The "infographic" is simply showing progress on a number of "work packages". 100% meaning everything in a work package is complete. The green increments being progress in the last week towards 100%.
3.1 not yet been at 100% reflects that work continues. The 3.2 and 3.3 stacks that work has started on work packages currently allocated to 3.2 and 3.3. (Remember work packages may come forward or slip).
How the percentages have been worked out - no idea. It may reflect the numerical tables that have been available. There are different ways the numbers could be calculated. The graph however is straightforward.
It looks like for whatever reason N column in that data sheet is populated with static values, so that that their number for "Previous % Complete" doesn't change as the data sheet is upgraded, and that throws their numbers off.
A graph that only goes up to 60%. That's not shady at all.
Not really.
But that graph for patch 3.1 is too low while graphs for 3.2 and 3.3 are too high. However that graph was made the one making it fucked it up somehow.
Umm, except it is shady. It makes it appear, at a glance, that 3.1 is much more complete than it is. Given the history of this project, you'd think they'd want to appear as honest as possible. Instead, we have a graph that is misleading for no reason. Of course people will argue that only an idiot can't read the max percentage on that graph, but it's still a disingenuous presentation.
Looking over the data, it's all just arbitrary anyway. For instance, it could be 99% complete, and that last percent could take 13 years. It is info meant to appease. And you know this because of how easily they leave stuff out of every patch they promise.
Umm, except it is shady. It makes it appear, at a glance, that 3.1 is much more complete than it is. Given the history of this project, you'd think they'd want to appear as honest as possible.
You DO know that this graph is the work of fans (not CIG), do you not ? Who is "they" in your opinion in your post above ?
Latest roadmap update: Everything for patch 3.1 expect Anvil Terrapin is now in polishing -stage.
To me it looks like the patch would be good to release in about 2 weeks from now. We'll soon see how literally CIG takes their schedule to release it during Q1.
Yes everything is pretty much bug-fix patches now, they wanted 3.1 live by the end of this week but there are some stability bugs as some overly often crashes that can push that back to next week so they get fixed.
This should define and organize what will be the feature-set of 3.2 on a future roadmap update, items mentioned are:
Quantum Linking
Improved Interdiction
Service Beacon Improvements
First Tier of Guilds & Associations
Party System
Team Chat
Economy/Shopping UI Experience
Item 2.0 Ship Systems and Weapons
FPS AI Combat
At this moment the most voted feature backers want to be prioritized is the Item 2.0 ships and weapons, followed by the Party System and the FPS AI combat.
The solid profession-based on 3.2 is Mining, the vote asks to prioritize what backers want next, with the options Salvage, Repair and Refuel, being salvage mechanics the most wanted of those.
Latest roadmap update: Everything for 3.1.0 is now in polishing stage.
RSI's roadmap is supposed to contain two stages after polishing: Completed and Shipped. Assuming they are really planning to use that Completed stage, 3.1 release is still maybe two weeks away because not a single item has been marked as complete yet. But I think it's also equally possible that they won't actually use that stage at all before releasing the patch and marking everything as Shipped.
For upcoming 3.2 patch they've already made one weapon, Gemini R97 Shotgun, and have also done most of the work for another weapon, Gemini F55.
Apart from those, the work has also started on several ships, on Network Bind Culling that was originally meant for 3.1 but got delayed, and on Mining on Planetary Bodies.
With Alpha 3.1 now released, and the 3.2 survey already made we should be seeing a roadmap review for this next update soon that if I would speculate, will focus on mining (prospecting/extraction/refining/selling) mechanics and push salvage/refuel/repair back.
With Alpha 3.1 now released, and the 3.2 survey already made we should be seeing a roadmap review for this next update soon that if I would speculate, will focus on mining (prospecting/extraction/refining/selling) mechanics and push salvage/refuel/repair back.
Salvage was by far the most demanded mechanic in the 3.2 survey (i think it was 52 %, with the others half of that). Why do you think it will be pushed back ?
With Alpha 3.1 now released, and the 3.2 survey already made we should be seeing a roadmap review for this next update soon that if I would speculate, will focus on mining (prospecting/extraction/refining/selling) mechanics and push salvage/refuel/repair back.
Salvage was by far the most demanded mechanic in the 3.2 survey (i think it was 52 %, with the others half of that). Why do you think it will be pushed back ?
I don't know if they're going to push salvage back, but implementing mining, salvage, manual repair, refuel, and escort quests for service beacons looks like more job than they can do before 3.2 release. I think they're going to have to drop some of those.
Salvage was by far the most demanded mechanic in the 3.2 survey (i think it was 52 %, with the others half of that). Why do you think it will be pushed back ?
Have fun
The update is in 3 months, doing Mining that includes all the sub-mechanics such as refining and such with another major mechanic seems too much to chew for the timeframe we are talking about.
So seeing the survey and how they put it, is more of mining being the more solid mechanic they will work on, then say as Salvage is most voted, that would be tackled in 3.2 if it can be done in time, but Mining still the priority.
Salvage was by far the most demanded mechanic in the 3.2 survey (i think it was 52 %, with the others half of that). Why do you think it will be pushed back ?
Have fun
The update is in 3 months, doing Mining that includes all the sub-mechanics such as refining and such with another major mechanic seems too much to chew for the timeframe we are talking about.
So seeing the survey and how they put it, is more of mining being the more solid mechanic they will work on, then say as Salvage is most voted, that would be tackled in 3.2 if it can be done in time, but Mining still the priority.
I think the default should be: if its down for 3.2 then until they announce otherwise they are in 3.2. The other factor is resource - along with people getting ill, fitting holidays in and so forth. You may well be right but today we just assume they are all in and if in a couple of months or whenever they do do the evaluation to ascertain what will make it, what won't we will know.
Its to be expected I suggest that Gameplay features are more likely to bounce around a bit as there are probably less similarities between them.
Unlike ships say which they probably have a decent handle on now. Presumably why some ships scheduled for 3.3. are in development but some of the 3.2 ones are still just scheduled. Some ships are just more involved than others clearly!
I think the default should be: if its down for 3.2 then until they announce otherwise they are in 3.2.
I disagree. CIG themselves have said that their dates are aggressive and the roadmap is only something that might happen, not something that will happen. We shouldn't think that something will happen by default as long as CIG themselves are uncertain.
I think the default should be: if its down for 3.2 then until they announce otherwise they are in 3.2.
I disagree. CIG themselves have said that their dates are aggressive and the roadmap is only something that might happen, not something that will happen. We shouldn't think that something will happen by default as long as CIG themselves are uncertain.
Sure. Its an approach.
My reasoning though is partly based on the fact that it is their best "guess" though. And they have far more information than we do: how long each work package is scheduled to take; staff roster etc. etc. For us to go around deciding that x, y and z won't make it simply because its aggressive has no foundation.
However another reason is around that word "aggressive". Two points on this.
First the team got burned last year; they were asked to produce a schedule they could release by mid-year and failed. Its the type of experience leaves a mark and makes people more "cautious". Just the way it is - people don't like being blamed. So however much the folks on the ground might talk about an "aggressive" schedule it won't be "as aggressive" as last year. Those areas that didn't deliver last year in particular. That just human nature.
The second reason though is simply the nature of the schedule. As I have remarked previously most of it is doing stuff they have done before. Ships, weapons, costimes, planets even. And they have gotten / are getting increasingly good at forcasting that stuff.
Now Gameplay - the topic here - may be less of a repeater. Without knowing how modular the code is its tough to say. So it won't come as a surprise if some of it falls by the way side. Hence my opening comment of "Sure".
The stuff that is hard to schedule is the network side. And that is indeed what slipped in 3.1. "Continue to improve network performance" though - pretty difficult thing for us to measure. They reported that they hadn't managed to complete all the improvements they were aiming for but if they hadn't? 3.1 improved on 3.0 - task nominally accomplished. New network task for 3.2 " Continue to improve network performance" Aaaargh!
How many years has this alpha been going on? I hear 6 years? I have never seen an alpha that has lasted this long, heck 2 years would be too long if we compare to other games.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
How many years has this alpha been going on? I hear 6 years? I have never seen an alpha that has lasted this long, heck 2 years would be too long if we compare to other games.
That's cause you dont work as a game developer for a major AAA studio. There's a reason why games are usualy announced close to their release date aka almost finished.
Public "Alphas" or "Betas" are more marketing stunts joined with feedback and performance/network checks .
How many years has this alpha been going on? I hear 6 years? I have never seen an alpha that has lasted this long, heck 2 years would be too long if we compare to other games.
That's cause you dont work as a game developer for a major AAA studio. There's a reason why games are usualy announced close to their release date aka almost finished.
Public "Alphas" or "Betas" are more marketing stunts joined with feedback and performance/network checks .
And free-flight weeks aren't marketing stunts? or CR saying "You can already play 2.6.3 / 3.0 / 3.1" when asked about 1.0 (aka release).
Star Citizen's "pre-alpha" or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than marketing with the intention of getting people to part with their money prior to release, just like any other buy-in alpha/beta.
How many years has this alpha been going on? I hear 6 years? I have never seen an alpha that has lasted this long, heck 2 years would be too long if we compare to other games.
That's cause you dont work as a game developer for a major AAA studio. There's a reason why games are usualy announced close to their release date aka almost finished.
Public "Alphas" or "Betas" are more marketing stunts joined with feedback and performance/network checks .
And free-flight weeks aren't marketing stunts? or CR saying "You can already play 2.6.3 / 3.0 / 3.1" when asked about 1.0 (aka release).
Star Citizen's "pre-alpha" or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than marketing with the intention of getting people to part with their money prior to release, just like any other buy-in alpha/beta.
Crowdfunded Business ≠ Traditional AAA Business
All the major AAA games have a strong publisher with private investors banking their development looking to make a return from their investment later on.
Crowdfunded games rely on their backers will, keeping your pledger's engaged is fundamental and so is getting new ones.
I think I don't need to explain you how insanely hard and costly task it is to make both a mmorpg and a story campaign of this scope, detail and complexity while showcasing it's development as it goes...
It already would be a huge accomplishment for any of the established major studios to make just one of these games much less two lol
All the major AAA games have a strong publisher with private investors banking their development looking to make a return from their investment later on.
Crowdfunded games rely on their backers will, keeping your pledger's engaged is fundamental and so is getting new ones.
Yeah no shit crowdfunded != traditional, which is why I found it odd that you wanted to draw some sort of comparison between them.
Publisher backed games announce/release their alpha/betas at a later date purely so that they can provide a more polished experience for the customers, that's perfectly fine. Trying to claim it's a marketing stunt for one thing and not the other is just plain old disenguinity.
Crowdfunded games certainly rely on keeping customer attention, publisher backed games simply do this in a more condensed fashion in the run up to their release, there's no real difference, 1 is spread over time (with the risk of fatigue), the other is simply condensed down.
I think I don't need to explain you how insanely hard and costly task it is to make both a mmorpg and a story campaign of this scope, detail and complexity while showcasing it's development as it goes...
Easy enough for other companies to do it without having to rely on additional subscriptions to make it happen...
It already would be a huge accomplishment for any of the established major studios to make just one of these games much less two lol
I cannot agree with that, while it's shiny and looks good as still shots or short clips the overall experience for a game which has taken 6 years and cost over $150 million is not evidence of being better than what other major studios would be capable of doing, not by a long shot.
It's normal for a game to provide bad performance/experience while it's being actively developed, that's why optimization and polishing the player experience is usually made in the end of the development cycle.
CIG has to juggle the huge development effort of a crazy ambitious game with the release of playable builds which cost more time and money but it's part of the deal they made with backers, constant upgrades and development reports.
Nobody is forced to pledge, nobody is forced to follow Star Citizen's development daily, so complaining about how much money they make or time they take ad nauseam is pointless as it's basically a perfect way to showcase immaturity and ignorance not only about Star Citizen but game development industry altogether lol
Comments
But that graph for patch 3.1 is too low while graphs for 3.2 and 3.3 are too high. However that graph was made the one making it fucked it up somehow.
3.1 not yet been at 100% reflects that work continues. The 3.2 and 3.3 stacks that work has started on work packages currently allocated to 3.2 and 3.3. (Remember work packages may come forward or slip).
How the percentages have been worked out - no idea. It may reflect the numerical tables that have been available. There are different ways the numbers could be calculated. The graph however is straightforward.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KBzAM9HSrOUdcsgxhiJwajova98uh6h8oynn3mrXoUQ/edit#gid=0
Under the Data Tab has more info.
It looks like for whatever reason N column in that data sheet is populated with static values, so that that their number for "Previous % Complete" doesn't change as the data sheet is upgraded, and that throws their numbers off.
Looking over the data, it's all just arbitrary anyway. For instance, it could be 99% complete, and that last percent could take 13 years. It is info meant to appease. And you know this because of how easily they leave stuff out of every patch they promise.
Breakdown of the 3.1 changes:
Aside of that, Evo 3.1d patch: https://pastebin.com/39tTSish
Who is "they" in your opinion in your post above ?
Have fun
To me it looks like the patch would be good to release in about 2 weeks from now. We'll soon see how literally CIG takes their schedule to release it during Q1.
Aside of that, the Alpha 3.2 feature survey has been posted: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16468-Alpha-32-Feature-Survey
This should define and organize what will be the feature-set of 3.2 on a future roadmap update, items mentioned are:
At this moment the most voted feature backers want to be prioritized is the Item 2.0 ships and weapons, followed by the Party System and the FPS AI combat.
The solid profession-based on 3.2 is Mining, the vote asks to prioritize what backers want next, with the options Salvage, Repair and Refuel, being salvage mechanics the most wanted of those.
RSI's roadmap is supposed to contain two stages after polishing: Completed and Shipped. Assuming they are really planning to use that Completed stage, 3.1 release is still maybe two weeks away because not a single item has been marked as complete yet. But I think it's also equally possible that they won't actually use that stage at all before releasing the patch and marking everything as Shipped.
For upcoming 3.2 patch they've already made one weapon, Gemini R97 Shotgun, and have also done most of the work for another weapon, Gemini F55.
Apart from those, the work has also started on several ships, on Network Bind Culling that was originally meant for 3.1 but got delayed, and on Mining on Planetary Bodies.
Have fun
So seeing the survey and how they put it, is more of mining being the more solid mechanic they will work on, then say as Salvage is most voted, that would be tackled in 3.2 if it can be done in time, but Mining still the priority.
Its to be expected I suggest that Gameplay features are more likely to bounce around a bit as there are probably less similarities between them.
Unlike ships say which they probably have a decent handle on now. Presumably why some ships scheduled for 3.3. are in development but some of the 3.2 ones are still just scheduled. Some ships are just more involved than others clearly!
My reasoning though is partly based on the fact that it is their best "guess" though. And they have far more information than we do: how long each work package is scheduled to take; staff roster etc. etc. For us to go around deciding that x, y and z won't make it simply because its aggressive has no foundation.
However another reason is around that word "aggressive". Two points on this.
First the team got burned last year; they were asked to produce a schedule they could release by mid-year and failed. Its the type of experience leaves a mark and makes people more "cautious". Just the way it is - people don't like being blamed. So however much the folks on the ground might talk about an "aggressive" schedule it won't be "as aggressive" as last year. Those areas that didn't deliver last year in particular. That just human nature.
The second reason though is simply the nature of the schedule. As I have remarked previously most of it is doing stuff they have done before. Ships, weapons, costimes, planets even. And they have gotten / are getting increasingly good at forcasting that stuff.
Now Gameplay - the topic here - may be less of a repeater. Without knowing how modular the code is its tough to say. So it won't come as a surprise if some of it falls by the way side. Hence my opening comment of "Sure".
The stuff that is hard to schedule is the network side. And that is indeed what slipped in 3.1. "Continue to improve network performance" though - pretty difficult thing for us to measure. They reported that they hadn't managed to complete all the improvements they were aiming for but if they hadn't? 3.1 improved on 3.0 - task nominally accomplished. New network task for 3.2 " Continue to improve network performance" Aaaargh!
But yeah speculate away
― George Carlin
There's a reason why games are usualy announced close to their release date aka almost finished.
Public "Alphas" or "Betas" are more marketing stunts joined with feedback and performance/network checks .
Star Citizen's "pre-alpha" or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than marketing with the intention of getting people to part with their money prior to release, just like any other buy-in alpha/beta.
All the major AAA games have a strong publisher with private investors banking their development looking to make a return from their investment later on.
Crowdfunded games rely on their backers will, keeping your pledger's engaged is fundamental and so is getting new ones.
I think I don't need to explain you how insanely hard and costly task it is to make both a mmorpg and a story campaign of this scope, detail and complexity while showcasing it's development as it goes...
It already would be a huge accomplishment for any of the established major studios to make just one of these games much less two lol
Publisher backed games announce/release their alpha/betas at a later date purely so that they can provide a more polished experience for the customers, that's perfectly fine. Trying to claim it's a marketing stunt for one thing and not the other is just plain old disenguinity.
Crowdfunded games certainly rely on keeping customer attention, publisher backed games simply do this in a more condensed fashion in the run up to their release, there's no real difference, 1 is spread over time (with the risk of fatigue), the other is simply condensed down.
Easy enough for other companies to do it without having to rely on additional subscriptions to make it happen...
I cannot agree with that, while it's shiny and looks good as still shots or short clips the overall experience for a game which has taken 6 years and cost over $150 million is not evidence of being better than what other major studios would be capable of doing, not by a long shot.
CIG has to juggle the huge development effort of a crazy ambitious game with the release of playable builds which cost more time and money but it's part of the deal they made with backers, constant upgrades and development reports.
Nobody is forced to pledge, nobody is forced to follow Star Citizen's development daily, so complaining about how much money they make or time they take ad nauseam is pointless as it's basically a perfect way to showcase immaturity and ignorance not only about Star Citizen but game development industry altogether lol
..Cake..