Support NeoGAF

[Cabbagehead]

snip

Just wait for 3.0.


Before that thought, how do you know that the feedback in those flight threads get ignored? CIG has already explained that much of that feedback won't really matter until they, also get more important feedback from their item 2.0/3.0 implementation. An update that will be the proving ground with which the flight model should be judged and can be properly adjusted and tweaked along the way, when said feedback is given.


Also how do you figure that CIG is insulting people during roundtables, when they talk about the flight model? The flight model is incomplete so there should be no one to insult. I think it's well understood that CR and the developer's have a certain direction they want to go but the pieces haven't been there and 3.0 is that point. Like I said in my pervious post. A lot mechanics and functionality is not within the current flight model build and once those are in then it will be more towards their intended goal.


So again, whatever we're experiencing now in 2.6.3 is not the end result. Matter a fact the point of the two games IS to be a first person shooter. They're just trying to find a balance between rule of cool, simulation and world war 2 dogfighting.

It makes sense from a vision standpoint, now we just need a more accurate sample size.

 

[Aeonofgods]

I pledged awhile back and haven't touched the game in almost a year. I upgraded my Aurora LN to a 315a and got a Nox yesterday. Is it worth jumping in to see whats changed or hold out for 3.0?

 

[KKRT00]

I wasn't speaking to SC exclusively, as my next sentence said the "bad habits" permeates into other flight games I play, a lot of basic logic when it comes to dogfighting and intercepting specifically. That's because SC rewards bad piloting in favor of gunnery. Where in good flight games flying is paramount.

As far as feedback I've long left feedback in their forums and even here (there are devs that read this thread). The issue is most of these same concerns are swept under the rug by CIG like the flight model/controller balance mega thread that eclipsed most of the forums. Also we get insulting round tables where the devs display their lack of understanding when it comes to flight mechanics. Frankly I'm also concerned that they lack expertise when it comes to making a flight game first and foremost, with having mainly FPS devs working on ships and constant descriptions of ships and movement in FPS terms. I'd personally love to see them actually experiment with the flight model for one patch cycle, working only on it. Instead there is yearly song and dance and no follow up.

It doesnt help when you are saying the same thing for 2 years now.
You are also not very accurate which what you are accusing this game, like for example you complain that missiles are being to OP, where i hardly ever got hit by them due to evading them successfully like 90% of the time.

You complain about ships stopping and accelerating too fast, when they do not, especially big ones. You are also comparing mechanics to Elite's ships which are much bigger than ones playable in current SC's alpha.

How do you know that people with FPS background are working on ship balance?

Second is the imbalance and disparity between mouse & keyboard IM and everything. IM essentially makes corrections to the ship movement as you aim the guns so much of flight is automated to let you aim to fly. This isn't even balanced against relative mode on mouse. So other control methods are inferior to having the game fly for you. When in combat it's much more dependent on what input mode the other person is using than it is on ship or individual skill.

This also is not accurate at all, as i was quite competitive with Aurora LN flying in Relative mode and i'm know that there is still quite a lot i have to learn to be better.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Considering that The Last Guardian was in development hell for an incredible amount of time (with a much smaller scope) and it released to critical acclaim, I'm really not worried at all.

Game can take another 5 years for all I care.

Critical Acclaim doesn't mean financially successful.

 

[Outrun]

Critical Acclaim doesn't mean financially successful.

... And sometimes the game is late, shit, and a financial failure.

Prove the naysayers wrong CIG.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

There sure has been a ton of drama around the development of this game. Part of me thinks that they've probably been filming it and will release a documentary on the development process at some point.

 

[Zabojnik]

There sure has been a ton of drama around the development of this game. Part of me thinks that they've probably been filming it and will release a documentary on the development process at some point.

 

[Taranis]

Wasn't a 'making of' documentary one of the stretch goals?

Edit: yeah, looks like it was the 14 million stretch goal.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Plot twist... all of this has been a plot twist for the documentary which was starting to look a bit boring!

 

[Cabbagehead]

There sure has been a ton of drama around the development of this game. Part of me thinks that they've probably been filming it and will release a documentary on the development process at some point.

There hasn't been a ton of drama around the project really at all. Most of it is manufactured by people outside the community for the most part. The rest is the usuall misunderstanding, CIG slip ups and general community funk.

The other issues can be attributed to things already covered by Kotaku two year's ago. When they interviewed CIG.

Other then some angst during citizencon/gamescom last year. This year has been going fairly smoothly, despite the continued attempts by Derek Smart and his ilk to try and paint CIG in a bad light regardless of context. Anywho that documentary should be a very interesting piece of game development history.

 

[Outrun]

There hasn't been a ton of drama around the project really at all. Most of it is manufactured by people outside the community for the most part. The rest is the usuall misunderstanding, CIG slip ups and general community funk.

The other issues can be attributed to things already covered by Kotaku two year's ago. When they interviewed CIG.

Other then some angst during citizencon/gamescom last year. This year has been going fairly smoothly, despite the continued attempts by Derek Smart and his ilk to try and paint CIG in a bad light regardless of context. Anywho that documentary should be a very interesting piece of game development history.

Sometimes it seems like you are just trying to explain away all criticism regarding the project.

Not sure if that is your intent...

Whether right or wrong, there had been a metric shit ton of drama associating this project.

 

[Shy]

There sure has been a ton of drama around the development of this game. Part of me thinks that they've probably been filming it and will release a documentary on the development process at some point.

Wasn't a 'making of' documentary one of the stretch goals?

Edit: yeah, looks like it was the 14 million stretch goal.

I'd love a warts and all style documentary. But i think what we're going to get is more of a puff piece, but with "ohh we had a wee bit of problem here and there" unfortunately.

 

[Zabojnik]

Y'all need to chill, it's just the most important videogame of our lives.

 

[Shy]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while.

Is there any chance they'll reprint the black Concierge cards again.
I'd like to pick one up.

Y'all need to chill, it's just the most important videogame of our lives.

LMAO.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I'd love a warts and all style documentary. But i think what we're going to get is more of a puff piece, but with "ohh we had a wee bit of problem here and there" unfortunately.

Na CIG. I don't think they'll hold back that much. No reason not to show the issues and problems, would add to the tension and payoff.

 

[Interficium]

There hasn't been a ton of drama around the project really at all.

Na CIG. I don't think they'll hold back that much. No reason not to show the issues and problems, would add to the tension and payoff.

 

[fresquito]

I enter this thread from time to time, so I know what's going on with the game. But I never know because the same old discussion. Could people not interested in the game stop their everlasting arguments, please? It's tiring for people like me, I can't imagine how it is for those into the game.

BTW, how long until 3.0? Is it still 2017?

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

I enter this thread from time to time, so I know what's going on with the game. But I never know because the same old discussion. Could people not interested in the game stop their everlasting arguments, please? It's tiring for people like me, I can't imagine how it is for those into the game.

BTW, how long until 3.0? Is it still 2017?

3.0 is an August-October release I believe. I think we'll see it launch before Citizen Con 2017 though. Wouldn't be surprised if they use the Gamescom stage to announce a launch date or something.

 

[Cabbagehead]

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/09/23/inside-the-troubled-development-of-star-citizen

Not a contradiction.

My issue was with his statement of a "ton". No doubt that there has been problems not enough to stop the project and put it deaths grip, while a decade passes by. CIG doesn't have the "luxury" to piss about and screw up that badly.

3.0 is an August-October release I believe. I think we'll see it launch before Citizen Con 2017 though. Wouldn't be surprised if they use the Gamescom stage to announce a launch date or something.

Yeah I think this is the year for them to show some footage finally and talk about a reasonable release date for SQ42.

Full 3.0 is a early august release at this point and pre-PTU testing should be happening in a handful of days.

 

[Shy]

BTW, how long until 3.0? Is it still 2017?

Been delayed till early August.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Just wait for 3.0.


Before that thought, how do you know that the feedback in those flight threads get ignored?

Also how do you figure that CIG is insulting people during roundtables, when they talk about the flight model?


So again, whatever we're experiencing now in 2.6.3 is not the end result. Matter a fact the point of the two games IS to be a first person shooter.

Just wait for x is a popular refrain for the last 2 + years, and honestly it doesn't need a numbered patch for them to talk about it directly. The amount of time and detail they take into some other rendering stuff I'd appreciate if they would go into the same detail about the flight model.

I also didn't say they were insulting people (honestly don't remember the ATV ep where the round table was from 2 years ago but it was Lesnic and Calix Reneau and some other dude, maybe Sherman) the managed to putz around the topic with jokes and only really touching on mapping the controls closer to a FPS. Which is an insulting level of discourse considering the complexity and core nature of the flight model in the game.

Also never claimed that is was final, look I get hings can change I just hope they know what to change and hoe to change it to make a fulfilling game. Flight games aren't easy, and I appreciate the depth it takes to get one right so it is hard waters to navigate. I just hope they are capable of getting there, even though the early prognosis isn't promising.

To the other point it isn't suits or rifles they feature as sale items, it is the ships. Which will be the #1 way players interact with the game world and the #1 way player will interact with each other. The ship game play is at the very core of what SC will be, so it' paramount they get it right.

It doesnt help when you are saying the same thing for 2 years now.
You are also not very accurate which what you are accusing this game, like for example you complain that missiles are being to OP, where i hardly ever got hit by them due to evading them successfully like 90% of the time.

You complain about ships stopping and accelerating too fast, when they do not, especially big ones. You are also comparing mechanics to Elite's ships which are much bigger than ones playable in current SC's alpha.

I've been saying the same for two years because the same issues exist after two years, that is what is frustrating to me lol.

Re: Missiles I did make a point of saying the evasion stuff wasn't fleshed out or balanced. My point about missiles were not about the damage they do but their use in the ship to ship combat.


Re: Ship movement, Elite is one reference point, and even though their ships are bigger in cases it's the general feel and logic behind how they fly which makes it more rewarding to fly. Even as a point you can fly "cinematic" and have fine control over ships. Also Elites ships are now much faster than SC's ships after the recent changes reducing to speeds.

How do you know that people with FPS background are working on ship balance?

By looking up the backgrounds of who is working on the flight model from who is speaking about it.

This also is not accurate at all, as i was quite competitive with Aurora LN flying in Relative mode and i'm know that there is still quite a lot i have to learn to be better.

Ok

 

[Cabbagehead]

snip

There's nothing i or anyone else here can give you. All you can do is wait (like everyone else), so i don't get your aversion towards that notion. Just wait for 3.0 (it's literally one to two years of work). Not talking about some magic bullet but it's going to be a pretty big mile stone, if you just check the schedule. That information makes that case clear.

I've seen what they've been doing/working on and it's quite stunning. Have no idea though if they will have a dedicated flight model ATV, but they should (something to ask on my next visit). Regardless I'm positive that they've touched on the flight model here and there in some of the recent ATV's and have made it clear that item 2.0 is/will be -as i explained previously- the implementation that will enable the flight model to act more like its intended to. It should allow CIG to be more active and less passive in relation to future updates.

It's still odd that you bring up their roundtable and label it "insulting'. That was two to three whole years ago, literally a lifetime in development. I mean are you holding that against them? at a time when the flight model was extremely unpredictable and fairly limited.

 

[KKRT00]

I've been saying the same for two years because the same issues exist after two years, that is what is frustrating to me lol.

And yet the gimbals are not problem right now, Relative mode is competitive and missiles can be evaded with a skill.
I dont see any proof from you to back your claims and by my experience with a game, i feel about it completely differently and i actually have a video to back my opinion up.

You are saying general stuff like 'ships stops and accelerate too fast' but do not give any examples. What ships did you fly in 2.6?


Btw as i said, its not about you having to like SC flight model, but there is difference with not liking something and claiming its shit or broken.
I understand that sometimes there are things in games that we are so used to and we do not like changes to them. However it doesnt make our complains valid if that game has own style and is balanced and competitive. Different doesnt mean bad.

 

[elyetis]

You are saying general stuff like 'ships stops and accelerate too fast' but do not give any examples. What ships did you fly in 2.6?

I didn't follow what change 2.6 bought from 2.5. How much change in acceleration did it bring compared to my previous post on the subject ?

To each his own, but what I see in this video is far from what I would call plenty of momentum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlqKd53ldM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m36s and even what you speak of at around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlqKd53ldM&feature=youtu.be&t=15m11s feel pretty insignificant momentum wise.
Well not exactly, it's not that there isn't momentum, it's that acceleration is so strong that you can cancel that momentum to do a 180 and already be at full speed in a matter of about 3 secondes ( at those narrow asteroid misses around 15:00-15:20, it take you about 3 secondes ( 15:13- to 15:16 ) to go from a negative 200 speed to a positive 222 speed if I'm still reading the hud right ).

Any acceleration nerf would be a positive, but only a significant one would to lead to a real change in the way battles were being fought.

 

[KKRT00]

I didn't follow what change 2.6 bought from 2.5. How much change in acceleration did it bring compared to my previous post on the subject ?
Any acceleration nerf would be a positive, but only a significant one would to lead to a real change in the way battles were being fought.

This is how it was for me in 2.6 in Aurora
https://youtu.be/pV-gHdBRZa4?t=375

Btw in 3.0 both acceleration and top speed will be dependent on your modules and power management. Afterburner also is limited resource, so in 3.0 using it will be more scarce than in AC.

 

[staticneuron]

I didn't follow what change 2.6 bought from 2.5. How much change in acceleration did it bring compared to my previous post on the subject ?
Any acceleration nerf would be a positive, but only a significant one would to lead to a real change in the way battles were being fought.

But your example is a sabre, it is the 3rd fastest fighter ship (the first two have alien tech and have higher chance of redding out in those) and it is a stealth fighter. Since there is no air resistance in space the only thing that should be a hindrance is the power available to thrusters and the human body (not in a straight line but when making turns). The question is what are you expecting and what ships and specs have you compared against?

 

[elyetis]

The question is what are you expecting and what ships and specs have you compared against?

I made 0 comparison since it's not a matter of knowing if it's balanced or not, I'm only interested in what kind of space battle it will give us.
What I saw at least up to 2.5 is something which seemed like would only lead to jousting and/or circle straffing.

 

[staticneuron]

I made 0 comparison since it's not a matter of knowing if it's balanced or not, I'm only interested in what kind of space battle it will give us.
What I saw at least up to 2.5 is something which seemed like would only lead to jousting and/or circle straffing.

Well, that is far from final. Not even half of the systems are implemented and it will be different than what it currently is. That will be though the most straight forward type of fight you would get I would imagine between the dogfighters. Specialized role based ships may have to perform differently closer to PU to match their roles.

 

[Steel]

What's this about 3.0 being pushed back to August? I thought it got pushed back to July 7th?

 

[tuxfool]

What's this about 3.0 being pushed back to August? I thought it got pushed back to July 7th?

That is only the earliest of the Evocati testing window.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

There's nothing i or anyone else here can give you. All you can do is wait (like everyone else), so i don't get your aversion towards that notion. Just wait for 3.0 (it's literally one to two years of work). Not talking about some magic bullet but it's going to be a pretty big mile stone, if you just check the schedule. That information makes that case clear.

It's still odd that you bring up their roundtable and label it "insulting'. That was two to three whole years ago, literally a lifetime in development. I mean are you holding that against them? at a time when the flight model was extremely unpredictable and fairly limited.

I don't know if you're not reading what I'm posting or just being disingenuous, but you keep putting words in my mouth here. I'm not adverse to waiting or delays, quite the contrary, I'm more concerned about them getting it right. Frankly, if they are designing missions around the current flight model then the game is doomed before launch, regardless of when it is. There is a fine line between what can be be done in a flight game with mission parameters that make it engaging. 3.0 will be big on technical level sure but I hope they actually have dialogue lasting more than empty words on fixing the flight in the game. We'll see if we get another demo where they can't land their ships or fly them in a cinematic manor like their advertising.

I bring up the round table because it shows how poorly it seems they understand how to make a flight game and the level of discourse they have invested in talking about it earnestly.

And yet the gimbals are not problem right now, Relative mode is competitive and missiles can be evaded with a skill.
I dont see any proof from you to back your claims and by my experience with a game, i feel about it completely differently and i actually have a video to back my opinion up.

You are saying general stuff like 'ships stops and accelerate too fast' but do not give any examples. What ships did you fly in 2.6?

Btw as i said, its not about you having to like SC flight model, but there is difference with not liking something and claiming its shit or broken.
I understand that sometimes there are things in games that we are so used to and we do not like changes to them. However it doesnt make our complains valid if that game has own style and is balanced and competitive. Different doesnt mean bad.

I mean it's pretty silly to take MP and leaderboards, as gospel that everything is fixed. There is unfinished weapon and ship balance and a low returning player count that makes leaderboards bunk. Then those same variables plus netcode issues that make MP largely useless when it comes to balance. I encourage everyone to be scientific about at try different modes and controllers in VS and record times. There is real disparity, despite your anecdotal "evidence."

Personally I play flight games from all walks from DCS to Ace Combat so it's not about styles it's about being a good flight game. Something when done right, feels right whatever the goal is sim vs arcade. I want this game to have as good core mechanics as it's graphics, as it stands now it clearly does not.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I don't think the flight model will change direction at this stage, it's pretty clear they've largely settled on a direction they like and despite people chanting "wait, it's alpha", all of the changes so far have been iterative not transformative, and the changes to come will likely be the same.

I think it's weird they've settled on the one thing they said it wouldn't be, which is Freelancer style mouse-aiming. You'd think they'd want the core gameplay to be a bit less controversial amongst the backers.

Honestly, if it's a dealbreaker for you your best bet is to get a refund.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Snip

You really are making it out to be far worse then it really it is.

The current flight model is no where near done, just wait.

In either case this discussion is becoming circular at this point.

........................

Have to wonder why folks that have it in for this project. Keep showing up in a thread about it.

Makes no sense.

 

[staticneuron]

That is only the earliest of the Evocati testing window.

Meaning those who are usually in PTU or simply wondering if it exists will look for earlier dates. Those who aren't will have to wait.

 

[RK9039]

Is there level 70 PVP gear now?

 

[elyetis]

Well, that is far from final. Not even half of the systems are implemented and it will be different than what it currently is.

I have no doubt about it, thought I'm really not sure how much they will be willing to change direction about it, because we are not really speaking about small balance change. And while balance could be tweaked after squadron 42 release, they will be kind of locked behind their bigger design choice once it's released ( I guess that's where it's almost a good thing that I don't see SQ42 being released before the second half of 2018, more time to see "big" change on the flight model ).

Specialized role based ships may have to perform differently closer to PU to match their roles.

I also have no doubt some ship will be more of my type than others, but a flight model is a flight model, going from one ship to another is unlikely to mean going from jousting or circle straffing, to proper dogfighting. That being said I obviously don't expect to play with a with smaller ships like I would with bigger ship like the constelation and bigger.

 

[staticneuron]

I have no doubt about it, thought I'm really not sure how much they will be willing to change direction about it, because we are not really speaking about small balance change. And while balance could be tweaked after squadron 42 release, they will be kind of locked behind their bigger design choice once it's released ( I guess that's where it's almost a good thing that I don't see SQ42 being released before the second half of 2018, more time to see "big" change on the flight model ).
I also have no doubt some ship will be more of my type than others, but a flight model is a flight model, going from one ship to another is unlikely to mean going from jousting or circle straffing, to proper dogfighting. That being said I obviously don't expect to play with a with smaller ships like I would with bigger ship like the constelation and bigger.

You see, when you say you make no comparison yet bring up the term "proper dogfighting" again it begs the question what are you comparing it too? Are you one of the people that imagines space combat to resemble something like a dogfighting scenario in earth's atmosphere?

TBH, they already spoken about having a system that is affected by a planets atmosphere and gravity versus fighting in the vacuum. But if you are looking for an ace combat scenario or anything resembling period arial dogfighting games you are never going to get that. And I am not sure why you would want that despite it breaking immersion heavily.

 

[whalleywhat]

Have to wonder why folks that have it in for this project. Keep showing up in a thread about it.

Makes no sense.

The success or failure of this game is a massive deal for this industry for any number of reasons. Shouldn't take much wondering to stumble across a couple of them.

 

[SmartBase]

Have to wonder why folks that have it in for this project. Keep showing up in a thread about it.

Makes no sense.

I have similar issues with the flight model and its high acceleration/low top speed setup, guess I must also have it in for the game.

 

[elyetis]

You see, when you say you make no comparison yet bring up the term "proper dogfighting" again it begs the question what are you comparing it too? Are you one of the people that imagines space combat to resemble something like a dogfighting scenario in earth's atmosphere?

TBH, they already spoken about having a system that is affected by a planets atmosphere and gravity versus fighting in the vacuum. But if you are looking for an ace combat scenario or anything resembling period arial dogfighting games you are never going to get that. And I am not sure why you would want that despite it breaking immersion heavily.

Oh I didn't get that you meant comparison to other games/licence/whatever, I thought you meant compared to other ships in the game ( which is why I thought it was more about balance than something else ).

I expect the same level of immersion that I do from Star Wars movies, meaning I don't need it to be realistic because it wouldnt be anyway given how with the tech found in Star Citizen you should easily be able to kill planets just with the kinetic energy you would be able to propel things. I don't know how aerial a battlestar galactica or star wars would be considered, but I guess that what I would compare it to.

 

[Zavist]

Personally I hate the WW 2 flight model. It is just obtuse and requires new players to learn whole new skillset. I would prefer something much closer to Babylon 5, but I know I am in the minority.

I would love to see a poll about which flight model is preferred inside the SC community.

 

[Shy]

Personally I hate the WW 2 flight model. It is just obtuse and requires new players to learn whole new skillset. I would prefer something much closer to Babylon 5, but I know I am in the minority.

I would love to see a poll about which flight model is preferred inside the SC community.

Yeah. I feel the same.

I would prefer the flight model to be more spacey.

There's still a chance they'll change it though.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Personally I hate the WW 2 flight model. It is just obtuse and requires new players to learn whole new skillset. I would prefer something much closer to Babylon 5, but I know I am in the minority.

I would love to see a poll about which flight model is preferred inside the SC community.

I think when people talk about WW2 they generally mean gun range and tail chasing.

Personally I want to see them aim for BSG (new one) in terms of look and feel.

 

[iHaunter]

Sometimes it seems like you are just trying to explain away all criticism regarding the project.

Not sure if that is your intent...

Whether right or wrong, there had been a metric shit ton of drama associating this project.

Because of ignorant people like you, yes they have.

People who talk out of their ass and don't know the first thing about what actually is going on.

 

[staticneuron]

Oh I didn't get that you meant comparison to other games/licence/whatever, I thought you meant compared to other ships in the game ( which is why I thought it was more about balance than something else ).

I expect the same level of immersion that I do from Star Wars movies, meaning I don't need it to be realistic because it wouldnt be anyway given how with the tech found in Star Citizen you should easily be able to kill planets just with the kinetic energy you would be able to propel things. I don't know how aerial a battlestar galactica or star wars would be considered, but I guess that what I would compare it to.

Personally I hate the WW 2 flight model. It is just obtuse and requires new players to learn whole new skillset. I would prefer something much closer to Babylon 5, but I know I am in the minority.

I would love to see a poll about which flight model is preferred inside the SC community.

Yeah. I feel the same.

I would prefer the flight model to be more spacey.

There's still a chance they'll change it though.

I am not understanding these, are you guys talking about the TV shows or did these shows have licensed video games? I loved the hell out of BSG. And I know I may have to hang up my nerd cred on this one but I never watched Babylon 5. I wonder if it is on netflix.

 

[KKRT00]

I mean it's pretty silly to take MP and leaderboards, as gospel that everything is fixed. There is unfinished weapon and ship balance and a low returning player count that makes leaderboards bunk. Then those same variables plus netcode issues that make MP largely useless when it comes to balance. I encourage everyone to be scientific about at try different modes and controllers in VS and record times. There is real disparity, despite your anecdotal "evidence."

Personally I play flight games from all walks from DCS to Ace Combat so it's not about styles it's about being a good flight game. Something when done right, feels right whatever the goal is sim vs arcade. I want this game to have as good core mechanics as it's graphics, as it stands now it clearly does not.

Maybe basing it on leaderboard and current AC playerbase is silly, but its better than nothing.
DCS and Ace Combat are not space combat games, so comparisons in terms of flight mechanics are not really accurate. I mean spaceships operates in Zero-G and have thrusters all over the ship, aircrafts do not, so I really do not find comparison too fitting.

Btw i just bought Elite and of course i only have Sidewinder, but is this ship's Yaw speed generally the good indication how ships handle in that game?
Is it normal that Yaw is completely useless next to Roll and Pitch?
If yes that i'm glad that SC is going in different direction, because i dont find it that fun.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I have similar issues with the flight model and its high acceleration/low top speed setup, guess I must also have it in for the game.

I said "people that have it IN for this game" not people that have specific issues or problems with a certain part of the game, that was two separate statements. But i guess both would apply to individuals that either don't want to or don't care to, take particular things into account. More so when a explanation or citation is given, especially when it comes to the flight model -some will say that it's bad or whatever. But that in of itself is shortsighted given how much work is left still to improve-upon . So whatever your currently experiencing is simply just bare bones, as there are a handful of key elements that are supposed to effect ship gameplay overall. But they're either turned off, outright broken, half finished or waiting to be implemented and fixed in 3.0. Thought that type of information or heads-up seems to be easily ignored or maybe that person's own personal opinion simply, over-shadows the actualities of why this and why not that. Now we've got to keep repeating that information, sometimes to the exact same people, over and over again. Where's the end point? it's like talking to a brick wall.

It seems that some simply can't believe, connect or acknowledge. The concept of certain things needing more time to mature and maybe, just maybe a particular issue just needs some long-awaited additions in order for it said aspect to work more as intended. Which is why the advent of item 2.0 is important. Since it's supposed to open up previously limited gameplay to allow for more freedom, customization and control of a ship. To which point any changes or tweaks CIG makes will actual start mattering in regards to the flight model, it won't be as arbitrary and confusing as it is now. Its one of the reasons, that the stats page is getting a more in-depth overview/revamp. To prepare for it to be easier to manage and update.

So that means that, we can explore -within reason- the perimeters of adjusting acceleration, top speed, boost, shields, the pipe systems..etc. At that point we should have more control over are ship components as well and pushing them to their limits. Which the goal and has been the goal since they started working on the flight model.

part rule of cool, part simulation, part WW2 dogfighting...

I am not understanding these, are you guys talking about the TV shows or did these shows have licensed video games? I loved the hell out of BSG. And I know I may have to hang up my nerd cred on this one but I never watched Babylon 5. I wonder if it is on netflix.

Yeah I've watched Bab 5 an parts of BSG and i don't get the longing that much for Bab 5, maybe for BSG. But action scenes in scifi shows is being consumed through non-interactive means and realistic functionality usually takes a backseat. On the other hand the application is a video game that needs to work and feel good to play and still be within perimeters of being a interactive medium. I mean this is a CR game and if anyone has played, any of them, then they should know the route he's trying to go more or less. Outside some key advancements and more personalization/customization.

Folks just got to let the gameplay mature more. Its not a finished product.

 

[Outrun]

Because of ignorant people like you, yes they have.

People who talk out of their ass and don't know the first thing about what actually is going on.

No need to get personal.

He claimed that there has not really been much drama.

That is utterly false because there has been a lot of issues concerning this project.

So the drama is there.

Unfortunately, it seems that no criticism concerning SC is allowed. Furthermore, the poster in question is shaping the narrative to one where things are progressing smoothly.

It is to the point where CR's own words and project milestone projects are discounted merely by a redirect to a old Kotaku article.

That article merely contextualizes the delay. It does not magically makes the failure of CIG to meet their own deadlines disappear.

Now Cabbagehead has hinted that he has some inside information on the project from his visit.

I am genuinely interested to see if whatever he has seen is SQ42 related.

Again, I will be the first one to eat crow if SQ42 is great and is released within the next two years.

I want to play an excellent space combat Sim.

Cabbagehead, any info that you can share?

 

[Cabbagehead]

Now Cabbagehead has hinted that he has some inside information on the project from his visit.

I am genuinely interested to see if whatever he has seen is SQ42 related.

Again, I will be the first one to eat crow if SQ42 is great and is released within the next two years.

I want to play an excellent space combat Sim.

Cabbagehead, any info that you can share?

I only visited the LA office. Which isn't the main driving force behind SQ42, that would be the UK studio Foundry42. I mean the writers were there and some character related stuff, was shown in conjuncture with something else. But most of what i saw was 3.0 related and other upcoming stuff we haven't seen yet. Like an big update on a past stretch goal, that looked out of this world.

Unfortunately I can't say much other then that. NDA and all that jazz.

 

[Cabbagehead]

double post, yikes.