Feedback

[Trent]

I was originally going to post a reply in the Exploration thread, but I decided to make a new topic because my post started moving along different lines.

I am trying to be respectful both of the seasoned veterans, and Vice, but I'd like to submit my two cents. I'm a new player, but having experienced something new, and quite fun, I've found myself getting a bit involved.

Originally, I was looking for a space combat game that met these criteria:

#1 Could use all of my "gadgets" (head tracking, controllers, etc)
#2 Fun, and not predictable... "I hate scripted stories" and "I like options"
#3 Not equipment dependent (ship, gear wise)
#4 Had a large expanse to explore and play in... ("I hate feeling trapped in a box")

This game has met all of the objectives splendidly, and was certainly worth the money I spent. Not many games keep me interested beyond the 40 hour mark, as most become too predictable to the point that it's no longer interesting.

The game certainly has very strong merits in space combat - best I've ever seen. It also has some of the roots of what could become so much more.

Now for some honest feedback.

Missions: Not having experienced all types of missions (having just found new ones in the war zone tonight), I can say that the basic money making / rep missions can get pretty repetitive. How many times can you clean a solar array before you never click that mission type again? This being said, combat missions can get pretty interesting in that you never know "who's going to drop in and say HI". Going after a milk-run 3 bad guy intercept only to find an enemy capitol ship and a half dozen other reds unexpectedly drop in to the fray, sure keeps you on your toes. And makes you save some missiles, "just in case."

All in all, not bored with the missions, and that says something after 40+ hours of gameplay.

Navigation: OK.. putting it plainly, the NAV system leaves a bit to be desired. Scrolling, in some fashion other than only in max-zoom mode would be great - right-click & drag, or buttons to click, something. Whatever the implementation you should be able to scroll the map in any level of zoom except the max 8x. Zoom Out should zoom out from the current sector you are in - it gets annoying to zoom all the way out and back in again.

Trading: This could be expanded quite a bit. Not the trade mechanism itself, but the mechanics of it. If I wanted to play as a trader, I'm greatly limited to a fighter ship. Yes, the game has originated as a space combat sim and does a remarkable job at that aspect, but 5 units of storage doesn't get you very far if you want to be a merchant instead of a fighter jock.

Equipment: Other space games tend to favor the expensive gear and there tends to be "one ship" that beats everything (aka Freelancer, or the Big Ships in X3, etc). But this game gives some interesting and remarkable flexibility in outfitting your ship to suit the mission or your personal tastes. Big props for having such varied customization options.

Now... let me get on to my "wish list" for a perfect Universe in whatever Evochron game may be in the works for the future.

Universe:

OK I'm a Star Trek fan. Moreover, I imagine to some degree or another, we ALL are. I would personally like to see exploration - and that sense of wonder at "going boldly where no man has gone before" expanded. I'd like to see deep space probes, expensive to buy and use longer-range jump drives, perhaps extending the Fulcrum class out, but something other than the Experimental Jump Anywhere drive I keep hearing people talk about (but haven't located).

Along these lines, a semi-random but permanent universe would be the ultimate goal. Many games have done this, but THIS game would be perfectly suited for it, especially in Multiplayer.

To this end, I would like to start a Multiplayer server, and not have it be the exact same as everyone else's online galaxy. The core systems should be the same, of course, but it would be nice if everything "out there" in unexplored space, should be, well, unexplored in my particular universe. I can do this (I hear) with a custom universe.txt file that I have to distribute to everyone who might join, but then, the entire universe is wide open.

If, however, the universe were semi-randomly generated when a server was "built" was saved in a compressed, then encrypted file, and transferred to new players at the time they joined, it would serve to meet this end of having a custom universe that is static to one server, but that is different from all other servers.

Next, wars.

Since WWI, and the advent of the tank and airplane (which made static line trench warfare obsolete), wars haven't been fought on defined, static borders. A little system instability would be an incredible addition to the game. Right now we can all get our space-combat thing on with missions, but over a longer period of time, it'd be nice to "win or lose" something. In individual systems, I'm pretty sure I could play forever and not have the bandits or navy ever truly "win" in any given sector. Nor is it likely I'll ever see an incursion of one faction in to another's territory.

The basis is there for sector ownership, but what's missing is the parts that change wars in to something more dynamic. This is the same problem with X3 - with the exception of some of the scripted campaign, or some experimental user mods, there's really not a dynamic element to the game. It starts this way, it stays this way, forever.

In a multiplayer environment, this dynamic tension is what makes things go from good to great. On the grand scale of this particular game, with the enormous universe, it's a missing element. Players are rewarded now with money and items, but fighting hard and pushing Vonari out of a sector (and then having to defend it!) would add a lot to things, I believe. Over the span of a dozen or so contested sectors, ground gained would be lost elsewhere if players weren't vigilant in defending the territory they've acquired.

Now, combining this feature with the exploration and trading, would be fantastic. After-all, pushing the bad guys out of a sector would open the way to exploit the resources... at least until the bad guys jump in a fleet and go on the offensive again, forcing the trading/mining players to high-tail it out while the fighter jocks guard their rears.

The downside to this is there would need to be code on the servers to keep game-state for the disposition of forces, and AI routines written to handle offensive & defensive action.

Essentially what I'm asking for above, is dynamic campaigns, and it is admittedly a pretty big request.

What it could all lead to in the end? Empire building, trading networks, wars, navies, and so on... could get pretty interesting. Acquiring materials to get better gear to gain an edge in combat is one thing. But wars ... they consume resources on a vast scale, and drive economies. There's a draw to the logistical mind there. Just as exploration draws the inquisitive mind.

I know if I built up a trading network, outposts, mining operations, that I'd be sweating bullets if the war turned south and my assets were threatened.

I know I'm asking for "Wing Commander 2010" to be turned in to what amounts to CivSpace meets Star Trek. This desire for what I'd like to see may be well beyond the scope of what's intended for the Evochron line, or on a completely different track than what's planned.

In the end, I'm just expressing some thoughts. The 3D engine and combat features are fantastic, but you know how it is, give people's imaginations an exercise and they tend to get creative...

Anyway, don't get me wrong, Vice, the game as it sits is QUITE excellent and very impressive. I've had a hell of a good time playing so far and I can tell it's gonna be quite awhile before I get burned out on it!

[Marvin]

The part about fluctuating borders is interesting ...

After-all, pushing the bad guys out of a sector would open the way to exploit the resources... at least until the bad guys jump in a fleet and go on the offensive again, forcing the trading/mining players to high-tail it out while the fighter jocks guard their rears.

... but let me ask you a question. For dynamic campaigns to really work against an AI enemy, Vice would need to increase the capability of the AI. Such that they would be almost as capable as a really good human pilot. And, should even somebody like Bravehart meet up with a dozen Reds, he wouldn't have a ghost of a chance. Leastwise, not alone.

So, the question is: Would that work for you?

Personally, I try to steer clear of contracts where I'm outnumbered by the hostiles. Except in multiplayer, where I can usually join a group of human players. And, I suppose, I could hire a few mercenaries in SP. So, it is possible, in this game, to find means and use tactics against highly skilled AI pilots.

So, I guess another question is: Do you think new guys would bother learning how to defeat really tough AI before they get frustrated and quit the game ... or would they more likely just complain about the "steep learning curve?"

[yamo]

Trading: This could be expanded quite a bit. Not the trade mechanism itself, but the mechanics of it. If I wanted to play as a trader, I'm greatly limited to a fighter ship. Yes, the game has originated as a space combat sim and does a remarkable job at that aspect, but 5 units of storage doesn't get you very far if you want to be a merchant instead of a fighter jock.
-----------------------------------------

There should be 10x the number of goods-more ores and consumables from planets. Items should need multiple resources to build.

Planets and bases should depend (more) on players trading to supply and buy the goods. not enough trading should cause want, poverty, and chaos(more piratey).

[Trent]

Originally posted by Marvin
The part about fluctuating borders is interesting ...

After-all, pushing the bad guys out of a sector would open the way to exploit the resources... at least until the bad guys jump in a fleet and go on the offensive again, forcing the trading/mining players to high-tail it out while the fighter jocks guard their rears.

... but let me ask you a question. For dynamic campaigns to really work against an AI enemy, Vice would need to increase the capability of the AI. Such that they would be almost as capable as a really good human pilot. And, should even somebody like Bravehart meet up with a dozen Reds, he wouldn't have a ghost of a chance. Leastwise, not alone.

So, the question is: Would that work for you?

Personally, I try to steer clear of contracts where I'm outnumbered by the hostiles. Except in multiplayer, where I can usually join a group of human players. And, I suppose, I could hire a few mercenaries in SP. So, it is possible, in this game, to find means and use tactics against highly skilled AI pilots.

So, I guess another question is: Do you think new guys would bother learning how to defeat really tough AI before they get frustrated and quit the game ... or would they more likely just complain about the "steep learning curve?"

I don't believe the issue is nearly as cut & dry as that. Many games have increasing levels of difficulty above and beyond "just throw more bad guys at them." Maybe they ARE tougher somehow, but I haven't noticed a significant increase in skill when flying against an enemy "Ace" that sets them apart from normal enemies. IL2, for instance, has varying skill levels for enemy pilots, and when you run across an enemy ace, you *certainly* know it - they are masters of evasion and easily end up on your tail.

Enemy AI's in EM suffer from some serious handicaps and I wouldn't mind "higher skilled" opponents.

First and most noticeable is if you drift on inertial with a sufficient offset vector from your true heading, they will always miss when shooting at you. I was able to take on 30 to 1 odds in Sierra, pick out and take out my 12 assigned targets, and I didn't get hit from the fighters - not once. Yes, it took awhile and got hairy when a pair of destroyers showed up and started beating me down with flak as I made passes, but after a few tense minutes the ending became rather predictable.

Second, I haven't seen them use afterburners to give chase, meaning even up against light and highly maneuverable fighters, my flying brick Starmaster can easily outrun them.

Third, I haven't seen them use any tactics - such as splitting apart in to wings and approaching from the flank. They always fly straight at you, in one big mob, no matter where you go. Even new reds that happen on the fight jump in and fall in to formation at the first opportunity. In any dogfight situation (space being no exception), paired fighters in a wing make for a tactical advantage because if you go off after one pair, you are dangerously exposed to the other pair. If you go after the lead, the wingman has you, and vice versa.

So yes, I do believe the AI could use a bit of dressing up. I'm no expert, but it's starting to get pretty easy. Simply fixing the AI's aim would dramatically increase the difficulty.

I'm also not a big fan of autoaim, is there a way to shut that off? It would be more challenging if the weapons didn't automatically "hit" within the larger targeting circle. Rather, I'd prefer to work for it and have to lead properly.

In fact, it would be great if the game had two modes... arcade (for casual fun) and hardcore.. where the enemies aim is deadly (even when flying inertial), they get afterburners too, they work with team tactics, and marksmanship is required to hit them (no autoaim). Yeah, THAT would be good indeed.

[Earl]

You can turn off the MDTS (Auto Aim) so that your particles can be aimed manually. Your beam will still hitscan for you. I personally dont' use the MDTS because it prevents you from shooting down missiles and like you said, the AI can't compensate too well for slides, and that's basically what the MDTS does is AI your guns.

Eclipses is telling tales of some 'unknown' new ships that are tougher to take down. It's probably in some remote area, though. Point is I guess there are definitely still challenges out there... How about some PVP sometime?

[Trent]

I've been wondering what the MTDS thing was. That'll make life a bit better. Would still be nice if the enemy AI could hit me in an inertial drift. It would make things a heck of a lot tougher. Rather than just drifting past, lighting them up the whole way, you'd really have to keep on your toes.

Earl, Soon as my T1 line gets dropped to my house (Oct 29th), and activated (Nov 4th), I'm fast tracking it to the nearest server.

We live too far out in the country to get cable or DSL.. and the T1 was a long time coming. Mostly the decision was forced on me, 5 kids, 3 of which want on the Internet. Even at the $250/mo level, Hughes limits daily bandwidth to 600MB. Can't even get a windows update anymore on one computer, let alone a house full of them. AT&T finally dropped loop prices to $540/mo to any site within 50 miles of a POP, and we're 27 miles from the nearest one. We're also way out from any 3G network so tethering is right out. If I stand on my roof and pray to the digital airwave gods, I might pick up one bar. Maybe.

Yeah, think about that ... I'll be paying $540 a month for a 1.5MB connection.

At least it's nice and quiet out here in the boonies. Except on the weekends, when you're bound to hear a lot of rifle and handgun fire ...

[Pelador]

Have to agree Trent, there is a lack of persistant reality to MP.

Shame that the only thing that is truely persistant is a sector circle denoting clan ownership that brings you a few coins if a member. Though that is hardly rewarding for the effort required to maintain them.

Player stations do provide some dynamic quality to the game here, but dont really provide anything outside of the other standard default stations even with economic upgrades (which can be applied to both), so there isnt so much of a significant change here.

For the game to encompass the personally prefered amount of dynamic chracteristics however would move it too far away from the designers original sandbox theme. But I for one would like to see reputation changes, campaigns triggered for orgnisations, invasions, events around politics and some expectation that the game isnt so predictable as is currently experienced.

Also with PvP having little consequence it means there is very little deterant to players for topographical changes to the universe anyhow with the player run element, which of course if it were to have a more robust system to events between players would provide a much more unique experience. Primarily of course because players provide more variety to their motives and gameplay experiences.

As a result of the "freedom" philosophy to allow players to do as they will seems that it requires too many predictable static elements to the universe. Largely I'm sympathetic to what Vice has done here, as having clever "environmental" systems to change things may lead to undesirable universe possibilities (e.g. full peace), detracts from the questline if variable over time and it then has an inconsistancy to it, and all in all, it keeps the universe mechanics easy to maintain and store in a game system.

So as much as I'd like to see progressive dynamism to react to players choices that can slowly make a difference to gameplay in multiplayer to make it a less predictable experience, I seriously doubt it happening.

[Maarschalk]

Wow...Trent.....$540/Month for internet connection......do they supply you with gold or platinum for that amount.....:P:P:P:P if not......:(:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[BraveHart]

Originally posted by Trent
At least it's nice and quiet out here in the boonies. Except on the weekends, when you're bound to hear a lot of rifle and handgun fire ...

"Yeah I know the feeling living out in the Boonies myself...The good part about that is when Hunting season starts the Deer are dying to get into my Skillet"... LoL

[soulsacrifice]

Wow! The £35 a month fot skytv, phone and unlimited 20mb internet is looking really good right now...

Where do you live Trent?

[Edited on 10-20-2010 by soulsacrifice]

[Gnou]

Thx for this feedback Trent.
I tend to have similar wish.

I know how hard it can be to settup a MP persistant universe.
Beyond the engine and each problem itself, there are often a sweet path of basic soluce to do it.
But it take time to light them.

The potential is here, no doubt ^^

[Ravenfeeder]

No AI getting on your tail! Sure, they won't, if you keep your distance. Try getting stuck into the middle of them, you'll soon find one, or more, on your six - for a "game" to be enjoyable, you need a way of winning. Who wants mission impossible where you get wiped out just about every time - there would be screams about too big a learning curve.

Sure, there could be some improvements to the game, and, Vice does listen, and does make changes, where appropriate, and popular enough. Give yourself some time to learn the game, at least six month, before doing the normal noob "I want this, that, and the next thing".

[Rush]

Well, AI is not so strong. Maybe the Vonari&Navy in warzone could be made stronger, to give a more difficult challenge.
Especially in MP, where many players can team up.
And again in MP, there could be "scenarios" with more volatile borders and dynamic campaigns.

[Gnou]

Message original : Ravenfeeder
Give yourself some time to learn the game, at least six month, before doing the normal noob "I want this, that, and the next thing".

Such words are pretty agressiv and unconstructiv.
You can enjoy the Economic and AI lack in a few hour of testing...

Trent presented his args, here is the best way to go on a forum, isnt it ?

[Ravenfeeder]

It's called constructive criticism of a post. If you think that it was aggressive, all I can say is that you must have had a very sheltered life, so far!

Trent expressed his opinion, I expressed mine. A few hours testing and you know all about the game!!! I don't think so.

[Aesir Rising]

That wasn't constructive criticism. Constructive criticism would be when you criticize the idea with the aim of improving it, or rejectiing the on the merits (or lack thereof) of the idea.

Rejecting the idea based on seat time in-game ("..at least six months..") just makes you look stupid.

Too harsh? Hey, I'm just expressing my opinion. I didn't need six months in-game to figure out that your opinion doesn't matter.

[Marvin]

Sounds like a situation perfectly suited for the Field of Honor ... I'm sure Oasis will volunteer to be Raven's Second.

[Ravenfeeder]

I'll give him/her/it a good BA welcoming. The wally thinks that a few weeks makes him/her/it an expert on the game! Maybe I am stupid - who knows? But, I've seen. over the years, these sort of suggestions come up, time, after time, from noobs - hell, I even did it myself away back when. I guess experience doesn't mean anything to the instant geniuses!

The SW games are developed by one man, Vice, with, perhaps a little help from some friends, not a massive programming studio with unlimited funding. Personally, I think that Vice has done a darn good job. He's presented good playable games, better, IMHO, than any other space sims - and all for a measly $30. Darn good value for money, again, IMHO.

If Aesir wants to start with the personal insults, fine with me, I'm up for a hog dance, and I enjoy it more than the pigs do!

[Aesir Rising]

I guess experience doesn't mean anything to the instant geniuses!

Now you've got it! So, to recap:

Experience of the person making the suggestion, criticism or idea counts for nothing at all. What counts is the idea.

And the tangential point was that constructive criticism of that idea attacks the idea on the merits of the idea, not whether the proposal was made by someone playing for less than "..six months.."

Now that you're clear on this, did you have any feedback on Trent's issues or suggestions? Or anything in response to what yamo, pelador, Gnou, or Rush brought to the topic?

For myself, I'm not in love with Trent's post entirely. I've not yet sorted out what specifically I didn't like, I'm just going with "something isn't right" mostly about the illustrative example given for a dynamic campaign and persistent world. My experience in dynamic campaigns includes that provided in Falcon 3.0 and to lesser extent, 4.0 (a flight sim) and my experience in multiplayer persistence (aside from MMOs) comes from Neverwinter Nights (an RPG). Drawing from those experiences there were tech issues, implementation issues, and even design issues - and an entirely separate set of problems that came up simply because those features existed. But because of the complexity of the idea, I'm not able to give very relevant feedback on Trent's post because I've not sorted out in my mind whether the issues I'm thinking of would even apply to this game.

[Ravenfeeder]

"Experience of the person making the suggestion, criticism or idea counts for nothing at all. What counts is the idea."

Yeah, sure! Let's reinvent the wheel. Here's an idea, let's make it square, it'll make driving in snow easier. Hell, let's make it cheaper; we can do away with the rim, just use spokes. There's your ideas. What does experience tell ya?

[Rush]

I think we should discuss ideas of any kind, regardless who they came from...

Maybe some ideas can be strange or pointless for someone, but could possibly lead to a good mod in the future

[Edited on 20-10-2010 by Rush]

[Marvin]

But down-and-dirty arguements should be settled on the Field of Honor (MMaggio's being my favorite).

[Aesir Rising]

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
Yeah, sure! Let's reinvent the wheel. Here's an idea, let's make it square, it'll make driving in snow easier. Hell, let's make it cheaper; we can do away with the rim, just use spokes.

I thought we'd made some progress... I was wrong.

Originally posted by Ravenfeeder
There's your ideas. What does experience tell ya?

Experience tells me that it wouldn't work.

The difference in your strawman of an example is that I didn't say:

It doesn't work because the idea was raised by someone that hasn't used a round wheel for at least six months, you n00b.

What you should think about saying is something like:

It doesn't work because:

• squares don't roll well
• snow traction isn't necessarily the primary requirement for a successful wheel
• spokes by definition require both a rim and a hub structure to provide support. Otherwise you've just got a pile of wood.

So, back to the topic:
What was it about Trent's post that doesn't work for you? Was it just that it was posted by Trent? Because so far that's all you've come up with. So I have to ask:

Would the ideas work if they were posted by someone else?

Edited to add:
I'm done - I don't want to continue to muddle up Trent's topic on the off-chance that Vice would actually read it and disagree that feedback should only come from people that have played his games for more than six-months.

[Edited on 10-20-2010 by Aesir Rising]

[Ravenfeeder]

And you managed all those deductions re the wheel, how? It wouldn't be through the experience that you stated doesn't count, only the ideas do!!

I had nothing against Trents' post, nor Trent himself; I merely advised that he, and others, may appreciate the game more, if they gave it six months playtime before suggesting major changes to the game.

I'm not getting into pedantic arguments, 'cos I can't be bothered. Most of the stuff, that is being posted by present game noobs, has been posted before, many times, with some variations.

I didn't go into specifics re the wheel because I presumed that you, or anyone else, would have enough intelligence to understand the implications of what I was saying - perhaps, on that score, I was wrong.

[Aesir Rising]

You gain knowledge over time, through experience. No one argued against that. I'm pretty sure that's your second straw man this topic.

What I'm calling you out on is your out-of-hand rejection of a set of issues or solutions based on the presenter's experience. You don't get to do that. Trent bought the game - just as you did. He's got as much right to kick off this topic as you do. Even if it pisses you off that these ideas have come up ".. many times before.."

Have they? Maybe that's an indication that Trent is on to something.

What is really getting silly about all this is that you *still* haven't criticized the content of his posts, or the posts of those that followed up on-topic.

Why not put your experience to use and shed some light on all us n00bs?

[Edited on 10-20-2010 by Aesir Rising]