When I point out that they still cant have many players in, you point to 3.0.
When i say, ok, then when 3.0 is here we can take a look at their tech and judge them. Then you say we cannot, as 3.0 is just the first step.
So which is it: Is 3.0 when we can start talking about how they are doing, or is that going to be always "after the next patch" with you guys?
Because you are talking of player pops, then you are not talking of what 3.0 is about but what's after, to judge what they achieve in the network front we quite need to wait the tech and features related to it under-dev are finally released, until then it's this placeholder solution.
Was talking specifically to network not to the rest of tech and features of this next update.
What is this "something" that 3 years ago you could not imagine? What is it exactly that is "pushing" the technology behind the game?
What is what I couldn't imagine 3 years ago? Having a full planet with this hand-crafted landing zones placed there I could seamlessly travel to from space that I could explore and land anywhere without background scenario, skyboxes, etc.. instead of a scripted on-rails transition loading the landing zone map that was what it was 3 years ago.
That is the area I'd say they pushed more the tech behind the game, to tackle in something that just expanded to an entirely new tier of gameplay set in planets over what was before the social module (that was the landing zone maps where you would go to meet players, trade and get missions).
What is this "something" that 3 years ago you could not imagine? What is it exactly that is "pushing" the technology behind the game?
What is what I couldn't imagine 3 years ago? Having a full planet with this hand-crafted landing zones placed there I could seamlessly travel to from space that I could explore and land anywhere without background scenario, skyboxes, etc.. instead of a scripted on-rails transition loading the landing zone map that was what it was 3 years ago.
That is the area I'd say they pushed more the tech behind the game, to tackle in something that just expanded to an entirely new tier of gameplay set in planets over what was before the social module (that was the landing zone maps where you would go to meet players, trade and get missions).
Ok. So something that is not in game yet.
What I do not understand, is since it could be done (and was) in another game previously, why could you not imagine it being in SC?
What exactly do you mean? what new tier of gameplay? I do not understand what you are saying in that paragraph.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
What I do not understand, is since it could be done (and was) in another game previously, why could you not imagine it being in SC?
What exactly do you mean? what new tier of gameplay? I do not understand what you are saying in that paragraph.
It wasn't to be done in SC, it wasn't part of the pitched game scope, especially not with the landing zones (placing a crafted landing zone like Levski in a PG Planetoid as Delamar and keep the tech seamless is a whole new tier of tech over just having it full PG and scatter builds/outposts, etc...).
A new tier of gameplay is: Before Star Citizen wasn't to have planetary gameplay, the landing zones were called social module because they were just meant as small player HUB maps and that was it. With moons/planets, the gameplay is expanded from space to them and with specific content generated/placed into them.
On one hand you seem to be really fixated by Star Citizen and post almost obsessively about it, on the other hand you haven't played or keep mixing basic concepts of the game and it's development.
I mean you seem to dedicate more time to Star Citizen than actual playing backers that paid for it lol
It's highly intriguing to say the least.
I'm not really fixated on Star Citizen as I don't always post about the game. I tend to post more when I see posts about what they want to put in game being passed off as it's already in game or when people start theorycrafting abouthow awesome the game will be when it's been shown through history that what's promised isn't what's delivered.
I do play dumb sometimes to see what people respond with and if they are being honest, lying or are actually just confused. Hell I've been confused and have people like @Erillion correct me and I've thanked him for it. I need to see working systems playable in game and not some bullshot marketing video to take the promised features seriously.
Also if you think I'm obsessive then don't go on the official forums. That place can be scary lol
I've added some info to my post before, might want to check it out.
Adressing the parts in bold :
Humm why would you condone people for theorycrafting about the gameplay of Star Citizen in a thread about the game Star Citizen?
Should they be theorycrafting about the company loans, furniture and coffe machines instead?
CIG forum got replaced by Spectrum 5 months ago.
theorycraft but Christ some of the posts I've seen where people will say that they are going to do X and how awesome it's going to be and they will make millions and blah blah blah when the info about said feature is years old and it's not even promised to be in game yet. They have no idea how it's going to work but they let themselves be hyped and hen they will happily toss money at CIG when they make some sort of announcement.
CIG forum got replaced by spectrum so would you say that's still there forum then or are you just trying to be cheeky and failing?
So you have a problem with gamers discussing hypothetical gameplay scenarios from Star Citizen in the Star Citizen thread but you have no problem discussing hypothetical financial issues from said game?
Don't you think that is at least a bit contradictory? Maybe hypocritical or even intellectually dishonest?
Forum or Spectrum, it's the official page of the game discussion and debate, it's supposed to have passionate people interested in it, just like all the other official game forum's.
I have no issue with discussing hypothetical scenarios but sometimes they tend to turn into these fanciful creations that are playing off buzzwords that CR likes to use. They also build on promises that are years old and there is no new information about. For a game that as open as this one the fans seem to have to do a lot of fantasizing and dreaming about what the game might be like.
I discussed the financial part when it came up and it's died down so don't see me posting in there anymore, not sure why you're bringing it up unless you're saying we are only to discuss the good things about the game and sweep any dirt quietly under the rug?
Your part about the forums is irrevelant as you tried to get smart with your comment that the forums were shut down and instead realized you stuck your foot in your mouth.
I am enjoying actual discussion with you though as opposed to the usual usual talk about haters/white knights.....brb checking if hell has frozen over lol
Go to any other unreleased/in-development game forum and you have discussion about hypothetical scenarios, its nothing new or exclusive to this thread or the Star Citizen community.
Besides, You seem to do exactly the same but using a /failed game developer turned e-warlord/ words at any chance.
This is a thread about the game Star Citizen, everything else is irrelevant. Yes, that includes loans, furniture, coffe machines etc.
Not because they are "dirt" but because they are non-issues that haters try to spin into "something" just to attack CIG and Star Citizen. Everyone know's the modus-operandi by now.
I tried to get smart or you tried to play dumb once again? I mentioned people obsessed with Star Citizen project that seem to have a strange desire to see it fail at all costs lol.
In the end this might all be fun and giggles but eventually the haters will realize, one by one, that their efforts are useless, that Star Citizen development is immune to them and basically they are wasting life's most precious asset (time) with something that will only make them feel more and more depressed while there's nothing they can do about it lol.
I'm sure that all the haters will play Star Citizen eventually (the ones who can afford a PC to run it that is) and have fun with it just like all the old-time backers. I'm just curious how many will be man enough and admit to be wrong and say sorry for their despicable attitude in the past years.
No matter what happen's, It's going to be fun lol
We were having such good back and forth but I see the "hater" bab is back.
Not sure why you brought up DS unless it's been too long since someone referenced him in a strawman argument and so you had to make your quota.
Ok so you only want to talk about the rainbows and unicorn farts because things like a loan where all assets are promised to a bank if they default (that should have been told directly to the backer community instead of them learning about it through other sources) is considered a non issue to you and just ignored.
Im not sure where you get the idea I want the project to fail. If it fails I will be here laughing hysterically at the nerd rage that will flood most forums but if it succeeds and is everything it was promised to be then I will be happy fans got the game they were promised.
So if us haters are wasting our most precious commodity, time, as you say by posting stuff that will have no impact on the development of the game does that mean you're even worse off then us since you're posting about the haters posting about a game? Man I hope you don't get too depressed.
Lol despicable attitude. You might want to take a look at your own actions as well if you want haters to apologize for the horrible things we post about a game that apparently doesn't affect the devs at all but you just attack the posters.
Maybe tomorrow rational Bab will be back and we can go back to decent conversations
What I do not understand, is since it could be done (and was) in another game previously, why could you not imagine it being in SC?
What exactly do you mean? what new tier of gameplay? I do not understand what you are saying in that paragraph.
It wasn't to be done in SC, it wasn't part of the pitched game scope, especially not with the landing zones (placing a crafted landing zone like Levski in a PG Planetoid as Delamar and keep the tech seamless is a whole new tier of tech over just having it full PG and scatter builds/outposts, etc...).
A new tier of gameplay is: Before Star Citizen wasn't to have planetary gameplay, the landing zones were called social module because they were just meant as small player HUB maps and that was it. With moons/planets, the gameplay is expanded from space to them and with specific content generated/placed into them.
I was under the impression (mistakenly it appears) that SC was always supposed to have planetary game play, as part of a living, breathing, universe.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
I was under the impression (mistakenly it appears) that SC was always supposed to have planetary game play, as part of a living, breathing, universe.
Yes but under the landing zones, before the game had the PG design behind it, the planets and moons were asset textures you would not be able to land on or visit. Only the populated planets which had landing zones would have such landing area accessible.
Hehe I noticed Bab referenced Derek Smart (aka Star Citizen Bad Man) as a failed developer, I'd love to know what developments he's failed to do?
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
I was under the impression (mistakenly it appears) that SC was always supposed to have planetary game play, as part of a living, breathing, universe.
Yes but under the landing zones, before the game had the PG design behind it, the planets and moons were asset textures you would not be able to land on or visit. Only the populated planets which had landing zones would be accessible.
Either the game was supposed to have planetary game play from the start, or it was not.
In the same paragraph you are saying yes, planetary game play was in from the start, but no, it was not, but yes, it was.
No wonder people are sceptical of SC/CIG when even a white knight (sorry, easiest descriptor to use for you) cannot state clearly what is or is not meant to be part of the game.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Hehe I noticed Bab referenced Derek Smart (aka Star Citizen Bad Man) as a failed developer, I'd love to know what developments he's failed to do?
He is a failed developer, there's no doubt about that. However, that actually makes him a great commentator for Star Citizen, if we're to believe what detractors think. I mean just look at the initial hype that was done for Battlecruiser and you'd mistake it for Star Citizen hype, lol. "The last thing you'll ever desire". I think he was misquoted, he actually meant "The last thing that you'd desire." as the majority of his titles would be doing well to crack a 50% rating.
Similarly, he is more than experienced in poor project management, considering his own MMO project is approaching a decade into development now and was so badly broken that it was removed from Steam Early Access entirely.
So, if there's one thing that he knows is failure. So that is the one redeeming insight he provides to the project, as he's quite practiced in the art of failure.
Excession said: Either the game was supposed to have planetary game play from the start, or it was not.
In the same paragraph you are saying yes, planetary game play was in from the start, but no, it was not, but yes, it was.
No wonder people are sceptical of SC/CIG when even a white knight (sorry, easiest descriptor to use for you) cannot state clearly what is or is not meant to be part of the game.
It was supposed to have planets, and what you see today in the Arccorp map present in the alpha was what a planet you could visit was, with ofc transition from space > planet.
So if that for you is planetary gameplay, then sure, it had it from the start, now what I mean as planetary gameplay is going down to a planet to explore/discover stuff on that planet, mining, doing missions in such planet, stuff like that.
Hehe I noticed Bab referenced Derek Smart (aka Star Citizen Bad Man) as a failed developer, I'd love to know what developments he's failed to do?
He is a failed developer, there's no doubt about that. However, that actually makes him a great commentator for Star Citizen, if we're to believe what detractors think. I mean just look at the initial hype that was done for Battlecruiser and you'd mistake it for Star Citizen hype, lol. "The last thing you'll ever desire". I think he was misquoted, he actually meant "The last thing that you'd desire." as the majority of his titles would be doing well to crack a 50% rating.
Similarly, he is more than experienced in poor project management, considering his own MMO project is approaching a decade into development now and was so badly broken that it was removed from Steam Early Access entirely.
So, if there's one thing that he knows is failure. So that is the one redeeming insight he provides to the project, as he's quite practiced in the art of failure.
Are we at page 30 yet?
If you listen to the smarty one, he claims to have removed it from steam due to the trolling taking place in the comments section, but I guess if you believe that, he has a few good games to sell you too ;P
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Hehe I noticed Bab referenced Derek Smart (aka Star Citizen Bad Man) as a failed developer, I'd love to know what developments he's failed to do?
He is a failed developer, there's no doubt about that. However, that actually makes him a great commentator for Star Citizen, if we're to believe what detractors think. I mean just look at the initial hype that was done for Battlecruiser and you'd mistake it for Star Citizen hype, lol. "The last thing you'll ever desire". I think he was misquoted, he actually meant "The last thing that you'd desire." as the majority of his titles would be doing well to crack a 50% rating.
Similarly, he is more than experienced in poor project management, considering his own MMO project is approaching a decade into development now and was so badly broken that it was removed from Steam Early Access entirely.
So, if there's one thing that he knows is failure. So that is the one redeeming insight he provides to the project, as he's quite practiced in the art of failure.
Are we at page 30 yet?
If you listen to the smarty one, he claims to have removed it from steam due to the trolling taking place in the comments section, but I guess if you believe that, he has a few good games to sell you too ;P
Soooooooooo true! Anyone who actually follows/followed the space sim genre knows that he basically made his money through litigation, not through actual game sales. Seriously, though, anyone who actually wants a laugh needs to look at that Battlecruiser link. You could replace DS for CR and Battlecruiser for Star Citizen and you simply could not tell the difference, I'm certain of it
MaxBacon said: now what I mean as planetary gameplay is going down to a planet to explore/discover stuff on that planet, mining, doing missions in such planet, stuff like that.
That is what I meant when I said I was under the impression it was supposed to be in the game from the start.
So, you are saying it was not meant to be, but it is now being added, and that is the new tier of game play you meant in your previous post?
Is it also what you meant when you were talking about pushing the technology behind the game?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
That is what I meant when I said I was under the impression it was supposed to be in the game from the start.
So, you are saying it was not meant to be, but it is now being added, and that is the new tier of game play you meant in your previous post?
Is it also what you meant when you were talking about pushing the technology behind the game?
I guess it is confusing because they talked about planets since always but ends up two different things to what it is and will represent in the gameplay front.
Agreed, but it doesn't change the original point: some folks are taking a wait and see approach to these things. Whether or not CIG makes folks aware of the changes as they occur or not is beside the point that some are skeptical the vision can be faithfully and successfully created.
In the context of the industry, there's fair reason to be skeptical of a project that's undertaking such a large scope.
this is the issue i have with your point of view; it goes without saying, so why mention it? this is a forum for those interested in the game Star Citizen, whether or not you wait is up to you, but you don't get to misinterpret the development or be skeptical of their development of the game and try to put it on the devs or backers to alleviate your skepticism as NOTHING they do is mandatory for any gamer/person. if you are skeptical of something, why even mention it if you are not being forced to participate? it's perfectly fine to be skeptical, wait on the sidelines until something makes you want to join in or just move on to something else. you do not owe it to those of us who support the project to unburden your skepticism, you owe it to yourself to not participate in things you are skeptical of, because you do not do yourself or us any favors.
as far as your comment in the context of the industry, there is no "fair reason to be skeptical of a project that's undertaking such a large scope". the very sentence shows a lack of "fair reason" as every project is different regardless of scope and there is no guaranteed formula for failure or success; take CIGs outcome on their own merits and not those of others not even related to CIG or their games.
Kefo said: Alright I'll concede about your landmark and module comment and that you did mention it so I was wrong there.
A hype video is showing off supposed tech that is meant to rile backers up. Just because a sale wasn't associated with it doesn't mean it wasn't a hype video. Think of the sandworm they showed last year, it was meant to get backers talking and open their wallets for this awesome thing that was coming. Chances are the sandworm will never materialize in any playable form or if it does its years off. CIG loves to show what they want to do and will use scripted sequences to pull it off and sell it to the community as gameplay that is just around the corner. Not all videos mind you but imo it leans more towards hype then actual gameplay that will materialize.
To be fair SC hasn't shown off PG in the actual game world that backers can play yet nor has it done seamless transitions from space to planet so you can't just start spouting them off like they are finished features and we can compare them. Until the devs put them in game for players to use/experience then this isn't unique tech but rather just hopes and dreams of the community. I can't list a huge amount of games that have 1st/3rd animations unified or 64 bit precision or the combination of eva/fps/space flight but that wasn't the point I was making.
Its easy to talk about lack of transparency because usually what CIG would do is promise something, hype it to death, miss the release date and then go radio silent. They might throw a bone out to shut people up and then go radio silent again. Lately they have been better about being transparent because some backers were getting upset over the lack of updates or rather the lack of meaningful updates. Yes I do realize we have their internal schedules which they started publishing because backers made a stink about transparency, hence my comment. You can argue its not the true schedule though unless you want to tell me that they have no plans to work on SQ42 or is that another internal schedule that is super secret and we aren't to know anything about it even though they are the most open development ever.
1. good to know you can admit when you are wrong. now we can move on from that.
2. you are just wrong here even in the face of evidence you deny the reality. at last year's Gamescom they showcased the PG planetoid Delamar, with the hero landing zone and area known as Levski and the cinematic scripted mission giver Miles Eckart. those very things showcased will be coming with the 3.0 patch. then there is the Citizencon demo which showcased Leir III an actual planet in the Star Citizen universe which even has the lore mentioning the sandworms existence on it. so what evidence do you have to spout your misinformation? why even type anything out if it's just pure speculation on your part? smh.
you also like to insult backers as being some poor sad lot of stupid people who need to be saved from the evil CIG and like Pavlovian Dogs cannot help but to open our wallets whenever we see and update video. if you do not wish to support the game's development, then please do not support it, but where do you get off thinking you can speak for ANYONE else but yourself?!
3. what the actual fuck man? so are we just supposed to pretend that the progress shown in the AtVs does not exist until we as backers get to experience it in the alpha test bed? by your logic then how can we expect anything in the alpha test bed to be real if it's not in the final game? yeah, your way of reasoning is chock full of logical fallacies. /sigh
yeah i am not going to even bother addressing your final point because it is apparent that you are comfortable misrepresenting the truth to fit your own narrative, creating Strawman arguments and just outright lying and using your skepticism as a reference you hope will give you cover, but it does not. like i have said i have no qualms with you not wanting to support the game, not believing they will ever release as promised. my issue with you and those who think like you is, if that's how you really feel why hang around something you do not like and why spread so much misinformation about something just because you are skeptical about something that is completely and utterly voluntary? but yeah it was my mistake thinking we could have a productive discourse, won't happen again.
"Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!" For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG
Oh not mine this was being discussed in reddit, the site says 158, however, the older ships have only gotten bigger and from what you may see here: http://imgur.com/r/starcitizen/q3qwV it brings arguments the Reclaimer got bigger to over 184m.
Also got the thing wrong, it's circumference, not diameter, considering the points brought up about the ship's size around 488km diameter and 1532km circumference.
The scale of SC is 1/4 on planets and 1/10 on a system (distance between things).
this is the issue i have with your point of view; it goes without saying, so why mention it? this is a forum for those interested in the game Star Citizen, whether or not you wait is up to you, but you don't get to misinterpret the development or be skeptical of their development of the game and try to put it on the devs or backers to alleviate your skepticism as NOTHING they do is mandatory for any gamer/person. if you are skeptical of something, why even mention it if you are not being forced to participate? it's perfectly fine to be skeptical, wait on the sidelines until something makes you want to join in or just move on to something else. you do not owe it to those of us who support the project to unburden your skepticism, you owe it to yourself to not participate in things you are skeptical of, because you do not do yourself or us any favors.
as far as your comment in the context of the industry, there is no "fair reason to be skeptical of a project that's undertaking such a large scope". the very sentence shows a lack of "fair reason" as every project is different regardless of scope and there is no guaranteed formula for failure or success; take CIGs outcome on their own merits and not those of others not even related to CIG or their games.
Kefo said: Alright I'll concede about your landmark and module comment and that you did mention it so I was wrong there.
A hype video is showing off supposed tech that is meant to rile backers up. Just because a sale wasn't associated with it doesn't mean it wasn't a hype video. Think of the sandworm they showed last year, it was meant to get backers talking and open their wallets for this awesome thing that was coming. Chances are the sandworm will never materialize in any playable form or if it does its years off. CIG loves to show what they want to do and will use scripted sequences to pull it off and sell it to the community as gameplay that is just around the corner. Not all videos mind you but imo it leans more towards hype then actual gameplay that will materialize.
To be fair SC hasn't shown off PG in the actual game world that backers can play yet nor has it done seamless transitions from space to planet so you can't just start spouting them off like they are finished features and we can compare them. Until the devs put them in game for players to use/experience then this isn't unique tech but rather just hopes and dreams of the community. I can't list a huge amount of games that have 1st/3rd animations unified or 64 bit precision or the combination of eva/fps/space flight but that wasn't the point I was making.
Its easy to talk about lack of transparency because usually what CIG would do is promise something, hype it to death, miss the release date and then go radio silent. They might throw a bone out to shut people up and then go radio silent again. Lately they have been better about being transparent because some backers were getting upset over the lack of updates or rather the lack of meaningful updates. Yes I do realize we have their internal schedules which they started publishing because backers made a stink about transparency, hence my comment. You can argue its not the true schedule though unless you want to tell me that they have no plans to work on SQ42 or is that another internal schedule that is super secret and we aren't to know anything about it even though they are the most open development ever.
1. good to know you can admit when you are wrong. now we can move on from that.
2. you are just wrong here even in the face of evidence you deny the reality. at last year's Gamescom they showcased the PG planetoid Delamar, with the hero landing zone and area known as Levski and the cinematic scripted mission giver Miles Eckart. those very things showcased will be coming with the 3.0 patch. then there is the Citizencon demo which showcased Leir III an actual planet in the Star Citizen universe which even has the lore mentioning the sandworms existence on it. so what evidence do you have to spout your misinformation? why even type anything out if it's just pure speculation on your part? smh.
you also like to insult backers as being some poor sad lot of stupid people who need to be saved from the evil CIG and like Pavlovian Dogs cannot help but to open our wallets whenever we see and update video. if you do not wish to support the game's development, then please do not support it, but where do you get off thinking you can speak for ANYONE else but yourself?!
3. what the actual fuck man? so are we just supposed to pretend that the progress shown in the AtVs does not exist until we as backers get to experience it in the alpha test bed? by your logic then how can we expect anything in the alpha test bed to be real if it's not in the final game? yeah, your way of reasoning is chock full of logical fallacies. /sigh
yeah i am not going to even bother addressing your final point because it is apparent that you are comfortable misrepresenting the truth to fit your own narrative, creating Strawman arguments and just outright lying and using your skepticism as a reference you hope will give you cover, but it does not. like i have said i have no qualms with you not wanting to support the game, not believing they will ever release as promised. my issue with you and those who think like you is, if that's how you really feel why hang around something you do not like and why spread so much misinformation about something just because you are skeptical about something that is completely and utterly voluntary? but yeah it was my mistake thinking we could have a productive discourse, won't happen again.
Tells someone not to post unless it's something good and to not offer up an debate on a forum....priceless.
2) what evidence do you have that it will show up in the game? You don't just like I don't have any evidence it wont(unless you look at past practices). But see that's the beauty of a forum you aren't just limited to the fans posting things that gush about the game as you can have others post their concerns or criticism.
I don't speak for anyone hence why I said imo or a word like chances. I never speak for others but I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.
3) yes actually. Unless it shows up in the game then just think of it as a pretty video CIG is showing you. They've done it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep doing it in the future. I never said final game I said game, you should read a sentence before you start accusing someone of logical fallacies that don't exist.
4) you won't address it because you can't argue it. Unless you are somehow going to rewrite history and pretend CIG didn't do what many will agree they did.
I dont spread misinformation. I post information that I find and people debate it. If you think it's misinformation then that's on you and maybe you should be talking to CIG and ask them not to post a crap load of info that never materializes and people can ask where is this stuff you promised us.
3) yes actually. Unless it shows up in the game then just think of it as a pretty video CIG is showing you. They've done it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep doing it in the future. I never said final game I said game, you should read a sentence before you start accusing someone of logical fallacies that don't exist.
I think you are blowing things out of proportion dramatization to defend a rather extreme standing... I think this is more damage control because CIG is in vias of releasing the biggest update yet hence you need a way to dismiss everything they show as upcoming features.
Let's take the last Bug-Smashers ep for example... Showing and fixing multiple bugs in the feature Pick & Carry feature that was completed and is now under bug-fixing and polish. Not only do you see the feature you even see its code as the engine editor is open.
Here's my questions: - Should we pretend that pick and carry mechanics are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend the Procedural Moons are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend that the new shown ships and vehicles are just shiny videos and there's no real progress?
3) yes actually. Unless it shows up in the game then just think of it as a pretty video CIG is showing you. They've done it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep doing it in the future. I never said final game I said game, you should read a sentence before you start accusing someone of logical fallacies that don't exist.
I think you are blowing things out of proportion dramatization to defend a rather extreme standing... I think this is more damage control because CIG is in vias of releasing the biggest update yet hence you need a way to dismiss everything they show as upcoming features.
Let's take the last Bug-Smashers ep for example... Showing and fixing multiple bugs in the feature Pick & Carry feature that was completed and is now under bug-fixing and polish. Not only do you see the feature you even see its code as the engine editor is open.
Here's my questions: - Should we pretend that pick and carry mechanics are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend the Procedural Moons are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend that the new shown ships and vehicles are just shiny videos and there's no real progress?
Or should you admit that your narrative is one-sided, unfair and lacks a realistic approach?
If it ends up in the backers hands then I'll be more then happy. As it stands right now though CIG and big publishers have a tendency to show off things that might not make it in game at all.
You take the schedule report with a grain of salt. Follow it and hope for the best but don't expect it to reflect what you will get your hands on, if you do though then awesome! Some confidence in CIG restored.
My point has always been that until backers can play what they are promising then don't always believe what is being told to you.
Why would you think my narrative is one sided? I can't help it CIG painted themselves into a corner multiple times and now they get to live with the consequences of their actions.
Kefo said: If it ends up in the backers hands then I'll be more then happy. As it stands right now though CIG and big publishers have a tendency to show off things that might not make it in game at all.
You take the schedule report with a grain of salt. Follow it and hope for the best but don't expect it to reflect what you will get your hands on, if you do though then awesome! Some confidence in CIG restored.
My point has always been that until backers can play what they are promising then don't always believe what is being told to you.
Why would you think my narrative is one sided? I can't help it CIG painted themselves into a corner multiple times and now they get to live with the consequences of their actions.
It's one thing when things that may or may not be, things on design, planning or heavy in dev stages.
It's unreasonable to apply the same logic to everything when it's clear as the example given is already completed (the schedule confirms it) and undergoing bug-fixing (as such shown).
One can't reasonably take such as "oh it's just a shiny video not progress".
The schedule is just a plain list of what is to be done and its status, no reason to take the anything else but its estimates with a grain of salt, what is completed is also backed up by what ATV's do show, it doesn't require any big conspiracy implying ill intent on everything and anything they do.
Comments
Was talking specifically to network not to the rest of tech and features of this next update.
What is what I couldn't imagine 3 years ago? Having a full planet with this hand-crafted landing zones placed there I could seamlessly travel to from space that I could explore and land anywhere without background scenario, skyboxes, etc.. instead of a scripted on-rails transition loading the landing zone map that was what it was 3 years ago.
That is the area I'd say they pushed more the tech behind the game, to tackle in something that just expanded to an entirely new tier of gameplay set in planets over what was before the social module (that was the landing zone maps where you would go to meet players, trade and get missions).
So something that is not in game yet.
What I do not understand, is since it could be done (and was) in another game previously, why could you not imagine it being in SC?
What exactly do you mean? what new tier of gameplay? I do not understand what you are saying in that paragraph.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
A new tier of gameplay is: Before Star Citizen wasn't to have planetary gameplay, the landing zones were called social module because they were just meant as small player HUB maps and that was it. With moons/planets, the gameplay is expanded from space to them and with specific content generated/placed into them.
Not sure why you brought up DS unless it's been too long since someone referenced him in a strawman argument and so you had to make your quota.
Ok so you only want to talk about the rainbows and unicorn farts because things like a loan where all assets are promised to a bank if they default (that should have been told directly to the backer community instead of them learning about it through other sources) is considered a non issue to you and just ignored.
Im not sure where you get the idea I want the project to fail. If it fails I will be here laughing hysterically at the nerd rage that will flood most forums but if it succeeds and is everything it was promised to be then I will be happy fans got the game they were promised.
So if us haters are wasting our most precious commodity, time, as you say by posting stuff that will have no impact on the development of the game does that mean you're even worse off then us since you're posting about the haters posting about a game? Man I hope you don't get too depressed.
Lol despicable attitude. You might want to take a look at your own actions as well if you want haters to apologize for the horrible things we post about a game that apparently doesn't affect the devs at all but you just attack the posters.
Maybe tomorrow rational Bab will be back and we can go back to decent conversations
I was under the impression (mistakenly it appears) that SC was always supposed to have planetary game play, as part of a living, breathing, universe.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
In the same paragraph you are saying yes, planetary game play was in from the start, but no, it was not, but yes, it was.
No wonder people are sceptical of SC/CIG when even a white knight (sorry, easiest descriptor to use for you) cannot state clearly what is or is not meant to be part of the game.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
He is a failed developer, there's no doubt about that. However, that actually makes him a great commentator for Star Citizen, if we're to believe what detractors think. I mean just look at the initial hype that was done for Battlecruiser and you'd mistake it for Star Citizen hype, lol. "The last thing you'll ever desire". I think he was misquoted, he actually meant "The last thing that you'd desire." as the majority of his titles would be doing well to crack a 50% rating.
Similarly, he is more than experienced in poor project management, considering his own MMO project is approaching a decade into development now and was so badly broken that it was removed from Steam Early Access entirely.
So, if there's one thing that he knows is failure. So that is the one redeeming insight he provides to the project, as he's quite practiced in the art of failure.
Are we at page 30 yet?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So if that for you is planetary gameplay, then sure, it had it from the start, now what I mean as planetary gameplay is going down to a planet to explore/discover stuff on that planet, mining, doing missions in such planet, stuff like that.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Soooooooooo true! Anyone who actually follows/followed the space sim genre knows that he basically made his money through litigation, not through actual game sales. Seriously, though, anyone who actually wants a laugh needs to look at that Battlecruiser link. You could replace DS for CR and Battlecruiser for Star Citizen and you simply could not tell the difference, I'm certain of it
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So, you are saying it was not meant to be, but it is now being added, and that is the new tier of game play you meant in your previous post?
Is it also what you meant when you were talking about pushing the technology behind the game?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
1240km diameter, or 2638 Reclaimers. lol
Wasn't it supposed to be 158 meters?
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14171-Concept-Sale-Unveiling-The-Aegis-Reclaimer
as far as your comment in the context of the industry, there is no "fair reason to be skeptical of a project that's undertaking such a large scope". the very sentence shows a lack of "fair reason" as every project is different regardless of scope and there is no guaranteed formula for failure or success; take CIGs outcome on their own merits and not those of others not even related to CIG or their games.
1. good to know you can admit when you are wrong. now we can move on from that.
2. you are just wrong here even in the face of evidence you deny the reality. at last year's Gamescom they showcased the PG planetoid Delamar, with the hero landing zone and area known as Levski and the cinematic scripted mission giver Miles Eckart. those very things showcased will be coming with the 3.0 patch. then there is the Citizencon demo which showcased Leir III an actual planet in the Star Citizen universe which even has the lore mentioning the sandworms existence on it. so what evidence do you have to spout your misinformation? why even type anything out if it's just pure speculation on your part? smh.
you also like to insult backers as being some poor sad lot of stupid people who need to be saved from the evil CIG and like Pavlovian Dogs cannot help but to open our wallets whenever we see and update video. if you do not wish to support the game's development, then please do not support it, but where do you get off thinking you can speak for ANYONE else but yourself?!
3. what the actual fuck man? so are we just supposed to pretend that the progress shown in the AtVs does not exist until we as backers get to experience it in the alpha test bed? by your logic then how can we expect anything in the alpha test bed to be real if it's not in the final game? yeah, your way of reasoning is chock full of logical fallacies. /sigh
yeah i am not going to even bother addressing your final point because it is apparent that you are comfortable misrepresenting the truth to fit your own narrative, creating Strawman arguments and just outright lying and using your skepticism as a reference you hope will give you cover, but it does not. like i have said i have no qualms with you not wanting to support the game, not believing they will ever release as promised. my issue with you and those who think like you is, if that's how you really feel why hang around something you do not like and why spread so much misinformation about something just because you are skeptical about something that is completely and utterly voluntary? but yeah it was my mistake thinking we could have a productive discourse, won't happen again.
"Cherish the quiet...before my STORM!"
For a $5/5000 in-game credit bonus for backing Star Citizen (MMO) or Squadron 42 (Single Player/Co-op) use my Referral code: STAR-3QDY-SZBG
Also got the thing wrong, it's circumference, not diameter, considering the points brought up about the ship's size around 488km diameter and 1532km circumference.
The scale of SC is 1/4 on planets and 1/10 on a system (distance between things).
2) what evidence do you have that it will show up in the game? You don't just like I don't have any evidence it wont(unless you look at past practices). But see that's the beauty of a forum you aren't just limited to the fans posting things that gush about the game as you can have others post their concerns or criticism.
I don't speak for anyone hence why I said imo or a word like chances. I never speak for others but I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.
3) yes actually. Unless it shows up in the game then just think of it as a pretty video CIG is showing you. They've done it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep doing it in the future. I never said final game I said game, you should read a sentence before you start accusing someone of logical fallacies that don't exist.
4) you won't address it because you can't argue it. Unless you are somehow going to rewrite history and pretend CIG didn't do what many will agree they did.
I dont spread misinformation. I post information that I find and people debate it. If you think it's misinformation then that's on you and maybe you should be talking to CIG and ask them not to post a crap load of info that never materializes and people can ask where is this stuff you promised us.
Let's take the last Bug-Smashers ep for example...
Showing and fixing multiple bugs in the feature Pick & Carry feature that was completed and is now under bug-fixing and polish. Not only do you see the feature you even see its code as the engine editor is open.
Here's my questions:
- Should we pretend that pick and carry mechanics are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend the Procedural Moons are just a shiny video and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend that the new shown ships and vehicles are just shiny videos and there's no real progress?
- Should we pretend that the schedule report ( https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report ) is not real and the completed tasks are all lies?!
Or should you admit that your narrative is unfair and lacks a reasonable approach?
You take the schedule report with a grain of salt. Follow it and hope for the best but don't expect it to reflect what you will get your hands on, if you do though then awesome! Some confidence in CIG restored.
My point has always been that until backers can play what they are promising then don't always believe what is being told to you.
Why would you think my narrative is one sided? I can't help it CIG painted themselves into a corner multiple times and now they get to live with the consequences of their actions.
It's unreasonable to apply the same logic to everything when it's clear as the example given is already completed (the schedule confirms it) and undergoing bug-fixing (as such shown).
One can't reasonably take such as "oh it's just a shiny video not progress".
The schedule is just a plain list of what is to be done and its status, no reason to take the anything else but its estimates with a grain of salt, what is completed is also backed up by what ATV's do show, it doesn't require any big conspiracy implying ill intent on everything and anything they do.