That wasn't even the discussion.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Anything that adds beyond what was previously scoped is indeed scope creep. Even the addition of a previously unannounced ship or vehicle is scope creep as it adds work, and i'm pretty sure CIG have done a few of those in the last few years as well.
You might correct me here, but the Kraken wasn't part of the scope prior to its unveiling, although i guess CR at some point talked about carrier ships.
That is true, however, the class of ship carriers has been a thing since the kickstarter unveiled the bengal so it's not really scope creep to have a player owned bengal like carrier. If you put it like that then every single modern space game suffers from scope creep: Ship Launched Fighters in ED, Fleet Carriers and so on.
The difference is, ED was a complete enough game at that point and released. SC is not a complete game, or launched- so all this new stuff is being added to a game thats still in pre production.
It is though. Can't you follow your own discussion or something?
You want evidence of scope creep and if people cannot provide anything you'll take it as evidence they must be wrong about other things as well. People are well aware of how you whiteknights like to operate.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Sorry, I am a bit lost, are you really trying to argue that there has not been any scope creep in SC?
True, now we get into the severity of scope creep. How severe is it, if the ship team works on a new ship as they would do anyway as it's their job, in terms of scope creep. Well, unless that ship specifically adds more gameplay for example mines, which some tech is already in the PU. I don't think that's too bad.
Well then why go on? Give me some more examples!
The problem is, you need to establish a 'core' to balance around. SC has no real core thats solid enough to balance things with because new ships keep on being added.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Well, not sure when you joined in SC but essentially anything announced after the original Kickstarter is scope creep.
Seeing as you seem incapable of reading even simple posts, let alone discussing them in an intellectually honest fashion, I shall not be aiding you in this incredibly difficult game of spot the scope creep.
Perhaps you will spot it at some point amongst the ubiquitous examples spread across the years of 2012 to 2019. Possibly in the 2 years + of stretch goals? Maybe in the numerous stark examples amongst 156 ships sold over the intervening years, with launch-touted features such as a particle accelerator module which overclocks ship components, or the ability to build bases for the princely sum of $850? Maybe at some point you will even remember the 2016 era pivot to a new miracle networking technique which we have spent the last 50 pages discussing?
It seems unlikely though. You will probably just fart out a meme.
Good point, you could say it like that.
Here's where you're wrong: This is not scope creep! This is feature creep!
Technically its both- added features like ships plus the scope of the game being expanded (such as land plots).
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Well, it is not just saying it like that. It is that. The more CIG has added to the scope since Kickstarter the more difficult the task has become ahead of them.
Is somewhat telling that no one can answer this.
Because you act in bad faith by not reading the answers, or the previous existing mega-threads here were we abundantly discussed all of these features that popped in with no reason and were not asked for. Like the AI bartender, hunger and thirst mechanics, public transportation with wait times, that ToW game, ships with new game mechanics while other ships havent got their implemented, most things announced at every CitizenCon, etc. etc. etc. the list is really long, and would be tedious to compile, would that effort be worth our time, i doubt so since you dont care about the answer anyway.