Some Failures with Submarine basics (Cyclops Issues)

[Tenerence Love]

This is coming from a former US Navy submariner, you need to work on your cavitation or remove it completely. I understand trying to add it for realism and balance, but the Cyclops seems to randomly start cavitating for no reason at all, regardless of speed, angle, pressure, etc. Moreover, as far as submarines making noise, the cavitation is not the real problem, transient noise from inside the submarine was a far bigger issue. The sound of a wrench falling on a deckplate, piece of equipment not bolted down right, these things gave away position more than cavitation. Trying to use cavitaion as a means to balance the power of an advanced submarine like the Cyclops is supposed to be is pretty silly, if not completely absurd. Add a Caterpillar drive (magnetohydrodynamic drive) as an upgrade to completely remove cavitation all together. Also, biologics don't randomly attack submarines, especially when it's 10 times the size of the animal, has no smell or odor, and doesn't radiat heat like an animal. I don't care how terroritorial any animal is, the likelyhood of an aggressive animal, something like a great white shark or giant squid, of attacking a large vessel is pretty slim. It is highly unlikely that an animal would even identify a vessel as threat anymore than it would a giant rock. Moreover, even on the remote chance some unecessarily hostile alien fish did attack, it probably wouldn't do much damage since the pressure at 1500 meters underwater is considerably greater than jaw or muscle strength of a shark. Last, the Cyclops HUD: why is the depth and power on the HUD so damn high up? Those things are really important and should be nearer to eye level rather than having to look at the ceiling to figure out if you are about to die. And why isn't there some sort of gauge or meter to show your angle? Pretty much every submarine has that. Negativity aside, the mechanics of how it moves are perfect. It handles so smoothly I almost forget about the cavitation warnings every 10-20 seconds.

[PhoenixFury]

Personally I agree with you about submarines generally appearing as nonthreatening inert objects to predators (not to mention plasteel is difficult to digest, I imagine), but it's probably a gamist issue to make you not feel 'safe' inside your submarine. Subnautica wants to be a horror game for some reason.

I agree the lack of angle indicator and the depth indicator being too high on the HUD are serious issues, and the strangeness of the prop being able to cavitate at low speed as easily as it does at flank speed.

I do really like how she handles though, and the proximity warning indicators are great help, though I'd like to be able to see hud elements (depth, proximity warning) while utilizing external cameras. Being able to have a cam drone as an upgrade like the scanner room would also be excellent, as would being able to access a docked vehicle's upgrade or storage panels like you can in the moonpool. Some translation thrusters would also be nice for manuvering in small spaces if they don't exist, I can't seem to find the controls for them if they do.

[ImHelping]

Good luck, you're the second military man to come and try to point out the obvious this week alone.

[Zemecon]

You've sort of answered your own question regarding the "Biologics." I could agree that cavitation needs to be toned down quite a bit - maybe by reserving it for flank speed and minimizing it for normal speed - but cavitation does happen in submarines and that is one of the very few things that can set dangerous creatures off. Reapers in particular use a form of echolocation and it would not be possible for them to evolve this ability if they hadn't been able to increase their sensitivity to noise alongside that.

Another submarine feature that might set off some creatures are electrical signals. Lots of creatures can sense electricity and EM radiation quite well. It is how some creatures like electric eels find their way around. Again, if the animal can do this, then it is going to have the ability to pick it up from other sources like members of its own species and other species as well. Crabsquids use EM pulses so no doubt they can pick those up, and AmpEels can pick up electrical signals. The Cyclops does emit electrical signals that can be picked up by some hostile creatures and it uses sonar so creatures that use echolocation can pick that up.

For the sake of game balance you are not supposed to feel completely safe in Subnautica anymore unless you are inside your base, but maneuvering the Cyclops past threats is still manageable. People have done it and have shown how it's done. Cavitation is just one of those things that provides a decent enough excuse to add this form of difficulty to balance gameplay.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

[JarJar]

seriously? bringing real life stuff to compare a game?
just funny.
Former S.A.S

[JarJar]

oke the S.A.S part was a joke two ;)

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by DanBra:

seriously? bringing real life stuff to compare a game?
just funny.
Former S.A.S

It seems really popular in all genres to exposit about how important"Realism" (or lore) so long as it adds exra hurdles, then do a U turn and mock realism once it would add QoL instead of making things arbitratily harder.

Elite Dangerous comes to mind. The mining situation is **** (super buggy and consumable drones at best), so people ask for tractor beams "Tractor beams are unrealistic, and don't fit the lore" says the devs and players. Okay, play ball and mention the set and forget mining devices from the previous Elite game. "Oh, uh... Those have no place in our game. Realism and lore are secondary to out vision."

[Zemecon]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Originally posted by DanBra:

seriously? bringing real life stuff to compare a game?
just funny.
Former S.A.S

It seems really popular in all genres to exposit about how important"Realism" (or lore) so long as it adds exra hurdles, then do a U turn and mock realism once it would add QoL instead of making things arbitratily harder.

Elite Dangerous comes to mind. The mining situation is **** (super buggy and consumable drones at best), so people ask for tractor beams "Tractor beams are unrealistic, and don't fit the lore" says the devs and players. Okay, play ball and mention the set and forget mining devices from the previous Elite game. "Oh, uh... Those have no place in our game. Realism and lore are secondary to out vision."

A good game will balance the two in a way that is consistent with how they are applied. Subnautica is a game so it needs to put gameplay first to make it fun to play as a game. But beyond that, some game developers also care about realism and internal lore so they will at times provide a realistic framework (i.e. natural laws, logic, etc.) to govern gameplay or merely "flavour" gameplay so that it looks realistic. But realism itself is only there to support the gameplay aspect and never replaces it, unless you are playing a true simulation game. Where you notice games not seeming consistent with that is in cases where realism as a complement stops enhancing gameplay and slows it down. So there is no convenient switch like the hypocrisy charge you are pitching against the developers of Subnautica. They need to be able to apply realism consistently in their game where it is needed and then put it aside when it gets in the way, just like every other game developer.

[ImHelping]

Yeah, see, it's still hypocricy when somebody outright say "Nope. We're not doing that, and the reason is reaslism and lore!" and then quickly throw it under the bus once you try to play ball.

It's the revolving door policy on "We're justified making your life worse because realism/Realism has no place if it improves QoL" that makes it hypocritical.

Basically, less people should use "realism" as a shield for design decisions/discussion of gameplay difficulties in the first place, if it's only going to be discarded once people take those claims at face value and bring up realistic alternatives to improve QoL.

Which is a touch ironic about people throwing "Realism" under the bus after claiming it was held in such high regard once convenient. given the nine times out of ten it's being used to dismiss things that would make life more convenient.

[Zemecon]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Yeah, see, it's still hypocricy when somebody outright say "Nope. We're not doing that, and the reason is reaslism and lore!" and then quickly throw it under the bus once you try to play ball.

No it isn't. There are times when realism can and should be used and times when it shouldn't. For games that value realism at all, it is always going to be there to some extent. It is just taken away when people stop having fin with it. While ithis is the developers' decision, ultimately the players will determine that decision unlessthe feature in question is part of the developers' own vision. And in that case it doesn't even have anything to do with realism. It has to do with that developers' vision. There are games that are so trippy that I would expect atleast some players to ask for atleast some internal consistency but if that isn't part of the developer's vision then it isn't happening.

In cases where realism does take precedence over what some players might consider "fun," it could equally be a matter of different tastes amongst the player community. Are you really going to call out a game developer for refusing to put in what you consider to be fun or take out what you don't consider to be fun if the majority of the player community likes it the way it is and disagrees with you?

Originally posted by ImHelping:

It's the revolving door policy on "We're justified making your life worse because realism/Realism has no place if it improves QoL" that makes it hypocritical.

Actually, realism is typically taken away if it interferes with Quality Of Life. But QoL requires a level of balance, too. If it is taken away then it means nothing more than it would if it were added since doing either can be done for the sake of gameplay. Besides, realism and QoL are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Basically, less people should use "realism" as a shield for design descisoins/discussion if it's only going to be discarded once it's no longer convenient (Though ironically, that crops up for "No longer makes the gameplay LESS convenient" nine times out of ten)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

^^^ I've pointed this out before. Realism can be important to a lot of players in bringing them into the game world and feeling the way the game tries to make them feel as they play it. Depending on how important realism can be to certain players, differing levels of realism can be used. That's why there are survival games out there that make it a priority to be as realistic as possible, even at the expense of the possible agony of any new players that come across it, because some players like that and need it in order to get into the game.

As was said before, it is up to the developer(s) themselves when to increase or decrease the level of realism in their game at particular parts in that game in order to create the desired effect on those who play it.

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Which is a touch ironic about people throwing "Realism" under the bus after claiming it was held in such high regard once convenient. given the nine times out of ten it's being used to dismiss things that would make life more convenient.

Like I said, it is all about balance. Nothing's being denied here. Some players just acknowledge when realism should be used and when it shouldn't. That's where they help the developer in making the decision when and how to balance realism and gameplay.

EDIT 1: Added second and fourth responses.

EDIT 2: Fixed quote tag and added to second response.

[Zalzany]

Oh the newb excuses roll in "this is not like a miltary grade sub at all," "critters on earth don't attack subs." One its not miltary at all, two this not earth there is no Planet of the apes suprise ending where you find out it was earth all along these critters do attack the sub for whatever reasons. You play miltary sub sim go play one there is zero shortages of them.

The noise crap in the sub is more for suspense so you feel scared in the deep please recall they do have a shooter horror game people supsense is kind of their thing and I kind of like getting chills in certain zoens scared of the critters in the dark ocean lol

[Tenerence Love]

Ok, the tone of that was a little harsher than I'd intended. I'd like to blame the Mickey's but i can't get mad at such a fine malt liquor beer. However, I certainly appreciate the constructive responses. And I totally enjoy the fear factor of being surrounded by massive predators along with the hull creaking, but I still stand by my complaints about the predator behavior and the cavitation, and yes I know other people on other threads have brought it up. Also, I'm not saying it has to be ultra-realistic obviously, I mean it's a completely alien ecosystem. but smaller predators should not be so eager to attack the larger Cyclops. The Leviathans and obviously some of the nastier creatures in far depths, ok i get that, but shark/dolphin sized carnivores racing 100 meters from all directions to attack a much large unknown object that doesn't smell like food? That's a bit much, especially when you are only ahead 1/3 and rigged for silent running at 30-50 meters. It just seems like a relatively easy fix, either adjust the stealth of the Cyclops or the aggression of smaller predators, or a little of both. Having power level and hull integrity closer to the stick would be nice, but I don't how stuck on the current HUD design they are.

[Zemecon]

There has been discussion of decreasing boneshark aggro range. That started during the last update, and while I am not sure if anything has changed, it may be brought up and discussed again if enough people have an issue with it. Thing is, though, that bonsharks still do need an aggro range since they are very territorial and seem to be built like a battering ram. So the discussion should then be centered around how large is too large as well as how small is too small. Because they just aren't going to be completely passive.

[Tenerence Love]

Originally posted by TOG Zalzany:

Oh the newb excuses roll in "this is not like a miltary grade sub at all," "critters on earth don't attack subs." One its not miltary at all, two this not earth there is no Planet of the apes suprise ending where you find out it was earth all along these critters do attack the sub for whatever reasons. You play miltary sub sim go play one there is zero shortages of them.

Says the child playing a game simulating a submarine to a man who has actually piloted a real submarine in the real world. It has nothing to do with the military, dunceski, it has to do with imbalances in the game and poor mechanics.

[Tenerence Love]

Originally posted by Salinité:

There has been discussion of decreasing boneshark aggro range. That started during the last update, and while I am not sure if anything has changed, it may be brought up and discussed again if enough people have an issue with it. Thing is, though, that bonsharks still do need an aggro range since they are very territorial and seem to be built like a battering ram. So the discussion should then be centered around how large is too large as well as how small is too small. Because they just aren't going to be completely passive.

No, I agree there has to be a balance, it just seems very unbalanced. Either the Cyclops should be a bit more dettering or stealthy, or not every animal listed as a carnivore attacks it like it was food or competition.

[Zemecon]

OK, so let me ask you a question, then. Which would you prefer for the bonesharks: an aggro range centered around the bonesharks' territory, or an aggro range centered around the animal itself? That decision may affect how aggro range is further modified, I think.