TSCavalier

I think DS has stated quite clearly in innumerable posts (here and elsewhere) that money isn't his motivation. He'll keep making more games as long as people are willing to pay for it (which they are) and in enough quantity to warrant making another installment (which it does). I agree with you that there appear to be a lot of "yes men" on this board. However, understand that this IS his board and the people who remain here are positive or at least minimally neutral toward him. Would you let thugs trash your house? No. I also agree with you that the game has a lack of "Hollywood BOOM factor", but if that's what you want, you're looking at the wrong game. Play the game for what it is, not for what it isn't. And if you don't like its style or presentation, no one is twisting your arm to play it. There are other games out there to play that have a BOOM factor if that's what you're looking for. But I, too, feel what I think you are saying. You want one of your favorite games to be even better... cooler... prettier... and you want other people to understand what a cool game BC/UC ultimately is (and that a designer paint job might do the trick).

Where is the shoot button? I like games with a shoot button.

I let it install itself last night, no problems. So far it has warned me that AIM needed a hole in the firewall, so I let it. Kinda cool how you are notified of such things instead of it simply not working. Also, the pop-up stopper now built into IE works well. Those are the only surface changes I've noticed so far.

quote:Originally posted by Xanatos: I too agree that games these days are too easy to figure out (with tutorials and all), but you musn't remember the number one quality a game needs to be truly succesful: Easy to Learn, Hard to Master.Actually, the number one quality a that a game needs to have is to be FUN. And that is 100% subjective. If your definition of fun is "easy to learn and hard to master", then that's what fun is to you. Some people find that overcoming a challenge is fun, and I think that's what Universal Combat does (and why I think it is fun). Other people prefer to shut their brains off as entertainment. I personally enjoy a mix of both, depending how I feel that day.

I liked the part when he said, "[uC's] over-the-top fixation on the most trivial details of starship control". mm-kay... I am curious how many starships he has controlled before. And, if he had actually played the game, he would have found out that none of the details are trivial, but are functional pieces of a larger whole. It's not like you're micromanaging latrine duty. Quite the opposite, except keeping your eye on fuel quantities (and food), the ship/crew runs itself. And I do agree that the user interface is complex. Not absurdly complex, but this is a space simulator and as such is more complicated than a space shooter (like Freelancer, for example). He would probably trash MS Flight Simulator, too. A newbie can't just hop into that game, either, without a substantial learning curve, especially if you want to take advantage of all the realistic navigation and radio features. He simply didn't review UC for what it was (a sci-fi tactical space simulator), and instead took a forum-troll attitude towards the game and "reviewed" it from an arcade shooter/eye-candy point of view. I love arcade/flashy shooters. Right now UT2004 is tops on my list, but I wouldn't even think about tainting a review (if I were to do one) of Universal Combat with my opinion of UT2004. This reviewer had his mind (and agenda) on things other than the game he was reviewing.

Downloaded and read the review... Before I started, I took a deep breath and pretended like I had never heard of Universal Combat, or Derek Smart, before. I don't get it, and I agree with you. The guy didn't review the game! It sounded like nothing more than one of the many flame-ridden forum posts that I've seen trolls post about this or that game (including UC). It was all groundless opinion and no substance. He didn't give any specific examples of any features in the game that caused him to have a negative opinion. To be fair, he did complain about how big the manual was and gave numbers of pages... so that's valid review material (opinion and fact). I (the review reader) can look at that and say, "But *I* like games with healthy manuals, especially complex simulations." He doesn't say anything positive about the game at all, except that you'd like the game if you are one of the fetishistic nerds that's played one of the previous games in the series. Heck, I'm hardly a die-hard of the game, and am only a few months new to it, but I do like what I've played so far and took offense. Not to sound (too) crude, but all he basically said is that it was too big and hard. Maybe he's the one with the fetish problem... and maybe you should take it as a compliment.

OK, same setup as above. Each time I started a new ROAM scenario. I also chose different races and assets each time, to isolate whether or not it was tied to Terran/Military/Megaron. Both times I set a CC waypoint on the starting default planet (Zilon and C-...something ) and land. The first time was as Zelon/Mercenary/Warmonger. I enter the planet, deploy SC1 with marine #1, order it to deploy its vehicle (OC1 an APC), hop out of the CC, man the OC1, and order SC1 to pick me up (it had already docked back into the CC). Once on the CC, Tactical and Logistix thought I was still in the SC1. The second time was as Gammulan/Police/Starwarrior. Identical setup, the only difference being that I hopped out of the CC before I told SC1 to launch (I hadn't yet sent marine #1 to it). Other than that everything was the same, and when I finally made it back to the CC in SC1, Tactical and Logistix thought I was stil in the SC1 (even though Perscan said I was on the bridge). It looks like the automatic switch(s) that occurs from OC to SC to CC confuses things, and it doesn't fix itself unless you manually switch assets (such as hopping back out and back into the CC). Like I said, it's not a big deal, it was just perplexing the first time I encountered this. Once I figured out what it was doing, it's easy to reset Tactical and Logistix by hopping out of and back into the CC. Unrelated, but in the second test, I instantly entered the planet's atmosphere after setting the CC's entry waypoint on the planet and hitting Shift-9. I hadn't altered the CC's heading at all (which was away from the planet). Kinda shocked me. No hyperdrive transit at all, just -bam- right to the atmosphere-entry animation, which is why I didn't have time to send the marine to the shuttle (which is what I did during hyper-transit in the first test).

Has anyone else encountered this (VERY minor) glitch? I am able to consistently reproduce it, but it has a simple work around. I didn't see it as an issue in the VCF. OPERATING SYSTEM: winXP OS ENVIRONMENT: 1024x768x32 GAME ENVIRONMENT: 1024x768x32 GAME VERSION: 2.00.12 GAME TYPE: roam CAREER/RACE/CASTE: cmdr/terran/mil ASSET/LAUNCH BASE: megaron/galcomHQ PROBLEM/TO REPRODUCE I am running a fresh install of UC, w/2.00.12 but using a ROAM save game from 2.00.11. 1. Descend to the surface of a planet in your CC (I used a Megaron) and park it. 2. Launch a shuttle and have it deploy an OC vehicle. 3. Jump out of the ever-near airlock of the CC (Alt-E) and walk/run to the parked OC. 4. Have the shuttle extract the vehicle you are manning; when this happens you will push the marine pilot out of the way and take control of the shuttle. 5. Fly the shuttle back to your CC and dock with it (Alt-D). You can watch yourself walk back to the bridge with Perscan. However, any attempt to access Tactical or Logistix will give you the buttons/options of the shuttle (even after you have arrived on the bridge). The computer systems do not seem to know that you are on-board the CC, but think you are still on the shuttle. RESOLUTION Simply command another asset or hop out of the CC and back in and the systems now "reset" and recognize that you are commanding the CC. (I feel a bit bad that my first post after being re-commissioned is a possible bug report . I just happend to run accross this tonight, and thought I'd be helpful and report it.) [ 08-16-2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by TSCavalier: I develop/code software for a living, and have done so for about 10 years. Well, ain't that peachy? I'm simply stating that in my experience, it's unacceptable for an application to crash via a single keypress. It's your prerogative, of course, to respond to this in a patronizing, condescending manner. quote:Fact is, not all games disable the Windows key because it is an OS key.Fair enough. But do the ones that do leave the Windows key enabled crash entirely when the Windows key is pressed? Technically, in UC's case, it's not when the key is pressed, but soon after the game is restored from being deactivated. quote: And if you're mashing keys without looking or knowing what you're doing, you only have yourself to blame.I generally do not take my eyes off the screen when I play. So, yes, I'm not carefully looking under my hand to make sure that I avoid the Windows key. When touch-typing for keys outside of the standard QWERTY set, it's easy to misjudge the placement of your ring or middle finger by .25 inch. quote:I'm not responsible for actions or I might as well be responsible if you accidentally pressed the ALT key while flying too close to the ground, thus resulting in crashing the craft because you had mouse look on. Gimme a break..The break(s) that your gamers give you far exceeds the norm and you know it. I'm one of them. If I crash into the ground because I accidentally press the ALT key, then it IS my fault. However, if I accidentally press the Windows key and it crashes the program... I would argue that nothing the player legitimately playing the game might do should crash the program. The keyboard is the user's interface into the game, and there's a key right there between two critical keys for the game... via a single keypress, I might add... that crashes the game. quote:Besides, I was planning to disable the Windows key at one point, but decided against it. And if every developer considered it a priority - or even a necessity - the net won't be full of hundreds of pages showing how to disable this key. Even MS have a bulletin on their site on how to disable it. And because of that, I'll have to find a workaround outside of the game to fix a problem with the game. Essentially, the game is not fully compatible with keyboards that include the Windows key. I would have been happy with, "No, that's not something I think is a problem, so I'm not going to fix it. Alternative solutions exist. Case closed."

I develop/code software for a living, and have done so for about 10 years. I've never encountered a situation where users would accept the solution from me to be: "Oh, yeah, that key crashes the program, just don't press it... I'm sorry you lost two hours of work... I know it's right between the two most frequently used keys in the program... ...fine, pop the key out of your keyboard if you've got fat fingers... " I'm just sayin' I will try the solution from Has in the meantime, though. Thanks.

[Drops to knees and begs...] Pleeease, SC!!! Disable the Windows key in UC! Over the last couple of days, I've had the opportunity to play UC for quite a number of hours, and I have had to restart it at least 10 times because accidentally hitting the Windows key kills UC (a lengthy process due to pre-cache). It's not the re-loading that's painful, actually, it's the hours of gameplay advancement tossed out the window. I don't think dismantling my keyboard or disabling the Windows key entirely (via the Registry) is an answer (other family members use this PC). I tried to play in a window for a while, and UC is "safe" from it in this mode, but it's not really an option for me because every time I enter the Tactical screen, the game freezes and/or crashes. Other games I own either disable this key or are capable of surviving task-switching. Another way to put it... I've never had a problem with the Windows key ever before. So please, please, please, please, please, disable this key in UC. Thank you... (please! ) [Edit: I noticed I don't have my system profile in my sig. I'm not where my manual is at the moment. I will add it to my sig today when I get home.]

I followed the first version of the tutorial up to the 1st person portion... then... D'oh! You added 24 more pages!!! Heh heh... Actually, I think you did a good job on it. You injected your personal sense of humor and kept it informative. I suppose the only critique I would have is that it starts fairly slowly (a good thing) with lots of flavor and such, and then starts to move a lot faster and feels a bit more technical... like a manual. I couldn't help but think I had read some of it before (in the manual). The Quick Tips in the back (Appendix?) are WONDERFUL. This is the place where you find out what you can actually DO in the game... by just reading the headings, you find out the "functional points" of the game... "Wow! I can capture a station?!? Coool!" I'll be printing out the tutorial again to run through the 1st person portion and waypoint/ground deployments, as the latter is probably the most complicated part of the game. Overall, a good job. [ 05-27-2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: TSCavalier ]

SC.setStatus(StatusConst.THANKED); if (SC.getStatus() == StatusConst.THANKED) { System.out.println("Thanks, SC!"); } (Oy, I code too much... yes, Java)

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: You're talking about a completely different thing. If you have a slow assed HDD, defragging is only going to go so far. Stuttering is not just related to disk thrashing while assets are loading - which is what you are talking about. The VCF entry has to do with loading character animations and it does minimize thrashing because the character animation models are now loaded in a more efficient manner. Thrashing occuring from loading almost 30MB of character animations (per character model) is a completely different thing from thrashing occuring from a mere few ships (with less than 5MB each) showing up in the region. The game still has to load assets from the HDD regardless - it doesn't store everything in memory or the game would not fit even within a 1GB memory footprint. Well, whatever you did in 2.0, intentional or not, made the game playable on my system. In the demo, pre 2.0, the game would frequently pause for a good 15-20 seconds or more mid-flight (especially on planets) whenever something new came into range. I think it's funny that you say "there's nothing I can do about it" and then you go and do something about it. All in good time.

The number one benefit for me with the 2.0 patch was that the mid-flight pauses have been eliminated whenever a new object comes into range. This behavior kept me from buying the game outright. But, with the promise of this being eliminated with the 2.0 patch, I bought the game. Sure enough, no more long pauses mid-game. In fact, everthing is much smoother. There's still some frame-skipping during loading, but NOTHING like it was pre-2.0. A defrag would probably fix even this. With the demo, every time a new ship would jump into the system, or if I was on a planet and ANYTHING new had to be shown, the game would freeze, the sound would start repeating like a broken record, and I would go take a bathroom break. Now, it's silky smooth during the whole game, with only a slight (understandable) stutter when new objects show up. Now I just have to hold it

Understood, SC. Thanks again all for taking the time to answer my questions and being patient with a n00b.

Ok, a gameplay scenario. Insurgents board my battlecruiser and they are currently located in the cargo bay. They are on their way to the bridge. I am on the bridge. I decide to leave the bridge and hide in the medbay under a chair. Everybody has to actually travel through the ship to their destination. Is there ANY chance of me encountering the Insurgents? Would we meet in the hallway? Can I guarantee my safety by choosing a certain path through the ship? If so, I would think the ship layout would become important. Wouldn't it? Otherwise, it's simply a "status" (refreshing every 15 seconds, no?) where you are [here] going [here] and there really isn't an in-between. You just have to make sure that you and the baddies don't go to the same place (or *do* go to the same place, in the case of the marines you send after the intruders). And yes. I am n00b. Hear me roar. --------- By the way, gameplay discussions like this are great (even when initiated by a n00b). It's how, via these forums, I ended up learning what the game really was all about (instead of trusting some reviewer that played the game for all of 10 minutes). My personal game-buying pattern is to not just read some hastily scribbled review, but to also find out what both the fans and detractors say about a game. With UC... I listened to the fans on these forums talk about their gameplay experiences. The passion that I saw, and the unprecedented support by the SC, lead me to buy and play a truly unique and deep game. Kudos. All of this and I haven't even left Earth and the surrounding area. I haven't even scratched the surface. I can't wait to see what else is out there.

Me too! I'm brand-spankin' new to this game, and while I love doing what I know how to do, I wanna know more! It's one thing to be given the tools. It's another thing entirely to know how to use them.

I'm confused. quote:At the end of the day, they add nothing to the game and are useless within the scope of actually playing the game. -SCYet quote:If it [ship layout] didn't [matter], it wouldn't be in the game and you won't have in-ship movement. -SCSo, a map showing the ship layouts would add nothing to the game, but there are gameplay elements that depend on the layout of the ship. In other words, the layout is important, but the map (explanation) of that layout is not? I'm not trying to be sarcastic (though it might sound that way). I'm just learning. [ 05-14-2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: TSCavalier ]

OK! Thanks for the response SC. I was typing my post right before you responded with yours. So, there are gameplay elements there with regards to crew locations... but the actual layout of the ship doesn't matter. Got it.

I suppose the reason that I ask is that while skimming the manual (which is not with me at the moment) I found that you can be boarded by baddies... and when it happens, it is prudent to send marines after them and to move your AE around the ship to avoid getting got. Also, if damage occurs in certain parts of the ship, it may prevent your crew from getting to where they want to go (or run away from). I also read where your crew can get hungry and all crowd the mess hall... or make long lines to the medbay. All of these crew dynamics sound awesome! Even if it is just in the form of a crew listing in PERSCAN. I'm just wondering how much of an impact this facet of the game (one of many) has on actual practical gameplay. Like... I've already experienced sending myself (AE) to a fighter and flying around a bit. I loved the Star Trek-ian feel of that ("Number One, you've got the bridge!") when I found out that I can't very well drive the battlecruiser when I'm walking around the hallways Does it really matter what the layout of the ship is? Or is it just a "status" of sorts for each crew member?

Greetings all! A disclaimer: I am a complete newbie to this game. I had downloaded various versions of BC3K demos in the past but always got winded climbing the learning curve. I've been lurking in these forums for a while now, though, and couldn't help but think I missed something since there is a lot of passion out there for this game. So... recently I downloaded the demo for UC... now I'm addicted... so I decided to actually buy the game... installed the 2.0 patch... now I'm a convert. Now to the point of this post: Again, being a total newbie... I've been searching around unsuccessfully for a "map" of sorts for the interior of your battlecruiser. I understand that your crew moves around from location to location, and certain events can occur on your ship to cause problems getting a crewmember from here to there. Does a map of sorts exist that shows the connections between locations in the ship? All I'm talking about here is a box/line flowchart-style layout... like, to get from the cargo bay to the bridge you have to travel between areas X, Y, and Z. Remember the old Zork-map days? I'm in the process of Reading The Fine Manual so I might find the answers myself so please ignore me if I'm totally clueless. Thanks for reading!