I fixed quality of 3 webms.
I've also created a thread for that, we'll see if that was good decision
But i think that 'capital' ships are so mind blowing that everybody should see them.http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1317432
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
I fixed quality of 3 webms.
I've also created a thread for that, we'll see if that was good decision
But i think that 'capital' ships are so mind blowing that everybody should see them.http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1317432
It actually looks better than BG.
Pretty impressive capital ships, but Star Marine still leaves me cold. Looks bland imo
Great thing I'm not in the least interested in the FPS part. If only they could scrap that and work more on planets & ship gameplay...
mercenar1e
Member
the caterpillar will be in the 2.6 update right?
SeanNoonan
Member
Shorter cuts of Star Marine footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW-f4ourFEc
mercenar1e
Member
Dictator93
Member
I wish we could see more weapons and a team elimination match. Mainly so we can see what it looks like when everyone is more concerned for their 1 life.
Awesome footage though.
Also, bug some of the graphics guys about the inconsistent motion blur. It annoys me to the nth degree that it only applies to helmets and weapons but nothing else
It should apply to everything!
SeanNoonan
Member
We're reading all of the feedback. Will see what is possible in the time up until launch
On the forums of SC people are talking about 3.0
Also one thing, carefully if you upgrade to Vanguard(if I'm not wrong, maybe was the x85) because seems that leaves you with any ship to fly until you get that one.
About the anniversary, capital ships look cooler; the Prowler is amazing; Star Marine needs improvement sure but at least seems we're finally getting it in some weeks.
Now, some ships will be in sale this week so I'm looking forward to buy a new one to make company to my Avenger Titan. I tried some ships today from other players, Freelancer,Ghost, Andromeda even one Starfarer(awesome by the way, I was able to go in by entering the plattform that is in the back). I'm even thinking about upgrading my avenger to a hornet and buying the freelancer for the cargo but I wanna know how good are the freelancer and hornet ghost for fighting(or is it better the tracer one?).
mercenar1e
Member
on the chat people are saying 2.6 or 3.2 lol why is it so hard for CIG to clarify information.
staticneuron
Member
That is because all of the earlier information pegged it for 3.0
And the chart Zabo posted
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220729861&postcount=6826
it could be possible that Cat is hanger ready but not flight ready.
mercenar1e
Member
this is the most likely scenario.. they should have gone over it again during the live stream.
Yes it would be, but inexplicably it's not a feature. I say inexplicably because I can't see what's so difficult about this.
Frankly, once the Stanton planets are ready, they should allow you to place your hangar on the planet surface and let your friends visit you. This feature alone will keep the fan base happy for months, if not years.
Missed the livestream, think that might be a first. Kinda representative of the way I feel about the current project progress I guess.
Don't really feel the need to check every single day if there's some news to report.
Footage of the capships looks grand though, but considering it'll be a while before I'm able to actually enjoy those ingame kind of dampens my enthousiasm.
2.6 is looking pretty good, some of the comments on game speed and functionality seem on point, but let's not forget they still have a lot of time to do balance changes, and pretty much change or add loads of stuff if they so desire.
Regarding the schedule they set up: anyone else think they're being pretty skimpy with the time alotted for testing, both Evocati and PTU?
Seems to me that not one of the earlier Avocado or PTU tests lasted 1 week, all of them yielded pretty big bugs that took several weeks to finish if my memory serves me.
Just hope this won't lead to disappointment when dates start slipping, even if I really applaud the effort of keeping us this in the loop.
Don't really feel the need to check every single day if there's some news to report.
Footage of the capships looks grand though, but considering it'll be a while before I'm able to actually enjoy those ingame kind of dampens my enthousiasm.
2.6 is looking pretty good, some of the comments on game speed and functionality seem on point, but let's not forget they still have a lot of time to do balance changes, and pretty much change or add loads of stuff if they so desire.
Regarding the schedule they set up: anyone else think they're being pretty skimpy with the time alotted for testing, both Evocati and PTU?
Seems to me that not one of the earlier Avocado or PTU tests lasted 1 week, all of them yielded pretty big bugs that took several weeks to finish if my memory serves me.
Just hope this won't lead to disappointment when dates start slipping, even if I really applaud the effort of keeping us this in the loop.
Breathtaking.
Too bad this gorgeous footage doesn't remove my doubts about the game. I'd love to play it next year but they seem so far away from a playable product...
Oh well, I only have the basic package so no stress.
staticneuron
Member
With so many ships that have high $ price now before the game release, I wonder how much ingame resources would be needed for in-game purchase of some mid-sized ships?
I would imagine enough to reflect the crew requirements of the larger ships. The ships that people will play solo are on lower end, ships starting with crew requirements 5 people and above are the more pricey options. That and people can ride along with people who own larger ships and possibly earn more.
EDIT: also can try joining an org, ahem, in which members own more ships than they can play at once with and super large ships for ride alongs.
It looks like they are much further along with the Cat... according to Expo Day 3, which is all about Drake... they have provided these updates:
mercenar1e
Member
its going to be interesting to find out how the spawning system copes with the caterpillar and the starfarer flying around.
staticneuron
Member
I see. Wow they are moving faster than expected. That is good news.
It's pretty reassuring if ships is now a process which isn't prone to delay.
Caterpillar being flight ready for 2.6 mean it went as they expected, and kept it's end of the year release from the original 3.0 estimation.
We're reading all of the feedback. Will see what is possible in the time up until launch
Maybe you should check with the level designers on the placement of objects near choke points.
https://youtu.be/QW-f4ourFEc?t=152
At this point in the video, he is getting tripped up by a crate that at close range is out of the FOV. If crates need to be there then also possibly consider making taller stacks.
iHaunter
Member
Breathtaking.
Too bad this gorgeous footage doesn't remove my doubts about the game. I'd love to play it next year but they seem so far away from a playable product...
Oh well, I only have the basic package so no stress.
You need to understand, most of the team is working on SQ42, i.e. big ships, assets, etc.
Once SQ42 winds down, there will be a lot more production towards SC Universe. Also once the giant mega ships like Bengal, Idris, etc. we'll see quicker production of other ships .
Edit: Screenshots from /r/starcitizen
The rest can be found here: llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Day 4 is up: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...05-Intergalactic-Aerospace-Expo-Day-Four-MISC
Finally finished that upgrade to Hull E. RIP Crucible and Starfarer.
The site is running really slowly at the moment.
Finally finished that upgrade to Hull E. RIP Crucible and Starfarer.
The site is running really slowly at the moment.
Zalusithix
Member
Guess we're down to one Crucible now.
I have some CCUs to a Crucible. I am still up in the air if I want to keep my Carrack I could always turn it into a Crucible. Crucible or Relcaimer might be more "fun" than a Carrack.
Nice!! We now have two big monster E's. Those will take a good number of GAF members to protect. Put all of our Idris and Polaris to work
I turned my remaining two Gemini into other ships to use that free money boost. I had one reliant base left over so I used that $15 boost to grab a base Starfarer.
Zalusithix
Member
Oh, I have a CCU to it too. I have a CCU in reserve for most ships at this point. Which ones I'll end up using and which ones I'll end up melting is up in the air though. That said, I do know that I wont trade my Carrack for a Crucible. Rather, I wont trade any of my existing ships for one. It'd be a new funds only ship.
It seems that a few of the ships, Javalin, Idris, Polaris for sure and possibly the Carrack could be big in-game money sinks. If it turns out that exploration can sustain that big of a ship based of off discoveries and such I will certainly keep it. I have no clue how I will be able to make enough money flying a Polaris to sustain it, let alone the other two monsters.
However it has been a practice of self control to not buying either so far. (that and my wife would probably kill me)
** Just got around to cleaning up my section on the google ORG chart.
Zalusithix
Member
Frankly, I don't think cap ships are meant to be sustained by one person. Just like they can't be run by one person (with any effectiveness). In addition to providing people to man them, the org itself will have to provide the funding to maintain them. It'll be one of the many logistical issues with fielding one. They aren't the sort of things you'd just joy ride around the 'verse in for the hell of it. If a cap ship comes out, it'll be doing so for a purpose. Both crew and escorts will have to be planned for.
The Polaris has a bit more leeway in this regard due to the lower crew count and the more hit and run aspect vs protracted battles, but even it is something I don't see being used on a day to day basis. At least not early on.
The Carrack on the other hand I don't see being a sink. It's exploration focused which should pay given it's a role intended to be viable, but it's also modular. It can hold a fair amount of cargo for instance if you start swapping out the modular bays. It's also well shielded, armored, and even armed. Being built for long range missions and having self repair capability, it actually seems like it could make a good long haul trader.
I tried to CCU to one but they do not consider it a stand alone ship so I could not CCU to it. Just did the base and will get the parts to make mine into a Discovery when they sell them.
Just found this from Ben at CIG: https://twitter.com/banditloaf/status/800372588765540352
Chris White ‏@Longtr33 40m40 minutes ago
@banditloaf @Runaljods Hi there, I'd like to upgrade to an Olympic. Will that be possible ? At the moment the upgrade is not available
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Ben Lesnick ‏@banditloaf 39m39 minutes ago
@Longtr33 @Runaljods Looking into the feasibility of this, will need to hear back from Turbulent. If we can't do it today, maybe Saturday!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
View other replies
Yeah, I'm about to CCU an Argo token I have so I can get LTI on it. If there's a ship that LTI may be worth it, it's this one. The only downside I suppose is that the modules might end up costing more when bought separately than as part of a package (Hope, Discovery, Olympic), but the up side is that we'll get to build the Endeavor like we want it. For example, I'd love to have a hangar module with a Science and Research module (not really interested in the additional crew module).
SeanNoonan
Member
I am the level designer. Small bug - offset collision proxy on a nearby terminal. It was already fixed as that build went live
staticneuron
Member
I am the level designer. Small bug - offset collision proxy on a nearby terminal. It was already fixed as that build went live
^ See. Already on point! Keep up the good work kind sir!
I am the level designer. Small bug - offset collision proxy on a nearby terminal. It was already fixed as that build went live
Nice!
staticneuron
Member
Welcome Back! We were worried for a while.
Bo Knows GAF
Member
I feel so much better after working the system to exchange my Freelancer upgrade starter package and dragonfly into a LTI Freelancer + a mustang alpha starter pack without spending any money. I even kept my gladius! Took like 5 melts and CCU's during this week's sale but it's done. I kept telling myself insurance wasn't a big deal but having only 3 months on a Lancer seemed too iffy. Now I can relax.
Zalusithix
Member
Practically speaking, it wasn't a big deal. Within 3 months that Freelancer will either be heavily upgraded or replaced. In either case, the LTI wouldn't help. I mean, sure, there's no reason not to get LTI when it's just a bit of shuffling of ships and CCUs, but realistically it doesn't mean much for people with small personal fleets. (Especially if the fleet is comprised of the more affordable ships.) I have LTI on everything aside from my physical package ship (Phoenix), but that's more because I have
Bo Knows GAF
Member
It's more or less that the friends I plan on playing with, my friends outside of the game, will totally go out of their way to blow me up repeatedly out of love.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Been watching some of the 2.6 game play trying to interpret some of the changes they are making to the FM. First of all those skins just look so... disappointingly amateur. I do like the spitfire-esque Gladiator except the ugly logo fitted asymmetrically.
Second, if they aren't flying deceptively like other demos, they slower speeds are OK. However the still lack of inertia and what looks like increased acceleration just push it even more to a ship based FPS like I fear. Especially the gladius portions that look indescribable from the FPS gameplay. Honestly if they would lower the acceleration and raise the speed it would be great because it would put the emphasis on energy management on flying, giving distinction.
Third the cockpits look nice but WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY IS THE RADAR GLOBE STILL BRIGHT ASS BLUE. Look at the Sabre for example, lots of subdued colors then this giant ass blue globe in the center. It is way too bright, too large and takes focus from where it should be. It's some crazy hill Roberts is bent on and I don't understand it. Otherwise I like most of the looks inside the cockpits. The lag pip redesign is especially good IMO, communicates much better to lead and land shots.
Fourth is still the biggest problem with balancing the game which is IM vs every other mode. You can see the tangible difference between how the game is played on stick vs the dudes who were flying with IM. They were the ones just moving forward and back clicking on targets to kill while the non-IM people were actually maneuvering and working to get guns on the target. With the new slower speeds this will vastly benefit the IM people making it easier to just point and click to win.
Fifth is the new cruiseless FM. Which I d like as it is removing a lot of the unnecessary modes for traversing in flight. My biggest concern is I hope there is a way to map a throttle percentage for afterburners, like DCS for example. I really don't want to have to hold down a button on the throttle to maintain AB.
Second, if they aren't flying deceptively like other demos, they slower speeds are OK. However the still lack of inertia and what looks like increased acceleration just push it even more to a ship based FPS like I fear. Especially the gladius portions that look indescribable from the FPS gameplay. Honestly if they would lower the acceleration and raise the speed it would be great because it would put the emphasis on energy management on flying, giving distinction.
Third the cockpits look nice but WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY IS THE RADAR GLOBE STILL BRIGHT ASS BLUE. Look at the Sabre for example, lots of subdued colors then this giant ass blue globe in the center. It is way too bright, too large and takes focus from where it should be. It's some crazy hill Roberts is bent on and I don't understand it. Otherwise I like most of the looks inside the cockpits. The lag pip redesign is especially good IMO, communicates much better to lead and land shots.
Fourth is still the biggest problem with balancing the game which is IM vs every other mode. You can see the tangible difference between how the game is played on stick vs the dudes who were flying with IM. They were the ones just moving forward and back clicking on targets to kill while the non-IM people were actually maneuvering and working to get guns on the target. With the new slower speeds this will vastly benefit the IM people making it easier to just point and click to win.
Fifth is the new cruiseless FM. Which I d like as it is removing a lot of the unnecessary modes for traversing in flight. My biggest concern is I hope there is a way to map a throttle percentage for afterburners, like DCS for example. I really don't want to have to hold down a button on the throttle to maintain AB.
I don't get it either. Those instant accelerations just feel bad.
EDIT : Just found a 2.6 dogfight video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHfd9A1GcE
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...0-Intergalactic-Aerospace-Expo-Day-Six-Origin
Didn't know the 890J was so expensive, I thought it was in the Carrack price range
Didn't know the 890J was so expensive, I thought it was in the Carrack price range
Zalusithix
Member
Haha, no. Expensive, limited, and now impossible to LTI. Quite possibly the least logical ship purchase out of all of them given it's capabilities.
Yet for some reason I still want one.
Similar threads
- Locked