Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
So what happened to PG planets and landing on them?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
LMAO, that first statement is literally what ever person on here thinks, lol. Unless they're just trolling or trying to wish your opinion right ,lol.
Totally agree with you regarding bias, too. I'm open to hearing logical arguments, but some people are hilarious. I still remember Brenics who was adamant that CIG was a money laundering organization, lol. I'm sorry, but that takes a special kind of crazy. Additionally, there are some who are unwilling to admit that there is progress at all when it's quite obvious that there has been significant progress in the past year, for any who remember the ACTUAL technical issues that were a concern.
The term that makes me laugh just about as much as P2W is fanboy (or fanboi as some like to put it). Why? Because it's just another term diluted by the community. Same goes for white knight. Same goes for doomsayer. It's fucking hilarious to me because there is no neutral. If you make any sort of positive comment, as logical as it might be (like it's VERY unlikely that CIG is an elaborate money laundering operation), then you're a white knight. If you express ANY sort of negative opinion then you're a doomsayer. At this point I just embrace it and have fun with it and perpetuate it to the point of ridiculousness. So, I GET what you're talking about and would agree that people sitting on the extreme poles, the radicals, can be problematic.
As a side note, I never type long messages on my iOS device because for some reason the browser will intermittently lock up. THANKS SAFARI!
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
----------------
After a lengthy delay they managed to release alpha version of star marine, it exists but on its own shooter module looks bad and very far from what it was originally hyped to be. Can we admit that its not going to be as good as a regularly released fps or do we need more time to evaluate it?
Its 18 months since they promised SQ42 in 2016, since then they have shown actors in a studio without any actual gameplay. CIG say they have an open development yet they completely refuse to show the current state of SQ42. Can we admit that its quite far from release since they don't even want to show it.
They mentioned patch 3.0 at gamescom and the buzz was a release before christmas. So far they delivered 2.6 patch around christmas, 2.6.1 in mid february. Their aim of 2.6.2 is in two weeks. When can we really expect launch of 3.0?
They have outlined what's going to be in 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4.0. 2.0 was released in dec 2015 but its taking them more than a year to go from 2.0 to 3.0. Given that sort of speed is it reasonable to expect 4.0 in mid 2018?
Again, this serves as additional illustration of why transparency doesn't work. First of all, open development doesn't mean open source development, it means that they are simply more forthcoming with information, which they have been in general. Some people might want more, some want less (that's my wish going forward). Regardless of how "open" you are, you wouldn't rush to show something that is buggy and plays horrible. First impressions are important.
Secondly, you are talking as if all things are equal. "Let's see what they have now and that will tell us exactly when the rest will be shipped." Unfortunately that's the the reality of how software development works. Could be longer, could be shorter, could be that some things are higher priority than others, so something like SQ42 gets less love, even though I wish they'd do that first.
As far as Star Marine goes, I'll wait for the final release. Personally, I doubt it will see significant improvements, but they have talked about fixing animations, which was the biggest gripe I had with it, from what I saw. However, if review sites aren't reviewing it, I don't think it's something you can rubber stamp yet.
Also, they were supposed to ship 3.0 at the end of 2016, so does that mean we should expect 4.0 at the end of 2017? or 2018?
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
----------------
Being 4.0 highlight the release of more than one solar system... I'm going wild and speculate that what they are calling 4.0 is going to be if not it, be very close to Star Citizen's BETA.
And it's not unjustified to think such, the scope of 3.0 to 3.3 has the core of the game's economy and professions there. I think 4.0 is optimistic to end of 2018, and realistic to the end of 2019.
I think beta releasing two years after 4.0 would be more realistic.
That's just me ofc, but within the reality of what I imagine one MVP of SC, that would exactly be it, the game loop is there, the economy is there, and then it about continuously expand the game, if not during its beta, after launch (something they already admitted to).
So...no, that article isn't really that relevant to a 2017 conversation on Star Citizen. Although...it was a good read.
This is the realm of speculation, for me it is one possibility considering what they plan to deliver by then, it could justify that move.
As far as them telling people when stuff is coming is 'wrong'. BWWAAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAA its only wrong because they cant hope to even come close to those release dates, and the reason they give those dates is because they insist on showing produced MOVIES and claim theyre GAMEPLAY. So people see it, they want it, they are shown that its there and working (nearly) flawlessly. SO to make sure to cash in on the hype to the fullest they claims it going to be out in a few months and then sell sell sell the stuff they showed in the movie.
They show things during the summer into the fall, claim its nearly ready to go, then they say end of year. Then they miss that date and then an new date is never given, at least with specifics. They keep the same version numbers but all the specific additions change every time. And they never add anything they generally remove things and those things are never added into later versions.
Not since the first couple updates anyway.
idk where you came with that rant response about delays, wasn't what I was pointing neither talking about on what you quoted me.
If you're going to "save me the trouble" then atleast prove it with a link or some shit.
It's very rare that I misremember these things, CR was on stage saying 3.0 by December 2016, 3.1 - 3.3 during 2017 with 4.0 arriving for Dec 2017 and then the word beta was also used. Can't find the video where he mentions these dates at the moment and trawling through 3-4 hours of it is rather off-putting.
If you are asking others for links, you should be the first to provide them, burden of proof is on your shoulders in this case.
What do you mean a link for something that didn't happen. It did happen. Whenever it was that he gave the timelines for 3.0 is when he also said that 4.0 would be coming 12 months later.
I used the words "Pretty sure" to indicate that I am not making a definitive statement.
Max then proceeded to refute that in a definitve way so in that case the burden is on him. He uses the words "He did not" (a statement) , he then uses the words "In fact" (without providing any facts), He then gets it all wrong by saying it was the community who claimed December 2017 when in reality it was Roberts who said 4.0 would be coming 12 months after 3.0's December 2017 release.
In Gamescom video at 24 mins 10 secs he says 3.0 before 19th December 2017
In CitizenCon video at 1 hour 13 mins 14 secs he says a cadence of 2-3 months between patches for 3.1 3.2 3.3 etc
So 19th December 2016 for 3.0 with 3 months between patches gives the following
3.1 - March 2017
3.2 - June 2017
3.3 - Sept 2017
4.0 - December 2017
Happy now?
Until you provide a link, all you say is just a noise....
This: it's just internal numbering. They changed the numbering. Big deal - not.
The positive discussion should be about what is in - as in what is out there in the alpha today.
The "negative" discussion: what didn't make it?
After 1.0 they said they would not commit to release dates for features but was something "hyped" that didn't make it? (My view on hype is: if its not in the alpha it doesn't exist.)
What matters is what is done today; is progress being made; when might it be released - which can only be speculation of course.
Whether its 2.6 or 3.1 or 4.0 matters not in the slightest. The alpha - the double edged sword that cuts both ways - is what matters.
On the first part, that 4.0 is a beta, is the first hearing that for me, I don't think I would have ever missed that seeing how saying such would be a big deal by setting the scope of the game by its beta.
1h, 18m, 31s.
"This is the roadmap going forward into the next year", NOT "it will release next year".
Post updated with links, timestamps and explanation. It's all right there for your pleasure...
This is besides the point. He says in the gamescom video that they intend to deliver 3.0 before 19th December 2016 and that there will be 3 months between patches which means he intends to deliver 4.0 for December 2017.
I really shouldn't have to say this but notice that I use the word "intends" to show that I do not think these are fixed dates or any of that crap...
The point here is that when I said that Roberts had 4.0 coming 12 months after patch 3.0 you declared that he did not, that I was wrong and that it was a community estimate. I've just given you all the proof you need to see that he did say it, that I was right and that it wasn't a community estimate. At least own up to your bloody mistakes instead of trying to move the goalposts.