The Star Citizen Thread v8

[TenakaFurey]

Slowly loosing interest in SC, however this is something I still like to follow.

It is getting repetitive...CIG releases a patch that doesn't live up to expectations, we try to analyse why based on demos and CIGs comments and the answer always seems to come down to mismanagement, skewed priorities or managerial incompetence.

Or, in two words, Chris Roberts. The devs might be inexperienced, but I think what they've managed to produce so far is de ent, especially when you figure in that Chris Roberts has them working on developing a game while keeping a ***preAlpha*** build polished AND playable by the general public.

Which will complicate development of ANY product.

Walking around in SC is a basic feature from the CE, they really didn't do anything special in that regard. Several games did the ship to ground and visa versa mechanics so nothing new here.

There is nothing new, unusual or groundbreaking in Star Citizen.

Slap a scifi setting on Sea of Thieves for example.

The only thing "new" is that Chris Roberts is trying to ignore that key aspect of design....balance.

Detail vs graphical quality vs game performance vs number of players vs running costs.

Good developers know you literally cannot have everything. Great developers find a balance between all aspects.

CIG is trying to have everything.

Actually...I take it back. Other developers have tried to have everything before. What's new is how long CIG have lasted, but that's a result of their funding model and lack of accountability.

I must say that i like some of the graphics in SC more than in ED

There are parts of SC that do indeed look beautiful.

And there are parts that look ugly and crude. Elite doesn't reach the same heights as Star Citizen....but at the same time, it is also more consistent.

Spacelegs in ED is something they really need to think about and design well, it has to work out of the box and limitation is as you said key here.

Space legs can be added in one of two ways.

The first is the all in approach. Make it a major cornerstone of an XPac. Bundle everything in at once. This is what some people expect, but it is also a high risk strategy. With this scenario, you need to add in content and mechanics, models and graphics, floor plans and maps and combat.

It would make a big splash, but if anything went wrong....

The second way is to add it slowly.

So, you'd add a character creator and in game model.

Then you'd add simple movement and walking around the cabin, maybe with simple interaction capability for non critical systems.

Then you'd add internal maps for all the ships, and expand the interaction systems to include ship modules such as the SRV.

You eventually add the ability to exit the ship and explore planets and stations. You expand mobility options and animations. You add simple combat mechanics and then grow them. You create procedural generation systems to create bases and outposts and caves that players can explore. You add a wristcomp to maintain communication with your ship. You add weapon skins and armour you can sell, equipment that can be found in game.


And so on. You add a little functionality every so often so you don't get tied down by bugs or deadlines or overly ambitious wishlists.

This is lower risk but also slower and not quite as headline grabbing.

 

[Skizomeuh]

Good developers know you literally cannot have everything. Great developers find a balance between all aspects.

CIG is trying to have everything.

CIG is basically procrastinating learning how to not make a game while waiting for the hypothetical day when hardware technology could make their dreams possible.

 

[amigacooke]

Actually, you didn't. No matter what level you backed (and i'm a LEP owner as well) you backed based on the general vision of what FD wanted to do. Maybe you can prove me wrong, but i don't recall anywhere FD saying that 100% space legs would be implemented in the future. Its just something they would like to do. eg: the kickstarter video where Braben talks about how one day he would like to get out of his ship and go big game hunting. I don't recall him saying that it would definitely get implemented.

I suggest you review the Elite: Dangerous Development Plan video from the KickStarter, DBOBE is unequivocal. He may have been carried away, but space legs were promised. A long time ago I know, but money was pledged on the basis of the material supplied by FDevs at the time.

[video=youtube_share;EM0Gcl7iUM8]https://youtu.be/EM0Gcl7iUM8[/video]

 

[frostypaw]

I suggest you review the Elite: Dangerous Development Plan video from the KickStarter, DBOBE is unequivocal. He may have been carried away, but space legs were promised. A long time ago I know, but money was pledged on the basis of the material supplied by FDevs at the time.

What if it turns out that it's a crap idea and moving around more slowly is boring? Should they still do it out of some kind of stubborn determination?

 

[MTBFritz]

What if it turns out that it's a crap idea and moving around more slowly is boring? Should they still do it out of some kind of stubborn determination?

Considering all the crap Star Citizen gets away with I dont even see this issue as a tiny blip on the radar. Also intended as a sidenote this quickly ramps up to become another "ED is not the topic" remark by our favorite ̶d̶̶i̶̶c̶̶t̶̶a̶̶t̶̶o̶̶r̶ Yaffle

 

[Zetta]

No doubt with a large sprinking of revistionist history, like "Well, we never intended you to visit other star systems...."

Perhaps this is why they've been talking about star systems having the same amount of content as 10 normal games (whatever that means).

 

[MTBFritz]

Now THIS would be groundbreaking technology worthy of all the Star Citizen hype and marketing but alas, its not CiG doing this.

[video=youtube;H3Sy8mQSmEw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LblxKvbfEoo[/video]

edit: the link is working, looks to be a problem with the forum...Manual link

 

[frostypaw]

Considering all the crap Star Citizen gets away with I dont even see this issue as a tiny blip on the radar. Also intended as a sidenote this quickly ramps up to become another "ED is not the topic" remark by our favorite ̶d̶̶i̶̶c̶̶t̶̶a̶̶t̶̶o̶̶r̶ Yaffle

SC is an excellent test bed for this stuff though. You can see what's happening now - everyone sprints around to get in a vehicle as fast as possible. Even with all those extra fidels and all the texture detail in the world it's a passing fancy

 

[Ian Skippy]

What if it turns out that it's a crap idea and moving around more slowly is boring? Should they still do it out of some kind of stubborn determination?

Yes. If you ask and get money for it, then you have to do it. Or give the money back. You cant take the money and then later say "nah, it was daft so I wont do it. Thanks & see ya."

I find the entire notion even completely hilarious in a topic that consists for 90% of people saying "But Chris promised!!!". All CIG apparantly needs to do to settle it is say:"Sorry, turns out its a crap idea and very boring, so we forget all about those ships/systems/etc. A more focussed game within one system with a handful of ships is far better and creates a more interesting balance."

 

[frostypaw]

Yes. If you ask and get money for it, then you have to do it. Or give the money back. You cant take the money and then later say "nah, it was daft so I wont do it. Thanks & see ya."

Well no, you don't. You can discuss it with your customers and explain the reasons much as was done with offline play.

Your second paragraph is one of your typical "oh you people" posts. The problem when it comes to SC is they make a very big deal out of saying "yes we will do ALL the things better than any other game" which makes them ripe for picking up on these issues - ED does not keep making such claims.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

Yes. If you ask and get money for it, then you have to do it. Or give the money back. You cant take the money and then later say "nah, it was daft so I wont do it. Thanks & see ya."

Yet with me, I backed to Founder level just to get the game made. If they binned Elite Feet, I would be disappointed but would not demand a refund. They had better deliver atmospheric landings though

I find the entire notion even completely hilarious in a topic that consists for 90% of people saying "But Chris promised!!!". All CIG apparantly needs to do to settle it is say:"Sorry, turns out its a crap idea and very boring, so we forget all about those ships/systems/etc. A more focussed game within one system with a handful of ships is far better and creates a more interesting balance."

I think a difference is that David Braben had a very clear vision and wasn't going to add more at the ask of backers. CRobber however seemed to agree to everything, and used the expanded scope as a way to suck more out of the backers.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

What if it turns out that it's a crap idea and moving around more slowly is boring? Should they still do it out of some kind of stubborn determination?

Space legs in a game like Elite is a crap idea. There is so much to realize in the framework of flying spaceships, that considering the time/money/effort of doing spacelegs right is just nuts. The same applies to procedural complex alien life.
I've said (and got hammered for it) before, that Mr Braben made a mistake by being a bit carried away doing the kickstarter period simply by talking about these stuff.

I think if they can create lifeless atmospheric worlds, proper volcanism, 'landable' gas giants, wider varieties of human settlements/stations, more ships/SRVs, upgraded astronomical stuff (giant stars are overdue for an upgrade, comets, etc.) and further refine the core gameplay in a quality that we got used to from Elite - then is more than enough for me.

I think that is the fundamental difference between SC and ED, that ED is not a pipedream.

 

[Cotic]

There was a bit of a discussion on another forum about promises. An example given was selling early Kickstarter packages with exclusive access to the alpha. Part of what motivated early backers was gaining these exclusive perks which then got turned into something different for no other reason than greed.
It went from exclusive to anybody if they paid for $5 module, which then got changed to access for everybody, which then got changed to the current subscriber setup.

Early backer Bob with his exclusive alpha access (who helped get the game initially funded) is now 3rd tier, you have Evocatis at first tier, subscribers/$1000 backers as second tier and then you have Bob with his common man, non-exclusive third tier access.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

There was a bit of a discussion on another forum about promises. An example given was selling early Kickstarter packages with exclusive access to the alpha. Part of what motivated early backers was gaining these exclusive perks which then got turned into something different for no other reason than greed.
It went from exclusive to anybody if they paid for $5 module, which then got changed to access for everybody, which then got changed to the current subscriber setup.

Early backer Bob with his exclusive alpha access (who helped get the game initially funded) is now 3rd tier, you have Evocatis at first tier, subscribers/$1000 backers as second tier and then you have Bob with his common man, non-exclusive third tier access.

Such is the fate of the Kickstarter "investor". An equity investment would have netted more and better control about what the money is used for, but no - let's blow all the cash in some alternative unregulated investment. cos it fancy and new.

 

[Cobra1984]

Space Legs is fair comment because it was pre-sold as a season. I had forgotten all about lifetime passes.

So if you want to compare spacelegs to CIG's broken promises, imagine Frontier pre-selling a new season every month since Dec 2014

And then multiply it by about 10

And even then it's still not a fair comparison because Elite has been released and playable this whole time.

Space farming ships with growth rate tied to distance from the sun

Multicrew ships with tactical command stations

Just 2 quick examples off the top of my head that were described by Chris Roberts and then put up for sale for hundreds of dollars.

There are at least a hundred of these.

Imagine Frontier had a backlog of a hundred seasons. As it stands they have one, and they're doing a free one right now.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

I'm sorry.

I find this quote to be quite....well, funny.

You've just admitted you have absolutely no clue as to what I or indeed anyone else are saying. That you don't even know what a flight model is.

So, when I boost, why is it that I reach a maximum speed? Is that real physics being modeled?

No, so none of them are realistic. They both have a version of flight assist off. One game may have faster more responsive ships than another but it's all about subjective preference than reality. There are no g-forces. Some magic technology has dampened inertia. With no inertia to worry about and fictional thrusters powered by fictional engines, nothing stops ships from being flying turrets. Actually, flying turrets sounds about right. You would design a fighter such that its thrusters enable it to turn to face the enemy quickly.

I notice that all these space movies and space games try to project WW2 air combat into spaceships. That's not realistic at all. I've begun flying WWII combat sims and realize that they are a lot of fun and have a lot of depth to the combat. Now those have flight models that include things like ground effects and p-factors.

The bottom line is I don't think that "flight model" differences are at all significant. It's all about subjective preference. I prefer ED's ships feel but I don't remember having a problem with SC's more responsive ships.

 

[Ian Skippy]

So, when I boost, why is it that I reach a maximum speed? Is that real physics being modeled?

No, so none of them are realistic. They both have a version of flight assist off. One game may have faster more responsive ships than another but it's all about subjective preference than reality. There are no g-forces. Some magic technology has dampened inertia. With no inertia to worry about and fictional thrusters powered by fictional engines, nothing stops ships from being flying turrets. Actually, flying turrets sounds about right.

I notice that all these space movies and space games try to project WW2 air combat into spaceships. That's not realistic at all. I've begun flying WWII combat sims and realize that they are a lot of fun and have a lot of depth to the combat. Now those have flight models that include things like ground effects and p-factors.

The bottom line is I don't think that "flight model" differences are at all significant. It's all about subjective preference. I prefer ED's ships feel but I don't remember having a problem with SC's more responsive ships.

Just a little heads-up: G-forces exist in ED, and with some ships/configurations you can lose control and red-out.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

Just a little heads-up: G-forces exist in ED, and with some ships/configurations you can lose control and red-out.

Now I remember in SC having to consider G-forces. It's been a long time since I played SC. I've never experienced it in ED.

I would like to see a realistic space combat game even if it would be a little boring to most. Something like the show "The Expanse."

 

[Tippis]

So, when I boost, why is it that I reach a maximum speed? Is that real physics being modeled?

Doesn't particularly matter — it's still a flight model, and it still entirely based on physics (including g-forces and inertia). The difference is that SC's ships are based on a model that deliberately and purposefully take physics out of the equation; where there is no inertia to speak of; where g-forces are very obviously just glued on based on visual expectation, not on any underlying physics (remember, SC is a game that lets you experience red-outs while spinning horizontally in an electric scooter, and where different entities somehow experience vastly different acceleration while in the same vehicle).

The differences in flight model are not just significant but absolutely enormous, since one game actually models… you know… flight, whereas the other just pointlessly replicates what would probably best be described as a point-and-click adventure interface, and which has consequently been consistently criticised for that lacklustre control scheme from day one, even by its most ardent defenders.

 

[Skizomeuh]

Now I remember in SC having to consider G-forces. It's been a long time since I played SC. I've never experienced it in ED.

In ED, just try a steep turn when glide mode ends, you'll experience g-forces. In SC you could (still can?) enjoy a red-out with the Greycat when turning.