Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on October 13, 2011, 06:26:30 pm
-
One time somebody said FreeSpace 3 would never be made because space combat simulators aren't commercially viable anymore.
That's complete bogus. If space combat sims aren't commercially viable, then why was Aces of the Galaxy even made?
-
Rail shooter (Not space flight sim).
Console (later ported to PC = zzz).
Digital Download only (= not major release).
No sales stats (= not important game).
Never heard of it (= I'm even less impressed).
Good argument.
Stop making these bloody threads.
-
I did smirk when the bumph stated it had 'Temporal Shift', which 'slows down hordes of enemies' and the first thought that went through my mind was 'That's what we call lag' ;)
There's a difference between 'good' and 'commercially viable', small companies can go off and do their own thing and take a few risks, because the initial outlay is lower and they need to make a lower profit in order to draw even. Every so often something pops up, like DarkStar 1 or Rogue Universe, some are good, some are bad, and most of them are Freelancer rip-offs, but all of them have sales numbers that are too low in the short term to be considered 'worth it' for production by larger companies. Volition themselves would love to return to the genre, but it's the projections that do the talking, not the coders.
-
That's complete bogus. If space combat sims aren't commercially viable, then why was Aces of the Galaxy even made?
Given that the tragedy of the commons creates inescapable tension between private welfare and the resource demands of mass projects, why are vertical stripes such a fashion disaster
-
because dudebros don't have the brains required to play real games. everything must be stripped down to buttonmashing and explosions with the occasional naked chick.
because games that require thinking can't be played while drunk at a frat party.
-
I can't wait for FreeSpace 3: The FPS. :)
(Syndicate fans know what I'm talking about)
(Too bad I'm not a Syndicate fan, or that comment would be a lot more zinging)
-
With quicktime events!
REPEATEDLY JAM "A" TO NOT DIE.
-
A SHIVAN HAS TACKLED YOU!
PRESS L1 X A B TO KNIFE IT
Oh too late, you're dead.
-
lol knife vs Shivan? ;)
-
everyone runs faster with a knife.
-
*boom* HEADSHOT!
-
:snipe:
Fixed that for you.
-
Rail shooter (Not space flight sim).
Console (later ported to PC = zzz).
Digital Download only (= not major release).
No sales stats (= not important game).
Never heard of it (= I'm even less impressed).
Good argument.
Stop making these bloody threads.
+1
Don't forget that certain game genres go in and out of style, just like with certain movie genres. I'm sure that one day Space Sims will be hot again.
Until then, the closest AAA title coming out that is somewhat relateable to a to flying a ship in space would be the new Ace Combat: Assault Horizon. Consider Aces and HAWX, I'd still say there's somewhat of a market for Flight-based games, it's just nowhere near large right now.
-
We just need to wait for the fps genre to go the way of guitar hero
-
We just need to wait for the fps genre to go the way of guitar hero
:wtf: ever since wolfwenstine 3D and Doom the fps genre has been the staple of the gaming industry, it might wax and wane a little but I seriously doubt it will ever be budged as a cornerstone sector of the gaming market
-
:wtf: ever since wolfwenstine 3D and Doom the fps genre has been the staple of the gaming industry,
Ya because the gaming industry pumps $$$$$$$$ into advertising FPS games, because they were successful, hence, they continue to be successful... Sometimes you have to stop and wonder if the marketing department ever thinks these types of things through.
"Space combat sims don't produce revenue, so we won't make / promote them!"
"Have they ever been really promoted currently or in the past the way FPSes are now?"
"Well... umm... no."
"I rest my case."
-
Ya because the gaming industry pumps $$$$$$$$ into advertising FPS games, because they were successful, hence, they continue to be successful... Sometimes you have to stop and wonder if the marketing department ever thinks these types of things through.
sadly true :(
-
:wtf: ever since wolfwenstine 3D and Doom the fps genre has been the staple of the gaming industry,
Ya because the gaming industry pumps $$$$$$$$ into advertising FPS games, because they were successful, hence, they continue to be successful... Sometimes you have to stop and wonder if the marketing department ever thinks these types of things through.
It's not just marketing. FPS games are also extremely accessible (they all have basically the same control scheme and core mechanics: learn one, you've learned them all) and simply appeal to more people than simulators do.
-
Yeah, but actually, most of the FPS controls will work with simulators. WASD (thrust & sliding) + mouse (pitch & yaw & click/right-click for primary/secondary fire) will cover most controls, and you can use Q and E for rolling (banking). Anything else can be readily mapped to keys around WASD for ease of access.
A controller can do this too... left analog for WASD, right analog for mouse, upper left & right buttons above the triggers for roll, and ofc the trigger & secondary trigger are the primary left & right triggers.
-
That control system is horrific for simulators.
Can you name a good space flight sim that used it?
-
Yeah, but actually, most of the FPS controls will work with simulators. WASD (thrust & sliding) + mouse (pitch & yaw & click/right-click for primary/secondary fire) will cover most controls, and you can use Q and E for rolling (banking). Anything else can be readily mapped to keys around WASD for ease of access.
A controller can do this too... left analog for WASD, right analog for mouse, upper left & right buttons above the triggers for roll, and ofc the trigger & secondary trigger are the primary left & right triggers.
the problem with simulators and the current console orientated generation is not the positioning of controls but the number of controls and the complexity that requires. your average xbox pad is 12 buttons and 4 axis and there are many threads on here discussing how to try and map the main FS controls to such devices, often failing because you cant do it there are not enough buttons on a joystick or joypad and an xbox pad is about as much as the average person can handle these days because there just is not the desire to sit down and learn that number of buttons, I tried to get my 11 yr old stepson to play FS2 and he couldnt process the basic keys let alone "advanced" stuff like coms menu and switching weapons.
-
Hmm, well, FS1 & 2 didn't start you off with the advanced controls at first... they gave you 3 training missions to start with, walking you through the basics and intermediate controls. Then, you get another training mission to learn interceptors, then another for shields... etc.
You could start out with the first mission as training, and spread the rest out as the missions get more complex, to maintain player interest. You'd have to lure the user in. Even FPSes do that to a certain extent, no? People that really want to master them learn the more advanced controls (such as they are).
The problem with FS (and probably most simulators) is it tries to cram most of the training in at the beginning, so if the player isn't hooked already, it's a turn off.
-
Without a proven market, the game companies just aren't willing to lay down the cash for a AAA space simulation. I think space sims will be in the domain of the indy builders for sometime. That said, I also think that as computer technology advances, the ability for novices to build their own games will increase. Consider how far FSOpen has driven the number of mods for FreeSpace. Consider how many more there would be if the tools for creating them were more simple to use. There will be a point where AI assisted modding will let us create AAA titles of our own design.
-
That said, I also think that as computer technology advances, the ability for novices to build their own games will increase.
Actually, the reverse is true. Creating mods for games that have modability built in is getting harder and harder, requiring more and more diverse skillsets. And that's just the games that get toolsets; the many many more that are locked and encrypted shall not be mentioned.
Consider how far FSOpen has driven the number of mods for FreeSpace. Consider how many more there would be if the tools for creating them were more simple to use. There will be a point where AI assisted modding will let us create AAA titles of our own design.
Uhhmmm, no. Not really. Procedurally generated content is a pipedream at the moment; while there are parts of the asset creation process that can be automated, in the end a human needs to turn it into a game.
Oh, and if it works, whose work is it? The Modders', or the people who created the algorithm?
-
Actually, the reverse is true. Creating mods for games that have modability built in is getting harder and harder.
At the moment that is true, more complex interactions require more complex input by the designer. But computer AI will advance to a point were the designer can tell the computer the general requirements of his game and the computer could supply the framework. It's a ways off, but definately in the realm of possibility.
Uhhmmm, no. Not really. Procedurally generated content is a pipedream at the moment; while there are parts of the asset creation process that can be automated, in the end a human needs to turn it into a game.
We don't have AI assisted programming at the moment. There's no reason to think we won't in the future. There will be a human required to design the game, but that human's knowledge of everything going on in the background will be quite less.
Oh, and if it works, whose work is it? The Modders', or the people who created the algorithm?
Seems argumentative. If Windows was written in C, do the programmers of C own Windows? They have a hand in it's success, but they do not own the content.
-
At the moment that is true, more complex interactions require more complex input by the designer. But computer AI will advance to a point were the designer can tell the computer the general requirements of his game and the computer could supply the framework. It's a ways off, but definately in the realm of possibility.
I'm sorry, but that is still wishful thinking. "Computer AI will advance..."? No, it probably won't. First of all, what you are describing isn't AI, it's just an incredibly fancy algorithm that produces "fun". Which is really really hard to write, so hard in fact that it doesn't make sense to do it when you can just get a few creative people to do the job instead.
We don't have AI assisted programming at the moment. There's no reason to think we won't in the future. There will be a human required to design the game, but that human's knowledge of everything going on in the background will be quite less.
I am assuming that you are not actually a programmer, or have researched the matter of what AI actually means, or what the prerequisites for creating something AI-like are. Also, you are remarkably optimistic about the willingness of the developers of said formula to actually make it public. Again, you are proposing a machine that basically takes a few random input parameters and creates a fun experience; as any game designer will tell you, that's a rather involved, highly iterative process that takes months and years of refinement until you get to a product that you can show the public.
In addition, game design is a discipline not unlike novel writing. Like a novelist, a game designer has to manipulate the emotional state of his audience if he wants his work to be remembered; Given how many do's and don'ts, written and unwritten rules there are that cover game design theory, and the knowledge of when to throw said rules out the window, the chances of someone being able to codify that into an algorithm are slim to none.
Seems argumentative. If Windows was written in C, do the programmers of C own Windows? They have a hand in it's success, but they do not own the content.
You misunderstand the issue. Let me give you an example. Assume I have a program that, given a set of parameters specified by the user, creates a game experience. If I use that to create a game, who has done more work on it? Me, who just came up with some arbitrary inputs for that program, or the designers of that program? In this case, it would have to be the latter party. After all, the finished product, while superficially my creation, would ultimately be the creation of the algorithm.
-
That control system is horrific for simulators.
Can you name a good space flight sim that used it?
That's actually exactly the control scheme I use for FS2, and what I used for Allegiance when I was playing it. I've never really done multi FS2, but (if I do say so myself) I was a pretty competent dogfighter in Allegiance. I wouldn't call it horrific. :)
-
Actually, the reverse is true. Creating mods for games that have modability built in is getting harder and harder, requiring more and more diverse skillsets. And that's just the games that get toolsets; the many many more that are locked and encrypted shall not be mentioned.
Actually, I think this has more to do with game complexity than being adapted for modding. FS2 FRED did well with a heavily stripped down LISP scripting, ArmA II has a full HTML built into it's mission editor. LUA is practical for animations, so all animations are being defined in LUA, since this allows for making them very complex. Retail FS2 didn't had an animation system at all (other than simple rotation and purely cosmetic turret traverse). AI is now much more advanced, so modifying it is much more complicated than setting a few values. Models and textures get more detailed and more complicated with time, so an FS2 Retail quality model (which a lot of people could make) doesn't have place in modern games. I've looked into modding games like HW2 or ArmA, and I found that the most complicated part (aside from modeling/texturing, my humble skills are nothing for these games) is learning the script system they use (and they use it for nearly everything).
-
I'm sorry, but that is still wishful thinking. "Computer AI will advance..."? No, it probably won't.
Here's a good artical on the subject. http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
Basically, it is predicted that during the 2020's, cheap laptops will match the processing power of the human brain. It's not me just being optimistic, there is a whole course of study that predicts this likely outcome.
I am assuming that you are not actually a programmer, or have researched the matter of what AI actually means, or what the prerequisites for creating something AI-like are. .
No, I'm not a programmer by trade, but I have written computer programs.
Also, you are remarkably optimistic about the willingness of the developers of said formula to actually make it public. Again, you are proposing a machine that basically takes a few random input parameters and creates a fun experience; as any game designer will tell you, that's a rather involved, highly iterative process that takes months and years of refinement until you get to a product that you can show the public.
Look at it this way, the programming required for simulation is already fleshed out in terms of physics, computer graphics etc. Game engines like FreeSpace will be like downloading Flash games by the 2020's. An AI that can pull dimentional data, weight, inertial loads, moments etc. out of the internet and host in the framework of a game engine is simply a matter of scale of processing power and the robustness of the data available via the internet. The AI function helps govern the intent of the designer.
In addition, game design is a discipline not unlike novel writing.
I think that is an excellent example, but the novelist doesn't need to know how to build a typewritter in order to write a good novel.
You misunderstand the issue. Let me give you an example. Assume I have a program that, given a set of parameters specified by the user, creates a game experience. If I use that to create a game, who has done more work on it? Me, who just came up with some arbitrary inputs for that program, or the designers of that program? In this case, it would have to be the latter party. After all, the finished product, while superficially my creation, would ultimately be the creation of the algorithm.
I don't really see it being an issue. I'm sure that the amount of effort that went into programming Microsoft Word would be enormous put against the poet that wrote his single page poem using it.
What I am proposing is an AI assisted program like http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker.
-
That control system is horrific for simulators.
Can you name a good space flight sim that used it?
That's actually exactly the control scheme I use for FS2, and what I used for Allegiance when I was playing it. I've never really done multi FS2, but (if I do say so myself) I was a pretty competent dogfighter in Allegiance. I wouldn't call it horrific. :)
I knew someone in college who had tracked down FS and played with a PS1 controller hooked up to his PC. I tried it out once for the hell of it and managed something workable with the left stick for pitch/yaw and the right for roll/throttle. Sure, you can't cram every single obscure targeting command or comm menu option onto it, but there's a lot that can be done there in terms of shift options or condensing redundancy, and the comm menu could be handled via voice recognition, just as we currently can with voice recognition builds.
-
As far as WASD + mouse is concerned, a big plus is most FPS'ers can just switch over... not much more training necessary.
-
We might get to the point where indie studios can produce better quality games if developers would ditch their obsession with having their own goddamn game engine for every release. The Source engine is a great exposition of how an engine can have a massive and useful lifetime if the initial developers make it flexible, easy to work with, and provide support. Cryengine 3 could probably see a lot more use than it currently does; it's nicely scalable and who knows what kind of capabilities it has beyond the FPS genre. Space sim in Cryengine 3 would be like an eyegasm if it was possible.
-
:snipe:
how uncivilized. Knife ftw! :headz:
-
Okay, two things that I will address while motioning through this thread
Firstly, the colour blue for font is a terrible colour to use for font
Secondly, I disagree that the controls wouldn't work for consoles. Furthermore, having the option to bind buttons would further aid this ability.
I'll start off with a PS3 controller since, it's right in front of me.
Movement is relatively simple. You've got a single joystick that gives you directional. The other joystick can give roll. Countermeasures? Circle. Firing? R1. Secondary? R2. Afterburners can be binded to L1, and targeting to square (the default being what's in your sights - this makes it easier to target bombs and gets rid of having to hit the corresponding command thus removing an additional buttom). Triangle can cover subsystems. If autotargeting is true, that essentially covers closest target. Double clicking square can go to closest attacking (I never really used it anyway). L2 can bring up the command prompt, and the up down directional cover, well, up and down, while X covers selection. Then we have firerate. Left and right d pad controls cover primary and secondary respectively.
If you have a headset, they could adopt a voice command system like they had in Endwar. This provides you with two additional buttons.
So tell me what I'm missing (mostly since I probably am missing something). These cover basically all that I've ever needed. Remember, you can always bind what to what later if need be. Not only that, but if they have joystick support, even better
Furthermore, I am also missing three buttons. Select, R3 and L3. They were never mentioned and can be used for whatever purposes. Additionally, you can hook up a USB keyboard provided it's compatible with the system, thus giving even more buttons.
New subject: Mod support. Console games haven't really been known for mods, but that isn't to say it isn't possible. If you have a computer, you can design stuff and submit it to a community. This community will then be available to console players via a menu within the game. This provides installable data giving you more to your game. FRED? Simple. There's been many examples of editors on console ranging from Halo, to Farcry 2. One would just have to give the same menu options and the likes, but I suppose it'd have to be either a simpler version, or the L1 brings up every possible output window. Or X double click, whatever. Hell, it could be provided on the community site and you can just do it from your computer like normal people.
Discuss
-
Lets see... what I use regularly;
On the keyboard;
Up, down, left, right, roll left, roll right, brake, countermeasure, afterburner, messaging (11 buttons at least) (no, voice comms is NOT quick enough for intense FS missions, though admittedly, intense FS missions where you need to micro AI a lot are more or less restricted to multi and a few of the better fredded mods), subsystem target, target turret, target unscanned, target new target, target subsystem in reticle, target targets target, target target attacking target, target ship on escort list, set escort target, target in reticle, target bomb/bomber, target friendly, target hostile, max top speed, all stop, equalise shields, shield management for each quadrant (4 buttons) (if you don't do it you're ****), energy management (7 buttons) (if you don't do it you're **** :P), special energy management (default =scroll lock / shift scroll-lock), jump engines, change primary weapon bank, change secondary weapon bank, dual fire missile mode, hot keys(F5-12) (I must get back into the habit of using these more).
So uhh, yea. That's...... 60?
And I'm not using some that other people use all the time.
Including setting auto-targeting, match speed, and auto-match speed, different throttle settings too. Radar range (occasionally useful).
So uhm.
Yea............ No.
-
I've recently tried to create a mapping for my gamepad for FS2. Despite it being a carbon copy of the Dualshock 2 layout, I couldn't get it to a level where I felt comfortable with it, and had to go back to KB+Mouse, because as QD said, there are tons of controls that are used during gameplay, and taking my hand off the pad to work them just slowed me down a lot.
-
Lets see... what I use regularly;
On the keyboard;
Up, down, left, right, roll left, roll right, brake, countermeasure, afterburner, messaging (11 buttons at least) (no, voice comms is NOT quick enough for intense FS missions, though admittedly, intense FS missions where you need to micro AI a lot are more or less restricted to multi and a few of the better fredded mods), subsystem target, target turret, target unscanned, target new target, target subsystem in reticle, target targets target, target target attacking target, target ship on escort list, set escort target, target in reticle, target bomb/bomber, target friendly, target hostile, max top speed, all stop, equalise shields, shield management for each quadrant (4 buttons) (if you don't do it you're ****), energy management (7 buttons) (if you don't do it you're **** :P), special energy management (default =scroll lock / shift scroll-lock), jump engines, change primary weapon bank, change secondary weapon bank, dual fire missile mode, hot keys(F5-12) (I must get back into the habit of using these more).
So uhh, yea. That's...... 60?
And I'm not using some that other people use all the time.
Including setting auto-targeting, match speed, and auto-match speed, different throttle settings too. Radar range (occasionally useful).
So uhm.
Yea............ No.
*Sigh*
We've gone over this before. You can condense a fair portion of this, and easily. I'm also sorry to say that you are, unfortunately or otherwise, not the average gamer.
Also,
Sure, you can't cram every single obscure targeting command or comm menu option onto it, but there's a lot that can be done there in terms of shift options or condensing redundancy, and the comm menu could be handled via voice recognition, just as we currently can with voice recognition builds.
-
But not enough to fit on a controller.
Even given a dozen concessions.
-
You guys see how Bungie snuck some Space Combat Sim into Halo Reach? That's how it's done. You sneak stuff in from other game genres and you gradually expose the public to that genre. Once they become comfortable with it, then the genre becomes profitable.
Well, that's my go at it anyway. I could just be talking out of my ass.
-
If you used an xbox controller, you might be able to get something workable. (I don't actually own an Xbox, btw.)
Turn axes: Left stick
Countermeasure: Left stick press down
Roll: Right stick left-right
Throttle: Right stick up down. Permanent increases like the "+" and "-" keys. For full throttle, keep it pushed forward until you reach it.
Afterburner: Right stick press down.
Autotargeting enemy: Automatic. No key binding. Selected on or off from start menu (usually if you have these on, you want to keep them on. I've never had to use auto-match speed, but you could treat it the same way.)
Primary and secondary fire: Triggers
Weapons mode adjust: bumpers (cycle through secondaries once to trigger double fire mode, cycle through them again to trigger single fire, again)
Comms: adjust the comms menu to be usable by the D-pad. We're pretty used to the system we have, but you could have
1. Orders (Left)
2. Rearm (Up, also abort rearm)
3. Reinforcements (Right)
4. Cancel (Down)
1,3 go to a list of wings, where down would let you look at the next group of them. Giving attack orders to other ships usually just messes them up anyway.
It would look something like:
1. All fighters
2. Alpha
3. Beta
4. Gamma (or more options)
For orders, the list after a wings list would be
1. Attack/Defend target (based on friendly/hostile, of course)
2. Defend me
3. Ignore Target
4. More options
1. Engage Enemy
2. Depart
3. Form on my Wing
4. Cancel
Attack target would bring up just one more submenu:
1. Attack
2. Destroy Targeted Subsytem
3. Disarm
4. Cancel
Hmm.... 5 Buttons left.....
Target Nearest Hostile (including bombs): A
Target Friendly/neutral: B
Target Subsystem/turet: X (Hold to switch between modes?)
Change Power settings: Y (Cylces through the power settings with each press, Single quick press puts selected power setting at 2/3 of pool, held maxes power setting, tapping twice quickly resets the system)
Equalize Shields: Select
That's the best I can come up with, and it probably wouldn't work on Insane. If it had a way to reinforce shields, maybe we could get somewhere.
-
Lets see... what I use regularly;
On the keyboard;
Up, down, left, right, roll left, roll right, brake, countermeasure, afterburner, messaging (11 buttons at least) (no, voice comms is NOT quick enough for intense FS missions, though admittedly, intense FS missions where you need to micro AI a lot are more or less restricted to multi and a few of the better fredded mods), subsystem target, target turret, target unscanned, target new target, target subsystem in reticle, target targets target, target target attacking target, target ship on escort list, set escort target, target in reticle, target bomb/bomber, target friendly, target hostile, max top speed, all stop, equalise shields, shield management for each quadrant (4 buttons) (if you don't do it you're ****), energy management (7 buttons) (if you don't do it you're **** :P), special energy management (default =scroll lock / shift scroll-lock), jump engines, change primary weapon bank, change secondary weapon bank, dual fire missile mode, hot keys(F5-12) (I must get back into the habit of using these more).
So uhh, yea. That's...... 60?
And I'm not using some that other people use all the time.
Including setting auto-targeting, match speed, and auto-match speed, different throttle settings too. Radar range (occasionally useful).
So uhm.
Yea............ No.
The majority of which is targeting. Do you need all that targeting? No
" (no, voice comms is NOT quick enough for intense FS missions, though admittedly, intense FS missions where you need to micro AI a lot are more or less restricted to multi and a few of the better fredded mods)"
Alpha Two Protect Target
That's faster than C - 1 - 1 - 5. Not only that, but you can also string far quicker. Alpha Two Protect Target, Alpha Three Destroy Target, Beta Wing Cover Me. Say it all, then try to be faster on your keyboard. One is subject to mistakes (typing can slip), while voice command (assuming you are comfortable with it) isn't as much. Furthermore, it is possible to give voice commands that will actually do the targeting for you. Just say "turret" and it'll target the nearest turret. Furthermore, in intense situations, moving your hand to bother with commands is more a distraction than anything. Voice allows you to maintain a firm grasp of what's going on without the added need to type in more stuff. If it's intense and your hand slips just the once, as you put it, you're ****ed.
Setting autotargeting and the likes can easily be done in a menu toggling it on or off for consoles. You don't need to bind those
Voice commands can cut down a lot of the list you mentioned. As for throttle, I did forget about that. That can be binded to the right analog stick, and forget about roll (unless R3 hold acted as a change in turning - it makes the directional of the left analog change into roll and yaw)
" (if you don't do it you're ****),"
Option in the menu for it to do it automatically. Problem solved on shield management for the average gamer
"energy management"
Fair point. However, it can be again, covered by voice. Prompt it by Increase Shield, Increase Engine, Increase Weapons. Also, it's six buttons for me, not seven
"special energy management"
Never bothered
"jump engines"
L3, and then X (afterall, some people will sometimes hit L3 accidentally so by adding that second button, you can avoid that)
But yes, as mentioned before, you're not the average gamer. Not everyone needs to bother with that massive amount of stuff. The basics are enough to fit on a controller, and voice commands can fix a large portion of problems. Not fast enough? Hardly. Play Endwar if you haven't
Though, focusing on voice would lead to a fair share of bugs without a doubt.
In the end, console gaming becomes a simpler version available to those who don't have a computer that can run the game. It opens up the ability for them to enjoy Freespace or other space sims without the fuss of hundreds of commands, and simpler controls. Not only that, but you have to think in the mindset of someone who has never played a space sim on PC. They won't think the same way you do
Idea: If you say target into the mic, it opens up a box like the command one we all know and love. In it, it displays more options such as "bomb, enemy, attacking, subsystem etc". Same goes for any other prompts.
-
Who the hell uses C -> # # #?
Shift-A/Shift-P/Shift-E/etc ftw.
Hell yes it'll be faster.
Auto-targeting being disablable ingame is occasionally very important when you're trying to keep focus away from ships and on say, asteroids, it steals the target reticle away between 'roids and will always prioritise fighters/bombers/other hostiles over 'roids, amongst other things.
So no, having it in a menu isn't always going to be useful.
Automatic shield management would cheapen the game dramatically, though I guess you are trying to pander to console fairies...... So....
Energy management is covered by 6 buttons on sliders and then one button to reset-to-default.
Special energy management is basically required for intense insane missions, especially with Fury AI.
More to the point, I doubt FSO will ever be ported to the console, it's just impractical, so anything you do will have to be compared to the PC version, which means either proper players will suffer from the game being dumbed down to a point where you can play it with a stupid control pad, or the control pad will forever lag behind.
If you honestly think that your binds are ever going to be close to matching a keyboard, you need to come play multi.
Because atm, you are clearly delusional. :P
-
Who the hell uses C -> # # #?
Shift-A/Shift-P/Shift-E/etc ftw.
Hell yes it'll be faster.
Auto-targeting being disablable ingame is occasionally very important when you're trying to keep focus away from ships and on say, asteroids, it steals the target reticle away between 'roids and will always prioritise fighters/bombers/other hostiles over 'roids, amongst other things.
So no, having it in a menu isn't always going to be useful.
Automatic shield management would cheapen the game dramatically, though I guess you are trying to pander to console fairies...... So....
Energy management is covered by 6 buttons on sliders and then one button to reset-to-default.
Special energy management is basically required for intense insane missions, especially with Fury AI.
More to the point, I doubt FSO will ever be ported to the console, it's just impractical, so anything you do will have to be compared to the PC version, which means either proper players will suffer from the game being dumbed down to a point where you can play it with a stupid control pad, or the control pad will forever lag behind.
If you honestly think that your binds are ever going to be close to matching a keyboard, you need to come play multi.
Because atm, you are clearly delusional. :P
"when you're trying to keep focus away from ships and on say, asteroids,"
Given asteroids are marked in a white reticule and already display where you need to shoot, I don't see why you'd need to even bother targeting it...
" though I guess you are trying to pander to console fairies...... So...."
That's the idea. I personally prefer playing it on PC, but I still say it can work on console. Just needs to be, simpler
"Energy management is covered by 6 buttons on sliders and then one button to reset-to-default."
I just max one out quickly, then equalize with a second, and then finish with the third. Wasn't aware of this equalize...
"which means either proper players will suffer from the game being dumbed down to a point where you can play it with a stupid control pad, or the control pad will forever lag behind."
Incorrect. Did I mention the ability to bind what you want to what you want? All the controls are there for you to use for both PC and console gamers
That, and you can always have two versions of the same game where controls are different. Simpler layout for console, and regular, hundred command layout for PC. It wouldn't be forcefully dumbed down for PC players since they won't be playing a console version of the game, and the console players won't have to deal with the advanced awesomeness that PC players have. Both parties win
"If you honestly think that your binds are ever going to be close to matching a keyboard, you need to come play multi."
I think that my binds aren't supposed to match a keyboard, they're supposed to work for consoles.
I'm not trying to get console gamers to match the same ability as a joystick and keyboard. I'm trying to demonstrate that it's possible for a game like this to work on a console
-
Who the hell uses C -> # # #?
Um...me? I've never seen a reason not to.
Automatic shield management would cheapen the game dramatically, though I guess you are trying to pander to console fairies...... So....
This is really the worst sort of fanboyism in action. Putting that aside, for the times when a simple shield equalize isn't enough, you could use something like the PS2/3's Select button as a shift modifier, which would let you use the D-pad for shield management.
More in general, despite your own preferences, you have to realize something: FS as a whole has always been more strongly focused on single-player that multiplayer. If we're talking in general terms about how the game could feasibly run on consoles, we shouldn't have to take into consideration god-tier multiplayer strategies, especially when those sorts of players like yourself would just buy it on PC in the first place.
-
Good shield management in a TvT is the difference between coming out of a head-to-head dead, or on full hull still.
Or similarly when you're being chased down by targets lighter than you and use your flight controls to make sure they can only squeeze off shots on the same quadrant so you can minimise any chance of damage by maxing that quadrant out.
Letting the game do it for you would either;
Be ridiculously overpowered, because you would have to go through 4 shield quadrants of energy on /everyone/, or it'd be entirely useless and punish those people who can micro their shield systems in such a way.
I thoroughly believe people who are ****, should be ****, and stay ****, until they learn not to be ****.
That's elitism.
Not fanboyism.
-
I'd call myself an average pilot, so lets list commands I use as a joystick pilot:
throttle: thumb throttle (on the base)
bank/pitch/yaw: the stick
Primary fire: trigger
secondary fire side thumb
target in front: down hat
target next hostile: up hat
target subsys: left hat
target turret: right hat
cycle primary: thumb 1
cycle secondary: thumb 2
dual-fire secondary: thumb 3
countermeasures: thumb 4
afterurner: base 1
gun -> shield: base 2
equal shield: base 3
AI control: C (0-9) (0-9) (0-9)
gun power up: insert
gun power down: delete
shield up: home
shield down: end
engine up: page up
engine down: page down
shield forward: up
shield back: down
shield left: left
shield right: right
quit: esc
menu: F2
number of total keys: 36
number of total axis: 4
Not nearly as many as QD, but I still don't see the practicality of fitting it on just a gamepad.
-
I thoroughly believe people who are ****, should be ****, and stay ****, until they learn not to be ****.
That's elitism.
Not fanboyism.
Um, no, using a phrase like "console fairies" is most definitely a form of fanboyism. Not that no-holds-barred elitism is exactly a better sentiment.
-
Tell you what Quantum. I have Motioninjoy setup on my PC. What I'll do, is open up FRAPS, setup my PS3 controller, and play Freespace without use of Keyboard. I'll demonstrate that it is possible in this fashion (assuming of course, it picks up the motioninjoy driver)
-
QD: "More to the point, I doubt FSO will ever be ported to the console, it's just impractical,"
QD: "If you honestly think that your binds are ever going to be close to matching a keyboard, you need to come play multi."
Me: "but I still don't see the practicality of fitting it on just a gamepad."
No one said (to my knowlage) it couldn't be done. It was said that it wasn't practical. But please, load up FSO with your PS3 controler and join us in multi. See how practical it really is to use only an gamepad in a game as complex as freespace.
-
So basically, your point will be on the basis of whether or not a console player could take on a PC player using only what's available to them. You know that's a ridiculous idea right? There's a reason why console players only play console players. Will people on say, the PS3 be going up against someone loaded with a keyboard filled with 60 different ways to kick your ass? No. We'll be going up against people with only 12.
It's practical since it works on a console vs console basis.
Sidenote: You guys never actually say why it is impractical to simplify the game so it becomes suited for console gamers. You say why it's impractical to have hundreds of commands put onto a controller. Freespace is complex, yes, I get that; however, it can be reduced significantly by cutting out a great majority of things you don't actually ever need.
-
I'm pretty sure it was brought up. Shield management alone is a big factor. Or the ETS system? AI control, because useing voice is not really an option (requires headset). All these things would have to be cut out to allow for things like weapon management, targeting, ship controls.
The game is designed for a large number of keys, unlike FPS game ported from the console where you would keep one hand on WASD at all times and still have every key you need in easy reach. There is a reason games are ported to the PC: It doesnt work so well the other way around when you have 100+ keys to work with the first time.
-
Fair point. Voice acting would indeed help, but yes, not everyone has a headset. Shield management can be dumbed down to automatic, or a single button which affects only the attacked areas. ETS, well, I do suppose that could be dropped altogether or managed via menu. It will take away from the gameplay sure, and is more practical to remove it altogether (simply having the allocation as the default will just bring you back to the original times that you didn't even realize you could do that stuff. Was the game any less fun?). However, what about being able to customize just what is actually used while you play the game. This provides console players with the ability to take away certain gameplay elements completely. I don't consider it a great idea myself, but it is an idea to build on.
Counterpoint: FS and FS2 were designed for a large number of keys. A theoretical FS3 won't have to follow the same suit (albeit, yes, I would prefer it remain that way)
And remember, this isn't a port we're talking about. We aren't porting an already existing game to consoles, we're talking about a game that hasn't been made yet being readily available to all platforms. That significantly changes how one should approach this.
Just thought about this though. One of the buttons could act much like the shift button does on a computer. Giving button combinations on a controller instead of only having single button functions almost doubles the amount of available stuff you can do. Hold say, select, and the afterburner button changes engine energy, fire button changes weapon energy, and whatever else for shields. What do you think about that? It's practical to say the least, and it's not the first time simultaneous button combinations have been done. Take a look at any fight game
-
AI control, because useing voice is not really an option (requires headset).
The 360 comes with a headset nowadays, and I'd imagine the PS3 does too. Everyone and their mother who plays multiplayer console games uses them. :p
-
AI control, because using voice is not really an option (requires headset).
The 360 comes with a headset nowadays, and I'd imagine the PS3 does too. Everyone and their mother who plays multiplayer console games uses them. :p
But this would already be used to talk to your fellow players, would it not? I'm sure Bob from Arizona (fictional person) doesn't want to hear you telling the AI to do something every 20 seconds.
Fair point. Voice acting would indeed help, but yes, not everyone has a headset. Shield management can be dumbed down to automatic, or a single button which affects only the attacked areas. ETS, well, I do suppose that could be dropped altogether or managed via menu. It will take away from the gameplay sure, and is more practical to remove it altogether (simply having the allocation as the default will just bring you back to the original times that you didn't even realize you could do that stuff. Was the game any less fun?). However, what about being able to customize just what is actually used while you play the game. This provides console players with the ability to take away certain gameplay elements completely. I don't consider it a great idea myself, but it is an idea to build on.
Counterpoint: FS and FS2 were designed for a large number of keys. A theoretical FS3 won't have to follow the same suit (albeit, yes, I would prefer it remain that way)
And remember, this isn't a port we're talking about. We aren't porting an already existing game to consoles, we're talking about a game that hasn't been made yet being readily available to all platforms. That significantly changes how one should approach this.
Just thought about this though. One of the buttons could act much like the shift button does on a computer. Giving button combinations on a controller instead of only having single button functions almost doubles the amount of available stuff you can do. Hold say, select, and the afterburner button changes engine energy, fire button changes weapon energy, and whatever else for shields. What do you think about that? It's practical to say the least, and it's not the first time simultaneous button combinations have been done. Take a look at any fight game
Alright, lets give this a try:
While a shift key would allow for more things to be fit on a gamepad, I don't see a very easy way to manipulate it, just because of the nature of the controller. While using a gamepad, you get up to three useable fingers on each hand: Thumb, pointer finger, middle finger. This assumes you even use the middle finger. In order to preform any directional pad or thumb-key, you must take your thumb off the left, and or, right stick, meaning the loss of at least two ship controls at any given time. Select would probably be a bad key to use.
For a first person shooter, this means you can't look around or strafe for a tenth of a second. For a space sim like freespace, you lose at least two movement controls based on your chosen settings. Unlike in a FPS, to lose even one control (perhaps not bank...) makes all the difference. If you lose pitch/yaw while you hit the directional pad, you're flying in a straight line, a perfect target. If you lose speed while hitting thumb keys, all the sudden you're dead in water and no amount of turning will save you, perfect for a missile out of no where.
So already with just normal keys, using anything besides the triggers and thumb-stick press (L3/R3) leaves you open. Supposedly the triggers are used by primary/secondary fire and countermeasures, and whatever other command you want, while R3 would probably be afterburner to keep it simple. L3 wouldn't be shift because that would stop any directional pad from having a second command. This leaves it with one of the triggers, as using directional pad/thumb key for shift would not be wise (see: control loss). For the sake of argument, I'll say shift is L2 and we're using out middle fingers for L2/R2.
Now, each of the directional and thumb keys should be things that can be done as a quick press or two. Lets start with the thumb keys (right hand). For something like freespace, the ability to target hostiles, subsystems, turrets, and that big thing right in front of you are rather important. So lets assign them to keys 1-4. But the ability to target things on your escort list, friendlies, bombs, and directives are also important, just not quite as much. They get shift 1-4. Well that's it for the right hand, now how about the directional keys? well we haven't assigned primary cycle, secondary cycle, fire rate, and equalize shields yet, those are somewhat important. What about shift? we could fit auto-target, auto-match, match speed, and... jumping out. And of course select/start as pause/exit.
So now we have something like this:
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4053/ps3controller.jpg)
Alright, I'll admit, I was able to fit a large amount of controls on there, perhaps even enough to be playable. Unfortunately, it still suffers from a few great weakness:
No energy management
No real shield management
No AI control what so ever
Lack of camera controls
No advanced targeting
Lack of hotkeys
In order to use any command not on the stick or triggers, you must give up control of your ship and leave yourself dead in water
1, 2, and 7 will have a major impact on multiplayer (because who buys a console game for singleplayer these days, right? :rolleyes:).
-
More in general, despite your own preferences, you have to realize something: FS as a whole has always been more strongly focused on single-player that multiplayer. If we're talking in general terms about how the game could feasibly run on consoles, we shouldn't have to take into consideration god-tier multiplayer strategies, especially when those sorts of players like yourself would just buy it on PC in the first place.
Also, I think console players vs console players would be pretty fair in multi... you'd just have to have some sort of filtering that lets the host decide whether to allow mixed PC-and-console playing or not (unless you just wanted to totally disallow it, which might be a wise idea, considering the handicaps console players have to deal with).
-
1, 2, and 7 will have a major impact on multiplayer (because who buys a console game for singleplayer these days, right? :rolleyes:).
Again...me? In fact, I've never played a single console game I own multiplayer, unless you're counting split-screen.
And I don't see any reason to waste a button on warping out. You could do that from the pause menu.
-
The market (and therefore publishers) put a lot of pressure on console games to have multiplayer, even if it's tacked on. There are some figures floating around about how having a bullet point for 'multiplayer' on the box boosts sales by some stupid percentage.
Most players never finish single player games either, which may be why campaigns are getting shorter.
-
(http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/F8K/GR9B/FB7FPLHF/F8KGR9BFB7FPLHF.MEDIUM.jpg)
-
Heh, problem solved. :D
And that makes sense, Battuta, but it is pretty sad. I've put over 30 hours into Twilight Princess over the past week or two, and I could care less that it doesn't have any multiplayer.
-
Excellent points you do make Kyad, but you don't need all that targeting. I do suppose having a select thing would cause precious seconds, so putting it as L2 was a good idea on your part.
Now for a counter: You can remove five of the targeting and reduce it to Reticule, Subsystem, and Turret. If you need a target escort button, then you really are blind. How hard is it to point in the direction of what you're escorting, and just focus on that? You can also remove auto match and auto target. Target can be put in the menu, and auto match can be removed altogether. Select isn't menu, and start functions already both as menu and exit. That opens up select for use. This can be used as your match button. Afterall, match is a pretty simple maneuver from thumb to select.
Take counter measures and switch it with Afterburners. Having R3 as it can cause involuntary movement issues.
"Lack of camera controls"
Because this is just so important. Crossed off
"No advanced targeting"
Advanced targeting? If I haven't heard of it, it isn't required
"Lack of hotkeys"
Once again, you really don't need hotkeys
"1, 2, and 7 will have a major impact on multiplayer (because who buys a console game for singleplayer these days, right? :rolleyes:)."
Anyone who bought Bioshock, Fallout, Deadspace, or anything Rockstar. They make excellent singleplayer experiences worth playing.
Make the dpad your shield management then, while shift does Primary, Secondary, Firerate and something else.
X, Square and Triangle become your three targeting modes, and Circle does countermeasures. Hold Shift and the first three become ETS.
"In order to use any command not on the stick or triggers, you must give up control of your ship and leave yourself dead in water"
Was this you when you first picked up Descent: Freespace? Everyone has that moment where you had to look at the keyboard to make sure you were about to hit that right key. Eventually, it becomes second nature and you didn't even have to think about it. In this case, it's the same thing, once you learn the lay of the land, it becomes second nature and no longer an issue.
"But this would already be used to talk to your fellow players, would it not? I'm sure Bob from Arizona (fictional person) doesn't want to hear you telling the AI to do something every 20 seconds."
We're talking singleplayer. Bob from Arizone (unless he's dressed in a green outfit creeping outside your window) won't hear you.
In the end, we've cut out what isn't required, and placed all the important gizmos where they need to be without Shift. Then we added the not so important gizmos on top of the shift. I rarely switch firing modes, and generally don't care too much about switching primary and secondarys. I set them up in the order of importance, or have them all the same depending on just what it is I'm doing.
More than likely forgot myself at one point, and am missing stuff. Conclusion though, you don't need to have auto target auto match available like that. You don't need all that targeting, ETS has been implemented as well as shield management, there are still buttons without binds on my layout, you don't require camera stuff, hotkeys and advanced targeting are also not required. Besides, hotkeys are meant for PC players anyhow, not so much console.
On the subject of the keyboard attachment, there you have it.
(http://ui01.gamespot.com/2240/keypad01_2.jpg)
There could be a little note on the box saying "Best played with headset and keyboard"
-
As far as voice goes, isn't there usually a button on the headset to switch between voice command and interplayer communication? If not, there should be. :nod:
-
Now for a counter: You can remove five of the targeting and reduce it to Reticule, Subsystem, and Turret.
The inability to cycle targets in a game such as freespace hurts. Quite badly since at longer ranges you can't always see that tiny fighter you're trying to pick off with a treb. Or perhaps target the guy right behind behind you trying to feed you tempests. Or those pesky escape pods.
In a game where there are many ships in the area, cycling through all ships would take forever, hence hostile vs friendly.
Anyone who bought Bioshock, Fallout, Deadspace, or anything Rockstar. They make excellent singleplayer experiences worth playing.
It was a referance to call of duty, and games like it. the ones the "masses" buy. Battuta took that and even spelled it out in plain english for everyone. Fact is, online multiplayer is a huge deal no matter how badly they screw the singleplayer campaign in the process.
Was this you when you first picked up Descent: Freespace? Everyone has that moment where you had to look at the keyboard to make sure you were about to hit that right key. Eventually, it becomes second nature and you didn't even have to think about it. In this case, it's the same thing, once you learn the lay of the land, it becomes second nature and no longer an issue.
You don't understand what I mean. Yes, in order to learn the keys most people end up looking down for a while, then it becomes natural.
What I am refering to is the process of using any directional/thumb key:
1) Take thumb off left or right stick
2) Press button
3) put thumb back on right or left stick
Once you get good with the keyboard, you can use your thumb and little finger to hit keys around your control area (i.e. using space for jump, shift for crouch with WSAD) without losing control. In the case of a gamepad your thumb must leave the stick leaving you flying straight or not moving for that time. If you played multi, you'd understand just how long that tenth of a second really is.
"Lack of camera controls"
Because this is just so important. Crossed off
"No advanced targeting"
Advanced targeting? If I haven't heard of it, it isn't required
"Lack of hotkeys"
Once again, you really don't need hotkeys
Fair enough.
You play freespace and havent heard of advanced targeting? Really?
Again, fair enough.
Make the dpad your shield management then, while shift does Primary, Secondary, Firerate and something else.
Trying to control shields this way wouldn't work out very well because during the time you try to manipulate your shields you get pounded by AI (because you took your thumb off the pitch/yaw stick) which requires you to manage shields more, and on it goes. A quick equalize shield key is the best you're going to get.
We're talking singleplayer. Bob from Arizone (unless he's dressed in a green outfit creeping outside your window) won't hear you.
So there will be no multiplayer or AI control will just be disabled in multiplayer? Sounds a bit unlikely.
On the subject of the keyboard attachment, there you have it. <picture>
Because removing your thumb from the stick to press a button isn't enough, a keyboard is added to keep your hands even farther from the sticks controlling your fighter for a longer time.
As far as voice goes, isn't there usually a button on the headset to switch between voice command and interplayer communication? If not, there should be. :nod:
It would have to be on a trigger or L3/R3, on the headseat is asking you to remove your hand from the gamepad entirely.
-
"Quite badly since at longer ranges you can't always see that tiny fighter you're trying to pick off with a treb."
Never had this issue
"Or perhaps target the guy right behind behind you trying to feed you tempests"
There's a hollow arrow pointing to who's shooting at you. Turn around, and shoot back. Voila
"Or those pesky escape pods."
Again, never had an issue finding them without the friendly targeting option.
"cycling through all ships would take forever,"
Then don't cycle through all the ships. Pick the important one and go with it. Better yet, point at the one you want, and while you're flying towards him, you'll eventually target him with reticule targeting.
"Fact is, online multiplayer is a huge deal no matter how badly they screw the singleplayer campaign in the process."
Thanks tips. As for reference to Call of Duty, well, they'll be too busy playing Call of Duty to bother with this game.
"Once you get good with the keyboard, you can use your thumb and little finger to hit keys around your control area"
I use a joystick so no, this doesn't apply to me. Do I have an issue with switching between the two? No
"You play freespace and havent heard of advanced targeting? Really?"
I'm the one who flies around using reticule targeting for everything. So yes, really. Curious though, as I may have heard of it but misunderstood what it is you mean. What is it?
"Trying to control shields this way wouldn't work out very well because during the time you try to manipulate your shields you get pounded by AI (because you took your thumb off the pitch/yaw stick) which requires you to manage shields more, and on it goes"
I actually use my index finger for Dpad. I also use my index for the right four buttons. My thumbs rarely move from the analog sticks when I'm busy trying to stay alive. So, this particular aspect doesn't apply to me personally, but it is a valid point for those who don't use their index fingers.
"So there will be no multiplayer or AI control will just be disabled in multiplayer? Sounds a bit unlikely."
What multiplayer games have AI control on consoles? I know RSV2 (Rainbow Six Vegas 2) provides you with two AI partners along with a friend in co-op singleplayer, but that's about it.
"It would have to be on a trigger or L3/R3, on the headseat is asking you to remove your hand from the gamepad entirely."
Since L3 isn't currently being used, yes it would work.
-
As far as voice goes, isn't there usually a button on the headset to switch between voice command and interplayer communication? If not, there should be. :nod:
It would have to be on a trigger or L3/R3, on the headseat is asking you to remove your hand from the gamepad entirely.
Good point; L3/R3 it is... unless you can have the voice recognition system have a comm switch "Comm <Alpha 2 OR Alpha Wing OR Allies OR Everyone> voice message here"
-
To whoever say voice is faster than ex. c-1-1-5, you either use a vocaloid to speak for you, or have the world's most advanced voice recognition software to be able to understand you at that speed.
Are there even any games that dare to use voice commands frequently? Or voice commands at all?
-
Deathfun; please stop calling it a reticule, there is no u, reticule = a womans handbag.
If your entire argument is "I'm doing okay on (whatever difficulty it is I play on, very easy? lol) without the extra stuff", then please, shut up, now.
Save me the trouble, because it's not an argument you're going to win just because you're ignorant and retarded.
Thanks.
The keypad on the joypad deals only help slightly insofar as the digits need to move less distance, and - in all honesty, having a keyboard which you can use your little fingers on under your joypad will lead to faster results anyway, believe it or not.
If you think that big ships are the only things that go on escort lists, again, more fool you; You can add your own to the mission escort list, in TvT this often becomes your primary target amongst your opponents, it can also be used to keep track of your allied fighters in missions where you need to track them very closely individually, if escort lists were only for the GTVA Colossus, no one would give a crap.
While reticle targeting is useful, and perhaps one of my most used targeting keys, for advanced AI control and management it is not by any means sufficient, if you do not need to control the AI I would suggest you're not playing on a challenging enough mission or difficulty.
Camera controls add situational awareness in extremely intense missions, which I am simply assuming you either haven't played, or play about 20 times before you say you've played it once, or some other mentally impaired fashion, personally, I prefer to try to beat it (perfectly if possible) first time, and then definitely beat it perfectly second time.
And no, there is no way to maintain full flight control while using a xbox pad, on a ps3 pad you can sort of do it if you hold the pad really fecking weirdly (ring finger for R/L2, middle for R/L1, index fingers free for on top of the pad).
If I were to do it, I would have an auto-pausing comms menu that used the analogue sticks like an option wheel (see ME2 or Crysis), for single player, for multiplayer, again, you're fecked.
If you're going to detract that much from the game to get it on the console, it wouldn't be freespace any more.
And, although I don't tend to use them single player especially when certain fredders set them to F12 battuta! :P), if you don't know how valuable hotkeys are, you're still a quantifiable noob.
-
There's a hollow arrow pointing to who's shooting at you. Turn around, and shoot back. Voila
Oh pleeeease join us in multi, see just how far that logic gets you. :D
Again, never had an issue finding them without the friendly targeting option.
Hostile escape pods, like from Vasudan Assault or The Die Is Cast. The ones where you have about 30 seconds to kill all 6 of them going in different directions before they all jump out.
Thanks tips. As for reference to Call of Duty, well, they'll be too busy playing Call of Duty to bother with this game.
Very good point, we should probably hope it stays that way too unless you think they can be converted.
In the case of a gamepad your thumb must leave the stick leaving you flying straight or not moving for that time.
I actually use my index finger for Dpad. I also use my index for the right four buttons. My thumbs rarely move from the analog sticks when I'm busy trying to stay alive. So, this particular aspect doesn't apply to me personally, but it is a valid point for those who don't use their index fingers.
Ok, so you understand my reasoning when it comes to using the Dpad for shields. Apply that the right hand as well, and for any commands put on those keys. That's my argument about the gamepad I've tried to explain however many ways.
I'm the one who flies around using reticule targeting for everything. So yes, really. Curious though, as I may have heard of it but misunderstood what it is you mean. What is it?
Target targets target, target attacker, target targets attacker, target previous closest hostile/friendly/escort/subsystem/turret/etc (reverse cycle) and so on. Basically any of the targeting commands I didn't list in the 8 I gave the gamepad, because they aren't very common keys.
What multiplayer games have AI control on consoles?
Two that come to mind the quickest would be SW Battlefront 1/2.
-
"Deathfun; please stop calling it a reticule, there is no u, reticule = a womans handbag."
Reticle*
"in all honesty, having a keyboard which you can use your little fingers on under your joypad will lead to faster results anyway, believe it or not."
I know this, but we aren't discussing which is better, we're discussing how it can be made practical for consoles. Instead of saying "you can't" try using your brain and figure out a way so it actually does work. It's possible, but with people like you constantly saying "keyboard rules consoles drool" and not making any effort to come up with a solution, it isn't particularly helpful. At least Kyad makes an effort You just bash me for saying otherwise to your opinion
"in TvT this often becomes your primary target amongst your opponents"
Multiplayer seems to be the only basis for your argument. Your argument being "the way it is now on PC won't work for consoles simply because of multiplayer". Fact: This isn't PC multiplayer. Rules change, and so does gameplay/tactics. Don't like it? Don't play it on console.
"Camera controls add situational awareness in extremely intense missions"
So does looking at the little thing that displays all these fancy dots in different colours
"And no, there is no way to maintain full flight control while using a xbox pad, on a ps3 pad you can sort of do it if you hold the pad really fecking weirdly (ring finger for R/L2, middle for R/L1, index fingers free for on top of the pad)."
Let's see, in moments they are required, move index and switch it with middle finger (which does both L1 and L2, rarely does one need both at the same time in games) and then move it back. So yes, there is a way. You just don't have the ability to comprehend how to do it as it would seem
"If you're going to detract that much from the game to get it on the console, it wouldn't be freespace any more."
Because making something work for the current times, and something that you won't have to deal with because you'll be playing it on PC anyways, will make a game you'll never play, not the game you know it to be? That's a terrible argument. Most people who'll be playing it on console WON'T know what Freespace is since just how many of you will purchase it for console?
"If you think that big ships are the only things that go on escort lists, again, more fool you"
I don't think that big ships are the only things that go on escort lists. I hope that clears that up for you
"because it's not an argument you're going to win just because you're ignorant and retarded."
I see it as an idea dump in a process to make it work for consoles, not so much an argument. Notice how the scheme slowly gets better and better as we discuss this more?
"Oh pleeeease join us in multi, see just how far that logic gets you."
Let's see. Someone who never played multiplayer vs someone who played multiplayer for a significant amount of time. Hmm
It'd be better to get someone who has played multiplayer adopt that strategy in order for it to be a basis for anything
"Hostile escape pods, like from Vasudan Assault or The Die Is Cast"
Multiplayer mission I have never played
"That's my argument about the gamepad I've tried to explain however many ways."
People can adapt to different control layouts, just takes time. That's my argument
"Basically any of the targeting commands I didn't list in the 8 I gave the gamepad, because they aren't very common keys."
Ah. Well these I am unaware of. They don't really seem all that important either as it just simplifies what you could see with your own eyes. Who's the guy attacking? Well, follow the lasers
"Two that come to mind the quickest would be SW Battlefront 1/2."
Another that comes to mind is Mercs 2 (albeit, the command is "embark this vehicle you useless prick"). I don't remember too many commands for Star Wars Battlefront. Is there a difference between console and PC? Either that or I just never bothered...
Ah, another game that comes to mind is Perfect Dark. You could command AI teammates by a popup menu
"To whoever say voice is faster than ex. c-1-1-5, you either use a vocaloid to speak for you, or have the world's most advanced voice recognition software to be able to understand you at that speed."
Endwar did pretty good doing what I wanted it to. Okay, it isn't really faster, but it doesn't take away from your focus as much
Sidenote: I know I'm not doing the quote /quote thing. Don't feel like it
-
Let's see. Someone who never played multiplayer vs someone who played multiplayer for a significant amount of time. Hmm
It'd be better to get someone who has played multiplayer adopt that strategy in order for it to be a basis for anything
The only reason a person who plays multi all the time should be any better is becuase they know that something like "turn around and shoot it" doesn't work against another human. The controls are exactly the same, the only difference is skill.
There is a reason you would need to convince someone who plays multi to try it your way: they learned not to do it. and that is all the example I need.
Multiplayer mission I have never played
And I havent played Sync yet. That doesn't make any key command I haven't used or found a use for yet worthless. Just means the fredders of the missions I have played didn't include a need for it.
People can adapt to different control layouts, just takes time. That's my argument
Control layout is not the same as how you hold the controller. Like the keyboards WSAD, gamepads have their 'default' controls too. (X is jump, R1 is fire, etc) The idea is to make it simple for the user, not force them to hold the controller in an awkward way just to be able to play the game well. (see: using index finger for Dpad)
So does looking at the little thing that displays all these fancy dots in different colours
Try to understand where QD is coming from here, since your ideas of extremely intense are obviously so very different. The most intense mission I can think of would be Post Meridian TvT as a fighter pilot. Why? Because you need to keep an eye on your cap ships, their cap ships (some of which are piloted by people on both sides), your fighters to see how your wing is doing, their fighters to see how much crap your in, find out which of those dozen or more enemy fighters are humans and not AI, tell your AI what to do, tell the AI that just jumped in what to do, and know which of their cap ship is hitting you when you get too close so you don't turn the wrong way right into a flak cannon.
In this situation, the radar is of no real use. There is so much on the screen you couldn't begin to tell what dots are what anyway. And if this sounds like a regular mission to you, I again ask you to join us in multi.
-
Good enough
I concede.
And will more than likely not join you on multi anyhow. If what you say is correct, I won't last three seconds, and will probably cease to play
-
If what you say is correct, I won't last three seconds, and will probably cease to play
Which is why people normaly start with co-op and someone who knows the mission on their side, and we balance the teams for any TvT (2 good players vs 1 good and 3 new, stuff like that). We do ease new people in gently before tossing them in against QD alone. Multi missions NEED to be harder: you have 4 or more pilots, plus however many respawns.
I constantly bring up multi in the talk about the controller layout because that's where the hardest missions and most attention demanding situations I know are, and to design a layout around something easy when it can get much harder very easily seems a bit off.
-
I suppose I should rephrase
I will more than likely not change my methods regardless of whether or not they apply in multiplayer scenarios
-
You just learn to be better, and expand your tool set and repertoire multi lets you get away with being a bit worse at coping with massive combat as well due to respawns, and dead weight can easily be carried by exceptional pilots.
You quickly improve, but realistically with a joypad you're always going to be average at best.
Joystick's a different matter entirely.
-
I'm using a HOTAS with 40 buttons, and use most of them in combat (except for shield management, which is on a thumb rest on the stick and thus not so easily reached). While I'm not playing multi, I do play most campaigns I test on Insane, which is rather challenging (especially given the amount of AIs usually thrown at you).