Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Patch 2.4 Released To PTU

2

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,917
    edited May 2016
    I can't believe how much time they spend making crap like that fancy shop when they still lack resource gathering, transportation, and manufacturing.

    Get your priorities straight and get the basic systems out first! 
     
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Vrika said:
    I can't believe how much time they spend making crap like that fancy shop when they still lack resource gathering, transportation, and manufacturing.

    Get your priorities straight and get the basic systems out first! 
    Basic systems don't bring in the money. It's all about the eye candy first and designing a game second
  • xyzercrimexyzercrime Member RarePosts: 878
    spankybus said:
    There is no such thing as 'meaningful' gameplay. There is only gameplay, all of which is meaningless/

    Because it's a game. It serves no point in life but to entertain.

    Some people are entertained by virtual shopping. Almost everyone wants to set up their in-game characters to be different from other players in some way.

    While some might find some elements pointless, remember the whole game is pointless...just like every other game. Calling certain pointless elements meaningful or meaningless just makes me laugh.

    if you do not enjoy shopping, don't do it. I think you can get by without it. Why begrudge it for others?

    This. Is. Gold.

    All hail @spankybus!




    When you don't want the truth, you will make up your own truth.
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,029
    Cool video.  Reminds me of the shopping malls in the GTA games.  Which were fun.
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,164
    hfztt said:
    Noxeron said:
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:
    Shopping in Alpha 2.4 - Weapons, Armor and Clothing




    Have fun

    That is a very impressive example of very bad gameplay. Canot belive anyone used actual time to implement that. It is exactly what everyone told CCP was wrong with the "walking in stations" concept. What is shown in that video is a complete lack af meaningfull gameplay.

    But whatever. Some must want it. They payed 113M for it...
    I don't get it. If walking around on stations is meaningless then isn't walking on ships the same?
    The whole idea with SC is that it's a space simulation from what I understand.
    And it seems to become quite the impressive space simulator.
    It is about meaningfull gameplay.

    Yeah, most of the walking around in stations make little sense from a gameplay perspective. Currently it mostly serve a way to delay how fast people can reship, a timesink of sorts. On stations where combat is allowed it makes for meaningfull gameplay, as someone could stand around the next corner to shoot you, and you have to plan and play according to that.

    Walking around a shop? Not much meaningfull gameplay there...

    What you have to ask yourself about every single feature the game is how that feature adds to the gameplay. Shopping in an actual ship in 3D adds little besides a timesink. The gameplay goals woul be better served from a shop menu. You might make the "emersion" argument, but you really should not add "emersion" elements that will start to feel tedious the second the first whau effect has worn off.

    The reason that a game like EVE does not have a docking animation is that it is not needed in gameplay nor for technical reasons. They do have system transition animations due to technical reasons, but it is not strictly needed for gameplay reasons, as just warping through the systems is what adds the timesink element along with other meaningfull gameplay, such as scanning and prepairing for post warp actions.

    Game design is an art. This seems mostly like doing it for the sake of doing it, not be course it adds to the game.
    This is definitely the definition of Fluff.  A game so far behind schedule should have higher priorities.  But we don't know where they progressed with all the fluff stuff before they restructured and re-prioritized.

    I personally don't understand why developing the best space sim combat and exploration isn't priority number one.  but I'm sure they hired lots of people with different skillsets that need to be utlized.
  • RIG4REDRIG4RED Member UncommonPosts: 58
    Wait...

    What?

    This game is still a thing?

    Are people STILL giving them money? Its 2016 and it was supposed to be out Nov 2014...
  • feroshusferoshus Member UncommonPosts: 164
    Cool video.  Reminds me of the shopping malls in the GTA games.  Which were fun.
    Yeah I was gonna say that too, reminds me of GTAV. It's a great feature in that game, although it does get old pretty fast. Still, after every patch, everyone I know is in the clothing shop seeing what's new lol

    I'd imagine they're just pushing out some of the easy stuff while they work on the more complicated parts of the game, work is getting done at least.
  • SeelinnikoiSeelinnikoi Member RarePosts: 1,358
    Anyone found it oddly coincidental that they focused in doing a clothings/costume shop before other more important features, in order to have a working cash shop sooner with cosmetic items to be bought?

    As the money is ever tight and the funding sources from website dwindle, they sure are rushing to put out some framework ready for those cosmetic cash shop purchases...  
    If you are a Star Wars fan, why not try the Star Wars The Old Republic?
    New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
  • spankybusspankybus Member UncommonPosts: 1,367
    spankybus said:
    There is no such thing as 'meaningful' gameplay. There is only gameplay, all of which is meaningless/

    Because it's a game. It serves no point in life but to entertain.

    Some people are entertained by virtual shopping. Almost everyone wants to set up their in-game characters to be different from other players in some way.

    While some might find some elements pointless, remember the whole game is pointless...just like every other game. Calling certain pointless elements meaningful or meaningless just makes me laugh.

    if you do not enjoy shopping, don't do it. I think you can get by without it. Why begrudge it for others?

    This. Is. Gold.

    All hail @spankybus!

    Cheers, mate!

    Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
    www.spankybus.com
    -3d Artist & Compositor
    -Writer
    -Professional Amature

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    As the money is ever tight and the funding sources from website dwindle,
    Any evidence you can present for that ?

    Because at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015. And overall their gain via pledges per month roughly matches their monthly burn rate.


    Have fun
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,917
    edited May 2016
    spankybus said:
    There is no such thing as 'meaningful' gameplay. There is only gameplay, all of which is meaningless/

    Because it's a game. It serves no point in life but to entertain.

    Some people are entertained by virtual shopping. Almost everyone wants to set up their in-game characters to be different from other players in some way.

    While some might find some elements pointless, remember the whole game is pointless...just like every other game. Calling certain pointless elements meaningful or meaningless just makes me laugh.

    if you do not enjoy shopping, don't do it. I think you can get by without it. Why begrudge it for others?
    Because RSI has not yet created the space simulator they promised. I think it's very reasonable to cry foul when they prioritize a virtual shopping mall over fulfilling their promises to people who already paid them money.

    EDIT: I kind of understand that they are creating a virtual shopping mall in order to gain even more money. But I still don't like it /EDIT
     
  • sgelsgel Member EpicPosts: 2,197
    Erillion said:
    As the money is ever tight and the funding sources from website dwindle,
    Any evidence you can present for that ?

    Because at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015. And overall their gain via pledges per month roughly matches their monthly burn rate.

    Considering CIG hasn't published any of their financials, so we can only speculate on their burn rate, any evidence you can present for your comment?

    ..Cake..

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    edited May 2016
    sgel said:
    Considering CIG hasn't published any of their financials, so we can only speculate on their burn rate, any evidence you can present for your comment?
    The roughly 20 threads here in this subforum where we discussed this before.

    With links to external parties like Guiness Book of World Records researchers verifying CIG financials before putting it into the GBWR (that is standard procedure for GBWR).


    Have fun
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,917
    edited May 2016
    Erillion said:
    As the money is ever tight and the funding sources from website dwindle,
    Any evidence you can present for that ?

    Because at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015. And overall their gain via pledges per month roughly matches their monthly burn rate.
    At least have the decency to compare same months, please. April 2016 the got 1 million less money than April 2015. March 2016 they got 1 million less than March 2015. In January and February this year they got a bit less money than January and February last year.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    Vrika said:
    At least have the decency to compare same months, please. April 2016 the got 1 million less money than April 2015. March 2016 they got 1 million less than March 2015. In January and February this year they got a bit less money than January and February last year.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207
    And in November and December 2015 they got twice as much ... up to 5 million per month.

    I known that spreadsheet - i have linked it about two dozen times here in this subforum already.

    Compute the average monthly income over the last 12 months and you will see that the average income matches the average monthly burn rate (which has also been discussed ad nauseam here in this subforum before).


    Have fun
  • sgelsgel Member EpicPosts: 2,197
    Erillion said:
    sgel said:
    Considering CIG hasn't published any of their financials, so we can only speculate on their burn rate, any evidence you can present for your comment?
    The roughly 20 threads here in this subforum where we discussed this before.

    With links to external parties like Guiness Book of World Records researchers verifying CIG financials before putting it into the GBWR (that is standard procedure for GBWR).


    Have fun
    So no evidence whatsoever to daily burn rate. That's what I thought.

    ..Cake..

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,917
    edited May 2016
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    At least have the decency to compare same months, please. April 2016 the got 1 million less money than April 2015. March 2016 they got 1 million less than March 2015. In January and February this year they got a bit less money than January and February last year.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207
    And in November and December 2015 they got twice as much ... up to 5 million per month.

    I known that spreadsheet - i have linked it about two dozen times here in this subforum already.

    Compute the average monthly income over the last 12 months and you will see that the average income matches the average monthly burn rate (which has also been discussed ad nauseam here in this subforum before).
    I agree.

    My comment was made in response to your "at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015".
     
  • howstupidisthishowstupidisthis Member UncommonPosts: 147
    sgel said:
    Erillion said:
    As the money is ever tight and the funding sources from website dwindle,
    Any evidence you can present for that ?

    Because at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015. And overall their gain via pledges per month roughly matches their monthly burn rate.

    Considering CIG hasn't published any of their financials, so we can only speculate on their burn rate, any evidence you can present for your comment?
    It's odd that you folks think CIG is wasting time and backer dollars with shopping mechanics, but you don't mind forcing the company to go through your audits?

    I do no understand this behavior....smh
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    Vrika said:
    I agree.

    My comment was made in response to your "at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015".
    Total in July 2015: $917,744

    Total in April 2016: $2,165,903

    Factor:  2.36


    Have fun

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,917
    edited May 2016
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    At least have the decency to compare same months, please. April 2016 the got 1 million less money than April 2015. March 2016 they got 1 million less than March 2015. In January and February this year they got a bit less money than January and February last year.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1694467207
    And in November and December 2015 they got twice as much ... up to 5 million per month.

    I known that spreadsheet - i have linked it about two dozen times here in this subforum already.

    Compute the average monthly income over the last 12 months and you will see that the average income matches the average monthly burn rate (which has also been discussed ad nauseam here in this subforum before).
    I agree.

    My comment was made in response to your "at the moment they are bringing in twice as much as in summer 2015".
    Total in July 2015: $917,744

    Total in April 2016: $2,165,903

    Factor:  2.36
    Those numbers are absolutely correct.

    Star Citizen has made about 25% less money in January - April this year than they did in January - April 2015. Knowing that, you picked up a slow summer month to compare to.

    Now people can read your true post about how Star Citizen got more money in April than in July, and based on your post they can get wrong impression that Star Citizen would be making more money than it did last year when so far it's made 25% less.

    I think I must applaud to your skill of misleading others without telling a single lie.
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    Vrika said:
    Those numbers are absolutely correct.

    Star Citizen has made about 25% less money in January - April this year than they did in January - April 2015. Knowing that, you picked up a slow summer month to compare to.
    I can pick a strong winter too if you like.

    In Winter 2014 (Oct-Dec) Star Citizen got 13,186,659 $ in pledges.

    In Winter 2015 (Oct-Dec) Star Citizen got 14,821,383 $ in pledges.

    Thats a factor of 1,124  or roughly +12 % increase since last year. How does that compare to your -25 % ?

    One could pick and chose any combination of months and get the numbers one wants.

    The IMPORTANT information is that over the last 3 years (and that includes the last year) the AVERAGE monthly income via pledges was roughly equal to the estimated burn rate (estimated via an old industry rule of thumb: 10000 $ per month per employee = overall cost, including every(!)thing). Which hints at the Star Citizen development proceeding in a stable manner w.r.t. to its cost structure.

    There is no need to mislead others. The link to the numbers is above in this thread. Everyone can take a look. There are MANY graphs on the right side of these data tables that show trends. Everyone can interpret the data as (s)he likes.


    Have fun

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    edited May 2016
    The Characters and their clothing look a little bit aged .... like 10years ago tech aged :(
    On top of that nearly to no IK (Except a little in EVA) and bad collision detection .... I feel Time Warped ....

    Edit: and and only shirts/pants stuff with no clothing animation at all
    Though at least the armors have a PBR Shader DX11 on them

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    edited May 2016
    The Characters and their clothing look a little bit aged .... like 10years ago tech aged :(
    That is "10 years ago characters" ... so ... No. 






    Have fun


  • HeraseHerase Member RarePosts: 993
    Vrika said:
    spankybus said:
    There is no such thing as 'meaningful' gameplay. There is only gameplay, all of which is meaningless/

    Because it's a game. It serves no point in life but to entertain.

    Some people are entertained by virtual shopping. Almost everyone wants to set up their in-game characters to be different from other players in some way.

    While some might find some elements pointless, remember the whole game is pointless...just like every other game. Calling certain pointless elements meaningful or meaningless just makes me laugh.

    if you do not enjoy shopping, don't do it. I think you can get by without it. Why begrudge it for others?
    Because RSI has not yet created the space simulator they promised. I think it's very reasonable to cry foul when they prioritize a virtual shopping mall over fulfilling their promises to people who already paid them money.

    EDIT: I kind of understand that they are creating a virtual shopping mall in order to gain even more money. But I still don't like it /EDIT
    But that would be under the assumption the entire SC team stopped what they were doing just to create this.

    If i'm not mistaken they have several teams working on many different things at one time. Maybe the team working on this were just done with it? Maybe it something that has to be placed in first before another feature or it was something they thought, "won't take long to do, lets just bosh is out"?

    It's fine to cry foul, but I think people need to stop, sit back and think about all the possible options first. 
  • SeelinnikoiSeelinnikoi Member RarePosts: 1,358
    edited May 2016
    What is going on?

    If you are a Star Wars fan, why not try the Star Wars The Old Republic?
    New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
Sign In or Register to comment.