Cookie settings
Privacy policy.
Login / Register
Yeah I agree player interaction is better, but.... nobody plays the FPS module star marine. Right now its in the state of games like Strike Vector where there are no bots and no players. That being said, the development on star marine could be focused in more relevant areas like the one you mentioned, the systems and weapons feature.
The more I think about it, at what point does it become overly complex? Is such a complicated system really needed? How do you simplify that power/systems/weapon thing enough that it isn't tedious to interact with? But if you can simplify it so a casual player can easily understand and use it, whats the point of making it that complex to begin with? IMO it seems like a waste of time. Sure, some of us will love the "realism" factor. In fact it sounds pretty awesome. At the same time it leads to a lot of little chores that need to be done every time you want to go have some fun. I mean if I have to repair my guns and maintain my ship after every flight, that is going to get real old real quick.
I'm not saying they should take the Elite: Dangerous approach and just make it straight up arcade style. It just seems like they are taking some concepts way too far.
Updates and patches
Board Index »
Star Citizen »
Updates and patches
Sinxar
Cruguey (18)
Cruguey (18)
Posted 6 years ago.
Orbot
Proguey (12)
Proguey (12)
Posted 6 years ago.
Yep, complexity will be most likely one of the major reasons why some players will be interested about the game and others stay away from it.
I personally like idea that the ships and components needs to be maintained because it gives a purpose to do things in game (missions, work, pirating, etc.). Also when a ship goes through its lifecycle with your character it feels much more personal experience. It is one more tool to balance the game. It is nice to see some old rusty Aurora sitting in corner of my hangar and think all the advetures my character had with it.
Failing components also creates lots of new gameplay possibilities; they may expose you for multiple of dangers in space or they may force you to do crash land to nearest asteroid / moon / planets. Once you are on moon you have to figure out how to get a new components; fix old one, ask someone to get you one, get one by yourself from an outpost by walking on ground vehicle, etc. Lots of different kind of scenarios ...
Realism doesn't work very well as a reasoning because in the world where you can do quantum jumps, have AI, etc. there wouldn't be much reasons to have pilots, gunners, etc. in the first place but we need players to have something to do too
. There are some explanations in lore why AI is still not trusted and widely used.
I personally like idea that the ships and components needs to be maintained because it gives a purpose to do things in game (missions, work, pirating, etc.). Also when a ship goes through its lifecycle with your character it feels much more personal experience. It is one more tool to balance the game. It is nice to see some old rusty Aurora sitting in corner of my hangar and think all the advetures my character had with it.
Failing components also creates lots of new gameplay possibilities; they may expose you for multiple of dangers in space or they may force you to do crash land to nearest asteroid / moon / planets. Once you are on moon you have to figure out how to get a new components; fix old one, ask someone to get you one, get one by yourself from an outpost by walking on ground vehicle, etc. Lots of different kind of scenarios ...
Realism doesn't work very well as a reasoning because in the world where you can do quantum jumps, have AI, etc. there wouldn't be much reasons to have pilots, gunners, etc. in the first place but we need players to have something to do too
. There are some explanations in lore why AI is still not trusted and widely used.
You need to log-in to post here.