The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

If I remember my lectures on gamedev QA accurately, there's a good case to be made for sending out multiple different builds to different subgroups of testers to make sure they focus on different mechanical aspects.
As 2.6 is supposedly shipping out different changes, both the overhauled flight models as well as the introduction of FPS mechanics, it would even make sense for CIG to roll out "partial" builds to their testers.

Not saying this is the case, just saying it's a conceivable and in fact frequently used practice within the closed-testing phase of game development.
It would however, be a logical explanation for the different contradictory "leaks"

There's nothing contradictory about it. There are lot of people in SC community loving to claim things they have played - happens all the time (that time when some guys claimed they have "got" Derek with feeding false information about 3.0 demo on subreddit). It's sort of wishful fulfillment. As far as I have read, CIG has never employed such strategy and I really doubt they have done this now. Most likely SM is not ready yet, and will be rolled into build at later date. It means testing will go on for some time, most likely till Christmas (All my speculation of course).

Anyway, I agree with those that as long as it is not appearing as public release it is really nothing to talk about.

 

[Rolan]

Do we know if the Evocati have had just one build per release number (e.g. 2.5) in the past, or several?

Several

Supposedly SM(at least the maps) is in the Patch, just not active right now.

 

[Noctrach]

There's nothing contradictory about it. There are lot of people in SC community loving to claim things they have played - happens all the time (that time when some guys claimed they have "got" Derek with feeding false information about 3.0 demo on subreddit). It's sort of wishful fulfillment. As far as I have read, CIG has never employed such strategy and I really doubt they have done this now. Most likely SM is not ready yet, and will be rolled into build at later date. It means testing will go on for some time, most likely till Christmas (All my speculation of course).

Anyway, I agree with those that as long as it is not appearing as public release it is really nothing to talk about.

Fair assessment ^^

 

[Discjirm]

If I remember my lectures on gamedev QA accurately, there's a good case to be made for sending out multiple different builds to different subgroups of testers to make sure they focus on different mechanical aspects.
As 2.6 is supposedly shipping out different changes, both the overhauled flight models as well as the introduction of FPS mechanics, it would even make sense for CIG to roll out "partial" builds to their testers.

Not saying this is the case, just saying it's a conceivable and in fact frequently used practice within the closed-testing phase of game development.
It would however, be a logical explanation for the different contradictory "leaks"

That's a really good point. I've heard of that being done, but not in my segment of the industry (non-gaming). However it becomes much more complex from a build management point of view. It also means the thing being tested isn't near the final configuration.

So yes, that's another option. Hopefully there'll be a build number or configuration ID somewhere on screen or accessible to the testers. If they're different for different Evocati, then that would point to different builds.

Actually, thinking about that: if I wanted to prevent leaks, I might be tempted to give every Evocati tester a slightly different build number and display it on screen as if it was a version number. That way, you can directly trace any images or videos that are leaked ... [big grin]

 

[dsmart]

Actually it makes perfect sense that Ben wouldn't know that. He's an engine dev - not a project manager or team lead.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. At any moment in time, every single dev working on a project - especially a dev that's actively working on a live build - knows what's going on with the project, what build is due, when, what's in it etc.

In his defense (not that he needs any defending), it's not his place to state on-the-record what's in a build if his bosses haven't done so. Especially in an instance whereby they are actively controlling the flow of information.

You would think that they spend so much time writing tomes of information, make videos etc, that something as simple as saying whether or not a critical component is in a build, should be common place.

There is no confusion here. SM isn't in the 2.6 build they released yesterday. As of this (5:12PM EST) moment, it hasn't been released. Anyone who says that it is, is blatantly lying.

In fact, now even the /r/StarCitizen/ denizens are actively stifling any information about this. My guess is that by the time word is widespread, they're hoping that CIG would have released it as an update.

Just now posted on my Discord channel:

the subreddit is cracking down on anything pertaining to whether or not star marine is in the release pretty hard. That post from yesterday was deleted. two threads about it have been removed. their posting guidelines about evocati leaks are the following: "When an Evocati testing session begins, information about it may not be posted until one month after the end of the session in question. Exceptions to the rule include posting the fact that an Evocati session has started, and very basic information regarding the Evocati session theme (e.g. "Balance is being redone." or "3.0 Evocati testing has begun")." I would consider whether or not the main component of the patch is actually in the patch to be pretty basic info but I guess not..

$137 million open development project; yet backers have no idea what is in a build that's over 6 months late.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/804048945999736832

 

[AJW]

Supposedly SM(at least the maps) is in the Patch, just not active right now.

Well yes, they can include all sorts of files in a build that don't actually do anything. As to whether this is a good thing to do, it rather depends why you do it. Trying to make out that such 'content' is in any meaningful way being tested is of course nonsensical.

 

[dsmart]

It is odd in the context of "open" development. But we all know the reason why. CIG don't want negative comments published about early builds when they are under pressure to release stuff, hence the avocado NDA thing. CIG need the funding stream to continue flowing, negative stuff on youtube and other social media threatens that stream - this introduces a greater risk of failure. It's not rocket science, it's business

- - - Updated - - -


Derek Smart has stated he has access to an Evocati account.
I doubt he is lying about it. (it seems too wild a claim to be bulls**t)
He says Star Marine is not there.
This is most likely to be true.

They know I have access to an Evocati account, and know people who do. I have written extensively about Evocati builds before. In fact, I wrote an entire blog about the ludicrousness of it all. Especially when they started increasing the numbers to subscribers.

Also, as I said earlier, every single one of my CIG/RSI sources have told me that it's not in it, that it's simply not ready. And TWO went on the record saying that they simply don't know WHY 2.6 was released in the first place.

I will now point to my two previous scoops (1, 2) on the status of 2.6 (delayed) and 3.0 (non-existent) patches

- - - Updated - - -

With all due respect to Derek I would be much rather looking for actual direct confirmation from CIG on this. I do not see how CIG confirming explicitely that Star Marine is playable in this first evocati build could be harmful to the project. Quite the opposite. The fact that CIG is actually NOT confirming it (so far, and apologies if missed) is what seems a bit odd.

So would every backer. So far, with all the questions on RSI forum about this, not a peep from CIG/RSI. Yet, somehow that's perfectly normal and not a sign that they're hiding something.

 

[dsmart]

Not knowing much about the way the Evocati process works, it's perfectly possible that they throw not just one build at the holy Evocati testers, but several over the test period as bugs are fixed. If they do, it may be possible for Star Marine not to be in the current build, but to be in a later Evocati build.

It wouldn't make much sense to do it that way (you'd want the testers to have all the functionality planned to be in the relevant release), but then not much of their project management seems to make much sense.

Do we know if the Evocati have had just one build per release number (e.g. 2.5) in the past, or several?

Oh, and I still haven't quite got around to buying Star Citizen ...

It goes like this: dev (pushed by devs for testing) -> QA (internal QA) -> Evocati (usually the same build as QA) -> wide testing (out of Evocati to larger group, usually subscribers) -> live (wide public release)

Like all builds, the Evocati builds have a unique internal build number that is incremented with each update. The updates during the Evocati test phase, go through the normal test cycle.

And it's all one build. They don't send different builds to different groups.

This release of 2.6 sans Star Marine indicates to me that either i) they want to test other things first before pushing it to Evocati from SQ or ii) it's so badly broken, that it's never coming out this year.

Note that they had slated Dec 8th as the official release. That date pushes up against the holiday sales. So this preemptive move to push 2.6 to Evocati, to me, is yet another carrot stick ploy by CIG to boost confidence during the upcoming sale, then post-sale, announce that SM isn't coming after all, let alone 2.6 going wide. Mark my words.

It's horrible. And this sort of thing is why it is hilarious to me that whales keep funding this project.

ps: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/

 

[Hi-Ban]

It goes like this: dev (pushed by devs for testing) -> QA (internal QA) -> Evocati (usually the same build as QA) -> wide testing (out of Evocati to larger group, usually subscribers) -> live (wide public release)

Like all builds, the Evocati builds have a unique internal build number that is incremented with each update. The updates during the Evocati test phase, go through the normal test cycle.

And it's all one build. They don't send different builds to different groups.

This release of 2.6 sans Star Marine indicates to me that either i) they want to test other things first before pushing it to Evocati from SQ or ii) it's so badly broken, that it's never coming out this year.

Note that they had slated Dec 8th as the official release. That date pushes up against the holiday sales. So this preemptive move to push 2.6 to Evocati, to me, is yet another carrot stick ploy by CIG to boost confidence during the upcoming sale, then post-sale, announce that SM isn't coming after all, let alone 2.6 going wide. Mark my words.

It's horrible. And this sort of thing is why it is hilarious to me that whales keep funding this project.

ps: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/

Taken from that same "evocati leaks" link:

-STAR MARINE CONFIRMED IN EVOCATI

http://imgur.com/Og8f5nz

Note that i'm not the author of the gif image, and i don't have access to PTU or Evocati builds.

 

[Osmanthus]

Oh man, whether or not SM is in 2.6 is turning out to be a heck of a clusterfondle

 

[Dementropy]

Taken from that same "evocati leaks" link:

http://imgur.com/Og8f5nz

Note that i'm not the author of the gif image, and i don't have access to PTU or Evocati builds.

Forgive me, but that's a gif. Show me actual footage, and I'll be more convinced.

Right now, it's just 4chan rumors and "dreams."

 

[VidarSnipes]

I love how the exact points in the match are obscured in this gif, so no one can easily check if it's the footage from the livestream. By the way I'm not sure whether I should consider "SM is in! -No, it isn't! -Ok, it is no...wait, it is, here's gif!" arguments funny or cringeworthy.

 

[Hi-Ban]

I just quoted the info from the "Evocati leaks" page, which is the exact same site Derek uses as source for his "insider leaks".

It's here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/

 

[Dementropy]

I just quoted the info from the "Evocati leaks" page, which is the exact same site Derek uses as source of "insider leaks".

That doesn't make you're "gif which may have been from the livestream" any more valid.

As it stands, the state of Star Marine remains unverified. Stop trying to convince people otherwise, unless you have actual proof.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Half way down that I did note someone saying that nobody is posting the patch notes because CiG have sent slightly different ones to different segments of the avocados in order to sniff out leaks...

 

[Hi-Ban]

That doesn't make you're "gif which may have been from the livestream" any more valid.

As it stands, the state of Star Marine remains unverified. Stop trying to convince people otherwise, unless you have actual proof.

I've revised the livestream, and the entire footage from the livestream has watermarks all over the corners:

See, "Electronic Access" watermark on the top left, watermark with the name of the guy playing in the bottom left, star citizen logo watermark on the lower right, "live from los angeles" watermark on the top right. Plus the oldschool floppy disk icon, and a fps counter. The gif is completely clean of those.

 

[dsmart]

Taken from that same "evocati leaks" link:

http://imgur.com/Og8f5nz

Note that i'm not the author of the gif image, and i don't have access to PTU or Evocati builds.

It's rubbish. We just banned that dude from our Discord server.

Also...

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...s_like_anybody_can_download_the_26_build_and/

- - - Updated - - -

I just quoted the info from the "Evocati leaks" page, which is the exact same site Derek uses as source for his "insider leaks".

It's here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/

Sorry no, I don't use that site as a "source" for anything. It's run by an known Shillizen who has been banned numerous times from our website and Discord. I posted it earlier to show the cognitive dissonance, as well as the back and forth lies they are using to hide the fact that SM is NOT in 2.6.

 

[Dementropy]

I've revised the livestream, and the entire footage from the livestream has watermarks all over the corners:

http://i.imgur.com/xK609Bo.png

See, "Electronic Access" watermark on the top left, watermark with the name of the guy playing in the bottom left, star citizen logo watermark on the lower right, "live from los angeles" watermark on the top right. Plus the oldschool floppy disk icon, and a fps counter. The gif is completely clean of those.

It's also completely clean of any evidence that this is from the 2.6 patch given to the evocati. It's a gif. It's not footage of someone starting up SC and then launching Star Marine.

 

[Hi-Ban]

It's rubbish. We just banned that dude from our Discord server.

Also...

https://i.imgur.com/aPLyCun.png

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry no, I don't use that site as a "source" for anything. It's run by an known Shillizen who has been banned numerous times from our website and Discord. I posted it earlier to show the cognitive dissonance, as well as the back and forth lies they are using to hide the fact that SM is NOT in 2.6.

Ok, let's assume you can tweak your files to be able to explore the SM maps using the "free flight" workaround, as you have quoted there. In the gif file it shows an online match, you can see other players playing there, too. Is that faked, too?

By the way, the fact that you have banned a guy from your discord server proofs absolutely nothing.
Besides that, if you don't use the "evocati leaks" site as source.... why have you cited it as source of 2.6 not containing SM? You just linked to it as source on the previous page. Now, right after linking to it as source, you claim you don't use it as source... Me no understand...

 

[Dementropy]

Ok, let's assume you can tweak your files to be able to explore the SM maps using the "free flight" workaround, as you have quoted there. In the gif file it shows an online match, you can see other players playing there, too. Is that faked, too?

Maybe if they also uploaded gifs from their perspectives. Thus far, it proves nothing, other than there's a few frames of a lackluster fps.

If it is real, then why is the player's name (obviously not DEEJAY KNIGHT, but the one who supposedly played this "totally real and accessible version of Star Marine from last night's patch") not in the lower lefthand corner like it was during the demonstration?

Again, there is ZERO proof this is from the most recent patch.