Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Finally, the Bugsmasher we deserve



Just follow yourself around and nothing can go wrong.

(And only ~$455 spent in 3 months by this 'ED refugee'. Jobs a good'un ;))

Strange use of the word gameplay though...
Why does it matter what that particular muppet spent on SC? Some muppets happily spent more than that on drink over the festive fighting season. If he thinks it's worth the spend, it surely is of no concern to anyone else...It's perhaps more a point of note that you once again feel obligated to target a particular individuals spending habits and present it as a point of ridicule. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Why does it matter what that particular muppet spent on SC? Some muppets happily spent more than that on drink over the festive fighting season. If he thinks it's worth the spend, it surely is of no concern to anyone else...It's a point of note that you once again feel obligated to target a particular individuals spending habits to put forward as a point of ridicule once again? 🤷‍♂️

Man follows self around permanently with alt account to to address alpha bugs.

Man spent ~$450 for the pleasure.

Man has put game down after 3 months. (But is convinced it has a bright future).

Noteworthy ¯\(ツ)/¯

Especially given we're talking about SC. A product which has taken in nearly half a billion over a decade, but is still light years away from producing the advertised game.

If anyone asks in the future: How the hell did this happen? Then the happy stoner discussing ship paints next to his medical alt will be one of the answers ¯\(ツ)/¯

(And that's true whether SC rolls on to ship pörn victory, or dies of some horrible disease along the way ;))
 
Last edited:
Why is SQ42 taking so long? A 'unified' theory…

If there is ever a post-mortem for SQ42, asking: 'Where did all the time and money go?', one of the answers is likely going to be: The unified avatar rig.

Chris lists various reasons for using it, all of which are about claimed multiplayer benefits:
  • To make cinematic interactions with the environment look correct in both 1st & 3rd person
  • So projectiles come directly from weapons when seen by external viewers
  • So players have animations comparable to NPCs when seen by external viewers.

Meanwhile it makes work on single-player elements harder. You can’t just fake that animation for removing the Vanduul sword from the ship’s ignition, as you would normally. Just animating arms etc from a first person perspective. You have to make sure the avatar model can fit close enough, motion towards it without clipping, grasp the object convincingly, all while looking right from a first person perspective.

It’s a ton more work, for only minimal visual gain. (And with potential visual detriment, if it glitches out, or can’t be done naturalistically).

They don’t state it outright, but the inference from all the combined PU/SQ42 tasks etc is that they’re building SQ42 with the same core engine…

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7GG0y8Jmcs&t=1425s

We’re very proud of what we’ve done, it’s taken a lot of work. Most people don’t try as hard, if we were doing just Squadron 42 we’d probably wouldn't have done it because that’s a single player game, but because Star Citizen is such a multiplayer game, it’s super important

If they are then... good god. That's a mammoth, needless, time sink right there.

A system which hasn't brought the claimed benefits for multiplayer, has dubious single-player benefits at best, and is a massive pain to use just to get those results?

Slow clap? ;)
 
Last edited:
'Where did all the time and money go?'
The simple answer:
hahagimmecash.jpg

Yachts & mansions don't just magically buy themselves, y'know!
 
Why is SQ42 taking so long? A 'unified' theory…

If there is ever a post-mortem for SQ42, asking: 'Where did all the time and money go?', one of the answers is likely going to be: The unified avatar rig.

Chris lists various reasons for using it, all of which are about claimed multiplayer benefits:
  • To make cinematic interactions with the environment look correct in both 1st & 3rd person
  • So projectiles come directly from weapons when seen by external viewers
  • So players have animations comparable to NPCs when seen by external viewers.

Meanwhile it makes work on single-player elements harder. You can’t just fake that animation for removing the Vanduul sword from the ship’s ignition, as you would normally. Just animating arms etc from a first person perspective. You have to make sure the avatar model can fit close enough, motion towards it without clipping, grasp the object convincingly, all while looking right from a first person perspective.

It’s a ton more work, for only minimal visual gain. (And with potential visual detriment, if it glitches out, or can’t be done naturalistically).

They don’t state it outright, but the inference from all the combined PU/SQ42 tasks etc is that they’re building SQ42 with the same core engine…



If they are then... good god. That's a mammoth, needless, time sink right there.

A system which hasn't brought the claimed benefits for multiplayer, has dubious single-player benefits at best, and is a pain to use just to get those results?

Slow clap? ;)
Little kids are also proud if they managed to drop the turd into the potty. It's nothing to show off, though. I bet the first parent that enters the bus with that potty - "Look what my little boy just did!" can gratulate themselves to a new inverse potty hat on their head as result.
 
Ok, so, here me out, just bomb everything anyway :p

Its not like you need credits anyway, its only alpha.

And when new people arrive, bomb them!

Indeed, then you can return to writing posts about how all PvPers are griefers who don't actually try to act like pirates/thieves with an endgoal beyond 'the lolz'.

Your forum gameplay loop has returned!
 
A cargo ship cannot store cargo. But it is not a bug, it is a "limitation". I will use this line during my next sprint planning. "The database is not broken, it just cannot return query results. It is a current limitation".

I'd argue it's a different type of cargo though... and I can see what Ant is kind of saying in that its akin (loosely) to complaining that a bulk freighter can't carry crude oil.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, because before CIG, CR was poor, lived in a 200K house and drove a Lada :sneaky:
Do you know you can rent a yatch or be invited on a yatch ? I personnaly own a picture of me on a yatch and I was smiling too, I let you guess if it was mine or not :)
Have you also sold 4M worth of shares in a company financed by people with no financial stake in it? No? Maybe this is why you do not own one.

(the more I think about it, the more fascinating it is)
 
CR himself said in the Forbes article "I was quite successful before I founded Cloud Imperium" and that's how he can afford a $4.7M mansion in the LA hills under a family trust, Porsches, Monaco vacations etc etc.
 
Have you also sold 4M worth of shares in a company financed by people with no financial stake in it? No? Maybe this is why you do not own one.
(the more I think about it, the more fascinating it is)
"financed by people with no financial stake in it" has no link to the fact you can sold or not shares in a company

"Maybe this is why you do not own one."
??? Because with all you know about me you think I did not own a company ? It's fascinating how you draw such false conclusions with so little informations.
 
Yeah, because before CIG, CR was poor, lived in a 200K house and drove a Lada

The issue with his mansion is more this:

In September 2018, the Roberts Family Trust, with Gardiner as its trustee, purchased a house for $4.7 million in L.A.’s Pacific Palisades neighborhood. Prior to that, Roberts had been renting. Roberts says he sold his Hollywood house in 2007 because he wanted to experience living near the ocean.

So:
  • He was renting for 10 years
  • The substantial new property is held in a trust, so safe from any legal proceeding that might seek recompense from Chris specifically.
  • It came after the large investment / sale of personal shares. (And is as such suggestive that he wasn't in a financial position to own such a property in this manner prior to that payout).

Do you know you can rent a yatch or be invited on a yatch ? I personnaly own a picture of me on a yatch and I was smiling too, I let you guess if it was mine or not :)

Yeah there's no evidence that he owns a yacht etc.

That event was just funny because of this quote:

I don’t think anyone that crowdfunded the game would be very happy about that either, if I was snapping pictures on the back of a yacht somewhere.

;)
 
"financed by people with no financial stake in it" has no link to the fact you can sold or not shares in a company
This is what I find so fascinating.
"Maybe this is why you do not own one."
??? Because with all you know about me you think I did not own a company ? It's fascinating how you draw such false conclusions with so little informations.
Owning a company and being able to sell 4M of its shares (out of many more), are two completely different things. Honestly, good luck in your business endavours!
 
This is what I find so fascinating.

Owning a company and being able to sell 4M of its shares (out of many more), are two completely different things. Honestly, good luck in your business endavours!
Nonono, it's neither that. It's selling shoving around shares of a company you don't own until for some magic reason you suddenly own it. I think under normal circumstances it is called fraud? Taking possession of foreign assets and wealth. Or "appropriating" it - is that the word?
 
Back
Top Bottom