I have plenty, so I'll certainly lend out vessels to those in my organization ... complete strangers? Likely not.
But since we're likely around a decade from such concerns, I'll not stress over it for now.
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
But since we're likely around a decade from such concerns, I'll not stress over it for now.
I have plenty, so I'll certainly lend out vessels to those in my organization ... complete strangers? Likely not.
But since we're likely around a decade from such concerns, I'll not stress over it for now.
add me in game, please!
you the good guy, right?
Last edited:
To be fair, this mess would be a vague distant souvenir years ago if there wasn't a heavy number of people to have thrown ten times this value or more.
ED exists thanks to people paying 60, 120€ on it.
SC keeps being a possibility thanks to people giving largely more.
You can't argue pinpointing at ED around subjects like costs, delays, undelivered features, travel times, bugs. That's ridiculous.
Last edited:
Star Citizen is the F-35 in terms of cost vs capabilities.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Those 2.7 m are not even actual different people but just created accounts. Estimates according to Turbulent statements suggest the number of actual people contributing with pledges is roughly half of that.
Last edited:
I had 2 accounts as well...my original one and my current one which used to be an alt account. When I refunded my original concierge account in early 2017, I gifted some ships and concepts to this one then refunded for what was left on the original...a substantial enough refund since I had sunk more into my first account than the one I use now.
I also have (like most concierge backers) one or two LTI tokens, $45- $65 ships or packages (not that I paid that for them) with said included LTI...one of which I gifted to a new alt account so I can play from scratch if I so wished...it's not that uncommon. Some folks have org accounts and another for non org play. My main account has Sqn 42 included, the alt one doesn't...I got the Sqn 42 download via a concierge package, not that I'm so interested in it of course...but it was included as part of the package.
I still have 4 Frontier accounts for Elite, two on the Xbox and 2 on PC... besides the lack of actual $ value in those accounts besides 3 payments for Horizons DLC, 3 base game purchases and various cosmetics like paint and ship kits on all of them, I can't see any difference.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That is fine, but please do not confuse that sentiment with a completely missplaced expectation for patrons to have to issue a balanced approach to positive and negative comments about SC for those critiques to be considered seriously. Or with a false need for being equally critical when it comes to different projects, such as Elite. Some projects and endeavours, of which SC is a main proponent, are vastly more deserving of critiques, mocking and finger pointing than others. In the case of SC orders of magnitude more. Suggesting SC should be spared of that treatment or treated as other more reasonable products is just plain wrong.
Last edited:
I would hardly suggest such a thing...considering I'm not known on here or anywhere else for being generous in my commentary about SC or Ci¬G in the first instance
Last edited:
Sorry can't agree here. If Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous does something reprehensible it's no more or less reprehensible because of the name attached to the action.
Last edited:
To be fair my dear Agony - multiaccounting/boxing is hardly something new to SC or the gamer playerbase in general.
I've lost count of how many accounts I've had over the years for Elite, LOTRO etc - how many were abandoned for various reasons. One thing commonly seen though - and it's lulzworthy - are some gamers multiaccounting to make it appear that their "clan" is far bigger and more impressive than it actually is - but that's getting into meta and playing players and all sorts of gumpf
Indeed, but its relevant in terms of how many actual people are backing the game.
This is why i blame you for everything.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Your "no more or no less" approach is a bit simplistic and unfair imo. Reprehensibility has degrees.
The harsheness and amount of criticism you can level to a company for a minor omission in their annual report balance sheet, can not be the same you would level at Enron accounting fraud. One is indeed much more reprehensible than the other and it would be quite unfair to treat them as peers with a "no more or less" approach.
And this has nothing to do with the name though. This has to do with expecting patrons to try to equate, or set as peer, criticisms for issues that are in reality orders of magnitude different. Which is still plain wrong. Comparing criticisms is not a binary issue as you suggest. Issues critiqued have often different scale and degree that have to be taken into account when discussed.
Last edited:
Obviously its too little....too late. Coming from people who endure a decade of ongoing development resulting in far less but somehow thats okay and "better"
'Heavy development' only started in 2017 now
Is "heavy" an established term in game development or what exactly does it mean? Whats the next tier then? Desperate?
But we are not having that discussion or do we?
I mean I can understand that some people would probably say "this cant be fun to me" but the critical distinction is immediately blurred out resulting in the misunderstanding you protrait. Its not even an item of discussion to be honest. There are and have been dozens of activities aka hobbies that entertain and provide fun to untold millions of people. I dont do those hobbies because for the most part I shake my head unable to understand whats "fun" about all that but to each his/her own.
"They are saying we cant have fun" is thus only a defensive tool in the ongoing SC argument. Objectively I have to accept such a statement as fact because I cant look into other peoples head and determine if what they say is true or not. But the "fun" statement doesnt really provide a lot of information about the game....its more of a self-describer really.
Sounds like it to me only that its not properly simulated but hacked like so many things in SC. Its not making much of a difference if the hacking is implemented well enough to provide a realistic illusion but yeah...that would require a good grasp of physics and coding I guess....
Oh you mean like the "I m having fun playing SC" arguments that keep popping up like its litany or some grand revelation? I can see how one of those is okay and the other annoying. But whenever somebody again brings up a made-up colorful story about his adventures in the verse describing in excrutiating detail how he made up things in his mind (because the actual game doesnt provide the experiences) its cherished while at the same time refreshing peoples memories about how the game is lacking or how the games history looks like its "we all know, dont bother us". I do read those "I remember my first step into Olisars corridors and my mind got blown away" and asking "what exactly" is doing that isnt supression. Simply because somebody invested decides to oversee glaring and often critical issues in order to "have fun" doesnt change the bottom line.
SC is a troubled project with a lot of issues.
Thats why its important to keep repeating the truth like litany. Because if you allow the zealots and biased people to run rampage chances are a lot more people will end up invested who didnt want that in the first place. And when it comes to feeling cheated a low prize tag doesnt comfort in the slightest. You could say "at least I didnt dump several thousand into this" but the 45 will burn just as much. Of course its a self-regulatng system. Even IF the zealots and biased people are being allowed to do as they want the result will simply be more disappointed people who were lured into the game under false pretenses. What follows is the bashing and swarming on those who dare to voice their disappointment with well established arguments like "you should have known...." and "thats active development for you" and similar nonsense. Surprisingly these things only ever come to light after somebody dumps in some money so I m thinking maybe its better to bring up those issues pre-emptively to avoid damages or conflict in the first place?
I m really not surprised that SC is known as a toxic community even to outsiders not affiliated with the project.
The thing about all those "annoying and tiresome" marbles of truth is....they are the truth. You can certainly opt to ignore them because you know all of that but why would you even try to forbid them? When a new face decides to join this forum and bring us all enlightment with yet another fantastic story I m not going to deny him that but if not crosschecked these things have the potential to go off the rails quickly and in the end......if Star Citizen is fun to an individual based on preference or other individual characteristics or not isnt the point of discussion (its rather WHY is SC is fun?) so why not use the ammunition provided to get back to the crux of the problem in all this?
Oh yeah, because apart from "fun" Star Citizen really hasnt anything positive going for it.....and thats only going to happen if you are an exceptional individual who combines all the right traits in order to allow enjoyment. Every game has this filter function because people come in many combinations. Its just that the filter for SC allowing enoyment is a lot longer then other games and also has some pretty severe quality markers in it that would also nicely explain the "toxic" reputation SC enjoys
A more "honest" comparison would be posting a story about one of your recent ED evenings where you do and point out stuff that are impossible to do in SC....see how that goes. Or maybe it does work? On the Spectrum such a post would be in the "off-topic" so maybe people ignore that section or are more pleasent to begin with? A quick check doesnt list any ED discussions or posts in it so why not give it a try and figure out if what you say really is true or not? FailureToRreport also thought he was part of this great community until he had a certain experience and it changed his perception permanently. He also didnt dig or tried to figure out that question, it was pushed onto him but I think in hindsight he is glad that it happened to him.
Is that of any relevance to the topic at hand? Or giving you any more credibility or weight in opinion? Obviously its of importance to you but I cant figure out why....
To be fair my dear Agony - multiaccounting/boxing is hardly something new to SC or the gamer playerbase in general.
I've lost count of how many accounts I've had over the years for Elite, LOTRO etc - how many were abandoned for various reasons. One thing commonly seen though - and it's lulzworthy - are some gamers multiaccounting to make it appear that their "clan" is far bigger and more impressive than it actually is - but that's getting into meta and playing players and all sorts of gumpf
Its not but in Star Citizen its universally denied or refused to accept. The 2.7 million backers are instead often proudly paraded as real individuals, a "force to be reckoned with" and similar stuff. Bloating reality and make it more impressive then it is. With all the hyperbole trying to describe SC as something fantastic its worth mentioning that Star Citizen boils its eggs with hot water same as everybody else. Somehow that simple truth already is a thorn in peoples side.
very true but some people will now say the F-35 is the most adcanced superiority fighter in the worlds history ^^
I glimpse something I like to call "veteran fatigue" where people well experienced with a game grow tired of certain things and refuse to accept them not because they dont exist but because they personally know how to avoid them or have to endure them for so long already. Oftentimes described issues are countered with "lol simply do this and that and its no problem". The problem is still there....just because you know how to avoid it alltogether doesnt make it go away. Star Citizen obviously is full of these things. Starting with the settings and installation routine all the way up into gameplay mechanics.
So all those "yeah yeah, lots of problems and issues but I personally dont think they matter so much you know" statements....how much value do they have exactly?
So acceptance becomes the course of action after realizing that you are powerless to change anything. And you do that most likely because you are invested. Already sunk so much money and time into this....can as well continue to have fun. Oh, lifts and stairs kill? I ll just use my jetpack, jump out of windows or avoid those places alltogether then. How is this going to improve the project? Issues that, if you have them; mark you as a newbie and people will laugh about you because a "real" player wont have that as if that somehow solves the issue. And if for any reason they happen to you, you immediately blame yourself as the reason "darn, shouldnt ve gone down those stairs.....my own fault" and not bring it up in the first place to avoid ridicule or in similar real world situations.....mark you as "weak".
Only by insisting and mentioning of issues and problems at hands will they stay a factor in decision making. Those conditions stay so does the mentioning and thats fair to me,
My personal involvement has been reduced to watching in order to determine if I am right with my opinion or not. I m not going to deny reality or refuse to accept change for that....IF there is any. Thats why I keep coming back and I also check back and read comments of people who have given up or come across like fanatics. So positive claims are being challenged...in order to determine how much value they have. The reason why positive SC posts usually gets shredded is not because of "hate" or this becoming an echochamber. Its because nothing fundamentally has changed in the project. The amount of patience or self-abuse individuals can muster to ignore all the issues is of no importance when it comes to discussing the pre-alpha. As I ve said often enough it says more about the individual then it does about SC.
As such I usually enjoy first time posts from new people as more refreshing because their view is not dilluted by years of propaganda and fatigue. Not all of those are expressing disappointment with SC but a large percentage does. The few examples where somebody claims he had no issues with installation and the game running rock solid for him at 60 fps for hours and the pre-alpha providing so much stuff to do....I m not going to say these are made-up simply because I dont like what they say but "intention because of involvement" is more likely to me then "intention because of hate". Also the direct counter would be all the prople reporting completely contradicting conditions and those are even more numerous by several levels of magnitude. They can be all correct in the end but by pure virtue one of those would be labeled "exception to the rule" rather then dismiss the larger percentage as "haters".
I too am a veteran in all this. I know exactly how the logical reaction to statement X looks like and often enough dont have to finish a discussion to its conclusion but can predict fairly accurately how it ll go. The times where I eagerly awaited someones reply in order to figure out some facts are long gone. Star Citizen is an old friend by now and like long distance pen pals I know a lot about it even tho I never met it in person.
Which remains a complete unknown and in all those years CIG has only admitted that the 2.7 million displayed are potentially far less after considering free-fly accounts, multiple accounts and whatnot but it never provided some hard information or corrections about the topic. And it works because too many people for my liking like to gloss over that little critical information and act like SC backers are legion.
To be fair, that weirdness at the end is clearly working as intended - the player did select "Broken Moon" after all!
I think expecting people to accept the $45 entry price for SC as equivalent to buying a standard game is expecting too much M.
There’s nothing wrong in pointing out just how fire-walled off from content the initial ships are, how difficult the game’s state can make progression, and how significant 'just upgrade one small step up' is in CIG’s marketing tactics.
That’s all E was doing there. And they’re not unreasonable points to raise.
…you should probably call your optometrist, or possibly seek some more advanced treatment, because you're hallucinating things.
This is patently untrue. You can't stop posting about it, especially about the one that is no relevance to the topic. You keep inserting it every chance you get no matter how little it adds to anything. It at times seems to be the only thing you ever want to talk about, but instead of having that discussions where it belongs, you keep dumping it here where it doesn't.
Not even. Note the wording: “how quickly the ship’s acceleration changes”. Inertia isn't a matter of acceleration changes — it's about changes in velocity. It's the ‘m’ in F=m•dv/dt. Not only doesn't Chris “I took physics at UMan” Roberts understand what inertia is — this was known ever since that video where Garriott tried to explain zero-g movement to him — he doesn't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.
What they're describing here is could have been variable thrust. By applying different levels of thrust to a given mass, you get different levels of acceleration. By having an upper limit to the available thrust, you get an upper limit to acceleration, which is a limit to how quickly the ship's velocity changes.
Could have been.
But isn't.
To get what they are literally saying, what they need to add is either fuel valve dynamics or throttle stiction, whereby there is a limit to how quickly you can change the amount of delivered thrust, no matter how much you jerk the throttle back and forth. The valves need time to open or close; the thrust needs time to build up as more propellant and/or fuel is gradually being let through; or maybe the throttle only moves so fast because it would be harmful otherwise. At least that's what they say initially. Then comes that last gem, which finally puts the nail in the coffin of it being anything remotely sensible: “now it’s a finite quantity that means thrusters do not respond immediately to changes in acceleration.” This quite clearly word salad written by someone whose only experience with physics is dropping a piece of toast and having it land on their left big toe. It is entirely backwards — acceleration would be a function of what the thrusters do, not the other way around. There's a reason why I have long since abandoned the more charitable position where it's only at the top that everyone at CI¬G is incompetent. Things like this convinces me fully that it applies to everyone. There cannot be a single ounce of engineering knowledge in the entire company — software or otherwise — for this blatant idiocy to come into existence.
Potentially, if we want to be exceedingly generous, what they might be describing here is part of the damage model: thrusters no longer immediately respond to changes in acceleration, and you now have to jerk the ship around a lot to have metal fatigue set in and for the thrusters to fall off from the constant abuse.
Multiple platforms is clearly not the same. Cosmetics are clearly not the same. One DLC in 6 years is clearly not the same.
Has it ever been possible to buy into all of Star Citizen for $18 US?
Having multiple accounts is exactly the same...whether it be on the Xbox, PC or anywhere else and for whatever title...and that was the issue that was under discussion, not whether you reckoned it was different or not.
The cost related to those multiple accounts seems to be your issue...as it seems to be with anything relating to Star Citizen. I'm quite content with what I've paid out for my multiple accounts in Elite since I'm a long term fan and supporter of the game...Besides the ridiculous amounts I've spent in Star Citizen....I'm still a supporter, albeit a rather permanently disgruntled one.
I don't have an alt account in SC for any other reason bar should I someday decide to sell all my ships from the main account and close it down....Elite is totally different...since I actually like the game. They're not in any danger of becoming unused no matter what
- Status