Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Xink

Xink
Once again, the 'ignore' feature of the forum is particularly helpful.

trolls.jpg
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
Catching up on the thread again...

LittleAnt said:
And some of you here are still incapable to talk about the strongest points of SC in a good light.
Click to expand...

There are several good things about Star Citizen. The first is graphics, the second is their mining system, and then there's... there's... graphics. ;) Seriously, aside from mining (which I'm not generally interested outside of survival games), there's not much SC has going for me at the moment. Trading is practically non-existent, the starting ships weren't suitable for box delivery missions, there's no plans for procedural generation of star systems which rules out the type of exploration I enjoy, "subsumtion AI" and "quantum" are no shows.

This wouldn't be so bad if CIG was traditionally funded: through private investment and actual sales of a released game. Private investment would ensure that there would be put a damper on Chris Roberts' continued mismanagement of this project, using the project's funds to indulge his fantasies of being a rockstar game developer and Hollywood director, and of course his family and friends' continued plundering of this project to enrich themselves.

This game continues to be crowd funded, however. This puts all of that under a far different light. In particular, the increasingly blatant funneling of funds into the coffers of the Roberts Clan.

Navigare Necesse Est said:
I doubt we'd be here so much if we were playing ED so much.
Click to expand...

I only read this particular thread when on break at work, at the health club, or otherwise away from home and have nothing more productive (and relatively low bandwidth) to occupy my time with. It's either this, or find a new platform to discuss politics and religion on, but that's even less productive than discussing SC, and is a lot less entertaining. ;)
 

thistle

T
LittleAnt said:
Because in SC, you will be able to run out of fuel just navigating inside the huge+less populated systems. Stanton is small and you need 20 minutes to go from one side of the system to the other. Some guess that it will be at least 40 to 60 min for Pyro.
The duration of travels inside one system in SC is similar to the duration of travel through several systems in ED. The rate of fuel consumption is also not the same in the 2 games. And fuel scoping will be only on the explorer ships and some specific ones. In ED, your manage your fuel on the galaxy scale, in SC your manage your fuel on the system scale.
Click to expand...
Oh my word.

Well seeing exploration is never going to be a thing in SC.
 

thistle

T
Cotic said:
The biggest complaint about Elite has always been about the travel times. Consider what that means for SC with the above statement in mind.
Click to expand...
And needing to rely on other players for virtually all refuelling in Pyro presumably, with it's supposed huge distances, in a game with only one ship that can do refuelling.

How many players will rent a ship that can refuel, "I'm going to be rich", and then give up to go shoot stuff instead. Of course the npc refuelling ships will fill the gap ... um ... ?
 

varonica

varonica
thistle said:
And needing to rely on other players for virtually all refuelling in Pyro presumably, with it's supposed huge distances, in a game with only one ship that can do refuelling.

How many players will rent a ship that can refuel, "I'm going to be rich", and then give up to go shoot stuff instead. Of course the npc refuelling ships will fill the gap ... um ... ?
Click to expand...

Let's also remember we are comparing an actual in game working refueling system with one that has only been demonstrated on video by CIG, if it turns out to be not as "fun" as the video, or to not work very well, or at all, you might find that no-one at all wants to partake in that activity.
 

thistle

T
Chris: we need another ship to sell.
Designer: medium fighter, punches above it's weight?
Chris: Do it! But something else as well.
Designer: Disco Barge?
Chris: Next.
Designer: Large slow refuelling ship that has to somehow travel huge distances for many hours to refuel other adrift players, with a fiddly twitch-based method of delivery that could render the entire journey a waste of time and money?
Chris. Love it.
 

dayrth

Volunteer Moderator
dayrth
LittleAnt said:
I think I need to point some important differences between Pyro and Stanton for you to understand what it means for refueling ships.
In a nutshell : Pyro is 3x larger than Stanton and have 24 x less refueling points and this point is pirate owned.

Pyro systemStanton system
Size : 17 AUSize : 5 AU
Planets : 6 - planets with refueling option uknown but should be 0Planets : 4 - planets with refueling option : 4
Space Stations with refueling option : 1 (pirate owned)Space Stations with refueling option : 20 (1 pirate owned)
Politic : civilizedPolitic : pirates

The Pyro system is a desolate, lifeless star system crippled by a prolonged nova phase. It is the home of pirate outpost Ruin Station. The system was first visited in 2493, forty-four years after the first traveller suspected something was there. Original Systems' Arena Commander Dying Star-map is located between Pyro I and Pyro II.[1] Pyro's sun went into a prolonged nova phase long before mankind reached for the stars and little is known of the original makeup of the system. Six burned-out planets remain, none of which are capable of supporting life. Every planet in the system is at some level of decay. Any improperly shielded spacecraft will sustain residual damage from Pyro's star while making transit through the system


Pyro.jpg


I do my homework, it was a genuine question because I haven't found the answer on the web...
Click to expand...
Remind me. How do I get to Pyro?
 

dayrth

Volunteer Moderator
dayrth
Viajero said:
You just wait. It has been almost 10 years for 450+ $million paid, what is 1 or 2 more years and 40-80 more $millions amiright?
Click to expand...
No no. It must exist now because Little any says:
Pyro is 3x larger than Stanton and have 24 x less refueling points and this point is pirate owned.

Then he goes on to quote:
The Pyro system is a desolate, lifeless star system...
It is the home of pirate outpost Ruin Station...
Every planet in the system is at some level of decay....

All present tense, right?
 

thistle

T
LittleAnt said:
Pyro systemStanton system
Size : 17 AUSize : 5 AU
Planets : 6 - planets with refueling option uknown but should be 0Planets : 4 - planets with refueling option : 4
Space Stations with refueling option : 1 (pirate owned)Space Stations with refueling option : 20 (1 pirate owned)
Politic : civilizedPolitic : pirates
Click to expand...
fyi, I think you got the politics of the two systems the wrong way round.
 

[VR] Merkir

[VR] Merkir
LittleAnt said:
I thought it was the thread about a fair, balanced and honest review of SC ? (ironic question)
Click to expand...

Ironically, and as much as you may not believe me, I've given an honest review of SC, as well as fair and balanced opinions - but only when I'm being serious. I fully admit I rarely take SC or this thread too seriously... naughty me :)

FWIW, here's my honest review of SC from last August. In fact I gave it 7/10... not too bad!

Game Discussions - Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

That I don't get. Why those experienced veterans weren't hired by CIG but Turbulent? Why are we in a place where project's salvation seems to come from a subsidiary contractor when the main entity brag about being 6-700 of people full of magic Germans, a uncompromisable Visionary that codes the...
forums.frontier.co.uk
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
dayrth said:
No no. It must exist now because Little any says:
Pyro is 3x larger than Stanton and have 24 x less refueling points and this point is pirate owned.

Then he goes on to quote:
The Pyro system is a desolate, lifeless star system...
It is the home of pirate outpost Ruin Station...
Every planet in the system is at some level of decay....

All present tense, right?
Click to expand...

That's just the usual future-as-present tense as pioneered by CIG. Never been done before!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom