Dammitall! :-DI wonder what that button does?
*presses*
Plus edited original comment as had part of a response I gave up on which made no sense. I am truly failing to Internet today!
Dammitall! :-DI wonder what that button does?
*presses*
Not failing, succeeding on an unknown psy-op so advanced, that it is even working on yourself while you perform it.Dammitall! :-D
Plus edited original comment as had part of a response I gave up on which made no sense. I am truly failing to Internet today!
In the words of Rimmer (while looking in the mirror) "You can't scare me, I'm a coward! I'm always scared!"Not failing, succeeding on an unknown psy-op so advanced, that it is even working on yourself while you perform it.
Similar to telling a scary story to friends & family around a camp fire, accidentally scaring yourself in the process.
My basic questions for CIG are "What are Star Citizen's essential game play loops by which players of all sorts will have fun?", and then "What is it exactly that makes those game play loops fun for a broad range players?" IMHO -- CIG largely fails to answer to these questions as they continue to focus on early Alpha-level iterations of gameplay system development even after all of these years. It's time that CIG shows us something more than 1990s-era game play. Hopefully they use the upcoming 2024 events (e.g., ILW and CitizenCon) to showcase what they have in mind to create meaningful game play that truly differentiates Star Citizen beyond it being about a basic FPS shooter with virtual starship sales.
[/QUrealm.
The short gameplay loops are shaping up in the courier missions, the bounty missions, bunker missions and with the cargo distribution centers we are going to see more here with the short haul last mile like missions with either station to ground or distribution center to outpost. The idea is you don't need to leave the planet like Hurston to do some missions and accomplish something.
There is a need for travel distance/time as it gives value to trades and explorers while also reducing the zerg tendency in pvp skirmishes. This gives the victor some time to rearm/repair and clean up the spoils of battle before deciding to stay and possibly fight another battle or dip.
There is a big distinction in respawn mechanics and travel time requirements in pvp vs pve with the later not harmed by getting players together quickly and to the start of a dungeon crawl. In fact putting time blocks in the way is detrimental to player satisfaction. WOW is a great example of this game play optimized even diablo 4 with the easy to teleport does a good job of allowing friends to quickly group up and get into the action.
When it comes to pvp there needs to be room between hostile players to give a chance for the interplay between different play styles and recovery period for the victor. Think the difference between games like 64 player battlefield metro and rust/Arc. The first being a quick spawn kitted meat grind zerg rush with no hope of living long just the hope to have a higher kd at the end of the match. The later because of travel time while the battles are intense there is a chance for the winner to live to fight another day with the spoils.
The changes to med beds for the present is not a big deal but it does have the real possibility of changing combat to be more like planetside which takes the game away from the survival pvp it was originally described as.
One final thing. Don't be to hard on the hard-core crowed. Yes they might have egos and spend far to much time polishing their epen. But do not let your jealous of what they have gotten in game cloud cloud your ability to see. It is the hard core crowed as long as they do not become overly toxic that forms the core groups in mmos. It is their ego drive that leads to group formations and activities. Mmo's die quickly when they alienate their core hardcore fans. Casual players will log in look around see no one else to play with and log out after 5 mins which doesn't leave a big window of time to overlap with the logging in of another casual player. Even if the stay logged on for a longer period the go off to do something solo given their limited play time. This doesn't lead to the building of any sort of community and given this is at its core a pvp based on player participation and generating content through conflicts.
There in itself is the thing though - if the Hardcore crowd (and indeed the Griefer crowd who share certain attitudes about their fellow players as their Hardcore brethren) had themselves some self restraint and didn't treat every other player that drew breath as a threat or a target (hence the similarities with Griefers and why PvPers often get the accusation of Griefing) we wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't have been the need for concessions to make the game not suck utter monkey nuts when a segment of its users treats every other player around them as their own personal content pool.One final thing. Don't be to hard on the hard-core crowed. Yes they might have egos and spend far to much time polishing their epen. But do not let your jealous of what they have gotten in game cloud cloud your ability to see. It is the hard core crowed as long as they do not become overly toxic that forms the core groups in mmos. It is their ego drive that leads to group formations and activities. Mmo's die quickly when they alienate their core hardcore fans. Casual players will log in look around see no one else to play with and log out after 5 mins which doesn't leave a big window of time to overlap with the logging in of another casual player. Even if the stay logged on for a longer period the go off to do something solo given their limited play time. This doesn't lead to the building of any sort of community and given this is at its core a pvp based on player participation and generating content through conflicts.
This is where the "inner or safe space vs outer zones" thing along with crime stats and prison time should come in and dissuade those type of people. Not just the respawn mechanics.There in itself is the thing though - if the Hardcore crowd (and indeed the Griefer crowd who share certain attitudes about their fellow players as their Hardcore brethren) had themselves some self restraint and didn't treat every other player that drew breath as a threat or a target (hence the similarities with Griefers and why PvPers often get the accusation of Griefing) we wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't have been the need for concessions to make the game not suck utter monkey nuts when a segment of its users treats every other player around them as their own personal content pool.
I've talked a lot about PvP in the past and how SC isn't a PvP game like Fortnite or CoD because shooting at eachother isn't the only thing you can do in the game, and coined the term "Player On Player" where we have a situation where one player has no way to defend themselves against another, such as an Argo Raft being confronted by a Crusader Ares. We know how that'd end, it's not PvP it's cold unyielding domination... I believe this is what the testing concessions like the respawn update and Master Modes turning off weapons when you go over 20% of your ships maximum speed is about - finding ways to retain play for Hardcore while not allowing them to treat the rest of the playerbase using the game for something other than PvP as their content.
Old thread with my thoughts in it here:
Some thoughts on Player Verses Player when it lacks the "Verses"
Hello TESTies. TL;DR I'm not sure but I think I've observed a complication with multi-disciplinary PvP games which might be giving a misleading impression whenever anyone says "SC is a PvP game" it's more than that and I might have picked up on something which has always been there but I don't...testsquadron.com
And there is another thing. It's all in flux isn't it? If we get to a point in play where the systems and local security reaction times are swift enough, things like Master Modes may just be able to go away and the game can swing back toward Simulation flight mechanics... a loooot of balance still to go and many things may go by the wayside in the fullness of time...?This is where the "inner or safe space vs outer zones" thing along with crime stats and prison time should come in and dissuade those type of people. Not just the respawn mechanics.
There needs to be star systems where just the fact of that Ares locking a missile onto the Raft should instantly spawn in 6 heavy police fighters )with cheater level AI) to take care of the attacker in case he fires. On the other hand, there needs to be systems, like Stanton currently, where you will get policed, but there are ways around it. The risk should be high still but not "cheating AI punishes you instantly" levels of high. And ofc there needs to be systems like Pyro, where yes, every single player is a potential enemy and you do need to watch your back, or attack first.
I thought this was the original intent, we just haven't really seen the "protection" side implemented in any meaningful way yet. It's waaaaay too easy to get away with anything still, even though Stanton is supposed to be a relatively high-sec system.
This system should let everyone find the risk they are comfortable with. Also, that Raft you described should not be out there alone. It's an mmo for a reason, and CiG keeps bringing up the point of Hiring Escorts!!! at every single opportunity they have, to encourage this type of interaction and "emergent gameplay loop".
(emergent gameplay: I hate that wording so much, it translates to "we just can't be bothered to do it properly and think up missions and systems for you to play in, here's a barely functional party system, do it yourselfs")
I don't think master modes is going anywhere. It works well for what CR wants, which is WW2 style air combat dogfights. I do want that too, I hated the duel of the thrusters type of combat, it required good ping, a high alphaDMG and not much else, but the current system feels way too clunky and forced. I wish we didn't have to switch modes just... I dunno, make the change-over more fluid. Maybe do it by making engines eat up waaay more of your power, so you would have to manage the power distribution, only allowing higher than SCM speed when you move most or all of your power over from weapons and shields. This power change could still be pre-assigned to a button without having to resort to all the bumpy clunky stutter that the current system does by switching "modes". It's as anti-immersive as it gets. I'm okay with the result, but I hate the way it's done.And there is another thing. It's all in flux isn't it? If we get to a point in play where the systems and local security reaction times are swift enough, things like Master Modes may just be able to go away and the game can swing back toward Simulation flight mechanics... a loooot of balance still to go and many things may go by the wayside in the fullness of time...?
Ya, i agree master modes is not going away anytime soon it's a poorly implemented compromise between dogfights and allowing players to travel quickly between locations. Some other suggestions I have seen that would have worked far more intuitive and that would have been to utilize the power triangle. Allow the rear thrusters to be engaged but it requires all of the power leaving none to resupply the weapons and shields. Thus they don't disappear but they do not recharge. This even goes so far as to allow for a time delay in spooling of the engines that can vary by engine type. It even plays into the whole hover mode with those ships that have VTOL able to hover while others do not have enough thrust unless they divert more power (gravity factoring into it). In fact it allows those ships with wings to benefit from forward flight lift without using all of their power and means large capital ships would need to divert all their power to fly inside a planet's atmosphere with out making a crater.I don't think master modes is going anywhere. It works well for what CR wants, which is WW2 style air combat dogfights. I do want that too, I hated the duel of the thrusters type of combat, it required good ping, a high alphaDMG and not much else, but the current system feels way too clunky and forced. I wish we didn't have to switch modes just... I dunno, make the change-over more fluid. Maybe do it by making engines eat up waaay more of your power, so you would have to manage the power distribution, only allowing higher than SCM speed when you move most or all of your power over from weapons and shields. This power change could still be pre-assigned to a button without having to resort to all the bumpy clunky stutter that the current system does by switching "modes". It's as anti-immersive as it gets. I'm okay with the result, but I hate the way it's done.
Anyways, yes everything is still in flux and will remain so until close to release. So maybe in 5 years we will see some meaningful change to these systems...
No, it's not the fast-paced PVP like CoD and Battlefield as much as arena commander tries to make it. It's far more akin to the slower-paced survival pvp like rust, Tarkov, and even eve-online. My statement about the hardcore is that there has been this turmoil between the two groups when in fact they really need each other. I have seen so many games diminish their upper reach content to cater to the casual as it was too difficult to obtain quickly only to alienate their hardcore group which leads to a slow but predictable attrition as the hardcore members no longer have something to strive for, ego pump about and the casual players end up only seeing a ghost town that no longer fulfills their social needs. By the same token, it can easily go the other way with content being time-consuming and difficult which leads to an active hardcore group but all too often not enough to justify continued maintenance costs. (eve-online being a notable exception)I've talked a lot about PvP in the past and how SC isn't a PvP game like Fortnite or CoD because shooting at eachother isn't the only thing you can do in the game, and coined the term "Player On Player" where we have a situation where one player has no way to defend themselves against another, such as an Argo Raft being confronted by a Crusader Ares. We know how that'd end, it's not PvP when there is no "verses", it's cold unyielding domination... I believe this is what the testing concessions like the respawn update and Master Modes turning off weapons when you go over 20% of your ships maximum speed is about - finding ways to retain play for Hardcore while not allowing them to treat the rest of the playerbase using the game for something other than PvP as their content by making it still possible but harder to do, requiring specialist equipment like missiles which knock out those Nav cruise engines...
Old thread with my thoughts in it here:
That idea, which is a more refined version of what I wrote, should be the way to go with this whole traverse vs combat mode thing. Such a system would also take advantage of promised but yet haven't even seen gameplay loops like modifying existing parts (powerplant, engines) and it would add a reason swap to better enginen and thrusters, if we ever get swappable thrusters/engines, which at this point I very much doubt.Ya, i agree master modes is not going away anytime soon it's a poorly implemented compromise between dogfights and allowing players to travel quickly between locations. Some other suggestions I have seen that would have worked far more intuitive and that would have been to utilize the power triangle. Allow the rear thrusters to be engaged but it requires all of the power leaving none to resupply the weapons and shields. Thus they don't disappear but they do not recharge. This even goes so far as to allow for a time delay in spooling of the engines that can vary by engine type. It even plays into the whole hover mode with those ships that have VTOL able to hover while others do not have enough thrust unless they divert more power (gravity factoring into it). In fact it allows those ships with wings to benefit from forward flight lift without using all of their power and means large capital ships would need to divert all their power to fly inside a planet's atmosphere with out making a crater.
No, it's not the fast-paced PVP like CoD and Battlefield as much as arena commander tries to make it. It's far more akin to the slower-paced survival pvp like rust, Tarkov, and even eve-online. My statement about the hardcore is that there has been this turmoil between the two groups when in fact they really need each other. I have seen so many games diminish their upper reach content to cater to the casual as it was too difficult to obtain quickly only to alienate their hardcore group which leads to a slow but predictable attrition as the hardcore members no longer have something to strive for, ego pump about and the casual players end up only seeing a ghost town that no longer fulfills their social needs. By the same token, it can easily go the other way with content being time-consuming and difficult which leads to an active hardcore group but all too often not enough to justify continued maintenance costs. (eve-online being a notable exception)
I know we have had this discussion before @NaffNaffBobFace, but I still agree with @Lorddarthvik in that pvp needs to be only limited by the game mechanics with a gradient scale that really only has a few core worlds heavily secured but the vast majority being on the verge of lawless or entirely lawless. That it is the need to play together that builds the social framework, it's the emergent content through pitting the players against each other that keeps things engaging as creating content is hard and far too costly. It's the same for any media, it takes movies years to create and you consume it in an hour or two and are done with it. It takes authors years to write a book you can read in a weekend. Games have the same costs with development time taking years to create a single-player game and if we are lucky we can squeeze out 40 hours of play time. It's why people can put in hundreds of hours of game time into CoD, while only 40 hours into Cyberpunk.
So no the raft is vulnerable, the Orion is vulnerable but both have a role to play and both require teamwork to accomplish their goals. It is that tension that risks that keeps things exciting and challenging. And there are fragments of a successful interplay already in the game. Look at the satcom's and how it takes effort to bring one down but in doing so it not only lets players know it's down but it also lets pirates operate without security force intervention. This allows that raft player to notice something is amiss and they should be on guard.
I've been wondering for a very long time now why they are not using the coolers for this? It's notoriously hard to get rid of heat in space, vacuum flasks keep food hot for hours because the heat energy can't breach that nothing-gap, so it would just make logical sense to me that if you fly over what your coolers can handle you'll overstretch that capacity and have systems like weapon, mav thrusters and shields loose efficiency as they fail to get rid of their heat and have to slow down/stop to avoid damage. Fighter Pilots who choose to turn off the restrictors would be able to fight harder longer but then pay for that with higher repair costs and indeed systems breaking in battle like loosing a thruster or having a gun not just slow down, but permanently stop...Some other suggestions I have seen that would have worked far more intuitive and that would have been to utilize the power triangle. Allow the rear thrusters to be engaged but it requires all of the power leaving none to resupply the weapons and shields. Thus they don't disappear but they do not recharge.
I think a lot of what where my personal interest in this subject comes from is the in-development nature of SC, comparing where it was to where it is now, and my general inexperience which what could be termed "PvP" games, not being drawn to that mechanic much in the first place. Do I play Fortnite or CoD? Nope, I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty damned crap at those kinds of games. The survival PvP game style is indeed more sophisticated as it lends more drive and direction to the PvP in the requirement to get resources to gain strength to use against and defend yourself from others, compete for resources, raid others bases for their resources... but the gamescape is again consensual in that anyone walking into ARK Survival Evolved or others like it is more than aware what they are walking into and importantly: other than enhancing their PvP what else can players of these games do with their resources if they are not using them to enhance their own personal ability to PvP? Can someone who has spent their time punching trees then go and buy thousands of Pico Penguins or an X1 Velocity Racing Bike with the rewards of selling their lumber to an environmental resource sync like a factory or town?No, it's not the fast-paced PVP like CoD and Battlefield as much as arena commander tries to make it. It's far more akin to the slower-paced survival pvp like rust, Tarkov, and even eve-online. My statement about the hardcore is that there has been this turmoil between the two groups when in fact they really need each other. I have seen so many games diminish their upper reach content to cater to the casual as it was too difficult to obtain quickly only to alienate their hardcore group which leads to a slow but predictable attrition as the hardcore members no longer have something to strive for, ego pump about and the casual players end up only seeing a ghost town that no longer fulfills their social needs. By the same token, it can easily go the other way with content being time-consuming and difficult which leads to an active hardcore group but all too often not enough to justify continued maintenance costs. (eve-online being a notable exception)
I know we have had this discussion before @NaffNaffBobFace, but I still agree with @Lorddarthvik in that pvp needs to be only limited by the game mechanics with a gradient scale that really only has a few core worlds heavily secured but the vast majority being on the verge of lawless or entirely lawless. That it is the need to play together that builds the social framework, it's the emergent content through pitting the players against each other that keeps things engaging as creating content is hard and far too costly. It's the same for any media, it takes movies years to create and you consume it in an hour or two and are done with it. It takes authors years to write a book you can read in a weekend. Games have the same costs with development time taking years to create a single-player game and if we are lucky we can squeeze out 40 hours of play time. It's why people can put in hundreds of hours of game time into CoD, while only 40 hours into Cyberpunk.
So no the raft is vulnerable, the Orion is vulnerable but both have a role to play and both require teamwork to accomplish their goals. It is that tension that risks that keeps things exciting and challenging. And there are fragments of a successful interplay already in the game. Look at the satcom's and how it takes effort to bring one down but in doing so it not only lets players know it's down but it also lets pirates operate without security force intervention. This allows that raft player to notice something is amiss and they should be on guard.
I will question however that Master Modes is purely to give players a fast travel option though: in this first pass on the mechanic, top speeds are actually down on where they were previously when weapons were hot across the range - restricting aggression with weapons and defence with shields is partly to give that dog-fighter intentional or not, a side-effect is it gives an option for those not wanting or consenting to PvP the option to simply walk away from it. As far as Hardcore goes right now there is no reason at all not to travel everywhere in Nav and not drop out of it when confronted.it's a poorly implemented compromise between dogfights and allowing players to travel quickly between locations.
This is actually a prime concern for me to the point that when I examine ships’ stealth signatures, I always equip them with Industrial A coolers, so I have as uniform a baseline as possible.I've been wondering for a very long time now why they are not using the coolers for this? It's notoriously hard to get rid of heat in space, vacuum flasks keep food hot for hours because the heat energy can't breach that nothing-gap, so it would just make logical sense to me that if you fly over what your coolers can handle you'll overstretch that capacity and have systems like weapon, mav thrusters and shields loose efficiency as they fail to get rid of their heat and have to slow down/stop to avoid damage.
Do you think that a Zeus Mk II MR would make a good stealth centric ship? Sneaking up on a bounty and dampening their quantum engines, disabling, and boarding their ship sounds like a hoot!This is actually a prime concern for me to the point that when I examine ships’ stealth signatures, I always equip them with Industrial A coolers, so I have as uniform a baseline as possible.
Right now you can overheat your ship and the systems will shut down. So it matters. In my case, because I am almost always looking at stealth and the stealth coolers drop your IR signature so little, I instead use Industrial A because they dump heat the fastest. Dumping faster rather than farther means you can regain stealth status faster than otherwise, so it’s a good trade. I recommend Industrial A to anyone toying with the stealth mechanic.
IMHO, what can or will make a good stealth ship concerns the EM and IR readings when running however you choose as normal. On the 400i, I would choose to run with shields, guns, retro thrusters and one large reactor all turned off, and the max sig was just below 6k. That is changed with this patch. It’s now 14k. That ship is no longer what I consider to be stealth, and indeed this is very upsetting to me. I no longer see a reason to fly it.Do you think that a Zeus Mk II MR would make a good stealth centric ship? Sneaking up on a bounty and dampening their quantum engines, disabling, and boarding their ship sounds like a hoot!
No. The only ship in that size range that is designed to be Stealthy is the Prowler.Do you think that a Zeus Mk II MR would make a good stealth centric ship? Sneaking up on a bounty and dampening their quantum engines, disabling, and boarding their ship sounds like a hoot!
Most MMOs change tskmething in their gameplay mechanics every 3-5 years. It’s the nature of the game.13 years in and they are still changing basic gameplay mechanics. Not iterating and improving, but changing the tier 0 plans.
To me is is neither good nor bad, just disappointing.
Don't forget about the ultimate "stealth" ship, the Origin 404i, the ship so "stealthy" that even the devs have a hard time locating it when they spawn it. LoLNo. The only ship in that size range that is designed to be Stealthy is the Prowler.
Can you make it stealthier? Sure, you can with the right choices but that doesn't make it a stealth or stealth centric ship. For a stealth or stealth centric ship, you need a ship designed, from the ground, up as stealth.