The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Sunleader]

Because SC cult fandom is very strong in Germany and the SC player groups originate from the communities of these magazines (GameStar and PCGames). The provide pure fan service. A few months ago i wrote a comment under a news in GameStar where the author (Benjamin Dannenberg, a know SC Fan) claimed that SQ42 *might* not be released this year (2016) but that the game is basically completed and just needs some finishing touches. I responded that he seems to have lost his journalistic objectivity, since the interview by his colleague (Michael Graf) with CR clearly states that CR hopes SQ42 will be released next year. They deleted this comment and banned me without any warning or previous infractions whatever. I think in the same news they claimed that SQ42 gameplay will be shown at CitizenCon.

lol.
Journalistic objectivity hasnt existed for a hundred Years xD
Off the Bat I cant Name a Single Newspaper or News Agency which is not either Heavily Sponsored by some Faction or an Group of Companies. Or has been founded by a Single Person or an Group of People to Publish their Personal Opinions.

If you want an actually Neutral Article on something.
You need to find an Article on it by an Newspaper which is entirely unrelated to that Field.
You want an Article which is Neutral on a Game ?
Then the absolutely last Place you want to look for is any type of Gaming, Computer, Science or Stocks Exchange Magazine/Newspaper etc xD
Because these will always be Sponsored by Companies of this Field or will be Written by People who got their own Personal Opinion on this and want to get this through.

You could Try the Daily Local Newspaper and Hope the Article was added due to Public Interest in the Topic and not Because some Fan of something on the Agency wanted to make an Article on it


Because pretty much the only Source of halfwat Neutral Articles on something. Is when an News Agency which is usually not connected to this sort of thing. Notices that their Readers would like to Read something on it. And then Write about it despite none of their Sponsors etc having any Hands in this matter and thus not Forcing their Opinions into it


Being Banned and Deleted is pretty normal as well.
The Internet is at the same time the most Free Place for Toughts and Opinions there is. And at the same time the Place where you have the highest amount of Control State even Possible.
Because in the Internet for most Part saying your Mind is just as impossible to Punish as Suppressing your Human Rights
The Guy running the Website has all Power. If he determines he does not like your Nose he can Ban you.
Of course if you then go to a neutral Source and Write there he cant prevent that. ^^


Its the mistake many Game Companies make.
Instead of allowing Critizism in their own Forums where they can comment it and argue with it.
They just Ban and Delete Accounts.
Which then Start putting Crushing Critizism on You Tube and other Places instead.

 

[Adept]

I was too busy re-playing FFE...

Solo-mode strikes again.

 

[Skizomeuh]

lol.
Journalistic objectivity hasnt existed for a hundred Years xD

True. Journalism is about oPinion, though the problEm in this case is that this one is moRe about PR regurGitation than opinion.

 

[Earthshine]

Spoiler

lol.
Journalistic objectivity hasnt existed for a hundred Years xD
Off the Bat I cant Name a Single Newspaper or News Agency which is not either Heavily Sponsored by some Faction or an Group of Companies. Or has been founded by a Single Person or an Group of People to Publish their Personal Opinions.

If you want an actually Neutral Article on something.
You need to find an Article on it by an Newspaper which is entirely unrelated to that Field.
You want an Article which is Neutral on a Game ?
Then the absolutely last Place you want to look for is any type of Gaming, Computer, Science or Stocks Exchange Magazine/Newspaper etc xD
Because these will always be Sponsored by Companies of this Field or will be Written by People who got their own Personal Opinion on this and want to get this through.

You could Try the Daily Local Newspaper and Hope the Article was added due to Public Interest in the Topic and not Because some Fan of something on the Agency wanted to make an Article on it


Because pretty much the only Source of halfwat Neutral Articles on something. Is when an News Agency which is usually not connected to this sort of thing. Notices that their Readers would like to Read something on it. And then Write about it despite none of their Sponsors etc having any Hands in this matter and thus not Forcing their Opinions into it


Being Banned and Deleted is pretty normal as well.
The Internet is at the same time the most Free Place for Toughts and Opinions there is. And at the same time the Place where you have the highest amount of Control State even Possible.
Because in the Internet for most Part saying your Mind is just as impossible to Punish as Suppressing your Human Rights
The Guy running the Website has all Power. If he determines he does not like your Nose he can Ban you.
Of course if you then go to a neutral Source and Write there he cant prevent that. ^^


Its the mistake many Game Companies make.
Instead of allowing Critizism in their own Forums where they can comment it and argue with it.
They just Ban and Delete Accounts.
Which then Start putting Crushing Critizism on You Tube and other Places instead.

There's the influence of an external interested party and then there's an article like that which demonstrates a strong bias without any hint of subtlety about it. The number of backers thing is a big red flag - it could either mean: 1) He's clueless about the fact that the number on the RSI site is of accounts and not backers, or 2) He knows this but thinks it'll fool/impress people who won't investigate further. Neither option improves confidence in anything he writes, the latter being much worse than the former. Basically ignorance vs dishonesty...neither are laudable.

You're probably right that any news publication is unlikely to be purely neutral but you can at least strive to read and link ones that are closer to neutral (note: I don't mean you here, more a general point) because at least then they are more difficult to dismiss. I've dismissed that article - which was linked as a kind of "Look! A positive SC article in a proper games magazine! Eat that naysayers!" (at least, that's how it looks to me) - as being biased and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.

 

[Sunleader]

True. Journalism is about oPinion, though the problEm in this case is that this one is moRe about PR regurGitation than opinion.

There's the influence of an external interested party and then there's an article like that which demonstrates a strong bias without any hint of subtlety about it. The number of backers thing is a big red flag - it could either mean: 1) He's clueless about the fact that the number on the RSI site is of accounts and not backers, or 2) He knows this but thinks it'll fool/impress people who won't investigate further. Neither option improves confidence in anything he writes, the latter being much worse than the former. Basically ignorance vs dishonesty...neither are laudable.

You're probably right that any news publication is unlikely to be purely neutral but you can at least strive to read and link ones that are closer to neutral (note: I don't mean you here, more a general point) because at least then they are more difficult to dismiss. I've dismissed that article - which was linked as a kind of "Look! A positive SC article in a proper games magazine! Eat that naysayers!" (at least, that's how it looks to me) - as being biased and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.

For most Part I am doing that Actually xD
As I said. The Best Chance to get Neutral Articles is by simply checking several Articles on the Topic. And See how the Differ.
Reading the same Topic on 3 Different Newspapers gives you a Ton of opinions. But a few things will align and you can somewhat make out certain base Information from that.


In this Direct case. Given that its an Regular Magazine. The most likely Explanation is that the Article is Catering to the Opinion of the Majority of Reader Responses.

Magazines usually Finance Themselves either by Subscription Fees from Readers which Buy the Magazine. Or by Sponsors which will get Articles and Advertising in that Magazine for their own Case.
In both cases. The More Readers you got the more Money you make.

So if the Topic Star Citizen has a large Fanbase which Reads the Magazine to hear about the Progress and Positive Efforts of Star Citizen. It is likely that the Magazine will Write Positive Articles about the Game.


Its nothing Strange honestly said.
Its just like that by now alot of Places are doing the exact opposite and are especially Catering to the Star Citizen Haters by constantly Writing Articles on how People Claim that Star Citizen is Bankrupt etc
Thats just how this Stuff works.

Only Choice is to Read through the Stuff. And Check Correlating Information to get your Opinion.
Finding out who is Honest is Pretty hard Nowdays.

 

[Tippis]

Look at the bright side. At least it wasn't one of those obviously paid-for shill pieces that appeared a couple of months ago, praising all kinds of functionality and gameplay that wasn't even in the game demo yet.

 

[Stormprooter]

Finding out who is Honest is Pretty hard Nowdays.

I find the majority of the regulars on this thread are honest - not exactly neutral, but honest

- - - Updated - - -

Look at the bright side. At least it wasn't one of those obviously paid-for shill pieces that appeared a couple of months ago, praising all kinds of functionality and gameplay that wasn't even in the game demo yet.

That's one of my biggest frustrations with SC "fans", trying to discuss what's actually playable now usually gets subverted by what CIG claim is coming "soon", and what those people think that may mean for gameplay.

 

[Neo-ST]

Stigbob, maybe you should add "3.0 before the New year - did not happen" to your list of CIG fails...

 

[Esvandiary]

Stigbob, maybe you should add "3.0 before the New year - did not happen" to your list of CIG fails...

Might want to specify which year, for the avoidance of doubt...

 

[CmdrKull]

Well just played 2.6. I think it is a great step forward : The loading times are sooo much better now, AC looks better than ever and plays really smoothly on my old PC, and I like the new flight model.

I can't play Crusader on my system, my i3 isn't up to the task.

Ok so I had a chance to check out Star Citizen outside of my normal "free play" weekends stuff. 2.6 is certainly a huge Leap forward is smoothness and performance, at least it is without the crush of 10,000 trying it for the first time together. I loaded up Crusader and requested a Mustang Alpha. Spend 5 minutes trying to get in, seemed like there was an issue with the "use" option not appearing but I finally stood on n one leg,squinted my eyes, aligned with Venus and got the ladder triggered. I launched and was immediately at full speed, slid the throttle to zero and....

like God himself reached down and seized the thing. How does a spaceship stop INSTANTLY? Tried this a couple more times. No drift, no momentum, just perfectly executed movements. Like a FPS debug camera.

So then a weird thing happened and my controls reset to defaults, throttle no longer worked, stick movement to roll and twist to yaw became move to yaw and twist to roll. I went 3rd person, saw that someone was in the cockpit with me, but not my friend, just some random person who apparently followed me up the ladder. Just stood there twitching and clipping through the chair behind me. No matter, don't think it affected anything. When I went back to first person mode my controls were restored. I was frustrated by now. I gave it a longer spin, flew through the station rings, buzzed close to the station. The kind of stuff I used to do in my Viper when Elite was new. It had none of the thrill because I didn't feel like I was flying. For goodness sake, I pressed space bar and thrust up at hundreds of miles per second, the station shrank to a quarter its size while I was still trying to figure out what that was supposed to do.

So, a whole lot of that to demonstrate what I mean when I ask this:
Where is this supposed new flight model? Why can a spacecraft in vacuum go from full speed to zero movement in the exact amount of time it takes me to slide my throttle to zero? Why does up-thrust seem so insanely powerful/fast? Is this a game about flying spaceships or not, because while I appreciate the ability to buy a new hat, I expected the flight model update I've heard so much about to be more substantive.

In the end, I thanked my friend for the opportunity to check it out, and said I'd keep holding out hope for changes in 3.0. I've joked about them delivering an unfinished game, but if they don't get to the point where ships feel like ships, and I do mean soon, I don't see how they could try to release this at all.

 

[frostypaw]

So, a whole lot of that to demonstrate what I mean when I ask this:
Where is this supposed new flight model? Why can a spacecraft in vacuum go from full speed to zero movement in the exact amount of time it takes me to slide my throttle to zero? Why does up-thrust seem so insanely powerful/fast? Is this a game about flying spaceships or not, because while I appreciate the ability to buy a new hat, I expected the flight model update I've heard so much about to be more substantive.

I can only assume the debug camera style motion is intended - that's exactly how the ships move here when trying to use a Caterpillar for it's intended purpose. Watching a ship the size of the Caterpillar move like that makes it all look more like pretending you're in a space sim using some 3D modelling software.

Presumably this comes from the accurate modelling of all those thrusters you can see firing as the ships manoeuvre? That is The Truth isn't it?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

SunLeader, it is not about honesty, it is about having different opinion. Sorry, but not everyone in the world has to agree about state of SC or SQ42 with you and other enthusiasts. It is the same about ED - no one is demanded or required to clap hands and say it is all cool. There's constant barrage of near toxic levels of aggressiveness towards it. But as long it doesn't overstep boundaries, it is fully allowed here.

In my opinion gameplay mechanic wise SC and SQ42 is very poor at this point. It feels prototyping level, and even that doesn't fully convince. However I have always said that I understand why some people enjoy SC tech demos at this point - it is mostly because they just want to mock around and play pretend in some sort of walking space game sandbox. And I have always pointed out how SC backers confuse a hell out of these two. It does not, however, make it a full game or product promised by CIG.

So while shiny assets and some visuals might be inspiring, overall project state is not something to be amazed or there's very visible progress.

 

[Rolan]

Wow. Could you be a bit more insulting and condescending to everyone in the thread?! I think you may have missed a few microns with that broad brush you chose to employ.

I think I should start to say the same as you when some here talks about the SC community or fans as "cultists".

 

[Tippis]

I can only assume the debug camera style motion is intended - that's exactly how the ships move here when trying to use a Caterpillar for it's intended purpose. Watching a ship the size of the Caterpillar move like that makes it all look more like pretending you're in a space sim using some 3D modelling software.

Presumably this comes from the accurate modelling of all those thrusters you can see firing as the ships manoeuvre? That is The Truth isn't it?

What do you expect? Progress and improvement?! Pfff. That's old industry thinking — Chris is here to save us from that and to subvert all such silly expectations.

 

[Skizomeuh]

I can only assume the debug camera style motion is intended - that's exactly how the ships move here when trying to use a Caterpillar for it's intended purpose.

"Real Physicalized Physics"

 

[frostypaw]

"Real Physicalized Physics"

Same guy too which is what makes it all so incredibly confusing. I don't have any problem with people liking the game, I don't have any problem with them being forgiving about it's failings but the complete disconnect from reality drives me mad as it makes it all so deceptive. Possibly entirely unintentionally, I gotta give him that there's a chance he's explained it all away in his head but it seems remote as none of the CIG explanations add up to the footage and performance we can see in the PU.

 

[Tippis]

"Real Physicalized Physics"

Is that when S:t Fermi, the angel of electroweak interaction, incarnates and brings tidings of joy and beta decay?

 

[thorn-]

Ok so I had a chance to check out Star Citizen outside of my normal "free play" weekends stuff. 2.6 is certainly a huge Leap forward is smoothness and performance, at least it is without the crush of 10,000 trying it for the first time together. I loaded up Crusader and requested a Mustang Alpha...

Sounds like you had a really odd session. My Mustang didn't behave like that.

BUT.

I'll not try and excuse that at all - the Mustang Alpha has been ignored for a very long time by DEV, and appears to not be receiving either the updates (or the benefits) that are happening with other ships. There was a very long thread about this on Reddit; a LOT of SC players wish CIG would spend some time (now) updating the Mustang and Aurora, as they are the first ships that nearly all players first fly. And it's not really a great experience sometimes. Instead, CIG is spending their time refining the higher-tier ships.

I suppose they're trying to appease people that bought a $170 ship, but I think they should widen their focus.

TLDR - the 2.6 flight model is much better, and the norm is not "flies like a debug camera on rails". But the Mustang sadly hasn't seen much of those benefits yet.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You don't have time to sneer when you are filling lulzbuckets - which thankfully CIG provide ample opportunity to.

Which version did they promise that the airlocks and atmospheres were fully implemented? Which release promises no more underpanted space adventures?

 

[thorn-]

Besides, isn't disabling physics during "touchdown" how SC wasn't going to be like? ... Your suggestion is sensible, but not necessarily aligned with the concept of SC some people believe in.

You make some very good points there. Like I said, I'm just sort of making an educated guess - but it's a guess based on how *I* would approach the problem. CIG might have something completely different in mind (and better), so... dunno. Obviously, ships having spasms isn't a design goal.

Even if it is as simple as fixing a texture, why wasn't it done ages ago? Sure, I can tolerate parts of the game being placeholders, but when literally nothing is final

Not being a fanboy here: it's Alpha.

Wasn't the top speed of the Viper III something like 700kps in Alpha? And then it was nerfed way down. Was that incompetence (STILL can't get it right?!) or was that just the normal result of test/implement? Or when the Python was nerfed post-release. People still go on about that one. (I'd argue that the Python's substantial nerf should have happened pre-release.)

CIG is clearly working on things. Just 4 weeks ago, we didn't have Star Marine in the PU. Well, now we do. So everyone that said "There's no FPS at all yet... clearly the game has been over-spec'd" - well, Star Marine is Exhibit A. It's live now. Still alpha, but you can play it.

There's lots to be done, of course. But no rational person can fairly look at today vs 6-12 months ago and say "nothing has really changed."

- - - Updated - - -

Which version did they promise that the airlocks and atmospheres were fully implemented?

The first time I played the game (2.2, i think?) I walked out the airlock and suffocated. I didn't know the character wasn't by default wearing the EVA.

So... maybe something unintentionally changed, if you can walk in space in underpants.