Post by titsup on May 1, 2016 21:26:55 GMT
OP's Post - which isn't even very critical of their new system and has a lot more to do with his guess that possibly Shroud may be gearing up for VR. The OP is also a Lord Marshall ($1500 and up) and owner of two Holdfasts ($900 each)
Chris readies his thoughtful reply to this customer who has invested a minimum of $3,300 into his product:
Sundays are usually my day to hike and clear my head. I go out to the Blue Hills, spend about two hours immersing myself in nature (my "ranger/druid" time, as it were), and think about all the stuff that's been sitting on my mental back burner during the week. During my trip to the peak of the Great Blue Hill, I found myself chewing over the recent reticle change, specifically:
What the hell is this really meant to fix? Clicking on a target is in no way, shape or form difficult. It's been a staple in video games for decades. What would prompt someone to replace this with a stiff-necked, awkward reticle that straightjackets the player's cursor?
Why does that reticle always have to take up the center of the screen, regardless of whether the tab key has been pressed? It's just in the way in that scenario, and it doesn't truly release control to the mouse. It just supplements the reticle, which is, in a sense, worse, because the UI teases the player with the promise of control, then effectively blocks the most important aspects of the mouse cursor. As for immersion, having a giant, ungainly targeting site plastered over the center of my screen certainly does harsh my ability to focus on what's beneath it.
And then, as I pondered this seemingly inscrutable and wildly unpopular change, it hit me. The reticle has little to nothing to do with the standard PC or console experience. The reticle isn't meant to improve the experience on those devices. There's only one other aggravating, baffling control system I've ever seen that requires this sort of swivel-headed frustration: the one used by virtual reality headsets.
If you weren't at PAX East this year, you might have missed the proliferation of VR devices on the showroom floor. The number one complaint among the attendees this year -- right after metal detectors and bag checks -- was "Why is VR taking up so much space that could be used for stuff we, y'know, actually like?" Sony, Occulus and Valve all had a significant VR presence this year, and witnessing people in clunky goggles wave glowing wands at unseen things was a common sight. Most of us just laughed these displays off, because the technology was so clearly not ready for prime time.
The lion's share of those 1.0 products boasted a new navigation scheme: look-to-target. When you have a giant set of blacked-out ski goggles pulled over your eyes, it's hard to work with a keyboard or controller. You become the Hellen Keller of gamers, and as such, pointing your head becomes an essential navigational tool. You might not be able to see your real-world control devices, but you can still crane your neck to look at stuff inside the simulation. (As an aside, chiropractors must be investing in this technology like nobody's business, because it's going to make them so much money in the years to come.) In order to facilitate this UI scheme, the player needs a fixed point to indicate what, in specific, they're looking at -- a reticle, which is used for selection and targeting.
I kept asking myself over and over "What problem does the SotA reticle solve?" If you look at it in the context of a 2D screen, the answer is an obvious "none." But if you examine the problem from a VR perspective, the answer is clearer; the reticle is the key point of user interaction in this kind of scenario, and not having one causes all kinds of issues.
Now keep in mind that this is all blatant speculation on my part, but I do believe I'm onto something here. Maybe this is an attempt to ride the VR wave in the spirit of Ready Player One. And Occulus support is a stretch goal that SotA reached in the end days of its Kickstarter campaign, correct? So it's not a wild leap to say that the game is being adapted for a new and immersive user interface. But with that said...
Portalarium, with all love and respect, if I'm even 50% right on this guess: STOP. Please, just... STOP.
We get it. VR is the new black in gaming, just like nVidia 3D View was a few years ago. I own one of those 3D View monitors, as a matter of fact. I don't know when I last put on the glasses. It just didn't work well, and most games never properly supported it. Targeting was an issue, of course, but my solution was to revert to a reliable, less headache-incuding 2D interface. My money was, for the most part, wasted.
And so I don't anticipate shelling out $800 for Steam VR or its equivalent any time soon. The lion's share of us won't be going down that route until at least the 2.0 version, if not the 3.0 version, and a much more usable control scheme. I'd wager that 97-99% of the player base won't be going down that road anytime soon. This is an outlier use case at the present time. Adapting the game to fit it is daft. You'll alienate far, far, FAR more gamers than you appease.
The reticle isn't needed. A poll posted in one of the recent forum threads regarding this change showed a 48% disapproval rating for it. The current rating for SotA on Steam is only 67.5% positive. Much of that Steam rating is directly attributable to past changes like the deck system, skill system, etc. You've banked a lot on some divisive systems, and two months before the final wipe arrives, you're delivering quite a bitter bill for everyone to swallow. Hell, I own two PoTs, and filling them out is proving to be an issue, because the people I'm introducing to the game aren't wild about combat and the UI. They try the gift accounts I give them, and then let them sit to gather virtual dust in their Steam library.
Please reconsider driving yet another wedge into your player base, especially if this latest round is in service to a young, unproven and overpriced technology. I cannot envision a good outcome to that sort of decision.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Am I wrong? Because if I am, just say so.
What the hell is this really meant to fix? Clicking on a target is in no way, shape or form difficult. It's been a staple in video games for decades. What would prompt someone to replace this with a stiff-necked, awkward reticle that straightjackets the player's cursor?
Why does that reticle always have to take up the center of the screen, regardless of whether the tab key has been pressed? It's just in the way in that scenario, and it doesn't truly release control to the mouse. It just supplements the reticle, which is, in a sense, worse, because the UI teases the player with the promise of control, then effectively blocks the most important aspects of the mouse cursor. As for immersion, having a giant, ungainly targeting site plastered over the center of my screen certainly does harsh my ability to focus on what's beneath it.
And then, as I pondered this seemingly inscrutable and wildly unpopular change, it hit me. The reticle has little to nothing to do with the standard PC or console experience. The reticle isn't meant to improve the experience on those devices. There's only one other aggravating, baffling control system I've ever seen that requires this sort of swivel-headed frustration: the one used by virtual reality headsets.
If you weren't at PAX East this year, you might have missed the proliferation of VR devices on the showroom floor. The number one complaint among the attendees this year -- right after metal detectors and bag checks -- was "Why is VR taking up so much space that could be used for stuff we, y'know, actually like?" Sony, Occulus and Valve all had a significant VR presence this year, and witnessing people in clunky goggles wave glowing wands at unseen things was a common sight. Most of us just laughed these displays off, because the technology was so clearly not ready for prime time.
The lion's share of those 1.0 products boasted a new navigation scheme: look-to-target. When you have a giant set of blacked-out ski goggles pulled over your eyes, it's hard to work with a keyboard or controller. You become the Hellen Keller of gamers, and as such, pointing your head becomes an essential navigational tool. You might not be able to see your real-world control devices, but you can still crane your neck to look at stuff inside the simulation. (As an aside, chiropractors must be investing in this technology like nobody's business, because it's going to make them so much money in the years to come.) In order to facilitate this UI scheme, the player needs a fixed point to indicate what, in specific, they're looking at -- a reticle, which is used for selection and targeting.
I kept asking myself over and over "What problem does the SotA reticle solve?" If you look at it in the context of a 2D screen, the answer is an obvious "none." But if you examine the problem from a VR perspective, the answer is clearer; the reticle is the key point of user interaction in this kind of scenario, and not having one causes all kinds of issues.
Now keep in mind that this is all blatant speculation on my part, but I do believe I'm onto something here. Maybe this is an attempt to ride the VR wave in the spirit of Ready Player One. And Occulus support is a stretch goal that SotA reached in the end days of its Kickstarter campaign, correct? So it's not a wild leap to say that the game is being adapted for a new and immersive user interface. But with that said...
Portalarium, with all love and respect, if I'm even 50% right on this guess: STOP. Please, just... STOP.
We get it. VR is the new black in gaming, just like nVidia 3D View was a few years ago. I own one of those 3D View monitors, as a matter of fact. I don't know when I last put on the glasses. It just didn't work well, and most games never properly supported it. Targeting was an issue, of course, but my solution was to revert to a reliable, less headache-incuding 2D interface. My money was, for the most part, wasted.
And so I don't anticipate shelling out $800 for Steam VR or its equivalent any time soon. The lion's share of us won't be going down that route until at least the 2.0 version, if not the 3.0 version, and a much more usable control scheme. I'd wager that 97-99% of the player base won't be going down that road anytime soon. This is an outlier use case at the present time. Adapting the game to fit it is daft. You'll alienate far, far, FAR more gamers than you appease.
The reticle isn't needed. A poll posted in one of the recent forum threads regarding this change showed a 48% disapproval rating for it. The current rating for SotA on Steam is only 67.5% positive. Much of that Steam rating is directly attributable to past changes like the deck system, skill system, etc. You've banked a lot on some divisive systems, and two months before the final wipe arrives, you're delivering quite a bitter bill for everyone to swallow. Hell, I own two PoTs, and filling them out is proving to be an issue, because the people I'm introducing to the game aren't wild about combat and the UI. They try the gift accounts I give them, and then let them sit to gather virtual dust in their Steam library.
Please reconsider driving yet another wedge into your player base, especially if this latest round is in service to a young, unproven and overpriced technology. I cannot envision a good outcome to that sort of decision.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Am I wrong? Because if I am, just say so.
Chris readies his thoughtful reply to this customer who has invested a minimum of $3,300 into his product:
Ok, first off, you must have missed all the articles where Richard has said that VR is still just a gimmick. Starr and I feel the same way. We aren't doing VR and this has nothing to do with VR. Don't believe me? Well, step one for VR is you need to be able to run at a rock solid 60fps to go on VR or you will make people puke. Have you been to Owlshead or Ardoris when it is fully occupied and deco'd? We're not doing VR and not even investigating it.
I've covered what was broken in the old system a half dozen times now and it was horribly broken. Maybe not in your eyes but for many players and for most new players it felt and was broken. I have said at least 25 times that IT ISN'T DONE YET and we still have lots to improve on it. Most of the improvements will go in before the final patch of R29 but some will slip to R30 since this is a short release.
Really just isn't constructive when you choose to ignore that we're in development working on a feature and endlessly rant about it in dozens of threads. It just feels like you forgot that we're still in development or something. Seriously, we just deleted your character and that is fine and expected but a half finished and buggy feature goes in and you freakin' lose your minds. If you think you're trying to help the development of the game, you're not. Just stop it with the pointless rants trying to build people's hate for an unfinished system. If it still sucks by the last patch of R30, then start your rants but right now you're really just pissing off the people who like it and the devs.
I've covered what was broken in the old system a half dozen times now and it was horribly broken. Maybe not in your eyes but for many players and for most new players it felt and was broken. I have said at least 25 times that IT ISN'T DONE YET and we still have lots to improve on it. Most of the improvements will go in before the final patch of R29 but some will slip to R30 since this is a short release.
Really just isn't constructive when you choose to ignore that we're in development working on a feature and endlessly rant about it in dozens of threads. It just feels like you forgot that we're still in development or something. Seriously, we just deleted your character and that is fine and expected but a half finished and buggy feature goes in and you freakin' lose your minds. If you think you're trying to help the development of the game, you're not. Just stop it with the pointless rants trying to build people's hate for an unfinished system. If it still sucks by the last patch of R30, then start your rants but right now you're really just pissing off the people who like it and the devs.
