How long has your ship been in concept? (Infographic)

MightyUnclean

MaxBacon said:

MightyUnclean said:

MaxBacon said:

goboygo said:

Bait posted, trolls come crawling out.

Makes me want to me to fix @MightyUnclean's post "There's no point in arguing with the hate cult members about this game, guys. "

Any words said are wasted words when people are just here to bait a fight, this is not about the game at all lol

Nah man, you misunderstand.  I don't hate the game, or its supporters.  I hate it when financial predators prey on the gullible.

Oh dear, the sheer delusion of that comment... The only reason people make all this fuss about SC is because it has a shiny number of crowdfunded money, success attracts this sort of attention.

If you really hate financial predators preying on gullible I suggest you save your efforts to fight against gambling practices on gaming, preying on the addiction of adults and kids.

No thanks, I'll continue to make my opinion known here and hope it keeps a few people from throwing money away.

Kefo

Vrika said:

NorseGod said:

Viper482 said:

Biggest scam in the history of PC gaming. How many tens of millions has this guy stolen so far? 

In come the white knights....keep feeding him $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. 

You can go through their new CI and CIG financials and see how much the Roberts family is paying themselves.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08703814/filing-history

You can't really because that's only for their UK operations.

If there's anything they don't want us to see, that's done through their US operation so that they can keep it hidden.

Take that with a grain of salt since the auditor is either an idiot or intentionally overlooked something. See page 25 of the newest filing and see if you can spot the wtf math.

Also considering Erin is paying himself just north of 350,000 US it’s a safe bet Chris is going to be taking a much higher salary since he’s saving PC gaming after all

Tiller

Unreal; such blind devotion can only be bought.

bcbully

Strange 2 years later I’m moving from the entertained naysayer to an interested possible late adopter... hmmm

MightyUnclean

bcbully said:

Strange 2 years later I’m moving from the entertained naysayer to an interested possible late adopter... hmmm

Take your time, it's not like there's any rush to decide on this one.

MaxBacon

bcbully said:

Strange 2 years later I’m moving from the entertained naysayer to an interested possible late adopter... hmmm

O_o, all the naysayer threads are actually selling the game! I knew there was a plot twist incoming!

 

MightyUnclean said:

bcbully said:

Strange 2 years later I’m moving from the entertained naysayer to an interested possible late adopter... hmmm

Take your time, it's not like there's any rush to decide on this one.

I was about to say you had a customer :P

TiamatRoar

bcbully said:

Strange 2 years later I’m moving from the entertained naysayer to an interested possible late adopter... hmmm

Stop waffling about and join the verse. The sooner (and the more) you buy in, the more money you save!  Some ships that cost hundreds now were sold for a lot cheaper the first time they went on sale.  Imagine how expensive they'll be later on if you don't purchase them right now.  

rpmcmurphy

And the usual responses from the fans.

Very few comments about the delayed ships. We could be discussing how it's worth delaying some until the necessary game mechanics are in, or more star systems are in etc.

Instead the overwhelming responses are about attacking the posters, their motives and so on.

How does that help anything bar cause drama?

Erillion

There is nothing to comment that has not already been said a hundred times ad nauseum.

I myself look forward to the Endeavor. Which can be configured as the ultimate science ship. But I rather have a working Squadron 42 and basic Star Citizen game first than this speciality ship. So i personally am OK with the priorities CIG has when it comes to specialty ships. Finish underlying game mechanics first, THEN implement the ships that use these game mechanics.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

There is nothing to comment that has not already been said a hundred times ad nauseum.

Even if that is the case it does not justify the type of shit going on here.  If you (royal) have to attack people, almost in a personal capacity, because they are laughing at something a company is doing then you have a problem.

Erillion said:

I myself look forward to the Endeavor. Which can be configured as the ultimate science ship. But I rather have a working Squadron 42 and basic Star Citizen game first than this speciality ship. So i personally am OK with the priorities CIG has when it comes to specialty ships. Finish underlying game mechanics first, THEN implement the ships that use these game mechanics.

Yeah I think that is quite legit. Game mechanics first would be a much better idea and I wish it was something they focused on from the beginning.

Erillion

>>>

Game mechanics first would be a much better idea and I wish it was something they focused on from the beginning.
>>>

They did. And have reported extensively about it to their backers.

The information is there for backers for those that are interested in it.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

They did. And have reported extensively about it to their backers.

The information is there for backers for those that are interested in it.

Have fun

Well this is only true if you ignore half of the ships added and squint through one eye. The information is so easily verified that trying to imply people would know better if they were interested is really silly.

There are many hulls which have been added where their primary mechanics do not exist yet. The Herald is in game but no mechanics exist. Numerous trade ships were added before trading was in, exploration ships have been added with no real exploration mechanics etc.

Like come on Erillion

Erillion

>>>

There are many hulls which have been added where their primary mechanics do not exist yet.
>>>

With clear caveats during the concept sales that these hulls and the underlying mechanics are in development. People knew perfectly well what they got. If they cared to read.

And there are and have been options to switch to a different, existing, flight ready ship for those that lost interest in a specific concept sale ship. And there are many existing flight ready ships.

The newer concept sales all started with flight ready concept ships.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

With clear caveats during the concept sales that these hulls and the underlying mechanics are in development. People knew perfectly well what they got. If they cared to read.

And there are and have been options to switch to a different, existing, flight ready ship for those that lost interest in a specific concept sale ship. And there are many existing flight ready ships.

The newer concept sales all started with flight ready concept ships.

You said  "Finish underlying game mechanics first, THEN implement the ships that use these game mechanics."  which I agreed with and now you are making excuses for why those mechanics are not in game but the ships that require them are.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person's belief clashes with new evidence perceived by the person. When confronted with facts that contradict beliefs, ideals, and values, people will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

Erillion

>>>

and now you are making excuses for why those mechanics are not in game but the ships that require them are.
>>>

I said no such thing.

Scroll up:  "... these hulls and the underlying mechanics are in development."

Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

I said no such thing.

Scroll up:  "... these hulls and the underlying mechanics are in development."

Erm yeah you totally did.

I gave specific examples of ships that are in game without their primary mechanics available to them which you then tried to make excuses for with some waffle about caveats, concept sales and development.

You cannot say mechanics should be done first before the ship is in game and also say that ships in game without their mechanics is also fine. That is completely contradictory hence the cognitive dissonance quote.

What's weird is that I was agreeing with you (an extremely rare thing in itself) and then you went and made a fight out of it. Like WTF?

Erillion

>>>

and also say that ships in game without their mechanics is also fine.
>>>

And again .. i said no such thing.

I said that these ships and underlying mechanics are in development.

I said that i rather wait for the underlying mechanics to be finished first before they implement in SC Alpha the ship that uses these mechanics.

I said that someone not interested in a concept ship anymore (e.g. because of waiting time) has options to switch to a different, existing, flight-ready ship - if (s)he wants that.

Have fun

rpmcmurphy

Erillion said:

And again .. i said no such thing.

Ah ok I see what you're doing. This is you playing pedantic Erillion, you're doing the "If I didn't explicitly state that thing then I didn't say it" regardless of the fact that you said it.

Funny boy.

Roin

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

And again .. i said no such thing.

Ah ok I see what you're doing. This is you playing pedantic Erillion, you're doing the "If I didn't explicitly state that thing then I didn't say it" regardless of the fact that you said it.

Funny boy.

Huh? 

rpmcmurphy

I agree, that sums it up perfectly.

MaxBacon

Roin said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

And again .. i said no such thing.

Ah ok I see what you're doing. This is you playing pedantic Erillion, you're doing the "If I didn't explicitly state that thing then I didn't say it" regardless of the fact that you said it.

Funny boy.

Huh? 

This pretty much shows how this bait threads are just to give some posters the opportunity to grind their axes against specific other posters.

This is why the discussion get so nitpicky and petty because the objective is trying to corner someone so they can "transpire superiority". It's kinda weird but it's how this place works now 

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Roin said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Erillion said:

And again .. i said no such thing.

Ah ok I see what you're doing. This is you playing pedantic Erillion, you're doing the "If I didn't explicitly state that thing then I didn't say it" regardless of the fact that you said it.

Funny boy.

Huh? 

This pretty much shows how this bait threads are just to give some posters the opportunity to grind their axes against specific other posters.

This is why the discussion get so nitpicky and petty because the objective is trying to corner someone so they can "transpire superiority". It's kinda weird but it's how this place works now 

Some threads the objective is to cut through the marketing BS and lay it all out on the table. The problem is then the faithful come in and will attempt a combination of insults, crying fake!, provoking a emotional response in an attempt to get people banned or attempting to lock the thread. 

No one forces people into the threads where we are critical of CI’s practices or claims of superiority but eventually one of the faithful show up and the thread devolves into arguing with the person as they derail the thread. Eventually the thread goes quiet because most people just get tired of arguing with someone who refuses to accept that they might be wrong or is simply shilling for the game.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

This pretty much shows how this bait threads are just to give some posters the opportunity to grind their axes against specific other posters.

This is why the discussion get so nitpicky and petty because the objective is trying to corner someone so they can "transpire superiority". It's kinda weird but it's how this place works now 

Complete bullshit, you are totally making things up to portray yourselves as victims and claiming there is some sort of conspiracy against you.... It is complete and utter delusion.

What you are essentially saying is that if 2 people have a normal conversation and then 1 disagrees with the other it means they were out to bait them from the start. Which is just so much paranoia.

I completetly agreed with Erillion's initial comment, I actually thought "Oh great, we can have a normal discussion for once" but then when I corrected something he went all doolally. You can't have a fucking conversation with people when they start denying the very things they just said, it's gaslighting.

frostymug

rpmcmurphy said:

MaxBacon said:

This pretty much shows how this bait threads are just to give some posters the opportunity to grind their axes against specific other posters.

This is why the discussion get so nitpicky and petty because the objective is trying to corner someone so they can "transpire superiority". It's kinda weird but it's how this place works now 

Complete bullshit, you are totally making things up to portray yourselves as victims and claiming there is some sort of conspiracy against you.... It is complete and utter delusion.

What you are essentially saying is that if 2 people have a normal conversation and then 1 disagrees with the other it means they were out to bait them from the start. Which is just so much paranoia.

I completetly agreed with Erillion's initial comment, I actually thought "Oh great, we can have a normal discussion for once" but then when I corrected something he went all doolally. You can't have a fucking conversation with people when they start denying the very things they just said, it's gaslighting.

Adding doolally to the list of words I need to use more often.

Octagon7711

I always thought it strange to have back orders that run so long in a game after a purchase, it's got to be a world record in gaming.