Ghost update: Many cool things but Cyclops is still LAME
harrzack
United States Join Date: 2016-09-11 Member: 222250Members
United States Join Date: 2016-09-11 Member: 222250Members
I've been in and out of Subnautica for the past year or more (a mere 225 hrs) and check back in with each update. Cyclops is STILL Lame!
Don't get me wrong: I love the game and feel it is some of the most beautiful graphics and scenery of any game (and I've been playing since the 80's)
Love to tool around in the SeaMoth - it is like a submarine sports car! Easy to pilot and you always know what is going on around you - depth, O2, etc. And when expanded later it becomes very capable.
I jumped into Creative in the Ghost release and plopped down a Cyclops to see what has been added/changed. Big disappointment: a few cosmetic changes (regarding piloting the sub), but still pretty clunky. When you click to begin driving, you loose the majority of your total situational awareness. You don't know what is your hunger level, hydration, etc as that info is unavailable when piloting - you could die of hunger or thirst while driving.
I've been ranting and about the control arrangement forever - so guess I'm alone in this wish. :-(
I believe an instrument panel could be built across the bottom of the screen and accommodate all functions. And get a much better view of the sea. My biggest peeve is when you go to "Camera Mode" - you totally loose situational awareness; no depth info, player stats and HUD is STILL cluttered with the "how-to" instructions to change views. Again - a instrument panel across the bottom of the screen could host many gauges and buttons - even player status - and have a consistent interface between "Pilot Mode" and "Camera Mode". And in pilot mode, those awful cartoony buttons at the sides of the HUD could be done away with.
Speaking of 'doing away'- I'd love to see the PRAWN deprecated and replaced with advanced enhancements to the SeaMoth - and just the 'moth and the Cyclops.
=A.
Don't get me wrong: I love the game and feel it is some of the most beautiful graphics and scenery of any game (and I've been playing since the 80's)
Love to tool around in the SeaMoth - it is like a submarine sports car! Easy to pilot and you always know what is going on around you - depth, O2, etc. And when expanded later it becomes very capable.
I jumped into Creative in the Ghost release and plopped down a Cyclops to see what has been added/changed. Big disappointment: a few cosmetic changes (regarding piloting the sub), but still pretty clunky. When you click to begin driving, you loose the majority of your total situational awareness. You don't know what is your hunger level, hydration, etc as that info is unavailable when piloting - you could die of hunger or thirst while driving.
I've been ranting and about the control arrangement forever - so guess I'm alone in this wish. :-(
I believe an instrument panel could be built across the bottom of the screen and accommodate all functions. And get a much better view of the sea. My biggest peeve is when you go to "Camera Mode" - you totally loose situational awareness; no depth info, player stats and HUD is STILL cluttered with the "how-to" instructions to change views. Again - a instrument panel across the bottom of the screen could host many gauges and buttons - even player status - and have a consistent interface between "Pilot Mode" and "Camera Mode". And in pilot mode, those awful cartoony buttons at the sides of the HUD could be done away with.
Speaking of 'doing away'- I'd love to see the PRAWN deprecated and replaced with advanced enhancements to the SeaMoth - and just the 'moth and the Cyclops.
=A.
Comments
That would be the most stupid game design reasoning principle: Our controls are bad and clunky, because they were meant to be bad and clunky. Especially when so many gaming companies fail in development of good controls.
I agree with the OP that the Cyclops HUD/info design is terrible, especially as there is no multiplayer way for a 3 men crew to compensate it. But even then it's bad for all single players. Yes, it's possible to drive the Cyclops without the info, but still feels really bad to have no info/HUD.
Also bad are the floodlights reflecting the sight and blinding the player view as well as the now reduced sonar sight that makes the function almost irrelevant and forgetable.
->> Cyclops HUD rating: 2/5
->> Cyclops sight rating: 3/5 (only because cam sight itself is powerful, unfortunately without info)
I also agree with the OP that movement controls of the Cyclops have been and are still aweful. There is a difference between being hard to control because of physical mass laziness and hard to control because of bad controls and here clearly it's the bad controls that distinguish the Cyclops driving from Seamoth driving. Fortunately you can get used to the controls and don't need submarine combat maneuvering.
->> Cyclops driving rating: 2/5 (EDIT: 3/5 if you get used to it)
I strongly disagree with the OP that the Cyclops changes were cosmetic. They were massive and good. But not aimed at HUD or driving controls. They were more aimed at tuning the silent running and optional modules and dealing how to approach or deal with leviathans in the deep. This was achieved.
->> Cyclops gameplay rating: 4/5 (bad driving and HUD/sight lowered the overall score)
So if you like to see a submarine with advanced maneuvering and good sight and info, you will still be disappointed like the OP. If you got used to seeing the Cyclops as a mobile but lazy moving base, you will find out that you can live quite good with the gameplay changes offered, because the Cyclops 4.0 has everything it needs. Only a small shield bug turning the Cyclops invincible until fixed.
Just don't expect the Cyclops to be movable like a giant Seamoth. That would be a superb movement but don't expect it to see it in the game and you're fine.
Maybe the devs should rework the Cyclops sight and also the HUD a bit. The cams offer a much too superior view, while the normal and sonar sight suck too much. The missing info for cams is really bad too.
Why? Nobody seems to want a Cyclops destruction event. Half the playerbase seems to get mad if that would happen. Most players simply reload if their Cyclops gets destroyed. And the devs don't use that element actively, probably in fear the players won't accept it, having turned their sub into mobile bases with great love and care.
So probably we'll only see Cyclops wrecks in youtube videos, while in gamplay the players will reload. All wreck work for nothing or a short minority of players. No Sea Dragon as Cyclops killer. Somehow a gameplay targeting failure. Or more targeted at youtube video audiences.
Multiplayer confirmed
Yep...
And this is what the players will look like...
2-I'm surprised how much of the player base don't like the cyclops well it's ment to be a moving base and now it's almost unlikely that you will ever destroy it, but here if you don't like the way cyclops is don't build it, simple I doubt it will remain that way since the game is still going through balance, polish, optimizations
3-the lights are now much more useful (to me at least as far as i can see)
4- oh no don't you even think about removing the exosuit (as if the devs will listen to that) you're talking about months of work and you want them to get rid of it just for some upgrades for the seamoth oh no the seamoth is in a good place as it is why that much love for the seamoth?
Yes it's fast agile easy to pilot but it's weak like a bone shark can easily bring you down to 65 health with two bites
Well in the end you can never please everyone but you can piss everyone off pretty easily
Oi! What do you have against the PRAWN, huh? What did it ever do to you?
Overall, the Cyclops is ok with me. As I have written in other posts, I think the HUD concept is inappropriate for a slow moving submarine! HUD's are used in fighter planes where you can't afford to take your eyes off the view for a second. Not so true in the (slowish?) Cyclops!
And last but not least is the Camera mode. GAK! That needs far more work in terms of control - but in Camera mode you do get a very delicious view of the undersea world - but could we loose the video cam record light, nav instructions? A instrument/control panel at the bottom of the screen could contain the buttons to select camera or nav console (thru the bubble) and show lots of other info. Once in camera mode - perhaps some buttons could change purpose - but if done carefully even that wouldn't be needed. There are TONS of real estate at the bottom of the Cyclops screen that could hold an instrument/control panel - and make the controls even MORE accessible as you have to move the view left/right to get to some of the controls now. Sigh.
I also don't have any probs with the actual movement of the sub - but I have not encountered anything in the game yet were I need to get away quickly - that may come later...
They'll remove the seamoth's ability to dive, make the drill do no damage (pertect du fishies!) and "update" their UI's.
The devs hate fun.
I mostly disagree with your quote, but I must agree with this point: the Exosuit's nickname is terrible and not very creative. Pressure Re-Active Waterproof Nanosuit? It's technically an Exosuit, since it's closer in design to a powered exoskeleton: a mechanical suit that augment's the user's mobility, power and strength, but the chassis itself is largely inflexible which provides that endurance. They are not easily damaged and typically are not able to be disassembled, at least insofar to be able to "take off" the arms, legs and/or head.
Nanosuits offer a lot of the same key features (enhanced strength, power, endurance) as exosuits, but the key difference is that usually they are flexible and typically will mold to the user's body. This typically allows for better mobility and dexterity, and can sometimes provide better protection since they cover the user's body better and prevent them from being jossled inside the suit.
Now, there is a bit of a blurring of the line between the two, as various companies are trying to make Exosuits a practical reality. The two sites I linked are using Exosuit designs (equipment worn around the body) but fused with Nanosuit designs (allowing the armor to be more comfortable and more flexible to operate) and are referring to them as "soft exosuits." But the key point here compared to Subnautica is that the Exosuit is a hard mechanical shell powered by machinery and electronics to augment a human's physical abilities. It's not highly technical, it can't interface with a computer system or offer other features such as improved vision or increased healing. Heck, the "nanosuit" itself can't repair any damage it sustains, which seems silly since it's supposedly powered by nanites.
But I've gotten far off tangent... my reason I refuse to call the Exosuit by its nickname is simply this:
SASSY: Selective AcronymS SYndrome. (Oh, that hurt to type out...)
Similar to RAS Syndrome (where acronym letters are redundantly repeated redundantly), SASSY is my pseudo-term where people or companies 'force' an acronym by highlighting incorrect letters or skipping entire words, just to make an acronym "work". The Exosuit nickname is PRWN! "Reactive" is one word, not hyphenated into two! If they insist on using it, rename it to "Pressure Reactive Armored Waterproof Nanosuit" so it fits better!
Since I've run out of points to discuss, here's a stellar Game Theory video regarding how Master Chief's power armor would operate in real life... and how it can kill you!
It's really not as bad as you make it out to be. Just turn on silent running and take it slow, and you should be able to sneak past without a scratch.
They fixed the floodlights, at least, but I almost always drive around looking out of the keel camera. It gives the best view of what's going on around you, IMO.
I haven't taken a Cyclops down into the Lost River since the Ghost update. Ever since I figured out exactly what I needed to build a base with a moon pool and how to pack it all into my PRAWN, I just trundle the exosuit on down there and don't bother with the sub.
I am curious as to how somthing the size of the cyclops can sneak past an apex predator such as a ghost or reaper leviathan. I'm pretty sure those things could see the shimmering metal of the pristine titanium submarine, unless they have evolved to be more dependent on noise.
Then again, the lights dim in silent running mode meaning there has to be some visual stealth.
The reaper in particular uses sonar to detect prey and as far as I know I haven't seen any sonar masking feature activated during silent running mode.
I guess it can't be perfect
Right now in experimental you don't stop piloting it when exiting camera mode
Except that those gaming companies fail with controls for vehicles that either are meant to be driven by one person, or has a crew of NPC's helping you fly. So by contrast, their cases are much harder to justify compared to this.
Yes, the HUD still needs work, but... I fail to see the issue with the floodlights. They were too dim in the past. Also, I don't think you're supposed to use floodlights alongside sonar - in fact, I think the reason sonar even exists is to use for when floodlights aren't a viable option, such as when in Silent Running.
Considering how much compacted mass (hull plating & machinery) the Cyclops has compared to the Seamoth or PRAWN, it's not exactly hard to understand it's difficulty to maneuver. Yes, there's always room to improve, but saying it should have as fluid a range of motion as the Seamoth when one is a 1-person craft and the other is a 3-person vessel... well, it feels beyond unrealistic. Yes, I agree that the changes thus far were good, and that changes to the HUD would be nice as well, but what you think still needs to change for driving and movement feels overdoing it.
They're maneuvering cameras; aren't they supposed to offer better ranges of sight for more accurate turns than normal viewing? Also, again, normal sonar seems to work just fine when the floodlights are off - you don't usually find situations where you need them both on at once.
Most players seem to do the same with the Seamoth and PRAWN, though - reloading after loss is hardly unique to the Cyclops. It's not a waste so much as that people generally don't like losing stuff they put work into, regardless of if it is or isn't meant to be destroyed. Plus, having any point in-game where you're supposed to lose something like that feels like it'd be railroading the player's actions, having to build something purely for the sake of losing it in the endgame.
... since when are HUD's something exclusive to a fast-moving vehicle? They're something that can be applied to anything that has multiple functions to balance out - especially if said something was designed for deep-sea exploration like the Cyclops was; maps, damage reports, current status, etc. Why in the world would size somehow matter in that when you'd need an HUD just to balance the many systems?
Honestly speaking, I disagree with the idea of an "instrument panel" on the basis that you'd have to constantly look down - and therefore away from what's happening right in front of you - to use it. Plus, with the steering column already at the bottom, that field already has something right in the middle of it's space. So personally, IDK how it'd even be fully-functional, much less "gorgeous."
They're navigation cameras - that they'd provide better viewing than the main cockpit makes sense in relation to how spotters on ships can see better and more clearly than someone on the main bridge might. Plus, you couldn't put buttons in the camera-viewscreen because the camera movement controls are anchored to the mouse-cursor - even if there were buttons, you couldn't use them because there'd be no mouse-cursor to select them with, and the WASD keys are used for turning the sub so that's out as well. There's numbers of course, but those would make more sense to bind the Cyclops' overall mods or functions to, rather than create an entirely new sub-field of buttons to mesh with in the camera view.
Again, I just don't think there's anywhere near enough "real estate" on the bottom-screen to move everything, not just because of the steering column but because you'd have to keep looking away from the action on the bridge itself just to use it - and if all buttons are on the bottom, it's naturally harder to associate vital systems with a quick response. Example -
- current system; "I need Shields, so I look to the right and grab shields"
- your system; "I need Shields, so I look down and see a whole mess of buttons that I lose time trying to sort through before I die."
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it becomes more accessible.
(looks at your quote, sees how many people dislike it or comment on it seriously)
Can't believe people didn't know you were joking
.... it's called silent running, though. Wouldn't masking sound - and thereby sonar - be kind of a given?
You guys all realize that beyond some Precursor alternate dimension drive crap, there's no way a bigger vessel can be nimble, right? There's a) simply too much mass, and b) simply too much water mass around it to be anything close to nimble. We're talking about multiple thousands of tons of vehicle, displacing the same amount of water (if it displaces less water than its weight, it will sink until either it does displace the same amount, or it just plain old sinks to the bottom). Something like that WILL NOT MANEUVER like a small sportsy-type craft like the Seamoth (literally a step up from a jetski, basically just O2, cockpit & controls, and engine, for one person). The Cyclops is roughly half the size of a Virginia class attack sub, so, let's say about about 3,500 tons, displacing 3,500 tons of water. Ever heard the term "handles like a boat"? There's a reason that term is used.
Nowhere does it imply that sonar is masked, simply light and noise.
Sonar masking is nearly impossible unless the physical shell of the submarine absorbs sound.
Again; silent running. As in, no audible sound? How is that not implication when that's the whole traditional purpose of the phrase "silent running" (that you dampen the noise you make)? Which would entail the ship having a shell and components that could dampen or absorb sound - which would in turn be unsurprising, since Subnautuca takes place in an age where modification on the molecular level and flash-3D printing are all commonplace. All together, that would logically point to sonar being useless at worst, dampened at best.
Yes; that was my point. @zetachron seems to think that the ship should have controls as fluid and responsive as the Seamoth, which I disagreed with on the grounds that a huge ship built for use by three people would never be as maneuverable as a small one-man craft.
Yes alright I see your point
I think too hard on this kind of stuff
my reference post on Cyclops driving flaws:
I wasn't pledging for making Cyclops driving as nimble as the Cyclops (as you can see my talk on mass laziness which I'm aware of). It's the way the controls are tied to navigation and the missing tilt axis control, which has nothing to do with the problems of navigating a massive sized ship or sub that suffers navigation possibilities (laziness) from its own physical mass.
The main Cyclops control flaws (navigation only):
- no tilt axis ??? (don't know how it plays in VR)
- head movement tied to mouse controls and navigation tied to keys (no customization option) in non-VR mode
Maybe it's all fine in VR, where the headturns tie directly to the headset and maybe the Cyclops movement is done with the mouse and even allows the tilt axis too. But I don't have VR and thus don't know. But it would be bad if only the VR players had navigation fun and non-VR players got sucking controls.Some minor Cyclops control flaws:
- not even a minimal strafing
- turning time of 15 secs
could be improved, but not that bad.Is Cyclop still slower than SeaMoth?
That was ridiculous, big ships are usually much faster than small ones (e.g. look at the carrier).