My concerns about Vector Thrust's (Future) Thread - Vector Thrust

After (sorta) disappointed about how the beginning of the "beta" actually was, which to be honest feels too rushy, TS, for the full release/leaving early access I think you'd better persuade those guys at Iceberg to not rush the final release knowing their "not-so-glorious" track record with forcing an Early Access game with buggy to highly-buggy state to be released out of EA which in some cases were never been updates ever since the release (I'm looking at you Stardrive and Horizon! Okay, for Stardrive it's a slightly different matter but close). Sure they weren't Paradox Interactive (the publisher, not the grand strategies dev) or Kalypso-level terrible but I think it's close.

IMHO for the beta I'd rather have waited for the both campaigns to fully fleshed out first, instead we got challenges which half of them were like broken to completely broken on day one and planes with incomplete/copypaste stats. Heck, we even still got like about more than a couple of dozen bugs never been fixed since Desura alpha as what Sly mentioned in the comment section.

Edited by: Nergal01

There is a reason why the end of the last report says the campaigns are going to be done first.

It's a given that the Beta was supposed to have part of the revised campaigns, part of which would have new or upgraded maps, which needed more time than what was provided. The current release acting as a content foundation had to be done to honor inside interaction with Iceberg.

Considering that the same linked post mentions that the campaign is being worked on with the inclusion of new maps means that the primary problem is being addressed. At the same time, other posts from users talking about maps needing improvements have been acknowledged. Because the campaigns were held back, more can be done for them instead of being released in a state where we would yet again get "generic maps, too low-detail" comments. Although that's an assumption hanging on YMMV, once we see them.

I know about that, but my primary concern is specifically geared towards how TS and Iceberg should (not) handle the full release, aka "For the next regular update let's make it that we're officially leaving Early Access and just call it a day" like how typically most early access game got bombed upon leaving EA.

While we're still at it maybe it's time on focus more on making the editor much more n00b human-usable. Even most simmers do heartfully agree that "a decent mission editor is a must and leave the rest of the work to the others (read: modders)".

Edited by: Nergal01

If we're still getting three campaigns on release, I don't think it will be as likely that the same would happen when there's only one campaign to deal with rather than two. That's assuming HT and RB don't get a third revision.

We could also see about getting more documentation on the editor. I haven't dealt with mission editors in a long time, but I remember thinking anything involving triggers becomes crazy difficult, yet having tutorials or reference material (other missions) greatly simplifies things. It was usually Descent and FreeSpace, I don't remember Jane's ATF and Co. being big on triggers.

While true that we have the one video for quick missions, we need something more complex; something like a walkthrough on the development of Combined Operations.

Edited by: SpootKnight

SpootKnight wrote: If we're still getting three campaigns on release, I don't think it will be as likely that the same would happen when there's only one campaign to deal with rather than two. That's assuming JT and RB don't get a third revision.

There's the third planned? Never heard of that before.

TimeSymmetry wrote: As for the actual campaigns, these three eras, I’m still not sure if all will be able to be implemented at time of release. (it largely depends how well it goes the multiplayer implementation), the one that I’m not sure it is the campaign set in 1981~03
But event if it doesn’t make it in time, the assets will be there (like super weapons, and aircrafts of that era) so the campaign can be released afterward.
Also about these tree campaigns, each will have their own characteristics.

The first one will be the 2003,
It will be a conflict completely outside from the effects of the radiation.
This will be the “standard” campaign, a compromise with story and gameplay, and it will have the most variety in types of missions.
In short, an Ace combat style campaign.

The next is the 2017 campaign; this will take place one the most nuclear bombard zones in the work. In the past that place was a cluster of powerful nations, now, decades later, nations are slowly decaying, and it was thanks to their past strength that was possible for them to survive this long.

The third campaign, will be the one set in 1981~03, and it will take place in a nation bombarded with neutron bombs, so radiation here is a severe problem. In this campaign, the story will take priority, but the gameplay will focus in a completely different aspect than the other two, in here, the action is simpler, minimalistic and with less heroism, this campaign will be harder than the other two, and even normal grounds will be a real treat to the player. For those who known ace combat, in this one the missions will be more like ace combat zero, more oriented towards dogfight.

From here. As far as I remember, there hasn't been any word on the three-campaign goal changing, though it does mention that the release may not have all three campaigns. Of course, I think the settings of the campaigns have changed, so quoting this isn't to say that these are what the stories of each campaign was or is going to be.

Edit:
From what I saw going over more recent comments, it looks like it did change to a two-campaign release. Serves me right for forgetting. If this is the case, when the next update offers the revised campaigns, that should allow the team more room for the bugfixing and revision process; the Beta things.

Edited by: SpootKnight

SpootKnight wrote: If we're still getting three campaigns on release, I don't think it will be as likely that the same would happen when there's only one campaign to deal with rather than two. That's assuming JT and RB don't get a third revision.

We could also see about getting more documentation on the editor. I haven't dealt with mission editors in a long time, but I remember thinking anything involving triggers becomes crazy difficult, yet having tutorials or reference material (other missions) greatly simplifies things. It was usually Descent and FreeSpace, I don't remember Jane's ATF and Co. being big on triggers.

While true that we have the one video for quick missions, we need something more complex; something like a walkthrough on the development of Combined Operations.

Sooo, I guess I should get to work on that tutorial I was saving for how to make relatively complicated missions?

If you're able to, I'd say go for it. Every little bit counts.

Would video format or text format be better?

I'm struggling to be succinct with the latter.

I suppose video has the plus of showing an exact process, but here I'd say go with what you're more comfortable with, which I would assume is video.

Ugh. To explain what's going on right now:

"I recommend you save before using the - Oh, oh, there it went, well look at that"

Paranoid save is always the best way to save.

It's rather amusing the consistency I can now get the editor to crash with. I guess I should be really thankful I've only really messed with spawns more than anything else.

Is it something that isn't on any of the bug report threads?

Juuust posted about it. I haven't checked the Steam one, but, well. *Shrug*

Edited by: Boogie_Van

Cubed3.com

You should know who to blame now~~~

Edited by: Nergal01

what did I just read?

Nergal01 wrote:

Cubed3.com

You should know who to blame now~~~

The same site given sonic boom a 4/10 and 6/10, yeah I dont think this site's review are reliable

--

Mechanian Peace Sentinel

[align right isnt working]My art/tumblr[/align right isnt working]

SCN-3_NULL wrote:

Nergal01 wrote:

Cubed3.com

You should know who to blame now~~~

The same site given sonic boom a 4/10 and 6/10, yeah I dont think this site's review are reliable

From the review's opening paragraph itself the entire review isn't much different to typical "Not Recommended" reviews VT are getting.

At very least the review still justifies publisher's utter incompetence of releasing a "full product", directly or not.

From my point of view, VT suffers from a lack of something it needs the most, and that something is community made content, like missions and campaigns.

Third.Eye wrote:

From my point of view, VT suffers from a lack of something it needs the most, and that something is community made content, like missions and campaigns.

Presumably everyone would rather wait for Workshop support is in but maybe TS has it on lower priority.

Edited by: Nergal01

Nergal01 wrote:

Third.Eye wrote:

From my point of view, VT suffers from a lack of something it needs the most, and that something is community made content, like missions and campaigns.

Presumably everyone would rather wait for Workshop support is in but maybe TS has it on lower priority.

That and there is a lack of documentation for most modding.

Edited by: Third.Eye

Well, now that VT finally reached "Mixed" review (69%)

Edited by: Nergal01

Nergal01 wrote:

Well, now that VT finally reached "Mixed" review (69%)

That's not surprising since many of the reviews from early access haven't been touched after release and the subsequent patches.

EDIT: I just realized I am one of those people.

Edited by: Third.Eye

Third.Eye wrote:

Nergal01 wrote:

Third.Eye wrote:

From my point of view, VT suffers from a lack of something it needs the most, and that something is community made content, like missions and campaigns.

Presumably everyone would rather wait for Workshop support is in but maybe TS has it on lower priority.

That and there is a lack of documentation for most modding.

Considering the fact that I have to rip the datalink and jamming variables from the Su-30 and the F-15Z instead of the provided template, and all units used are basically guesswork, yes I agree.