The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[forger]

So basically we'll finally see FPS boarding part of the DFM around the time the PU and Squadron 42 Alpha was supposed to arrive in late 2014/early 2015. Where's the social/planet-side module? So much for modular development making things faster.

Seems like each module will come out in their respective year.

2014 = DFM

2015 = Planet-side

2016 = Squadron 42

2017 = PU

2018 = Full Release

But good to know that they got their cash shop working early.

not really
SQ42 will be started mid 2015 with 5x10 episodes and with 1-2 months in between episodes, so SQ starts mid 2015 and final episode be around first quarter 2016.

CR also said that the will be able to play in PU in the end of 2015 and final release be middle 2016, i think you can add here 6 months easily.

and by giving this info at some weird interview instead of posting it to official site makes me wonder do CIG ever heard anything about respect? i understand they can give easter eggs and other small stuff to 3rd parties for teasing purspose, but come one, release date is crucial for BACKERS in the first place, so why do we need to respect them if we are to hunt all new info all over internet?

that's my biggest problem with the CIG, they just have no idea how to organize all information they throw at us, it feels more like informational diarrhea than open development process, at least for me

 

[Aleksej]

not really
SQ42 will be started mid 2015 with 5x10 episodes and with 1-2 months in between episodes, so SQ starts mid 2015 and final episode be around first quarter 2016.

CR also said that the will be able to play in PU in the end of 2015 and final release be middle 2016, i think you can add here 6 months easily.

and by giving this info at some weird interview instead of posting it to official site makes me wonder do CIG ever heard anything about respect? i understand they can give easter eggs and other small stuff to 3rd parties for teasing purspose, but come one, release date is crucial for BACKERS in the first place, so why do we need to respect them if we are to hunt all new info all over internet?

that's my biggest problem with the CIG, they just have no idea how to organize all information they throw at us, it feels more like informational diarrhea than open development process, at least for me

It seems to me that CR has mastered his skills in naming the deadlines that can never be achieved. And now I am starting to think if this was the reason behind Microsoft removing him from the Freelancer.

 

[psyron]

But why are you talking about reducing the power to maneuvering thrusters in ED now? I am talking about AC here not ED.

However, this does not change anything - if you reduce the power of maneuvering thrusters in ED, your ship will turn much slower.

It's the same for AC. When you reduce the power of the maneuvering thrusters then this mean that if you want to fly long curves like planes do you couldn't. Instead you would need to fly like those motorbikes in "speedway". They have to point their bike always in the direction of the end of the curve because there is no side-grip and therfore the backwheel need to compensate all the current momentum:

You would premantently drift. Since the maneuvering thrusters in your scenario would be very weak they couldn't compensate the drifting. Only the main thrusters could do so.

 

[Aleksej]

It's the same for AC. When you reduce the power of the maneuvering thrusters then this mean that if you want to fly long curves like planes do you couldn't. Instead you would need to fly like those motorbikes in "speedway". They have to point their bike always in the direction of the end of the curve because there is no side-grip and therfore the backwheel need to compensate all the current momentum:

You would premantently drift. Since the maneuvering thrusters in your scenario would be very weak they couldn't compensate the drifting. Only the main thrusters could do so.

Of course this will happen, I am not arguing with this. However, the problems that needs to be solved is fast rotation (which can happen even if the ship does not move along translational axes). This issue can be solved with reducing the power of the maneuvering thrusters. However, this will increase drifting (which is also acknowledged by CR). So if they want to do this the right way - they need to find the balance between maneuvering thrusters and drifting.

As for ED - I really enjoy Cobra drifting and she drifts a lot.

 

[psyron]

Of course this will happen, I am not arguing with this. However, the problems that needs to be solved is fast rotation (which can happen even if the ship does not move along translational axes). This issue can be solved with reducing the power of the maneuvering thrusters. However, this will increase drifting (which is also acknowledged by CR). So if they want to do this the right way - they need to find the balance between maneuvering thrusters and drifting.

As for ED - I really enjoy Cobra drifting and she drifts a lot.

But the problem is here that in order to rotate/yaw/pitch your ship aournd your own axis you need far far far far less power than to maintain your ship in a curve. Maybe 10 times or 100 times less. Therefore the effect of reducing the power of the maneuvering thrusters would cause 10x 100x more negative effect on the drifting.

To get what you want - slowing down rotation - would result in the maneuvering thrusters having to be so weak that drifting wouldn't be possible to compensate at all.

Edit:
Of course you can do it but this would mean there would be no drift compensation at all! Don't think people would like such a fly experience. There is simply no way to get it fixed by maintaining everything realistic.

 

[Aleksej]

But the problem is here that in order to rotate/yaw/pitch your ship aournd your own axis you need far far far far less power than to maintain your ship in a curve. Maybe 10 times or 100 times less. Therefore the effect of reducing the power of the maneuvering thrusters would cause 10x 100x more negative effect on the drifting.

To get what you want - slowing down rotation - would result in the maneuvering thrusters having to be so weak that drifting wouldn't be possible to compensate at all.

Edit:
Of course you can do it but this would mean there would be no drift compensation at all! Don't think people would like such a fly experience. There is simply no way to get it fixed by maintaining everything realistic.

Well, I am not saying that it should be 100% realistic. It should seem realistic but you can achieve this also by a number of simplifications. And I think that this is the only way to do it right. 100% realistic is not fun, but neither is 0%.

Finding the right balance is always the key!

 

[Olrik]

Any opinions about this...so it seems most people are happy on how the game is progressing on the AC front?

One characteristic of human social interactions is conscious or unconscious mimicry.Go play the multiplayer and come back. Reread my last post.
ED got it right.

Accuret physics shouldn't be the main focus in dogfighting - should be about good gameplay and fun.

Well,there is no dogfighting. Precisely.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Mini off topic: Why did Bains get banned on the frontier forums?

Welcome MPC

The mods don't explain individual cases (otherwise they'd violate their own rules about naming and shaming), but the forum rules explain how people generally get three warnings for bad behaviour, then a short suspension, and so on. Since the thread has recently been unlocked after many off-topic posts had to be removed, it's reasonable to assume he's incurred a fourth strike.

On a personal note, although some of his content clearly didn't belong in the forum and his style hasn't always been conducive to measured debate, he did ask some important questions. If you're reading this Bains, please spend the time looking for another outlet for the chatter (IRC? Skype?) and bring back the questions when you've served your time.

Anyway, all of this is a long-winded way of saying: our mods are exceedingly deft, so as long as you're at least trying to be polite, you should get plenty of warning before things start to get ugly.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

The arena is ridiculous small, the flight /combat model is utterly boring. Why I have stopped playing the multiplayer:there is no true dogfighting- combat lasts some brief seconds- usually less than 10 seconds. You can't strafe while in coupled mode.
There is no sense of velocity (feels like you're a turret floating in the space, following an orange arrow - (radar is unnecessary ) and the missiles are overpowered.

So the mechanics in multiplayer work the same as in singleplayer? It's basically still and FPS game?

You simply face towards your target and shoot?

 

[Aleksej]

So the mechanics in multiplayer work the same as in singleplayer? It's basically still and FPS game?

You simply face towards your target and shoot?

But why would the flight model (aka mechanics) be different in MP in comparison to SP? Surely it is absolutely the same.

I have no idea why these vocal fanboys cannot understand this simple fact. Such game might interesting for a week or two - not more. Then it becomes completely dull, boring and repetitive.

 

[Sterlino]

someone explain me, please, what is the matter with ''squadron 42'' ?

what is it ?

 

[Aleksej]

someone explain me, please, what is the matter with ''squadron 42'' ?

what is it ?

This is a SP campaign in SC universe, which takes place before PU. You can choose to complete it before PU or skip it and start playing right from PU. SQ42 will feature 50 missions overall.

 

[Stormprooter]

someone explain me, please, what is the matter with ''squadron 42'' ?

what is it ?

Squadron 42 is a module of the Star Citizen game.
It is intended to be a mission-based single player/co-op campaign, where you play the part of a military pilot in the Star Citizen universe. A bit like the mission-based games such as X-Wing and Freespace. We are told that the campaign will not be completely linear, and what you do will affect what happens next - but it is essentially a scripted (not quite linear) campaign, and is more-or-less separate from the rest of the Star Citizen universe.

EDIT: Ninja'd

 

[Aleksej]

Squadron 42 is a module of the Star Citizen game.
It is intended to be a mission-based single player/co-op campaign, where you play the part of a military pilot in the Star Citizen universe. A bit like the mission-based games such as X-Wing and Freespace. We are told that the campaign will not be completely linear, and what you do will affect what happens next - but it is essentially a scripted (not quite linear) campaign, and is more-or-less separate from the rest of the Star Citizen universe.

EDIT: Ninja'd

And a little addition - completing SQ42 might have some effect on PU, e.g. you might become Star Citizen, relations with NPCs etc.

 

[Thargon]

Again: The physics are not the problem. CIG did a good job in simulating them. The problem is that real physical behavior simply isn't fun to play in a space game. That's all. No need to look further.

Well it's not to say flight models like this are not fun to play. It's just that they are fun to play only when they are done right.

In my opinion, so far the only game series I've found that appeals to me and feels right is Independance War 1 and (lesser) IWar-2.

 

[X2Eliah]

Hm. Took a few days off from games, now just read the CIG post on flight systems...

Idk.
I see way too many cases of defending their choices, praising what's already there, and a constant sense of a "deal with it" undertone to that announcement/explanation post.

Tbh, I don't really think that they have any idea or intention of making the gameplay feel fun the way I (and most others here) consider 'fun'.

I do wonder what reviewers on gaming websites will say... Afaik the people at RockPaperShotgun really disliked AC's current handling/feel. So. yeah. We'll see. I kinda suspect that CR is in for a nasty surprise once the previews roll in (and undoubtedly, just more fuel for his anti-media tirades, even though CIG seems to run on more hype than all gaming sites he disses).

Anyway. Getting sidetracked here.
Bottom line - It doesn't seem to me that CIG really wants to change all that much now. Minor tweaks for lip-service 'fixing', and focus on what the fanboys keep saying is perfect.

P.S.
(There was a question a bit earlier why so many polls on there seem to prefer current model.. Well, easy.. Because the people that aren't satisfied have moved on and are doing other stuff, not sitting on the forums 24/7, fighting a shouting match against the Perfect Percivals (CIG fanboys).

 

[Neo-ST]

P.S.
(There was a question a bit earlier why so many polls on there seem to prefer current model.. Well, easy.. Because the people that aren't satisfied have moved on and are doing other stuff, not sitting on the forums 24/7, fighting a shouting match against the Perfect Percivals (CIG fanboys).

Exactly, but that can also apply to people who are satisfied...
I guess that in the end, only the vocal minority remains...no matter how good or bad they are.

But, I really think there's nothing more to do now but wait and see what will come up in the next patches. We've said enough.

 

[Aleksej]

Exactly, but that can also apply to people who are satisfied...
I guess that in the end, only the vocal minority remains...no matter how good or bad they are.

But, I really think there's nothing more to do now but wait and see what will come up in the next patches. We've said enough.

Yep, we've said enough and there is nothing more to say. All the discussions on RSI forums repeat the same what was already said. CR has made his statement about the flight model, how it should be modified, so now the only thing that we could do is to wait for updates. I do not expect any miracles from 0.9 update and I am waiting for 1.0. The latter will show if CR and CIG understand where they are heading.

The dynamics of funding show that it returns to pre-release values.

 

[Vargur]

Hm. Took a few days off from games, now just read the CIG post on flight systems...

Idk.
I see way too many cases of defending their choices, praising what's already there, and a constant sense of a "deal with it" undertone to that announcement/explanation post.

Tbh, I don't really think that they have any idea or intention of making the gameplay feel fun the way I (and most others here) consider 'fun'.

I do wonder what reviewers on gaming websites will say... Afaik the people at RockPaperShotgun really disliked AC's current handling/feel. So. yeah. We'll see. I kinda suspect that CR is in for a nasty surprise once the previews roll in (and undoubtedly, just more fuel for his anti-media tirades, even though CIG seems to run on more hype than all gaming sites he disses).

Anyway. Getting sidetracked here.
Bottom line - It doesn't seem to me that CIG really wants to change all that much now. Minor tweaks for lip-service 'fixing', and focus on what the fanboys keep saying is perfect.

P.S.
(There was a question a bit earlier why so many polls on there seem to prefer current model.. Well, easy.. Because the people that aren't satisfied have moved on and are doing other stuff, not sitting on the forums 24/7, fighting a shouting match against the Perfect Percivals (CIG fanboys).

One thing (well among many) that CIG seem to ignore on every occasion is their take on the mouse controls and it's zero order movement. They only talked about the gimball weapons, and instead of bringing mouse in line with other controls, they seem to want to complicate things more by giving certain other controls some sort of direct aim input.
It still doesn't change the fact that mouse/kb is just point and shoot atm, and it's really all that's needed at this iteration of AC. Fancy flying is only useful in free flight mode, in combat it's redundant.
They have a lot to do in order to make the game really controller agnostic.

 

[ianw]

Well it will all become progressively clearer as multiplayer continues to roll out.

If stuff remains too easy, unbalanced or whatever there won't be any hiding it.

It's all very well banding about the mantra of the day - currently "because accurate physics" but if they can't translate that ambitious aim into balanced challenging fun then it will show.

It sounds like it should be fun but the devil is in the detail as always.