Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Agrajag posted:

no well run company operates with no dates/schedules just fyi.

a company that operates under, when it's done it's done, without anyone to say get this poo poo done now before making anything will turn into a blackhole for money. then again crowd funding essentially rewards this type of behaviour.

i mean come the gently caress on this poo poo is eco101 stuff, it's called moral hazard.

Blizzard seems to do pretty well without any release dates :)

Then again Blizzard is Blizzard.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

D_Smart posted:

Actually no. They DO have an internal release date. They just refrain from giving a public one.

They keep pushing it back over and over though (Diablo III, StarCraft II), and they can even end up scrapping a game if they don't like it (StarCraft: Ghost). They may have some internal release dates, but if they don't feel the game is there then they're ok with pushing it back a year or two. This is why their games in general are so drat good though (apart from Diablo III, because **** Diablo III).

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Tahirovic posted:

Blizzard is actually a good topic because if we wanted someone to ruin a franchise we could have asked for Jay Wilson.

There is no situation where Blizzard is not a good topic.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Skellybones posted:

What's striking to me is the dissonant levels of detail, effort and polish. There are all these hyper-involved features like the elevators, ramps, ladders and hatches you need to interact with to get anywhere, or the myriad pilot seat animations with flip top canopies or spinning seats. Meanwhile you can't go five minutes without clipping through something or just crashing.

Shouldn't the first priority be getting a stable engine running, laying down a couple of basic spaceship hulls that can move and shoot, and then adding all the pointless immersive detail?

This is also my beef with the game. I don't like their process of going for details first, I mean sure, some of it ends up being fantastic, but I'd much rather have a working minimalistic prototype.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

D_Smart posted:

Yeah, gently caress you. You do realize they monitor this forum right? Now someone's going to show this to Chris. Then he's going to get some poor sap do it. Because immersion.

That would be a lot closer to what ED does though. Wasted some poor civilian traders for a bit of cargo? Killed security forces for shits and giggles? Pay a small fine. Spent some time loitering over a landing pad? DIE!

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

People that get upset over being left out from something like this aren't unusual. Also, looking at the state of the releases stability I don't understand what the rush is to get in... :)

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

alphabettitouretti posted:

Hey, Croberts has done it before.



Oh wait


That doesn't sound good but I'm sure


It's fine everything is fine





Ah.

If it turns out to be as good as Freelancer was then I think a lot of people would be happy though.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

kikkelivelho posted:

agreed, the sitting animations are all far too slow and over choreographed. They should be 2 to 3 seconds long max, without all the careful stepping around and spinning poo poo many of them have right now.

They are definitely not longer than 2-3 seconds, don't think they're a seriously bad design decision. I think the whole idea that the player camera should follow the player model's eyes is a MUCH worse one.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

alphabettitouretti posted:

I look forward to that happening. I enjoyed Freelancer despite its deficiencies. Also, even if whatever game it ends up being is not something I want to play, it will be funny watching the sperg apocalypse because the jpegs are worthless or CIG failed to implement even a fraction of the features they've promised over the years.
I would be sad if that happened, would have been even more sad like 3 years ago, but with all the cool space games in development / out already I would consider my investment into the game as nothing more but a learning lesson.

I personally really like their ship designs and the potential of the game, so I am still hopeful.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Paladinus posted:

Another thing. I believe Croberts claims that almost all ships will be later available for in-game currency but will cost more. So, uhm, to buy the shittiest champion in League of Legends I can either win one hour-long game or pay something like two dollars. In Hearthstone to unlock one wing of an adventure (that give new cards) I can either spend 5 hours during one week to complete daily quests and grind for gold or pay five dollars. How long will one have to play to buy a ship that costs more than $100 now?

They said ~60 hours from just a starter account to a $250ish constellation.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Michaellaneous posted:

Ah yes 60 hours with little to no progression. This will surely not drive anyone but the most insane people away.

You sir have not player World of Tanks / World of Warships yet.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Erenthal posted:

And yet they keep claiming that SC is not pay to win. Anyone see the disconnect here?

Seriously a 60 hour head-start on progression in an MMO is not pay to win. What would be pay to win would be a ship that is exclusive to backers.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Michaellaneous posted:

Because somehow making a connection between your video game and a Wargaming product is a good thing, right?

I don't think anyone implied that there is a connection other than saying that 60 hours in an MMO is really not that much time.

Beet Wagon posted:

And that time estimate is (like everything else related to star citizen) extremely subject to change.

I really hope they don't go back on those figures, but seeing how some things are going with the development I definitely wouldn't bet on it...

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Paladinus posted:

That's actually quite cheap compared to other games.

Indeed. Unless they change their minds of course.

Also, I have my doubts that any of the really expensive ships will be useful to any individual gamers. I mean unless they can somehow convince an army of people to sit in turrets and point and click all day, all those big ships are utterly useless to anyone outside of clans.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Erenthal posted:

I'll post my thoughts again, to make the point clearer: There's a serious balancing problem with the value of ships that CR has brought onto himself.

Either they'll make the ships attainable through doable grinding. This means, due to people being the way they are, that within a few days of release people who payed the bare minimum to get into the game will be riding around in ships that whales have been paying thousands of dollars for. This will make whales extremely unhappy.

Or, the big ships will be nearly unattainable for anyone but the most insane. Whales will be happy, but the game will be blatantly pay to win (or at least, pay to gain massive advantages).

e:

Seriously, if you sell something for 2.500 loving united states dollars, you attach a certain notion of value onto it.

In my opinion (and I've spent around $700 on the game in total) - anything that you can get via pledges should be trivial to get for players actually playing the game. If it makes whales extremely unhappy so be it. Any ship that you get is a token gift to you for donating money for them, whoever doesn't agree with this is an idiot.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

neonbregna posted:

You know autism is a thing right?

Hey if they can really man a capital ship with people willing to play a turret - more power to these guys.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Erenthal posted:

I know that this is the "official" reasoning, but it is complete bullshit.

People aren't "donating", they are buying ships. They are blatantly buying ships. Look at the marketing. The sales. The web-store. The people bragging about their purchases. CIG can claim all the way that it is friendly donations with token gifts as thanks, just as you say above, but we know it ain't true.

Could be, but I am still hoping it is true. I have luckily not seen any official communication about anything you get amounting to a major advantage in-game (devs have claimed again and again that LTI is useless, the ships you get come with crappy equipment and getting a base ship ingame won't take long).

Is it a bit dishonest against people that obviously seem to be "min/maxing" their crazy expensive fleet? Maybe. Do I care about that as long as the game stays play to win? Hell no, let them whine.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Beet Wagon posted:

The desire is there. It seems like every time I check on reddit there's a handful of people REALLY excited to be like "Radioman #2" or whatever. So the problem is building gameplay that doesn't immediately ruin that desire to be part of a big crew, and that's where I think they are gonna have trouble.

I can't understand why they would want that, but no matter what game I play I always run into the most obscure gameplay features that obviously appeal to some people. However, just going by the numbers (let's say you need 10 people to efficiently man an Idris) - you won't find THIS many people willing to be on turret duty, that I am sure of. We'll end up seeing $2500 ships piloted by 2-3 people with 90% of the armaments just sitting idly by while we get to hammer away at them in our cheap ships. I can't wait!

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

kikkelivelho posted:

CIG's decision to make LTI super common is also going to fundamentally change how the game is played. The super hardcore heavy on consequences game some of the true believers are still dreaming about won't ever exist because insurance is effectively free and infinite.

That is not necessarily true. The biggest punishment you can sentence a gamer to is boredom (be it having to regrind their assets or simply having to wait) - if insurance is implemented well then players will have to wait a considerable time to get their ships back. That's consequence enough imho.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

AP posted:

https://www.gov.uk/vat-businesses/charging-vat-to-charities

They should definitely read that.

(But joking aside, it's a service and a product and that's why they charge VAT, they have no choice.)

Of course, if they asked for donations instead of doing what they'd be left with only people that want to donate for them to work on the game. They'd have peanuts in comparison to what they have now.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Truga posted:

If previous games (privateer, freelancer) are anything at all to go by, the expensive part of your ship is your loadout. Weapons/shields/thrusters etc.

Insurance on those is said to be much more expensive, and it won't even work in non-policed systems at all. So you might get your autism chariot back if you get ganked by a naughty pierat, but that 3 billion credits worth of gear you farmed is just gone. You'll get the basic model back so you can keep playing, though.

It's a good compromise IMHO, where you can play cheap and get around just fine and with little effort (I hated buying new ships in eve-o after I destroyed all my spares), but if you want the really good poo poo, you're going to pay through the nose and go get the modules. It's the exact same model eve-o uses, and that works really well. Rich idiots buy loot piñatas, normal people run around in run of the mill ships and compensate with teamwork, which is OP in any multiplayer game anyway.


This honestly seems really likely to me after 2.0 looks... okay, though still crashy. Remove the crashy and you have something that's only as janky as arma 3 vehicles in space, and arma 3 owns. Of course, if you wanted something far more than freelancer 2.0, well... :v:

Arma 3 in space would be amazing!

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Danknificent posted:

I think plenty of people are admitting it. The glimpses of potential are real. SC media woke up my inner nerd so deep that I had to go buy E:D.

How is E:D these days? is Horizons out yet? My Python has been on ice since I finished 3 seasons of the walking dead and got up to date with it while playing Euro Truck in space.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Amun Khonsu posted:

Well wtf ever happened to the BDSSE then? It would then be more like the MMSSE (most mediocre space sim ever). Is this then a measure of success or failure?

Considering some of the shortcomings of the other space games, MMSSE might easily be BDSSE... :p

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Berious posted:

Still a mile wide and an inch deep. Horizons doesn't look like it'll do a great deal to address that either. They probably need a couple of expansions before it's fun.

Argh... That's a shame the footage of the planetary landing / rover carnage looked great. But if the gameplay is still carry x amount of this material to that station that in the grand scheme of things won't affect anything apart from maybe a little slider moving another 0.1% further - then I'll pass for now :(

Danknificent posted:

Dunno, never played it. I'll try it tomorrow when the Horizons beta starts. I'm going to be a pro space trucker!

Hope you have Netflix.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

kikkelivelho posted:

I really can't muster any enthusiasm for SQ 42. I hate all that "cinematic" movie poo poo in games and I couldn't care less about the super amazing star actors. It's clear the singleplayer campaign is croberts way of creating another movie without the industry that dumped him. We haven't seen a single second of gameplay footage from the campaign yet we have hours of making of poo poo from the various motion capture shoots.

I think that is the easy part for them. I mean as long as they follow the simple formula that worked for all similar games it's hard to really get it completely wrong, I am sure it will be a fun game (if you like the genre of single-player cinematic space sims). However, games like that will not keep people busy for too long.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Ragequit posted:

Is it a coincidence that Star Citizen (SC) shares an acronym with Sovereign Citizens (SC), both of which make a life out of misconceptions and redirection? I think not.

StarCraft, Supreme Commander, Soul Calibur. Perfect acronym imho!

randomcommoner posted:

Noone gives a poo poo about cutscenes in a game unless its blizzard.

I can agree with this. My life for Aiur!

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Beet Wagon posted:

And realistically, after playing through the Legacy of the Void campaign, I'm about over Blizzard's cutscenes too.

Heresy.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Beet Wagon posted:

Man, I love StarCraft as much as anybody else, but you can't tell me the guy who wrote LotV shouldn't have had his keyboard taken away. Everything was really pretty, but holy poo poo was that writing bad.

I thought it was good. Sure, some moments made me cringe, but generally I really enjoyed it. I mean sure, I expected more after SC1/BW, but I still can't think of anything better in recent years.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Beet Wagon posted:

I had actually just wrapped up playing through Vanilla/BW again when LotV dropped. LotV did not compare favorably, at all. But then again, it's more StarCraft so I can't bitch too much.

SC/BW was much darker in tone, but LotV really had its moments (Zeratul's scene, the cave with Kerrigan and Artanis, etc). Also I personally liked the ending, cheesy as hell but at least it managed to tie up the loose ends.

Also, as you said, more StarCraft is more StarCraft.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Stealth Like posted:

what's the point of buying all these ships anyway? dont you play games to, you know, like get better stuff and whatnot? If I started a game with the best stuff available I'd probably play for a few minutes and then be like oh this is boring and quit.

The idea is (if they don't mess it up of course...) that no matter which ship you start with, it will be poo poo since you'll have crappy equipment. Sure, with ships doing the same thing (for example a Hull B vs a Hull C or whatever the bigger transport is), the bigger will be better from the get go, but most of the ships have distinct roles and advantages where the expensive equipment will be the progression curve.

Of course I bet they will prove me wrong in the end and the more expensive ships will be flat out better, but let's hope not :)

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Jst0rm posted:

god forbid people play a game with the lovely starter ship first and play the game to get better stuff.

Nobody wants to play the crappiest ships though. Though maybe starting with an Eagle in Elite:Dangerous is what ruined all the fun for me... :)

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Stealth Like posted:

I doubt there's much to worry about. They've nailed everything on the head so far.

I can't wait to be playing the full game next year. What's that saying in development? "The first 10% takes 90% of the time, the last 90% takes 10% of the time"?

Wait, some people bother with the last 10%?

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

mad.radhu posted:

$150 is about right for a mechanical keyboard depending on the feature set

Unless it's from Razer.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Booblord Zagats posted:

So Star Citizen dev Disco Lando likes debating the meaning of the word truth and the observable nature of fact

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/3t5pgt/stephen_attempts_to_convert_bill_maher/cx3hhe1

Which, yeah, irony

https://www.reddit.com/user/therealdiscolando

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

More info here: http://hexus.net/tech/news/peripherals/85265-cherry-mx-silent-mechanical-keyswitches-launched/

That actually sound great!

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Berious posted:

Corsair look nice but I've read nothing but bitching about the fancy LEDs dying all the time making your pretty keyboard look like a piece of poo poo. Filco or get out IMO.

There are lots of other no-nonsense brands out there (Das, Steelseries, Ducky, etc).

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

kikkelivelho posted:

ARMA 3 has a headbob slider that goes from 0 (no headbob) to 100 (vomit city), so I don't really understand why CIG couldn't do something similar. Unless of course croberts insists that the camera needs to be locked to a specific bone in the characters head at all times.

Because Arma simulates headbob but has the camera still stuck at an arbitrary position instead of what SC does - fixating the camera to the player's eyes. It's an utterly stupid decision that will leave us with head-bob no matter what.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

MeLKoR posted:

You keep saying you don't care about the whales whining but who do you think will pay for server upkeep? If this ever comes out I give it 6 months before it veers into Payday 2 territory.

Good point.

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

Gryphon0468 posted:

The thing these people here don't seem to understand is that the "whales" already know their ships aren't literally worth the dollar amount and know that everything will be fairly available in the PU.

Oh I am sure many don't, there are a lot of idiots out there :)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Iglocska
Nov 23, 2015

LCL-Dead posted:

Which?

The package I had included both the M50 and the 300R.

The 2 Mustangs and the P72 I guess.

  • Locked thread