Realism, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with why Star Citizens flight model is seen as bad. There have been several ways used to describe it - point and click, turret, arcady - but ultimately, it is a flight model that doesn't model differences between the various craft that well....compared with ED where an Eagle handles VERY differently from an Anaconda, and where you get a real sense of mass and momentum and inertia with the Anaconda...while the Star Citizen flight model has been criticised for being overly simple and encouraging boring playstyles such as the aforementioned "joust" mechanic.
Star Citizen, in other words, plays very much like 3D Space Wars from the mid 80s. OK, maybe not that bad, but I'm trying to make a point.
One game may have faster more responsive ships than another but it's all about subjective preference than reality. There are no g-forces. Some magic technology has dampened inertia. With no inertia to worry about and fictional thrusters powered by fictional engines, nothing stops ships from being flying turrets. Actually, flying turrets sounds about right. You would design a fighter such that its thrusters enable it to turn to face the enemy quickly.
You just described Star Citizens flight model fairly accurately...but also indicated that you haven't really played Elite. The two flight models are quite different.
The bottom line is I don't think that "flight model" differences are at all significant. It's all about subjective preference. I prefer ED's ships feel but I don't remember having a problem with SC's more responsive ships.
Come back when you have played Elite. More...come back when you have played a few ships of different sizes and roles on Elite and then try and argue that you don't get a sense of inertia or momentum and that combat is like a "flying turret" or that G-forces don't exist.
As I said, even the diehards Citizens mostly (yes, a few do seem to like the model) acknowledge that Star Citizens flight model leaves a lot to be desired. CIG, OTOH, appears fairly happy with it, which should tell you all you need to know about their commitment to creating the BDSSE. But we gotta remember...mixing drinks, stacking boxes and mechanics for sleep are obviously much more important to the game than making the flight system fun.
It is because it WOULD be boring that you'll likely never get one. You won't see the target, you won't hear the target, you won't see weapons fire, and combat will consist of you pointing somewhere in the general direction, waiting for the missile to lock on and then pushing a button.
This is why realism has to bend to gameplay. I'm not saying realism isn't important, but gameplay is more important.
That's right, ED has blackouts/redouts, complete with the temporary loss of control, but I guess the effects were considered annoying enough that the trigger values are too high to trigger it during regular flight. It stands in contrast to SC, where flying a small fighter makes the game look like it is being played on an old, black and white CRT monitor. I hope the g-force effects will be removed from SC completely. After all, having a pilot black out while a crewmember walks around is more immersion-breaking than just handwaving the lack of blackouts as gravity goo magic.
Yes, it is. You're mixing up physics with game design. The ships have been designed with what are in effect speed limiters. Those ships, with their speed limiters, obey the laws of physics.
Here's an analogy. In Australia, all trucks by law have speed limiters, limiting their speed to 100 km/hr. Do you look at trucks in Australia and say "That's not real physics"? Of course you don't. It's simply the design of the trucks limiting their speed. You can object to the design (or the law in this case) but you shouldn't be questioning the physics.
Realism, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with why Star Citizens flight model is seen as bad. There have been several ways used to describe it - point and click, turret, arcady - but ultimately, it is a flight model that doesn't model differences between the various craft that well....compared with ED where an Eagle handles VERY differently from an Anaconda, and where you get a real sense of mass and momentum and inertia with the Anaconda...while the Star Citizen flight model has been criticised for being overly simple and encouraging boring playstyles such as the aforementioned "joust" mechanic.
I'm sure a lot of space combat games have a "joust" problem.
I don't remember SC as being point and click arcade flight. I remember spending a lot of time trying to improve my time in that race course they had. It was a real challenge cause the ship has momentum and if you tried to take a turn too fast you would overshoot.
It was very challenging with my HOTAS back then.
Like I said, I'm not interested in arguing about a game. I'm more optimistic about the SC project than you but I also have my own concerns.
Not ones that are properly designed. Jousting is a problem that is indicative of a poor flight model and bad design. Space combat should be more involved....unless you are creating a simplistic shoot em up.
I'm more optimistic about the SC project than you but I also have my own concerns.
I wish I could say I were optimistic. Really. The game CIG say they want to develop is a game I would love to play.
Instead...all I can see is mismanagement. Incompetence. Lack of thought and planning. A focus on money grabbing rather than game development. A near total ignorance of basic game design paradigms. Huge sums of wasted cash and owners who appear more interested in draining their company dry than in actual game development.
And that's not talking abut the legal problems they have....unlike certain Citizen backers, I am far from confident this is the slam dunk they seem to think it is, and that is leaving aside the apparent incompetence of their lawyers. OK - incompetence might be too strong, but their defence to date seems far more concerned with spin and PR rather than presenting a meaningful case for the judge and jury. Frankly, they've stepped in some fairly obvious traps and left themselves open and the fact they seem to have tried to start settlement talks this early should worry any backer. The only reasons to do so now would be first, that they believed CryTek would never take this to court and second, that that they believe discovery will increase the costs of any settlement.
I'm certain CIG will - eventually - release something. But good graphics aside (and being honest, quite a bit of SC is bad graphics), Star Citizen has awful, awful, awful game design. Even where the mechanics have been fleshed out - as in mining and, um, ah, er...just mining - CIG have spread them too thin by focussing too heavily on multiplayer play. There is enough gameplay in any one job for one player to be engaged with, maybe two at a stretch, but CIGs goal of trying to get what are simple tasks to provide gameplay enough for an entire crew cannot be achieved. The best they can do is what they did with space legs....create overly complicated mechanics and make work scenarios and hope that will hide the cracks.
Poor design, a bad flight model, graphics that range from awful to truly beautiful - this would be a recipe for near certain disaster even without the performance issues, or unachievable promises such as 1000 player instances. There is a great game there that is fighting to get out, but Chris Roberts keeps tying it up and throwing it back
As the team prepares to release the Alpha 3.1 patch of the Persistent Universe to a wider selection of backers, we wanted to take an opportunity to use what we’ve learned from this first quarterly release and reassess development priorities, with feedback from you, the players.
If you’ve been following along with our public Roadmap, the producers, directors, and leads have prioritized the introduction of major profession-based mechanics (like mining, salvage, and manual repair) into each quarterly release, along with improvements to gameplay features introduced in Alpha 3.0 and 3.1 (like quantum travel and service beacons.)
While these mechanics have the potential to introduce new ways to play and expand the functionality of certain ships, they require extensive development resources and take time to fine-tune to make sure they balance with the other mechanics that already exist in the game. Part of what we learned through this latest release cycle was that existing elements in the game weren’t getting adjustments and improvements that would improve usability and polish because the resources that would do this work were focusing on implementing the brand new mechanics on the Roadmap.
As we feel like this has been short changing the current game experience, we’ve decided to adjust our efforts to dedicate some of our resources to improve and expand the existing features, while making sure that new profession-based mechanics are as polished and playable as possible. Basically, we want to ensure that what’s there is as refined and fun as it can be, before we add too much more. That’s where you come in.
As we shuffle the features and mechanics, we wanted to know which features you are most excited about seeing implemented, improved and refined. Below you’ll find brief descriptions of the feature improvements on our schedule, we invite you to weigh in on which of these features you would rate as top three priorities to get into the game.
Feature Improvements
Quantum Linking:
This feature gives players the ability to sync up with their friends when making quantum jumps. Aside from making grouped multi-ship travel possible, Quantum Linking also helps if you are interdicted, as the friends you brought along with you can help. This system will be used in tandem with AI or player-created missions through the service beacon, so the people hired to help will be linked to you when they jump.
Improved Interdiction:
Work on this feature will create a variety of different interdiction scenarios for players, as well as provide the opportunity to trap other players and AI Non-Player Characters using a Quantum Jammer that can be added as a ship component or deployed in a self-powered buoy, like a mine.
Service Beacon Improvements:
The Service Beacon will expand and evolve to include new contract types, additional filters, and more feedback precision. AI characters will be able to interface with the system so that they too will be able to request help and provide assistance to others, which will in turn increase both how much of this type of “immediate” content we can offer at any given time, as well as the likelihood that someone – whether player or Non-Player Character – will be drawn to respond to your calls for support.
First Tier of Guilds & Associations:
We are going to create member associations within the Universe that give players different benefits. These will ultimately include the Bounty Hunter’s Guild, Merchant’s Guild, etc., but there will also be member-based services, themed to fit different player types. For example, the United Wayfarers Club provides repair and refuel assistance for pilots broken down in space and also grants discounts for these services at CryAstro.
Party System:
These improvements will improve the player’s ability to create groups, allowing you to team up with friends to join the same game instance and cooperate on jobs and missions.
Team Chat:
Improvements to the team chat system that will polish communication between players and make the experience more robust and intuitive. Work on this system will also begin to factor in the incorporation of Spectrum into the game.
Economy/Shopping UI Experience:
The feature includes the implementation of Shopping Kiosks in the stores and increased variation of available products, including ship items and weapons not physically available to display (or even buy) in stores.
Item 2.0 Ship Systems and Weapons:
Feature work would include finalizing Item 2.0 functionality that, allows them to overheat, misfire and suffer critical failures based on factors such as increased wear or damage. It would also introduce deeper functionality to upgradeable items so new power plants, shields, coolers, stealth and comms/radar all make a marked difference to the ship’s performance based on how they are configured.
FPS AI Combat:
The first stage of getting combat AI into the Persistent Universe. This would expand mission types by introducing the risk that an AI could be waiting to ambush you on a distant moon, or in a hulk drifting in space.
[Select your highest priority, second highest priority and third highest priority. You can also select one profession-based mechanic (salvage, repair, refuel) that should be prioritized for 3.2, however, mining will still have the highest priority and you cannot vote on that decision.]
Unfortunately - none of the available options include getting the networking implementation out of the toilet or eliminating the terrible asset reloading
Terrible. He literally didn't stop blabbering about virtually nothing barely taking a breath for 4 mins. He may may well have carried on but I had to turn it off. I was getting some sort if aural nausea from it.
Terrible. He literally didn't stop blabbering about virtually nothing barely taking a breath for 4 mins. He may may well have carried on but I had to turn it off. I was getting some sort if aural nausea from it.
Also, apparently, March 2018 is “the early days” for a game that went into development in 2011. Somehow.
And 3.0 — a patch slated for release in December 2016 that actually came out in December 2017 was “rushed”.
Could it simply be that Chris lives in another reference frame where time moves at ⅛th speed?
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
