Support NeoGAF

[staticneuron]

Honestly, as much as I hope they'll manage to make a good portion of the grand "capital ship PVP" vision a reality some day, I would gladly settle for properly functioning multiplayer on a much smaller scale. You and a couple of your best buds, doing missions, wrecking shit. My preference would be a coop-focused story campaign that's separate from SQ42, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

Has anyone from CIG commented on the possibility of including coop in SQ42 recently? Seems to off the table for good, innit.

I am curious how they can make Cap battles fun instead of a logistical nightmare. Idris seems tough enough, a Javelin just seems like overkill. I am fascinated to see and possibly experience it anyways.

I didn't know co-op was on the table. I thought S42 was strictly single player.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I didn't know co-op was on the table. I thought S42 was strictly single player.

It's not full-on coop though. You can have people jump in with you on missions and the like. Although, that was the new direction put forth two years ago and things may have changed. Since then to go back to the original vision.


Now with all the PVP or PVE Capital ship complexities and logistics. Lucky for us all, we will be there to see. What works and what doesn't work.

I take solace in that fact. Depending on how CIG handles it initial, because we do have their written design theories on the subject and how they would let to have it be like.

 

[elyetis]

It's not full-on coop though. You can have people jump i with you on missions and the like. Although, that was the new direction put forth two years ago and things may have changed.

I pretty sure it's the opposite, they removed the coop from SQ42 2 years ago.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I pretty sure it's the opposite, they removed the coop from SQ42 2 years ago.

Yeah no...

This is what i'm talking about.

https://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-squadron-42-co-op-plans-slightly-changed

When Star Citizen was pitched there was vague mention of a multiplayer mode in the single player campaign, it was never really clear what backers would receive, which is understandable at the early concept stage.

This change in direction was confirmed by Erin Roberts in this week's live chat session with team.

”We want you to fly with a large wing. We talked about putting multiplayer in Squadron 42 a while back but there were a couple of reasons why we didn't.

”1. You can't do a strong storyline because you have to worry where everybody else is and what they are doing in the story.

”2. We did multiplayer when we worked on Starlancer. We put in a full four player but it made it harder to do a strong storyline so in Squadron 42 we want to have a strong storyuline and also we want you rto be able to play it offline.

”Because of that we can take a bunch of scenarios in the game, create them into one-off big scenarios and have a bunch of guys fly together. So you're not so worried about the storyline. So that's what we plan to release."

Erin then goes on to say that the multiplayer missions will not release with Squadron 42 but will be added ”just after".

So yeah. It was not cut. It was changed or just clarified, since the original text/pitch was pretty vague.

Since then we haven't heard much about Sq42 in regards to new tidbits like this, from the stretch goal perspective. But that's a given and something CIG has said they would do, with keeping it mostly under-wraps.

 

[iHaunter]

I pretty sure it's the opposite, they removed the coop from SQ42 2 years ago.

Ignorant leading the blind yet again.

Never fails. If you followed SC instead of jumping on the hate train you would know it was intentionally cut from the game.

The hate boners here are insane...

 

[Cabbagehead]

Ignorant leading the blind yet again.

Never fails. If you followed SC instead of jumping on the hate train you would know it was intentionally cut from the game.

The hate boners here are insane...

I think it's less that he or she is on the hate train, more like misheard. So i'm giving him the benefit of doubt here. Since he's been one of the more balanced ones.

 

[iHaunter]

I think it's less that he or she is on the hate train, more like misheard. So i'm giving him the benefit of doubt here. Since he's been one of the more balanced ones.

That could be true, I'm just kind of tired of the random hate spam here.

There's a difference between criticism which is definitely fine than just random hate spam.

 

[elyetis]

If you followed SC instead of jumping on the hate train you would know it was intentionally cut from the game.

How is that different from what I said ?

"Hey it wasn't removed, it was intentionally cut" ? I know english isn't my native language but I think I'm still missing something.

edit : that being said,

Erin then goes on to say that the multiplayer missions will not release with Squadron 42 but will be added ”just after".

Is something I either missed or forgot, I hope it still hold true.

 

[staticneuron]

Yeah no...

This is what i'm talking about.

https://www.pcinvasion.com/star-citizen-squadron-42-co-op-plans-slightly-changed






So yeah. It was not cut. It was changed or just clarified, since the original text/pitch was pretty vague.

Since then we haven't heard much about Sq42 in regards to new tidbits like this, from the stretch goal perspective. But that's a given and something CIG has said they would do, with keeping it mostly under-wraps.

I loved StarLancer. But I prefer this approach. Keep SP and Coop scenarios separate. I remember when they did this back in BF 3. Those were epic.

 

[Cabbagehead]

How is that different from what I said ?

"Hey it wasn't removed, it was intentionally cut" ? I know english isn't my native language but I think I'm still missing something.

edit : that being said, Is something I either missed or forgot, I hope it still hold true.

We'll learn more about this stuff soon enough with Gamescom or Citizencon or one of the big live streams. They usually do.

Stay tuned.

 

[Dictator93]

I say Citcon ^^

3.0 is looming and SC is taking the forefront atm. Citcon will be SQ42, and SQ42 only probably.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I say Citcon ^^

3.0 is looming and SC is taking the forefront atm. Citcon will be SQ42, and SQ42 only probably.

That would be the smart move.

 

[Dr. Carroll]

It feels like a massive PR mistake to put so much focus on the essentially "never going to be actually finished" Star Citizen over the tangible Squadron 42.

 

[Zabojnik]

It feels like a massive PR mistake to put so much focus on the essentially "never going to be actually finished" Star Citizen over the tangible Squadron 42.

Not really, since it's the money that SC brings in that's allowing them to go on developing both. SQ42 will get it's due focus when the time is right. But yeah, it needs to be on show at CitizenCon.

 

[Pepboy]

How is that different from what I said ?

"Hey it wasn't removed, it was intentionally cut" ? I know english isn't my native language but I think I'm still missing something.

edit : that being said, Is something I either missed or forgot, I hope it still hold true.

As a native English speaker, what you said was fine and equivalent to what the other poster wrote. So I'm not sure what they were trying to say.

Edit:. Maybe "removed" sounds like it existed in working condition at one point, while "cut" implies maybe it never existed. But its pretty clear "removed" could mean "removed from production plans" to imply the same thing.

People in this thread are hyper sensitive to criticism so if they sniff even a little bit they are quick to call hate boners. Either that or the poster misread your comment.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

SQ42 better be at CitizenCon considering a big SQ42 demo was suppose to be shown at CitizenCon 2016, a demo that was "almost done" and that we would see "very soon" after it missed CitizenCon and as far as I'm aware, we still haven't seen it and it's been 9 months.

 

[Cabbagehead]

It feels like a massive PR mistake to put so much focus on the essentially "never going to be actually finished" Star Citizen over the tangible Squadron 42.

Damned if you don't, Damned if you do.

SQ42 better be at CitizenCon considering a big SQ42 demo was suppose to be shown at CitizenCon 2016, a demo that was "almost done" and that we would see "very soon" after it missed CitizenCon and as far as I'm aware, we still haven't seen it and it's been 9 months.

Totally agree that they have to in some-way make up for the last con. That didn't turn out as they or us wanted.

But the number of blockers that held up that Demo, shown in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRsF6_lwLas

Things like animation, bugs, code and Ai didn't help with that demo. Regardless, that shit storm, was of CIG's doing. With them hyping up the event for that showcase and not saying anything about the issues they were having before it began. Now of course over that nine month span, they've been working on those very issues and we've seen as much in the new ATV format (If you or other's have been watching). Especially with the NPC character locomotion and pathing that was killing them. Still i think it's best to give them a break up to a point.

So they have to show something at Citizen-Con or in the Anniversary stream or both, as it's time to get more not less from SQ42. Yet AI/Subsumption -being the keystone of any game- the most ambition part of both these games. Has been one of the few big blockers or the biggest one that's been hardest to overcome. As it's one of the more complex simulations that will be preformed and has to work in real time and interact/react to different situations and other players. It's a huge endeavor that no one should take lightly. Because it could make or break both games.

Truth be told, given how quiet and non-specific, they've been with the upcoming events (None of that "Look for this specific thing here" due to the reaction from last year) and given how many things they have been hammering out or have hammered out prior, in the upcoming 3.0 build itself and behind closed doors (as i've seen). We should get a surprise...

 

[Pepboy]

SQ42 better be at CitizenCon considering a big SQ42 demo was suppose to be shown at CitizenCon 2016, a demo that was "almost done" and that we would see "very soon" after it missed CitizenCon and as far as I'm aware, we still haven't seen it and it's been 9 months.

I think the issue is that SQ42 doesn't bring in any new revenue, except via new players. And beta video is unlikely to impress, which implies they need to divert resources for a vertical slice.

From a business perspective, they should only show enough of SQ42 to reassure you it's still being worked on. Probably the less the "better".

Then they focus on SC so they can sell more ships. CitizenCon is probably their most profitable time of year, to the point where it wouldn't surprise me if one bad Citizen Con could seriously hamper their budget.

 

[staticneuron]

But the number of blockers that held up that Demo, shown in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRsF6_lwLas

Things like animation, bugs, code and Ai didn't help with that demo. Regardless that shit storm, was of CIG's doing with them hyping up the event for that showcase and not saying anything about the issues they were having before it began. Now of course over that nine month span, they've been working and on those very issues and we've seen as much in the new ATV format (If you or other's have been watching). Especially with the NPC character locomotion and pathing that was killing them. Still i think it's best to give them a break up to a point.

I think chris still is upset over the issues in these Idris Tour . So animation, tracking, pathing and clipping. And they continued on with Fidelity tiers so I am curious to see the leap between current iteration and the oldest one.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I think chris still is upset over the issues in these Idris Tour . So animation, tracking, pathing and clipping. And they continued on with Fidelity tiers so I am curious to see the leap between current iteration and the oldest one.

Pretty much.

That Idris tour was literally hot off the presses of them implementing a bunch of new tech (I think that was pointed out, by one of the developers talked that about it or CR or Eric did), similar situation with that speech by Gary Oldman. Lots of things were in flux and CR of course wanted to give it more time. But the event was coming up and they "promised" that they would show something. Despite again, CR rally for being as perfect as possible with these showcases, something that was and always been naive to a degree. But the heart is there. Every-though some of his own developers cringe at his enthusiasm in regards to tech and timelines. Glady though he's become more realistic.

(Something that was funny to observe on my visit)

In either case both got a ear-full kind of a balanced reaction. Some loved it, some thought it was okay and other's cherry picked and some lambasted it for looking unfinished.Something that was a forgone conclusion and something CIG explained it would look like when they showed it.

 

[staticneuron]

Pretty much.

That Idris tour was literally hot off the presses of them implementing a bunch of new tech (I thin that was pointed out to, when one of the developers talked about it or CR or Eric did) and so was that speech by Gary Oldman. Lots of things were in flux and CR of course wanted to give it more time. But the event was coming up and they "promised" that they would show something. I believe.

In either case both got a ear-full kind of a balanced reaction. Some loved it, some thought it was okay and other's cherry picked and some lambasted it for looking unfinished.Something that was a forgone conclusion and something CIG explained it would look like when they showed it.

So it is as you said

Damned if you don't, Damned if you do.

Which is true, so they looked to be aiming to show a polished product and had things that were not going well so they chose not to show it, than rather show something broken and getting backlash despite it still being a WIP. Alot of people seem to forget that it is WIP.

 

[Cabbagehead]

So it is as you said



Which is true, so they looked to be aiming to show a polished product and had things that were not going well so they chose not to show it, than rather show something broken and getting backlash despite it still being a WIP. Alot of people seem to forget that it is WIP.

That's been the story of this whole project to be honest. Coupled with CIG's own self-inflicted problems and growing pains. To be honest some caution (I have plenty of it) is needed but at the same time, progress has continued to be shown and builds are getting released. Even when they come at a later date. Still shit is still happening.

(Truly there are a shit ton of gamers that have zero idea about game development or know very little or only a specific view point of that type of job and even some profession developers themselves that are. Either intrigued by CIG's process or outright confused by it all. Even some of those guys are jaded by the traditional industry and lambast what CIG is doing. When they themselves would have never been this much freedom to even comment on the range of possibilities and pitfalls, with such a large budget.)

Developers are still developing and CIG is still interacting. Despite the malcontents and their agenda and double standards. They continue to fall on their own swords, to please their hate boners. While all CIG has to do from this point on -with all the hard work and fighting they've have to do over the last 4-5 years- is showcase, what their 400+ developers have been doing and then put a spotlight on the future of all that work.



FYI I edit a lot afterwards....sorry.

 

[iHaunter]

SQ42 better be at CitizenCon considering a big SQ42 demo was suppose to be shown at CitizenCon 2016, a demo that was "almost done" and that we would see "very soon" after it missed CitizenCon and as far as I'm aware, we still haven't seen it and it's been 9 months.

Can't argue with that one, to be honest, I was a bit annoyed with them saying it wasn't "Worth" it.

I think they HAVE to show it this CitizenCon. They will most likely lose a ton of revenue/faith if they don't.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Can't argue with that one, to be honest, I was a bit annoyed with them saying it wasn't "Worth" it.

I think they HAVE to show it this CitizenCon. They will most likely lose a ton of revenue/faith if they don't.

Na.

People will suck it up, one way or another, life is too short.

Plus 3.0 will/should be out (something we didn't have last year to hold us over) at that point, coupled with the new patching system and they will most likely smooth it over with something else or just explain the situation. Unlike what happened last year in a timely fashion. Either way the video i posted shows why they didn't show it and it was more then just it being worth it or not. Which is something they get to decide/determine, since they're the one's "slaving" over making the game for the masses.

Now don't get me wrong. It's okay to feel annoyed or disappointed but lets get real. CIG is not going to get hit that hard by that type of outcome. The type of situation, that would hurt them; is not releasing 3.0 this year at all and pushing it to next year out of the blue or saying SQ42 is cancelled or has been scaled back, those would be the real killers.

Regardless of all that just because they didn't show that specific footage at a single event, doesn't mean they aren't working on said game. Plus all you got to do to confirm that they are working, is get a tour or talk to the developers themselves.


Otherwise CitizenCon should be a SQ42 showcase this year. Would be stupid for it not to be.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Yeah no... It was not cut. It was changed or just clarified, since the original text/pitch was pretty vague.

"Pretty vague"

Amusing how many of those have been effectively dropped.

Ignorant leading the blind yet again.

Never fails. If you followed SC instead of jumping on the hate train you would know it was intentionally cut from the game.

The hate boners here are insane...

Why are you attacking someone and accusing them of having a hate boner when you just posted you agree with them that it was dropped? You guys are so paranoid you're attacking fans of the game SMH

 

[Strazyplus]

some people spend like 600 in SC to get many ships, is that not exactly what pay to win is? or is everything we buy wiped when the game is completed even the ships?

 

[masterkajo]

some people spend like 600 in SC to get many ships, is that not exactly what pay to win is? or is everything we buy wiped when the game is completed even the ships?

No you can keep your ships. But this game will not be like other games where your end goal is to have every ship and the "best" ship beats all other ships. You are part of a big universe and only play a small role and do what you want how you want it. Don't want to engage with other people? Play mostly PvE.

Pay2win means, IMO, to pay money and everyone who doesn't stands no chance against you. In this game you can always run away for example. Also to operate such a big ship, you will have to spend a lot of money to keep it flying.

 

[staticneuron]

some people spend like 600 in SC to get many ships, is that not exactly what pay to win is? or is everything we buy wiped when the game is completed even the ships?

The concept for pay to win is not applicable in this game because there is no "win" state per say. Also ships are role based and basically have their counters or foils. Basically every ship past $200 is more effective with multiple people. They are multicrew ships, so while some of them may have more power, there is a cost associated in running them, they also require more bodies to man. So if you are flying in an aurora or an avenger, it is not worth it going after you in a Retaliator or a Polaris.

Role based ships (most of the $300 or more are role-based multicrew ships that are not military) include mining, shipping, exploration, science, farming, medical, salvage, transport and few more. Again, if you are a lone wolf, you may never have need for a larger ship. If you want to get your own, you still don't have to pay a dime past early package, you can either fly on your own, or join the crew of a larger ship to earn money towards your purchase as every ship can be purchasable in game.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

some people spend like 600 in SC to get many ships, is that not exactly what pay to win is? or is everything we buy wiped when the game is completed even the ships?

Star Citizen is a game where it's not really Pay-to-Win because of the overall goal of the game and what you do. You aren't paying for direct advantages over other players or anything like that. Buying the ships is more like getting the specific role you'd like to start the game as, really. There is no "best ship", it ultimately depends on what you want to do and the circumstances.

The more expensive ships are going to have downsides to them when compared to a smaller/cheaper ship for the same role - maintenance/equipment costs, less maneuverability, requiring multiple players to run them effectively, fighter escorts etc. Both the cheaper ship and the expensive version would have downsides and advantages, it's not just a case of "I've bought the bigger ship so i can do everything better than you", they're more like sidegrades. You aren't directly completely with other players all the time and skill is also a determining factor when it comes to combat and things like that, as well.

Something else to consider is that considering it's going for an immersive persistent universe, if everyone had the same ship at the start would be pretty strange.

 

[Alexander DeLarge]

"Pretty vague"

Amusing how many of those have been effectively dropped.

Wait are we still getting modding? I had imagined since they expanded on the live service so much, total conversion mods would be the first to go.

 

[mnannola]

SQ42 better be at CitizenCon considering a big SQ42 demo was suppose to be shown at CitizenCon 2016, a demo that was "almost done" and that we would see "very soon" after it missed CitizenCon and as far as I'm aware, we still haven't seen it and it's been 9 months.

How can SQ42 be anywhere near a playable state if they seemingly are pushing off AI locomotion to at least 3.1? How can you make a single player game without AI? I predict SQ42 is not going to see the light of day until at least 3.2 or so. They have to figure out AI before they can even begin to make a single player game an actual game.

 

[Ganyc]

Wait are we still getting modding? I had imagined since they expanded on the live service so much, total conversion mods would be the first to go.

yes, SC will be fully modable.

There will be life servers and there will be private servers (like Freelancer), the'll even release the editors/modding tools. It was confirmed by chris roberts a few weeks ago.

 

[RubberJohnny]

The concept for pay to win is not applicable in this game because there is no "win" state per say.

This is a pretty daft argument, what people mean by "pay to win" is that cash bestows advantage in game - i.e. not just cosmetics with no effect.

It's very easy to come up with a scenario where, for example, my $180 real-money LTI Super Hornet blows up your shitty civilian starter ship with my $80 insta-kill missiles and you permadie and lose all your stuff. That's not even getting to more out there scenarios like someone dropping a whole thousand-dollar Capital Ship on you. And even if I lose my ship, I have infinite more with LTI, whereas you're out of luck.

The game currently is hugely Pay to Win, and I'm not sure what's supposed to change to make it not so, as even being able to buy ships in game wouldn't change that.

Pay2win means, IMO, to pay money and everyone who doesn't stands no chance against you. In this game you can always run away for example.

The game creating a system where only free players could engage free players and have to run from paid players else, and that being considered not Pay 2 Win is insane.

Wait are we still getting modding? I had imagined since they expanded on the live service so much, total conversion mods would be the first to go.

Like VR support, modding is a thing that no one is working on, they have no plan to work on, but they haven't outright faced the community and admitted it's cancelled instead insisting it's "the very last thing we'll do", so backers are still sure that it's coming. Realistically, it's not coming, they'll struggle to do all the functionality they promised in the base game, let alone stretch goals.

EDIT: ^^ LOL, proved my point right there

 

[Dr. Carroll]

How can SQ42 be anywhere near a playable state if they seemingly are pushing off AI locomotion to at least 3.1? How can you make a single player game without AI?

Spoiler

Badly, that's how.

 

[Cabbagehead]

How can SQ42 be anywhere near a playable state if they seemingly are pushing off AI locomotion to at least 3.1? How can you make a single player game without AI? I predict SQ42 is not going to see the light of day until at least 3.2 or so. They have to figure out AI before they can even begin to make a single player game an actual game.

Not entirely true that seems.

 

[staticneuron]

How can SQ42 be anywhere near a playable state if they seemingly are pushing off AI locomotion to at least 3.1? How can you make a single player game without AI? I predict SQ42 is not going to see the light of day until at least 3.2 or so. They have to figure out AI before they can even begin to make a single player game an actual game.

You do know Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are two separate games worked on by two different studios right? Despite sharing some engine base and functionality, S42 is a scripted experience and the AI doesn't need to be as robust as the Star Citizen universe. For SC is AI locomotion is already done as shown by CiG manchester, they just worked on path smoothing as a refinement. And this was shown off for May studio report. After your previous posts about AI, one has to wonder are you actually following development or are you just looking at Schedule report for persistent universe and extrapolating guesses at what they mean for SC and S42? Just as a heads up, looking at progress report isn't going to give you insight on what Foundry 42 is working on or already have completed. The closest you can get is the monthly reports. But they are still obviously holding things back.

 

[elyetis]

yes, SC will be fully modable.

There will be life servers and there will be private servers (like Freelancer), the'll even release the editors/modding tools. It was confirmed by chris roberts a few weeks ago.

Good to see there was still a confirmation not that long ago. One can only dream to see a Galactic Conquest revival on this engine/game; it really was an amazing battlefield 1942 mod.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Pay2win means, IMO, to pay money and everyone who doesn't stands no chance against you. In this game you can always run away for example. Also to operate such a big ship, you will have to spend a lot of money to keep it flying.

Do you really believe shit like that, have you even seen a single game like this?

I haven't seen a game like that in my entire life. A guaranteed win for money, perhaps the shittiest Asian MMO would give you an invincible item, but who would play this kind of game?

 

[RubberJohnny]

Yeah, people are having to come up with the most strawman-ny definitions that have never existed just to insist the game isn't it.

The truth is they're all perfectly happy with it being P2W because they've either got a lot of money invested or are part of an org with a large fleet.

The fantasy the game is selling is a roleplay heavy permadeath life simulator where you can be internet famous, the sort of stuff that's a siren song to a certain type of turbonerd seeking escapism from their mundane everyday life. So of course backers want to be the best and will dive deep into their wallets to get a headstart.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

It's very easy to come up with a scenario where, for example, my $180 real-money LTI Super Hornet blows up your shitty civilian starter ship with my $80 insta-kill missiles and you permadie and lose all your stuff.

That depends, did you spend the $100+ to "upgrade" the weapons on the SH?

 

[RubberJohnny]

That depends, did you spend the $100+ to "upgrade" the weapons on the SH?

I mean they also sell UEC, so every caveat on my power "you need repairs", "you'll need ammo", "LTI will have a wait for a new ship unless you pay to speed it up" can also be shortcutted with real money, so yes to everything.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Is the cash shop going to persist after launch? I mean for things other than just cosmetics.

 

[sol740]

This is a pretty daft argument, what people mean by "pay to win" is that cash bestows advantage in game - i.e. not just cosmetics with no effect.

It's very easy to come up with a scenario where, for example, my $180 real-money LTI Super Hornet blows up your shitty civilian starter ship with my $80 insta-kill missiles and you permadie and lose all your stuff. That's not even getting to more out there scenarios like someone dropping a whole thousand-dollar Capital Ship on you. And even if I lose my ship, I have infinite more with LTI, whereas you're out of luck.

The game currently is hugely Pay to Win, and I'm not sure what's supposed to change to make it not so, as even being able to buy ships in game wouldn't change that.

The Pay 2 Win moniker implies someone starting at level one noob and then buying their way to a superiority that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to match without also ponying up cash. If the game is Free2Play, the model at least makes sense if the devs want to see some kind for return for their time investment, but that's hardly what's occurred with SC.

SC is for all intents and purposes, a game paid for exclusively by backers, and the ships are just "some kind of good" you get for helping to get the game developed, and for taking the risk in the first place. The game isn't going to be free, and a "Pay Cash Now For X Ship" mechanic won't exist in the game proper. Yes,the folks who backed the game will get the ships they bought, as reward for paying for the development of the game, and yes, they will have an advantage over someone who did not back the game at the start. That's hardly a standard Pay 2 Win model.

 

[Ganyc]

Good to see there was still a confirmation not that long ago. One can only dream to see a Galactic Conquest revival on this engine/game; it really was an amazing battlefield 1942 mod.

yeah, i really want a star wars mod with the sc engine.
The Freelancer SW mod was good and with star citizen it will be a Star Wars galaxies 2.0.

 

[RubberJohnny]

The Pay 2 Win moniker implies someone starting at level one noob and then buying their way to a superiority that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to match without also ponying up cash.

That seems correct. Some people have $15,000 and hundreds of ships in the game. From the numbers thrown about it seems you'd need thousands of hours to get close to having that, and everything you have could be permanently lost while theirs is infinitely replaceable, still leading to big difference in power.

The game isn't going to be free, and a "Pay Cash Now For X Ship" mechanic won't exist in the game proper.

You can pay Cash for in-game UEC, which you can use to buy ships and weapons and all the rest. That's just buying real money ships with extra steps?

yeah, i really want a star wars mod with the sc engine.
The Freelancer SW mod was good and with star citizen it will be a Star Wars galaxies 2.0.

Man, I think peoples expectations are a little high if they expect mod-teams to have hundreds of full-time AAA level staff with experience in CryEngine to develop these total conversion mods. Like even relatively healthy modscenes are limited to importing assets from other AAA games nowadays because something even X360 level is just too labour intensive and takes too long. And I mean, if the SDK is the last thing they do in 2022 or whatever, how many years would it take to make all those assets after that point? 2025? 2030? You've gotta be realistic.

 

[~Cross~]

Is the cash shop going to persist after launch? I mean for things other than just cosmetics.

The idea is that you can buy in game cash through the site. But there is going to be a limit that any individual player can buy from it. Which might as well not exist because turbo whales will just have multiple accounts to keep funneling money through.

Its honestly an incredibly shitty design they are planning to superficially appease people that scream p2w without actually taking a second to see how it can be gamed. Also its bad "immersion" wise because people are magically generating money into a system instead of using pre-existing money in game.

Instead they could do what every other fucking korean MMO has been doing for decades and have you be able to trade store items for in game cash and then tax it further. So it actually creates something that benefits the in game economy by whipping excess credits from the market and allowing people with more time than money to get cosmetics or whatever.

 

[Zabojnik]

That seems correct. Some people have $15,000 and hundreds of ships in the game, infinitely replaceable. From the numbers thrown about it seems you'd need thousands of hours to get close to having that, and everything you have could be permanently lost, still leading to big difference in power.

They've been saying LTI won't be a big deal for years now, so I'm pretty confident it won't be. You'll likely get a 3 / 6 / however many months insurance when you buy a new ship in game and renewing it won't cost much in the grand scheme of things. At least not the basic hull insurance, which I believe is what's covered under LTI. Insuring your weapons / equipment / cargo will likely cost considerably more though, as it should be.

 

[mnannola]

After your previous posts about AI, one has to wonder are you actually following development or are you just looking at Schedule report for persistent universe and extrapolating guesses at what they mean for SC and S42? Just as a heads up, looking at progress report isn't going to give you insight on what Foundry 42 is working on or already have completed. The closest you can get is the monthly reports. But they are still obviously holding things back.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this game, but it does seem to me that they would like to share as much code as possible between both games. I doubt that they have a completely different AI system for SQ42 as they will for the PU. That doesn't seem to be how Chris Roberts works. If they are working on a groundbreaking AI, why not use this for Squadron 42?

It's hard to find concrete data to back up these assumptions, but I did find this in the November 2016 monthly report

This month system design was busy setting up usable records for Squadron 42, which will lay the groundwork for cinematic scenes and player interactions, adding background conversations between AI and in general making AI feel a lot more alive and natural in their environment. At the same time, we worked on finalizing the Mercenary and Bounty Hunter careers for 3.0 and breaking these careers into their component systems. We also made progress on the AI skills and stats system which should allow each AI to have an individual personality, individual needs and wants. Generally based on these skills and stats, an AI will change the priority of their Subsumption behaviors. For example, if an AI is ordered to fix your ship, he might not do that if he needs to go to the toilet or if he is too tired. It will also encourage the players to crew their ships with AI who have a variety of skills for every situation, and set up teams based on how all of these guys complement each other for the task at hand.

It's not crystal clear, but that quote seems to point to work on AI going into both games. Why not use the complex AI they are building for the PU in the single player game? Quite frankly I don't think Chris Roberts can resist delaying SQ42 until they can integrate the same AI functionality that will be found in the PU. I will gladly eat crow if they ship any flavor of SQ42 before 3.1 when they can implement basic AI routines.

 

[staticneuron]

Is the cash shop going to persist after launch?

You will not be able to buy ships but there will be methods to buy UEC in limited quantities.

The Pay 2 Win moniker implies someone starting at level one noob and then buying their way to a superiority that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to match without also ponying up cash. If the game is Free2Play, the model at least makes sense if the devs want to see some kind for return for their time investment, but that's hardly what's occurred with SC.

SC is for all intents and purposes, a game paid for exclusively by backers, and the ships are just "some kind of good" you get for helping to get the game developed, and for taking the risk in the first place. The game isn't going to be free, and a "Pay Cash Now For X Ship" mechanic won't exist in the game proper. Yes,the folks who backed the game will get the ships they bought, as reward for paying for the development of the game, and yes, they will have an advantage over someone who did not back the game at the start. That's hardly a standard Pay 2 Win model.

There are things to clarify, as I see some are trying to push misinformation and fud as well.

1. There is currently no interdiction inherent to any ship, meaning people can run away by engaging q drive. If you add a module (as they will create one later seemingly for police varient) you will have to sacrifice a point because they are fixed. So it isn't as if there are no trade offs for the module.

2. Since there is no win state, the obnoxious behavior described would be.... trolling. And Yes I imagine there can be alot of griefing and trolling as stuff like that happens (albeit rare) in the alpha now. But also in alpha is a bounty system it was added back in 2.2. So you can make yourself known as a pirate or criminal, but that gives bounty hunters someone to pursue. Good luck with that.

3. Insurance: We want to be absolutely clear that Standard Hull Insurance, which offers the same exact protection, is available to all players in the game. Players simply need to continue to renew it with credits earned in-game. LTI is intended to make this more convenient for our early backers, not to unbalance the game in any way. Insurance does not negate the cost of repairing, rearming or docking your ship. It protects your hull in its current condition and does not allow you to explode a beaten up ship to exchange for a fresh one at no cost.


And

They've been saying LTI won't be a big deal for years now, so I'm pretty confident it won't be. You'll likely get a 3 / 6 / however many months insurance when you buy a new ship in game and renewing it won't cost much in the grand scheme of things. At least not the basic hull insurance, which I believe is what's covered under LTI. Insuring your weapons / equipment / cargo will likely cost considerably more though, as it should be.

^ All of this

 

[~Cross~]

They've been saying LTI won't be a big deal for years now, so I'm pretty confident it won't be. You'll likely get a 3 / 6 / however many months insurance when you buy a new ship in game and renewing it won't cost much in the grand scheme of things. At least not the basic hull insurance, which I believe is what's covered under LTI. Insuring your weapons / equipment / cargo will likely cost considerably more though, as it should be.

Make LTI on hull standard then and avoid any headaches they are getting from the thing. It would be the most sensible thing to do.