Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Star Citizen broken?
Last edited:
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Star Citizen broken?
Fidelity!
I'd much rather the people in charge are good enough to not make big mistakes in the first place, doubly so if they are supposed to be industry veterans, because this would be a worrying sign.
It's going better for him now ( twitch clip )
I can imagine his thought process before sitting down to play.
"I know, i'll do some mining. That's a working gameplay loop!"
After the stream
"Well, that was a damn stupid idea"
"I know, i'll do some mining. That's a working gameplay loop!"
After the stream
"Well, that was a damn stupid idea"
Catholic reflex ^^
Everything is super and will be super. And when its not its MY FAULT ^^
His second try...well...its a ramp I mean....was it even a surpriseß .D
Mike drawing a line in the sand
CIG speak about server meshing
robertsspaceindustries.com
Alleged Theaters of War intro leaked. Trope city.
And citizens basically talk a load of manure
CIG speak about server meshing
Spectrum - v7.52.1
RSI’s Spectrum is our integrated community and player interaction service, including chat, forums, game integration, and Player Organization facilities. Player Organizations (“Org”...
robertsspaceindustries.com
Alleged Theaters of War intro leaked. Trope city.
And citizens basically talk a load of manure
and
Seems to me that he learned quite much. Problem is that he learned such things that will not satisfy his customers. "How to grab nice hoard of money." "How to run project like a scam without actually criminally scamming anybody" and so on....
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Mike drawing a line in the sand
I ve seen similar lines in the sand. They are not really clear cut and are rarely exercised. Whenever server meshing comes in, it will obviously not work as many hope, but that will not matter. There will be "improvements" and "updates" lined up in the roadmap or similar that will make Mike stay longer than he thinks just to give it a chance.
Last edited:
You're just being obtuse. Why don't you put a number on it? Or are you afraid that it'll turn out that ToW development has actually exceeded that amount, just like all the people who scoffed at DS's claim that SC couldn't be made for less than $150m?
CIG is a company that lives hand-to-mouth on money from backers, if they're putting ANY effort at all into extraneous side projects then it's significant, and necessarily takes away resources (whether it's their own people, or money they have to pay third parties) from their supposed goal of developing SC and S42, and tiresome sealioning about the value of the resources is irrelevant. My point was simply that CIG and their investors will want a return on that "investment" and I wondered how they intend to recoup it.
If you believe they're doing it for purely philanthropic reasons and not looking for a payday, just say so.
A line in the sand?!!? Was it created by the worm! It's in right, they di... they did add it right? oh.
But its needed cry the faithful. Its for testing combined arms balance they say.
Which is pure and utter bull.
They are running a (perpetual) alpha. They can gather feedback and test it themselves in the PTU/PU.
Instead they are looking to create an artificial environment which will not reflect real situations in the PU anyway. If there is a ground assault mission will you be able to spawn a bomber, sit high in the atmosphere raining bombs down on everyone on the ground? I suspect not. They will artificially limit what you can use.
But the faithful cry, they need to generate more test data quickly, for when server count goes up and these types of scenarios will actually happen.
Again, the chances of scenarios actually happening like will happen in ToW will be limited to those like Rexshilla, not your run of the mill players and groups.
Perhaps CIG best wait and see if they can actually get those server numbers up and see if those scenarios actually ever happen first.
LOL CIG basically admitting the first version of server meshing will be tier 0 and players might not notice any difference!
This is gold. They can simply say they have implemented it at tier 0 any time they want, but players might not notice any changes. Some of the faithful will report massive improvement (even if CIG didn't actually implement anything) while for those who say they don't experience any improvement CIG will simply say "we said you might not see any improvement"
This is gold. They can simply say they have implemented it at tier 0 any time they want, but players might not notice any changes. Some of the faithful will report massive improvement (even if CIG didn't actually implement anything) while for those who say they don't experience any improvement CIG will simply say "we said you might not see any improvement"
BoredGamer's take on the Firesprite thing.
Comments are a fun read.
Example:
Wow, talk about setting the bar low.
Comments are a fun read.
Example:
Wow, talk about setting the bar low.
Guess they need a game that works so the community is calm for a decade or two
If you spawn multiple ships...perhaps for mates..which is what I do on occasion, sometimes it can lead to the originally spawned ship randomly despawning like it would if it's unused and sitting derelict somewhere.
It's been a thing for a while..longer than I can recall. There's a limit on how many ships you can physically 'own' while playing, think it's 2 ships and 2 ground vehicles, even then it still causes random ships to despawn. It's probably the servers culling anything it's marked as as derelict items...
...The short answer...Yes, it's broken
Last edited:
That, my dear Mole, is something I have been very limited in testing as I only "own" the one ship.
Now, a while back there were some rather lulzworthy theories about despawn triggers and the interactions with the robust persistent server backend, and having an NPC - wether active or not - would exert a probability volume stability field increasing the number of gameplay loop interactions the 'verse could offer in nested self-recursive calls whilst maximising the user-satisfaction feedback fidelity.
(i.e chuck a dead NPC in your cargo bay and the game would be forced to keep your ship spawned)
Any experience of this or seen it in action?
Oh my. Poor Mike.