Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Agony_Aunt]

There was PvP servers and PvE servers. I picked PvE. In there you had PvP zones and could flag for PvP in the world, except for safe havens. I witnessed a couple of group PvP "events" where I hopped in for some casul fun even. The number of PvP servers declined over time.
There also were game modes for PvP arena battles and a module where you could fly around in starfighters vs players.

Right, so like i said, games which implement different servers or have PvP flags are a bit different as they separate it out.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yeah, so optional. PvP only zones and gear that are completely ignored by PvE players, nor can be used in PvE. Optional PvP flag for fighting anywhere else that PvE players never enable and can't be griefed.

Well, it was a PvE server for a reason. Why would players have to be forced into PvP on a PvE server?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Right, so like i said, games which implement different servers or have PvP flags are a bit different as they separate it out.

Which is a reasonable thing to do if you market to both groups. You better have the gameplay for both groups too then. Hybrids don't work out well. You want players to have fun.

 

[Intrepid3D]

Oh come on, let's use the right words. They removed Delemar. There is no Nyx system in game to place it in.

Now, on some development branch they might have moved it, but we don't know that, and its irrelevant if they did, because we don't know they did that (and if you believe anything CIG say, i've got a bridge to sell you).

I don't share your attitude that "Everything CIG say is a lie" They said they moved it to Nyx, so they moved it to Nyx, I think despite Chris the developers are trying and they will keep trying, i don't think they are all "in on a scam" What an attitude to have about a whole bunch of people.

 

[MTBFritz]

Lord you are deep in the hole. Wonder if it's the nigh $400 you've seemingly spent that makes you so?

I can tell you that if I spent 400 bucks on a video game I would be a rabid fanboy but thats me, appearantly I m a stickler for money expecting too much for 60 bucks and 50 dollars have a higher value than 5 minutes of fun to me.....shrug. Even games I play(ed) for thousands of hours represent only the base investment for the most part (exception to the rule...:European Truck simulator2). These games I still game and rever for their qualities but I dont feel like I need to defend them against criticism when most people who dont like them do it on the base of their taste and not the games quality.

I understand that some people find Star Citizen fun. Its a product with a very low quality bar tho, highly overpriced and overhyped and apart from the "it just works for me" narrative doesnt really offer anything from a video game perspective. Arguing as if it does is dishonest or shows an underlying agenda which makes me wonder why I bother to engage in the first place?

Thanks for the sources. Was worried for a moment that Intrepid would declare i was making it up because he hasn't heard of it.

Taking his SC knowledge and posts so far he doesnt have a problem believing unvalidated claims and statements so....

Congratulations to 3.13 for being at least three weeks late today.

LOL thanks I missed it and this really sits in my craw (or would....if I would be invested waiting for this game to become a reality). This is another good example of the debate and issue going on in Star Citizen. Being late for 3 weeks (or 3 months or 3 years, take your pick, its CiG so all of these are valid) is a serious problem. Not really for the individual private person who continues to go to work, go to sleep, wake up and fill his/here freetime with things he/she can enjoy. But definitely for the company who has to pay for every single hour.

Every single one of us would wave away slight delays (wife telling me shes ready for dinner in 5 minutes) but would perk up if its consistent or costly. Star Citizens delays are mostly paid in frustration rather than actual money (counts for all the people who claim to NOT constantly throw money at CiG) and of course you adjust your expectations based on your experiences.

When CiG claims a bug fix or new feature roll-out within a certain timeframe people who followed the project for a certain period of time should know that this isnt going to happen or if it does equals a small miracle. Theres a difference between continuing to "believe in CiG despite that knowledge" and arguing as if "this time they ll actually stick to their own timetable". Distingiushing between these two scenarios decides if you are a skeptic or not and honestly, I wonder how you can NOT be one if you follow the project for longer than a year. Being a skeptic doesnt mean you cannot enjoy the tech-demo or see potential/promise....it just means that you disbelieve CiG claims until you receive what they promise and that simple thing is so rare to encounter when you run into a SC faithful.

I get that some white knights attempt to present themselves as neutral or indifferent to the debate raging in here but seriously....it usually only takes a couple posts to figure out whats what ^^ As can be seen in the last 40 pages or so (also congratulations to the latest iteration of ring-around repetition). Cant wait for the next troll slamming us with "you guys just say the same thing over and over lolz" ^^

 

[MTBFritz]

I did once already...it was part of my first wing commander level pledge...along with a few other bits and bobs. It didn't work back then either

I assume you dont realize how rare guys like you are

 

[Intrepid3D]

I can tell you that if I spent 400 bucks on a video game I would be a rabid fanboy but thats me, appearantly I m a stickler for money expecting too much for 60 bucks and 50 dollars have a higher value than 5 minutes of fun to me.....shrug. Even games I play(ed) for thousands of hours represent only the base investment for the most part (exception to the rule...:European Truck simulator2). These games I still game and rever for their qualities but I dont feel like I need to defend them against criticism when most people who dont like them do it on the base of their taste and not the games quality.

I understand that some people find Star Citizen fun. Its a product with a very low quality bar tho, highly overpriced and overhyped and apart from the "it just works for me" narrative doesnt really offer anything from a video game perspective. Arguing as if it does is dishonest or shows an underlying agenda which makes me wonder why I bother to engage in the first place?



Taking his SC knowledge and posts so far he doesnt have a problem believing unvalidated claims and statements so....




LOL thanks I missed it and this really sits in my craw (or would....if I would be invested waiting for this game to become a reality). This is another good example of the debate and issue going on in Star Citizen. Being late for 3 weeks (or 3 months or 3 years, take your pick, its CiG so all of these are valid) is a serious problem. Not really for the individual private person who continues to go to work, go to sleep, wake up and fill his/here freetime with things he/she can enjoy. But definitely for the company who has to pay for every single hour.

Every single one of us would wave away slight delays (wife telling me shes ready for dinner in 5 minutes) but would perk up if its consistent or costly. Star Citizens delays are mostly paid in frustration rather than actual money (counts for all the people who claim to NOT constantly throw money at CiG) and of course you adjust your expectations based on your experiences.

When CiG claims a bug fix or new feature roll-out within a certain timeframe people who followed the project for a certain period of time should know that this isnt going to happen or if it does equals a small miracle. Theres a difference between continuing to "believe in CiG despite that knowledge" and arguing as if "this time they ll actually stick to their own timetable". Distingiushing between these two scenarios decides if you are a skeptic or not and honestly, I wonder how you can NOT be one if you follow the project for longer than a year. Being a skeptic doesnt mean you cannot enjoy the tech-demo or see potential/promise....it just means that you disbelieve CiG claims until you receive what they promise and that simple thing is so rare to encounter when you run into a SC faithful.

I get that some white knights attempt to present themselves as neutral or indifferent to the debate raging in here but seriously....it usually only takes a couple posts to figure out whats what ^^ As can be seen in the last 40 pages or so (also congratulations to the latest iteration of ring-around repetition). Cant wait for the next troll slamming us with "you guys just say the same thing over and over lolz" ^^

Where your concerned i don't think anyone can ever be neutral or indifferent, you have a lousy attitude toward people who don't share your opinions.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I don't share your attitude that "Everything CIG say is a lie" They said they moved it to Nyx, so they moved it to Nyx, I think despite Chris the developers are trying and they will keep trying, i don't think they are all "in on a scam" What an attitude to have about a whole bunch of people.

How do you tell if someone with a track record for lying is telling the truth?

Isn't the best default state to assume they are lying unless proven otherwise?

I had a friend like this, from Ireland. We used to say he was a kisser of the blarney stone. No idea why, but whenever he talked about his past or what he was doing, it was a lie. It was a shock when he actually said something we knew to be true. Funny side fact, he studied law at university. Perfectly suited i would say.

I'm sure they are trying. Anyone can try. Are they capable is a much better thing to ask yourself. I don't think they are out to scam anyone, as in not deliver on a product. I do believe they will say whatever it takes, including telling outright lies, to keep the funding going. And of course, i'm only talking about those at the top. I'm not saying this infects the whole company.

You surely accept that CIG have told some porkies right? I mean, their lies are pretty well documented by now. If they are not lies, that they really didn't know, then its just as bad, it implies absoloute incompetence.

 

[MTBFritz]

I think it's well past time to finish my reply to this:



First some background:

Back at the end of 2012, I backed three games on Kickstarter. One was an indie game from a truly start-up "garage developer" creating their first game that had a cute, though ambitious, idea I liked the look of. The second was for a sequel to a game franchise I liked, with an established development company and a known name heading the project. The third was a "spiritual successor" to a game franchise I liked, with an established development company, a known name heading the project, and most importantly: the game was nearly ready for alpha, and "only" needed a few million to flesh out the game for release in 2014.

They were, in order Stonehearth, Elite Dangerous, and Star Citizen.

At the time, I was riding high on the results from previous "early access" titles like Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, and at the time, Mechwarrior Online, my "cockpit game." MWO is the reason why I learned how to program scripts for my CH HOTAS, because the game was designed as a FPS with mechs, and it took considerable effort to adapt my 2nd order controllers to work well with a game designed to use 1st order controller input. So after quite few non-game Kickstarter successes, two failures, and one "failure" that eventually made good on their promises nine years later and then some, I decided to "save" a little money by backing these three games.

Stonehearth I backed because I liked playing "god view" building games, the visual style looked cute, and they had a novel approach to the genre: the construction would be completely AI driven, who would also have their own personalities.

Elite Dangerous I backed because I liked the original Elite, I was a huge fan of its sequel: Frontier: Elite 2, but was a bit disappointed with Frontier: First Encounters. There was one problem with it: it wouldn't have all the features of FE2 at launch. In fact, based on their stated development plans at the time, it wasn't likely to even approach that level until 2020 at the earliest, and I thought they were being overly optimistic at the time. So I backed it, and added it to my watch list.

Star Citizen I backed because Piranna Games, creators of MWO, had already started walking back from their earlier promises, many of which were features that had attracted me to the game in the first place. It was gradually devolving into Battletech themed area-based FPS, and I wanted another "cockpit game" to fill the gap between when I tired of MWO, and when I felt ED would add planetary landings to the game. Unlike ED at the time, which was just a skunkworks project, Chris Roberts claimed he had already done the hard phase of game development: creating the game engine and core game loops, and was at the "expensive" phase of game development: hiring enough artists to flesh out the game world.

If only I had known at the time that Chris Roberts was lying through his teeth in that Kickstarter Pitch.

As 2013 progressed, I was tracking the development of all three games. Stonehearth would periodically release their latest Alpha candidate, which added upon the existing framework of the game. I’d test the release for a few hours, submit any bugs I found, and move on. In ED, I was able to read the archives of the game loops that Frontier was planning on adding to the game... eventually... no promises or guarantees. Meanwhile, over in SC land, Chris Roberts was making grandiose promises about what would be in the game at launch in Nov 2014 for a few million more, and fantastic videos to sell them with... but for some reason, I was paying more and more attention to ED rather than SC.

As the end of 2013 approached, and along with it the anticipated SC and ED Alphas, I started paying attention a bit more to what was going on at SC. Unlike ED, which was about to release its first phase of the Alpha, SC just kept making more and promises and videos to sell them with... and none of those promises were about the core feature of SC: Squadron 42. The promised time for the SC Alpha came and went, and I'd barely noticed, because I had ED to distract me.

After all, at the start of 2014, ED was in Alpha! It had VR! The videos I could see looked fantastic! I had tired of MWO a lot sooner than I'd anticipated, and I was no longer spending money on micro-transactions in that game. And then came ED's "hurry up and take my money" moment. What I was seeing in the Alphas looked fun, just like the Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program looked fun. And Frontier offered to upgrade my beta access to Alpha, along with an LEP. So I joined, and much to my delight (and later dismay) it was everything I'd hoped it would be. I say dismay, because over the years Frontier had dumbed down ED considerably. Good from a business standpoint, I'm sure, but bad for me.

By the end of 2014, ED had had its full release, and I was having fun. There were parts it could do better, and there were parts that were better before release, but had been watered down by Frontier, but SC, meanwhile, had released a "hanger module," and an "arena shooter." Not the long-delayed promised Alpha. Not the originally promised release. Not Squadron 42. A hanger module, to look at the art assets, and an arcade game.

Stonehearth was also still in alpha development, and slowly adding more and more gameloops and elements to their game. Its pitched release date had already passed as well. Each build was fun to play, but only had about 10-20 hours worth of gameplay before things became repetitive in a save. Still, it had procedurally created maps, basic AI, building planning tools, and a handful enemies to fight.

By the end of 2015, I started to realize something seemed very off about SC's development. By that time, I'd participated in quite a few playable alpha and early access games, so I was fairly familiar with how successful ones operated. SC was pretty much the antithesis of those games, with the sole exception of tons of successful macrotransactions. So I started digging.

Stonehearth, meanwhile, released in 2015... to early access. It was still adding game loops and content, and the AI "hearthlings" were starting to develop personalities. It was kind of fun to "people watch," in that game. The developers released to early access because things were taking longer than they expected, and they needed to bring in more players if they wanted to continue development, because the original $750,000 from the Kickstarter was almost gone. They also needed to redo the AI scaffolding routines. Players were planning far more complex structures than the AI could handle.

Throughout 2016, investigating SC became a hobby of mine... primarily because the game I'd backed in 2012, wasn't anywhere to be seen. And what I learned was alarming. I'd learned about Chris Roberts' previous history of project mismanagement. I learned about Chris Roberts' sudden displays of wealth. I learned about Chris Roberts' attempts to keep his blatant nepotism a secret. I learned about how the terms of service kept changing, becoming more and more restrictive. And I learned that that I couldn't trust CIG whenever they made a claim about something, especially when they claimed that Squadron 42 was almost ready for release.

Stonehearth, meanwhile, continued in early access, adding more features and fleshing out the AI hearthlings. They now remembered events in the game, and even had "conversations" that would be displayed as pictures. My favorite moment in the game was watching a hearthling run off in tears, after another one insensitively reminded her of her pet rabbit, which had died during a goblin raid early in the game. Thankfully, a military patrol I had set up had just killed some zombies in the direction she fled, otherwise...

In 2017 I had my "Hurry up and refund my money" moment in regards to SC. It wasn't the Crytek lawsuit. It wasn't learning about the fact that Chris Roberts had no near-Alpha build of the game in 2012, nor a team of developers, but a Cryengine machinima video that had been made by Crytek... for free. It wasn’t the evidence deeply unethical activities in regards to Star Citizen by his long-time business partner Ortwin. It was the dozens of shell companies. This screamed of a Hollywood Accounting scheme, which is way of draining profits from a project to rip off the people who worked on the project, which I considerable to be thoroughly unethical (but sadly legal) business practice. Only in this case, it was pretty clear that the Roberts Clan were the ones who were benefiting from this, and the people being ripped off were SC backers. Part of Chris Roberts' initial pitch, after all, was that money contributed would go 100% into SC's development, and not into the pockets of evil publishers.

Stonehearth, on the other hand, seemed to be nearing full release. Which alarmed some of the original backers, because a few of the more ambitious stretch goals didn't seem to be even in development. This was fine with me, primarily because I wasn't interested in the promised multi-player, and the core game was pretty decent for the $15 I'd payed for it. It finally released in 2018, and after a couple of bug fixes, the very small team of developers announced that development of the game was completed.

So what do I think I think of Star Citizen? I think it began life in 2010 as an honest desire of a used car salesman named Chris Roberts to relive his glory days as a “rockstar” game developer and Hollywood insider, and finally build his dream game... who had blamed all his previous failures on everyone but himself.

It became a dubiously ethical attempt to make the game when he, along with his long-time business partner Ortwin, convinced a failing and desperate Crytek to provide a game engine license and labor for a machinima video... for free. I’m sure the fact that Ortwin was Crytek’s legal counsel at the time played into that ludicrously lop-sided deal... which Chris Roberts would later reneged on.

Roberts then shopped his idea around to various publishers, with no success. The industry had matured the 20;years he was out of the business, and they recognized a bad pitch when they saw one. His previous track record didn’t help him any. But he learned from his failures, and turned to a new model of funding, one that would bypass those “evil” publishers and their long memories and practical expertise: crowd funding.

It became a downright deceptive attempt to make his dream game when he re-edited the Crytek machinima video to create the illusion that the game was much further along in development than it really was. And his deceptive sales pitch succeeded far beyond his wildest dreams. Grandiose empty promises and slick marketing had succeeded where traditional pathways had failed. And that is the business plan that CIG follows to this day.

Star Citizen isn’t an early access game. It isn’t a “playable now” alpha. It’s a whitewashed tomb, a fair face that disguises the rot within. It’s a facade that is similar enough to an actual game to keep the money flowing. The focus has always been on the art and visuals, because people associate polished visuals with a polished game. Very rarely do consumers see what games look like during the core tech building phase, because a game development company’s focus is on the tech, not the visuals. That comes later, when the tech is finalized, and they know how many resources: time, money, server side, and client side, is left for visuals and other fluff, CIG wastes their resources on visuals, and hopes to cramming the core tech into what’s left over.

CIG is approaching half a billion dollars in funding, most of which is via crowdfunding. I’ve seen games whose core tech is more developed, more dynamic, and much more advanced, from small developers with less than a percentage of what CIG has wasted today. Seeing what other games can do, I gave to wonder why CIG struggles so much.

But at least the screenshots look nice.

I gonna bookmark this. +

Also....first warning to you for stepping on my turf

 

[Xink]

I don't share your attitude that "Everything CIG say is a lie" They said they moved it to Nyx, so they moved it to Nyx, I think despite Chris the developers are trying and they will keep trying, i don't think they are all "in on a scam" What an attitude to have about a whole bunch of people.

Have said this before, developers and people working at CIG are not stupid. They see how the company makes money, how it markets to customers, how it employs hype and sells dreams to make a buck.

They simply cannot pretend that all of that is "none of my business bruh, I just work here". They're in it for the same reason CR is in it - money. I don't begrudge them, I too worked for companies with no business plan other than "pretend we're making a platform so we get investors to pay us money". I was under no illusions that the investors were getting their money's worth. All those companies eventually got sold for pittance. None of the investors got their money back or got anything out of their investment.

The difference is those were investors, not the general public being sold software and services + taxes. What CIG and its work force are doing is unethical.

Not illegal. Just unethical.

 

[Intrepid3D]

How do you tell if someone with a track record for lying is telling the truth?

Isn't the best default state to assume they are lying unless proven otherwise?

I had a friend like this, from Ireland. We used to say he was a kisser of the blarney stone. No idea why, but whenever he talked about his past or what he was doing, it was a lie. It was a shock when he actually said something we knew to be true. Funny side fact, he studied law at university. Perfectly suited i would say.

I'm sure they are trying. Anyone can try. Are they capable is a much better thing to ask yourself. I don't think they are out to scam anyone, as in not deliver on a product. I do believe they will say whatever it takes, including telling outright lies, to keep the funding going. And of course, i'm only talking about those at the top. I'm not saying this infects the whole company.

You surely accept that CIG have told some porkies right? I mean, their lies are pretty well documented by now. If they are not lies, that they really didn't know, then its just as bad, it implies absoloute incompetence.

By not tarring everyone one with the same brush, my default assumption is someone is telling the truth unless proved otherwise, i have no reason to believe the games developers (that's not Chris) are scammers.

 

[Intrepid3D]

Have said this before, developers and people working at CIG are not stupid. They see how the company makes money, how it markets to customers, how it employs hype and sells dreams to make a buck.

They simply cannot pretend that all of that is "none of my business bruh, I just work here". They're in it for the same reason CR is in it - money. I don't begrudge them, I too worked for companies with no business plan other than "pretend we're making a platform so we get investors to pay us money". I was under no illusions that the investors were getting their money's worth. All those companies eventually got sold for pittance. None of the investors got their money back or got anything out of their investment.

The difference is those were investors, not the general public being sold software and services + taxes. What CIG and its work force are doing is unethical.

Not illegal. Just unethical.

I don't have a problem with the model CIG use bring in its money, its the only way to do it in this circumstance.

 

[VR Mr Teatime]

There must be a reason for the mop+bucket, right?

For when VR is implemented and the face stuff is translated into the game world?

 

[Skizomeuh]

Let's also not forget that for every month passing by, sure $2M+ is gathered but sure probably the same amount is turned into dust.

 

[Xink]

I don't have a problem with the model CIG use bring in its money, its the only way to do it in this circumstance.

Have I mentioned I can make the game CIG say they are making for only 50M USD?

 

[Skizomeuh]

It's the only way to keep the mess afloat sure, but that's it. That's what CIG needs to stay alive hoping the magic tech materializes or they can get out of the mud they stuck themselves into before having to answer about their accountability.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't share your attitude that "Everything CIG say is a lie" They said they moved it to Nyx, so they moved it to Nyx, I think despite Chris the developers are trying and they will keep trying, i don't think they are all "in on a scam" What an attitude to have about a whole bunch of people.

I don't think there is any Nyx. Nothing deliverable at least. A somewhat competent team would have long ago been able to present theri work already. No, the're all on the scam. You'd have to be pretty blind to not notice it doesn't add up. Most just collect their paycheck - the scammers are the story tellers, not the general staff.

 

[MTBFritz]

And I'm sure someone figured out how to grief in PvE, but it wasn't a big thing in my experience.

this adresses an age-old problem or issue I think.

Griefers masquerading as PvPers.

PvP isnt grieving and grieving isnt PvP. Its true that one can directly lead to the other based on the perception of the people participating but I get the fascination of PvP because I lived it myself when I was younger. The term we apply to people concerns their intention rather than their playstyle because both griefers and PvPers technically do the same stuff. The problem is that PvP has no protection against grieving and it appears to me that there hardly are any PvPers around anymore. Same as social media today the online worlds are populated by people who just want to vent or have fun at the expense of others claming PvP and probably even believing it but its not that....its grieving.

• trash talking after a kill
• taking a kill personally
• finding reasons why a PvP encounter was "unfair"
• using PvP as a means to teach others a "lesson"
• finding joy in the misery of others

These are all qualilties that define a griefer. We usually call the inflictor griefer but its really the mindset which makes you a griefer, you can be at the receiving end for all this means.

I can even believe that most people dont even differentiate between these two anymore even tho they are drastically different. So you have PvPers coming out asking for their preferred playstyle and immediately encountering resistance because for the most part PvP and griefing is indistinguishable and becomes confused for each other. Most PvP debates today are an issue of misunderstanding or miscomunication I think.

You have the PvPers who just want to see their preferred playstyle being implemented or considered in a meaninful way. Their intention probably is puristic in nature regarding PvP and they are countered by people who have a drastcially different understanding of the topic (griefing) and both sides become personal rather quickly.

IMO its impossible to seperate PvP from griefing. If that always was the case I cannot say. I know for certain that PvP was very different when it was a new thing (I actually lived through the first implementations of PvP). Losing a fight wasnt associated with anger and frustration back then. We were able to lose and still have fun. But things have changed and I dont think the old times are going to come back. You are able to run into the occasional PvP purist who doesnt take it personal when you kill him or who can treat you in a friendly manner even after he killed you but that too is the absolute exception nowadays.

Therefore PvP and PvE need to be seperated either by instancing or seperate game modes alltogether.

And the company too has to make a stand in this debate and pick a side. It cant have its cake and eat it too. Most companies buckle to the masses that is carebear in this regard and makes it very clear that PvPers have their own playground and run into each other. Either by special servers with different rulesets or by special payzones that cater to the prefference of them. "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" comes into play here. PvP and PvE players playing alongside each other will look at what the other side have (more gear, more zones, more access, different rules) and want that too because humans are pretty greedy by nature ^^ No doubt a lot of companies try to break down the border but the issue persists because you have two groups of people who demand and want opposite ends of whats possible.

PvP in Star Citizen. IMO CiG either has "no idea" how to make the distinction or "doesnt care" about one side. My money is on the "dont know" part.

 

[ECity]

The other space game's alpha ends soon, with the release judgeable by websites, Metacritic, etc. on May 19th.

 

[Viajero]

Good news!

interactions with other NPCs will be a problem if you haven't taken a shower in quite a while​

Wouldn´t it be more prudent and proper from a good steward of backer funds to just fire/release the full time equivalent resources dedicated to this nonsense, and a few others, and reserve those funds in case you need more time than planned (or resources) to tackle some of the more critical issues in the development?