[Megathread] Star Citizen

[CogsNCocks]

You get so butthurt over people rightfully criticizing this fail of a project that if I didn't know better, I'd say you must be working on it.

Was that your troll account?

[1001]

Except that you can do mining without spending $180. You had two weeks on the PTU to try mining, you can party up with someone on the server to try mining, you can wait for in-game ship buying in 3.3, pretty sure there's a free fly weekend coming soon that will let people try mining. That commenter is a fan of SC making a point about CIG's bad marketing optics, which I agree with but his example isn't actually true in this case. That picture was floating around on Spectrum for the last few days before somebody threw it up on Reddit.

But from what I have read you can't, if someone lends you a prospector you cannot mine with it, it doesn't work unless you are the owner. It's obviously a bug but it still stops people from doing an activity and taking part in the main content of this patch unless they have spent $180 on a ship.
Twerk covered this here https://www.twitch.tv/videos/280005637?t=888s

Hopefully in game ship purchases will arrive in 3.3 but it keeps getting bumped back, was slated for 3.1, then 3.2 and now 3.3 and the whole showroom thing just feels like another delay tactic, kiosk renting would be absolutely fine for the interim period.

[stellvia]

For now he is sure. If this game ever launches (HUGE IF at this point) and people see that something like mining which is a staple of the game and other features that come standard in other MMOs are gated behind having to purchase a $100.00 ship, the only thing left will be the whales. This is pretty much a AAA version of Mobile Strike lol.

Based on the relative prices of the Prospector vs Hornet and such, you should be able to afford a Prospector ingame in only a few days. There may even be ways to mine without one like mounting a mining laser on a Mustang or Avenger and having a Hull pick up the ore. Or maybe they will even introduce ship loans.

RMT ship sales won't continue into the released game.

[Majestic12]

In case you haven't noticed, Cyberpunk is the new feelgood-meme that SC backers throw around to convince people that nothing of Star Citizen being finished or released is fine. The first one was GTA5 but that dwindled away after the SC fans ran out of years in the comparison.

Prepare yourself mentally for a long year of Cyberpunk comparisons in this thread. We'll have to wait until that gets out before they stop.

[1001]

In case you haven't noticed, Cyberpunk is the new feelgood-meme that SC backers throw around to convince people that nothing of Star Citizen being finished or released is fine. The first one was GTA5 but that dwindled away after the SC fans ran out of years in the comparison.

Prepare yourself mentally for a long year of Cyberpunk comparisons in this thread. We'll have to wait until that gets out before they stop.

In that case there's hope yet for Duke Nukem Forever... but what happens after that?

Based on the relative prices of the Prospector vs Hornet and such, you should be able to afford a Prospector ingame in only a few days. There may even be ways to mine without one like mounting a mining laser on a Mustang or Avenger and having a Hull pick up the ore. Or maybe they will even introduce ship loans.

RMT ship sales won't continue into the released game.

There was a bit of talk on Spectrum about earnings, they said that from their metrics people played for 30-40 mins a day and based on that they wanted an item to be earned every 3 days (so 90 mins - 120 mins for an item) but they were referring to handguns in that example.

Say a handgun costs 5000 UEC and it takes 100 mins to earn one, a $180 ship (180,000 UEC) would take 3600 mins, so 60 hours (or 20 days for someone who plays 3 hours a night or 100 days using their playtime metrics!). However, that also ignores that they had previously talked about ship prices ramping up very quickly.

[Odeezee]

I don't get it. The ships and such ARE the funding. I fail to see the difference between a Kickstarter where the $100 package comes with say, an artbook. The $200 package comes with the artbook and a figure. The $300 package comes with a signed copy of the game, the artbook, a figure, and the OST, etc. and CIG offering the base package with the option to add more ships. They aren't buying a private jet with the money like Kotick does with Ultimate Team money... its literally their funding source to produce the game.

/agree but you are fighting a futile fight as the many repeat posters don't want information, facts or context, they just want to feel vindicated in their preconceived notions, misunderstandings and biases.

But those things have zero effect on your in-game capabilities. What happens in game should only be influenced by what is done in game, not how much money someone can earn and afford to spend.
The effect of this type of monetization can clearly be seen in this time to kill list for some same sized ships

• $35 - Aurora LN - 11.5s
• $85 - Avenger Warlock - 10.2s
• $170 - Sabre - 6.4s
• $180 - Superhornet - 5.0s

It creates an imbalance right from the start, it screws the economy right from the start, everything becomes so skewed because of greedy developers and power hungry players. If they wanted to they could sell ships without selling power, they could sell all sorts of cosmetics etc but the easiest and laziest path is to sell power.

this is such a laughable comparison to even make. do people just enjoy not thinking honestly and logically or what? how does comparing TTK in various priced ships provide any actually applicable point of comparison for the ships and the game at large? comparing a cargo/explorer ship to a support EMP ship to 2 mid-heavy fighters is nonsensical to say the least. so the Super Hornet kills a target faster than an Aurora, okay then by the same token how much cargo can a Super Hornet carry or how far out into deep space can it go without needing to refuel or even allow you to safely log out. ships have roles in Star Citizen so compare ships of the same class and role not just mashing them up to try and push a false narrative.

Except, the meaning of my post was in response to the person asking why people put faith in CDPR and wont put the same faith in CiG. Yeah, everyone starts somewhere, but name one other company that has received this much money, has existed for 8+ years, and yet to produce a single complete (or even 70% complete) title? Also, none of that "BUT THEY MAKIN NEW TECH" no they have not, they are just redesigning the wheel. As repeated many of times in this thread, just because the systems are new to these devs, does not mean they are new to industry.

Also Vaporware: "software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed."

Means exactly what i think it means.

so much misinformation and intellectual dishonesty, why though? can't you make a cogent point without resorting to gross hyperbole and outright lies? i mean you say people put more "faith" in CDPR yet Star Citizen/Squadron 42 nears the $200 million mark, i mean it's not even a logical statement that you can make honestly because that shows A LOT of people have faith in it. haha. and then the whole the tech is not new blah, blah. some tech is not new, true but a lot is and also this type of game is unprecedented as it incorporates many different genres into one seamless experience and as such they need to take existing tech and re-imagine it for the context of the game they are trying to make.

Based on the relative prices of the Prospector vs Hornet and such, you should be able to afford a Prospector ingame in only a few days. There may even be ways to mine without one like mounting a mining laser on a Mustang or Avenger and having a Hull pick up the ore. Or maybe they will even introduce ship loans.

RMT ship sales won't continue into the released game.

you are fighting a futile fight my friend. people who with either misinformation or biases don't want the truth, they want to feel "good" about their own belief system and facts, context and reason only get in the way. i mean i read someone state that the game will never be released yet they have increased their patch cadence this year to quarterly releases and have just released the 2nd quarter release a few days ago. /shrug this is the age we live in where people don't take the time to know what they are talking about before they speak even though there is so much factual information out there. shame really.

for those celebrating it, Happy 4th of July!

[1001]

this is such a laughable comparison to even make. do people just enjoy not thinking honestly and logically or what? how does comparing TTK in various priced ships provide any actually applicable point of comparison for the ships and the game at large? comparing a cargo/explorer ship to a support EMP ship to 2 mid-heavy fighters is nonsensical to say the least. so the Super Hornet kills a target faster than an Aurora, okay then by the same token how much cargo can a Super Hornet carry or how far out into deep space can it go without needing to refuel or even allow you to safely log out. ships have roles in Star Citizen so compare ships of the same class and role not just mashing them up to try and push a false narrative.

Haha. DPS is a legit comparison, all the other things you listed are completely irrelevant, I guess you know this and that's why you're acting so bolshie, trying to twist it all around and claim the false narrative bullcrap. Typical fake news cryboy tactics.

If paying additional money means you get better DPS for fighter size ships then it's a perfectly fine comparison to make and paying to get more DPS is what most people consider as pay to win.

[stellvia]

Haha. DPS is a legit comparison, all the other things you listed are completely irrelevant, I guess you know this and that's why you're acting so bolshie, trying to twist it all around and claim the false narrative bullcrap. Typical fake news cryboy tactics.
If paying additional money means you get better DPS for fighter size ships then it's a perfectly fine comparison to make and paying to get more DPS is what most people consider as pay to win.

His point is you can't compare just size, you need to consider role as well. A Prospector is the same length as a Hornet, but you wouldn't expect a Prospector to have anywhere near the same TTK as a Hornet. It can mine though, and you can log out in it too, neither of which a Hornet can do. The Aurora is actually quite a bit smaller, only being 18m in length compared to 24m for the Hornet/Prospector as well.

[Jastall]

In that case there's hope yet for Duke Nukem Forever... but what happens after that?



There was a bit of talk on Spectrum about earnings, they said that from their metrics people played for 30-40 mins a day and based on that they wanted an item to be earned every 3 days (so 90 mins - 120 mins for an item) but they were referring to handguns in that example.

Say a handgun costs 5000 UEC and it takes 100 mins to earn one, a $180 ship (180,000 UEC) would take 3600 mins, so 60 hours (or 20 days for someone who plays 3 hours a night or 100 days using their playtime metrics!). However, that also ignores that they had previously talked about ship prices ramping up very quickly.

If they actually want to compare their so-called revolutionary game to Duke Nukem freaking Forever, well, they are free to do so but that is hardly an endorsement.

And yeah, I don't expect the finished game (if it ever comes) to not be grindy. It's an mmo after all, comes with the territory. I wonder what the monetization model will be with a live release. Probably boosts and the like, but they will want to hold on to the whales that bought these thousand dollar ships so I doubt that the post-launch microtransactions will not feature player power.

[Odeezee]

Haha. DPS is a legit comparison, all the other things you listed are completely irrelevant, I guess you know this and that's why you're acting so bolshie, trying to twist it all around and claim the false narrative bullcrap. Typical fake news cryboy tactics.

If paying additional money means you get better DPS for fighter size ships then it's a perfectly fine comparison to make and paying to get more DPS is what most people consider as pay to win.

case in point. thank-you for proving my point that you cannot even make a logical point of comparison. /sigh. and it's also apparent that irony is completely lost on you. smh.

His point is you can't compare just size, you need to consider role as well. A Prospector is the same length as a Hornet, but you wouldn't expect a Prospector to have anywhere near the same TTK as a Hornet. It can mine though, and you can log out in it too, neither of which a Hornet can do. The Aurora is actually quite a bit smaller, only being 18m in length compared to 24m for the Hornet/Prospector as well.

he already knows that, but thinks he has a legitimate point comparing things that were not meant to even be compared in the context of the game as a whole; "oh look i bought an Idris, for however much it costs, surely that means i can mine, race, explore, salvage, refuel, etc better and more efficiently than any other ship in the verse just because it cost more monies".

[1001]

His point is you can't compare just size, you need to consider role as well. A Prospector is the same length as a Hornet, but you wouldn't expect a Prospector to have anywhere near the same TTK as a Hornet. It can mine though, and you can log out in it too, neither of which a Hornet can do. The Aurora is actually quite a bit smaller, only being 18m in length compared to 24m for the Hornet/Prospector as well.

Are we really going to say that a ship 4-6m shorter cannot be part of a comparison? The Aurora LN's role is classed as a 'dedicated combat fighter' ship so it's perfectly fine being used in a DPS comparison with the Sabre and Superhornet.

case in point. thank-you for proving my point that you cannot even make a logical point of comparison. /sigh. and it's also apparent that irony is completely lost on you. smh.

All I'm hearing is waah waah waah....

[bloodstripes]

Hello my dudes. Can anyone provide a TLDR of where the game is at, and how much enjoyment/value I'd get out of a purchase? Thanks in advance!

[MrAnderson]

Hello my dudes. Can anyone provide a TLDR of where the game is at, and how much enjoyment/value I'd get out of a purchase? Thanks in advance!

Game is still in alpha, they just released a new update that made the game much more playable and enjoyable while adding a new feature (Mining). If you have a good cpu and gpu along with at least 16gigs of ram and a SSD It's very much worth it if you enjoy space games!

Mind you that starter ship's are very limited in what they can and that it's still not possible to buy ship's with ingame money although it's possible to fly ship's from other players with their consent or without by borrowing them.

BoredGamer released a basic newbie video explaining it in more depth:

[bloodstripes]

Game is still in alpha, they just released a new update that made the game much more playable and enjoyable while adding a new feature (Mining). If you have a good cpu and gpu along with at least 16gigs of ram and a SSD It's very much worth it if you enjoy space games!

Mind you that starter ship's are very limited in what they can and that it's still not possible to buy ship's with ingame money although it's possible to fly ship's from other players with their consent or without by borrowing them.

BoredGamer released a basic newbie video explaining it in more depth:

Thanks so much! I'll have to check out the video when I get home.

[bloodstripes]

In very early Alpha right now. Although it should have been ages ago.

If you want to buy in then go for it. It's your money.

However I'd personally wait until it's in a more complete state and the bigger picture is there. If it ever happens. For me there are far more games I'd spend my money on before this. For me this game is a huge red flag and in the situation of "buyer beware".

The huge red flag for me is what was discussed earlier basically. Full priced microtransactions in a 200 million dollar plus funded game that isn't finished yet.

As for your enjoyment I can't speak for you on that. Everyone enjoys different things.

I appreciate your insights. Yeah, I haven't been burned on an early access game just yet and I don't really plan to start. Thanks much!

- - - Updated - - -

I don’t really recommend anyone buying “early access” games.

Wait until they actually finish it, when it does, read some proper reviews and do look for some feedback about the impact of the advantages that they are selling on their cash-shop in form of spaceships, weapons and upgrades.

Till then, plenty of finished products for less or just as much money that will provide you with plenty hours of fun.

Yeah I did just pick up Stardew Valley, pretty fun so far. Thanks for the advice!

[DarkAmbient]

Hello my dudes. Can anyone provide a TLDR of where the game is at, and how much enjoyment/value I'd get out of a purchase? Thanks in advance!

It's 18% finished after 6 years, make of that what you will: https://starcitizentracker.github.io/

[MrAnderson]

It's 18% finished after 6 years, make of that what you will: https://starcitizentracker.github.io/

Look at them Armchair Developers making progress trackers.
Yeah that's not how game development works, sorry but if go by that Derek Smart tracker you're a bigger fool than him.

[Cracked]

Look at them Armchair Developers making progress trackers.
Yeah that's not how game development works, sorry but if go by that Derek Smart tracker you're a bigger fool than him.

Star Cizen development is not like any other game development and it totally is, depending what the backers have to answer for

[DarkAmbient]

Look at them Armchair Developers making progress trackers.
Yeah that's not how game development works, sorry but if go by that Derek Smart tracker you're a bigger fool than him.

As it says on the page itself: This is a crowdsourced endeavor. If you spot an inaccuracy, please submit it.

[masterhorus8]

As it says on the page itself: This is a crowdsourced endeavor. If you spot an inaccuracy, please submit it.

The problem with it is that it's doing a raw count of things, unweighted by importance. Example: the object container streaming is the same weight as a space bike. It's extremely disingenuous.