Wasn't it cleared out that it'll be pretty easy to earn these higher ships by playing? Also, are they really that powerful that give more than 20% advantage compared to starting ships?
The Star Citizen Thread
- Thread starter Ril
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't it cleared out that it'll be pretty easy to earn these higher ships by playing? Also, are they really that powerful that give more than 20% advantage compared to starting ships?
Not sure how easy it will be to earn ships in the game. They added some level 1 weapons to the shop that cost 4000 credits, so imagine what a ship will cost.
I imagine the ships will cost the equivalent in credits that they cost now in dollars. So a Constellation about 250-300,000 credits plus weapons and other equipment will probably total around 500,000 credits.
So how easy it is to earn a ship in game will depend on how many credits per hour you can earn. I imagine the best we'll be able to earn is about 100 credits per hour, at least in the beginning.
We will have to wait and see.
I can't help thinking it was a bit of a rush job to try and quell all the DFM no show angst.
I know it was pre alpha (someone on the subscriber forum won with alpha prefixed by 7 PREs - not sure if they were joking or not...) but it really didn't look good.
And of all the times they shouldn't have been winging it this was probably the most important to date. Especially with Chris flipping in and out of 1st/3rd trying to figure out where he was and who was shooting him - surely they could have prepared a little better?
I expect it will all come together in the end though..
Im recently pledged over here for premium beta ED and in my opinion the release of the Alpha here at ED made some minds up at Roberts camp. Im certain CR has said as much that there were many other reasons they delayed but surely somewhere in the mind one had to look at the quality of the ED release and think that SC was going to get compared unfavourably against the ED release. The games are in different stages of development but the comparisons would be drawn nonetheless.
In my opinion Roberts team has had a bit of a kick in the rear with the DFM not coming out on time. The pressure is well and truly on to get something special out in a few months and they might find that hard if going on what I saw is anything to judge. So far for all the millions pledged backers have a bug ridden unoptimised hangar to look at and a few hastily put together livestreams from the other night.
Not so good really.
In my opinion Roberts team has had a bit of a kick in the rear with the DFM not coming out on time. The pressure is well and truly on to get something special out in a few months and they might find that hard if going on what I saw is anything to judge. So far for all the millions pledged backers have a bug ridden unoptimised hangar to look at and a few hastily put together livestreams from the other night.
Not so good really.
I hadnt seen that particular interview, many others but not that one and its really quite damning in terms of listening to CR talk about the DFM release, he was really quite detailed in what he was saying was going to be in it and such.
Considering that the main reason they gave for the delay was the work on the so called "back-end" surely that must have been considered 6 months ago back in May when the interview was given and therefore the amount of work required to get this Back-End up would have been known? Up until a month ago he was still saying the DFM was on track for December.
Beginning to think that things at CIG are being flown literally by "the seat of the their pants" at the moment. They seem very very reactive rather than proactive and have alot of catching up to do before a few people there are eating their hats (albeit very expensive million dollar pledge-money hats)
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in the dogfighting alpha you will only be able to fly the ships you own. They are thinking of giving a way for you to earn credits in the dogfighting alpha, but that's not confirmed.
If my Aurora, along with whatever upgrades I can buy with the free UEC I've been given, matches the military specced Hornet, something's wrong with the game. In the final game, the Aurora might have its place, but I doubt that it's the battlefield. It seems to me like they're setting up the dogfighting alpha in a way that pushes you towards upgrading your ship (pay to win/compete).
It's what I've been arguing against seeing in Elite. If Star Citizen keeps going along that path, I'll stick to playing Squadron 42, and maybe think about joining a private server. And playing Elite of course (if it stays relatively pay free).
Ironically a few peeps over here who are generally not hugely impressed with many facets of SC will love that aspect.
And over there lots of SC joystick fanatics who are not too impressed with many facets of ED will love the cockpit only (maybe an external cam) policy over here..
Funny old world innit?
From that video...
Loved -
The shield effects, much nicer than ED.
The damage system.
3rd person view was very nice.
Did not love -
The whole things had a kind of "clunky" feel about it. Don't know if it was a poor framerate or what but it did not look very smooth.
The cockpit was just awful. Hopefully that's a work in progress. It also looked way too "fighter plane" as well.
The yaw. I guess I prefer ED's pitch/roll mechanic much more, yaw just doesn't look or feel as good IMHO.
Loved -
The shield effects, much nicer than ED.
The damage system.
3rd person view was very nice.
Did not love -
The whole things had a kind of "clunky" feel about it. Don't know if it was a poor framerate or what but it did not look very smooth.
The cockpit was just awful. Hopefully that's a work in progress. It also looked way too "fighter plane" as well.
The yaw. I guess I prefer ED's pitch/roll mechanic much more, yaw just doesn't look or feel as good IMHO.
Yes - the shield effects and damage were very good.
I didn't like the flipping backwards and forwards from 1st to 3rd - having got used to 1st in ED I really like that. That said I would like the option to see things on a 3rd party cam sometimes - just wouldn't want to flip around like that in a battle.
Agree on the fighter plane thing and the cockpit. Was surprised at how undeveloped that was - given they've done the fancy adverts and the ships are in hangar - I just assumed they'd be a bit further along - though I do get some of the reasons for the delay (PBR/new backend/office move etc.)
As I said before I have nothing against 3rd person view...but comparing Limit Theory with ED and SC is a bit strange IMO. Limit Theory has a lot of fleet management and RTS elements to it and therefore 3rd person view makes perfect sense to be able to get the type of overview that's required for that type of game. It doesn't have the same focus on you being a pilot flying a ship as SC/ED does nor does it have to take multiplayer combat into account since it's single player.
Having said that Limit Theory is a must buy though!!
As I said before I have nothing against 3rd person view...but comparing Limit Theory with ED and SC is a bit strange IMO. Limit Theory has a lot of fleet management and RTS elements to it and therefore 3rd person view makes perfect sense to be able to get the type of overview that's required for that type of game. It doesn't have the same focus on you being a pilot flying a ship as SC/ED does nor does it have to take multiplayer combat into account since it's single player.
Having said that Limit Theory is a must buy though!!
I wasn't comparing it, just asking rgb if he felt that would make it a bad game just because of that feature.
Like I've said before Frontier have nixed the idea of 3rd person and I don't care, I'd never use it, I'm just baffled why so many people are so ardent in decrying something that would have very little impact on them but improve other people's games... and where the code already exists (obviously, from the screenshots). The whole hiding behind walls and looking over it argument is a load of hogwash. Someone might argue you'd be hiding behind an asteroid but honestly, how often is that going to happen to such a degree that a reasonably close 3rd person view is going to affect it?
For something I don't care about I'm sorry for going on so much... I guess I just object to people's objections when there is no real case for them as I see it.
What about taking a fight into the electrical storm of a gas giant. Radar is down and visibility is poor. The enemy is somewhere close, but where? I know! I'll go into 3rd person, because if they start shooting at me, I can see where the fire is coming from by where my shields light up. Plus I'll have a better FOV... It's the sensible thing to do, and is precisely what I'd do unless 3rd person was horrendously nerfed. But I really dislike view-switching, so it certainly would affect my enjoyment of game. I'm sure there are other situations where switching to 3rd person would give an advantage.
If Frontier had said that they wanted to include 3rd person, I'd accept it and move on. Some decisions go against you, and that's one I'd live with. But the reason for repeatedly arguing against it is to counteract the people who repeatedly argue for it! It's just not representative if every argument is from people who don't like a decision, because it's somehow not okay to provide a counterview.
In single-player, I wouldn't mind there being third-person and cinematic camera angles available for all the bottom-watchers and cheats. I would probably use them myself for taking a few screenies here and there.
SC dogfighting
This link drops you in where the dogfighting starts. Beware of the yaw.
[edit] here's where Chris plays.
Now they've realised holo is the way to go what are they going to so with all that screen space? I see it quietly being retired... 8^)
Maybe yaw is being tested as a differentiator between SC and ED. You never know.
This link drops you in where the dogfighting starts. Beware of the yaw.
[edit] here's where Chris plays.
Now they've realised holo is the way to go what are they going to so with all that screen space? I see it quietly being retired... 8^)
Maybe yaw is being tested as a differentiator between SC and ED. You never know.
Last edited:
I'm surprised you didn't use "diagetic" and "immersion" in that response!
Fair enough I guess, I just don't think I'm as competitive as a lot of you. I am also somewhat hypocritical in that I would not like being beaten by someone who had paid real cash for his outfit but I wouldn't care if they used options such as 3rd person and happened to beat me. Can't explain that one without more thought! :S
I'll be using a Rift and that already gives a big advantage... you don't realise how big and open that cockpit is until you view it through the Rift and it is way easier to keep track of targets than with the fixed view, or even with manual head look. So I'd be perfectly happy competing against someone using 3rd person view, given that I'm already "cheating".
To be fair I think you've got a point... I'll care much less about that the advantages of 3rd person once I've got a Rift.
The first thing that struck me a while back when I was watching a stream about Star Citizen was how bad it seemed to look when they zoomed out into 3rd person.
I have no problem with being able to look at your ship but surely its a bit crap to fight in 3rd person? It looks bad imo, and I feel it does offer an advantage in play over being in the cockpit.
Now you could argue that you don't have to play in 3rd person but if thats the most advantageous way to play in game then thats how people will play it. It then becomes the standard way to play..
So whilst I got through this without saying immersion I think Frontier has the right idea. It will be interesting to see how it pans out with SC though.
I have no problem with being able to look at your ship but surely its a bit crap to fight in 3rd person? It looks bad imo, and I feel it does offer an advantage in play over being in the cockpit.
Now you could argue that you don't have to play in 3rd person but if thats the most advantageous way to play in game then thats how people will play it. It then becomes the standard way to play..
So whilst I got through this without saying immersion I think Frontier has the right idea. It will be interesting to see how it pans out with SC though.
This video explains why third-person is generally a negative trait.
http://youtu.be/v7zoVIsIT2A
I've found that it does apply to vehicle simulations, just to a lesser extent. DCS pvp servers misconfigured to allow third person, even if it's just around one's own aircraft, enables pseudo-TGP which allows you to zoom in and spot targets around BVR ranges with a stable camera. P-51D with TGP and the same all-around camera system as the F-35? Sure! It's a super realistic simulation, after all.
I hope Frontier sticks to their design choice of having no magical invisible/intangible/invincible external camera. I'd love a camera drone though, at least then it's an actual object that exists and has to abide by the laws of physics, and well, existing at all. It would draw ship power, it could get blown up, have a limited operating range, and all of that. Seems fair. I'd target those first going up against anyone using one.
http://youtu.be/v7zoVIsIT2A
I've found that it does apply to vehicle simulations, just to a lesser extent. DCS pvp servers misconfigured to allow third person, even if it's just around one's own aircraft, enables pseudo-TGP which allows you to zoom in and spot targets around BVR ranges with a stable camera. P-51D with TGP and the same all-around camera system as the F-35? Sure! It's a super realistic simulation, after all.
I hope Frontier sticks to their design choice of having no magical invisible/intangible/invincible external camera. I'd love a camera drone though, at least then it's an actual object that exists and has to abide by the laws of physics, and well, existing at all. It would draw ship power, it could get blown up, have a limited operating range, and all of that. Seems fair.
I'd target those first going up against anyone using one.- Status