|
Warcabbit posted:And now I'm missing Auto Assault. (Yes, they got it from Sim City 2000) I miss it too, but there was only like 100 people at launch :/
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
squirrelzipper posted:You finish a book every 44 hours? I didn't think they made that many pop-up books. Let alone someone would read that many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:So who's the refund from? Cloud Imperium Games
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
squirrelzipper posted:You finish a book every 44 hours? My mistake, that was an overestimate. (Attaching current status). 67 is about the number this year. I do read a lot. That includes novellas and short stories. I just finished The Vital Abyss (short) and am now reading Aurora (novel, but short). Last week I finished Ancillary Mercy, reread Ancillary Justice (favorite), and finished Shadows of Self (other favorite).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
1500 posted:I didn't think they made that many pop-up books. Let alone someone would read that many. rude
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:My mistake, that was an overestimate. (Attaching current status). 67 is about the number this year. reading is good and i'm glad of you doing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
SyRauk posted:Cloud Imperium Games Was that Cloud Imperium Games LLC, INC, DOA, FBI, etc?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
 Star citizen with its "1 million" citizens getting demolished by a game that came out sooner and was cheaper to develop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
1500 posted:I didn't think they made that many pop-up books. Let alone someone would read that many. Some good ones  It helps when you find an interesting series. I tend to pick them up and race through them. This year was Codex Alera (Butcher, though I stopped at the 5th book), Laundry Files (by Stross), Rai Kirah (reread, by Carol Berg), Craft Sequence (Max Gladstone), Singularity Series (William Hertling), Rifters (Peter Watts), and Shoal Sequence (Gary Gibson)Plus some random things. Amazon lists 77 digital purchases, which includes some non-book purchases (2 movies, 4 TV series). I love reading and recommending books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
While checking to see if they've managed to file their accounts yet:   Noticed something strange on their officers listing Every-time they signed Chris up, they changed something JUST slightly, so as to avoid being listed as an officer in multiple companies And the lawyer (who should be very good with filling in documents) mixed up nationality with country of residence, along with mis-spelling his last name    Maybe they're not trying to hide something or conceal the fact they're all in cahoots together, but it sure looks sloppy either way. Especially for a 94 million dollar company(s)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Fraudulent filings and a super scammy refund process? You don't say! But I thought this was an honest company who was just delaying release to add more cool features. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:PS: Forever War is a single book, not a series, man. Forever Free is a direct sequel. Forever Peace is a spin off in the same universe. It's not great overall but does some interesting speculation on the future of warfare. More Joe Haldeman talk - check out Tool of the Trade. Not his best or best known work but it's a fun, quirky little book and only a short read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3sbyuh/from_ben_how_would_you_feel_about_replacing_the/Ben posted:While I'm here, let me ask you guys a theoretical question: how would you feel about replacing the Cutlass? That is: how mated are you to the current look of the ship? One thing John points out in his piece (... as best I can understand, anyway...) is that there are certain significant limitations to how we can place thrusters on the current design. So if everybody had the choice between the Cutlass commerce raider and, say, the Buccaneer interceptor that's more maneuverable but has a smaller cargo hold, would that be a reasonable compromise? It's something we've talked about internally, and so I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of the megathread. (Please don't consider that a promise of a new ship... it's something we're thinking about, but will need to decide and commit resources to first.) Oh, Ben.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3sbyuh/from_ben_how_would_you_feel_about_replacing_the/ You missed the best part, where Ben replies with 'By replacing I don't mean REPLACING...' 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Unbelievable. Next thing you know you are going to tell us there are connections between these asshats and real life mobsters... But for real, not knowing UK reporting laws, what kind of trouble can they get into for this and when? Moreover, if they actually do update it in accordance to the law, will it actually give away anything juicy??
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:You missed the best part, where Ben replies with 'By replacing I don't mean REPLACING...' That seems like a nice idea to let people move to a new ship if they wish (assuming the price does not change) unless I'm missing something shady.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
"What would you guys say to us delaying the game even further, while simultaneously letting me work more of my magic on a brand new ship for pirates, an in-game profession that I loath with a deep and burning passion? I swear on my Pilgrim's Cross that I won't completely gently caress it up. Again."   
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:You missed the best part, where Ben replies with 'By replacing I don't mean REPLACING...' I actually feel like that wouldn't be a bad compromise. I mean ideally the way to go would have been to not sell a ship when they had no clue what it was supposed to do. But I will take tacit admission that they were wrong and releasing a second ship more in line with what people wanted. Side note- I wonder if this means that cutlasses are seeing a shitload of refunds? Loiosh posted:That seems like a nice idea to let people move to a new ship if they wish (assuming the price does not change) unless I'm missing something shady. The shady part was that they sold it as a fighter and then made it not-a-fighter and said "No it was always this way." This is them correcting that. Which is... well, at least they're trying. Or, asking about the possibility of maybe trying, if enough people are down with it, at some unspecified point in the future. Progress! Sarsapariller fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:You missed the best part, where Ben replies with 'By replacing I don't mean REPLACING...' So still fundamental design problems for a ship that has been in SUPER JPEG CONCEPT work since November 2012? Pardon me while I pick up my jaw from shock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:The shady part was that they sold it as a fighter and then made it not-a-fighter and said "No it was always this way." This is them correcting that. Which is... well, at least they're trying. Or, asking about the possibility of maybe trying, if enough people are down with it, at some unspecified point in the future. Progress! Ah! Thank you, I had missed the history with this. I remember when it was revealed and then took one of my SC breaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:Ah! Thank you, I had missed the history with this. I remember when it was revealed and then took one of my SC breaks. One ship...3 years of design and ...mulligan? I can't imagine why complicated things like a PU are taking so long. http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Cutlass_Black
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:That seems like a nice idea to let people move to a new ship if they wish (assuming the price does not change) unless I'm missing something shady. If they rework the cutlass it's effort, then they'll sell it and when they sell a ship it becomes the "best ship ever" for 10 days, because the ship on sale is the best ship. This is tricky because the community team all hate the dorky cutlass and all those pirate arsehole backers with their lovely pvp talk that upsets the "faithful until death" crowd by talking about stealing their toys. Also even the idea of talking up the lovely cutlass is painful and would involve a lot of effort. Then somebody said "why don't we just sell a new loving ship and say we're doing it to make cutlass owners happy?", problem solved we only need to book a concept artist and nobody will be able to criticise how the hangar model looks like warmed over poo poo with the sizing all screwed or how the thing flies like a pizza truck because it's going to be seven loving years before any of that happens, plus we get to have another LTI sale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:One ship...3 years of design and ...mulligan? I can't imagine why complicated things like a PU are taking so long. They kinda made a lot of changes after doing their first ship revisions. They had finished up the Hornet (v1), 300 series, Constellation, Freespacer and Aurora and then introduced the new deferred render (I'm guessing this was a rebase from CryEngine upstream). Then did PBR passes. Then the Hornet got changed over a few months (Hornet v2). At that point modular builds got added (3 variants of the Hornet introduced). M50 racer is added. Then, if I'm remembering my history correctly, the Constellation went in for a revision and the Idris was going to be redesigned. Out comes the Aurora variants. The Constellation v2 is released along with variants. And that's where I dropped off again. Now the Constellation is getting a v3 design for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:One ship...3 years of design and ...mulligan? I can't imagine why complicated things like a PU are taking so long. [source?]
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
notoriousman posted:[source?] Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3sbyuh/from_ben_how_would_you_feel_about_replacing_the/ They're having trouble meeting the original goals for the ship because of its design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:Unbelievable. Next thing you know you are going to tell us there are connections between these asshats and real life mobsters... The trouble they can get in for this directly is pretty minimal, the penalties for late filing are pathetically low (less than the price of an Idris). Someone pointed out that the directors could get in criminal trouble, but honestly, that's pretty unlikely. However, it's getting so late that they're going to have trouble filing their taxes properly, since you need statutory accounts for that, and the UK takes that a lot more seriously. If they did file, the contents wouldn't be too interesting. They don't have any independent shareholders who need to see proper accounts, so they can just do minimal disclosure. One slightly interesting thing is that somewhere in the accounts they will have to write "Cash and cash equivalents owned by the business: £X". A low number could just mean that the cash is being held elsewhere, but it'd still be pretty funny to post on the SC forums. "Hey guys, £137,000 left, better hurry up!" etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:They kinda made a lot of changes after doing their first ship revisions. They had finished up the Hornet (v1), 300 series, Constellation, Freespacer and Aurora and then introduced the new deferred render (I'm guessing this was a rebase from CryEngine upstream). Then did PBR passes. Then the Hornet got changed over a few months (Hornet v2). At that point modular builds got added (3 variants of the Hornet introduced). M50 racer is added. Then, if I'm remembering my history correctly, the Constellation went in for a revision and the Idris was going to be redesigned. Out comes the Aurora variants. Yep I feel you. It perpetuates the "we have no idea what we are doing but we loves us some JPEG spaceships and theory crafting" conversation. Things like ships shouldn't be this much under review this late in the game considering the boring part of development like "how do we fit 10 ships in an instance with 10 crew members on each ship doing poo poo (like serving drinks and farming)" still have to be worked out. And yes I know graphic artists aren't designers but based on original dream of the ship, you can't get the loving thrusters in the right place from 3 years ago and you just now figured this out??
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Their excuse for making new ships and constantly revising the existing ships, is because they have all these artists and designers on staff just lazing around otherwise. Hey here's an idea... get a working engine first and THEN bring in the artists I don't know jack all about game development, but I bet normally the first 1-2 years of a new game is spent 100% on just coding and getting the basics in place For such a dev guru as Roberts is supposed to be he sure seems to go about absolutely everything backwards :Edit: Hey look I found a picture that illustrates the CIG philosophy at every turn 
Blue On Blue fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:They kinda made a lot of changes after doing their first ship revisions. They had finished up the Hornet (v1), 300 series, Constellation, Freespacer and Aurora and then introduced the new deferred render (I'm guessing this was a rebase from CryEngine upstream). Then did PBR passes. Then the Hornet got changed over a few months (Hornet v2). At that point modular builds got added (3 variants of the Hornet introduced). M50 racer is added. Then, if I'm remembering my history correctly, the Constellation went in for a revision and the Idris was going to be redesigned. Out comes the Aurora variants. Don't forget the Avenger. It's on another redesign too. Same with the Freelancer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:Their excuse for making new ships and constantly revising the existing ships, is because they have all these artists and designers on staff just lazing around otherwise. Ahh but you have hit the whole reason people think this is a scam nail on the head. You can't appeal to nearly as many nerd's wallets with basics. You have to get money from selling space dreams and pictures. And that would have been fine. But where you hit scam speed is when you can't stop making those pictures and monetize everything. Sell ships and dreams make X dollars then create those basics. But if they did that, we wouldn't have as much reason to be in this thread other than a good gentle caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
DarkRefreshment posted:And yes I know graphic artists aren't designers but based on original dream of the ship, you can't get the loving thrusters in the right place from 3 years ago and you just now figured this out?? Not to excuse them, but I'd guess they were waiting for a revision on the control system that was closer to the final now that the other simulation systems are in. Now that they have delivered on that, they're running into all those design issues that happen when you switch something fundamental like that. It kinda reminds me of the original Halo, 2 years before release they switched from an RTS to an FPS game and then rushed to complete everything for the Xbox release in 2001. Generally we don't get front seats to watch design/engine changes like that and the redesigns that happen. Another favorite is Destiny, where 1 year before (eventual release / six months before the first release date) the team completely scrapped every bit of story and had to savage the game and Frankenstein's Monster it to get it delivered. It's why Destiny 1.0 was so random and terrible in its story at launch. AC1's another fav. The original version was to be a Prince of Persia kind of game. After they switched to the assassin idea, they completely redesigned the gameplay and engine to focus on a new climbing mechanic two Ubisoft engineers had dreamed up (Alex Drouin and AI programmer Richard Dumas). They had to redesign the architecture and gameplay within two years to make the 2007 release date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3sbyuh/from_ben_how_would_you_feel_about_replacing_the/ Was just making a joke, friend.  There's at least 3 Star Citizen wikis, and trying to find credible sources on any of them is a crapshoot of years-old interviews and word of mouth. not to mention outright undocumented crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Sappo569 posted:Their excuse for making new ships and constantly revising the existing ships, is because they have all these artists and designers on staff just lazing around otherwise. Well, the new ships are their primary cash generation tool. It'd be brilliant if they didn't insist on realism and complex physics and such, then they could just keep putting out more ship pictures with minimal effort. Making a Cutlass? Put a 5% DPS penalty on a Super Horner and add some cargo space, then reskin. Unfortunately for CIG, they're buying into their own hype and never getting anywhere because every ship has to be a perfect snowflake with individually modelled thrusters and drinks mixing and a farm and a science station and whatever else they can think of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
or!!! or!!! you just loving jimmyrig/fake the flight model and don't worry about loving thruster placement making it impossible to fix!!! gently caress!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:or!!! or!!! you just loving jimmyrig/fake the flight model and don't worry about loving thruster placement making it impossible to fix!!! gently caress!!! Yuo evil publisher trying to ruin my immersion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Loiosh posted:Not to excuse them, but I'd guess they were waiting for a revision on the control system that was closer to the final now that the other simulation systems are in. I'm going to go back to it again because I think it's been a telling moment in the Now, there's absolutely no way Chris Roberts didn't know the December 2013 release wasn't happening for weeks/months before 16th of December, this wasn't a technical issue that delayed things this was a "we don't have anything that's not lan based" issue for this internet game, so they lied to keep the money rolling in and to avoid any impact to the "end of LTI" sale in November 2013. Oh turns out, they lied about end of LTI too. Start of this year he tells us that FPS, social and multicrew/AC 2.0 will be out by summer and SQ42 by the end of 2015. Now if you're being kind you might think he could just be really terribly incompetent but the simpler explanation is that he was just lying again, because hey, it works. Now once you accept that they lie their arses off to keep raising money, everything becomes a lot clearer, the backers are idiots and there's no way they don't secretly think that, reference customer support to this day talking about "donations" and how refunds hurt them with the implied "feel sorry for us, we're just trying to make the best space game ever". Now either AC 2.0 is really close, maybe even less than 2 weeks away and it's going to be great or it's dried puke in a bottle and will be thrown out when they absolutely have to, I know which I suspect from the social module. So with all that I'm leaning towards scam being a perfectly valid way to describe what's happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
AP posted:Now either AC 2.0 is really close, maybe even less than 2 weeks away and it's going to be great or it's dried puke in a bottle and will be thrown out when they absolutely have to, I know which I suspect from the social module. I dunno why you pinged me on the reply, but I say that if you have any questions or concerns, the best choice is to not give them money, or if you have, ask for refunds, which most here seem to be at least trying and in some cases having to fight for. I'm honestly curious what people here will think if CIG does manage to land AC 2.0. Given what it implies in the back-end, is it good enough to show that they're making progress at an engineering level, or is it too little, too delayed, jpegs. I like comparing development to other games that have gone through major revisions in their own histories for comparison, which is why I mentioned Halo, Destiny and AC as examples of games that have had major revisions during their development. (One fundamental engine redesign with a complete art and asset scrap, one a complete story and MP redesign, and one a full art and asset scrap)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:Seraph it is a two-second inconvenience to place your new accounts on ignore please save me the trouble and just blankpost from now on tia that sounds boring
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
why is there even an ignore button idgi
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:11
|
|