chrisb

Gimmick ! Perhaps.

From the front page of this topic ‘general discussion’. I see three threads that could be included as having a rant’ish type title. One, I would class as sycophantic (video, just my view) and the rest seem fairly normal. So out of a little over 20 I see on the front page, only three have rant’ish titles. Look, just like the content contained within the video in the now locked thread, its naïve nonsense to think that most players whine, moan or complain. That is unless BI receive hundreds if not thousands of complaint emails per day (can’t see that to be honest). Also that most players don't appreciate how good this series is and that there is nothing else like it, well come on, duh.. :rolleyes: The vast majority of players that play this series don’t even bother coming here to the BI community forums to write at all. If there were that many complaining, as is thought by some. The forum would be full to the rafters with complaint threads. But that just isn’t the case, is it…. Stop believing most players complain, they don’t. How many copies have they sold of A3 ! A million, maybe two.. Perhaps more.. If there were that many players upset with the game, then the first place they would make for is here (probably), why! because its public, it’s the official BI community forum and a good place to attack the devs. But it is by no means anything like that, is it. The odd rant, moan or complaint doesn’t hurt anyone, provided it has some sort of substance behind it. The vast majority of the player community, must be reasonably happy with the game. It’s the very small minority that are not happy. Some of those have genuine reasons and should express their concerns. Others won’t have good reason to complain because their problems will be home grown i.e. their own systems or lack of knowledge regards game-play, mod/addons, mission design, bad servers etc. Then there's the players/groups that simply don't want to move over to A3 (yet), for other reasons, me included. No issues with the game as in performance or anything else. Just personal preference. May change at some stage, but certainly not yet.;) Let each have their say, its a forum. As for that video, well.. enough said.:rolleyes:. Its got to have been aimed at his own group, can't see it being anything else..

Always run the game in vanilla to test if the problems you have, are game related. ;)

Must say, its the way I feel.

;) What was it you said you wanted this money for...................... Well errr...:o cough.. you'll laugh when I tell you :couch:

Looking forward to this.:D

The game is building/survival. But I fully understand what you mean. It could be a case of the potential just slips away and doesn't come through. Only time will tell. As for SP, certainly for SE, I think until they introduce a proper form of AI, then its not going to be much more than survival/building. That would be a shame if the potential was wasted, but what happens to SE will happen to ME, I think. So fingers crossed. They did have a basic AI in Miners Wars and they are, they have said, working on an AI project. Hope that's for these games..

True, but didn't they only say there would be one submersible and a few boats, plus of course divers. Not sure they were planning a naval force of any type. I understand what you mean, regards the potential that players may think could/should be in there, what with the new underwater feature. But there will probably at some stage be a full mod that goes that route. I suppose what I'm saying is the format is there ready for the sandbox players to use and make for. They didn't necessarily say they would flesh that feature out themselves. Really here in this thread, the OP needs to put up a list of what was promised to be in the game, the content that is 'missing', if there is any. We can't talk about what is missing, until we have a list of that missing content plus the articles showing us where it stated, that the content was to be included. I'm not taking BI's side, if there is genuinely missing content, that didn't have an alternative put in instead (equal alternative), then that needs to be corrected. But I can't remember what was or wasn't promised myself, additional to what is already in there.

Of course there's MP, to play with others, to use your creations, once available of course. SE has that already and its going to be the same for ME too. Also AI/NPC's are in the pipeline for SE, so will probably end up in ME. Not to the stage of huge battles or anything, but the odd skirmish etc, I would think. KSH are going for building in these two games, both SP & MP. They are not really going for the combat side, although many player groups are planning this via MP, groups/teams and so on. It has potential to be very good for many things, not simply build/survive. They have said that the two games will inherit bits from each other, I can see them basically going down the same route over time. Its never going to be a huge combat medieval battle type thing, but it could be if MP grows when it becomes available. Its just down to players, groups, teams. As said, NPC/AI are coming to SE, so I expect the same in ME eventually, but that could be a few years down the road for ME, but for Space Engineers, it should be in this year sometime. I find it a little bit of an odd game type, it has soo much potential, its just a matter of 'if' that potential gets seen. However I really enjoy the SP building ships, platforms etc (mostly all creative mode). They may or may not get used for anything in particular, but its still very enjoyable just building these things. Really its just another form of gaming. :)

To be frank, I'm not even sure anything is missing. But I don't play the BI campaigns, so perhaps they are broken or something. What is this missing content, that was actually promised by the devs, is there a list ? I'm unaware of firm promised content that didn't get in, perhaps someone can list it with links to articles where BI mention that it would be included in the game. Genuine question and request, because I only buy these games for the sandbox side i.e. editor, adding content etc, not BI campaigns, so I may have missed something.:confused:

Yeah, that's reasonable to say. But I was thinking more about the player added content, I should have mentioned what I meant really.;)

Well if they’re going to build a rail link that long :butbut:.. Then the Chinese are the ones to do it.;) Regards raging war against China, for one why would anyone want too, secondly, a few western governments (one in particular) would have to approach the Chinese to borrow the money to fund said war..:D

I appreciate your random rant about lack of content, but have you thought about playing A2CO, there is enough content to fill a battleship over there. Ooops 'battleship' bad comparison.. Still..;)

There should never be a sub forum for things like complaints. Complaints are warranted where players have concerns. Performance for some (I'm lucky I guess, not for me), is a major concern, specifically public MP, not so much for private groups perhaps. Also other concerns, AI, environment, movement, etc can be of concern to players too. All should be able to rant occasionally, it releases inner demons and does little harm to anyone, other than those that take things personally..;) But regards sub forums for complaints, no, not really.

I'm not a fan of the setting, but I don't play it much, so I'm not too concerned. It would have been nice to stick with modern day, but I suppose we have to think, what would have been the point of a whole new game if it didn't change the setting from the previous one. Although it would have been nice.;) What will A4 (if there is one), be like. Where will that be set, further forward or indeed back in time. Will be interesting to know what they are thinking next for the series. That's if they're thinking about it at all yet, probably not, too early..

I think AiA will break at some point, however there are now a few terrains coming forward for those that play A3, so the issue of terrains is getting eased. There are some nice terrains out now, although I really only go sight seeing myself, but its nice to see terrains being made for A3, its not as prolific as A2, but that's to be expected with the changes that makers have to adapt too. Regards assets for A3, its always going to lag behind A2CO, I can't see it ever being as well catered for as that. It will take years for that to happen, it may happen after those years, but I wouldn't hold your breath. But you can cross your fingers and hope for the best.;)

There are many great custom blocks, interior mods etc listed in the Steam workshop. Plus the recent update auto sorts, although not perfect, but helps in the mod menu. However, one thing to be careful of at the moment, some mods have been broken by updates. At present there are some really nice features in way of foundation building for the game, which is great but can be a problem for the newer infinity worlds. Where losing a ship because of faulty or broken mods can be a little annoying. What I have been doing of late, is building ships, platforms and so on, using just the stock game blocks, equipment etc, leaving ships, quarters, rooms etc ready to customise/furnish later. Then once the game finishes this change over into infinity worlds and settles down a little. Then I’ll go back and change/customise/furnish then. Hopefully with mods I believe won’t break, or be pulled by the maker. Which those are, I can’t say, because some mods have been pulled because of the changes. Some ships I built, load in bits, because of this, so that's why I have taken this route for now. I would play safe, build whatever you want, with the ships, platforms, quarters, interiors and so on ready, but customise or furnish later, when safe to do so. Its not hard to change blocks and interiors later, so its no big deal really.:)

You have played A3, lets say simplicity in play, dummy heals, run anywhere with any weight without consequence, driving, AI, multi shots to kill.. I'll finish there. Overall its the feel of A3 when compared to playing A2CO, if you can't see the difference then you weren't playing A2CO to its fullest potential, I can't change that, but A3 is a lite version in every respect, but that's only my view, based on the way I play the game.

If I was into air combat, then DCS would be the one to have. But this series is not about that, its mostly all types of war with a heavy lean towards infantry. So what arma does, DCS can't do i.e. infantry. That's what this series is. I do however agree, BI have put A3 into the middle ground. But is this series really about anything other than the infantry sandbox experience. It does the rest to a level, but that is the same with DCS, it does air great, the rest to a level, some of it to a really low level. Whereas this series tries hard to allow you to use other types of war-fare (other than infantry, that is), all to a reasonably good level. Infantry in this series (not A3, but in A2CO), when modded, can be a near perfect war/combat simulation. But the other main thing you have to consider, DCS simulates machine based war-fare, Arma simulates human based war-fare, the two are very different and BI have the more difficult task imo. They don't succeed fully on their own, but with the player/group communities the game does deliver a infantry simulation second to none. But that is with A2CO, heavily modded. With A3, BI took a different route, they tried to pull in mainstream players from titles such as BF3. It did work to a degree, but that left it in an odd place really, halfway to nowhere. I think many of the initial players it brought over have dripped away because of the problems, most of us are used to to these problems, but some just can't be doing with it and move away. But yes I agree with the OP where A3 is concerned. A3 isn't a natural progression for this series. But regards the rest in the series, well certainly with A2, they began what can only be described as a full on infantry based war simulation (when modded). They walked away from that because it isn't a high seller and they don't do what DCS do and that is sell parts for the game, they maybe should consider that, I've said it before, I wish they would make a full on sim version, with parts that you buy for the game. Then have the lighter version, aka A3, but that's not going to happen. But I'm thankful they have left us with A2CO and with the great help of the player/group communities (mod/addons) we have a unique game in A2CO, it brings us into territory not seen in war sim games before, or likely to again (probably).

Patreon is an interesting way to get your donations in. I had a look at it a few moments ago, it looks to be a personal KS type thing. Give me so much per month and I'll do this or that, depending on what your personal project, skill, life, or whatever, is. I viewed this dyslexci gamers patreon, he plays lots of this series and runs a community, which is a noble thing to do. Just wonder though, when you put goals into your patreon funding, is that then earning from the game, or is it still donations, 'fine line' perhaps. Offering what! for more funds, maybe other content. I've no idea, but there is a fine line there when you start putting goals into fundraising, it becomes a little more than a generous donation and more a cross between someone funding you, as in partial wage perhaps, or simply a donation. So for arguments sake, you make videos of campaigns played in this series, then you put them on YT and ask to be supported via donations or regular funding. This then will enable you to put even more videos up. But isn't that earning from the game ? Donations, in my view, are usually single payments made not very often and in many cases just once. Monthly donations, with goals attached, are more like a partial earnings. Maybe its just the way it looks to me..:( I can see giving to charity each month, but I don't think they then say, if we reach this goal and you donate so much you'll get this benefit...

I just don't get all this 'life' stuff. But for those that do, then a project like this may be a good investment. I can maybe understand them using stock materials for the promo, but it would have been nice to have a little more of the game in there, to show their potential customers/investors the actual product.

Mainly because its not mine..:D

This series was their (BI) backbone. Not sure its that way anymore. Times move on.

Best AI mod/script set, is KAI (its huge). But that's not available widely and really its a certain type of game style its aimed at, fully militarised terrains, almost self sufficient. But the setup to get it to that stage is...well..:butbut: Its by no means an 'out of the box' type mod. Best available AI mod on its own.. There isn't one, you would have to mix several of them to get the best results, in my view. But I don't play A3 on the whole. Its hard to provide really great ai, it requires a team, costs money and a few years development, then you'll get reasonably close, but still not perfect. However, few are able to give that time, which is understandable, real life and the need to hold that passion to complete such a large project, stands in the way of most mod makers.. Then of course your doing it for your own style of play, which will be different to most other players needs. In my view, AI is the hardest of things to get right, every AI mod/script has its drawbacks. Mod's that work out of the box, are better for a quick fix to some AI problems. Which mods those are, will require you to test, and if you want really good AI, that will mean probably hundreds of hours, testing the same set of scenario's, for the type of game-play you want, watching for the slightest differences in behaviour, tactics, ability and the rest, repeat, repeat, repeat repe.. well, you get the idea.. Then there's AI numbers, your system, what can/will it give you, what type of game-play are you after. If you want huge battles whereby hundreds of AI are all fighting together, well firstly good luck with that, then forget any AI mods, because they just won't work properly, too much for your system to think about, might as well use vanilla. Smaller skirmishes on the other hand, or missions designed with hundreds of AI on the terrain, but limited numbers meeting at one time (say 50-100 AI involved), can be very different and completely doable and give you great AI with the right mix of mod/scripts. I.e. have a ceiling to those amounts of AI that may be involved in fighting at one time. Finding that ceiling will depend on your system, or if your MP in a group, possibly other players systems. GL4/5 would be good, but few are willing to make missions themselves, with GL4/5 you really have to do that. Even so, you would still have to add in others to get really nice results there, but tactically wise the GL series, out of the box, were/are very good and much copied and indeed were initially based on an OFP mod (I didn't use). But get a mod with lots of customisable configs, because what the mod maker might like, will invariably be different to what you like. Those that want a quick fix, any of the available will do that, but each will have a slightly different approach, test them to find out what that is. There is no quick fix to fit a players own needs, unless of course you make it yourself. Other than that, its just down to testing. Lots of it..;)

Pure sounds more earthy, better for realistic game-play. Only my view.;) But both win out in separate areas, as a whole though, it would have to be Pure.