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

[QUOTE=dai;49993400]this is a beautiful mix of aggressively wishful pessimism and not knowing how development works like this isn't like a pet project in UE4, where you'd just make sure the guns shoot straight and the gamemode counts points before slapping some shiny game assets in and calling it an indie shooter[/QUOTE] Not to mention that half of the 'points' Xanoxis just made were completely false and had no basis in fact, or else were arguing essentially that it's wrong because a small, vocal minority bitch about it.

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;49993195]a. Then they should stop making promises and dates when something will be released, because so far, I think all of them have been missed (the big stuff). Thats it, this is the point, and its stupid of them to do so. b. They changed it twice, and before Derek said anything on his blog or anywhere else. Changes made it so you can't refund like they promised earlier at kickstarter, and date was pushed I think past release that is not specified. So there is that. It's just something they did, I'm not trying to be negative. c. It's just something people might not like, thats all, I get it that it is a form of dotation for the developer, and it works if people are willing to pay. I'm waiting until game is solid tho. d. Nowadays not many games have "normal dev cycle". Comparing SC to any other alpha game I tested, its pretty chaotic and buggy, even for alpha. It seems way earlier than other alphas. It's just something I don't enjoy much, but hey, you could! I think the point he was trying to make, besides all the bullshit etc, is that they "should" make solid game first, engine, performance, just basics of what they promised back at kickstarter, and then expand on that later on, with the money they got. Right now they promised way more, put all the eggs in one basket, and they go with it until either its done as they promised, or it fails and there is no more money. There is probably the fair point, that they do it with modules, so you can test it one by one more or less, but it is still buggy game, and optymalization is "eh" at best. At least in regular or populated situations. And there is no promise when it will get "release" quality performance. But they also now make Squadron 42, so they are trying to make one solid thing so far. I think Squadron 42 will be THE thing that shows how SC will work out. Either its what they promised and its great, or its half backed and not really polished, or its complete fail. We will see! End of 2016, here we come! Unless they will move the date.[/QUOTE] you used the word promise 7 times here, you should stop that. no one promised you jack shit, but looking back on estimates and goals as 'promises' is just an appeal to emotion to imply you're entitled to something that you're not also what other alphas have you played? you think 'normal dev cycle' isn't normal... what did you think he meant lol?? nope, every single triple A game goes through the same process, and if you played a real alpha this early in the process, and not a buggy release-candidate labelled 'alpha', it would be the same don't get me wrong, if you think the game sucks or don't want to back this early then that's fine no one is forcing you to buy jpeg ships. but please don't act like derek's amazingly fucked up narrative has anything to do with reality, we've shut down these misconceptions a million times in this thread already

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;49993195] I think the point he was trying to make, besides all the bullshit etc, is that they "should" make solid game first, engine, performance, just basics of what they promised back at kickstarter, and then expand on that later on, with the money they got. Right now they promised way more, put all the eggs in one basket, and they go with it until either its done as they promised, or it fails and there is no more money. There is probably the fair point, that they do it with modules, so you can test it one by one more or less, but it is still buggy game, and optymalization is "eh" at best. At least in regular or populated situations. And there is no promise when it will get "release" quality performance. But they also now make Squadron 42, so they are trying to make one solid thing so far. I think Squadron 42 will be THE thing that shows how SC will work out. Either its what they promised and its great, or its half backed and not really polished, or its complete fail. We will see! End of 2016, here we come! Unless they will move the date.[/QUOTE] I think this shows a complete lack of knowledge of Star Citizen in general as well as games development. What you've said is [I]exactly[/I] what they're doing already; making a solid game, then expanding it. I don't know how you could think that they aren't doing that. What's been released already not being finished doesn't mean they aren't doing that. They increased the scope of the game because they got the funding to do so and are now able to have the game how they wanted it all along, but doing that requires things to be developed in a certain order. They can't make the game and then go back and add something that would completely change how everything works. The features that are being worked on (as far as i know) or that have been released so far are the core features that will form the basis of Star Citizen. What things do you think they've shown that aren't necessary for the core game? They've shown ideas for some stuff that isn't needed yet, but that's not the same as putting development focus on those things and actually adding them to the game at this time. It's not as if they've decided they're going to work on and release every single part of the game at once, which seems to be what you're saying by the "Eggs in one basket". The game is in alpha, of course it's going to have bugs and lack optimization, those things are mainly solved later on when there's actually a point in properly fixing everything, rather than solving that now and then creating lots more problems later on and having to do it again. You can't make a smaller scale game and then go and increase the base features of it drastically without having to rework significant portions of it.

[URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/323545/2-3-0c-published-to-ptu"]PTU 2.3.0c is live.[/URL] RIP bandwidth

looks like we might get a starfarer commercial soon [img]https://i.imgur.com/QiEjQ2Y.png[/img]

I thought they weren't doing any more ship commercials until after SQ42, because the video team was tied up for that? Guess the Starfarer release is a big enough deal.

I mean it could also just be a still image for sake of the release sale

I think it'll probably be more like the Retaliator pre-flight check video than a commercial, and they'll play it on RtV. It'll be like a walkthrough. Reminder, [video=youtube;fxEWc6IvtQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxEWc6IvtQc[/video]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49975448][URL="https://www.artstation.com/artwork/aL940"]Ken Fairclough's artstation posted these today:[/URL] [t]https://cdn0.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/192/428/large/ken-fairclough-crusader-lookfeel-final-alternate.jpg?1458502321[/t] [t]https://cdn2.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/192/446/large/ken-fairclough-crusader-commercialplatform-callouts1.jpg?1458502074[/t] [t]https://cdn3.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/192/451/large/ken-fairclough-crusader-constructionplatform-callouts1.jpg?1458502080[/t] Crusader's Orison landing zone being concepted, yeeee. :happy:[/QUOTE] The green is the best part, reminds me of Halo Reach. Not too many sci-fi aesthetics that combine eco with dull industrial

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;49993195][B]a. Then they should stop making promises and dates when something will be released, because so far, I think all of them have been missed (the big stuff). Thats it, this is the point, and its stupid of them to do so. [/B] [I]"CIG PLS GIB DATE" "CIG WHY U MISS DATE"; they literally cannot win with date promises[/I] b. They changed it twice, and before Derek said anything on his blog or anywhere else. Changes made it so you can't refund like they promised earlier at kickstarter, and date was pushed I think past release that is not specified. So there is that. It's just something they did, I'm not trying to be negative. c. It's just something people might not like, thats all, I get it that it is a form of dotation for the developer, and it works if people are willing to pay. I'm waiting until game is solid tho. d. Nowadays not many games have "normal dev cycle". Comparing SC to any other alpha game I tested, its pretty chaotic and buggy, even for alpha. It seems way earlier than other alphas. It's just something I don't enjoy much, but hey, you could! [I]this a/b/c/d answer is about the most noncommittal response ever to criticism. "it's just something they did", "it's just something i don't enjoy much"[/I] [B]I think the point he was trying to make, besides all the bullshit etc, is that they "should" make solid game first, engine, performance, just basics of what they promised back at kickstarter, and then expand on that later on, with the money they got. Right now they promised way more, put all the eggs in one basket, and they go with it until either its done as they promised, or it fails and there is no more money. [/B]There is probably the fair point, that they do it with modules, so you can test it one by one more or less, but it is still buggy game, and optymalization is "eh" at best. At least in regular or populated situations. And there is no promise when it will get "release" quality performance. [I]except that isn't how development works. you can't just write a basic game scoped to the original kickstarter, and then be able to bolt new features on easily somehow. if you have to make shims so those features can be added later, you might as well just implement those features now[/I] But they also now make Squadron 42, so they are trying to make one solid thing so far. I think Squadron 42 will be THE thing that shows how SC will work out. Either its what they promised and its great, or its half backed and not really polished, or its complete fail. We will see! End of 2016, here we come! Unless they will move the date. [I]except i'd call port olisar the thing that shows SC can work? the very existence of alpha babyPU from a game dev standpoint proves it can work; by any stretch of the imagination, it shouldn't exist. if you asked a developer 5 years ago that somebody was gonna make the cryengine support a single map the size of a solar system with 500 player/npc ships all interacting throughout the solar system without any origin shifting, they'd say "hah i want some of your weed"[/I] [/QUOTE] my thoughts are in italics

Late as fuck, I just read this [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/15062-Ship-Repair-And-Maintenance[/url] Grabby hands combined with ship components is going to be !FUN!. My spare parts closet would probably be messy as hell That said, it'd be super neat (in more ways than one) if drawers could have custom text labels.

I hope the pirate army makes it into the official lore.

I got a token to change the avenger to a Hull A but I'm not sure if I want to use it, I love the look of the Hull series but I don't really want to dedicate to cargo.

Ben in the Concierge forum on the price of the Blade: [QUOTE]Hello! Of everything we price, this one is probably the easiest to figure out: the Scythe (Vanduul medium fighter) was $300. The next step up, the Glaive, was $50 more. The Blade is one step in the other direction... and so it was $250. If we were to ever sell a Vanduul heavy fighter (no plans right now!) you could probably figure out the price pretty easily. :) When it comes to ship pricing, the alien ships are a little bit different from the human ones in that they aren't made up of shared components that can be comparatively priced out. Vanduul guns and armor and control surfaces and so on aren't part of the manufacturer matrix because they aren't off the shelf part that factor heavily into determining the cost of an Aurora or a Constellation. Instead, a big part of it is looking at where they fit in line with one another (as outlined above.) The short story, though, is that there's never going to be a ship that's both an in-world rarity AND is especially cheap. The appeal of the Blade should be (in addition to helping fund the game!) that it's an oddity and a rare chance to use a Vanduul ship... it's a ship made available for folks who wanted a Vanduul design but didn't like the specifically number-limited ones released in the past, and it was never going to radically undercut the folks who pledged early for a Scythe or who fought hard for a Glaive.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;y2OVeUxfjuM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2OVeUxfjuM[/video] [QUOTE]01:21 - Intro 08:40 - News From Around the Verse 21:51 - ATV Interview: Erin Roberts 37:53 - ATV Rewind: Erin Roberts Joins the Team 39:10 - Wonderful World of Star Citizen: Mr. Combustible 52:51 - [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/deep-space-radar/45-Star-Citizen-Package-Comparison-Chart-Google-Sheets"]MVP[/URL] 53:36 - ATV Fast Forward (replacing Art Sneak Peek) [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lcXqOw7fMk"]Gameplay bumper[/URL][/QUOTE] [editline]also[/editline] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4bp0tu/possible_starfarer_commercial_in_tomorrows_atv/d1bcz2z"]Ben confirms that the Starfarer video that Pedro referenced is not a ship commercial, but instead a flyaround like the Retaliator pre-flight check video (CALLED IT).[/URL] Ben follows up to confirm that [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4bsyb5/around_the_verse_episode_224/d1c987z?context=3"]the Starfarer video is still definitely on, but it'll only go up when 2.3 goes live.[/URL]

Current SF owners just got their CCU value boosted by [B]$105[/B] (or $125 if they bought during KS) [img]http://i.imgur.com/puBODew.png[/img] (SF-less people get shafted though) that means I could melt down my Gemini CCU and get an Orion, Reclaimer, Crucible, Carrack, Endeavor, or Hull D instead!!! :hypeisreal: [editline]25th March 2016[/editline] [url=https://www.streamline-studios.com/portfolio]Vanduul cap interiors confirmed[/url]

so that explains why they hyped the fanbase over it so much

Well that was...drastic. If you own an upgrade CCU it doesn't matter what the price jumps up to if it happens in the future for a given ship correct?

well, it is kinda 8 times the ship that it was originally pitched as being, so sub-Connie at this point is freakishly low and yeah (reminder that melting only gives back what you spent on it, so SF owners only get $300 in CCU value but only $195/175 in credit)

and a related tidbit, buyback at least doesn't change the price either. I've got a starfarer gemini sitting in there at $240

[QUOTE=the_killer24;50001855]Current SF owners just got their CCU value boosted by [B]$105[/B] (or $125 if they bought during KS) [img]http://i.imgur.com/puBODew.png[/img] (SF-less people get shafted though) that means I could melt down my Gemini CCU and get an Orion, Reclaimer, Crucible, Carrack, Endeavor, or Hull D instead!!! :hypeisreal: [editline]25th March 2016[/editline] [url=https://www.streamline-studios.com/portfolio]Vanduul cap interiors confirmed[/url][/QUOTE] Wait, I can't see the Starfarer available for a CCU. What is this?

[QUOTE=archangel125;50003746]Wait, I can't see the Starfarer available for a CCU. What is this?[/QUOTE] he owns one so he can [img]http://i.imgur.com/3meUALF.png[/img] it to something else

[QUOTE=dai;50003752]he owns one so he can [img]http://i.imgur.com/3meUALF.png[/img] it to something else[/QUOTE] I'm a total fool. I owned a Starfarer once which was a CCU from another ship, and then I CCU'd that into something else. So no more buyback option for me.

[QUOTE=dai;50003682]and a related tidbit, buyback at least doesn't change the price either. I've got a starfarer gemini sitting in there at $240[/QUOTE] yeah, buyback is the original package at exactly the price you bought it at, minus any CCUs (also they haven't adjusted the G's price yet)

Actually, question. Say I have my Connie Aquila > Reclaimer CCU, and for some horribly unlikely reason the Connie jumps to like 400 dollars. What exactly happens to the CCU in that situation? I know it'd extremely unlikely for the connie variants to move in price, but just hypothetical.

[del]Do I upgrade my Connie to a Vanduul Blade? Agree or Disagree pls[/del] Nevermind, I don't want a small scout fighter.

[QUOTE=jonoPorter;50003887]Do I upgrade my Connie to a Vanduul Blade? Agree or Disagree pls[/QUOTE] Why are you considering it? They're completely different roles, so it depends on what sort of thing you're planning to do.

would you rather have a fairly large multicrew multirole mothership or an edgy gladius?????

Since Vanduul capitals are confirmed for interiors let's be the first to capture one, repair it, show it off on Terra, then deliver it to the highest bidder as soon as possible[sp]preferably at 0.2c[/sp]

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;50003925]Since Vanduul capitals are confirmed for interiors let's be the first to capture one, repair it, show it off on Terra, then deliver it to the highest bidder as soon as possible[sp]preferably at 0.2c[/sp][/QUOTE] I'm actually really looking forward to salvaging raw materials with my Reclaimer for exactly the purpose of finding derelict large ships and fixing them up for myself/friends.

idk if I want to turn my Star G into a Reclaimer or not or a Hull D or an Endeavor or a Carrack or an Orion or a Crucible SO MANY CHOICES