Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Ian Skippy]

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.

*Looks at his Corvette*
*Looks closely at his turrets*
*Notices that there is no chair, or place for a crewmember*
*Realises there was never a 1st person turret option 'In Lore'*

What you want, shooting from the perspective of one turret, would still be 3rd person. Because the person wouldn't be there. What you want isn't there. It doesnt exist. Neither in the game from day one, nor in the novels. You're making it up. Which is cool, but dont expect to see stuff you made up yourself to appear in game.

 

[Vorxian]

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.

Then all metaphoric sentences are content-less.

We all know what in essence 'arcade' is. Imagine an arcade machine back in the early 90s.. imagine an RPG you put your 10 pence in, and it takes 3 weeks of grinding to do xyz. Unless you have to put in another 10p after each ten minute interval the arcade owners would never make any money... but then, no one would play it!

Arcade machines are designed to be quick, designed for through-put over content. Elite Dangerous is a SLOW game. It would never have worked in the arcades for the above reason. So therefore, why does the new 'multicrew' 3rd person shooter resemble more of the paradigm design for an arcade action shooter, than, part of the slow game the essence of ED was conceived to be? EVERYTHING in multicrew is arcade-like. Instant travel across the galaxy. 3rd person 'you are the ship' perspective than actually someone in the game.. The instant drop in, drop out... the instant free floating targeting reticle... Sounds like the instant gratifying gameplay you expect from an arcade shooter, but patched on to the very 'slow' game of ED.

All I'm saying is, that feels wrong to me. If others enjoy this game style patchwork, then hats off to them.

 

[STARB0YY]

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.



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.

Thx [cool]

I'm very immersed by your reply.

 

[CylonSurfer]

*Looks at his Corvette*
*Looks closely at his turrets*
*Notices that there is no chair, or place for a crewmember*
*Realises there was never a 1st person turret option 'In Lore'*

What you want, shooting from the perspective of one turret, would still be 3rd person. Because the person wouldn't be there. What you want isn't there. It doesnt exist. Neither in the game from day one, nor in the novels. You're making it up. Which is cool, but dont expect to see stuff you made up yourself to appear in game.

As bullet / number points seem to be your thing today:

1) Please see the already mentioned other (non ball turret alternatives to a full on third person camera).
2) I can't see inside any of those turrents to know the inner workings or what is behind them - could be a disco in there for all you and I know.
3) I could never see the SRV hanger before there was one. Complete with the inner workings I had no idea existed until I saw them.

 

[Ian Skippy]

As bullet / number points seem to be your thing:

1) Please see the already mentioned other alternatives.
2) I can't see inside any of those turrents to know the inner workings or what is behind them - could be a disco for all you and I know.
3) I could never see the SRV hanger before there was one. Complete with the inner workings I had no idea existed until I saw them.

I love bullet points, it makes things clearer.

1) I dont need to see 'alternatives'. If my body doesnt fit in a turret, its not going to be first-person. Because thats what the term means.
2) You dont need to see inside a turret. Look at a c1 turret and its size. Now look at how big your body is. See? If you want first person camera, your person needs to be there. In order for your person to be somewhere, his/her body needs to fit into that space. If you are bigger than the space, you dont fit. See how it works?
3) Thanks for sharing that with the group.

Oh: if you cant see inside the turret because of the metal casing, how well do you think the first person view would be from inside that turret? Take your time...

 

[Ezren]

Is this slogging buzzword-fest still going on?

All this inane chatter about the third-person camera is laughable. The running argument is "I don't like it so it is wrong".

Grow up.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Is this slogging buzzword-fest still going on?

All this inane chatter about the third-person camera is laughable. The running argument is "I don't like it so it is wrong".

Grow up.

Its fun to pick their attrocious logic apart. At work I keep having to wait for the system to clear analyses, so it keeps me occupied.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Thx [cool]

I'm very immersed by your reply.

I may have been a bit too hasty, are you ten? I'll be asking for ID next time Have some more rep - you'll need something to help you grow up big and strong.

I love bullet points, it makes things clearer.

1) I dont need to see 'alternatives'. If my body doesnt fit in a turret, its not going to be first-person. Because thats what the term means.
2) You dont need to see inside a turret. Look at a c1 turret and its size. Now look at how big your body is. See? If you want first person camera, your person needs to be there. In order for your person to be somewhere, his/her body needs to fit into that space. If you are bigger than the space, you dont fit. See how it works?
3) Thanks for sharing that with the group.

Oh: if you cant see inside the turret because of the metal casing, how well do you think the first person view would be from inside that turret? Take your time...

1) I believe I mentioned one such alternative in the paragraph you misquoted earlier.
2) Navy ships, UAV control, many weapons are fired from a display in a command centre (in this case the cockpits gunner station) from a persons first person perspective.
3) Not a problem.
4) A camera mounted on its exterior linked directly to a display in the gunner station, the gunner having either multple screens or the ability to choose which turret to view and control at any given time.
5) Picking yours apart is just tedious

 

[Deadspin]

Its fun to pick their attrocious logic apart. At work I keep having to wait for the system to clear analyses, so it keeps me occupied.

Glad to see you've been at it. I couldn't believe this thread was still getting traffic.

As a point in their favor, however, I think a middle ground could be reached.

From the gunner's station on the bridge I wouldn't mind seeing this happen:

1: A normal POV similar to the pilot's during peaceful operation (lends to the RP element).
2: Upon contact/deployment of weapons, the gunner's screen expands to fit about 85-90% of the monitor, engulfing them in a shipless first-person type view that allows them to look around the ship in complete coverage.
3: Upon retraction of hardpoints, their view goes back to normal.

A little more immersive, a little less controversial, but a fair middle ground.

Personally I think the third person perspective of the gunner is incredibly sexy and should make for some great youtube vids.

 

[STARB0YY]

I may have been a bit too hasty, are you ten? I'll be asking for ID next time Have some more rep - you'll need something to help you grow up big and strong.



1) I believe I mentioned one such alternative in the paragraph you misquoted earlier.
2) Navy ships, UAV control, many weapons are fired from a display in a command centre (in this case the cockpits gunner station) from a persons first person perspective.
3) Not a problem.
4) A camera mounted on its exterior....
5) Picking yours apart is just tedious

But.. I didn't get any rep.

How am I supposed to grow up into a big and strong forum warrior now?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Glad to see you've been at it. I couldn't believe this thread was still getting traffic.

As a point in their favor, however, I think a middle ground could be reached.

From the gunner's station on the bridge I wouldn't mind seeing this happen:

1: A normal POV similar to the pilot's during peaceful operation (lends to the RP element).
2: Upon contact/deployment of weapons, the gunner's screen expands to fit about 85-90% of the monitor, engulfing them in a shipless first-person type view that allows them to look around the ship in complete coverage.
3: Upon retraction of hardpoints, their view goes back to normal.

A little more immersive, a little less controversial, but a fair middle ground.

Personally I think the third person perspective of the gunner is incredibly sexy and should make for some great youtube vids.

This is what I would have prefered as well, or something like it. I can live with the 3rd person style, but not a big fan of it myself.

My main problem is that we have another tool, but very little content to use this tool with. Hopefully the rest of 2.3 will support multicrew and wings a bit better. We shall see.

 

[Nuarb]

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.

I was wording my response very purposefully to project the opposite of anything to be considered an opinion. To deliberately say it in a way that would come off as dismissive of your opinions in a hostile and belittling way, compared to "facts". Why? Frankly because that's what I constantly see from folks on the other side of this discussion. Good lord this thread title *itself* is an example of that. This thread started out with zero respect for anyone else's opinions and thats why I chose to word things in such a calculatingly nasty way.

Obviously everything anyone says in regards to make believe space mans is an opinion. What constitutes good/bad gameplay is an opinion, the very idea "gameplay comes first" is itself an opinion. We all know these things, and no one here can say anything more, but people like to come off with an air of authority about things. I don't just mean this topic, this game, it's a problem in general with people who warp their opinions around into being "facts" in whatever stretch of logic they can because, hey, facts are facts right and then they can't be wrong. Good lord, a few pages ago we had someone trying to say people don't have the IQ to play sim games, and so many play candy crush. Well I know some dumb as hell folks that spent way too much time playing DCS, and some brilliant engineers and doctors who love candy crush and facebook games.

This is all getting very off topic, so I'll bring it back around.

I don't see any way that direct control of individual turrets makes elite multicrew gunning any fun for me, or anyone i know in the game. In fact if they implemented direct control of turrets, they would basically have a feature no one i know would ever use, and my guess is a large majority of the playerbase. What a shame that would be too, because I can't wait to fly around with friends. To be slogging through some combat zone, have a friend pop up say "hey what are you doing?" "oh nothing, hey wanna jump in my ship?" "sure!" and have it be instant, fun, worthwhile, and most of all not frustrating for either of us. If you only had direct turret control, and a friend asked if i wanted to join him, "no" would be the answer 99 out of 100. It would kill it.

But hey, we can all agree flying each others fighters is going to be the bees knees right?

 

[CylonSurfer]

Glad to see you've been at it. I couldn't believe this thread was still getting traffic.

As a point in their favor, however, I think a middle ground could be reached.

From the gunner's station on the bridge I wouldn't mind seeing this happen:

1: A normal POV similar to the pilot's during peaceful operation (lends to the RP element).
2: Upon contact/deployment of weapons, the gunner's screen expands to fit about 85-90% of the monitor, engulfing them in a shipless first-person type view that allows them to look around the ship in complete coverage.
3: Upon retraction of hardpoints, their view goes back to normal.

A little more immersive, a little less controversial, but a fair middle ground.

Personally I think the third person perspective of the gunner is incredibly sexy and should make for some great youtube vids.

I like this very much. Sounds much better than what we have and surely ticks everyones box.

But hey, we can all agree flying each others fighters is going to be the bees knees right?

Very much so - shame you can't really use it for anything other than shooting in RES and CZs and that it doesn't extend to the SRV as well.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Glad to see you've been at it. I couldn't believe this thread was still getting traffic.

As a point in their favor, however, I think a middle ground could be reached.

From the gunner's station on the bridge I wouldn't mind seeing this happen:

1: A normal POV similar to the pilot's during peaceful operation (lends to the RP element).
2: Upon contact/deployment of weapons, the gunner's screen expands to fit about 85-90% of the monitor, engulfing them in a shipless first-person type view that allows them to look around the ship in complete coverage.
3: Upon retraction of hardpoints, their view goes back to normal.

A little more immersive, a little less controversial, but a fair middle ground.

Personally I think the third person perspective of the gunner is incredibly sexy and should make for some great youtube vids.

It might appease some, although I guess it would also be more resource intensive as it would have to keep rendering both the complete 360 surroundings and the interior of the ship. And yeah, looking forward to what the more skilled youtubers can do during beta!

 

[Nuarb]

I like this very much. Sounds much better than what we have and surely ticks everyones box.

It doesn't tick every box though, its still terrible. How will that work in VR? Will it just be a screen you're looking and you can still look to the sides and see the rest of the bridge? Its absolutely horrible in VR to have to sit and look at another virtual monitor, and it makes no sense.

You're already not in the seat, the whole view of the cockpit is a virtual scene beamed to your own ship, why in the world wouldn't you just beam a direct view? I like the 3rd person view, I think its great, and it gives a point of reference in VR, however i COULD accept basically exactly what they showed as the gunner cam, only without the ship in shot. I wouldn't like it, you would lose orientation information, but I could accept it a million times over vs sitting in VR staring at a virtual monitor. Thats the worst of all worlds.

 

[Deadspin]

It doesn't tick every box though, its still terrible. How will that work in VR? Will it just be a screen you're looking and you can still look to the sides and see the rest of the bridge? Its absolutely horrible in VR to have to sit and look at another virtual monitor, and it makes no sense.

You're already not in the seat, the whole view of the cockpit is a virtual scene beamed to your own ship, why in the world wouldn't you just beam a direct view? I like the 3rd person view, I think its great, and it gives a point of reference in VR, however i COULD accept basically exactly what they showed as the gunner cam, only without the ship in shot. I wouldn't like it, you would lose orientation information, but I could accept it a million times over vs sitting in VR staring at a virtual monitor. Thats the worst of all worlds.

I find your lack of imagination troubling.

 

[lysan]

But.. I didn't get any rep.

How am I supposed to grow up into a big and strong forum warrior now?

First you need to be an armchair forum warrior, then when you master the keyboards and can google in seconds, you can call yourself a true forum warrior. However only if you sit in underpants and eat fish and chips

Spoiler

 

[syngyne]

Glad to see you've been at it. I couldn't believe this thread was still getting traffic.

As a point in their favor, however, I think a middle ground could be reached.

From the gunner's station on the bridge I wouldn't mind seeing this happen:

1: A normal POV similar to the pilot's during peaceful operation (lends to the RP element).
2: Upon contact/deployment of weapons, the gunner's screen expands to fit about 85-90% of the monitor, engulfing them in a shipless first-person type view that allows them to look around the ship in complete coverage.
3: Upon retraction of hardpoints, their view goes back to normal.

A little more immersive, a little less controversial, but a fair middle ground.

Personally I think the third person perspective of the gunner is incredibly sexy and should make for some great youtube vids.

Something like this was suggested before and I have to worry about what kind of performance hit it'll cause. You're basically having to render two separate camera views now instead of one, since you're going to be able to see the the rest of the cockpit (and out the canopy) around the edges of the gunnery interface. Not double the workload, but my programmer-but-not-a-game-programmer guess is it wouldn't be insignificant. Could tank VR performance.

 

[Kaltern]

Is this slogging buzzword-fest still going on?

All this inane chatter about the third-person camera is laughable. The running argument is "I don't like it so it is wrong".

Grow up.

I don't generally give rep.. but this post I will make an exception.

 

[Vorxian]

Is this slogging buzzword-fest still going on?

All this inane chatter about the third-person camera is laughable. The running argument is "I don't like it so it is wrong".

Grow up.

No one is flat out saying it is wrong, more along the lines of it makes a mockery of the ED continuity.

I stand by my observation that multicrew and the 3rd person arcade-like drop in / drop out, instant galaxy telepresence, instant shooter... turn ED has made is an unusual one that goes against the whole 'slow game' we're all used to.