Many, many videos online of players in the alpha/game/PU thing (that apparently does not exist
.) doing the same thing and having FUNIts funny though 2017? I did not see it at the time
Last edited:
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Many, many videos online of players in the alpha/game/PU thing (that apparently does not exist
.) doing the same thing and having FUNIts funny though 2017? I did not see it at the time
Close enough! Late 2016.
Now, what in the pre-alpha / PU (that still isn't released) has changed since then? What improvements have been made to SC, what abundance of content has been added, what gameplay has been introduced?
Holy cringe Batman !
Makes me think about doing an actual gameplay vid.. I'd need a capture card for that though. That would need some serious editing too so it would not be terribly boring to watch (i'd accelerate parts where absolutely nothing happens).
No idea, was not here in 2016
Better go play a game now before I get tooo drunk and upset one of our friends.
Have good weekend
New planets and stations, definitely, and a host of new ships. It's just art assets though, and we know the art team at CiG are delivering. 2.6 didnt have planetary surfaces yet, that was added later in 3.0. Barman "AI" is new (and quite non functional). They added the train commutes, which were quite broken from the start, with the bugs now duplicated on various planets.
Improvements: flight model certainly (that's the latest patch though), otherwise.. the game still has massive desync issues, physics still the same, networking too. They did add a ton of new bugs. Ramps are still as deadly as ever.
Gameplay: mining has been introduced since then and is maybe the only complete real gameplay loop so far (it's quite a simple one though, but strangely relaxing and slow paced). FPS missions are new too (*) but boring as hell with braindead AI, physics glitches, massive desync, various annoying bugs such as disappearing weapons under various circumstances...
So cant say it's zero.. It's disappointing for almost 4 years of effort, certainly, but far from nothing.
(*) to my knowledge there are 2 of them: 1 is a raid on a big cruise ship and everyone can access it, the other one is hidden behind a small chain of mercenary missions and is happening inside a surface base.
Last edited:
Completely agree - stuff has definitely been added, and reworked, and there are new things to see and do (and buy!) in the 'Verse, but for a decade of development there is still just a shadow of a game claiming to be the BDSSE that still, as of 2020, exists mostly - and I kid you not - fwisíse.
Last edited:
BDSSE it is definitely not, and past the curiosity stage where you discover the hand crafted assets, there's barely anything to keep you in. FS2020 might certainly drain a lot of citizens away as there is a sizeable portion of flight simmers in there, and there's a lot more to do in there even if it's a pure sim.. And the end of the year will be overshadowed by CP2077, i know i'll be in there. And yeah that new Star Wars Squadron (without a 42..) which will be delivered as opposed to that other Squadron game, and will certainly take the top spot for space pewpew addicts.
2.63 was fun though...seemed there was a lot more happening than there is now at any rate. I miss Tessa and the ICC missions
What, where and when was the event/proclamation that you are referring to as the 'the roboot', and what was changed, by whom and why?
Jesus Christ, he should put that in for the Booker prize.
I remember, though I didn't notice the "10 ways to play : PU, hangar..." scratch disc wait, what?! My lungs, it hurts
Yes the good old times. If they had continued this way we had already the games they promised. Was my favorite mission too.2.63 was fun though...seemed there was a lot more happening than there is now at any rate. I miss Tessa and the ICC missions
Last edited:
Dear sir, reading the files before jumping into the fray is widely considered a sensible behavior. It gives one the ability to avoid the very same faux pa you made:
you aren't up to date with discussion, but you do pretend to be.
That just makes one to look a bit silly, just as drunk-posting does.
I avoided writing that myself because Tippis got that exactly right, but it seems I have to:
I second every word Tippis said here.The fact that some people still deny that you can have an enormous amount of fun in SC is truly hiding your head in the sand. Even doubters on this forum allow for it. You can watch hundreds of videos showing people having fun playing the( none existent
I thought we have moved on from that particular untruth.
No-one is denying it, though.
Can't move on if you were never there to begin with.
The question is rather the opposite: why can't we move on from the irrelevant “I'm having fun” argument, and why is it so seemingly impossible for some to comprehend the ridiculously simple distinction between irrelevance and untruth?
Now, to your questions.
Dear sir, how on Earth did you came to conclusion that "the discussion regarding fun was over" from a phrase "The "fun" argument was dissected for several pages, and not once, but several times"? I merely doubted that you would be able to add something meaningful to previous extensive arguments from both sides, but you are welcome to try.
I'm pretty sure this will just move us from v12 to v36, and nothing more.
Dear sir, I clearly explained why I think that it is pointless to re-iterate the discussion of fun, if you somehow got an expression that I was talking about you being inferior to me then you are wrong, I clearly implied that it is not you I find inferior, but the argument itself. And my point still stands.
As for the videos, dear sir, I did saw videos of people having fun of SC not because of bugs. Still doesn't make "I'm having fun" a valid argument. There are still bugs, SC is still a scam. I never said that one can't have fun playing SC, I am saying that SC is a bugged scam despite some people having fun playing it.
As for your last question, dear sir, that just would not work. Nothing you are "putting" needs further evidence, because all you are putting is just your opinion, and opinion doesn't require evidence, as it is not a fact.
What are the facts?
Fact is Christopher Roberts and other CI-G employes lied to backers who paid (oh, sorry, not paid - pledged, like it makes it any better) them money, lied multiple times, for several years. That makes SC a scam, by definition of it.
Fact is SC has a lot of bugs, they are well-known, widely reported and extensively documented. I'd provide some links, it's really easy to do, lots of them are on previous pages of this thread. But given that you, dear sir, don't like to get acquainted with previous knowledge, it seems like a waste of time for me.
Last edited:
Also a widely known approach within the SC pro community as everybody and his mother will scream you into the abyss if you dare to bring up outdated and well known issues, telling you to go back to whatever thread and educate yourself first. Somehow people within this thread act as if its a completely unknown strategy.
Read ore dont read up. Its been almost a decade of discussion by now so its a LOT. If you dont read up on everything nobody will deny you your opinion or view but of course you shouldnt act tush hurt when somebody reminds you of age old conclusions or provides backdrop info you were unaware of because you didnt know or your arguments are dismissed or ignored simply because this community has gone through those very points several times by now.
Fun = no statement about the products quality
Its a simple and well explained concept. I dont envy teachers who have to cover the exact same topics each and every year facing new pupils who never heard about it before. No wonder effort usually goes the "look it up, there are books" routine in schools anymore, The SC thread easily has the volume of several books by now and we run into the same problems schools do. Always coming back to the basics which some people never heard about before.
Also about the suggestion that people should "shut up or report CIG for fraud" or something similar. People already question my waste of time and effort on this project even tho I m convinced its a urine poor game, probably a scam and designed to make some people rich but certainly not (anymore) to provide what was promised. And why I do I explained before. Specifically because I m not invested financially and didnt get hurt in any way I dont see why I should go to any kind of organization to report CIG for wrongdoing when all I have is my opinion (based on events and conclusions). If I had any kind of evidence for CIG committing fraud I would probably publish my sources and proof and leave it at that. Other people have more reason to act out against CIG and as far as I know there have been several reports to the FBI in the past and people even attempted to take CIG to court. So there very clearly is a faction of backers who feel betrayed or cheated and try to get back at CIG (these are people within the often touted "córe community" of Star Citizen by the way). That their efforts havent provide much results so far (or maybe it did....most of this is running hidden in the background) is due to Star Citizens layers of protection of which there are many. From the shell companies to non.committment to results (everything is vague, early days and easily changed afterwards) to its alpha status to the rabid fanbase acting like a cult. Most of these layers have been in place from the very start by design further enforcing the notion that this project is designed as a fraud rather then trying to come true on its promises.
Already the dubious "reboot" has freed CIG from many of their old promises of which hardly any are existing today and which are probably beyond CIGs capabilities as well based on the current development news. The pro fanbase but developers as well seem to spend most of their time justifying wasted time and resources, rewriting history and trying to change reality more then simply providing results that would be able to stand on their own. Theres always somebody who is eager to tell you the real definition or explain something in a new (and ofen delusive) way trying to lift the stink of deceit and failure from Star Citizen that is all-encompassing by now.
Its no surprise that without any real arguments or evidence for SCs quality or superiority most people defending it refer to the "blinkers approach" flat out refusing to accept less positive options, blowing existing positive aspects out of proportions, cherry picking examples but also questions and simply ignore venues of discussions not going in their favor but focusing on things that are mundane, superficial and only beneficial if you apply insane amounts of hope or trust aka shilling. Some are given explanations or are being debunked thoroughly but return just a couple pages later as if none of that ever happened. I often get reminded of jehovas witnesses or similar groups of people which I combine under "cant win with these people " or "not worth my time" and I m not sure if I should be angry at them or myself for doing it anyway occasionally ^^
CIG has had a pretty chain of goals strung up at the start back in 2012. That "old" version was already ambitious but seemed reasonable at the time. The 8 years of active development since then have only demonstrated (to me and many others) that CIG is highly unqualified to run a project of this magnitude but even worse....that even the "simple dream" from 2012 always was outside CIGs reach of competence based on the things we learned since then. Which makes their new and improved dream even more ridiculous and hilarious especially when you consider that the projects progress rate has slowed down even more since 2016. CIG isnt a company that has proven itself so far. They have no established product they could rely on. The actual results they do have are questionable and dont necessarily provide the confidence and trust necessary for CIG to continue. Its landscapes and visuals still looking nice but many people are capable to look past that and stick to the real questions sidelining detail and graphics as the fluff all of it is, Seeking out information becomes even harder when you constantly encounter people who will tell you whatever just to win that argument willfully changing facts or reality or making up things on the fly. If you refuse to simply believe or follow up with more questions or concerns showing an understanding of the projects history chances are you ll get sidelined and treated as a "hater" rather then shown evidence that could convince you.
There are a few rare examples of people who dont follow the mob-mentality but try to stay polite and explain themselves. The problem is that what these people say often turns absurd and comical and is unable to stand up to criticism or facts. And usually what follows are distraction or deflection tactics. I have to say I really alearned a lot about online discussions ever since I joined this thread oh so many years ago.
Even with 12 versions of the same old same old, nearly a decade of development with fundings that would allow multiple AAA games to be produced and many private individuals being deep in at levels that would finance cars or even houses there is still one check-mate statement that is triggering people easily and yet remains an ugly fact that cannot be "explained" away.
Still no game.....
And thats really sad, infuriating and a tragedy all at the same time.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The thing with the "fun" argument is that in the way that has been used here is simply an anecdotal and personal view. I.e. interesting but ultimately irrelevant for the discussion unless you can extrapolate that to actually meaningful and traceable stats such as concurrency figures or review scores etc that can point to the quality of the thing in a more objective and general manner.
For comparison…
In 1999, LJM Cayman L.P. and LJM2 Co-Investment L.P. were founded with pretty much the sole purpose of committing fraud. The questionable ethics of their nature was known pretty much from the start, so obviously, Andy Fastow was immediately investigated, right? Weeeeeeell… it would take until 2002 for him to be indicted, and the only real reason that happened was became clear that Enron itself was pretty much a fraud (to the tune of having $15-20bn worth of obligations it had no way of meeting) — something that had been steadily going on and growing since, oh, 1993 or so. And that, too, was pretty well known.
All it took for the the authorities to get involved was for the internet bubble to burst, the water bubble to burst, half a dozen bodged privatisation schemes, and a bit of international terrorism… and for all of that to make the market become sufficiently nervous to, in turn, make journalists look a bit closer at the rosy picture that had been painted over the last decade or so. Only then did investors start to act on what a huge number of them already knew, making the house of cards collapse in on itself, and opening up the door for all kinds of actual actionable fraud investigations.
So yeah, the idea that bunch of people with no financial stake goofing off on an internet forum would in any way have an incentive, much less any actual clout, to get an investigation started against yet another Hollywood accounting scheme — which are a dime a dozen — is nothing short of pants-on-head [ableist].
Last edited:
Gamestar recently published an article about SCs new roadmap of its roadmap
Rather then give my own view on it or "explain" its essence I decided to go my original approach and simply translate what they said to the best of my abilities. Probably another wall of text and I have nothing better to do right now so here goes ^^
Star Citizen: how the new roadmap is supposed to provide more clarity/transparency
The new roadmap for Star Citizen and Squadrion 42 has arrived. Its supposed to help understand how much work and money is going into what featuure.
After Star Citizen has trashed its Squadron 42 roadmap in the past they are now presenting a new version in order to keep you updated about the projects progress.
The issues of the old system
The remodeling was explained with the old system reaching its limits. Because CIG always tried to provide an exact release date for the individual updates. If impossible to do so, the respective feature didnt even make an appearance on the roadmap in the first place. This made it very difficult to show the actual progress of the games development for the studio.
Additionally it allowed misunderstandings. Frequently certain points which were not actively worked on didnt show at all. A fact that often lead to user assumptions that the specific feature was either delayed or dropped entirely.
Goals of the new roadmap
You see what is being worked on: the new roadmap will further divide each quarter into six so-called Sprints. With these you can see, what specific aspects of development each team is busy with and what the current development focus is.
Labor input instead of release dates: the fixed release dates vanish. The studios reason for this is the developments complexity that can be hard to predict. For example its possible that new challenges or the necessity for recoding becomes appearant during a sprint. This delays the development progress. Consequently you will only see the number of estimated sprints before completion.
Not everything is shown: there are still aspects of development that are not shared. This includes Squadron 42 spoilers as well as things that are too early in development to be announced publicly.
The roadmap in action
The roadmap itself isnt live at the moment. Still the picture shows a current glimpse of the games development. You can open every single shown project for additional information.
An example: You can see that there are 17 sprints planned for "Player Interaction Experience". You can further see that it requires animations-, UI as well as engineering-efforts. A description explains what the feature offers exactly.
Different views: additionally you can sort the upcoming roadmap for various views. That way you can see quickly how much work is issued per quarter, half year or whole year.
Why are so many ships announced?
Simultanously with the new roadmaps announcement CIG reacts to frequent criticism: How can it release new ships regularly? As those are offered for real money Star Citizen has won a reputation for being a ship sales platform.
According to CIG the reason for this is pretty simple tho: Its easy and can be accomplished on the side. Telling the ship team to work on a prowler doesnt result in lots of discussions. Because it doesnt draw resources and effort from other aspects of the project.
If you want to decide if you want to flesh out the existing mining profession or implement the basics of a new profession you gotta prioritize. Because works to one affect the other negatively.
Whats the status of Star Citizen?
The latest patch release was the 3.10. That revised flight system and targeting along other things. Additionally there is now a mining vehicle as well as more equipment. A big step also was an improved NPC-KI.
Financially the project is in a good spot. Even in august 2020 the developer managed to earn more money then in the whole of 2019. And thats even without the most profitable months still ahead.
Where are the comments?
Posts for star citizen are usually highly emotional. Thats why we decided to relay the comments to our forums which can be moderated easier. You can find the thread here.
Rather then give my own view on it or "explain" its essence I decided to go my original approach and simply translate what they said to the best of my abilities. Probably another wall of text and I have nothing better to do right now so here goes ^^
Star Citizen: how the new roadmap is supposed to provide more clarity/transparency
The new roadmap for Star Citizen and Squadrion 42 has arrived. Its supposed to help understand how much work and money is going into what featuure.
After Star Citizen has trashed its Squadron 42 roadmap in the past they are now presenting a new version in order to keep you updated about the projects progress.
The issues of the old system
The remodeling was explained with the old system reaching its limits. Because CIG always tried to provide an exact release date for the individual updates. If impossible to do so, the respective feature didnt even make an appearance on the roadmap in the first place. This made it very difficult to show the actual progress of the games development for the studio.
Additionally it allowed misunderstandings. Frequently certain points which were not actively worked on didnt show at all. A fact that often lead to user assumptions that the specific feature was either delayed or dropped entirely.
Goals of the new roadmap
You see what is being worked on: the new roadmap will further divide each quarter into six so-called Sprints. With these you can see, what specific aspects of development each team is busy with and what the current development focus is.
Labor input instead of release dates: the fixed release dates vanish. The studios reason for this is the developments complexity that can be hard to predict. For example its possible that new challenges or the necessity for recoding becomes appearant during a sprint. This delays the development progress. Consequently you will only see the number of estimated sprints before completion.
Not everything is shown: there are still aspects of development that are not shared. This includes Squadron 42 spoilers as well as things that are too early in development to be announced publicly.
The roadmap in action
The roadmap itself isnt live at the moment. Still the picture shows a current glimpse of the games development. You can open every single shown project for additional information.
An example: You can see that there are 17 sprints planned for "Player Interaction Experience". You can further see that it requires animations-, UI as well as engineering-efforts. A description explains what the feature offers exactly.
Different views: additionally you can sort the upcoming roadmap for various views. That way you can see quickly how much work is issued per quarter, half year or whole year.
Why are so many ships announced?
Simultanously with the new roadmaps announcement CIG reacts to frequent criticism: How can it release new ships regularly? As those are offered for real money Star Citizen has won a reputation for being a ship sales platform.
According to CIG the reason for this is pretty simple tho: Its easy and can be accomplished on the side. Telling the ship team to work on a prowler doesnt result in lots of discussions. Because it doesnt draw resources and effort from other aspects of the project.
If you want to decide if you want to flesh out the existing mining profession or implement the basics of a new profession you gotta prioritize. Because works to one affect the other negatively.
Whats the status of Star Citizen?
The latest patch release was the 3.10. That revised flight system and targeting along other things. Additionally there is now a mining vehicle as well as more equipment. A big step also was an improved NPC-KI.
Financially the project is in a good spot. Even in august 2020 the developer managed to earn more money then in the whole of 2019. And thats even without the most profitable months still ahead.
Where are the comments?
Posts for star citizen are usually highly emotional. Thats why we decided to relay the comments to our forums which can be moderated easier. You can find the thread here.
Reading that article was a frustrating experience because its often so nonsensical, illogical, contradictive and plain out misrepresenting facts or events. Further I couldnt shake the feeling that Gamestar tried to provide an explanation without having received one from CIG themselves so pure justification to damage control. The comment section linked is also in german so probably not of much use here but I can tell that the more extreme elements are not only active but also sheltered resulting in poster bashing or discussion with moderations and even bans flying very one sided to those who claim a negative view on the project and voice it accordingly. Yet agressive and even toxic comments from SC "defenders are still up and unaffected.
Its simple echo chamber behavior. If you post something other people dont like you ll get attacked. Because moderation doesnt apply to everybody you are left to defend yourself at which point you walk on egg shells and even minor infractions are reason enough for a permanent ban. Yet posts of similar nature coming from the other side of the argument are tolerated and stay untouched. It further bolsters my impression of Gamestar being a shill site for this particular project not worth attention nor interest.
Its simple echo chamber behavior. If you post something other people dont like you ll get attacked. Because moderation doesnt apply to everybody you are left to defend yourself at which point you walk on egg shells and even minor infractions are reason enough for a permanent ban. Yet posts of similar nature coming from the other side of the argument are tolerated and stay untouched. It further bolsters my impression of Gamestar being a shill site for this particular project not worth attention nor interest.
Now you know why ships are designed before their associated game mechanics are designed and why they have to spend backers money reworking ships later.
The answer also fails to explain why, for example, the ship team is not a set of contractors who only work and are paid when the game is ready for a new ship. The answer is that SC is a ship sales platform.