Yep, that irks me as well. It's one thing to say "We hope to do this" or "We would like to do..." but using definitive statements is just asking for trouble.
In this thread you see all the usual culprits who, not so long ago, would have been pointing to cargo affecting mass as an example of why SC stands out defending the announcement by saying "Oh you didn't really expect them to do that, did you?" or "Fun > realism" etc.
---
Some more juicies from Will Maiden's Spectrum chat
Will Maiden:
some things that are being prototyped are at the start of a long line of things, and some things being prototyped just re-use existing things. ie. prototyping a new flight model. its new, and is very experimental, but it's using the same ship assets
so when we prototype, it could be a quick and dirty hacked together system to see "is it fun, is it worth doing?" and sometimes its "we have these weapons, lets try a new firemode using existing assets and particles
The other side is that we can't prototype some things until we know others. Take Item 2.0, for instance. until that's in and working, we can’t prototype new mechanics that will take advantage of it as it will all be guesswork
so prototyping cargo sometimes means waiting for cargo to be IN before we can begin prototyping the next phase
so we end up with 'tiered' development. Can't start doing the advanced stuff until the basic stuff is in, so we can't commit to saying the advanced behavior will be like X or Y until we prototype it, which requires the basics in etc. so its a whole process
we break it down into bitesized chunks. The trick is not trying to design it all first and then build it. because as anyone will tell you, no one designs something perfectly on the first attempt. No plan survives first contact with the enemy
literally cargo is my everything right now, so it's being well taken care of
[are we going to see a lot of manual loading?] yeah, we are.
[How much of the old cargo interaction document is still applicable?] I didn't write ANY of that, so...
[goals for cargo] personally; fun - I don't want it to be dry, spreadsheet management or boring box moving for the sake of it, i want to make sure every part of the experience is engaging and not a grind
physical - i want to make sure people feel connected to what's in their cargo hold and feel the weight of hauling goods, feel the need to check on them and feel the time cost in moving a big haul
Simple - I want the player to 'get' it straight away, not feel like they need to go on a course or read a blog post and watch 3 youtube videos before they attempt to become a trader
there's no need to be complicated for its own sake though. There's a risk of falling down the hole of bloating the design and it ends up compromising the system because someone wants to show off how smart they are as a designer. Simple systems working together in an elegant way is far more important than showing off how complicated it could be. Already reading this chat people are saying "yeah but i DONT WANT TO have to manually load MY ship"
you may be conflating 'simple' with 'doesn't require skill'. We'll be making sure managing your cargo is something everyone can do, but that experts can do it better
some people will need to handle cargo but not be a transporter by trade
we need to make sure that everyone can move cargo but the shipping magnates of the verse can still get something out of it
[when we get cargo, then people will be able to test trade, smuggling?, and ..... piracy Yarrrrr] that's the plan, a first-implementation of the systems to see how it shakes out, see how behavior changes
[is the first cargo implementation planned on being fully interactive? as in, will you be able to dig inside containers and get stuff in/out of them?] not in the first implementation, no
[is calculating the proper center of mass for cargo really untractable for the IFCS? This is a huge departure from how the entire thing works now, it's a bummer] it's not untractable we could do it, but it might not be fun
the other thing is, you make CARGO centre of mass a thing and then someone asks "what about if all the crew run to the port of the ship, will that compensate?
so, finding the right ahem balance, is needed
we'll see how it flies in our prototypes but my GUT tells me that if cargo is going to affect listing/steer/handling of a ship, it will be on a huge scale that only affects the HULL classes or stuff like that
[will ballasts still be a thing?] nope not as far as I know
I don't think ballasts have been a thing for over a year
And a bonus from CIG Kraiklyn:
Space is dangerous, there will always be a degree of risk.
Ships are designed to have flaws, there is no perfect ship that can do everything. They are designed on role. If an endeavor were to lack the ability to defend itself, it would have to rely on others to offer protection if it were to venture into areas that have a higher degree of risk.
That is ultimately down to it's captain in how it is deployed. Hospital ships in the navy are typically situated away from the front line, and patients are flown in via med-evac. Say a Cutlass Red. As for the Javelin, like I said, every ship has a flaw in some shape or form. The Javelin, a destroyer, is not meant to fly alone, just like in a real navy, ships that size come with a support group, consisting of fighter craft and escorts.
It would be the same if you deployed a bengal carrier out into Vanduul space, hoping just its mounted guns could defend it. Without it's housed squadrons and escorts, it would not survive long on its own. Again, just as real life navy deployment works.
It's always frustrating, and naturally you want some confidence that you have made the choice that is right for you. But it would be premature to draw conclusions at this phase. We are still building components that fit inside the ships that actually make them work.
As Disco said earlier, we are very much in Game Dev, not construction, lots of research and development being done, but we are getting there.
Three words. "Subject to change" it sadly comes with the territory with Alpha phase development. Changes can happen for the better. I can't offer you a solid guarantee of what will be the outcome, only that we will do our best to ensure it is the best damn outcome.
We have an Ex navy officer in our staff. If that puts your mind at ease.
some things that are being prototyped are at the start of a long line of things, and some things being prototyped just re-use existing things. ie. prototyping a new flight model. its new, and is very experimental, but it's using the same ship assets
so when we prototype, it could be a quick and dirty hacked together system to see "is it fun, is it worth doing?" and sometimes its "we have these weapons, lets try a new firemode using existing assets and particles
The other side is that we can't prototype some things until we know others. Take Item 2.0, for instance. until that's in and working, we can’t prototype new mechanics that will take advantage of it as it will all be guesswork
so prototyping cargo sometimes means waiting for cargo to be IN before we can begin prototyping the next phase
so we end up with 'tiered' development. Can't start doing the advanced stuff until the basic stuff is in, so we can't commit to saying the advanced behavior will be like X or Y until we prototype it, which requires the basics in etc. so its a whole process
we break it down into bitesized chunks. The trick is not trying to design it all first and then build it. because as anyone will tell you, no one designs something perfectly on the first attempt. No plan survives first contact with the enemy
literally cargo is my everything right now, so it's being well taken care of
[are we going to see a lot of manual loading?] yeah, we are.
[How much of the old cargo interaction document is still applicable?] I didn't write ANY of that, so...
[goals for cargo] personally; fun - I don't want it to be dry, spreadsheet management or boring box moving for the sake of it, i want to make sure every part of the experience is engaging and not a grind
physical - i want to make sure people feel connected to what's in their cargo hold and feel the weight of hauling goods, feel the need to check on them and feel the time cost in moving a big haul
Simple - I want the player to 'get' it straight away, not feel like they need to go on a course or read a blog post and watch 3 youtube videos before they attempt to become a trader
there's no need to be complicated for its own sake though. There's a risk of falling down the hole of bloating the design and it ends up compromising the system because someone wants to show off how smart they are as a designer. Simple systems working together in an elegant way is far more important than showing off how complicated it could be. Already reading this chat people are saying "yeah but i DONT WANT TO have to manually load MY ship"
you may be conflating 'simple' with 'doesn't require skill'. We'll be making sure managing your cargo is something everyone can do, but that experts can do it better
some people will need to handle cargo but not be a transporter by trade
we need to make sure that everyone can move cargo but the shipping magnates of the verse can still get something out of it
[when we get cargo, then people will be able to test trade, smuggling?, and ..... piracy Yarrrrr] that's the plan, a first-implementation of the systems to see how it shakes out, see how behavior changes
[is the first cargo implementation planned on being fully interactive? as in, will you be able to dig inside containers and get stuff in/out of them?] not in the first implementation, no
[is calculating the proper center of mass for cargo really untractable for the IFCS? This is a huge departure from how the entire thing works now, it's a bummer] it's not untractable we could do it, but it might not be fun
the other thing is, you make CARGO centre of mass a thing and then someone asks "what about if all the crew run to the port of the ship, will that compensate?
so, finding the right ahem balance, is needed
we'll see how it flies in our prototypes but my GUT tells me that if cargo is going to affect listing/steer/handling of a ship, it will be on a huge scale that only affects the HULL classes or stuff like that
[will ballasts still be a thing?] nope not as far as I know
I don't think ballasts have been a thing for over a year
And a bonus from CIG Kraiklyn:
Space is dangerous, there will always be a degree of risk.
Ships are designed to have flaws, there is no perfect ship that can do everything. They are designed on role. If an endeavor were to lack the ability to defend itself, it would have to rely on others to offer protection if it were to venture into areas that have a higher degree of risk.
That is ultimately down to it's captain in how it is deployed. Hospital ships in the navy are typically situated away from the front line, and patients are flown in via med-evac. Say a Cutlass Red. As for the Javelin, like I said, every ship has a flaw in some shape or form. The Javelin, a destroyer, is not meant to fly alone, just like in a real navy, ships that size come with a support group, consisting of fighter craft and escorts.
It would be the same if you deployed a bengal carrier out into Vanduul space, hoping just its mounted guns could defend it. Without it's housed squadrons and escorts, it would not survive long on its own. Again, just as real life navy deployment works.
It's always frustrating, and naturally you want some confidence that you have made the choice that is right for you. But it would be premature to draw conclusions at this phase. We are still building components that fit inside the ships that actually make them work.
As Disco said earlier, we are very much in Game Dev, not construction, lots of research and development being done, but we are getting there.
Three words. "Subject to change" it sadly comes with the territory with Alpha phase development. Changes can happen for the better. I can't offer you a solid guarantee of what will be the outcome, only that we will do our best to ensure it is the best damn outcome.
We have an Ex navy officer in our staff. If that puts your mind at ease.
Last edited:
