Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Ebob

E
Agony_Aunt said:
That excuse ran out of steam years ago. By 10 years they should have their plans pretty solid by now.
Click to expand...
"Should" Your opinion. Nothing is marketed as "finished" and anything can change, even pledges, this game is in development, plans change. It is what it is, even if you don't like that!
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Ebob said:
"Should" Your opinion. Nothing is marketed as "finished" and anything can change, even pledges, this game is in development, plans change. It is what it is, even if you don't like that!
Click to expand...

Dude, listen to yourself. Its 10 years.

Yes, plans change, of course they do, but this is a fundamental component of the game. Something they sold backers on from the very early days. Networking should have been (yes, really, should have been) one of the first things they nailed down once they decided it was going to be an online game. Not just starting on the tech (Tier 0) that may, just possible, allow more than 50 people per shard with more than 1 system.

That isn't "plans change", that's downright incompetence.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
Agony_Aunt said:
And then was rapidly revised after the community got up in arms about having only 5-10 systems on release. Lando (IIRC) was dispatched to lie... erm, i mean reassure backers that what Chris actually meant was 5-10 systems by the time the core systems were in place, and of course they were still looking at most of the systems by release.

Its worth remembering back then that a lot of backers still believed that CIG weren't going to release an unfinished buggy mess like a certain other game. They used to repeat it often, like a mantra. It wasn't long after that the narrative started to change though and people realized there was no way CIG were going to release a complete product by the time of a hard release.

And fast forward a few more years, and now it looks like a hard release isn't ever going to happen. Its DaaS all the way now.
Click to expand...
The irony of that infamous 180° done by CIG is that at the time, if memory serves, most ardent backers used that subsequent "correction" (cant remember if it was Lando or someone else. Edit: It was Zyloh of course, lol) as key info for an "all is fine, we will have all 100+ systems promised at launch" etc to argue against fudsters pointing to the "just 5-10" offered earlier in that interview. Whereas now we can see many backers going instead "pfff, we all knew it was going to be just 5-10 at most at launch" or "pfff, I am happy with just 5-10 at launch". I wonder how many millions were pledged originally based on the hype about a SC universe with 100+ systems at launch, and that have not been refunded.
 
Last edited:

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Viajero said:
I wonder how many millions were pledged originally based on the hype about of a SC universe with 100+ systems at launch, and that have not been refunded.
Click to expand...

Well, literally speaking, many millions, since they were stretch goals. But yeah, beyond the stretch goals, i'm sure some people's decisions to pledge were based on the idea of 100 systems and they might not have pledged if CIG had said 5-10.

By the same token we can wonder how many millions were given due to the dream of having space battles involving hundreds or thousands of players...
 

Ebob

E
Agony_Aunt said:
Dude, listen to yourself. Its 10 years.
Click to expand...
And?
Agony_Aunt said:
Yes, plans change, of course they do, but this is a fundamental component of the game. Something they sold backers on from the very early days. Networking should have been (yes, really, should have been) one of the first things they nailed down
Click to expand...
Except thats not how you do it. If you're gonna develop a feature after you've gotten your network stuff done and ready, you'll have to change it according to your network stuff. And if said feature encounters technical hurdles that don't work with your network stuff you'll need to rewrite the whole thing. They first got an idea of how such game with interconnected physics grids, container streaming and all that is going to even work and pan out.
Agony_Aunt said:
That isn't "plans change", that's downright incompetence.
Click to expand...
That's not "downright incompetence", that's iterative development.
 

TiberiusDuval

T
Ebob said:
And?

Except thats not how you do it. If you're gonna develop a feature after you've gotten your network stuff done and ready, you'll have to change it according to your network stuff. And if said feature encounters technical hurdles that don't work with your network stuff you'll need to rewrite the whole thing. They first got an idea of how such game with interconnected physics grids, container streaming and all that is going to even work and pan out.

That's not "downright incompetence", that's iterative development.
Click to expand...
Problem is that for multiplayer game that is essentially streamed from server, network component is the foundation of the game itself. Graphics, AI, physics and so on are just fluff when compared to that. Game stands and falls on that foundation. And it is not "easy" to change that after lots of stuff has been already built on it.
 

ZeeWolf

ZeeWolf
LittleAnt said:
Ask Elon Musk about his ships. He most certainly defined the release date with something like "When my ships not explode every 3 trips". "When something works pretty good" is a perfectly acceptable definition of the end of a testing phase.



You don't like it but it's true ;)
Click to expand...

Does Elon Musk say this to crowdfunding backers a decade after slapping "Alpha" on his ships and constantly misleading about release dates "coming 2014", "answer the call 2016", "answer the call 2017" etc then? Otherwise I fail to see the relevance?
 

Ebob

E
TiberiusDuval said:
Problem is that for multiplayer game that is essentially streamed from server, network component is the foundation of the game itself. Graphics, AI, physics and so on are just fluff when compared to that. Game stands and falls on that foundation. And it is not "easy" to change that after lots of stuff has been already built on it.
Click to expand...
All of the stepping stones to server meshing like Object Container streaming and such had to be tested on the game first, integrate them, test, move onto the next thing on your road to making Server Meshing. Because really, the utter basics of a multiplayer structure are in SC and have been for years.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Ebob said:
And?

Except thats not how you do it. If you're gonna develop a feature after you've gotten your network stuff done and ready, you'll have to change it according to your network stuff. And if said feature encounters technical hurdles that don't work with your network stuff you'll need to rewrite the whole thing. They first got an idea of how such game with interconnected physics grids, container streaming and all that is going to even work and pan out.

That's not "downright incompetence", that's iterative development.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not buying that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom