The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Cotic]

With the difference being that when you change fork you can use things of the different fork that are better than what the first fork had. So they spend a little bit of time so they have some options they didnt have before. Remember that CIG didnt even mention it until players noticed the logo in 2.6. It was then the media who went ballistic, claiming a massive engine change at this stage would surely spell doom. Meanwhile Ben tries to explain it took a little bit of time for some work that may have (strong) benefits in the future.

Ok that kind of makes sense. It's a bit hard to keep up with to be honest, there's so many conflicting opinions about who said what, what was said and what it means going forward

It doesnt matter at this point what CIG does, some here will just bash it anyway. Completely new engine? HAHAHA, see I told you! Minor changes for future benefits? HAHAHA thats not even close to what needs to be done, you need a new engine! Keep working on the old SE fork of CT's CE3.7? HAHAHA, they dont even dare to admit its a dead-end!

Its quite sad really. Most of this topic is just light-hearted fun, with most of us actually hoping the game works out in the end. Some though really want the game to fail. Which is a bit... odd.

I agree, if the bashing is poking fun then fair enough but if it gets serious people need to step back and take a look at things.

 

[ianw]

ED has planned spacelegs since the kickstarter. They always mentioned it, and they keep mentioning it to this day. EVE just threw it in as a way to market cosmetics from out of nowhere. Spacelegs will come at some pointm, unless FD goes broke.

Heck, I am sure I am not the only one here who would enjoy a hangar where you can walk around all your ships. Beats the debug cam we have now if you ask me...

I like the idea of spacelegs - it's kind of a tick box thing though, one of those things it seems logical to have. Little bit of EVA, ship inspection stuff like that, just because.

That said I have little interest in FPS gameplay and I do get the concern that people have about what will make it interesting - DB seemed very wary of that in the recent holiday stream and it sounds a long way off still.

ETA - I seem to recall one of the devs syaing that ship interiors have already been modelled with spacelegs in mind so there is that too.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

With the difference being that when you change fork you can use things of the different fork that are better than what the first fork had. So they spend a little bit of time so they have some options they didnt have before. Remember that CIG didnt even mention it until players noticed the logo in 2.6. It was then the media who went ballistic, claiming a massive engine change at this stage would surely spell doom. Meanwhile Ben tries to explain it took a little bit of time for some work that may have (strong) benefits in the future.

It doesnt matter at this point what CIG does, some here will just bash it anyway. Completely new engine? HAHAHA, see I told you! Minor changes for future benefits? HAHAHA thats not even close to what needs to be done, you need a new engine! Keep working on the old SE fork of CT's CE3.7? HAHAHA, they dont even dare to admit its a dead-end!

Its quite sad really. Most of this topic is just light-hearted fun, with most of us actually hoping the game works out in the end. Some though really want the game to fail. Which is a bit... odd.

I think major rub for most of us who are critical towards CIG is constant barrage of fake optimistic PR they push out despite failing at any other front. It just triggers something in people. I wish Parry well and he is awesome person explaining stuff and providing his points in polite maner. There are lot of SC backers I can highlight as being descent net citizens. But any benefit of doubt to company itself, it's PR and major representatives have long come and gone. At first when I heard LY news I thought at least CIG has something to show about what they have done all this time, heck, I actually believed they might have done right thing delaying everything and moving to better perspective engine - and Amazon backing CryEngine is good thing no doubt about that. However more I get to know, more I see it is classic CIG/Chris move. More details arise - thanks again Ben Parry about explaining those - more I am convinced that it was late move trying to prop up PR damage CIG has suffered recently. And sorry, this just not gonna fly. If FD would have given reason of PS4 port alone as way for me to be hyped for future updates, I would call upon them too. Smoke and mirrors really makes lot of people angry, especially if those things come from someone with history like CIG.

Can CIG really win this one? Actually they can. In next ATV they can provide detailed list of things they have picked from LY which have improved - in their opinion - performance. Explaining how they will move forward, or do they plan to adapt anything from LY extensive work done by Amazon.

But Chris didn't choose to do that. He choose to double down without really explaining anything. It is not an open development, it is a farce.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually yes. CCP gave up on it because it was taking too much time and they were letting the real game rot. And when the players found out they started to leave. Not that they could not get it to work, they ended up not even getting to that stage.

Simple it takes away massive development time from actually implementing gameplay, keeping the game stagnant and driving players away, same as what happened with EVE online. Kill is perhaps not really the right word as it is very hard to actually kill a game. But it could do some real harm to the playerbase.

It is not really about FD coming up with something, it just how much resources are they will to devote to it and can they implement gameplay to justify those resources.

FD will have to model every ship, then give you a reason to walk around.

Well, FD already have explained they have this split up in a way that some of team develop further new content, and some of team develop expansions for base game. CCP problem was management related - and that's kinda is their regular thing.

Also FD already showed with their work on 2.1 and 2.2 that they do understand need for fleshing out base game. So they have increased that amount of work what they do vs new features a lot (that's why S3 also will be late, but it will be there).

As for model every ship - they already have at concept level, EVA repairs and boarding being reasons. Both well documented within DDF.

 

[VidarSnipes]

ED has planned spacelegs since the kickstarter. They always mentioned it, and they keep mentioning it to this day. EVE just threw it in as a way to market cosmetics from out of nowhere. Spacelegs will come at some pointm, unless FD goes broke.

Heck, I am sure I am not the only one here who would enjoy a hangar where you can walk around all your ships. Beats the debug cam we have now if you ask me...

It would be nice (for 5-10 minutes, if Star Citizen is any indication), but I'm not sure if it's worth the workload needed. Planetary landings were mentioned since the start as well, and it turned out they can't offer much to the vast majority of the playerbase [citation needed]. CIG made lofty promises about the multicrew experience, and all we have now is the ability to juggle power priorities or handle turrets. Even if they create more crew stations, I can't imagine them implementing anything more interesting, which is the same problem I predict FD will have with 2.3.

 

[Cotic]

Can CIG really win this one? Actually they can. In next ATV they can provide detailed list of things they have picked from LY which have improved - in their opinion - performance. Explaining how they will move forward, or do they plan to adapt anything from LY extensive work done by Amazon.

I would certainly like to see this. From what I've seen a lot of fans would like more exposure to the actual development process, so this would be a great addition.

 

[1500]

Well, FD already have explained they have this split up in a way that some of team develop further new content, and some of team develop expansions for base game. CCP problem was management related - and that's kinda is their regular thing.

Also FD already showed with their work on 2.1 and 2.2 that they do understand need for fleshing out base game. So they have increased that amount of work what they do vs new features a lot (that's why S3 also will be late, but it will be there).

Yes but that is still taking resources way from creating depth in the ship aspect of the game.

The issue I see with spacelegs is that it can only add the same type of missions to the game. FD could go down the road that walking around gives you an advantage, then people will use it. But do we really want it to be forced? Ok so they could add EVA, but then you have to add ship wrecks to make that have a point, and even then the gameplay is just a fetch quest. Ok so they added a fetch quest, how long will that take to get boring? Do you then add FPS combat? Ok so now you need to add guns and model them, and you need to add NPC's to shoot. Now it is just a poor version of a billion dollar industry.

I would much rather see FD create depth in the base game and really do that well, instead of spreading them selves thin.

It is like CIG, they could just keep adding ships and ships that promise gameplay, or they could actually work on the gameplay. Sure they added a standalone FPS mode, but what does that actually add to the base game?

Edit: We don't actually know what will be in 3.0

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It would be nice (for 5-10 minutes, if Star Citizen is any indication), but I'm not sure if it's worth the workload needed. Planetary landings were mentioned since the start as well, and it turned out they can't offer much to the vast majority of the playerbase [citation needed]. CIG made lofty promises about the multicrew experience, and all we have now is the ability to juggle power priorities or handle turrets. Even if they create more crew stations, I can't imagine them implementing anything more interesting, which is the same problem I predict FD will have with 2.3.

I consider space legs fundamental addition - even if they will start of as something of passing interest, it will open interesting gameplay opportunities down the road. I basically view all ED elements that way. That's why I like how they are fundamentally designed.

In fact, this is where I actually agree with Chris and CIG that mechanics should come first before gameplay and they should feel sound before they can move forward. However it feels they can't fully decide how to proceed and gameplay would be awesome to see at least at prototype level - which they don't show much.

 

[VidarSnipes]

I consider space legs fundamental addition - even if they will start of as something of passing interest, it will open interesting gameplay opportunities down the road. I basically view all ED elements that way. That's why I like how they are fundamentally designed.

In fact, this is where I actually agree with Chris and CIG that mechanics should come first before gameplay and they should feel sound before they can move forward. However it feels they can't fully decide how to proceed and gameplay would be awesome to see at least at prototype level - which they don't show much.

Neither company has passed the boundary between a "fundamental addition" and "gameplay opportunity" yet, even though they did have time to do that, so I'm quite sceptical of their ability to achieve that goal in the future.

 

[Voivod]

I don't really care for space legs.
Flying ships in ED is so much fun.

Atmo landings though.... that would be awesome

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Yes but that is still taking resources way from creating depth in the ship aspect of the game.

Please don't use that word without explaining what you mean in detail. 'Depth' is most abused word in discussions about ED/SC. It is useless because people understand so many different things with it.

The issue I see with spacelegs is that it can only add the same type of missions to the game. FD could go down the road that walking around gives you an advantage, then people will use it. But do we really want it to be forced? Ok so they could add EVA, but then you have to add ship wrecks to make that have a point, and even then the gameplay is just a fetch quest. Ok so they added a fetch quest, how long will that take to get boring? Do you then add FPS combat? Ok so now you need to add guns and model them, and you need to add NPC's to shoot. Now it is just a poor version of a billion dollar industry.

Emmmmmm....this is where I really don't understand some of those complains. I watch GTAV and I also see boring. I watch Skyrim or Fallout 4 and I also see boring. Every game at some point gets boring. I just played Alien Isolation yesterday and while it is amazing game, it can get frustrating and in turn boring very very quickly. You can get away from boring with variations. Way FD does it there's more hope than handcrafted missions that end up being copy pasted anyway. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Going in depth - using that word alone make my skin crawl - will drive this thread completely offtopic.

I would much rather see FD create depth in the base game and really do that well, instead of spreading them selves thin.

Again, please explain what do you mean by that. I really don't think you can't - or any of us can - because I think you describe state of mind which is not related with gameplay at all.

It is like CIG, they could just keep adding ships and ships that promise gameplay, or they could actually work on the gameplay. Sure they added a standalone FPS mode, but what does that actually add to the base game?

Edit: We don't actually know what will be in 3.0

Well, CIG issues are that they have shown almost none of gameplay. If they had shown for example loop of generated mission we wouldn't discussing ED here Star Marine originally was meant to scoop up FPS gamers money, nothing more and nothing less, it was even declared that way by SC fans and talking heads. As for mechanics - well...shooting mechanics, shooting and combat networking, interaction with enviroment...you can theoretically test lof things...although this feels way overboard just to do that. I would have gone concentrating to get 3.0 ASAP to test those mechanics there. Existance of SM is evidence alone that 3.0 is long time away.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither company has passed the boundary between a "fundamental addition" and "gameplay opportunity" yet, even though they did have time to do that, so I'm quite sceptical of their ability to achieve that goal in the future.

Emmmmm.....FD hasn't even shown space legs in action, how do you know they haven't pass that already? Of course they will demo then close to finish line.

 

[VidarSnipes]

Emmmmm.....FD hasn't even shown space legs in action, how do you know they haven't pass that already? Of course they will demo then close to finish line.

They did have planetary landings and surface vehicles, which I would call a fundamental addition, though it didn't amount to much in terms of engaging gameplay.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

They did have planetary landings and surface vehicles, which I would call a fundamental addition, though it didn't amount to much in terms of engaging gameplay.

There will be lot of people who will disagree on this one. It works very well at fundamental level, and since 2.0 has added lot of things and improved existing ones to make planetary gameplay more interesting and involving.

And again, if you think it is not engaging, what will be engaging? Saving princess from Jabba?

 

[1500]

Please don't use that word without explaining what you mean in detail. 'Depth' is most abused word in discussions about ED/SC. It is useless because people understand so many different things with it.



Emmmmmm....this is where I really don't understand some of those complains. I watch GTAV and I also see boring. I watch Skyrim or Fallout 4 and I also see boring. Every game at some point gets boring. I just played Alien Isolation yesterday and while it is amazing game, it can get frustrating and in turn boring very very quickly. You can get away from boring with variations. Way FD does it there's more hope than handcrafted missions that end up being copy pasted anyway. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Going in depth - using that word alone make my skin crawl - will drive this thread completely offtopic.



Again, please explain what do you mean by that. I really don't think you can't - or any of us can - because I think you describe state of mind which is not related with gameplay at all.



Well, CIG issues are that they have shown almost none of gameplay. If they had shown for example loop of generated mission we wouldn't discussing ED here Star Marine originally was meant to scoop up FPS gamers money, nothing more and nothing less, it was even declared that way by SC fans and talking heads. As for mechanics - well...shooting mechanics, shooting and combat networking, interaction with enviroment...you can theoretically test lof things...although this feels way overboard just to do that. I would have gone concentrating to get 3.0 ASAP to test those mechanics there. Existance of SM is evidence alone that 3.0 is long time away.

- - - Updated - - -



Emmmmm.....FD hasn't even shown space legs in action, how do you know they haven't pass that already? Of course they will demo then close to finish line.

Depth in the context of a games is well known, perhaps you should look it up? It is no different then saying you want to see them flush out the current mechanics. But if you really don't understand what it means to have depth in a game, I will try to explain it to you.

Current scanning mechanics are just push a button, it has very little depth, it is shallow and does not take any effort on the part of the players. Same issue with CIG's golf swing mechanic. Now take EVE onlines scanning, it has depth, it takes skill to use and effort from the player. Crafting could be expanded as well, giving more options and more branches.

Current mission system is basic and does not have co-op missions, you could add depth to the mission system by adding co-op missions.

Adding depth to the current base game would be expanding on the activities you done while piloting a ship. Sure FD added ground missions but again they ended up being shallow and needed expanding on.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

But they are not. 3.7 is the same for both, there is no LY 3.7, it is just that the licence for LY lets you use old CE code, code that CIG already had and was using. LY does not actually start until 3.8.

Sorry but no switch has happened, CIG just changed the logo, and moved to Amazons servers. Ben confirmed that no engine switch has happened, just a licence switch.

Is it possible then just because game using now AWS that networking improved I mean specifically(my case)ping is better and less packet loosing and I am talking about AC and SM because PU still looks very much the same?

 

[VidarSnipes]

There will be lot of people who will disagree on this one. It works very well at fundamental level, and since 2.0 has added lot of things and improved existing ones to make planetary gameplay more interesting and involving.

And again, if you think it is not engaging, what will be engaging? Saving princess from Jabba?

Sure, why not. My main point is that both planetary landings and spacelegs by themselves (in both ED and SC) don't generate enough gameplay (or "they're not engaging enough") to justify the amount of money, time and hype spent to implement them.

 

[1500]

Is it possible then just because game using now AWS that networking improved I mean specifically(my case)ping is better and less packet loosing and I am talking about AC and SM because PU still looks very much the same?

Well yes, switching the servers can have a real effect on a player, good or bad. That is true for all online games. You are probably just have a better connection to the Amazon servers then you did to Google's. Perry has said that nothing has changed, and some players are reporting that the code has not changed (i have no idea if true or not, but it reinforces what Parry has said) just that it is connecting to Amazon's servers

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Well yes, switching the servers can have a real effect on a player, good or bad. That is true for all online games.

I am aware of that but just need it confirmation that I am not getting crazy,what I mean is that all this confusing talks about the engine switch(CR) and how after all CIG apparently did not change anything(Ben)was playing with my mind as I could see in RL that my ping clearly improved which I was believing that this was a benifit from the LY switch in the first place....well then case should be clear now apparently there is no switch yet except that now CIG start using AWS......

 

[1500]

I am aware of that but just need it confirmation that I am not getting crazy,what I mean as all this confusing talks about the engine switch(CR) and how after all CIG apparently did not change anything(Ben)was playing with my mind as I could see in RL that my ping clearly improved which I was believing that this was a benifit from the LY switch in the first place....well then case should be clear now apparently there is no switch yet except that now CIG start using AWS......

Not sure they are actually using AWS yet, Amazon's servers can use the same connection as Googles. So CIG could just redirect to Amazon instead of Google. We will just have to wait and see if CIG release a statement on what exactly they have done.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Not sure they are actually using AWS yet, Amazon's servers can use the same connection as Googles. So CIG could just redirect to Amazon instead of Google. We will just have to wait and see if CIG release a statement on what exactly they have done.

Hmmm...or maybe they just open some new servers in Europe in the past few months wich reflect on my ping and overall better net stability in 2.6.....
And by the way then in the world they had LY logo on opening screen if they didn´t make a switch yet Or possibly not using even AWS???Is this again some marketing shenanigans???Or maybe CR don´t like what is hapening with the Crytek recently so he was in the hurry to announce a switch before the switch actually happens?

 

[VidarSnipes]

Well, I've just read some comments about this thread on reddit, and I have an argument against SC - if you play the online component, you will meet those people.