Star Citizen Thread v6

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I can see the idea behind it.

People who simply do not have the real-life time to grind for stuff can at least get the base hull. Sure, they get an advantage that they start with a ship but let's list disadvantages.

- Cash cost
- Ship running costs (NPC crew, fuel, repairs, landing fees etc)
- Upgrade cost (more, larger and expensive modules to upgrade

So, while they get a head start one would still stumble on the upgrade part since they STILL need time to grind, and I bet modules might require ranks, reputation, money and other things that outside money simply cannot buy.

Unless it's straight PvP the guy who purchase a ship only gets a head start but will then still take longer to find parts and such due to the time investment needed.

I am a busy man, aint got no time to learn to play chess. Only fair I get to buy some queens to even it out. Otherwise those teens who can grind the opening-books will have an unfair advantage.

Said noone ever.

Its a game. If you invest less time in it you'll be at a disadvantage, whether that is because you have a job, medical condition or simply lack the desire to play one game for hours on end every day. That is no reason to introduce p2w.

Besides, with that argument ship sales would follow after teens got a chance to grind. Not years before. Its clearly a made-up argument.
 
Last edited:
Unless it's straight PvP the guy who purchase a ship only gets a head start but will then still take longer to find parts and such due to the time investment needed.

A day has 24 hours. The maximum time anybody can invest in the game per day is 24 hours. Nothing is stopping anybody from investing that maximum time while simultaneously giving themself a headstart with bought ingame advantages, whichever form they may take. That is a headstart nobody can ever catch up without spending the same amount of real world cash.

There is no valid argument to be made, that making non cosmetic ingame items purchasable by real world currency, directly or indirectly, is not a form of pay to win in a game that will most likely sport open PvP, as opposed to PvP limited by some additional balancing mechanism, e.g. "battle ratings" as in something like War Thunder.

It's a big part of why the ridiculous LTI ship hysteria works/worked so well. LTI in a released Star Citizen would mean a permanent reduction of the time investment required to play with the concerned ship in case of destruction, giving the owner a permanent "head start". That is something nobody without LTI in their ship can ever catch up, given the same time investment.

Get 'em LTI .jpg ships, before they're gone, folks!
 
Last edited:
People who simply do not have the real-life time to grind for stuff can at least get the base hull. Sure, they get an advantage that they start with a ship but let's list disadvantages.

- Cash cost
- Ship running costs (NPC crew, fuel, repairs, landing fees etc)
- Upgrade cost (more, larger and expensive modules to upgrade

There is perfect business model for SC in the market already - GTA 5 Online ;)
Buy "Space Cards" to avoid grind ;)

If they want to avoid downsizing studios after release, they really need something like this..
 
The Mighty jingles talks about Star Citizen today. He admits to having spent over a grand.

He seems optimistic that a game of some sort will be released, but is slightly less optimistic about how it will finance itself to be an ongoing project once it does get released.

[video=youtube;N5AoT6IMtGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5AoT6IMtGE[/video]
 
Guys, having a higher tier ship is not an advantage at all, it's not like you go kill fighters with a Constellation Andromeda so easily, aiming in SC is not as easy as in ED and fighters in SC have a huge maneuverability advantage over bigger ships, also bigger ships need a crew of real people alike the Anaconda in ED who can maneuver pretty much like a Fer de Lance and doesn't require crew. in SC people don't say "hey I buy a new ship cause I can kick the of smaller ship owners", this is not how it works, SC is modeled on the real world, a gunship doesn't necessarlity down all the fighters attacking them, they have big guns but still they have lower maneuverability, lower speed and those big guns have slower movement, a fighter could easily pass next to them at full speed without being hit, very different game from ED where bigger ships can easily overkill smaller ones cause their ability to maneuver is similar ...

And here I come to my point, in SC people don't buy ships with only combat in mind, there are more important factors at play. It is good to have big guns if you have a crew to man them but the primary scope of bigger ships is not combat but transport, exploration, many people buy ships for the look as well, ships in SC look very good especially the interiors, the detail CIG is putting in the game is a lot and people appreciate good looking interiors and conforts, what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge difference between how people buy ships in ED and SC, the games both share a lot of elements but at the end of the day gameplay mechanics are different, also the proportions, way of moving and speed of ships are different, in SC there is no limit to how quickly your ship can turn, you disable the anti-G protection and your ship can turn on itself like a spinning top, speed of ships is much higher and the newtonian movement is a little more realistic in my opinion, proportions of everything are better represented, a fighter moving around you can look like a dot if it's not so close to you, so are bigger ships, in ED everything is like it was zoomed, an eagle passing near you at full speed can still look big enough to snipe it with plasma cannons. Said this, yes ships are very different and cover different roles much more than in ED so the way ppl buy ships is different from ED...

I know I went offtopic a bit but I wanted to make it clear what my opinion is on this, there is no real advantage in buying a ship or another, also bigger ships will have far higher maintenance costs than little ones once the game is released, this is true for ED as well, probably the only one thing these games have in common shipwise. as for the weapons, you can buy them with real money as well... right now the business model in SC is aimed at funding the development so those who back the game today will have to grind less later, however it's not always true, you can buy a ship and keep default gear if you want, my impression is that buying stuff now will not be a long term advantage, at the same time CIG will have enough funds to keep developing the game which I think will speed up significantly after 3.0 is released, now they have the right engine and developing the right technology on top of it to speed up development, so I guess it won't take long before more systems and mechanics are added after 3.0 is released
 
It doesn't favour those who don't have time thought, unless those who don't have time also have spare cash. It actually favours those with credits, with no thought for those who have little time and little cash.

So holding it up as something favourable for those with limited time is not right, it favours the rich, pure and simple, regardless of whether they have time or not.

The whole "I dont have time to play the game but I do have cash" is at best a sorry excuse anyway and falls short on many cases as you pointed out. I never really understood it nor do I find it "okay" but of course I accept it that people do these things. I can get my head around paying RL money for ingame pixels (apart from the initial cost for the game itself) if its unique items that are not achievable otherwise be it skins/costumes or vanity items because they dont offer gamechanging momentum and people can or cannot buy them. Ater all we are talking about a game. The very basic idea about a game is to enjoy it. If you dont have the time to play it you wouldnt enjoy it anyway regardless of how much money you throw at it. At best it ll give you an empty sense of achievement because it doesnt change the facts. You wont measure up to the "hardcore" people.

Whenever I saw store mechanics like they are discussed for SC I never saw something good come out of it. People buy others account or character boosts or magic gear in order to "skip" the grind while forgetting that what they consider "grind" is actually the content of the game. Many use the term unjustified and simply dont want to start at the very bottom. If all the game has to offer is "grind" then I doubt very much its worth more RL cash from me or anybody else anyway.

So that leaves only one thing as a reason for this kind of action.......Status and Prestige.

People do it to differentiate themselves from others and stand out. I am not talking about "reasonable" expenses here but rather the people willing to shell out hundreds of RL currency for a game that initially cost 30-60. Korean games are built on this behavior and they openly admit it too. Korean MMO players will "pay through the nose" in order to become top dogs on their servers and that status is often purchased with amounts in the 5-digits. Seems like CRoberts had to pay the bill for one of his kids digital "adventures" and suddenly had the idea to do the same thing himself. This korean model is often discussed in game development and is admitted to cater to a specific mindset too (in this case......highly competetive). Its not about a shiny item anymore or other simple stuff. The today business models are layered in such complex ways that its easy to get sucked in and hard to stop once you are part of the "race". There are so many things to do and so many ways for P2W to implement itself subtly that its often not even noticeable when you first start. Could be "important stuff" like an XP boost or another character slot and some time after that these things become "normal" to purchase all the time and you go for more advanced features because you are already paying right? Whats another 10 bucks down the drain?

The difference is of course that Korean models actually represent the term "micro-transactions". Its usually an ingame service for a small amount of money its just that these "tiny" bits add up over the month to end up as gigantic totals. Star Citizen simply "takes the farm" charging insane amounts of money for non-existing stuff...probably because they know that have to do it now cuz there never will be a game and whatever they release will not have the same appeal as the dreams they currently sell. Thats a problem that they share with many western P2W games tho. Theres nothing "micro" about them. Mundane stuff cost as much as a monthly subscription and just adding a couple things together will bring the tally to the complete prize of the game again.

This "I pledge in order to back and support the game" is a noble idea and people use it for a bit of "extra prestige" from likeminded people while at the same time enforcing the idea and the practice in others who try to catch up then. Did you ever wonder why concierge was at first an "elite" status but now years down the line its considered "entry-level"? Someone finally swallowed the bitter pill and shelled out the cash in order to obtain it and others with the same condition were forced to do the same or be second place forever. People admire certain traits and hate others. Being "noble" or "generous" are two examples of traits others look up to. Selfish is one that is immensly disliked and cheating is a thing that can turn your status into complete hatred turned toward you. So of course the act of "pledging" is sold as being noble and helping the poor game developer creating the game. But the real reason is to either skip grind (selfish) or to beat the competition without any work or effort involved (cheating) but of course naming the horse for what it is would involved actual dislike directed at these people and as attention and approval by others is actually what they are really after thats exactly what they try to avoid.

The "winner" in all this is of course the "bank" (publisher, creator, whoever owns the game) because at the end of it all when the servers are shut down, the game collapses or starts to die due to a low playerbase whoever holds the RL cash has actual value on his hands. The others realize they only ever owned pixels (aka dust) and payed for it like for "real" goods

I realize that the term "spare money" represents different values for different people but that doesnt change the facts I listed. Our whole world operates under the same rules. Money only represents value and value is determined by demand (see gold) so being "rich" actually means beating the competition and setting yourself apart from others and a lot of other things. Rich people dont have the expertise in life to do most stuff themselves. They dont have to work like poor people in order to stay alive they are simply rich. And of course they are willing to pay 10 bucks for a bottle of water because they have enough never thinking about the fact that paying that much for a commodity like "water" is an actual slap in the face of all the people who try to survive a week on that amount of cash. Or maybe thats exactly why they do it which would make them even sadder.

This brings us to the next item on the list....Power. In real life and in games as well the people "at the top" command the world (server) and their actions will reflect and be forced on all the people below them.

I realize I start to ramble so lets cut it short here and also sorry for breaking this off :)

In short. These games "trigger" the feeling of power through ingame purchases and they reward people doing it by status (naming, invitations, special rewards). Make no mistake tho. Regardless how much money you invest you will at best be a slave to the one holding real power which is the owner of the game. You dont "own" anything yet you are willing to pay as if you do. You remember all these coverages about "buyer behavior" and what kind of tools companies use in order to make regular people part with their money? Placement of goods, directed advertisement, trying to build an empathic link and so on. If you look at the amount of control and manipulation directed at you over the value of soap or bottled water (for example) do you really think you have any power at all in life? The thing is that CiG does the very same just they offer you nothing tangible in return. Even if the ships you pledge for are currently in the game its still just pixels which will vanish the moment the game dies. But the bills will stay.
 
Guys, having a higher tier ship is not an advantage at all, it's not like you go kill fighters with a Constellation Andromeda so easily, aiming in SC is not as easy as in ED and fighters in SC have a huge maneuverability advantage over bigger ships, also bigger ships need a crew of real people alike the Anaconda in ED who can maneuver pretty much like a Fer de Lance and doesn't require crew. in SC people don't say "hey I buy a new ship cause I can kick the of smaller ship owners", this is not how it works, SC is modeled on the real world, a gunship doesn't necessarlity down all the fighters attacking them, they have big guns but still they have lower maneuverability, lower speed and those big guns have slower movement, a fighter could easily pass next to them at full speed without being hit, very different game from ED where bigger ships can easily overkill smaller ones cause their ability to maneuver is similar ...

And here I come to my point, in SC people don't buy ships with only combat in mind, there are more important factors at play. It is good to have big guns if you have a crew to man them but the primary scope of bigger ships is not combat but transport, exploration, many people buy ships for the look as well, ships in SC look very good especially the interiors, the detail CIG is putting in the game is a lot and people appreciate good looking interiors and conforts, what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge difference between how people buy ships in ED and SC, the games both share a lot of elements but at the end of the day gameplay mechanics are different, also the proportions, way of moving and speed of ships are different, in SC there is no limit to how quickly your ship can turn, you disable the anti-G protection and your ship can turn on itself like a spinning top, speed of ships is much higher and the newtonian movement is a little more realistic in my opinion, proportions of everything are better represented, a fighter moving around you can look like a dot if it's not so close to you, so are bigger ships, in ED everything is like it was zoomed, an eagle passing near you at full speed can still look big enough to snipe it with plasma cannons. Said this, yes ships are very different and cover different roles much more than in ED so the way ppl buy ships is different from ED...

I know I went offtopic a bit but I wanted to make it clear what my opinion is on this, there is no real advantage in buying a ship or another, also bigger ships will have far higher maintenance costs than little ones once the game is released, this is true for ED as well, probably the only one thing these games have in common shipwise. as for the weapons, you can buy them with real money as well... right now the business model in SC is aimed at funding the development so those who back the game today will have to grind less later, however it's not always true, you can buy a ship and keep default gear if you want, my impression is that buying stuff now will not be a long term advantage, at the same time CIG will have enough funds to keep developing the game which I think will speed up significantly after 3.0 is released, now they have the right engine and developing the right technology on top of it to speed up development, so I guess it won't take long before more systems and mechanics are added after 3.0 is released

I suppose this means an Aurora can expect to take on a superhornet in combat and have an even chance of winning, all else being equal? No? Then there is at least one case of spending money being to your advantage.

ok then maybe an Aurora can expect to operate a trading business at least as well as its competing caterpillar... wait no?

Also 'in SC ships are modelled on the real world', yes, that's why superhornets have gigantic fans that do nothing in space; that's why the top speeds are woefully limited, that's why pilots suffer ludicrous g-forces but everyone else on board just chills out. SC isn't modelled on the real world, it's a stupid fantasy. All these games are, at least these others don't pretend to be something they're not.
 
Guys, having a higher tier ship is not an advantage at all, it's not like you go kill fighters with a Constellation Andromeda so easily, aiming in SC is not as easy as in ED and fighters in SC have a huge maneuverability advantage over bigger ships, also bigger ships need a crew of real people alike the Anaconda in ED who can maneuver pretty much like a Fer de Lance and doesn't require crew. in SC people don't say "hey I buy a new ship cause I can kick the of smaller ship owners", this is not how it works, SC is modeled on the real world, a gunship doesn't necessarlity down all the fighters attacking them, they have big guns but still they have lower maneuverability, lower speed and those big guns have slower movement, a fighter could easily pass next to them at full speed without being hit, very different game from ED where bigger ships can easily overkill smaller ones cause their ability to maneuver is similar ...

And here I come to my point, in SC people don't buy ships with only combat in mind, there are more important factors at play. It is good to have big guns if you have a crew to man them but the primary scope of bigger ships is not combat but transport, exploration, many people buy ships for the look as well, ships in SC look very good especially the interiors, the detail CIG is putting in the game is a lot and people appreciate good looking interiors and conforts, what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge difference between how people buy ships in ED and SC, the games both share a lot of elements but at the end of the day gameplay mechanics are different, also the proportions, way of moving and speed of ships are different, in SC there is no limit to how quickly your ship can turn, you disable the anti-G protection and your ship can turn on itself like a spinning top, speed of ships is much higher and the newtonian movement is a little more realistic in my opinion, proportions of everything are better represented, a fighter moving around you can look like a dot if it's not so close to you, so are bigger ships, in ED everything is like it was zoomed, an eagle passing near you at full speed can still look big enough to snipe it with plasma cannons. Said this, yes ships are very different and cover different roles much more than in ED so the way ppl buy ships is different from ED...

I know I went offtopic a bit but I wanted to make it clear what my opinion is on this, there is no real advantage in buying a ship or another, also bigger ships will have far higher maintenance costs than little ones once the game is released, this is true for ED as well, probably the only one thing these games have in common shipwise. as for the weapons, you can buy them with real money as well... right now the business model in SC is aimed at funding the development so those who back the game today will have to grind less later, however it's not always true, you can buy a ship and keep default gear if you want, my impression is that buying stuff now will not be a long term advantage, at the same time CIG will have enough funds to keep developing the game which I think will speed up significantly after 3.0 is released, now they have the right engine and developing the right technology on top of it to speed up development, so I guess it won't take long before more systems and mechanics are added after 3.0 is released

There are no gameplay mechanics in SC. You are just telling us how you want things to be. And ofcourse a big freighter has an advantage over a small freighter, and an expensive high-end fighter over a cheap one.

And no, nothing in SC is 'based on real life', that is just you repeating marketing slogans backed up by absolutely nothing.
 
No, the Aurora is not a fighter, it is a transport vehicle, the F7C Superhornet is a top fighter , what I meant is that a ship like the Constellation Andromeda will not take out smaller aircrafts easy, it is very good for cargo, exploration, frigate vs frigate combat but when it comes to dogfighting it is not competitive at all... I mean that every ship has its own purpose, the Aurora MR is just an entry level ship, if you want to fight you need at least size 2 weapons which is not enough to compete with a F7C fighter, there are ships for every role like in the real world, an aircraft carrier in real life will not comete in firepower with the frigates escorting it but the frigates can't carry aircrafts, an aircraft have the advantage of flying and speed but when it comes to range, fighters are short range compared to their carrier, in SC every ship has a role, the F7C fighters series are very good at shooting, they have size 4 guns but when it comes to speed they are slower than the 3xx series and the F7C have no interior, it sacrifies fire power for everything else like it happens in the real world... also what you say about ships not modeled on the real world is wrong and some mechanics like the G effects on multicrew ships need fixing for sure but the limits in speed just like in ED follows a gameplay logic, you could theorically reach 1000kms per second with every ship accelerating over time but for the gameplay mechanics it would be totally stupid, these games just need limits to be playable and fulfill their purpose, I never said they are top realism, I'm just saying that SC follows logics similar to the real world, ED and SC are not stupid fantasies, they are both good space games with a simulation elements but neither of them obviously can be classified as a simulator... and NO, they don't pretend to be something they are not, they are both scifi games with simulation elements, for example, SC has airlocks which work very similar to the ones in the real world, ED right now has planetary orbits and stations spin to produce gravity, newtonian physics handling the ships is present in both games even with the speed limit but it's there. The fantasy part are the aliens in ED, how certain weapons work, non-ballistic weapons are pure fantasy yes but the US army is working on weapons working with laser or microwave that can disable electronics etc...
 
No, the Aurora is not a fighter, it is a transport vehicle, the F7C Superhornet is a top fighter , what I meant is that a ship like the Constellation Andromeda will not take out smaller aircrafts easy, it is very good for cargo, exploration, frigate vs frigate combat but when it comes to dogfighting it is not competitive at all... I mean that every ship has its own purpose, the Aurora MR is just an entry level ship, if you want to fight you need at least size 2 weapons which is not enough to compete with a F7C fighter, there are ships for every role like in the real world, an aircraft carrier in real life will not comete in firepower with the frigates escorting it but the frigates can't carry aircrafts, an aircraft have the advantage of flying and speed but when it comes to range, fighters are short range compared to their carrier, in SC every ship has a role, the F7C fighters series are very good at shooting, they have size 4 guns but when it comes to speed they are slower than the 3xx series and the F7C have no interior, it sacrifies fire power for everything else like it happens in the real world... also what you say about ships not modeled on the real world is wrong and some mechanics like the G effects on multicrew ships need fixing for sure but the limits in speed just like in ED follows a gameplay logic, you could theorically reach 1000kms per second with every ship accelerating over time but for the gameplay mechanics it would be totally stupid, these games just need limits to be playable and fulfill their purpose, I never said they are top realism, I'm just saying that SC follows logics similar to the real world, ED and SC are not stupid fantasies, they are both good space games with a simulation elements but neither of them obviously can be classified as a simulator... and NO, they don't pretend to be something they are not, they are both scifi games with simulation elements, for example, SC has airlocks which work very similar to the ones in the real world, ED right now has planetary orbits and stations spin to produce gravity, newtonian physics handling the ships is present in both games even with the speed limit but it's there. The fantasy part are the aliens in ED, how certain weapons work, non-ballistic weapons are pure fantasy yes but the US army is working on weapons working with laser or microwave that can disable electronics etc...

Can you show us a vid of how these frigates fight carriers and small fighters in sc?
 
There are no gameplay mechanics in SC. You are just telling us how you want things to be. And ofcourse a big freighter has an advantage over a small freighter, and an expensive high-end fighter over a cheap one.

And no, nothing in SC is 'based on real life', that is just you repeating marketing slogans backed up by absolutely nothing.

Yeahh like the T9s, being space prey for pirates if they ever intercept you, no advantage, just bigger cargo and even lower speed and capabilities... and NO, SC has specific gameplay mechanics, you are now denying obvious facts, I don't understand why both games' fanboys realize to objectively see the differences and both games' potential, you are just bashing onn something you don't know using false statements, I was like you months ago thinking SC was a dead horse but you know what ? Despite all negative predictions they are working on it and 3.0 will add planetary landings and a new missions system that hopefully will introduce procedural missions generation at some point so we have more randomness and not the same missions over and over again, still you are denying facts, I never said the game is based on the real world, I'm specifically talking about ships' roles , in SC ships cover more specific roles than in ED, I doubt everyone will rush to get the biggest ship available cause every advantage has a disadvantage too, for example, the F7C Hornet is very good, very high fire power, very good maneuverability, still I can outmaneuver and leave it behind with my 325a, I repeat every ship comes with advantages and disadvantages even when comparing cargo hold, a T9 in ED has very good cargo hold compared to an ASP EXPLORER but the ASP is much faster so doing commerce with it is much less risky, in SC you could compare a Cartelpillar to a 325a yes, a cartelpiller has huge cargo space, a 325a has space for a few boxes probably, yes but the 325a can escape the attack of a full squadron of hornets, a cartelpillar needs a crew to man turrets annd it can't escape any attack, it needs a crew to kill pirates and make them run, the word advantage in SC is relative, an F7C Hornet is only a fighter, the 325a I have is cheaper and can outmaneuver it even if my firepower is much lower but I can do small cargo missions and I have a bed for saving when this feature will be added, the Hornet doesn't have any of this, it is good at combat, that's it but SC is not only about combat so if you want to try different things and only want to buy one ship, the F7C is not the way to go, you may prefer an Aurora or 3xx series which is also very good looking interior included.
 
And of course a big freighter has an advantage over a small freighter, and an expensive high-end fighter over a cheap one.

On this point i do disagree.

We are talking about those who purchase a ship before the game's released. This means NEITHER player has any in-game money. It also means the guy in the huge cargo ship lacks any funds to get crew and cargo to transport while the guy in a small ship can far easier get a head start in gathering cash.

Sure, the other guy will catch up eventually.

At best he MIGHT get a pure transport mission but if we go by Elite Dangerous as a comparison he would most likely get a mission with small cargo and small payout due to not having a reputation that might not even pay for the upkeep.

And how many combat players will look for someone to pirate, in a large ship...I bet those with large ships will go boom a lot in the beginning.

late game, of course a large ship is better. but at day 1, not so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On this point i do disagree.

We are talking about those who purchase a ship before the game's released. This means NEITHER player has any in-game money. It also means the guy in the huge cargo ship lacks any funds to get crew and cargo to transport while the guy in a small ship can far easier get a head start in gathering cash.

Sure, the other guy will catch up eventually.

At best he MIGHT get a pure transport mission but if we go by Elite Dangerous as a comparison he would most likely get a mission with small cargo and small payout due to not having a reputation that might not even pay for the upkeep.

And how many combat players will look for someone to pirate, in a large ship...I bet those with large ships will go boom a lot in the beginning.

late game, of course a large ship is better. but at day 1, not so much.



Ooh, I wish I was on it too...


Ohh me too
 
I was like you months ago thinking SC was a dead horse but you know what ? Despite all negative predictions they are working on it and 3.0 will <snip>

I can believe the other way around. Being a believer months ago but since then coming to the realization that its a dead horse. The way you describe it regardless of the lack of progress over the last few months makes that statement extremely unbelievable. The obvious explanation would be that you got caught in the hype train, thats also the reason why you keep listing non-existing stuff that might never make an appearance but you praise it like a given garantuee. Also as you state with conviction that there are gameplay mechanics please take a few seconds and list them down? I m sure that ll help your cause more with this crowd. There are hardly any "facts" with Star Citizen, all we talk about is mostly fantasy and theory. What you see in the shows is not a "fact" its smoke and mirror until it arrives on the PU for everybody to access.
 
There are no gameplay mechanics in SC. You are just telling us how you want things to be. And ofcourse a big freighter has an advantage over a small freighter, and an expensive high-end fighter over a cheap one.

he has a point in that big ships have ridiculously good maneuvering in ed and are very much 'scaled up' fighters, though. pretty daft, really, and if sc has approached this differently then that would be definitely a 'more real' thing.

sadly, when i checked sc back on the last free access week (maybe more than a year ago?) i couldn't even get to fly a ship and the game installation pretty much screwed my pc. maybe just a coincidence, but not even considering installing that crap again until well after release.
 
I can believe the other way around. Being a believer months ago but since then coming to the realization that its a dead horse. The way you describe it regardless of the lack of progress over the last few months makes that statement extremely unbelievable. The obvious explanation would be that you got caught in the hype train, thats also the reason why you keep listing non-existing stuff that might never make an appearance but you praise it like a given garantuee. Also as you state with conviction that there are gameplay mechanics please take a few seconds and list them down? I m sure that ll help your cause more with this crowd. There are hardly any "facts" with Star Citizen, all we talk about is mostly fantasy and theory. What you see in the shows is not a "fact" its smoke and mirror until it arrives on the PU for everybody to access.

You are basically denying all the progress they have done, STAR MARINE currently playable, PU with different locations to visit, 3.0 with planetary landings coming in August (hopefully), they are slow but they are slowly releasing stuff, they even completely changed engine which made the game more stable, new netcode will come next too, it's not like they are stuck, they are just slow but contrary to the predictions they keep working and my educated guess is that once all the base technology is developed they will work much quicker than before, I don't feel like the game is smoke, I thought that too, then Star Marine module was released and you can buy and use weapons in PU as well, it's slowly coming along...
 
On this point i do disagree.

We are talking about those who purchase a ship before the game's released. This means NEITHER player has any in-game money. It also means the guy in the huge cargo ship lacks any funds to get crew and cargo to transport while the guy in a small ship can far easier get a head start in gathering cash.

Sure, the other guy will catch up eventually.

At best he MIGHT get a pure transport mission but if we go by Elite Dangerous as a comparison he would most likely get a mission with small cargo and small payout due to not having a reputation that might not even pay for the upkeep.

And how many combat players will look for someone to pirate, in a large ship...I bet those with large ships will go boom a lot in the beginning.

late game, of course a large ship is better. but at day 1, not so much.



Ooh, I wish I was on it too...


Has CIG defiantly backed away from selling in-game credits for real cash? If they haven't then your point becomes invalid. If they have absolutely, categorically stated that they wouldn't sell it then you could well be right.
 
he has a point in that big ships have ridiculously good maneuvering in ed and are very much 'scaled up' fighters, though. pretty daft, really, and if sc has approached this differently then that would be definitely a 'more real' thing.

sadly, when i checked sc back on the last free access week (maybe more than a year ago?) i couldn't even get to fly a ship and the game installation pretty much screwed my pc. maybe just a coincidence, but not even considering installing that crap again until well after release.

Now it's much more stable and you can fly any ship you bought or ask others to let you try theirs, performance improved, much less freezing, it rarely happen now but frame rate is around 25fps, I guess they will optimize it further later on.
 
Has CIG defiantly backed away from selling in-game credits for real cash? If they haven't then your point becomes invalid. If they have absolutely, categorically stated that they wouldn't sell it then you could well be right.

I'm not really concerned by that, both games are not full PVP, you can play PVE, you are not forced to compete with other players, that's an option but just like in ED people will not care about it so much, also buying ingame currency breaks your sense of progression in my opinion, people right now buy ships just cause there is no way to buy them ingame yet, at game release this will change, some ppl might still buy money or ships but now as right now.
 
You are basically denying all the progress they have done, STAR MARINE currently playable, PU with different locations to visit, 3.0 with planetary landings coming in August (hopefully), they are slow but they are slowly releasing stuff, they even completely changed engine which made the game more stable, new netcode will come next too, it's not like they are stuck, they are just slow but contrary to the predictions they keep working and my educated guess is that once all the base technology is developed they will work much quicker than before, I don't feel like the game is smoke, I thought that too, then Star Marine module was released and you can buy and use weapons in PU as well, it's slowly coming along...

They didnt 'completely change engine', according to CIG themselves it was a minor change that took two devs two days.

Has CIG defiantly backed away from selling in-game credits for real cash? If they haven't then your point becomes invalid. If they have absolutely, categorically stated that they wouldn't sell it then you could well be right.

They havent ofcourse.

You are basically denying all the progress they have done, STAR MARINE currently playable, PU with different locations to visit, 3.0 with planetary landings coming in August (hopefully), they are slow but they are slowly releasing stuff, they even completely changed engine which made the game more stable, new netcode will come next too, it's not like they are stuck, they are just slow but contrary to the predictions they keep working and my educated guess is that once all the base technology is developed they will work much quicker than before, I don't feel like the game is smoke, I thought that too, then Star Marine module was released and you can buy and use weapons in PU as well, it's slowly coming along...

Netcode has been coming next since 2013.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom