Return to “General”

Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#721
Hyperion wrote:
One thing that greatly concerns me is that still too much attention has been given to Combat and Combat-related gameplay. You have been working to make sure that combat is a vibrant, exciting, fully developed arm of gameplay that never gets old regardless of whether you are a single fighter or an admiral, and that is fantastic. However, in my opinion.......
Umm, am I missing something? As for me combat is one of the most important feature, and I really haven't seen literally anything regarding hardpoint managing, subsystem and hull damage model, different armor\shields variants, stealth mechanic, weapon differences and damage types, weapon balancing etc. I know that this will be finished a bit later, after UI etc will be implemented, but its a must for that game :)
I̲̩̳̺̩̫n̵̻̘͚͖̗͎ͅ ͢J̜̬̗̦o̩̘̦̪͕͉ͅs͞h̞͘ ̯̹͈͙w̯̙̥e̱͉ ̬̙̘̭̯̦͕t̹͖͔̖͘r͚̠̰͍͚̹ụ̸̭͍͕̯̹̙s̩͓̼̲̲͉̹t̰.̴͈̖͙̜̲

We will never forget the "Heavenly hundred"
Failures lead to success.
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#722
Flatfingers wrote:I understand the importance of getting the user interface right before shipping a game. I might have deferred its perfection until after the Noctember video, but Josh is Josh. :)

I'm still confused by considering the warp rail thing to be a "core system," though. What exactly makes an enhanced fast-travel mechanic a core system? Why is simply giving ships a limited "cruise" feature the wrong choice when development time is precious? How are warp rails a feature that is required to get the full Limit Theory experience, and whose value outweighs the Kickstarter-mentioned big-picture gameplay modes that Hyperion ably described? (BTW, I also strongly endorse Hyperion's wish for those modes to get equal development attention as combat... but that's important enough to deserve its own thread.)

Again, this is not to argue the point -- as Josh basically said, warp rails are in because he wants them, period -- or to improperly demand a justification for a development decision. I just don't like feeling dumb because I'm failing to comprehend something everyone else seems fine with.

If I need to wait for the game to come out to understand this, OK.
I think "core system" needs to be understood in the context of what it enables from Josh's POV.

it could also simply be a monkey of an idea that when he got to thinking about it, just wouldn't get off his back.

So, it might not seem all "that" important looking in, but the potential when looking out from it ? Well, the focus Josh has had on it seems to suggest a great deal of importance :)

personally i look at LT as building an onion structure from the core out.

He had a bunch of ideas that was the core. Then as he got working on those, he modified/got new ideas that both drove/enabled him to add layers. I think of the Warp system as an enabler layer in that structure.

Hope the above makes sense (early/lack of tea etc etc) :)
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#723
It does, Naed; thanks for the comment.

To be clear, I've never believed (or, I think, said) anything like: "If it wasn't explicitly described in the Kickstarter, Josh is not permitted to implement it." That would be silly.

My question is really from the perspective of a lifelong student of game design. I can imagine how I might prioritize the design and development of the game that was described in the KS pitch and in subsequent devlogs. In this case, the feature emphasis I imagine is different from the emphasis Josh has actually chosen to take.

So I figure there's knowledge related to that decision that I don't have that could be interesting to understand.

If it's OK to know that, I'd sure feel better -- less ignorant, anyway. If not, well, there are plenty of other things to talk about. :)

(And Victor, I know you've pointed out "Freelancer 2.0!" to me. If that's the totality of the reason for spending several days on the warp rails thing, I'm still confused, but it's a slightly less painful confusion.)
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#724
Hyperion wrote:One thing that greatly concerns me is that still too much attention has been given to Combat and Combat-related gameplay ... <snip> ... There is still a LOT to do, The main systems might be just about in place, but until the rest of it falls into place, LT looks suspiciously like a tree in winter.
When I read things like this I realise that I need to post some counter expectations to balance out some of the extremely high demands that the community is placing on LT and Josh. In many regards, we are simply setting ourselves up for disappointment. Josh is partly to blame for this, with his expert hyping process, but I still think we need to calibrate our expectations a little. For instance, I have no real interest in:
  • Carriers - this one really doesn't make sense to me. I look at Freelancer and then I look at carrier gameplay and I think "how do these two things interact"? Talk about slowing the whole thing down.
  • Managing a factory process - yawn. Making this interesting is so difficult... virtually no-one has achieved it in the history of gaming. I'd really prefer if Josh doesn't spend a huge amount of time on this between now and release.
  • Ultra-detailed ship design in the Aurora mould - have you seen the screenshots for that game? Man, they make my eyes bleed. Talk about a big no-thanks; the last thing I want to do is sit and balance all these decisions for hours. If anything I want to iterate quickly on ship design.
  • In-depth colony management - anything more than a build/research list and an ability to set a tax rate is a different game in my view, and therefore a waste of precious development time. Let the mods take care of this one.
  • Many others...
I'm being facetious here, and possibly slightly Hardenbergish (hey Hardenberg! :wave:), but only to make the point. I'm as guilty as anyone to some degree - check out this thread I made of faction control mechanics - but it was only after ruminating on those ideas (and others that I've made) for a while that I realised that I may not actually like the game if it was built using exactly what I proposed! Management by spreadsheet is very hard to make interesting, especially when the original inspiration was pretty arcadey and reasonably action packed.

OK, flame on! :twisted:
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#730
What you have (a few posts up) is different people wanting different games completely.

What we all want is the game to be flexible enough to achieve that - it may not be your perfect game on release day, but if Josh can get the engine and infrastructure in place (which certainly looks as though he has/will) then going forward everyone should get what they want out of it through updates and mods.

The game I envisage LT becoming for me is years off, combining LT with GTA/Skyrim/Sim City/Sims/Farmville/Factorio/(name your game here). Player can do whatever they want, and get NPC to manage whatever they want as they grow/get bored micromanaging. (it may need to be hosted on servers it gets so big ... oh maybe not I just lost 90% of the audience :crazy: )

This dev process has been a heck of a journey. In a few months the next part of the journey begins when LT1 ships. It will only be the start. Anything along the way the game doesn't do or lacks, is just part of the "outer game" - your mission Commander is to get someone to mod that in for you, or learn to mod it yourself, now get to work!
LTP Fleet Battles on Youtube
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#732
aspman wrote:What you have (a few posts up) is different people wanting different games completely.
The thing is, though, that's exactly what I backed.

I wasn't looking for just a space combat game; those are, if not common, at least pretty popular.

And I wasn't looking for a non-combat game. Force-based dispute resolution is usually worth including in a game of any scope.

What I was looking for, and what the description of Limit Theory seemed to promise, was a game that deliberately wanted to encompass all these under the umbrella of "play in this universe in the way that feels most enjoyable to you."

That's everything I've wanted for years, which I summed up years ago as "player-centric design," tied up in a bow and set in space by someone who sounded like he had the competence and enthusiasm to deliver it.

To my mind, it's not Limit Theory if it doesn't at least try to deliver "different games" to different players. I certainly want all those ways of playing to be integrated. But a space combat game with, oh, fine, some other support stuff (as other games usually wind up depositing), doesn't seem to me to be what Josh was talking about back in 2012. He seemed to understand the fun that comes from a game where you aren't constrained by somebody else's artificial limits *cough* to playing a game set in a dynamic, procedural universe in a particular way. That's what LT sounded like to me, and that's why it was one of the easiest KS pledging decisions I've made.

And that's why I agreed last night with Hyperion's comments.
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#733
Flatfingers wrote:
aspman wrote:What you have (a few posts up) is different people wanting different games completely.
The thing is, though, that's exactly what I backed.
...
My next line stated ... "What we all want is the game to be flexible enough to achieve that". I think it will.

I think Hyperion would agree, he does want more than the boundaries of the KS and LT1, and it was more for his gameplay that I meant about the modding ongoing (mega factory manager mod v1 etc.) although the better Josh can make this initially, then all the better, but not at expense of lacking features elsewhere.

I don't code as much these days, but when Josh was knee high to a grasshopper, I built a modular CMS and ECommerce system which, once I got all the "super scripts" in place as I called them (the framework) which was a pita and time consuming, the custom modules I made for clients were a breeze and no dev time at all compared to the end "product" they got. LTs dev is in a different league from my stuff, but I have often drawn similarities. This is why I may come over pro-Josh at times - I have personal experience of the "content explosion" at the end. The ability for us to pick up with LTSL and fine tune stuff is just icing on the cake.
LTP Fleet Battles on Youtube
Post

Re: The November 2014 Devlog Discussion Thread

#735
blacktea wrote:I would say it this way. If Josh released his game right now, i would be very happy and satisfied already, and pay much money for it, as his game has more than the market can offer right now (because of LTSL in my opinion). But i want to see Josh, at least try, to give this game the diversity it deserves :)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The game is completely unplayable ATM, you just seem to be trying to look like a bigger fanboy than everybody else with these kinds of comments which makes no sense whatsoever.
Lost faith.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron