|
 It's real, boys. The future of tackling is here. Two Retaliator torpedoes mounted to an M50. Just light off the engines, don't release, and hold on to your rear end. =P Entire high-res album here: http://imgur.com/a/Mc4bx
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
I don't think it's so much sperging as people looking at the stated results, comparing it with the intended and expressed design, and going 'wait, this doesn't make sense, because of this and this.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Now put them on a Merlin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
So it appears after 1.3 next week the next update will be the FPS moduel. The question being how long will CIG delay it so they can sell us imaginary FPS weapons before it releases and we see what a heaping pile of poo poo it will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
3 posted:Now put them on a Merlin. Not my album, I don't even have it installed. I just watch all this poo poo for the salt and tears. But you can see the size comparison in the album.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
sorla78 posted:
This Al Lowe interview was a loving great read, thank you for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Ilustforponydeath posted:So, is it out yet? Please don't run this into the ground, I'd like for it to remain funny for a while longer. Octopode posted:I don't understand why this seems so complicated. This whole thing has the potential to turn into a wonderfully customizable fitting system, on the off chance that CIG doesn't gently caress it up by trying to please everyone simul... sim.... Sorry, I couldn't get that out with a straight face. Full Metal Boxers fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Like, everyone is freaking the gently caress out because "Oh my God, poo poo is changing!" and I find myself unironically feeling sympathy for CIG because, holy loving poo poo, the entire everything is still being developed. It's called "iterative design process," you loving spergs. When one thing changes, other dependant things will change with it. Chill the hell out and wait to see the result. But at the same time, Crobbits is REALLY putting the cart before the horse trying to balance poo poo against systems that have barely even been concepted, much less implemented in the game. Christ. This whole thing reminds me of one of my college design projects, where the "producer" was demanding that the final result include a map editor when we didn't even have the base engine running yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
^^^The cult of pre-balancing is definitely an issue from the top down. It's a whatever fitting system that makes sense to anyone that's ever played an RPG, the problem is the Ship Stats page and people freaking out over what was always useless information. If the ship is supposed to have viable turrets for a person to sit in, it will, they'll change the loving numbers who cares.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
I thought the reason they did this pre-balance was for 3D object standardization, not for OP ship balance reasons. They needed standard "x gun can go on y turrets" so that the graphics department could standardize object sizes so poo poo wouldn't look totally out of proportion when the game launched and some nerd shoves retaliator torps on his M50 in the finished game...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Octopode posted:An unmanned turret (gimbal) mount takes 1 point. A manned turret mount takes 2 points. I thought the manned part took 1 point? So that turret+manned takes 2 points total. e: oh duh I get it now, nevermind. hah, now I want to see manned non-turreted guns, just because. rockopete fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
rockopete posted:I thought the manned part took 1 point? So that turret+manned takes 2 points total. Yes, which is why a manned turret at size three (2 points) can only mount one size 1 gun and the manned size four turrets on the Retaliator mount two size ones. (2 point manned turret (1 for turret + 1 for manned) + 2 size 1 guns).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:26
|
|
Octopode posted:I don't understand why this seems so complicated. It's not complicated, it it does not at all reconcile with sanity. Roberts said that the current hardpoints will be adjusted to generally keep the same loadout they have now. If that's true then the Constellation has 2 mount points that currently each have a Turret (+1) that is Manned (+1) and holds 2 size for guns ($x2=8) which is 10 points. 10 points is also the largest gun in the current system I believe, which the article stated is 40 meters long and has a volume of just under 1400m^3. So I can stick 2 40 meter long guns the or 2 turrets that carry size 2 size 4 guns each? I can see this system making sense for articulated gun mounts and fixed gun mounts but proper turrets are a totally different beast and are really loving stupid to shoehorn into this. Their first problem is that Roberts is defining an unmanned turret and an articulated gun as the same thing and they really, really shouldn't be comparable.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Sharks Dont Sleep posted:If the ship is supposed to have viable turrets for a person to sit in, it will, they'll change the loving numbers who cares. Exactly. This is why I don't get the uproar. Crobbits' reply was basically an unnecessarily wordy explanation of basic concepts that up to now have been behind-the-scenes mechanics in every space game from Wing Commander to Freelancer to Freespace and everything in between. And I should clarify that by "people" I meant the Brown Sea (there's your lay-up, folks, make your jokes now), because at least goons understand the concept of "ignore the ship stats page".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
BitBasher posted:It's not complicated, it it does not at all reconcile with sanity. Roberts said that the current hardpoints will be adjusted to generally keep the same loadout they have now. If that's true then the Constellation has 2 mount points that currently each have a Turret (+1) that is Manned (+1) and holds 2 size for guns ($x2=8) which is 10 points. 10 points is also the largest gun in the current system I believe, which the article stated is 40 meters long and has a volume of just under 1400m^3. So I can stick 2 40 meter long guns the or 2 turrets that carry size 2 size 4 guns each? One of their more sane developers answered this question by stating that the Size Number system is just a base mechanic. Just because a itemport has the raw numbers for a given combination does not necessarily mean it has the ability to fit any and every permutation of those numbers - i.e. your example may have a total max size of ten points, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can fit a size ten gun. There are other limitations beyond the size numbers, that's just a raw baseline for balancing purposes. A hardpoint meant for a turret may not be capable of fitting non-turreted weapons regardless of size number constraints and vice versa, etc etc. Example: A size 4 itemport may not be able to fit a size 2 gun + gimbal + hypothetical autoaim module, because while it has the requisite Size Numberz it lacks a "Data" pipe for the aiming stuff. Full Metal Boxers fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Octopode posted:I don't understand why this seems so complicated. The forum post is badly explained, the best way to show the options available is with pictures. Aside from that I'm not sure I'd be encouraging more customisation options so early on, there's so little detail on how any of the actual game mechanics are going to work. This seems like they need to lock everything down to make the ship pipeline more efficient, so they won't have to revisit ships to make all the weapons fit, which is fair enough but they could just say that rather than attempt to pretend 1 size in computer tracking occupies the same space as a person and manual fire controls, which implies there is some form of balance involved in all this and it makes logical sense. I assume this is just building on what they think is the player desire for more modularity. extending that to weapons and assuming that min/maxing is going to improve things. For MWO yeah, min/maxing makes the game better but in mwo you choose your mech depending on the weapon loadout it can support, I thought the ships in Star Citizen had more thought put into them than just trying to find the sweet spot of maximum direct focus fire or the best tracking computer slave boat. I dunno, still too early to tell but I'm not sure they've thought through the outcome from locking this in place before the larger scale maps are in use. Yeah it's not really "locked" in place, but when you're defending a change for no good reason you're just creating more forum drama for no real purpose. AP fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Well anyway it seems like a nice change now that i have understood it (crap it's so easy but the forum makes everything so hard). I mean i could basically turn all my small guns in mini-manned turrets. Yes SC will features specialized dwarf gunners
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 13:01
|
|
:I'd like to borrow $200M
|
3 posted:Now put them on a Merlin. That was done as well in the Album (well not on but next to it)  I think they should just work it into the fuselage and make it a kamikaze thing. PS Chris Roberts Edited hist post with some further clarifications on his clarifications https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/240724/itemports-and-sizes/p1 EDIT: ADDITIONAL INFO TO ANSWER QUESTIONS - 1) The system is a general rule of thumb, it does not mean that you will be able to do every hypothetical configuration - it will be limited to the Turrets / Mounts we create / put into the game. If it doesn't make sense for a certain ship due to how the ship is configured - say if a Turret had a single Size 4 weapon that would clip into the ship's geometry but a Turret with two Size 2 weapons wouldn't we would only allow Turrets with Size 2 weapons to be mounted on that particular itemport. 2) Itemports that can accept Manned Turrets will likely only be suitable for Manned Turrets (so you could not a mount a Size 6 Gun on a Size 6 Manned Turret Item Port) as Manned Turrets itemports are open / have access to the interior of the ship for gunner access. 3) The plan for the Hornet is to make the itemport where the Canard Turret is mounted to be a size 3, where you could mount a Turret with dual size 1s or a single size 2 (this would be a different Remote Turret you could buy in game) or a fixed Size 3. The Ball Turret would be a size 5, allowing two size 2's to be mounted and the wing itemports would be size 3 allowing a fixed GT-220 (that would auto converge) OR a gimbaled Size 2 Gatling (the GT-215 'Scorpion' for instance) for a wider cone of fire. 4) The Constellation Manned Turrets will likely be rated Size 8 - 2x Size 3 Guns (the Panthers were what we used in our demo) +1 for gunner + 1 for host). Please don't think that a Class 5 Size 4 for this Turret meant you could mount dual Size 4 weapons! The size on the ship stats was about the Turret - which is a good illustration of why we are normalizing the itemport system so you can see the "potential" of each itemport on the ship you are buying beyond the default load out. 5) The Retaliator Turrets will be size 6, although right now we have some sizing issues when putting a Badger (they look a little oversized for the current size of the turret) vs. a Bulldog sorla78 fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 13:57
|
|
sorla78 posted:Please don't think that a Class 5 Size 4 for this Turret meant you could mount dual Size 4 weapons! The size on the ship stats was about the Turret - which is a good illustration of why we are normalizing the itemport system so you can see the "potential" of each itemport on the ship you are buying beyond the default load out. Oh, Chris Roberts. How does he say that with a straight face when the brochure for the ship specifically says "2x size 4" mounted on the turrets. What else should we think? I think this new system is abysmally ambiguous. There are dedicated turret ports, but the turret ports are now named "item ports" just like all of the places that turrets cannot be mounted. It's the same essential system just with the verbiage far, far more confusing. The whole thing is now Smurfy. They will take perfectly good descriptions of the hard points and rename them all to the same ambiguous name.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Full Metal Boxers posted:Like, everyone is freaking the gently caress out because "Oh my God, poo poo is changing!" and I find myself unironically feeling sympathy for CIG because, holy loving poo poo, the entire everything is still being developed. It's called "iterative design process," you loving spergs. When one thing changes, other dependant things will change with it. Chill the hell out and wait to see the result. I completely agree. The brown sea and r/starcitizen (which has devolved into an extension of the RSI forums) have been convinced by the "polished product" that AC is. It's a half-assed half-finished game that is full of bugs and things CIG is throwing at the wall just to see what sticks- And yet people are talking about fairness and getting mad when things aren't balanced 2-10 years before it's supposed to be completed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
I assume it will change again whenever they actually implement the design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:04
|
|
Full Metal Boxers posted:Like, everyone is freaking the gently caress out because "Oh my God, poo poo is changing!" and I find myself unironically feeling sympathy for CIG because, holy loving poo poo, the entire everything is still being developed. It's called "iterative design process," you loving spergs. When one thing changes, other dependant things will change with it. Chill the hell out and wait to see the result. You are absolutely right. This is really a testament to the fact hat we shouldn't ever see the real time progression of a game through this design state. It really is a problem they bring upon themselves as a consequence of their funding model.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Since we have all flyable ships this weekend, i decided to actually open for a second time this game of 30gbs in my computer. As i land into the hangar, the rendering of all the ships make the game sooo slow, meaning i need almost 5 full minutes to reach a ship. As a sidenote, i cannot fly the hornet, since the lag caused by loading the hornet textures make the run towards this ship last quite a while. Weird thing: Arena commander works just fine with no lag at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Octopode posted:I don't understand why this seems so complicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5ROhf5Soqs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Someone from Reddit put this together: Also Chris updated his post with some clarification. Apparently the Constellation continues to enjoy Mary Sue status with S8 turrets (allowing 2 S3 guns), the Retaliator will be S5 (2 S2 guns), and the Hornet is intended to allow people who don't have canard turrets to mount a single S3 gun there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
DasKuend posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxxlrKlLO9g I think I brought it up a few hundred pages ago that their space physics made no sense, this is just confirmation. The guy on the right side gets it though. You fire a gun in space, you're doin backflips, period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Someone from Reddit put this together: The real question is what the size of the unmanned turret for the ION CANNON will be on the Retaliator's original concept art. I predict size 10, just to be fair. +$100 variant option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
The balance is totally backwards. If you have a person manning a turret, just do what the turret says. Penalize a size category if you elect to control it remotely. There are really no doubts the system will be reworked yet again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
redwalrus posted:I think I brought it up a few hundred pages ago that their space physics made no sense, this is just confirmation. The guy on the right side gets it though. I didn't watch the video but the guy on the right has actually been to outer space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
redwalrus posted:I think I brought it up a few hundred pages ago that their space physics made no sense, this is just confirmation. The guy on the right side gets it though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Once again the wings on the M50 need to fold up:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:A shame "the guy on the right" is busy making this game instead: Oh don't you worry, Shroud of the Avatar has it's own kind of forum drama... https://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Bolow posted:And all of this poo poo will change when multi-crew comes out 2 years from now. Then change again when the PU is in alpha, and probably change 8 more loving times before the game is even remotely close to launch this, so please stop bitching about stuff like balance at this state of the game. GreenLight fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
GreenLight posted:this, so please stop bitching about stuff like balance at this state of the game. But I guess we could say that about all the "deep dive" fluff as well. sorla78 posted:Oh don't you worry, Shroud of the Avatar has it's own kind of forum drama... https://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/ FronzelNeekburm fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
sorla78 posted:Oh don't you worry, Shroud of the Avatar has it's own kind of forum drama... https://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/ Has SOTA developed beyond playing house yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Cig needs to have some semblance of balance now because of their "everything is physically modeled" design. Most games just say "gently caress it, this ship is underpowered, let it mount a bigger gun, problem solved". But with SC they have to worry about the gimbal clipping into the ship, etc. so cig pretty much has to nail down thier weapon sizing and a general item balance system now, less they get too far along in development. Surprise! Modeling and simulating everything is a lot of work, and everyone at CIG (except CR) is going to regret it sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:Has SOTA developed beyond playing house yet? Yeah there's been a fair bit of progression put in to combat so far. That website linked above seems to be someone mad about houses or something. If we learned anything from Archeage its that land is Serious Business for some players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Nicholas posted:I didn't watch the video but the guy on the right has actually been to outer space. Richard Garriott holds the interesting distinction of being the first man to have his employment terminated by a videogame company while in space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
3 posted:Richard Garriott holds the interesting distinction of being the first man to have his employment terminated by a videogame company while in space. Correction, being the first man to have his retirement papers forged by a video game company while in space. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
He's also the son of an astronaut. Anyhow, yes, the Hangar is a lot chunkier than normal this week. Wonder why. Seems to be worst walking towards the garage doors and best walking away from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:38
|
|