[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Dhrizzle]

I have a question for some of the bigger spenders (the ones who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars so far) and it's not exactly nay-saying, but it is about possible concerns.

Are any of you worried that you might just not like the game? Even if (when) SC's persistent universe is implemented there's a chance that you just don't enjoy the core gameplay, or the mini-games that make up your preferred job, or you feel your job isn't rewarding enough for the effort you put in... normally when paying ~£40 for a game I feel that's a justified risk, after all sometimes games just suck, but for people who've sunk a significant amount of money whilst basic systems are still being sketched in it seems like a crazy gamble.

[Katchii]

Snip

The only thing I'm trying to say is that the game has had a LOT of development speed bumps, some of which are attributable to questionable decisions made by the development team. If a great game comes out of this, awesome, but at this point the developers haven't exactly inspired me with confidence that they're capable of delivering on their due dates.

[1001]

This is quite literally what their tools development in the last year has been about. Developing content creation tools that rapidly prototype via procedural generation, but are flexible enough to go in manually afterwards and add all the POIs. Making "tilesets" for specific station types so they can tetris together unique stations faster, etc.

Setting aside the question of them being far enough along with it or not, they are at least aware doing absolutely everything 100% by hand is unfeasible. They could probably go ahead and manually work out some systems now, but in the long run its more money and time efficient to get the tools built first, even if its hard as bystanders for us to be patient with that.

Tools and pipelines is something we've been hearing about for a few years though. There's been quite a bit of talk about how their tools would allow them to roll out moons and planets very quickly but they recently admitted those estimates were overly positive hence their exclusion from 3.0 and that instead 3.1 will get a single planet, 3.2 another single planet etc.

I don't know how many planets are meant to be in the final game but assuming there's 3 per system, that's 300 planets, excluding moons, planetoids etc. If it takes 3 months to roll out a single planet that means 75 years to do them all.... yes that sounds stupid but 3 months for a Crysis-quality planet doesn't sound like an over-statement at all.
It's still 25 years if their tools and pipelines allow them to do 1 per month, is 4 weeks work for a crysis-quality planet a reasonable estimate?
It's still 6 years if they could do 1 per week but... if they could do 1 per week why would they be spacing them out as 1 planet per 3.x patch?
A bit of a wait on our hands regardless...

[stellvia]

A smart Producer would say 'we can't handle a bigger game' and stop feeding stretch goals. If people want to keep pileing on money that's their choice but producers need to realize when a project is getting to big and that there is a point where you have to stop expanding your scope.
Its not like this is some unprecidented problem. Feature creep is design 101.

For about the 30th time: Indeed. That's why stretch goals ended at the $60M mark.

[Malibutomi]

Tools and pipelines is something we've been hearing about for a few years though. There's been quite a bit of talk about how their tools would allow them to roll out moons and planets very quickly but they recently admitted those estimates were overly positive hence their exclusion from 3.0 and that instead 3.1 will get a single planet, 3.2 another single planet etc.

I don't know how many planets are meant to be in the final game but assuming there's 3 per system, that's 300 planets, excluding moons, planetoids etc. If it takes 3 months to roll out a single planet that means 75 years to do them all.... yes that sounds stupid but 3 months for a Crysis-quality planet doesn't sound like an over-statement at all.
It's still 25 years if their tools and pipelines allow them to do 1 per month, is 4 weeks work for a crysis-quality planet a reasonable estimate?
It's still 6 years if they could do 1 per week but... if they could do 1 per week why would they be spacing them out as 1 planet per 3.x patch?
A bit of a wait on our hands regardless...

It will be much faster than that. These are the first ones, and they have "hero locations" which needs work. Also these are prototypes for most of the planet tech(Hurston: polluted industry world, Crusader: Gas giant, floating landing zone, ArcCorp: totally built in techno planet, Microtech: cold harsh environment), so they are refining the tools with these. That's why this system takes long.
Many planets will be not populated (as it would be in reality) in the systems, so a lot of them will be just "give parameters, generate, artist go over, maybe put down a few outposts, done" and they have more environment artists not just one. They can work on multiple planets in parallel.
They don't even need the most talented ones for the first pass on the planets, a simple "peasant" can go over it and smooth out the most obvious problems.

Also one more thing: It's not about the number of planets/systems. They already said two things:
1. They will not have all systems in the game at launch
2. They don't want to build a huge but empty universe. They want to give the players enough to do for a long time even in every system, so you have plenty to do even if you just visit a few planets.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a question for some of the bigger spenders (the ones who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars so far) and it's not exactly nay-saying, but it is about possible concerns.

Are any of you worried that you might just not like the game? Even if (when) SC's persistent universe is implemented there's a chance that you just don't enjoy the core gameplay, or the mini-games that make up your preferred job, or you feel your job isn't rewarding enough for the effort you put in... normally when paying ~£40 for a game I feel that's a justified risk, after all sometimes games just suck, but for people who've sunk a significant amount of money whilst basic systems are still being sketched in it seems like a crazy gamble.

I would say (tho i'm not a big spender just the bare minimum) this is a valid concern, but with really low possibility.
See SC is somewhere between the theme park and open world MMOs. There will be plenty of missions, and places, and i assume events, but on the other side, there will be plenty of planets to explore, and do what you want. So i think almost everyone can find the game mode, and places they like.
Trading? do that
Fighter pilot? do that
FPS marine? do that
Exploration? do that
Just screwing around on a planet with a buddy? do that
Mining? do that
etc.
etc.

Coming from the large open world and many game mechanics, the possibilities are only limited by imagination.

[Tradewind]

This thread keeps getting bloated by people bitching and moaning. Meanwhile, just here playing the goddamn alpha with my org and having a blast...darn, guess we better just stop doing that since apparently "this game is dead" or something?

[masterhorus8]

This thread keeps getting bloated by people bitching and moaning. Meanwhile, just here playing the goddamn alpha with my org and having a blast...darn, guess we better just stop doing that since apparently "this game is dead" or something?

Lol, more than I'm doing. I occasionally hop onto reddit/spectrum to check for hot topics and info on my favorite ship that's probably the most worthless ship right now

[Tradewind]

Lol, more than I'm doing. I occasionally hop onto reddit/spectrum to check for hot topics and info on my favorite ship that's probably the most worthless ship right now

lol, it usually ends up in just laughing at some weird thing breaking, but yeah there's plenty to do if you got people. Usually it's just coming up with footage for stuff, or playing around in AC. Sometimes running little "simulated boarding skirmishes" lol, get a Cutlass and a couple hornets or sabers attacking a Starfarer or Retaliator with other nerds in it. Then trying to "disable" it and EVA on to it, two teams either then defend the ship or try to take it over. The biggest challenge is getting into one session

[Odeezee]

wow, so many armchair devs recently here to tell people that back the game that they are being conned, not insightful enough, that CIG is a mess and will never release a good game or release at all and that CIG needs to release a AAA game now because releasing a game before it's ready works out so great for the gamers i mean just look at the gaming successes of No Man's Sky and Mass Effect: Andromeda. it's a curious psychological phenomenon where people who claim to dislike a project keep watching/reading info on said project and keep commenting with a strange level of verboseness with little to any factual information and just baseless conjecture on their part. it's very peculiar and would seem to be a great waste of time going by their stance on the project. /shrug

anyway, back to the game, saw this really cool fan edited trailer of the Future of Star Citizen:



CIG shared a really cool shot of an outpost on the Crusader moon Celin:



really looking forward to 3.0 and exploring these planetary bodies.

[Gorsameth]

wow, so many armchair devs recently here to tell people that back the game that they are being conned, not insightful enough, that CIG is a mess and will never release a good game or release at all and that CIG needs to release a AAA game now because releasing a game before it's ready works out so great for the gamers i mean just look at the gaming successes of No Man's Sky and Mass Effect: Andromeda. it's a curious psychological phenomenon where people who claim to dislike a project keep watching/reading info on said project and keep commenting with a strange level of verboseness with little to any factual information and just baseless conjecture on their part. it's very peculiar and would seem to be a great waste of time going by their stance on the project. /shrug

I read this topic because I would love for SC to be a massive success because I have fond memories of the genre. I would love to be completely wrong about everything but the fact is that I have no confidence in CIG's ability to deliver.

[Odeezee]

I read this topic because I would love for SC to be a massive success because I have fond memories of the genre. I would love to be completely wrong about everything but the fact is that I have no confidence in CIG's ability to deliver.

haha, that definitely seems like a personal issue and one that seems to be at odds with itself. i have no problem with anyone giving constructive feedback to help make the game become better (bug reporting/testing, etc), the issue i have is of people making baseless accusations of the game/dev team and acting as though their opinions somehow manifest as fact. as though they know better than the very people making the game, who give weekly updates of their progress which we (the backers) then get to experience in the PU when it's ready for wider testing.

[1001]

It will be much faster than that. These are the first ones, and they have "hero locations" which needs work. Also these are prototypes for most of the planet tech(Hurston: polluted industry world, Crusader: Gas giant, floating landing zone, ArcCorp: totally built in techno planet, Microtech: cold harsh environment), so they are refining the tools with these. That's why this system takes long.
Many planets will be not populated (as it would be in reality) in the systems, so a lot of them will be just "give parameters, generate, artist go over, maybe put down a few outposts, done" and they have more environment artists not just one. They can work on multiple planets in parallel.
They don't even need the most talented ones for the first pass on the planets, a simple "peasant" can go over it and smooth out the most obvious problems.

How will it be much faster than that? Why do you think they will be able to produce a whole planet at "Crysis-quality" in less than a week? They already talked about barren moons and planetoids taking around a week's work so I fail to see, regardless of how much they hone their tools and pipelines, that they'll be able to knock out a planet with all these additional features in the same, or even less time.

Also one more thing: It's not about the number of planets/systems. They already said two things:
1. They will not have all systems in the game at launch
2. They don't want to build a huge but empty universe. They want to give the players enough to do for a long time even in every system, so you have plenty to do even if you just visit a few planets.

Sure but that wasn't the point that was being addressed. It's the thinking that "tools and pipelines" is suddenly going to turn this project into something that mass produces planets at insane quality level and all within a couple of days...

[Malibutomi]

How will it be much faster than that? Why do you think they will be able to produce a whole planet at "Crysis-quality" in less than a week? They already talked about barren moons and planetoids taking around a week's work so I fail to see, regardless of how much they hone their tools and pipelines, that they'll be able to knock out a planet with all these additional features in the same, or even less time.



Sure but that wasn't the point that was being addressed. It's the thinking that "tools and pipelines" is suddenly going to turn this project into something that mass produces planets at insane quality level and all within a couple of days...

Depends what do you call "Crysis quality". They have the engine, if they have the assets (trees, crystals, rocks, etc.) made to their usual quality, then the proc gen generation will just produce the planet to 80% (they mentioned many times this 80% automated/20%art divide). Then they will go over it to put down points of interests.

The week/planet depends how many peoples one week work is a planet? I don't think they need a whole team on every planet. So as i said they can work on many planets simultaneously.

[stellvia]

On the funding page, assuming the 1.8M Star citizens is the number of backers, it averages out to ~$82 per person. Certainly a slightly high number for a game, but about what a "limited edition" would cost. Also discounting the demographics of most backers, which I imagine skews towards older and/or engineers etc. that have been wanting a game like this for a very long time.

Hard to say where the demo will average out to assuming the game releases. It's very possible a lot more teens/college-age will buy it, but uncertain if the appeal will be there for them to stick around if the game is super involved to do everything. Probably a similar cross-section to those who play EVE Online where there is 99% monotony 1% terror as it were. (When you get into PvP engagements etc)

[stormgust]

Depends what do you call "Crysis quality". They have the engine, if they have the assets (trees, crystals, rocks, etc.) made to their usual quality, then the proc gen generation will just produce the planet to 80% (they mentioned many times this 80% automated/20%art divide). Then they will go over it to put down points of interests.

The week/planet depends how many peoples one week work is a planet? I don't think they need a whole team on every planet. So as i said they can work on many planets simultaneously.

I fail to see why CIG's procedural generation would be significantly superior to No Man Sky's. They're both bound by math after all and unless they have some really intelligent people creating entirely new processes (which do not yield the same result), the process may actually even be the same with slightly varied parameters Going by that, those 80%/20% is highely optimistic, and the actual developement time attributed to the planets at least is a good indicator that this is indeed the case. And while the planets currently being worked on may be the more complex to create planets and thus require more time, you still should be able to extrapolate the creation time of the less complex moons onto your typical planet.

[Cyclone Jack]

Going by that, those 80%/20% is highely optimistic, and the actual developement time attributed to the planets at least is a good indicator that this is indeed the case.

I would think part of the extra time for the initial wave of planets (and moons) is due to working out the kinks in the tech, while expanding the details of the biomes and all that entails. They've already improved upon the geysers a few times for one of the moons, and I expect numerous features to go through a similar process as they focus on each planetary body introducing new terrain features. Once the majority of the biomes are in place and working, I have no doubt that the'll hit their stride and start churning planets through the pipeline. My concern isn't with the 100's of mostly barren planets and moons that have a few outposts or mines scattered about, but with planets populated with farmlands, towns, cities, metropolises, suburbs, etc.

[masterhorus8]

I fail to see why CIG's procedural generation would be significantly superior to No Man Sky's. They're both bound by math after all and unless they have some really intelligent people creating entirely new processes (which do not yield the same result), the process may actually even be the same with slightly varied parameters Going by that, those 80%/20% is highely optimistic, and the actual developement time attributed to the planets at least is a good indicator that this is indeed the case. And while the planets currently being worked on may be the more complex to create planets and thus require more time, you still should be able to extrapolate the creation time of the less complex moons onto your typical planet.

Then you don't understand how CIG is doing their PG tech. They're not just letting an algorithm pick A, B, and C and putting it together. They're having the algorithm pick from a subset of choices within each that will only go with specific areas. To be able to do this, they have to have a massive array of things to choose from, but it's honestly not that hard to do if done properly.

Example: Witcher 3, something like the forests/tree placements. It'd be a similar scenario. Within each area, they have a subset of limitations on how and where things can be placed, keeping them from being too close and only allowing certain types of flora to be placed in the specific biomes. They would not be placing each tree in by hand, instead letting an algorithm do it for them. THAT is how procedural generation should be done. Not a 100% random generation of things that are matched in no particular order at all.

[1001]

Depends what do you call "Crysis quality". They have the engine, if they have the assets (trees, crystals, rocks, etc.) made to their usual quality, then the proc gen generation will just produce the planet to 80% (they mentioned many times this 80% automated/20%art divide). Then they will go over it to put down points of interests.

The week/planet depends how many peoples one week work is a planet? I don't think they need a whole team on every planet. So as i said they can work on many planets simultaneously.

Nah, it's not what I call "crysis quality", it's what they call crysis quality, it is Chris Roberts that is referring to it as an idea of the detail a planet will consist of.

The thing is, it's not just about PG or hand placement of PG elements. They've got bases, cities, settlements, wrecks, points of interest and all the other things they want to put on these planets, all which need to be blended into the terrain etc, then they have missions that have to be tied into a variety of these elements etc.

I'm not trying to criticise, I'm just trying to look at the reality of how long some of this stuff will take, from curiousity as much as anything. CIG like to repeatedly say that once their tools and pipelines are finished things will speed up but that doesn't really say much. Going from 1 month to 1 week would be a great increase but it's still a considerable amount of time and work for all of those planets, moons, planetoids etc.

[Jastall]

And the difference being, normally a game company doesn't make a major reveal of what they've been working on until most of it has been established. Star Citizen did it from pretty much day one. So whereas most games you're looking at maybe 1 year from reveal to release, maybe a bit more, Star Citizen has been public knowledge for most of its life. Unfortunately people go all ADD on it and complain that it should be ready by now, just because they've known about it so long unlike how other companies work.

I mean they DID say it would release in, what, 2015 originally? So it's not like it's an unreasonable expectation to see some progress now, almost mid 2017. As the poster below you says, if they barely have functional alpha gameplay now, and the game is supposed to be ginormous, how long is it going to take for the full release? I'd wager not before 2020.

[stellvia]

I fail to see why CIG's procedural generation would be significantly superior to No Man Sky's. They're both bound by math after all and unless they have some really intelligent people creating entirely new processes (which do not yield the same result), the process may actually even be the same with slightly varied parameters Going by that, those 80%/20% is highely optimistic, and the actual developement time attributed to the planets at least is a good indicator that this is indeed the case. And while the planets currently being worked on may be the more complex to create planets and thus require more time, you still should be able to extrapolate the creation time of the less complex moons onto your typical planet.

Unlike NMS, their procedural generation allows for multiple biomes on a single planet and provides for hybrid environments along the biome boundaries, amongst several other tricks. NMS had each planet being one biome with completely random placement, CIG will be "curating" each planet to touch things up and add POIs afterwards.