Star Citizen Megathread - Star Marine isn't doomed after all! - Games

I think SC will be fun for the same reason I've put hundreds of hours into games like GTA or even Garry's Mod RP servers - human interaction, emergent gameplay.

Shitty opinion inbound: I'm that type of hardcore immersion type that wants each spectrum of the game to be able to mastered by a player. More advanced menus that include engineering level difficulty, advanced marketing, and everything else. I don't want it to be easy, I want to work hard to get good at it, or else everyone would just win 50-50. But that'd be too annoying and cause an extreme learning curve, so the game would die. I don't care if there's an alternativ option for this in the game, that would give other players a huge advantage over me, I just need that shit in my life. Give me a book how to fix that engine. imo

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;51001078]i'm worried that SC will not capitalize on one of the biggest strengths they have in my opinion, which are the missions. they're focusing way too much on having story and voice acting and not enough on having different, fun gameplay on them. even the ones in the game right now are just meh at best. if they do something like wow then that would be awesome. add some basic matchmaking (as in people that are trying to do the same mission get put together) and there's some great potential for lasting fun[/QUOTE] You know 3.0 is supposed to include the initial implementation of procedurally-generated missions, right? We don't yet know much about it, and it's likely that at least initially it's going to be fairly Radiant-y, but the long-term result is unknown and the potential is quite high for it to be substantially more engaging than "fetch 9 snake assholes" from your average WoW-like. If, by the time the game is far enough into beta to be judged as a "near finished" game, there is a mission chain that is engaging and capitvating as the Rites of the Earthmother quest chain was in the vanilla WoW era, I'll be satisfied. There've long been discussions and 10ftC Roberts rambles about how missions are intended to work, more particularly on how you encounter them in-game than the specific mechanics. One scenario is overhearing NPCs talk in a bar and listening long enough to put together either their plan or a plan to work around them (attack them, follow them, whatever). Another is an NPC straight-up offering you a mission if you engage them in conversation, the classic way. Another is receiving distress calls, either as a posted alert in a Jobwell or what-have-you, or directly received by the player while out and about in space (this distress call could be real or a trap). These are all possible in addition to actually going to the designated Job Board analogue (TDD Jobwell in ArcCorp for example) to create/sign up for missions. All of these options are entirely realistic with the engine framework CIG already has or is building. Could they be executed in a shitty, unfun way? Sure. I never claimed otherwise in my last post so I'm not sure why you even bothered mentioning my name before going off on a generalized rant with [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1496153&p=49401344&viewfull=1#post49401344"]the same arguments I've made in the past[/URL]. But if there is any major studio handling a AAA-tier title that I trust to listen to player feedback and evolve systems instead of just dropping the game on your plate and you can take it or leave it as is the typical AAA scenario, it's CIG. The current mission implementation is very placeholder, and that should come as no surprise. I'm hoping that CIG is fairly transparent about how their procedural mission system works, in terms of what the quanta of mission stage is and what inputs it needs in a broad sense like NPC names and locations and economic/criminal requirements (not Cryengine data types and tech dev shit), because then I can try again with idea factory threads like the create-a-wreckage contest I had. I found that a number of people wanted to write out entire mission scripts, going well beyond what entries were supposed to be, and I'd specifically asked people not to do it because we didn't know what the nuts and bolts of the procgen mission system were so it'd be near useless to the designers now. If CIG will tell us how they create missions, the community could generate tons and tons of variety for free, and hopefully the community's ideas would inspire the devs to create additional code-supported variety in the system. It could all become a mess of Mary Sue'ing and creepy posts about pirates with teenage sex slaves like that one guy (I reported him to Toast, who's both CIG legal and a mod, RIP), but there's a chance it won't be all autism.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;51001078]how many games that have "minigames" (as in not the [I]main [/I]focus of the game) that are legitimately fun and don't get old after a few plays can you name?[/QUOTE] I have no idea how they will do minigames but I think what they need to do, considering people's careers may rely directly on them, is design them as if they were separate indie games. Look at Infinifactory for instance, it doesn't have much width in terms of system variety (there are about a dozen different blocks), but the resulting depth is huge. That's definitely the kind of model they should aim for if they want people to invest dozens of hours in them.

Not doing this would be a massive waste of opportunity, just like it was for Elite. FD really dropped the ball by refusing to include community contributions, even while they had people willing to make entire ships for them. They could practically build the entire rest of the game just by choosing and polishing community contributions.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;51001503]after seeing those gorgeous crashed-ship-in-the-desert gifs i thought of something similar: why doesn't cig go full valve and let the community make free stuff for them? imagine how could it would be if a community as [del]obsessed[/del] dedicated as sc's started making free assets like those crashed ships for them to procedurally add to planets and such. imagine community-made missions and questlines that shit would be dope[/QUOTE] I agree, but I think it's a little early yet; the tech is changing around the designers/tech artists. The desert Starfarer 'base' scene could've been put together a year ago (only with a Tali or Connie, since the 'farer wasn't finished), except it would've had to have been laboriously hand-made because the larger-ship catastrophic damage tech and the planet atmospherics tech weren't close to ready. Now, according to RtV from the day after the AtV episode with the wreckage scenes, the crashed Starfarer site was made in one day by the one guy. Once CIG releases the modding tools to the community to use with private servers, which in theory would include the ability to make these kind of crash sites, they'd be insane to not at least attempt to have a community submissions system for community-generated content to be added to the game. Modding tools aren't a thing that will be focused on until after beta, but if it means that about a year after the game leaves beta, the PU starts getting flooded with awesome community-made missions and side storylines, that'd be something worth waiting for. That's quite a long ways off so I'm not even considering that as a realistic possibility for a while, and even then there's no guarantee CIG will do it (although it'd allow them to save a lot of money while still getting tons of quality content for those microupdates they want to do). I'm waiting until we get closer to 3.0 launch, but I plan to ask for details on how the proc mission system works. If I can get CIG to tell me what they need from us, I know I can get the community to generate good, quality ideas (and a lot of cringey shit besides). I plan on leveraging the Concierge forum, and I may be lucky enough to just be able to bother one of the designers in private conversation on the RSI chat/in the SC Discord and get the straight dope there. If I can work out a format for submissions that works for them, something pretty cool could happen.

[quote] Once CIG releases the modding tools [/quote] noticed that part ... realized that will happen around 2022 to 2024 and returned back to work on <classified> why? well 2017 fall for SC 42, 2018 fall closed beta, 2019 fall open beta, 2020 fall gold, 2021 three patches to make it playable ;)

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;51001503]imagine community-made missions and questlines[/QUOTE] Star Trek Online does this, problem is it's a mixed bag in terms of quality.

Sorry about the meme shit but this was simply too good to pass up [video=youtube;5c41-61jHqs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c41-61jHqs[/video]

I just had to make this: [url]https://vid.me/Zftt[/url] [T]http://i.imgur.com/aQEIGqk.png[/T][T]http://i.imgur.com/c4OvDj2.png[/T] [T]http://i.imgur.com/tAFLDeE.png[/T][T]http://i.imgur.com/XDdDWbu.png[/T] DROPSHIP YO'

erm, did you model that because i'll be honest here it's a mess

[QUOTE=the_killer24;51009837]erm, did you make that because i'll be honest here it's a mess[/QUOTE] First time making a spaceship, and 100% improvisation. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] And I was inspired by a fly. I can see lots of mistakes that are limited by my knowledge, even though I find it acceptable for my experience (I'm used with motion graphics), and if you could provide me a list of things I should fix, please share. Criticism is the key. So far I can see: - My obsession with improvisation, I never plan my stuff - Collisions - Mechanical functions - Polygonal simplicity - Polygonals that has artificial issues (look at end part of back wing) - Big focus objects has less details than the less important parts, which makes it look messy - Lots of grebble - Back thrusters are way too simple and needs more variations - etc

It looks nice. Interesting style to it. But if you didn't tell me it was a dropship, I would have never would known.

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51009843]First time making a spaceship, and 100% improvisation. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] And I was inspired by a fly. I can see lots of mistakes that are limited by my knowledge, even though I find it acceptable for my experience (I'm used with motion graphics), and if you could provide me a list of things I should fix, please share. Criticism is the key.[/QUOTE] I like the overall shape of it, and I can definitely see the 'fly' influence. The problem is that it's got way too much shit hanging off of it, way too much greeble. When you look at the model, you want there to be just enough detail to look good, but not enough to confuse the eye and break up the model's outline and overall shape. That should be emphasized, but there's a bit too much going on with yours. You're clearly very skilled at making models, but the design is the only issue with that one. Just my two cents.

"Make your eyesight feel welcomed and relaxed".

Star Citizen ship greeble should help hint at or explain the ship's function and make it look like an actual space ship that theoretically could exist. This is different from (bad) generic scifi movie/TV/etc. greeble which is designed to give the viewer a sense of scale during the brief moments they're able to focus on it while the camera moves around the model and action scenes happen. As an example, consider this concept shot of the Anvil Gladiator. There is greeble, but it's selectively placed rather than covering the whole thing. [t]http://a4.format-assets.com/image/private/s--iQLNop0h--/c_limit,g_center,h_1200,w_65535/a_auto,fl_keep_iptc.progressive,q_95/67171-12103081-exterior_09_jpg.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51009843]First time making a spaceship, and 100% improvisation. [editline]6th September 2016[/editline] And I was inspired by a fly. I can see lots of mistakes that are limited by my knowledge, even though I find it acceptable for my experience (I'm used with motion graphics), and if you could provide me a list of things I should fix, please share. Criticism is the key. So far I can see: - My obsession with improvisation, I never plan my stuff - Collisions - Mechanical functions - Polygonal simplicity - Polygonals that has artificial issues (look at end part of back wing) - Big focus objects has less details than the less important parts, which makes it look messy - Lots of grebble - Back thrusters are way too simple and needs more variations - etc[/QUOTE] You greebled way too hard. When you place greeble, try to think of some vague function for it maybe, beyond decorative? Spacecraft need lots of heatsinks for example. They need maneuvering thrusters too, and antennae (from reflectarrays and panels to dishes to actual ol stick antenna). How or where do people board the spacecraft? Does it have landing gear and if it does where are the hatches they retract into? Its a neat design with a cool profile buried under too much detail and greeble, especially up top. The cockpit up front - how would someone see out of that? Maybe make the sides of this cockpit seem more like glass, or "bubble" it outwards in some vague polygonal shape maybe, so that the pilot can have decent visibility. Or, keep it 100% obscured and we can assume they use like screens and cameras instead of glass. Its a neat craft and an excellent first attempt. Don't stop by any means. I think the thrusters are fine too, tbh

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;51002599]Star Trek Online does this, problem is it's a mixed bag in terms of quality.[/QUOTE] Well, instead of having employees design missions, why not have them review player submitted missions for coherence and well-put-togetherness"?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51009992]Star Citizen ship greeble should help hint at or explain the ship's function and make it look like an actual space ship that theoretically could exist. This is different from (bad) generic scifi movie/TV/etc. greeble which is designed to give the viewer a sense of scale during the brief moments they're able to focus on it while the camera moves around the model and action scenes happen. As an example, consider this concept shot of the Anvil Gladiator. There is greeble, but it's selectively placed rather than covering the whole thing. [t]http://a4.format-assets.com/image/private/s--iQLNop0h--/c_limit,g_center,h_1200,w_65535/a_auto,fl_keep_iptc.progressive,q_95/67171-12103081-exterior_09_jpg.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] that said, dont make ships that look like planes. they're boring.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;51011021]that said, dont make ships that look like planes. they're boring.[/QUOTE] That's strictly subjective. [t]http://goo.gl/NT196W[/t] I think so long as you make something that looks cool and isn't *too* derivative, it'll do fine.

I'm a big fan of the Rocinante from the Expanse. Neat design, with a wonderful simplicity about it (still, note the labeled components and such). Nice paint scheme too, good ol martian orange cus Mars stronk. [t]http://magazine.artstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160126_NorthFront_EXT_rocinante_09d-layout.jpg[/t] edit: more ships? Wyvern from EvE Online is a long-time favorite of mine as well. It desperately needs an update and to be scaled up in size, but the latter can't come before the former and that keeps getting put off :/ [t]http://i.imgur.com/CaOR03Y.png[/t]

I feel that first ship, while looking really cool, is still suffering from too much greeble, it's just based more on modern spacetech. But that second one, is that vertically stacked runways/docking bays on the front? pretty striking look, haven't seen a carrier setup that isn't just based on an aircraft carrier (SC's Bengal, Battlestar Galactica, etc) or more akin to star wars's star destroyer bays on the side edges and underbelly. I like the occasional tall ship, probably have pillar of autumn for getting me to think about the use of vertical space more since it's not quite an issue for a spaceship

[QUOTE=dai;51011160]I feel that first ship, while looking really cool, is still suffering from too much greeble, it's just based more on modern spacetech. But that second one, is that vertically stacked runways/docking bays on the front? pretty striking look, haven't seen a carrier setup that isn't just based on an aircraft carrier (SC's Bengal, Battlestar Galactica, etc) or more akin to star wars's star destroyer bays on the side edges and underbelly. I like the occasional tall ship, probably have pillar of autumn for getting me to think about the use of vertical space more since it's not quite an issue for a spaceship[/QUOTE] Yeah, its got vertical landing bays stacked up front along with a longer landing bay running down the keel. Here's a better image of the profile- the rest of the actual in-game images aren't too hot haha so I was waiting on posting any of em [t]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/eve/images/1/18/Wyvern3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080928152025[/t]

I once found this picture: [t]http://cdn.astroempires.com/images/charts/size_chart_large_ships.jpg[/t] and it made me realise we need some proper heavy industrial ships in SC :drool: [editline]7th September 2016[/editline] Maybe not that ridiculously big, just more blocky and industrial looking!

[QUOTE=Sweeney;51011282]I once found this picture: [t]http://cdn.astroempires.com/images/charts/size_chart_large_ships.jpg[/t] and it made me realise we need some proper heavy industrial ships in SC :drool: [editline]7th September 2016[/editline] Maybe not that ridiculously big, just more blocky and industrial looking![/QUOTE] I can't help but think of the reclaimer when I see the nose of the second ship from the top in that pic. I guess that qualifies, right? I agree, those tend to look pretty amazing. [t]http://i.imgur.com/pqTDZ9p.jpg[/t] I honestly can't see any Aegis in this. Looks like it'd have done better as a Drake ship. As an aside to The Bird Man, you'll notice this ship's got a lot of greeble and fine detail on it, at least in concept. It's a ship close to two hundred meters in length, so it's like a little frigate. You'll also note that there are big sections of hull where there are just huge, flat hull plates with very little embellishment. Finding a balance between these two things seems like the key - not like I claim to know what that is.

[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1533530"]PC Gamer writes[/URL] on the mini shitstorm around Gamestar.de's statement that CR said at Gamescom that SQ42 was to be delayed into 2017. Most importantly, this quote from someone handling PR at CIG (possibly David Swofford): [QUOTE]It appears something may have been lost in the translation. Chris spoke to multiple reporters at Gamescom who asked about the status of Squadron 42. [B]We have been feature locked for a while and things are coming along nicely.[/B] In every case he told them that we are hard at work on the game and are focused on making it great but no official launch dates were discussed.[/QUOTE] If only they'd said this a while back, like within the same month of doing so (if only buried in the monthly report), that might've defused some of the drama in advance. But, that's still a nice milestone to hear about, especially one having passed "a while" ago. So, you know what that means: We might have it in our hands in February 2017 after all!

[QUOTE=the_killer24;51009837]because i'll be honest here it's a mess[/QUOTE] That just means it'd fit right into SC's lineup.

[QUOTE=Sweeney;51011282][t]http://cdn.astroempires.com/images/charts/size_chart_large_ships.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]oh my.

New bugsmashers [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igUL5WHPZgg[/media] [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11742779/Star%20Citizen/whenyourdreamsbecomebugs.jpg[/t]

[hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2KSLveyT4[/hd] [QUOTE]Ship Shape: Caterpillar Behind the Scenes: Tech Content Team[/QUOTE] [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/15501-New-United-Emboldened-Outlaws"]This week's lore post indicates that crime is getting worse.[/URL] The M50 and 350R freefly is still on through tomorrow. Right now the M50 is winning the poll by a significant margin and that means it'll go on sale next week. The monthly report for August is due tomorrow, too.