Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
As a data person, what do you make of salvage having been originally scheduled for 3.2 [approx Q2 2017], now having been pushed from 4.0 [Q2 2020]
?
The comments are balanced against what they're responding to. The amount of increasingly ignorant PR nonsense that gets spewed into these threads is therefore met with increasingly harsh put-downs. It's not spiteful — it's just not coddling to the fantastical illusions emanating from la-la land. I do not suffer liars gladly.
You used to post reasonably balanced comments at one point but have now gone over to increasingly defend nonsense that you would have ridiculed to no end before.
I might grant you that my tone towards CI¬G has become harsher but that's because they have become increasingly disgusting and because over time, the devs have lost their previous shield of “it's just Chris being his quarter-century old self but the actual devs are good” when they are just as happy to go out and drive the same ignorant, incompetent, and outright obscurantist message he is.
No. That's about the threshold when it is no longer commercially viable to keep the servers running for a no-maintenance online game. Lower numbers might be acceptable if the servers are player-run or if the online component is just a very small proportion of the number of players — possibly in the olden days when numbers were much lower in general and the server costs had long since been amortised over years and years of long-tail activity.
The roadmap is down not sure where you got that from? Link takes me to this: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/maintenance/maintenance.html
I do want salvage, however refueling is more of a priority. Hope they get their stuff together on that department and release another profession in 2020.
I think that's a lot for an Alpha with lack of long-term persistence. Pretty sure the numbers will increase because the potential is there. People don't commit due to the loss of progress and overall Alpha experience with bugs hurting progress.
It's kind of sad to see so much negative passion around the game. It's interesting to observe because so many people want to see the thing go down and each year it doesn't. Glad they are working towards what they believe in. Meeting several devs at CitCon really increased my confidence in the passion that they have. Haters gonna hate, developers are going to develop.
Armchair devs are going to criticize from afar with a lack of knowledge while real one's are actually working accomplishing stuff.
Last edited:
It's an abysmally low amount for a game that has already reached the majority of its niche audience.
You're hallucinating again.
The reason there's a lot of negativity surrounding the game is because actual developers can look at the thing and see how little they accomplish while slathering on thicker and thicker layers of self-indulgent bluster and swagger.
Last edited:
That's what the subreddit is reporting, between Spectrum outages. If you weren't just love-bombing the thread with positive spins on everything you might have noticed
So yeah, looking like it's going to be over 3 years late. Statistically significant, or wild anomaly would you say?
Ah ok, so as your modest wishlist for professions in 2019 gets pushed further into the future (from 2017), your response is just to skip to the next thing on the list? And hope it comes in 2020?
Interesting.
Live and let live is a hard concept for some it seems. Recommend meeting some of these devs and actually chatting with them. It's really easy to throw punches on a forum about people you don't know. CI devs are pretty open to criticism and discussion too. CR even answered my Derek questions.
At the end of the day these are people just like you and me. They are working really hard towards something that hasn't been done at this capacity and this way. Doesn't mean you have to support them but hating something that doesn't hurt you and so many other people are passionate about and enjoying doesn't seem like a good lifestyle choice. Especially when it is just a game. An entertainment product.
That's what the subreddit is reporting, between Spectrum outages. If you weren't just love-bombing the thread with positive spins on everything you might have noticed
So yeah, looking like it's going to be over 3 years late. Statistically significant, or wild anomaly would you say?
Ah ok, so as your modest wishlist for professions in 2019 gets pushed further into the future (from 2017), your response is just to skip to the next thing on the list? And hope it comes in 2020?
Interesting.
Positive spins? I guess you are not reading my posts. The issue is this spot is a little too far on the negative side. It's just like the white knights of SC but the opposite. The dark knights?
The roadmap was down. It's up again. I think fuel is much more necessary for the existing gameplay than salvage. Ships constantly run out and players being able to refuel each other would connect everyone and the economy better. Their prioritization changed and they stopped adding new professions and focused on other things.
Official info from CI:
Source: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...3/thread/roadmap-roundup-december-20th-2019-1
I didn't get what I wanted. Should I cry over all the internet forums like baby? I raise these concerns through the proper channels to CI and wait to see what they do. The best you can do is give direct feedback to Cloud Imperium.
I didn't know they would add caves, FPS mining, renting, weapon attachments, mining heads, melee combat, the law system, quantum enforcement. These changes happened and they were positive. Yes I didn't get what I wanted but the game got other stuff throughout the year.
Last edited:
I've met plenty of devs on conventions. You need to realise that they're there to sell the game to you, even if and when it seems like they're open to criticism and discussion.
And you need to realise that this is not an argument in their favour…
By the way, I'd still like your answer to my question.
Well there are no alternatives to Star Citizen that I can find. I would be curious to see some examples that have the visual quality and the combination of first person and space sim.
Did you attend CI events? Interesting. Can you share some of your experiences in this case?
None of the devs at CitCon felt like they were selling anything. Nor at the 2015 Gamescom event. They actually talked about the challenges of their work and wanted feedback on implementations.
Which question?
CoD:IW is probably the best-case scenario SC could hope to achieve in all three aspects.
That's what a good sales pitch feels like.
Here.
For my sins, I am. (That 2019 prediction will always remain a classic example of absurd oversell, for what it's worth
) Love-bombing this thread on the game's behalf, as you agree you're doing, doesn't actually work if some of the criticism you're trying to smother is legit though. It just becomes annoying and counter-productive.
Yeah it's not about delayed gratification. It's about asking why.
Why are all these proposed space professions mainly neglected in favour of ground activities? Why are the vast majority of the gameplay mechanics associated with pre-sold ships not making it into the game? Why are they still merrily introducing new ones despite this (either as 'straight to play' mid tier ships, or the more complex 'down the road' big ticket ships like the Kraken and Nautilus).
There are some kinda obvious answers: Because the ground stuff is easier and the promised stuff is difficult. And because they need to keep promising more difficult-to-do stuff, because that is their revenue stream.
People who are interested in game dev might ponder how such a scenario could affect dev output over the long term...
Nah there's one other thing you can do. You can stop 'spreading the good word' of this project, its inevitable arrival at its promised land, and the perfectly normal nature of its dev. Because the evidence suggests that each aspect of that tripartite of beliefs has some serious issues with it.
Last edited:
CoD:IW is not a space sim. SC is. Wow if that is what you are going for... It's not even in the same ball park. It also shows that you have completely missed the point of SC or might not have played it in a while? SC is unique because it combines many aspects other games don't.
Look at the top space games. NMS, Eve Online, Elite, X4. Which one has the combination of; detailed ship interiors, EVA, space legs, exporable proc gen planets and moons, first-person combat, dogfighting and AAA visuals? None.
That is the sole reason why SC is pulling so much money and has so much attention. It's also why I am still interested to see where it goes. I played all these games. NMS for a few months, Eve Online for two years, Elite for three months, X4 for a month. Each of them has great things. Eve has an excellent dynamic online economy while X4 has it offline with lots of NPC management. Elite has solid exploration. NMS has a cool artstyle and lots of cool craftables.
But nothing is like Star Citizen. That's why people like Mole, Bognogus, me and millions of others are passionate about it. The experience it delivers is something we can't have in any other game. It doesn't mean SC is better or worse. It's just different. It aspires to be better and works towards it, that's all I can expect.
--
Answer:
Generally how we use refactoring is tied to our development cycle. We are very prototype driven. After discussions on design we sit down and code a basic version of a feature. It's pretty rough but works. We get feedback and do several passes of iteration until we are satisfied. We then go back and review. That is when we refactor and improve the developed code so it functions better, is more readable thus allowing for faster edits and more efficient additions in the future.
It serves the same function but runs better without changing the outlines of the feature itself. CI is doing a lot of it too. They also do a lot of reworks.
For my sins, I am. (That 2019 prediction will always remain a classic example of absurd oversell, for what it's worth
Love-bombing this thread on the game's behalf, as you agree you're doing, doesn't actually work if some of the criticism you're trying to smother is legit though. It just becomes annoying and counter-productive.
Yeah it's not about delayed gratification. It's about asking why.
I never meant to sell anything to anyone. For the past years I keep telling people to do research before getting Star Citizen. That is an Alpha with it's set of issues. It seems like you are really misunderstanding my position and attitude.
I think these are fair questions. Some community members have put it forward as well. Planetside has gotten more focus than anything in the last two years. Yea, there are many issues the funding model causes that hurt the game. CI makes money on big ships but releases them way later.
This part I don't understand. Actually sharing news, gameplay and progress about the game is spreading good word? So what is one supposed to do when good things happen? Not talk? It's kind of odd to expect a narrative.
You talk both the good and bad. Not just the bad. I always mention things I don't like about SC. But I also talk about the stuff I appreciate.
It's not normal nature gamedev at all. Because it's not a normal game to develop. It's exactly why EVE has no ship interiors, Elite no space legs, X4 no FPS. Nobody tried to do all at once. Because it's insanely difficult. SC still hasn't achieved a quarter of it but the fact that it marches on. Ambitious and with increased funding even though the methods be controversial is a crazy story of its own.
Neither is SC at this point. But it is what they can hope to achieve should CI¬G ever manage to cobble together a game worthy of release. In fact, it is pretty much exactly what they were (and still are) going for with the initial pitch…
What they have instead is solid gameplay, massively complex and layered systems built upon intricate game mechanics, giving rise to completely player-guided macro-level dynamics and emergent gameplay. They also have pretty much all of those features, except they work and are integrated into a coherent whole, and in many cases they have deliberately chosen not to include the missing aspect(s) because they simply do not integrate well or serve any useful purpose.
Ok. So you understand why CI¬G consistently uses the term incorrectly, and why what they label as refactoring isn't actually progress? You understand that the whole preamble before those two lines had nothing to do with the question?
That's not actually true, though. They tried it. It was dropped, not because it was difficult but because it turned out not to be conducive to good gameplay. CI¬G has a long history of not learning from history. Or being aware of it.
Last edited:
That's just you misrepresenting people's attitudes to make it seem like SC is some sort of unfairly maligned ($300m) underdog. In fact a lot of people who are critical of SC, especially those of us who backed it, would love to see it turn out to be a great game. And each year it doesn't.
Pointless semantic pedantry. They're both video games that are, by their very nature, simulations, and both set in "space". If you want to lean on the definition of "sim" to make your point, then you'd end up having to concede that, in the full range of simulation software, SC is much closer to CoD's arcade experience than it is to a proper flight sim.
Besides, if SC is not in the CoD ball park, then Squadron 42 would be bang in the middle of it.
They're clearly not "proc gen" planets. And the "AAA" visuals are limited entirely to planet surfaces. But as usual it's another example of SC only being defensible if the criteria are limited to precisely what SC consists of and nothing else.
My dear Mr. Nowak - that still isn't a refactor. The end result of the code is always the same, but the refactored codepath can vary greatly to make things more use of, well, whatever "efficiency" you are hoping to achieve. You could step any of these.
1+1+1+1=4
2*2=4
All these get you the same result, and in the old days where certain instructions were more costly (either in execution time or storage) the most "efficient" appearing multiplication could take eight times as long as the much longer simple addition. Things even got to the point where hardware designers started hardwiring registers at fixed known values to help the software peeps speed things along by using the fastest calls possible.
At CI-G though, it's more a case of
1+1+1+1= still no game but give us more money anyway.
Funny to see 4+ years experienced Elite players come to SC and call it a solid space sim with a good flight model and some people on the Elite forum say it isn't. I think if you say SC isn't a space sim while the rest of the internet and gamers clearly define it as such shows that you have different intentions. Let's just agree to disagree.
Fair points and I agree. Coherence is very important. The point above shows the potential of SC. It actively works towards the strengths of these games while having the technical capability and gameplay experience of cross-genre gameplay in now. That is why it's unique. Tony Z is working towards the Eve like simulation. But is Elite working towards space legs? Is Eve working towards procedural generation? is NMS working towards server meshing?
See my point?
Hilarious, in fact.
[citation needed]
You're also massively misrepresenting what I said here.
Potential is not reality. If we're going to talk about potential, then guess what? All the games you mentioned have — at worst — the same potential, and almost all of them have vastly vastly more because they are made from infinitely more solid and proven foundations. They have already achieved things that CI¬G can't even dream of ever accomplishing.
I don't follow NMS closely enough to tell, other than to say that there's no reason for them to. It would serve no purpose so I sure hope they aren't. But for the other two, absolutely yes. Hell, EVE isn't even working towards it — it is already based on procedural generation. It was procedurally generated TWO DECADES ago. It was re-generated one decade ago to add in more detail.
Also…
No. He really isn't. He's working towards Cities: Skylines-like “simulation”. They are two very different beasts. But more troubling than that is that he's working on — and has been working on for a couple of years — what is a long-since solved problem. The fact that they have explicitly said that they are not trying to replicate how EVE works is the one of the few things that initially made it sound feasible, but the time they've needed to go for the solution they picked instead has over time raised the spectre that maybe this wasn't actually feasible for them either…
Last edited:
Excuse me. But compared to many other spots online. This spot has been specifically negative and it has sadly become a tradition that led many people away from the thread. Well good point but don't you think that for example compared to 3.1 that 3.4 was more of a game? Or 3.7? Don't you think there is progress and an increase of interest both in funding and viewers across the board?
I think the game is maturing as the years go by. I get way less crashes. Fewer critical bugs. More things get fleshed out. Not at the ideal pace but there is progression.
I don't agree. SC has a complex flight system. If you say it's arcade than that shows your bias and the fact that you didn't really research the flight system. I talked to several physics people and some that even worked on a fully flight based space game Starfighter Inc about it.
Squadron 42 could be considered close to CoD:IW for sure in some aspects. And I agree SQ42 would be lucky if they hit the numbers COD:IW did.
Nobody said the core game is very detailed. It's a bit superficial right now. That is why I play twice every quarterly patch. But you know a lot of people also say Elite is wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. So what you can get out of a game varies from person to person. To me personally Elite has a much more refined core gameplay. However it doesn't feel like an MP game and being restricted to my cockpit while perfectly fine as a design choice feels old to me now.
Citation required.
The videos of people traveling through planets and exploding agree with you.
- Status