Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

thistle

T
Interesting though, the variety streamers SC is attracting (briefly) to play, they all have something in common. Deadlyslob and Pepp, as well as the big hitters like Summit.

FPS military games, mostly. Tarkov, Dayz, the new Cycle: Frontier game (space Tarkov).

Tells you why they are briefly checking out SC, no? And then leaving.
 

thistle

T
Another FPS streamer, Sacriel, was pestered in his chat a while back by SC fans wanting him to try it, oddly enough the SC fans were posting insults about Odyssey, asking if Sacriel had heard of the PR disaster they claimed it had become. He hadn't a clue, although did know who Frontier and ED were, but wasn't interested. When asked if he would play SC he said something along the lines of no, it's not in a state to play.

These guys are big earners with huge audiences, and they - unlike small streamers who rely on their niche game audience - do not damage their business by playing broken tech demos and risk alienating their subscribers.

But, you know, Summit played SC! Yay! I guess.
 

fzfq3m

F
Agony_Aunt said:
Some debate over the possibility of losing subscription/pledged items

robertsspaceindustries.com

Pledge Armor and Guns - new plan to sort of return items sounds sort of bad - Star Citizen Spectrum

If I understood the show today, the new idea is that we will no longer have a planned store to re-buy lost concierge, subscriber, or RSI-site-bought guns and armor. We can instead ask the cops to...
robertsspaceindustries.com robertsspaceindustries.com

robertsspaceindustries.com

Consolidated thread for supporters of permanent item loss. - Star Citizen Spectrum

Greetings, While it is true that we are backing CR's/CIG's vision of the game, it's also fair to say that player feedback has helped to guide certain gameplay decisions made over the years. With...
robertsspaceindustries.com robertsspaceindustries.com

Come on CIG, stick to your guns! The salt must flow!
Click to expand...
“permanent item loss for a simple, visceral reason. A game that can induce a sense of fear, stress, or anxiety is a rare thing these days, and those emotions can make your accomplishments feel all the more rewarding once you've completed your goals.”

What????? a whole genre exist with that kind of gameplay

sounds like this person should be playing horror survival games instead of SC
 

Firkrayt

Firkrayt
fzfq3m said:
A game that can induce a sense of fear, stress, or anxiety is a rare thing these days
Click to expand...
What?????
Click to expand...

1634997613207.png
 

Mole HD

Mole HD
amigacooke {macOS} said:
Isn't that part of the problem, temporary fixes taking development resource out of solving permanent problems, to stabilise an alpha?
Click to expand...
Not this one...it was hacked in by Chad McKinney, apparently on request from CR 🤭

As for fixes taking dev resources away from development...and considering the new server meshing is being done over in Montreal by Turbulent...this one was much needed and very welcome. The 30k errors have become a Star Citizen meme...they're still a complete pain...but at least now it'll be rare if you lose your stuff due to them. That's a win in my book :)
 
Last edited:

cigwatch

cigwatch
fzfq3m said:
“permanent item loss for a simple, visceral reason. A game that can induce a sense of fear, stress, or anxiety is a rare thing these days, and those emotions can make your accomplishments feel all the more rewarding once you've completed your goals.”

What????? a whole genre exist with that kind of gameplay

sounds like this person should be playing horror survival games instead of SC
Click to expand...
Most people making claims like this seem not to be playing any other games or are stuck in late '90s.
 

cigwatch

cigwatch
Serve Smashing and large battles.

For small ships and infantry on the ground, this could work similarly to Planetside 2, where everybody only sees (and can hit) a subset of other characters in the vicinity, while some weapons with area damage, like rockets, damage all. This has two side effects, though - first, you can get damaged by a grenade you have not seen. Second, objects should be persistent across an entire shard. So if during a battle someone drops an item, it should be visible to all players. If it gets picked up by a player "invisible" to the one who dropped it, what happens? The object starts floating around? Disappears in that other player's inventory until that player dies? But then that other player should be lootable by the original owner after dying. Unfortunately, he is invisible to him. :-(

For large ships, I have no idea how it is supposed to work. I could not come up with any scenario in which a large ship with, say, 80 players could enter an already large battle. I even tried to think of the ship having its dedicated server bubble, but it would not work. I think @WotGTheAgent was right with the leak about the mess with capital ships.
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
cigwatch said:
For large ships, I have no idea how it is supposed to work. I could not come up with any scenario in which a large ship with, say, 80 players could enter an already large battle. I even tried to think of the ship having its dedicated server bubble, but it would not work. I think @WotGTheAgent was right with the leak about the mess with capital ships.
Click to expand...

Well the old plan was to, um, split the ship into 8ths?

In your 50 vs 50 scenario it's likely that the battle will break up into smaller groups of, say, 10 vs 10. Even if all those smaller groups are in close physical proximity, you only really care about avoiding desyncs with the players you are currently engaged with. When we can't co-locate interacting players on the same server, we'll fudge it with typical networking smoke-and-mirrors. That shouldn't really be any worse than players interacting in a peer-to-per game.
Click to expand...
 

cigwatch

cigwatch
VR Golgot said:
In your 50 vs 50 scenario it's likely that the battle will break up into smaller groups of, say, 10 vs 10. Even if all those smaller groups are in close physical proximity, you only really care about avoiding desyncs with the players you are currently engaged with. When we can't co-locate interacting players on the same server, we'll fudge it with typical networking smoke-and-mirrors. That shouldn't really be any worse than players interacting in a peer-to-per game.
Click to expand...
"Typical networking smoke-and-mirrors" is nothing more than handwavium. They didn't know what "typical" was, they are rediscovering it now. Also, you are interested in desyncs with all players being in range. How would they even recognise "engagement" in a large, dense battle? Everyone is potentially shooting at everyone else, and every ship can collide with any other. This is even more the case when weapons with area damage are in play. Remember the bombs and potential chain reactions?
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
cigwatch said:
"Typical networking smoke-and-mirrors" is nothing more than handwavium. They didn't know what "typical" was, they are rediscovering it now. Also, you are interested in desyncs with all players being in range. How would they even recognise "engagement" in a large, dense battle? Everyone is potentially shooting at everyone else, and every ship can collide with any other. This is even more the case when weapons with area damage are in play. Remember the bombs and potential chain reactions?
Click to expand...

Yeah this is one of my layman's doubts about these claims of quick dynamic server boundaries. Sure narrowing server support down to 20 odd players makes it sound viable. But there are so many cases where an action by player Number 20+ will make them part of that chosen grouping (and then what do you do?), or where player 1 leaves the grouping by focusing on a new target outside the server (so by what metric do you decide whether they are still engaged and of relevance etc). It would require insanely fluid handovers between the servers. (And that's without mentioning specific challenges like shots fired between servers etc).

The more you try and zone in on a smaller group of players, the more finely you're sub-dividing the area, and the more chance of combat encounters traversing those server 'boundaries' etc.

Add in stuff like big AoE weapons (say... giant bombs, mine fields etc), and giant ships, and it all sounds... unlikely, shall we say ;)
 

Mole HD

Mole HD
VR Golgot said:
Yeah this is one of my layman's doubts about these claims of quick dynamic server boundaries. Sure narrowing server support down to 20 odd players makes it sound viable. But there are so many cases where an action by player Number 20+ will make them part of that chosen grouping (and then what do you do?), or where player 1 leaves the grouping by focusing on a new target outside the server (so by what metric do you decide whether they are still engaged and of relevance etc). It would require insanely fluid handovers between the servers. (And that's without mentioning specific challenges like shots fired between servers etc).

The more you try and zone in on a smaller group of players, the more finely you're sub-dividing the area, and the more chance of combat encounters traversing those server 'boundaries' etc.

Add in stuff like big AoE weapons (say... giant bombs, mine fields etc), and giant ships, and it all sounds... unlikely, shall we say ;)
Click to expand...
Let's face it...we're never having giant fleet battles. Most of us don't care, the Eve with cockpits idiots are the only ones that want that kind of multiplayer silliness :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom