Colostomy Bag posted:

Yeah, there's some good posts in the various reddit threads with a ton of pissed off people.

Many backers just wanted a game to fly expensive jpeg chariots in space and do rape things or whatever their kink is. But the 95% reduction of systems so Roberts can have high fidelity planets seem to have unsettled some.

Lladre posted:

So then the whole 258 million actual spending was just a bluff as usual?

HKS posted:

Nah my pet in Torchlight was the best. I just saw it as the first huge red flag that the project had no real direction.

Daztek posted:

Meridian posted:

Spacetoaster gets it. drat goons.

G0RF posted:

Whew!

So it took me awhile to read through all the comments about the chart on /Games. Though there were lots of crazed invocations of Derek Smart, demonizations of goons, and other overreactions, I did see a few fair criticisms that I've addressed in this latest update.

1). The inclusion of the reduction percentages was redundant. Fair enough. I deleted that.

2) Chris' quote didn't include his "I get shot for making promises but that's our goal" escape clause, the line that retroactively makes it all okay. So I included that, too.

3) I also added his mention of the 30 to 40 space stations that would be coming in 3.0. (We'll see how that turns out.)

4) I also fixed a graphical problem that had white boxes behind the Planet names in the Stanton layout.

So here's the latest version. If you're a DS lurker who feels like the last one was flawed or shortchanged Chris's quote, hopefully you might find this an improvement. I'm trying to be fair, even if stern.



I have to admit, lurking friends, some of your reactions were a little frustrating, given that I'd tried to avoid editorializing. The focus of the piece was timelines, quotes, and scopes for Star Systems in Alpha 3.0.

The accusations that the infographic was a part of some organized FUD campaign were especially ironic, given that some of you tried to preemptively trying to counter an anticipated Derek Smart tweet and in so doing ended up creating a non-paywalled source for the /Games OP to reference.


I didn't make the chart hoping for a /GAMES thread to blow up, or a MassivelyOP mention, or a psychodrama to unfold on /DS. I made it for my friends here on the forum, most of whom I haven't interacted with in a year, because organizing historical facts is something I like to do. It's clear to us by now that Chris Roberts doesn't learn from history because he keeps repeating it, so we keep discussing it, yet what I don't understand is why you keep defending it?

Surely I have my own biases, as do we all, but why rage about what strangers think on some random forum? Your recurring tendency to discount the observable past while exaggerating the imagined future produces the present tensions that discomfit you so. The relief you seek yet can't find won't come from excoriating random nobodies for discussing their opinions about troubling development issues or deceptive sales tactics. You are the publisher. The ones to whom pledges have been made for accountability and openness. You're intellectually and emotionally malnourished from the parody of it served up by a guy who believes himself accountable to no one and above all reproach. A man who hasn't once in the entire history of this project ever apologized for anything despite having either intentionally or inadvertently mislead you about matters of genuine consequence for years.

You deserve better than to be full-time apologists for that. I sincerely believe that --- why don't you?

sorla78 posted:

as Bear stated over and over again, CIG needed that voice that makes a sanity check and isn't shy to say no against Chris Roberts.

HKS posted:

You have given money to one of them.

Kromlech posted:

Bear4theBearDog

Sabreseven posted:

Derek, please respond to this with something like :

"Well since CR made me the bogeyman for having a negative opinion and you guys blame all of SC's problems on me... etc"

Kromlech posted:

Bear4theBearDog

Mostly Dead posted:

I think that in the timeline, you have Citizencon 2016 labeled as Citizencon 2017.

sorla78 posted:

I appreciate that infographic Gorf, it's a beautiful thing. What's missing that really gives you the insight into the staggering promises that Star Citizen makes and the tiny progress they have to show, is when you wade through their star map and add the whole universe, with all its systems, planets, moons, jump points, landing zones and other space oddities, I mean, just think about how many space stations and other points of interest are going to be created for this (which haven't really been quantified nor qualified for the whole of the universe), and how Chris R certainly pushes them to be unique enough, so that they don't feel repativive - so a lot of time is going to be dedicated on them, regardless of the procedural generation - which then really if you add up the assets and artists available, showcases that Star Citizen is going to be a generational project, that most probably/certainly is going to limit backers for a long time to Stanton.

runsamok posted:

HKS posted:

g0rf your image was on /v and it gathered some 300 replies before being removed by a mod. Now they are talking about the mod being a citizen. good work. Also I do love every single person in here dumb as hell or not. I am just getting very triggered today. I think I have somehow revisited the anger stage.

Tippis posted:

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

A term originally coined by a formed IBM engineer who had started his own competing company, which IBM tried to combat by seeding exactly that among potential customers by suggesting that “yeah, that clone is neat, but you know, we'll be releasing [important IBM hardware or software update] soon, and it's quite possible that it won't be compatible any more, sooooo…”.

Basically, a strategy of making a particular product pick less enticing by inventing a hypothetical risk based on some imagined future, thereby steering those customers towards your own “safe” alternative.

Ghostlight posted:

Actually the Allegory of the Cave explains a lot about this whole thing.

MedicineHut posted:

I'm sure this must have been posted here before no?

Bubbacub posted:

I know you guys like to make fun of this, but the character work here is actually a significant step up compared to System Shock 2.

D_Smart posted:

That guy is a special kind of stupid.

Colostomy Bag posted:

Why are you angry?

G0RF posted:

Ayya! The sad thing is that before I posted the first one in the thread, I proofed it a couple of times.

"Spent enough time on this -- needs to be perfect..."

Yet so many little errors escaped my blasted eyes. (old person sigh)

Thanks for pointing it out, though! Here's the corrected version.

German 2.7 promises posted:

They say the new lighting system as part of the procedural planets build looks much more natural.

They say that approaching the planet looks and technically feels better than with Elite Dangerous.

You can land anywhere manually, automatic landing gets you to fixed positions i.e. landing zones.

Microtech and Hurston come in follow-up patches after 2.7

They aim to have Stanton fully playable i.e. with all stations and landing zones (according to CR about 40 locations) by end of 2016

There will be more jobs and missions as well.

Trading will be in by then

Chris describing that missions accepted up in space stations could lead you eventually down to planet surfaces, not clear if this is going to be in with 2.7 but seemingly something SQ42 will benefit from.

Planets and moons are revolving around suns, with naturally simulated day and night cycles.

When flying over the ocean they were noticing that the horizon had a correctly simulated curve.

Trees and Animals seemingly are planned (edit: doesn’t seem to be in with 2.7, sorry) – they have them seemingly setup in pre-made templates they call eco-systems – these can be brushed over the planet surface, some magic blends the transitions to make it look naturally and consistent.

Planetary surface and topograhy details are controlled by a dynamical LOD system.

Some pop-up was visible during the planetary approach but they described it as impressive regardless.

They were also impressed with the cloud system, which wasn’t just a simple texture layer but seemingly is described what I assume would be volumetric, i.e. they have deepth and height and impact visibility, leading to mountain crests piercing through clouds and valleys being covered.

They are writing that there isn’t any artificially restricted view range, visibility is rather a result from the volumetric calculation of the athmosphere.
Parallax-Occlusion maps with dynamic tessellation is used for the surface details.

GTX 980 was used with 100 fps on the planetary surface, so performance seems to be pretty good already, sorry, that was just editor performance – in-game performance was 45fps 🙂

Some stuff about the subsumption-AI saying NPCs might have hobbies and a virtual mind, allowing them to remember the player or be influenced in his opinions by the player. To avoid performance issues, they seemingly control the update cycles for NPC AI based on player proximitiy i.e. update cycles go to 1hz instead of 60hz if no one is around.

Bubbacub posted:

I know you guys like to make fun of this, but the character work here is actually a significant step up compared to System Shock 2.

Lladre posted:

So then the whole 258 million actual spending was just a bluff as usual?

Sabreseven posted:

I wonder what Crymellons response to that will be

runsamok posted:

HKS posted:

It's something homo like I can't stand the citizens not standing up for themselves so I am getting mad FOR them, while being mad AT them at the same time because it's hard to separate.

The Titanic posted:

CIG has literally transferred the prerogative of handling their customers like a normal company into treating them like hostile companies out to stop them.

G0RF posted:

Whew!

So it took me awhile to read through all the comments about the chart on /Games. Though there were lots of crazed invocations of Derek Smart, demonizations of goons, and other overreactions, I did see a few fair criticisms that I've addressed in this latest update.

1). The inclusion of the reduction percentages was redundant. Fair enough. I deleted that.

2) Chris' quote didn't include his "I get shot for making promises but that's our goal" escape clause, the line that retroactively makes it all okay. So I included that, too.

3) I also added his mention of the 30 to 40 space stations that would be coming in 3.0. (We'll see how that turns out.)

4) I also fixed a graphical problem that had white boxes behind the Planet names in the Stanton layout.

So here's the latest version. If you're a DS lurker who feels like the last one was flawed or shortchanged Chris's quote, hopefully you might find this an improvement. I'm trying to be fair, even if stern.



I have to admit, lurking friends, some of your reactions were a little frustrating, given that I'd tried to avoid editorializing. The focus of the piece was timelines, quotes, and scopes for Star Systems in Alpha 3.0.

The accusations that the infographic was a part of some organized FUD campaign were especially ironic, given that some of you tried to preemptively trying to counter an anticipated Derek Smart tweet and in so doing ended up creating a non-paywalled source for the /Games OP to reference.


I didn't make the chart hoping for a /GAMES thread to blow up, or a MassivelyOP mention, or a psychodrama to unfold on /DS. I made it for my friends here on the forum, most of whom I haven't interacted with in a year, because organizing historical facts is something I like to do. It's clear to us by now that Chris Roberts doesn't learn from history because he keeps repeating it, so we keep discussing it, yet what I don't understand is why you keep defending it?

Surely I have my own biases, as do we all, but why rage about what strangers think on some random forum? Your recurring tendency to discount the observable past while exaggerating the imagined future produces the present tensions that discomfit you so. The relief you seek yet can't find won't come from excoriating random nobodies for discussing their opinions about troubling development issues or deceptive sales tactics. You are the publisher. The ones to whom pledges have been made for accountability and openness. You're intellectually and emotionally malnourished from the parody of it served up by a guy who believes himself accountable to no one and above all reproach. A man who hasn't once in the entire history of this project ever apologized for anything despite having either intentionally or inadvertently mislead you about matters of genuine consequence for years.

You deserve better than to be full-time apologists for that. I sincerely believe that --- why don't you?