As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
Hence why there areonly 4 features that were part of 3.0 they marked as completed. lol
The large majority of 3.0 promised feature-set was not even added, excepting what they added to mark as a "broken promise" (many wrongly so).
For anyone who is informed, this list is a joke. Didn't change.
I'm not up for the same copy/paste argumentation over what is obvious goon propaganda (made and maintained by them, external to the community of backers).
One problem is that it isn't a list of "features". There is a Mining 3.0 for example and a Mining 3.1. If Mining doesn't make it into 3.1 will there be another "Mining" feature?
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features implemented should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
It's obviously not meant as a feature-tracker, it's meant as adding as many incomplete and broken items as possible, hence why even though it was never a promise (neither on the official feature-set and roadmap at any time), they added Mining as a broken feature of 3.0.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features implemented should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
It's obviously not meant as a feature-tracker, it's meant as adding as many incomplete and broken items as possible, hence why even though it was never a promise (neither on the official feature-set and roadmap at any time), they added Mining as a broken feature of 3.0.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features implemented should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
It's obviously not meant as a feature-tracker, it's meant as adding as many incomplete and broken items as possible, hence why even though it was never a promise (neither on the official feature-set and roadmap at any time), they added Mining as a broken feature of 3.0.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
If it wasn’t confirmed then Brian Chambers should have shut his mouth instead of saying confirmed eh?
If it was about how good estimating was on SC then sure. It purports to be a list that tracks features however.
As it stands - for example - feature "Mining 3.0" can NEVER be achieved. Even when Mining is fully in the game. It will forever be shown as failed. And that is just one "feature". Which makes the list - whatever the reason for its existence is - a fail.
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features implemented should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
It's obviously not meant as a feature-tracker, it's meant as adding as many incomplete and broken items as possible, hence why even though it was never a promise (neither on the official feature-set and roadmap at any time), they added Mining as a broken feature of 3.0.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
If it wasn’t confirmed then Brian Chambers should have shut his mouth instead of saying confirmed eh?
If it was about how good estimating was on SC then sure. It purports to be a list that tracks features however.
As it stands - for example - feature "Mining 3.0" can NEVER be achieved. Even when Mining is fully in the game. It will forever be shown as failed. And that is just one "feature". Which makes the list - whatever the reason for its existence is - a fail.
They asked about the rumours that mining is in 3.0 and Brian said something along the lines of “its true next question.” Kinda makes it sound like they confirmed it don’t ya think
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
Futile kinda like the release dates being anywhere close to what they say? or hoping that CR and company don’t walk back promises they made already? Or maybe answering the call for SQ42 in 2016 oops no wait 2017 oops no wait no more date listed.
Actually you'd need to include all concept sales to those lists. For example they have sold base constructions ships and land claims, now they must implement base construction and land ownership. They have sold tanks, now they must implement tanks. They have sold ships that specialize in exploration, now they must implement exploration roughly as it was described at the time.
Those concept sales actually place much stricter limits to them because Star Citizen is a large game, and even a large change to one feature doesn't affect the whole that much. Purchases of concept ships/vehicles/land claims are much more limited, and impose a much stricter limitation on what and how RSI must do on when designing their game.
Actually you'd need to include all concept sales to those lists. For example they have sold base constructions ships and land claims, now they must implement base construction and land ownership. They have sold tanks, now they must implement tanks. They have sold ships that specialize in exploration, now they must implement exploration roughly as it was described at the time.
Those concept sales actually place much stricter limits to them because Star Citizen is a large game, and even a large change to one feature doesn't affect the whole that much. Purchases of concept ships/vehicles/land claims are much more limited, and impose a much stricter limitation on what and how RSI must do on when designing their game.
I personally specifically do not include the newer concept ships in the MUST HAVE list. Only the ships from the stretch goal list.
If the other ships are available at launch ... nice !
If it wasn’t confirmed then Brian Chambers should have shut his mouth instead of saying confirmed eh?
Doesn't matter. Quickly after that Q&A with Chambers there was a clarification that having mining on 3.0 was a possibility that may or may not happen as development flows (adding context to what the dev said). And quickly enough once the production roadmap was posted, it cleared it up that the final schedule have not put it on 3.0.
But none of that matters for a list with one agenda just to add as many broken and incomplete entries as possible. Been through that already...
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features implemented should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
It's obviously not meant as a feature-tracker, it's meant as adding as many incomplete and broken items as possible, hence why even though it was never a promise (neither on the official feature-set and roadmap at any time), they added Mining as a broken feature of 3.0.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
If it wasn’t confirmed then Brian Chambers should have shut his mouth instead of saying confirmed eh?
If it was about how good estimating was on SC then sure. It purports to be a list that tracks features however.
As it stands - for example - feature "Mining 3.0" can NEVER be achieved. Even when Mining is fully in the game. It will forever be shown as failed. And that is just one "feature". Which makes the list - whatever the reason for its existence is - a fail.
They asked about the rumours that mining is in 3.0 and Brian said something along the lines of “its true next question.” Kinda makes it sound like they confirmed it don’t ya think
What has that got to do with whether Mining is 1 - one - feature or 2 or 3 or 5 features. Mining is a feature. Mining in 3.0 is not a feature. Same deal with a host of other "features" they have replicated.
Whether they are "features" that should be on the list to track - as @Erillion above says the list to track should be what is in the KS goal. A secondary list would be the stretch goals. And a third the concept sales. Which you could manage as one list with 3 % numbers if you wanted I suppose.
You don't manage a project by adding a new "feature" everytime a projected release date for absolutely anything is missed. Either the people doing this just "not very good at it" - to put it mildly - or they "have another motive".
So how do you make a list of completed and not completed features if you don't include the not completed ones?
By being accurate to the number of completed features to the number of features to complete (as seen by the majority of 3.0 feature-set not even mentioned). By not coming up with BS features just because something is mentioned once as a possibility and BS broken features.
With goons on mix, this is not surprising; but sure is surprising how hard some try to legitimate something where you need to make your own research to know, defeating its purpose.
So how do you make a list of completed and not completed features if you don't include the not completed ones?
lol
By being accurate to the number of completed features to the number of features to complete (as seen by the majority of 3.0 feature-set not even mentioned). By not coming up with BS features just because something is mentioned once as a possibility and BS broken features.
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
Why is it that when people complain about CIG devoting development time to fluff features like that face mapping voice stuff or VR or even bathrooms the SC fans always defend it with "it was part of the stretch goals so it was always planned to be in the game"?
But, when someone makes a list of incomplete features with those stretch goal features they defend it with "well, those features were stretch goals and not part of the original KS, so they don't count"
Also, the KS campaign ended over 5 years ago and was only for $6 million do we are well beyond the original KS goals.
So, at this point the one and only reason the fans are trying to differentiate what's an original goal and what's a stretch goal is because it suits their current needs.
But none of that matters for a list with one agenda just to add as many broken and incomplete entries as possible. Been through that already...
So how do you make a list of completed and not completed features if you don't include the not completed ones?
You have to know what you are trying to measure.
If you have 10 walls to paint in your house and you planned to have them all done by Saturday just because 2 of them were not done when you went to bed Saturday doesn't mean there are now 12 walls! You could though say 10 walls, 8 done, 80% complete.
Now if you were making 10 million cans of beans then knowing 2.6M had rolled of the production line then 26% would be a useful measure. This is known as 0/100 progress tracking.
And its good enough for cans of beans. Its simple, cheap, understandable.
If your project was "build a new airport" however - that was scheduled to take 3 years say then reporting that progress was 0% for 155 weeks wouldn't be very helpful. No opportunity to address problems etc. A more sophisticated measure would have been better! How much more - depends.
Back to painting walls. If you were "painting a large school say" then - like as with the house - you could count all the walls and check them off as they were painted. So 300 walls to do, 60 complete, so 20% through the job.
And this might be "good enough". Might be. Say the school is a mix 60 classrooms, 4 small walls and 30 corridors with long walls, each one 5 times the size of a classroom wall. So a total of 300 walls but dig a little deeper and there are 240 small walls and 60 long walls equivalent to 300 classroom walls! You have to know what you should be counting.
And when you get into development projects it can get really messy.
So there are different ways of tracking - trying at least - to track progress. And you have to implement the best system for the circumstances at hand. And there are textbooks that those who are really interested can go and read.
On the one hand the goal is "keep it simple, stupid" - and cheap - whilst also getting meaningful information out of the system that you can respond to. And you have to remember that people don't like to report "failure". Given the option people are apt to fudge. They might report 99% complete ...... for weeks. There are %complete methods as well.
Back to the painting:
You said you would have the wall painted by Saturday - you went to bed, you failed! At home not an issue - you finished it off on Sunday.
On the school though. If the contractor has a date to meet and a penalty clause it matters. Simply counting how many of the 300 walls are done will probably over report (if the classrooms get done first) or under report progress (if the corridors get done). And under and over reporting progress will have consequences. So there are measurement systems that assign "value" to "schedule elements" and track progress against both "cost" and "time". Systems that can be sophisticated, harder to implemet, more expensive and - at the end of the day - may still fail. Especially when there are people involved, their estimates of what "value" a schdule element has and how far along they are when tasked to complete it.
Which is why I said you have to know what you are trying to measure. And also what matters.
Yeah, I'm sure it's also the Goon's fault when CIG gives a 2 week delivery estimate before a big ship sale and then delay it by 9 months.
Everyone and their dog knows that CIG's marketing lies, overpromises and is rotten to the core but it's all the Goon's fault.
lol the spin, your opinions have nothing to do with the points I mentioned.
Where exactly did you see spin? Do you even know what that means?
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
There's an epithet for someone who behaves like that... it starts with an H.
Where exactly did you see spin? Do you even know what that means?
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
There's an epithet for someone who behaves like that... it starts with an H.
But it was created and is maintained by Goons, not by the community of backers of this game, the list itself is filled by BS and there is no lack of examples of things that are rather obvious. You did indeed spin because you decided to come up with irrelevant remarks that do not address the points like you just did again.
I'm all for a list that tracks the features that were stated as part of the game and their status either delivered or not, this is just not it, they decided to ruin something with the potential to be a great tool.
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
Thanks for confirming that anything Chris has said or will say in interviews or promo videos is total bullcrap.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Where exactly did you see spin? Do you even know what that means?
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
There's an epithet for someone who behaves like that... it starts with an H.
But it was created and is maintained by Goons, not by the community of backers of this game, the list itself is filled by BS and there are no lack of examples of things that are rather obvious yet manipulated by who maintains that.
You did indeed spin because you decided to come up with irrelevant remarks that do not address the points like you just did again.
I'm all for a list that tracks the features that were stated as part of the game and their status either delivered or not, this is just not it, and yes, on unsurprising reality as there are goons in the mix.
And again... since you seem to conveniently missed it:
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
and "spin" doesn't mean what you think it means. I did not apply any spin to what I was saying. I'm still saying the same damn thing you're ignoring.
I also don't give a damn if you think the list is or is not legit... obviously since it's maintained by a dirty goon you're not going to like it... they're all Derek's minions anyway. Maybe if CIG was honest enough they'd maintain one with all their promises and how many of those have been fulfilled... but lets' be honest.. they're never going to do that just like they're never going to reveal their financials.
Talonsin said: So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
There are many things he said that are "wants and maybes" on design discussions mostly always about the future of the game.
There are also many things he directly stated they would be in the game.
And here lies another problem of this failed list, they don't bother at all (intentionally so) to list what was confirmed vs what was mentioned as a possibility.
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
Thanks for confirming that anything Chris has said or will say in interviews or promo videos is total bullcrap.
Promises only count when you're comparing all the features SC will have with other games in order to win the comparison. Promises don't count when you're holding CIG accountable for all the features they said they'd implement or when you're talking about deadlines. They never said two weeks.
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Comments
Hence why there are only 4 features that were part of 3.0 they marked as completed. lol
The large majority of 3.0 promised feature-set was not even added, excepting what they added to mark as a "broken promise" (many wrongly so).
For anyone who is informed, this list is a joke. Didn't change.
I'm not up for the same copy/paste argumentation over what is obvious goon propaganda (made and maintained by them, external to the community of backers).
At the end of the day a list that purports to track features should be a list of ... features! With each feature being in some state of completion.
And so they will add another duplicate of mining for 3.1, and another one over that (the actual feature). End of the day there's at least 3 lists about the same feature.
If it wasn’t confirmed then Brian Chambers should have shut his mouth instead of saying confirmed eh?
As it stands - for example - feature "Mining 3.0" can NEVER be achieved. Even when Mining is fully in the game. It will forever be shown as failed. And that is just one "feature". Which makes the list - whatever the reason for its existence is - a fail.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
or here (Stretch Goal list)
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
Those concept sales actually place much stricter limits to them because Star Citizen is a large game, and even a large change to one feature doesn't affect the whole that much. Purchases of concept ships/vehicles/land claims are much more limited, and impose a much stricter limitation on what and how RSI must do on when designing their game.
If the other ships are available at launch ... nice !
Have fun
But none of that matters for a list with one agenda just to add as many broken and incomplete entries as possible. Been through that already...
Whether they are "features" that should be on the list to track - as @Erillion above says the list to track should be what is in the KS goal. A secondary list would be the stretch goals. And a third the concept sales. Which you could manage as one list with 3 % numbers if you wanted I suppose.
You don't manage a project by adding a new "feature" everytime a projected release date for absolutely anything is missed. Either the people doing this just "not very good at it" - to put it mildly - or they "have another motive".
..Cake..
A quick example of it, here is what they source to label Trading in 3.0 as broken (not delivered):
https://clips.twitch.tv/AcceptableArborealBottleKappa
With goons on mix, this is not surprising; but sure is surprising how hard some try to legitimate something where you need to make your own research to know, defeating its purpose.
Everyone and their dog knows that CIG's marketing lies, overpromises and is rotten to the core but it's all the Goon's fault.
..Cake..
But, when someone makes a list of incomplete features with those stretch goal features they defend it with "well, those features were stretch goals and not part of the original KS, so they don't count"
Also, the KS campaign ended over 5 years ago and was only for $6 million do we are well beyond the original KS goals.
So, at this point the one and only reason the fans are trying to differentiate what's an original goal and what's a stretch goal is because it suits their current needs.
If you have 10 walls to paint in your house and you planned to have them all done by Saturday just because 2 of them were not done when you went to bed Saturday doesn't mean there are now 12 walls! You could though say 10 walls, 8 done, 80% complete.
Now if you were making 10 million cans of beans then knowing 2.6M had rolled of the production line then 26% would be a useful measure. This is known as 0/100 progress tracking.
And its good enough for cans of beans. Its simple, cheap, understandable.
If your project was "build a new airport" however - that was scheduled to take 3 years say then reporting that progress was 0% for 155 weeks wouldn't be very helpful. No opportunity to address problems etc. A more sophisticated measure would have been better! How much more - depends.
Back to painting walls. If you were "painting a large school say" then - like as with the house - you could count all the walls and check them off as they were painted. So 300 walls to do, 60 complete, so 20% through the job.
And this might be "good enough". Might be. Say the school is a mix 60 classrooms, 4 small walls and 30 corridors with long walls, each one 5 times the size of a classroom wall. So a total of 300 walls but dig a little deeper and there are 240 small walls and 60 long walls equivalent to 300 classroom walls! You have to know what you should be counting.
And when you get into development projects it can get really messy.
So there are different ways of tracking - trying at least - to track progress. And you have to implement the best system for the circumstances at hand. And there are textbooks that those who are really interested can go and read.
On the one hand the goal is "keep it simple, stupid" - and cheap - whilst also getting meaningful information out of the system that you can respond to. And you have to remember that people don't like to report "failure". Given the option people are apt to fudge. They might report 99% complete ...... for weeks. There are %complete methods as well.
Back to the painting:
You said you would have the wall painted by Saturday - you went to bed, you failed! At home not an issue - you finished it off on Sunday.
On the school though. If the contractor has a date to meet and a penalty clause it matters. Simply counting how many of the 300 walls are done will probably over report (if the classrooms get done first) or under report progress (if the corridors get done). And under and over reporting progress will have consequences. So there are measurement systems that assign "value" to "schedule elements" and track progress against both "cost" and "time". Systems that can be sophisticated, harder to implemet, more expensive and - at the end of the day - may still fail. Especially when there are people involved, their estimates of what "value" a schdule element has and how far along they are when tasked to complete it.
Which is why I said you have to know what you are trying to measure. And also what matters.
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
There's an epithet for someone who behaves like that... it starts with an H.
..Cake..
I'm all for a list that tracks the features that were stated as part of the game and their status either delivered or not, this is just not it, they decided to ruin something with the potential to be a great tool.
Thanks for confirming that anything Chris has said or will say in interviews or promo videos is total bullcrap.
I was trying, pretty obviously, to point out that you hold Goons to their "bullshit" but fail to hold CIG to account for their constant "bullshit" of over-promising.. especially before a ship sale.
and "spin" doesn't mean what you think it means. I did not apply any spin to what I was saying.
I'm still saying the same damn thing you're ignoring.
I also don't give a damn if you think the list is or is not legit... obviously since it's maintained by a dirty goon you're not going to like it... they're all Derek's minions anyway.
Maybe if CIG was honest enough they'd maintain one with all their promises and how many of those have been fulfilled... but lets' be honest.. they're never going to do that just like they're never going to reveal their financials.
..Cake..
There are also many things he directly stated they would be in the game.
And here lies another problem of this failed list, they don't bother at all (intentionally so) to list what was confirmed vs what was mentioned as a possibility.
Promises don't count when you're holding CIG accountable for all the features they said they'd implement or when you're talking about deadlines. They never said two weeks.
..Cake..