Cyclops 2.0 feedback

124»

Comments

  • The08MetroidManThe08MetroidMan Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
    rave4thor wrote: »
    Okay so im sure its been said, but the silent running 2.0 feature is EXTREMELY dumb.

    I was on a submarine for 4 years in the navy and thats just NOT how engines work. You cannot just be "silent" in high speed, and whatever the DEVs think cavitation is they are very confused. you cavitate with speed and pressure. shallow water/high speed = more cavitation Deeper water/slow speed = Less to no cavitation. But these 30 second bursts of quiet make absolutely no sense. rig for silent running is a whole ship condition with speed limitations and non essential system shutdowns, not just a flip of a switch 30 second sound muffle. Lastly, an engine (especially a futuristic one) should be able to run at high speed for quite a while before catching fire. that just doesnt make any sense to me.

    P.S. I worked in the engineroom so I kind of know about submarine engines

    Rant over

    My objection to that is how... well, this isn't a modern-day submarine. This is several hundred years into the future, with technology so advanced that dark-matter drive cores, molecular manipulation of matter for 3D-flash printing items and instantaneous creation of what's apparently diamond-hard shields are all old hat - for an exploration group at that, never mind the military in this future-world. Whether or not it makes sense is moot - in terms of what the tech can or cannot insulate sound for, it's closer to Star Trek logic's "future-science tech" justification. We can't say for sure how that tech works or not - whether flank speed requires some kind of overclock or whatever - because it's not our tech; no amount of experience in a modern-day sub's engine is going to necessarily be the same as the one in the Cyclops outside of sharing it's general purpose of deep-sea exploration.
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
    Games didn't and will never make sense that's what makes them fun cuz they give you a cool experience that you'll never see in real life so sometimes certain things ingame should not be questioned cuz it's what makes it fun
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members
    @The08MetroidMan
    I might have been a bit harsh. Sorry about that. Maybe because you were a bit unfair to me. Example:
    zetachron wrote: »
    Didn't you read the part where I told that I also used the Propulsion cannon? I did this to make sure that the leviathan wouldn't detect me, but only the decoy ...

    Yes, I did - it just feels like you're missing the part where I told you "if a creature detects you, of course the decoy is useless to use in that situation unless the creature is exceedingly stupid (again, like the Reapers)." Getting close to use the propulsion cannon is still going to be inside the detection radius for any creature that's not a Reaper - you yourself noted the Sea Dragon's aggro range was practically the entire ILZ and ALZ. It also feels like you missed the part where I said it wasn't a reliable or feasible method as opposed to an impossible one, since you're quite possibly the only person who I've seen be skilled enough to make it work in any instance, let alone every one, which isn't guarantee of viability - that would be if anyone in any instance could do it ...

    In former discussions and here again you tell me how experienced I'm. Yet here you simply assume (indirectly) that I'm too inexperienced to realize if or if not a leviathan has detected me. That's not the case and you could simply trust me when I say that I fired a decoy without the leviathan detecting me. But you don't trust me there and thus argue that my argument might not be valid, because I could've been detected.

    I don't know if people like this part of your discussion style. I certainly don't.

    By the way, in experimental the Sea Dragon aggro range has been reduced severly. Otherwise it would be impossible to fire a decoy at him and watch him doing circles, ignoring you.
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members
    rave4thor wrote: »
    Okay so im sure its been said, but the silent running 2.0 feature is EXTREMELY dumb.

    I was on a submarine for 4 years in the navy and thats just NOT how engines work. You cannot just be "silent" in high speed, and whatever the DEVs think cavitation is they are very confused. you cavitate with speed and pressure. shallow water/high speed = more cavitation Deeper water/slow speed = Less to no cavitation. But these 30 second bursts of quiet make absolutely no sense. rig for silent running is a whole ship condition with speed limitations and non essential system shutdowns, not just a flip of a switch 30 second sound muffle. Lastly, an engine (especially a futuristic one) should be able to run at high speed for quite a while before catching fire. that just doesnt make any sense to me.

    P.S. I worked in the engineroom so I kind of know about submarine engines

    Rant over

    I think a lot of player and even the devs know that the mechanic is stupid. But the problem is the "balancing" of the game. A lot of games and devs bend logic until it hurts, only because they have the problem of knowing no other way to balance the game.

    In this case, the first silent running was more real with being coupled to a very slow speed. But then (from another thread):
    From UWE developer Klegran, on the Subnautica Reddit

    Hey Ya'll!
    Since the release of Silent Running we've been getting a ton of feedback on what players like and don't like about the state of the Cyclops. We are attempting to address these issues with another feature patch to the Cyclops. Here is the overall goal of the changes, followed by the changes themselves:
    Players liked the concept of Silent Running (SR), but felt that in order to get the most out of it they had to keep the sub perpetually in silent running when near enemies. It essentially became a "get out of jail free card" by slotting into SR to remove agro from all enemies and then crawling past them at a snail's pace. This was not the intent of the feature; instead it was supposed to be used very seldomly to sneak past enemies. To address this, we are replacing the Silent Running speed setting with a SR ability that runs for 30 seconds followed by a 2 min cooldown ...

    It didn't really work (the devs aren't experienced with stealth games I assume). Now we have got another "get out of jail free card" feature, like engines off and the silent running is still "get out of jail free", only with a cooldown. It remembers me of survival (food & water) balancing that ended with "get out of jail free" farming and breeding.

    I think the devs should rather switch back to the reasonable and real silent running now that only a few big creatures can attack the Cyclops anyway. A silent running that dampens the engine noise.
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members
    kingkuma wrote: »
    How to get air in a base without power:

    You'll need:

    1 alien containment
    1 Brain coral sample.

    Plant the coral sample.

    Wait for it to grow.

    Kaboosh. Infinite O2.

    Used that long ago, but wasn't feeling good entering and exiting the containment. And a simple growbed near a base could do the same.

    But the devs should use purple brain corals for oxygen generation tech or somehow allow those plants to feed a base with air.
  • The08MetroidManThe08MetroidMan Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
    zetachron wrote: »
    I might have been a bit harsh. Sorry about that. Maybe because you were a bit unfair to me. Example:

    In former discussions and here again you tell me how experienced I'm. Yet here you simply assume (indirectly) that I'm too inexperienced to realize if or if not a leviathan has detected me. That's not the case and you could simply trust me when I say that I fired a decoy without the leviathan detecting me. But you don't trust me there and thus argue that my argument might not be valid, because I could've been detected.

    I don't know if people like this part of your discussion style. I certainly don't.

    By the way, in experimental the Sea Dragon aggro range has been reduced severly. Otherwise it would be impossible to fire a decoy at him and watch him doing circles, ignoring you.

    Except that example's a complete misunderstanding; I spoke about how I thought the method of deploying decoys by hand is (A) fundamentally flawed and not very viable for general use outside exceptionally-skilled people, and (B) realistically wouldn't have any guarantee of success against any creature beyond the exceptionally dumb ones like Reapers.

    Never once did I say or even imply that you were incapable of recognizing if a Leviathan could detect you - I said that realistically, it's impossible for most animals to not detect you or anyone else dropping a decoy if you're right in front of them or already in their detection range, and I based that belief off of your own words regarding the range of the Sea Dragon's aggro.

    No offense... but how did my saying "I don't think the method is feasible because only a very dumb creature would go for a decoy dropped right in front of them or by something already in their aggro range", cross it with "only you have the kind of skill needed to ever pull that off without it actually detecting you, since most people realistically couldn't do that without getting detected"... and yet somehow end up with "I think you don't know when a Leviathan can see you"? It was a complaint that your tests don't help the people who aren't at your skill level/can't even manage to avoid being picked up by the creatures, not that you're somehow incompetent.

    So I'm sorry, but you're still being pretty harsh - I mean, your comment is still basically an accusation of me patronizing you. I don't know if it's how you're reading it, how I'm writing it or both or neither, but what you're taking away from it doesn't match what it was I tried to say, and I again apologize for the mix-up.

    Also, I haven't visited that area in experimental since the last patch, but I doubt it'll help me personally - I've never been able to bypass anything without setting it off somehow the moment I turn my back. Dunno if it's just bad luck or I'm a bad gamer, but there you go.
  • SouthernGorillaSouthernGorilla United States Join Date: 2017-07-26 Member: 232057Members
    If y'all don't mind a new guy joining this rather heated discussion, I do have an idea for adding utility to the Cyclops without hurting the utility of the PRAWN.

    First, I have to say up front that I am one of those who was sorely disappointed when I first built my Cyclops. I thought it was going to open the ocean to me... but the first time a school of sharks nearly sank it and left me choking on smoke and racing to put out fires I decided I was better off exploring in the Sea Moth. The storage lockers are a joke, you can't get external power to it, it's hard to dock the PRAWN in it, visibility is bad, maneuverability is non-existent... yeah, I was not a fan. But then I discovered you can run slow and the sharks will leave you alone. You can add real lockers and make it almost as functional as a real base. So I'm coming around a bit. But it still doesn't really impress me much.

    Having said that, I think it could be vastly improved with the addition of an arm like on the space shuttle. Not a drill as has been discussed previously, just a grappler. Then we could go out and harvest ore deposits with the Cyclops and bring them back to a staging area to be drilled with the PRAWN. So the PRAWN remains critical to the operation while the Cyclops allows us to work around the limitations of the PRAWN. The Cyclops could get deposits that are difficult or impossible for the PRAWN to reach. And it would all be balanced naturally by the fact that the docking area of the Cyclops would be occupied by the arm and ore storage. So we'd be taking a significant risk of being stranded in a bad situation without an escape vehicle if the Cyclops was disabled or destroyed. But the reward would be the ability to harvest 6, 8, 10, or however many ore deposits that could be stored at a base and safely drilled when needed.

    The PRAWN would still be essential since the Cyclops wouldn't be able to get close to every deposit. And all the Cyclops could do would be pick up the deposits and carry them somewhere. But I think that would add a new dimension to the strategy of the game. As a base-builder I really like the idea of having my own private quarry right outside my window just like I have my "garden" growing other resources I need and the containment tank growing fuel for my bio-reactor.
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
    edited July 2017
    If y'all don't mind a new guy joining this rather heated discussion, I do have an idea for adding utility to the Cyclops without hurting the utility of the PRAWN.

    First, I have to say up front that I am one of those who was sorely disappointed when I first built my Cyclops. I thought it was going to open the ocean to me... but the first time a school of sharks nearly sank it and left me choking on smoke and racing to put out fires I decided I was better off exploring in the Sea Moth. The storage lockers are a joke, you can't get external power to it, it's hard to dock the PRAWN in it, visibility is bad, maneuverability is non-existent... yeah, I was not a fan. But then I discovered you can run slow and the sharks will leave you alone. You can add real lockers and make it almost as functional as a real base. So I'm coming around a bit. But it still doesn't really impress me much.

    Having said that, I think it could be vastly improved with the addition of an arm like on the space shuttle. Not a drill as has been discussed previously, just a grappler. Then we could go out and harvest ore deposits with the Cyclops and bring them back to a staging area to be drilled with the PRAWN. So the PRAWN remains critical to the operation while the Cyclops allows us to work around the limitations of the PRAWN. The Cyclops could get deposits that are difficult or impossible for the PRAWN to reach. And it would all be balanced naturally by the fact that the docking area of the Cyclops would be occupied by the arm and ore storage. So we'd be taking a significant risk of being stranded in a bad situation without an escape vehicle if the Cyclops was disabled or destroyed. But the reward would be the ability to harvest 6, 8, 10, or however many ore deposits that could be stored at a base and safely drilled when needed.

    The PRAWN would still be essential since the Cyclops wouldn't be able to get close to every deposit. And all the Cyclops could do would be pick up the deposits and carry them somewhere. But I think that would add a new dimension to the strategy of the game. As a base-builder I really like the idea of having my own private quarry right outside my window just like I have my "garden" growing other resources I need and the containment tank growing fuel for my bio-reactor.

    The cyclops isn't intended to be a fortress that only big creatures can crack it it's an underwater mobile base with extreme utility potential so but with low maneuverability and other things

    The lockers in the cyclops in experimental mode have additional column giving them extra storage capacity aswell as extra two slots to insert upgrades and now silent running lasts longer and only big to massive creatures attack the cyclops now

    And the devs mentioned that before the release of 1.0 there's going to be a full balance pass to everything so everything so is still a subject to change even though the game is near completion

    Adding arms to the cyclops is too far no matter what type it is the exosuit propulsion arm can grab some of the deposits if not all of them then what's the point of arms for the cyclops?

    But that's just my opinion and who knows maybe we will get arms for it cuz as always the subnautica devs always surprise us with cool stuff
  • SouthernGorillaSouthernGorilla United States Join Date: 2017-07-26 Member: 232057Members
    adel_50 wrote: »

    The cyclops isn't intended to be a fortress that only big creatures can crack it it's an underwater mobile base with extreme utility potential so but with low maneuverability and other things
    Any vessel with a hull thick enough to dive to 1,200 meters is going to be strong enough to be impervious to attack by small creatures. That's just physics. It takes thick metal to withstand the pressure at those depths and small creatures aren't going to punch holes in thick metal.
    The lockers in the cyclops in experimental mode have additional column giving them extra storage capacity
    Just for giggles I went into creative mode to see how many lockers I could put into the lower deck of my Cyclops. I think the final number was 83. And that was without putting any in the docking compartment. I had lockers lined up all the way back to the rear ladders. They even overlapped the handrail and some of the pipes. Adding one more column to the stock lockers still means the Cyclops holds less than three ordinary wall lockers. That's pathetic for something that's supposed to be a mobile base.
    Adding arms to the cyclops is too far no matter what type it is the exosuit propulsion arm can grab some of the deposits if not all of them then what's the point of arms for the cyclops?
    I answered that question in my post. The PRAWN can grab a deposit, and then what? It can move it from one side of your screen to the other. While that may be useful at times, it isn't anywhere near as useful as being able to haul that deposit all the way back to your base. A claw arm on the Cyclops would let you sail around picking up deposits from all over the map and haul them back to base for future use. Instead of cramming lockers full of small chunks of material you could have a "garden" of ores outside ready to be drilled when needed. That adds a lot of possibility to the game without hurting the functionality of anything already in the game.
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
    adel_50 wrote: »

    The cyclops isn't intended to be a fortress that only big creatures can crack it it's an underwater mobile base with extreme utility potential so but with low maneuverability and other things
    Any vessel with a hull thick enough to dive to 1,200 meters is going to be strong enough to be impervious to attack by small creatures. That's just physics. It takes thick metal to withstand the pressure at those depths and small creatures aren't going to punch holes in thick metal.
    The lockers in the cyclops in experimental mode have additional column giving them extra storage capacity
    Just for giggles I went into creative mode to see how many lockers I could put into the lower deck of my Cyclops. I think the final number was 83. And that was without putting any in the docking compartment. I had lockers lined up all the way back to the rear ladders. They even overlapped the handrail and some of the pipes. Adding one more column to the stock lockers still means the Cyclops holds less than three ordinary wall lockers. That's pathetic for something that's supposed to be a mobile base.
    Adding arms to the cyclops is too far no matter what type it is the exosuit propulsion arm can grab some of the deposits if not all of them then what's the point of arms for the cyclops?
    I answered that question in my post. The PRAWN can grab a deposit, and then what? It can move it from one side of your screen to the other. While that may be useful at times, it isn't anywhere near as useful as being able to haul that deposit all the way back to your base. A claw arm on the Cyclops would let you sail around picking up deposits from all over the map and haul them back to base for future use. Instead of cramming lockers full of small chunks of material you could have a "garden" of ores outside ready to be drilled when needed. That adds a lot of possibility to the game without hurting the functionality of anything already in the game.

    You have quite a point buddy but keep one thing at mind (the time needed to add all these suggestions) the team is only like 20-25 people with only 5 programmers I believe so if your suggestions are going to be added it will be post 1.0 as the game is delayed enough all of us are excited for the ending to be ingame
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members
    edited July 2017
    Don't mind me, just wanted to remind everybody to lobby the devs for an upgrade-module that give a storage compartment accessible both from the inside and the outside (along by a PRAWN with arms).
    It could replace every locker down there it would still be worth it.

    I'll just make a topic about that anyway, the idea is too awesome to pass.
  • The08MetroidManThe08MetroidMan Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
    adel_50 wrote: »
    You have quite a point buddy but keep one thing at mind (the time needed to add all these suggestions) the team is only like 20-25 people with only 5 programmers I believe so if your suggestions are going to be added it will be post 1.0 as the game is delayed enough all of us are excited for the ending to be ingame

    Well, actually, the first aspect of these have already been addressed - the Cyclops was re-tweaked so that the sharks and anything smaller than that can't harm it; only the eels (River Prowlers, Ampeels) and the Leviathans can damage it now.
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
    adel_50 wrote: »
    You have quite a point buddy but keep one thing at mind (the time needed to add all these suggestions) the team is only like 20-25 people with only 5 programmers I believe so if your suggestions are going to be added it will be post 1.0 as the game is delayed enough all of us are excited for the ending to be ingame

    Well, actually, the first aspect of these have already been addressed - the Cyclops was re-tweaked so that the sharks and anything smaller than that can't harm it; only the eels (River Prowlers, Ampeels) and the Leviathans can damage it now.

    River prowlers can't damage the cyclops
    Plus for that
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members
    Can Warpers attack the Cyclops? They should if your infected and the engine is running
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members
    Can Warpers attack the Cyclops? They should if your infected and the engine is running

    Not with my last experimental a few days ago.



    Should they?
    • Warpers lead attacks (see Degassi DGR base) and can't be fooled with their superior Precursor senses - they'd sink the Cyclops in seconds
    • The Warpers are already more dangerous than leviathans to divers and small vehicles - the Cyclops makes the leviathans more fearsome
    • The Cyclops maneuverability isn't good enough to avoid Warpers - it's even worse than with the Prawn
    • Warpshots don't or shouldn't hurt the prey itself and the Warpers were not built to attack artificial structures, only living prey
    • Warpers might only focus in water or very close to it, which is the case with small vehicles, but not with bases or the Cyclops
    • Warpers can telepathically sense livings from afar, but need close distance to verify infection - maybe a big air interior disturbs verification

    In the end I think Warpers are too quick and deadly to allow the Cyclops to avoid a Warper attack. They already render leviathans to harmless enemies compared to them. They hit as hard as them, repeat attacks in seconds where leviathans need ages to repeat, appear in the players back and disorient him from time to time. If the player ever wants to investigate in Warper infested territory, a Cyclops/Base safe haven against warpers would be the only working operation base. All other creatures in the game have working weaknesses to allow a player to operate around them without a Cyclops/Base, including the leviathans.
  • The08MetroidManThe08MetroidMan Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
    zetachron wrote: »
    Can Warpers attack the Cyclops? They should if your infected and the engine is running

    Not with my last experimental a few days ago.



    Should they?
    • Warpers lead attacks (see Degassi DGR base) and can't be fooled with their superior Precursor senses - they'd sink the Cyclops in seconds
    • The Warpers are already more dangerous than leviathans to divers and small vehicles - the Cyclops makes the leviathans more fearsome
    • The Cyclops maneuverability isn't good enough to avoid Warpers - it's even worse than with the Prawn
    • Warpshots don't or shouldn't hurt the prey itself and the Warpers were not built to attack artificial structures, only living prey
    • Warpers might only focus in water or very close to it, which is the case with small vehicles, but not with bases or the Cyclops
    • Warpers can telepathically sense livings from afar, but need close distance to verify infection - maybe a big air interior disturbs verification

    In the end I think Warpers are too quick and deadly to allow the Cyclops to avoid a Warper attack. They already render leviathans to harmless enemies compared to them. They hit as hard as them, repeat attacks in seconds where leviathans need ages to repeat, appear in the players back and disorient him from time to time. If the player ever wants to investigate in Warper infested territory, a Cyclops/Base safe haven against warpers would be the only working operation base. All other creatures in the game have working weaknesses to allow a player to operate around them without a Cyclops/Base, including the leviathans.
    • The Degasi's actual DRG base wasn't a Cyclops, though - no stealth plating or sound dampening or the like. Plus, the Deep Grand Reef is one of their natural patrol zones as it's an entrance to the Lost River, which was the source of the outbreak - even if they did have stealth capabilities, they couldn't have built it and avoided being seen, much less lived there.
    • Except that Warpers, being way smaller, probably don't have the needed strength to breech the Cyclops' hull like a Leviathan does.
    • Maneuverability hardly matters on that front if they can't actually hurt the sub, or if it's plating is too thick to warp the player out of; their worst danger to the player is when they can teleport you out of vehicles, after all.
    • The warpshots do actually hurt the player, though. Likely something to do with unstable dimensional energy causing damage - IDK the exact cause. At the same time, they are capable of harming small vehicles like the Seamoth and PRAWN.
    • Warpers actually seem to follow more of a patrol-type pattern, which only changed when the Aurora's lifepods descended - after all but one survivor (the player) was killed, an intercepted radio transmission from them specifies they're returning to patrol standard.
    • That wasn't the case with the Degasi base, though - they seemed more than certain of the infection there; they might simply be assuming hostilities by this point.

    Overall, I disagree that the Warpers should be able to destroy a Cyclops - compared to Leviathans, they're not actually anywhere near as deadly in terms of damage-output to anything beyond the unprotected player; their biggest threat was always their teleport ability as opposed to raw damage of their own. But given their smaller size compared to Leviathans, how fast they move and strike means nothing if they're incapable of causing actual damage - and by all accounts, they shouldn't be able to for something as big as the Cyclops.
  • Who_needs_ArmorWho_needs_Armor Join Date: 2017-06-23 Member: 231295Members
    edited July 2017

    Except that Warpers, being way smaller, probably don't have the needed strength to breech the Cyclops' hull like a Leviathan does.


    Agreed, its important to realize that just because they deal the same damage doesn't mean they have the same strength. The ways the Reaper Leviathan damages you and the Warper does are very different. The Reaper uses its mass, speed, teeth and mouth to bite or swallow you. Which obviously deals a lot of damage. The Warper uses its sharp claws, which it stabs things with. Which would obviously deal a lot of damage, but not in the same way the Reaper deals its damage.


    and yeah Warpers shouldn't be able to do much to the cyclops
Sign In or Register to comment.