On Projectile Aesthetics

Having watched the last few live streams where we got to see projectiles being fired, I have to say I really don't like how the projectiles themselves and also the trajectories look. In my opinion the projectiles all look kind of rocket-like and are too massive. The trajectories are really curved, which makes the projectiles look less powerful... it takes away the OOMPH, you know...
Fast moving projectiles with straight trajectories (not including arty and stuff) just look cooler; or rather more "awesome", to use the special PA word...

I know that this is early footage, yadda yadda bla bla... still want to make this point early. maybe I am not the only one who feels like that. Because from the firefight I won't have "visual pleasure" if the projectile aesthetics remained like that unchanged.


Would like to know you guys' opinions.

I agree, they need to be scaled WAAAY down, as well as the explosion effects. Way too cluttered and can't see what's going on, especially without transparent smoke.

Yea right, I forgot about that aspect.

To expand on ticklemeelmo's perfect reply, their end goal is to match what they pitched in the pitch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... hEYvOYceNs

Watch the pitch video and tell me what you see.

Are you really seriously implying the projectiles in the pitch trailer look alike to the ones in the actual game footage?

They don't, maybe you need glasses... The projectiles in the trailer are rapidly moving, thin and laserlike. The ones in the game at this point are bulky, slow moving and rocketlike

I think they're purposefully exaggerated so it's easy to read on stream.

Of course there will be lasers, and rockets, and cannons, and etc etc.

Edit: Also, my eyes are 20/20.

What is the point of this assertion of yours? I said the projectiles in the stream don't look alike those in the game footage, because you formerly implyingly (probably not a word - deal with it) suggested they did.

I don't care what all different kinds of projectiles will be there. I am saying the ones to be seen in the recent streams look bad.

Maybe, but I would not assume the way they aim the aesthetics to be laid out in the final version are intended to differ a lot.

I would when they say so before every demonstration. There will be a time to complain about projectiles, it's not just yet though.

While I know it's alpha footage, I agree that the rocket projectiles in the stream were a bit big and the trails were kinda distracting.

But the explosions were almost perfect.

The explosions are nice yes, but they are also obstructing.

I prefer to intervene before the damage is done rather than complain later. They certainly have not chosen these aesthetics for no reason, even if they are only placeholders. And with no word they said, they were exaggerating the projectile aesthetics for the purpose of whatever.

that was my takeaway too, the explosions looked much better - i'm sure they could still use plenty of post production though e.g. tiny far flying bits.

No moreso than TA explosions. For units, the explosions disappeared very quickly, although they stayed longer for buildings, and obviously visual obstruction is less critical for building deaths. And of course it's WIP.

in the first combat LS I would agree explosions persisted for too long, in today's LS they dissipate much more quickly, you should rewatch it.

It's not even Alpha yet, nothing is final, everything can change.

Once the game runs without crashing and all the key features are implemented, then we can focus on things like this.

Mike

You probably can say that about 95% of the things that have been discussed in these forums so far. And always I found this claim to be nonsensical. It does not matter whatsoever, when you discuss these things, because it helps avoiding mistakes, when you discuss them early.

What is better? People saying NOW "we don't like that style and where it's probably going. Don't pursue that pass of aesthetics, take a different approach.",

or saying AFTER the bigger part of the work has been done "Nope, this is BS, do it again from scratch!"

The former is.

An exception to early discussions are to some extent balance discussion. But even hypothetical balance discussion can help. Certainly it does no harm to discuss things prior to their realization.

Nope, I'd say a fair majority of the things discussed actually deal with topics that Uber doesn't even know the final outcome to.

For example, Interplanetary Transport. Uber Might have some High level ideas they want to try, but they don't know if any of those will stick, because the Core gameplay isn't even all there yet(that is, Land/Air/Naval Battle on a single planet) There's no point locking into to something like Interplanetary Transport until they get to the stage where it's needed.

Also, what I said here applies just as much here;

Right now they displaying the product, not making small 'fine-tuning' type adjustments just yet.

As I said, It's Pre-Alpha, these are 0th/1st passes at things, nothing is final, everything can(and probably will) change.

Mike

Yea, so? What is the harm in giving them early feedback on what might potentially resemble the final thing?! It does not matter if they want to do it this way or that way. Telling them "We don't want it to be so and so" still helps, as long as they don't say how they want to do it, no matter what people say.

And for saying discussion about interplanetary transport were completely vain atm you contributed quite a bit in the discussion on dropships and co. back then.

I never said they were vain.

Mike

I understood this as saying it was vain...