Haven’t had a chance to jump in yet, but just my own 2c from what I’ve read from this feedback.
Wargrim. He’s obviously a wolf Lysk.
For what it’s worth I like this way better. It adds a higher skill cap to learn how the flight mechanics work. Plus I don’t think there should be a magic button you can press to remove a missile. I’m of the opinion that players should have options and if you’re good enough to exploit them that’s a good thing. For example, lining an engagement up so that you fire a missile. If they attempt to chaff and dodge it puts them in a better position for your normal weapons to hit. Rather than “no I pressed x so that strat doesn’t work.” That sort of situation can be rare, but if a pilot can make it happen you can believe they will feel rewarded for it and feel great. That’s what playing the game is all about.
I do agree with the missile “dying” once it has been successfully dodged though. If that’s possible.
Seconding this. One of the great things about space is that there are no speed limits. Now I know for game mechanics and hardware limitations there should be, but I would prefer that limit to be as high as possible. Maximum freedom for strategies etc etc.
Well I guess that’s it then and more than 2km/s is unfortunately badong… This is where I actually don’t know what the current limit is because I haven’t been on in awhile. Is it currently 2km/s?
Hoping to find some time tomorrow to hop on for actual feedback rather than piggybacking off the rest of you guys and cracking jokes.
Posting some gameplay that i feel illustrates some of the earlier points i made. First, is the extremely low time to kill - i feel like i can burn people down way too quick, and get burned down before i can react if i dont happen to notice someone is near me. Optimally the length of a fight wouldnt be so long that it gets boring or your arms start to ache, but allowing enough time for a player to react to incoming fire is generally more fun for all parties involved. I have more fun when i have to work for a kill, and when it took more shots to kill an interceptor i had that feeling, opinions on this may vary.
Second, when im using the interceptor during this video, can you tell which thrusters im using based on anything on screen? The answer is no! There’s a subtle cockpit sway animation, but i cant even tell based on that and i recorded the video! There is no UI element that illustrates how im thrusting or which direction my current speed is in, and not only does it make intense, button mashing gameplay look boring to a spectator watching a video (or an advertisement livestream), but it’s also unintuitive for new players learning how to play. Visual feedback is really important for all that stuff! I know the UI is a WIP of course, i’d just like to harp on this point.
Thank you for the prompt reply. I tried and tried to locate the INovaeInstall and my Framework 4 Setup logs to no avail. I went to my temp folder and even did a drive-wide search for them but could find neither of them. That might be my issue. Is it even possible that my framework 4 setup log isn’t there? As for the INovaeInstall log files I feel that it isn’t even getting to the point in the script to make the log files yet, possibly having to do with my missing framework debacle. I’m going to try to update it to 4.7.1 and see if that fixes anything. Thanks again for looking into this issue.
Update I just installed the latest version of .NET Framework. I restarted and now it’s working! I believe I have an install of version 4.6.2 so I should be good. If not I will use the link you provided. Again, thank you for helping me out!
Ha. Sorry about that, I am really long winded on this forum. I went back to Lomsor’s archived version of the forums and I realized I used to type like a retard, but this forum made me adapt and become really good at typing things up. I probably spent more time than I should have on it, but eh.
Well obviously I am not a technical person, so I defer to you on this. I just think the current version needs some work, and it seems like you are aware of that. I am concerned though by Keith’s response by saying that the UI was intentionally unreadable at times due to realism. I do not think this is a good design choice, but again that is up to your discretion.
Uhh… Where? I just checked the screenshot I posted again to make sure I wasnt a retard (still possible), and I dont see one. I mean like… what? I have never seen an indicator of velocity RELATIVE to current ship rotation on my screen.
Alright, fantastic. This is probably the biggest non-gameplay mechanic that is missing from the game. Its a core feature that needs to be there before beta launch for sure.
I’m pretty sure we can find some willing fans who will do it for a couple hundred bucks or less… Put it in one of your email updates that you’ll be holding auditions for voice actors, hell maybe someone will even do it for free just so they can put it in their portfolio as experience. You guys are a small team, so you have to be willing to try out new talent. Just hold an audition and see how it goes. Maybe you don’t find someone, but at least you can say you tried to do it right? There are a lot of talented people with great voices in the community, just look at some of the skyrim and fallout mods. AAA quality doesn’t necessarily mean expensive.
I would also like you to consider that it might not be just a convenience. I believe personally that adding some character and pseudo-story to the game is critical to the immersion of the player. For example, my first impression of the game when i logged in was… Ok I’m at a space station… what now? I think players need to be pushed in a direction, but not forced. The commander can give them that push by saying “Hey maggot, get your ass to Zephyr station and join the fleet for operations! Move out!” I mean I’m exaggerating a bit for comedic purposes, but you can obviously make it any style you want. I do think you should have british or american voice actors though. Native english speakers seem to be the most acceptable to the mass market.
Well why is the zoom feature split into 2 different methods? The zoom button should act the same way no matter which key you use. I didnt even know that MMB was a zoom until you told me because the key configuration says its Z. So… Thats a major issue! Consistency is key! Also, content creators can use post processing zooms, there is no need for a gameplay mechanic to be shoe horned in for their sake.
I didn’t know that, again its not explained anywhere. The camera is just stuck for new players who are like “what happened”. I think it should default to reset on all controls.
Hooray, I helped! lol
I think every time I was flying from desert planet to cinder. I have no idea what desert planet is called. Anyways I was just holding W like one does to accelerate and then BOOM dead. In the destroyer I survived with 1000 hp and no shields because I guess my power got cut out from the damage and so i slowed back down? But I was basically dead so it was a huge waste of money and time. I closed the game for the night after that. I think it happens even if you have the throttle set to the “0” position too though without pressing W. But either way, W is the normal way of controlling speed, so it should not kill you…
Well me personally, and I’m not talking about NOW but for when the game launches or during beta, I am giving my feedback based on the expected server population of 100-500 people concurrently in game. This was what was pitched during the kickstarter, and I believe it would be disingenuous to do something different… If we have 500 people in a server there is no need for bots to attack enemy stations. Defense sure, because 1 single player shouldnt be able to take on an installation by themselves, otherwise whats the point. Installations should feel like floating fortresses in orbit, at least the military installations should. But attacking an installation should require teamwork and a planned assault, in my opinion. I also think that is the most fun way to play the game. Flying around by yourself fighting bots at some random installation isnt fun to me. I want to work with others to accomplish something hard, and perhaps to even outsmart other players.
Great! I do think though this should be implemented at least in a rough way before beta.
So… your main objective in this game, your vision… is to defend and destroy cargo ships? Thats it? We have a huge true to scale solar system and our main objective is to defend shipping lanes? I think thats a really shallow gameplay design, no offense. I personally feel like I would not be excited by that. I think we need to feel like we are part of a war, and each attack should feel important. Blowing up 500 cargo ships doesnt feel important. We need big targets that we have to fight for hours over, struggling in massive fleet battles until one side slowly wilts under the pressure and has to retreat to the next objective.
I will point you back to my original post, because neither you or keith responded to my lane-system. I think this isn’t just a gameplay suggestion, but something that needs to be in the game. Like, I cant see the mass market appreciating a game where their main focus is blowing up cargo ships for fake money. Like, im sorry but I just don’t. If you go back to my lane system, you see that if Red team controls Planet A, and they want to take Planet B from Green team, they have to fight a series of battles to take the objective. There is the battle of Logistics Station 1, which is a major choke point for supplies and spawning. That is their entry point to the theater of war. Then you have the battle for Martial Installation 1, in which the goal is to secure a spawn point in orbit around Planet B, so that they dont have to spawn so far at Planet A. It also breaks the planetary defense line allowing assault on the surface and low orbit installations that give the big bucks. So now you have this all out warfare in orbit over planet B, but its localized. If you’re at planet A you probably dont even know there is fighting going on, but at Planet B all hell is breaking loose. So you see how this creates a sort of dynamic story that the players create themselves, and it focuses players together.
You know we have had on the old forums MANY discussions about how to get players together, because we have SO much space. This is a HUGE sand box for our players, and we need mechanisms to bring them together, so we can have those big battles that create those cool videos and those cool stories you can tell at work to your co workers, or your bar buddies, or whatever. Theres no stories to be told about 3 guys blowing up their 500th cargo ship of the night. Yeah, high five guys, great game, good job all around… Nah man, come on. Think about it for even a second and you see the issue.
Please, please, please go back and read the last two items of my original feedback post. I even drew you a shitty picture to go with it! come on man i put effort into that!
The voice message commands could use a few additions/removals:
There is no way to say “good job”, “thanks” and “need Ammo”, I would suggest removing “engaging target” (we have attack target), “Protect target” (“Incoming thread” is a alternative), and “prepare travel”.
Tell me this doesnt look way, way, way, more compelling than blowing up random stations or random cargo ships? Please tell me you see that it is, right?
Nope, there’s also attacking and defending stations and ground bases, or generally flying around and eliminating enemy players. Corvettes are already capable of resupply, and there has been mention of scavenging too (though we don’t quite know how far this will go yet).
I do agree with this to a certain extent. There’s little or no time to respond to an attacker, especially in a large battle. But we know weapon balance still needs work, so I would definitely advocate a slight nerf to weapon power, including missiles, just so everyone stays alive a little longer.
Yeah, but WHY, what incentive does a player have to do these things? if every base is the same and no installation has an effect on the other installations except in resource gain then none of it matters. its just random conflicts for no reason. we need compelling REASONS to fight. nobody goes to war for the hell of it.
A pseduo lane system gives the player a reason to take that military outpost, because they NEED it to spawn there. They NEED to take that logistics station to secure fast and timely travel between planets instead of relying on their ships warp drive. They NEED those cities and mines to secure resources for big ships. Everything has a REASON.
That isnt what I mean. Winning the game is the end goal, sure but what steps do you take to do that, if its not structured in some way where each installation gives a player a next target, then what you are left with is 1000 potential targets, and 500 chefs all trying to cook. Those 500 players all need to be working towards a common goal and the goal cant be “win” it needs to be " do thing A, so you can do thing B, which lets you do C, which wins you the game"
That isn’t correct, there are thin HUD lines in 3D in the direction of your motion. I’ve made them pretty subtle on purpose, otherwise they were distracting.
I mentionned it a couple times earlier, but there will be space debris once we have time to spend time on polishing. It’s a pure visual effect, so it hasn’t been very high on the todo list. Originally it was planned for the polishing phase after beta, but since it might help to figure out how your ship moves / for spectators, maybe we can reprioritize it sooner.
Please no, why would anybody want to be limited to fighting the same fight al the time? Limiting the battle to one location would also introduce stallmate situations very fast were it just ends up beeing a neverending zerg. Outplaying the other team by switching targets, distracting battlegroups etc. will also be impossible.
We will get carriers that act as mobile spawns, they will also enable deeper tactical gameplay.
The game already gives players the next target, in the missions window the ai commander tells you were to fight. Once the system map comes into play it will probably much clearer what is going on in the battlescape.
Audio is only part of it, and it already has its challenges. How do you audio record the names of the installations / planets when those can change every game ? And even assuming audio does not mention the names explicitely ( in which case its interest would be more limited ), you’d still need some little animations with the commander giving orders.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like it’d cost millions to implement… but we’re running out of money…
The keyboard helper screen says “Toggle Zoom” for MMB. It also says Z is “Press + Hold Zoom”. Personally I don’t really see any issue there. Post-processing zooms make all the pixels bigger and ugly, it is not an option for content creators. Now we can ask SpaceJay, Playbenni and others ( who produce fan videos regularly ) if they’d miss the hold-zoom feature. If not, we can remove it. It’s also possible to make it optionnal ( just an event binding in the input profile, but by default no key is bound to it, so new players don’t get confused ).
Well, the game barely entered alpha. Of course it’s missing a lot of feedback and information for new players. We don’t have tutorials or anything, so new players have to figure out the game the hard way. This is why we want to introduce a solo sandbox mode, including some “tutorial flight missions”, to teach players the basics of the game. But we have to focus on the core gameplay for now.
Yeah I see. So you did manually override the safe automatic warp speed. Combine that with the damage rampup which is far too abrupt and you got a recipe for instant death upon approaching a planet, which I agree shouldn’t happen.
If there are 500 players on a server, there will be zero bots, period.
All these bots talk are for compensating players count in low population scenarios.
It’s all about player retention, really. I agree bots are far less fun then other players, but at the same time, playing against bots is more fun than playing alone, don’t you agree ?
If you log in and see no other players and no bots, you’re going to disconnect within minutes. At least if there are bots around, you might stick a little bit longer, which increases the chance of having other players log in. Players attract players, so it’s all a mean to increase player interactions ( by making players stay longer on the server ), which itself leads to a chance of snowballing into higher player counts.
Player retention is an absolutely critical thing for a multiplayer game, especially when we have zero marketing budget and can’t expect millions of sales on day #1. Anything that increases player retention ( how long they play the game and stay connected on the server ) is a good thing for all players.
Maybe “main” objective was the wrong way to put it. I’ll rephrase it by saying that it’s one of the primary objectives for gameplay, but there will be many others.
I do not think you ( and I’m talking in general to everybody here, not just you Trevise ), fully realize the vision we have for the game. And of course that’s fine, you’re the players, not the developers Case in point: the haulers system. Some players from a team are going to get an “Escort this hauler, starting from Factory NX-24 to Starbase ZW-81 in 5 minutes” mission, while other players in the enemy team are going to get a “Scout this lane and destroy the hauler” opposite mission. The mission has consequences on the team, whether you win or lose, but in the end it’s a tool to force players into the same area with a conflicting objective. There will be more of these in the future.
Of course, you’re not going to randomly encounter a hauler and solo-attack its AI bot. There would be no interest in that. I mean, it could happen accidentely, outside the missions system, but the purpose of the AI commander / mission system is to make players fight each other over various objectives.
I haven’t responded to that yet, because it probably needs more brainstorming and feedback from everybody else. My initial impression is that it’s probably out of scope for the first release. We haven’t planned capture mechanics any time soon and our plate is full of stuff to do already. The idea seems to have some merit, and I’m all for adding tactical depth to the game, but you have to understand that we have a $350K budget, not Star Citizen’s or Elite: Dangerous. A more fair comparison would be Everspace ( which isn’t exactly a game with a lot of depth and had the double of our budget ), or House of the Dying Sun, or similar space games.
That being said, I totally agree that massive fleet battles should be organized somehow - and well before the full release. There are going to be mechanics for that, but we need time to shape up the game to our vision. What there is currently in alpha isn’t mature yet and lots of things are missing. Hell, right now, you don’t even know when one of your bases is under attack. It should be no surprise that players are ignoring what the other team is doing, since they have no way to know what the other team is doing
We’ll debate and revisit your idea of lanes at a later stage, especially if we can get more revenue in the mean time. And thanks for the feedback, it’s definitely appreciated.
@LyskTrevise many things you mentioned and suggested haven been before, it’s not like the devs are not considering ideas from the community. Like Flavien said, many times there are other priorities and I think they did choose the right ones for alpha, we wouldn’t have “any” goal if they didn’t, even if the UI would be better or the flight, weapons would work a little better. We can’t really test if any of these really work without some form of match to play trough.
See this for Instance …
Also related:
As for “Absolute directional Movement Information”. I agree that it’s currently hard to tell but the two things already ingame were sufficient to me, problem being that it takes to long to find them.
Prograde and retrograte indicators are the fastest one in my oppinion, but they are quite faint and sometimes not even in view.
Hud directional lines work well but you have to watch them for a second to see how they move. I think they work well. One suggestion would be to make them more visible arround the periphery vision and less in the center view. That would be a compromise.
As for “space debris/stripes”. Why? We already have the indicator lines that mimic them as part of the hud and they can be switched off (thanks). You could put little points on the edge traveling towards the player vision to make their direction isntantly identifiable.
And if Space Debris is the solution, wouldn’t it have the same problem of being to distracting?
There should be a raycast from the player to the current target (or all available targets) to determine if the target is currently occluded by another object. For instance, if an enemy interceptor is 5km away but hidden behind a station, currently the player has no way to tell if the target is actually available to be fired upon or if friendlies are in the way. It would be nice if the targeting triangle changed to like a dashed line or something if the target was occluded by an obstacle.
