Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

I'm sure he is glad, but fails to see the problem, and its to do with demographics. Most people don't want immersion timers. Look at the complaints about travel time in ED.

CIG don't advertise it as a waiting game, they advertise it as an action packed thrilling game, and that's what most people buy into expecting.

If CIG's marketing was 100% honest about the game they are wanting to make, funding would collapse overnight, and those who are glad CIG are making the game they want, would soon find themselves without a game at all, not even a buggy alpha.

I may be thinking of the wrong game, but wasn't it Hellion which started out being way too realistic, and after one of the early releases, based on the feedback they got, they cut back on the realism?
Quite sure that put me off trying Hellion when it appeared.
That extreme realism which meant a lot of time spent. Only to lose it to PvP in a couple secs. Lol. No thx.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
When you buy SQ42 45$ before release, you'll not buy it at 70$ when released. CIG think they will have a good product and it will sell well to space game fans. So they remove the 'cheap' sale now.

That does not make sense. Price increases at launch is actually how many discounted pre orders work (Elite for example) and is also how CIG has been selling ships for 11 years: You milk the early eager fans with a discount or special early bird reward and then simply increase the price or stop the reward later. There is absolutely no need to lose perfectly good early sales.

Stopping all sales altogether now and not even commenting on it for 10 days probably points to a very different kind of problem at CIG.
 
Last edited:
Look at the complaints about travel time in ED.

Yeah, they're too short.

For what little it is worth, I was in favor of it and ED made me realize I was wrong. More generally speaking ED made me realize fun>"immersion/realism" nearly all the time.

ED reinforced my belief that when it comes to these kinds of experiences, my fun is enhanced by immersion, verisimilitude, and the gameplay constraints they enforce.

The vote ended in September 2016 - I voted for instantaneous, because this is a game I want to play not I game I want to wait for

I didn't want automated ship transfers at all. Manually flying my CMDR's ships and having copies of shorter range combat vessels stationed strategically across the bubble to give him a logistical leg up on the competition was gameplay, and gameplay that I miss.

It's not just the final act, the climax, that does it for me. It's the entire process...and most of the parts of that process, except what I specifically find least enjoyable (the sorry excuse for a progression system, a.k.a. the 'grind') have been gradually depreciated in Elite: Dangerous.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons why I don't have particularly high hopes for SC. Even without the development issues, it's far too large for it's existence to be justified if it targets the niche I'd most enjoy.

That extreme realism which meant a lot of time spent. Only to lose it to PvP in a couple secs. Lol. No thx.

I never consider the time prior to defeat to be time lost, just everything that came before, and it should be enjoyable every step of the way. Even relatively detailed and 'realistic' real-time gameplay should never need to degenerate into tedium.
 
I just find it funny that it speaks against your original position:
I don't see where it speaks against my original position.
The 2 main problems of SC servers are tickrate and stability.

With 1 instead of 100 players you divide the chance of server crash by 100.

With a stable tickrate of at least 30+ instead of a variable 1 to 20 you gain reactivness.

With no data to send on the web you gain stability and reactivness.

SQ42 will have waaaayyy less server problems than SC.
 
30 fps on the server????

little ant private server

Hx2ksru.png
 
Again, can be a source of very valuable insights, but it is not much to speak of in terms of complexity.
Lol.

The guy : you don't know DB !
I prove I know DB

The guy : your DB is too simple !
I explain him he just saw a small part of it

The guy : it's not enough complexity for me !
We can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like 😁
 
Lol.

The guy : you don't know DB !
I prove I know DB

The guy : your DB is too simple !
I explain him he just saw a small part of it

The guy : it's not enough complexity for me !
We can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like 😁
I don't really know David Braben, he's just some guy I gave money to for a future game.
 
If CIG didn't produce SQ42 when they did give an indication of when it was supposed to be coming, I'm not entirely convinced SQ42 is going to rock up any time soon when GIG are giving no indication of when it's supposed to be coming.
We have at least the indication on the progress tracker that the last chapter of SQ42 should be completed in August of this year.
 
We can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like 😁
I'll drop the second hint. Software architecture for a DBMS is completely unrelated to game server architecture, especially a real time FPS one (could be argued for turn by turn games somehow, and again the client is still vastly different). You're telling us you've driven your car on the highway so you're competent to drive this
1685177324197.png

Since you did not understand what my first hint meant at all, maybe that one will get the point across.
 
I just can't get past the CIG claims that development on sq404 will directly apply to the multiplayer game and Ant's claim that sq404 will use a completely separate system because it's a single player game, I mean one of them is wrong, do we flip a coin?
Yeah, it's pretty standard practice around here to hold two alternate viewpoints at the same time - like the whole "It's Alpha! We're just testing!" and also "Playable Now!"

Since you did not understand what my first hint meant at all, maybe that one will get the point across.
Pretty sure it's Unconscious Incompetence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence - you're in for a long discussion ;)
 
ED reinforced my belief that when it comes to these kinds of experiences, my fun is enhanced by immersion, verisimilitude, and the gameplay constraints they enforce.
To each his own.
I didn't want automated ship transfers at all. Manually flying my CMDR's ships and having copies of shorter range combat vessels stationed strategically across the bubble to give him a logistical leg up on the competition was gameplay, and gameplay that I miss.
See, my Cmdr doesn't have competition, never mind one that requires a "logistical leg up". I just want to pick the ship I feel like flying after work for 15 minutes. If it takes me 30 minutes to get the ship to where I want to fly it I'm doing something else instead.

Thank God for FCs. Now it takes a max of 15 min to get any ship anywhere in the bubble, while I grab a drink or whatever. Not perfect, but serviceable.

But again, to each his own. Different people want different things from these games.:)
 
Back
Top Bottom