Love these as a data person.
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.Perhaps spoiler tags for the obnoxious replies too?
You used to post some reasonably balanced comments at one point, most of them worthy of rep or discussion...now they seem to have degenerated into mostly spiteful nonsense more appropriate elsewhere.
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.1300 players per hour? Isn't that a lot
The roadmap is down not sure where you got that from? Link takes me to this: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/maintenance/maintenance.htmlAs 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]
?
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.
It's an abysmally low amount for a game that has already reached the majority of its niche audience.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.
You're hallucinating again.It's interesting to observe because so many people want to see the thing go down and each year it doesn't. […]. Haters gonna hate, developers are going to develop.
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.
It's an abysmally low amount for a game that has already reached the majority of its niche audience.
You're hallucinating again.
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.
Salvage v1
The Salvage card has been temporarily removed from the Roadmap while discussions continue about where it's most likely to land. Mining improvements and other tasks related to Alpha 3.8 took priority over recent Salvage work. Additionally, we've made the decision to have the team scheduled to work on Salvage shift focus to a number of features that will greatly benefit Squadron 42. We aim to have more information in the new year.
Drake Vulture
The Vulture has been temporarily removed from the roadmap while the above mentioned Salvage v1 discussions continue. We aim to have more information in the new year.
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.Recommend meeting some of these devs and actually chatting with them.
And you need to realise that this is not an argument in their favour…They are working really hard towards something that hasn't been done at this capacity and this way.
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.
CoD:IW is probably the best-case scenario SC could hope to achieve in all three aspects.I would be curious to see some examples that have the visual quality and the combination of first person and space sim.
That's what a good sales pitch feels like.None of the devs at CitCon felt like they were selling anything.
Here.Which question?
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?
Their prioritization changed and they stopped adding new professions and focused on other things. I didn't get what I wanted.
The best you can do is give direct feedback to Cloud Imperium.
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.
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…CoD:IW is not a space sim.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
so many people want to see the thing go down and each year it doesn't.
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.
detailed ship interiors, EVA, space legs, exporable proc gen planets and moons, first-person combat, dogfighting and AAA visuals? None.
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.
Neither is SC at this point.
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.
Hilarious, in fact.Funny to see 4+ years experienced Elite players come to SC and call it a solid space sim
[citation needed]I think if you say SC isn't a space sim while the rest of the internet and gamers clearly define it as such
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.The point above shows the potential of SC.
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.But is Elite working towards space legs? Is Eve working towards procedural generation? is NMS working towards server meshing?
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…Tony Z is working towards the Eve like simulation
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.
Citation required.Funny to see 4+ years experienced Elite players come to SC and call it a solid space sim with a good flight model
SC has a complex flight system