The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[Vargur]

An interesting comment/article about SC's funding:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/6/5975117/Star-Citizen-crowd-funding-risk

Oh dear, i wonder how many thousands deep the author is invested in SC.

"If the game is released and is a success, the game industry will find itself in a new world."

Really how naive can a person be?

Publishers will probably not be in the least impressed.
They want huge returns on their investment.
SC is basically a break even project since they want to spend their whole revenue on development.
Compare that to games like GTA, the game had what, 100-200 mil budget, and it sold 30mil copies which would end up giving them 1billion profit.
There's no big profit in what CIG does, so the big games industry won't care.

 

[Toumal]

I'm old enough to remember the hype around Strike Commander. Not a month went by without screenshots or posters or artwork or what have you. It was going to be the end-all flight sim. And when that was finally released after countless , and people started playing it, things got quiet real fast.

The stuff game magazines wrote about Strike Commander sounded exactly the same. "A new world" and all that jazz.

 

[ykza5]

Just watched the WC videos. Are they implementing that feline race on SC?

 

[Helfix]

Oh dear, i wonder how many thousands deep the author is invested in SC.



Really how naive can a person be?

Publishers will probably not be in the least impressed.
They want huge returns on their investment.
SC is basically a break even project since they want to spend their whole revenue on development.
Compare that to games like GTA, the game had what, 100-200 mil budget, and it sold 30mil copies which would end up giving them 1billion profit.
There's no big profit in what CIG does, so the big games industry won't care.

That's what people keep forgetting. I mean most of these big companies are publicly traded now. Their responsibility is first to the shareholders then to the consumers. If they know for sure that the rehash of the same stuff will rake them in millions and millions they will do it and guess what? People still buy those rehashes of games.

The point I tried to raise on that reddit post was just because you now have 2x your original budget does not mean you go spending crazy. You stick to your plan and the extra cash is there in case you need it, like for instance, going over that $23 million budget you set out. Or you know, keeping those servers up after the game is released.

 

[Trash Gordon]

Just watched the WC videos. Are they implementing that feline race on SC?

Kind of they just had developed the habbit to shave every day .
(Vanduls are pretty much nekid kittens).

ps. now that I think about it sounds kinky.

 

[mid_gen]

Well, I finally backed SC, I was always going to at some point but the experience in ED beta has pushed me over the edge.

Main complaint about ED :

The P2P networking and instancing model. It sucks. I understand why they did it, but I don't have to like it.

Non-complaints about ED :

Multiplayer isn't as multiplayer as I'd like. I know space is big but I like my games social these days and ED isn't going to be. I love the flight mechanics, but I don't like trading and I don't want to have to grind dull NPCs for cash.

I think 2015 is going to be a happy year of dipping into ED in a long-range ship and exploring the massive world they are creating, and jumping into SC for my multiplayer combat fix. Happy days

[redacted]...I will state again for those struggling to understand. I am not complaining that ED isn't Eve, I don't want it to be Eve. I'm not a griefer, I'm not obsessed with ganking Haulers, and I'm old enough to have played the original. I understand what ED is, and isn't I'm just a bit let down that it isn't massively multiplayer at all, due to architectural decisions that aren't really made clear enough at the moment.

Luckily we are spoilt for choice at the moment and we have two games on the way that combined will tick everyone's boxes

 

[Tiggo]

but SC will have quite the exact same instancing?

 

[psyron]

I think 2015 is going to be a happy year of dipping into ED in a long-range ship and exploring the massive world they are creating, and jumping into SC for my multiplayer combat fix. Happy days

2015, and you are sure of this?
This simply shows how less you know about the actual progress of SC...

Sorry to tell you: Inform you, otherwise you will have a very disappointing year 2015!

SC will be out more about 2017-2020.

Edit:
Therefore for those who want to have a look at SC: Take your time (>2016), really no reason to jump into SC right now.

I'm just a bit let down that it isn't massively multiplayer at all, due to architectural decisions that aren't really made clear enough at the moment.

Of course it is. And SC will be exactly the same because they use both the same 'architectural decisions' - because there is only one best way to do it, using instances!
You can't really judge ED right now on PVP, since we don't know how many people are put in the same instances at the moment. Also there are no real gameplay mechanics that support PVP at the moment. But this will change over time (like being able to interdict others for example while in supercruise).

Nothing against other opinions, but they should be substantial and based on facts.

 

[mid_gen]

2015, and you are sure of this?
This simply shows how less you know about the actual progress of SC...

Sorry to tell you: Inform you, otherwise you will have a very disappointing year 2015!

SC will be out more about 2017-2020.

Edit:
Therefore for those who want to have a look at SC: Take your time (>2016), really no reason to jump into SC right now.

SC/Squadron 42/whatever phases the grander project is released in, there is something to play now, there will be more stuff added as time goes on.

 

[psyron]

SC/Squadron 42/whatever phases the grander project is released in, there is something to play now, there will be more stuff added as time goes on.

"There is something to play now"?!?

You mean AC?!?
Oh well then PLEASE play it NOW and come back once you have experienced the REAL PVP there!

 

[psyron]

<Redacted>

Sorry, i will not report you, that's not my way to handle this. If you can't find arguments any longer simply leave the forum now.

Edit:
And come back with a review on AC about how good you like their PVP part!

 

[mid_gen]

Sorry, i will not report you, that's not my way to handle this. If you can't find arguments any longer simply leave the forum now.

Edit:
And come back with a review on AC about how good you like their PVP part!

Why does the word 'argument' need to be employed? Have you go some kind of point you are trying prove? Here was me thinking this was a forum for talking about games, not engaging in petty verbal warfare.

 

[psyron]

Why does the word 'argument' need to be employed? Have you go some kind of point you are trying prove? Here was me thinking this was a forum for talking about games, not engaging in petty verbal warfare.

Because you can't read? We have already pointed out that SC and ED are working exactly the same using instances. If you don't want to argue on this, fine:

but SC will have quite the exact same instancing?

And SC will be exactly the same because they use both the same 'architectural decisions' - because there is only one best way to do it, using instances!

I am out on this one.

 

[mid_gen]

Because you can't read? We have already pointed out that SC and ED are working exactly the same using instances. If you don't want to argue on this, fine:

I am out on this one.

I don't want to argue at all. Who is arguing? Just you.

The SC architecture is fundamentally different to ED in a very important way, that you will understand if you go back and read my post again.

 

[Dante80]

Both games will use instancing, and each game will have a different approach to the same problem...how to pit as many players as possible in the same instance without the game breaking.

FDEVs plan is for 32+ players in the same bubble.
SCs plan is for 50-70 players in the same bubble.

These are goals, not limits. Both games will encounter big and ongoing challenges in networking.

 

[mid_gen]

The big difference is that SC instances will be hosted by a dedicated server in a data center with performant connectivity.

ED's P2P model means you're at the mercy of whatever bean-tins-on-a-string network connection your peers are on. The experience hasn't improved since PB1, sometimes it's fine, but enough times the game becomes unplayable and you have to log out and try a new instance.

 

[Bains]

Well, I finally backed SC, I was always going to at some point but the experience in ED beta has pushed me over the edge.

Main complaint about ED :

The P2P networking and instancing model. It sucks. I understand why they did it, but I don't have to like it.

Non-complaints about ED :

Multiplayer isn't as multiplayer as I'd like. I know space is big but I like my games social these days and ED isn't going to be. I love the flight mechanics, but I don't like trading and I don't want to have to grind dull NPCs for cash.

I think 2015 is going to be a happy year of dipping into ED in a long-range ship and exploring the massive world they are creating, and jumping into SC for my multiplayer combat fix. Happy days

PS. To avoid the usual forums trolls jumping on my back (you guys really ruin this community btw)...I will state again for those struggling to understand. I am not complaining that ED isn't Eve, I don't want it to be Eve. I'm not a griefer, I'm not obsessed with ganking Haulers, and I'm old enough to have played the original. I understand what ED is, and isn't I'm just a bit let down that it isn't massively multiplayer at all, due to architectural decisions that aren't really made clear enough at the moment.

Luckily we are spoilt for choice at the moment and we have two games on the way that combined will tick everyone's boxes

Good luck with taking the plunge with SC. My story is the same as yours but the opposite way around. I came from SC to Elite. The show stopper for me was one of the very things you are attracted to in SC, i.e. combat (single and multiplayer). For a variety of reasons I found it to be empty and lifeless in terms of fulfilling the promise of dog-fighting and all that goes with it, tactics, maneuver, and most of all skill.

This is not me trying to get a raise out of you, just sharing my views as you have shared yours. In fact I notice even die hard SC fans active on this thread are unable to defend SC combat with any real conviction. In fact I would go so far as to say they simply stay away from the subject knowing any attempt to sell or defend it is complete futile and doomed from the get go. As such I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on SC combat once you have had a chance to play it.

As for fanboys, if in your view this forum is bad I assure you that you are about to go to the mecca of fanboyism where due to a complete absence of competent moderation behavioral obscenities are the norm. There detractors really are trolled out of existence in a way you thought would happen to you here but quite clearly has not.

Anyway, that is by the by. I look forward to hearing your impressions on SC combat as soon as you have any to offer.

 

[xyphic]

The big difference is that SC instances will be hosted by a dedicated server in a data center with performant connectivity.

True, you can guarantee that the pipe into the data centre will be fat enough to ensure that isn't the bottleneck. You still can't guarantee that player A is going to be able to get his packets through to the data centre in a timely fashion, nor that players B, C or D will receive it. You'll still have rubberbanding (exacerbated by the fact that all packets incoming to the data centre will need to be mirrored back out to all other clients, which increases latency).

ED's P2P model means you're at the mercy of whatever bean-tins-on-a-string network connection your peers are on. The experience hasn't improved since PB1, sometimes it's fine, but enough times the game becomes unplayable and you have to log out and try a new instance.

ED are implementing algorithms to determine which peer should be the master. This will be dependent on bandwidth, latency and will probably take into account how long they tend to stick around without quitting the game. The master should be able to move around if necessary, and should be transparent (i.e. even if the master leaves the instance, they'll remain connected in order to facilitate the move). This is all complex and is higher risk than the central server option, but should in the long term cost less to maintain, and should be as performant as the central server. They also won't need to have geographically located servers, as their central server will only perform operations that can take a bit of latency such as docking authority.

As for the experience, for me it's much improved over PB1. Bandwidth usage is lower, rubberbanding is decreased, and I haven't had a single docking error (other than the occasional "denied" but that's better than having your pad reallocated as you're about to set down!). The biggest issue that remains is the entry to and exit from supercruise, which takes far too long.

 

[mid_gen]

True, you can guarantee that the pipe into the data centre will be fat enough to ensure that isn't the bottleneck. You still can't guarantee that player A is going to be able to get his packets through to the data centre in a timely fashion, nor that players B, C or D will receive it. You'll still have rubberbanding (exacerbated by the fact that all packets incoming to the data centre will need to be mirrored back out to all other clients, which increases latency).


ED are implementing algorithms to determine which peer should be the master. This will be dependent on bandwidth, latency and will probably take into account how long they tend to stick around without quitting the game. The master should be able to move around if necessary, and should be transparent (i.e. even if the master leaves the instance, they'll remain connected in order to facilitate the move). This is all complex and is higher risk than the central server option, but should in the long term cost less to maintain, and should be as performant as the central server. They also won't need to have geographically located servers, as their central server will only perform operations that can take a bit of latency such as docking authority.

As for the experience, for me it's much improved over PB1. Bandwidth usage is lower, rubberbanding is decreased, and I haven't had a single docking error (other than the occasional "denied" but that's better than having your pad reallocated as you're about to set down!). The biggest issue that remains is the entry to and exit from supercruise, which takes far too long.

The general bugs have improved for me yes, but the performance isn't really acceptable enough to make multiplayer combat feasible, too risky.

The pausing as you drop out of SC is really annoying....I don't see any way around that as the P2P model means you have to hunt around matchmaking everytime you drop out. You can hide it with a client side transition, but it's always going to be there.

But y'know, SC has a lot more money behind it, and can afford the luxury of hosted servers. I don't want to beat on ED, it's going to be great exploring the galaxy, I'm just going to save my pew-pew for somewhere I've got a better QoS guarantee on the network side.

Edit : where I live, the majority of people are on the same ISP which offers great download speeds, but awful upload. I suspect this is having an impact on my network experience.

 

[Bains]

Not being technical I can only offer a gamer perspective on this P2P versus server topic.

I understand this is one of those tricky things for any multiplayer game that will take time, and personally I think ED and SC will both get there one way or the other.

But just for arguments sake lets entertain the notion that ED don't, and best case the multiplayer always slightly suffers from this p2p decision as compared to going dedicated servers.

Baffling techno-babble aside, as a gamer the choice for me is a simple one.

Do I play a game with great combat that suffers from a degree of connectivity issues...

or

Do I play a game with hopeless combat that does not suffer from connectivity issues.

It's a no brainer. Clearly I take the former every time.