What element of exploration are you speaking about when you say that ? I thought the biggest change on that aspect was planets. Not that I'm not interested in planet exploration too, I just think it's kind of it's own thing and it will come with their own challenge to balance when it comes to exploration, cf :
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
staticneuron
Member
That is the change that is huge. When the kickstarter goal was announced the concept of landing on planets and exploring the surface was not apart of that. So now we have some systems with planets and satellites that will be explorable, that changes things in a huge way. One of the moons taking hours to go around means the scale of the exploration has become exponentially larger. So the question is, how does this affect the procedural missing givers and how much is unexplored? I am actually hoping at least a 25% systems are unknown (need to be found) 50% needs to be explored and the last 25% known to all the races. Of course this could be something that is going to be heavily perspective based, CIG may shoot for more of the galaxy being known but only by specific species. Because out of the lore, humans haven't even come into contact with the Kr'Thak or their region.The scale just makes me want to take a trip to visit every race (except the vanduul) when they are all incorporated in the universe.
As far as what there is to do on the ground, the direlect ships ATV shows implies we are going to have to find them and this is not going to be a marker on a hud outside of a mission.
EDIT: I also think they tipped thier hand about the large ship they want us to find
----> Large SC ship
Which is why I'm saying it's kind of it's own thing. Again it's interesting too, but I do put space and planetary exploration as two different things.
I mean it's kind of like if we now learned that SQ42 will have far less space battle because there will now be a huge amount of fps battle on planets. It's still battles... but...
Yup it has great potential. Again my biggest fear on that aspect is how they will handle having this size being relevant. If planetary exploration ( or even missions ), is mostly done flying, it's size will actually mean pretty little.
I like those percentage, I would even tweak it more on the unknown side, but when you put that into a ( hopefully ) 10 systems release. It mean 2 systems to find, and 5 to explores, which for me is all kind of disapointing.
It feel like expecting GTA but knowing to you will get Bully at first.
Actually the more I speak about it the more I see huge downsides to it even for others aspect of the game, either a big player density or instances instances and more instances.
It completely change how I imagine interaction with the vanduul since their territory can now only be pretty limited. The scale of the trading routes just got smaller, etc..
As ironic as it sound, it now feel like the hard part will be for them to make space feel... big.
Time will tell, but I can't shake off the feeling that if the choice was mine, I would have taken the original number of system at release, over planetary landing... by a pretty wide margin.
staticneuron
Member
Not sure if planet versus space battles will be an issue. If you are talking about other players then maybe. If you are talking about NPC's then that is how the system they implement works. They have enemies that spring up in missions and points of interests already and they simply could make events happen to players similar to an action director.
I am not sure you can call trade routes size or worry about that because we don't even know what the size of one completed system is. And there are 4 other races besides human and vanduul so worrying about empty space is a good thing if the systems are large enough.
Either way you seem to be rushing to assumptions with next to nothing to go on. But if you chose to think that way its up to you. I would at least wait to see what 3.0 offers before making an early call.
RubberJohnny
Banned
There's no way there'll be enough exploration content. Remember when No Mans Sky said it was incredibly unlikely for anyone to ever meet and then two people were in the same station on the first day? People in Elite managed to hunt down 320 alien spaceships in a couple of days across thousands of systems and tens of thousands of planets and moons which they had to do visually, by flying within a couple of miles of them, literally needle in a haystack stuff. And that was on worlds that were 100% sized, not like the 10% SC scale, and with a smaller number of active players after two years after launch.
With 2 million people descending on maybe only a hundred celestial bodies, everything will be found much faster than that. If you've played Kerbal, which has the same scale as SC, you know you can see even small structures from space. I can't see any way they could possibly spawn new stuff fast enough unless it was like an MMO where the enemies you just fought to enter the cave respawn so fast you have to fight them on the way out too.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/getting-started:
I just feel that if any other game pulled this people would be screaming blue murder.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nplv5/so_the_consensus_from_the_community_is/
Whereas look, the Citizens have already rolled over and taken it already. $154 million, 2500% the original budget and several extra years of development and they're having to pull back to >5% of their scope. It's just shows how much of a clusterfuck the development has been.
With 2 million people descending on maybe only a hundred celestial bodies, everything will be found much faster than that. If you've played Kerbal, which has the same scale as SC, you know you can see even small structures from space. I can't see any way they could possibly spawn new stuff fast enough unless it was like an MMO where the enemies you just fought to enter the cave respawn so fast you have to fight them on the way out too.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/getting-started:
I just feel that if any other game pulled this people would be screaming blue murder.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nplv5/so_the_consensus_from_the_community_is/
Whereas look, the Citizens have already rolled over and taken it already. $154 million, 2500% the original budget and several extra years of development and they're having to pull back to >5% of their scope. It's just shows how much of a clusterfuck the development has been.
I'm not saying it will, I'm just using it as an comparison with exploration and how planet and space while intertwine, are still 2 separates entities gameplay wise.
I mean it's under developement so of course most things said are based on assumptions either from the current stats of things or how one think they might evolve.
Too often people read complaints about the game and read it as "I complain about that because I know for a fact it will be that way at release" then go on the defensive. Sharing fear about something ins't playing nostradamus and saying it will happen.
I'm not saying the game can only end up being be bad because of a ( big ) shrink in -space- size, but that I have a hard time seeing it without consequences. And that planet landing while a ( very ) good thing in general, isn't a replacement for space / systems.
I don't think size/number/scale alone is enough, imho Elite Dangerous or NMS proved that. But on the other hand I do think it does have it's inherent strength. Entire mechanics like jump points or fuel pretty much live by that aspect.
Even trading which can obviously be done between 2 npc/station/etc no matter what distance separate them. But scale change the variety of route linking them, how temporary jump point ( back to exploration ) affect said routes, etc...
Smugling ? same, a good chunk of it's balance is about the places it make you travel through.
Etc..
I have no doubts all those mechanics can be done with 5, heck even 3 systems; but not without consequences. And I'm just not sure planetary landing at release would be worth those consequences.
Obviously I want the game to prove me wrong.
Rephin
Member
Other than the last lines, I actually completely agree with this assessment. I was going to type out roughly the same response until this post happened. Scaling down the actual galaxy size makes ships like the Carrack far less useful in the long term because there will be nothing to explore fairly quickly; there are over a million players, and a large percentage of them want the thrill of discovery to themselves. That is exceedingly difficult in a sandbox that's the size of an ant farm. If CIG slowly integrates new galaxies then those will get explored out rapidly as well. This is not what people who bought into the game thinking they'd have a shot at exploring a vast galaxy want. Planetside exploration is cool, don't get me wrong, but some of us signed up to look at more than rocks and fauna. I certainly didn't want a Carrack for taking short trips and discover that someone else already got there first.
Of course, it's still too early to tell, but right now this is pretty disappointing.
No, RJ, I am not going to refund my pledge over this.
RubberJohnny
Banned
The other thing that's flat out hilarious is that it people like me that were saying "You know, I'm really not sure 100 star systems with hundreds of planets and moons and all these handcrafted landing zones is really plausible given the slow rate of progress produced over the last four and a half years" and were told to fuck off and stop trolling and "Duh! That's why they have procgen you idiot".
Now that Croberts has come out and admitted (to a German magazine, not to backers themselves of course) it's not realistic to produce 100 star systems even with procgen it's all "the 100 star systems were just a stretch goal anyway" and "I've always said 5-10 systems at launch". We've always been at war with Eastasia, just like when they admitted doing Gamescom demos took work away from the main game, and people pivoted from "all their work on them goes into the main game" to "it makes sense to cancel them and focus on the main game" without any acknowledgement they were all suddenly arguing the opposite.
Now that Croberts has come out and admitted (to a German magazine, not to backers themselves of course) it's not realistic to produce 100 star systems even with procgen it's all "the 100 star systems were just a stretch goal anyway" and "I've always said 5-10 systems at launch". We've always been at war with Eastasia, just like when they admitted doing Gamescom demos took work away from the main game, and people pivoted from "all their work on them goes into the main game" to "it makes sense to cancel them and focus on the main game" without any acknowledgement they were all suddenly arguing the opposite.
I think you might've gotten this a tad bit wrong. You just have no fucking clue about game development, is all.
Can't you see the emperor's new clothes? ;-)
Taxonomy? Original kickstarter promise was 100 star systems at launch, multiple planets each iirc. Those'd be placed in one galaxy. Compare that to a certain other game with a galaxy consisting of ~400 Bio. star systems (of emptiness and underdeveloped scanning mechanics, but nevertheless), that's still quite a small slice of a galaxy, at best. If CIG now downscales to 5-10 star systems and adds further systems beyond launch, that's still systems, not galaxies. And what launch that is and when is still firmly up in the air, isn't it? How's the 3.0 alpha and the networking update coming along?
Graphics Horse
Member
5-10 is a super vague range for something so fundamental..
I understand the concern of having too few nodes for an explorer to hook on at launch, to say. But we'd have to define what exploration entails, what launch is and how the game will be played.
Is exploration solely a mission based concept? Being the first the find planet X or system Y? Collect all collectibles Z1-Z100? If we take a good look at the best example of doing exploration right, we have Zelda BotW. It's a singleplayer game, yes. But millions of people have already played the game, every secret is already out on the internet. Still, the joy of just discovering things on your own, looking what's behind the next corner, being amazed by what you find there... make the game really feel special. I hope they try to capture that essence of exploration. Where I'm just interested in landing on a planet, maybe finding some mineral, enjoying the scenery, walk and fly around. Like in real life, space exploration should be about the thrill of discovering planets and alien artifacts, not just about being the first the land somewhere.
As for the launch, I feel like they are splitting things about to move the launch 'forward'. How I see it, is that the game never would have a hard launch anyway. I always felt like it would be this sort continuously updated service. Whether we have a soft launch in 2019 or a delayed 'hard' launch in 2022 wouldn't have really mattered, I find it more a discussion of semantics of what a launch really means. It's best to leave the discussion to judge the actual content at any given time is when that content has came out. The discussion now will hardly add anything to the conversation.
And keep in mind the online part will be heavily instanced, there will never be 2 million people playing at the same time in the same 'universe'. How the instancing will work is still a bit unclear, but I'm guessing it leads to different people discovering different small things at the same place.
Is exploration solely a mission based concept? Being the first the find planet X or system Y? Collect all collectibles Z1-Z100? If we take a good look at the best example of doing exploration right, we have Zelda BotW. It's a singleplayer game, yes. But millions of people have already played the game, every secret is already out on the internet. Still, the joy of just discovering things on your own, looking what's behind the next corner, being amazed by what you find there... make the game really feel special. I hope they try to capture that essence of exploration. Where I'm just interested in landing on a planet, maybe finding some mineral, enjoying the scenery, walk and fly around. Like in real life, space exploration should be about the thrill of discovering planets and alien artifacts, not just about being the first the land somewhere.
As for the launch, I feel like they are splitting things about to move the launch 'forward'. How I see it, is that the game never would have a hard launch anyway. I always felt like it would be this sort continuously updated service. Whether we have a soft launch in 2019 or a delayed 'hard' launch in 2022 wouldn't have really mattered, I find it more a discussion of semantics of what a launch really means. It's best to leave the discussion to judge the actual content at any given time is when that content has came out. The discussion now will hardly add anything to the conversation.
And keep in mind the online part will be heavily instanced, there will never be 2 million people playing at the same time in the same 'universe'. How the instancing will work is still a bit unclear, but I'm guessing it leads to different people discovering different small things at the same place.
What I don't understand is why you care so much? Let's pretend you're right and Star Citizen goes down in history as the biggest scam in gaming ever, do you really think you're gonna change anything? It's happened already, why not just wait and see? THEN you can point the finger all you want.
There's criticism and then there's the personal vendetta you seem to have.
Only if we fail at abstracting the behaviorial pattern Orwell describes from a dystopic society. Otherwise the comparison is absolutely sound.
"Development takes long and requires much more moneys than the original kickstarter?" -
"Duh, of course it does! This is all in the name of releasing a completed, full game, as opposed to some half finished early access trash. See, we did a forum poll and people wanted it that way."
"We take even longer, it gets even more expensive and we'll only be delivering a Minimum Viable Product fraction of what we originally promised. I always said, we'd start small and expand from there" - "Sure, that makes most sense! The Carrack was always more of a ground explorer than a deep space ship anyway."
RubberJohnny
Banned
Well I've already said my role is to point out the numerous warning signs around the project to dissuade more people from buying in and save them from losing money - my motives are nothing but altruistic!
Backing SC is more like ordering a cocktail, waiting four and a half years and they've only delivered an empty glass with salt around the rim while asking you for more money and talking about all the work they're doing on refactoring the cocktail pipeline.
That's normal positivistic attitude whenever something you invested money or time in fails though. "I'm really longing a beer, let me get one from the cellar. Oh no, I dropped my last one on the floor, didn't need the beer that bad and the floor had to be mopped one day anytime soon. I'll just go get some new when the store opens tomorrow." I'd argue it's completely different from a dystopian society where someone exerts power over the complete life of the person, leaving them very little freedom. If a game turns out to be bad, you can just go play another game and dictator Chris Roberts won't certainly round me up when I try to install E
.You're like that dude that goes along partying and always dissuades everyone from buying those fancy cocktails. "They're too expensive and alcohol will only harm you in the long run!" You're technically right, but don't expect to get invited to many parties after. Sometimes you just have to need to let people make their own (bad) decisions and stand in for their own consequences. Trying to force an opinion down everyone's throat over and over again, will only make people feel that you're kind a prick.
Personnaly when I speak about exploration in Star Citizen I speak about it in the IG profession sense, which in the grand scheme of things could be summarised to "explore to find things to sell ( or which give you an advatage to keep for yourself/corp )".
'Exploring' space can be fun in it's own right, but that's something else entirely. I mean I hope just walking on those planet will be rewarding in it's own right ( and given how good the game look, it might ), but simply put... I don't want another Elite Dangerous.
So the game would just be an unpaid job for you? Do repetitive thing X to gain ingame value Y, repeat ad infinitum. I'd argue the journey is as important as the destination, or else you're just wasting your time to increase the numerical value of some unimportant metric.
Nice euphemism, but it's not positivistic, it's pure delusion. Rather than calling out inconsistencies, it's making up each and every excuse to gloss over what RubberJohnny calls red flags (I'd say they're more like giant red anti aircraft search lights, tbh.) into a positive narration.
A constructive discussion would very much be why all these issues happen to the project (e.g. contractor work for Star Marine being thrown into the trash along with the backer money spend on it) and what can prevent further backer money from being absolutely wasted. But that's an uncomfortable discussion for sure and it would require accountability of the poeple who have led the project.
But it's not happening, so long as the echo chamber discussion revolves around which ship might or might not have the nicer "Mix Master" (remember cocktail mixing civil flight concept with passenger health and AI flight attendant simulation?) in the final game or whether the ingame bunk beds have the nicest texture work around, rather than what is the final game supposed to actually contain, how and most importantly when they're going to get there, after an alleged 150 Mio.$ and 5 years since the kickstarter haven't even gotten them to a MVP (as in, all or most of the promised basic mechanics and some star systems to test them out in place).
Some will fantasize about how which ship will be best to collect doodads on planet surfaces. Others will point out that neither the corresponding ships, nor the planet surfaces are available in playable form to date. I only see one faction getting utterly pissed at the other and throwing verbal feces in their direction.
And what does CIG's open development state their exploration mechanic will be actually like? Or are we, after their 150$ Mio. and just about 5 years post Kickstarter, still at the point where everybody can project whatever they want exploration to be like into their 400$ exploration ship pledge packages?
Of couse the journey is important, but I want a destination.
Let's take this comm-link about mining :
Again it's about having a rewarding gameplay-loop.
It's not without reason that people call them Careers or professions.
Obviously people want them to be fun, but they also want to use them as a mean to an end. People want to make IG money, to get more ships, more gear, more cloths, more weapons, maybe a better looking hangar, etc.. And they are selling that as a replacement for a subscription because they know very well that people will go as far as to pay for it.
Of course both are important. But I find it necessary that the process itself is fun. Take for example oldschool Runescape. Is all that grinding cutting the same trees over and over again really fun? It's just ticking up some imaginary stat in a video game that has no importance for the rest. Or some achievements. Does it really mean anything that you found all 200 pieces of toilet paper? I acknowledge that many people love this kind of stuff, and I reckon it has to do with wanting to feel a sense of accomplishment, some kind of recognition for the effort and dedication you put in. But for me this feels a very empty reward. If you can beat the game by just adjusting some memory values, the game has already failed. That's why I liked BotW. You both got some very good and fun rewards that made exploring even more fun, but the process along was great too. Never did I think that I needed to grind or do some chores to reach what I wanted to get. And that's what they need to try to make SC too.
And Burny, do we know what it is actually like? No, you're right in that. But as long as we don't know, we can help it take shape. And derive some joy from the process. I've already wasted too much overthinking in my life about what could not be, instead of thinking about what could be and drawing in more positivity and actually achieving things.
Absolutely.
Cabbagehead
Member
Did people forget how EVE began when it first came out? and how that progressed over time. In terms of the expansion of systems and content an ships. It was bare bones. Yet no one really complained because the future was bright at least for the niche community.
Now just relate the two and you have a similar outlook. Maybe a bit faster, based how stable the features, tools and mechanics will become. More so with the Delta Patcher batch releases. Star Citizen was never going to have a 100 systems exactly at launch, the minute they changed direction (Which is within their right, per Kickstarter) not at the scale their pushing. Most folks just need to play 3.0 to truly comprehend the realities of their compliant as there is a huge disconnect. Since very few games outside of NMS and it's short-handed attempt has ventured into this type of seamless-ness multifaceted game experience.
Specifically at the stage 3.0 will be in terms of the whole project itself. Its been made clear that CIG wants every system they put into the game. To have plenty to do and plenty to see, as not everything in a system has been discovered or mapped. One of thr Devs has made that a point of clarification.
Just because you have a map of the system doesn't mean everything of interest will be displayed on it. It won't be Ubisoft style "discover". They want to make sure that every system they release will have more then effort to do in them. Before players even think about going to another system.
Then you factor in the size and "density" of the systems that will be available. The speed that it will take to get around. The sheer size and interactively you'll have with the moons and planets themsleves both inside of a ship and outside in first or third person. I mean, maybe its not one to one but -humanity is still founding new things on earth and has barely touched space itself to its fullest. That to me should be people's mindsets. Like, how can anyone quantify and compare what they may or may not get with CIG's approach exploration or system number wise. No game out there; not EVE, not ED, not NMS has handled the elements that would make that career choice a viable gameplay loop.
Even with a bunch of systems procedural generated, more doesn't mean, more interesting from the jump. Let alone more to explore is going to turn into a relative term quick. Given the inherent pit falls of PG, with its "A mile wide but an inch deep" hang-ups. Something that needs to be avoided with good tech, good design and a reasonable canvas that can be molded into any, which way as the developers see fit. So its best not to overstretch the playing field in the pursuit of "realism" because not even planet or moon can or have a landable surface, let alone have something to found on them.
Since creating a lot of content, all types of really and spreading it out within a manageable space will be key. Given the alpha state of the game itself and are early involvement, a lot of changes are going to happen that is going to put things into perspective. Its best for the ignorant and those that promote double standards.
To take a backseat and stop armchair developing. Like they know how a space game should work like, even when the games they play themsleves have distinct problems, with their approach. But can't change course.
Now just relate the two and you have a similar outlook. Maybe a bit faster, based how stable the features, tools and mechanics will become. More so with the Delta Patcher batch releases. Star Citizen was never going to have a 100 systems exactly at launch, the minute they changed direction (Which is within their right, per Kickstarter) not at the scale their pushing. Most folks just need to play 3.0 to truly comprehend the realities of their compliant as there is a huge disconnect. Since very few games outside of NMS and it's short-handed attempt has ventured into this type of seamless-ness multifaceted game experience.
Specifically at the stage 3.0 will be in terms of the whole project itself. Its been made clear that CIG wants every system they put into the game. To have plenty to do and plenty to see, as not everything in a system has been discovered or mapped. One of thr Devs has made that a point of clarification.
Just because you have a map of the system doesn't mean everything of interest will be displayed on it. It won't be Ubisoft style "discover". They want to make sure that every system they release will have more then effort to do in them. Before players even think about going to another system.
Then you factor in the size and "density" of the systems that will be available. The speed that it will take to get around. The sheer size and interactively you'll have with the moons and planets themsleves both inside of a ship and outside in first or third person. I mean, maybe its not one to one but -humanity is still founding new things on earth and has barely touched space itself to its fullest. That to me should be people's mindsets. Like, how can anyone quantify and compare what they may or may not get with CIG's approach exploration or system number wise. No game out there; not EVE, not ED, not NMS has handled the elements that would make that career choice a viable gameplay loop.
Even with a bunch of systems procedural generated, more doesn't mean, more interesting from the jump. Let alone more to explore is going to turn into a relative term quick. Given the inherent pit falls of PG, with its "A mile wide but an inch deep" hang-ups. Something that needs to be avoided with good tech, good design and a reasonable canvas that can be molded into any, which way as the developers see fit. So its best not to overstretch the playing field in the pursuit of "realism" because not even planet or moon can or have a landable surface, let alone have something to found on them.
Since creating a lot of content, all types of really and spreading it out within a manageable space will be key. Given the alpha state of the game itself and are early involvement, a lot of changes are going to happen that is going to put things into perspective. Its best for the ignorant and those that promote double standards.
To take a backseat and stop armchair developing. Like they know how a space game should work like, even when the games they play themsleves have distinct problems, with their approach. But can't change course.
RubberJohnny
Banned
That's very different from your previous tone, cabbagehead, you don't seem so sure about putting it to those "haters and losers" anymore!
For someone who said 100 systems was impossible after the planned addition of procedural planets in 2015, you sure seemed to tell other people to expect it pretty recently:
Particularly fun is the prediction of how development will speed up when they get Tech X done, which you said nine months ago, that tech still isn't in the game. Not that it would speed it up anyway, because we heard the same things about speedup after previous techs that never materialised, like persistence in March 2016.
Look, it's very easy to understand the Citizens who remain at this point. It's a gigantic case of belief in belief: they believe that it is virtuous to believe in Star Citizen. They don't actually believe in Star Citizen because even a goddamned idiot (hi) could see that the whole thing is cratering. But they believe that they should believe in it, that it is right and good to signal that they believe in it.
They have accepted, internally, that what they are hearing from CR or from CIG is complete bullshit. But they've decided that supporting the game is the hill they need to die on, so you will find them prepared to excuse literally anything. Consequently, anything that CIG does is the absolute correct position. If Chris came out tomorrow and said that 100 planets were still in for launch, they're completely procgen, and here they are, these same people would be praising that despite the day before arguing that 5-10 "hand crafted" planets would be more than enough.
For someone who said 100 systems was impossible after the planned addition of procedural planets in 2015, you sure seemed to tell other people to expect it pretty recently:
Particularly fun is the prediction of how development will speed up when they get Tech X done, which you said nine months ago, that tech still isn't in the game. Not that it would speed it up anyway, because we heard the same things about speedup after previous techs that never materialised, like persistence in March 2016.
Look, it's very easy to understand the Citizens who remain at this point. It's a gigantic case of belief in belief: they believe that it is virtuous to believe in Star Citizen. They don't actually believe in Star Citizen because even a goddamned idiot (hi) could see that the whole thing is cratering. But they believe that they should believe in it, that it is right and good to signal that they believe in it.
They have accepted, internally, that what they are hearing from CR or from CIG is complete bullshit. But they've decided that supporting the game is the hill they need to die on, so you will find them prepared to excuse literally anything. Consequently, anything that CIG does is the absolute correct position. If Chris came out tomorrow and said that 100 planets were still in for launch, they're completely procgen, and here they are, these same people would be praising that despite the day before arguing that 5-10 "hand crafted" planets would be more than enough.
They could announce tomorrow that they give up on Star Citizen and SQ42 and they're just going to make a mobile port of Hyper Vanguard Force and I'd still leave my money in because that's how it works with Kickstarters for me - once the money's on the table, it's on the table. It's not anything about this one in particular.
Cabbagehead
Member
Anyone else using the Steam controller? I haven't checked out the patches in a while, was thinking I'm probably missing some features. The radial touch menu will be handy.
Pyrobursts still have the same problem with hit detection in multiplayer. One of these days...
Pyrobursts still have the same problem with hit detection in multiplayer. One of these days...
No, but I just switched to the Thrustmaster T1600 FCS HOTAS kit and so far so good. Going to hijack your post and ask if anyone is using TrackIR and whether it works well with a HOTAS setup. 😁
TrackIR sort of works, but it's independent from your character model at the moment. The workaround for now is to start sitting further back than normal and then when you scoot forward to play, you're in front of your helmet and avoid the obstruction.
All praise the scam artist Roberts.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
In game development, shit happens. Scale changes. Maybe they were planning to do something similar to No Man's Sky or Elite Dangerous and changed their minds after seeing how disappointed people were with those projects. I won't defend it given that it was a stretch goal but I at least understand it. That being said, I'll take a polished 5-6 systems over a rushed and awful 100 of them.
Even more vague is what launch CR was talking about... but what I find interesting is to see those that admonish anyone and everything about supporting this game, now hold up numbers spoken by CR as some sort of smoking gun... because certainly now, here in this time of mid-2017, yes these are the numbers that will never change. A more willing and faithful endorsement you shall not find.
Cabbagehead
Member
That's my perspective aswell.
All CIG has to do is look at what went on with NMS and ED approach. Take what you can get from those games and their own vision/design. In order to create that 5 to 10 systems at "launch". Which will be made in their entirety a d of quality that will be determined by our feedback and the maturity of the engine and tools themselves. So as they lock those systems down, it should be relative smooth putting out new system patches, outside of any big set backs or advancements.
Just have to see how they'll handle the 3.0 Stanton system.
Then go from there. Because any one system should contain more then enough content to explore and keep one on their toes for a good chuck of their play-time. That thinking about leaving a system -even for explorers- won't be a lasting thought for very long. If CIG can supple the meat and potatoes in the right places and through the best game design methods to assure different layers of interaction, replay-ability and non-linear progression.
I'm just happy that we will be the one's -at least in some areas- that will determine. How the stuff they are creating now will inform future attempts, especially the more complex and multi-layered; missions, favors, contracts or part-time jobs.
__________________________________
End of the day. I think many are -or may- still struggle to comprehend, the size/scale of what we will be getting in 3.0. In terms of sheer play-space, without barriers, from the surface of -just- a moon to space itself. But that's just 3.0 as the foundation, before folks will have to wrap their heads around being able to land on and fly around planets or fly around gas giants. In a seam-less and complex manner with no strings attached, allowing players to do whatever they like, within reason.
Doing a 100 systems right out the gate. I mean it made sense before 2015, but now trying to hamfist that into the picture. Just for exploration? something that can be addressed in multi-ways. To me it would've been a bad decision (Something CIG understood) to attempt it without some big draw backs. Simply because the tools to make that happen are still maturing (new territory here), so the confidennce to try an tackle, creating that many systems. Without any real test cases would been stupid. But as soon as that process gets through the madness.
I could see 5 to 10 or even 20 systems -through the delta patcher- being put out. Every year or every 4 or 5 months. Depending on the pipeline and the developers own output. While they take into account the lore, size of the system, the number objects within the system and other factors to determine. What should or should not be provided as content within a system; good, bad or something in-between.
RubberJohnny
Banned
Where are people pulling this idea that these systems would have more content than before from? Certainly not from the alpha or 3.0.
Having so little done at this point and having to descope so severely implies that these 5-10 systems will be done to the same level that they expected the 100 to be done to.
This isn't "we're sacrificing the content to do some of it better" it's "we're sacrificing the content because we didn't plan or manage development well, our scope was way too big for a company our size to make, and we can't deliver it in a reasonable timeframe, but we can deliver this severely cut down version*"
*CR estimate, take with a mountain of salt.
Of course people can comprehend it, they can do all those thing in Kerbal, NMS, Elite and Space Engineers, and the scale of the landmass they're delivering is smaller than all of them, with less actual content and gameplay filling the millions of square miles of procgen wilderness than those games, even though Star Citizens budget and staff are an order of magnitude bigger.
Having so little done at this point and having to descope so severely implies that these 5-10 systems will be done to the same level that they expected the 100 to be done to.
This isn't "we're sacrificing the content to do some of it better" it's "we're sacrificing the content because we didn't plan or manage development well, our scope was way too big for a company our size to make, and we can't deliver it in a reasonable timeframe, but we can deliver this severely cut down version*"
*CR estimate, take with a mountain of salt.
Of course people can comprehend it, they can do all those thing in Kerbal, NMS, Elite and Space Engineers, and the scale of the landmass they're delivering is smaller than all of them, with less actual content and gameplay filling the millions of square miles of procgen wilderness than those games, even though Star Citizens budget and staff are an order of magnitude bigger.
Let me fix that for you: In life, shit happens. And when shit happens, you either carry on running blindly in every other puddle of shit lying around, or you reflect and take measures to avoid running into more shit as best you can.
The very same line was paraded around at least since I backed SC in 2014, but with different numbers. Elite has 400 Bio. boring, samey star systems? "Yeaaaah, right. We'll take a 100 handmade systems at launch over utter emptiness and boredom, thank you very much." So far, so good.
Now, realizing that you bit off so much more than you can chew and admitting that you'll deliver maybe 5-10 systems at launch (begs the question what launch and when), that's pretty reasonable and rational for somebody heading a project.
Not however, after they've collected an alleged 150$ Mio. from their fans over 5 years promising them a 100 systems all the while, while they and their fans have utterly shat on a notorious, unsuccessful and self declared indie dev who called out their promises as impossible in 2015 which - low and behold - Chris Roberts now apparently quietly admits himself now. For a taste of the bile the Star Citizen community throws at Derek Smart, who apparently wasn't as wrong as the Star Citizen community wants us to believe, have a close look at this beatiful thread title. Not after they've notably not got a single one of those systems done and released within 5 years. Not after they sold hypothetical deep space exploration ships for 350$ to 900$ (yes those are sales, they took tax) to backers hoping to go exploring in those 100 systems. Begs the question what exploration mechanics they'd have in the first place to justify self sustained deep space ships in a 100 systems, but that's another rabbid hole to go down.
This isn't a case of Nintendo cutting two of initially planned four (?) dungeons out of a Zelda game, to hit a self imposed deadline. This is a case of reducing the playable space in a space game, financed by people preordering the game and virtual ingame items for some 150$ Mio., to 1/10th to 1/20th, after 5 years of unrelenting sales pitch based on the original 100 system promise and still no publically communicated release deadline whatsoever.
What is the basis for any trust placed in Chris Roberts as the project leader at this point, if they quietly reduce the scale to a fraction of the initial promise five years i? It's either that they are utterly unable to even approach a reasonable estimation of their project's complexity, which is utterly damning them as a project leader. Or it's that they've long known about this and only now communicate it, which is just as damning considering Star Citizen has been a relentless sales pitch based on promises and trust for the past five years.
No, seriously, why do you people, who continue to pump money into the project, trust Chris Roberts to deliver at least a competent game at this point?
RubberJohnny
Banned
Sorry dude, I'm having a conversation. Please don't backseat mod.
How are you enjoying SQ42 btw?
See ? that's what I'm talking about when I said "overdoing it".
You are not trying to "have a conversation" here, not a peacefull and intelligent one anyway, you are clearly trying to steer some shit with these clever-ass responses.
The thread has become a real bore lately (imo), mainly thanks to you.
We get it, you don't agree with anything that's going on lately, you don't believe in the project or the people making it. That's ok.
Now you know there's a lot of people here believing in this project (it's the OT after all) and who like to follow the development, but still you keep coming everytime you get the chance to contradict someone or to share a bad news.
That's not "altruistic" (give me a break), you seem to have your personal vendetta for whatever reason. Or that's what it looks like anyway and I'm not the first to notice it. So if you are really here to have an interesting discussion, I'm telling you: you are overdoing it and trying way to hard to install your vision as the right one.
You are not trying to "have a conversation" here, not a peacefull and intelligent one anyway, you are clearly trying to steer some shit with these clever-ass responses.
The thread has become a real bore lately (imo), mainly thanks to you.
We get it, you don't agree with anything that's going on lately, you don't believe in the project or the people making it. That's ok.
Now you know there's a lot of people here believing in this project (it's the OT after all) and who like to follow the development, but still you keep coming everytime you get the chance to contradict someone or to share a bad news.
That's not "altruistic" (give me a break), you seem to have your personal vendetta for whatever reason. Or that's what it looks like anyway and I'm not the first to notice it. So if you are really here to have an interesting discussion, I'm telling you: you are overdoing it and trying way to hard to install your vision as the right one.
RubberJohnny
Banned
I don't know dude, I seem to have a better grasp of the project than most of the people in here. I think I have a lot of value to add.
Narrator: They weren't
Narrator: They weren't
Pretty unfortunate that actually talking about the topics you bring up kind of impedes on fantasizing about living a Star Citizen's life in your expensive hypothetical pledge package ships, as it'd require a sober evaluation of what part of the Star Citizen fantasy may actually and realistically become a released game.
Hence, let's discuss the poster, not the post and give you jovial names, JohnnyBoy! *Yay*
This level of salt is not only ridiculous, it's the entire reason no-one is interested in having an actual discussion with either of you. You keep saying no-one is acknowledging or listening to your 'criticisms' because they're in denial of being scammed - no - it's because you're being needlessly provocative and snarky.
Make your point and move on, I feel like you're not gonna be happy until everyone posts that they're refunding their pledge immediately.
RubberJohnny
Banned
I'm accused of having an agenda, and I'm simply pointing out with these old quotes that the fervent backers here have one of their own - one that talks down the numerous issues with the project, lies about the progress of the game and repeatedly insists that delivery will be just around the corner, so people should buy in now, like this:
Nothing like that is in the game or will be in the game in 2017 or 2018. Quoting someones words back at them is no way equivalent to being called a prick or a dirtbag, piece of work, troll, bullshitter, like I was on the last couple of pages for simply bringing up a quote from the head of the project.
People should ask themselves why they're getting so upset and defensive over a tech demo, because these personal attacks on people raising issues aren't needed.
It's not like the topic is only okay with positive comments. I mean I'm clearly on the pessimistic/negativity side, yet I still get answers without animosity.
Not that I think that it's only one "side" fault, more often than not detractor get venomous as a result of the original reaction to their comments.
There is actually little middle ground in here, I mean it's hard not to see that there is mostly either people who will only share negativity and distrust in the project, or the complete opposite.
Not that I think that it's only one "side" fault, more often than not detractor get venomous as a result of the original reaction to their comments.
There is actually little middle ground in here, I mean it's hard not to see that there is mostly either people who will only share negativity and distrust in the project, or the complete opposite.
Aztechnology
Member
Fixed for accuracy
Lol so true.