People don't like taking a long and critical look at the promised business model, so don't overthink it. It is not finalized, it is not viable. It needs more than a standard MMO in the post-launch support, yet they promised a boxed-copy approach where players aren't shafted by the fact that others are going to have massive ships from Day 1. Also a lot of people have already purchased or pledged for this game, so there is that.
Arguments go all over the place:
Paid ships are mainly for supporting the game, so plebs are going to be able to build them too.
You really don't need large ships, because these ships are for multi-crew operations so you should just join other organizations.
You will be able to top-up your in-game currency with cash injections.
Insurance...
Game progression design starts with intended goals: For average player to spend X amount of time doing simple quests/missions to earn Y amount of credits to build a Z ship. Until I see CIG telling the intended amount of time for different ships, none of progression model talks can continue.
I am not asking for the capital ship in a week, I am asking to give me an idea what kind of manhours are we talking about for ships so I can judge whether it is a fair or not model.
The issue here is still that you are asking a question about things not finalized yet but also talk about ships as progression or fairness. Here
Game progression design starts with intended goals: For average player to spend X amount of time doing simple quests/missions to earn Y amount of credits to build a Z ship.
You really don't need large ships, because these ships are for multi-crew operations so you should just join other organizations.
it is not just that, to operate ship properly you need more people or AI. This is not a throw away sentiment. Because of this, if you are a solo player, a larger ship is a choice not a path of progression exactly.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14354-Letter-From-The-Chairman
Thats exactly what the team at Foundry 42 has been charged with replicating in Star Citizen! For Squadron 42, Chris Roberts asked us to develop a system that naturally encourages cooperative play and promotes teamwork rather than forcing anything specific on the player. Like every aspect of Star Citizen, it needs to be immersive, it needs to be engaging
and it needs to function beyond our particular piece of the puzzle. The multi-crew systems we premiere in Squadron 42 will go on to appear throughout the Star Citizen world!
Thats it. Play with friends or to experience what it is like to be a part of a whole. Not that larger ship is some sort of win.
With that idea out of the way, the question about how long it would take is undetermined because systems not implemented and concept of fairness is one that is not logical because the ships represent different gameplay types not progression.
There is no ship crafting and worries about P2W again falls flat because this is all RPS type of design and having a "ship" doesn't equate to some sort of win. Questions you are asking have been addressed years ago because that is one of the first questions asked about game are purchasing ships P2W. The answer then and now is no. These ships will not be sold after release and all this equates to is a varied options when title is released.
You only see the negative of those post, but even in your examples there is constructive things to be said from it.
Like :
In itself, yeah it's can be used as a tool to say that they need would need like 400 year to get SC ready and will never be done.
On the other hand it can also simply be used as an argument that it's a topic that should be more discussed by the studio/CR, with us." This is where we're at, we expect that to grow at x pace from that point since the pipeline is ready, the initial release might only have x star system and keep growing to that number." etc.
The problem is both 'side' will more often than not only see it as black or white, and those reaction only move people more and more to the extreme.
Many complaints can be seen only as negativity, but there is often more to it, and things they could learn from it.
People complaining about no SQ42 in the last stream, can be seens as people having unreasonable expectation, and sure enough 'game dev is hard' is a decent answer to the delay.
But it doesn't mean there wasn't more to it, like the fact that clearly SQ42 delay was a decision made long before the stream ( people can agree or disagree with their reasons but that's another topic ), yet they only shared that info with us at the very last minute. SC is very much open development ( and that improved with 2.6 roadmap, because people complained ), yet mistake like this one still happen quite often, even when the solution is only a matter of communication.
Problem with that chart is that it is misleading and it really does ignore the metric ton of information they have already dumped on us. It doesn't start a new conversation because information about it has already been released and is easily accessible. Problem is, is that they have "too" much information to sift through there for misleading stuff like that chart only works for people not following the game which outnumber those that follow the game by a large number. I can agree to communication but like I posted above, that seemed like a holdover from before, they don't announce every choice they make all the time. There was simply radio silence on that end because they were talking about things they were working on not the vertical slice they stopped.
And again with "Game dev is hard" seems like this is a meme that is used to deter discussion because it lacks context when CiG has provided alot of specifics about what they are trying and specific blockers.
Dude, spare me the persecution complex.
- The SC and SQ42 development is troubled.
- Many valid criticisms expressed here cannot be dismissed by "you don't know game development."
-Not everyone that is tired with CR and CIG are in league with Derek Smart.
Let people speak respectfully. Or go and enjoy the company at the CIG forums.
You seem to be on the attack here especially after this gem
You talk like there is no problem with the development of SC/SQ42.
That is equally as problematic as those calling the game a scam.
When quoting a post I made specifically talking about money made not development process. The terms "You don't know development process" Was not used and doesn't need to be used for a concept of "expectation" . That type of thing comes from looking at the history of projects already released and just gathering information. You can say whatever you want, I am just pointing out point of view from skewed posters and there are posters here, who are not even a question, only here to troll. The same usernames and all on SA with stated goal of messing with neogaf members. So you can try to paint this as me playing a false chord here but honestly you cannot hide post history. So I don't even need to do that. Games having delays or missed markers is common during development, again you don't have to be a game developer to know this, just read any story about major projects done in the last 10 years. But the difference is that everything is pored over because they release alot of information and have difficulty tempering the balance between keeping things under wraps, informing base of things to come, and not setting expectations for something that is not firm. But here, dude, you don't like my posts? Feel free to ignore me because the attitude you have shown me means that you have a bone to pick and I am not interested in that nonsense.
