Time to quote myself!
I’d much prefer any of the possible approaches I mentioned to the current implementation. And as far as ships go, it’s a solved problem, even if the EVA complicates things slightly.
Why are people ejecting at excessive ship speeds anyway?
-Todd
Excessive relative to what? Actually, everything is already moving at high speeds so when is it safe to eject?
On a related note, I really think there is a big issue with communication from RSI. I don’t think they are particularly focusing on Realism as much as the interaction of complex systems that Model reality at different levels of fidelity.
I’d much prefer any of the possible approaches I mentioned to the current implementation. And as far as ships go, it’s a solved problem, even if the EVA complicates things slightly.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about in terms of “as far as ships go”. Are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with how the ships behave in SC?
Why are people ejecting at excessive ship speeds anyway?
-Todd
I think this is the reason why it wasn’t really considered and works oddly… There’s little legitimate reason to eva out of a ship at high speed.
Although, I suppose it could enable some interesting things? Like, you could theoretically pull along side a ship and transfer goods and personnel at high speed. I don’t really know why you’d need to do this rather stopping first, but you could? And it might be cool? Once?
Another possibility that EVA’ing at high speed would potentially enable would be that you could be engaged in a gunfight inside a ship, get out of it, EVA to another airlock, and then come back in. But I’m not sure how practical that would be if you actually had newtonian physics, since if the ship alters heading at all while you’re outside, have fun flying through space by yourself forever.
I don’t think they are particularly focusing on Realism as much as the interaction of complex systems that Model reality at different levels of fidelity.
I think this is indeed a better way to describe it.
The goal isn’t realism, since actual realism dictates none of this shit exists.
The goal is a complex system which can enable deep, potentially emergent gameplay opportunities.
That being said though, the ability to EVA at high speed may have some utility from a gameplay perspective. Although I don’t actually know what it would be yet.
Yeah, but did you see that badass door?
Thanks Timex I didn’t quite understand the context or the need of EVA at high speed.
-Todd
Because it’s hilarious?
It sounds to me like the best solution would be to have the player inherit the ship’s speed at first, then decay it down to the max player speed (or zero) over time. The player could still maneuver during the decay to change direction (slightly), but the overall magnitude of the vector will continue to decrease even while accelerating.
Basically, space friction. Its not remotely realistic but it feels somewhat natural.
I guess there is that too.
Sort of like those Battefield 4 videos of pilots ejecting out of jets, blowing up an enemy aircraft with an RPG and then free falling back into their jet’s cockpit seat again.
-Todd
Realism!
The question is whether Star Citizen is trying to be Battlefield 4 or Arma 3. No one seems to know that answer for sure.
Watching people argue about Star Citizen is like watching a baby punch itself. Hilarious, but sad.
That was the joke, I said that people criticize Star Citizen for focusing on realism (immersion more precisely), and then Destarius says that I’ve missed the point because people are actually criticizing Y.
Realism was a bad choice of words because it implies scientifically accurate. What I was referring to was people criticizing Star Citizen for making you step in and out of your cockpit, making you work with a crew, making you physically carry stuff with your virtual hands instead of teleporting it straight to your inventory. I guess immersion would be the better word.
Also, you guys are still harping on about Star Citizen being pay2win or even pay2play like a mobile game. As I’ve said before in this thread, the reason Star Citizen has left other crowdfunding projects far behind in their dust is their decision to couple pledge tiers with in-game items. There are people who have spent $10,000, $5000, $1000 on just about every crowdfunded game that I’ve backed. The difference with Star Citizen is that during the Kickstarter each pledge tier got a different ship, and once they started selling individual ships on the backer store they retained the prices of the original pledge tiers.
Their current stated plan is to stop selling ships once the game launches and instead sell in-game currency with a monthly cap per buyer. Assuming the currency shop is balanced to be no more egregious than, say, War Thunder, would you forgive their earlier whale hunting during the crowdfunding process? Or would you still consider it unethical to support RSI?
Sad? How?
There’s barely a there there to argue over.
Downloaded the free trial they were offering and tried the various modules. I sum up my Star Citizen experience as follows:
The quality/completeness/playabiltiy of the current game is inversely comparable to the quality of all the marketing, advertising, and trailer videos on their website.
I think it’s clear where a lot of the money is being spent. When you contrast the production value of the infomercials encouraging users to buy ships, “hanger flair”, and monthly subscriptions, the slick website where virtual items are “in stock” but in limited supply, and the Hollywood trailers and motion cap sessions with the actual state of the game, it’s hard not to be skeptical.
Long con indeed.
Even if it’s not deliberate, they’re being incentivized to continue producing these items (or promises thereof) rather than focus on putting out the actual product.
Actually, that’s a great point. While I think we all approve of the theoretical game Chris Roberts hopes to intend to possibly one day design, the business model is absolutely deplorable. I definitely hope that fails. And given how integral the business model is to the game at this point, maybe I do want the game to fail…
A ploy as old as money itself, isn’t it? Step right up and hear how this man’s ills were cured by my miracle tonic!
It seems to me you’re missing the mark by several parsecs. The problem has nothing to do with whether it resembles a mobile game. Meeper expressed it best, but I’d describe it as a borderline con job: the folks making Star Citizen are selling promises it looks like they can’t fulfill. And the only reason I say “borderline” is because there’s some sort of half-baked thing where you can fly around and shoot other people online.
As for its financial success, well, there are several reasons, I’m sure. But the quality of the studio’s game design isn’t one of them. See also the conventional wisdom about fools and their money. No offense intended to Star Citizen backers, as I’ve certainly spent money on some questionable things. By the way, does anyone want to buy a used copy of a $200 miniatures boondoggle with Sandy Petersen’s name on the box called Cthulhu Wars?
-Tom
Whoa. How did I wind up with that quote attributed to me?
C’mon, we all know that’s what you really think! ;)