You do not build an engine with entire infrastructure and then think:
Well, now I want these huge space battles with 200x200 players. Boss, your engine supports 5x5 only.
What?! They haven't built the engine there, they had one engine that was not meant for the MMO, once they started working on the MMO back-end, they would then refactor its code.
Nothing but Game Development right there, once they started working on the netcode back-end for the MMO, from instances, to zoning system (transitions and all), etc.... It's things they are working on NOW and went though the original design idea of what to do, to R&D up until prototype and release, that is exactly what they are doing.
They did the same with PG, they went through R&D (part of a stretch goal on 2014) and experimented to figure out what they could achieve with the technology, the result was seen on the Gamescon demo.
It's entertaining to see all the air-chair developing that revolves around SC. There are certainly reasons to curb your enthusiasm when seeing tech demo's, but what was shown at gamescon was impressive.
You have to admit, the two big reasons why its garnishing so much attention, positive and negative, is the scope and degree of transparency.
The scope....lol fuck, its just huge. Gotta give them that, no one has tried anything this ambitious, THAT WE KNOW OF?? I mean, someone could have tried and failed and we never heard about it.
What I mean by that hints at the concept of transparency. Some would argue that CIG isn't transparent enough. But honestly, how many massive game projects are this open about their development process, from start to finish?
How many other massive projects have been this open during their production cycle? What kind of shit happened to them during that time? FF XV has been in development for 10 years lol i doubt it was full-tilt development for that whole time, but it brings me to the point. What the hell were they doing on that game that took 10 years? Why did World of Warcraft take so long to make (5 or 7 years?)
I have no idea how much of the indicated development times for these projects are correct, but SC is pretty short by comparison. This graphic is also dated, i just grabbed some random image off google. I guess SC is at 4 years now?
Now, look at the timelines of the games in that graphic. For most, you probably didn't even hear it was in development until at least the half-way point or much closer to delivery.
So, based on what i saw at Gamescon 2016, after 4 years of dev, compared to something like SW:TOR or some other spacey MMO. Just based on precedence of the average development time of your modern AAA game, I don't there is cause for panic.
ASSUMING they are managing their money properly :-)
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
This is not about "attacking" devs, that's laying it on way too thick.
It fits their narrative though. Anyone posting something that isn't positive must be attacked and labelled a hater or someone who is just obsessed with attacking the devs.
no it's not 'anyone'. It is when the same people post as much negative crap as they can find without ever posting positive things, then they tend to be "labelled a hater or someone who is just obsessed with attacking the devs. "
I see plently of people here post actual concerns they have for the project and where they see errors. I then see them get jumped for their opinions because it doesn't paint SC as rainbows and sunshine. Even correcting misinformation can get you attacked here if it makes SC look negative
A balanced perspective requires both praise and criticism.
If a certain poster is always finding things to criticise and never any to be positive about, then that person will rightly be labelled as a "hater"...
It's entertaining to see all the air-chair developing that revolves around SC. There are certainly reasons to curb your enthusiasm when seeing tech demo's, but what was shown at gamescon was impressive.
You have to admit, the two big reasons why its garnishing so much attention, positive and negative, is the scope and degree of transparency.
The scope....lol fuck, its just huge. Gotta give them that, no one has tried anything this ambitious, THAT WE KNOW OF?? I mean, someone could have tried and failed and we never heard about it.
What I mean by that hints at the concept of transparency. Some would argue that CIG isn't transparent enough. But honestly, how many massive game projects are this open about their development process, from start to finish?
How many other massive projects have been this open during their production cycle? What kind of shit happened to them during that time? FF XV has been in development for 10 years lol i doubt it was full-tilt development for that whole time, but it brings me to the point. What the hell were they doing on that game that took 10 years? Why did World of Warcraft take so long to make (5 or 7 years?)
I have no idea how much of the indicated development times for these projects are correct, but SC is pretty short by comparison. This graphic is also dated, i just grabbed some random image off google. I guess SC is at 4 years now?
Now, look at the timelines of the games in that graphic. For most, you probably didn't even hear it was in development until at least the half-way point or much closer to delivery.
So, based on what i saw at Gamescon 2016, after 4 years of dev, compared to something like SW:TOR or some other spacey MMO. Just based on precedence of the average development time of your modern AAA game, I don't there is cause for panic.
ASSUMING they are managing their money properly :-)
Dear lord please don't use that graphic. Whoever made it seems to have trouble with release dates like team fortress 2 and half life so not really the best source to use lol
MaxBacon said: What?! They haven't built the engine there, they had one engine that was not meant for the MMO, once they started working on the MMO back-end, they would then refactor its code.
Nothing but Game Development right there, once they started working on the netcode back-end for the MMO, from instances, to zoning system (transitions and all), etc.... It's things they are working on NOW and went though the original design idea of what to do, to R&D up until prototype and release, that is exactly what they are doing.
They did the same with PG, they went through R&D (part of a stretch goal on 2014) and experimented to figure out what they could achieve with the technology, the result was seen on the Gamescon demo.
"Back-end", netcode, graphics engine, etc. - that is all called game engine. Engine is a set of development tools and technology used to build software.
So yeah, they did build an engine(based on CryEngine).
Once again, you do not build an engine and then go probing what it is capable of - you build it so it DOES what you want it to do.
spankybus said: There are certainly reasons to curb your enthusiasm when seeing tech demo's, but what was shown at gamescon was impressive.
It is, the problem seem to be it was done just for the sake of being impressive...
That is imo the crucial issue with SC development. The schedule is bend to suit marketing and ability to showoff early instead of taking necessary steps for efficient development.
Whole module release is a nightmare from development point of view - you start with client and then work towards back-end. That is nuts.
There is a reason why developers show their games after they got the engine sorted out, not before.
spankybus said: There are certainly reasons to curb your enthusiasm when seeing tech demo's, but what was shown at gamescon was impressive.
It is, the problem seem to be it was done just for the sake of being impressive...
That is imo the crucial issue with SC development. The schedule is bend to suit marketing and ability to showoff early instead of taking necessary steps for efficient development.
Whole module release is a nightmare from development point of view - you start with client and then work towards back-end. That is nuts.
There is a reason why developers show their games after they got the engine sorted out, not before.
A think i would consider it a necessary evil, one that also seems to have been proven right given the success of the fund raising campaign.
All very messy though, the module release kind of failed in reality to what was planned.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
Once again, you do not build an engine and then go probing what it is capable of - you build it so it DOES what you want it to do.
That statement is flawed, they are STILL building the Engine. They are pushing on R&D on the areas they are pushing on over the base engine, and what is being refactored.
They are building the engine to be capable to do what they want it do, yet they can only finalize the final design once they know exactly what will be able to do once the rest of the tech and refactors finally reaches the game.
The difference between what you WANT to do with your engine and what you CAN do, something that on SC's case also includes building on the engine.
There's several examples of R&D changing the design of a feature or a whole part of the game if they found a better way to do it, like the scripted landing zones without player control original plan for them.
Oriphus said: A think i would consider it a necessary evil, one that also seems to have been proven right given the success of the fund raising campaign.
All very messy though, the module release kind of failed in reality to what was planned.
...I get your point but then there is ED or EVE that did "staged release" just fine.
I wouldn't call it necessary evil, just very "unfortunate".
MaxBacon said: That statement is flawed, they are STILL building the Engine.
That isn't flawed, it just refers to certain point in development. They will be working on the engine as long as they will keep updating the game.
We aren't talking about adding features on top of the core game but very core elements of the game - how you move around for example.
Just follow this train of thought:
Let's make those super cool huge seamless solar systems! Ok, done. But here is a problem, travel now takes considerable amount of time. Hm...let's fill it with some fluff minigame that will be "different and challenging everytime" (in reality, it will get just mundane and annoying longer you play).
Sure, it is impressive but at the end of the day, it is bad design and wasted development resources because huge seamless solar systems have no design nor game play purpose, on the contrary you have to spend another resources to "fix" the issue it brought along.
This is imo what we are seeing in the video and SC in general.
Sure, it is impressive but at the end of the day, it is bad design and wasted development resources because huge seamless solar systems have no design nor game play purpose, on the contrary you have to spend another resources to "fix" the issue it brought along.
That's like your opinion man.
That would be calling ED a waste of resources for their focus on creating their universe to be 1:1 scaled, people in there spend a lot of time traveling from place to place, it adds nothing to actual gameplay, but it adds to the people who look for it, a realistic approach that for others is just boring.
On SC they already took design decisions to not make it 1:1, being it 1:4 on solar system scale and 1:10 on planet scale, is already an direction to contain the play-field size vs content.
They shall continue to R&D as this things come online, they follow the designs they already had for the game but those are what guides them direction... not what tells them how are they going to achieve it on the development point of view.
So that for me at the end has nothing to do with the core of the game, it's more design decisions to make on how they are going to set all the content on the systems they create.
Sure it adds stuff to gameplay, it allows you to see and navigate a wide range of Unidentified Signal Sources for a variety of reasons, it allows you to bounty hunt players or NPCs, it allows you to pirate players or NPCs and so on.
Sure it adds stuff to gameplay, it allows you to see and navigate a wide range of Unidentified Signal Sources for a variety of reasons, it allows you to bounty hunt players or NPCs, it allows you to pirate players or NPCs and so on.
That's not related to having a realistic 1:1 scale though, SC can do that as well on 1:4 scale. ED focus was the realism here over the gameplay, because gameplay-wise that's one of the things the game gets critics for. I wouldn't be able to agree on that one.
MaxBacon said: That would be calling ED a waste of resources for their focus on creating their universe to be 1:1 scaled
ED is designed differently. While travel times within a solar system may take some time, you are not meant to travel around a solar system but between them and for that you may jump from anywhere.
It isn't just my opinion, it is backed by already produced games(and common sense). They wouldn't be the first nor the last ones to do this(hence my hint to XRebirth).
MaxBacon said:
it's more design decisions to make on how they are going to set all the content on the systems they create.
MaxBacon said: That's not related to having a realistic 1:1 scale though, SC can do that as well on 1:4 scale. ED focus was the realism here over the gameplay, because gameplay-wise that's one of the things the game gets critics for. I wouldn't be able to agree on that one.
You got it backwards.
ED is focused on game play and use science to enhance the gameplay.
SC on the other hand focus on "realism" just for the sake of "realism" - ie. that is why they had to scaled down the solar systems in the first place (sounds like my example above, doesn't it?).
Sure it adds stuff to gameplay, it allows you to see and navigate a wide range of Unidentified Signal Sources for a variety of reasons, it allows you to bounty hunt players or NPCs, it allows you to pirate players or NPCs and so on.
For that, you do not need huge seamless solar systems.
In a matter of fact, it makes it more difficult - larger the area, harder to find and get into something, again travel time.
SC on the other hand focus on "realism" just for the sake of realism - ie. that is why they scaled down the solar systems.
Actually SC was meant to be an hardcore realistic space sim on KS times, gladly they decided to put gameplay over realism and i hope they continue doing it for the sake of creating a fun game to play, not trying to be another ED.
MaxBacon said: No, that's called content, several mechanics are being created, as
mining / trading and specially the biggest driver of systems, AI.
Again this goes through a lot of R&D as they flesh out the final design and details as they start developing the feature, normal game development.
Actually SC was meant to be an hardcore realistic space sim, gladly they decided to put gameplay over realism and they should continue doing it for the sake of creating a fun game to play, not trying to be another ED.
Sorry, that isn't content. Mining, trading - THAT is content.
Still stuck with that wrong image of development workflow programmer -> designer, huh?
Like I said, you have it backwards, ffs you even just said it yourself.
MaxBacon said: That statement is flawed, they are STILL building the Engine.
That isn't flawed, it just refers to certain point in development. They will be working on the engine as long as they will keep updating the game.
We aren't talking about adding features on top of the core game but very core elements of the game - how you move around for example.
Just follow this train of thought:
Let's make those super cool huge seamless solar systems! Ok, done. But here is a problem, travel now takes considerable amount of time. Hm...let's fill it with some fluff minigame that will be "different and challenging everytime" (in reality, it will get just mundane and annoying longer you play).
Sure, it is impressive but at the end of the day, it is bad design and wasted development resources because huge seamless solar systems have no design nor game play purpose, on the contrary you have to spend another resources to "fix" the issue it brought along.
This is imo what we are seeing in the video and SC in general.
Why are you mixing all the travel into one conclusion?
I have already told you that what you where referring to was jump point travel - through wormholes. Are you telling me now you believe they are going to develop a core in game feature where they actually warp space - time? make code to warp the very fabric of the built universe to be able to travel from one point to another??
Jump points are for travelling to different systems, there won't be any in game laws that they will be breaking by being able to decide what ever time they want for travelling from system to system. As I already said, explorers who are able to try and jump through to unknown systems will be given a challenge to reach the unknown, it will be uncharted, it will take player skill, how long it will take and all of the various challenges are what ever the hell they wan't them to be, they want these to be dynamic. For someone following that person after it is charted could be comparatively easy, may even be done on auto, once again how long a charted journey takes is totally not bound by any physical laws, might take 30 seconds because the 'correct' path has been found...whatever!
Now when you are talking about travelling across the solar system, that is a different travel mechanic all together, that is Quantum Drive. For Stanton he said in the vid it takes about 21 mins from one side to the other....but obviously that kind of journey wouldn't be that common and for the times that you are left with a large journey then there will be other activities to do on the ship to pass the time like play mini games, receive inbound emergency calls, perhaps interdiction, scan markets....w/e, I am sure the average journey will be well under 5 mins. Currently in the PU it is about 5 seconds between PoI, I imagine then it will be less than 5 mins between adjacent 'hubs' and the next lot of 'PoI'.
To me it sounds like what you are advocating for is almost instant travel everywhere? Some people would love that for sure, others won't.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
Sorry, that isn't content. Mining, trading - THAT is content.
Still stuck with that wrong image of development workflow programmer -> designer, huh?
Like I said, you have it backwards, ffs you even just said it yourself.
AI is a fundamental piece towards how the MMO will work, that is a principal mechanic but that one requires the core of the game there to even be developed, a game that is systemic in terms of AI needs the solar system tech and netcode as well ready.
It is a fundamental mechanic but it isn't one that they could work on before they had the bases to work with. Now they have been already working on R&D on AI and are figuring out the final design, what they can do and how it will work. Nothing else.
Oriphus said: I have already told you that what you where referring to was jump point travel - through wormholes.
I am fairly confident I know what I am referring to in my posts and I think I am also fairly consistent with my referrals to within solar system travel only... Where do you feel I referred to some other travel methods?
I am not advocating for anything. I am just bringing reasons and examples why I think the development is a clusterfuck.
Just look again at discussed within solar system travel.
1) They worked really, really hard to make everything 1:1, all seamless and seamless transitions.
2) Then they realized 1:1 introducing travel issues.
3) They scaled it down.
4) They still see travel issues. 5) They introduce minigames that never worked as good design.
Band-aid over band-aid due something that sounds cool, is impressive but you have no design purpose. Lots of work for nothing.
Where do you feel I referred to some other travel methods?
""We need to figure out...", that is all you can hear. They essentially got an engine somewhat to work but they have no idea what to do with it in the first place."
The only place you hear this in the video is when he is discussing about Jump point travel and how they want to be able to make it skillful and dynamic when required.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
1) They worked really, really hard to make everything 1:1, all seamless and seamless transitions.
2) Then they realized 1:1 introducing travel issues.
3) They scaled it down.
4) They still see travel issues. 5) They introduce minigames that never worked as good design.
I don't ever recall them working this way. The way my memory tells it is they worked all that out in one meeting and they always wanted to be able to play the 3D chess like in Star Wars. Maybe I am remebering wrong though, I don't live and breathe this stuff.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
Oriphus said: The only place you hear this in the video is when he is discussing about Jump point travel and how they want to be able to make it skillful and dynamic when required.
Ah, my bad I misunderstood.
"We need to figure out..." isn't a reference to specific quote or mechanics particularly but more of a tone and conclusion of entire interview.
He didn't say a single specific thing they worked through - they just need to figure out everything...
Gdemami said: He didn't say a single specific thing they worked through - they just need to figure out everything...
They worked nothing they have to figure out everything, oh dear lord your bias is just resulting on selective perception on the conclusion you make of the words.
SC gameplay is set to be systemic, and that system itself will not be working on Alpha 3.0 either, to make the systems work they need as i said specially AI to kick it (as said 90% AI 10% players). Obviously they need to figure it out something they are still on R&D and are just releasing a first static iteration with 3.0.
Comments
Nothing but Game Development right there, once they started working on the netcode back-end for the MMO, from instances, to zoning system (transitions and all), etc.... It's things they are working on NOW and went though the original design idea of what to do, to R&D up until prototype and release, that is exactly what they are doing.
They did the same with PG, they went through R&D (part of a stretch goal on 2014) and experimented to figure out what they could achieve with the technology, the result was seen on the Gamescon demo.
#GameDevelopment
You have to admit, the two big reasons why its garnishing so much attention, positive and negative, is the scope and degree of transparency.
The scope....lol fuck, its just huge. Gotta give them that, no one has tried anything this ambitious, THAT WE KNOW OF?? I mean, someone could have tried and failed and we never heard about it.
What I mean by that hints at the concept of transparency. Some would argue that CIG isn't transparent enough. But honestly, how many massive game projects are this open about their development process, from start to finish?
How many other massive projects have been this open during their production cycle? What kind of shit happened to them during that time? FF XV has been in development for 10 years lol i doubt it was full-tilt development for that whole time, but it brings me to the point. What the hell were they doing on that game that took 10 years? Why did World of Warcraft take so long to make (5 or 7 years?)
I have no idea how much of the indicated development times for these projects are correct, but SC is pretty short by comparison. This graphic is also dated, i just grabbed some random image off google. I guess SC is at 4 years now?
Now, look at the timelines of the games in that graphic. For most, you probably didn't even hear it was in development until at least the half-way point or much closer to delivery.
So, based on what i saw at Gamescon 2016, after 4 years of dev, compared to something like SW:TOR or some other spacey MMO. Just based on precedence of the average development time of your modern AAA game, I don't there is cause for panic.
ASSUMING they are managing their money properly :-)
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
If a certain poster is always finding things to criticise and never any to be positive about, then that person will rightly be labelled as a "hater"...
"Back-end", netcode, graphics engine, etc. - that is all called game engine. Engine is a set of development tools and technology used to build software.
So yeah, they did build an engine(based on CryEngine).
Once again, you do not build an engine and then go probing what it is capable of - you build it so it DOES what you want it to do.
Hope that helped.
That is imo the crucial issue with SC development. The schedule is bend to suit marketing and ability to showoff early instead of taking necessary steps for efficient development.
Whole module release is a nightmare from development point of view - you start with client and then work towards back-end. That is nuts.
There is a reason why developers show their games after they got the engine sorted out, not before.
All very messy though, the module release kind of failed in reality to what was planned.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
They are building the engine to be capable to do what they want it do, yet they can only finalize the final design once they know exactly what will be able to do once the rest of the tech and refactors finally reaches the game.
The difference between what you WANT to do with your engine and what you CAN do, something that on SC's case also includes building on the engine.
There's several examples of R&D changing the design of a feature or a whole part of the game if they found a better way to do it, like the scripted landing zones without player control original plan for them.
I wouldn't call it necessary evil, just very "unfortunate".
We aren't talking about adding features on top of the core game but very core elements of the game - how you move around for example.
Just follow this train of thought:
Let's make those super cool huge seamless solar systems!
Ok, done. But here is a problem, travel now takes considerable amount of time.
Hm...let's fill it with some fluff minigame that will be "different and challenging everytime" (in reality, it will get just mundane and annoying longer you play).
Sure, it is impressive but at the end of the day, it is bad design and wasted development resources because huge seamless solar systems have no design nor game play purpose, on the contrary you have to spend another resources to "fix" the issue it brought along.
This is imo what we are seeing in the video and SC in general.
That would be calling ED a waste of resources for their focus on creating their universe to be 1:1 scaled, people in there spend a lot of time traveling from place to place, it adds nothing to actual gameplay, but it adds to the people who look for it, a realistic approach that for others is just boring.
On SC they already took design decisions to not make it 1:1, being it 1:4 on solar system scale and 1:10 on planet scale, is already an direction to contain the play-field size vs content.
They shall continue to R&D as this things come online, they follow the designs they already had for the game but those are what guides them direction... not what tells them how are they going to achieve it on the development point of view.
So that for me at the end has nothing to do with the core of the game, it's more design decisions to make on how they are going to set all the content on the systems they create.
It isn't just my opinion, it is backed by already produced games(and common sense). They wouldn't be the first nor the last ones to do this(hence my hint to XRebirth). Yeah, that is called core game mechanics....
ED is focused on game play and use science to enhance the gameplay.
SC on the other hand focus on "realism" just for the sake of "realism" - ie. that is why they had to scaled down the solar systems in the first place (sounds like my example above, doesn't it?).
In a matter of fact, it makes it more difficult - larger the area, harder to find and get into something, again travel time.
Again this goes through a lot of R&D as they flesh out the final design and details as they start developing the feature, normal game development.
Actually SC was meant to be an hardcore realistic space sim on KS times, gladly they decided to put gameplay over realism and i hope they continue doing it for the sake of creating a fun game to play, not trying to be another ED.
Still stuck with that wrong image of development workflow programmer -> designer, huh?
Like I said, you have it backwards, ffs you even just said it yourself.
I have already told you that what you where referring to was jump point travel - through wormholes. Are you telling me now you believe they are going to develop a core in game feature where they actually warp space - time? make code to warp the very fabric of the built universe to be able to travel from one point to another??
Jump points are for travelling to different systems, there won't be any in game laws that they will be breaking by being able to decide what ever time they want for travelling from system to system. As I already said, explorers who are able to try and jump through to unknown systems will be given a challenge to reach the unknown, it will be uncharted, it will take player skill, how long it will take and all of the various challenges are what ever the hell they wan't them to be, they want these to be dynamic. For someone following that person after it is charted could be comparatively easy, may even be done on auto, once again how long a charted journey takes is totally not bound by any physical laws, might take 30 seconds because the 'correct' path has been found...whatever!
Now when you are talking about travelling across the solar system, that is a different travel mechanic all together, that is Quantum Drive. For Stanton he said in the vid it takes about 21 mins from one side to the other....but obviously that kind of journey wouldn't be that common and for the times that you are left with a large journey then there will be other activities to do on the ship to pass the time like play mini games, receive inbound emergency calls, perhaps interdiction, scan markets....w/e, I am sure the average journey will be well under 5 mins. Currently in the PU it is about 5 seconds between PoI, I imagine then it will be less than 5 mins between adjacent 'hubs' and the next lot of 'PoI'.
To me it sounds like what you are advocating for is almost instant travel everywhere? Some people would love that for sure, others won't.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
It is a fundamental mechanic but it isn't one that they could work on before they had the bases to work with. Now they have been already working on R&D on AI and are figuring out the final design, what they can do and how it will work. Nothing else.
Where do you feel I referred to some other travel methods?
I am not advocating for anything. I am just bringing reasons and examples why I think the development is a clusterfuck.
Just look again at discussed within solar system travel.
1) They worked really, really hard to make everything 1:1, all seamless and seamless transitions.
2) Then they realized 1:1 introducing travel issues.
3) They scaled it down.
4) They still see travel issues.
5) They introduce minigames that never worked as good design.
Band-aid over band-aid due something that sounds cool, is impressive but you have no design purpose. Lots of work for nothing.
The only place you hear this in the video is when he is discussing about Jump point travel and how they want to be able to make it skillful and dynamic when required.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
"We need to figure out..." isn't a reference to specific quote or mechanics particularly but more of a tone and conclusion of entire interview.
He didn't say a single specific thing they worked through - they just need to figure out everything...
SC gameplay is set to be systemic, and that system itself will not be working on Alpha 3.0 either, to make the systems work they need as i said specially AI to kick it (as said 90% AI 10% players). Obviously they need to figure it out something they are still on R&D and are just releasing a first static iteration with 3.0.