The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[milligna]

I harp on about this point - but someone really needs to get CR on record explaining what this "minimum viable product" is, exactly. All the theorycrafting and um, maybe is nice - but what are they actually aiming to deliver?

Or maybe asking Erin Roberts would provide a more realistic response cutting through all the feature creep. Speaking of the dreaded feature creep... flashback to two years ago.

STAR CITIZEN MEMORY LANE

Dateline: 6.19.14

CR: "The thing is, I know people get worried--"oh feature creep" and "you keep adding these features"--but you know, we're building an online game, and that hangar is on people's machines, the dogfighting module is on people's machines. We patch it all the time, so feature creep doesn't really apply in those setups, because normally what will happen with feature creep is "Oh I want to play this extra feature," and it would always push back when you would roll out the game, because you'd always have to rely on a disc. Whereas now, it's like, we really like this feature, but it doesn't mean that you aren't pushing out the game without this feature, and then just patching it with that feature later on. That's the kind of approach we're taking.

So the extra level of funding is pretty great, because it's allowing me to ramp up a bunch of stuff much sooner than I normally would have been able to. I'll be able to deliver more features sooner in the cycle. Because originally, when I wanted to do this, I always wanted to make what Star Citizen is with all of these features...but I was being realistic about it.

I'm pretty sure by the time the game is finished...I don't know how much the Old Republic budget was, but we'll probably be up there. Some people say it was 400 or 500 million, and who knows how much of that was marketing. We won't be up there, but I definitely think that we'll be, by the time the game is finished, we'll be at the 80, 90, or 100 million dollar range of funding, and most of it will be all for the game."

Cough.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-citizen-and-crowdfunding-an-interview-with-ch/1100-6421207/

 

[tooterfish]

I agree. I doubt FD want their own forums to become yet another battleground between those that are pro/anti Star Citizen. Why is it only this particular game that causes the thread to descend into argumentative chaos so regularly? Look at the other games in the Off Topic section. Limit Theory, No Man's Sky, Everspace... the discussions there manage to remain relatively civil.

If the arguments are because there is little game-related stuff to talk about, causing the debate to inevitably gravitate to how the money's being spent, who's left, who's a shill etc, then maybe it would be better if this thread is locked by default, and only opened when there's a new point release (2.4 - 2.5 for example). I'm sure that even then it will descend into personal attacks again and subsequently get locked, but at least it stands a chance of actually discussing the game most of the time.

IMO, if a battleground is wanted, stick to posting on Reddit.

Here's the thing, the common denominator for all these threads are members of the Frontier community.

So if those threads on other games are relatively polite, and this thread isn't, who's more than likely culpable for that? The people who're on this forum all the time, or the people who've come here just to post in this thread? Process of elimination strongly suggests the latter.

 

[lysan]

Just took a quick visit to my email box, clicked on one of the 194 emails I've received from Roberts Space Industries:

http://i.imgur.com/NAFN7Lr.png

Clicking that link: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13382-Letter-From-The-Chairman-28-Million

And behold, there's a poll at the bottom of it. At that stage, most announcements of stretch-goals being met were accompanied by a poll as to what the next stretch goal should be.

It's funny, first you guys were saying CIG didn't allow backers any say in stretch goals. Now folks are saying not enough backers got to vote.

At this point, I've provided the facts, and you've all fallen back on opinion.

At that stage, most announcements of stretch-goals being met were accompanied by a poll as to what the next stretch goal should be.

Stretch-goals, not if the expanded scope should be influencing the game development time line.

Did we see a poll where CIG asked the backers, all of them.

Do you want to delay this project due to the expanded funding so that we can build a larger game for you instead of the announced features?
Nope I can't find any polls asking for that. What I can find are the same release dates, that was never accomplished.

I only remember one poll on the RSI forum where backers was asked if they were ok with AC being delayed due to some netcode issues. Still not solved I might add.

but hey that is ok, I really don't want to keep ping ponging here, last question. Do you believe that everything is just perfect and fine, if so when do you believe CIG will release a game (SQ42/SC) that is not in alpha, beta or gamma?

 

[Asp Explorer]

I've never been accused of being a goon before.

My lulzbucket go so full it exploded and spawned little baby lulzbuckets all over the place.

 

[Electrofreak]

So if SC just got a first version of an item system, it's save to assume that so did SQ42. Which is weird, because I'd expect items to carry a significant gameplay role.

It's called Item System 2.0 and is specifically designed for improving the back-end item management of the persistent universe. Star Citizen has had an item system since Arena Commander was launched.

This is unfortunately the kind of misunderstanding that fuels a lot of the very anti-SC sentiment.

Did we see a poll where CIG asked the backers, all of them.

When stretch goals were completed, emails were sent out to every backer about it. In the letters from the chairman linked in those emails, polls on what players wanted next were provided.

Not everyone voted, but every backer received an email link to those polls.

So, what exactly is it you're suggesting they should have done?

 

[milligna]

When you don't have a game and the goals, priorities, terms of service, employees, modules, methodologies, and current focus is constantly changing, it's relatively easy to "misunderstand" things. You always hear that in the comments section of any piece that has a minor quibble about Star Citizen. Oh you just didn't do enough RESEARCH. Even if you did, and can cite CR verse and scripture, there's a bit of a Ron Ziegler "inoperative statement" clause that justifies whatever needs justifying.

Burying things in hundreds of hours of unwatchable videos that are inaccurately transcribed by some weird PR effort doesn't make it any easier to pin these slippery things down.

 

[ghcannon]

It's called Item System 2.0 and is specifically designed for improving the back-end item management of the persistent universe. Star Citizen has had an item system since Arena Commander was launched

Okay, that makes more sense. Though that extended backend support could still be necessary in SQ42?
I'll stop now because I rely too much on my crystal globe and that's not constructive.

This is unfortunately the kind of misunderstanding that fuels a lot of the very anti-SC sentiment.

I always thought that's due to the lack of a game in there. They can say they're implementing Item System 8.0 and it's affecting backend stuff too. I'm a game dev for a living so I understand how valuable is to have a stable platform for your game and how important it is to dedicate time for that. But they have to make and show some of the actual game too .. All their frameworks should be able to achieve a basic set of testable functionality with promising results when it comes to scaling them. And with 1m+ backers that will be necessary.

 

[MarktJones]

There's been a lot of drama recently so I don't ask this lightly, regarding the item system, will there be little nets for catching the fishtank fish I want to sell?

 

[Electrofreak]

Okay, that makes more sense. Though that extended backend support could still be necessary in SQ42?
I'll stop now because I rely too much on my crystal globe and that's not constructive.



I always thought that's due to the lack of a game in there. They can say they're implementing Item System 8.0 and it's affecting backend stuff too. I'm a game dev for a living so I understand how valuable is to have a stable platform for your game and how important it is to dedicate time for that. But they have to make and show some of the actual game too .. All their frameworks should be able to achieve a basic set of testable functionality with promising results when it comes to scaling them. And with 1m+ backers that will be necessary.

Good question, Item System 2.0 could very much tie into SQ42; it really depends upon the implementation. Item System 2.0 really lends to inventory management more than anything else. I would expect SQ42 to have inventory management mechanics, so I would expect it to. Or, if you're just a soldier stuck with whatever guns and ships you're told to use, perhaps not, though that does seem unlikely.

I'm in software development to a degree myself; I write code to audit systems, build databases, and search those databases.

Regarding your question on the state of the game, are you referring to Star Citizen the MMO, or SQ42 the single-player campaign?

About the only thing we've seen in regards to SQ42 was The Morrow Tour demoed live in October 2015. We really have little idea on how complete that game is. CIG continues to cite spoilers as the main reason they won't show more.

As to Star Citizen the game itself, anyone can see the current state of the Alpha PU by watching someone play it: https://www.twitch.tv/starcitizen/profile

Obviously there's some pre-production stuff going on, but we do know they're working on fleshing out the Crusader system with additional stations and assets, as well as developing the mining and repair mechanics.

When you don't have a game and the goals, priorities, terms of service, employees, modules, methodologies, and current focus is constantly changing, it's relatively easy to "misunderstand" things. You always hear that in the comments section of any piece that has a minor quibble about Star Citizen. Oh you just didn't do enough RESEARCH. Even if you did, and can cite CR verse and scripture, there's a bit of a Ron Ziegler "inoperative statement" clause that justifies whatever needs justifying.

Burying things in hundreds of hours of unwatchable videos that are inaccurately transcribed by some weird PR effort doesn't make it any easier to pin these slippery things down.

On the flip-side, a lot of ignorance seemingly excuses those making wild, baseless claims.

I'll be happy to try to provide facts where they're needed. You're absolutely right, having everything buried in mixed media is a nightmare, and I can't agree more whole-heartedly that CIG should be making a better effort to consolidate the information that's been provided.

There's been a lot of drama recently so I don't ask this lightly, regarding the item system, will there be little nets for catching the fishtank fish I want to sell?

Excellent question. Fortunately, in the future, nets are no longer required. Utilizing state-of-the-art stasis-field manipulation technology, one can use the MobiGlas (versions 387 and later) to relocate small items such as fish directly into your suit local inventory. In low-storage flight suits, this may require you to relocate the item into the region directly between the gluteus maximus muscles of the posterior.

 

[ianw]

There's been a lot of drama recently so I don't ask this lightly, regarding the item system, will there be little nets for catching the fishtank fish I want to sell?

I don't think you're approaching this subject with the deference it is due!

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Excellent question. Fortunately, in the future, nets are no longer required. Utilizing state-of-the-art stasis-field manipulation technology, one can use the MobiGlas (versions 387 and later) to relocate small items such as fish directly into your suit local inventory. In low-storage flight suits, this may require you to relocate the item into the region directly between the gluteus maximus muscles of the posterior.

So that's what went wrong with the Babelfish!

 

[Stigbob]

There's been a lot of drama recently so I don't ask this lightly, regarding the item system, will there be little nets for catching the fishtank fish I want to sell?

You'll be able to train your procedurally generated space gannet to catch it, shock collars and gannet feed are extra.

 

[MarktJones]

Excellent question. Fortunately, in the future, nets are no longer required. Utilizing state-of-the-art stasis-field manipulation technology, one can use the MobiGlas (versions 387 and later) to relocate small items such as fish directly into your suit local inventory. In low-storage flight suits, this may require you to relocate the item into the region directly between the gluteus maximus muscles of the posterior.

That's the best answer to one of my questions I've had. Admittedly that says more about my questions than the quality of the answers...

 

[swfanatic717]

If in fact you do go back and look back, I provided the example poll in response to swfanatic717's request:

and his subsequent response:

You barged in on the exchange, accused me of being Max, and now you're trying to make like I was answering your argument.

CIG did send out emails that linked to polls. Whether or not those polls were open for long enough or contained the right options is up for debate. I know of at least one poll that asked the community as to whether or not they wanted to continue to have stretchgoals.

Surely if your points were valid it wouldn't matter who you were addressing when you bring them up? As it is, the poll data you provide shows that even among the active SC community not even a simple majority vote could be reached regarding the various expansion options that CIG put in motion.

I don't think you can claim the community "agreed" on something when the data explicitly shows that it was a minority that wanted the scope change.

 

[Electrofreak]

So that's what went wrong with the Babelfish!

This is accurate, and explains why everyone is talking out of their ass.

EDIT - Speaking of which, look who is here!

 

[dsmart]

Notice how sources for claims are cited in Mr. Smarts posts?

Why isn't that the norm rather than the exception?

I have entire Evernote notebooks of everything. I have records of everything. That's why my Star Citizen blogs - all of them - cite all those sources when necessary.

e.g. just the other day some fool on Twitter was arguing with me about "vaulting" being promised. Claimed I was making ^%#%$%@ up. Until I yanked this out.

Thing is, even in the face of hardcore facts, these guys will still argue and try to find justification for their insane arguments. Oh, and as I type this, they're still arguing on Reddit that "Star Marine is still coming". Even after croberts has gone on the record saying that "it's already in the PU"; which ofc we know - for a fact - isn't true because what they've shown of Star Marine is definitely NOT in the PU.

Arguing with these guys is such a waste of time. But I do it because raising awareness is key to other backers not getting duped. If those guys want to keep putting money into the project, due to either sunk cost fallacy, cognitive dissonance of a combo of both, that's fine - let them. e.g. the latest JPEG (the Buccaneer) image of a ship, for a game that doesn't exist, just went on sale. Though it's doing even worse than the previous one, people still put almost $200K into buying it. That despite the fact that evidence is mounting that the funding chart is being manipulated by CIG in order to show false growth; thus roping in more unsuspecting backers.

 

[Electrofreak]

Surely if your points were valid it wouldn't matter who you were addressing as they said it? As it is, the poll data you provide shows that even among the active SC community not even a simple consensus could be reached regarding the various expansion options that CIG put in motion.

I don't think you can claim the community "agreed" on something when the data explicitly shows that it was a minority that wanted the scope change.

If we're talking about this poll, keep in mind that those polled were allowed to pick 3 items they were most interested in.

 

[MarktJones]

This is accurate, and explains why everyone is talking out of their ass.

You are far too humorous to be a supporter of SC.

 

[dsmart]

The only conclusion is that you've literally never been right in any of your predictions about Star Citizen. Why would anyone believe you now?

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Me and those who know better, are still laughing at that. But hey, the more you repeat it, the more plausible it obviously sounds in your head. So please, by all means, continue doing what you're doing. Nobody can or is going to stop you.

I stand 100% by everything I've stated, and have unwavering confidence that the project is doomed, will fail, and will wipe every penny backers put into it. It's not a matter of if, but when. And posts like these, will stand the test of time and be right here for reference. So do that thing: bookmark it.

 

[Electrofreak]

e.g. just the other day some fool on Twitter was arguing with me about "vaulting" being promised. Claimed I was making ^%#%$%@ up. Until I yanked this out.

Vaulting is promised. It didn't make it into 2.2 because the player base demanded the physicalized EVA be fixed.

Further work on vaulting is documented in the most recent monthly studio report under the Foundry 42 UK section:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15285-Monthly-Studio-Report

Next question Dr. Dr. Smart? Keep in mind that you cannot ban me here for proving you wrong.