quote:

I don't really mean to cherry pick, but I wanted to use that quote to maybe expand a larger discussion...

How is that a good thing... "without worrying"?

I feel like "worrying" simply translates into time and consideration we thought we would have to put in even the most mundane tasks, in ways that most other games didn't make us. That, to me, was one of the interesting aspects/possibilities of this game. I want to worry about those things!

The bed mechanic never had any good definition... nor did the idea that you "automatically" make it safely back to somewhere when you log off. So they needed to design something, finally, because I don't think they've ever gave it more thought than "cool beds look cool"

But, they have to find some way to have a cost to simply logging out wherever and logging back in the same place.

Maybe the same "place" is ok, but time will (should*) have elapsed as if we were there in game. So I'd like to see them take that time into account... for example, offline consumption of resources (food, water, oxygen) would be one way. And making sure you have enough of that.

That consumption and safety could be relative... maybe you do have a choice to pitch a tent and truly survive, so you don't have to run back to your ship... but running back to your ship would be the next level of safety. And if that's not enough for you, then you do have the option to go find a station or hangar.


It just doesn't make sense to me that we can go somewhere, log out, and reap the benefits of whatever being in that location means... without having to deal with any of the negative effects or risks as we would if we were online.

So in the end I agree, logging off anywhere should be the deal... but the game needs to give you hard choices to make about what that means for you. I think it should do that by treating it as if you never logged off at all. (there's also a discussion to be had about player persistence in the world and I would be ok with that, but this doesn't have to mean that literally)

Mirificus posted:

Mirificus posted:

andyf posted:

I haven't watched any SC content for well over a year now, so I was delighted to see Jackfrags put up a vid showing the current state of the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3keRKwUizuQ

What an absolute jankfest. Incredible.

Popete posted:

What roadmap?

Colostomy Bag posted:

With fresh cash you get a free jacket.

andyf posted:

I haven't watched any SC content for well over a year now, so I was delighted to see Jackfrags put up a vid showing the current state of the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3keRKwUizuQ

What an absolute jankfest. Incredible.

Popete posted:

What roadmap?

holtemon posted:

Open up your wallets nerds, time to buy new Star Citizen stuff

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/19866-RSI-Ursa-Medivac

Michaellaneous posted:

Pretty sure that putting weapons on a medical vehicle would not make it a medical vehicle anymore because everyone is just gonna shoot at it?

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. posted:

2397  As a general rule, however, only ‘light’ weapons may be mounted on military medical transports. While the nature of the anticipated threat will certainly influence the type of defensive armament used, mounting heavy weapons, sometimes referred to as ‘crew served’ (meaning they require a team of at least two people to operate them), is inconsistent with the protected status of such transports.[37] Whether every belt-fed machine gun falls into this category is uncertain, as some light, belt-fed machine guns are individually operated. Ultimately, in the light of these strictly defensive purposes and also to avoid the perception that a medical transport, displaying the distinctive emblem, is armed in a manner beyond that necessary for its self-defence, a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a ‘light’ versus ‘heavy’ weapon is called for: the larger the weapon system, the greater the risk that its presence on the vehicle could lead an adversary to conclude that the transport may be engaged in ‘acts harmful to the enemy’, and thus no longer be entitled to protection. The nature of the display of the weapons, in other words, must not be such as to lead the enemy to believe that the medical transport is equipped with non-defensive weaponry.[38] In short, it must be ensured that transports protected by Article 35 are not armed to an extent that they can be perceived as being capable of inflicting harm on the adversary because this would amount to an act the purpose or effect of which is to facilitate or impede the military operations of a Party to the conflict. Otherwise, there is a risk of their being mistaken for ‘fighting vehicles’.[39]

dr_rat posted:

The Geneva Convention is actually pretty vague about this!

Aramoro posted:

I think CGI have managed to avoid violating the Geneva convention with this one though, so that's something.

Michaellaneous posted:

Pretty sure that putting weapons on a medical vehicle would not make it a medical vehicle anymore because everyone is just gonna shoot at it?

Lammasu posted:

What if it shoots hypodermic needles full of medicine?

dr_rat posted:

The Geneva Convention is actually pretty vague about this!

Strategic Tea posted:

The simulation meshing is actually so complex it probabilistically reconstructed what the Geneva Convention would be in a universe where Supreme Professor Chris "Maverick" Roberts of RSI invented the FTL drive in 2184...

Mirificus posted: