The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[Renideo]

At that point I am even more extreme. To me a FTL drive would be not small.
The engine using a extreme efficient fuel engine solution that even more extreme then fission and fusion. Like anti matter. So these engine would be big. And also dictates design. A living boat would be like a small mother ship. And would be big. With a biosphere on it. Also with large part spinning for artificial gravity. So how would that look like.
Main thruster would be Fusion plasma or Fusion ION drive.

So as I want it even ED ships are very small. And like I said before in the way I would set it up there would be no dogfighting. and I would scrap MMO and online for realism.

But as with all Games Dev made a decision. And then is just the case is it a deal breaker or just a con point. Like every game has it pro and cons points.

A super cruise engine sound to me like a sub FTL warp drive. Still big. Bigger you go beyond FTL to. Much bigger it alternative to Jump drives.

Also with exploring you are far away from civilization and thus fully depending on your ship. This can be for years so expedition ships are super cruisers with extreme low dependence. I would even go that the should use such bigger exotic FTL drive.

So Impulse to sub FTL to FTL to galaxy class FTL engines.

In real life it is even possible to have a airplane on fission. But the practical risk is to high. And it would be big. No fighter. And can stay in the air for very long. That fuel efficiency. Is need for space traveling.

While fission drive in space like torch ships is option. Don't start your engine aiming at a colonized planet.

But that would bring to much constrains to the game design.

So small space craft well minor point but not big issue to me.

My point on scale was actually aesthetic, however there are two points to make. First, the FTL (and supercruise is also largely FTL or high fractions of c, though in SC their equivalent as I understand it will max out at 0.2c) was outright stated as the major conceit of the game, considered unrealistic but necessary for gameplay.

Second, you cannot really attempt to understand how such a drive would be designed or powered in terms of current understanding, for the simple reason that current understanding would render it largely impossible. The energy requirements would be absolutely impractical. There are other objections that are largely hand-waved as well, but again, can't complain as it's explicitly unrealistic.

If you're going to accept that you can use such a drive to move around at high multiples of light speed and that it is effectively there entirely for gameplay reasons, you might as well skip over the question of how large the technology powering it is unless it produces a really glaring discontinuity. As there's no obvious reason that the physical size of the drive breaks immersion, it's just not that important.

The game wants you to be able to use fuel scoops to facilitate exploration, this strongly suggests fusion power but doesn't preclude anything much, so I default to assuming that they've achieved something very energy efficient and relatively compact, because trying to explain it away is simply impossible given our current level of technology.

 

[Renideo]

I agree. As it looks now, there will be no clans or guilds supported by ED at all. Hence, space sim fans who like to join social communities to chat, play, train and compete together have to look somewhere else; i.e., most likely SC will be a far better choice for those.

It seems to me that aside from the 32 player limit (which goes for SC too, though the final limit isn't clear for either game) in an instance, groups can't be prevented from coordinating, whether by third party software or otherwise.

But that instancing limit is a major obstacle in and of itself, and largely unavoidable.

I see no harm in making a case for full in-game support for grouping, though I can't say I support it myself. I don't know that the fundamentals of the game lend themselves to it though.

 

[Mr.Nowak]

I'd be very interested in seeing how many original, early backers are REALLY enjoying the AC.
You know, the ones from 2012, golden ticket holders, hardcore space sim fans, etc...

I think those are pretty silent now.

Would be interesting to see. But people seem to generally enjoy AC anyway. I am a backer from October 2012 and think it's fun to play now and then.

 

[Neo-ST]

When I only remember my excitement of seeing CR's first pitch video with Bengal carrier, Hornets flying around chasing enemies WW2 style...and then my disappointment of playing AC for the first time...
I was immediately like "What is this?" :/
I just don't want this video to be eventually renamed into "A broken promise".

 

[ykza5]

I'm going to be honest here and I'm sure Ill be flamed by some of you guys but remember this is just my opinion.
I've been playing ED beta for a while now. In my opinion this is just a big version of Galaxy on Fire 2 (sorry I didn't play the older space games). Take cargo from A to B make X amount of money and upgrade ship. Go to the conflic zones and pew pew for some credits.
Even GOF has mini escort and defend missions but I guess those will come in time, and that is my problem.

Like with SC everything will come in time, this is a beta, I know, but deep inside I feel gamma will not have that much more content since aparently gamma is pretty close (they said it will hapen this year so 4 months to add more content).

So I droped the ball already on SC because it is sooooo behind schedule. But I don't see what else are they going to add to ED that actually changes gameplay.

Does this mean Im going to stop playing ED? Heck no. But it is getting repetitive and reminds me more and more of GOF (sorry if that offends you) with a few more.mini games.

I do hope in the future either (or both games) incorporate more than just trade/kill get credits upgrade.

 

[Voivod]

I agree. As it looks now, there will be no clans or guilds supported by ED at all. Hence, space sim fans who like to join social communities to chat, play, train and compete together have to look somewhere else; i.e., most likely SC will be a far better choice for those.

I was talking about SC not ED.
Neither will be an experience even remotely similar to EvE.

 

[Voivod]

But I don't see what else are they going to add to ED that actually changes gameplay.

Well read the features they have planned for launch.
I think it'll be delayed a few months at least.. but they should get most of that stuff in there.

 

[ykza5]

Well read the features they have planned for launch.
I think it'll be delayed a few months at least.. but they should get most of that stuff in there.

I've read it I just think is a lot to add in just 4 months if they want to comply with the release date. Im fine with a delay or two of that means actually putting more content in.

 

[Trash Gordon]

I'm going to be honest here and I'm sure Ill be flamed by some of you guys but remember this is just my opinion.
I've been playing ED beta for a while now. In my opinion this is just a big version of Galaxy on Fire 2 (sorry I didn't play the older space games). Take cargo from A to B make X amount of money and upgrade ship. Go to the conflic zones and pew pew for some credits.
Even GOF has mini escort and defend missions but I guess those will come in time, and that is my problem.

Like with SC everything will come in time, this is a beta, I know, but deep inside I feel gamma will not have that much more content since aparently gamma is pretty close (they said it will hapen this year so 4 months to add more content).

So I droped the ball already on SC because it is sooooo behind schedule. But I don't see what else are they going to add to ED that actually changes gameplay.

Does this mean Im going to stop playing ED? Heck no. But it is getting repetitive and reminds me more and more of GOF (sorry if that offends you) with a few more.mini games.

I do hope in the future either (or both games) incorporate more than just trade/kill get credits upgrade.

I think background simulation will be a big thing though it remains to be seen how much it will influence ED.
I am kind of worried because most of the PG information is focused on building planets and rivers.

The important stuff for me is more about economies and political systems and wars, and the DDF already said the wont do the simulation to an individual object\ship level if I read it right, due to server load.

For me it would be far more interesting if AI economical simulation goes the dwarf frortress\Eve online route where you know that your ship\gun\whatever
was acctually mined>crafted>delivered by some entity (player\NPC) at some point.

Well the good part about being a bitter[redacted] err cynic is that FD (aswell as SC) could possibly surprise me positively in this regard.

 

[Renideo]

I'm going to be honest here and I'm sure Ill be flamed by some of you guys but remember this is just my opinion.
I've been playing ED beta for a while now. In my opinion this is just a big version of Galaxy on Fire 2 (sorry I didn't play the older space games). Take cargo from A to B make X amount of money and upgrade ship. Go to the conflic zones and pew pew for some credits.
Even GOF has mini escort and defend missions but I guess those will come in time, and that is my problem.

Like with SC everything will come in time, this is a beta, I know, but deep inside I feel gamma will not have that much more content since aparently gamma is pretty close (they said it will hapen this year so 4 months to add more content).

So I droped the ball already on SC because it is sooooo behind schedule. But I don't see what else are they going to add to ED that actually changes gameplay.

Does this mean Im going to stop playing ED? Heck no. But it is getting repetitive and reminds me more and more of GOF (sorry if that offends you) with a few more.mini games.

I do hope in the future either (or both games) incorporate more than just trade/kill get credits upgrade.

There's a huge list of features still yet to be added, not least most of the background simulation and quite a lot of gameplay pathways such as mining, exploration, salvage and so on. They've been keeping to their release schedule extremely well so far and they've stated they're likely to accelerate releases as beta goes on.

There's a lot of information on the forum, not least of which design details on every aspect of the game.

The background simulation, the rest of the galaxy including the three main factions, full gameplay options aside from inside the ship / multiperson ship control / planetary landings / atmospheric flight are pretty much expected in gamma so far as I know, as well as more ships and station variants etc. They stated ks benefits will be in gamma, but that gamma won't contain all content-- but should contain all mechanics expected at release.

 

[ykza5]

There's a huge list of features still yet to be added, not least most of the background simulation and quite a lot of gameplay pathways such as mining, exploration, salvage and so on. They've been keeping to their release schedule extremely well so far and they've stated they're likely to accelerate releases as beta goes on.

There's a lot of information on the forum, not least of which design details on every aspect of the game.

The background simulation, the rest of the galaxy including the three main factions, full gameplay options aside from inside the ship / multiperson ship control / planetary landings / atmospheric flight are pretty much expected in gamma so far as I know, as well as more ships and station variants etc. They stated ks benefits will be in gamma, but that gamma won't contain all content-- but should contain all mechanics expected at release.

I bet I go to the SC forum there's a huge list of features that are plan to be added in game, so please stop giving me the SC response. In the context that "it is a beta" I worry because I've played beta before on other games and not a lot of features were added after it (BF4, TESO). This not a triple A game and with different kind of funding so lets hope for the best.

 

[Renideo]

I bet I go to the SC forum there's a huge list of features that are plan to be added in game, so please stop giving me the SC response. In the context that "it is a beta" I worry because I've played beta before on other games and not a lot of features were added after it (BF4, TESO). This not a triple A game and with different kind of funding so lets hope for the best.

I didn't give you 'the SC response', elite dangerous's release of gameplay elements has been iterative and rapid, SC has multiple distinct modules being developed at the same time with different anticipated release schedules.

If you have a reason to believe that the scheduled elements won't appear, feel free to share with the class, but arbitrary scepticism is not a reasonable position. So far they've been consistently adding the features they said they would, as they said they would. I expect they'll continue to do so. Personally I have no opinion on what SC will or won't include by way of features, because there isn't enough to judge by. I do reserve the right to judge things like the flight model as they manifest themselves, however.

Honestly, if you have any interest in the game you might want to consider doing some basic research on it. One point, for example, is that there are three public or semi-public testing phases, which do not quite follow the normal convention. They started out in Alpha / premium beta on the core gameplay mechanics (flight model, supercruise etc). Beta is about rolling out most of the gameplay mechanics (and a lot of content), gamma is then a much more open, bug-testing oriented phase (closer to a normal beta test), and final release is when all the content will be made available which was intended to be available.

They've been very clear that some features categorically will not be in the release, and will be in expansions. Some paid, some free. They aren't really making a lot of unrealistic promises here. They've just gradually (but not slowly), one phase at a time released more and more mechanics / content, all the while making it clear that there'd be no ship/station exploration or atmospheric flight / planet landings until post release expansions.

 

[kilvenny]

@ykza5

You are right to be cautious about what might or might not be in. Its worth noting the following which gives me confidence that what they outline will be in.

FD have been very careful to push certain things like Walking around and planet landing as expansions. Those are major features which clearly will take a lot of time.

Things that are in the base game are documented in the DDF archive.

What we have consistently been seeing is that we are playing build A and in house they have a much later build.

 

[Coda]

I needed gaming to get away. I mean look at it. The greed, the wars, the politics, the hatred, the smacktalk and griefing.

I guess I'll go over to real life and see what they are doing.

 

[Memnoch]

I mean look at it. The greed, the wars, the politics, the hatred, the smacktalk and griefing.

I thought we were talking about Star Citizen, not EVE Online.

 

[psyron]

Somehow resonates with how i look at CIG/CR and FD/DB ...

 

[Coda]

I thought we were talking about Star Citizen, not EVE Online.

Are you suggesting I stop complaining and start playing? Fine. Got the computer upgraded and the headphones/mic will be here Wednesday.

Now, if I could just hold still on a target...

 

[1500]

Not all the members are usually online at the same time, but let's say in average on prime time 20% are online. Then having a platoon of 50 players battling a hostile platoon of 50 would be nice. That should work within the parameters of SC as they are aiming for 100 player instance size.

Someone might have responded already in that case ignore, but CIG are now saying 50-70 per hypothetical instance caps. Could keep going down.

 

[SuperG]

My point on scale was actually aesthetic, however there are two points to make. First, the FTL (and supercruise is also largely FTL or high fractions of c, though in SC their equivalent as I understand it will max out at 0.2c) was outright stated as the major conceit of the game, considered unrealistic but necessary for gameplay.

Second, you cannot really attempt to understand how such a drive would be designed or powered in terms of current understanding, for the simple reason that current understanding would render it largely impossible. The energy requirements would be absolutely impractical. There are other objections that are largely hand-waved as well, but again, can't complain as it's explicitly unrealistic.

If you're going to accept that you can use such a drive to move around at high multiples of light speed and that it is effectively there entirely for gameplay reasons, you might as well skip over the question of how large the technology powering it is unless it produces a really glaring discontinuity. As there's no obvious reason that the physical size of the drive breaks immersion, it's just not that important.

The game wants you to be able to use fuel scoops to facilitate exploration, this strongly suggests fusion power but doesn't preclude anything much, so I default to assuming that they've achieved something very energy efficient and relatively compact, because trying to explain it away is simply impossible given our current level of technology.

You know the ramifications of ipad size magical engine. It means that missile could FTL to. If as big as a microwave shape a torpedo could go FTL and up.
Even small types of drones and probes could go FTL.

What it means is that going FTL is realy special and not something cheap.

Ofcourse there is no logic in balanse we just follow the rulez they come up with.
For me it would be much more emersive, but it would has a strong change on gameplay.
Also a otto engine has to deal with high heat and pressure within human comprehension.

But using antimatter is like controling energy levels of a A bomb into bending streching compressing the fabric of space time. To me it doesn't sound something that would be small. But it is a asumtion wich make sense. But in reallity. fTL might be not possible and species with a milion year of industial evolution and much bigger brain still haven't figured out. And all species are just isolated by the insane huge distance in relation to the slow barier of C. On universal scale C is slow to be practical.

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Someone might have responded already in that case ignore, but CIG are now saying 50-70 per hypothetical instance caps. Could keep going down.

I think it's very optimization and tech related. Even if they start with 50 people per instance next year with the advancements of the game and technology it will increase over the years. The biggest problem is netcode and the amount of sheer hardware needed to run the detailed ships on your screen.