Wasn't 3.0 supposed to go live last year? 'Cos well, if all they have now is the schedule for it, what was done about 3.0 all this time?
Yes, they planned it to go live in 2016.
They've been trying to reach live status all the time. The problem is that either they really suck at estimating the work needed, or they really suck at completing that work. I hope it's the former and not the latter.
Or they ran into some problems ... which incidently they DID communicate to everyone that wanted to listen. That caused the delay.
Their biggest bones to chew at the moment are the NSC AI and network performance.
More detailed information can be found in the monthly studio reports.
I think we're talking about the same thing. They ran into problems with NSC AI and network performance because they had either failed to estimate the work needed, or failed to complete that work.
They've failed so often and so hard that it's not normal problems with this kind of game development. It's because someone responsible for running the project sucks.
Some of the bits interesting to me that are more set to change how stuff plays on the PU is the higher level of persistence.
The first iteration of insurance on 3.0 should already drive more play loop, especially if replacements take some time to be given. Then things as persistent damage, ammo, and missiles between game sessions also help to add more consequence and make peeps play it more seriously.
Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content
...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.
No need to go through this again.
To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.
To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.
This thread shows exactly CIG's communication improvement on this. By openly reporting the next update production reports now on a weekly basis instead of giving random dates at game conferences and then silence. Now we know what to expect, how it is progressing, when/if it delays and when to expect it.
To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.
You can't stop anyone from filling the gaps with wishfull/ill thinking.
Blind praise is as annoying and rigid as constant bashing on the game....
Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums. You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...
Indeed the rest is just my opinion about it which if you actually hang in the CIG FORUMS you would know many many many people are not happy about the change.
Some people, like Third, had to complain a whole bunch just to get more "boards" added like the hardware and simpit section.
A few threads showing what I mean about Recktum not being universally loved:
Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums. You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...
Have fun!
Many salts...
You remind me of those people that when Youtube/Facebook/Twitter change anything on your layout they come out as a mob of angry people, some time after it's like it never happened. Some people just don't like changes lol
Indeed and the salt was a couple people here not liking that I don't like Recktum, I never said my dislike was some universal truth.
There are people who are bound to dislike it, the same way some hate Discord, and others hate forums like this.
I think it's too much over something superficial, Spectrum functionality is good, from the feedback I've read the issues are rather minor, mostly about the layout, organization, and quality of life improvements.
Allowing stronger user customization of the app would be the best bet I'd say.
Gdemami said:...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.
No need to go through this again.
Not at all. Here's a transcript of what he said at Gamescom
So it's our big end of the year release. So err you know, we're going to get it out end of the year...hopefully not on December 19th but like last year, but it is a big one so you know, so we're not making... I get shot for making promises but that's our goal.
If you want to hear him say it yourself then skip to 24 minutes 14 seconds.
Gdemami said:...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.
No need to go through this again.
Not at all. Here's a transcript of what he said at Gamescom
So it's our big end of the year release. So err you know, we're going to get it out end of the year...hopefully not on December 19th but like last year, but it is a big one so you know, so we're not making... I get shot for making promises but that's our goal.
If you want to hear him say it yourself then skip to 24 minutes 14 seconds.
You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?
You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?
Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated is wasn't a literal promise?
Here's what I originally said
"Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be
coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content and that they
didn't want a repeat of 2015 where they were working to the last mnute
to push the patch out. So it wasn't literally promised but the wording and context implied it was as good as promised."
I notice everything they work on is first stated as being tentative, which gives instant deniability. They stated the game won't be complete at launch and may only have minimum features. The only thing which has a set date is S42 year of launch which has been moved back for the last three years.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I notice everything they work on is first stated as being tentative, which gives instant deniability. They stated the game won't be complete at launch and may only have minimum features. The only thing which has a set date is S42 year of launch which has been moved back for the last three years.
We all know why though... if they don't add the disclaimer at this point, some people will crucify them in the case of failure (feature didn't make it to the release, delays, etc...), they did learn that the hard way.
I don't see that as a bad thing, especially when it comes to share internal schedules that by nature rely on the prediction of how much time will something take to create.
Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.
This does not indicate how close or far the release is. Before release, the Alpha will turn into beta, so we might have like now Alpha 1/2/3 and then Beta 1/2/3, until release that will be the proper "1.0".
As for how the final game looks like, once 3.0 and a few professions are around would be the moment to try out the game as it would have some extent of the gameplay loop the game was always described as, the AI/Missions driving the game-world and its economy.
Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.
It's not decided yet. The features of patches aren't locked down, but rather they move things up and down between future patches based on how they progress, and what they feel is best to include in next patch.
Also it's likely that full release will be determined by whenever they need to get the money made by full release in order to continue funding their studio, rather than by how far along they're making the game.
In that situation there's no meaningful way to tell which X.X version of the game will be full release.
This is pretty much the only schedule I would need from alpha to launch.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This is pretty much the only schedule I would need from alpha to launch.
That would be just fine for a small project.
There's just no way they could do something that simple and straight forward on the scale and complexity of a game like this. Not on the long-term prediction.
Those who did have one thing in common, the long-term reality vs the long-term schedule were two different things, and this is why delays swarm the industry from small indies to AAA titles.
Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.
I'd say at this rate.....about 2036. Give or take a decade or two.
Think whatever chart they show you guys would find a problem with it. It's too little info, it's too much info, it doesn't show the exact length in time they went to the toilet for, they must be hiding something.
Too linear and too much accountability. Needs more colors, words, lines and vagueness so cult members can fill in the blanks.
First, the whining is "no open development they don't share things!"
Now they did open up their production internals for 3.0 and a year of development scheduled on Core tech, FPS, Gameplay, AI, UI, Graphics, Weapons, Ships, Environments and backend services... Let's whine about that as well!
Comments
No need to go through this again.
I think we're talking about the same thing. They ran into problems with NSC AI and network performance because they had either failed to estimate the work needed, or failed to complete that work.
They've failed so often and so hard that it's not normal problems with this kind of game development. It's because someone responsible for running the project sucks.
The first iteration of insurance on 3.0 should already drive more play loop, especially if replacements take some time to be given. Then things as persistent damage, ammo, and missiles between game sessions also help to add more consequence and make peeps play it more seriously.
To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.
You can't stop anyone from filling the gaps with wishfull/ill thinking.
Blind praise is as annoying and rigid as constant bashing on the game....
Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums. You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...
Indeed the rest is just my opinion about it which if you actually hang in the CIG FORUMS you would know many many many people are not happy about the change.
Some people, like Third, had to complain a whole bunch just to get more "boards" added like the hardware and simpit section.
A few threads showing what I mean about Recktum not being universally loved:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/what-is-this
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/5/thread/this-is-crap
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/5/thread/spectrum-is-disorganized-incentivises-garbage-chat
Have fun!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You remind me of those people that when Youtube/Facebook/Twitter change anything on your layout they come out as a mob of angry people, some time after it's like it never happened. Some people just don't like changes lol
Indeed and the salt was a couple people here not liking that I don't like Recktum, I never said my dislike was some universal truth.
I will repeat again for the really slow slow chaps, the forums was replaced by Recktum that is a fact, and the only one in my post.
The rest was simply my opinion and I never claimed otherwise so you and Errillion need to stop crying.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I think it's too much over something superficial, Spectrum functionality is good, from the feedback I've read the issues are rather minor, mostly about the layout, organization, and quality of life improvements.
Allowing stronger user customization of the app would be the best bet I'd say.
Not at all. Here's a transcript of what he said at Gamescom
If you want to hear him say it yourself then skip to 24 minutes 14 seconds.
You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?
Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated is wasn't a literal promise?
Here's what I originally said
"Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be
coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content and that they
didn't want a repeat of 2015 where they were working to the last mnute
to push the patch out.
So it wasn't literally promised but the wording and context implied it was as good as promised."
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I don't see that as a bad thing, especially when it comes to share internal schedules that by nature rely on the prediction of how much time will something take to create.
As for how the final game looks like, once 3.0 and a few professions are around would be the moment to try out the game as it would have some extent of the gameplay loop the game was always described as, the AI/Missions driving the game-world and its economy.
It's not decided yet. The features of patches aren't locked down, but rather they move things up and down between future patches based on how they progress, and what they feel is best to include in next patch.
Also it's likely that full release will be determined by whenever they need to get the money made by full release in order to continue funding their studio, rather than by how far along they're making the game.
In that situation there's no meaningful way to tell which X.X version of the game will be full release.
How many new ship sales did it take for this to happen?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
There's just no way they could do something that simple and straight forward on the scale and complexity of a game like this. Not on the long-term prediction.
Those who did have one thing in common, the long-term reality vs the long-term schedule were two different things, and this is why delays swarm the industry from small indies to AAA titles.
Too linear and too much accountability. Needs more colors, words, lines and vagueness so cult members can fill in the blanks.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd say at this rate.....about 2036. Give or take a decade or two.
The cycle goes on I guess
Now they did open up their production internals for 3.0 and a year of development scheduled on Core tech, FPS, Gameplay, AI, UI, Graphics, Weapons, Ships, Environments and backend services... Let's whine about that as well!
.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯