The Star Citizen Thread v 4
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
It could be just me, but what he said there could be interpreted as '...we'll keep working on additional content, such as the stretch goals, for as long as you guys keep funding us...'
If I'd stumped up even 20$ to help CIG meet a stretch goal, I'd have every right to expect that content to be supplied without more funding. It'd be a bit like FDev saying my Lifetime Pass needs renewing.
Hopefully this is just an interpretation, and not what he was really trying to say. Hopefully.
Edit: As for the difficulty at eleven, not ten... anyone else reminded of:
[video=youtube;4xgx4k83zzc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc[/video]
Last edited:
What a time to be alive
Living the dream - surfing the wave! WHOOOSH!
Still no TrackIR support?
Anyone got any idea when this will be back?
Anyone got any idea when this will be back?
Best guess, nobody, not even CR.
Do you really need TrackIR support when you have motion capped pets on the way?
and birds?
You're incredibly ungrateful.
Hah ha you wish. The brand apathy around these games is crazy and people write their own realities in which everything that is being done by company A is entirely different to company B.
If RSI put out an MVP version of Star-Citizen they probably won't use words like "release" and I doubt they'll be pulling in the extra hours to fix all of the show stopping bugs that Frontier did over that Christmas period. The hard-core fans will insist it's not the same and that everything RSI is doing is correct and everything Frontier did was lazy/wrong/tool of the horned one.
If ED was still in early access/Alpha there would be no discernible difference in the way they are being offered to an outsider. Both still in active development with no clear cut-off point.
It's only that Frontier put out something they called a "release" that differentiates them. It's otherwise meaningless in terms of where they both are as projects. They are just two space games in active development with reasonable sized teams behind them.
Completely disagree, ED has planets I can land on and stations. It has an excellent well thought out Flight model, it has balanced arena combat, it has 'first order' controls across all inputs so no controller issuers like SC. SC is riddled with bugs, there is one station, most ships cant even fly properly, controls are the worst implementation in the history of space-sims, the flight model is just Crysis without a floor with zero consequence to maneuvers strafe left strafe right. The difference is SC has no worthwhile core gameplay or even a believable roadmap.
I backed both games and had little to no interest in Elite, I just backed it to support space-sims. Star Citizen was a complete bait and switch, direct lies were told to early backers on countless things and now it is a garbage FPS in space. The worst implementation of gameplay in any space-sim I have ever played from IWAR 2 to X-rebirth. They crapped on the space-sim community who backed early pursuing casual money and now they have flip flopped so many things the result is an incoherent mess. Frontier have not done that and I for one am grateful and will continue to support them.
Last edited:
Didn't look too bad, thanks for posting up, albeit not hugely evolved from what I'd seen before.
The weapons didn't convey very much 'oomph' to me, both looking and sounding quite thin. They also didn't look to be coming from anywhere near my ship - really odd - they reminded me of an early X-wing game, with the 'four-corners-converge' effect.
I hope there's a way to turn off the endless chatter from the ships' systems, it was driving me a tinsy bit mad by the end - mind you it was a rather busy environment, so maybe it's not a huge issue in more general play.
That is the problem. They have never been in the position to do this because backers have been projecting and CIG have not shut this down.
A "minimum viable product" would have to be seen as a failure.
I agree that there is a very strong sense of supporter brand loyalty with some people. I used to be very even handed about both but SC just gradually wore me down over the years to the point where I can't take anything they say at face value until they actually do it.
I'd agree with that - even at the stage they are at now the devs must be under horrendous pressure to deliver. (Edit - I misread it - actually I think they would pull out all the stops - CR seems like a bit of a taskmaster - unless of course he does a foxtrot oscar to a far away beach post "release"
- the rest stands as is).I'd agree that both projects are in active development - albeit at very different stages.
There is a big difference is the way they are/have been presented. CIG have consistently hyped and over promised on pretty much everything and are now it seems desperately trying to figure out what they can actually deliver and then how they can deliver it.
There is also a difference in the way they are presented to the outside world. New stuff from ED since released has so far gone into beta with no NDA.
Whereas at CIG from what we understand no-one gets to see the latest releases or gets hands-on (even the press) apart from the super secret cadre of special backers who are under strict NDA. There is a huge difference in the way they are being offered to both their backers and outsiders.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree. If RSI said tomorrow "Right, patch 2.4 is now the release product" without persistence, with only 2 missions, with only 1 star system, with no planetary landings, with half the ships people had "paid good money for" still not even in the hangar, etc, etc... It would not be accurate to say it was the same as ED(H)
Well, as far as I know they stated that head tracking is going to be implemented much earlier than VR.
That doesn't really mean much in an absence of deadlines and a roadmap. Much earlier than never could still be a lot of time to wait.
I think CR heard one of his employees use the phrase "minimum viable product" in a meeting or some ridiculous business self help lecture and he glommed on to it in his usual magpie way and regurgitated it during one of his Castro-like stream of consciousness tirades without realizing it's not a phrase devoted fans should hear... they've had years of "unlike with traditional publishers, they'll take years to get it right! I'm willing to pay to give them time to get it right!" And suddenly it's all silly corporate speak like minimum viable product... I doubt he'll use it again!
Essentially no advertising, indeed. (insert elaborate hand gestures here)
It is really fascinating to follow development. I don't recall a game having this much drama associated with it for AGES. So even if I couldn't get a refund, it does provide educational and entertainment value! Also I really feel for all the employees and developers there. Well, most of them. The tech sorts. I can't imagine the chaos and inexplicable crunch time schedules over nearly five years and then being told it's the early stages of development.
Essentially no advertising, indeed. (insert elaborate hand gestures here)
It is really fascinating to follow development. I don't recall a game having this much drama associated with it for AGES. So even if I couldn't get a refund, it does provide educational and entertainment value! Also I really feel for all the employees and developers there. Well, most of them. The tech sorts. I can't imagine the chaos and inexplicable crunch time schedules over nearly five years and then being told it's the early stages of development.
Last edited:
I took the break after 0.8/0.9, tested a little exactly a year ago for a brief moment due to bugged joystick/HOTAS controls.
However, I never had any of the issues you have described since I restarted playing SC with PTU 2.1.
Indeed you cannot land on the planets in SC... yet, however, the seamless transition of the flight from space to orbit to surface was already demonstrated. And it looks much more seamless than what we have in ED. So we have to wait and see how it is going to be implemented in the public build when it is ready.
1. Flight model.
It was significantly changed in 2.0, it is still being improved, and it is completely different from the FM that was there before 2.0. I.e. I find it quite enjoyable to fly in SC now with HOTAS + rudder pedals, I have attempted to test KB/M and it felt awkward to me, so I switched back to HOTAS immediately, and for me it is way more comfortable this way.
After playing SC and retrospectively looking at ED's flight model, I would question the idea of "slow" yaw in ED. While I play SC, I use all three axes (pitch/yaw/roll) at the same time to control the movements of the ships. I do exactly the same in ED even with a much slower yaw, i.e. it really changes nothing. And a friend of mine had exactly the same feelings after testing SC recently.
Actually, I would say that yaw gives more options in SC compared with ED. And I think that it is very important to add here that the designs of the ships, e.g. thruster placements significantly affect the pitch/yaw/roll rates. I.e. if you use one ship you can find it more easy to perform pitch/yaw manoeuvres, however, if you take Gladius - this ship favours pitch/roll controls. I.e. SC seems to be more realistic in this way without artificial limitations.
2. Controller devices.
The controller devices in SC are probably going to define the loadout that players are going to choose, i.e. HOTAS is more suitable for fixed weapons, while KB/M are more suitable for gimballed weapons, and gimballed weapons are one size smaller than fixed one, which is meant to balance the weapons.
----
Reading the rest of this part regarding the controls, ships, etc. makes me wonder, when actually you were playing SC the last time?
One station is not the issue for the current moment. It suits it purpose, which is testing quite well. Not to mention that there are different POI. And what do you mean that the ships can't fly properly? I was flying Gladius, SH, Sabre, Scythe, Glaive, Vanguard, M50, 350R, and I did not have any issues with flying them. What consequences do you expect from strafing left or right?
Some of the gameplay elements are already there, and I think that the only reason why someone is saying that there is not "worthwhile core gameplay" is that this person have not played it. Unfortunately for ED, even the limited amount of quests available in the baby PU now are way more interesting than what ED has offered for the given time. The quests incorporate flying the space ships, tracing the beacons, combat, and EVA. Not to mention that the quests have different ways of development.
I would agree with you definition of SC being FPS in space a year ago, or at 0.8 launch. However, I completely disagree with this definition if we are speaking of the current version of the release.
I would say that currently implementing TrackIR is not a priority for them. There are lots of more important things to do.
I think that partly that's because we all have pre-conceptions on what constitutes an acceptable product. If you boil it down, both companies are producing an entertainment package in a similar genre. What a "ship" is in Star Citizen is not necessarily the same as a "ship" in ED. Naturally, no consumer thinks beyond those kind of abstracts. My point was merely that if you really were able to look past that (and obviously nobody does) it's a bunch of 3D rendered assets, control schemes, sound profiles and whatever packaged up and delivered as a download with lots of promises that it'll all be so much more.
If we were all able to step back we'd find that both Frontier & RSI are just trying to make space games and people seem to get really really annoyed at them for it. In fact people that really want to play space games probably get more annoyed at the people trying to make space games than they do with things in society that could really do with them getting annoyed at.
I still hope (yeah call me naive) that FD realises this at some point and adds a meaningful mission system that is does not blatantly really on grinding mechanics by actually aids the immersion and emergent gameplay experience. When i am in a very good mood, i even tell myself that 2.1 will be this point and that all the delays serve only the purpose to fix the issues with the missions. When i'm in a good mood and had a lot of quality time lately i even start to believe that PP will become the epic emergent MMO RvR-style struggle and all this extremely cheap F2P Mobile-ripoff mechanics (PAY4TIMERS!) turn out to be a big misunderstanding.
But on the typical day, i tend to think that none of the contenders (ED, SC, NMS,...) will become the ultimate "I feel like i am a badass space pilot in a brillant scify setting"-kind of game.
It's a shame that trackIR isn't something they are thinking about any time soon. The game would benefit from it and seems like it would be a nice win for them. ED has supported this since near enough alpha way back then and they seemed of the mind that it was a quick and easy win for them.
I suppose that it might be creating problems for them in the FPS side of the game maybe and that ED might have to leap that hurdle when they go FPS at whatever point. Just me trying to justify it here not from any understanding of the tech issues with it for CIG.
I suppose that it might be creating problems for them in the FPS side of the game maybe and that ED might have to leap that hurdle when they go FPS at whatever point. Just me trying to justify it here not from any understanding of the tech issues with it for CIG.
I have tested all the variations of SC and there is no flying in the game 'at all' . Many ships accelerate faster sideways than forwards with boost, there is far too much time on target and that is the case for all iterations despite tiny improvements in more recent versions. As for controls no developer with a brain mixes zero order and first order controls, Warthunder and MWO did it and both were complete disasters for Joystick/gamepad users. The 'flight' in SC is simply nothing like what was pitched in any of the trailers, if you look at any video of PVP in SC its absolutely the same as any footage you see from an FPS. The most common term used on the Arena Commander forums is 'Knife fighting' a pure FPS mechanic that I have never heard used in any Space-sim only FPS games.
As for fixed weapons for stick and gimbals for mouse, thats the most stupid way of balancing a game ever, locking one input device out of gimbals entirely when a virtual joystick for mouse works fine with fixed. Infinity Battlescape and ED both feature automated gimbals with first order controls schemes, because the devs actually know what their doing and realize manual control of gimbals for a pointing device is a horrible game-breaking idea just a cheap way of getting in more backers with easy mode controls. There is also zero cost to strafe, you can just use boost to get out of any bad maneuvers and it is far too powerful again like an FPS which results in 'knife fighting'. I compare the experience of CQC to Arena Commander and the difference is very simple one game is space-sim, the other is an FPS in space. I will repeat I have played every other space-sim you can think of from Diaspora to Freespace and this is by far the worst gameplay I have ever experienced in a space-game. It doesn't even resemble a space-sim.
Finally as for the nerfed yaw, it doesn't bother me in ED at all and I think it has led to great dogfights from my experience in CQC and open play, even if it wasn't nerfed you can still have great gameplay as IWAR 2/Diaspora have proven(with much weaker strafe). I can easily upload youtube footage to show this, in the four years of watching AC/SC videos I have not seen anything resembling a dogfight unless its with AI. It always ends up looking like descent drones circling each other pew pew pew till one is dead.
Last edited:
- Status