"X:R will be newbie friendly"

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Complicated is not the same thing as complex.

Spot on, but...

The UI is more complicated, but the game itself, or at least what you have control over, is less complex.

I disagree, the game is more complex (especially in terms of mechanics). The UI is less complicated than the X-Trilogy games (especially considering the state at X3:AP) but that in itself can make the game seem to be less complex due to lack of access to (or control of) underlying features.

Different is not the same as complicated.

[BigBANGtheory]

The integrated elements of the UI are a nice feature of XR i.e. those that are presented as part of the environment such as cockpit displays. Where it starts to get messy are the multiple HUD overlays (several radial and one nested ribbon menu) in combination with inherent weaknesses in the integrated UIs. So as the player you are forced to navigate from one to the other in a very disjointed way.

IMHO the root of the problem was (and still is) an over reliance on the radial menu system i.e. it was used inappropriately, because the UI was originally (and quite obviously) built around gamepad first.

So to cut a long story short what you need is more integrated UIs (and less HUD/overlay menus) and those UIs need to be much more capable for the task at hand. I would also say that being able to export UIs to other monitors connected to your PC would also be a good thing.

[pref]

Give it a rest.
ES needs at least a year to make a real game out of this, they messed up initial design/concept so hard. Their system is not really capable of any precise command execution as the whole thing was designed around the concept that the player doesn't care about assets, just want it be handled automatically. Which was a huge misconception. So its not just the UI that is extremely inconvenient and not fluent - half of the UI issues have a root deeper inside the engine i guess.

It takes time. Think now they understood that the initial concept will not work, so XR has taken a turn back towards X4, but its a looong way to go.

[Virtualaughing]

Upkeep Missions made rebirth newcomers friendly.
The thing as a veteran, which makes me headache that the 1-4 or 1-6 options. I used to the arrow keys + enter + exit (esc) buttons to handle even the deepest menu settings. Single handed.

When i adjust the ammouints of turrets/drones/whatnot oten making a mistake because the OK button and the NEXT at the same position.....
I beg for a full menu which was present in Reunion.

[Slashman]

I disagree, the game is more complex (especially in terms of mechanics). The UI is less complicated than the X-Trilogy games (especially considering the state at X3:AP) but that in itself can make the game seem to be less complex due to lack of access to (or control of) underlying features.

Different is not the same as complicated.

For any interactive software, having complex underlying mechanics which cannot be thoroughly manipulted by the player is essentially a waste.

So it doesn't matter if (for example) you make a hyper-realistic realistic model of spacefilght and then restrict the player to using a heavily assisted flight model. If it cannot be finely manipulated on the points of its complexity, it is not more complex to the player. It is simply needless baggage that could have been left in a much more simple format.

This isn't just applicable to Rebirth, it applies to any game. Saying that, for instance, trading is much more complex than previous X games and then having an extremely limited number of options for actually manipulating the trading process is essentially achieving nothing of note for the player.

Same with saying that cap ships are much more complex than previous X games but then having extremely limited control of how those ships use their weapons and modules and how they behave in combat. Note I'm not talking about destroying cap ship components and turrets individually. That's been around since the Wing Commander and Freespace days.

TL:DR. Complexity is meaningless without bringing something tangible to the player and especially so if the player cannot use that complexity to change and control the environment they are playing in.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@Slashman: Complex underlying mechanics do not have to be fully and directly accessible from a user interface, in fact it can be desirable not to but to rather depend on automation in the main instead. As I see it, this is the position of X-Rebirth.

It is not meaningless to use automation, the player still gets a perceivable in-game benefit the only difference is that they do not have to worry about the minutia of how that benefit is achieved.

[BigBANGtheory]

The player will want to do what the player wants to do. I have argued for a long time that X Universe has to be play tested from the perspective of people playing different roles and for those roles to be supported in the model and game design.

At the moment we have the Explorer, the miner, the pirate, the empire builder (to some extent) we don't really have the mercenary, the diplomat, the trade Shogun, the fleet admiral.

The game offers potential to the player through development and ownership of assets but it doesn't support the player in what I like to think of as the gear stick/shift model. What I mean by that analogy is you the player starting off in 1st gear in your first few hours with ideas, needs, demands etc but then around 5-10hrs playtime shift to 2nd gear where your needs change all the way up to 5th (or 6th) gear in the later stages and your gameplay is vastly different to what it was 40 gameplay hrs ago. Its not a sandbox space sim if you get fixed and pigeon holed into a mode of operation with just the same tools and options you effectively had on day1.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@BBT: I think you are dead wrong wrt the roles you claim are not supported.

Diplomat is an odd one - technically no X-game has supported that role explicitly and certainly not in a much lower capacity than X-Rebirth supports it (if anything X-Rebirth better supports this role IMO).

Mercenary is definitely supported, there is enough variation in the combat missions to cover that one IMO and the Skunk is more than capable as a combat craft.

Trade shogun, technically supported - there are "some" improvements that could still be done to enhance the experience though.

Fleet Admiral is also supported, again there are some improvements that could be done to enhance the experience but it is there and is supported.

How can I be sure of this? I tend to do a bit of everything in the game. I am not a pure combat person, nor a pure trade person, I do what I need to achieve my personal in-game goals (I tend to flip-flop between roles in an ad-hoc way - some gaming sessions may be pure combat, others pure trade, but in the main they are a mix of both).

[BigBANGtheory]

flip flop (or alternate) between roles yes I agree 100% that is the bread and butter of sandbox and open world gameplay.

I do not feel that some of those roles have been given the 'attention they require to work', particularly the later game roles to which you naturally aspire. Dunno what does everyone else think, am I alone in that?

To my mind the later game roles such as fleet admiral should be the incentive to setup a thriving economic business and diplomacy where by you reap earlier rewards of your labours.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@BBT: I think you mean "attention required to work as you would personally like them to"...

I think we can all agree that the situation is not perfect as it stands but it does work even if some things do require some TLC to get them working as some may expect them to. The kinds of improvements I am talking about are not big things on the whole, but rather various little things in the main.

Some of the bigger tasks I am thinking of are probably too big a job to do properly for free.

[Slashman]

@Slashman: Complex underlying mechanics do not have to be fully and directly accessible from a user interface, in fact it can be desirable not to but to rather depend on automation in the main instead. As I see it, this is the position of X-Rebirth.

It is not meaningless to use automation, the player still gets a perceivable in-game benefit the only difference is that they do not have to worry about the minutia of how that benefit is achieved.

I never mentioned automation. Automation and complexity are not necessarily intertwined. But to more fully illustrate my point: The Homeworld series has full 3d movement in space and players can utilize that to their advantage. They can attack from angles where other players may not place defenses(directly under or over a station). They can gather resources that may be positioned far above or below the horizontal plane. In contrast, Ancient Space also has fully 3d movement in space but there is nothing in the game that gives the player an advantage by moving out of the default horizontal plane. In Ancient Space, full 3d movement is wasted complexity. In Homeworld 2, it had purpose.

Now if you want to talk about automation, you are going to hit the same problem that most people have already seen. Automation will generally fail to react to rapid changes in the environment. Unless most people here are happy with how cap ships behave in combat and how they utilize their weapons and resources, then I'd say that this is a case where complexity(if you want to think of automation as complexity) has failed spectacularly. And it will likely always fail.

No matter how well-automated a system is, it is always preferable to give the player the option to directly intervene so they can properly engage in strategy and tactics as would be expected when you are dealing with fleets of large warships.

If you want an example of that. Take Sword of the Stars 2. Each race has a specific attack maneuver that they use. Some circle their enemies. Some do fly-bys and quick turns to come back around. Some point directly at their targets. Some try to fly over-head and invert to shoot down from 'above'. Those work fine in the beginning until you start to change weapons and research new techs. Suddenly, circling the enemy is that LAST thing you want when you are outfitted with fixed-mount beam weapons that can only fire straight forward. Luckily, you can change and override the default behaviour. You can't do that in Rebirth. You have no fine control over all those cool systems on your ships. They all do the exact same thing in combat and do not react to changes in their environment or even adjust to fit their default loadouts. Complexity wasted.

[BigBANGtheory]

Some of the bigger tasks I am thinking of are probably too big a job to do properly for free.

I have no issue with that as long as the result delivers quality and tangible change.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Homeworld and the like are proper RTS games, and while an RTS style interface may be desirable for some... Personally, I find such interfaces too troublesome in the main and I hope we are not forced to use such an interface at ANY level of fleet control.

X games are primarily space flight sims with fleets not an RTS (such games I tend to steer clear of, I have one or two but they are far from my favourite games - and I have played numerous ones over my years).

Interactive map with some extra command buttons perhaps but primarily squad command keyboard/controller shortcuts are what I would be looking for in this area. In addition to menus/shortcuts (and click targeting perhaps) being available from External View.

[Slashman]

Homeworld and the like are proper RTS games, and while an RTS style interface may be desirable for some... Personally, I find such interfaces too troublesome in the main and I hope we are not forced to use such an interface at ANY level of fleet control.

You're missing the point. I used Homeworld as an example because it is a game set in space. I don't care if the final implementation is an RTS style interface or not. It doesn't negate any of my points. That you cannot utilize the added complexity in a meaningful way is a problem.

X games are primarily space flight sims with fleets not an RTS (such games I tend to steer clear of, I have one or two but they are far from my favourite games - and I have played numerous ones over my years).

Interactive map with some extra command buttons perhaps but primarily squad command keyboard/controller shortcuts are what I would be looking for in this area. In addition to menus/shortcuts (and click targeting perhaps) being available from External View.

If you take a space flight game and give the player all these assets to manage and control which require you to be able to give concise and sensible commands and have them followed as such, you have deviated from a simple space flight game. You have given the player an empire management game. I have personally never seen an empire management game that could be properly played with nothing but a few keyboard shortcuts. Empire management is about fine control of your assets. An RTS style selection system would make perfect sense as the quickest way to assign tasks and targets for combat fleets. Maybe there is a more intuitive way, but even Egosoft said they'd like to see that style of command interface if possible.

Regardless of the format, the means are not there now and they desperately need to be.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

That you cannot utilize the added complexity in a meaningful way is a problem.
...
Regardless of the format, the means are not there now and they desperately need to be.

I am sorry but the means ARE there if you bother to learn how to use them and their limitations. Granted there are some issues with certain capital ship formations (which can be worked around to a degree) and the AI can do with work in some areas but there are mechanisms of control/configuration and it is at least a tad more extensive than you seem to be implying.

The squad system does actually work despite the bugs/limitations.

[pref]

As i see the main problem with XR automation is that player has no way to configure it. Nice to have it for when the player only needs to amass money, or just wants to have a massacre without much coordination - but for all the other cases it doesn't really work. Which means the other cases cannot really happen in XR.

It's an epic mistake to think that the AI will be able to serve the player's purpose all the time, and solve all the problems for the player.
This process is the game itself. It's great that the AI can play XR, but let us humans do that too.

Im happy that in the last patch ES finally deviated from the original concept, and added things like freight exchange and pricing, or fly to pos. Took them long, but better later then never. Hopefully this will be followed by stock manipulation, removing this mandatory squad logic, getting rid of the consol-conversation-ui, fleets, adding map commands and so on - i wont repeat the same stuff that has been requested numerous times.
Then we might have X4 finally.. maybe in a year or 2, and we can forget GTAInSpace™ foreva.

Granted there are some issues with certain capital ship formations (which can be worked around to a degree) and the AI can do with work in some areas but there are mechanisms of control/configuration and it is at least a tad more extensive than you seem to be implying.

The squad system does actually work despite the bugs/limitations.

There are no capship formations in the game yet o,O
The squad system drives quite a few people insane...

Maybe most XR features fit you, but not everyone. Better dont state this as facts, but as an individual preference.
Saying that it's already good wont make XR any better.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

There are no capship formations in the game yet o,O

Tell that to my capital ships that are arranged in squads. You may not be able to configure the formation used but they are there.

The squad system drives quite a few people insane...

The system does work though, that is fact and there is no disputing it. Whether people like (or understand) the concept or not is a different matter entirely. The squad system is a perfectly valid, intuitive and reasonable approach to fleet organisation - it is one that is used in real life systems after all.

I have not claimed anything that constitutes personal opinion as fact as I see it. In addition, I have neither presented the system as perfect either.

As for not being able to configure the automation, you can set the level of aggression for defence officers and that does have an effect on how the automation behaves so does constitute configuration of it (however limited it may be currently).

[SPzzz]

Back to the topic, I am quite a noob and after a recent completion of the campaign I have to say the game indeed is not noob friendly. All the answers like "all ES games have been like that", or "you can learn things", or "it almost works, just not works well" are not the ones you want to give to a noob, especially the former as the OP rightly noticed that the game was promised to be different.

The most satisfying pat at the current state of the game is gorgeous surroundings (except all of the interiors). The gameplay however still makes you ragequit from time to time, even if you gave up and accepted most of the general issues like clunky UI, ridiculous artificial prolongation of exploration time and too low results to efforts ratio. Speaking of the results, the galaxy is too static to have much sense of achievement unless you make your own goals.

[Slashman]

Tell that to my capital ships that are arranged in squads. You may not be able to configure the formation used but they are there.

The fact that you think formations are a one-size-fits-all affair is telling enough on its own.

The system does work though, that is fact and there is no disputing it. Whether people like (or understand) the concept or not is a different matter entirely. The squad system is a perfectly valid, intuitive and reasonable approach to fleet organisation - it is one that is used in real life systems after all.

The squad system itself isn't the issue. The actual issue is the limited flexibility of the squad system and getting intelligent behaviour from the ships under your command. The fact that something is there doesn't make the something fit or ideal in its implementation. And the less flexible that something is, the less people are going to be willing to give it a chance.

As for not being able to configure the automation, you can set the level of aggression for defence officers and that does have an effect on how the automation behaves so does constitute configuration of it (however limited it may be currently).

Yeah...the limitations seem to be the actual issue though.

[pref]

Imo working state is when something fills its purpose.

If because of it you have to do 2 unnecessary steps, and it brings no advantage - then i would not call that 'working'. It's an annoyance.
And that annoyance is further increased by the delay the conversations cause at every unnecessary step.

At any mine, attack, fly to, transfer ware i have to add the ships to squad, and remove them afterwards or else they follow me into any suicide mission - then how is the squad mechanic working?

"Whether people like (or understand) the concept or not is a different matter entirely"

What is there to like about this? The concept is limiting, as it is mandatory for commands where it makes no sense, and as you can have only one.
The concept does not let the system fullfill the purpose - which i would guess is easy control over assets.
Instead you have to frequently repeat commands that get you nothing, except avoiding this mechanic, while you loose several seconds having no control over the ship, having to listen to the same old voiceover.

So you really say this is working? Comon o,O
Or give me a hint, im lost.