Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Ian Skippy]

I find your lack of imagination troubling.

Well, he is correct in that you lose the 3D part of VR that way. Wouldnt it be better to just 'screen-it-up' as with the SRV turret? Add some noise and such so it looks clearly like a 'screen', but its still in 3D with 100% view?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I think that is the point: parts of the game should be slow, and there should be options for not-slow fun too. Yes, the "I want everything slow" brigade needs some mental adjustment. And yes, the "Yay for everything fast!" will need to accept going to Beagle Point still takes gnarlin' forever.

 

[Noddie]

I can't say I like or dislike multi-crew. I do know that it might unbalance things with the extra pips and 360-degree firing. I don't much like the idea of "telepresence" into the ships - I think they should have to physically meet.

But I'd like to reserve judgement until we actually get to play it and find out precisely how it's been implemented and what other changes come along with it.

If you don't like it then you don't have to use it. And I'm fine with that, provided it doesn't become some massively-unbalanced ganker's meta - and that's something we don't find out until the Beta drops.

So why get so excited now? - go play the Beta with an open mind and then decide if you were right.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I think that is the point: parts of the game should be slow, and there should be options for not-slow fun too. Yes, the "I want everything slow" brigade needs some mental adjustment. And yes, the "Yay for everything fast!" will need to accept going to Beagle Point still takes gnarlin' forever.

I accept this, Just think that there was a far better way to implement it then Telepresance. I suppose we shall see when 2.3 drops. We may be able to sell exploration/bounties/Combat bonds from a distance now.

It also could be that exploration may become a bit more dangerous so the need to sell exploration data from a distance will be needed.

I am happy to see how it pans out for beta (hopefully tomorrow).

Well, he is correct in that you lose the 3D part of VR that way. Wouldnt it be better to just 'screen-it-up' as with the SRV turret? Add some noise and such so it looks clearly like a 'screen', but its still in 3D with 100% view?

Not necessarily, depends on how it was implemented. But it's too late now as nothing will get changed anyway. I will give it a try in beta (doubt I will use it much if at all in live) and see how it is.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

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' I expect.

Fixed that for you.

 

[who?]

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.

While I'm not bothered either way on the gunner-cam, the bolded is very flawed logic. I like chocolate. Chocolate is brown. Therefore I should like eating anything brown. Eh... no. Very, very no.

Some people like the 3rd person camera; and it might be the easiest implementation, but that doesn't mean they like it because it's the easiest implementation.

It's probably the method that makes the gunner most effective. I think an in-turret viewpoint could actually be quite easy to implement and would be far, far 'cooler'; but it would be harder to make it effective. The gunner commands one turret at a time, with a limited field of view, having to compensate for the movement and pitching of the ship. Having an in-turret gunner would make a ship likely less effective, whereas the current implementation should make it more dangerous.

 

[Trash Gordon]

While I'm not bothered either way on the gunner-cam, the bolded is very flawed logic. I like chocolate. Chocolate is brown. Therefore I should like eating anything brown. Eh... no. Very, very no.

Some people like the 3rd person camera; and it might be the easiest implementation, but that doesn't mean they like it because it's the easiest implementation.

It's probably the method that makes the gunner most effective. I think an in-turret viewpoint could actually be quite easy to implement and would be far, far 'cooler'; but it would be harder to make it effective. The gunner commands one turret at a time, with a limited field of view, having to compensate for the movement and pitching of the ship. Having an in-turret gunner would make a ship likely less effective, whereas the current implementation should make it more dangerous.

Well you can take the current concept to first person easily, and just as "cheap" recource wise, by adopting what basicly is the commander seat in a tank.

Examples can be played in the original Operation Flashpoint, and BF3, the commander has a powerful periscope with magnification and 360° turn radius and asigns targets to the gunner and directions to the driver, espeacially Operation Flashpoints system works great gameplaywise and adds additional functionality and interaction to the game.

I dont get people saying theres no way you can make this work without 3rd person as I found those examples fun and working very good, I even think direct gun control like in BF helicopters works really well and espeacially the ones with limeted firing arcs offer interessting multiplayer interaction and coordination (giving your door gunner a good firing solution etc.).

 

[Boogalo]

Well, he is correct in that you lose the 3D part of VR that way. Wouldnt it be better to just 'screen-it-up' as with the SRV turret? Add some noise and such so it looks clearly like a 'screen', but its still in 3D with 100% view?

In that case why are you looking at a screen through holographic eyeballs and not just viewing the content directly?

 

[SystemShift]

While I'm not bothered either way on the gunner-cam, the bolded is very flawed logic. I like chocolate. Chocolate is brown. Therefore I should like eating anything brown. Eh... no. Very, very no.

Some people like the 3rd person camera; and it might be the easiest implementation, but that doesn't mean they like it because it's the easiest implementation.

It's probably the method that makes the gunner most effective. I think an in-turret viewpoint could actually be quite easy to implement and would be far, far 'cooler'; but it would be harder to make it effective. The gunner commands one turret at a time, with a limited field of view, having to compensate for the movement and pitching of the ship. Having an in-turret gunner would make a ship likely less effective, whereas the current implementation should make it more dangerous.

I also am not that bothered much on the gunner-cam, what worry's me is the 3D view is going to be to easy and FD want this multi crew to bring more players together and on line, but all I see is this making more player go over the solo if this is the case.
Ok 1st person view is going to be harder and this is what could be needed.
In first person the gunner would be looking out of a cam on one of the turrets and when shooting a target the other turrets would also target and shoot the same target the same as when in 3D view, if the gunner loses target because the commander and the gunner are not communicating properly the gunner would just switch to a turret that has a better view.
All I see at the moment is losing more players to solo. ( just an opinion )

 

[The Lavian]

Final evolution of Elite: Dangerous -

 

[smiths121]

Hate the drop in/drop out aspect, not too fussed about third person turrets.

I would rather meet an Anaconda crewed by 3 Commanders (particularly the Adder killers on the stream) than 3 Anacondas. In that sense the fact you can multi-crew over distance but need physical presence for a wing of 3 does sort of balance out.

Wait to see how beta pans out, but neither Powerplay or Engineers filled me with so much dislike of a feature before beta.

Simon

 

[Trash Gordon]

One problem I see with the implmentation is that there is not even a choice between 1st and 3rd person.

People who think 3rd person is not imersive do not have a choice to not use it at the moment, I certainly think Frontier will have to implement an 1st person mode anyway.

Tele presence, turret grouping etc. do not concern me that much.

 

[MyHammer]

Wow... This thread got very long, just coming back from holidays. Let's see what the beta will bring and if FD had changed something about the gunnery, or they gonna stick with their original plan.

 

[Greyza Badger]

Final evolution of Elite: Dangerous -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/SpaceInvaders-Gameplay.gif​

Will rep when on a proper browser.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

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

Well, Elite II frontier had 3rd person for turrets so im not sure if that argument holds.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well, Elite II frontier had 3rd person for turrets so im not sure if that argument holds.

Elite II is not Elite Dangerous. Two diferent games, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

He specifically said ED continuity. Not Elite II continuity.

 

[Noddie]

Oh, zarqon. Who cares?

It's an optional feature. If you don't like it, don't use it.

My concerns begin and end on it having a disproportionate effect on game balance. And I guess we'll find out about that in the beta?

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Well, Elite II frontier had 3rd person for turrets so im not sure if that argument holds.

Fozza made that point on the latest Lave Radio, however after playing X-wing Alliance, it didn't change my mind. The turret in the Millennium Falcon wasn't fun (disappointingly) and the most underused feature of the game. As long as it doesn't turn E in Freelancer, it will be fine.

 

[BurnyBurns]

People who think 3rd person is not imersive do not have a choice to not use it at the moment, I certainly think Frontier will have to implement an 1st person mode anyway.

People who don't think waiting for ship transfers is immersive don't have a choice either...

And yet, for some things, like deactivation of PvP, whether there's a delay or not etc. to ship transfer, options to configure such things in group mode would be excellent.

Elite II is not Elite Dangerous. Two diferent games, so not sure what that has to do with anything.

He specifically said ED continuity. Not Elite II continuity.

And yet, I've seen arguments by people that guilds shouldn't be formally supported in ED, because previous games were about a single player. News at eleven: Everyone selectively spins their arguments to support their narrative.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Oh, zarqon. Who cares?

It's an optional feature. If you don't like it, don't use it.

My concerns begin and end on it having a disproportionate effect on game balance. And I guess we'll find out about that in the beta?

This I just don't get. Multicrew is certainly something I want to do, I would prefer a better solution than a 3rd person cam though.

Telepresence I dislike more then the 3rd person gunnery position. It also gets me worried for the future of the game.

Once it's in, it won't be going away, so any deep and meaningul multicrew experience wont be there as it won't be needed and the instant version is here to stay.

What are the ramifications for EVA/Space legs. Will they not bother and just have telepresence into faction headquarters etc, because its easier to do. When will the corner cutting stop?

I will wait for the beta for my final thoughts on it, but on first look, it doesn't look that great so far. It's the rest of the game that I am really looking forward, the expanded mission system, better NPC comms looks like it will be there etc. Maybe a better BGS and economy model. Hopefully better exploration scanning mechanics. We shall see.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

People who don't think waiting for ship transfers is immersive don't have a choice either...

And yet, for some things, like deactivation of PvP, whether there's a delay or not etc. to ship transfer, options to configure such things in group mode would be excellent.



And yet, I've seen arguments by people that guilds shouldn't be formally supported in ED, because previous games were about a single player. News at eleven: Everyone selectively spins their arguments to support their narrative.

There are lots of choices open to you for ship transfer. You can call your ship and do other stuff, you can call your ship and sit and wait, you can go and get the ship yourself, or can buy and outfit a ship there while you wait for your other ship to arrive.

Loads of options open to you.

If it was instant:-
1. It would be far more expensive (FD's word), so most wouldn't use it anyway apart from the very wealthy (possibly leaving most people with less options).
2. If it was affordable you would just use that option every time as its the most optimal, therefore basically leaving you with less options (technically those options would be still there, but nobody would use them as it would be stupid).
3. If it was affordable, instant teleportation of ships would become the default way of moving your ships around, which to me is just wrong.