Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Theodrid

Theodrid
Ebob said:
My pleasure!
Click to expand...

I'll level with you Ebob, I got out a LONG time ago and am glad I did.

I mean you want outright lies? The QA guy who had done a complete playthrough of the non existent SQ42.
You want false advertising? The way non existent ships are continually sold with meaningless abilities and stats, land claims - I mean how far off are they if Salvaging and SQ42 aren't done?
You want bait and switch? See the kickstarter.

Again I could go on mate but in short I have an honour system and CIG fail it miserably.
 

FuriousMeow

F
They've said a lot and shown a lot, and it hasn't come to fruition in the game. That's not tinfoil hat. Punting it to the servers is just a poor excuse. I do understand a lot on the network side, I'm a network engineer. But claiming I don't understand it is a faithful defendian tactic.

The dramatic statements with the exclamation flair is a nice touch, definitely grounded in reality.
 

Ebob

E
Theodrid said:
I'll level with you Ebob, I got out a LONG time ago and am glad I did.

I mean you want outright lies? The QA guy who had done a complete playthrough of the non existent SQ42.
Click to expand...
He probaly wasn't lying. Squadron 42 existed in some kind of greybox back then so he technically did play through every mission. No specifics on the state of said missions.
Theodrid said:
You want false advertising? The way non existent ships are continually sold with meaningless abilities and stats, land claims - I mean how far off are they if Salvaging and SQ42 aren't done?
Click to expand...
What's false about it? They mark them as concepts, people are buying pictures and they know it. Landclaims - pretty far off but they did show off their work on a modular structure system which they did say is going to be in player's hands.
Theodrid said:
You want bait and switch? See the kickstarter.
Click to expand...
Everyone that didn't like that change was entitled to a refund.
 

Ebob

E
FuriousMeow said:
They've said a lot and shown a lot, and it hasn't come to fruition in the game. That's not tinfoil hat. Punting it to the servers is just a poor excuse. I do understand a lot on the network side, I'm a network engineer. But claiming I don't understand it is a faithful defendian tactic.
Click to expand...
Indulge me - if it's not the servers, what is it? Oddly enough - back when it was still possible to run SC in an offline mode the NPCs worked! Surely that automatically upgraded the engine to something better. When the network team themselves say that most bugs are attributed to poor server performance, what is it?
FuriousMeow said:
The dramatic statements with the exclamation flair is a nice touch, definitely grounded in reality.
Click to expand...
The reality is people are passionate about what they're working on and th thinking that it's all going to magically disappear is utter b*llocks.
 

Theodrid

Theodrid
Ebob said:
He probaly wasn't lying. Squadron 42 existed in some kind of greybox back then so he technically did play through every mission. No specifics on the state of said missions.

What's false about it? They mark them as concepts, people are buying pictures and they know it. Landclaims - pretty far off but they did show off their work on a modular structure system which they did say is going to be in player's hands.

Everyone that didn't like that change was entitled to a refund.
Click to expand...

Ebob come on, 'probably wasn't lying'? - I refuse to believe you are that naive mate I really do.

People are buying pictures Ebob but I put it to you that many of them bought and are buying them based on an assumption - quite justified - that said ships will be in the game at all let alone in a reasonable timescale. I put it to you that if you bought a ship in 2014 you would have been expecting to use it to its full potential in more than one star system by 2022 - even factoring in game development and it's associated delays and hurdles. And 'they say, they say' - I know Ebob that's another reason I got out, they say a lot and sadly do precious little.

And I'm sorry, you can sell dreams to people, believe it or not many of those opposed to CIG and their antics in this thread were drooling over some of the early art and game tech back in the day. Everyone was entitled to a refund mate you are right but CIG knew damn well a percentage of people were invested financially as well as emotionally at that stage. Now can you blame said backers a bit? - sure but CIG knew and continue to know exactly what they were and are doing and it's shady as hell.
 

FuriousMeow

F
It's an excuse, that's what it is. I'm not even sure, aside from the massive load the servers have to deal with just by CE's non-client/server networking design, why they can't have more than one "solar system" being tracked by the same server. Its not like the server is building out a solar system and is rendering anything, its doing the tracking of objects and communicating that to other clients but there's a lot to track and by looking at some debug information we've seen the servers are being tasked with too much to track. Just another example of why the engine can't do what they want and they're still struggling with it.

But, if they really had Pyro ready and really wanted to get it out there so they could show something new and focus on developing this hyper advanced server meshing they could setup dedicated hosts to different solar systems and it would just require a handshake between them to hand off player entities to one or the other. Of course there will be an initial network load as the client has to receive initial data of where objects are that aren't static or could be spawnable, but depending where the player pops into the next solar system and how the culling is, may not be too bad. That'd give the player base something actually new, and they could focus on the server meshing that will be surprising if they pull it off.

As far as anything that comes from CIG, excuses is the primary output of their development.
 

Ebob

E
Theodrid said:
Ebob come on, 'probably wasn't lying'? - I refuse to believe you are that naive mate I really do.
Click to expand...
Why would he lie? What would he get from that? Squadron wouldn't have released either way. He played through the missions, no matter their state.
Theodrid said:
People are buying pictures Ebob but I put it to you that many of them bought and are buying them based on an assumption - quite justified - that said ships will be in the game at all let alone in a reasonable timescale. I put it to you that if you bought a ship in 2014 you would have been expecting to use it to its full potential in more than one star system by 2022 - even factoring in game development and it's associated delays and hurdles.
Click to expand...
Yes. However, in 2014 these star systems were jpgs of planets with a loading screen and a tiny traversible landing area. And again, anyone who didnt like the subsequent scope change was entitled to a refund. Focus on ships? Focus on the game? Prioritize?
Theodrid said:
And I'm sorry, you can sell dreams to people, believe it or not many of those opposed to CIG and their antics in this thread were drooling over some of the early art and game tech back in the day. Everyone was entitled to a refund mate you are right but CIG knew damn well a percentage of people were invested financially as well as emotionally at that stage. Now can you blame said backers a bit? - sure but CIG knew and continue to know exactly what they were and are doing and it's shady as hell.
Click to expand...
And that's just how it is
 

Ebob

E
FuriousMeow said:
It's an excuse, that's what it is. I'm not even sure, aside from the massive load the servers have to deal with just by CE's non-client/server networking design, why they can't have more than one "solar system" being tracked by the same server. Its not like the server is building out a solar system and is rendering anything, its doing the tracking of objects and communicating that to other clients but there's a lot to track and by looking at some debug information we've seen the servers are being tasked with too much to track.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that's exactly why they need server meshing.
FuriousMeow said:
Just another example of why the engine can't do what they want and they're still struggling with it.

But, if they really had Pyro ready and really wanted to get it out there
Click to expand...
Pyro is not ready.
 

FuriousMeow

F
So instancing. Already do-able. Don't need some super magic hey zeus tech with a fancy name to make it sound complicated to build.

EDIT: And when I said server meshing won't fix that mess, I was referencing CE's client side networking. That needs to be redesigned for a client/server environment, but they are just taking what CE already had and trying to bend it to a client/server environment.
 
Last edited:

Theodrid

Theodrid
Ebob said:
Why would he lie? What would he get from that? Squadron wouldn't have released either way. He played through the missions, no matter their state.

Yes. However, in 2014 these star systems were jpgs of planets with a loading screen and a tiny traversible landing area. And again, anyone who didnt like the subsequent scope change was entitled to a refund. Focus on ships? Focus on the game? Prioritize?

And that's just how it is
Click to expand...

You honestly telling me you don't believe people back based on what representatives of the company say? - What did they get?, money, why? - that childlike excitement we get from games, 'If he's played it all........it's coming soon, I'm gonna get x, y or z' - it's a thing mate.

Their focus is highly questionable mate, 10 years, one system, no orbital mechanics and working on coffee vendors in the BDSSE - how does that compute with you in terms of 'focus'?

And again folk are much more reluctant to refund when

a) they are financially invested.
b) they are emotionally invested
c) hordes of white knights saying next year is the key since 2015
d) CIG claim Sq42 is nearly done several times.
e) CR saying 'this time next year backers will have everything they paid for and more'
f) The developer saying this, 'roadmaps cool, but then no, actually this roadmap is cool not the old one'. Then saying, 'sorry guys last roadmap was utter tripe, this is a real roadmap'. Then finally saying 'ok here's a real roadmap' before blowing up in everyone's face and yelling 'STOP MESSING UP OUR ROADMAPS, NO MORE FOR YOU NAUGHTY CHILDREN!'.
g) Selling more ships and promises based on the never never strategy.

Stuff like that prevents people from refunding Ebob, or changes their mind about doing so,


And 'that's just how it is' would cut it if this was Duke Nukum Forever or similar mate but while CIG continue their shady practices then there is always going to be an undercurrent of 'shade' to it. If it looks like a liar, acts like a liar and regularly lies then in my experience it's probably a liar you are looking at - and CIG have done so for a decade.
 

Ebob

E
Theodrid said:
You honestly telling me you don't believe people back based on what representatives of the company say? - What did they get?, money, why? - that childlike excitement we get from games, 'If he's played it all........it's coming soon, I'm gonna get x, y or z' - it's a thing mate.

Their focus is highly questionable mate, 10 years, one system, no orbital mechanics and working on coffee vendors in the BDSSE - how does that compute with you in terms of 'focus'?
Click to expand...
Take a look at the progress tracker for a better overview. Orbital mechanics were never part of the plan in the first place, this is a sci fi spacegame, not an astronomy sim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom