This is also indicates, that probably 3.0 will arrive at end of 2017 - one year late as promised by CR, I doubt they are capable to push out 3.0 soon after 2.6.2 release..
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
This is also indicates, that probably 3.0 will arrive at end of 2017 - one year late as promised by CR, I doubt they are capable to push out 3.0 soon after 2.6.2 release..
Honestly at this point that looks like the best case scenario but even if that happens and if 3.0 comes out before 2018 and if it works at all,it´s just going to be to little to late....I mean seriously after 6 years of development we will be able to play alpha PU with the 1 system in it and maybe with some un-polished starting mechanics for trading,bounty hunting,mining....and with the same broken flight mechanics and same problems with the netcode or maybe just a bit improved...really 6 years for this????
Last edited:
3.0 at the end of 2017, let's be generous and say it's going to have everything that was supposed to go into it, which makes it two years between releases of 2.0 and 3.0. If we extrapolate this to 3.0-4.0 (and I think incremental upgrades to 3.0 will take longer than 2.1-2.6), it means that travel to another star system in the game will be posible no earlier than in late 2019, early 2020. Eight to nine years just for that, and there are a lot of other features that won't be implemented yet. And according to a quote from r/starcitizen,
Last edited:
No! Dont forget they have the tools now ready so development should go faster now then before! I mean look at last year and that year before it!
I am not very convinced about 3.0 arrival. It has very huge dependency list to begin with. Squadron 42 might be more doable.
Excatly and not just that,we have atm AC that supposed to be test-bed for balancing weapons systems and FM...well guess what after 3+ years of testing it´s almost the same mess as it was always been,FM still sucks and weapons/shields feels totally un-balanced...now let´s just imagine what will happened when trade,mining,smugling,farming,bounty hunting...etc arrived for the first time in SC PU,how long that will need to be properly balanced???
Again, good vs bad is in this case, is your preference. I'm not being overly negative about Elite's model; obviously I've found it entertaining enough to play it for several hundred hours. SC gives you more lines of attack and defense; I don't see how that demands less of the player.
Exactly what I didn't say. You've completely rephrased my statements into a different result. Do you find it difficult to converse without engaging in such wordplay?
Last edited:
Obviously not wanting to wander into discussing other games but the space combat from Infinite Warfare looks remarkably like the Star Citizen combat with the Eazi-Yaw.
Maybe keeping it like that for a future console release? Has the rumour of a console version of Sq42 died down?
Maybe keeping it like that for a future console release? Has the rumour of a console version of Sq42 died down?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
It does demand less of the player indeed on the maneuvering / piloting front and relies primarily on the weapon load out / aiming front (which actually currently favours a point and click mouse based mechanic for gimbals). Through lack of limitations / trade offs in maneuvering to get skilled at managing, among other things:
Last edited:
Turns out you have to make a game before porting it!
No. They're just flat-out bad because they — quite objectively and undeniably — reduce the demand on the player by not forcing them to manoeuvre properly to line up or intercept their target (or to evade, for that matter). If there are no real distinctions between axes, then it removes the ability to attack off-axis; it removes the ability to get in position of advantageous manoeuvrability; it removes the possibility of ending up at a bad vector for what you want to do, because all vectors are pretty much equal; it removes all trade-offs, choices, and decisions that create any kind of combat dynamics.
It's point and click — just with slow pointing — as opposed to actual piloting. This can only be good if your aim is to create the next Pokemon Snap.
No. It's exactly what you did say. You just didn't grasp the scope of the comparison you made. You claim SC combat offers wider range of combat tactics than pitch with fa/off + boost, fa/on, shoot, repeat, or just flying backwards — just like ED. The only difference is that the SC flight model and controls are far more simplistic since they don't offer any of the more complex piloting choices and requirements enumerated above.
Last edited:
Haven't they snubbed PCGamer once by sending old promotional materials for an event and then resigning from it altogether?
"Taking you inside the creation of two of the most ambitious games in development" with a discussion of a module which isn't part of either of those games, followed by entirely speculative "insights" (ie more theorycrafting) into the design of missions which can't possibly exist in a playable form yet because they're still developing the core technologies. So, more ship sales incoming, in other words.
Except that combat in IW it´s way more entertainment and work´s flawlessly even in low-spec PC.....not that I am fan of IW up contrary I think that was just Okish game that was fun 2 play for an week or two before single player campaign ends...
Last edited:
Lumberyard! VR!
http://uploadvr.com/amazon-lumberyard-showcase/
Wish there was a game that could take advantage....
http://uploadvr.com/amazon-lumberyard-showcase/
Wish there was a game that could take advantage....
So, basically, absoloutely nothing new to announce.
Wow. That's some industrial-strength begging the question right there. [weird]
Someone actually dare to ask this question https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/370307/cig-needs-an-objective-pr-department-that-does-not-answer-to-chris-roberts/p1
- Status