It's a new Battlefield-esque game mode they unveiled at CitizenCon, apparently has been in the works for 6+ months (of how many people's time?!). It doesn't take them any further forward in their long-term goals, just another mode to keep people happy (and make it easier for streamers like Rexzilla to do his faux-military battles without struggling to get everyone into one PU server and avoid crashes).
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
I have no idea who thought that, i was not one of them.
The core of SSOCS is implemeted server side but it needs server meshing for it to really work well.
There is no "one savior patch" since they all need to be implemented and work together.
BoredGamer
Star Citizen & Squadron 42 content is the Focus of BoredGamer including News, Tutorials, Guides, Tips, Gameplay, Concept Ships, Buyer's Guides, FAQs, Podcasts, Exclusive Interviews, Lore, CitizenCon as well as each individual Patch & Update. It's a one stop Channel for Star Citizen. Squadron...
www.boredgamer.co.uk
Or is it a good way to test balance and see how large scale combats will turn out and how it will tax the server... hmm not sure many possibilities.
Nothing wrong with CIG's planetary tech. It is telling that some SC backers used to diss ED for nothing but a screenshot generator, when all SC seems to be is a screenshot generator. Its pretty, SC has always been pretty. CIG love throwing lots of polygons and high res textures to see just how much your computer can take.
Perhaps CIG might be best served though making more gameplay loops and delivering on their mountains of promises in order to release a good playable game. Its the only real way to silence (most) critics.
Perhaps CIG might be best served though making more gameplay loops and delivering on their mountains of promises in order to release a good playable game. Its the only real way to silence (most) critics.
Which they could have done by adding it directly to the PTU/PU, since its alpha anyway, and surely better to test in the target mode rather than a separate mode which does not fully recreate the intended environment.
Nope, i'm with the skeptics on this. This was pushed out to give Rexshilla something to promote and avoid him having to spend hours each day gathering his posse, flying to the target, and shooting imaginary enemies, because it looked damn stupid.
So you don't understand what it is as I see. Now so far testings for combat balance have been done by large group who have organized battles between each other, so spending resources and getting all players together in 1 spot trying to find a empty sever where they all can join together. This games modes point isnt to be a spot in the game where you initiate some kind of a capture the flag in random place. Point is to get all 50 players into 1 spot right away with a pre organized scripted battle to test balance.
This game mode wont be in the final game it's only goal is for testing. Since in the final game battles will be influenced by player actions 2 rival organizations so on and so on.
If they're using that to test balance, they aren't thinking very far ahead. In that mode, from the look of it, there will be locked teams in a locked area with a fixed arsenal, doing a small selection of objectives and activities. I don't see how any of that - except maybe fairly simple cases like weapon usage in an infantry-only environment - is going to provide actual useful data to apply to the PU, where the environments are (meant to be) much more dynamic and players will arrive and leave battles over time.
IMO: the only way to get balance data useful for the PU, is to gather the data in the PU. Anything else is just looking at a narrow subset in isolation, which is at best misguided and at worst could produce wildly wrong conclusions.
Well they already found out that one of the ground vehicles was absolutely broken and its use changed the whole battle. So yeah you fail to see but they know what they are looking for with this gamemode.
Balance first needs framerate stability (which this might have, but the preview didn't seem like that, jerking at spots), otherwise some twitchy classes (sniper, etc) are unable to be balanced anyway.
How it will tax server? Dunno, maybe test that on the actual server? And maybe start by increasing the cap to over 50 people, because right now we know that even with SOCKS the server is poo-pooed.
I guess mostly vehicles, to see how everything affect large scale battle. I wont speak more on it, don't wanna misquote something or anything else. So do your own research on it if you care about it so much. Also server FPS did increase as evident from the decrease in input lag after socks, now stability is another issue. As a avid programmer specialist like you claimed you should understand that Stability and Performance is different, SOCS was aimed at server FPS performance increase at first.
Last edited:
Right, but that's my point - it changed the whole battle, in that scripted scenario. In those conditions, in that terrain, with that objective, against that opposition. How would it affect a different sort of battle? No idea, because that's not part of the new game mode.
I assume they've made this because, as you say, they just don't have the player count to get any sort of useful data in the PU. They can't herd people who aren't Rexzilla into doing this sort of stuff - or more accurately it feels like they don't want to? They could start people at different spawn points in the PU with big arrows towards loaner vehicles and the shooty shooty times (and a small door somewhere for people who want to go do other stuff); that would have achieved a similar effect without having to make yet another separate mode. Instead they seem to simultaneously treat the PU like it's an early alpha, but also a finished product that they can't make any temporary changes to for testing purposes. It's weird.
What do you mean by a different sort of battle. A vehicles that gives a clear advantage and can take too many bullets will be strong in any scenario, a gun that does too much damage will also be OP in any scenario. Making a game mode is best way to force players into a scenario instead of hoping that the sheep will walk into the right spot to test what they want to test.
But over a large amount of battles there will emerge a clear contrast that in each battle where this or this thing was present the odds of winning increased by a bigger amount than it should. But in the end it doesn't matter since you will disagree with the idea of this game mode anyway.
Last edited:
Large scale battles on planets with actual objectives can also add more players to actually test combat unlike the more limited AC or Star Marine which is very contained.
- AC space combat testing
- SM ground combat testing
- ToW Combined arms testing and ground combat
- PU/PTU general multiplayer testing and prototyping area (the flipflopping with hover mode is a good example)
It's all testing grounds and prototyping for mechanics mainly for SQ42 one way or another and then it will be carried over to SC.
You're omitting for what MS FS2020 uses satellite data.
I'd suggest i do understand what it is, and suggest that you do not.
But that's just opinion so we will have to agree to disagree.
I'm amazed at the high standards people seem to have. I feel sorry for a lot of ye. I still remember how blown away I was by stuff like:
And that was 320*200, with a horribly brutal LOD algorithm that felt like the planet transformed as you came closer, and sparse/awful population with props like trees. Still, it did the job I'd been dreaming about: it modelled entire planets with seas, lakes, mountains, valleys, and it was just awesome. And today, with NMS, ED, SC, Space Engineers, MSFS, X-Plane, etc, they all have their own twist and it just gets better all the time. I for one am glad for all these procedural planetary surfaces and don't mind their alleged blandness. But then, I've loved exploring game worlds since forever. I might have spent more time in Operation Flashpoint and ArmA exploring the islands than shooting at stuff, so...
And that was 320*200, with a horribly brutal LOD algorithm that felt like the planet transformed as you came closer, and sparse/awful population with props like trees. Still, it did the job I'd been dreaming about: it modelled entire planets with seas, lakes, mountains, valleys, and it was just awesome. And today, with NMS, ED, SC, Space Engineers, MSFS, X-Plane, etc, they all have their own twist and it just gets better all the time. I for one am glad for all these procedural planetary surfaces and don't mind their alleged blandness. But then, I've loved exploring game worlds since forever. I might have spent more time in Operation Flashpoint and ArmA exploring the islands than shooting at stuff, so...
I only remember flat boring planets from Frontier.I'm amazed at the high standards people seem to have. I feel sorry for a lot of ye. I still remember how blown away I was by stuff like:
And that was 320*200, with a horribly brutal LOD algorithm that felt like the planet transformed as you came closer, and sparse/awful population with props like trees. Still, it did the job I'd been dreaming about: it modelled entire planets with seas, lakes, mountains, valleys, and it was just awesome. And today, with NMS, ED, SC, Space Engineers, MSFS, X-Plane, etc, they all have their own twist and it just gets better all the time. I for one am glad for all these procedural planetary surfaces and don't mind their alleged blandness. But then, I've loved exploring game worlds since forever. I might have spent more time in Operation Flashpoint and ArmA exploring the islands than shooting at stuff, so...
You say that, but how distinct is it really from the vehicle spawning + mission invite in the PTU that Esvandiary suggests? Use the new 'spawn at this location' function and: sorted. Actual info that's relevant to SC, the proposed objective.
The whole testing rationale just doesn't stack up. Or at least it doesn't seem to warrant the apparent year+ of silo dev, given the state of the core projects.
It seems far more likely that they're building this as a permanent mode to attract new players. (And from a more sceptical point of view, they're doing so with an eye to monetising the PU's assets & tech pre-release. Potentially even marketing it as a stand-alone game, if the Crytek court case clears the way for that).
Last edited:
Man, i remember when Elite 2: Frontier was released and zooming out on the galaxy map and was completely stunned.
What they managed to cram into 2 floppy discs was awesome.
It was actually one floppy, the second disk just had some additional content like save games if you wanted to start on the Moon etc.
- Status