Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

wd6KM80RfJ8xbnDMm7mr-GWktVU128hQ8SkywN6iHo0.png


"We have no legal obligation to refund your payments" says CIG after they are legally obliged to refund someone.

The mental gymnastics performed here are on a par with some of the faithful!

By the way, if anyone missed the news, it is possible in the UK to get a refund from CIG even after the 30 day refund period for non-delivery. There is a process you need to go through and it basically has to reach the point where CIG's credit rating will get trashed if they don't pay up, but it exists. Maybe now its been done twice, CIG might actually respond to the refunds before people take it that far, but i guess they hope people will not follow up with the legal process.
 
What I find hilarious is that when fanboys talk about SC gameplay value, they deny all regular people the right to give their own score to SC.
If SC is in any state to be ranked - it should have a public score on metacritic and other sites.
While SC has no public score, it can not be evaluated and holds gameplay value of 'tbd' = nothing yet.

Prove me wrong.

Same as all along.

Try and review SC and if its a positive review the faithful will praise you for your unbiased and clear opinion.

Try and review SC and if its a negative review you'll be told you can't review it because its alpha and that you are just a FUDster and a hater and its a hit piece.
 
wd6KM80RfJ8xbnDMm7mr-GWktVU128hQ8SkywN6iHo0.png


"We have no legal obligation to refund your payments" says CIG after they are legally obliged to refund someone.

The mental gymnastics performed here are on a par with some of the faithful!

By the way, if anyone missed the news, it is possible in the UK to get a refund from CIG even after the 30 day refund period for non-delivery. There is a process you need to go through and it basically has to reach the point where CIG's credit rating will get trashed if they don't pay up, but it exists. Maybe now its been done twice, CIG might actually respond to the refunds before people take it that far, but i guess they hope people will not follow up with the legal process.
Ye, is just to scare the frauded masses off. They should just follow through the procedure.
 
Haggis are small 3 legged animals that live in the highlands of Scotland. They are quite cunning so very hard to spot and catch though.
No it's not. It's some concoction put into sausage intestine. Steamed and then eaten. Not sure about the ingredients: e.g. what goes in. Brainz? (nogo) Lungs, hearts, stomach? (can always try).
 
Same as all along.

Try and review SC and if its a positive review the faithful will praise you for your unbiased and clear opinion.

Try and review SC and if its a negative review you'll be told you can't review it because its alpha and that you are just a FUDster and a hater and its a hit piece.
One does not review SC. One does express his personal opinion. There are no public reviews on metacritic, rotten tomatoes, steam, etc, and no one can publish one there. Therefore there is no game to review.
 
¿Que Pasa? and ServerSmashing:

Given that we have shards with their own immediate state of the world, but at the same time we would like to be able set global prices, have inter-shard events happening etc., how could it work?

Imagine a blockade of a jump point generated by ¿Que Pasa? and performed by a group of pirate Arrows. Let's say 10 of them (more could 30k the server since large space battles are impossible). This blockade is presented in every shard and initially looks the same - a group of Arrows show up and start shooting at players. From then on, in each shard, the battle rages on differently. In some shards, player will destroy the Arrows. In others, they will run away, leaving the blockade behind.

How can diverging states of the shards be resolved? There are two methods.
  1. There is a global count of pirate Arrows replicated across shards. If an Arrow gets destroyed in one Shard, the event is propagated to other shards. This means, however, that in other shards a random (or the weakest) Arrow would explode seemingly without reason. Even funnier, in a shard where there is a single player observing the pirate group from a distance without engaging, they would watch the Arrows pop one after another, like balloons. Another side effect - free loot from popped Arrows, available across shards. Also, it would be enough for a battle to be won by players in a single shard to be won in all of them.
  2. The battle in each shard resolves to its own conclusion and the results are aggregated. The outcome is averaged over all player actions and battle results. This way we get a better representation of the event overall but we also have to worry about interesting questions. In some shards the result of the battle will go contrary to the aggregated result. Will the Arrows reappear in the shards where they lost if pirates won overall?
Of course, this works only with blockades generated by ¿Que Pasa?. It is not clear how the dynamic dynamicity of the 'verse would react if players banded together in half of the shards to block the same trade route. Would ¿Que Pasa? send Space Police to defend the route in each shard? Or only in the ones where the blockade happened? How would the results be aggregated?

It is all doable, of course. But it will be full of gamey tricks that are employed by other games.
 
Ouch...

Agree... my current pessimistic expectations based on nothing but my guts:

Early 2018 Squadron 42 release then 4.0
Worthy SC PU with decent amount of polished base mechanics and a few systems 2019 at this point persistence wipes will stop and this is considered to be release

Managing my expectations here so I can be happy when stuff happens faster :)

Yeah, ouch. No doubt they've performed some mental gymnastics since, to argue that of course those dates were missed because the scope has increased and what they're working on now will be so much better than it would have been 3 years ago.
 
¿Que Pasa? and ServerSmashing:

Given that we have shards with their own immediate state of the world, but at the same time we would like to be able set global prices, have inter-shard events happening etc., how could it work?

Imagine a blockade of a jump point generated by ¿Que Pasa? and performed by a group of pirate Arrows. Let's say 10 of them (more could 30k the server since large space battles are impossible). This blockade is presented in every shard and initially looks the same - a group of Arrows show up and start shooting at players. From then on, in each shard, the battle rages on differently. In some shards, player will destroy the Arrows. In others, they will run away, leaving the blockade behind.

How can diverging states of the shards be resolved? There are two methods.
  1. There is a global count of pirate Arrows replicated across shards. If an Arrow gets destroyed in one Shard, the event is propagated to other shards. This means, however, that in other shards a random (or the weakest) Arrow would explode seemingly without reason. Even funnier, in a shard where there is a single player observing the pirate group from a distance without engaging, they would watch the Arrows pop one after another, like balloons. Another side effect - free loot from popped Arrows, available across shards. Also, it would be enough for a battle to be won by players in a single shard to be won in all of them.
  2. The battle in each shard resolves to its own conclusion and the results are aggregated. The outcome is averaged over all player actions and battle results. This way we get a better representation of the event overall but we also have to worry about interesting questions. In some shards the result of the battle will go contrary to the aggregated result. Will the Arrows reappear in the shards where they lost if pirates won overall?
Of course, this works only with blockades generated by ¿Que Pasa?. It is not clear how the dynamic dynamicity of the 'verse would react if players banded together in half of the shards to block the same trade route. Would ¿Que Pasa? send Space Police to defend the route in each shard? Or only in the ones where the blockade happened? How would the results be aggregated?

It is all doable, of course. But it will be full of gamey tricks that are employed by other games.
How is that even a question? Who would bother with 1? What's the point of playing something when random crap just keeps happening and interfering with your experience. You can't blow up stuff in a player world at random just because some other dude in some other shard did something. It'd tell players that they have little control over their world. They give a crap about how much their actions matter in another "shard". This is how idiots design something.
It has to be 2 - find a reason why the single player isn't the Chosen One and all is well.
 
How is that even a question? Who would bother with 1? What's the point of playing something when random crap just keeps happening and interfering with your experience. You can't blow up stuff in a player world at random just because some other dude in some other shard did something. It'd tell players that they have little control over their world. They give a crap about how much their actions matter in another "shard". This is how idiots design something.
It has to be 2 - find a reason why the single player isn't the Chosen One and all is well.
I would also go for option two because it would better factor in overall player actions across shards. However, both options involve blowing / disappearing stuff randomly. If you are in a shard where the pirates won but overall they lost, they need to disappear somehow from all shards. And if you won in your shard and yet the pirates won overall, there is a disconnect between what happened in your shard and the state of the 'verse. You won, yet the blockade is still there?

Interesting.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Explain to me how a long term ED player (like Katie) can switch from a released game with solid and established gameplay to a game which is only carried by "hopes" ?

For the same reason a long term ED player (like me) does not switch to SC? Personal and anecdotal preferences. So your point is quite moot to be honest.

In my case instead of dramatic and clickbaity "switching" I actually prefer to play a number of space games, including ED, NMS, SW Squadrons, Everspace, Star Trek Bridge Crew etc all of them reasonably acclaimed and successful games.

But also, after thousands of hours played in a game, any game, there is really no need for a reason or justification to play something else. Not many games can accomplish such feat in our game libraries. So just normal and to be expected. Godspeed really.

But that is by the by. Either way "hopes" can be extremely powerful, especially if players have already paid in full (and then sunk in some more cost on top... nevermind those with a direct vested interest in the grey market or a new source of monetized youtube clicks) or if they come along with statements such as "never been done before", "saviour of PC gaming", promises of all kinds, bullshots including volumetric clouds, Dune worms or asking to "answer calls" showing a star studded CGI vid. Some people just believe them all for the most part and keep playing in the hope and faith one day it all comes to pass and prove their money was well spent. Others on the other hand realize that in fact there is no real meat behind those hopes after constant and repeated non deliveries on those promises. Again, very personal and anecdotal.
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
On the topic of failure, i've wondered, what would happen if CIG in the end said they couldn't do base building (for example). People with Pioneers and land claims would be rightly annoyed. Or perhaps its still on the plans in general, but still not delivered 10 or 20 years later?

CIG does not need to acknowledge that they can not do something. Kicking the can down the road is enough to maintain reasonable hopes and funding going. Chad MacKinney´s last tweet regarding server meshing and the global shard is but the latest example.
 
Back
Top Bottom