The Star Citizen Thread v 4
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
Proof, Mr. Smart. Please show us where you can purchase 12800 aUEC for $12.75.
EDIT - Thread, apparently I've been reported for badgering. It suits Derek to see his critics banned so he can continue his misinformation campaign unopposed.
At this point, all I'm interested in is seeing Derek back up his statements regarding Star Citizen with actual facts.
Unfortunately (and this is easily witnessed on Derek's Twitter, his blog, his steam page, the SomethingAwful forums) Derek has a habit of simply banning whomever disagrees with him.
Thus, I'll be taking care to address my responses in a fair and clinical fashion.
Last edited:
I see two sides to this, at this stage I don;t think this feature is bad per se.
I mean in ED you lose a ship you pay insurance, it's just the same in SC but if you wait 20 minutes it's free.
In all honesty I find it an interesting solution (not entirely sure if it's a good one though). One of the complaints with ED is the grind cost for just having fun with the game, people are risk averse due to insurance costs. People go off the handle at simply being attacked by another player and at least part of that is due to the credit cost of losing a ship.
Waiting as an alternative? It's an idea, and in that respect certainly a potential solution, just not sure though.
Where it potentially falls down is yes if people can pay money to bypass, that for me is a step too far and it does push down the "Candy Crush" path. I mean sure it can be said well it's just optional for those with money to spend but let's be honest this is the argument made by every single mobile game developer ever.
Last edited:
Can people please start discussing the game (as it exists) instead of this he said / she said nonsense.
Why not start a Private Group in game and have at it, leave the rest of us in peace to continue making off the wall comments and laughing at other peoples' juvenile videos!
Mr Smart has an opinion, a phalanx of new posters have an opposing opinion. Those of us in the middle don't give an over-powered Vipers insta-gib weapon about your Clash of the Ego Titans, okay?
Nobody wins a prize round here for most compelling argument. In the end all of this is just 1s and 0s; you can all decide which one you want to be!
Why not start a Private Group in game and have at it, leave the rest of us in peace to continue making off the wall comments and laughing at other peoples' juvenile videos!
Mr Smart has an opinion, a phalanx of new posters have an opposing opinion. Those of us in the middle don't give an over-powered Vipers insta-gib weapon about your Clash of the Ego Titans, okay?
Nobody wins a prize round here for most compelling argument. In the end all of this is just 1s and 0s; you can all decide which one you want to be!
Simple. They currently have no way of monetizing the game because despite croberts going on the record as saying that if funding dried up they have reserves to complete the game, they have to keep raising money because the game has taken longer (it's now 18 months overdue). Ship sales - even JPEGs - for a game that nobody is playing, won't monetize it enough. This is evidenced by the dwindling funding chart (which btw there is mounting evidence that it's being manipulated to show interest. I have a blog in the wings about that) which, as you can see, tends to spike around i) sales ii) croberts comes out with a ludicrous promise.
The solution?
1) store
2) in-game MT
3) stats saving <--- needed to make 1&2 possible
The biggest stunt he pulled was the premature release of PU 2.0 back in December. As I predicted, little did backers know that five (!) months later, there won't be any meaningful gameplay feature updates to the "game" they were promised. I wrote about that here after predicting that's precisely what they would do. He pulled the same stunt with the social module. I wrote about that here.
ps: That whole "persistence" thing is pure - and utter - rubbish . That's like saying any game with a save/restore is persistent. I wrote up something (1, 2)about it.
Last edited:
<chopped some bits for brevity, hopefully not distorting it to a misquote?>
If I got gibbed by either a player or npc I would need a coffee and some walking around swearing time to get over it... using that to negate the insurance buyback would be sweet gameplay for me. I am not one to jump straight back into the fray and teach the other pesky varlet a lesson.
Jeezo Pomerlaw, someone on a mobile device is gonna love that image file!
Last edited:
Well those of us who support CIG and SC as a product have two options:
1) Let Derek Smart and his Goons drive a wedge between the ED and the SC communities by spreading misinformation and FUD
2) Call him out
Because Derek isn't going to stop. Look at his Twitter stream for the last year. If he spent as much time working on his own game as he does posting Star Citizen hate, it would be done by now.
What's on the Alpha Player Test Universe right now is one thing. CIG is trying to get the player base to do missions and earn test currency to test the new item purchase mechanics instead of just chase eachother around Security Port Kareah all day. Enforcing time / in-game test currency penalties is the logical way to do that.
The opinion of... /grits teeth ...certain others in this thread seems to be that this is the final design implementation and that players are going to be forking out real cash in the release product to bypass timers, which I'd say is a very premature statement to make, and suits their agenda.
Last edited:
I can help you with that. It has been changed THREE times. Each time was to add restrictions which favor CIG over backers.
1. added arbitration clause
2. extended the refunds & accountability period from 12 to 18 months after failing to deliver on Nov 2014
I have it all documented - with links and context - in a new post right here. Please bookmark.
In fact, in the past weeks, knowing that the Mar 31st deadline is looming, sources tell me that they are about to again update the ToS in order to take away even more rights from backers. In fact, that's precisely why I am now hearing that more resources have been allocated (taken off SQ42 btw) to making the PU 2.4x stable so that the public release can be used as a trojan horse for the ToS update.
Somehow, the evangelists are going to wave that one off.
Last edited:
Again, he is your Nightmare, not mine. I won't count myself as speaking for any other carbon-based life-form. Why do I want to look at a Twitter stream, I'm not on Twitter. The backwards timeline gives me a brain ache, without even reading anything!
I don't live my life jumping to attention at the first thing some guy writes on Twitter, or someone else writes on this thread.
I find your lack of faith disturbing
Paying AND waiting to get your ship back is a good idea imo.
Its something I'd like to see in Elite. You pay your insurance upfront. So that in the event you lose your ship you're not (or much less) stressed, wondering, hoping that you'll have enough when the buyback screen pops up.
Not getting your ship right back helps discourage grinding especially in regards to pvp.
Currently, if you lose in a pvp fight, it doesn't matter as you simply respawn at your last station and rejoin the now seemingly perpetual fight as though in an arena shooter - provided you grinded long and hard for those buyback credits.
If you lose your ship, you shouldn't be able to get it back right away. There should be a set time limit which could potentially be shortened by bringing materials to help in building your new replacement ship.
The loaner sidewinder would be provided free of charge in the meantime though.
Last edited:
It's a ludicrous argument that has no basis in reality. Saying the community "voted" for it, is the same as saying that everyone in the community paid for the stretch goal.
FACT: The "decision" was made via stretch goals, not a consensus, let alone a vote. That's a remarkable distinction they are ignoring. If there are 20 people needed and 5 made it happen with money (that's how spending in elections work btw), how exactly does that equate to a vote and/or consensus? No clue. Math is hard I guess.
And yes, in video gaming, whales are a thing. They are the same ones still giving CIG money due to sunk cost fallacy.
Last edited:
proKar_garlic
Banned
Line of Defense already missed AND changed it's ToS AND release date 4 times, anyone cares? No, why? Because it's only $17 million 18 dev's and 12 years.
I don't even know where to being with this. You can't be serious. So I will let someone else take it from here because once I take this apart, there's no going back.
But he isn't driving a wedge anywhere - yes he is extremely persistent and having observed him for over a year now it seems clear that if you want to get in an argument with him and you can't stand to not have the last word you're onto a loser - guaranteed.
People can and will make their own minds up about this - they really don't need you calling him or anyone else out.
The fact of the matter is by calling him out you just draw more attention to the thing you're trying to suppress - it's counterproductive.
But obviously what you do is up to you.
And it does provide a certain type of entertainment - so - more power to your elbow!
Last edited:
^this
Last edited:
proKar_garlic
Banned
Well im not joking, it's the current state of your baby project am I right? Almost $20 million spent, 12 years and 18 dev's and nothing to show for it, not even ONE gameplay highlight resembling a fun time.
What have you been doing all this time Tweeting?
Ah wait...
What have you been doing all this time Tweeting?
Ah wait...
Last edited:
Maybe nobody round here cares (apart from you, passionately it would appear), because oddly enough this is a thread about Star Citizen. I don't care how much you detest the guy; it is not relevant to this topic no matter how hard you try to lever it in.
Because it wasn't a vote.
- Status