The "No" Gunner First Person View Arguments (Discussion)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

KingTurtle

K
I see a lot of folks coming up with assumptions as to why the 3rd person view frontier chose was needed that I would to discuss/debate.

A1. My ship has more than one hardpoint, so having the Gunner control only one is pretty inefficient.

Debate: The game currently has turreted hardpoints operated by a servo, so why not keep these unoccupied turrets continue doing so under the Captain's or Gunner's control?

Scenario:
-Captain: The enemy python is behind us! Gunner, switch to rear hardpoints!
-Gunner: Yes, sir! *switches to rear or nearest enemy hardpoint using keybind/menu for said hardpoint*

A2. The captain flying the ship is going to make it annoying for the Gunner to control the hardpoints.

Debate: The year is 3303, so I am sure they figured out how to make these turreted hardpoints stabilized for ship movement. No? How do we do it in the real world? Well, with communication from the pilot of the ship/plane or radar of the ship's orientation.

Scenario:
-Captain: Gunner, I am turning the ship to get us within firing range, hold your fire.
-Gunner: Roger! *gunner adjust turret to face ship's direction.*

To quote producer Adam Woods during the livestream, "..Part of multi-crew is communication between the crew".

A3. Having a third person camera view is more efficient than to cater to this playstyle.

Debate: Well, why can't we just fly the ship solo in third person if it's more efficient? Clearly even solo pilots have access to the camera suite as well. Why ships aren't giving a bigger jump range so we can travel faster? Why are we forced to be in the same system to wing with another commander? Why did Frontier spend developer time making Elite: Dangerous support VR? I think you get the point here that immersion does play somewhat of a big role in attracting players to Elite Dangerous.

A4: Why would I even bother getting a player on my ship without the tactical third person view?

Debate; That's a design problem. Frontier could remove the cons of a turreted weapon once the gunner takes control of it (same stats as fixed now that you are aiming it).

A5: Why don't you immersion players just ignore the gunner role if it bothers you. It doesn't affect you.

Debate: Who has the advantage with a solo commander combat Anaconda ship vs. a pirate multi-crew combat Anaconda ship? This is why the currently displayed gunner role cannot be ignored. With the first person gunner view, the solo commander can focus on the killing the hardpoints first to disable the gunner's extra camera view and crucial role, but he cannot do that with the currently implementation of it.

I think if a game like Pulsar: The last Colony can make it fun to be in charge of weapon role and pilot role, so can Elite with a bigger budget. I am willing to debate further arguments, but these are the ones I keep seeing being repeated several times.
 

CMDR GTR2014

CMDR GTR2014
KingTurtle said:
I see a lot of folks coming up with assumptions as to why the 3rd person view frontier chose was needed that I would to discuss/debate.

A1. My ship has more than one hardpoint, so having the Gunner control only one is pretty inefficient.

Debate: The game currently has turreted hardpoints operated by a servo, so why not keep these unoccupied turrets continue doing so under the Captain's or Gunner's control?

Scenario:
-Captain: The enemy python is behind us! Gunner, switch to rear hardpoints!
-Gunner: Yes, sir! *switches to rear or nearest enemy hardpoint using keybind/menu for said hardpoint*

A2. The captain flying the ship is going to make it annoying for the Gunner to control the hardpoints.

Debate: The year is 3303, so I am sure they figured out how to make these turreted hardpoints stabilized for ship movement. No? How do we do it in the real world? Well, with communication from the pilot of the ship/plane or radar of the ship's orientation.

Scenario:
-Captain: Gunner, I am turning the ship to get us within firing range, hold your fire.
-Gunner: Roger! *gunner adjust turret to face ship's direction.*

To quote producer Adam Woods during the livestream, "..Part of multi-crew is communication between the crew".

A3. Having a third person camera view is more efficient than to cater to this playstyle.

Debate: Well, why can't we just fly the ship solo in third person if it's more efficient? Clearly even solo pilots have access to the camera suite as well. Why ships aren't giving a bigger jump range so we can travel faster? Why are we forced to be in the same system to wing with another commander? Why did Frontier spend developer time making Elite: Dangerous support VR? I think you get the point here that immersion does play somewhat of a big role in attracting players to Elite Dangerous.

A4: Why would I even bother getting a player on my ship without the tactical third person view?

Debate; That's a design problem. Frontier could remove the cons of a turreted weapon once the gunner takes control of it (same stats as fixed now that you are aiming it).

A5: Why don't you immersion players just ignore the gunner role if it bothers you. It doesn't affect you.

Debate: Who has the advantage with a solo commander combat Anaconda ship vs. a pirate multi-crew combat Anaconda ship? This is why the currently displayed gunner role cannot be ignored. With the first person gunner view, the solo commander can focus on the killing the hardpoints first to disable the gunner's extra camera view and crucial role, but he cannot do that with the currently implementation of it.

I think if a game like Pulsar: The last Colony can make it fun to be in charge of weapon role and pilot role, so can Elite with a bigger budget. I am willing to debate further arguments, but these are the ones I keep seeing being repeated several times.
Click to expand...

m1a1 abrams already have turret stabilization..(and almost 100% on 90+ tanks) no need for 3° view for him...

Also leopard demonstration his stabilization (german way)

landscape-1448926319-leopardii.gif
 

Deleted member 38366

D
IMHO all key points have been made.

External View = Debug Cam only, since the Crew is inside the Ship

Augmented/Internal/Sensor View = what Turrets should be, unless it's an Arcade Game where it's all GFX and Visual Effects PewPew anyway (and the showcased Alpha Build footage literally looked like a 100% Arcade shooter).
 

Faybs

Faybs

Gryphorim

G
Our ships have a sophisticated sensor suite, capable of holographically rendering itself and the local terrain at a variety of landing sites, as well as holographically visualising relative positions/orientation of targeted ships. The new Holo-Me feature shows that we can use this holo tech as a virtual mirror and render lifelike quality holograms.
Why is it so hard to accept that the Gunner TPP is a holographic representation, used instead of FPP so as to decouple turret control from the movement of the ship, to assist in aiming?
 

Vevvev

Vevvev
Faybs said:
OK, now show us the video where the tank has six turrets of different sizes spread all around its frame, can turn on a dime while travelling at 300Km/hr and is trying to shoot at other similar tanks.
Click to expand...

The ship isn't turning on a dime but its going faster than 300Km/hr in relation to the sun and is shooting similar ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpkKP9eE

*edit* don't know why the link isn't working but its the first combat scene in The Expanse with the Martian capital ship, The Donnager, vs the stealth ships.
 
Last edited:

trollson

trollson
Just caught up one the streams...

Don't understand the objections to how turret control has been realised. Seems a very practical solution. Quite believable given the technology - the gunner presented with the stablised view they need.

My only qualm is why manned gunnery is better than automatic... but then we would not need to play the game ourselves.
 

KingTurtle

K
Gryphorim said:
Our ships have a sophisticated sensor suite, capable of holographically rendering itself and the local terrain at a variety of landing sites, as well as holographically visualising relative positions/orientation of targeted ships. The new Holo-Me feature shows that we can use this holo tech as a virtual mirror and render lifelike quality holograms.
Why is it so hard to accept that the Gunner TPP is a holographic representation, used instead of FPP so as to decouple turret control from the movement of the ship, to assist in aiming?
Click to expand...

Yet those sensor suite are not capable of allowing us to fly the ship in third person with the same features currently? You are making an assumption that are ships are so sophisticated that they are capable of having this 3rd person view, yet don't exactly explain why it can work the same way with the helm.

Again folks you can't bring the advance software argument and ignore the limitations in other sections of the ship. Why does a turreted weapon do less damage than a gimballed weapon? By this logic we would all just fly with turreted weapons since our ship software is so advanced.
 

Faybs

Faybs
Vevvev said:
The ship isn't turning on a dime but its going faster than 300Km/hr in relation to the sun and is shooting similar ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpkKP9eE

*edit* don't know why the link isn't working but its the first combat scene in The Expanse with the Martian capital ship, The Donnager, vs the stealth ships.
Click to expand...

... You can't use one fictional universe to argue the realism of a different fictional universe. That way lies madness and hours of anime vs d&d rule arguments.
 

Ozram

Ozram
The direction FD have been leaning in lately is lame. Someone on the decision making level has more influence than they deserve and she, he or they haven't got a clue as to what comprises good gameplay. That's what leads to major breaks in concistency as well as abandoned mechanics. It's a damned shame. This is still my favourite game, but if that's the direction they are going to push in (I had thought they'd have learned after the instant transfer debacle, but I guess not), that may not be the case for long.
 

Wylie28

W
trollson said:
Just caught up one the streams...

Don't understand the objections to how turret control has been realised. Seems a very practical solution. Quite believable given the technology - the gunner presented with the stablised view they need.

My only qualm is why manned gunnery is better than automatic... but then we would not need to play the game ourselves.
Click to expand...

Because automatic guns don't have 360 degree firing arcs. Nor do they allow you to target multiple ships at once.
 

Dan Bender

Dan Bender
KingTurtle said:
Yet those sensor suite are not capable of allowing us to fly the ship in third person with the same features currently? You are making an assumption that are ships are so sophisticated that they are capable of having this 3rd person view, yet don't exactly explain why it can work the same way with the helm.
Click to expand...
Given that they showed off limited flight control while in vanity cam and were quite pleased with themselves showing off the multicrew turret view, methinks it may not take much effort to convince them to add this feature to the helm at this point.

And giving them such feedback is exactly what Beta is for. Just be constructive about it.
 

Stewart_

S
Faybs said:
OK, now show us the video where the tank has six turrets of different sizes spread all around its frame, can turn on a dime while travelling at 300Km/hr and is trying to shoot at other similar tanks.
Click to expand...

Your comparing 31st century technology to 21st century technology?!!

Seriously?
 

Gryphorim

G
KingTurtle said:
Yet those sensor suite are not capable of allowing us to fly the ship in third person with the same features currently? You are making an assumption that are ships are so sophisticated that they are capable of having this 3rd person view, yet don't exactly explain why it can work the same way with the helm.

Again folks you can't bring the advance software argument and ignore the limitations in other sections of the ship. Why does a turreted weapon do less damage than a gimballed weapon? By this logic we would all just fly with turreted weapons since our ship software is so advanced.
Click to expand...

Yes I am making the assumption that the ships are sophisticated enough to let us have this 3rd person view. Telepresence IS a sophisticated 3rd person view, really. I think the reason we can't fly 3rd person (with a HUD, at least) is purely because people asked that we not have this function, and FDev are obliging.

Why would a turret do less damage?
Well it is mounted on an actuated armature designed with a wider range of motion and more rapid response within that increased arc. It is also longer than a gimbal or fixed mount. Any forces acting on it (like recoil) would have a greater effect on an armature that is likely of lighter overall construction (because emphasis on arc and speed) than a gimballed/fixed mount. Thus the weapons are likely down-rated to suit those design limitations. As for lasers, coolant and power feeds would likely have to be more complex (designing for unlimited rotation range means swivelling cable/plumbing mounts) and with lower maximum flow rates to prevent blowouts in coolant fixtures or hotspots in power feeds.

Designing turrets that can perform as well as fixed or gimballing would likely be left to military parties, aftermarket engineers or illegal tinkering, all of whom could apply same upgrades to fixed/gimballed as well.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom