don't agree with it and do not really see what your diagram (assuming it is yours..) has to do with anything I have said.

A suggestion though - would it not have been wiser to write: Direct controlled ball turret style operation in my opinion is bad gameplay. I believe It's a bad call cylon, a bad call from my perspective. I just wanted to explain in detail why I think its bad gameplay, as well as why looking at a screen display also makes no sense when presented with the currently offered in-game lore explanation of the new feature in addition to being what I would call bad gameplay.

Afterall, it is your opinion and not fact. I do however respect you opinion.