The game aims at hundreds of players, that doesn’t mean it supports these numbers right now. They talked about the netcode a little in some streams, Flavien mentioned that they haven’t integrated compression yet etc…
I agree though, showing a little larger battle/number of players in a stream or video (Scott Manley video would be ideal) would be preffered.
[quote=“INovaeFlavien, post:60, topic:1159”]
And that’s why we tried to show our gameplay vision in this pitch video. Not another tech demo of yet another seamless transition, which we have demonstrated plenty of times in the past.[/quote]
Surely the biggest aim of the Kickstarter pitch is to attract people who have NOT heard of Infinity before, and therefore have NOT seen those seamless transition videos before? I’m not saying your original pitch video is bad, just that having one such video on the front page seems like a requirement (and the recently-added volcanic one starts too close in for my tastes - and the choice of a barren volcanic world seems a bit strange to me).
Im not expecting a full content game in the kickstarter at all. Its just that the kickstarter does a great job of showing off the engine but in terms of the actual game the information isnt very solid at all. A video about the game as opposed to the engine with detail on the factions ship types weapon types and how the resource side of the game is expected to work would be nice even if it isnt all live footage but interwoven with art work and sketches. Also More information on the types of celestial bodies we can expect to find in the game, the gas giant, the star, rings and types of worlds. Also more information on how the actual planets will affect the gameplay.
1 Like
It is a bit hard to talk about exactly how the final game will look like and how it will be balanced when the devs have said that it will probably depend on testing and funding. If they are too specific but it turns out that one of the elements they talked about is not as fun as they thought (or the stretch goal is not reached), then there’s the risk of being accused of lying or forcing themselves to put something that is not fun in the game simply because they were forced to promise it. They’ve given their vision and the basic outline and that’s enough. You can’t expect (much) more when the game hasn’t been developed yet.
I’m assuming there is some more info and ideas and that those things will be revealed in the future, as the devs said, which is better IMHO because it will help keep interest alive and maybe cause a few extra articles and streams to be made. Which would mean more chances of new people learning or being reminded about the game or being persuaded to pledge higher.
I say let’s give I-Novae a bit more time. They haven’t disappointed me yet.
1 Like
That’s all I needed to hear! 
Can’t wait to see it!
1 Like
It’d be interesting to know some more about what depth the game will have…
- What kinds of ship customizations will be possible? Will it be limited to just selecting ammo or weapons or will you be able to customize power systems, shields, sensors, etc.
- What kind of base building will be possible?
- Will all technology be immediately available or will it require research?
- How many people could be on one ship at a time controlling turrets? Or are turrets automated?
While I could imagine some executions of the described gameplay being fun, there are many others that may get boring quickly! These types of elaborations might also make aspects of the gameplay sound more appealing to some as well.
Uncanny Valley: The root problem
@INovaeFlavien is spot-on here. What makes Battlescape unique amongst Kickstarters is how far along it is in its development. People are used to backing “ideas”, not half-built games. These ideas are planted in the minds of the public, and have room to flower with the viewer’s imagine. Thereafter, public confidence in the development team’s ability to bring that vision to fruition determines how willing they are to back the project.
[quote=“INovaeFlavien, post:43, topic:1159, full:true”]
Unfortunately I think too many people expect too much from the gameplay prototype at this stage. [/quote]
Perhaps this is true for your long-time supporters (us) – but you’re dead wrong when it comes to the public. As described above, they expect nothing from the prototype. What is expected, rather, is a clear and inspiring statement of your vision for the game.
Of course not! As you go on to say, [quote] If we had, why would we be on KS in the first place?[/quote] – but you MUST BE at the stage where you can describe, in excruciating detail (even if those details are subject to change) what such battles would look like. How many players will be in them. What types of playable ships will you include. What types of weapons will you include. How will players acquire these ships and weapons?
Ironically, your team’s dedication to putting something tangible out front as your showpiece is working against you. Your community understands what is behind the cinematic trailer: That it’s a seamless world, and that these are all very VERY preliminary assets, purpose-built for the Kickstarter. But the public – your other 66% of funds – clearly does not understand this. They’re used to seeing “flashy” CG-rendered ‘teasers’ for what the dev team wants to achieve, Your statement that this is all “in-engine footage” is not making an impact because the audience is conditioned to seeing pre-rendered footage on KS. Your in-game footage is in the uncanny valley: it looks too good to be from an in-game prototype, and so it must be pre-rendered: but if it’s pre-rendered, then it looks like crap.
How can you fix this? I’m going to advocate for two simultaneous approaches, and support those with quotes from this thread:
Approach 1: Share the vision
Your goal here to describe the exciting game that Battlescape will be.
Step back, and for a moment forget everything you have. Imagine instead playing Battlescape in a fully-funded (2.5 million) form two years from now. Now describe what it looks like, and how it makes you feel, speaking under the implicit assumption that it receives as much time and money as it needs.
The only effective way to excite people with limited time and attention span is to evoke their emotions: excitement, wonder, enthusiasm, etc. This is why I advocate that Keith should make a video. He seems charismatic, youthful, and excited. This is the salesman attitude that needs to shine forth during this phase of your marketing. Don’t be concerned with the video seeming ‘amateur’ – i.e. a tripod, camera, and Keith sitting on a couch – in fact, it might benefit from this ‘grit’. Keith will be describing what WILL BE – transporting the viewers into the future. For the moment let them be unconcerned with where you are ‘now’.
You are building the dream and the vision for Battlescape, and sewing those seeds into the minds of your audience. This dream should not be shackled by “ifs” and “mights” and “maybes”. Sure, these are the realities that exist, but you can address those in Approach #2 below. The end goal is what matters here, and it must be built on clarity of vision and confidence in execution.
I’m not worried about you guys falling into feature creep – but some people will be (e.g. the Star Citizen fiasco) - and that can be addressed succinctly in Approach #2 (below). But for now, don’t even mention it. You need to sell, and you need to sell hard. I completely agree with @Parisbre56 – don’t make promises you won’t keep – so make sure everyone doing the talking is 100% clear about what is going to be made, but avoid using the word “no” or even “might” like the plague
Consequently, this is the problem with having 90% of your footage come from live-stream interviews. You (and thus the vision for the game) are at the complete mercy of the interviewer. They will ask questions about ridiculous features, having no concept of the true accomplishment INovae has achieved or the game that it’s trying to make. But in answering those questions, you say “No”, and this is all your audience will hear. “Will you include character development and RPG features?” “…No”. It doesn’t matter how tactfully you word that - you’re shining a light on what Battlescape is NOT. So with that in mind:
Take Control of Your Message.
This can only be done by you, INovae. And you’re running out of time.
This having been said, your community stands at the ready to help you with this message. Below is a list of features which we see as part of the dream (my apologies if I leave off your name, PM and I will correct). These are the features that must be highlighted, actively and explicity:
- Detail on the factions, ship types, weapon types [ihategigamo]
- Description of how the resource/manufacturing/POI side of the game is expected to work [ihategigamo, multiple]
- Describe the types of celestial bodies your engine can produce [Ihategigamo]
- Describe how the planets and other celestial features will affect gameplay [ihategigamo]
- Describe the different flight models: speed limits, warp drive, player interaction during warp [CaptainRogers]
- Highlight the formation flying feature, how it works, why it will be useful [Wybo]
- Describe gameplay mechanics (again, as you see them ideally, not as the ‘might be’):
- Stealth
- Scanning
- Hacking?
- Cargo Transport?
- Landing/Docking?
- Orbital mechanics
- Atmospheric heating
- Shields
- Capital Ship control scheme
- tactical coordination features (i.e. waypoints)
[multiple, incl. WalrusFist]
Note: you only need a sentence or two about each. Rattle them off. You can get through the entire above list in a minute or less. You never know what one feature will spark interest in an individual backer, so get EVERYTHING in your vision out there
- More generally, highlight the Beauty and scale of the game [Wybo]. This will draw in your space-sim fans
- Describe your expectations (assume best case funding) for multiplayer:
- Thousands of players per server
- two-hundred in a single battle (emphasize no instancing),
- high-paced twitch-based combat with strategic imperative
- describe Corporations (define the term – i.e. ‘guild’)
- persistence of funds/resources/ships across logins, etc.
[multiple]
But most importantly of all,
Sell the dream.
Approach 2: Straight-talk
This approach is conducted simultaneously with the previous approach (Share the Vision), but needs to be de-conflicted/multiplexed in space, or at least in time. The two approaches are complimentary, but in close proximity can be competing.
Straight-talk is about business. You’ve already drawn the vision, now you ink the deal. And this is where INovae has such a profound advantage over most every other Kickstarter: Your game, by KS standards, is 50% complete.
Yet despite this profound advantage, INovae has shot itself in the foot, right off the bat:
Advertising a release date of Sep 2017 – two years from now - seems incongruous with the current state of the game, and is an immediate turn-off. People could theoretically be playing in within 3-6 months- advertise THAT! Sure, the completed Battlescape product will probably take that full 2 years until completed, but the statement of “Two Years until Release” is absolutely abysmal for your marketing. It sucks the wind out of the Dream (who knows what new shiny thing will be available in 2 years), and might even resonate with old fears of vaporware. You need to re-focus your messaging on how SOON players will get to play this game, because of how much work you’ve already accomplished. And caveat that the more money you receive, the sooner the release date.
Moving past this point, we have an apparent mis-targeting of the backer-audience. Apparently, your ‘die-hard-fans’ only account for 33% of your minimum required funding goal. Thus 66% must come from folks who have either never heard of Infinity, or (worse) heard about some vaporware MMO back in 2010.
No one could have predicted this, so I’m not faulting INovae. But now that your target audience has become apparent, it’s time to re-focus your advertising:
“Another one of those seamless transition videos” is now an incorrect assumption: most of your target audience has never really seen a true seamless transition. Sure they’ve been given hints of them, but if they’ve ever seen one at all then chances are their impression was first made by another game: Elite: Dangerous, No Man’s Sky, Rodina, etc. Their association with the phrase “seamless transition” is one of a quick camera pan down to a bland, fairly noisy surface the size of a small asteroid. They haven’t seen an INoave transition.
Blow those expectations out of the water. Redefine the phrase in your favor.
“The answer to the volcanic moon trailer has been pretty poor” because it wasn’t a great video. It was slow, it didn’t start off in high-orbit, and the particular landing location was somewhat benign. This has been discussed at length in various other threads, and I don’t want to focus on the negatives. INoave (with community help, if desired) needs to produce a few 1-minute long videos that demonstrate the high-orbit (i.e. planet fills less than 1/4 of the full screen) to landed transitions, and a few showing a planetside to ring/moon transition.
Then speed them up! And provide a link/annotation to the “Normal speed” video! C’mon guys.
I’m sorry, I have to go now – RL requirements. As is, this is already a huge wall of text, so I thank you for making it through to the end. I will return. I have (no exaggeration) 6 more pages in MS Word of quotes and statements to flesh out. In another post, I will finish summarizing the “Straight-Talk” approach, and move on to comments regarding Media Outreach and team attitude.
21 Likes
That’s some post above. And some very logical well thought out points.
2 Likes
I honestly don’t see a problem with the Kickstarter. It’s been a good 3 days so far!
I think it would be great to show off some 3-on-3 or 5-on-5 dogfighting going on in some of those canyons, just for the sake of putting together some short videos, but I have a suspicion we’ll see some of those coming over the next couple of weeks.
5 Likes
A kickstarter is all about a vision and a dream, it is the place where a developer can let their imagination go provided they have relatively realistic estimates on what they can do with the funds. You should be very chatty about the potential about what you want to do and not just about what is certain.
Infinity needs a direction and whilst i certainly think the devs do have a soild direction they plan to take the game in they need to share it with us. Just be honest and make a statement about what is likely and what isnt and then just start listing and going through what we can expect.
Can we dock within capital ships?
will we have flak, projectile, rail, missles, lasers, jammers, scramblers, cloaks etc…
How exactly will planets have a direct affect on gameplay?
Will npcs fight back at all?
what types of resource will we be gathering and how exactly will it work.
an estimate of the number of ships planned.
The factions and the differences between them
celestial bodies
anomalies?
3 Likes
Skimmed through the last parts of that post, but you seem to have put into words my thoughts on this.
Sell the game as it WILL be, not the prototype you have now.
The prototype is just a tool for displaying some of what you want to do, it has limitations.
3 Likes
I’d suggest reading the first approach “Share the Vision”. I had to cut things off mid-stream in the 2nd approach. Will be back in depth later.
EDIT: This --> https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/assets/004/756/924/5c2c5d910acd4559ae3877adb61e4b86_h264_high.mp4
Much better guys. Not sure when that went up, but it’s along the right track. Could be a few seconds longer, flying down the slope of the mountains to show how tall they are, but it’s much better than the previous video. Thank you for taking the community’s feedback on that one!!
5 Likes
A long transition video with talking over the top. Why not?
TLDR IN BOLD! 
Emph added – that isn’t conveyed.
Less the various planets: 3 celestial bodies (as seen in videos so far)? OK for “various” but not as many as the engine being sold is capable of; and unfortunately this particular distinction is essential yet meaningless if the KS won’t produce more than a handful of procedural iterations for the single KS/I:B solar system instead of the effectively infinite number that the engine is capable of.
More the hundreds of players in massive battles: that’s just not seen in the videos. You can say it and mean it, but if there’s no actual evidence of it in the video that’s supposed to illustrate the pitch, then IMHO most viewers will not be sold. Or at least not sold nearly as much as they would.
Then some clever way of clarifying it is needed. Because as it is most players probably won’t assume or believe that the inconsistency between what’s said and what’s shown deserves the benefit of the doubt. Potential players see a few ships zooming around and won’t think “hundreds of ships furballing” unless they’re made to understand that it’s a 100% guarantee that if the KS succeeds, this will be a fundamental feature of the game.
And I am saying this next part from about a decade of first hand experience in air combat sims: a furball/dogfight with just a very few tens of players is already exciting/inviting. With high tens, low hundreds, you have something truly spectacular. Like… As spectacular as the Star Wars III opening battle scene.
Who else is offering this? Not Star Citizen, not Elite, no one. THEREFORE it’s crucial that viewers come away KNOWING that playing I:B will mean triple digit player battles.
–
My private worry is that you guys set the bar very high for quality and at too high a cost of quantity. I’m probably wrong, but the same I:B with purposedly reduced quality and added quantity – e.g. crappier but ubiquitous vegetation, realistic volumes of cloud banks and clusters (both on solid planets and gas giants – imagine that endless cloudscape), etc, water/dust/etc trails kicked up by spaceship thrusters, etc etc, all at low quality but actually present, would’ve really knocked the socks off everyone who watched the KS videos.
Despite this, I have no reservations about how much I want I:B. Because no other currently announced game does what IB does – seamless real scale with hundreds of players.
OK that’s just complaining without even suggesting a solution. I think this is YET AGAIN an inherent problem of the totally unprecedented scales you guys are building: the sheer volume of empty space (literally in space and figuratively in the current ever-cloudless atmospheres) is just too much for people to wrap their heads around. Unless you explicitly demonstrate just how huge a playground you are offering them. They, out of habit, simply won’t see just how much stuff (gameplay infrastructure - factories and carrier ships and whatnot) and players can EASILY fit in there, and just how much strategic and tactical freedom this allows for maneuvering etc.
You have to break people out of that habit. Unfortunately it’s not easy to do with only <10-20 ships at any given time.
1 Like
@NavyFish we appreciate the feedback, but we’re really strapped for time responding to emails, livestreaming, corresponding with the media and managing all our social feeds, let along keeping up with the forums.
I apologize in advance if we don’t get a chance to address all your concerns.
The same goes for everyone else really, we’re trying our best to stay engaged, but smaller walls of text would be helpful… 
please?
6 Likes
Will add a TLDR.
@Hutchings -I totally get it, and I have no expectation for you guys to respond to everything in the post. I do appreciate you reading and perhaps discussing certain points internally amongst the team. I’m trying to consolidate constructive community feedback to make it easier for you guys, not harder
Can add a “TLDR” of sorts - i’ll proably update the OP at some point to more succinctly post the primary community-sourced “issues” and “ways forward” (achievable ones. I recognize, for example, you guys can’t get 100 real players on a server right now).
1 Like
Today’s livestream had a great thought: Get multiple streamers running at the same time. I imagine this is something that will be very doable in the last week of the Kickstarter.
2 Likes
@Hutchings @INovaeFlavien
Yes this was a good little video. Get something like this up on youtube in HD 720p/1080p so we can post it on the SC forums where I’m posting about this very topic of transitioning to planet. Another one also going back up again towards something interesting like the rings would also be good.
Maybe another one with the ship being fired upon as it transitions the atmosphere. 3 little videos, or one that covers the above. Very useful.
I can use a few (on one longer - down/up) video/s like this if you have time to make them in HD and drop them on youtube.
Moving the thread topic along helps draw people to the KS page. And some of those hits will convert to pledges.
mmm, a rather excellent thought we’ve also had for a couple days
4 Likes