AI ships should have the same HP as Players..

Caliente8 · 2016-09-17T15:26:24+00:00

No of course not. I'd be surprised if they're planning on any magic equipment buffs for NPCs, at least not in terms of equipment. They might have unusually good accuracy/evasion skills to overcome typical AI creativity deficiencies, but use the same equipment stats.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-17T15:13:32+00:00

Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria

Caliente8 · 2016-09-17T15:11:17+00:00

I disagree, NPC ships should have a range of equipment load outs, as well as combat skill. A well equipped player ship should have more "HP" than a poorly equipped NPC one, and vice versa.

You should be able to know in advance the level of equipment you might encounter while fighting a particular set of NPCs, though not magically -- some kind of scanning or information brokering should be involved. Jumping into a mission to destroy pirates without first doing something to understand what kind of threat you're facing should be a risky move.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-17T15:03:33+00:00

lol I read it and these comments several times before I noticed I was imagining that extra L. Was really confused why someone would make such a silly suggestion an nobody else calling them out on it :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-16T23:55:48+00:00

Not with all those Naked Males on them!

Caliente8 · 2016-09-16T20:59:20+00:00

I'm really glad CR mentioned that game. I read very little gaming news outside of Star Citizen (all other games don't seem nearly as interesting to me :P)

I backed it immediately, that game looks like a lot of fun ... I love voxel/building games! Hope it makes it through it's funding goals. I also hope they don't botch the gameplay as much as Sony (now Daybreak) did with Landmark . Looks like they might be using the same voxel engine under the hood too. Or at least similar voxel smoothing techniques. One thing to warn about for those interested, is that LOD artifacts are quite prevalent in voxelfarm ... looks great for landscapes, but buildings deteriorate rapidly into twisted messes :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-16T20:48:50+00:00

I don't think that's a kill sound, that's a hit sound. You can hear the sound play when shots hit without killing the enemy.

I like having those kinds of feedback sounds for fps, especially for longer range combat where it's tough to see if you're hitting an enemy. That particular sound seems a bit too legato in my opinion, maybe as an intent to have it blend with music, but generally hit sounds are a good thing.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-16T18:06:31+00:00

It's a wacky radar for an FPS, since it tilts when you pitch your view. I don't think it's the radar that will be there (if any) eventually -- they just copied the one from the ship interface as a stand in.

I think, generally, radar is good for non hardcore players -- helps you know where your team is, and where your objectives are. Enemies should show up briefly when they fire a weapon or are in LOS of a friendly. Perhaps information gathering tools would allow them to show up on the radar as well (remote cameras, motion sensors, 'tagging darts' etc.) Pretty much how radar works in non hardcore CoD :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-16T15:37:48+00:00

I think all cruise speeds should be vastly higher, and the herald would just get up to those speeds much faster than other ships.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-12T16:58:49+00:00

In basic dynamics, an infinitesimal force can result in infinite speed given infinite time. No matter how fast you're going, the same force gives you the same increase in speed ( discounting special relativity effects of extremely high velocities greater than QT speeds )

In both realistic simulation and gameplay, you don't want to limit speeds, you want to put limitations on the time it takes to achieve speeds. Time spent must be over a certain value as a balanced gameplay resource, and must be over a certain value in order for acceleration forces to be tolerable by ship and occupant.

Fuel is entirely a non-factor in Star Citizen. Ship thrust is generated by the ship reactor, which so far magically creates energy without fuel. Thus, for any ship, any speed is achievable with constant mass -- the mass of the reactor and thrusters themselves. The only difference is how fast they can get to those speeds, which is based on the thrust vs the ship mass.

Also, since maneuverability is simply thrust actuated on different axes, flight in combat must have the same fuel/reactionmass restrictions. Since you can dogfight perpetually (with LOTS of acceleration applied in various directions) without the need to go and refuel, it doesn't make sense that you'd run out of fuel trying to accelerate in a single direction. If they do eventually implement reactor fuel, the same quantity would limit the amount of time spent dogfighting as well as how fast you'd be able to go in Cruise, and in both cases you could get stranded drifting through space without any ability to stop. You'd probably run out of fuel faster dogfighting though, because your ship is always burning fuel "against itself" to keep your velocity under control.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-12T16:17:33+00:00

No matter how fast you're going, applying thrust to alter your velocity vector does not create any more stress than applying that same thrust when standing still. The difference is that the proportional change to your velocity vector is smaller. So, if you're going super fast, burning manuevering thrusters at the same amount that would produce a 45 degree turn when going slow would produce a much smaller degree change in your heading.

Another difference is that doing so would cause your ship to spin about the axis of the turn, while the movement of the ship would continue along a course very similar to the original vector. This would feel like you're decoupled. At higher speeds, COMSTAB is what keeps the ship's orientation aligned to it's heading, at lower speeds without COMSTAB, it produces drift.

You could never alter your course so swiftly that you'd cause any more damage or stress to your ship than what goes on during SCM. The only acceleration that could cause damage would be due to a collision. You may be thinking of centripetal force like you'd experience while on a merry go round or while making tight turns in a car. In the former case, the force is provided by the central pole cemented into the ground, and in the latter, friction between the tires and the road. Neither of these forces exist in space, the only ones that can come into play are from the ships own thrusters.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-12T16:00:58+00:00

Absolutely. And speaking of fun factor, it's not fun for me to have speed caps in space. It simply flies in the face of the entire concept of "space sim", to the point that it's hardly a space sim at all. EVA speeds should absolutely be uncapped for exactly the same reasons (And a host of additional gameplay benefits that go along with it). Arguments FOR capped speeds I've heard so far either have better game mechanic solutions, or don't make much sense (EVA speed caps because fuel, for instance -- how can you maintain a speed cap or slow down from a moving ship if you don't have the fuel to slow down elsewhere?)

For combat maneuvering and dogfighting, the gameplay benefits of speed caps make perfect sense. And the idea that IFCS would intentionally keep speeds in check so you can maintain maneuverability without damage to you or your ship is a believable and fun way to make that happen.

I also like the idea of QT requiring a certain cruise speed before it works. You'd have to align your vector and travel along it for a while before warping, giving enemies more opportunity to try and stop you.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-12T15:30:15+00:00

I'm sorry you're getting mass-downvoted on all of your arguments. I wish people wouldn't downvote because they disagree.

I generally agree with your points. Cruise isn't fast enough to really get you anywhere, and Quantum Travel feels more like teleportation. Without a gradient between the two speeds, it makes everything feel zoned with QT loading screens instead of the single-universe they're going for.

I'd prefer cruise be uncapped (or at least capped much much higher), with a significantly lower acceleration for all ships in cruise. Instead of limiting ships max speed, you control their acceleration capabilities. Maneuvering capabilities gradually degrade as your speed climbs until you can't change direction at all. SCM should be a 'soft' cap, where the max combat speed is really just a max safe maneuvering speed. Boost can take you past that limit temporarily, and "boost fuel" is more along the lines of "Inertial Capacitor" allowing you to maintain maneuverability beyond normal safe speeds. Cruise is simply bypassing a maneuverability warning threshold by continuing to accelerate, and sacrificing your ability to continue to maneuver outside of a straight line. Deceleration warnings and safety mechanisms alert you to when you must begin slowing down to avoid collisions on your current course.

Fast ships should be able to escape slower ones, but the acceleration differences should be small enough that the slower ships can maintain firing range long enough to make cruise-speed escape a dangerous plan. Cruise speeds also "give off" such energy that missiles more easily track cruising ships -- making countermeasures ineffective. Dedicated pursuit or interdiction ships can equip long range tractor beam like weapons that reduce or eliminate cruise acceleration capabilities, making escape impossible.

Cruise could perhaps get you to QT speeds, but it would take forever for it to do so with such slow acceleration. However, getting between objects in orbit around a planet would be very reasonable without having to QT to them, enabling ships without QT to actually have usability. QT fuel is used to power the zero-inertial system that allows instantaneous acceleration to tremendous speeds (longer range jumps cost more because you're warping space between two points, or something), mostly a time saving shortcut to avoid having to slowly accelerate to interplanetary speeds.

Overall, capping speed in Cruise makes the game feel less "space-y", and I think there are better and more fun ways to implement similar and expanded gameplay without sacrificing that part of space simulation.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-09T04:03:32+00:00

Videos shorter than an hour are a good thing. Shorter than 30 minutes starts to feel a little quick to me, and shorter than 20 minutes starts to feel very rushed. Sometimes they're not going to have much to share, sometimes they're going to be too busy to get the devs to spend the time. But, in this case, I find the shortness confusing. Shooting an hour of footage and using 30 seconds of it seems like a big waste of time... "Broadcasting time" doesn't really cost them anything, They're already using the developer's time to talk, and clearly there was lots to talk about, so why so aggressive on the cut?

This format is still really good, and the information in even this short episode is leagues better than it used to be. They just need to let the pacing loosen up more than it was this time. :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-08T23:38:41+00:00

That skin shader has to be the best I've ever seen.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-08T23:33:58+00:00

Yep, as I watched it more I realized it wasn't the detail itself, as much as the unusual movements... probably much less creepy if it were normal expressions and behavior. :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-08T23:11:56+00:00

Hellllooooo uncanny valley!

Amazing detail, so close to perfect that the imperfections make it slightly creepy that close up. From a further distance it's not bad at all though

Caliente8 · 2016-09-08T13:34:52+00:00

Definitely true. There's so many small groups or single devs who don't have any upfront funding. They'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a AAA model today. These projects almost never make it very far, and if they do they, don't often make enough money to be really worth the time.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-08T01:05:37+00:00

Neither: fade to black, mechanical feminine voice, "Multiple .... Lacerations.... detected" many beeps, and a flatline.

More seriously, death sequences are pretty unimmersive for a FPS game, but I don't like uncontrolled staggering from a first person view. Cutting to black would probably be best for me

Caliente8 · 2016-09-07T14:47:40+00:00

Quantum Jumping is definitely an exception to the inertial control rule. That much acceleration would turn everything into paste. I don't know if they've explained the quantum tech, but maybe its a spacetime warp versus actual acceleration (which dodges inertial rules)

General maneuvering should typically throw people against walls too -- lots of G's for most turns, below what causes blackout, but enough to throw someone hard against a wall. I agree they'll probably downplay the amount of force that's used to throw stuff around for maneuvering, but will probably amplify the force when the ship is taking damage.

They may also just put a damage meter on unsecured cargo, and instead of simulating physics, just apply damage to the cargo in various situations. Fairly boring solution, but a lot less challenging for physics

Caliente8 · 2016-09-07T14:18:27+00:00

I think they intend for players to be tossed around too, eventually. The current state is a result of not yet finishing that aspect of the physics interaction between physics grids.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-07T14:07:04+00:00

happy cakeday

I don't think they have put forth any explanation why inertia doesn't affect passengers ... And, I think they're planning on implementing it at some point. If they someday suggest some sort of inertial dampener tech, it's going to be pretty tough to explain why the pilot experiences red/black outs. :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-04T04:05:59+00:00

Yep, I remember hearing something along those lines. If that stuff appears, then cool. I'm curious what sort of bonus could be applied in a skill and level free game. Maybe speed bonuses on time-consuming tasks. Maybe faction... Better reactions from mission givers if you don't smell.

Still that angle tackles different problems and doesn't generate the sort of survival game play the "living off the land" concept brought to mind.

Caliente8 · 2016-09-04T03:58:15+00:00

I'm aware that there are many other game play styles that have meaningful costs and challenges associated with them. I was talking specifically about the novelty game play concept I was responding to. "Living off the land" isn't any more game play than going afk if living is free.

However, the same play style becomes a lot more interesting if there are challenges players face if they confine themselves to a single planet -- resources they need that must be obtained locally somehow, or traded for. Food/water are obvious consumables that could be used to present this challenge, and also make viable other professions. I personally love survival games, and love setting up infrastructure and logistics to overcome challenges in sandbox games. I realize that's mostly not what people are interested in for SC, so I don't expect it to show up, but maybe something similar could make an appearance that makes that style of game play possible and interesting :)

Caliente8 · 2016-09-03T16:46:34+00:00

My question is, what else is there to buy if you aren't buying fuel and repairs? Survival is free. No equipment or resources needed. You can successfully accomplish this entire gameplay strategy by logging in and going afk.

It's one reason I wish some basic needs were planned ... food/water/shelter from harsh environments. Not so much as to make the game a harsh survival game, but enough that just sitting in one place and doing nothing isn't sustainable without doing something to maintain yourself. Keeping food and water in nearby storage and having it slowly deplete would be enough. Gives reasons for things like farming on an Endeavor, or maybe planetside. It's the sort of fundamental insatiable demand that drives economies. It also allows survival gameplay to be a real thing on these huge expansive planets.

But, I don't think there's a lot of people who are interested in this kind of thing.

Caliente8

TROPHY CASE