• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens

K

KKRT00

Member
RubberJohnny said:
I don't know, sounds like they have branching and the Crew simulation aspect between missions:



I don't know how open Squadron42 missions will be, from the leaked script they seemed to be pretty scripted and have occasional sections where you choose whether to go on foot or fight in space but they all joined up again after the section and none of the choices had consequences afterwards like in Mass Effect. It seemed like something to make replays more varied rather than sandbox style gameplay.
Click to expand...

Why have You skipped my latest post about mining outpost mission? Its a sandbox game.

---
Effect said:
That's assuming that Squadron 42 or the first part of it even comes out around the same time. There is nothing to suggest it will. We've seen nothing of it. If Infinite Warfare hits similar beats that SQ42 was promising and it SQ42 does come out in some form around the same time it gets killed for a number of reasons. One it's not on a console. IW will be on consoles and PC. IW will likely have lower system requirements to run well for most then SQ42 likely well going by SC runs and how barebones that actually is. If it's unfair to use that judge how does that tutorial run these days? The comparisons will happen left and right.

CIG are in no way going to match the advertising dollars Activision will be spending. That's just not happening. IW is going to be made to look like an event the way all Call of Duties have been. CoD is the gold standard for whole FPS should run and feel. With say Halo and BF being very close. That standard is with the PC versions of CoD and BF as well. There is no room for error on that front. If SQ42's controls aren't on point from day one then it's dead in the water. The only people that will be playing it for the most part are those that have already bought it via the crowd funding.

That's the real issue here. There is a built in number of people that will already have owned SQ42 and maybe be playing it. The goal is to interest others outside of that and if it appears to be an a shallow copy cat (regardless of when its development began) that may or may not run well compared to the leading franchise then it's DOA when it comes to moving beyond the crowd funded audience.

It also has to deal with No Man Sky that has a release date now. That's PS4 and PC as well. We've seen long form video of what an average play session will look like. Elite Dangerous on Xbox One will be on par with the PC version with several of it's season 2 expansions having been released. Then there is no telling what Battlefield 5 will be like. It's an up hill battle no matter how you look at it.

If it gets delayed again I think that fight just gets harder as more and more standards and expectations solidify.
Click to expand...

What the hell did I just read?
Star Citizen/Squadron 42 have more inline with Arma than with COD. Its different audience. And trust me, COD wont have zero-G movement like shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpTOMNzIvmc&feature=youtu.be
And ship combat in both games cant be even compared. And in addition to that COD wont have alien races, sandbox levels, freaking FPS boarding on big spaceships and full MMO component.
They are literally different games.

Games on PC doesnt need to make big day one sales to sale great.
 
E

Effect

Member
We're talking just Squadron 42 as that was the item put forth for comparison and what was suppose to be released as a retail product, if only in part, this year. Not Star Citizen. Star Citizen is its own beast and that's not what we're talking about here. What SC is offering doesn't matter in this situation. S42 and CoD:IW don't have to offer the exact same things. There just has to be a semblance that things are similar and they appear they would be to varying degrees based on what Squadron 42 is suppose to be (Which from my understanding is suppose to the new "Wing Commander" side of things. A scripted cinematic campaign.) which is different from what Star Citize, the mmo side, is suppose to be. That's when "good enough" takes over for people when they're dropping $60 dollars on a game during the holidays. Squadron 42 is the outsider coming to the party. It has more to prove and any missteps would be judged harshly. It's not like it's coming into a situation where everyone is staying stagnant. They're all trying new things as well which makes things harder.

I brought up sales for a reason. If S42 (or the first part since it's suppose to be broken up I think I read) releases this year everyone that crowd funded the game gets that. CIG already has that money and spent it on development. They'll have to get everyone else interested in the game and to buy what they put out. Low sales aren't going to cut it just because it's on the PC. They'll be competing with CoD, BF, NMS, ED, etc. Then there is the fact we don't know what else will appear at or around E3. True some PC games don't need huge sales. However the price tag for developing Squadron 42 and Star Citizen is big though and many games don't cost this much to make so they can get away with low sales. S42 as a product should be financing further development. It can't do low sales. That's not acceptable if they're going to keep doing development.
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Effect said:
We're talking just Squadron 42 as that was the item put forth for comparison and what was suppose to be released as a retail product, if only in part, this year. Not Star Citizen. Star Citizen is its own beast and that's not what we're talking about here. What SC is offering doesn't matter in this situation. S42 and CoD:IW don't have to offer the exact same things. There just has to be a semblance that things are similar and they appear they would be to varying degrees based on what Squadron 42 is suppose to be (Which from my understanding is suppose to the new "Wing Commander" side of things. A scripted cinematic campaign.) which is different from what Star Citize, the mmo side, is suppose to be. That's when "good enough" takes over for people when they're dropping $60 dollars on a game during the holidays. Squadron 42 is the outsider coming to the party. It has more to prove and any missteps would be judged harshly. It's not like it's coming into a situation where everyone is staying stagnant. They're all trying new things as well which makes things harder.

I brought up sales for a reason. If S42 (or the first part since it's suppose to be broken up I think I read) releases this year everyone that crowd funded the game gets that. CIG already has that money and spent it on development. They'll have to get everyone else interested in the game and to buy what they put out. Low sales aren't going to cut it just because it's on the PC. They'll be competing with CoD, BF, NMS, ED, etc. Then there is the fact we don't know what else will appear at or around E3. True some PC games don't need huge sales. However the price tag for developing Squadron 42 and Star Citizen is big though and many games don't cost this much to make so they can get away with low sales. S42 as a product should be financing further development. It can't do low sales. That's not acceptable if they're going to keep doing development.
Click to expand...

Did you ever play any of the Wing Commanders? Because the last thing I think of when I want a spiritual successor to WC is CoD or BF. ED isn't it either. From everything I know of NMS, it isn't going to fit that bill either. They are hardly "good enough" for the intended audience.
 
staticneuron

staticneuron

Member
Zalusithix said:
Did you ever play any of the Wing Commanders? Because the last thing I think of when I want a spiritual successor to WC is CoD or BF. ED isn't it either. From everything I know of NMS, it isn't going to fit that bill either. They are hardly "good enough" for the intended audience.
Click to expand...

I always wonder if people understood what got people to hop on board early. The trust for me was thanks to the results of WC and Starlancer. Something that takes these to a new era is what I have been waiting for.

EDIT: I took a look into the another thread out of curiosity only to see familiar posters, basically posting FUD and the most uninformed drivel I have seen. Maybe it is not an issue with perception, just some people dogmatically against this game for some reason. One would think it would be over after each major release. But the goal posts keeps moving I guess.
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
I'll be fucking bummed out if SQ42 is anything like the new COD. However, the way multiple people have presented the campaign is that it is a mix of tightly paced missions and more freeform approach objectives as you like, but all happening in the same world space.

They were working on automated landing systems for the carries because those will actually be constantly moving around the system. I once tried to do in a military simulator (with the proper pilot actually doing most of the heavy lifting), it was really hard.
 
S

Shy

Member
tuxfool said:
They were working on automated landing systems for the carries because those will actually be constantly moving around the system. I once tried to do in a military simulator (with the proper pilot actually doing most of the heavy lifting), it was really hard.
Click to expand...
Hope we get the option for manual landing too.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
tuxfool said:
I'll be fucking bummed out if SQ42 is anything like the new COD. However, the way multiple people have presented the campaign is that it is a mix of tightly paced missions and more freeform approach objectives as you like, but all happening in the same world space.

They were working on automated landing systems for the carries because those will actually be constantly moving around the system. I once tried to do in a military simulator (with the proper pilot actually doing most of the heavy lifting), it was really hard.
Click to expand...

Would be a shame if there is no manual landing. Love the carrier landings in DCS, sure it takes practice but getting the approach and sticking the recovery is easily one of my favorite parts.

Edit: WTF Thinking about it how would it be difficult to recover to the flight deck in space given the games mechanics. You don't have to worry about airspeed, you can adjust vector at anytime and there would be no need to have hooks to hit the cables. All you need to do is fly the ship to a waypoint and land like normal landing. How would that be "too difficult?" I mean if they are developing it so that basic level of flying isn't needed then there was little hope to begin with.
 
R

RubberJohnny

Banned
KKRT00 said:
Why have You skipped my latest post about mining outpost mission? Its a sandbox game.
Click to expand...

From the leaked script it's not nearly as open as you think - there's plenty of sections where you need to take out all the enemies so an NPC can come in and open a door to the next area, it's certainly not "3km long, fully explorable interior", just a series of linear levels.

I don't really consider "you can shoot enemies from short range with a shotgun or long range with a sniper rifle" to be "sandbox" either, that's just standard shooters.

They're going to be more similar than you expect.
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
Dubbedinenglish said:
Would be a shame if there is no manual landing. Love the carrier landings in DCS, sure it takes practice but getting the approach and sticking the recovery is easily one of my favorite parts.

Edit: WTF Thinking about it how would it be difficult to recover to the flight deck in space given the games mechanics. You don't have to worry about airspeed, you can adjust vector at anytime and there would be no need to have hooks to hit the cables. All you need to do is fly the ship to a waypoint and land like normal landing. How would that be "too difficult?" I mean if they are developing it so that basic level of flying isn't needed then there was little hope to begin with.
Click to expand...
They mentioned that it was quite difficult to land on a moving ship, but I don't think automatic is just pressing a button. I'd speculate that it has to do with how the physics grids work. Iirc they mention manual was still available, but we will have to wait and see.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
RubberJohnny said:
From the leaked script it's not nearly as open as you think - there's plenty of sections where you need to take out all the enemies so an NPC can come in and open a door to the next area, it's certainly not "3km long, fully explorable interior", just a series of linear levels.

I don't really consider "you can shoot enemies from short range with a shotgun or long range with a sniper rifle" to be "sandbox" either, that's just standard shooters.

They're going to be more similar than you expect.
Click to expand...

What i described is a mission example that Chris gave 2/3 weeks ago in 104TC.

--edit--
It was not Chris, it was Erin
https://youtu.be/zvm1jW_Xp_8?t=135
Transcript: http://imperialnews.network/2016/03/10-for-the-chairman-episode-80/

Its still not this interview lol, there is too much content being released. Maybe i'll find it at home.
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
Dictator93 said:
I have bookmarked this post on my work comp and personal rig.
Click to expand...

post-38812-Psych-popcorn-gif-Imgur-Yvod.gif
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
tuxfool said:
They mentioned that it was quite difficult to land on a moving ship, but I don't think automatic is just pressing a button. I'd speculate that it has to do with how the physics grids work. Iirc they mention manual was still available, but we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

It really shouldn't be unless they are planning the larger ships to as maneuverable as fighters. Even with that you can change vector at any time in 6DoF so it really is a moot point. There isn't any cross winds or pitching and rolling of the ship to deal with either. Plus you shouldn't be approaching the flight deck with the ship coming at you, so it would make it easier to land on a ship moving forward rather than standing still. DCS it's much easier to stick the recovery when the ship is traveling at speed than standing still
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
It really shouldn't be unless they are planning the larger ships to as maneuverable as fighters. Even with that you can change vector at any time in 6DoF so it really is a moot point. There isn't any cross winds or pitching and rolling of the ship to deal with either. Plus you shouldn't be approaching the flight deck with the ship coming at you, so it would make it easier to land on a ship moving forward rather than standing still. DCS it's much easier to stick the recovery when the ship is traveling at speed than standing still
Click to expand...

On the flip side, in a space carrier, you're threading a needle into the hangar bay instead of landing on an exposed surface. In the real world you can fly by the carrier on a landing run that isn't ideal. In a space carrier landing run, you'll have to bank hard before you reach the entrance or crash into the ship. Edit: Also the relative size of a fighter to a pocket carrier like an Idris is much larger than a jet to an aircraft carrier at sea. Less margin for error.

Granted there's no minimum flight speed in space. Landing runs are going to be best handled with a stationary carrier and careful low speed maneuvering.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Zalusithix said:
On the flip side, in a space carrier, you're threading a needle into the hangar bay instead of landing on an exposed surface. In the real world you can fly by the carrier on a landing run that isn't ideal. In a space carrier landing run, you'll have to bank hard before you reach the entrance or crash into the ship. Edit: Also the relative size of a fighter to a pocket carrier like an Idris is much larger than a jet to an aircraft carrier at sea. Less margin for error.

Granted there's no minimum flight speed in space. Landing runs are going to be best handled with a stationary carrier and careful low speed maneuvering.
Click to expand...

It's a flight deck not a hanger so there will be a larger space to touch down. As far as waving off an approach, in space you won't need to because there is no need to recover airspeed. In space you can stop, adjust and keep going. The approach isn't needing sharp banking, it will be an approach vector like an actual carrier landing but there isn't a worry about waving off and maintaining airspeed or lift.
 
C

cyress8

Banned
staticneuron said:
I always wonder if people understood what got people to hop on board early. The trust for me was thanks to the results of WC and Starlancer. Something that takes these to a new era is what I have been waiting for.

EDIT: I took a look into the another thread out of curiosity only to see familiar posters, basically posting FUD and the most uninformed drivel I have seen. Maybe it is not an issue with perception, just some people dogmatically against this game for some reason. One would think it would be over after each major release. But the goal posts keeps moving I guess.
Click to expand...

Want to know something weird? I backed this game because of Derek Smart. I'm one of the crazies that enjoyed the Battlecruiser series and Star Citizen will pretty much be a Battlecruiser game done right.
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
It's a flight deck not a hanger so there will be a larger space to touch down. As far as waving off an approach, in space you won't need to because there is no need to recover airspeed. In space you can stop, adjust and keep going. The approach isn't needing sharp banking, it will be an approach vector like an actual carrier landing but there isn't a worry about waving off and maintaining airspeed or lift.
Click to expand...

Flight deck, hangar... Semantics really when dealing with a flying enclosed box that doesn't exist in real life. Either way, the space available on the Idris hardly counts as larger than the hangar your ships are parked in now. In a Bengal, sure - tons of room, but an Idris? Not so much. If anything, it's smaller (far less vertical clearance).
source.jpg
Click to expand...

And yes, you can stop - subject to inertia at least. My point is that landing will be a low speed precision affair with a stationary (or only moving forward at a set velocity) carrier. There is no arresting hardware, and simply not enough clearance to allow human reaction to roll, pitch or yaw of the carrier. The only way you could realistically land on a carrier actually moving around would be with an automated system.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Zalusithix said:
And yes, you can stop - subject to inertia at least. My point is that landing will be a low speed precision affair with a stationary (or only moving forward at a set velocity) carrier. There is no arresting hardware, and simply not enough clearance to allow human reaction to roll, pitch or yaw of the carrier. The only way you could realistically land on a carrier actually moving around would be with an automated system.
Click to expand...

Really you can have a giant box over a carrier deck and it wouldn't change much. The angle and vector of the landing is still an extremely precise exercise without much room for error. Once you get to a certain point you cannot wave off either it is attempt a landing or crash (when you hear "call the ball").

There is no arresting hardware because the ship has retro thrusters. This is SC inertia is lol for smaller ships and low speeds. Presumably once once enter the enclosed area you are governed by the carrier's gravity and no longer need to account for carrier movement. Also real carriers don't do course correction when recovering planes, so I expect SCs to not either. The request permission to land should coordinate with the bridge to maintain a steady course for landing.

Landing on larger ships in SC would be less like landing a conventional jet fighter and more like a Harrier or F-35 with vertical landing. I suspect it less to do with "it's really hard guys" and more to do with the poor fine control of ships in the game.
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
Really you can have a giant box over a carrier deck and it wouldn't change much. The angle and vector of the landing is still an extremely precise exercise without much room for error. Once you get to a certain point you cannot wave off either it is attempt a landing or crash (when you hear "call the ball").

There is no arresting hardware because the ship has retro thrusters. This is SC inertia is lol for smaller ships and low speeds. Presumably once once enter the enclosed area you are governed by the carrier's gravity and no longer need to account for carrier movement. Also real carriers don't do course correction when recovering planes, so I expect SCs to not either. The request permission to land should coordinate with the bridge to maintain a steady course for landing.

Landing on larger ships in SC would be less like landing a conventional jet fighter and more like a Harrier or F-35 with vertical landing. I suspect it less to do with "it's really hard guys" and more to do with the poor fine control of ships in the game.
Click to expand...
Precisely my point. An action limited to low speeds. Not something easily done in the midst of battle. If they want to have the ability to take off or land when the ship is doing anything other than going steady in a straight line, it'll require automated assistance. (Carrier ship gravity wont help at all unless you're locked down to the floor or being held in place by some tractor beam.)

Real life carriers don't have to deal with this as they're (ideally) never in direct combat. They're pretty much sitting ducks, and rely on their air cover and ship escorts to protect them while they sit well away from any threat. The carriers in SC are different in that they have both defensive and offensive weaponry / focus. An Idris M is technically a ship made for capital ship combat as much as it is a pocket carrier. Even a large carrier like the Bengal has absolutely massive weaponry. These things are meant to be in the battle. Not by themselves, but still in the battle. It's entirely reasonable that they might want to have the capability to land/take off from them in those hectic situations. Human response times wont cut it there.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Zalusithix said:
Precisely my point. An action limited to low speeds. Not something easily done in the midst of battle. If they want to have the ability to take off or land when the ship is doing anything other than going steady in a straight line, it'll require automated assistance. (Carrier ship gravity wont help at all unless you're locked down to the floor or being held in place by some tractor beam.)

Real life carriers don't have to deal with this as they're (ideally) never in direct combat. They're pretty much sitting ducks, and rely on their air cover and ship escorts to protect them while they sit well away from any threat. The carriers in SC are different in that they have both defensive and offensive weaponry / focus. An Idris M is technically a ship made for capital ship combat as much as it is a pocket carrier. Even a large carrier like the Bengal has absolutely massive weaponry. These things are meant to be in the battle. Not by themselves, but still in the battle. It's entirely reasonable that they might want to have the capability to land/take off from them in those hectic situations. Human response times wont cut it there.
Click to expand...

Why would a carrier be trying to recover ships during combat? It would be like a castle lowering it's drawbridge under siege "let me raise my armor right now and get open for boarding and damaging the flight deck."
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
Why would a carrier be trying to recover ships during combat? It would be like a castle lowering it's drawbridge under siege "let me raise my armor right now and get open for boarding and damaging the flight deck."
Click to expand...

Well, castles didn't have shields. Last I checked at least. =P

Besides, only one end needs to open at a time, and doesn't need to remain open for long. Particularly with an automated docking system where the door and landing ship can be synced. Not that it would be something you'd do while being buzzed by fighters. If you're dealing mostly with larger ships at a distance, however, you could relatively easily keep the open area free from the line of fire for the period of time needed to get a ship landed (to repair/refuel/rearm). It'd require maneuvering which would kill any realistic chance of manual landing, but should be possible with any automated system to keep the movements in sync.

I'm not going to say that landing in those situation is required, but it would make the repair/refuel/rearm mechanics more useful, and give birth to more flexible tactics. If the only way to repair or rearm is getting back to a completely safe zone, then battles are always going to be more strike oriented to allow better odds of getting back. Dogfighting will have an extremely high chance of death with no realistic chance of recovery after taking damage, and will probably devolve into kamikaze runs.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Zalusithix said:
Well, castles didn't have shields. Last I checked at least. =P

Besides, only one end needs to open at a time, and doesn't need to remain open for long. Particularly with an automated docking system where the door and landing ship can be synced. Not that it would be something you'd do while being buzzed by fighters. If you're dealing mostly with larger ships at a distance, however, you could relatively easily keep the open area free from the line of fire for the period of time needed to get a ship landed (to repair/refuel/rearm). It'd require maneuvering which would kill any realistic chance of manual landing, but should be possible with any automated system to keep the movements in sync.

I'm not going to say that landing in those situation is required, but it would make the repair/refuel/rearm mechanics more useful, and give birth to more flexible tactics. If the only way to repair or rearm is getting back to a completely safe zone, then battles are always going to be more strike oriented to allow better odds of getting back. Dogfighting will have an extremely high chance of death with no realistic chance of recovery after taking damage, and will probably devolve into kamikaze runs.
Click to expand...


Well as of now ballistics void shields soo..

And "one at a time" I'm envisioning a slow chomping motion as the carrier ships roll along.

Cap vs cap is still up in the air with the range and cooldown of the S20s (or whatever the big guns are) are still unknown. Longer the range the more it makes sense for a salvo type gameplay trading blows at distance. Even if you could rearm and repair one by one it makes more sense to send out attackers in waves for a midway type of engagement of cap ships. Realistically you can:

launch fighters before gun range

Have them do damage while not in range

Get in gun range and take shots

Duck back to recover

Rinse.Lather.Repeat
 
K

KKRT00

Member
Danthrax said:
Why the heck would it be NDA'd? What would be so big that it needs to be kept secret?
Click to expand...

There are two PTUs now. One alpha PTU and then normal PTU as it was previously.
Alpha seems to be much more broken than what You have normally experiences on PTU releases :)
 
D

Danthrax

Batteries the CRISIS!
KKRT00 said:
There are two PTUs now. One alpha PTU and then normal PTU as it was previously.
Alpha seems to be much more broken than what You have normally experiences on PTU releases :)
Click to expand...

Kinda like there being double-secret probation, eh? =P

So it's more of a "don't release a bunch of footage of our broken alpha" situation. Meh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Star Citizen truly outdoes itself with a $48,000 bundle for its most loyal whales
2
65
3K
nemiroff replied
Over $600 Million Later, Scam Citizen Is Now at the Alpha 3.20 Stage
News Business Game Dev 2 3
120
8K
Buggy Loop replied
Scam Citizen Fundraising Exceeds $600 Million
News Business 2
99
6K
StreetsofBeige replied
Star Citizen remains offline as issues related to alpha 3.18 escalate the problem to a ‘major outage’
2 3
123
8K
Ribi replied
‘Starfield’ Gets Infinitely Better With 100 ‘Star Wars’ Mandalorian Mods Installed
2
57
4K
twilo99 replied
Top Bottom