Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Agony_Aunt]

My favourite...

Core Tech

• Put in mechanics to clean up Pico the Penguin when placed to reduce performance cost.

Everything must be alright... surely

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/hw3hjx

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/hw3hjx/the_invasion_has_begun/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

What? Players dropping a few objects around impairs performance?

Well, that's one way of admitting your engine is borked.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Is it the right time to mention Powerplay?

Its always the time.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Come on man, this kind of sweeping generalizations lead nowhere and you should know it by now. To start with, "amount of love" is totally subjective. Things that are deserving of "love" for me, may not be for you. And even within a single view, the game will offer areas with more love than others, again making this kind of generalizations pretty useless.

The only blanket love is sound and visuals. I could write a book on the amount of features (PP, CQC, MC, FCs, GalAudio, Galnet, CGs, IIs, ranks, suprpowers, engineering, C+P etc) as well as touches like sloppy paint jobs, ship kits poking through the cockpit, weapons clipping through the cockpit, landing gear clipping into the cockpit, station meshes having gaps and seams, lack of balance and polish on engineering. weapons, ships....like I said, minimum hugs. Its about the money return.

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

The only blanket love is sound and visuals. I could write a book on the amount of features (PP, CQC, MC, FCs, GalAudio, Galnet, CGs, IIs, ranks, suprpowers, engineering, C+P etc) as well as touches like sloppy paint jobs, ship kits poking through the cockpit, weapons clipping through the cockpit, landing gear clipping into the cockpit, station meshes having gaps and seams, lack of balance and polish on engineering. weapons, ships....like I said, minimum hugs. Its about the money return.

All that stuff you mention is "minimal gain for maximal effort" that can be fixed - and regularly is - over time.

Like, yeah, you can spend 3 years of work on a single ship like CI and bring it to "perfection" (of course by that time it will be graphically obsolete compared to the rest of the game, but perfect). But nobody will care and to 99 % players it won't make difference from the current half a year per ship.

Heck, I think most ppl would be fine with a box slapped together over a night, if it flew well.

 

[Rubbernuke]

All that stuff you mention is "minimal gain for maximal effort" that can be fixed - and regularly is - over time.

Like, yeah, you can spend 3 years of work on a single ship like CI and bring it to "perfection" (of course by that time it will be graphically obsolete compared to the rest of the game, but perfect). But nobody will care and to 99 % players it won't make difference from the current half a year per ship.

Heck, I think most ppl would be fine with a box slapped together over a night, if it flew well.

All that stuff you mention is "minimal gain for maximal effort" that can be fixed - and regularly is - over time.

FD have had years to do it. While I think CR has vanished into a fidelity singularity, FD have gone the opposite way and kept on going forwards no matter the mess it leaves behind.

There is a balance to be struck between these two approaches that neither have got right.

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

FD have had years to do it. While I think CR has vanished into a fidelity singularity, FD have gone the opposite way and kept on going forwards no matter the mess it leaves behind.

There is a balance to be struck between these two approaches that neither have got right.

So the never reworked stuff like exploring, mining, engineering or skin model (which you explicitly mentioned, though it's not true)? They never stopped a patch to go back to fix bugs when community asked them to loudly?

You're basically saying you want some stuff done without looking at their team size and need to develop new features. Other people want new features - just look at any popular discussions about elite feet or atmospherics.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So the never reworked stuff like exploring, mining, engineering or skin model (which you explicitly mentioned, though it's not true)? They never stopped a patch to go back to fix bugs when community asked them to loudly?

You're basically saying you want some stuff done without looking at their team size and need to develop new features. Other people want new features - just look at any popular discussions about elite feet or atmospherics.

Exploration: minimum hugs. Skins: still wonky and low quality (just go look at them around seams and edges!). Engineering: no balance, too many orphans / useless / underused blueprints (like clean drives for example).

If FD really wanted to save time, they'd engage with the playerbase early (as not to waste time like with the mine launcher debacle), set out realistic but well rounded features and actually finish them. Thats what I'd call a hug 'unit'.

Star Citizen goes the opposite way and promises the earth and any other celestial body as 'engagement' and fails to stick to any realistic timeframe.

Since FD have had the time I certainly hope EDO brings love to the whole game, and not bolt on some knee jerk ToW lite onto the game.

 

[MTBFritz]

My collective take on Star Citizen, it's development and management is a bit too long winded to ascribe to a few sentences...but I'll try and be brief.

YOU DONT SAY!!!!!

All that stuff you mention is "minimal gain for maximal effort" that can be fixed - and regularly is - over time.

Like, yeah, you can spend 3 years of work on a single ship like CI and bring it to "perfection" (of course by that time it will be graphically obsolete compared to the rest of the game, but perfect). But nobody will care and to 99 % players it won't make difference from the current half a year per ship.

Heck, I think most ppl would be fine with a box slapped together over a night, if it flew well.

Some alphas do just that. Work with ugly barebone placeholders but implement all the critical core tech required to make the game a reality. CIG only always works on fluff it seems and keeps failing on core stuff. As you say their approach results (verifiably) in minimum gain - maximum effort and CIG has so far been unable to break that routine resulting in the time and cost it has so far accumulated. Worse, their enablers work overtime to justfiy that approach and keep this monstrosity in the making....mostly out of desperation to lose the "only one project which even attempts to bring such a game into the world". They are blatantly being abused for their addicition and lack of impulse control but hey, adults and all right?

Nodding your head, accepting everything and keep paying has never worked out well in such cases. It only prolongs suffering and damages to insane levels. Projects like Star Citizen usually end very quickly due to the lack of results. I m often shocked how even professionals get fooled by all the fluff thrown around. Its no wonder the community of private people has produced so many extremists. I mean what kind of chance do they have?

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

Exploration: minimum hugs. Skins: still wonky and low quality (just go look at them around seams and edges!). Engineering: no balance, too many orphans / useless / underused blueprints (like clean drives for example).

If FD really wanted to save time, they'd engage with the playerbase early (as not to waste time like with the mine launcher debacle), set out realistic but well rounded features and actually finish them. Thats what I'd call a hug 'unit'.

Star Citizen goes the opposite way and promises the earth and any other celestial body as 'engagement' and fails to stick to any realistic timeframe.

Since FD have had the time I certainly hope EDO brings love to the whole game, and not bolt on some knee jerk ToW lite onto the game.

Exploration: Big update that the team likely spent at least half a year on, prototyping, testing and developing.
Engineering: Same. Also I use clean drives on some of my ships, that's your personal minmax bias.
Skins: Improved a lot. Still not perfect, yes, but that might be the cost to make the game perfectly playable for everyone.

I don't really understand what's not "realistic, but well rounded" on Elite's features, especially when talking this in SC thread. Heck, even CQC got some share of love as you can now join it from within the game.

 

[Firkrayt]

Speaking of ED: it was a complete failure due to the single reason: we still don't have hotkey to togle relative mouse mode.
Literally unplayable!!!!11

 

[Rubbernuke]

Exploration: Big update that the team likely spent at least half a year on, prototyping, testing and developing.

Which is great, but was left bare bones, what happened to the rumours? Lore? Its just assets.

Engineering: Same. Also I use clean drives on some of my ships, that's your personal minmax bias.

Clean drives, along with large swathes of other engineering is useless. Clean drives are pointless- you get a far better return just using drag + an efficient powerplant, hence the two year layer of dust. Distributor engineering is the same, hardly any use for anything other than charge enhanced. Or tech broker tech, Guardian modules...it just goes on and on.

Skins: Improved a lot. Still not perfect, yes, but that might be the cost to make the game perfectly playable for everyone.

Some are better, certainly. But the overall quality is still at amateur level which will need to be fixed if you can walk around the ship like you can in SC. Kits are the same, instead of making them moulded to the ship FD take a pool of parts, switch off clipping and set them like a horrific kitbash.

I don't really understand what's not "realistic, but well rounded" on Elite's features, especially when talking this in SC thread. Heck, even CQC got some share of love as you can now join it from within the game.

LOL! FD put a single option and we are overflowing with love!

The point was CiG despite all the idiotic choices they make have ironically delivered what FD teased but dropped- even the Anaconda is unique while everything else is temporary decals. I want SC and S42 to be made because they have put more emphasis on the ships so that they are 'yours'. I don't agree how they monetize it (and the bugs), but comparing the two games its night and day. One is the bare minimum, the other is set to max- and in this case I'm slightly envious that SC is going in a nice direction for once and wish ED had it.

 

[Factabulous]

Which is great, but was left bare bones, what happened to the rumours? Lore? Its just assets.



Clean drives, along with large swathes of other engineering is useless. Clean drives are pointless- you get a far better return just using drag + an efficient powerplant, hence the two year layer of dust. Distributor engineering is the same, hardly any use for anything other than charge enhanced. Or tech broker tech, Guardian modules...it just goes on and on.



Some are better, certainly. But the overall quality is still at amateur level which will need to be fixed if you can walk around the ship like you can in SC. Kits are the same, instead of making them moulded to the ship FD take a pool of parts, switch off clipping and set them like a horrific kitbash.



LOL! FD put a single option and we are overflowing with love!

The point was CiG despite all the idiotic choices they make have ironically delivered what FD teased but dropped- even the Anaconda is unique while everything else is temporary decals. I want SC and S42 to be made because they have put more emphasis on the ships so that they are 'yours'. I don't agree how they monetize it (and the bugs), but comparing the two games its night and day. One is the bare minimum, the other is set to max- and in this case I'm slightly envious that SC is going in a nice direction for once and wish ED had it.

You know you have an entire forum to diss ED .. right? This single thread is for discussing SC and it's glorious seaweed - please let it serve its purpose.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

Which is great, but was left bare bones, what happened to the rumours? Lore? Its just assets.



Clean drives, along with large swathes of other engineering is useless. Clean drives are pointless- you get a far better return just using drag + an efficient powerplant, hence the two year layer of dust. Distributor engineering is the same, hardly any use for anything other than charge enhanced. Or tech broker tech, Guardian modules...it just goes on and on.



Some are better, certainly. But the overall quality is still at amateur level which will need to be fixed if you can walk around the ship like you can in SC. Kits are the same, instead of making them moulded to the ship FD take a pool of parts, switch off clipping and set them like a horrific kitbash.



LOL! FD put a single option and we are overflowing with love!

The point was CiG despite all the idiotic choices they make have ironically delivered what FD teased but dropped- even the Anaconda is unique while everything else is temporary decals. I want SC and S42 to be made because they have put more emphasis on the ships so that they are 'yours'. I don't agree how they monetize it (and the bugs), but comparing the two games its night and day. One is the bare minimum, the other is set to max- and in this case I'm slightly envious that SC is going in a nice direction for once and wish ED had it.

Maybe it goes to show that some games are too difficult to make so without some compromises you’ll end up with nothing.
SC has created a unique position where it isn’t held to the same standards as any other game,it can under deliver and vast amounts of money still roll in because the dream game they have been sold is so compelling.
FD could certainly play the same propaganda game and release dev videos waxing lyrical over the possibilities of a new game element the guy has spent the morning drawing up.
They would be rich beyond their wildest dreams but it would be morally wrong and the game would suffer.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You know you have an entire forum to diss ED .. right? This single thread is for discussing SC and it's glorious seaweed - please let it serve its purpose.

Sure, I'm just saying for once Star Citizen got it right. The damage models are fantastic, and that damage actually alters how ships fly is excellent.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Maybe it goes to show that some games are too difficult to make so without some compromises you’ll end up with nothing.
SC has created a unique position where it isn’t held to the same standards as any other game,it can under deliver and vast amounts of money still roll in because the dream game they have been sold is so compelling.

Irony for me is the middle point between ED and SC is RG:O

 

[Factabulous]

Sure, I'm just saying for once Star Citizen got it right. The damage models are fantastic, and that damage actually alters how ships fly is excellent.

They certainly are extreme - I was watching Bognogus and he managed to lose a wing (I think he hit a tree?) and was still flying around (with some difficulty) on one of the planets. Pretty sure an airplane won't fly without a wing, not entirely convinced a spaceship would

It was making me think though - how will this work? Surely in a fight losing a wing would quickly lead to you being killed. And in any other situation you'd (as Bognogus did) head to a station to get it repaired. I do wonder if it is yet another 'wow, that's a cool screenshot' feature rather than a 'wow, this adds to gameplay' one.

Edit: Thinking a bit more - is 'losing a wing' kinda like a weaker form of 'canopy breached' in another space game (does SC have canopy breaches?). I.e. I bet once you lose a wing you try and run / head home. But canopy loss is better (from a game perspective) as it sets a time limit ("you need to get it repaired in X minutes*, or DIE!"), whereas wing loss is "you need to get repairs or flying is quite annoying - FOREVER!".

* yeah yeah, synthesis, but for a simpler comparison

 

[Rubbernuke]

They certainly are extreme - I was watching Bognogus and he managed to lose a wing (I think he hit a tree?) and was still flying around (with some difficulty) on one of the planets. Pretty sure an airplane won't fly without a wing, not entirely convinced a spaceship would

It was making me think though - how will this work? Surely in a fight losing a wing would quickly lead to you being killed. And in any other situation you'd (as Bognogus did) head to a station to get it repaired. I do wonder if it is yet another 'wow, that's a cool screenshot' feature rather than a 'wow, this adds to gameplay' one.

Edit: Thinking a bit more - is 'losing a wing' kinda like a weaker form of 'canopy breached' in another space game (does SC have canopy breaches?). I.e. I bet once you lose a wing you try and run / head home. But canopy loss is better (from a game perspective) as it sets a time limit ("you need to get it repaired in X minutes*, or DIE!"), whereas wing loss is "you need to get repairs or flying is quite annoying - FOREVER!".

* yeah yeah, synthesis, but for a simpler comparison

It depends if that wing produces aerodynamic lift, if the craft itself is a lifting body or that thrusters can compensate. That video reminds me of an F-15 that lost a wing but landed safely because F15 fuselages produce lift so its not total fantasy.

 

[Fishy]

It depends if that wing produces aerodynamic lift

If? That's, like, the whole point of a wing.

 

[LittleAnt]

I want SC and S42 to be made because they have put more emphasis on the ships so that they are 'yours'.

That's what I love with SC. It's weird but I feel some 'empathy' for my ship. It's the first game where I have some feeling for a vehicle. I had feeling in the past for game's avatar (Vailant heart or Limbo) but never for vehicle.
When I've visited the mole for the first time, I thought to myself 'It will be mine. Oh yes, it will be mine!'

 

[Rubbernuke]

If? That's, like, the whole point of a wing.

Yes and no. Sometimes a "wing" is just a loose term for a structure for other things to hang from.