The fact you have to make up lies outright, claiming I said "servers don't validate" or "aren't authoritative" just shows you've slipped in this behavior far enough to abandon reason outright. Are you capable of an honest argument at all at this point, or is trying to make things up all you've got?
"So instead of address how core components of the system are still client side right now and requires server validation that presently does not exist, and would need a lot of revisions to migrate to a server-client system"
??????????
This thing turned toxic I'm not up to further feed this nothing good will come out of it.
What you understand is a skewed belief at best. Point in case, you want to claim I dont know how the servers operate, but between these last two pages we can pull contradicting quotes from you on the state of the server and how it works, as you continue to change your argument to fit the moment.
The fact you have to make up lies outright, claiming I said "servers don't validate" or "aren't authoritative" just shows you've slipped in this behavior far enough to abandon reason outright. Are you capable of an honest argument at all at this point, or is trying to make things up all you've got?
Your second paragraph reads like you didn't even actually read what I wrote, as you bring up things yet again that I prior stated. You have done this multiple ti.es now, going 'no' and then functionally repeating me while failing to u understand the implications of the things you're mentioning.
Like your collision statement, and how you conveniently forgot od already talked about that in the context of server latency versus client side emulation and the use of server validation on that end.
You don't get to make the claim that the server does everything, then when it's pointed out to you that your argument is illogical completely flip to the opposing side and pretend it wasn't you who was making that illogical claim.
You have no right to make any comment about toxicity when you've stopped so low as to brazenly lie and make such duplicitous arguments.
Play the victim if you want, but understand your bluff has been called. Don't claim you "like tech talk" while actively lying about it at every turn.
The fact you have to make up lies outright, claiming I said "servers don't validate" or "aren't authoritative" just shows you've slipped in this behavior far enough to abandon reason outright. Are you capable of an honest argument at all at this point, or is trying to make things up all you've got?
"So instead of address how core components of the system are still client side right now and requires server validation that presently does not exist, and would need a lot of revisions to migrate to a server-client system"
??????????
This thing turned toxic I'm not up to further feed this. Have things to do.
Was a response to your own claim about the incomplete state of server development, which can now be restated as a big change of position on your part.
Aside from that, where does there being core components the server doesn't currently validate translate into me claiming the server doesn't validate anything?
Oh, it doesn't? You just ripped that quote out of context and ignored that it was a discreet statement in order to treat it line a global one , even though you forgot to edit out the reference to discreet elements?
My, it almost as if you're desperate for an argument to validate your false victimization claim and instead stumbled into making yet another dishonest remark.
Indeed this has turned "toxic", because you made it so by being toxic. Taking arguments out of context, and making hyperbolic claims off of them that does not reflect the reality of what was said, is nothing short of toxic behavior coming from you.
I have about a half hour until first panel starts, anything else you wanna try lying about?
Indeed this has turned "toxic", because you made it so by being toxic. Taking arguments out of context, and making hyperbolic claims off of them that does not reflect the reality of what was said, is nothing short of toxic behavior coming from you.
I have about a half hour until first panel starts, anything else you wanna try lying about?
Was your own statement of something you don't know on the SC reality just because it is not a finished game, hence why the superficial walls of text without providing the technical details on the context of the game, maybe you haven't even played at all hence that unawareness and the avoidance of going deep on the technical aspects of SC. It wasn't me who started with the toxic tone, you've lost my respect there, I'm not bothering to read these walls of text anymore.
It's interesting you make that claim, when you made your statements without any technical details on the context of the game. Contradictory ones at that as you bounced back and forth in your claims. Should we quote back your back and forth claims about the incomplete state of the servers, to your claim about their security, to your claim about servers controlling the data, to your claim it's the client that actually does some stuff with server validation. It reads as if you're taking a crash course while trying to make your argument, so it's rapidly changing post to post as you have to change your claims.
And I have given multiple specific technical elements, I even restated some of them on the august 26 post here on page 3 (with more left out such as 64 vs 32 bit precision, or the entity container system that you didn't even know what was as evidenced by your attempt at semantics around the term). These being technical factors that you have ignored and refused to address in favor of slanted opinions trying to misinterpret little things. Do I need to restate how you just got caught trying to skew a quote that called out discrete systems and cherrypick it into your own false claim about server validation?
So not only are you making a false claim, you're making one you are at fault for committing. Pot meet kettle much?
And the only one that's done anything toxic has been you. There is no "tone" that you did not fabricate yourself, and that you have pushed with this constant false victimization and these constant dishonest claims is disappointing at best, and actively insulting at worst.
For someone who was "done" multiple posts ago, you are sure adamant to continue to comment if you think you can make up something new to cry wolf about.
Just the title of SQ42 : Chapter 1, is a clue that there's a strong possibility this will release as a Minimum Viable Product. And of course, whatever they can't finish in SQ42, will be sold again as "Chapter 2" (surprise!).
This is incorrect, SQ42 originally was split in "mission disks" but then was merged into one main game with a Sequel (refer to the 6million stretch goal https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals ).
So chapter 1 is not "clue" it is the main SQ42 game that is already vastly expanded from its original pitch, they had intentions from the start to do follow-up releases, intending a trilogy. Before it was a simple mission-disks DLC, but grown to be a full game hence why the chapters.
Not to be confused with the chapters on the roadmap, those are the individual stages of the game story.
If all the money in the world can't fix the issues they're having and make game mechanics work, how would continuing to send them money help, 7 years later?
Money doesn't instantly develop games, money pays the wagers of who is developing the game, people who develop need time, and over time SC has surpassed multiple challenges that haunted the game for long. So it's a matter of logic, no further funding = no ability to pay dev wagers = no game, got it?
That still doesn't prove that SQ42 will release as a completed game when the incentive remains to push non-existent game mechanics to a later planned "Chapter", like they do with promised updates every quarter. And if trends are any indicator, is it really that difficult to arrive to that conclusion?
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but be honest, is it possible to reach that conclusion with what we've already seen for the past 7 years?
Yes, I know what money is. Your argument is irrelevant.
When A+B = C is true, then how much more money would be needed to change the result to "D"? And doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result, is called what?
Many mechanics and features were added over time to the scope of SQ42 so it's not like you are "losing" the game that is meant to be if some things don't make the cut now, when comparing to scope of its pitch.
A large example of that is how SQ42 was supposed to be played only in space and then they implement procedural planets into the game, as shown in the SQ42 mission loop showcase, that's a vast expansion that was tackled in onto its design that wasn't expected. The push backs are either delay the final release or have to get cut or scoped down to make the cut, it's a matter of dev resources & funding there.
There is no other conclusion. You seem to be arguing that the game is not developing so continuing funding the game will not result on the development of the game towards its release?
That is just not right. While some undertakings have taken long until they got done the game shows clear progress on overcoming issues that haunted the game for long, the OCS is a prime example greatly increasing performance and allowing the expansion of the game-world, and it's just one of many pieces already there, and multiple others to come. So the logic is simple, without further funding there is no SC, with further funding the development continues, at its own pace.
Sure. Walking can be a mechanic or feature, right? Technically, you're correct if using that standard. I don't disagree with that.
The problem isn't , for example, that you don't log in where you logged off in your ship, consistently. That will be fixed over the upcoming years. That's normal (i guess)
We were told that if you are going to carry contraband, that there is a chance Law Enforcement NPCs will scan and board your ship. The way to avoid that was to buy a $220 Mercury Starunner, which have hidden compartments to hide contraband from LEO NPCs when they board your ship. Neat! But, not true.
Did you see NPCs boarding the ship in the video? No, he threw a box off his ship to avoid aggro. That same aggro mechanic already exists in other games (ex. Sith Assassins/Jedi Village/SWG).
Suddenly, that special $220 ship that you MUST have, does nothing any different from other ships all along.
..."walking mechanic" when I put the example of the planetary feature implemented on SQ42, if you think that is a superficial irrelevant thing so you'd be delusional, this means the implementation of aside of entire new levels like the one showcased on SQ42, atmospheric flight model/hover with the relevant combat, the anti-air type of fight with the turrets and such as in-game, and so forth, that one core feature drives a large number of features & mechanics to be added to the game. The SC ship location persistence you must on logout is meant from a game mechanic related to ship beds, aside from that this mechanic plays as you "wake up" in the last visited/nearest station where the ship gets stored, it doesn't seem they want it to do it like typically MMOs do. I'm not addressing the rest not relevant to the discussion we all know SC has since day-1 sold ship pledges that fund the game, those are developed alongside the game until the mechanics they rely upon are released, such as with cargo & mining now.
You guys have been marketing "showcasing" this game for years that it "is the most innovative, technically advanced MMO that's doing something never been done before!"
Yeah? Where is it? When?
They already met their goals years ago. How much more do they need to get this done? Is it perpetual? Does that not make it a Sunk Cost Fallacy when you continue to give them money, expecting a different result (to justify their investment)?
It doesn't matter if the person is wrong or right, is it reasonable that some may realize, in their opinion, supporting SC is a Sunk Cost Fallacy?
The fact is, that after all these years there still isn't anywhere near other game capable to deliver what SC goes for in this genre, none of the similar ones wants to be a persistent MP game, that has and will continue standing the relevance and the support for this game, despite unfinished.
There has been no "result" as far as calling the product this is a non-argument of yours, the development is ongoing and the goals for the game haven't been met yet, the progress towards it is clearly visible despite it being slow. If for some is a sunken cost then that's up to them, crowdfunding in its whole is seen by many as a sunken cost, by others as a pre-order.
The fact is, that after all these years there still isn't anywhere near other game capable to deliver what SC goes for in this genre, none of the similar ones wants to be a persistent MP game, that has and will continue standing the relevance and the support for this game, despite unfinished.
Can you give actual examples?
MaxBacon said: ...crowdfunding in its whole is seen by many as a sunken cost...
A sunken cost in the context you are using it is completely different to the idea behind "Sunk Cost Fallacy".
The fact is, that after all these years there still isn't anywhere near other game capable to deliver what SC goes for in this genre, none of the similar ones wants to be a persistent MP game, that has and will continue standing the relevance and the support for this game, despite unfinished.
Can you give actual examples?
Well from the incoming Infinity to X4 would be recent examples on the genre.
I see people writing essays about SC, expressing their discontent; having not actually stepped inside the game for even a second.
I spent like $75 dollars on a ship a few years ago when the game was basically unplayable for me.
Logged on a few days ago & played...they've made some seriously awesome progress.
As a software engineer I think its awesome they're pushing the boundaries of what an open world space game can or should be.
The good thing is....if it fails...at least all these assets and lessons learned get absorbed into the development community.
Even if its not SC...its some-one...some-time....in the next few years where all us SCI-FI nerds finally get the game we wanted
If you have a problem with people spending money to support a cause then go talk your therapist or some shit
its been how many years and tens of millions of dollars? Of course they should have something playable with that amount of time and money. But it is 300 million and 6 or 7 years 'worth' of playable?
its been how many years and tens of millions of dollars? Of course they should have something playable with that amount of time and money. But it is 300 million and 6 or 7 years 'worth' of playable?
Absolutely!
Backers are smart enough to understand how real life and business works knows how hard is to build business from scratch while understanding that you don't judge a video-game by the time it took or costed. If it's fun they play it if it's not they don't.
If it was easy some other studio with more money, manpower and experience probably would have done it by now. Yet here we are, Star Citizen experience continues unmatched and that's why it's the most played and viewed game of it's genre on Twitch for the past years.
Meanwhile, Star Citizen keeps getting more and more players and consequently more money every year. I'd say they are in the right track
He doesn't need you to talk for him if you want to discuss something respond my response to you on the last page. lol If you want to have a go a the main post topic that I already talked about and pretty much died out on the discussion by now then find someone else.
Comments
"So instead of address how core components of the system are still client side right now and requires server validation that presently does not exist, and would need a lot of revisions to migrate to a server-client system"
??????????
This thing turned toxic I'm not up to further feed this nothing good will come out of it.
Aside from that, where does there being core components the server doesn't currently validate translate into me claiming the server doesn't validate anything?
Oh, it doesn't? You just ripped that quote out of context and ignored that it was a discreet statement in order to treat it line a global one , even though you forgot to edit out the reference to discreet elements?
My, it almost as if you're desperate for an argument to validate your false victimization claim and instead stumbled into making yet another dishonest remark.
Indeed this has turned "toxic", because you made it so by being toxic. Taking arguments out of context, and making hyperbolic claims off of them that does not reflect the reality of what was said, is nothing short of toxic behavior coming from you.
I have about a half hour until first panel starts, anything else you wanna try lying about?
It's interesting you make that claim, when you made your statements without any technical details on the context of the game. Contradictory ones at that as you bounced back and forth in your claims. Should we quote back your back and forth claims about the incomplete state of the servers, to your claim about their security, to your claim about servers controlling the data, to your claim it's the client that actually does some stuff with server validation. It reads as if you're taking a crash course while trying to make your argument, so it's rapidly changing post to post as you have to change your claims.
And I have given multiple specific technical elements, I even restated some of them on the august 26 post here on page 3 (with more left out such as 64 vs 32 bit precision, or the entity container system that you didn't even know what was as evidenced by your attempt at semantics around the term). These being technical factors that you have ignored and refused to address in favor of slanted opinions trying to misinterpret little things. Do I need to restate how you just got caught trying to skew a quote that called out discrete systems and cherrypick it into your own false claim about server validation?
So not only are you making a false claim, you're making one you are at fault for committing. Pot meet kettle much?
And the only one that's done anything toxic has been you. There is no "tone" that you did not fabricate yourself, and that you have pushed with this constant false victimization and these constant dishonest claims is disappointing at best, and actively insulting at worst.
For someone who was "done" multiple posts ago, you are sure adamant to continue to comment if you think you can make up something new to cry wolf about.
So chapter 1 is not "clue" it is the main SQ42 game that is already vastly expanded from its original pitch, they had intentions from the start to do follow-up releases, intending a trilogy. Before it was a simple mission-disks DLC, but grown to be a full game hence why the chapters.
Not to be confused with the chapters on the roadmap, those are the individual stages of the game story.
Money doesn't instantly develop games, money pays the wagers of who is developing the game, people who develop need time, and over time SC has surpassed multiple challenges that haunted the game for long. So it's a matter of logic, no further funding = no ability to pay dev wagers = no game, got it?
A large example of that is how SQ42 was supposed to be played only in space and then they implement procedural planets into the game, as shown in the SQ42 mission loop showcase, that's a vast expansion that was tackled in onto its design that wasn't expected. The push backs are either delay the final release or have to get cut or scoped down to make the cut, it's a matter of dev resources & funding there.
There is no other conclusion. You seem to be arguing that the game is not developing so continuing funding the game will not result on the development of the game towards its release?
That is just not right. While some undertakings have taken long until they got done the game shows clear progress on overcoming issues that haunted the game for long, the OCS is a prime example greatly increasing performance and allowing the expansion of the game-world, and it's just one of many pieces already there, and multiple others to come. So the logic is simple, without further funding there is no SC, with further funding the development continues, at its own pace.
Star Citizen Thread Algorithm
Star Citizen Guy A + Star Citizen Guy B + Star Citizen Guy C + (Normal Forum Member(s) x Random Number 0-9)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fact is, that after all these years there still isn't anywhere near other game capable to deliver what SC goes for in this genre, none of the similar ones wants to be a persistent MP game, that has and will continue standing the relevance and the support for this game, despite unfinished.
There has been no "result" as far as calling the product this is a non-argument of yours, the development is ongoing and the goals for the game haven't been met yet, the progress towards it is clearly visible despite it being slow. If for some is a sunken cost then that's up to them, crowdfunding in its whole is seen by many as a sunken cost, by others as a pre-order.
To me, something more relevant to game developers than the actual people who buy the early access / crowdfund type of game.
I spent like $75 dollars on a ship a few years ago when the game was basically unplayable for me.
Logged on a few days ago & played...they've made some seriously awesome progress.
As a software engineer I think its awesome they're pushing the boundaries of what an open world space game can or should be.
The good thing is....if it fails...at least all these assets and lessons learned get absorbed into the development community.
Even if its not SC...its some-one...some-time....in the next few years where all us SCI-FI nerds finally get the game we wanted
If you have a problem with people spending money to support a cause then go talk your therapist or some shit
Meanwhile, Star Citizen keeps getting more and more players and consequently more money every year. I'd say they are in the right track