|
I think the dogfighting would be a lot better if acceleration actually took appreciable time rather than just instantly being able to go from 0 to max in the blink of an eye, and vice versa.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Capntastic posted:I think the dogfighting would be a lot better if acceleration actually took appreciable time rather than just instantly being able to go from 0 to max in the blink of an eye, and vice versa. Wouldn't acceleration be pretty drat fast in space though since there's no atmosphere to provide resistance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
macnbc posted:Wouldn't acceleration be pretty drat fast in space though since there's no atmosphere to provide resistance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
It'd be limited mostly by how many Gs your pilot can pull. At least when your engine tech is as ludicrous as it is in the kind of sci-fi that has personal fighters with interstellar ranges. Of course 9G acceleration would be unplayable - it's way too quick. I don't know how much we've got in SC but I'm guessing around 3 or so, depending on ship. Aurora accelerates fairly slowly but the artificial top speed for it is so low it seems fast. 300i has such a high top speed, the acceleration seems a lot slower - especially the full decouple 180 turn, because that's such a large swing in speed for the 300i (from top speed in one direction to top speed in the opposite).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
macnbc posted:Wouldn't acceleration be pretty drat fast in space though since there's no atmosphere to provide resistance? Oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
macnbc posted:Wouldn't acceleration be pretty drat fast in space though since there's no atmosphere to provide resistance? Just to be clear. Acceleration is largely based on the mass of the object. It's inertia must be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
macnbc posted:Wouldn't acceleration be pretty drat fast in space though since there's no atmosphere to provide resistance? Acceleration would also be constant as long as you're firing the engines. I tried out a joystick and my trip report is that anyone talking about mouse/keyboard being overpowered is retarded and/or haven't actually played with mouse-keyboard. I prefer pad though, it seems the most intuitively easy for me to use. I still feel like their control model feels bad. I can't help but think that, at least half of CIG must have played Elite:Dangerous by now, and I wonder how many them are silently biting their tongues, pretending that in comparison, the flight model of SC doesn't feel like poo poo. I've seen it said a couple of times now, by commentators, that the game looks great, they systems feel like they could be really awesome, it's just a shame that it doesn't feel like I'm flying a star-fighter. I like thruster-based; "completely unrealistic, realistic" flight model they are going for, and I'm sure they can tune it to whatever they like. It just currently doesn't feel like a cool, satisfying flying experience. And I agree completely with the guy, who brought up the point, that it is pretty stupid that when they found out that their game was too spastic to use fixed guns properly, instead of saying, 'Hmm, fixed guns are like a staple of the ww2 dog-fighting 'feel', we're trying invoke, as well as almost every space sim/shooter, maybe we're doing it wrong', they go with, 'oh well auto-tracking gimbals for everyone'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:
Well, their choice was essentially between making guns track and completely throwing out the flight model, of loving course they buffed the guns instead. Everyone wanted BSG/B5 ships that could rotate around their own axis. Well, turns out hitting something moving at over 500 miles per hour that can turn on a dime just ain't loving happening unless you are within stabbing range. Not unless you make guns near hitscan, which in turn gimps the whole dodging and weaving thing. And it's too late to abandon or completely redesign the model, you'd have to retrack on so much work and so many promises it's just unthinkable. The reason WWII games like WT feels like WWII is entirely based on flight being characterized by lift and drag, neither of which exist in space. You can make a game like E:D where the ships fly like there is, but it's dumb as gently caress. Plus, since we already have E:D playing it dumb/safe I prefer we have some choice and innovation going on from CIG. We need something in between E:D arcade space flight and KSP, and I'm happy someone has the balls to try making it. The shitton of money on Roberts coke account indicates I'm not alone in that either. It feels like people are just chalking this stuff up to CIG being dumb, when in reality no one has made a real attempt at making this kind of game. Literally no one, not on this scale and complexity, which is why Roberts essentially cornered the market by default. CIG can't just paint by numbers when they are the first to try and figure all these mechanics out. And from the implementation so far I do actually have decent trust in their ability to take something from a fuzzy concept in CRs head and make it into an actual, functioning, game. They did pull off the mechanics themselves, and the tweaking needed to get from the first try to something I'd enjoy playing on the regular is no where near as complex (if still exhaustive) as that. And if they gently caress it up, at least they will have laid the groundwork and foundation for the rebirth of the genre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Except that it's a game, and multiplayer pvp one at that. It needs to be fun and balanced, or it won't work. 'New territory' is great and all, but then you end up with games like Crysis or Force Unleashed that spent huge amounts of money on developing some 'breaking' territory only for it to flop because it adds nothing to gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Courthouse posted:blah blah blah it's a loving space game with a fake economy, good graphics, and a ton of superfluous bullshit. the thing they don't have right yet, dogfighting, has been done a thousand times already...or at least once, in evochron mercenary
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
casey posted:Airplanes take time for things to happen and similar to your experience if you use the controls reactionary, you'll be behind the plane and constantly overshoot and overcorrect. Do it on landing and you'll porpoise down the runway until you crash (see youtube for examples of pilot induced oscillation). Once you learn to anticipate your aircraft and stay ahead of it and learn to fly with a light touch and finesse, you'd find flying a plane is quite easy. I imagine this sim will convey at least part of that experience. And as you point out, a bit of a learning curve is good because that means there are people who won't ever "get it" and they'll be easy targets. Granted I haven't flown high performance military jets, but I do have plenty experience in light single and twin airplanes and extensive experience in the Embraer-145 regional jet, and they all display this type of behavior. I've flown aerobatics planes and military (prop) trainers and they are extremely precise and exhibit very little of that behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED, that this alpha software, which was released in a barely functional state to prevent CIG's offices from being burnt to the ground from more delays, does not perform exactly as it should. Frankly, I think it was a mistake for Chris Roberts to commit to making absolutely no changes to the flight control code after the very first software release, eschewing the opportunity to collect feedback and continue to tune things and make changes in the considerable time between now and the final release, but what do I know?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Except that it's a game, and multiplayer pvp one at that. It needs to be fun and balanced, or it won't work. 'New territory' is great and all, but then you end up with games like Crysis or Force Unleashed that spent huge amounts of money on developing some 'breaking' territory only for it to flop because it adds nothing to gameplay. quote:it's a loving space game with a fake economy, good graphics, and a ton of superfluous bullshit. I said it's reasonable for a first attempt at something new to not spring out of the devs heads fully formed and functional, not that said first attempt would be actually very good. And criticizing it like it was a final product rather than a first attempt is dumb. Looking at the devs testing out different ideas and implementations early in the design process and saying they don't know what they are doing because they changed things is dumb. Doesn't mean they'll end up making the right decisions and pulling all this off, or that we can't bitch about dumb ideas. But it does mean that complaints that amount to "unfinished product is unfinished" belong in the gbs thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:32
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:the thing they don't have right yet, dogfighting, has been done a thousand times already...or at least once, in evochron mercenary I have to be honest I think the combat in Evochron is absolutely horrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Courthouse posted:The reason WWII games like WT feels like WWII is entirely based on flight being characterized by lift and drag, neither of which exist in space. You can make a game like E:D where the ships fly like there is, but it's dumb as gently caress. Plus, since we already have E:D playing it dumb/safe I prefer we have some choice and innovation going on from CIG. We need something in between E:D arcade space flight and KSP, and I'm happy someone has the balls to try making it. The shitton of money on Roberts coke account indicates I'm not alone in that either. Yeah gently caress Elite, that is some dumb poo poo. When I pull back on the throttle, the ship flies backwards, just like a WWII plane. Also, I can use my hat switch to make the spaceship fly straight up and down, and strafe left and right, just like grandpa's loving Spitfire. Or get this, I can turn 'flight assist' off, and the spaceship will continue to drift in whatever direction I apply thrust to, and if I make a turn, I have to balance out the turn to stop by firing thrusters in the opposite direction. That's some stupid biplane-level game-play right there. The whole spaceships-as-WWII-fighter thing is dumb, because Elite doesn't work like that, and despite what Croberts claims, Star Citizen doesn't work like that either. The only difference between the two games really is that Elite handwaves magical future tech to give you a reasonable game-play experience, and Star Citizen relies on 'realistic physics' with messed up variables like overpowered maneuvering thrusters and under-powered main engines to achieve a sort of drifting effect. I don't think there is anything wrong with the premise for Star Citizen's game-play, though I do think that it's currently in a messed up state and that it will eventually end up at a different place when they make adjustments to the model down the line. It's just going to be funny when the "Star Citizen is perfect as it is" guys are singing the exact same tune when the game handles differently once CIG makes the adjustments necessary to make the game more playable. Courthouse posted:Well, their choice was essentially between making guns track and completely throwing out the flight model, of loving course they buffed the guns instead. Except even hitscan weapons wouldn't negate the whole dodging and weaving thing, because you would still have to place the cursor on the target and fire at it before your target moves - even moreso if the ships moved faster than molasses, which is a direction that CIG has indicated that they are heading (upping the top speed). Though personally I wouldn't make lasers hitscan, just faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
All that the release of Arena Commander proved is that CIG can actually/eventually release a big wad of code that vaguely resembles a game. Don't get me wrong, that was a huge deal, since the entire "game" up to that point was Chris Roberts' Garage Simulator. And sure, ArCom is a buggy, not-very-fun piece of crap, but it at least shows us that someone over at CIG is doing something involving a game and its design. The next "milestone" is whether they can take this "new territory in space combat" and massage it into a fun game. Not the whole game, mind you, just the dog fighting portion. Can they make that bit fun? The other big question is whether they scale up the network code to support a decent number of ships per instance, and support all their concurrent instances. The answers to those two questions will go a long way toward telling us how this all might turn out. We're arguing back and forth over whether ArCom is a pile of poo poo or a sign that CIG is on the right track, when the answer is that it's both. What they do with that pile of poo poo is the next milestone, the next sign of whether this is going to crash and burn or turn into something good. I'm sure we'll go through this same debate when the FPS portion finally releases months late, and the first version of it sucks balls. And then again with the economy module, and jump points, and ship customization, and so on... Goredema fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Yeah, Star Citizen definitely has things going for it - it's beautiful for one - but I have the feeling that some of their flight-model design will eventually give way to what's actually fun and playable. I'm more worried about them being able to get good results with their network code, that seems to be giving them real problems. Even after a several-month delay to work on those issues, multiplayer is still only available for a few people and crashes constantly. The FPS release is going to be hilarious though, because no matter how they do it, at least half the people will hate it for being too much like GoW, CoD, BF, or whatever. They are going to be in a position where they are going to have to tell a lot of people to "deal with it" for that part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks the first release of each module is going to be even remotely close to the final product is an idiot. The whole point of an early release process is so the community can give feedback before the product is finished. What will be SC's measure of success is if they can continually improve on it after each patch and it codifies into a solid game 18-24 months from now. At least we get our hands on something sooner so we can actually see some progress being made. The alternative is to just sit around, cross out fingers and wait for a feature complete beta 2 years from now when its too late to convince CIG to make any changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
imperialparadox posted:Yeah gently caress Elite, that is some dumb poo poo. I was more referring to stuff like arbitrary limiting turn rate based on speed, which makes it handle like an airplane in that it's turn fight v boom/zoom, and has long arcing turns. Maneuvering thrusters magically change strength based on what they are doing (for example having much greater power when breaking). And a bunch of other stuff. I guess what I'm saying is that they fudge a hell of a lot of stuff in the name of gameplay, and it ruins my precious internet spaceship immershun. Also the damage model is literally two %health bars, which as far as getting the right feel is just not there compared to what SC is showing in their little arena tech demo. E:D does not give me the spaceship feels. It feels like airplanes in space. Airplanes that can strafe perhaps, but it's still a airplane feeling to me. Which is entirely a preference thing honestly, and mine is no more authoritative than anyone else's. E:D feels like it's retreading ground I've been on several times before. It's the same game I played a decade ago, with better tech and opt in/out-MMO tacked on. But it's just the best of old stuff, like a rerun of a good movie. SC feels more like they are trying to expand the genre, and whether they succeed or not that is a good thing. I don't want them to go back to the way everyone else does it, because we already have E:D doing that and doing it well. quote:Except even hitscan weapons wouldn't negate the whole dodging and weaving thing, because you would still have to place the cursor on the target and fire at it before your target moves - even moreso if the ships moved faster than molasses, which is a direction that CIG has indicated that they are heading (upping the top speed). Though personally I wouldn't make lasers hitscan, just faster. If you made it fixed weapon follow the pip like in WT, that would mean scrapping joysticks. Even mice would have trouble keeping up with ships on account of the ridiculous turn speed. It would be twitch as gently caress. Currently the ships move inside the speed envelope of WT prop planes, counting speed boost, which is a tried and fun speed to fight at. Only problem is the dumb IFCS hits the brakes after you boost. Limiting it to about 350 KM/h speeds. Un-dumbing the IFCS so it doesn't try to hit the breaks would mean we could make use of the 750 KM/h speed that the ships can already hit with boost. Also, make it possible to strafe without decoupling. This is not even the flight model, it's simple on/off controls that we are supposed to have available once they implement the engine tinkering mechanics, and should reasonably be something they can do in the next patch as standard instead. I do agree munition speeds could be almost doubled for most guns. quote:What will be SC's measure of success is if they can continually improve on it after each patch and it codifies into a solid game 18-24 months from now. At least we get our hands on something sooner so we can actually see some progress being made. The alternative is to just sit around, cross out fingers and wait for a feature complete beta 2 years from now when its too late to convince CIG to make any changes. Or we'll see them make all the wrong decisions based on forum feedback, because the only people who frequent the official forum are mouthbreathing space fedoras. Courthouse fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
I agree, while the game is cool otherwise actually flying in ED is fairly uninteresting and rather dull.Bolow posted:Except multiplayer Arena Commander is boring and lovely, where you basically play as a missile turret in space while hammering your counter measure keys. I find the Arena Commander to be pretty fun to play (when it works), more so than any other early alpha I've tried. Fredrik1 fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Right now I like everything of ED more than SC except the spaceship design and graphics. But I will be patient and hope CIG will improve SC/ArC bit by bit (it will anyways, it's pre alpha). Including the tweaking of the physics model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Courthouse posted:Mad about Elite FYI Elite does have locational damage, the fidelity isn't as high as Star Citizen's yet because having a flight model that isn't loving terrible and actual gameplay took precedence
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Bolow posted:FYI Elite does have locational damage, the fidelity isn't as high as Star Citizen's yet because having a flight model that isn't loving terrible and actual gameplay took precedence Playing it safe =/= new and exciting. It's a great model, because it's nothing new or different. It's the same old, well done, but same old. I will admit to a personal bias for new stuff here, I enjoy when innovative stuff comes along. Like minecraft, space engineers, portal, EvE back in the day, I like seeing and playing something that feels new and different. Even if the first few iterations are not polished. CoD XIV may be the bestest modern mil shooter you ever saw, but I've already kinda seen it. I do hope E:D continues doing well. But to keep my interest they need to start doing something interesting. And that has nothing to do with whether the game is well made, because it is very well polished. But stable netcode just doesn't get my imagination going the way a game with integrated and fully modeled player capital/fighter/fps gameplay does. As for the damage model, it's entirely non-visual really. And I have a fancy gpu that needs to provide me pretty visuals so I don't feel stupid for spending two months rent on it. They have teased they might improve it in future expansions, but then we might as well take into account all the things Roberts says is going to be in "post launch" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Courthouse posted:But stable netcode just doesn't get my imagination going the way a game with integrated and fully modeled player capital/fighter/fps gameplay does. Okay point me in the direction of the game has those things then. I wanna play that game, can't seem to find it though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Okay point me in the direction of the game has those things then. I wanna play that game, can't seem to find it though. Star Wars: Battlefront 2
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Didn't they turn off the servers for that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Didn't they turn off the servers for that? Star Wars: Battlefront 2's online support to continue after server shutdown quote:Star Wars: Battlefront II is on the increasingly long list of games that will be affected by the GameSpy server shutdown at the end of May. Fortunately, it's also among the games that will continue to be playable online anyway thanks to a third-party service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Okay point me in the direction of the game has those things then. I wanna play that game, can't seem to find it though. Eh, the closest you'll get to decent multifaceted gameplay is Battlefield 2142 or possibly planetside 2. But those are primarily FPS with flying and boarding as a secondary tacked on and not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
Courthouse posted:If you made it fixed weapon follow the pip like in WT, that would mean scrapping joysticks. Even mice would have trouble keeping up with ships on account of the ridiculous turn speed. It would be twitch as gently caress. To me Star Citizen already feels twitch though. It's just that SC's flavor of twitch is "I better pull the trigger in this brief window that I have while my spastic turn-on-a-dime drifting starship has a firing solution on this other spastic-turn-on-a-dime drifting starship." Yeah, Elite's yaw restriction is pretty arbitrary, but I understand why they did it and it does contribute to the gameplay. In Elite I feel like maneuvering is much more important, because past the initial jousting phase winning usually goes to the guy that can get on the other guy's tail - which seems like a simplified plane model, but it gets more complicated once you realize that you can throw in reverse speeds and strafing into the mix. Elite just has a very deliberate pacing to it. My main problem with Star Citizen currently is that it really does have a 'turrets in space' feel to it. You aren't completely stationary, but your turning rate is remarkable while your actual speed feels incredibly low. I hope they carry through with upping the flight speed, because I think the game needs that sensation that you are zipping around. I think that Star Citizen has a lot of potential with their flight model, but they need to refine it (which is what patches are for of course).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
imperialparadox posted:To me Star Citizen already feels twitch though. It's just that SC's flavor of twitch is "I better pull the trigger in this brief window that I have while my spastic turn-on-a-dime drifting starship has a firing solution on this other spastic-turn-on-a-dime drifting starship." Pretty much this- Technically I think they're making great progress, now it just rests on their designers to use those tools to actually make good/fun/deep/etc systems. The graphics are already there and fantastic, it doesn't seem too crashy to me, it's just all resting on design now. Whether that's the guys doing items/balancing, or the guys tweaking the actual feel of the flight computer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 13:37
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Pretty much this- Technically I think they're making great progress, now it just rests on their designers to use those tools to actually make good/fun/deep/etc systems. The graphics are already there and fantastic, it doesn't seem too crashy to me, it's just all resting on design now. Whether that's the guys doing items/balancing, or the guys tweaking the actual feel of the flight computer. I think part of the problem here is that people want them to start making balance, control, and flight model changes based on a very limited amount of the game. The current state of AC was pretty clearly just to get *something* shipped so they can show progress. It's still missing a lot of systems work that will interact with the flight controls--and starting to try and tweak and tune beyond major issues like the Aurora thruster control probably isn't in the cards until those systems are in place, because they could radically alter what we think is the baseline balancing point for the controls. If changing out the engine by one step on an Aurora takes it from lovely piece of crap to overpowered death blossom and you wasted a ton of time and effort tuning the piece of poo poo version to feel juuuuuuust right, well, now you've wasted a lot of time and effort. Right now, they're in the "just get stuff working good enough to be marginally playable" stage of development. Once that's past, they can worry about playing with the whole set of knobs and levers until it feels right.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
To an extent, but in a multiplayer game you prooobably want to make sure that you don't have stuff like an extra zero on a power output rate, stuff like that. For the vast majority of people playing single player it doesn't matter of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
BitBasher posted:I have to be honest I think the combat in Evochron is absolutely horrible. how can it be horrible when I'm so good at it because it's pretty easy? science disassembles your argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
While I agree that there should be some semblance of balance as soon as multiplayer is universal, it's going to be hard for them to actually make meaningful balance decisions until all the "extreme" ends of ship performance are in place. The fastest/slowest ship, the most/least maneuverable, the most/least firepower, biggest/smallest, etc. Otherwise tweaking the speed of the 300i doesn't matter much when its going to have to be tweaked again as soon as the M50 is added to the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
They can still balance guns that are clearly broken good (Omnisky) or broken bad (all the repeaters, the Behring) and they're doing nothing. Except write essays on how good their they thruster simulation is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:29
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:They can still balance guns that are clearly broken good (Omnisky) or broken bad (all the repeaters, the Behring) and they're doing nothing. Except write essays on how good their they thruster simulation is. They aren't likely to do anything anytime soon because that sort of balance isn't typically done until far later in the design process after all the key elements are in place. It's usually at the very end actually. So yeah, the thing that would be a total waste of time for them to do right now from a development point of view isn't being done right now. Perceived problems because the public is given a thing that it would normally never see.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
BitBasher posted:They aren't likely to do anything anytime soon because that sort of balance isn't typically done until far later in the design process after all the key elements are in place. It's usually at the very end actually. So yeah, the thing that would be a total waste of time for them to do right now from a development point of view isn't being done right now. Bullshit. They've got both multiplayer PvP matches and PvE matches going right now. The guns aren't grey box placeholders, they're the guns that the game will have when it's "done" just as much as it has them now. The guns don't magically change attributes depending on which ship they're mounted on, so the ships being unfinished doesn't even impact them either. They're the single most complete aspect of the game, after the damage model. And even if they were placeholder guns, tweaking them is dead simple. It's not loving heart surgery. "The game isn't done so we can't do any balance tweaks" is literally the braindead PGI excuse. There's is no reason not to tweak them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I think you need to learn some patience. We know a patch is coming "soon". If you can't just play other games and wait for the next update, early access games are not for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:02
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Bullshit. They've got both multiplayer PvP matches and PvE matches going right now. The guns aren't grey box placeholders, they're the guns that the game will have when it's "done" just as much as it has them now. The guns don't magically change attributes depending on which ship they're mounted on, so the ships being unfinished doesn't even impact them either. They're the single most complete aspect of the game, after the damage model. Do you actually believe this or are you just looking for a reason to hear yourself talk? Have you ever been involved in software design? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to know. If you actually believe the words you just typed I'll offer a legitimate answer but I thought I would offer you a moment to consider the flaws in your logic before I did.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Gwaihir posted:To an extent, but in a multiplayer game you prooobably want to make sure that you don't have stuff like an extra zero on a power output rate, stuff like that. For the vast majority of people playing single player it doesn't matter of course. That's also known as a "bug". These are things they track internally in their system and assign resources to fix, releases to schedule it into, etc. Sometimes they don't even know there is an extra zero there for quite a while until someone happens to notice or report it. Once they do know about it, they assign it a priority and then fix it and release it depending on said priority. These are quite common in an alpha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:07
|
|
