How I Feel About Star Citizen At This Point

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Difference being one is an expenditure of a resource equally given to everyone (everyone gets 24 hours a day), money is not.

True, but our time is restrained, some will always be full on others can just do some, if we ever see it as a competitive equal progression those with more time will always overcome you, so obsessing with this sort of balance is a lost cause in my view. An open-world PvPvE MMO is not one pvp match where we all start at the same time, in the same condition, hence why they always were and always will be controversial.

BeansnBread

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Difference being one is an expenditure of a resource equally given to everyone (everyone gets 24 hours a day), money is not.

True, but our time is restrained, some will always be full on others can just do some, if we ever see it as a competitive equal progression those with more time will always overcome you, so obsessing with this sort of balance is a lost cause in my view. An open-world PvPvE MMO is not one pvp match where we all start at the same time, in the same condition, hence why they always were and always will be controversial.

In the end though, we refer to one version of this progression as P2W. 

Phaserlight

MadFrenchie said:

MaxBacon said:

Phaserlight said:

It's not at all the same; I can only surmise your MMO gameplay experiences have been limited to vertical progression with "pay-to-win" mechanics.

This is completely different from a game with horizontal progression where player skill matters, and you can't buy power with real-life currency.

Discussing where Star Citizen falls along this spectrum is still (hilariously) theory crafting, because we won't really know until they release the game.  However, CIG launching campaigns such as a $27k "Legatus" kit have caused some such as YongYea to conclude "stay as far away as humanly possible".  I can't help but wonder if he's right, recalling the parable of boiling frogs.

One open world MMO with PvEvP mixed will never equal to that balance of say a game of chess even without the ability to put up money on the game.

You gave the example of someone paying to promote a pawn to queen, I'll counter that example: Simply by playing more time than you, could have done 3 or 4 turns before you came back to the game again, simply playing for longer than you game me the advantage over you without the having to pay, the end result is the same for you. For several different reasons there is no real balance on this type of open world pvp because people will always be at different stages of progression; to me I'm more the strategy type on a game like this and I don't worry about blaming X or Y either that player(s) earned that ship or bought that ship(s), I worry to strategize and adapt to the situations I end up on.

And exactly why I think guild-play will be a core pillar of SC and will add a lot of more variables to this, I don't think this will be any solo-type of game when its main competitive aspect is to be minded.

Difference being one is an expenditure of a resource equally given to everyone (everyone gets 24 hours a day), money is not.

Again, @MaxBacon you are taking my (perhaps poor) analogy in the context of a vertical progression game.

In a horizontal progression game, it's more like two players have the opportunity to sit down and play a game of chess at any point during the day; we each get the same number of turns: the rules are fair. 

One player may have had the opportunity to practice for thousands of hours: it doesn't mean I am never going to beat him even if I have a separate career and only get to play one hour per week. However, I don't mind losing in this instance simply because someone has played a better game than me due to practice. 

On the other hand, if someone can suddenly pay real money to rank a pawn up to a queen in an instant, this defeats the purpose of building skill in the game to begin with. 

I really can't believe this requires any explanation, and it seems my efforts are falling on deaf ears. 

Babuinix

FrodoFragins said:

Babuinix said:

MightyUnclean said:

Babuinix said:

Eldurian said:

Thankfully Star Citizen has 2 big things going for it.

1. It has almost no competition from AAA MMOs currently in development because the only thing we are getting on AAA MMOs currently in development is rumors.

2. As graphics improve it takes longer, and longer, and longer for me to feel like an older game is "outdated". The tech being used in Star Citizen is so cutting edge I question if it will ever feel outdated to me.

Given these two factors I'm content to say "It will get here when it gets here."

That Pic is outdated, it's from 2.5 I believe, with 3.0 and beyond lightning and character faces have improved exponentially!

I keep seeing all these pics with incredible detail and resolution.  Does anyone believe that this will be how things actually look in-game?  That a modern desktop is capable of running something like this in-motion with dozens of other players on the screen?  It doesn't make sense.

Those are all taken ingame by random players with the Cinematic camera mode.

You can watch it from backers who use it at it's fullest like Hasgaha or XenthorX

Pretty pictures from a non working game only goes so far.  How much further along could the be if they weren't so fixated on so many things other than gameplay and content

What part of the gameplay video shown above is "non working"? You can dislike many things about the project but you don't need to be deliberately obtuse to what already exists to play.

Also complaining about focus on ships instead of gameplay shows a bit of ignorance about who does what in game development. Visual assets (Ship's, Guns, Clothing whatever) are done by Artists while gameplay and systems for them is done by Designers and Engineers.

Making Art is way faster than programming the tools to produce gameplay systems and having them interact at the scale of Star Citizen is going for.

Phaserlight said:

What I'd like to see is the answer to a question asked near the end of the first video I linked: 'if you have players dropping $27k to unlock everything in the game, honestly what's the point in playing?'

By playing of course I mean playing the game, not playing keep up with the wallet warriors.

You can only fly one ship at a time and you an fly ship's that you don't own. Also Bigger ship doesn't mean better ship or advantage. Anyone who plays in the current alpha knows this.

The 27k pack drama it's a non issue, Star Citizen is a game in development by crowdfunding and always sold ship's as a funding source, there has always been different packages for different wallets available since the very first day of kickstarting (2012).

Anyone could buy every single ship available at any time. There was always that possibility. Always! It's nothing new, the only thing that changed is the price of getting "everything" because the "everything" keeps increasing as the game is developed more content is added.

 That CIG made a package that includes all the ships is something that was asked by the people who buy the all. I think it was first called Wing Commander Pack who was 5k at a time goes more ship's appeared became 10k and now is 27k. The only reason it's only shown to backers who have spent 1k before it's because the community asked CIG to. As a regular backer wouldn't be interested in it in the first place. 

It's simply meant to provide to people who had already everything before to get it in a tidy e-package.

And the reason the game looks so good and has such detailed assets is exactly because of this kind of funding. That's where most of the funding goes Art and R&D to develop the engine to do the things it does.




 

MaxBacon

Phaserlight said:

Again, @MaxBacon you are taking my (perhaps poor) analogy in the context of a vertical progression game.

In a horizontal progression game, it's more like two players have the opportunity to sit down and play a game of chess at any point during the day; we each get the same number of turns: the rules are fair. 

One player may have had the opportunity to practice for thousands of hours: it doesn't mean I am never going to beat him even if I have a separate career and only get to play one hour per week. However, I don't mind losing in this instance simply because someone has played a better game than me due to practice. 

On the other hand, if someone can suddenly pay real money to rank a pawn up to a queen in an instant, this defeats the purpose of building skill in the game to begin with. 

I really can't believe this requires any explanation, and it seems my efforts are falling on deaf ears. 

But SC is quite more sandbox on this aspect, there are so many variables, this is no chess game (or excel EvE for that matter), if you are so bothered by that factor alone then don't play it it's that simple. When I backed SC I knew its revenue model already, that lets you put money in the game, and that then game was PvPvE that also known back then, so I'm not sure why continuing to beat the dead horse for all these years just because you don't accept its reality.

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

You can only fly one ship at a time and you an fly ship's that you don't own. Also Bigger ship doesn't mean better ship or advantage. Anyone who plays in the current alpha knows this.

More expensive shps do typically mean better within their class though. We saw this with Arena Commander where the more expensive ship options would dominate, we also saw how the cash weapons from the VD store would give a huge advantage.

A more recent test against a 600i

• $35 - Aurora LN - 11.5s
• $85 - Avenger Warlock (No emp) - 10.2s
• $170 - Sabre - 6.4s
• $180 - Superhornet - 5.0s

Pretty damning if you ask me, pay more for better dps.

Babuinix

What advantage is there? You aren't specifying what will you do, if you like to solo play or group play. We don't know how the running costs of said ship's.

It's too early and really a complete waste of time to "concern" about that lol

The crowdfunding nature of Star Citizen has always been there from the start and will always be. it's nothing new. There will always be people who more time, money and focus/skill than you or me.

This need for "equality" is an illusion but I understand where it comes from.

We're used to see mmorpgs as a virtual climbing into prosperity. Where everyone starts from the very bottom and needs to go through the evolution to get to the "fun" part.

Star Citizen has no levels, I bet it will rely a lot on unlocking access to stuff by reputation unlocks.

All the big ship's rely on multicrew, that means you can have the basic package but you can access any ship, experience any gameplay. You don't have to grind 1000 hours to unlock  X or Y ship and join other players. 

MadFrenchie

rpmcmurphy said:

Babuinix said:

You can only fly one ship at a time and you an fly ship's that you don't own. Also Bigger ship doesn't mean better ship or advantage. Anyone who plays in the current alpha knows this.

More expensive shps do typically mean better within their class though. We saw this with Arena Commander where the more expensive ship options would dominate, we also saw how the cash weapons from the VD store would give a huge advantage.

A more recent test against a 600i

• $35 - Aurora LN - 11.5s
• $85 - Avenger Warlock (No emp) - 10.2s
• $170 - Sabre - 6.4s
• $180 - Superhornet - 5.0s

Pretty damning if you ask me, pay more for better dps.

The idea that ships that cost hundreds of dollars won't be superior to their cheaper counterparts shouldn't even have been questioned.  Again, this goes back to my posting SotA as an example: whales aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.  They're paying the money for advantages, plain and simple.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Pretty damning if you ask me, pay more for better dps.

Waaait... Did you think the ship pledge price was based on what? How pretty the ship looked and not its stats? Hmmm

Also, you're comparing with one of the higher fighters, put the expensive 600i against the Superhornet instead and you'll see 400$ being beaten by 180$, it's a touring ship and a big target.

They're priced based on how good they are at their category, mining, cargo hauling, fighters, etc...

MadFrenchie said:

The idea that ships that cost hundreds of dollars won't be superior to their cheaper counterparts shouldn't even have been questioned.  

Wrong.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Pretty damning if you ask me, pay more for better dps.

Waaait... Did you think the ship pledge price was based on what? How pretty the ship looked and not its stats? Hmmm

Also, you're comparing with one of the higher fighters, put the expensive 600i against the Superhornet instead and you'll see 400$ being beaten by 180$, it's a touring ship and a big target.

They're priced based on how good they are at their category, mining, cargo hauling, fighters, etc...

MadFrenchie said:

The idea that ships that cost hundreds of dollars won't be superior to their cheaper counterparts shouldn't even have been questioned.  

Wrong.

Since we haven't even seen the finished product yet, I would submit that you can't make any promises here.

EDIT- pricing them based on how good they are at their respective roles is exactly stratification based on power level.....  Just because there's more than one type of ship (mining, fighter, etc.), it doesn't absolve that.  The fact that you say this then tell me I'm wrong is an example of superb cognitive dissonance.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Since we haven't even seen the finished product yet, I would submit that you can't make any promises here.

The pricing is based on the ship focus, the global pricing is not based on DPS unless you're just looking at the price of the fighters alone, then yes.

Just look at the cargo transport ships, from the cheapest Argo, to Hull A, Hull B, Hull C and Hull D. (30$, 60$, 90$, 200$ and 350$) the best at cargo hauling is the most expensive, that's how the pledges are priced.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Since we haven't even seen the finished product yet, I would submit that you can't make any promises here.

The pricing is based on the ship focus, the global pricing is not based on DPS unless you're just looking at the price of the fighters alone, then yes.

Just look at the cargo transport ships, from the cheapest Argo, to Hull A, Hull B, Hull C and Hull D. (30$, 60$, 90$, 200$ and 350$) the best at cargo hauling is the most expensive, that's how the pledges are priced.

Which is still paying for the advantage, having more than one ship role and not having an end-all be-all ship doesn't absolve that...

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:
How pretty the ship looked and not its stats? Hmmm

Which is the very epitome of pay to win.

MaxBacon said:

Also, you're comparing with one of the higher fighters, put the expensive 600i against the Superhornet instead and you'll see 400$ being beaten by 180$, it's a touring ship and a big target.

Max, this was solely a dps test.
The times given are how long it takes each ship to blow up a 600i hull.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Which is still paying for the advantage, having more than one ship role and not having an end-all be-all ship doesn't absolve that...

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to made a more thoughtful argument than the most obvious thing that if you buy a higher tier ship you get the advantage of playing with it from the start. I guess we would have been through that after years of beating this dead horse on the forum but I guess not...

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Which is still paying for the advantage, having more than one ship role and not having an end-all be-all ship doesn't absolve that...

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to made a more thoughtful argument than the most obvious thing that if you buy a higher tier ship you get the advantage of playing with it from the start. I guess we would have been through that after years of beating this dead horse on the forum but I guess not...

Yet people such as yourself have argued for years that more money does not get you a bigger advantage, completely contrary to what we are seeing. You (and many others) have always argued that it comes down to skill before anything else.
Now that some stats are posted you flip your argument around like some damn weathervane in variable winds...

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Which is still paying for the advantage, having more than one ship role and not having an end-all be-all ship doesn't absolve that...

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to made a more thoughtful argument than the most obvious thing that if you buy a higher tier ship you get the advantage of playing with it from the start. I guess we would have been through that after years of beating this dead horse on the forum but I guess not...

There's not really a more thoughtful argument to be made.  That's pretty cut and dry.  Let's actually make an analogy to, say, ESO.  Do you think players would've been A-Okay had Zeni introduced "pledge armor sets" you could only get through paying cash, ones that were objectively superior for their respective roles than others?

To make it even more apropos: what about Ultima, where you could lose it, and where players could grind for it?  Do you still think that no one would have an issue with being able to purchase armor sets that were objectively superior the more you spend?  What if some of those purchases came with a guarantee that if you lose said armor, you can get another set ad infinitum without having to shell out more cash each time?

EDIT- your position here is kind of case in point reference @Phaserlight's mention of boiling frogs (well, kind of).  It's okay, because it's not the most completely egregious version possible.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

There's not really a more thoughtful argument to be made.  That's pretty cut and dry.  Let's actually make an analogy to, say, ESO.  Do you think players would've been A-Okay had Zeni introduced "pledge armor sets" you could only get through paying cash, ones that were objectively superior for their respective roles than others?

To make it even more apropos: what about Ultima, where you could lose it, and where players could grind for it?  Do you still think that no one would have an issue with being able to purchase armor sets that were objectively superior the more you spend?  What if some of those purchases came with a guarantee that if you lose said armor, you can get another set ad infinitum without having to shell out more cash each time?

Yes, if ESO was a crowdfunded MMO that had to be funded as it developed, people expect rewards from pledges, and if what was being given was rewards for the pledges would be the same players would earn by playing the game.

The advantage is more of an one-time thing once the game releases, it would not differ much from what it would be if you joined that MMO after it released. The real controversy would be, if they actually sold such after they released the game, and especially so if you could only get them through paying cash.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

There's not really a more thoughtful argument to be made.  That's pretty cut and dry.  Let's actually make an analogy to, say, ESO.  Do you think players would've been A-Okay had Zeni introduced "pledge armor sets" you could only get through paying cash, ones that were objectively superior for their respective roles than others?

To make it even more apropos: what about Ultima, where you could lose it, and where players could grind for it?  Do you still think that no one would have an issue with being able to purchase armor sets that were objectively superior the more you spend?  What if some of those purchases came with a guarantee that if you lose said armor, you can get another set ad infinitum without having to shell out more cash each time?

Yes, if ESO was a crowdfunded MMO that had to be funded as it developed, people expect rewards from pledges, and if what was being given was rewards for the pledges would be the same players would earn by playing the game.

The advantage is more of an one-time thing once the game releases, it would not differ much from what it would be if you joined that MMO after it released. The real controversy would be, if they actually sold such after they released the game, and especially so if you could only get them through paying cash.

Absolutely, but again, check my edit.  It's okay, because it's not the most egregious version possible.

To be sure, my point isn't just applicable to SC.  It's an inherent flaw of design that's shown throughout crowdfunding, specifically whenever there's player competition involved.  These situations are becoming tiresome to players, as I've seen Iselin and Torval (for two) post about how they have grown to intensely dislike the way developers have continued to implement these things and saturate games with it in one form or another.

MadFrenchie

To refer back to the boiling frog, it's akin to saying: "Nah, it's okay.  The water's not quite boiling."  Ignoring the fact that the water doesn't have to be boiling to burn you.

kikoodutroa8

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Pretty damning if you ask me, pay more for better dps.

Waaait... Did you think the ship pledge price was based on what? How pretty the ship looked and not its stats? Hmmm

Also, you're comparing with one of the higher fighters, put the expensive 600i against the Superhornet instead and you'll see 400$ being beaten by 180$, it's a touring ship and a big target.

They're priced based on how good they are at their category, mining, cargo hauling, fighters, etc...

MadFrenchie said:

The idea that ships that cost hundreds of dollars won't be superior to their cheaper counterparts shouldn't even have been questioned.  

Wrong.

Stop saying SC is p2w, you fudster goon.

Octagon7711

In my book, anything that can be purchased with real world money that has high stats attached to it and is not just fluff is P2W.  Also no game will admit it.  

Durzax

Oh, look the "Pay to Win" broken record bullshit is back.

I am so going to laugh my ass off when you "Pay to Win" numb-nuts get your asses handed to you by the Vanduul,  Xi'an, Banu, Bounty hunters guild, UEE Navy, Corporation vessels, Kr'thak, Rival Criminal groups, and the remnants of the Tevarin.

I have proof, download and install Freelancer with crossfire mod, ship and area unlock mods then  make nice with the Xenos faction. See how far you get.  

Eldurian

MadFrenchie said:

Eldurian said:

MightyUnclean said:

I keep seeing all these pics with incredible detail and resolution.  Does anyone believe that this will be how things actually look in-game?  That a modern desktop is capable of running something like this in-motion with dozens of other players on the screen?  It doesn't make sense.

This comment in a nutshell capsulizes how ignorant the SC anti-fanboys. I didn't even need to read his response to know that many of these pictures are taken by people in-game. They have delivered substantially more than most anti-fanboys seem to be aware of.

And somewhere between fanboy and anti-fanboy lies a lot of healthy skepticism about the management of the project.  Land ownership wasn't a stretch goal, it was feature creep introduced to sell more stuff to backers.  There's no way you can read that stretch goal I posted and think it implies a land deed system.  That was added by CIG to monetize.

For a game with over 100 stretch goals already, adding more shit like that is ludicrous.  That's not a small system to add.  In fact, it's given pretty much every MMORPG that's ever implemented it fits.  Yet, it was added here outta the blue and immediately served up for cash to backers through land deeds.

@MadFrenchie - How is this response in any way related to what you quoted?

MightyUnclean - "You must be some kind of idiot to believe this is what it will look like in-game."

Me - "The many portions of the game that are playable DO look like that."

You - *Unrelated rant about feature creep which I never mentioned here.*

RPMcMurphy - "Derp! I'm going to agree with this because he said something negative about Star Citizen!"

Arglebargle

Erillion said:

BeansnBread said:

Erillion said:

MadFrenchie said:

Erillion said:

The very first iteration - before start of crowdfunding - spoke about 2014. This was supposed to be a much smaller and more focussed game. Then the crowdfunding campaign broke all records and 100+ Stretch Goals were added, with explicit and vocal support by a majority of the fans. It was absolutely clear that this much larger game will take longer. Still ... this "2014" is brought up dozens of times every year, out of context and usually for propaganda purposes. 

Star Citizen is currently in Alpha. As of today Alpha 3.2 on Live Servers, playable for all backers. 


Have fun

(Emphasis added by me)

CR doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "feature creep."

It was the fans that demanded even MORE stretch goals .... CIG had to announce a stop to extra stretch goals. 

They did what we told them to do. 

Have fun

"We." lol. Feature creep has gone WAY past stretch goals.

What feature does not come from a stretch goal ? Procedural generation comes from stretch goal, development of new ships comes from various stretch goals, in game communication comes from stretch goal (the facial rig thing is a unique and new approach to fulfilling such stretch goals) etc. 


Have fun

Which, at the time, Roberts had no earthly idea how they'd implement.   

Several goals are already in the dustbin (though you could argue that as rare examples of good decision making). 

Trying to claim, with a straight face, that Roberts isn't the poster child for feature creep??  It's an unbecoming look.   

Eldurian

I will go on record in say, there is no room for a reasonable person to believe there is any substantial chance Star Citizen will never release based on the content available at this point.

There is room for a reasonable person to believe CIG may fold and have to sell what they have to another publisher.

There is room for a reasonable person to believe much of what is not already in-game will get cut in order get something released.

But if you believe at this point that this game will never come out in any form, you either aren't aware of what has been built already, or ARE delusional. Period. End of story. If you believe anything else you aren't even worth debating because you clearly know almost nothing about this game or live in a fantasy land.

Feature creep is a concern. But it isn't going to stop a mostly developed game from launching.