Supposedly, the fight model has change quite a bit in 3.0. I did not play SC before, so I can't comment on it, but several SC people (streamers) have mentioned it.
Star Citizen Discussions v7
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
Supposedly, the fight model has change quite a bit in 3.0. I did not play SC before, so I can't comment on it, but several SC people (streamers) have mentioned it.
I Think Failure To Report mentioned it as one of the straws that broke the dromedary (which is why he ended up streaming ED for about 9 hours as a palate cleanser)
Over at reddit, the citizens are revolting.
Last edited:
Don't say that, if met face to face many (if not most) citizens probably are nice people, even the ones posting at reddit
Last edited:
I was merely pointing out the part that people purchased a chassi with nothing in it for 2500 usd.
And we have no idea if parts for those hulls can be easible obtained or require reputation grind.
I mean...that thing is useless for the foreseeble future.
To be fair, i have yet to find ANY other game with better sound design than ED.
Well every ship is useless, because there is no game, what is your point?
Some one spent money in order to get an advantage over other players. Even if they have to grind to outfit that ship it does not negate the skipping of grind to acquire said ship.
Yes and that reputation grind would be forced on to the non paying player as well, and they still have to grind for the ship.
No amount of hardships can you place on the ownership of that expensive ship makes up for the fact that the non paying player faces the exact same hardship + the hardship of getting the ship in the first place.
Using cash to pay for the ship lets you skip grinding to get said ship. If you don't pay cash to grind for the ship, well you still have to grind for the ship to even get even with the cash payer.
It is a classic P2W system.
Last edited:
I actually think you're on the money there.
It's like I was saying earlier; even if they literally did nothing from now on but work on content announced before yesterday (so basically the full mission generation system for all kind of missions/career paths, the full galaxy as originally promised (100 planets was it, or 100 systems? I forget) plus all the concept ships themselves except the colonisation ship and all of the gameplay loops and mechanics that would be needed to fully implement the gameplay that some of those ships are supposedly designed for, so for example a full prospecting and mining system, significant content to be discovered and interacted with for exploration-focused players etc, I don't know anybody on the healthy side of a lobotomy who thinks that would take them less than four years.
That's based on progress so far and the fact that what has been created so far is nowhere near to a commercial release standard. For a start, if they can't get the game running at better than 10fps on an i7 with a 1070 and 32GB of RAM now they might as well pack up and go home because the final game is going to have to have way more content than 3.0 and you just can't pitch what is supposed to be a mass market product at a 1080 as minimum entry for reasonable performance.
Then we factor in your first paragraph. Seriously, that is a whole game in itself before we even worry about trying to plug it into the other two whole games that we're five years into with very little to show for it.
You can read their comment that:
in one of two ways but to be honest, if I was a backer with money in this game for five years already I can't say that either one would be particularly appealing.
One is basically 'Chris has been dreaming on the toilet again and yeah, yeah you know how it goes. Now we have another three years worth of work to add to the four years we were already looking at, plus the time we need to rework all this stuff that you're playing today because it will be seven years old by then, plus we need to reshoot the FMV but Gary Oldman looks like Gandalf now. We can't even release a basic game and add this stuff in later when it works because you paid us $100 bucks for 64 km2 of pretend land seven years ago.'
The other is 'Yeah it's like this. The thick end of that $160m is already gone so if you want to play the game you already bought, you're going to have to come up with the cash to keep a AAA game studio with offices in four countries running for four years minimum. That's a lot of money son. Oh sure, we'll chip in a bit with the money from S42. Bahahahaha noob, only joking. S42 is still nowhere near playable and I got fiiiiiiiive kids to feed, so you'd better memorise your credit card number.'
If any of the SC shills have a third option to suggest I'm not even interested. There is no third option, it's just another bit of classic SC theorycrafting you're doing. In particular, there is no third option where Chris socks it to the entire gaming world by proving them wrong before jumping into a convertible with Sandi and cruising off into the sunset.
I did a quick google earlier and the tone of much of the reporting on this hovers between sarcasm and incredulity. The comments are universally hilarious too and although obviously the true believers are as strident as usual, there's no way that you could categorise the overall impression as being a positive one. It probably doesn't help that their genius head of marketing didn't realise that there is such an obvious (and lazy/incorrect but since when did that matter) comparison to be drawn to the recent EA lootboxgate kerfuffle and this that regardless of any other concerns, doing this now was insanity. That in itself makes me wonder if anything deeper lies behind it.
You have to love the way they keep working the pump though. ParpCon was how long ago? So we get the $800 ship sale but not even an indication that this might be coming. Give everybody a month, let them get paid again, Christmas coming up and it's the anniversary sale (the fact that it's an event marking how long it's been since this began is such a beautiful touch) and BAM! 'Sorry Johnny, Santa said you've been bad this last month so the PS4 ain't happening this year but it's OK, I just bought a piece of pretend land the size of Nebraska. Oh stop crying you little snowflake...'
Last edited:
Don't say that, if met face to face many (if not most) citizens probably are nice people, even the ones posting at reddit
I agree! they should be nice (or naive) people, to give the money in the way they do! 2,700 USD a "going to be" capital ship![cry]
Thats hardly a revolt. The post has 1000+ upvotes and is basically "who cares" about land grant sales when they are already selling ships.....
This is a revolt on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/7fwawu/the_24_update_is_an_utter__disappointment/
Sorry if I've missed the point, but isn't that exactly the idea?
If in real life one was routinely and randomly killing and/or robbing then one might imagine that the forces of law and order would take a dim view of those actions, and be a little bit motivated to stop you.
tbh I'm not sure I really understand the difficulty with 'balancing' C&P - e.g. 1. decide what's considered bad in the game, 2. make a count per user of how many times bad things are done, 3. divide by time, 4. multiply by frequency, and if "score > 100", "unleash hell" until net worth = 100 cr.
Last edited:
…but that would mean copying systems that were (or have been) available in games like Planetside and EVE since 2003, and how are you ever going to save PC gaming with never-done-before tech if you use a tried and tested 14-year old solution? Huh, huh, huh? Yeah, that's right, so there!
e: Also, that would require at least 5 minutes of google research on what has happened in the world of computer gaming over the last two decades. Ain't nobody got time (or stamina) for that!
Last edited:
Nah, A revolt on the ED reddit would be people saying "This is actually quite good" and everyone agreeing: I think the planet would tilt on it's axis if that happened.
But critical comments on SC getting 100 up-votes? That's torches & pitchforks by their standards...But if all the backers are like you, there wouldn't be enough money to make the game. So buy an Idris Scrooge.
Made me laugh, can't rep you again - can someone else help out - ta?
Not really, as we'll all club together and bludgeon the high spenders into oblivion, given that all 1 trillion players will all co-exist in the same game-space.
Really.
Last edited:
Want to be able to see your key bindings? Pay us £4.80, and as a special early-bird you can alter each binding at only £1.00 per key-binding.
T&C apply, and the game may never actually arrive.
Don't give them ideas.
Or, wait… do. It'll be more hilarious that way.
Although, granted, a log-in fee would just be what most MMOs would call a “subscription” and since CIG has promised that SC will not feature subscriptions (aside from the subscription they offer), calling it a log-in fee would be a very standard CIG way of solving a problem by calling it something other than what it really is.
Support. $1 per question
Concierge backers get the chance to buy 24 hour access to a dev for $1,000, contact to be made via a premium rate phone line.
No no no, subscriptions are so last-gen. Log-in fee is the future.
You pay subscription once for the whole month, but why, when you can pay log-in fee every time you want to log in. Even after you unintentionally get disconnected from the servers, but who cares? You want in - you pay.
At last I'm assuming that Amazon would charge quite a lot for the frequent interruptions CIG would want to “accidentally happen,” especially when the whole AWS business model and brand is rather built on the exact opposite.