The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Being in project management myself (aviation not tech) there is a difference " keeping the lights on" and "project funding to achieve a goal". They may sound alike but they are far from it.

I have no idea what other/more investment it will take to achieve the technology required to arrive at the CRs goal of the universe he wants to build, alot of the funding was spent on such tech (planetary landings) but I dont know what else is required. I know about the instancing tech that CIG is working on ( like many other studios) that will allow thousands of players to play within the same instance in same or other ships but I dont know how much additional funding that will take, but I do know that in order for this tech to even reach its infancy all the CIG studios need to stay up and running and developers need to get paid.

That was the context of my previous post.

Thanks.

As mentioned, and as far as I know, CR stated around the time of nearing the end of the stretch goals that he already had all the money needed (ref to a healthy reserve) to deliver the project as promised. Presumably that would include both "lights on" (rents, salaries etc) and "achieve goals" (potential new tech for some of the stretch goals, etc) as you call them. I.e. both opex and capex.

Either way, can you be a bit more specific about what it is exactly that you think makes those two aspects in your post different with regards to total funding required? As far as I know CIG/CR never made such distinction when Chris confirmed that there was a healthy cash reserve if funds were to stop at the time. One has to asume that any and all funding required (both opex and capex) was included in the discussion.

Something that can help understand your logic would be if you could answer as straighforward-ly as possible the following question: If funds were to stop today, do you think that CIG can complete the game including all committed stretch goals and content confirmed so far at the marketed quality level (i.e. BDSSE)?.

 

[Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat]

There's also no galaxy at the moment. Star Citizen is currently where Elite was back in Beta, when we had a handful of systems to go to, with the notable addition of a basic FPS mode.

Except that Elite: Dangerous Beta had working flight controls, a well polished flight model, a set of fully spec'd out and designed ships, and working space stations, outposts and the Galaxy Map (even though you couldn't actually fly to those stars yet at that point)

Star Citizen has struggled to get even the most basic of gameplay elements to work for any length of time before it either bugs out, crashes or some other problem arises... and that is still the case *years* into it's development. So, I wouldn't even compare the two games like that because, quite frankly, it makes SC look even *more* ridiculously short of the mark.

So, let them get those core gameplay elements done before you talk about how the "scope" of SC compares to other games.

Otherwise I'm making a game in my head right now, with a scope that's EVEN BIGGER than Star Citizen - And by your standards the plan alone is already worth throwing money at. So stop buying SC Ships, instead buy Toumal Wagons as they're even better. My game is even going to simulate the player's digestive tract with utmost fidelity.

Except that's all just words and what counts is whether I can deliver on such bold promises, which I can't.

Well said.

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

The poll I was referring to is the one I posted. It may not be the one you have in mind, thats logical being we are not of the same mind and dont agree on the subject, but making a corrective post like you are a mind reader doesn't help the discussion and is the waste of time we spend conversing I refereed to before. Again, I think its best we move on.

The poll you mentioned had a very specific context at the time. Chris Roberts was concerned about the public opinion potential perception of a disconnect between the stretch goals titles and descriptions (which could be very simplistic in principle) with the actual amount of pledge required to "confirm it". In his letter he for the first time (I think) starts suggesting that, instead of offering new stretchgoals in his Letters from the Chairman, that he starts actually discussing specific elements of development and mechanics of the game. The vote simply stated that the voters wanted more stretch goals instead of that other option. As it happened Chris decided to stop the goals at 65 USD MM anyways a few months later.

Also, that poll you refer to happened around the 46 USD MM mark (June 2014), i.e. well past the moment in time where the scope had ALREADY allegedly started increasing (end of 2013 or so, ref the first poll) which was at the end of the original 23 USD MM updated campaign. So the point in time (June 2014) that you suggest was the turning point where the community decided they wanted a better and bigger game was already well over half way through the time where the game scope had been growing already with all stretch goals all the way to 46 millions.

But that is by the by, your original idea was somehow to make backers responsible for the change in scope. That it was the backers decision. And I hope at least it is clear that is not the case, even if you ignore the poll discussion the text is still very relevant:

"The community didnt decide anything. CIG is 100% accountable for the direction and management of the development.

What CIG did was simply to put up a poll in their forums. Which is not a contractual bind nor a legal commitment by any party of any kind. Especially when forum goers in any game community are just but a tiny fraction of the total population, let alone a decision capable majority of any kind. CIG did that poll just so to maintain some public relations semblant of legitimacy but the fact is the only party here that is 100% responsible for the decision to add more scope and prolong development is only CIG.

A "poll" was neither required nor sufficient to justify any decision on enlarging scope and delay release. First simply CIG decided to increase scope and delay release, and then it updated the ToS to suit that plan.

CIG could have very well delivered all the promised content at the time in 2014 and then gradually build upon it more scope from there on. But it didnt. It was all 100% on CIG."

 

[SlickReed]

How *is* cargo handled? ATM, it is not being handled at all. And don't get me wrong, I like the ideas that have been floating around, with you being able to manipulate cargo inside the ship and all that - I for one really like that, as silly as it might be. The more stuff to do in a game, the better. But at the moment the basic systems just aren't there to even justify cargo, namely: Trading and a galaxy economy. There's also no galaxy at the moment. Star Citizen is currently where Elite was back in Beta, when we had a handful of systems to go to, with the notable addition of a basic FPS mode.

So, let them get those core gameplay elements done before you talk about how the "scope" of SC compares to other games.

Otherwise I'm making a game in my head right now, with a scope that's EVEN BIGGER than Star Citizen - And by your standards the plan alone is already worth throwing money at. So stop buying SC Ships, instead buy Toumal Wagons as they're even better. My game is even going to simulate the player's digestive tract with utmost fidelity.

Except that's all just words and what counts is whether I can deliver on such bold promises, which I can't.

The cargo handling is apart of item 2.0 update. In alpha 3.0 cargo will be one of the first professions in the game, well that and piracy. First iteration will have cargo specific containers, liquids, ammo, space bike crates etc. ( disclaimer : this is whats planned afawk) The cargo will have to be loaded by npcs or players using fork lifts or by hand at space docks. Mechs are also planned similar to the movie aliens. In space station or planetary bases. Mobile shops/bizarre can also be set up by players using ships similiar to the BMM. How this will play out as far as speed and effectiveness is yet to be seen with the economy.

In 3.0 it will start more simplified as shown in this video starting at 2:40
[video=youtube;vvUBEYD6ik0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvUBEYD6ik0&t=219s[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

*Mod hat off



The poll you mentioned had a very specific context at the time. Chris Roberts was concerned about the public opinion potential perception of a disconnect between the stretch goals titles and descriptions (which could be very simplistic in principle) with the actual amount of pledge required to "confirm it". In his letter he for the first time (I think) starts suggesting that, instead of offering new stretchgoals in his Letters from the Chairman, that he starts actually discussing specific elements of development and mechanics of the game. The vote simply stated that the voters wanted more stretch goals instead of that other option. As it happened Chris decided to stop the goals at 65 USD MM anyways a few months later.

Also, that poll you refer to happened around the 46 USD MM mark (June 2014), i.e. well past the moment in time where the scope had ALREADY allegedly started increasing (end of 2013 or so, ref the first poll) which was at the end of the original 23 USD MM updated campaign. So the point in time (June 2014) that you suggest was the turning point where the community decided they wanted a better and bigger game was already well over half way through the time where the game scope had been growing already with all stretch goals all the way to 46 millions.

But that is by the by, your original idea was somehow to make backers responsible for the change in scope. That it was the backers decision. And I hope at least it is clear that is not the case, even if you ignore the poll discussion the text is still very relevant:

"The community didnt decide anything. CIG is 100% accountable for the direction and management of the development.

What CIG did was simply to put up a poll in their forums. Which is not a contractual bind nor a legal commitment by any party of any kind. Especially when forum goers in any game community are just but a tiny fraction of the total population, let alone a decision capable majority of any kind. CIG did that poll just so to maintain some public relations semblant of legitimacy but the fact is the only party here that is 100% responsible for the decision to add more scope and prolong development is only CIG.

A "poll" was neither required nor sufficient to justify any decision on enlarging scope and delay release. First simply CIG decided to increase scope and delay release, and then it updated the ToS to suit that plan.

CIG could have very well delivered all the promised content at the time in 2014 and then gradually build upon it more scope from there on. But it didnt. It was all 100% on CIG."

More stretch goals were added that increased the scope of the game aftrer that poll and that was understood ny the community. Can we agree to disagree now and stop taking up forum space with this back and forth?

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

After the poll i linked more stretch goals were added that increased the scope of the game. Can we agree to disagree now and stop taking up forum space with this back and forth?

Sure, be my guest.

But it is still not clear if you still think the backers are accountable for the decisions of changes of scope or not. I hope it is clear they are not. It is all on CIG, 100%. Polls or not.

 

[Jezzah]

Like others have said. The elephant in the room is simply this. Where is the playable gameplay?

Any number of years of expositioning at gamescons citizencons pax east west and all points in between and I for one ex backer still haven't a clue where the playable gameplay is.

It's too long coming to continually use the fallback excuse that the "scope has changed" or refactoring this that and the other all the while pouring effort into depressingly worse presentation pieces showcasing yet more ship sales instead of showing playable gameplay loops like exploration, trade, mining etc. Surely to God despite all the excuses about scope and refactoring the basic gameplay loops like trade, etc aren't going to change at the most basic levels. Not even going to go into the basic flight model problems that have plagued the project since the beginning. They are still too busy flip flapping around getting ship concepts and show piece arenas fonked out onto PowerPoint presentations and botched into a PTU state.

 

[SlickReed]

More attempts to "puppet master" the folks here while crying into his flat beer as 2.6 continues to bug out on his computer.

And besides, I thought 2.6 was a lot of fun and just packed with things for you to do.... so why spend so many hours proclaiming such and defending the honour of Chris Roberts on this forums? Shouldn't the current state of the game sorta be dragging you away to enjoy that instead?

In fact, why don't you show us footage of you playing 2.6 hmm? I mean, that would go some way into dispelling the "myths" about CIG's shocking lack of progress this year (and the last 4-5 years to be honest).

Come on, chop chop. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to record your fun, fun FUN times in 2.6.

Lol, more and more salt.

 

[Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat]

The cargo handling is apart of item 2.0 update. In alpha 3.0 cargo will be one of the first professions in the game, well that and piracy. First iteration will have cargo specific containers, liquids, ammo, space bike crates etc. ( disclaimer : this is whats planned afawk) The cargo will have to be loaded by npcs or players using fork lifts or by hand at space docks. Mechs are also planned similar to the movie aliens. In space station or planetary bases. Mobile shops/bizarre can also be set up by players using ships similiar to the BMM. How this will play out as far as speed and effectiveness is yet to be seen with the economy.

In 3.0 it will start more simplified as shown in this video starting at 2:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvUBEYD6ik0&t=219s

Here's another free hint for you:

There will be *no* 3.0.

Like, ever.

Most of what you've just written down there is a combination of both your own and CIG's theory-crafting and conjecture of what you and they HOPE to do with the economy and cargo, same with the video you posted. Nothing definitive. Nothing set in stone or at least achievable.

Just more hot air and dreams of what *may* come to pass.



Not even sorry this time around with my hint. It's your 4 and half grand that you flushed down the toilet mate. You own that fact and be very much "glad of it" too.

It is rather funny watching you try and spin yourself into a "winning" position though. Hilarious in fact.

Keep it up....



Oh, and btw, still waiting for you to post footage of you playing (and *enjoying*) 2.6.

 

[SlickReed]

Like others have said. The elephant in the room is simply this. Where is the playable gameplay?

Any number of years of expositioning at gamescons citizencons pax east west and all points in between and I for one ex backer still haven't a clue where the playable gameplay is.

It's too long coming to continually use the fallback excuse that the "scope has changed" or refactoring this that and the other all the while pouring effort into depressingly worse presentation pieces showcasing yet more ship sales instead of showing playable gameplay loops like exploration, trade, mining etc. Surely to God despite all the excuses about scope and refactoring the basic gameplay loops like trade, etc aren't going to change at the most basic levels. Not even going to go into the basic flight model problems that have plagued the project since the beginning. They are still too busy flip flapping around getting ship concepts and show piece arenas fonked out onto PowerPoint presentations and botched into a PTU state.

That is where my patience comes from my understanding of projects in my own career. I dont agree with alot of the decisions CR has made during this process. I just know that he has more experience doing this then I and I dont presume to know more about this process then he. I am not an impatience gamer, i have a library full of games I havnt even touched yet and i do enjoy what i am able to play of SC in the meantime, of course like everyone i wish there was more but thats the process.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another free hint for you:

There will be *no* 3.0.

Like, ever.

Being that you went full salt and have chosen to not discuss anything, just spread more hate toward the project i leave this conversation with this.

 

[ianw]

Will there be an option to skip loading cargo or will you have to clean your space toilet while you're waiting for all the stuff to be loaded?

Can people shoot your loaders and blow your cargo up on the pad?

Does anyone really believe any of the above will actually happen?

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Like others have said. The elephant in the room is simply this. Where is the playable gameplay?

Any number of years of expositioning at gamescons citizencons pax east west and all points in between and I for one ex backer still haven't a clue where the playable gameplay is.

It's too long coming to continually use the fallback excuse that the "scope has changed" or refactoring this that and the other all the while pouring effort into depressingly worse presentation pieces showcasing yet more ship sales instead of showing playable gameplay loops like exploration, trade, mining etc. Surely to God despite all the excuses about scope and refactoring the basic gameplay loops like trade, etc aren't going to change at the most basic levels. Not even going to go into the basic flight model problems that have plagued the project since the beginning. They are still too busy flip flapping around getting ship concepts and show piece arenas fonked out onto PowerPoint presentations and botched into a PTU state.

That is a bit unfair. CIG has already deployed scanning gameplay with a "golf swing" mechanic.

Here for reference you have one of the scanning related design articles, so you can judge how well the original plan was implemented and matches the intent:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14926-Design-Notes-Electronic-Warfare

 

[SlickReed]

*Mod hat off



Sure, be my guest.

But it is still not clear if you still think the backers are accountable for the decisions of changes of scope or not. I hope it is clear they are not. It is all on CIG, 100%. Polls or not.

Absolutely its all on CIG 100%. My only reason for bringing up the poll was to show when the community had a chance to stop the increased scope even in a small way and they picked not to a long time ago. Now that doesnt include new backers of course or people that dont live on the forums but at that time SC was primary advertised and sold on their website.

- - - Updated - - -

Will there be an option to skip loading cargo or will you have to clean your space toilet while you're waiting for all the stuff to be loaded?

Can people shoot your loaders and blow your cargo up on the pad?

Does anyone really believe any of the above will actually happen?

1. I dont know if cleaning will be a mechanic but you can do emotes while your stuff is being loaded. We dont know if you can skip the manual loading yet

2. Yes, your loaders can be shoot and so can your cargo at all times

3. Yes, many do

 

[Viajero]

*Mod hat off

Absolutely its all on CIG 100%.

Ok, let´s leave this part of the conversation at that. Agreed.

Would be very gratefull aswell if you could address this other bit (no obligation of course, I see you very busy in this thread ): https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...en-Thread-v5?p=4911683&viewfull=1#post4911683

 

[ianw]

Absolutely its all on CIG 100%. My only reason for bringing up the poll was to show when the community had a chance to stop the increased scope even in a small way and they picked not to a long time ago. Now that doesnt include new backers of course or people that dont live on the forums but at that time SC was primary advertised and sold on their website.

- - - Updated - - -



1. I dont know if cleaning will be a mechanic but you can do emotes while your stuff is being loaded. We dont know if you can skip the manual loading yet

2. Yes, your loaders can be shoot and so can your cargo at all times

3. Yes, many do

1. They would have to allow skipping of loading along with skipping of cut scenes and mocap.

2. New and exciting opportunities for trolls and comedians, what could possibly go wrong?

3. This genuinely surprises me if they do given all the other stuff that hasn't happened and doesn't work. It seems like the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat]

That is where my patience comes from my understanding of projects in my own career. I dont agree with alot of the decisions CR has made during this process. I just know that he has more experience doing this then I and I dont presume to know more about this process then he. I am not an impatience gamer, i have a library full of games I havnt even touched yet and i do enjoy what i am able to play of SC in the meantime, of course likle everyone i wish there was more but thats the process.

- - - Updated - - -



Being that you went full salt and have chosen to not discuss anything, just spread more hate toward the project i leave this conversation with this.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/105/036/ada.jpg

"Salt"? "Hate"? Are you feeling quite alright there old chap?

If stating rather uncomfortable facts about SC is decreed to be "salty" by yourself, then I can't help but to laugh at your obvious sunk cost fallacy that you're obviously doubled down on now.

Please, carry on spinning yourself into even more convoluted circles of denial about what you hope, with every last fibre of your being, will be the outcome of this "game".

It's hilariously predictable and of much entertainment value.... certainly far more than what you claim to be getting out from what meagre crumbs CIG have shaken out into your grasping hands so far.



And still, can we have some footage of you playing 2.6 to politely "shut up" us heathens that dare to imply that things aren't going as planned for Star Citizen?

*Edit* And yeah, not surprised you would use *that* dude in an image macro mate, seems to share your appreciation for facts, truth and reality in equal measure....

 

[Mu77ley]

Looks like the damage limitation squad are out in full force after that debacle the other night.

Apparently CIG have deleted the stream video from their YouTube channel as well, trying to bury the disaster and hoping people will forget.

 

[Stigbob]

Absolutely its all on CIG 100%. My only reason for bringing up the poll was to show when the community had a chance to stop the increased scope even in a small way and they picked not to a long time ago. Now that doesnt include new backers of course or people that dont live on the forums but at that time SC was primary advertised and sold on their website.

Scope increase manageable or otherwise is the fault of the developers not the customers.

1. I dont know if cleaning will be a mechanic but you can do emotes while your stuff is being loaded. We dont know if you can skip the manual loading yet

Man that sounds boring, lucky it's all just pie in the sky made up theory-crafting really.

2. Yes, your loaders can be shoot and so can your cargo at all times

Is there a non theory-crafted source for this ?.

3. Yes, many do

Some possibly, many is stretching it.

 

[Vasea Azure]

Apparently CIG have deleted the stream video from their YouTube channel as well, trying to bury the disaster and hoping people will forget.

Really, like for real?!! Are they 12yo?? This is a child reacting to bad reception of their YT video. Or if they knew the stream could be a failure why did they posted it in the first place, why not delay it (they good with that|)
And they asking me to buy more ships...

 

[Knightshark]

Looks like the damage limitation squad are out in full force after that debacle the other night.

Apparently CIG have deleted the stream video from their YouTube channel as well, trying to bury the disaster and hoping people will forget.

I am wondering how much they pay for reputation management as well.

 

[Adept]

I generally don't like to restrict the realms I am thinking about and the topics I want to discuss, you know (yk). I don't care about Titanfall 2 nor do I have any clue about the debate going on there, so let's focus on Star Citizen.

To really grasp the dynamic that seems to go on there would require me to write an article, unfortunately I don't have the time, yk. But yes, it is totally a stereotype of masculinity and of how men have to be to be accepted, worthy etc. The whole videogaming landscape is filled with these stereotypes, yk, there is not a lot of diversity regarding male and female roles you can play (in mainstream games and probably about 90% of all games involving human-like characters). That is pretty sad, but that is how it is and how it has been. So many guys dreaming to save the world with a breathtaking spaceship to be celebrated in the hangar by the crew afterwards (you fly into the hangar with a really cool maneuver), yk, and the hot chick is available after you proved to be the hero. It is so sad, because all those ideas are far from doable in real life, so you have to go back to your boring real life, or you spend as much time possible in the virtual world (btw. what happens with all the dudes in the Star Citizen universe, if they realize, that all this stuff is not possible in the PU? Traumatic experience?)

Yk, I would not want to play this game called Star Citizen nor would I like to live in that universe (if it were real). This stereotypical hypermasculine scifi-world is all but exciting, it is bland, cold, unfriedliy, dull and boring because it restricts itself to this masculine focus. You can draw many paralles to the real world.

What does the repeating "yk" stand for? That made this a really strange read. Is it "you know"? If so, why on earth repeat that so much?