Star Citizen Megathread v. procedurally-generated deadlines - Games

I think someone asked earlier, the cutlass variants are maintaining the unique cockpit styles instead of just being cutblacks with fancier paintjobs and gear swaps, niceee [t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFDYGKKUMAAzk6Q.jpg[/t]

/r/starcitizen has been half "I think the Cutlass cockpit looks like" photoshops for about a day, with Alien xenomorphs' heads, Klingon Birds of Prey, and Robocop being top contenders. [t]https://i.redd.it/gkathnfpfmaz.jpg[/t] Someone did the sane thing. [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16015-KAIZEN-Commodities-Chaos"]The Human-Xi'An trade agreement was signed,[/URL] and this has thrown the UEE's markets into some chaos because of the disruptive force of xeno free trade. [video=youtube;HJ9SZyMukgk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ9SZyMukgk[/video] [media]https://twitter.com/SandiGardiner/status/887060149197651968[/media] It's an Idris. [URL="http://i.imgur.com/J7MACpN.jpg"]Imgur link[/URL] [media]https://twitter.com/RobertsSpaceInd/status/887816028121698304[/media] This week's AtV is about kiosks and a Frankfurt studio update, fuck yes.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;52485848]I hope 3.0 allows for at least rentable ships in the PU[/QUOTE] There is a ship selector app and insurance claim coming in 3.0, although this doesn't exactly say if it's going to be purchasable ships. I'd like to think with a lot of the new missions and trading coming in 3.0 we're at least going to see rentable/purchasable ships with AUEC, I don't think it would be a good move releasing stuff like proc gen planets, missions and trading yet still confine us to whatever we have purchased. I really hope they do have some kind of ship renting/purchasing in the PU, because I'm stuck with an Aurora and a Nox, so I can't get it planetside without a bigger ship. As for renting ships in the PU with REC, I doubt it, isn't REC only supposed to be for Arena Commander in the first place? Has CIG released any info on upcoming 3.1 systems yet? I can't imagine they're all cramming to get 3.0 out, and while I never believed we would be seeing 3.1 or 3.2 this year, it'd be interesting to see how they're coming along with places like Arc Corp/Area 18, which was supposed to start around May and was [i]originally[/i] scheduled to be finishing today (although has most likely been pushed back alongside a lot of other stuff). Also, regarding the 'Cargo 2.0' section on the yearly schedule, is that the same cargo that we are getting in 3.0 or is it a more expanded version? And is the yearly schedule updated at all or just the smaller schedules?

CIG has made no mention of allowing ships to become purchaseable for aUEC for 3.0. However, with the kiosks coming, it seems like a natural progression. You'll also be able to summon ships planetside at certain locations, so you can call up your Nox while already planetside instead of needing to contrive some method of transporting it down and flying it out the ass of some larger ship. REC is indeed supposed to only be for Arena Commander and Star Marine, the simulations -- it's effetively "rental DLC" currency for the "games" in the SimPod, and now that aUEC is here (since 2.4) REC isn't the only way to obtain things in-game and everything to do with REC is being separated, bit by bit, from the PU. [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report"]3.1's goals are at the bottom of the schedule report,[/URL] along with the roadmap for the rest of the year (i.e. 3.1+). We dn't have anything more detailed than that, because CIG's focus is 3.0. However, CIG has indicated that work on 3.1 and beyond is ongoing while 3.0 is being prepared for going live. I imagine they'll shift to revealing more of that to us after 3.0 is out and they've got that elephant of a patch out. Hopefully 3.1 won't take as long as 3.0. Cargo 2.0 would imply the second major pass of the cargo system, because up until 3.0 cargo isn't even a thing, but I'm not a CIG producer so :huh: I doubt the yearly schedule is kept as updated as the weekly tasks, but I haven't been comparing the revisions to that one picture specifically. (It's huge and not diffable, for one.) The 3.1-and-beyond text section hasn't changed in ages, though.

Playing a bit of 2.6.3 recently has me wondering.... How are they going to handle death? If we're on a far-reaching corner of a planet/moon and we happen to die from falling, or some means like a bugging out ship, do we respawn at our ship? Does our ship just disappear and we respawn back at Olisar or something of the sort? Are we going to be able to make waypoints to returns to a point of interest that we were exploring before we died? I think it's too easy to die at the moment. Maybe not in a firefight on foot, but I feel like I should be able to be a novice in the game and still enjoy it. My friend, who hasn't played since 2016 or earlier, flew his connie around to explore 2.6 and just died pretty quickly.

Soo, it seems the cyclone sale went up and then the site shat it self shortly after. I got to the point where I could take a test for a 'class-g driving license'.. Loaded the test and then gateway 502 and 504 errors ever since.

Yeah, seems like this is a 1 day pre sale with a special limited edition matte black skin for sale. The cyclone seems to have a few variants available. Normal. Racing. Turreted. AA. Recon. The normal version has space for cargo instead of any guns as it seems.

[QUOTE=revan740;52489114]Playing a bit of 2.6.3 recently has me wondering.... How are they going to handle death? If we're on a far-reaching corner of a planet/moon and we happen to die from falling, or some means like a bugging out ship, do we respawn at our ship? Does our ship just disappear and we respawn back at Olisar or something of the sort? Are we going to be able to make waypoints to returns to a point of interest that we were exploring before we died? I think it's too easy to die at the moment. Maybe not in a firefight on foot, but I feel like I should be able to be a novice in the game and still enjoy it. My friend, who hasn't played since 2016 or earlier, flew his connie around to explore 2.6 and just died pretty quickly.[/QUOTE] There's two different types of 'dying' planned for the game. Normal gamey death, your ship and all the crap on it is left behind, and you get 'revived' at the nearest medical facility you have neutral or better standing with (that you can afford). You file an insurance claim to get a new ship (or hire a friend to go get your old one back if whatever killed you didn't scrap it). However if you die too many times, your character will start to get scars, missing limbs, and etc. from the amount of times you were essentially 'recovered', until eventually your character dies permanently and you move on to your 'next of kin', aka a character with a new face, new name (if you want), and diminished faction reputation inheritance from your previous character. You still keep all of your ships and assets of course, but this was implemented because CR wants the world to be a living place where people can have their character's names go down in history.

Anyone pass the test? since I got 5 and had this [t]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/131482024450981888/337717320006762496/Dnt-Yr0LNK.png[/t]

[video=youtube;Nwiielzbuws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwiielzbuws[/video] [t]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/vj0pi3ibl7k4zr/source/Tumbril-Buggy-Piece-07-Black-Beach-V012a.jpg[/t] [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16014-Behold-The-Cyclone"]Tumbril Cyclone presale page[/URL] answers the mystery of the "five variants" aspect of the concept sale. [QUOTE]The five Cyclone variants: the CYC base, the CYC-RC racer, the CYC-TR turreted version, the CYC-RN recon model and the CYC-AA anti-aircraft variant[/QUOTE] And if anyone bought a Warbond Cyclone and wants one of the variants, [QUOTE]CCUs from the base Cyclone to the variants will also be available tomorrow.[/QUOTE] Reminder to ulvemann43 that this concept sale is an LTI concept and the non-warbond price is $45 (starting tomorrow).

Yup, already on it. That thing looks sick~ If i get the warbond version and then upgrade it i should get the limited skin for the new version too shouldn't i? I'd love a matte black space technical. [img]http://i.imgur.com/MRCQw9P.png[/img] The turret variation is visible in that driver test thing.

The combo pack gives the Dust Devil skin for each version, so you should keep the Warbond skin through the upgrade. Also a reminder that a Cyclone can be used as the LTI token for your really big dream ship, if you have the spare dosh while the sale's going. I imagine the question will be answered tomorrow when they reveal the full concept sale, but I'm interested to know how soon it'll be for the Cyclone to be playable.

Yeah, i got two, a token and an actual cyclone i wanna upgrade to the turret version. I didn't actually expect i'd like it this much but damn, it is a good looking vehicle.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UmE8gmP.png[/IMG] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6okcq7/warning_cyclones_can_not_be_ccued_to_other_ships/"]So, uh, I just heard about this.[/URL][URL="https://twitter.com/banditloaf/status/888195590529495040"] Cyclones can be CCU'd to other variants,[/URL] but not ships. So, derp. However, if you feel very strongly about it you could send in a ticket to CS and ask for a refund, especially within 14 days under EU consumer protection law. Or you could store credit it or something.

I have to keep telling myself that I don't want the Cyclone 5 pack. A Nox is enough. :(

About the Cyclone CCU thing, note Ben's exact wording. [media]https://twitter.com/banditloaf/status/888195590529495040[/media] I'm hoping for something a bit larger, like a city bus in size. For mining or ground transport, or something. It'd kind of amuse me if SC managed to basically slip in Space Truck Simulator on planets with the simple addition of larger ground vehicles like that and making sure a few desert/grassland planets have an unusually high frequency of inhabited ground outposts. :v: Evocati PTU starts anytime now, unless things suddenly squeeze into August with tomorrow's schedule.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52491194][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UmE8gmP.png[/IMG] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6okcq7/warning_cyclones_can_not_be_ccued_to_other_ships/"]So, uh, I just heard about this.[/URL][URL="https://twitter.com/banditloaf/status/888195590529495040"] Cyclones can be CCU'd to other vehicles,[/URL] but not ships. So, derp. However, if you feel very strongly about it you could send in a ticket to CS and ask for a refund, especially within 14 days under EU consumer protection law. Or you could store credit it or something.[/QUOTE] Somehow I dislike the LTI and all the trickery going around it, wasn't it supposed to be just a minor quality of life improvement? On the other hand if it's significant, then i'm angry, because this is leaning towards pay 2 win. Since buying ships should be thought of as "funding", it should not really give you advantages that others wont ever get, like LTI. Players with free LTI will surely exploit it somehow aswell, because why not. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] Your post about refunding your Cyclone because it doesn't allow you to melt for free LTI for ships made me angry. In a sense i see this LTI CCU system as a form of exploit to get LTI to any bigger ship. And now that the "exploit" doesn't apply here, you use that as a reason to refund. This just feels so wrong. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] I searched for some answers about LTI, and how i see it is there are two views on LTI: Those who want or have it and expect it to be a free respawn for ships. Those who don't have it and expect it to make minimal difference compared to SHI. So i see two possible outcomes from this: [B]Either the LTI will actually be quite irrelevant and make those who have LTI angry (due to them paying real money to get it to their real money ships). And if it will be relevant (due to how expensive SHI could possibly be for some ships) it will make those who don't have LTI angry in turn.[/B] Either way this causes discord between LTI and non-LTI players. This comment on reddit is basically why this is a problem in the first place: [quote]Well, people had been doing this for a while now. That said, what CIG really should have done was stick to their original intent to stop giving LTI out, regardless of how much people bitched about wanting it. That ship has clearly sailed, so yes, they really do need to just give it out to everyone and create some other perk for OB/VB. It is kind of a kick in the nuts to see LTI be so accessible all this time later. I pledged for the game when I did because I thought LTI was going away. I could have very well held off until this point had I known what would later transpire.[/quote] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3tlvcc/ccu_has_killed_lti_just_give_prebeta_ships_lti/cx7jxy4/[/url]

[QUOTE=creec;52491602]Somehow I dislike the LTI and all the trickery going around it, wasn't it supposed to be just a minor quality of life improvement? On the other hand if it's significant, then i'm angry, because this is leaning towards pay 2 win. Since buying ships should be thought of as "funding", it should not really give you advantages that others wont ever get, like LTI. Players with free LTI will surely exploit it somehow aswell, because why not. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] Your post about refunding your Cyclone because it doesn't allow you to melt for free LTI for ships made me angry. In a sense i see this LTI CCU system as a form of exploit to get LTI to any bigger ship. And now that the "exploit" doesn't apply here, you use that as a reason to refund. This just feels so wrong. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] I searched for some answers about LTI, and how i see it is there are two views on LTI: Those who want or have it and expect it to be a free respawn for ships. Those who don't have it and expect it to make minimal difference compared to SHI. So i see two possible outcomes from this: [B]Either the LTI will actually be quite irrelevant and make those who have LTI angry (due to them paying real money to get it to their real money ships). And if it will be relevant (due to how expensive SHI could possibly be for some ships) and make those who don't have LTI angry.[/B] Either way this causes discord between LTI and non-LTI players. This comment on reddit is basically why this is a problem in the first place: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3tlvcc/ccu_has_killed_lti_just_give_prebeta_ships_lti/cx7jxy4/[/url][/QUOTE] Even if you have LTI, you have to pay up if you want your ship back. There's just no recurring payment, which is said to be rather insignificant anyhow.

Also theres this small detail which disturbs me most. LTI through CCU allows you to do something that is not possible to insure with SHI (if this is true): "In certain areas LTI can still be a extremely good thing to have though, but only on extremely rare ships like the vanduul scythe that [B]cant normally be insured[/B] or ships that are very hard to come by. " [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mu ha ha;52491624]Even if you have LTI, you have to pay up if you want your ship back. There's just no recurring payment, which is said to be rather insignificant anyhow.[/QUOTE] I realize that, but do you think everyone understands LTI the same way? Some people really must think it's their free respawn and makes them special. I can already see how some players will start bitching about losing their LTI ships and having to pay anyway to get a replacement. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] Also, they really should have given EVERY ship that was bought with real money LTI. Just to prevent situations where someone crashes expensive ship without insurance and blames CIG for it. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] [img]https://files.catbox.moe/nyhrgm.png[/img] I wish this was true unlike how it turned out despite CIG saying LTI won't be given out anymore years ago. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] [B]TL;DR I'm angry because LTI is now business instead of "thank you" for older backers. [/B]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52491194][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/UmE8gmP.png[/IMG] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6okcq7/warning_cyclones_can_not_be_ccued_to_other_ships/"]So, uh, I just heard about this.[/URL][URL="https://twitter.com/banditloaf/status/888195590529495040"] Cyclones can be CCU'd to other vehicles,[/URL] but not ships. So, derp. However, if you feel very strongly about it you could send in a ticket to CS and ask for a refund, especially within 14 days under EU consumer protection law. Or you could store credit it or something.[/QUOTE] Well shit. Yeah i will send a ticket to support i think.

LTI really isn't supposed to be that big of a deal. It's just automatically-renewing insurance, and it only covers the base hull. Also from the way CIG described insurance in the 3.0 systems Happy Hour, the ultimate plan apparently is that everyone has to pay a small amount to get their ship replaced after a snafu; people without LTI also have to pay some amount to [I]start[/I] the insurance coverage and then a small fee if they file a claim. So it seems that all LTI does is save you the potential mistake of forgetting to renew and some unknown (but fairly trivial, since hull insurance has always been described as intended to be cheap and easy to get) fee. [B]BTW there is no way to CCU to a Vanduul Scythe.[/B] CIG sold one single round of LTI Scythes as a special round of pledge fundraising. If you capture a Vanduul ship in the game, you'll likely find it is uninsurable mainly because the insurance companies don't exactly have a cordial supply chain relationship with the Vanduul, so they can't offer prompt replacements. But further to that point, there is almost nothing in the game that never had an LTI option but is in the CCU path. The only ship I can think of that has never had an LTI offering is the Mustangs, and that was because backers specifically voted not to have a concept sale and hold it for when it's flight-ready, bypassing the LTI round. I can't think of any others except for the P-52 and even then you could have it with LTI if you got a Connie back when they were offered with LTI. The Khartu-al's concept sale predates the policy of offering LTI on the first sale of a new concept, but all K-A first-round concept purchases were retroactively given LTI to line up with the policy, so doesn't count. CIG has also stated that people who abuse LTI to e.g. kamikaze people without consequences will have their LTI taken away from them. People who commit insurance fraud will have their LTI taken away, as well. [QUOTE=creec;52491626]I wish this was true unlike how it turned out despite CIG saying LTI won't be given out anymore years ago. [B]TL;DR I'm angry because LTI is now business instead of "thank you" for older backers. [/B][/QUOTE] Blame backers, not CIG. It's peace of mind that you can't ever forget to renew your insurance before you take off in your ship, and that's all it was ever intended to be -- backers ascribed deadly critical importance to it on their own. There are some backers out there who refuse to ever pledge for anything from CIG unless it has LTI on it, because they're that paranoid/cheap about the faintest possibility that they could lose the property they paid good money for... neeeeeever mind that they're missing the point of pledging to start with. Backers demanded LTI because they thought it was some sort of Holy Grail. Newer backers demanded LTI because they weren't around for the chance to get LTI on every package, and existing backers make such a big deal about LTI that it's not fair that newbies can't have it. Older backers feel resentment that their special reward is being reduced to triviality. Meanwhile CIG sits there with its head in its hands screaming "it was always trivial until you idiots turned it into a fetish". LTI being offered with new concepts on an ongoing basis is an attempt by CIG to find a reasonable compromise that everyone can accept.

I feel i may wait with asking for a refund depending on the price of the Cyclone variants and such stuff. Though i must admit the things they so far shared about the insurance system, the times it will take to get back your ship etc, has me quite worried, considering how fast some ships in this game can be destroyed. Although it feels like the devs haven't yet fully decide on anything with the insurance, since whenever i hear information it seems to be changing. Although i hope that insuring new, not base loadouts won't remove any existing LTI but instead be an added fee. I honestly feel that the current way ship destruction is handled in terms of wait times is pretty good. Smaller ships can be gotten faster, larger ships will take a while; not so short that you can go revenge kill whoever killed you, but neither so long that you will be discouraged from playing. And if they'd tweak the rebuy UEC cost, then neither would we have the elite problem of people with massive ships constantly griefing then respawning. At least as long as the devs are open to changing stuff based on feedback everything should be fine, but the things recently talked about, regarding how the system works, based on a 10% of ship hull value, which decause at 1k AUC per hour, i feel that the current plan can become a really big pain. Of course we don't know any numbers yet, but i will keep my fingers crossed at the very least. I do remember hearing that they plan for a ship like the andromeda to require a month of hard work for a single person to afford one, so if that plan continues, at a 10% rate, then that would be 3 day's work gone in case a connie would be destroyed. Though i really hope that any possible removing of LTI from people abusing it will be handled by people and not an automated system.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;52491810] Though i must admit the things they so far shared about the insurance system, the times it will take to get back your ship etc, has me quite worried, considering how fast some ships in this game can be destroyed. Although it feels like the devs haven't yet fully decide on anything with the insurance, since whenever i hear information it seems to be changing. Although i hope that insuring new, not base loadouts won't remove any existing LTI but instead be an added fee. I honestly feel that the current way ship destruction is handled in terms of wait times is pretty good. Smaller ships can be gotten faster, larger ships will take a while; not so short that you can go revenge kill whoever killed you, but neither so long that you will be discouraged from playing.[/QUOTE] I think you are mistaken to think current mini-PU will be anything like final in terms of how often ships will be destroyed. There is currently no weight at all in mini-PU for losing your ship or making someone else lose theirs other than annoyance. In final game it will involve huge risks and losses whenever theres chance that someone might die or lose ship. Don't think of current test universe as representative of final work. In final universe your ship will be your home and you are gonna invest into it and live on it, you won't spam ships and respawn as you like. Otherwise the PU will just become a massive deathmatch dogfight game..

[QUOTE=ntzu;52490244]You file an insurance claim to get a new ship (or hire a friend to go get your old one back if whatever killed you didn't scrap it).[/quote] Does that mean you can do both and commit insurance fraud? :v:

[QUOTE=creec;52491946]I think you are mistaken to think current mini-PU will be anything like final in terms of how often ships will be destroyed. There is currently no weight at all in mini-PU for losing your ship or making someone else lose theirs other than annoyance. In final game it will involve huge risks and losses whenever theres chance that someone might die or lose ship. Don't think of current test universe as representative of final work. In final universe your ship will be your home and you are gonna invest into it and live on it, you won't spam ships and respawn as you like. Otherwise the PU will just become a massive deathmatch dogfight game..[/QUOTE] Not what i'm saying at all. But death will happen. Being unable to play the game for possibly days would be ridiculously offputting for many. They already linda fix the fighting problem by adding a lot of consequences etc, but of course you will always have -those- players. But from how they describe the way they plan for insurance to work is almost the same as now, but with longer times, and that you actually need to contact the firm. Wait times being long wouldn't be bad if it is for repeat offences for insurance, though it is easy to take it too far, imo.

Was on hiatus from star-citizen until I heard about the 10 systems on launch. Sigh, so much for stretch goals. So whether that 10 systems will feel as a full star citizen game would be how travel works. Which funny enough, CIG does not go into detail which makes me even more worried on the future of star citizen. There needs to be serious talk on travel, such as the hyperdrive mechanic. The current static model of hyper-drive is plainly boring. Essentially you line your ship for a destination, and you push a button. Elite dangerous Hyperdrives on the other hand are much more interactive, such as you can control your ship while in hyperdrive and control speed. I'm thinking something even better, for example I have been watching a show called stargate. Pretty interesting how their hyperdrives work. Essentially the hyperdrives open a subspace window. I was thinking maybe Starcitizen needs subspace. subspace can be really wierd and Dystopia. Essentially how it could work is that if you want to travel from 1 destination to the next over great distances, you enter a subspace window. That subspace window is disconnected from the universe you are in. For example since subspace is wierd, inside subspace could be many obstacles, hit one of those obstacles and you are pulled out of hyper-drive.

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;52492043]Not what i'm saying at all. But death will happen. Being unable to play the game for possibly days would be ridiculously offputting for many. They already linda fix the fighting problem by adding a lot of consequences etc, but of course you will always have -those- players. But from how they describe the way they plan for insurance to work is almost the same as now, but with longer times, and that you actually need to contact the firm. Wait times being long wouldn't be bad if it is for repeat offences for insurance, though it is easy to take it too far, imo.[/QUOTE] The thing is that there's a lot more to Star Citizen other than having your own ship. There's thousands of players out there who have already said that as soon as the game drops, they're selling all their ships. Losing your ship doesn't make the game unplayable whatsoever, it just restricts your playstyle. You have no ship and no money? You work for other players that do. You hitchhike over the universe with those kind enough to let you on board. If the game works out the way they say they want it to, not having a ship should not be majorly offputting. [editline]21st July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Toyokunari;52492295]Was on hiatus from star-citizen until I heard about the 10 systems on launch. Sigh, so much for stretch goals. So whether that 10 systems will feel as a full star citizen game would be how travel works. Which funny enough, CIG does not go into detail which makes me even more worried on the future of star citizen. There needs to be serious talk on travel, such as the hyperdrive mechanic. The current static model of hyper-drive is plainly boring. Essentially you line your ship for a destination, and you push a button. Elite dangerous Hyperdrives on the other hand are much more interactive, such as you can control your ship while in hyperdrive and control speed.[/QUOTE] Elite also gets really boring really quickly because if you're going anywhere with a purpose, you can't even leave your seat. Bring up a menu while you're flying towards your objective? You overshoot it and have to do the painful 180 turn. They spoke a bit about travel in the SolEd episode of ATV (or maybe it was the Subbys Town Hall) where it can take quite a while to traverse systems. They've already said it'll take 12 days (I think it was 12) to walk all the way around a moon as well. It'll be interesting to see what the deal is with jump points and stuff, but for now I think Q travel might be similar to what we see in the final game.

[QUOTE=Lord Hayden;52492309] Elite also gets really boring really quickly because if you're going anywhere with a purpose, you can't even leave your seat. Bring up a menu while you're flying towards your objective? You overshoot it and have to do the painful 180 turn. .[/QUOTE] Well the fact of the matter is elite hyper-drives are more interactive, you can't really say that to starcitizen. Also what you just mention could be regarded as fun for some people, as it requires skill to not overshoot. Might be annoying sure, but who says you have to overshoot and do a painful 180 turn? Its pretty much your fault if you do. Either way, my example of elite dangerous is to highlight the difference of interactivity. Not that starcitizen has to use Elite dangerous way of travel.

I don't think anyone is going to have to wait literal days for any ship smaller than a Connie unless they are filing replacement claims within 30 minutes of getting the replacement ship and they've done it a dozen times in a row. Larger ships, well, CIG's said the whole time that bigger ships require more responsibility. CIG has anti-griefing measures planned to prevent people from just murderbonering anything they see 24/7. Just PVP is fine, but going after specific people or targeting "safe" zones will provoke a strong response. Death is going to happen, but it shouldn't be as easy, casual, or trivial as it currently is in the baby PU. CIG is currently working on building out the systems needed for the game, not tweaking them to generate perfect gameplay values for the game's lifetime. Balance tweaks are pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet to make things more or less potent and can come anytime after the systems themselves are established. [QUOTE=Toyokunari;52492334]Well the fact of the matter is elite hyper-drives are more interactive, you can't really say that to starcitizen. Also what you just mention could be regarded as fun for some people, as it requires skill to not overshoot. Might be annoying sure, [B]but who says you have to overshoot and do a painful 180 turn?[/B] Its pretty much your fault if you do.[/QUOTE] I overshot targets a dozen times because Elite [I]made me fall asleep[/I] before I arrived where I wanted to be, because it was a straight line and I had nothing to do but tab out or stare at nothing for 15 literal minutes. I fear the effect the mindset of the people who find this 'fun' has had on Elite. I don't really think it takes much skill to drop throttle into the blue zone when you get 6-7 seconds away from your destination. The only skills that requires are a) hitting a keybind at the right time and b) not falling asleep first. The fact that there's a (unreliable) landing autopilot but no supercruise deceleration autopilot to automate that "drop to blue at 6s" moment in the 33rd century strains suspension of disbelief. Calling Elite's supercruise "interactive" is technically true but in practice it's pretty uninteractive. If SC makes me take 10-15minute Quantum rides every so often, at least I'll be able to get up and watch planets go by from different windows even if nothing on my ship needs maintenance or tweaking. It could be boring but it's not as boring as being nailed to my seat. Of course, if I'm flying a ship with no interior space and just a cockpit, I [I]am[/I] nailed to my seat so hopefully something else will be available to stave off the boredom. Elite's supercruise was also supposed to work exactly like Star Citizen's, and then Elite backers complained and demanded the ability to fly around the star systems in an interactive layer. And that's why Elite has the unholy voodoo of supercruise instances being separated from linear space, and every transition into or out of supercruise is actually a quick disguised loading screen and an opportunity for instancing bugs, like being interdicted by another player and both of you drop out into different instances with nobody around. I think it's cool being able to fly low over a gas giant's ring structure, but the tradeoff to get that functionality has been tremendous.

I imagine you'l be able to browse the SC version of the internett while doing single seat craft flying. I heard someone mention that they plan to use GMs as news reporters so that could be a fun thing to happen, browse the latest news while cruisn'