Almighty Bob
Banned
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Almighty Bob
Banned
.Suited up?
I just loaded up and selected the thingie in Crusader - spawned in fully suited.
Got into my Freelancer and was immediately welcomed by Crashandler.exe
Asp you may have a problem your End I agree with Calrissian When I play It is generally with several other players. I have experiences like his regularly and crashes are much rarer than they where 8 or 9 months ago. It can be great fun
No, opions on current 'game' are valid. Opinions on hypothetical versions years in the future are not.
Isn't it amazes you that there is no solid documentation for such scenarios in a game that is so hyped up about it's co-op feature?
After 6 years of development you'd think they have some solid documentation about it.
Almighty Bob
Banned
1500 I beg to differ, I had this discussion with the DSmart who used to post in this forum back in May/June he eventually said--
"Sure they can fit 24 clients in an instance, because the server allows it."
It maybe that my lack of technical knowledge is mixing up servers with instances. What I can say is that myself and Dsmart agree that you can get 24 players together in one place and they can all see each other, it has been done
Now is the game playable with that many? Certainly you can not get 24 ships, I think the limit is 16 and that will not change in 3.0 I believe.
I have had a stable game with 10 ships at SPK. I do agree that it is a long way from what they want to achieve, but I'm in no rush.
Almighty Bob
Banned
Am I allowed to predict that my invalid opinion that STAR CITIZEN WILL BE FANTASTIC, will turn out to be correct?
Please advise.
How can you possibly know that?
Is that "sure, CryEngine technically allows a limit of 24 in an instance, so you might get 24 people dancing and emoting in Arc Corp", or "Sure, you can get 24 in any instance, so that is why we see videos of all those 24 participant multi-ship battles around SPK?"
Devil is in the detail, as with most things.
In the end, they in best scenario will have the same "MMO" experience that we have in Elite..
I just wonder what CIG will do with big multi-crew ships...my guess is to refactor them to have MAX 4 players in....
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
until the game launches we cant be sure if it will be an issue or not... but the official line is simple..... those BUYING the ships with real cash are doing it to support a project they want to be the best it can be. The theory is it is meant to be less about buying power and more about helping out. To me $750 is a lot of money and more than i would pay for a ship in a game. To some City stock broker who is money rich but time poor, $750 may be an hrs work and they are happy to pitch in..
until the game is out properly who knows how long 30 mil uec will take to earn.......... if it take 1000 hrs from start of game to be able to afford the most expensive ship in the game that you can buy for $750 real money, I am fine with that. if it takes 10,000 hrs i would be less fine with it
Personally i am not trying to tell anyone anything, i am certainly no white knight of SC (i am gutted VR is backburnered and am not currently a huge fan of the flight model, to me it feels more a KB/M focussed game than a hotas focussed game)
but if selling ships for real cash helps support the game.... so long as they are realistically earnable in game with in game money, so be it.
personally if EVERYTHING on the ED store was earnable in game with in game money, i would also be ok with an in game credit shop for cash in ED..... imo it would mean FD would HAVE to give a damn about all the money exploits in the game and keep control of the economy, and i would love that.
Last edited:
"Reputation services" and yes, it was highly considered in the past. Its still possible because the posting behavior is highly suspicious.
@Merkir
I agree that the statement can be taken either way depending on your day or general attitude toward the project or maybe how often you "clashed" with the other side. 1500 is (IMO) honest enough to mean what he explained in the follow-up post. There is however no defending the behavior of the SC crowd he is talking about (in other places) and I share his opinion that fanatics shouldnt be part of the game community simply due to their mindset and ability to justify anything with their cause. Lets leave it at that. The frontier forums are generally more polite then other corners of the internet due to its ruleset. I wont deny that there is a hefty amount of "ribbing" and "sarcasm" involved but again, I think very deserved. Also those jabs are usually not directed against individual posters but mostly at the company in question and the game they "develop". Its really surprising why some posters feel personally attacked by them but it explains some of the more heated exchanges we had so far.
We dont know that ("we" includes you). You are simply taking the word of a man for fact...a man who has repeatedly broken his word in the past when it comes to the game. I would be very careful with these assumptions when they are based on comments made by Chris Roberts. If you are standing here spreading this bit of news for a fact (like you did) then you are simply lying and deceiving because its a theoretical scenario not yet proven until the game releases. Even if you d want to argue the point that CRoberts has "broken his word" there is no denying that the game has changed considerably during its development time leaving it at a stage of concept that dont include a lot of original features/ideas.
So the statement "all ships will be purchasable with ingame currency" is an idea now but if it makes it into the game or will be dropped all together nobody knows.
I m sorry but your follow up posts just confirm that you repeat whatever you heard in ATVs and from CRoberts himself as fact which is considerably dangerous and wrong. It explains why you rub with skeptics tho. Your own information can be labeled "propaganda" at the moment because you dont discuss the game or argue facts but spread advertisement.
I know what "the dream" is because I ve followed the project for years. Only I am able to distinguish dream from reality. You are trying to sell fantasy features (aka not yet implemented) as "guaranteed" and you even compare a released and working game with it. I find that hilarious but you are of course entitled to your opinion. Just dont be surprised when its met with skepticism and disbelief.
To be fair Star Citizen is at best at the early stages of development at the moment (I d figure 10-15%). Of course its a bit confusing to watch CiG flap around like headless chickens trying to pick up the corn when it comes to competence but lets cut them some slack ̶c̶̶i̶̶g̶̶ ̶̶i̶̶s̶̶ ̶̶a̶̶ ̶̶t̶̶i̶̶n̶̶y̶̶ ̶̶i̶̶n̶̶d̶̶y̶̶ ̶̶d̶̶e̶̶v̶̶e̶̶l̶̶o̶̶p̶̶e̶̶r̶̶ ̶̶t̶̶r̶̶y̶̶i̶̶n̶̶g̶̶ ̶̶t̶̶o̶̶ ̶̶c̶̶r̶̶e̶̶a̶̶t̶̶e̶̶ ̶̶s̶̶o̶̶m̶̶e̶̶t̶̶h̶̶i̶̶n̶̶g̶̶ ̶̶n̶̶e̶̶v̶̶e̶̶r̶̶ ̶̶d̶̶o̶̶n̶̶e̶̶ ̶̶b̶̶e̶̶f̶̶o̶̶r̶̶e̶̶ ̶̶w̶̶i̶̶t̶̶h̶̶ ̶̶a̶̶l̶̶m̶̶o̶̶s̶̶t̶̶ ̶̶n̶̶o̶̶ ̶̶f̶̶u̶̶n̶̶d̶̶i̶̶n̶̶g̶....... errrrr......I got nothing
Somebody PLEASE post a link of a SC video showing 24 players in one instance already which is not
- Star Marine
- in-developer-engine
- photomotaged
I cant for the life of me find anything that would provide credibility to some peoples claims (and they are shockingly unable to provide it themselves). The few videos I do find are wrongfully titled and dont show 24 people at all or fall into one of the above categories. So if there is no proof to something it must be true until proven wrong.....notacult.
That is a noble idea but I doubt seriously that its about "helping out" when we talk about thousands of dollars. But again....we discussed this already I dont know how many pages back. The reaction to the return of LTI and changes made to ships support the theory that buying ships is NOT the noble and selfless helping you try to outline but more purchasing of a future advantage or status and people get confused and angry when their "possessions" gets changed. And if CiG would decide to drop half its ships due to "development difficulties" then I m 100% sure there would be hell to pay.....and not simply acceptance because people paid money in order to support. Oh noes.....if somebody laid down 2500 bucks for a ship he/she is going to expect to GET that ship
Last edited:
Well the official line before anything was no P2W, all I've seen since then is the erosion of that and ways to justify sales for ridiculous amounts of money, and to be fair they have to maintain that line, if they started saying "Buy these ships at a fraction of the in game price, dominate your fellow players and gain month's worths of advantages from day 1, all for the low, low price of $750." they couldn't even maintain the pretense anymore.
Certainly but it's also a very easy way to justify this pay for advantage design which CIG is employing. If we applied the same thought process to cash shops in other games how would we protest against P2W of any kind? It can all be justified if we're willing to stretch the terms far enough.
until the game is out properly who knows how long 30 mil uec will take to earn.......... if it take 1000 hrs from start of game to be able to afford the most expensive ship in the game that you can buy for $750 real money, I am fine with that. if it takes 10,000 hrs i would be less fine with it
All I know is that other games which sell items pre launch tend to make the acquistion of those items rather time consuming post launch, in part to give the purchasers "value" to their purchases but also in part to drive new players to the cash shop, with the amount of monetization CIG has employed (and the success of it) I think we can all agree they are hardly likely to walk away from that.
But they're not going to be, they've been hinting at this a few times now. Ships that a solo player can own (if they are willing to spend $750-$2000) are going to take an organisation to earn and own in game.
For me, it's the principle of it, I don't care that the wallet warrior can afford to spend that money, I don't care that he will need a crew and income to make use of his purchase (that's just jusification), I don't even care that it helps development (there are many other more benign ways to help development). What I care about is that you're giving people stuff with no constraints and then making it difficult for others to obtain. I hope it all comes back to bite them in the buttocks.
Last edited:
You actually just backed up my statement, not sure why you beg to differ on. The game becomes unplayable at 8+ and start chugging away, the guys story was on two groups (one group with 8 ships) fighting. We know that just does not happen (no one plays anymore) and the engine can't handle it. It is per server because CIG do not put instances into the game yet.
until the game launches we cant be sure if it will be an issue or not... but the official line is simple..... those BUYING the ships with real cash are doing it to support a project they want to be the best it can be. The theory is it is meant to be less about buying power and more about helping out. To me $750 is a lot of money and more than i would pay for a ship in a game. To some City stock broker who is money rich but time poor, $750 may be an hrs work and they are happy to pitch in..
until the game is out properly who knows how long 30 mil uec will take to earn.......... if it take 1000 hrs from start of game to be able to afford the most expensive ship in the game that you can buy for $750 real money, I am fine with that. if it takes 10,000 hrs i would be less fine with it
Personally i am not trying to tell anyone anything, i am certainly no white knight of SC (i am gutted VR is backburnered and am not currently a huge fan of the flight model, to me it feels more a KB/M focussed game than a hotas focussed game)
but if selling ships for real cash helps support the game.... so long as they are realistically earnable in game with in game money, so be it.
personally if EVERYTHING on the ED store was earnable in game with in game money, i would also be ok with an in game credit shop for cash in ED..... imo it would mean FD would HAVE to give a damn about all the money exploits in the game and keep control of the economy, and i would love that.
No, it is one of the largest P2W "games" you can find, in terms of single lump sums. People have payed 2.5k just to get advantages over others. Just because you are fine with it does not change the nature of the P2W found in this "game".
Earning it in game does not change the P2W nature, people are still purchases an advantage over others for real cash. So you are ok with P2W in SC, but you dislike the cosmetic only nature of the ED store? why? One effects gameplay the other does not. Your imagined link between a cosmetic shop and the ingame economy is just strange.
Blast from the past.
It's THE LIST, anyone got any additions/corrections I haven't been paying attention.
Initial release 2014 (didn't happen)
Ship sales (overpriced engineering debt)
Dates (all missed so far)
Flight model (man it's bad)
Likely completion decade (if at all)
Use of backer funds (the backers will never know)
Wild theory-crafting (everything not available to play)
Pay2win (it is)
Comparisons with ED (ED is the BDSSE)
NMS (going the same way)
Derek Smart (he was right)
Citcon 2016 (disastrous)
3.0 (not in 2016)
Refunds (get em while you can)
Scapegoating (Derek, Illphonic, leavers)
The new TOS (your money is ours we don't need to make a game)
Development start date (it was October 2011)
Star Marine (on again, off again, already in the game)
Illphonic (CiG gave them the wrong scale to work to)
RSI forum (cast out the unbelievers)
Freelancer (history repeating)
Underdog act (CiG/RSI are now a multinational multimillion dollar business)
Sandworms (Frank Herberts IP)
Coffee machines (Lol)
Blood oxygen levels (no space in the game)
Chris Roberts physics expert (he isn't)
Legalistic bluff called (the escapist)
Labelling backers (goon, special snowflakes, high maintenance, toxic dinks)
Accusations of corporate espionage (beer4thebeergod)
INN ( Run by a rep management company, less viewers than pgabz)
Star citizen subreddit (controversial tab concealed by default, brigading)
PG birds (scopecreep on the fly)
Handcrafted universe superior to PG (this may take some time)
Switching focus from handcrafting to PG (NMS/ED bandwagon)
PU neglected for SQ42 (vast majority of backers want PU)
CR thinks he's making a movie (repeatedly says "movie" when he means "game")
Mocap (hollywood obsession)
Build your own studio (repeatedly)
Expensive reshoots (repeatedly)
Renting the imaginarium (most expensive in the world)
"Original" artwork (other studios logo's still visible)
Ongoing scopecreep (cargocult)
Physical relocation to hollywood (they trade on the internet)
100 systems at launch (they'd need decades for this)
Tusken raiders (George lucas's IP)
Nipple jets (jetpacks not required for EVA)
Killer door control (no space in the game)
Refactoring (does not mean what you think it means)
Top Gun "inspired" stuff (Hornet ad and inverted finger)
Monthly patches (have never been monthly)
Tutorial broken ("fixed" by removing it completely)
Ships don't spawn correctly (very old bug)
Random ship explosion (very old bug)
Multicrew numbers exceed player maximum
FPS not impressive (in an FPS engine)
Animations are glitchy
No VR support (you can't just add it later)
The "patcher" is a complete download everytime
Chat UI unchanged (CR said it would be changed live)
Crash reporter not reporting information
Staff retention issues (leavers)
CR makes unrealistic demands (from the man himself)
Lack of internal coordination (seat numbers)
STOP SAYING 'VERSE (Joss Wheedon IP)
New ship direct copy from final fantasy (can't be bothered with CIG name)
SUB LIST THE CULT
Claim to be the voice of backers (actually internet loonies)
Greymarket (you can't say black market that sounds illegal)
Deterring customers (the prospect of playing a game with them)
Run a hate sub (r/dereksmart)
Hatesub moderators shared with greymarket (financial motive)
Interference with the ED forum (exposed gaming the rep system)
Brigading
Threats
Death threats
Abuse
Misinformation
Review bombing competition (LOD ED NMS COD:IW)
Journalist intimidation ("wah" clickbait)
Suppressing the truth (happily embrace positive lies)
Paranoia (they see Derek everywhere)
Encouraging purchases (whilst applying the above)
False claims about ED's development time
Yaw is not a dirty word
Living embodiment of the Streisand effect
It's THE LIST, anyone got any additions/corrections I haven't been paying attention.
Initial release 2014 (didn't happen)
Ship sales (overpriced engineering debt)
Dates (all missed so far)
Flight model (man it's bad)
Likely completion decade (if at all)
Use of backer funds (the backers will never know)
Wild theory-crafting (everything not available to play)
Pay2win (it is)
Comparisons with ED (ED is the BDSSE)
NMS (going the same way)
Derek Smart (he was right)
Citcon 2016 (disastrous)
3.0 (not in 2016)
Refunds (get em while you can)
Scapegoating (Derek, Illphonic, leavers)
The new TOS (your money is ours we don't need to make a game)
Development start date (it was October 2011)
Star Marine (on again, off again, already in the game)
Illphonic (CiG gave them the wrong scale to work to)
RSI forum (cast out the unbelievers)
Freelancer (history repeating)
Underdog act (CiG/RSI are now a multinational multimillion dollar business)
Sandworms (Frank Herberts IP)
Coffee machines (Lol)
Blood oxygen levels (no space in the game)
Chris Roberts physics expert (he isn't)
Legalistic bluff called (the escapist)
Labelling backers (goon, special snowflakes, high maintenance, toxic dinks)
Accusations of corporate espionage (beer4thebeergod)
INN ( Run by a rep management company, less viewers than pgabz)
Star citizen subreddit (controversial tab concealed by default, brigading)
PG birds (scopecreep on the fly)
Handcrafted universe superior to PG (this may take some time)
Switching focus from handcrafting to PG (NMS/ED bandwagon)
PU neglected for SQ42 (vast majority of backers want PU)
CR thinks he's making a movie (repeatedly says "movie" when he means "game")
Mocap (hollywood obsession)
Build your own studio (repeatedly)
Expensive reshoots (repeatedly)
Renting the imaginarium (most expensive in the world)
"Original" artwork (other studios logo's still visible)
Ongoing scopecreep (cargocult)
Physical relocation to hollywood (they trade on the internet)
100 systems at launch (they'd need decades for this)
Tusken raiders (George lucas's IP)
Nipple jets (jetpacks not required for EVA)
Killer door control (no space in the game)
Refactoring (does not mean what you think it means)
Top Gun "inspired" stuff (Hornet ad and inverted finger)
Monthly patches (have never been monthly)
Tutorial broken ("fixed" by removing it completely)
Ships don't spawn correctly (very old bug)
Random ship explosion (very old bug)
Multicrew numbers exceed player maximum
FPS not impressive (in an FPS engine)
Animations are glitchy
No VR support (you can't just add it later)
The "patcher" is a complete download everytime
Chat UI unchanged (CR said it would be changed live)
Crash reporter not reporting information
Staff retention issues (leavers)
CR makes unrealistic demands (from the man himself)
Lack of internal coordination (seat numbers)
STOP SAYING 'VERSE (Joss Wheedon IP)
New ship direct copy from final fantasy (can't be bothered with CIG name)
SUB LIST THE CULT
Claim to be the voice of backers (actually internet loonies)
Greymarket (you can't say black market that sounds illegal)
Deterring customers (the prospect of playing a game with them)
Run a hate sub (r/dereksmart)
Hatesub moderators shared with greymarket (financial motive)
Interference with the ED forum (exposed gaming the rep system)
Brigading
Threats
Death threats
Abuse
Misinformation
Review bombing competition (LOD ED NMS COD:IW)
Journalist intimidation ("wah" clickbait)
Suppressing the truth (happily embrace positive lies)
Paranoia (they see Derek everywhere)
Encouraging purchases (whilst applying the above)
False claims about ED's development time
Yaw is not a dirty word
Living embodiment of the Streisand effect
? not sure if you are miss understanding what i wrote. I technically was not complaining about the cosmetic store in ED, i am well aware the reason it is as it is is to placate a number of people who were worried about P2W. But given a choice of - buying credits for cash in the store but having everything earnable with in game currency, like what was planned in the kickstarter, then YES I would choose that over what we have now... and for the reasons given. (but i am not complaining either way)
I do not like the fact that the economy is now imo insane, but IF FD were selling credits for cash you can be certain they would close cash loopholes v quickly... and for me this would make a better game not worse.
Not sure if there is a definition of P2W... if there is and i am wrong in my thoughts so be it... but to me P2W is special "golden" ammo which is not achievable via playing the game or a super vehicle which cannot be earned in game.
that said i was not trying to start an argument over it..... i am not stating some universal truth, I am just commenting on what bothers me in games.
if we take it to the extreme elite was P2W then? when i started play i could have started in my sidey, an eagle, or a cobra , fully decked out and with a load of cash. I DONT consider it P2W however because it would have given me at launch - at best - a 20hr head start. (I didnt use them btw)
Last edited:
Almighty Bob
Banned
I was agreeing with some of what you said, apart from the part that was incorrect or could be easily misinterpreted. Hopefully a quick re read will make it clear.
One time I would have whole-heartedly agreed with that. Unfortunately developers/publishers have realised that outright P2W is detrimental to the perception of their game, so they now employ creative thinking into selling everything right up to that line and then you have people arguing for them (not aimed at you) because they're emotionally involved in the game or feel their wealth should affect their in game status or they simply want to be better than everyone else. I don't like that sort of crap, it's scummy and it encourages more scumminess and we've seen this with Star Citizen, not only are you paying for ships but you can pay for concept ships, hangar ships, flight ready ships etc, you can buy additional accounts with the idea that those accounts can replace hired NPCs in your expensive Polaris (ie paying for character slots). I don't feel they should get a pass because they're still "crowdfunding" at 155 million dollars...
Last edited:
- Status