Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper
Quote:
|
It adds a capability that the majority of players want.
|
Can you actually prove that the majority wants it, or is it just a faulty assumption á la "the vast majority of players wants all compartments to be 3D"? |
It is a ridiculous to call it a faulty assumption. If looking upon hours of map screen while the time compression runs is what people want in the majority, we would have seen loads of "Microsoft Watch Paint Dry Simulator" games and yearly Pro Watch Grass Grow League refreshers from EA. People want action in games. It was never a problem in vanilla SH3, because you were literally flooded with radio contacts. You never really had time to be bored. This was how Ubi worked around this issue of boredom. The sail from Bremerhaven to NY could be done with in 10 seconds this way, provided you were not spotted on the way. Why is that bad?
You need compression of some sorts, and the suggestion of an actual jump-to mechanism instead of a flakey time compression mechanism isn't such a bad call. We all know that it worked poorly in SH3. A compromise would be to make the highest compression actually be an abstraction. Instead of simulating the world around the submarine constantly, but at increased pace, then make it an abstraction that you pull off tables. %Chance of convoy encounter (Based on location and date) %chance of flight encounter etc.
It would probably irritate the already hypersensitive realism glands of the most assinine pro-realism guys, but they could then chose to run it at a lower speed and let the busy of us cut to the chase. Wherein lies the harm I ask?