Author Topic: Damage Indicators  (Read 5192 times)

Offline Jazzza

  • Member
  • Salutes: 16
    • 3
    • View Profile
    • Website
Re: Damage Indicators
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2013, 06:23:02 am »
The game tells you if you destroy a piece of equipment in the top left of the screen. That should be enough to get an idea of how much damage you are causing.

Offline ATeddyBear

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 12
    • [HRD]
    • 11 
    • 12
    • 16 
    • View Profile
Re: Damage Indicators
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2013, 10:15:24 am »

Not when the number of casual gamers far outweighs the number of hardcore gamers.  Especially for a game with a pay structure such as this (fixed entry cost), the developer would be better served financially getting more new people into the game, rather than get the same people to play the game more.  In a p2w or p2p or whatever you'd like to call it, the developers have a greater incentive to develop a hardcore fanbase as their willingness to pay is higher.  It's economics.

That was a joke. I was pointing out the flaw in your arugement. It's based on conjuncture.

I sure hope you'd feel you're ship getting hit by a rocket even if your person isn't hit.

The player is not part of the ship. They are not integrated into the ship as some sort of human steampunk hybrid. There is no connection between the player and the ship. The player cannot feel the ships pain. Its difficult to explain how the player knows where the damage is coming from. Its not an natural connection like FPS.  The player does know they are under attack though. Lets take your example of an rocket. I would assume it's from a Banshee.

First indication of being hit. You would hear the sound of the rocket striking the ship, if you didn't hear the rocket in flight already. Second would be the particle effects and third would be the ship shaking. There are indication that you are under attack. A quick survey of the area will generally give you an idea of where your being attacked from since the effects would be on one side of the ship. You would also see the rockets in flight if not the ship itself. Don't see it? Then hydrogen, chute vent, kersonne, moonshine, whatever to get out of that position. They obliviously have an good position of you. This is all relying if they have not been spotted this whole time.

And no, additional UI components don't have to be obtrusive.  A well thought out UI can take an OK experience and make it enjoyable.  I do it for a living =)

I'm a software engineer for a living, but you don't see me toting that around the forums like it makes my arguments anymore valid. I'm not telling Muse they need to fix X because I'm a software engineer, so that makes my suggestion right.

Here's a challenge for you that will cater to someone of your skill. I have provided 3 examples in my previous post of why addition UI elements would be obtrusive. I have seen no reason from you why addition UI components would not be obtrusive, beyond "It wouldn't because I say so". Granted your attempting to defend a design that does not currently exists. So put your skills to the test and pop open Photoshop. Put together an screenshot of what you would feel is an acceptable HUD for the player. Post it up here for criticism and you never know. Maybe Muse will take your designs to heart. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 03:03:46 pm by ATeddyBear »

Offline RearAdmiralZill

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 144
    • [MM]
    • 31 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Damage Indicators
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2013, 10:20:44 am »
Conjuncture works both ways =).

Not when the number of casual gamers far outweighs the number of hardcore gamers.  Especially for a game with a pay structure such as this (fixed entry cost), the developer would be better served financially getting more new people into the game, rather than get the same people to play the game more.  In a p2w or p2p or whatever you'd like to call it, the developers have a greater incentive to develop a hardcore fanbase as their willingness to pay is higher.  It's economics.

I sure hope you'd feel you're ship getting hit by a rocket even if your person isn't hit.

And no, additional UI components don't have to be obtrusive.  A well thought out UI can take an OK experience and make it enjoyable.  I do it for a living =)

All of these arguments are based on how the mechanics currently work and mostly add up to complaints about how it would effect current strategies.  I find that to be a little short-sighted.  Gameplay changes and players and their strategies evolve.  If it improves the experience for a majority of possible players I think a few adjustments would be worth the relatively minor costs.  YMMV.  IMHO.  Blah Blah.

If anything this game has proven to not be for your "casual gamer" who doesnt wish to learn the ins and outs of the game to some degree. We see them all the time. You get that one guy who argues with you about why hes going gunner because you suck, and his ammo is the best choice over yours. While casual gamers will still join, and generally be good, they have to want to learn this style of play. This makes it more in tune with the goals of hardcore players. Taking orders from a captain who happens to be a random guy is all but familiar to most gamers. Tweaking the game for the sake of appeasing a player base that isnt really needed is, as you say, short sighted.

I dont see how static UI components wouldnt be obtrusive to the game screen. And if you mean that this would be a static representation on the helm, that wont help crew since they arent on the helm, and not you much either because if youre just staring at your damage levels, you will be out-flown by someone not looking.

Yes, gameplay evolves. In case you didnt realize or came in after the 1.1.4 update, meta layouts were much different from what you see today. We had to learn a lot of guns and strategy again to make tactics viable. Introducing UI elements that dont need to be added will simply break the flow of gameplay. Therefore its not short sighted to argue that the current system is entirely adequate to inform the captain and crew of damage sustained on your boat.

Offline Pickle

  • Member
  • Salutes: 42
    • [AeBr]
    • 14 
    • 38
    • 31 
    • View Profile
Re: Damage Indicators
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2013, 10:34:54 am »
I like the dynamic UI.  It forces you to pay attention to the periphery of the screen so that you must make an effort to determine the current state of the ship's condition.

A static UI would be the lazy option, it would be too easy not to pay attention to the ship as a whole.  The next thing someone would be asking for are indicators or crew position alongside incoming directionality, then someone wants positional radar, then someone wants a minimap with CP locations, point-to-point autopilot.. it never ends, and none of it really rewards the casual gamer.

There's a dynamic UI indicating damage, you can see your crew's name tags on the deck when you look around, there's a map screen showing the location of allies and all spotted enemy ships  That's enough.. this is a low tech game based in a low tech narrative environment.  It's not Super Jeft Fighter XVIII.

Offline Tim the Enchanter

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • [GMU]
    • 1
    • View Profile
Re: Damage Indicators
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2013, 08:36:19 pm »

I think this game, is a game people would be willing to purchase extra stuff for. Hell, XBL players pay 20-60 dollars for DLC. I'm sure we could pay 2-8 dollars for extra stuff. I'm all for supporting Muse especially if it helps develop adventure mode.