Also AFAIK they don't animate all that well, for obvious reasons.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Star Citizen Community |OT| Long Term Investment
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
During a Town Hal, they did mention they look at what their competitors are doing with anything they do, and try to see who does it best and why. They did mention Black Desert Online, and Destiny and how different games do it differently when it comes to the Character Customizer.
They also touched on the fact that they're making both a single player game and a MMO. When you're making just one, you can build a customizer with concessions, CIG doesn't have that ability, they need to make something that's functional for both and that leads to issues.
They also touched on the fact that they're making both a single player game and a MMO. When you're making just one, you can build a customizer with concessions, CIG doesn't have that ability, they need to make something that's functional for both and that leads to issues.
Warthog stick is at its second lowest price of all time @ Amazon right now. ($198)
https://www.amazon.com/Thrustmaster-HOTAS-Warthog-Flight-Stick/dp/B00CBVHJ00
Might hang out at that price for a day or two before going back up to the $270-$300 range.
if you're in the market for this stick, now is historically as good a time as there's ever been to get it.
(that being said, I thought the stick and its buttons were too heavy making presses fatiguing. ymmv)
note: this is only for the stick, not the stick + throttle.
https://www.amazon.com/Thrustmaster-HOTAS-Warthog-Flight-Stick/dp/B00CBVHJ00
Might hang out at that price for a day or two before going back up to the $270-$300 range.
if you're in the market for this stick, now is historically as good a time as there's ever been to get it.
(that being said, I thought the stick and its buttons were too heavy making presses fatiguing. ymmv)
note: this is only for the stick, not the stick + throttle.
So will the planet "Leir" from the 2016 demo ever make it into the game?
also a good summary of britizencon this last weekend, seems like their main challenge / goal is to have object container streaming before they can add new planets etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lVr14GoXH8
also a good summary of britizencon this last weekend, seems like their main challenge / goal is to have object container streaming before they can add new planets etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lVr14GoXH8
Ever? Yes. Soon? Probably not. There are no permanent settlements there. So there wouldn't be a point. They planets on the list will help them produce the tech they need to develop and test. By the time they are done Leir III is implemented it will look different and look alot better.
The Warthog stick is completely worthless, do not buy it.
Plastic gimbals in a stick this expensive is unacceptable. Buy a Gladiator from VKB or something from Virpil if you want a high end stick.
Throttle is the only good thing the Warthog has.
At some point it'd probably make it into the game. Whether it'll look even close to the demo or not, I have no idea. It was essentially just used as a test-bed to show off that they can make planetary terrain and different biomes. It isn't the first time CIG dangled something shiny in our face and then forgot to tell us anything about it for years.
They'll also have to actually make the sandworm AI rather than faking it with scripts for the demo, which I imagine won't be easy.
Star Citizen is hosting a screenshot contest, some great shots here, and our very own Captain_Raoul is in 2nd place right now! Here's the thread if anyone's interested in making their own entry or voting anything up.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...ssd-900p-giveaway-round-2-scenic-vist/1126892
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...ssd-900p-giveaway-round-2-scenic-vist/1126892
In for the A2 Warbond with free tonk. Looks 1000x better than the Redeemer.
#2590
#2590
Also ~3 times more expensive credit vs credit, and an entirely different class of ship to begin with.
Uhh no? Both the Redeemer and the A2 are gunships.
Unless you're referring to something other than their role, I'm not sure how they are in different classes.
Last edited:
Redeemer is like an AH-64 crossed with a UH-60 helicopter. The A2 is like a AC-130. They're very different beasts despite both being gunships. The Redeemer is a small (37m x 19m) troop transport with fairly balanced coverage arcs on its turrets allowing for use in space and ground alike. The A2 is a large (100m x 70m) heavy transport with the vast majority of its firepower directed downwards for planetary ground ops. You wouldn't use one where you'd use the other.
Like Zalu said, they're both "gunships" in the same way that a sportscar and a 18 wheel hauler are both "cars"
There is still overlap in their roles. A2 can just as easily carry troops, vehicles, cargo, etc. and do space combat. It might be more suited to ground ops, but they are really not that far off of each other other than size and cost.
A2 is not ideal for space combat at all. It has god awful turret coverage that leaves the top of the ship all but undefended, and MOABs aren't going to help in space. Nimble fighters will dance around to the blind spots and pummel it to death. You also wouldn't use one if you wanted to shuffle Redeemer levels of troops around. It's bigger, slower, less maneuverable, and has higher crew requirements. You're falling victim to the "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" mentality. Use the right tool for the job.
If you must compare the A2 to an existing gunship, the more logical comparison to make is against the Hammerhead - another heavy gunship in the same size and price bracket. Though once again, even there the two can't be substituted easily. HH doesn't have the cargo transport capabilities, ordinance levels, or loiter time for ground engagements. Meanwhile the A2 doesn't have the non-ordinance firepower, the ability to properly defend larger ships against fighters, or the space combat prowess in general.
If you must compare the A2 to an existing gunship, the more logical comparison to make is against the Hammerhead - another heavy gunship in the same size and price bracket. Though once again, even there the two can't be substituted easily. HH doesn't have the cargo transport capabilities, ordinance levels, or loiter time for ground engagements. Meanwhile the A2 doesn't have the non-ordinance firepower, the ability to properly defend larger ships against fighters, or the space combat prowess in general.
The funny thing about this is that in atmo or out atmo, the hammerhead would most likely destroy the A2 in almost every scenario.
You're right, I totally forgot that part of the role is dropping bombs. Are there really no turrets on top?
If we're talking the A2 and HH getting in a fight, in absence of armor or shielding levels of the A2 relative to the HH, yes I'd bank on the HH winning in every situation where the HH doesn't sit below the A2 for a MOAB to drop on it. The HH can focus 4-5 turrets to pretty much every single point in space around it. Each turret has 4x S4 guns, so you're talking 16-20x S4 pummeling the A2 no matter where it was in relation to the HH. Meanwhile the A2 can't muster that much firepower even in the limited areas of space where most of its weaponry can converge. That said, the HH wouldn't exactly be my ship of choice to tackle taking down an A2. It's too big and expensive (in both a literal and manpower sense) to risk in that role when there's other cheaper options that can take advantage of the A2s weak coverage more effectively.
Last edited:
There's one turret on the top rear. Same as the C2/M2. It has horrible coverage angles of the top though, and isn't powerful enough to really protect the ship against an concentrated attack from above. 2x S3 isn't going to stop one fighter quickly in the best of times, let alone multiple fighters bearing down on you.
I just noticed, those look like two forward facing guns behind the cockpit. Either way, the ship has a huge lapse in coverage.
Well at least it looks amazing lol.
Nah that's fine, I have plenty of other ships for space combat. This will make a fine addition to my ground-based ship collection.
Yeah, they're either fixed or gimballed, and thus won't do you a lick of good for something coming down from above or to the sides. Not really surprising though. The basis of the Starlifter hull is a heavy transport, and thus has the assumption you'd have some level of escort in situations where you'd be expecting hostiles. The stock gun emplacements are merely deterrents to discourage attackers from following directly behind you or trying to block your way as you continue to book it from point A to point B.
Defense, range, and a roomy monolithic cargo bay are what would be the defining traits of the Starlifter IMO. The M2 variant adds a chin turret and ups the defenses even more at the cost of some cargo capacity. The A2 bolts 4 more turrets to the bottom of the hull and trades a large chunk of the cargo bay for ordinance. Combined with the VTOL engines, those aspects makes the A2 a ship capable of dropping a Nova or other equipment out of harms way, and then heading off to attack/bomb the shit out of stuff on the ground behind enemy lines. They both still share some of the inherent weaknesses of the starting point though.
CIG obviously designed the Starlifter based on the real life Hercules C-130, and the A2 variant is like the AC-130. Thus just like how the AC-130 is a nightmare for things on the ground, it's only deployed when you have air superiority. Outside of countermeasures it just doesn't have much hope of surviving against air to air threats.
I'm pretty happy to hear so much from Zyrain/John Pritchett again. I can't shut up about how awesome the design approach for flight and IFCS is and it makes me happy to hear confirmaton of various things :
- Split thrust characteristics for sustained and impulse thrust, on top of the existing rotational and translational divison.
- Heat, oh yes.
- Imperfect information will be fed into the IFCS once it enters its polish state as stated before, it was designed exactly for that
- Lift is coming.
- Seems that lower accelerations are coming as well, although high-G impulse will still be available. My hope for those is that connected issues (motion prediction, networked physics, VFX langage communicating force) will be tackled in time.
And that's on top of the other cool things I'm looking forward to that have been due for the longest time : systemic component damage and propagation, projectile penetration, physicalized damage, etc. The only thing that still worries me is that while CIG has world-class engineering talent and dedication when it comes to technical challenges, their design chops haven't been truly tested yet. It seems like the time for that is coming fast. At least in that respect Will Maiden's implementation of cargo made me hopeful.
I just know that if I hear the old "fun vs realism" bullshit one more time I'm going to spam Warren Spector interviews destroying that fallacy until there's an actual discussion :p.
- Split thrust characteristics for sustained and impulse thrust, on top of the existing rotational and translational divison.
- Heat, oh yes.
- Imperfect information will be fed into the IFCS once it enters its polish state as stated before, it was designed exactly for that
- Lift is coming.
- Seems that lower accelerations are coming as well, although high-G impulse will still be available. My hope for those is that connected issues (motion prediction, networked physics, VFX langage communicating force) will be tackled in time.
And that's on top of the other cool things I'm looking forward to that have been due for the longest time : systemic component damage and propagation, projectile penetration, physicalized damage, etc. The only thing that still worries me is that while CIG has world-class engineering talent and dedication when it comes to technical challenges, their design chops haven't been truly tested yet. It seems like the time for that is coming fast. At least in that respect Will Maiden's implementation of cargo made me hopeful.
I just know that if I hear the old "fun vs realism" bullshit one more time I'm going to spam Warren Spector interviews destroying that fallacy until there's an actual discussion :p.
I enjoyed that interview as well but this part has me curious. What are you trying to state here? That if they make things very realistic it would "not" affect what some people would consider fun? That there isn't a balance?
I mean that this expression means nothing and it is frequently used to shut down the conversation. People don't define what fun or realism means to them, they have inner definitions of those ideals and most often use them to refer to other things. I would rather people explain their views on the positives and negatives of specific things.
And yeah, I loved that interview as well :).
I gotcha. Use the phrase then explain instead of trying to use phrase to avoid conversation. I have always thought there is a balancing act to this. Being realistic does provide immersion but at same token replicating real world examples of spaceflight and the actual vastness of space wouldn't be fun for most. There are other games that are doing that so I guess it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Looking pretty good. Just gotta add more diversity to tree width and height.
Asset are total placeholder. Its mostly test environment for performance, lod transitions, amount of objects, shadow generation and topology.
April Monthly Report:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16551-Monthly-Studio-Report-April-2018
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16551-Monthly-Studio-Report-April-2018
This one was pretty cool, scanning looked great. the space-scenes were amazing, and I really liked the differences in FPS animations.
Time for my hot-takes on the $27,000 controversy away from that thread where we're the idiot cultists and our opinion is tainted by the mind control of CR;
I feel like CIG's brand has been mismanaged severely. Star Citizen should be a brand that's about doing exciting things, over-coming incredible tech-hurdles and introducing things we haven't seen before. Instead, Star Citizen is known as the game that sells ships for $10,000+. I feel like that takes away from both the community and the developers who work their tails off for us. It's frustrating for us to not be able to talk about the game without being weighed down by the massive prices some of these packs go for, and I imagine it's just as frustrating for developers to see their hard work dismissed because of the same thing.
Scam, Vaporware, Duke Nukem Forever comparisons, all of those are silly. I find them uninformed, it takes just a few minutes of researching to know that this game is in active development, with progress towards all of it's goals, and it offers us a comprehensive build to play (performance issues aside). These comments only get people that back the game and give a shit about it worked up and turn threads into shit-flinging contests.
That being said, the funding model will obviously gain attention and scrutiny. The business practices from CIG over the last few months haven't exactly been well received.
I think it's painfully obvious that CR promised things well before they could actually be done, and now CIG are chasing their own tail trying to deliver. I think they'll accomplish those but I think it's good that CR has kept his mouth shut for a while now. I would prioritize differently, and with 5 studios across the world, there's a constant battle I imagine on what they're going to be doing next and where focus/attention should be placed.
Let's not forget that CIG is building out two games, SQ42 also takes up a significant portion of their resources, and while tech is shared, we don't get to see it right away. This is a huge thing that most people forget, SC has taken on a life on it's own, and the fact they're developing an AAA modern Wing Commander with an incredible (and expensive) cast alongside it gets forgotten.
Have we seen progress in reasonable time frames? I think 3.1.4 is a step up over 3.0. I think the Monthly Reports, the ATVs, and what we get to see shows that they're working extremely hard on this game. If 3.2 brings all of it's features, it'd be a step up over 3.1.4. At the same time, this game is so huge, with so many things that need to get done, it's difficult to say we've seen 'reasonable' progress. Again, not because progress is slow, but because there are two games to be finished and one game happens to want to be a universe simulator. There are many things that are still talked about like they're in the distant future, a lot of the deep gameplay that makes games engaging doesn't seem to be coming this year. I think the talent, money and work-ethic is there to see the two games through, but it won't be soon.
I think it's okay to not be okay with Star Citizen's business model. I don't encourage anyone to buy into the game unless they like what they see, and are willing to gamble on CIG. I also thinks ships are expensive, I know why they're expensive, but it doesn't make it sit any easier with me.
I think it's okay to question the legitimacy of Star Citizen's chase for ambition. Nothing with this game is set in stone, and CIG developers have a hard-time of saying "no" to ideas presented to them, this is good and bad.
I think it's okay to be skeptical of whether or not the game will ever be 'finished'. The budget dictates the scope, the problem with that is, budgets typically are based on future funding. A dip could mean we see features cut - which isn't necessarily a bad thing with how much CR has promised. Then again, it might be your favorite feature that's cut.
I think it's fine to criticize the way they prioritized their goals. I would have certainly done things differently, focused more on design and system, but I'm not at CIG so I can't say whether I'm right or wrong. I think it's okay to not be happy with the level of progress while still understanding significant progress is being made.
I think it's good to approach this game with an open-mind and have a open debate, with both sides dealing in facts.
I don't think it's okay to use ad hominem attacks and call the community; dumb, idiots, believers, cultitsts, rabid fanbase. It's insulting, we feel like there's no room for a debate when our opinions are dismissed for liking a game that we enjoy playing, or wanting to see it be successful.
I don't think it's acceptable to insult the developers of the game, the business model is not created by the developers. The developers work as hard as any other studio in the world, and making games is EXTREMELY difficult. CIG has some of the best talent in the world, and the things they're being asked to do borderlines on unreasonable or even unthinkable, yet they have continued to deliver.
I don't think it's acceptable to dismiss the considerable and measured progress the development team has made towards it's goals the past year. "Taking too long" isn't a totally reasonable argument, games take a long time to make. God of War is a much smaller game in scope and took 5 years (because they had to redo the engine to meet their goals). Delays are usually accepted; "take as long as you need" is a common saying, the same should be applied to Star Citizen. CIG has only been in full development on BOTH Squadron 42 and Star Citizen for 2-3 years, the other years were dealing with a much different game, with a much smaller scope.
I don't think we want anyone to be offended FOR US. We are the community, the broader community decides what happens with this game. It's not fair to tell us what our game should be like; "they should have released a smaller game, they should have stopped adding features, etc" - The community DIDN'T want this. The reason funding is as consistent as it is, is because generally we are happy with the direction this game is going.
There are a lot of people on this forum who don't care about this game who speak for us, and then dismiss our opinion because we are part of the community. It's mind numbing how many discussions go; "they should have cut features and released a smaller game and added onto it" - "no we didnt want that, we wanted more features" - "well, you and all the other CR/CIG believers of course believe in the game! of course you want more features of course you will defend it!" lol
I hope that in the future our opinions won't be dismissed, that the ad hominem attacks against us stop. That the attacks against the developers stop, and people realize that it's fine to have a balanced opinion.
Calling it a scam, calling the developers lazy, calling the community "stupid, suckers, idiots, cultists" isn't going to result in any well reasoned debate and is against the Member Etiquette, IMO.
I look forward to FAIR AND BALANCED discussions.
I feel like CIG's brand has been mismanaged severely. Star Citizen should be a brand that's about doing exciting things, over-coming incredible tech-hurdles and introducing things we haven't seen before. Instead, Star Citizen is known as the game that sells ships for $10,000+. I feel like that takes away from both the community and the developers who work their tails off for us. It's frustrating for us to not be able to talk about the game without being weighed down by the massive prices some of these packs go for, and I imagine it's just as frustrating for developers to see their hard work dismissed because of the same thing.
Scam, Vaporware, Duke Nukem Forever comparisons, all of those are silly. I find them uninformed, it takes just a few minutes of researching to know that this game is in active development, with progress towards all of it's goals, and it offers us a comprehensive build to play (performance issues aside). These comments only get people that back the game and give a shit about it worked up and turn threads into shit-flinging contests.
That being said, the funding model will obviously gain attention and scrutiny. The business practices from CIG over the last few months haven't exactly been well received.
I think it's painfully obvious that CR promised things well before they could actually be done, and now CIG are chasing their own tail trying to deliver. I think they'll accomplish those but I think it's good that CR has kept his mouth shut for a while now. I would prioritize differently, and with 5 studios across the world, there's a constant battle I imagine on what they're going to be doing next and where focus/attention should be placed.
Let's not forget that CIG is building out two games, SQ42 also takes up a significant portion of their resources, and while tech is shared, we don't get to see it right away. This is a huge thing that most people forget, SC has taken on a life on it's own, and the fact they're developing an AAA modern Wing Commander with an incredible (and expensive) cast alongside it gets forgotten.
Have we seen progress in reasonable time frames? I think 3.1.4 is a step up over 3.0. I think the Monthly Reports, the ATVs, and what we get to see shows that they're working extremely hard on this game. If 3.2 brings all of it's features, it'd be a step up over 3.1.4. At the same time, this game is so huge, with so many things that need to get done, it's difficult to say we've seen 'reasonable' progress. Again, not because progress is slow, but because there are two games to be finished and one game happens to want to be a universe simulator. There are many things that are still talked about like they're in the distant future, a lot of the deep gameplay that makes games engaging doesn't seem to be coming this year. I think the talent, money and work-ethic is there to see the two games through, but it won't be soon.
I think it's okay to not be okay with Star Citizen's business model. I don't encourage anyone to buy into the game unless they like what they see, and are willing to gamble on CIG. I also thinks ships are expensive, I know why they're expensive, but it doesn't make it sit any easier with me.
I think it's okay to question the legitimacy of Star Citizen's chase for ambition. Nothing with this game is set in stone, and CIG developers have a hard-time of saying "no" to ideas presented to them, this is good and bad.
I think it's okay to be skeptical of whether or not the game will ever be 'finished'. The budget dictates the scope, the problem with that is, budgets typically are based on future funding. A dip could mean we see features cut - which isn't necessarily a bad thing with how much CR has promised. Then again, it might be your favorite feature that's cut.
I think it's fine to criticize the way they prioritized their goals. I would have certainly done things differently, focused more on design and system, but I'm not at CIG so I can't say whether I'm right or wrong. I think it's okay to not be happy with the level of progress while still understanding significant progress is being made.
I think it's good to approach this game with an open-mind and have a open debate, with both sides dealing in facts.
I don't think it's okay to use ad hominem attacks and call the community; dumb, idiots, believers, cultitsts, rabid fanbase. It's insulting, we feel like there's no room for a debate when our opinions are dismissed for liking a game that we enjoy playing, or wanting to see it be successful.
I don't think it's acceptable to insult the developers of the game, the business model is not created by the developers. The developers work as hard as any other studio in the world, and making games is EXTREMELY difficult. CIG has some of the best talent in the world, and the things they're being asked to do borderlines on unreasonable or even unthinkable, yet they have continued to deliver.
I don't think it's acceptable to dismiss the considerable and measured progress the development team has made towards it's goals the past year. "Taking too long" isn't a totally reasonable argument, games take a long time to make. God of War is a much smaller game in scope and took 5 years (because they had to redo the engine to meet their goals). Delays are usually accepted; "take as long as you need" is a common saying, the same should be applied to Star Citizen. CIG has only been in full development on BOTH Squadron 42 and Star Citizen for 2-3 years, the other years were dealing with a much different game, with a much smaller scope.
I don't think we want anyone to be offended FOR US. We are the community, the broader community decides what happens with this game. It's not fair to tell us what our game should be like; "they should have released a smaller game, they should have stopped adding features, etc" - The community DIDN'T want this. The reason funding is as consistent as it is, is because generally we are happy with the direction this game is going.
There are a lot of people on this forum who don't care about this game who speak for us, and then dismiss our opinion because we are part of the community. It's mind numbing how many discussions go; "they should have cut features and released a smaller game and added onto it" - "no we didnt want that, we wanted more features" - "well, you and all the other CR/CIG believers of course believe in the game! of course you want more features of course you will defend it!" lol
I hope that in the future our opinions won't be dismissed, that the ad hominem attacks against us stop. That the attacks against the developers stop, and people realize that it's fine to have a balanced opinion.
Calling it a scam, calling the developers lazy, calling the community "stupid, suckers, idiots, cultists" isn't going to result in any well reasoned debate and is against the Member Etiquette, IMO.
I look forward to FAIR AND BALANCED discussions.
This game is still in development/Early Access? Holy crap lol. A student in my class did a report on this while I was a sophomore in high school. I'm now a sophomore in college.
Yes
Wow! That's crazy! Time sure does fly!