Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[CylonSurfer]

Already replied to that quote.

"We absolutely think the cockpit is necessary, we are looking at some situations and methods for external views, but the primary interface is the cockpit. It is the environment in which you exist as much as the method by which you control the game.

Michael"

"primary interface is the cockpit"

I stated that yes even with the addition to a probe or drone view to the ship, that all primary interface is internal to the cockpit. The pilot is not able to go into the external or drone view for combat. However his virtual buddies can. All primary functions and flying are still being done inside the ship.

He also said.

"we are looking at some situations and methods for external views"

So it looks like they found a situation and a method for external views hasnt he?

That's not the quote I provided - the one you are so intent on disproving. Should I now be as childish as you have been and demand links or it never happened? Demand context etc etc etc etc. Your standard and all.
There is also this:


Michael Brookes:

We want this to be you in your cockpit, third person changes the game to something different and isn't what we want for the game.

Michael

 

[Chpouky]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/8589-3rd-person-view/page4

Quote ( Mike Evans Mike Evans is offline Designer- Elite: Dangerous ):

"
(Quote by someone else see source)
Half the reason to ensure any 3rd person view can't be used effectively in a combat situation is for unfairness and forcing the path of least resistance on all players undermining all our work in the cockpit.

The second and arguably more important half is that a 3rd person way to play the game runs completely counter to the experience we're trying to sell; that is you, the pilot, experiencing space flight and combat from a first person view, the most immersive way to play the game.

I do not buy for one second that treating your real life monitors as your "cockpit" windows into space is a better way to handle it unless you've actually built yourself a sidewinder cockpit in real life in which to sit within when you play the game, with monitors positioned through the canopy structure and bespoke controls dotted around to interact with.

Secondly any such approach to playing the game requires that we slap on some floaty, gamified UI on top of the view to make sure you can actually play the game in the first place with your monitor into space set up which would also obscure your view in much the same way our 3D cockpits do except it wont look as good.

Thirdly you wouldn't see each ships bespoke cockpit layout and design any more and there would be no point us working hard to make these ships feel and look real when half or more of the player base will just hide them away at the earliest opportunity.
"
for what its worth.

This was 3 years ago. Opinions change ! (here, sadly)

 

[StuartGT]

Thread summary:

• "TL;DR: should a new fun feature be scrapped because some CMDRs' sense of immersion may be diminished?"
• 1149 replies
• A massive 222 participants (from a daily forum readership of 15k+)

Storm in a teacup

 

[Trash Gordon]

This was 3 years ago. Opinions change ! (here, sadly)

Well its the statement we got I´m curious if we have a newer one that tells us if he changed his mind, so long I take this one.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Thread summary:

• "TL;DR: should a new fun feature be scrapped because some CMDRs' sense of immersion may be diminished?"
• 1149 replies
• A massive 222 participants (from a daily forum readership of 15k+)

Storm in a teacup

Or..

Shouldn't a fun new feature be introduced in a believable manor that all can enjoy thus adhering to the basic tenant of Science Fiction?

Storm in a teacup = people who love and care about ED.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Thread summary:

• "TL;DR: should a new fun feature be scrapped because some CMDRs' sense of immersion may be diminished?"
• 1149 replies
• A massive 222 participants (from a daily forum readership of 15k+)

Storm in a teacup

Maybe it should be could a feature be turned into something we all enjoy instead.

 

[BurnyBurns]

I don't have to provide you with anything, you never asked me for anything in the first place. You really want to deny the recorded past, then go for it I won't stand in your way.

I mean I could say about those goats in Greece last year and the over friendliness displayed by a certain forum member here, would that be my burden to proove. Not at all. I'm sure they would gladly harbour it. Your standards are not everyone else's and I have no interest or commitment in any way to conform to them. This is easily accessible public record stuff, you want to disprove the quote I provided, go ahead or don't. I really could not care less.

If you throw around quotes, you provide the necessary link to verify them. Simple as that. And yes, that's on anybody pulling out a quote. Otherwise you could be pulling things out of thin air for all others know.


That's how quoting works. Otherwise it's hot air and alternate facts until the source is provided. And throwing round names is not sourcing.

 

[jasonbarron]

My biggest concern is the "fun" factor, and to be perfectly honest I was mentally picturing some kind of WWII-esque bomber turret kind of thing where the gunner could sit in a chair feeling the thunder up close and personal. I'm not complaining, I just don't think what we've been shown looks like as much fun as holding the grips on an individual cannon. Notice that I'm not saying the current 3rd person version we've been shown won't grow on me, but the way I feel about it right now is kind of meh. I understand the arguments against the individual turret gunner method, and I imagine they're mostly correct...I just think it amounts to a feature that at the end of the day will be pretty lackluster and perhaps will go the way of CQC when all is said and done. That might be true of the entire concept of multicrew.

 

[Zambrick]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/8589-3rd-person-view/page4

Quote ( Mike Evans Mike Evans is offline Designer- Elite: Dangerous ):



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"
(Quote by someone else see source)
Half the reason to ensure any 3rd person view can't be used effectively in a combat situation is for unfairness and forcing the path of least resistance on all players undermining all our work in the cockpit.

The second and arguably more important half is that a 3rd person way to play the game runs completely counter to the experience we're trying to sell; that is you, the pilot, experiencing space flight and combat from a first person view, the most immersive way to play the game.

I do not buy for one second that treating your real life monitors as your "cockpit" windows into space is a better way to handle it unless you've actually built yourself a sidewinder cockpit in real life in which to sit within when you play the game, with monitors positioned through the canopy structure and bespoke controls dotted around to interact with.

Secondly any such approach to playing the game requires that we slap on some floaty, gamified UI on top of the view to make sure you can actually play the game in the first place with your monitor into space set up which would also obscure your view in much the same way our 3D cockpits do except it wont look as good.

Thirdly you wouldn't see each ships bespoke cockpit layout and design any more and there would be no point us working hard to make these ships feel and look real when half or more of the player base will just hide them away at the earliest opportunity.
"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>End of Quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


for what its worth.

Imo its obvious ED was designed with cockpit view in mind, and I see no reason to break this with multicrew.

I dont get why 3rd person should be necessary either I ok with weapon officer controlling multiple turrets but that can be done in first person prfectly fine, just have some periscope camera on top and below the ship and available turrets slaved to that, but in the refined iteration I think a gunner cockpit should be implemented.

Yes from a singular designer. Not Sandro.

Second no mention of multi crew.

Third 4 years ago.

Forth The Pilot is not in third person view. A specified gunner is.

5th This is already broken because we have SRVs

6th It was broken again with SLFs.

7th Wings provide a 3d person the rest of your wing team members and gives you an unfair advantage according to you.

This 4 year old post was the opinion of a singular designer. Not the views of the company. If it was not posted by Braben, Brookes, or Sandro, then it means nothing as far as major decisions are concerned. Seeing as how Sandro was in the live stream promoting the view, I dont know what it is you are trying to whine about.

 

[obliterator]

Maybe it should be could a feature be turned into something we all enjoy instead.

There is no such thing as a feature everyone enjoys.

 

[Kermit Laphroaig]

My biggest concern is the "fun" factor, and to be perfectly honest I was mentally picturing some kind of WWII-esque bomber turret kind of thing where the gunner could sit in a chair feeling the thunder up close and personal. I'm not complaining, I just don't think what we've been shown looks like as much fun as holding the grips on an individual cannon. Notice that I'm not saying the current 3rd person version we've been shown won't grow on me, but the way I feel about it right now is kind of meh. I understand the arguments against the individual turret gunner method, and I imagine they're mostly correct...I just think it amounts to a feature that at the end of the day will be pretty lackluster and perhaps will go the way of CQC when all is said and done. That might be true of the entire concept of multicrew.

... he said, with the beta not even released yet.

 

[BurnyBurns]

I just think it amounts to a feature that at the end of the day will be pretty lackluster and perhaps will go the way of CQC when all is said and done. That might be true of the entire concept of multicrew.

May or may not. If it does however, the least likely reason is some forum eccentrics who can't get over what a dev said three years ago, or because the general gaming populace feels their immersion is being stolen because of third person view.

Like I suspect for CQC, the deal breaker will be the usefulness in the main game. CQC takes away time from playing the main game without giving main game benefits. Multicrew ought to have a much better standing, but what may severely limit its appeal is the lack of traits edit : treats for about 2/3 of the games professions. Trade and exploration...

 

[Ian Phillips]

Snip

This 4 year old post was the opinion of a singular designer. Not the views of the company. If it was not posted by Braben, Brookes, or Sandro, then it means nothing as far as major decisions are concerned. Seeing as how Sandro was in the live stream promoting the view, I dont know what it is you are trying to whine about.

This singular designer made the flight system of ED, and his 'opinion' about flight models and views has been endorsed promoted and implemented by the other people you mentioned.

 

[Kermit Laphroaig]

This singular designer made the flight system of ED, and his 'opinion' about flight models and views has been endorsed promoted and implemented by the other people you mentioned.

Clearly these people are wrong, who do they think they are, developers?

Best leave it to real immersion experts.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironically, all the backseat developers out there are the first to complain, just as a backseat feature is actually implemented.

 

[Goose4291]

This singular designer made the flight system of ED, and his 'opinion' about flight models and views has been endorsed promoted and implemented by the other people you mentioned.

Never thought I'd rep one of your posts.

I feel like I need a shower now.

 

[BurnyBurns]

This singular designer made the flight system of ED, and his 'opinion' about flight models and views has been endorsed promoted and implemented by the other people you mentioned.

And this singular designer now also opposes the idea of a 3rd person cam for turrets in multicrew? Have we word of that singular designer or do they maybe even think that the current implementation is what they want it to be? Did that singular designer also know about multicrew some years ago and made the statement with foresight?

Or did that singular designer even have a hand in the current multicrew implementation?

 

[Zambrick]

That's not the quote I provided - the one you are so intent on disproving. Should I now be as childish as you have been and demand links or it never happened? Demand context etc etc etc etc. Your standard and all.
There is also this:


Michael Brookes:

We want this to be you in your cockpit, third person changes the game to something different and isn't what we want for the game.

Michael

From where. Have not found that quote.

 

[Zambrick]

This singular designer made the flight system of ED, and his 'opinion' about flight models and views has been endorsed promoted and implemented by the other people you mentioned.

And then immediately changed and ignored with the introduction of SRVs, External Cam, Ship view Cam during outfitting, Ship Launched Fighters, Multicrew, and now Gunner Seat. Soon when we get space legs we will kill his view entirely because we wont be locked into just the cockpit.

Semantics will get you nowhere when you dont own the IP or are the lead designer.

This Mike fella is not the lead designer and does not dictate innovation or progression of the process. At best he has input just like the rest of the designers. Final decisions are made by the Big 3 and what they say goes.

Seeing as how at least one of them has already endorsed this new camera view, I still dont know what you are complaining about.

You are calling it a 3rd person view for children and how it breaks the game, Would you rather have one person controlling turrets or a wing of anacondas all with SLFs shooting you?

This gives the one ship a very very slight advantage but not enough to come even close to the loss of overall damage.


Its honestly not my fault if you cant imagine a drone or secondary technology being able to look outside or around the ship. Especially when we already have collection limpets, refueling limpets and prospecting limpets.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

There is no such thing as a feature everyone enjoys.

Probably, how about most people then. There will always a few that complain no matter how good it is.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

And then immediately changed and ignored with the introduction of SRVs, External Cam, Ship view Cam during outfitting, Ship Launched Fighters, Multicrew, and now Gunner Seat. Soon when we get space legs we will kill his view entirely because we wont be locked into just the cockpit.

Semantics will get you nowhere when you dont own the IP or are the lead designer.

This Mike fella is not the lead designer and does not dictate innovation or progression of the process. At best he has input just like the rest of the designers. Final decisions are made by the Big 3 and what they say goes.

Seeing as how at least one of them has already endorsed this new camera view, I still dont know what you are complaining about.

You are calling it a 3rd person view for children and how it breaks the game, Would you rather have one person controlling turrets or a wing of anacondas all with SLFs shooting you?

This gives the one ship a very very slight advantage but not enough to come even close to the loss of overall damage.


Its honestly not my fault if you cant imagine a drone or secondary technology being able to look outside or around the ship. Especially when we already have collection limpets, refueling limpets and prospecting limpets.

Well most of your examples are in cockpit example. The camera is to take pictures and that is its sole purpose, it does not affect gameplay.

Telepresence I am already not happy with. There where far better solutions which still included instant play.

In fact most of your argument are strawman. Most of us want a better, more fun system then the 3rd person version we are getting. They way I would have had it would have similar functionality as the 3rd person, but design it as full 360 HUD around the gunnery position that moves around on a gimbal independent of the ships movement.

Would have looked great, be immersive and likely would have been as much or more fun then the current system.

Instead of the extra pip, I would have prefered a whole pipe section for the weapons. Basically the pips for the weapons system equaLs the amount of power you have available from the helm. Each weapon has 2 pips which is that power evenly distributed amongst your weapons, you can move those pips around to overcharge your weapon, but at the expanse of more heat and possible damage to the weapons as they are not designed to use that power.

Gives the gunner options and tactics which equals more fun.

If you have zero pips you just nend to use the power left in the batteries in a good way. But if that happens you are defending anyway so it would be time for a shield cell or something like that.

If you looked down in VR/IR Tracker you could still see yourself, so it would still be an In cockpit experience.

For me that would have been great and was introduced like that I bet there would be very few complaints. There obviously would be some, there always are.