-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the presentation too. Kudos to Chris though for keeping his cool despite drowning in jank. I would have been soaked in perspiration and stammering like a mofo.
Would have been better if they had gone a bit off script as well. The enemy should have mentioned that they expected the heroes to arrive earlier, or that there's more room in the cargo hold now without a pesky crumpable buggy taking up space.
Cabbagehead
Member
Expecting way too much. When AI isn't nailed down.
Mate just relax, you don't need to fight tooth and nail on the Internet to win a victory. I can definitely see both sides of the coin when discussing Star Citizen and I'm not even a backer or past backer. It is clear the development for this game is huge, and expectations need to be in check or else you'll be disappointed. That isn't to say that backers and spectators should just take everything without critique, no game is ever free of critique at whatever interval of its development cycle. I just see your posts and you lash out so quickly when you really don't need to, let people quabble and say stupid shit, it is the Internet after all.
Outlandish complaints and arguments will always be present, hell they are present even after launch despite a game being successful or not. We can see from this demo slice that Star Citizen has something at least, and whether that something is meaningful to backers and onlookers time will tell. It is clearly so, so far off from being released in any true playable state with an actual gameplay loop one considers "normal" but that's just the joys of development.
Also, this whole argument of when development truly started is silly. Development for this game began when they finished their Kickstarter campaign, potentially even before then with concepts and ideas thrown around. Saying development has only been "truly" happening for the last two years is stupid, development is inclusive of everything and is not able to be cherry picked to suit an argument. Was their original release date foolish? Yes, it was considering what they are doing, but I'm happy to see it coming along with the development time as a whole taken into consideration.
My only true complaints about this demo was how "slow" everything felt, which is easily animation tweaks to solve. Getting into a chair, selecting modules to interact with, the sheer absurdity on how many modules you needed to interact with to get something working and the spaceship floatiness were all apparently in need of tuning to be much, much faster. Outside of that I was mighty impressed, the Idris blowing up was astonishingly awesome and I am very keen to get a true MMO world out of this game.
When? Well who knows. No one but CIG can answer that question as development fluctuates. Backing a project with such a bold concept should have given you an idea that this isn't a game that can be pushed out like typical AAA CoD or FIFA, it takes time and lots of manpower. Will it come out? Of course so, I don't doubt it would but I'm hopeful next year we will have some more solid gameplay loops with how 3.0 seems to be revamping quite a lot of backend to ensure easier development.
staticneuron
Member
Yes. They will technically be doing wipes. The currency in the Alpha is called aUEC so it is not the final currency.
The ships people payed with money, they don't have to worry about the insurance system really kicking in until the game is out of beta state. And those with LTI, don't have to worry at all.
Cabbagehead
Member
Who's looking for a victory? i just want the ignorance and double standards to stop.
Plus this thread or any Star CItizen thread that pops up always gets invaded by trolls at almost every turn. Like it touched them in the wrong places, i only "lash out" when it warranted. While certain folks come into this thread derailing and shitting it up as i mentioned before.
So it's not me. That you should be telling to relax, i mean you may tolerant the stupid shit, but not me...it's how i roll. The least anyone can do is for folks to stop assuming shit and ask questions. Especially when they haven't done the necessary research, to speak on things with any authority, while research is easy to do and easy to find. In any case, glad you enjoyed yourself.
Matter a fact you're the prime example of poster that's knowledgeable enough to be balanced and does the opposite of what some individuals do.
Wait, wait, wait.
You're totally not understanding that argument at all. The main point is not when they started, it's about how many developers they had and the state of the engine they were using at the time, compared to now. Which they didn't have very much of, nor did they have a studio to work out of in the beginning and yes it was early (It wasn't until mid to late 2014 that they started opening up real offices and had the numbers to be in relative or just full production in 2015). So yes, It's a valid point to bring up. If only to combat the notion that this game is some how overdue or that it's been in game development forever compared to other project of similar ambition (which is false). Plus it's a fact that CIG went through a reorganizing during that stretch between 2014 and 2015 give or take, plus they didn't have the help of Frankfurt back then either. Which has pushed a lot of their time scales up on some key features that were supposed to be done or in a use-able state much, much later on.
Bottom-line being, any release date before and since the kick-starter ended has been a estimate (as noted by kick-starter themselves) and only that. Then you factor in them making two games, after that...there's handful of misconceptions about a lot of things surrounding this game and some FUD related bs that pops up from time to time to paint things in a bad light. By some unhinged individuals that attack developers and harass people that work or worked at CIG.
Also CIG gets its fair share and i've been around long enough to know that as fact.
I don't really understand why they simultaneously rework past ships, include new features and do a bunch of other unexpected things while the core of the game is still a huge mess. They go in all directions, and then the game gets constantly delayed because putting everything together is messy and requires a lot of engineering and bug fixing.
I now wish they had done something similar to Elite, just release a solid core game with a good network, animations, space fights, missions and economy, and then increment on that. What we have in 2.6 is a good first step and could have been expanded upon without having to wait more than a year to include tons of new features.
A game like X-Rebirth was an absolute mess at release but it had a small budget in comparison and the content was here. Just make something that people will have fun playing, and update it regularly not necessarily with game breaking features, but with more content, missions, etc. The assets are here, why are they holding back?
I now wish they had done something similar to Elite, just release a solid core game with a good network, animations, space fights, missions and economy, and then increment on that. What we have in 2.6 is a good first step and could have been expanded upon without having to wait more than a year to include tons of new features.
A game like X-Rebirth was an absolute mess at release but it had a small budget in comparison and the content was here. Just make something that people will have fun playing, and update it regularly not necessarily with game breaking features, but with more content, missions, etc. The assets are here, why are they holding back?
Wrong question. What or who is holding SC back would be more appropriate.
Dev talent isn't as much the issue as management.
staticneuron
Member
The people working on ship redesigns are normally separate. But the redesigns became core with item 2.0. The nature of the beast is they designed something but had no idea how it would look like in the future. The core is still being worked on and it is progressive as they had to do it in stages and constantly kept backers updated. It is best they get this done now because it is insane to think they could do this later.
The would be stuck if they went ED route to the base of ED.
This highlights the difference between the two projects
ED kickstarted in 2012, and released at end of 2014. It gained planetary landings at end of 2015 and as of a few months ago finally added multi crew and the ability to see yourself. Personally I was bored of game before they got to the first horizon update. There are many I see that aren't happy and admit that the game is grind. Despite having an interesting gameplay loop it falls flat for many people and didn't even go for what SC is doing.
You may be happy with ED, But I am certainly not the happiest over it and would not have backed SC if they were choosing the same route as well.
They are taking their time,will have a more robust game and a single player campaign. The game is still in alpha and no one is holding anything back..... well other than S42 info that is. BTW, if you followed up on any of the dev journals or report you would find out that 3.0 is NOT incremental to 2.6. and they detailed why over the course of months and many ATV's, townhalls, Bugsmashers and monthly reports.
I'm not happy with ED, the game is empty. I was talking about taking a similar approach.
Yes, 3.0 is not incremental to 2.6, but I wish they followed an incremental route for 2.6 in terms of content, especially missions.
You can't say no one is holding back, it implies that nobody worked on the game content, which is wrong. They probably have plenty of missions ready, and I'm not even talking about complex ones. I'm just talking about things such as bounties, ferrying NPCs, chasing pirates, scanning cargoes, etc. While people wait for the next big thing they could add some more content to the existing version without breaking anything and it would keep players entertained.
Instead of that there's nothing and it doesn't build up goodwill. I think it's a wrong approach. I understand their strategy, but come on. They can throw us a bone and keep us entertained with more content.
iHaunter
Member
Literally how could you even know?
Don't forget they didn't have the studio they have now when they started...
staticneuron
Member
You are saying you want them to take the time and effort to add more content to an alpha version that is not going to be seen ever again after 3.0 release, is not apart of the mission subsumption system nor can be, was time consuming and a place holder for things to come.
No... I am a backer. I did spend money. But I want them to complete the game not burn resources and time on things that do not progress overall task lists.
Do you not feel like this is taking long enough? Do you seriously think the majority of backers would happy with Cig burning money on that?
You either backed to get a completed product or you did not. The alpha's aren't there to represent a finished product, they are representative of a WIP and they serve very valuable purpose for bugs, functionality and integration information. This has helped in the path going forward and solving problems they may not have seen otherwise.
Cabbagehead
Member
He literally asking, why didn't CIG waste more time and money on 2.6....
Because it would dumb as hell to do so, it's much smarter to continue putting all their focus on hammering out the lasted build in 3.0, that brings about two years of work, which will finally get all studio's on the same page, make it easier for them to share/update builds. Along with getting all the new completed or near completed features/tools/engine updates tested and a new feedback loop open. For all involved.
lol and he talks about delays. Why would they throw a decent bone into a pile of rotted out one's? when they're already cooking up a fresh one for people to eat. Just because people can't wait. It would literally be stupid to add anything more to the 2.0/2.6 build with all it's glaring old issues that they've moved past in a lot of ways with 3.0. That would be like putting a band aid on a dead horse.
I haven't had a chance to play ED yet, as I'm waiting for the "final" version of the game to be released (and be reasonably priced).
But I am curious what about SC makes you believe its gameplay loop will be more exciting or less grindy than ED's current loop (or the loop it might have by the time SC releases). I mean we've only just seen what missions might plausibly look like, and I can barely find any information on mining, professions, what exactly subsumption AI looks like, pirating, etc. Just a handful of slides from Gamescom 2016 outlining 3.1 and beyond, plus some very outdated and vague design documents.
To my knowledge we have almost no information about what the economy will look like or how much of a grind it will be. The only thing we have (as far as I know) is an old quote about how "capital ships won't be impossible to earn in game" or something to that extent. To my knowledge, we don't know much about what the economy will look like -- how much it is player driven (say via local auction houses like Albion Online) or AI driven (via subsumption model) or some hybrid (like employing some statistics about what players do but which is ultimately storefronts with NPCs).
Does ED lack persistence? (I don't know.) Or is it the promise of massive multiplayer that intrigues you? (Though I have severe doubts they'll ever be able to instance more than 50-100 ships at one location anytime in the next 5 years.)
That's exactly what they are doing each time they show their game or release a new version. They spend weeks fixing 3.0. It's short term investment, and a waste of resources in the long term. If they followed your logic they would only release the final game to the public.
What I'm talking about is implementing content already made and not features. But some of you guys are so adamant at defending them and the way they manage their project that it's becoming ridiculous.
Its not that easy. They reworked tech behind missions to use subsumption.
Also they are integrating planets into most of missions, so they would not work in 2.6 PU version.
With 3.0 they also converted all ships to Items 2.0 system, so they could not add new ships on demands, as they would be incompatible with 2.7.
Generally doing full new build from ground up is way easier than patching legacy code with new feature or just tape some functionalities in.
Patching old feature would be wasted development time, as you rarely can reuse it in full new heavy modified branch.
It should be easier though now with 3.0 to add content if they will get all the basics right, but its also to be determined, as things like subsumption 2.0 or networking can still make some stuff in 3.0 legacy code in comparison to 3.1.
staticneuron
Member
Spend weeks on 3.0? They have spent months on 3.0. The branching mission system does not work in 2.6. There is no cut and paste option. What you are saying is not valid. It is not about wanting content, it is that the content created would have to be reworked and structured in manner that fits 2.6... which again takes away from the mission giver work on 3.0.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. Doubling down doesn't magically make it more valid.
i see the shitposters are hard at work (not only here but especially in the other thread)
the presentation was great:
- 200 NPCs on levski with daily random routine
- new mobiglass
- 26 different mission archetypes
- modular clothing system
- planetside and space part
- video com calls (RTT ftw)
- Idris gameplay
no SQ42 Trailer was a bummer but expected (and they need something for CitizenCon *wink* )
the presentation was great:
- 200 NPCs on levski with daily random routine
- new mobiglass
- 26 different mission archetypes
- modular clothing system
- planetside and space part
- video com calls (RTT ftw)
- Idris gameplay
no SQ42 Trailer was a bummer but expected (and they need something for CitizenCon *wink* )
Killroyskbg
Member
Not a mention of the several bugs, crashes and cringe... But hey shitposters right.
FreezerGeezer
Member
Thought it was decent enough. Expected the glitches. Some fantastic stuff shown.
No idea why they feel the need to continue to flesh out areas that do not warrant the attention. Motion captured face animation and liquid physics on the drinks inside the glasses.
Focus on the core tech and systems a little more. Stop listening to CR.
New ship looks great. Looking forward too more.
No idea why they feel the need to continue to flesh out areas that do not warrant the attention. Motion captured face animation and liquid physics on the drinks inside the glasses.
Focus on the core tech and systems a little more. Stop listening to CR.
New ship looks great. Looking forward too more.
This is a big day for backers to rope more people into the game so they can get their free Gladius + Golden Ship models. Gotta get them referrals up!
But honestly the presentation for all it's cringe and bugs did increase my confidence in the state of the product. It showed they actually have code that sort of resembles a game that I could see expanding in the future. Seems to boils down to management and competence now. (Edit: Not that I have much faith in either of those when it comes to CIG, but at least it's plausible they finish something closer to the promised product.)
crazysapertonight
Member
When will be Citizen Con?
October. I believe.
Cabbagehead
Member
Okay par for the course. You think a live demo is going to be perfect and run all smooth? without it being pre-rendered...this is what you would usually get. These are developers doing the on-stage work. Not trained presenters.
Really don't get why, you think the face capture tech which is a mostly third-party driven endeavor is an issue of some-kind and then you throw in liquid physics (which is a test case for large bodies of water and it's possible simulation). Like these specific things will somehow or is somehow effecting/stopping them from working on other core tech or systems.. which is simply ridiculous (It will be like CIG's contract with the company that develops their website/spectrum feature set).
There's like four studios working on all sorts of core features, they do have prioritizes and the gamescom event is usually about showing off future tech and other finished aspects coming soon. All of them play a factor into making the game, what it is and that capture tech has been on the deck since 2013.
I mean the 3.0 patch is chalk full of new core tech, updates and other new features and most if not all of them are done. So i'm perplexed.
why would i mention bugs when i know that this is an ALPHA? (bugs and crashes are expected in almost every CIG live show like chris mentioned)
yeah cringe roleplay was bad and i hope they will do that never again. But the whole presentation? It was great
and yes, the shitposters are annoying as hell especially with the tech cig were showing
Cabbagehead
Member
Agreed so unnecessary.
Holy molly the delusions are in full force
The NPCs were nothing special, they just walked around getting stuck a lot of times. The quest giver would bug out and stay there without interacting with the player for like 20 seconds during the presentation. Now add the fact that they haven't planned ANY scaling into the game yet means people have to queue to talk to him which is frankly shit and shows how much they factor illusion of immersion over actual gameplay merit.
They've been showcasing mobiglass now for months, the amount of work they've put into a UI element is stupid and it was disabled during the daily streams, so something behind the scenes with it is fucked, probably again, the whole scaling issue when you get people close to each other.
26 types of missions? And yet they decide to retread the same one we saw last year. No loop mind you, the mission was never resolved. They failed spectacularly when the rover and its transexual space pilot gut crushed under the idris loading ramp, destroying the red box in the process. No acknowledgement of failure by either the game or the cast.
Modular clothing - Whoa breaking new ground here.
Plenty of stream cut outs showing how the whole planet and space side fared. Bad frame rates, incredible amounts of jank and despite their best rehearsals horrible time wasting crashes.
The presentation wasn't good. Instead of seeing it as a measure of progress, I'm seeing it as actual regression to what they showed last year. What they presented last year was somehow more stable than this. The trade off being things that have very little impact with the actual gameplay, improved IQ, face tech that wont be there for 3.0, and UI changes. \\
Using alpha as an excuse is wearing thin when the game is in perpetual alpha state. By definition, a beta would mean that all the gameplay elements are present even if buggy or needing additional fleshing out. Given their patch rhythm , it'll take another year or two to get through 3.X patch schedule and we dont even know if 4.0 will be enough to be considered a beta when it releases.
Mission from last year? They have not done a mission like this in the past. You need to rewatch previous presentations.
And this was a mission that will be in 3.0, which showed counter mission system where one group gets one objective and another group gets counter objective, which forces PVP.
so, if i liked the presentation and list the things that were shown then it is "delusional"?
Don't do the Derek, please.
"Go speak to mission giver, travel to x place and grab box y to transport back" Is a mission type. It is your typical MMO collect and bring back mission that doesn't involve killing bears for their asses and instead has you click on an interactibles. Sounds reductive, but this is what it essentially is. I dont know if changing a few things is enough to say that its an entirely different mission type.
And yeah, I'll believe the sort of counter mission thing when its actually in game because given the stability of it, the size of the environment and the lack of players per instance would make it seem like an exercise in futility. Also, remember the fucking "PVP slider" that they promised? How is that going to play with this sort of counter mission? Holy shit, only one guy can interact with the quest giver at a time??? Will someone from another instance that pick up the quest switch instances when QTing to the area? Will they just happen to jump in close to the other players zone? Im probably giving it more thought that CIGs designers right now.
Age of Wushu/Wulin did it right, but it forgo "Immersion" by having players teleported to the area to act as PVP threats on usually PVE scenarios. It also could deal with 100 players on screen without crapping out, which CIG seems to have issues getting over 12 of right now.
You could like the presentation, but saying that "This is good for SC" will have people invoke Poe in response.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I also personally enjoyed the presentation as I did with all their presentations and videos. I thought their studio tour videos were also on point. I actually find the whole development process far more interesting than the actual game itself. All these people across multiple countries bringing together so many moving parts into one cohesive product. I'm really looking forward to CitizenCon.
I'm in DevOps so I'm keenly interested in how they do all their continuous integration/build testing, code commits and environment management, how they manage their instance of JIRA (we're also a huge Atlassian user at my workplace), and how all their component leads come together. I find it interesting that they hold regular stand up meetings because keeping on top of what everyone is doing must be a huge challenge.
I was also Kickstarter for Broken Age and Divinity: Original Sin and I've barely played the games but I've watched all the production and update videos religiously. CIG's production and bug report videos are something else. Tonnes of detail and heaps of transparency which I really appreciate. I'm not really too concerned about the current status of Star Citizen because I've seen - at least from their videos - the sheer amount of work that goes on behind the scenes and all the expertise working together to get this game out the door. The only thing I'm really concerned about - which I've started earlier - is the detached and 'unrealistic' flight model and launch/landing/weight physics. I just hope it's not another Freelancer (a game I've finished) and more simmy.
The MobiGlass shit is actually really awesome. I mean they have to design it so that it's usable and aesthetically pleasing in all conditions since it's not simply just another management screen. The code for just the MobiGlass UI, among all the other systems in place, would be really impressive.
One other thing and it's about the animosity on this thread. On one hand we have shitposters, and on the other hand we have a defence force just jumping on anyone that dares to be be critical no matter how constructive it might be. Fuck off with that shit.
I'm in DevOps so I'm keenly interested in how they do all their continuous integration/build testing, code commits and environment management, how they manage their instance of JIRA (we're also a huge Atlassian user at my workplace), and how all their component leads come together. I find it interesting that they hold regular stand up meetings because keeping on top of what everyone is doing must be a huge challenge.
I was also Kickstarter for Broken Age and Divinity: Original Sin and I've barely played the games but I've watched all the production and update videos religiously. CIG's production and bug report videos are something else. Tonnes of detail and heaps of transparency which I really appreciate. I'm not really too concerned about the current status of Star Citizen because I've seen - at least from their videos - the sheer amount of work that goes on behind the scenes and all the expertise working together to get this game out the door. The only thing I'm really concerned about - which I've started earlier - is the detached and 'unrealistic' flight model and launch/landing/weight physics. I just hope it's not another Freelancer (a game I've finished) and more simmy.
The MobiGlass shit is actually really awesome. I mean they have to design it so that it's usable and aesthetically pleasing in all conditions since it's not simply just another management screen. The code for just the MobiGlass UI, among all the other systems in place, would be really impressive.
One other thing and it's about the animosity on this thread. On one hand we have shitposters, and on the other hand we have a defence force just jumping on anyone that dares to be be critical no matter how constructive it might be. Fuck off with that shit.
TheVoidDragon
Member
The whole idea of getting refunds for this seems absurd to me. You backed a game, being specifically told it was unfinished and things would change, knowing that you were backing it to help it be developed (for better or for worse) and accepting that things might not go well. Scope changes were part of the risk you accepted when deciding to back the game. You haven't just pre-ordered a game.
If it had turned out to be an actual scam or something like that it might be a different story, but reasons of "This unfinished game has bugs!" or "It's not finished yet" just completely misses the point. You willingly accepted those risks by giving them your money in the first place, if you're not happy with that then you shouldn't have backed it in the first place.
Getting a refund for it because you aren't happy is just entirely the wrong attitude to have for this sort of thing, especially when these are normal and expected aspects (bugs, delays etc) of a game still in development. Either see it through regardless, or don't pledge in the first place - crowdfunding isn't the same as just buying a product.
Getting a refund because you got what you promised and you decided you didn't like it is the wrong attitude, I agree.
Getting a refund because they changed what was promised and you decided "If they had told me from the start this is what X would be, I would never have backed it" is not the wrong attitude. It's basically truth in advertising at that point.
Games change under development, sure. I think it's up to each person to decide if Star Citizen falls under the second category. If they backed the project expecting 2 years of dev, and it's clear it will take 10 -- that IS a different project than what was promised, even if the features are the same.
Just like if I said in July, "Hey I will sell you a bathing suit in 2 weeks for $20". Then you back it and I say "Hey I decided to change a few things and will now send it out in 10 weeks" -- well, you may no longer want or need a bathing suit in the middle of September, even if the bathing suit you receive is mostly the same product (or better!) than what was promised.
Some people may not mind waiting, and that's great. But it's not just about patience -- if a backer feels lied to regarding the development, it's in everyone's best interests for that person to get a refund rather than to carry around a chip on their shoulder due to (arguably) false advertising.
Put another way, if you pre-order the Shadow of War game at gamestop, then it turns out it didn't have orcs or the war system was made online-only or something else you were told the opposite of in previews, and you would not have pre-ordered the game if the devs had informed you, would you still say "Well I guess I can't cancel my pre-order, that's just the wrong attitude!"
iHaunter
Member
Shit posting for cringe I can accept, it was quite cringy. That kind of dialogue never works, even at E3 lol.
But some of the shit posters are just saying wrong things. I just add them to my ignore list.
Also they didn't change anything.
The backers voted for it...
I had the post somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Either way, once SQ42 is out, I'm sure a lot of the team will assist in building up the SC Universe. They really only have a couple of hundred of people dedicated to each. They really need a 1,000 employees company to do both, I think it's a mistake tbh.
Yeah, one of things need to do is put themselves back when they initially dropped money into the game and ask themselves a few questions.
If in FEB 2013, when I initially "pledged", you had told me that it would be late 2017 and we still couldn't jump out of just one system, that the FPS in the game was horrible and would collapse when more than 12 people were in the instance. That the big draw of the "miracle patch" that was a year late was landing on planets (dwarf moons actually), talking with npc quest givers (a grand total of two!) and grabbing boxes. That the game would have a flight system that a lot of people think looks like you are using noclip to move around. That the only vestiges of an economy involved running missions to pay for weapon restocks, fuel and some limited clothing. That it was close to two years since we last saw SQ42 and that its release date was still indeterminable.
There would be no "dreams". I wouldn't have pledged. The only thing holding me back from getting a refund is that its only 60 bucks and who knows maybe next year things will get better. Ahhh this is how BPS feels like I guess.
Bullshit! I certainly didnt. I was expecting at the very worst a full featured beta by 2016. Buggy, needing fleshing out whatever, but all loops a go. Mining, refining, producing, trading, hunting, sciencing whatever, the foundation of all these things would be ready. Up till late 2014 that was still the plan.
If in FEB 2013, when I initially "pledged", you had told me that it would be late 2017 and we still couldn't jump out of just one system, that the FPS in the game was horrible and would collapse when more than 12 people were in the instance. That the big draw of the "miracle patch" that was a year late was landing on planets (dwarf moons actually), talking with npc quest givers (a grand total of two!) and grabbing boxes. That the game would have a flight system that a lot of people think looks like you are using noclip to move around. That the only vestiges of an economy involved running missions to pay for weapon restocks, fuel and some limited clothing. That it was close to two years since we last saw SQ42 and that its release date was still indeterminable.
There would be no "dreams". I wouldn't have pledged. The only thing holding me back from getting a refund is that its only 60 bucks and who knows maybe next year things will get better. Ahhh this is how BPS feels like I guess.
Bullshit! I certainly didnt. I was expecting at the very worst a full featured beta by 2016. Buggy, needing fleshing out whatever, but all loops a go. Mining, refining, producing, trading, hunting, sciencing whatever, the foundation of all these things would be ready. Up till late 2014 that was still the plan.
Outrun
Member
I left for some similar reasons.
I got a refund and now I am looking on with positive hope that CIG pulls this off, so I can jump in again.
They release or don't. I am not invested. I do wish them luck though so I can get a great single player game and dip my toes into the persistent universe.
Phoenixazure
Member
Catching up and watching the presentation and livestreams, I'll throw in some random thoughts. Please note that I am a backer with a few hundred rolled in over the past few years on some ships
After playing the 2.6 alpha for several hours, the most fun I had was the sort of self made journeys playing with other people. Not exactly role playing but stupid fun stuff like Being a stowaway in several ships, running obstacle runs in various ships, have a quality car meet but instead of hotrod in a parking lot, it's several different kinds of ships on an asteroid. I also remember barreling into another organization's drills and causing havoc before getting blown up.
What they are showing to me has me excited cause it allows me to have even more variety of those types of experiences in a much bigger scale than before. It also encourages doing more missions now that item and ship states are saved so I can't just log out after I clip off my ship wings.
That said there are concerns. While I don't mind the flight model too much in space, it really took me out of it when it was atmospheric. Some sense of weight and added emphasis on the smaller thrusters to give a sense of hovering can go a long way.
There is also the framerate issue. That is tied to the server though as I can run the current 2.6 offline and can get 60-90fps on my 980ti.
Finally I see the issues of a lack of gameplay loop. While I disagree on the low and mid cycle, only time will tell with the larger loop.
And of course issues like delays and feature creep that have extended development way too long. I am confident though that 3.0 is the vertical slice most people have been waiting for, as once the bugs are addressed, it's essentially more asset creation as most of the systems will be in place.
Overall, I'm optimistic though I have some gripes. I don't think the game is vaporware however or not a game. Sorry for the long ass post
After playing the 2.6 alpha for several hours, the most fun I had was the sort of self made journeys playing with other people. Not exactly role playing but stupid fun stuff like Being a stowaway in several ships, running obstacle runs in various ships, have a quality car meet but instead of hotrod in a parking lot, it's several different kinds of ships on an asteroid. I also remember barreling into another organization's drills and causing havoc before getting blown up.
What they are showing to me has me excited cause it allows me to have even more variety of those types of experiences in a much bigger scale than before. It also encourages doing more missions now that item and ship states are saved so I can't just log out after I clip off my ship wings.
That said there are concerns. While I don't mind the flight model too much in space, it really took me out of it when it was atmospheric. Some sense of weight and added emphasis on the smaller thrusters to give a sense of hovering can go a long way.
There is also the framerate issue. That is tied to the server though as I can run the current 2.6 offline and can get 60-90fps on my 980ti.
Finally I see the issues of a lack of gameplay loop. While I disagree on the low and mid cycle, only time will tell with the larger loop.
And of course issues like delays and feature creep that have extended development way too long. I am confident though that 3.0 is the vertical slice most people have been waiting for, as once the bugs are addressed, it's essentially more asset creation as most of the systems will be in place.
Overall, I'm optimistic though I have some gripes. I don't think the game is vaporware however or not a game. Sorry for the long ass post
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Well is it wrong?
They "attacked" the Ursa on the planet with ships and had to resort to the two pirate ships being an ingame representation of:
Which is because the core mechanics of the game are still bad, if a ship sees the Ursa it can stop, mouse over the ship and make it disappear. It isn't even a plausible with their current mechanics. Seriously they jumped to the attacker perspective showing him spraying the ground just to look cool, demonstrating that at any point the Ursa was scrap if he moused over it.
Secondly in the Idris space demo we got two cap ships looking at eachother literally doing:
There was no feedback on which Idris was damaged and which was winning until one rammed the other and it exploded. Also the sound on the battle was severely lacking, it should be loud and and confusing when two ships of that size are facing off. I'm still impressed they made something that should've been absolutely amazing look dull.
Eolz
Member
Hey. While the conference certainly didn't went down as expected, I wanted to clarify some things (which seem a bit unclear to some posters):
- the faceware stuff shown by Sean Tracy and the players were indeed done on a regular webcam (laptop or classic logitech/MS branded mid range ones). It works well given the hardware and has no (or nearly no) impact on game performance.
- the planet shown on the gamescom showfloor and during the conference demo is the same and has nearly a really thin atmosphere, hence the flight model not looking as different as some might expect. You'll still feel some changes when you'll fly there, just not as much as if it was on a Earth-like planet for example.
- the rover problem wasn't so much a vehicle issue than a pilot one. The Idris player decided to land on a hill for some reason (when there was flat ground nearby) and stayed there instead of taking off and landing again at a different position. The rover pilot should have never tried to force their way onto the ramp when it would have never worked at this angle. Shame.
And please, while it wasn't as bad as last december's livestream, it didn't went well (mainly due to the crash). That said, no need to go into the usual shitposting either. There's legit criticism to give without lying and following dumb arguments made by a certain person out there.
- the faceware stuff shown by Sean Tracy and the players were indeed done on a regular webcam (laptop or classic logitech/MS branded mid range ones). It works well given the hardware and has no (or nearly no) impact on game performance.
- the planet shown on the gamescom showfloor and during the conference demo is the same and has nearly a really thin atmosphere, hence the flight model not looking as different as some might expect. You'll still feel some changes when you'll fly there, just not as much as if it was on a Earth-like planet for example.
- the rover problem wasn't so much a vehicle issue than a pilot one. The Idris player decided to land on a hill for some reason (when there was flat ground nearby) and stayed there instead of taking off and landing again at a different position. The rover pilot should have never tried to force their way onto the ramp when it would have never worked at this angle. Shame.
And please, while it wasn't as bad as last december's livestream, it didn't went well (mainly due to the crash). That said, no need to go into the usual shitposting either. There's legit criticism to give without lying and following dumb arguments made by a certain person out there.
One of the big problem i usually see in CIG demos and especially this one is the pilots.
They are rarely capable of landing smoothly. It was possible to land smoothly years ago with the old flight model and i think they added a "precision" mode with 2.0 (never actually tried 2.0, i'm just waiting for 3.0). Mode that they should use on the demos for the landings to look nice.
But since they always forget, landings look silly. Such a shame...
They are rarely capable of landing smoothly. It was possible to land smoothly years ago with the old flight model and i think they added a "precision" mode with 2.0 (never actually tried 2.0, i'm just waiting for 3.0). Mode that they should use on the demos for the landings to look nice.
But since they always forget, landings look silly. Such a shame...
TheVoidDragon
Member
No, that analogy doesn't fit, because it's an entirely different situation. You're approaching it wrong still, you're still viewing crowdfunding as like a pre-order.
Both the analogies you gave are a situation of "Give me money and i'll give you X later", so you then aren't getting the product you paid for in that case. In that situation there is a defined product that you're giving money for and you aren't really directly contributing to anything except you being given that actual product as stated.
Crowdfunding is "We want to try to make X, please give us some money so we can attempt to do this" and being told that might not work. You aren't buying a product, you're funding their attempt at something. You're acknowledging the risks and giving them a donation so that they can try to realize that idea, taking the chance it might not be the same, or it might fail outright, or it might take longer etc. You're giving them money specifically towards them working on making it, not just buying a product.
Again, backing a game via crowdfunding is not the same as just pre-ordering or buying that game. You're willingly giving them money to try to do something that may or may not work. If you aren't happy with what they do, or what it ends up being, then i don't think you have any right to complain when you were told those things and knowingly went for it anyway.
There is no "false advertising". You accepted the risk of not getting what you gave them money to try to do. If you aren't willing to accept those risks, then you shouldn't back it in the first place. Treating it like it's just another product you've paid for in advance is the compete wrong thing to do, because that isn't what it is.
The courts say otherwise. And its one of the reasons why CIG will immediately give up on fighting a refund the moment you mention an AG. They dont want any precedent that wont even allow them to try and refute a refund, since they know that even dissuading one person is worth it.
Kickstarter has sort of dulled out people from the consumer protections already in place to protect them from these things. Hell, even if kickstarters ToS would be enough to protect a producer from getting a refund for failure to deliver (which it wont, courts have already ruled in favor of plaintiffs in some cases), the vast majority of their funds come from their own store, which even has things like occasional "sales" and charges sales tax/vat on some people.
A product is being sold and as such, as consumer, you are entitled to certain protections.
Generally all mission will be deliver or kill or transport or protect or explore etc, just depends how linked those jobs will be with each other and how progression of those will look like.
PVP slider is easy, it will match you up against AI, not players - done.
The shared quest giver is a problem. There are three solutions - hundreds NPC givers with the same animations and voice actor, instancing of hubs or most mission wont be direct but handled by mobiglass conferences.
I dont know if you are trolling here or you really do not understand what is hard for CIG in terms of networking.
Its not about amount of players, just having a lot of players is not hard. Having players on ships with those physics is hard from networking and server physics perspective.
Cost of a ships is probably like 10-20 characters due to how many modules and its variables are tracked by system.
When you have players movement you just need to pass it coordinates and some stuff thats on character, depending how inventory and fitting of character is handled it can be almost free or very costly. If your game has predefined archetypes and classes, you can pass one references with some ids of items and thats it, if your game has custom, independent items that need to be tracked by server, than its harder.
I have not played Age of Wushu, so i dont know which one it is, but i'm pretty sure its the first archetype.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
I had wondered why the pilot opted for that spot, it kind of seemed like he was being instructed to go elsewhere. Though weren't some of the players backers? Which I'd imagine would make it a bit harder to have everyone nail the sequence.
Just out of curiosity have you any idea what sort of air pressure that planet is supposed to have?
Oh and the facewear tech was pretty damn impressive to me. Only an early implementation I'd figure but that sort of stuff could go a real long way in the grand scheme.
Next big thing they need to do for that face tech is capture head movement and work that into some character leaning. Having all the characters speak while heads are held perfectly still put a damper on things.
Having it work as a cheap TrackIR is a great benefit - pretty much worth it on its own.
Having it work as a cheap TrackIR is a great benefit - pretty much worth it on its own.
Similar threads
- Locked