The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0

[Helfix]

Well, I consider that a way better idea than ED's auto-aim, so yay for them.

But how is it better? When you are aiming your gimbals with the ship, you are not flying it yourself, it's being auto-piloted while you aim. The mouse is controlling both the flight and aim with the same axis at the same time. When you are aiming, you are not flying. So you are telling me "Auto-Aim" is bad, but "Auto-flight" is fine?

Hell, how is auto-aim any different than the multi-seater ships having AI use turrets for them? It's not any different at all. ED balanced theirs by requiring gimbals to have less accuracy, more power requirements, less damage and counter measures to throw it off. But all the different controllers can use it without additional peripherals such as tracker IR which in itself is dumb because that is not what tracker IR is made to do nor will it ever match accuracy of a mouse. They managed to achieve controller party without affecting skill of the game.

The current game of SC can be summarized into a single thing, AIM. Who ever has the better aim for the longer period of time wins. Flying, is just an after thought.

The facts are CIG has negated their entire complex flight model by allowing mouse controls to have both flight and gimbal controls in one. The mouse has a superior advantage in the game and it is entirely backed up by the leader boards, which are dominated by mouse. Joystick players are switching to mouse because that is the only way to stay competitive.

Hell, if I knew this was going to go counter to what CIG promised us in the initial pitch and turn into War Thunder in Space, I would of never backed the game. Hell SC would of never been funded in the first place.

 

[Dissentient]

The thing is, most/all space sims (including SC as pitched on inception) are based, balanced and brought to life around the notion of flight skill, not aiming skill.

Why not both? I don't see how having to aim drastically reduces requirement for flight skill. I also don't see how SC's pitch implies anything on how flight/aiming is done in fighters. The main idea of SC is the universe, and ships are significant, but just a part of it.

Or - to put it another way - aiming almost always plays second fiddle to piloting. The very low TTK that AC has currently, coupled with the importance of aiming (to the point that - as you say - controller balance is almost impossible) has produced an end result for many backers that is both incompatible with what CR pitched for the game at start and "dumbed down" as a dogfighting experience.

There's no reason to consider it dumbed down, since if you are good at aiming and are better at handling your ship, you are going to perform better than those that are simply good at aiming. It's not that manual aiming is super-easy with ships that are this maneuverable.

So, let me make a hypothetical question. Lets say that suddenly SC single seaters don't have ANY form of gimbaled mounts (player or computer controlled). It is evident that game complexity goes down. What happens to game depth though?

It won't be a big deal simply due to maneuverability of those ships. For bigger and slower ships, however introducing auto-aim on main guns would be dumbing the game down.

Hell SC would of never been funded in the first place.

Majority of backers like the current system.

 

[Helfix]

Majority of backers like the current system.

What Majority? The current mouse/joystick community is split down the middle on the controls. There are less than 8,000 people who have more than 1-2 hours in AC...and <40,000 people even tried playing AC.

I'm simply curious, what majority are you speaking of?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

It won't be a big deal simply due to maneuverability of those ships. For bigger and slower ships, however introducing auto-aim on main guns would be dumbing the game down.

The US Navy would like to have a word with you about dealing with hundreds of incoming missiles...

- - - Updated - - -

What Majority? The current mouse/joystick community is split down the middle on the controls. There are less than 8,000 people who have more than 1-2 hours in AC...and <40,000 people even tried playing AC.

I'm simply curious, what majority are you speaking of?

And only 400,000+ have bought Elite. 15,000 of my fellow documented explorers will have seen an awful lot of the galaxy before Star Citizen gets to Squadron 42, for example.

 

[Dante80]

Why not both? I don't see how having to aim drastically reduces requirement for flight skill. I also don't see how SC's pitch implies anything on how flight/aiming is done in fighters. The main idea of SC is the universe, and ships are significant, but just a part of it.

There's no reason to consider it dumbed down, since if you are good at aiming and are better at handling your ship, you are going to perform better than those that are simply good at aiming. It's not that manual aiming is super-easy with ships that are this maneuverable.

Both aiming and flying skill sets are featured prominently in space sims. What I am trying to say is that currently the AC build relies more on aiming skill (for the reasons I explained above) than flying skill. In most/all space sims, its the other way around. The key word here is "focus".

It won't be a big deal simply due to maneuverability of those ships. For bigger and slower ships, however introducing auto-aim on main guns would be dumbing the game down.

Actually, CIG is introducing auto-aim on bigger and slower ships. Both via the use of NPCs in turrets, and in unmanned turrets using targeting computers.

Same thing will probably happen with things like the turret in Hornet single seaters. You cannot design a turret that can swivel 360 degrees and then not give the player the opportunity to use it properly (by chaining it to a small forward arc).

For me, the end balance result in a space sim (when taking min maxing and the meta game into account) should be a state where the system rewards player skill in flying more than aiming. Of course, ymmv.

In an unrelated note, I'm wondering what will happen if CIG adds snap-to aim mechanics for joysticks and pads in the FPS module.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Note: Just for fun, I re-installed Warplanes. As of 1100 CDT/1800Z, there were about 570 players online, with about 50 actively seeking matches. I got into a Tier 5 match (a 5 v 5), and the gameplay was pretty to look at, and even more painful to experience. Flying through hospital Jello indeed. Paaaaaiiiiiin, as Spock would have said. At first I used a mouse. Then, I tried my Warthog. It played *worse* with the joystick.

This is what happens when you let a game get developed without adult supervision, and played by Twitch Sith Apprentice Rejects. They let the Darwinian Shark Tank kill off/seal club the playerbase, while making the game *worse*. Fail^2.

Elite is *not* perfect. It has a looong way to go, but, it does have a head start, and a fair playerbase.

Star Citizen looks like it's going to be worse. Just like Tanks, Planes, and Mechs, they want me to pay *big* money to have a less-than-fun experience.

Elite's $60.00 deal is a steal (you get the whole basic package), compared with that same sixty bucks buying only one or two ships in Star Citizen. Star Citizen is going down the Gold Mech and Premium model that MWO and Wargaming has trodden.

Good luck with Star Citizen. It will draw off the PvP crowd. Praise be to Elvis!

I gotta un-install Warplanes now. Been back, the neighborhood got worse.

 

[Dissentient]

Both aiming and flying skill sets are featured prominently in space sims. What I am trying to say is that currently the AC build relies more on aiming skill (for the reasons I explained above) than flying skill. In most/all space sims, its the other way around. The key word here is "focus".

SC may have chosen this control scheme to make the game more fun for keyboard/mouse players which are going to be the majority in case of SC. In any case, there's no 'right' answer and there are always trade-offs.

Actually, CIG is introducing auto-aim on bigger and slower ships. Both via the use of NPCs in turrets, and in unmanned turrets using targeting computers.

Auto-aim on turrets is fine, I'm talking about the ship's biggest guns controlled by the pilot. Turrets that can be manned, aren't supposed to be controlled by the pilot in the first place.

Same thing will probably happen with things like the turret in Hornet single seaters. You cannot design a turret that can swivel 360 degrees and then not give the player the opportunity to use it properly (by chaining it to a small forward arc).

I'm fine with it as long as there's an option to use manual aim restricted to frontal arc and it is more accurate than automatic.

For me, the end balance result in a space sim (when taking min maxing and the meta game into account) should be a state where the system rewards player skill in flying more than aiming. Of course, ymmv.

I find nothing wrong with mouse/keyboard players having advantage with manually aimed gimbals, and stick users with more powerful fixed guns that rely more on flying skill. I don't see any value in equalizing all playstyles across all control schemes.

 

[Dante80]

I find nothing wrong with mouse/keyboard players having advantage with manually aimed gimbals, and stick users with more powerful fixed guns that rely more on flying skill. I don't see any value in equalizing all playstyles across all control schemes.

But this means that players are essentially playing two different games, depending on what controller they use. This is the reason that I also brought snap-to aim mechanic for FPS up in my previous post. How would someone view having auto-aim for HOTAS or a 360 pad in an FPS (or another advantage to balance the different controllers), while mouse remained manual?

 

[Dissentient]

Note: Just for fun, I re-installed Warplanes.

Warplanes is a bad game because wargaming are bad at making games. They introduced a lot of mechanics from WoT into WoWP when both games would be better without those, like their mind-bogglingly stupid vision system.

Elite is *not* perfect. It has a looong way to go. but, it does have a head start, and a fair playerbase.

Star Citizen looks like it's going to be worse.

Elite's $60.00 deal is a steal (you get the whole basic package), compared with that same sixty bucks buying only one or two ships in Star Citizen.

You don't get what Elite utterly failed to deliver and what people expect from Star Citizen. Individual progression beyond upgrading your ship, an actual MMO in space with player-driven economy, and actual content that is not billions of procedurally-copypasted stars and planets. The way I see it right now, Elite will never deliver anything like it, and Star Citizen at least has a chance.

I absolutely couldn't care less about someone else paying money to skip progression. If they wish to do so, everyone wins. They skip what they don't want, and developers have more money to make the game better. I didn't care about it in WoT, I don't care about in in SC, and I wouldn't care about it in ED. I'm going to take my time and make my way from the smallest ships to biggest to see everything the game has to offer.

 

[Helfix]

I find nothing wrong with mouse/keyboard players having advantage with manually aimed gimbals, and stick users with more powerful fixed guns that rely more on flying skill. I don't see any value in equalizing all playstyles across all control schemes.

Because it's called balance. The determining factor should always be skill, not if you are using a mouse/gamepad/joystick. Every single space game has been able to retain this balance, where what matters is skill, not the controller.

The only thing that I see is that you wish to retain an artificially buffed advantage given to mouse players because it makes the game dumbed down and easy as hell. Because lets be real here, the game takes no skill when the only thing you have to worry about is pointing that mouse instead of actually flying the ship. Oh wait, the ship is being AUTO-PILOTED for you while you aim.

But hey, god forbid we have Auto-Aim, but lets keep our Auto-Pilot.

You don't get what Elite utterly failed to deliver and what people expect from Star Citizen. Individual progression beyond upgrading your ship, an actual MMO in space with player-driven economy, and actual content that is not billions of procedurally-copypasted stars and planets. The way I see it right now, Elite will never deliver anything like it, and Star Citizen at least has a chance.

I absolutely couldn't care less about someone else paying money to skip progression. If they wish to do so, everyone wins. They skip what they don't want, and developers have more money to make the game better. I didn't care about it in WoT, I don't care about in in SC, and I wouldn't care about it in ED. I'm going to take my time and make my way from the smallest ships to biggest to see everything the game has to offer.

Star Citizens economy will not be player driven either. Unless you are talking about the equipment/weapons people find from drops. Because CIG will not allow you to make your own ship components, weapons, goods and etc. Just like in Elite. Again, as to the PG, CIG will be utilizing PG as well because its virtually impossible to hand craft 120 systems due to time and cost constraints. It has been stated multiple times already.

See your second paragraph is what is entirely wrong with the gaming community. It should definitely matter that CIG will be selling ships, equipment and credits post release because this directly affects the game and its gameplay.

 

[Mu77ley]

Currently flying skill is utterly irrelevant in Star Citizen. You grab your mouse, your gimballed weapons, set throttle to 100% and just casually point at the enemies until they die. It's overly simplistic and about as challenging as playing minesweeper (but without any strategy requirements).

Combined gimballed weapons and ship steering just have to die, full stop. Otherwise this game will be an even bigger Kickstarter disappointment than Godus.

 

[huzeeta]

Hmm. If you fly with the mouse, how do you aim manually? Or do you mean what I mean too?

You would hit a toggle and give up your normal yaw/pitch controls temporarily and use your mouse to aim the gimbals. Or use another input device(TIR5, OR etc.) just like everyone else

 

[Dissentient]

But this means that players are essentially playing two different games, depending on what controller they use.

There's nothing wrong with asymmetry of gameplay.

How would someone view having auto-aim for HOTAS or a 360 pad in an FPS (or another advantage to balance the different controllers), while mouse remained manual?

As I said, make automatic and manual aim available to everyone, with both modes having their advantages and disadvantages. For example, automatic aim being able to cover all possible directions, while manual only frontal ark in respect to the pilot, but manual aim being drastically more accurate in the hands of an accurate shooter, at the expense of limiting your potential movement to accommodate restrictions of manual aim. For example, in a Hornet, one player could focus their playstyle on mobility and rely on automatic aim, and another on accuracy at the expense of mobility.

 

[Helfix]

There's nothing wrong with asymmetry of gameplay.


As I said, make automatic and manual aim available to everyone, with both modes having their advantages and disadvantages. For example, automatic aim being able to cover all possible directions, while manual only frontal ark in respect to the pilot, but manual aim being drastically more accurate in the hands of an accurate shooter, at the expense of limiting your potential movement to accommodate restrictions of manual aim. For example, in a Hornet, one player could focus their playstyle on mobility and rely on automatic aim, and another on accuracy at the expense of mobility.

There is a ton wrong with having a game play completely differently based upon the controller you have. Like I said, the determining factor should always be skill, not the controller you use. I am all for people keeping manual aim, as long as it is separate from flight, because you cannot both fly and aim at the same time unless you are using either fixed weapons or tracking software such as tracker ir.

 

[Pomerlaw]

They sould put ships on rails, and let us shoot at targets that fly too close... lol

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Warplanes is a bad game because wargaming are bad at making games. They introduced a lot of mechanics from WoT into WoWP when both games would be better without those, like their mind-bogglingly stupid vision system.


You don't get what Elite utterly failed to deliver and what people expect from Star Citizen. Individual progression beyond upgrading your ship, an actual MMO in space with player-driven economy, and actual content that is not billions of procedurally-copypasted stars and planets. The way I see it right now, Elite will never deliver anything like it, and Star Citizen at least has a chance.

I absolutely couldn't care less about someone else paying money to skip progression. If they wish to do so, everyone wins. They skip what they don't want, and developers have more money to make the game better. I didn't care about it in WoT, I don't care about in in SC, and I wouldn't care about it in ED. I'm going to take my time and make my way from the smallest ships to biggest to see everything the game has to offer.

Well saying that Wargaming making bad games is just hideous,You can hate or love their games but atm WOT is probably one of the most played games around and it's definitely not a bad game.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

There's nothing wrong with asymmetry of gameplay.

Mark this on your calendars as the day someone said this...

- - - Updated - - -

Well saying that Wargaming making bad games is just hideous,You can hate or love their games but atm WOT is probably one of the most played games around and it's definitely not a bad game.

Tanks works, and Ships looks amusing, from a blam-blam point of view. Planes crashed and burned.

 

[Troels]

Mark this on your calendars as the day someone said this...

Erm, people have been saying this for ages, it's basically the whole idea behind games like Evolve.

 

[Vasea Azure]

Well saying that Wargaming making bad games is just hideous,You can hate or love their games but atm WOT is probably one of the most played games around and it's definitely not a bad game.

I did not play it a lot but to be honest I have no idea why someone would play WoT if something like War Thunder is around.

 

[Skizomeuh]

Erm, people have been saying this for ages, it's basically the whole idea behind games like Evolve.

There's a difference between asymmetry being the pivot point of the game design right from the start, and the one being a collateral damage consequence of bad design decisions.