Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

As far as I know same as in ED. No levels. Progression would be based on equipment and upgrades. And skill. At least that is the promise.
I beg to differ! Just as ED has 'Mostly harmless', "Tycoon' and 'Elite' to mark your progress, SC has 'Consierge', 'Admiral', 'Wing Commander'.
The only difference here is ED tracks how much in-game currency you earned while SC tracks how much real-life money you spent.

That's 2 years into the project. Anyone with 2 connected neurons would understand the need of a special coordinate system from day 1. What did they exactly do during these 2 years ?
They had built the company!
After that they were building the tools!
After they had built the tools, they were busy building better tools.
I'm waiting for Chris to start building a better company any day now.

Oh, you were talking about the game? Well it's playable now, buy an Idris.
 
For what was envisioned at the KS Cry Engine was fine. As the project morphed into the expanded vision it was manifestly not the right engine. Changing engine at any point is a bold move, but could CIG have known that the revenue stream would hold up. We can say now looking back, yes it most likely would. Unlike a traditional KS where you have your money up front and can budget your development upfront and consume from it, CIG have an ongoing revenue stream that drives their development budget, so their model is much more dependent on the ongoing revenue stream than would be the case in a normal KS. I believe the engine should have been changed the moment the scope moved, but I can understand why they didn't and the longer its been left the more difficult that decision is to make. I think the decision was also hindered by the fact that CR it would appear prefers to hear its possible from his reports rather than no it's not. This is why I suspect we have all these miracle techs that stem from trying to provide ways to make it work.

I dont know. Things like 1-server technology allowing hundreds and thousands of players to play and interact together were mentioned and advertised at Kickstarter already and its as impossible today as it was then. Also the pledge goals included 100+ systems and we are nowhere near that number and wont be for a considerable time to come. Because I heard the "scope change" argument so often already I d like to mention before the knee-jerk reaction that Chris Robert himself claimed that the increased scope wouldnt change Star Citizens timeframe or cost and we know this was a sack of manure which suggests that even the KS claims already were sacks of manure.

There is a history of very critical things in Star Citizens story that relay a picture of delay and distraction tactics. Clinging to the notion that "CiG is really trying you guys" is wishful thinking and more than just naive at this point. Maybe a lot of the newcomers who claim to be new to the project not caring about its history havent been disappointed often enough yet or they come with such low expectations that even SC can easily match them but I can understand that a lot of people are done granting CiG another chance and demand hard evidence before they are willing to spend more money or even good words on this project.
 
Might I suggest you buy an Idris?

ducks
Was considering HZD. Also new X4 update. For now I play Rimworld tribals. The psycasting is strong with these ones. I recommend trying them.
Requires DLC.

You know, games like Rimworld made me wish for more universal games - complete the world and then move to the stars but it usually comes down to the universalust games just being bad at being universal.
And that is because they cant capture the complexity anymore properly.
 
I dont know. Things like 1-server technology allowing hundreds and thousands of players to play and interact together were mentioned and advertised at Kickstarter already and its as impossible today as it was then. Also the pledge goals included 100+ systems and we are nowhere near that number and wont be for a considerable time to come. Because I heard the "scope change" argument so often already I d like to mention before the knee-jerk reaction that Chris Robert himself claimed that the increased scope wouldnt change Star Citizens timeframe or cost and we know this was a sack of manure which suggests that even the KS claims already were sacks of manure.

There is a history of very critical things in Star Citizens story that relay a picture of delay and distraction tactics. Clinging to the notion that "CiG is really trying you guys" is wishful thinking and more than just naive at this point. Maybe a lot of the newcomers who claim to be new to the project not caring about its history havent been disappointed often enough yet or they come with such low expectations that even SC can easily match them but I can understand that a lot of people are done granting CiG another chance and demand hard evidence before they are willing to spend more money or even good words on this project.
I would not want to defend CR/CIG, except that I think the decision to change engine was a tough call to make without risking the revenue streams which was the point I was trying to make ( albeit badly). The 1-server tech is a problem with any engine, so not a factor in the change, if the tech existed the change would be a no brainer.

As I remember they were still pledging new systems in 2014 circa two years after the KS.

Given the choice of Cry Engine I was imagining a system would be a series of POI's ( each POI being a cry map) that you moved between with some sort of transition and systems would have differing numbers of POI's. Some POI's would be unique set pieces and others would be copy/pasted. I was also expecting proc gen to enable them to scale content, so eg POI of an oasis on a desert planet could have a proc gen generated number of trees around a variable sized piece of water. I was not imagining a system would be a single cry map. If you look at the hanger module that is exactly what it is a Cry map. For me, that was doable with the engine.
 
If you look at the hanger module that is exactly what it is a Cry map. For me, that was doable with the engine.
Indeed, but a space game is a poor fit to start with. The entire premise of SC, before planet surfaces were added, was to pilot star ships across vast systems and distances. It's already a huge issue for CE. I'll maintain it was a poor fit from the very start.
As for the "1-server technology" it does exist, it's called the cloud (that 1 server is actually made of a lot of physical nodes). That CiG may or may not be aware of that is a different issue - there are indeed ways to host apps that serve concurrent data to millions of people simultaneously. Of course, for games that means developing a bespoke engine as current engines on the market (for those that include networking) are meant for small multiplayer sessions with a single physical server. That's where CiG failed from the start, selling an MMO without thinking they would have to develop an MMO.
FWIW it's still a very limited multiplayer game, runs like crap compared to many decent-tier multi games, even indies do better here. And i see nowhere on their roadmap any indication of going in the right direction...

(edit) Also learned recently that lifts in SC have their own CE map, coordinate system, and physics grid. Explains a lof of wonky issues with those and also that kind of side effect:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/lq4589 Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/lq4589/bounty_hunting_in_a_nutshell_right_now/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
 
Last edited:
Given the choice of Cry Engine I was imagining a system would be a series of POI's ( each POI being a cry map) that you moved between with some sort of transition and systems would have differing numbers of POI's. Some POI's would be unique set pieces and others would be copy/pasted. I was also expecting proc gen to enable them to scale content, so eg POI of an oasis on a desert planet could have a proc gen generated number of trees around a variable sized piece of water. I was not imagining a system would be a single cry map. If you look at the hanger module that is exactly what it is a Cry map. For me, that was doable with the engine.
That was their first plan, then they struggled and realized they won't be able to do that and Frontier was showing planets so they decided to take an even more harder road as money flowed.

CIG is a baby that can't help but misstep a carpet but is sure he'll jump over to the moon by 2014, 2015, 2016, one day.
 
I would not want to defend CR/CIG, except that I think the decision to change engine was a tough call to make without risking the revenue streams which was the point I was trying to make ( albeit badly). The 1-server tech is a problem with any engine, so not a factor in the change, if the tech existed the change would be a no brainer.

As I remember they were still pledging new systems in 2014 circa two years after the KS.

Given the choice of Cry Engine I was imagining a system would be a series of POI's ( each POI being a cry map) that you moved between with some sort of transition and systems would have differing numbers of POI's. Some POI's would be unique set pieces and others would be copy/pasted. I was also expecting proc gen to enable them to scale content, so eg POI of an oasis on a desert planet could have a proc gen generated number of trees around a variable sized piece of water. I was not imagining a system would be a single cry map. If you look at the hanger module that is exactly what it is a Cry map. For me, that was doable with the engine.
That maybe works for a SP game without much trouble. For MP the procgen needs to be seeded so everyone would see the same thing when sharing the same instance.
 
Things like 1-server technology allowing hundreds and thousands of players to play and interact together were mentioned and advertised at Kickstarter already

I don't think they ever made those 'king of all shards' style claims back at Kickstarter. The closest you get on the KS site are some fuzzy claims about multiplayer, a large universe, and 'Star Wars style' multicrew. (Oh yeah and private servers and modding and such ;)). They say they wanted to support 200k players in the alpha, but never say anything about the format.

I know he was getting properly carried away by 2016:

Source: https://youtu.be/nvule1cD_zk?t=1690

We're going to have this sort of mesh of servers, so we'll be able to have, hopefully, a large amount of players all in the same area, so we won't have to instance it, in the way that originally we were thinking we'd have to instance it. We have a kind of different server design now that could potentially have thousands of players all in the same sort of area at the same time, which would be really cool. Because that's something that again, it's not something that you could get a while, y'know, a year ago or ten years ago, but you know with sort of the newer tech, the power of the machines, kind of some of the stuff you can do in the cloud, the possibility is sort of opened up and you want to utilize it.

Not sure how and when they slid into that world though.
 
Last edited:
That maybe works for a SP game without much trouble. For MP the procgen needs to be seeded so everyone would see the same thing when sharing the same instance.
Agreed, I was envisaging you would have a small database with the system and planet characteristics including POI's so you would store a POI type and some sort of size parameter (eg trees) which is effectively the seed and the proc gen sizes the water and trees based on that, building the same thing each time for the provided size.
 
Dual Universe has promised a lot too and I think it is mostly nollocks too. But I saw the same hype and believing going on with that. People just cant distinguish truth from hype.
In the old days media filtered out the biggest trash. Today free online channels allow for the biggest tosh to spread and people just buy it.
And anybody remember Limit Theory? I remember lots of "this is going to be better than Elite and he's doing it all on his own" posts. And it turns out it's really difficult and time-consuming to simulate the entire contents of the universe. And have it be fun at the same time.

I think these sorts of games are really easy to fantasise about while lying in the bath (procedurally generated quest-giving NPCs, herds of dinosaurs which evolve differently depending on planet types, I want an arcade cabinet in my Sidewinder where I can play old Colecovision games, players can own their own caravan parks, zero-gravity caber-tossing, real physics for cat hair etc..) but there's basically an infinite amount of things to do and because the players are also lying in their baths fantasising about all the things you could do in a procedural space game you're chasing a moving target against a backdrop of whiny disappointment.

But I think the fact that it's easy to imagine all the amazing things they could do is why the bosses of games companies get carried away in interviews. They're just as excited as we are. And also underestimating how difficult it all is.
 
Yay! Back from my thread ban!

No more talking about Sandi's acting career for me!

Back to topic...

I hear ED is adding bathrooms on stations with Odyssey. Which will get pooping mechanics first? Star Citizen or ED? The race is on!
 
Yay! Back from my thread ban!

No more talking about Sandi's acting career for me!

Back to topic...
And here I thought that was because of your new avatar...
49810.jpg
 
Top Bottom