[Megathread] Star Citizen

[KyrtF]

Again, go look at the mountains of information provided here and throughout the SC developer updates/forums/etc. on how instancing works in SC. Don't even mention instances again until you do because it's a complete waste of time trying to re-explain it to every person who stumbles in here spouting off some bullshit.

I have. What you describe is a process called liad balancing. But it isn't the way SC instances are designed. If it were, then there would be NO instance limit.

Publically...SC instances can handle 24 players. CIG are hoping to push that to 100 or preferably 200 players per instance.

And while there are mechanisms to hand players off between instances, what they don't do is load balance individual instances between multiple servers to bypass the instance limit.

- - - Updated - - -

you know the majority of backers disagree with you right? you do realize that what you are asking for, just release some game and NOT the game CR wants, is the antithesis of going crowdfunding in the first place. let it be done with it's done. i know i want a good game as long as it's out in the next 3-4 years i am good.

And if things keep goibg the way they are, 3-4 years is probably a good estimate for when Star Citizen is likely to be released...barring something akin to them releasing a MVP.

2.6 is months late. 3.0 was supposed to be released in August and it isn't likely to be out until March.

Do I think CIG can deliver the game Chris Roberts has promised? Yes...I think it can.

But I also realise that CIG has consistently over promised and underdelivered. Chris Roberts especially appears to continually underestimate the time, work and money needed for the game.

CIG are trying to develop a game with greater scope and more features than just about any game you care to mention. And they are doing it without the proper toolkit, with less money, with fewer developers of less experience than other projects.

That they are continually running late isn't surprising. What IS surprising is that Chris Roberts keeps giving over optimistic dates and over hyping the progress.

As others have pointed out...CIG probably should have dropped CryEngine and written their own engine from scratch. They've spent substantial time and effort modifying the code they have to produce what they needed....but modifying is rarely as good as custom built. Its doubtful they can even sell or license their code as they license it themselves. They have the money and need for such an engine...so why not?

Chris Roberts also hyped up SM and promised it released almost a year ago. It still isn't out. Turns out, they had to scrap much of what they did because a lack of communication between teams meant the developed code was unusable.

Wasted money and wasted opportunities.

And while you might be willing to wait the 3 or 4 years needed to actually develop the game as promised....how many other backers feel the same way? And other games are being released which will eat into the same market and its graphical fidelity is not special anymore.

Am I prepared to wait for a good game? Personally....yes. But I'm not going to spend a penny on the game until its released.

And others aren't prepared to wait. They're getting refunds.

And while crowdfunding does free CIG from the dreaded control of the publishers, it also removes any pressure to release the game. Indeed, with CIG having a decent revenue stream simply by issuing IOUs for new ship designs, there is a strong incentive not to release at all.

I think 3.0 will be released in 2017. But it'll be months late.
I think we'll see SQ42 in 2017....but CIG will either need to spend millions on marketing it, or sacrifice some revenue potential to get a publisher involved.

Will it be any good? I hope so. But that CIG haven't yet finalised the flight model strikes me as a little worrisome.

- - - Updated - - -

Noone ever made a game on such scale AND visual details. There is nothing atm even close to what they are creating.

Whatever advantage in graphics SC had in 2012 is now gone. Look at the games released this year. And graphical fidelty has NOTHING to do with the level of innovation.

SC is ambitious...not innovative.

Hype doesnt come from mere words. It comes from gameplay videos and already available content. Many core features they promised are already working.

And they are being oversold. Overhyped.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm keeping my expectations down for active players on the game. I'd say 300-500k is more likely. The game will be too "engrossing" for the average player to want to sink their teeth into. It will take a lot of time and effort to do things because it seeks to actively simulate everything.

I would say that you are being far too optimistic. The game will sell a lot..primarily because it has a lot of preorders...but it'll be lucky to average anywhere near this level of players.

Put another way....the people most likely to buy this game have already done so. The players most likely to stick around and put time into the game are already doing so. You could argue that more players would joinup once the game is released.....but now you are talking about a major marketing campaign that will require many more millions of funding on order to bring those players in....

In a market where people have been burnt by NMS and where games like IW and MEA will be available and eating into the market.

Given 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years more development, we also have to ask where games such as SWTOR or NMS or ED or EVE will be and what features they will have. Maybe they will have shut down or maybe development will be continuing. We don't know.

But if they are shut down we have to ask what makes SC so different that it is likely to succeed and if they are still active we have to ask what will make SC stand out from the crowd.

Nothing here is really insurmountable given time, effort and money. But time....SC alone likely requires another 3 years, maybe more unless CIG cut out a lot of features, ships and systems to be added later. That might happen...it would be CIG releasing their MVP instead of a fully featured and complete at launch game. Time requires money....and lots of it. People keep saying development is expensive. And that doesn't include whatever marketing costs CIG is planning on. And marketing a game like SC and SQ42 is likely to be expensive. Spending more on marketing than on development is not unheard of for AAA titles. Not to mention the costs for the back office servers hosting and running everything. Yes...private servers are supposedly planned but that's also breaking up the player base as you can never let those accounts into the main universe. Not to mention, such servers could never hope to offer the same experience or scope as the dedicated servers and bandwidth would be far out of any players price range given what CIG are offering.

Its easy to see this game shifting a million or more units in the first month of sales...because those are already bought by the backers. But the game has those backers now. And how many turn up on the servers on a regular basis?

[Malibutomi]

And if things keep goibg the way they are, 3-4 years is probably a good estimate for when Star Citizen is likely to be released...barring something akin to them releasing a MVP.

Which would make it 7-8 years, considering other games dev time, and that CIG is making 2 games, a single player and a complex MMO that is about right.

2.6 is months late. 3.0 was supposed to be released in August and it isn't likely to be out until March.

Wait the same 3.0 which we first heard of on GamesCom? How is that supposed to be released in August?

CIG are trying to develop a game with greater scope and more features than just about any game you care to mention. And they are doing it without the proper toolkit, with less money, with fewer developers of less experience than other projects.

They made all the tools up until now, that's why they picked up pace, also they don't really have less money and developers than other big games now, including many of the industries most experienced veterans (especially the Crytek guys)

As others have pointed out...CIG probably should have dropped CryEngine and written their own engine from scratch. They've spent substantial time and effort modifying the code they have to produce what they needed....but modifying is rarely as good as custom built. Its doubtful they can even sell or license their code as they license it themselves. They have the money and need for such an engine...so why not?

Which would have taken 2-3 years, so it would be about the same except they would have almost nothing to show, as they couldn't make things like PU, or AC while the engine is not ready.

Chris Roberts also hyped up SM and promised it released almost a year ago. It still isn't out. Turns out, they had to scrap much of what they did because a lack of communication between teams meant the developed code was unusable.

This was known for like a year now, that they couldn't use Illfonics work. Also i think as FPS was in the PU they didn't want to make SM at all, as its main target was to test FPS combat. I think they only made it, because people constantly asked for it.

And while you might be willing to wait the 3 or 4 years needed to actually develop the game as promised....how many other backers feel the same way? And other games are being released which will eat into the same market and its graphical fidelity is not special anymore.

Most of the other backer. The ones asking for refund are the ones who threw money irresponsibly at the project, not just the amount they are willing to lose.

And while crowdfunding does free CIG from the dreaded control of the publishers, it also removes any pressure to release the game. Indeed, with CIG having a decent revenue stream simply by issuing IOUs for new ship designs, there is a strong incentive not to release at all.

Yeah because 4 studios and 370employees sounds like a big cashgrab....well it is not.

Whatever advantage in graphics SC had in 2012 is now gone. Look at the games released this year. And graphical fidelty has NOTHING to do with the level of innovation.

Yeah we have seen, SC looks much better than the cutscenes from IW (which turned out to be a big flop)

Put another way....the people most likely to buy this game have already done so. The players most likely to stick around and put time into the game are already doing so. You could argue that more players would joinup once the game is released.....but now you are talking about a major marketing campaign that will require many more millions of funding on order to bring those players in....

That's not correct, i could point a lot of guys (you can find them at any forums) who stated that they will not give money to crowdfunding for various reasons, but they will buy it when it will be released.

In a market where people have been burnt by NMS and where games like IW and MEA will be available and eating into the market.

You serious? IW eating SCs market? They are not even the same genre. IW is a rail shooter, with horrible graphics at soome places, and as i stated above it was a flop. MEA we will see, it is marketed as open world, but i think it will be as open world as ME1, so you can go here and there, but it evolves around the story, and then it ends. Again not the same genre (and i hope they will work a bit more on graphics as well, as the trailer looked laughable at some points)

But if they are shut down we have to ask what makes SC so different that it is likely to succeed and if they are still active we have to ask what will make SC stand out from the crowd.

What makes SC different is the old school approach, the attention to little details which todays rushed out games are lacking. The ability to find some hidden things here and there. Also the thing that it will be more complex than the mentioned titles, and gives a lot of playstyles in one package.

And that doesn't include whatever marketing costs CIG is planning on. And marketing a game like SC and SQ42 is likely to be expensive. Spending more on marketing than on development is not unheard of for AAA titles. Not to mention the costs for the back office servers hosting and running everything.

Man everyone who is not living under a rock in the middle of the desert heard about SQ42/SC already, there will be a big hype around the release, they don't really need expensive marketing. Maybe a few YT ads, and to showcase at E3 and other expos.

[Tradewind]

I have. What you describe is a process called liad balancing. But it isn't the way SC instances are designed. If it were, then there would be NO instance limit.

Publically...SC instances can handle 24 players. CIG are hoping to push that to 100 or preferably 200 players per instance.

And while there are mechanisms to hand players off between instances, what they don't do is load balance individual instances between multiple servers to bypass the instance limit.

You are so wrong it hurts...but what else is new.

[KyrtF]

You are so wrong it hurts...but what else is new.

And yet again...not one word to say how or why I am wrong. Just a straight assertion. CIG and Chris Roberts has described the instancing process and their description of how it works in Star Citizen doesn't match your assertion.

Right now...the limit is 24 and CIG instance technology doesn't bypass that limit through load balancing.

CIG should be able to improve on those numbers...but with the best will in tne world, they are going to have to accept limits. Even if they could implement an instance with thousands of ships, few players would own PCs capable of rendering them. Bandwidth limitations alone not to mention server costs and capabilities are likely to be huge bottlenecks in this vision...more so since there can't really be a ship limit as you jave to assume x number of players regardless. 5 players on one ship are potentially going to generate as much information as 5 players with 5 ships.

[Tradewind]

And yet again...not one word to say how or why I am wrong. Just a straight assertion. CIG and Chris Roberts has described the instancing process and their description of how it works in Star Citizen doesn't match your assertion.

Right now...the limit is 24 and CIG instance technology doesn't bypass that limit through load balancing.

CIG should be able to improve on those numbers...but with the best will in tne world, they are going to have to accept limits. Even if they could implement an instance with thousands of ships, few players would own PCs capable of rendering them. Bandwidth limitations alone not to mention server costs and capabilities are likely to be huge bottlenecks in this vision...more so since there can't really be a ship limit as you jave to assume x number of players regardless. 5 players on one ship are potentially going to generate as much information as 5 players with 5 ships.

I've already explained it to you once (probably twice tbh), this thread is full of explanations on how it works. There is videos from users, developers and so on about how it works. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean it didn't match my assertions either.

You are just being disingenuous and fucking obtuse at this point. I see no reason to explain it to you again. Especially since you've proven time and time again how poorly educated you are on the whole issue and server management in general.

Come back when you've learned something.

[KyrtF]

I've already explained it to you once (probably twice tbh), this thread is full of explanations on how it works. There is videos from users, developers and so on about how it works. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean it didn't match my assertions either.

And they don't agree with your assertions. I can go onto discussion on the RSI forums about instances and they are still discussing the 24 man limit on instances and the effect on ships where the crew size is larger than the instance limits. Your understanding is flawed and at odds with what just about everyone else is saying and talking about. I can't recall anyone else ever describing instances as being load balanced as a way to get around the current limit in the way you describe.

CIG are designing and hoping instances to be created which allow many more players to be involved. They want instances with a couple of hundred players...but their current aim is for between 50 and 100 as a realistic target given everything else an instance will be required to support. That figure is doable.

But currently? Currently the limit is 24. The system is meant to be dynamic which means that when you have an instance, slots of that 24 are reserved for your friends, enemies and POIs and they are slotted in as necessary. The game also keeps track of who is where and adds them into existing instances IF there is room or IF they have a reserved slot. But the limit - currently - is still 24. And this system isn't new or innovative.

And there really isn't any benefit to the load balancing aspect you suggest either...one of the bottlenecks of instancing CIG has to deal with is the resources available to the player. There is no point developing a system which allows for hundreds of players in an instance if your average players system can only handle 50.

All being said - if CIG get their instances to allow for 50 players or 100 or even 200...that's great. Looking forward to it. But it isn't being innovative. It isn't cutting edge. At best, it is refining an existing technology but even 200 players in an instance won't be unprecedented. It'll be hard to do for CIG given everything else that'll be going on, but I don't think it impossible.

[masterhorus8]

And they don't agree with your assertions. I can go onto discussion on the RSI forums about instances and they are still discussing the 24 man limit on instances and the effect on ships where the crew size is larger than the instance limits. Your understanding is flawed and at odds with what just about everyone else is saying and talking about. I can't recall anyone else ever describing instances as being load balanced as a way to get around the current limit in the way you describe.

CIG are designing and hoping instances to be created which allow many more players to be involved. They want instances with a couple of hundred players...but their current aim is for between 50 and 100 as a realistic target given everything else an instance will be required to support. That figure is doable.

But currently? Currently the limit is 24. The system is meant to be dynamic which means that when you have an instance, slots of that 24 are reserved for your friends, enemies and POIs and they are slotted in as necessary. The game also keeps track of who is where and adds them into existing instances IF there is room or IF they have a reserved slot. But the limit - currently - is still 24. And this system isn't new or innovative.

And there really isn't any benefit to the load balancing aspect you suggest either...one of the bottlenecks of instancing CIG has to deal with is the resources available to the player. There is no point developing a system which allows for hundreds of players in an instance if your average players system can only handle 50.

Instancing in and of itself is load balancing. What they are doing is having these dynamic instances all moving around within another instance which is being handled like a single unit within the sub instances. The parent instances don't have to process any of the physics of the sub instances, only moving them around and having them interact with each other (such as if a bullet passes through from one to the other). That last part is already being done when you shoot from outside of a space station to inside of it.

And they've already said how they're handling the big ships. It'll be broken up into multiple instances, just like I already told you but you conveniently ignored so you could keep complaining. It'll be no different then going from outside a station to inside. It's all seamless, so having it into multiple instances doesn't matter. If anything, it makes it easier to deal with stuff like hull breaches and airlocks.

But it isn't being innovative. It isn't cutting edge.

I am getting really sick and tired of you saying this. Every single time, you're picking a single part of the game. As we've told you time and time again, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FEATURE IS INNOVATIVE. IT'S HAVING ALL OF IT THAT IS. And you have yet to give an example of another game that has everything that this does/will.

[Tackhisis]

ArenaNet has been running GW2 without a subscription model

Right, and you need to pay money just to be able to create a character of the each class in the game. Or to play the Living Story missions. Basically everything cool in GW2 is beyond paywall.

[Shanden]

Right, and you need to pay money just to be able to create a character of the each class in the game. Or to play the Living Story missions. Basically everything cool in GW2 is beyond paywall.

If nothing changed in the last year, you are completely wrong. After buying the game, I managed to get every basic class (except the addon one) that is in the game without ever buying anything with real money. You can easily buy the ingame currency and pay for the character slots. I never did end content or played excessively much in order to achieve that. You even got the living story for free if you logged in during a specific timeframe.
When I played they mainly made money with cosmetic items.

[Tradewind]

And they don't agree with your assertions. I can go onto discussion on the RSI forums about instances and they are still discussing the 24 man limit on instances and the effect on ships where the crew size is larger than the instance limits. Your understanding is flawed and at odds with what just about everyone else is saying and talking about. I can't recall anyone else ever describing instances as being load balanced as a way to get around the current limit in the way you describe.

Who is "they" exactly? Pretty sure horus posted an interview where a dev explains instancing and it is 100% exactly what I described to you.

CIG are designing and hoping instances to be created which allow many more players to be involved. They want instances with a couple of hundred players...but their current aim is for between 50 and 100 as a realistic target given everything else an instance will be required to support. That figure is doable.

But currently? Currently the limit is 24. The system is meant to be dynamic which means that when you have an instance, slots of that 24 are reserved for your friends, enemies and POIs and they are slotted in as necessary. The game also keeps track of who is where and adds them into existing instances IF there is room or IF they have a reserved slot. But the limit - currently - is still 24. And this system isn't new or innovative.

Because the cost of spinning up additional servers right now is pointless.

And there really isn't any benefit to the load balancing aspect you suggest either...one of the bottlenecks of instancing CIG has to deal with is the resources available to the player. There is no point developing a system which allows for hundreds of players in an instance if your average players system can only handle 50.

It's called dynamic LODs. Again, go read.

[kenn9530]

And yet again...not one word to say how or why I am wrong. Just a straight assertion. CIG and Chris Roberts has described the instancing process and their description of how it works in Star Citizen doesn't match your assertion.

Right now...the limit is 24 and CIG instance technology doesn't bypass that limit through load balancing.

CIG should be able to improve on those numbers...but with the best will in tne world, they are going to have to accept limits. Even if they could implement an instance with thousands of ships, few players would own PCs capable of rendering them. Bandwidth limitations alone not to mention server costs and capabilities are likely to be huge bottlenecks in this vision...more so since there can't really be a ship limit as you jave to assume x number of players regardless. 5 players on one ship are potentially going to generate as much information as 5 players with 5 ships.

The way instancing will work in SC is each ship will be a seperate instance of sorts, if you have a 20 man crew then it will be one instance but another 20 man crew will be able to interact with it and when you get close enough to look into the windows you can see what other people are doing, there may be some limit on how many ships and instances can be in one area before it impacts game performance and thats something that will get balanced around, no point in having 100 ships in one area if your only getting 2 fps, all these instances will get spread throughout multiple servers to handle everything. Limit will be more to do with what computer your playing the game on than what can actually be done ingame, would be good to have an option maybe to raise or lower the limit ingame depending on how good your computer is.

So even if the limit was 24 in an instance it doesn't matter since you able to interact with multiple instances, the limit will most likely be at least 50-100 per instance as the carrier is a massive ship and also if a few 20 crew ships are fighting each other the boarding actions will need to support a larger load.

So all this 24 instance limit is pointless as its not even a limit, its just a number currently set to test, but they are already testing 40 players instances in the current alpha and its likely to raise even further.

The game is innovative as its the only game that will give a complete gameplay experience with everything available, no other space game does that or will do that even in a year or two, plus each of these features that other games have in SC they have or will improve on those apects further.

[Onvious]

they said something about instance limit. with Netcode 2.0 they're aiming to 100 players instead of 24.

[KyrtF]

they said something about instance limit. with Netcode 2.0 they're aiming to 100 players instead of 24.

Aiming for. They conceivably can make that target. But for now, the limit is 24.

[Rennadrel]

Aiming for. They conceivably can make that target. But for now, the limit is 24.

No shit, welcome to being an alpha test...

[mindw0rk]

Whatever advantage in graphics SC had in 2012 is now gone. Look at the games released this year

SC now looks way better then how it looked in 2012. And while there are games that have better looking characters, I didnt see anything better then SC's ships and interiors.

SC is ambitious...not innovative.

It has some innovations. But yeah, its more ambitious then innovative which is fine by me.

[Rennadrel]

SC now looks way better then how it looked in 2012. And while there are games that have better looking characters, I didnt see anything better then SC's ships and interiors.



It has some innovations. But yeah, its more ambitious then innovative which is fine by me.

Really, it's both because it is trying to push multiple features and functions that no game has ever had combined before. The graphics look amazing, I am really amazed at the fidelity and the quality of both their character models as well as the actual designs of everything else that they are putting into the game. Aside from that, I am just waiting until we have substantial content to test out before I update it again.

[TriHard]

Any progress being made on this?

I wonder which game is gonna be released first, Identity RPG or Star Citizen

[masterhorus8]

Any progress being made on this?

I wonder which game is gonna be released first, Identity RPG or Star Citizen

Yes, there is plenty of progress being made.
2.5 is what's currently available to everyone.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/feature-list

2.6 is being tested by a group called the Evocati (aka Avocados) that are specifically chosen from the players because they are the most active in helping test things.
The patch should be pushed to the live servers for everyone in the next week.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

After that, Patch 3.0 is the next to be pushed out, including planetary landing and planet related stuff.

[TriHard]

I really really want this to be a good game, the whole bounty hunter system and the fact that you can actually trap a player inside one of those pods in your ship is SICK.

[Majestic12]

Any progress being made on this?

I wonder which game is gonna be released first, Identity RPG or Star Citizen

Well. "Star Citizen" won't be released anytime soon. The closest thing is Squadron42 but that is singleplayer only. Star Citizen the persistent universe with multiplayer won't be out for years at best.

Sq42 was supposed to have co-op but it is one of those things that they backed down on. The netcode is still terrible.

On the "good" side, they are about to sell another concept ship.