Quite sure that put me off trying Hellion when it appeared.
That extreme realism which meant a lot of time spent. Only to lose it to PvP in a couple secs. Lol. No thx.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
That extreme realism which meant a lot of time spent. Only to lose it to PvP in a couple secs. Lol. No thx.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That does not make sense. Price increases at launch is actually how many discounted pre orders work (Elite for example) and is also how CIG has been selling ships for 11 years: You milk the early eager fans with a discount or special early bird reward and then simply increase the price or stop the reward later. There is absolutely no need to lose perfectly good early sales.
Stopping all sales altogether now and not even commenting on it for 10 days probably points to a very different kind of problem at CIG.
Last edited:
Yeah, they're too short.
ED reinforced my belief that when it comes to these kinds of experiences, my fun is enhanced by immersion, verisimilitude, and the gameplay constraints they enforce.
I didn't want automated ship transfers at all. Manually flying my CMDR's ships and having copies of shorter range combat vessels stationed strategically across the bubble to give him a logistical leg up on the competition was gameplay, and gameplay that I miss.
It's not just the final act, the climax, that does it for me. It's the entire process...and most of the parts of that process, except what I specifically find least enjoyable (the sorry excuse for a progression system, a.k.a. the 'grind') have been gradually depreciated in Elite: Dangerous.
Anyway, that's one of the reasons why I don't have particularly high hopes for SC. Even without the development issues, it's far too large for it's existence to be justified if it targets the niche I'd most enjoy.
I never consider the time prior to defeat to be time lost, just everything that came before, and it should be enjoyable every step of the way. Even relatively detailed and 'realistic' real-time gameplay should never need to degenerate into tedium.
I don't see where it speaks against my original position.
The 2 main problems of SC servers are tickrate and stability.
With 1 instead of 100 players you divide the chance of server crash by 100.
With a stable tickrate of at least 30+ instead of a variable 1 to 20 you gain reactivness.
With no data to send on the web you gain stability and reactivness.
SQ42 will have waaaayyy less server problems than SC.
I’ve got a theory that the Little Ant account is a bunch of Frontier devs getting together to have a laugh at the forum’s expense 
Lol.
The guy : you don't know DB !
I prove I know DB
The guy : your DB is too simple !
I explain him he just saw a small part of it
The guy : it's not enough complexity for me !
We can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like
I don't really know David Braben, he's just some guy I gave money to for a future game.Lol.
The guy : you don't know DB !
I prove I know DB
The guy : your DB is too simple !
I explain him he just saw a small part of it
The guy : it's not enough complexity for me !
We can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like
If CIG didn't produce SQ42 when they did give an indication of when it was supposed to be coming, I'm not entirely convinced SQ42 is going to rock up any time soon when GIG are giving no indication of when it's supposed to be coming.
We have at least the indication on the progress tracker that the last chapter of SQ42 should be completed in August of this year.
I'll drop the second hint. Software architecture for a DBMS is completely unrelated to game server architecture, especially a real time FPS one (could be argued for turn by turn games somehow, and again the client is still vastly different). You're telling us you've driven your car on the highway so you're competent to drive thisWe can talk about some particular replication scheme or an asynchronous IndexedDB for offline client linked to a SQL server if you like
Since you did not understand what my first hint meant at all, maybe that one will get the point across.
Yeah, it's pretty standard practice around here to hold two alternate viewpoints at the same time - like the whole "It's Alpha! We're just testing!" and also "Playable Now!"
Pretty sure it's Unconscious Incompetence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence - you're in for a long discussion
Erin Roberts: For the first chapter [of Squadron 42], we're aiming for it to be towards the beginning of [2015]
* looks at watch suspiciously *
Wouldn't you prefer a nice cup of tea?
To each his own.
See, my Cmdr doesn't have competition, never mind one that requires a "logistical leg up". I just want to pick the ship I feel like flying after work for 15 minutes. If it takes me 30 minutes to get the ship to where I want to fly it I'm doing something else instead.
Thank God for FCs. Now it takes a max of 15 min to get any ship anywhere in the bubble, while I grab a drink or whatever. Not perfect, but serviceable.
But again, to each his own. Different people want different things from these games.