"Star Citizen's graphic is mediocre"
Better quality:
https://i.imgur.com/xLdXkjP.mp4
Last edited by Malibutomi; 2017-11-27 at 11:52 AM.
Really? Define seamlessness? How about, getting up out of a bed, walking through a space station, requesting a ship, walking to said ship, climbing into said ship, walking through the ship to the pilots seat, flying to a moon, landing on the moon, walking from the pilots seat to a ground vehicle sitting in the cargo bay of the ship, getting into the vehicle that is in the ship, driving the vehicle out of the ship onto the moon, driving across the lunar landscape to an outpost, getting out of the vehicle and walking into the outpost to meet up with some friends, another friend arrives in a larger multi-crew ship, you walk back to your land vehicle and get inside, then drive it inside of your friend's ship, get out of the vehicle and walk through your friend's ship to one of the seats on the bridge, then sit back and relax while your new adventure begins. All without a single loading screen, all without leaving first person, all without "teleporting". *That* is seamlessness. Show me the big list of games that does *all* of that.
Pixel count would be resolution, so no, that is not fidelity. Fidelity would be the attention to detail in the universe as a whole, and the amount of interactivity with said details.
It's more than just animations. Proper positioning, especially in relation to cover, seeing exactly where people are aiming, little things like that make a huge difference in a tactical FPS environment. This isn't just in relation to the attacker either, now you know exactly where you are in relation to cover as well. So often in an FPS do you think you are behind cover when in fact you are not, because your floating arms aren't in the same place as your 3rd person model. It also offers much better immersion through VR, and SC is a game that would greatly benefit from VR (as would any flight sim or driving game).
Yeah my biggest problem is the buyable in game cash. I hope they would rid of this idea or completely change it.
Yeah...there's 0 defending of VD as a whole. It's bad. And one of the more recent SC subreddit threads agrees with you as well.
The only saving grace that it has IMO, is the rental feature. You can earn rental credits by doing races, dogfights (vs players or ai), or fps. And those credits can be used to buy 1 month rental versions of the weapons and ships. But everything else about the VD should burn.
10
It's funny reading "CIG spends infinite millions per month, they are broke" argument one day, and "CIG has god knows how much money they shouldn't take any more on the other.
Honestly i don't care if the player who blows up my ship grind for his or bought it, the result is the same.
Id say it mostly hinges upon whether they keep the current microtransaction model or not once it finally gets to the point of moving into beta, and how grindy it becomes to acquire combat focused ship models, e.g fighters, whenever that beta and later full release happens.
If they keep the planned model of having ships acting as base hulls you can get back reliably, with guns, equipment, and so on acting more like consumables for ships that'll be gone after death, any advantage from the current shop will get cleaned out of the system pretty quickly, if the shop is removed or revamped to cosmetics only.
If not, well, it'll go full P2W.
Last edited by zealo; 2017-11-27 at 07:08 PM.
There is actually a huge limit on the weaponry that can be used on ships. Everything that is being sold in VD are the standard versions of said weaponry. Nothing special about them and all ships use these same choices (except for some of the alien ships).
The guns in SC have size limitations. Size 1 (S1), Size 2 (S3)....Size 10 (S10). Each mount on a ship can only go up to a certain size, and those mounts cannot be changed (yet). On top of weapon sizes, certain other features "use" a size when being applied to a mount, such as a gimbal. If you gimbal a weapon mount, the weapon size is lowered by 1. So a size 3 mount with a gimbal can only have a size 2 gun on it OR a fixed size 3 gun. Between each weapon size, I think the avg power difference was somewhere around 50-60% increase when going up by 1 size. another size affecting upgrade is a dual weapon mount. Only one for one specific ship is being sold atm, but it is supposedly planned as a general mount attachment. As of my last check on it, these will use 1 weapon size, but then let you attach two guns of the next size down. So a S3 mount with a dual weapon mount would let you use 2x S2 guns. Which you could gimbal the dual weapon mount, lowering it again by 1 size, so on a S3 gimbaled dual weapon mount, you would have 2x S1 weapons.
The next biggest differences between weapons are the type of projectiles and the fire-rate. Energy weapons do not use ammunition but do not do much damage until the shields are down. Physical projectiles have a set amount of ammunition but ignore a good chunk of the shields. For fire-rate, the slower the time between shots, the more powerful it typically is.
On top of all of that, there is also power usage and heating of the barrel. The slower fire rate guns tend to overheat if they're fired too rapidly, while the gattling gun style weapons tend to take longer to heat up. And then the power usage of each gun means that some weapons, you just can't have too many of on your ship if you don't have a good enough power cell (I have not read much into the power stuff since they had been talking about it relatively recently), which everything on your ship uses. So if your guns are too draining, RIP shields/engines.
TL;DR, the guns that you can buy are standard guns that come on the ships already, and there aren't really any specific guns within the same size that are purely better than another in every situation. The ships themselves are more limiting than the weaponry. The gimbal vs fixed weapons debate is another thing in and of itself, but the biggest limitation factor overall are the individual mount sizes, not the guns themselves.
Last edited by masterhorus8; 2017-11-27 at 07:30 PM.
10
1. No point getting your panties in a bunch about microtransactions when no one really knows how it's going to turn out. I doubt the devs 100% sure at this point in time. Yeah, I know you haters are running out of stuff to critize Star Citizen about, so it's no surprise that we are talking about microtransactions now. At least your coming to terms now with the fact that yes there is a game coming, and yes it's going to be something a bit special.
2. Star Citizen is a bit unique in sense due it's scale, and there will be so many roles to fill that the guy with bigger guns won't matter if you're running a mining operation. You'll be wanting to hire that guy to protect your shipping vessels, not necessarily be threatened by him, who cares where he got his big guns if he can do the job. Maybe you will be exploring on the frontiers of the game world scouting resources where you rarely encouter other players, who cares about the guy with the theoretical damage output advantage who you will never meet. It's not like you'll be thrown into an arena and murdered 10 seconds later by someone who threw money at the screen like Battlefront II.
3. Most players will part of an organsiation, and so too will benefit from whatever advantages the wealthier players in their organisations have, and will also be likely depending on them to work their way up the ladder to some degree.
4. So just talking about the game like it's another here today, gone tomorrow, AAA game and bickering over whether it's cosmetic, lootboxes,p2w, or whatever and your stilll not really grasping what Star Citizen is all about. Star Citizen is in league of its own.![]()
Last edited by CogsNCocks; 2017-11-27 at 07:36 PM.
Hater is a funny word. It usually gets applied to absolutely everyone around here who have concerns, regardless of whether what they're saying is merely being critical, or based upon some desire of wanting it to fail for some reason. Talking about the monetization model they're running with their cash shop is not being a hater.
I've been in this thread for years now engaging with individuals who keep touting the "scam!" line of thought, I still don't think it is that, and that they're actually making a game with the money they're getting.
Doesn't mean I suddenly turn into a hater if I have concerns about CIG mismanagement when major updates are getting delayed this long, or if they'll dial down the equipment cash shop eventually.
Last edited by zealo; 2017-11-27 at 08:29 PM.
You're the one who dismissed the game as vapourware, which is obviously wrong. Your predictions have already been BTFO, which sucks for you, so who cares what else you have to say about Star Citizen because your bets were hedged on the game failing from the begining. Let us hope you don't apply your stunning analytical and fortune-telling abilites to your personal life or you may just end up living in a dumpster. Your post reveals that you still don't actually comprehend the scope of the game, or my post for that matter and your criticism aren't even against Star Citizen but actually against an imaginary strawman that lives inside your head. Take a break from your Anime, lolis and cartoon cats and rejoin us back in reality.
- - - Updated - - -
I never called you a hater, interesting that you thought it was directed at you. Yeah it was a bit incendiary, but that's just for my own amusement more than anything. Carry on.
Last edited by CogsNCocks; 2017-11-27 at 08:34 PM.
Really? Stomped on forced one sided battles mate?
This is not COD or War Thunder where everything is about facing the others, and they "might" buy a gun you don't have.
Just a few points:
First of all as in EVE everyone starts in the safe systems...if you venture out you know the risks...and as i said it doesn't matter how your ship is blown if it happens...one guy with big guns or 3 guys with smaller guns.
Also everything will be obtainable in game so everyone can get stuff. They don't sell any extra powerful weaons or ships, just the ones you can get in the game for "free".
Big ships needs a lot of crews, maintenance is high, and if they blow up the insurance takes longer the bigger the ship. Small ships minutes/hours big ships days even weeks. So just as in EVE imho the big guns will be held safely until org battles or something like that happens.
Lastly this is still a skill based game, bigger guns/ship not necessarily means winning.
Last edited by Malibutomi; 2017-11-28 at 02:01 AM.
Earning them in game is kind of irrelevant though. The point is that some people can start with them immediately while other people have to spend time earning credits to buy them, and while they're doing those jobs they are more vulnerable because they aren't kitted out so well. For all we know the hulls could be reasonably cheap and the real cost lies in the modules which would give an even larger advantage to paying customers.
Or NPC crews. We don't know how high the maintenance is, more importantly we don't know how high it is in comparison to smaller ships.
The insurance wait is not so drastic, you can simply pay UEC to speed things up by 4x or whatever it is.
That's the intention, will it be the reality though? Until the ships are finished, ie all features and mechanics implemented, it's nothing more than conjecture.
It would be nice if there was more detail from CIG's camp on how all of these things will function, it would save so many arguments and speculative discussions![]()
Last edited by 1001; 2017-11-28 at 05:14 AM.
Regarding this bit, there is indeed a pretty big difference between the $170 Saber and the start $45 Aurora. The TTK is pretty high, and last time I played, just high enough that the shields would easily recharge before being able to hit again. On the other hand, I have seen a skill player demolish everyone with the starter ship, but I'm pretty sure everyone else weren't exactly the best.
10
That is really a pointless debate. By this logic noones allowed to play the game sooner then you - if you start later for some reason - because they would have an advantage. Or noone should be allowed to play it more than you because they gain an advantage? What is the difference, if you play 2-3 hours on the first day, a nolifer play 22 and on the next day you log in still to your small starter ship and he already comes in a Hornet and blow your ass up?Is it make you feel better that he spent a day and night grinding? You won't even know, but your ship is still blown up. You just gonna say fkin pay to win.
Also as you so easily pop the point "noone knows until it's finished and we see how it works out" on other topics, that applies here as well.
Well we just know they said the maintenance will behigh, fuel costs will be huge, and they couldn't even dock anywhere with the big ships.
Agree on that until things are finished, and nothing set in stone we don't know sure things. That's why i don't get the pages long debate about it.
Just to be clear: ofc everyone should voice their opinions and criticism. I just think the several pages debate is pointless when we don't know any facts basically.
Last edited by Malibutomi; 2017-11-28 at 08:56 AM.
Indeed, the whole pay to win cause someone has a ship before them makes no sense to me. This isn't a pvp only game and there will be safe starting zones. Some of the bigger ships like the javelin wont even have turrets when the game goes live, they have said they wont come installed with them and will be up to the player to equip them first. A lot of the medium/bigger ships also come with downgraded weapons, so size 5 turrets but only come with size 4 installed. Voyages direct is kinda meh for what it offers, i have a friend who spent a lot decking out one of his fighters in weapons from voyager only for those weapons to later go through a balance patch and be worse than the standard ones the ship came with in the first place.
People that complain about people starting with bigger ships than them make no sense to me, whats the difference with this and someone joining the game 1-2 years after it goes live and encountering a player who has played since launch? What do they want to happen? maybe yearly resets on the anniversary date where everyone loses all their ships and saved UEC and has to start with an aurora again each year so new joiners don't feel left out?
Besides funding for the game the other ships will allow people to spread out and enter different niches so not everyone on day one will be running errands in an aurora/mustang in the same area for a couple of hours... I always hated that rush when a new expansion came out in say WOW and all of a sudden thousands of people were stuck in the same area doing the same quest and making it impossible to progress with that one questline that had a queue just for a chance to kill the spawned mob.
As stated starting with a big ship won't be all fun and games for everyone either, the maintenance/fuel and crewing will be a nightmare come the first days of launch. People won't be able to afford NPCs and wont have the best equipment available. Try taking your no turret javelin into deep space with zero crew and you are in for a bad time. People that wish to prey on the new players even if fully decked out in the best of the best equipment will have t deal with the UEE NPC defence in safe high sec zones. Maybe they will kill the new player before defence arrives maybe, but they will not last long as a pirate in high sec space to make it worth their while. (reminds me of WoW when a max lvl player would try sneaking into a starting zone to target new players, sometimes they would kill them sometimes not a lot of the time i'd see them slaughtered by a guard or a max level player of an opposing faction). My only wish is if in a starter area or with only so much play time and your ship is destroyed by griefers that you can get a replacement quicker at maybe no charge but this will have to be done properly so it doesn't just include idiots that flew into a building upon take off for the first time, something i am guilty off doing myself on more than one occasion ><
By the time a new player is ready to venture out of high sec they will have enough funds saved to buy/upgrade their ships to deal with pirates even if those pirates had previously brought/upgraded their weapons. The pirates will still be situated in lawless areas and be more prone to coming under attack themselves from other pirates/aliens and have most likely incurred larger monetary problems just trying to always keep repaired and ready, so will ultimately probably equal out their standings with someone who hasn't had t deal with that.
The voyager cap on buying in game money has not even been established yet, they may change values of it or even still get rid of the idea completely. It was just a method they were looking into for future funding of the game and they have stated multiple times that the figure wont be high enough to interfere with none paying players the figure will probably be enough for some fuel and ammo and will have a cap on how much can be brought each month.
I'am sure if the complainer can come up with an amazing way to fund the game after launch instead of you know just complaining then CIG will be all ears and happy to hear them out. But complainers very rarely actually help out in such cases and would just rather moan at what they don't like than offer potential solutions for what they would like instead.
Last edited by Miyani; 2017-11-28 at 10:40 AM.
A very interesting discussion about microtransactions in Star Citizen. Although I do think the pro Star Citizen chaps have the upper hand on this one![]()
Last edited by thyNoobthyPrey; 2017-11-28 at 03:17 PM.
No the rancid side of the community is the one who hates, and bashes everything and makes it their point in life to find flaws in others work while creating nothing of value themselves. Like literally spending years in thread bashing someone elses work lol, it's just pathetic.