How much did you invest in SC, RubberJohnny? Other than a whole lot of free time, apparently.
Complaining about Star Citizen is 100% free to play and probably isn't pay to win. The ASCII graphics would be a dealbreaker for me, personally.
How much did you invest in SC, RubberJohnny? Other than a whole lot of free time, apparently.
Yeah, that... doesn't sound cool to me.
I'm ok with backers getting ships and filling out the universe to make it feel more fleshed out right now. Especially when it seems like it is more, pay to progress than pay to win.
Pay to win to me has always meant that you pay cash for advantages that you absolutely cannot achieve without paying. I don't like pay to progress either, but it is different to me still.
To me, pay to progress is unfair still because I don't know if that guy has just spent the time for all his stuff or if he just paid for it. But again, this is still better than pay to win for the same reason, I don't know and probably never will. But it would be easy to tell if I get steamrolled by someone with advantages that I can't get at all without cash and that would feel vastly more unfair to me. On one side, I can eventually get to where that guy is and have all the same stuff, on the other, I can never have that unless I pay.
Optimally, I'd like the cash shop to be for nothing more than cosmetics after launch. Give equal footing to players after that point. Let the rewards of peoples investments in-game speak for them and don't let peoples real life monetary advantages let them also have the same advantages over those who might not be as privileged in-game.
IMO we play these games to escape the realities of the real world, not to expound upon them.
I like the idea rewarding backers who are taking a risk and actually helping fund the game and help it get made... for me. I like the idea of that fleshing out the world a bit. I can imagine the impact it would have on a new player starting fresh who never backed. Walking out onto the observatory for the first time overlooking the landing pads and seeing these crazy looking ships coming and going. And then looking up into space and seeing these gigantic spaceships. Then walking onto one of them and seeing it piloted and crewed by real people inspiring you to want to join and work your way to getting one of your own some day... That is really important to me at launch.
But leave it there lol.
Either that, or jack the prices SKY. HIGH. For the pay to proceed stuff. Something ridiculous. I honestly wouldn't mind then. Especially if it meant more content coming for everyone to enjoy faster. You wouldn't be running into those people often at all anyway compared to the number of players playing.
Wait... can you lose ships? Like actually lose it and not get it back and have to pay for it all over again with in game currency? Can you lose ships you pay for with cash?
Complaining about Star Citizen is 100% free to play and probably isn't pay to win. The ASCII graphics would be a dealbreaker for me, personally.
Yeah, pay-to-progress is a good way to put it. Pre-launch, people are getting a head start by buying ships to have at launch. Orgs will compete to establish an early foothold on whatever assets can be controlled, and there's no denying that having more ships will be helpful for that part of the game. I think the question of how much PVE players will be able to limit their PVP exposure (or avoid it entirely) will really be up in the air through to launch.
Starbuck2907's answer about insurance is accurate. It's the same situation as Elite where you make sure you don't fly without ship insurance. LTI on purchased ships means the hull part of the ship insurance is covered - effectively a bit of extra credit income due to lower running costs.
You might get your butt kicked in the early game going up against someone who's ahead of you in the progression thanks to that head start, but you won't wind up in a situation where you have eventually maxed out your ship via grinding and the only reason you lost to the other player in the same ship is because they paid the extra bucks for the cash-shop-exclusive firepower buff that month, or bought some exclusive components, etc.
These endless personal attacks are a bit much, is there a report function on this forum?
I agree that they don't need to bring you up everytime, but that's just like you don't need to come in just for negative rumors or similar.
To contact the mods, check the "view forum staff" button from the home page, or this link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showgroups.php
There isn't a queue or anything, so it's just a matter of picking someone who's online.
I mean did they say that? That it was just for spectacle?
Are they/you really saying that people aren't going to do this?
People are also going to be trying to catch your ship and take your loot.
I mean, this is what they've decided to show. From this footage, I can't imagine they wouldn't craft missions where like you said, you are put in a position of conflict with other crews. This is what I expect when I see footage like this.
These endless personal attacks are a bit much, is there a report function on this forum?
I've been nothing but civil, and gotten endless hostility for it.
Like we've been engaging in conversation nicely over the last few pages, just because we disagree doesn't mean it's "combative or adversial", at least not until cabbagehead there got annoyed that I pointed out the last dev Q&A contradicted the argument he was making about what they had planned and threw out a bunch of insults.
I've been nothing but civil, and gotten endless hostility for it.
Like we've been engaging in conversation nicely over the last few pages, just because we disagree doesn't mean it's "combative or adversial", at least not until cabbagehead there got annoyed that I pointed out the last dev Q&A contradicted the argument he was making about what they had planned and threw out a bunch of insults.
snip
So how about that Star Citizen, aye?
Edit : The Cyclone looks pretty cool. Hopefully it can fit comfortably inside a cutlass. Will have to try rent one before I earnt one eventually in game down the track.
I'm going to steal one...
With the Cyclone, if you don't already have a ship with an Ursa, such as the Aquila or Carrack, I can see why you want one.
If you have an Ursa already, I wouldn't bother.
As the Ursa can carry more, has guns, can carry extra armour sets, guns etc.
And is pressurised.
RubberJohnny doesn't "complain" he bullshits and double downs. An rarely if ever does he fact check his bullshittery, let alone the difference between fact and fiction . That's the key to him.
He likes to shoot from the hip with blanks.
Oh and he preforms a nice little disappearing act. When he gets exposed.
Official word from CIG on the German article translation that there would only be 5-10 systems at launch:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a
Zyloh | CIG@Zyloh-CIG
Today at 12:54 pm
Hey guys! This is a case of things being lost in translation; Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. There are no changes with regards to the planned amount of systems which are well documented on the current Star Map.
Also, its important to remember that the scope of the game has increased greatly since the original crowdfunding campaign. Since those early days weve created procedural planet tech, moved from 32 bit to 64 bit all of it leading to billions of kilometers of space and millions of square kilometers of landmass to explore, all rendered in detail that matches the most detailed 1st person games that only have to worry about a few dozen kilometers of playable area.
This takes time to fill out, so while it will take us longer to fully deliver and populate every system at this fidelity rather than if we had only a handful of points of interest per star system, we have no intention of reducing the size of the Star Citizen universe.
It's nice to see some clarification about it, but they sure took their time considering how people were running with that news.
Was the assumption ever that there would only be 5-10 systems now, as opposed to 100? I thought it was a delivery change. Planned to have 100 at launch but only able to have 5-10 ready.
So i have a question about Derek Smart
in terms of game creating ability, is he as good of a developer as Chris Roberts?
So i have a question about Derek Smart
in terms of game creating ability, is he as good of a developer as Chris Roberts?
So i have a question about Derek Smart
in terms of game creating ability, is he as good of a developer as Chris Roberts?
So i have a question about Derek Smart
in terms of game creating ability, is he as good of a developer as Chris Roberts?
From Sandis Facebook:
"Managed to sneak in and grab a quick video of today's multiplayer performance test"
original link
https://www.facebook.com/215475438505750/videos/1442557135797568/
http://i.imgur.com/zFKYAAY.gifv
Derek Smart is literally the worst developer in the industry. That's not hyperbole. In terms of design, quality, fun factor, development management, the distance between stated goals and results produced, learning from past mistakes - he is the worst there is.
Wasn't Derek's problem, that he was too ambitious with his games, way beyond the technology of the time which caused the game to falter
Chris Roberts seems to be more in tune with the limits, which is why Wing Commander is probably superior to any of Derek's games
now that technology catches up, Chris can get more ambitious
is that a reason?
I don't think it has anything to do with ambition and just an issue with overall quality. Getting your games to work needs to be a must before you criticize others.
Wasn't Derek's problem, that he was too ambitious with his games, way beyond the technology of the time which caused the game to falter
It wasn't ambition, he is a compulsive liar and self-aggrandizer. See fake doctorate and the "neural net" claims.
Politics aside, you can see many similarities with Trump's behaviour, such as:
There's still some old Smart forums up, or you could just browse his behaviour on the more recent Steam discussions, but there's layer upon layer of stupidity and hypocrisy that gets lost from all the stories over time.
- outrageous statements packed with half-a-dozen blatant (and above all, completely unneeded) falsehoods
- projection (everything he's accused CIG of being, he's done word-for-word)
- reality-warping reasoning when the fruits of his labours and his past statements collide
- unhealthy OTT obsessions
http://imgur.com/zFKYAAY.gif
I'm assuming this is low gravity? That person jumping towards the middle of the gif looks like he flaps his arms after jumping and floats back down.
I'm assuming this is low gravity? That person jumping towards the middle of the gif looks like he flaps his arms after jumping and floats back down.
Oh yeah, that is a bit weird. I'm guessing that the height change is just part of a fixed animation, rather than jumping and being affected by gravity while the arm animation is doing its thing separately. People wouldn't be able to run around like that if it was that low.
Good catch. They showed one of the devs playing around with low-grav in the latest AtV. Looks like it's the same moon.
https://youtu.be/Nwiielzbuws?t=626
Official word from CIG on the German article translation that there would only be 5-10 systems at launch:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a
Zyloh | CIG@Zyloh-CIG
Today at 12:54 pm
Hey guys! This is a case of things being lost in translation; Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. There are no changes with regards to the planned amount of systems which are well documented on the current Star Map.
Also, its important to remember that the scope of the game has increased greatly since the original crowdfunding campaign. Since those early days weve created procedural planet tech, moved from 32 bit to 64 bit all of it leading to billions of kilometers of space and millions of square kilometers of landmass to explore, all rendered in detail that matches the most detailed 1st person games that only have to worry about a few dozen kilometers of playable area.
This takes time to fill out, so while it will take us longer to fully deliver and populate every system at this fidelity rather than if we had only a handful of points of interest per star system, we have no intention of reducing the size of the Star Citizen universe.
That doesn't seem to really clarify how many systems they will have at launch does it?