170 replies to this topic

[Hex Pallett]

[I'm creating this thread to hopefully get a healthy discussion out of it. MWO sourpuss please go elsewhere.]




That, plus a quick glance on the website, I...kind of like what I'm seeing.


First, a few things I discovered:

- They seem to have a better idea about what they're doing. The ships are already categorized into Science, Industrial and Combat categories, and they're offering quite a few options regarding player roles: miner, trader, PMC, scientist, spy, etc. (On the contrary, SC just recently released Constellation variants, so there's that.)

- The time is set at 2315, far earlier than most existing and upcoming space sims out there and even earlier than the current time of MWO. The designing of space stations and ships seem to reflect that - the space stations looks much more like something that can be produced even with existing technology, and the ships don't have magic force-shields.

- I'm under the impression that the Transverse universe is much smaller that, say Elite Dangerous universe. Makes sense.

- Not sure how much is purely animated but the ships are under Newtonian models. So that's nice.

- Looks like body augmentation is gonna be a huge part of player progression? "I never asked for this." (/jk. In fact I did ask for this. Cyberpunk is my jam.)


Now, the speculations:

- Well, in fact there's only one obvious question: How exactly can Transvers compete with Star Citizen, which had been hyped to supernova and beyond? And Elite: Dangerous? A space game cost a lot to develop and PGI is not exactly a large/wealthy studio. And it's not like this time you got a horde of hungry BattleTech fans with solid wallets to squeeze cash from.

- Assuming the game works out, and all the promised stuff - explorable universe, player driven economy, etc. - are brought on table *ahem ahem* ON TIME, does it mean PGI would eventually have the needed resources to build a full-blown BattleTech universe? Because BT universe, despite its age, is still one of the more mature sci-fi universe out there, and on that expectation alone I hope Transverse can be done.

[Heffay]

I'm just happy it's in UE4. I'll reserve judgment on the rest for now. Not sure I'll participate as I'm already in for both Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous. A third space game would be a stretch for me, especially an MMO (and to be honest, I'm more interested in SC for the single player campaign, and backing ED because the exploration side seems far more robust).

[Thornfoot]

Transverse is a lame attempt to jump on a money bandwagon that has already left the station.

Why would anyone think PGI could make this game when they can't even get MWO finished? (Still waiting for CW...)

If CIG should answer this by including a few mech's in Star Citizen then MWO is all but finished except or the IP lovers.

[Hex Pallett]

Heffay, on 09 September 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

I'm just happy it's in UE4. I'll reserve judgment on the rest for now. Not sure I'll participate as I'm already in for both Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous. A third space game would be a stretch for me, especially an MMO (and to be honest, I'm more interested in SC for the single player campaign, and backing ED because the exploration side seems far more robust).

^same here. I really don't think I'm gonna have enough time to jug even two space sims at the same time (haven't bought ED yet but VERY close, judging how much more a game already is comparing to SC), let alone three.

UE4 is good news, though. CryEngine have never been kind to my good ol' laptop, while many UE3 games can run on it maxed out.

Edited by Helmstif, 09 September 2014 - 01:35 PM.

[TyrEol]

Well the bar reminded me a lot of the one in StarCraft, and I'm sure the voice over guy on the video is the same one who did the intro for Sins of Solar Empire.

I'm not sure why I'd want to play this right now even if it was completely finished, there's realy not enough (read any) information about how this differs from other more well progressed / funded / credible projects.

There was a reply on the new sub reddit by someone from PGI, which said sort of wait and see..... but if you can't say something at the start to get people excited why bother announcing anything at all?

I guess the trailer made me think about playing Eve again, but that was probably not the point.

I'm glad they've picked an engine they think they can work quickly / easily with, but I just don't see how a small dev team can compete in this space without there being some radical new concept to the game and if they had that then surely now would have been the time to announce it.

ps erm is that a working title only, or does that mean something else in Canada?

[SmithMPBT]

MWO was PGI's attempt to make a World of Tanks clone, Trannieverse looks to be an even weaker attempt at Star Citizen. Both SC and WoT are crazy profitable, but making a minimally viable version of each will get PGI nowhere but bankruptcy.

[Hex Pallett]

SmithMPBT, on 09 September 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

MWO was PGI's attempt to make a World of Tanks clone, Trannieverse looks to be an even weaker attempt at Star Citizen. Both SC and WoT are crazy profitable, but making a minimally viable version of each will get PGI nowhere but bankruptcy.

You never know, maybe Transverse IS the game that fills the last blank of the market? I mean there was WoT and then there was War Thunder tank thing, and then Obsidian is now making a modern tank game.

(lol guys check Roadbeer and Iqfish's twitter it's hilarious)

Edited by Helmstif, 09 September 2014 - 02:45 PM.

[Heffey]

In a long since moderated post I mentioned that my friend in the gaming industry bet me there was no way PGI was still working on MWO and they're just spoon feeding us stockpiled content to keep money flowing while they work on another project.

And now I owe him dinner.

Seriously though, the "small team" excuse for slow development has been thrown around since 2012 and somehow they've found the time to create all those transverse game assets....

[Scratx]

I noticed that Transverse has one thing in its basic premise that neither SC nor EVE do. And probably neither Elite.

There's no NPCs. It's all the players' doing. Anything and everything that happens is driven by a player.

I don't know about you, but I find that interesting.

I want to learn more, but alas, there is still not a whole lot of information around that. I'll think about it.

[ninjitsu]

Has anybody noticed the lack of encryption at their payment page? That's seriously scary.

Edit: Looks like they caught it and fixed the SSL. For a while they didn't have any SSL encryption at the payment page.

Edited by ninjitsu, 09 September 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[Heffey]

P.S. That introduction video re-uses footage. Which, in my mind, is a ridiculously large red flag. If you can't find 6 goddamn minutes of unique footage to use in your launch campaign then you have done basically nothing.

Edited by Heffey, 09 September 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[AntharPrime]

With PGI's history I would be suprised if they manage to get any backers, much less $1,000,000 especially with the already available SC and Elite Dangeroust. But then the world is a strange place.

[Runs With Scissors]

the goal is 1 million in funding.

But its 1.5 million to let players "configure weapons and equipment"

and 2 million for space combat

.....dunno what to think about that

[Bilbo]

Meh. I was kinda hoping for a single player focus. Oh well.

[Hex Pallett]

(Ignore this, apparently it was fixed)

PSA: ACCORDING TO TWITTER APPARENTLY THE FUNDING PAGE IS NOT ENCRYPTED

Edited by Helmstif, 09 September 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[ninjitsu]

Helmstif, on 09 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

PSA: ACCORDING TO TWITTER APPARENTLY THE FUNDING PAGE IS NOT ENCRYPTED

That has already been fixed. For a time though, it was not encrypted.

[Torgun]

Runs With Scissors, on 09 September 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

the goal is 1 million in funding.

But its 1.5 million to let players "configure weapons and equipment"

and 2 million for space combat

.....dunno what to think about that

It's their own website, they have full control over how that progress bar will move. Frankly I think they're determined to get this game development started one way or the other.

[Lily from animove]

Helmstif, on 09 September 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

[I'm creating this thread to hopefully get a healthy discussion out of it. MWO sourpuss please go elsewhere.]




That, plus a quick glance on the website, I...kind of like what I'm seeing.


First, a few things I discovered:

- They seem to have a better idea about what they're doing. The ships are already categorized into Science, Industrial and Combat categories, and they're offering quite a few options regarding player roles: miner, trader, PMC, scientist, spy, etc. (On the contrary, SC just recently released Constellation variants, so there's that.)

- The time is set at 2315, far earlier than most existing and upcoming space sims out there and even earlier than the current time of MWO. The designing of space stations and ships seem to reflect that - the space stations looks much more like something that can be produced even with existing technology, and the ships don't have magic force-shields.

- I'm under the impression that the Transverse universe is much smaller that, say Elite Dangerous universe. Makes sense.

- Not sure how much is purely animated but the ships are under Newtonian models. So that's nice.

- Looks like body augmentation is gonna be a huge part of player progression? "I never asked for this." (/jk. In fact I did ask for this. Cyberpunk is my jam.)


Now, the speculations:

- Well, in fact there's only one obvious question: How exactly can Transvers compete with Star Citizen, which had been hyped to supernova and beyond? And Elite: Dangerous? A space game cost a lot to develop and PGI is not exactly a large/wealthy studio. And it's not like this time you got a horde of hungry BattleTech fans with solid wallets to squeeze cash from.

- Assuming the game works out, and all the promised stuff - explorable universe, player driven economy, etc. - are brought on table *ahem ahem* ON TIME, does it mean PGI would eventually have the needed resources to build a full-blown BattleTech universe? Because BT universe, despite its age, is still one of the more mature sci-fi universe out there, and on that expectation alone I hope Transverse can be done.

I see nothing tbh.

I saw a few ships flying and shooting around which is basically as any space game does advertise.
Anything else is so early based Concept that I can not specifically figure out what this game will have unique that others don't. what makes it differ from EvE, or SC? No idea.

it's like I make a homepage advertising a game and say:

Woah look my epic game

Endless space generated
custom ship build
custom weapon build
custom free designable races
role class specific ships
terretorital wars

now back me up pls.

Sry but this is so basic raw stuff its a steak in ameba stage.

Edited by Lily from animove, 09 September 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Ryvucz]

Trailers are very deceiving.



Also, pay close attention to the IN GAME FOOTAGE on the bottom right.

[ninjitsu]

Ryvucz, on 09 September 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

Trailers are very deceiving.



Also, pay close attention to the IN GAME FOOTAGE on the bottom right.

That footage was for MW5 that never came to fruition, not MWO. It was released 5 years ago, long before MWO was ever conceived.