relapse808
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,706
And you know all this information by playing the full game correct?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Star Citizen - media blowout, Chris Robert's new game
- Thread starter LeviathanZERO
- Start date
And you know all this information by playing the full game correct?
its just math, you dont need to play it to know the odds of running into one are really low.
Lizard Testes
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 550
Yeah well as soon as the "game" actually works like that, let us know. Repeating Robberts theorycrafting quotes from 4 years ago about how everything is going to work isn't gonna carry a lot of weight with any of the non faithful.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,623
For those who may be interested, here is a general site link, as well as a really in depth PDF on the in-world "Xi'an" language (a non-human race with a considerable amount of lore) - https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...n-Overview-Of-The-Xian-Language-For-Diplomats
Clicking on the PDF linked there shows the extraordinary depth given to the creation of in-universe languages and lore; I seem to recall a stretch goal to make this possible way back when, including the hiring of linguists and writers. Its particularly notable that Xi'an, as its name would suggest, is linguistically inspired by the tonal Asian languages; an ambitious decision. I am sure there are some who are figuring "who cares", but this is the kind of thing that shows the commitment to crafting an excellent game world that entices so many, not unlike how full language studies can be done on Tolkien's Elvish and similar dialects, or the languages of the Star Trek universe such as Klingon. I can't believe I have to repeat this yet again but to head off any "why don't they make the game first, wasting time on this etc.." talk, first of all it was a stretch goal way back when they're making good upon, secondly they spend a lot of time on in-universe lore posts of which this is the latest, and finally the people who are developing these aspects of the game are far from the developers working on the underlying engine, flight mechanics, modelers etc... so it isn't like those linguists and writers are holding 3.0 back because they're making a primer on a language!
Especially as someone who plays a lot of MMORPGs and enjoys the roleplaying aspect, this is a neat thing to see. Know that you can fully play and enjoy Star Citizen without knowing a word of Xi'an I'm sure (though I admit it would be cool to find some secrets that required translation..). I am curious how Xi'an will compare to the Banu (which may get a similar level of language presence in game). Not sure if the Teverin will be granted something similar, but we know the Vanduul (the majority hostile) race has a writing system of glyphs already - not sure how much farther it will go in terms of explaining the language.
In any event, those with any linguistic curiosity check out the document - its depth is really quite extraordinary and not unlike that given to diplomats who may need a "more than conversational, less than true lifetime mastery" fluency of Chinese might start out by reading, absorbing the language and culture alike in the process.
Clicking on the PDF linked there shows the extraordinary depth given to the creation of in-universe languages and lore; I seem to recall a stretch goal to make this possible way back when, including the hiring of linguists and writers. Its particularly notable that Xi'an, as its name would suggest, is linguistically inspired by the tonal Asian languages; an ambitious decision. I am sure there are some who are figuring "who cares", but this is the kind of thing that shows the commitment to crafting an excellent game world that entices so many, not unlike how full language studies can be done on Tolkien's Elvish and similar dialects, or the languages of the Star Trek universe such as Klingon. I can't believe I have to repeat this yet again but to head off any "why don't they make the game first, wasting time on this etc.." talk, first of all it was a stretch goal way back when they're making good upon, secondly they spend a lot of time on in-universe lore posts of which this is the latest, and finally the people who are developing these aspects of the game are far from the developers working on the underlying engine, flight mechanics, modelers etc... so it isn't like those linguists and writers are holding 3.0 back because they're making a primer on a language!
Especially as someone who plays a lot of MMORPGs and enjoys the roleplaying aspect, this is a neat thing to see. Know that you can fully play and enjoy Star Citizen without knowing a word of Xi'an I'm sure (though I admit it would be cool to find some secrets that required translation..). I am curious how Xi'an will compare to the Banu (which may get a similar level of language presence in game). Not sure if the Teverin will be granted something similar, but we know the Vanduul (the majority hostile) race has a writing system of glyphs already - not sure how much farther it will go in terms of explaining the language.
In any event, those with any linguistic curiosity check out the document - its depth is really quite extraordinary and not unlike that given to diplomats who may need a "more than conversational, less than true lifetime mastery" fluency of Chinese might start out by reading, absorbing the language and culture alike in the process.
Last edited:
Much sleeker, cockpit view looks nice. Hopefully the made it much easier to get in and out of. Never picked one up as it was a bit goofy and I kept getting stuck in the entry lol.New Mustang, all current and future owners will be getting this new updated version just like the recently improved Aurora.
How much they got you for?
New Mustang, all current and future owners will be getting this new updated version just like the recently improved Aurora.
Old/Current version for reference:
You know something has gone wrong when they have to start refreshing graphics and models to that degree because the development cycle has gone on too long. I'm sort of kidding. The real problem as I see it, is that once again CIG is working on all these finishing touches like model tweaking, replacement and cockpit animations rather than building what the game really needs to be an actual game. With Star Citizen's developers working like this, Star Citizen will never be finished.
It's a valid question. There are a lot of people who have spent hundreds, even thousands of dollars on this "game" before there was anything to play. It's a point of interest, and by no means does anyone have to answer that question. I'm in it for $45. A friend of mine is in it for somewhere around 2-3k easily. Possibly more.
TroubleMagnet
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 535
The new reworked mustang also will have real landing gear instead of landing on the wings. A big reason they needed to rework it was the wings-as-landing-gear didn't work for the uneven planetary surfaces. Really didn't work so well on the flat landing pads either.
That's the kind of thing you make a note of to fix later. You know, after bulk of the game is actually built and you have time to circle back around to stuff like that. Leading with fixes like that make no sense when you've got a game universe to build and populate.
In theory, yeah, but because nearly all of their funding is generated from these ships that do and do not exist, you have to think they place a high priority on designing and redesigning them.
Ship creation > gameplay for these gents.
TroubleMagnet
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 535
So the backers with only mustangs should be happy with massive bugs in 3.0 when all the other ships in the game are working? Also you do know the people working on the ship redesigns are mostly 3D artists and animators, not programmers, right? So them working on it may delay other ships getting in game but not bug fixes or say the mining, repair or fuel harvesting mechanics.
I agree that's why they are doing shit this way. The problem is, it doesn't seem like they'll ever finish doing it that way.
Again, I've quoted the patch notes. 3.0 isn't going to be full of sweet Jesus jizz or whatever the hardcore fans think it offers. 3.0 has a few moons, which I'll wager are proceedurally generated and have nothing to do on them. The patch list is full of bullshit like cockpit animations which are tweaks usually reserved for the polishing stage of the game. That's something you do AFTER the fucking game is built. Not before. One of the many red flags with this project's development is the order things are being done in. They are so concerned with giving people something to play, they are working on polish before the bulk of the game is even built. Frankly, a lot of this stuff can be fixed after the game's released or when they've got a larger percentage of it complete. It barely seems like they've got the core of the thing actually built yet. Again, what I've seen is pre-alpha level prototyping. This isn't the time to polish things.
And yes, I realize that the people who work on animations, textures and models aren't programmers. However, building the assets is a large chunk of the game's development. Especially for a project this ambitious. It's clear that they concentrate on ship designs and polish simply for the purpose of selling more of that stuff to raise additional funds. Again, I can understand this, but it's also baffling as CIG is so far behind schedule that people should really be concerned about the project's future. I can't believe anyone would throw money at this right now. Much less, drop 850.00+ on something virtual for a game that will have an unknown time to completion, might not even be fun, with a market life span which hasn't started yet, and might not last.
BTW: I actually have a Mustang, and was gifted the 300I with LTI. That's all I have in my hanger. To be honest, I don't think there is enough to do in the game to worry about the quality of my Mustang at present. I'd rather them get the game squared away before tweaking the ship. It seems obvious that they are adjusting this ship because just about everyone has it, so it effects the backers and looks like progress. Again, this is a smoke and mirrors type tactic to make it look like more is happening behind the scenes than there is.
Last edited:
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,887
I can't really disagree...they are spending a lot of time tweaking existing ships and models and not enough time on actual gameplay mechanics.
And that's exactly my point. Tech demos like the ones they keep showing are always for shit we can't actually play yet. We keep hearing "wait for 3.0" from ardent fans when 3.0 isn't going to bring us that much of a game, nor even what's in most of the tech demos.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I'd agree with that. What I do think it will bring though is a better cross-section of what will be on offer later. Don't take this as a timeline apologist statement. This thing, if it gets done, will take as long as it takes, and no less. I don't want to discuss that. However, I think you'll finally be able to do a little bit of most of the sorts of things you can do in the final (if there is such a thing) game in 3.0. Just not much of any one thing maybe.
My thoughts on 3.0 are based on the patch notes themselves. There is nothing in those notes to indicate that it will contain enough content to get a real sense of what the final game will be like, or what it may offer.
Plus I think the game play mechanics and ship modeling/art are a different studios or at least different departments so I don't think a lot of resources are lost on tweaking ships. That being said they do really rework their ships a ton.
Honestly I have to say the mustang is my least favorite ship it looks like a spaceship version of a star ship troopers bug.
Honestly I have to say the mustang is my least favorite ship it looks like a spaceship version of a star ship troopers bug.
drklu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,892
CIG must realize that 3.0 will be a turning point for them to put something out amazing. If they don't they are going to face a lot more scrutiny then they already have.
Not true. The work has to be paid for. It's a question of where you put your money and when. I think they are doing it backwards simply to try and secure more funding given the way the game's paid for. I think the game has pulled in enough money to get most of the way there, and if that's not the case then money has been squandered. That's my opinion anyway.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,887
Aurora got updated? Looks the same on the website - do you have a link or a pic by chance?
Cocaine, luxury trips and designer furniture aren't free. And hiding your assets behind multiple fictional companies and entities isn't fishy at all....Hey, look at that new flashy ship JPEG!
What was I saying?
This has been kind of my point.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,623
I actually find this to be one of the most refreshing things about the game. For the past decade, conventional development has been "get it to whatever definition of Done we can manage, and out the bloody door. Fix it later. Maybe. And don't forget to cut out the Season Pass content on the way!" , so watching CIG upend that and put experience first, I find commendable.
Yes, there is a cost including time, but to make an imperfect analogy, much of the gaming industry is basically "fast food and chain restaurants". You can go there, get something to eat fast and familiar, but its made with low quality ingredients with lots of fillers, artificial colors/flavor etc. It can taste good especially if your pallet is used to it (or they're using "tricks" like MSG and way too much salt, sugar, and low-quality fats), but there's a significant health cost to eating this way. CIG is a little hole-in-the-wall-place that was making something so different they attracted lots of investment to bring their vision to life, unshackled. They're slowly in the process of opening an upscale eatery and going for a Michelin star. They're using healthful top quality ingredients from the local organic/health food co-op and other specialty sources like Tsukiji fish market, prepared by skilled chefs towards a particular vision. Yes, it costs more and takes more time to do it this way, but the outcome is much more healthful (even when it comes to things like dessert) and delicious.. However, if you're setting up your metrics to rate the latter by the "rules" of the former, you'd claim that it would fail/couldn't possibly work; on the taste side, it would be like someone who primarily eats BigMacs calling Wagyu beef "yucky" or saying "WTF! This costs a fortune and isn't so great!" after insisting on it well done and drowning it it ketchup. Sure, the final downtown big city restaurant is still in construction, but CIG has been serving upcoming menu items from there at their little shop and they're looking impressive and showing progress - despite some claiming that until they sit for a whole prix fixe dinner at the chef's table, nothing matters. Sure, not every restaurant can be a Michelin-starred place, and most people can't afford or wouldn't want to eat someplace that flies the fish in from Tokyo's Tsukiji Fish Market every night, but they have an important role. Furthermore, what CIG is doing has inspired a whole generation of aspiring chefs to start their hole-in-the-wall places and food trucks; they don't have to sell out and buy a fast food franchise or operate that way, nor do they have to take risks as big as CIG, they can carve out a nice place for themselves making a few authentic dishes with quality ingredients that excite them creatively. So yeah, I'm sure some people won't see it this way but perhaps just another way to think of things.
I'd venture that this isn't actually "taking more time than planned / drawing things out" but rather, simply ensuring that all game content is at the same level of quality. For the first two years of its development/crowdfunding there were a lot of questions of just how much they'd be able to do by their budgets. They put forth stretch goals and asked people to contribute and the backers voted with their wallets, most of them with small bills no less but in huge volume that yes, they wanted the unparalleled depth and the furthest realization of the vision possible. Unlike most games, Star Citizen has been developed pretty much entirely in the spotlight, so we get to see things that happen in most other devs but in the shadows - things like changing the engine, or writing a new backend or netcode etc. Part of Star Citizen's design ethos is that there are a lot of important game systems that have to all work together and in concert and as these improvements come along, so must others. For instance, the new shipboard UI or MobiGLASS systems, the properly distributed "conduits" for power etc... become implemented, or the Cargo system is added.... all means refreshing vessels to work with them. Likewise, it ensures that all ships (and other content, but we'll stick with ships for the discussion) have the same quality level regardless of early design etc. Longtime owners of the Cutlass, Freelancer, or especially Constellation have seen it go through a remarkable change since we could first walk around it in our Hangar modules. They've gotten larger, more intricate etc... to accommodate the expanded systems aforementioned, and to be on the same level as later-created ships. Imagine if they had stuck a label of "done" on Constellation 1.0 - people would rightly be up in arms when they compared it to later generation ships in a similar price/feature bracket like the Banu Merchantman.
Through their open development and the upgrading of technology, ships etc... backers can see progress and get more for their money, literally and figuratively, as well as better represent the new features and quality of the universe. This applies universally, with owners of basic Aurora / Mustang packages enjoying visually, functionally, and size/interior/form upgraded ships, to the likes of the Idris changing from a Corvette to a Frigate and its interiors and size expanding in kind. Most of Star Citizen's technical systems are hierarchical and interdependent and in many cases, have not yet arrived for public testing. Consider the Cargo system and all its complexities (too much for me to go into here, but there are documents for those curious) far beyond any other game today is just debuting in its first major iteration for Alpha 3.0. Every ship must be made compliant, in some manner, even those that have "zero cargo room" - for instance, if a player attempts to cram a crate behind the seat where it may physically fit but isn't a cargo area or "lockdown point", all the systems need to be in place for physics, onboard damage etc... if the player takes off anyway and the movement causes the loose crate to bash into the canopy or hit your gunner in the back of the head! Likewise, consider that the older model of Cutlass did not have a cargo area compliant with the planned cargo system, and so another iteration was born taking this into account alongside other gameplay and enjoyment factors, which meant a larger ship with a larger bay; something similar is happening with the Freelancer too.
From what' I've seen, this attention to detail I consider a plus, despite the extended time. "Doing it right" often takes more time than otherwise and unlike most other game companies CIG exposes their entire process of development to backers so we can see the intermediary steps (some people, not knowing they are intermediary) and progress, leading some to question if they were wasting time or money on the previous iterations. Like any dev, I'm sure they've made mistakes along the way, but from what I've seen thus far, it appears they're moving in the right direction and their attention to detail, though it comes at cost including time, seems to be worthwhile. Despite the usual controversy still being present, individual players and publications alike have grown more and more impressed with the results of Star Citizen development, as the vision begins to take shape in a playable form; I expect this to only continue with 3.0 and beyond and hope CIG continues to put that ethos and player experience first.
Lizard Testes
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 550
So you give people a loaner which they already do for other ships. This isn't rocket surgery.
Lizard Testes
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 550
Bingo. They can't finish the game because they're spending so much time and money reworking shit to get enough money to finish the game.
Crobblerts said that every dollar given to him is like giving 4 dollars to a publisher but I suspect it's actually going to end up being the opposite due to the no doubt tens of millions of dollars they've spent reworking shit multiple times and doing final polish/bug testing type stuff for every release that they wouldn't have to do if they weren't crowdfunding and having to get progress out the door on a regular basis. Add another big pile of money towards Crobbits perfection tax, and the fact that he'd apparently rather be making a feature film than a video game, and I think instead of getting a 800m dollar game for your 200m dollars, you're gonna end up with a 100m dollar game for your 200m dollars.
You shouldn't commend mismanagement and a lack of progress and direction with the project. There is a reason why there is an established process for these things. No game is perfect, and if you don't concentrate on the main body of work the game will never be finished. With games, a development cycle that goes on too long will negatively impact how it's received. A game that's seriously dated graphically when it comes out will be less appealing to the masses. Graphics aren't everything, but time is a factor when developing games. Star Citizen was always going to have a long cycle due to being ambitous. Ambition, that's reach has exceeded it's grasp. In the corporate world, they'd have reigned in the feature creep. You can bitch about corporate greed all you want, but management, and accountability get projects done. Like most things, there is a balance between one extreme or the other. Star Citizen, has less content than the Battlefront (2017) beta and it took more than twice as long to get that far. EA often pushes too hard and leaves games unfinished, and the proper balance is somewhere in the middle between the unfocused, undisiplined pace of Star Citizen's development and your average CoD sequel.
Use whatever analogy you wish. Star Citizen's feature creep needs to be reigned in, and the project needs decisive direction in order to ever see the light of day. The day is coming when the money's dried up and people will quit buying JPEG's of ships for a game that can't be finished because the development resources were squandered and totally mismanaged.
Horseshit. The game is taking longer than planned. CIG and Chris Roberts announced various milestone dates for portions of the project to be comeplete. Squadron 42 is an example of that. It's YEARS late. How is not not "taking more time than planned / drawing things out"? Same level of quality? I will grant you that the visual quality is stunning. I've run what exists of the "game" on my machine as recently as yesterday, and I would agree that it's visually stunning but calling it "quality" is laughable at best. What we have amounts to little more than a multiplayer map, two relatively small areas to walk around on, a hanger module, and a couple of ships we can fly around in an unfinished, empty universe. My rig hasn't had problems with games. It does not crash. I haven't seen BSOD's or any bullshit since putting it together. Star Citizen crashes all the fucking time. It's unoptimized (and that's fine given the stage of development), but you can't call the black screens, crashing to desktop, and other issues as being indicative of a high level of quality. It's about on par with most pre-alpha content I've seen, and worse than some.
isn't actually "taking more time than planned / drawing things out"For the first two years of its development/crowdfunding there were a lot of questions of just how much they'd be able to do by their budgets. They put forth stretch goals and asked people to contribute and the backers voted with their wallets, most of them with small bills no less but in huge volume that yes, they wanted the unparalleled depth and the furthest realization of the vision possible. [/QUOTE]
When a game is planned, the developers in charge of things often have wild imaginations and visions of what they want done. Along the way, things get scaled back when they realize they can't implement things due to techincal, time or budget constraints. The problem is, that Star Citizen's budget grew out of hand and so did the feature creep. It's reached a point where it's ready to implode. Effectively, they are trying to make an MMO with graphics that are better than that of any AAA title.
Smoke and mirrors. Where has all the money been spent? The developers do things to make it seem like they are being transparent, and have a lot of excuses and very little reason for not being further along. The "content" you are referring to like conduits for power and cockpit control animations are bullet points for patch notes that fluff those notes into looking bigger than they really are. Again, what we have is little more than a multiplayer map or two, empty space with two unfinished space stations, and a few ships in various stages of polish. That's it. There isn't much here and 3.0's patch notes show little evidence of that changing.
You are making excuses for them. The reality is, Star Citizen is less polished, and has far less content than the beta for Battlefront II (2017) with more than double the development time. Star Citizen's development is years behind even CIG's own estimates, and again, the patch notes for 3.0 are fluff that show very little progress. 3.0 is yet another iteration that's WAY behind on the projected time table. This project is in trouble. Any project that's wasted this much money and born so little fruit should concern anyone with an interest in it. CIG and Chris Roberts are in my opinion, worse about managing money than the U.S. government.
Lorien
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,197
It wasn't completely redesigned, it got updated/cleaned up geometry inside/outside as well a new materials and texturing to bring it on par to the same quality of the newer ships. The MFD's got hooked up to the Item 2.0 system plus it got the shock absorbing landing gear that all ships will get in 3.0, and some other minor/polish changes. It is featured in the CitizenCon Demo so you can watch that to get an idea of what has changed.
I also grabbed the 2 latest albums from the vault showing the WIP:
https://imgur.com/a/f2bsV
And here's some more showing different variants and skins:
Pirate skin
Aurora ES
Aurora LX
Midnight skin
Aurora LN
Aurora MR
UEE Navy skin
Operation Pitchfork skin
Last edited:
Yikes, I forgot to sign in before coming to the thread again and my troll filter was down. I thought the trolls had lost interest by now. That's one hell of a commitment from them, waiting with baited breath for a project to fail year after year hahaha. Cross your fingers my trolli pals, one day if you work even harder and huff and puff your little lungs out, your dreams may come true, doubtful but possible. 
That planet and city tech looks absolutly amazing. The pioneer sounds like it opens up a lot of different gameplay options long-term. I wonder just how much they will let us build up the colonies.
Just completed my new 8700k PC build, can't wait to mess around in 3.0. I wish that Intel SSD would have come with another ship,. I was trying to justify the cost over a Samsung 960, but I just don't care for the Sabre
That planet and city tech looks absolutly amazing. The pioneer sounds like it opens up a lot of different gameplay options long-term. I wonder just how much they will let us build up the colonies.
Just completed my new 8700k PC build, can't wait to mess around in 3.0. I wish that Intel SSD would have come with another ship,. I was trying to justify the cost over a Samsung 960, but I just don't care for the Sabre
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
Yikes, I forgot to sign in before coming to the thread again and my troll filter was down. I thought the trolls had lost interest by now. That's one hell of a commitment from them, waiting with baited breath for a project to fail year after year hahaha. Cross your fingers my trolli pals, one day if you work even harder and huff and puff your little lungs out, your dreams may come true, doubtful but possible.
That planet and city tech looks absolutly amazing. The pioneer sounds like it opens up a lot of different gameplay options long-term. I wonder just how much they will let us build up the colonies.
Just completed my new 8700k PC build, can't wait to mess around in 3.0. I wish that Intel SSD would have come with another ship,. I was trying to justify the cost over a Samsung 960, but I just don't care for the Sabre
No, still haven't lost interest. Still here from having absolutely nothing from the $230 I gave during the Kickstarter. You can call us 'trolls' all you want. At the end of the day we were day 1 donors who were promised something completely different and should have had a released playable product (SQ42) by now.
I'm mad because the original intent was to have a narrow focus on releasing SQ42 first. That was a reasonable goal and it's why I donated my money.
Imagine for a moment that you donate your money to Girl Scouts of America. Imagine that you find out the money hasn't gone towards running events to educate girls but was instead used to sell them into the sex trade and get them addicted to crack cocaine. Far worse situation, I know, but that's basically how I see my donation to RSI right now. They've wasted our money on stuff that could be completely unrelated to the development of the game at this point. A studio move from Texas to California for no good reason other then Chris Robinson and his Wife wanted the night life of Hollywood.
Last edited:
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,357
It wasn't completely redesigned, it got updated/cleaned up geometry inside/outside as well a new materials and texturing to bring it on par to the same quality of the newer ships. The MFD's got hooked up to the Item 2.0 system plus it got the shock absorbing landing gear that all ships will get in 3.0, and some other minor/polish changes. It is featured in the CitizenCon Demo so you can watch that to get an idea of what has changed.
I also grabbed the 2 latest albums from the vault showing the WIP:
https://imgur.com/a/f2bsV
And here's some more showing different variants and skins:
Pirate skin
Aurora ES
Aurora LX
Midnight skin
Aurora LN
Aurora MR
UEE Navy skin
Operation Pitchfork skin
Still one fugly POS. Of all the ships to be fugly, why one of the starters?
Lorien
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,197
Yup it's ugly lol but it is quite durable and can take quite a beating. It's the typical small hauler that gets you ready to run cargo missions with minimal investment. You can upgrade it to an LN cheaply and that little thing packs quite a punch, it literally doubles its firepower going from 2 weapons and 2 missiles to 4 weapons and 4 missiles and much stronger shielding without sacrificing cargo space.
Still one fugly POS. Of all the ships to be fugly, why one of the starters?
They want you to be motivated and proud to get into a sexy ship so you can get the space chicks lol.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,623
In response to DanD...
Your responses make sense if this was "normal" game being funded by a "normal AAA publisher" - but that's not what it was envisioned/funded to be by developers or (many) backers. I grant that there needs to be good project management and that feature creep is a potential issue for any developer, but I don't see evidence for this. CIG started with an idea and began to obtain crowdfunding. Now, they had some "baseline" designs and timetables for the game predicated on the minimum funding goals; I see a lot of critics refer back to these as anything beyond evidence of "feature creep" erroneously. However, as I said before in the first 2+ years of development, funding continued at an astonishing pace and stretch goal after stretch goal was achieved. Hell, they even came to a point when they specifically stopped making new stretch goals despite ongoing funding, which should be evidence for reining in feature creep. During this time and through this funding many backers showed they wanted a much greater scope and vision, opened their wallets to prove it, and now CIG updated their plans features etc. I'd venture to say that I wouldn't consider the baseline framework for planned features to be complete until the start of 2014 at the earliest for instance and since then , they haven't been tacking on additional features - they've been building the ones on the docket. Yes, there are many of them but they didn't just appear without thought or appear impossible to provide - they were added when there was money and drive to do so from both CIG and the backers themselves.
Ever since Star Citizen became controversial in the eyes of some, there has been the continual cry that "the money is almost gone". I don't see any evidence of this being the case aside from armchair economists who work out some voodoo budgeting that with X players and Y pledges they can only have Z dollars left - which is overly simplistic in a number of ways and doesn't take a lot of public-announced facets into account (ie their tax breaks, the way the company is organized and with Squadron 42 / Studio 42 having separate funding, the amount of financial sector resources they have etc), not to mention the things only kept internally. They do not appear to be limping from month to month backed on latest ship sales in the past, nor currently. The people who used to claim "Its a scam!" switched over to "They're going to run out of money!" and if that actually happens I'll happily admit my mistake, but the doomsaying has gone on forever and doesn't seem to be getting any more credible.
When I was speaking of "same level of quality" I meant in terms of game assets across generation, as I spoke about. Going back to modernize (visually or functionally) earlier developed content isn't simply adding superfluous "new" creeping content, but simply to ensure that all content is at a similar level of quality. Lots of the industry doesn't do this and it can be more or less visible depending on the particular game and situation, but when you have a game system that seems to be tacked on or doesn't "fit" sometimes lacking this is the reason. I'm glad we agree that the visual quality is excellent, but the rest of the critique makes no sense as it is applied to a non-feature-complete alpha; Crashes lack of optimization etc... doesn't mean that they're lacking quality or developing incorrectly... in fact, if they polished each alpha build to a mirror sheen I'm sure that many would criticize them for wasting effort on content likely to evolve and they'd be more justified in doing so than many other criticisms I've seen.
When it comes to discussing their progress, surmising that they're only "pretending" to be open or haven't developed much content seems to suggest either an ignorance of the design ethos or an inability to value those elements. You're correct that they're "building a MMO with better graphics than most AAA", but they're also attempting to make many never-before-seen features and depth. Many of these systems are built in such a way that they need others to be present - Think of it like a skyscraper. The "building" will just appear to be a random pattern of bricks over a wide area, then as the foundations are built, varying structures and supports are added, it will slowly take shape before growing taller and taller, and will still look much like a framework, with occasional hookups for electrical, plumbing etc It won't look like a magnificent building it was planned to be until its nearly fully finished! Aside from the issues with criticizing the lack of content in what is a (technically, pre) alpha, its noteworthy that these features I listed aren't just important to the hierarchical design and the eventual features, they are much more involved than most other games so it isn't a good comparison. For instance, in many titles an aircraft or spacecraft doesn't have a fully modeled and realistic, destructable set of conduits, wires etc... instead, its a simulation. Its far easier to make a craft give the illusion of damage by having it smoke and maybe change a model or two, while the math behind the scene is "If hit in this hitbox with this damage, do X amount of harm to chassis, reduce engine power 25% etc..". Conversely, if you shoot the left wing of my fighter, maybe you''ll hit the fully modeled interrior conduits and depending on which of those, it will affect power, shield etc.. and what is connected to what, logically and via physics; not to mention my ship is now imbalanced, thrusters and flaps may be inoperable, I may be venting atmosphere etc.... there's a LOT more going on here! For a similar example, take how the average player gets into a vehicle in many FPS that have them - they walk up to the model of the vehicle, press E and pop instantly into the cockpit! Star Citizen on the other hand doesn't do this - you walk up to the spacecraft and depending on that particular craft - ground or space based, there will be one or more animations. On the Hornet fighter, our avatar presses the right button on the right place, the cockpit dome swings up and a ladder extends from the side of the fighter. Once ready for boarding, you press the button again and your avatar begins a fully mo-capped climb up the ladder, seats themsleves in the cockpit, where the dome lowers as your avatar enters the startup sequence. The amount of work it takes to do it as SC does is tons more than the conventional, but it increases immersion significantly for me anyway (more on that soon). Many of Star Citizen's features are like this so to judge them because they "sound small" if governed by other games design is inaccurate. Regarding 3.0 and in fact recent Alpha 2.x, I know many others (including journalists) have generally been impressed because the "building" is slowly beginning to take shape and it proves that yes, they could actually pull off something this ambitious.
I really, really don't get all the doomsaying ,especially when it has continued nearly since the beginning without much change. Early deadlines don't mean jack and delays happen throughout the industry - the public nature of Star Citizen development including known funding etc.. exacerbates and highlights interest in any delays. Mix this with naysayers who continually move the goalposts far more than CIG themselves are accused of doing (I can remember when " Where's all the multiplayer ships they promised? See, they can't make anything more than a simple fighter with a second gunner which doesn't count. Multiplayer open ships like this are simply not possible. It will never happen and here's why" . When those made their debut , they moved onto the next "issue" )), along with a constant comparison to other titles that frankly are too different to be worth comparing (ie Battlefield) and it leads me to a couple of conclusions. Some people have vested interest in SC failing (clickbait journalists, a few devs and publishers etc), lots just want to troll or want the schadenfreude of being able to point and laugh / told you so, , but I think some "serious" backers don't really back for the same reason that I and many early backers did, or value the same parts of the game. I"m guessing that you don't really think the cockpit mocap boarding animations I described above hold much value to you or at least, don't think their inclusion is worth the additional work, for instance?
Let me give you a "Backer A" perspective (at least my own). I backed Star Citizen specifically because there were enough things refreshing, new and different that fit together. Unparalleled depth and immersion, things that had never before been tried much less on a MMO scale, reasonable monetization without exclusive items/ships, and much more. I knew Chris Roberts' history and he quite honestly came forward way back when and said "I made some good stuff back then, but I think I can make something great if I wasn't beholden to certain interests and had the money to do it. Who's with me?" A lot of us said yes, knowing it was a risk. But that was what was exciting that if it pans out to even most of what we envisioned, it would be a great leap forward. With this in mind, I'm not too concerned about time or delays as long as I see ongoing progress - I know that delays happen throughout the industry but I truly "backed a project" not just "preordered a game". I don't want to see them truncate it or distill it down. I don't want to see them rush. I like when they make decisions that the experience is paramount. I'd be way more disappointed if they went back on their word and started with real money exclusives or rampant item mall nonsense. If I wanted to play "just a good enough space game" , I could do that. There's the Evochron series, No Mans' Sky, Everspace and others; on the MMO side there's EVE Online, Vendetta Online (a personal favorite - an indie space MMO that is somewhat simplistic but developed by a team of 4 and has run for well over a decade. Subscription based, very ethical etc), or the closest parallel to Star Citizen "Elite: Dangerous". Elite isn't a bad game, but it isn't as exciting or of the scope of Star Citizen - in fact, I think the SC that "B" type backers keep calling for would look a lot more like Elite to some extent, but it wouldn't be nearly as exciting. For me, pushing the envelope is why I backed Star Citizen and I want to see where this all goes. I'm not too concerned with time so long as I see progress. Star Citizen isn't my only project - I'm backing other innovative, immersion focused MMOs too because I want to see something fresh with a new type of delivery. Its always a risk - maybe it won't pan out, but even if it doesn't I'd rather get behind something with high aspirations and a reasonable (though not guaranteed) chance of accomplishment, then a beige bag of blah that's a sure thing.
"B" type backers on the other hand, may have come into interest of the title later and look at things much differently. They see this as more of a pre-order and that the Alpha being playable may not register as a "true" alpha, because they're used to the major publishers offering alpha/beta access left and right, which is somewhat feature complete and representative of the game near launch. They may not care much about the immersion factors - they don't care about running a commercial Genesis starliner route or the ability to be a flight attendant on one, nor do they really care about all kinds of lore and depth of play - not if it extends development time even further. They want Squadron 42 to be another "Wing Commander" or "Xwing / TIE Fighter" single player sort of title, but they don't need famous hollywood grade actors or mocap, nor do they care about on-food combat, manning duty stations besides direct combat etc.. or anything else acting as a tutorial for the public universe. For the public universe, much of this stuff is cool, but sleeping in your ship or growing narcotics in your Endeavor's biodome, when you physically pick them yourself and put them into a cargo container you carry down the hall before placing them into the secret scan-blocking compartment etc.. isn;'t necessarily notably better than messing with a couple of inventory screens. Likewise there's no need to animate fully getting into every cockpit, chair or bed. They still want a AAA title, but they'd sacrifice the depth and immersive features that extend development for time-tested, traditional controls, content, and features that are not unlike those on existing ones. They're not roleplayers, they just want to shoot some bad guys and take on some missions. This fosters annoyance because they compare the surface of what they see and what they value to other AAA games and think things should be moving along quicker. They didn't back an idea, they pre-ordered a game and that game should be here in a timely manner, with recognizable features, and the remainder is cruft getting in the way.
Maybe that's a core difference and to those backers I say - don't worry about things so much. Especially if you didn't invest a ton of money, I'd advise you to simply forget about Star Citizen until either initial release, or perhaps major Alpha builds iif youwish to monitor progress. Anything else will just be irritating. I'm pretty sure that even "B" type backers will enjoy the game immensely if the final product is within the sphere of what "A" type backers and the developers at CIG intend, butyou won't be able to enjoy yourself now if you're constantly thinking "don't bother with this stuff that's not important to me".
Your responses make sense if this was "normal" game being funded by a "normal AAA publisher" - but that's not what it was envisioned/funded to be by developers or (many) backers. I grant that there needs to be good project management and that feature creep is a potential issue for any developer, but I don't see evidence for this. CIG started with an idea and began to obtain crowdfunding. Now, they had some "baseline" designs and timetables for the game predicated on the minimum funding goals; I see a lot of critics refer back to these as anything beyond evidence of "feature creep" erroneously. However, as I said before in the first 2+ years of development, funding continued at an astonishing pace and stretch goal after stretch goal was achieved. Hell, they even came to a point when they specifically stopped making new stretch goals despite ongoing funding, which should be evidence for reining in feature creep. During this time and through this funding many backers showed they wanted a much greater scope and vision, opened their wallets to prove it, and now CIG updated their plans features etc. I'd venture to say that I wouldn't consider the baseline framework for planned features to be complete until the start of 2014 at the earliest for instance and since then , they haven't been tacking on additional features - they've been building the ones on the docket. Yes, there are many of them but they didn't just appear without thought or appear impossible to provide - they were added when there was money and drive to do so from both CIG and the backers themselves.
Ever since Star Citizen became controversial in the eyes of some, there has been the continual cry that "the money is almost gone". I don't see any evidence of this being the case aside from armchair economists who work out some voodoo budgeting that with X players and Y pledges they can only have Z dollars left - which is overly simplistic in a number of ways and doesn't take a lot of public-announced facets into account (ie their tax breaks, the way the company is organized and with Squadron 42 / Studio 42 having separate funding, the amount of financial sector resources they have etc), not to mention the things only kept internally. They do not appear to be limping from month to month backed on latest ship sales in the past, nor currently. The people who used to claim "Its a scam!" switched over to "They're going to run out of money!" and if that actually happens I'll happily admit my mistake, but the doomsaying has gone on forever and doesn't seem to be getting any more credible.
When I was speaking of "same level of quality" I meant in terms of game assets across generation, as I spoke about. Going back to modernize (visually or functionally) earlier developed content isn't simply adding superfluous "new" creeping content, but simply to ensure that all content is at a similar level of quality. Lots of the industry doesn't do this and it can be more or less visible depending on the particular game and situation, but when you have a game system that seems to be tacked on or doesn't "fit" sometimes lacking this is the reason. I'm glad we agree that the visual quality is excellent, but the rest of the critique makes no sense as it is applied to a non-feature-complete alpha; Crashes lack of optimization etc... doesn't mean that they're lacking quality or developing incorrectly... in fact, if they polished each alpha build to a mirror sheen I'm sure that many would criticize them for wasting effort on content likely to evolve and they'd be more justified in doing so than many other criticisms I've seen.
When it comes to discussing their progress, surmising that they're only "pretending" to be open or haven't developed much content seems to suggest either an ignorance of the design ethos or an inability to value those elements. You're correct that they're "building a MMO with better graphics than most AAA", but they're also attempting to make many never-before-seen features and depth. Many of these systems are built in such a way that they need others to be present - Think of it like a skyscraper. The "building" will just appear to be a random pattern of bricks over a wide area, then as the foundations are built, varying structures and supports are added, it will slowly take shape before growing taller and taller, and will still look much like a framework, with occasional hookups for electrical, plumbing etc It won't look like a magnificent building it was planned to be until its nearly fully finished! Aside from the issues with criticizing the lack of content in what is a (technically, pre) alpha, its noteworthy that these features I listed aren't just important to the hierarchical design and the eventual features, they are much more involved than most other games so it isn't a good comparison. For instance, in many titles an aircraft or spacecraft doesn't have a fully modeled and realistic, destructable set of conduits, wires etc... instead, its a simulation. Its far easier to make a craft give the illusion of damage by having it smoke and maybe change a model or two, while the math behind the scene is "If hit in this hitbox with this damage, do X amount of harm to chassis, reduce engine power 25% etc..". Conversely, if you shoot the left wing of my fighter, maybe you''ll hit the fully modeled interrior conduits and depending on which of those, it will affect power, shield etc.. and what is connected to what, logically and via physics; not to mention my ship is now imbalanced, thrusters and flaps may be inoperable, I may be venting atmosphere etc.... there's a LOT more going on here! For a similar example, take how the average player gets into a vehicle in many FPS that have them - they walk up to the model of the vehicle, press E and pop instantly into the cockpit! Star Citizen on the other hand doesn't do this - you walk up to the spacecraft and depending on that particular craft - ground or space based, there will be one or more animations. On the Hornet fighter, our avatar presses the right button on the right place, the cockpit dome swings up and a ladder extends from the side of the fighter. Once ready for boarding, you press the button again and your avatar begins a fully mo-capped climb up the ladder, seats themsleves in the cockpit, where the dome lowers as your avatar enters the startup sequence. The amount of work it takes to do it as SC does is tons more than the conventional, but it increases immersion significantly for me anyway (more on that soon). Many of Star Citizen's features are like this so to judge them because they "sound small" if governed by other games design is inaccurate. Regarding 3.0 and in fact recent Alpha 2.x, I know many others (including journalists) have generally been impressed because the "building" is slowly beginning to take shape and it proves that yes, they could actually pull off something this ambitious.
I really, really don't get all the doomsaying ,especially when it has continued nearly since the beginning without much change. Early deadlines don't mean jack and delays happen throughout the industry - the public nature of Star Citizen development including known funding etc.. exacerbates and highlights interest in any delays. Mix this with naysayers who continually move the goalposts far more than CIG themselves are accused of doing (I can remember when " Where's all the multiplayer ships they promised? See, they can't make anything more than a simple fighter with a second gunner which doesn't count. Multiplayer open ships like this are simply not possible. It will never happen and here's why" . When those made their debut , they moved onto the next "issue" )), along with a constant comparison to other titles that frankly are too different to be worth comparing (ie Battlefield) and it leads me to a couple of conclusions. Some people have vested interest in SC failing (clickbait journalists, a few devs and publishers etc), lots just want to troll or want the schadenfreude of being able to point and laugh / told you so, , but I think some "serious" backers don't really back for the same reason that I and many early backers did, or value the same parts of the game. I"m guessing that you don't really think the cockpit mocap boarding animations I described above hold much value to you or at least, don't think their inclusion is worth the additional work, for instance?
Let me give you a "Backer A" perspective (at least my own). I backed Star Citizen specifically because there were enough things refreshing, new and different that fit together. Unparalleled depth and immersion, things that had never before been tried much less on a MMO scale, reasonable monetization without exclusive items/ships, and much more. I knew Chris Roberts' history and he quite honestly came forward way back when and said "I made some good stuff back then, but I think I can make something great if I wasn't beholden to certain interests and had the money to do it. Who's with me?" A lot of us said yes, knowing it was a risk. But that was what was exciting that if it pans out to even most of what we envisioned, it would be a great leap forward. With this in mind, I'm not too concerned about time or delays as long as I see ongoing progress - I know that delays happen throughout the industry but I truly "backed a project" not just "preordered a game". I don't want to see them truncate it or distill it down. I don't want to see them rush. I like when they make decisions that the experience is paramount. I'd be way more disappointed if they went back on their word and started with real money exclusives or rampant item mall nonsense. If I wanted to play "just a good enough space game" , I could do that. There's the Evochron series, No Mans' Sky, Everspace and others; on the MMO side there's EVE Online, Vendetta Online (a personal favorite - an indie space MMO that is somewhat simplistic but developed by a team of 4 and has run for well over a decade. Subscription based, very ethical etc), or the closest parallel to Star Citizen "Elite: Dangerous". Elite isn't a bad game, but it isn't as exciting or of the scope of Star Citizen - in fact, I think the SC that "B" type backers keep calling for would look a lot more like Elite to some extent, but it wouldn't be nearly as exciting. For me, pushing the envelope is why I backed Star Citizen and I want to see where this all goes. I'm not too concerned with time so long as I see progress. Star Citizen isn't my only project - I'm backing other innovative, immersion focused MMOs too because I want to see something fresh with a new type of delivery. Its always a risk - maybe it won't pan out, but even if it doesn't I'd rather get behind something with high aspirations and a reasonable (though not guaranteed) chance of accomplishment, then a beige bag of blah that's a sure thing.
"B" type backers on the other hand, may have come into interest of the title later and look at things much differently. They see this as more of a pre-order and that the Alpha being playable may not register as a "true" alpha, because they're used to the major publishers offering alpha/beta access left and right, which is somewhat feature complete and representative of the game near launch. They may not care much about the immersion factors - they don't care about running a commercial Genesis starliner route or the ability to be a flight attendant on one, nor do they really care about all kinds of lore and depth of play - not if it extends development time even further. They want Squadron 42 to be another "Wing Commander" or "Xwing / TIE Fighter" single player sort of title, but they don't need famous hollywood grade actors or mocap, nor do they care about on-food combat, manning duty stations besides direct combat etc.. or anything else acting as a tutorial for the public universe. For the public universe, much of this stuff is cool, but sleeping in your ship or growing narcotics in your Endeavor's biodome, when you physically pick them yourself and put them into a cargo container you carry down the hall before placing them into the secret scan-blocking compartment etc.. isn;'t necessarily notably better than messing with a couple of inventory screens. Likewise there's no need to animate fully getting into every cockpit, chair or bed. They still want a AAA title, but they'd sacrifice the depth and immersive features that extend development for time-tested, traditional controls, content, and features that are not unlike those on existing ones. They're not roleplayers, they just want to shoot some bad guys and take on some missions. This fosters annoyance because they compare the surface of what they see and what they value to other AAA games and think things should be moving along quicker. They didn't back an idea, they pre-ordered a game and that game should be here in a timely manner, with recognizable features, and the remainder is cruft getting in the way.
Maybe that's a core difference and to those backers I say - don't worry about things so much. Especially if you didn't invest a ton of money, I'd advise you to simply forget about Star Citizen until either initial release, or perhaps major Alpha builds iif youwish to monitor progress. Anything else will just be irritating. I'm pretty sure that even "B" type backers will enjoy the game immensely if the final product is within the sphere of what "A" type backers and the developers at CIG intend, butyou won't be able to enjoy yourself now if you're constantly thinking "don't bother with this stuff that's not important to me".
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
Wow, you managed to use every excuse and then some...
You don't build a house, or mansion in this case, by putting up the walls, installing Windows, and doing the landscaping... All while a foundation and utilities haven't been put in. That is exactly what CR is doing, making mockups and selling visuals while the actual important parts haven't been built.
You don't build a house, or mansion in this case, by putting up the walls, installing Windows, and doing the landscaping... All while a foundation and utilities haven't been put in. That is exactly what CR is doing, making mockups and selling visuals while the actual important parts haven't been built.
Krixon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2015
- Messages
- 371
Kool-Aid's stock just went up ten points.