I agree, however I think we'll see CIG pushing for 2.4 release prior to the 18 month "deadline" which will allow them to use the substantial content clause.
The Star Citizen Thread v 4
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
I agree, however I think we'll see CIG pushing for 2.4 release prior to the 18 month "deadline" which will allow them to use the substantial content clause.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
I don't think Braben's statement contradicts anyone's standpoints. There was no right answer when they started because like he said, neither project had been done before. But now that Elite Dangerous is actually out and SC is several years into development we can actually evaluate the how two approaches work out up to this point.
It just looks like people becoming disillusioned over time is one of the weaknesses of taking a so-called "open" approach to a project that lasts 8-10 years and can randomly change significantly in scope over that period.
There may not be a right answer on how to develop a good space game, but we're just now starting to see why CIG's approach might not be a very good answer after all.
Last edited:
FoxanotBond
Banned
[big grin]
Last edited:
Anyway there's a pretty big discussion on SC's Reddit about the other big discussion on the main Gaming Reddit about "What went wrong: Elite dangerous",
On the case, what can CIG learn from some things and discussions that have been going on recently about the status of ED: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4e61fr/what_went_wrong_elite_dangerous/
One of the points, regarding the game not putting enough control on player's hands, that is something SC being focused on the MMO of it, they can't have AI dictate the economy, while it's good for balance, it's awful for one actual game that will be mostly played surrounding the economy, if it is static there's little point. Letting the players have one impact is another thing, that also SC is not to have by release that would be, actually claim something, have ownership or build a factory or one outpost on a planet or something, because otherwise PG Planets can be all pretty and so on, but the gameplay inside will be hollow, even with all the PG Birds on it! That is why there's backers very critic of SC's aim at PG Planets to be more for the sake of shine than gameplay.
If SC does not put enough effort into flesh out all the careers and different types of gameplay, with enough depth to them, the whole point of SC can be flushed away by something "a mile wide and a inch deep" in terms of gameplay.
Even with both games being different experiences, there is points where it's pretty much the same problem.
On the case, what can CIG learn from some things and discussions that have been going on recently about the status of ED: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4e61fr/what_went_wrong_elite_dangerous/
One of the points, regarding the game not putting enough control on player's hands, that is something SC being focused on the MMO of it, they can't have AI dictate the economy, while it's good for balance, it's awful for one actual game that will be mostly played surrounding the economy, if it is static there's little point. Letting the players have one impact is another thing, that also SC is not to have by release that would be, actually claim something, have ownership or build a factory or one outpost on a planet or something, because otherwise PG Planets can be all pretty and so on, but the gameplay inside will be hollow, even with all the PG Birds on it! That is why there's backers very critic of SC's aim at PG Planets to be more for the sake of shine than gameplay.
If SC does not put enough effort into flesh out all the careers and different types of gameplay, with enough depth to them, the whole point of SC can be flushed away by something "a mile wide and a inch deep" in terms of gameplay.
Even with both games being different experiences, there is points where it's pretty much the same problem.
Last edited:
FoxanotBond
Banned
Like all Sandbox games It's all about balance: Between the sand you give to the players, the tools/toys for them to play with and the consequences when playing with it outside of the "law".
If you give enough sand, the tools and no limitations they will eventually find ways to mess with other peoples gameplay, because that's what people do. Making wall sands around content and prevent other people from accessing it and such. Now that is fine and good IF you also give them consequences for doing that and in the other side of the coin there's meaningful justice.
That could, in theory, be prevented by having an active Police System controlled by GM's (CIG) that put's abuse's in check. Being it by adding game mechanics / event's to prevent it or just giving players tools to fight it (my hope). All in all its another problem for CIG to solve, due to Elite's P2P networking nature and the Solo/MP modes I feel it's a bit harder to enforce those tools and give that freedom to players in the near future than it is for CIG. When they can have full control of their server checks and even direct control in game with overpowered GM's, the perfect system would be Players putting other players in Check.
With a back&forth perpetual cycle of normal life paralel to the good vs bad life. I'm hoping for a system were the ones that just want to have a peaceful/simple trading/mining/scavenging life can do just that and the ones that want glory and risky adventures the same, and mix it up once you feel up for it. That's how I see it anyway. That's what I'm hoping for.
If you give enough sand, the tools and no limitations they will eventually find ways to mess with other peoples gameplay, because that's what people do. Making wall sands around content and prevent other people from accessing it and such. Now that is fine and good IF you also give them consequences for doing that and in the other side of the coin there's meaningful justice.
That could, in theory, be prevented by having an active Police System controlled by GM's (CIG) that put's abuse's in check. Being it by adding game mechanics / event's to prevent it or just giving players tools to fight it (my hope). All in all its another problem for CIG to solve, due to Elite's P2P networking nature and the Solo/MP modes I feel it's a bit harder to enforce those tools and give that freedom to players in the near future than it is for CIG. When they can have full control of their server checks and even direct control in game with overpowered GM's, the perfect system would be Players putting other players in Check.
With a back&forth perpetual cycle of normal life paralel to the good vs bad life. I'm hoping for a system were the ones that just want to have a peaceful/simple trading/mining/scavenging life can do just that and the ones that want glory and risky adventures the same, and mix it up once you feel up for it. That's how I see it anyway. That's what I'm hoping for.
To correct some fud and misinformation the actual title is "Hope CIG can take some cues from ED's demise".
The three main problems with this are :
1 People have been banging on (inaccurately) about ED's demise since gamma testing and every day since. They were wrong then, they are wrong now and they'll be wrong tomorrow.
2 Star Citizen has to be released to compete, this is currently an if and when (big if and a far off when).
3 A thread about ED in the SC reddit will have a disproportionate number of SC fans downvoting pro ED comments. Check the lowest rated comments and see for yourself.
Fair enough, so if ships are already done and implemented in the game, why do you think CIG insists on making cosmetic items the first things that would be purchasable with Alpha UEC?
Nothing outside expect-able, i do filter through what's actually more constructive. There is really things that are just annoying in how ED's does it right and SC follows some dark path, and vice-versa, it's like at times, both games are like Lego pieces that could fit together. But i believe there's similar challenges for SC to solve, that ED also needs to figure out for the best future, and things can be learnt to see what will be the best approach to make it... well, what it needs to be.
Example of a static economy with little player impact is one of the design choices of SC as well that can completely backfire on a game where economy is what drives the game.
You say ED is a fully released game, but when we look at ED we are more focused on the future than on the present, like the game is actively under development to be the game we want it to be, because it's not that yet, pretty much the same with SC, without them going for a base release first.
Example of a static economy with little player impact is one of the design choices of SC as well that can completely backfire on a game where economy is what drives the game.
You say ED is a fully released game, but when we look at ED we are more focused on the future than on the present, like the game is actively under development to be the game we want it to be, because it's not that yet, pretty much the same with SC, without them going for a base release first.
Last edited:
FoxanotBond
Banned
Yeap that thread was trending in lot of subreddit's alright, it was top of r/games, r/starcitizen and even r/elitedangerous all day.
Just shows how much people care! And the opinions are pretty consensual, nothing to do with "disproportionate number of SC fans downvoting pro ED comments". Heck , the most negative comments are in the r/elitedangerous. I guess it's just what passionate people do when they can't deal with the waiting game.
Just shows how much people care! And the opinions are pretty consensual, nothing to do with "disproportionate number of SC fans downvoting pro ED comments". Heck , the most negative comments are in the r/elitedangerous. I guess it's just what passionate people do when they can't deal with the waiting game.
Check the downvoted comments.
When Star Citizen actually fails (instead of pure FUD about ED) we should start a similar thread.
You start something with the easy things, next iterations with more complicated ones.
There's no economy for now (and the ships if someone want to test them are already reachable with REC), clothes for personalization, weapons, armor sets, maybe then ships components and the ships. Until they put the ships ingame there's no cry for the price, and right now there's no progression, there's no reason to put it in the first iteration.
Start with the basics, then you just need to build on that. Right now the Alpha doesn't need the ability to buy a ship(IMO), need that if a get a gun I can keep it, if I do a mission I dont have to do it again if I log out the next hour, better party systems, among other multiple things. Even before getting to the point of selling the ships ingame I would expect to have at least the basics missions with cargo and maybe mining(with this is perfectly reasonable to let people buy mining ships ingame).
They will let everyone buy ships in the alpha eventually, just not(I don't believe it at least) in the first iteration.
But as always this is just my opinión about the subject, everyone can believe whatever he wants.
FoxanotBond
Banned
Can we say double-edged-sword?
I do agree with you about ED demise just like I absolutely disagree with your Star Citizen Demise.
Like Jenner posted before, David Braben said it best: "What both Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are trying to do is very hard indeed. Both games are incredibly ambitious." ... "The scope of both is vast and quite different, and neither have been done before, so there is no right answer for either of the approaches. It is frustrating to see some of the criticism of Star Citizen online. We should applaud when someone tries something that is hard, that hasn’t been done, not discourage them."
They are just games in development and will only get better and better given the time and support of the gaming community.
Like you say, REC is already implemented in the alpha as a placeholder currency. They just need to add to how it can be used, since ship rental is confirmed for the PU as well. The last monthly report already confirms that clothing and customization aren't even close to being finished, while hangars and ship delivery are all available to players already. The only thing left is to implement an actual in-game store for exchanging REC for ships and it'll be done. Looks like a pretty hard sell to say that creating an entirely new currency, an item delivery system, and a clothing customization system is "starting with basics" for their economy when they've been selling and renting ships for real money over the past two years.
That said, setting up systems to keep track of 3 different types of currency when there should only just be 1 in the final product seems like a CIG thing to do. I'm not sure how people can claim that their code isn't fragmented when setting up a whole new currency system is a better option than adapting REC for non-rental purposes.
EDIT: It's also pretty crazy to say that the alpha doesn't need a means of buying ships, when selling ships has been CIG's main source of income for the past 2-4 years, and REC almost already delivers entirely on the ship selling front.
Last edited:
One of which has been successfully released and has the first major expansion underway.
The other has missed deadlines, repeated reworking, dropped features and is refusing refunds to disgruntled early backers following massive scope creep and massive basic design change.
Right now there's no comparison, we may be able to make one in future. But by that time there will be other space flight games out already some of which look great.
I think you're going too far with that view pretty much. 
... To be known is really, is really not very clear witch of them is going to face most progress and delivery, that's to be seen.
Also there are several space sims around that look great to come, put MMO on it, and you have nothing that offers what SC is going for, that is where i see those games that while look great, won't be competition on that aspect.
In the other thread, everybody is going mad about SC following the player activity and interaction model of EVE because EvE does give players a ton of control. Now everybody is mad because they want SC to have one economy and game players can impact at the same time they don't want to have it because it can be manipulated. Hmmm
... To be known is really, is really not very clear witch of them is going to face most progress and delivery, that's to be seen.Also there are several space sims around that look great to come, put MMO on it, and you have nothing that offers what SC is going for, that is where i see those games that while look great, won't be competition on that aspect.
In the other thread, everybody is going mad about SC following the player activity and interaction model of EVE because EvE does give players a ton of control. Now everybody is mad because they want SC to have one economy and game players can impact at the same time they don't want to have it because it can be manipulated. Hmmm
Last edited:
FoxanotBond
Banned
There's no comparison indeed, yet some keep going at it, and I agree the future is bright alright, plenty of Space Flight games on the way the more the merrier!
Let's wait for it before making comparisons then. Let's sit back and enjoy the ride whille we feast with space gaming!
Let's wait for it before making comparisons then. Let's sit back and enjoy the ride whille we feast with space gaming!
There it is again. Can anybody name a game that got increasingly worse after burning through the GDP of a small country?
I don't think you understand what double-edged sword means. It's a weapon that is equally likely to cut yourself as it is likely to serve your needs. For example: "Open Development" is a double edged sword because while it affords somewhat greater transparency to what you're doing, it also opens you to all the (valid) criticism about the process that you then have to deal with in some way.
In that vein, criticism is absolutely a weakness of "open development" in 8-10 year project with massive scope creep, one which future developers will definitely take into account before trying to imitate CR. CIG chose this route so they have to deal with it. Western cultures may find criticism synonymous with discouragement but that's absolutely not the case. Nobody is telling CIG to pack their bags, close their studios, and go home. People are saying CIG should set up a proper refund policy, provide financial accountability as promised and focus on making a game rather than marketing. CIG have plenty of practices that need to be changed, unless you're saying that letting Chris Roberts continue to spew garbage statements out of his mouth for money should be encouraged when it's a statistical certainty that he's going to contradict himself later anyway.
SC is a game in development just like Godus, DayZ and Roller Coaster Tycoon World are games in development. All of them are obviously going to get better with time, but it's very likely that going the way they are now, SC will wind up like the other three.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Isn't that a comparison in itself? You can't compare the finished products, but you've certainly compared the activities and methods of both studios!
Last edited:
- Status