• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Star Citizen: Chris Robert`s new space sim (the Wing Commander guy)

Page 290 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
692
27
91
I backed with a mostly minimums package. I'll roll the dice on some Big Org asshats steamrolling me like it's EVE 2.0. I can wait. The funny thing is that if this thing actually manages to stay funded long enough to actually release years later, it would be to my benefit. Once my kids (now 5) go to college, I'll have that much more time to play this thing!

I can't justify whaledom financially at this point. Maybe in the future when I'm a baller in more ways than just being in the AT Org, I could drop more...but I'm not sure I'd do that until I see more results such as SQ42, or a stable PTU.

I thank you whale types. I'm sure if everybody was like me and only spent the $35, this thing may not have been a thing. Thank you for taking the risk that I wouldn't. I sincerely hope it pans out, for all of our sakes...

Does anybody else follow the SC reddit? I'm no programmer...does anybody have any insight to the current status of bugs with the evocati 3.0 build?
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,116
427
136
This pretty much sums it up for me. Put simply, the space sim genre was dead prior to Roberts (and then Braben) jumping back in. I backed both immediately (both around $250 each) as I have the income and want both projects to succeed.

There are plenty of other games (not to mention life with kids, work, etc) so while I would obviously prefer the game sooner than later, I’m not suffering or anything without it (dead genre...). What would hurt is releasing crap in the name of some imaginary deadline (see publishers) and the blowback putting this genre back on ice.

Also, to be clear, I (and that goes for most backers) do not think everyone should back. If you’re uncertain or financially pledging would be difficult, PLEASE don’t. If you really are interested or want to support the genre, go with the minimum pledge.
Was it really dead or just not full of well known games? I came across this list on another site (over a non-SC conversation.. yes they can happen ;) ). I'm not going to pretend that all these games are awesome and/or fun, but it looks like there were space sims of all sorts of types being made through out the years. They haven't gotten anywhere near the attention that SC has gotten, but most of them weren't asking for funding. I ask because I've heard this a few times, and I'm not sure if it's a case where people didn't know there were other games being made, or they didn't fill what people consider a 'space sim'.. or they sucked so they just didn't count, which would be odd reasoning as until SC's final version is released no one can say for sure what it'll be.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,207
216
106
Was it really dead or just not full of well known games? I came across this list on another site (over a non-SC conversation.. yes they can happen ;) ). I'm not going to pretend that all these games are awesome and/or fun, but it looks like there were space sims of all sorts of types being made through out the years. They haven't gotten anywhere near the attention that SC has gotten, but most of them weren't asking for funding. I ask because I've heard this a few times, and I'm not sure if it's a case where people didn't know there were other games being made, or they didn't fill what people consider a 'space sim'.. or they sucked so they just didn't count, which would be odd reasoning as until SC's final version is released no one can say for sure what it'll be.
It was dead. Kerbal Space Program (one example from that list) is a fun game, but it is not at all equivalent to the likes of Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen. There aren't very many good space games that have a reactive open world (I guess worlds makes more sense for the space simulation genre), with economies and factions that you can interact with either through missions or just general trade.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,116
427
136
It was dead. Kerbal Space Program (one example from that list) is a fun game, but it is not at all equivalent to the likes of Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen. There aren't very many good space games that have a reactive open world (I guess worlds makes more sense for the space simulation genre), with economies and factions that you can interact with either through missions or just general trade.
What was the last game that did fill your definition of the genre? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just really trying to understand how people are defining the genre. I'm not sure I personally would have said those games in that list (most of which I'd have to look up) are equivalent to SC and ED, but I'm not sure what my definition would be, let alone how it wouldn't align with yours. I don't want this to turn into yet another fight about SC though. That isn't my intent with the question in the first place at all..
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,207
216
106
What was the last game that did fill your definition of the genre? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just really trying to understand how people are defining the genre. I'm not sure I personally would have said those games in that list (most of which I'd have to look up) are equivalent to SC and ED, but I'm not sure what my definition would be, let alone how it wouldn't align with yours. I don't want this to turn into yet another fight about SC though. That isn't my intent with the question in the first place at all..
Honestly, none. I never played the X series, which I guess may have been the answer if I did, but for me I played a lot of Wing Commander and Free Space 2, also some EVE Online. These are all different from a modern space sim though, which should give you the open world and everything that comes with that and also the fun of flying spaceships in cockpit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skel

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
What was the last game that did fill your definition of the genre? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just really trying to understand how people are defining the genre. I'm not sure I personally would have said those games in that list (most of which I'd have to look up) are equivalent to SC and ED, but I'm not sure what my definition would be, let alone how it wouldn't align with yours. I don't want this to turn into yet another fight about SC though. That isn't my intent with the question in the first place at all..
Well, for one, you can toss almost 50-60% of the games under the "Space Combat games" heading. "Creature Shock" is a first person horror/survival game, set in space... The same goes for most of the other games on that list (Heck "Star Wars: Battlefront" a FPS/Overshoulder-shooter is in that list...) That is not space combat, that is games set in space/other planets/space stations.

The "Space Trading and Combat games" is a little better, but even then, "No Man's Sky"? Really? More of the "games that are set in space" category going on here as well (off the top of my head, this isn't as bad a list as the "Space Combat games", but it is still full of things that shouldn't be there).
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
For those that don't pay close attention, CIG has been publishing some pretty interesting articles called "The Shipyard". These articles are meant to be basic understanding of a forth-coming ship matrix and classification system, component systems, weapons, etc. Definitely worth reading once or twice. Here's today's article.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16193-The-Shipyard-Other-Ship-Items
Thanks! This underscores how far from a true alpha they remain, but it also displays a depth of thought and game play that I don't think I've ever seen on any game. If they can bring this to market in anything close to their apparent intent, it ought to be awesome.
 
Last edited:

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
Thanks! This underscores how far from a true alpha they remain, but it also displays a depth of thought and game play that I don't think I've ever seen on any game. If they can bring this to market in anything close to their apparent intent, it ought to be awesome.
I think you are reading this entirely wrong if you think it shows how far from alpha the game is. They are simply finally updating the website/docs to match the development, and telling people more about how things are being implemented than what was previously available on the website. In other words, they finally got around to writing the documentation to the code....

This is something they have been saying constantly that the ship matrix is out of date and not representative of development for months/years now, but didn't want to spend time writing something that was going to need to be completely re-worked later on as things continued to change. Seeing this re-write finally being produced signals (to me at least) that either they finally have nailed down most of things about how it will work (which would be great), or that it is now such a high priority item to show off the various ships in an attempt to up-sell current backers for more expensive ones, or entice more funding (making me believe they are finally starting to feel a funding shortage, which could be bad if 3.0 has too many bugs to be able to become a viable game).
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
The fact that they're finally rewriting the ship stats page, to me at least, signifies that they are wrapping up a large, long development sprint. The stats have been wrong for almost 2 years and they've always rebuffed the idea of updating it since everything was in flux. Now that they're digging into it, it's a sign.

Plus the last AtV they were debugging menu UI and that was a hangup for the next patch to avocado.. so that's a good sign.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I think you are reading this entirely wrong if you think it shows how far from alpha the game is. They are simply finally updating the website/docs to match the development, and telling people more about how things are being implemented than what was previously available on the website. In other words, they finally got around to writing the documentation to the code....

This is something they have been saying constantly that the ship matrix is out of date and not representative of development for months/years now, but didn't want to spend time writing something that was going to need to be completely re-worked later on as things continued to change. Seeing this re-write finally being produced signals (to me at least) that either they finally have nailed down most of things about how it will work (which would be great), or that it is now such a high priority item to show off the various ships in an attempt to up-sell current backers for more expensive ones, or entice more funding (making me believe they are finally starting to feel a funding shortage, which could be bad if 3.0 has too many bugs to be able to become a viable game).
I don’t see how that follows. Under FAQ they specifically say “We’re still in the design phase of this system” as well as “we have many more in planning”. Neither of those sounds remotely like documenting something that is finished, or nearly so.

Seems to me they are making promises about things that are now partially implemented.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,116
427
136
The fact that they're finally rewriting the ship stats page, to me at least, signifies that they are wrapping up a large, long development sprint. The stats have been wrong for almost 2 years and they've always rebuffed the idea of updating it since everything was in flux. Now that they're digging into it, it's a sign.

Plus the last AtV they were debugging menu UI and that was a hangup for the next patch to avocado.. so that's a good sign.
How does this effect people that have bought ships before this 'revamp' of them? I've seen a few supporters of this game saying that unless you're new there's no reason to put money into buying ships. They mentioned a few ships were much more powerful when sold and then changed for the worst. Is there some guaranty that the ship I buy today thinking it'll be bad ass once it finally gets into the game will actually be bad ass? I'm also not sure how them redoing ship specs means anything for development. Unless they're close to release, which it really sounds like they're very far from it, it really just seems like something to convince people to get updated versions of the ships... which really makes me wonder how that works with the ones already sold.. do people get the better version or just screwed if they nerf it?
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
How does this effect people that have bought ships before this 'revamp' of them? I've seen a few supporters of this game saying that unless you're new there's no reason to put money into buying ships. They mentioned a few ships were much more powerful when sold and then changed for the worst. Is there some guaranty that the ship I buy today thinking it'll be bad ass once it finally gets into the game will actually be bad ass? I'm also not sure how them redoing ship specs means anything for development. Unless they're close to release, which it really sounds like they're very far from it, it really just seems like something to convince people to get updated versions of the ships... which really makes me wonder how that works with the ones already sold.. do people get the better version or just screwed if they nerf it?
It doesn't change anything about people who bought ships before this "revamp", as it isn't a revamp, but documentation catching up. The playable ships have already been using these changes for months/years in some cases.

Yes, some ships were much more powerful when initially sold, such as the superhornet having 2 more fixed weapon hardpoints. But after playing and using the ship, it was both overpowered and underpowered at the same time (it was one-shoting too many ships, and the powerplant was not enough to keep all the weapons, shields and engines working at the same time (which is something you would expect a military-spin-off ship would be able to do), so removing 2 of the hardpoints helped balance the ship both to run better, as well as not be insta-death when it hit another ship). All the playable ships have going through multiple balancing passes at this point, with lots of changes/tweaks to make each fit its designed role more in line with the lore generated for the ship (there are still some that have issues and work to be done... looking at you cutlass).

Again, they are finally updating the web documents to fit what is actually in game.

As for buying new ships or deciding to upgrade an existing ship, well, if you were playing, you would know you can use points that you earned in the various modes to effectively rent almost any playable ship. And there have been several free-play events where all or some playable ships have been unlocked for everyone, giving you a chance to use the ship for a while before you decide to make any decision. But recognize, things can and will still change as balancing passes are done as all the functionality is given to the players (some of the ship component upgrading/tweaking has not been released, but you can see an early pass at it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_6aks5e5o ). I suspect some more balancing passes on the sub-systems for the various ships will still be needed, as we all know the best way to find overpowered combinations is to release it to the playerbase and see what things they come up with in terms of combinations of equipment that have synergy that is overpowering.
 

Stringjam

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2011
1,871
33
91
The ships have gotten better every time they have been reworked. I can't think of a single case where this isn't true.

I think what you hear people complaining about is ship specs, which undergo balancing efforts from the time they go live forward. This should be expected - I'm not sure why any reasonable backer in a development environment would expect otherwise. I guess there's always a group that thinks the ship they pledged for should be the end-all meta beast, but that was never the intent of any ship design.

The better approach is not to put so much emotional and financial investment in a digital starship if you can't handle the fact that in the end, this is a game....it's entertainment. It's only worth as much as the fun you get back out of it. At this point, I don't regret a single penny I've spent. I've spent hundreds of hours in there and had a blast.

Alternatively, I spent $70 on ED and would rather I got that money back. I'm not saying ED is a bad game or that people shouldn't play it, I'm just saying that I got zero entertainment value out of it . Somebody else may have a completely different experience, so I don't sit around wringing my hands over how other people spend their money and what they find enjoyable.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,635
106
106
How does this effect people that have bought ships before this 'revamp' of them? I've seen a few supporters of this game saying that unless you're new there's no reason to put money into buying ships. They mentioned a few ships were much more powerful when sold and then changed for the worst. Is there some guaranty that the ship I buy today thinking it'll be bad ass once it finally gets into the game will actually be bad ass? I'm also not sure how them redoing ship specs means anything for development. Unless they're close to release, which it really sounds like they're very far from it, it really just seems like something to convince people to get updated versions of the ships... which really makes me wonder how that works with the ones already sold.. do people get the better version or just screwed if they nerf it?
The problem you're witnessing is that most Star Citizen backers are idiots and are thinking about the ships incorrectly. Ships are tools. A hammer is awesome at hammering in a nail. You can use a screw driver to hammer in a nail too, but it's not as awesome. But every single ship in SC is a tool and will be the "best" at a certain job. There have been zero buffs and nerfs to any ship. I know that's shocking to hear and many would disagree, but it's true. Instead, CIG has changed ships to fit a role (i.e. build a tool for a job). Buffing and nerfing will come during beta when they need to fine tune things for balance.

I'll give you my personal example. I bought a Reliant because it was described as a "mini-hauler". Well it turns out, the design didn't lend itself to hauling much cargo. There just isn't the internal room for it. So now they've added a tractor beam to it and they're describing it as a multi purpose ship. I'm sure the next pass, something else will change and maybe it ends up being the most maneuverable small ship with a tractor beam....perfect for salvage and recovery in tight places (asteroid fields). Boom. CIG just fit a ship into a role. The right tool for the right job. That's what they're trying to do with ships.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
I was actually pretty pissed when they nerfed my avenger's top speed after (2.4?) and I quit playing Arena Commander for a while because of it because I was so used to the old spec.

But they pretty much nerfed everything at the time and I'm used to it now.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,798
581
126
If you bought a ship because of it's actual power at the time rather than its intended role then you are frickin' retarded and that's on you.
 

Stringjam

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2011
1,871
33
91
I was actually pretty pissed when they nerfed my avenger's top speed after (2.4?) and I quit playing Arena Commander for a while because of it because I was so used to the old spec.

But they pretty much nerfed everything at the time and I'm used to it now.

I think my biggest letdown was when the Gladius went from being wicked maneuverable to being broken (right around the time the "jerk" mechanic was put in). I've heard in 3.0 they upped the wing hardpoints to S3, which, IMO is a very good balance move. This ship kind of got left in the dust when the Sabre came out, and the 300 series was even capable of a better loadout, which didn't make much sense considering the Gladius is a dedicated, good-at-nothing-else dogfighter.

I will say that I'm supremely happy to see what they've done with the Cutlass. Now I can see this being my daily driver for a lot of activities.

And have you seen the re-envisioned Mustang? Nice.

https://i.redd.it/rijrsfb35duz.png

PLEASE do the neglected 300 series half as much justice!
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,116
427
136
If you bought a ship because of it's actual power at the time rather than its intended role then you are frickin' retarded and that's on you.
I don't understand this.. if I'm buying something I would base my choice off it's specs. The idea that those are changed down the road, and if it ends up being worse than what I was sold I can't see how that's on me... unless it was clearly stated that these could change (which please tell me that's what happened. What I've read on other sources like the reddit group for SC --not the negative ones-- is that the ship specs were sold and no one thought they'd ever change) it's on the company selling me stuff. At the least they should offer my money back on it, as it's not what I bought.. Note: if this turns into a 'you're not buying a ship, you're making a donation to them' then you win.. there's no point talking about it.. however I have a hard time with the idea that I'm not being sold something even if it's something that'll come down the road.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,798
581
126
It's a game that doesn't have a feature complete alpha, doesn't have all its ships built yet, doesn't have all its weapons built yet, semi-incomplete flight model, incomplete systems model, hasn't had any fine tuning balance done, etc. etc. etc., let alone the fact that you can always trade the ship in for something else if you really don't like it. That's why nobody should be surprised if a ship gets nerfed in some overt way that pisses them off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranulf

ASK THE COMMUNITY