Jump to content
Vorengard

It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal

Recommended Posts

But anyone who followed DU and the kickstarter is given a lot of information on why they choose their set of features for launch.

 

Why there is no CvC on launch without the stretch goal is very clearly explained.

 

Eventhough they have 24 people working at NQ they are a small indie team. Thats why they kickstart the project to begin with.

 

I understand NQ's argument but disagree with it due to the reasons given in my previous post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand NQ's argument but disagree with it due to the reasons given in my previous post.

Yes but many people explained many times already that nobody is going to reach space that fast.

 

The game just isnt set up that way.

It will take time and resources to even get of the ground. Not to mention the infrastructure to build the basic elements for space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are missing the point; which is that the lack of space combat at release will turn some people away by default. It won't matter if players won't be able to build ships capable of CvC for months after release, the fact that it's an option will be a draw for some people. If you take that possibility away then those people will never give the game a second look. They'll see "no combat" - and even if the next word is "yet" or "soon" it wont matter, because they are drawn to combat games. 

 

In a post No Man's Sky world people are afraid to be optimistic, and they're predisposed to not trusting any game that looks anything like NMS. From the surface, DU looks a lot like NMS. So the phrase "soon" will be met with instant distrust. I hope the Devs at NQ understand this and have some plan to deal with that inevitable reaction. I've already seen at least one rant video on youtube about how this game is just another money trap like NMS was, and that's only going to get worse as time goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but many people explained many times already that nobody is going to reach space that fast.

 

The game just isnt set up that way.

It will take time and resources to even get of the ground. Not to mention the infrastructure to build the basic elements for space.

I really don't like how this is continuously brought up in a CvC discussion. We have been told that it will take awhile to get to other planets and space. This has very little to do with CvC. We have been given almost not estimation of time on how quickly houses or building can be built. How quickly hovercraft can be built or other in atmosphere ships. These all fall under CvC combat and are just as important as space combat. We also have not been given any information on how Avatars will interact with constructs in combat. If CvC isn't in the game what about CvA. Can constructs attack avatars if CvC isn't in the game? Can Avatars attack constructs? There is a lot of questions that come from having half of the games combat system implemented.

 

 

But anyone who followed DU and the kickstarter is given a lot of information on why they choose their set of features for launch.

 

Why there is no CvC on launch without the stretch goal is very clearly explained.

 

Eventhough they have 24 people working at NQ they are a small indie team. Thats why they kickstart the project to begin with.

 

While this is true in a way the whole point of a forums is to discuss and possibly influence the devs and their decision making process. As an example in the AMA JC explained they are currently working on biomes. I think it would be far more important to have CvC then anymore then the 2-3 biomes they have show in many videos. Maybe they still have work to do on the ones we have been shown but the point is to say that this thread is here to give feedback to the devs on what the community thinks is important. They honestly have not given any reason as to why CvC is rated lower then anything else in the basic kickstarter. The only real reason seems to be that they think it is best for the game. We are trying to influence that choice.

 

The other thing would be to maybe have NQ provide more feedback on the CvC that will exist in beta/alpha if any. My primary concern is testing of CvC. This system will need a lot of testing and it would also be best to do that testing in a alpha or beta. Players in alpha or beta will be a lot more forgiving if X ship element or Y defense element is to strong or if something just doesn't feel very right when played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ostris the way combat will be implemented at launch has also been explained already.

 

I realise not everyone has the same amount of time to "research" their pet projects. I really do. But that again is not really NQ's fault. They put the information out there they cant force you to read or listen to it. And for a game that is pre alpha, we have a lot more information available to us then some games a month before launch.

 

And nobody is telling you what you can or can not talk about on this forum. By all means you can try to convince the devs of your point of view. Just accept that if you make a thread, there will always be people with different opinions. If you dont want to deal with that then you need a blog, not a forum.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ostris the way combat will be implemented at launch has also been explained already.

 

I realise not everyone has the same amount of time to "research" their pet projects. I really do. But that again is not really NQ's fault. They put the information out there they cant force you to read or listen to it. And for a game that is pre alpha, we have a lot more information available to us then some games a month before launch.

 

And nobody is telling you what you can or can not talk about on this forum. By all means you can try to convince the devs of your point of view. Just accept that if you make a thread, there will always be people with different opinions. If you dont want to deal with that then you need a blog, not a forum.

 

:)

I was gunna respond to this but everything you said had so little to do with what I posted or anyone else has posted that is seems pointless.

 

Ultimately I can only hope the devs see this and implement basic forums of CvC in alpha/beta for testing or we hit the stretch goals and it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gunna respond to this but everything you said had so little to do with what I posted or anyone else has posted that is seems pointless.

 

Ultimately I can only hope the devs see this and implement basic forums of CvC in alpha/beta for testing or we hit the stretch goals and it doesn't matter.

Its hardly irrelevant. I clearly responded to the content of your post.

Its just not the type of answer you were looking for. Big difference. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hardly irrelevant. I clearly responded to the content of your post.

Its just not the type of answer you were looking for. Big difference. ;)

No you really didn't.

 

First they haven't really explained that much about combat. Just that avatar v avatar is the only thing that will be in the game, that its lock on style, skill/armor based not fps based, etc. They have not stated anything about how avatars will interact with constructs. Example being we are in a fight, I'm losing, i hop into my space ship. Can you still target me and not my ship? can you do damage to me through my ship? Point is there is a lot of question marks about combat that they have not answered that come from missing half the combat system(CvC)

 

Second, The primary point of my post(and this whole topic) is to bring up WHY they have chosen what they have chosen to be in the basic kickstarter. Saying hey they said what will be implemented does not give any context as to why they chose what they chose. Most importantly WHY they chose to not include construct v construct. The whole point of this topic is about some in the community thinking that CvC is too important to leave out of launch. Saying we cant do X because we are doing Y is really all NQ has done. They have not explained WHY X is more important then Y. We as the community have the right and responsibility to voice if we think Y is more important then X so the devs are aware of the demand. You consistently say things like "the way combat will be implemented at launch has also been explained already." We all know that, we have all done as much research as you. We are trying to give them feedback on why we think priorities are different. Saying they already said x or y contributes nothing to the topic as hand. This is especially true when the game is still in pre-alpha where NOTHING is set in stone and everything is still subject to change.

 

Third, I am not really saying you have some authority to say what we can or cant talk about. What you are doing by saying things like NQ SAID THIS is not contributing to the conversation or topic. You are just parroting facts most of us already know. We are voicing our opinion on those facts and are trying to change and discuss. It contributes nothing and gives off the implication that the topic is not worth talking about because NQ ALREADY SAID THIS.

 

Contributing something useful to the conversation would be saying "I don't think construct v construct is important because pvp should be a minor part of this game. I think this is a game for creativity and exploration." I would disagree with that but your logic is sound for why you think CvC doesn't need to be in the game at launch. Most of what your opinion has been is parroting the things NQ has said or really just incorrect arguments like "We don't need CvC cause it'll be months before we are in space." Which completely glosses over issues like, lack of testing, perception of the game, and CvC with non space vehicles or building which we have little to no information on how long they will take to achieve(could be as little as days).

 

In short please contribute to the topic or simply stop being a troll and saying pseudo inflammatory things like:

"Do more research" and "Oh yea I forgot, people think reading for 5 minutes is already too much. Ugh..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I dont have it in me to go over your entire post.

 

But they did explain how player vs construct works. So as I said in my post that did not agree with you, its on you to take in all the available info.

 

But I am breaking one of my personal forum rules and as such I wish you a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I dont have it in me to go over your entire post.

 

But they did explain how player vs construct works. So as I said in my post that did not agree with you, its on you to take in all the available info.

 

But I am breaking one of my personal forum rules and as such I wish you a good day.

If you are still talking do you have a link to where they discuss avatar vs construct before CvC is implemented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I understand what is going on here. I'll bring a fresh perspective to the table. Here is my guess.

 

CvC pvp is not on the table as a launch feature because they want to hire someone who's main job will be building CvC. To have enough money to hire that person, they need to hit their stretch goal.

 

This may not be a matter of allocation of time here. In theory a small team COULD reallocate their time to develop CvC before other game features assuming they all havr the same versatile skillset, but that is not realistic. Right now, you probably have team members contributing to the game in the areas that they specialize in, and that skillset is enough for the game with its current launch features to be out on-time in its current budget.

 

But lets say it will take one of those members twice or three times as long to develop the CvC as someone who could be brought in and is already experienced in those kinds of mechanics? Not only is reallocating that dev's time groselly inefficient, but the dev wouldn't be working on the parts of the game that they are good at, and possibly wouldn't be doing to job they thoight they signed up for. If Dev A loves working on multiplayer code, Dev B loves working on the building engine, and Dev C loves and specializes in building world gen algorythms, how do you think Dev C would like it if the owner went and said

 

"hey Dev C, the fans want CvC combat more than they want new biomes. 3/4th of our projected biomes will now be a stretch goal, you are going to build CvC for the next two years"

 

If I were Dev C, i might not be working for them anymore. They might be fixed on hiring someone to build CvC because their current team simply don't want to build it first. Its not our game, its their game.

 

Ok, so lets pretend for a second that the game gets finded (likely) and they don't hit their first stretch goal (unlikely).

You are concerned that they won't be able to test CvC during alpha and beta of it isn't added till launch (true) and that they won't be able to test it after launch (false). Deff harder to test, but not impossible.

 

Combat simulators, a possibel mini-gams of sorts where a player sits in a simulator pod, uploads their blueprint to the simulator, and fights against other players CvC without actually risking their ships. They would use this to test iterations of the combat system and balance it before players start having real engagements. Alternatively, they enable CvC just in some zones during the testing phase, and gradually expand the area as it improves.

 

We all want CvC, we all want it on launch and in beta, we want it to be really meet, and I'm sure the Devs do too. They MUST have a good reason for making this a stretch goal, you will just need to respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I understand what is going on here. I'll bring a fresh perspective to the table. Here is my guess.

 

CvC pvp is not on the table as a launch feature because they want to hire someone who's main job will be building CvC. To have enough money to hire that person, they need to hit their stretch goal.

 

This may not be a matter of allocation of time here. In theory a small team COULD reallocate their time to develop CvC before other game features assuming they all havr the same versatile skillset, but that is not realistic. Right now, you probably have team members contributing to the game in the areas that they specialize in, and that skillset is enough for the game with its current launch features to be out on-time in its current budget.

 

But lets say it will take one of those members twice or three times as long to develop the CvC as someone who could be brought in and is already experienced in those kinds of mechanics? Not only is reallocating that dev's time groselly inefficient, but the dev wouldn't be working on the parts of the game that they are good at, and possibly wouldn't be doing to job they thoight they signed up for. If Dev A loves working on multiplayer code, Dev B loves working on the building engine, and Dev C loves and specializes in building world gen algorythms, how do you think Dev C would like it if the owner went and said

 

"hey Dev C, the fans want CvC combat more than they want new biomes. 3/4th of our projected biomes will now be a stretch goal, you are going to build CvC for the next two years"

 

If I were Dev C, i might not be working for them anymore. They might be fixed on hiring someone to build CvC because their current team simply don't want to build it first. Its not our game, its their game.

 

Ok, so lets pretend for a second that the game gets finded (likely) and they don't hit their first stretch goal (unlikely).

You are concerned that they won't be able to test CvC during alpha and beta of it isn't added till launch (true) and that they won't be able to test it after launch (false). Deff harder to test, but not impossible.

 

Combat simulators, a possibel mini-gams of sorts where a player sits in a simulator pod, uploads their blueprint to the simulator, and fights against other players CvC without actually risking their ships. They would use this to test iterations of the combat system and balance it before players start having real engagements. Alternatively, they enable CvC just in some zones during the testing phase, and gradually expand the area as it improves.

 

We all want CvC, we all want it on launch and in beta, we want it to be really meet, and I'm sure the Devs do too. They MUST have a good reason for making this a stretch goal, you will just need to respect that.

I agree with most of this. If this is the case, depending on community feedback, it sounds like NQ may have prioritized incorrectly. All we can hope is by putting pressure via forums they will find the money to get CvC out faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of this. If this is the case, depending on community feedback, it sounds like NQ may have prioritized incorrectly. All we can hope is by putting pressure via forums they will find the money to get CvC out faster.

I think you are missing quite a few points here. Falstaf explained that you can use the forum to appeal to NQ to change there stance. But you have to be willing to deal with people disagreeing with you.

 

Wizardoftrash then explained why NQ decided to keep CvC for later or a stretch goal. In his post he explains why with the current team there are more important things then CvC. And why the road map makes the most sense.

 

You can try to "Put pressure" but I dont think a lot of people will agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing quite a few points here. Falstaf explained that you can use the forum to appeal to NQ to change there stance. But you have to be willing to deal with people disagreeing with you.

 

Wizardoftrash then explained why NQ decided to keep CvC for later or a stretch goal. In his post he explains why with the current team there are more important things then CvC. And why the road map makes the most sense.

 

You can try to "Put pressure" but I dont think a lot of people will agree with you.

 

I don't believe that he specifically meant putting pressure on NQ. You can put pressure on the community to up their pledges and make sure the first stretch goal is hit. I already upped mine once, but I physically won't have the money to do that again. I can however bug the crap out of my usual playgroup to back the game, and have already begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it's a stretch goal because the in-game technological development is planned to be slow enough that its absence would be excusable for a several months after launch. The same reason stargates and FTL drives aren't high priority atm: people are supposed to slowboat everywhere for a while anyway, so it's not necessary to launch the game with those features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing quite a few points here. Falstaf explained that you can use the forum to appeal to NQ to change there stance. But you have to be willing to deal with people disagreeing with you.

 

Wizardoftrash then explained why NQ decided to keep CvC for later or a stretch goal. In his post he explains why with the current team there are more important things then CvC. And why the road map makes the most sense.

 

You can try to "Put pressure" but I dont think a lot of people will agree with you.

 

People disagreeing is fine as long as they are adding value to the topic at hand and saying something that is logically backed and contributes. If not I'll call it out and say something about it with the hope that they actually add more to what they were saying. In the case of Falstaf many of his posts were not backed up with anything that contributes and in some cases were just wrong(CvC not being needed for months). Wizard post is great example of disagree but contributing. He didn't just say NQ said xyz or say things that are just not true and argumentative/inflammatory.

 

As far as people agree or disagree, reading this thread has made it clear that many people think similar to me that CvC is important and needs to be added ASAP. A large portion seems to want CvC but has accepted that it wont be in the game at launch. Which is fine but i think it is worth getting these opinions out to the devs so they can have it available to them.

 

Putting pressure on development teams simply means expressing opinions that something is the right or wrong path for the game. Devs do not always have the best ideas for their games and community feedback can definitely change what the devs do. Great example of this is overwatch. The dev team was COMPLETELY behind the idea of hero stacking in competitive. They greatly resisted changing off hero stacking. They considered it a core concept of the game. The community and pro scene disagreed and as of a couple months ago hero stacking was removed from competitive. I would be very happy if all the pressure on NQ does is get them to implement some form of CvC in the beta or alpha for testing. If it isn't ready by release then so be it, but hopefully some pieces of it are put in before release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to reel it in here and say it, this thread is starting to get really repetitive. If I start to see people simply re-stating things that have been already said, or re-explaining their view point continually, I'll continue to tribute, but I'll start mixing in memes. I'd rather not start directing people to Figure A. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People disagreeing is fine as long as they are adding value to the topic at hand and saying something that is logically backed and contributes. If not I'll call it out and say something about it with the hope that they actually add more to what they were saying. In the case of Falstaf many of his posts were not backed up with anything that contributes and in some cases were just wrong(CvC not being needed for months)

I disagree with you.

The way I see it Falstaf calmly explained several times why CvC is not needed for launch. In your opinion that is wrong? I dont know many people in this thread explained why in fact he is right.

In fact, I dont know him but it seems to me he was very polite to everyone. Like pretty much everytime he posts.

 

I dont want to start a flamewar but you calling him out as you put it was really not warranted. But whatever this is not my fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the Devs are honest and transparent about their reason for making choices they do I don't think people will be as put off by having their pet features delayed.  They clearly laid out their timeline to add the feature. If they would have said, "yeah maybe we'll add it later if we have time or money or hopefully its in the plans" then be very concerned but nope they stated the feature is part of the plan and they want to put it in but it'll just come after other features.

 

Like said earlier the foundation or base of the game is most important then can build on that. So yes the "ground game" IMO is the base, get that running, get ground structure building and voxels working then the space stuff can come. Besides by the time they do get to ships and CvC the experience gained from developing the earlier parts of the game will be of great benefit to the later parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...