Nobody hasit's a pre-pre-pre alpha in the very early stages of development. It's also paired with a TOS change I find completely unacceptable.
Buy an Idris!
you sound like you hant been keeping up with the development. its in alpha now man
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
you sound like you hant been keeping up with the development. its in alpha now man
EX SC fanboy here.
Where is the 'depth' of SC going to come from? The economy will be screwed - (an Aurora can progress carrying 12 tons of cargo, and a Hull E carrying 93 000 tons of cargo won't make so much it breaks the game?)
You are looking at what SC is promising - There are nice looking ships and 2 stations so far, and a couple of missions. Everything else is just dreams. We still need the missing 99.75 systems in game to get anywhere near what SC has promised, and if CIG haven't had teams working on the GAMEPLAY for these systems over the past few years, we're going to end up with Star Citizen... An inch wide and an inch deep.
Pretty pictures don't make a game.
Last edited:
I've been waiting for it to "keep on improving" for over 2 years now and it continually goes in the other direction. I went the complete opposite way. 4 years ago I backed SC over ED. 2 years ago I divested from SC a bit and bought into ED Premium Beta. The Star Citizen project is following a pattern I've seen dozens of times in my life with failed tech start ups and failed software projects.
Here we are on November 1st and still no sign of a 2.6. Do I believe they'll release something they'll call 2.6 by the end of the year? Yes. Will it be what people are expecting? Probably not.
At this point it's not that the mechanics aren't in it is the fact they can't even tell us how they plan on the mechanics working. All the game mechanics stuff was explained 3+ years go by folks who left the project 2 years ago now. So I have little faith that how they said things like the in game economy might work are completely invalid at this point. And the stories about CR coming in and ordering people to work on X one day and week later comes in and tells them to work on Y instead and then a month later wonders why X isn't finished...yeah the results of that show.
Their "3.0" planetary landing demo. I've seen "planetary landing" demos now each year since 2014. Have yet to actually play it. In 2014 it was the landing at Arc Corp. In 2015 it was landing on Nyx. This year it was landing on Homestead. I have a feeling that this time next year it will still be more of the same and hence why I put in for a refund.
Is this some how different than the "pre-alpha" or whatever greek letter you want to use the past 2 years?
Fundamentally, I disagree with this assessment and I've played the Alpha on and off since some time before 2.0. I've tried every point release up to the current one. My experience is definitely below expectations and does not yet measure up to what ED is currently. AI is a joke, multiplayer is lag hell, weapons don't fire correctly or as expected, ships don't handle well, missions are limited, no interactions with stations further than ship valet and shopping, FPS can barely be called that in comparison to FPSs of 3 years ago...and so much more that has been promised and is nowhere in sight and years behind schedule.
ED says what they were going to be and delivers...at a slower pace than expected.
I'll agree, SC has great potential to surpass ED in terms of immediate gameplay and player interaction but with years in a pre-alpha/alpha (same things) state we have seen little more than basic tech demos and a buggy PU that attempts to tie together the few deliverables they have had.
It all looks promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited:
Nono its simple, everything Derek Smart is saying is not true, so by him saying there will not be a console release its true and there will be one because he said there will not be one.
that's great, but this doesn't bring anything interesting to the discussion, it's merely to get noticed. Back to the topic at hand.
I had a question a few pages ago, all these ebay sales, what happens if the game never gets delivered? can they claim back via ebay on these jpegs?
Don't know why, but immediately after hearing your voice, I couldn't get Bugs Bunny out of my head. NHF, it's kinda cute-funny
Especially at 3:27
Well... we will not be able to know this until we know how much every ship spends in fuel, ammo, whatever... moving from planet to planet and time.
For example, a Hull E will spend some of the money in escorts because of course is a ship much more interesting to pirates or others than an Aurora(and will spend a lot more fuel btw).
But everything about this makes no sense until it's integrated in the game and we have numbers.
It may work... or maybe not.
I agree Rolan - but it worries me that there has been no info from CIG on how this is going to work. Even if a Hull E spends 50% of its profits from one hauling run on expenses, it will still make 4 000 times as much as a solo player in an Aurora. I can't come up with any situation where this sort of thing can be balanced.
It looks to me that CIG have decided on what the ships will be able to do before working out the gameplay implications. Well balanced interesting gameplay makes for long lasting engaging games. Graphics don't.
Last edited:
how is this different from ED's trading mechanic? EG an Anaconda's trading potential vs a hauler
Last edited:
That's due to propellor torque due to some mass but also the rotation through air because the radial and inline engine is a stationary object with just the prop rotating - rotary engines rotate with the prop giving leading to gyroscopic precision which would be closer to what I guess is happening with the A-10's barrel. I didn't know the cannon rotation caused gscope precision, didn't think it had enough mass to do that. I was referring to recoil, it was known that offset weapons - such as wing mounted when only one fired - would cause yawing of the aircraft.
It isn't a fair comparison. Either the Hull E will get balanced down or the Aurora will be balanced up or something. I have my misgivings about RSI/CIG but I don't doubt they'd do at least some balance testing or respond to backers if/when they get to try it out.
ED has a trading mechanic.
And the clothes shopping and cocktail mixing mini game for passengers. All serious stuff and fundamental game mechanics that need to be nailed down before any fluff.
In ED the maximum cargo of of the biggest ship is around 720 tons, about 90x the amount of a starting sidewinder, and the re-buy and running costs cost of the Cutter is HUGE. Especially if it is stripped out for cargo and running with no shields. It also takes many many hours ingame to gain the rep and credits to buy and outfit a Cutter
In SC a massive cargo ship can be bought with LTI (so no re-buy) with real $$$, and make over 8 000x the amount per trip as a starting ship.
ED already has people with billions of credits, but there is no credit transfer between players. SC on release will very quickly get players with Trillions of credits. And with the ability to transfer credits to other players, money will become meaningless.
- Status