Kefo said: If it ends up in the backers hands then I'll be more then happy. As it stands right now though CIG and big publishers have a tendency to show off things that might not make it in game at all.
You take the schedule report with a grain of salt. Follow it and hope for the best but don't expect it to reflect what you will get your hands on, if you do though then awesome! Some confidence in CIG restored.
My point has always been that until backers can play what they are promising then don't always believe what is being told to you.
Why would you think my narrative is one sided? I can't help it CIG painted themselves into a corner multiple times and now they get to live with the consequences of their actions.
It's one thing when things that may or may not be, things on design, planning or heavy in dev stages.
It's unreasonable to apply the same logic to everything when it's clear as the example given is already completed (the schedule confirms it) and undergoing bug-fixing (as such shown).
One can't reasonably take such as "oh it's just a shiny video not progress".
The schedule is just a plain list of what is to be done and its status, no reason to take the anything else but its estimates with a grain of salt, what is completed is also backed up by what ATV's do show, it doesn't require any big conspiracy implying ill intent on everything and anything they do.
I'm not implying a conspiracy but that I don't trust most game devs to deliver on all of their promises. When it gets in game then I'll believe it's real but until then it can be cut, reworked, pushed back, or any other manner of scenarios that prevent it from going live.
Also their schedule is constantly delayed so using it as proof something is coming is not exactly the smartest thing to do. I've followed your schedule tracker post and a few times things have been marked as completed but then went back to in progress if I am remembering correctly.
I'm not implying a conspiracy but that I don't trust most game devs to deliver on all of their promises. When it gets in game then I'll believe it's real but until then it can be cut, reworked, pushed back, or any other manner of scenarios that prevent it from going live.
Also their schedule is constantly delayed so using it as proof something is coming is not exactly the smartest thing to do. I've followed your schedule tracker post and a few times things have been marked as completed but then went back to in progress if I am remembering correctly.
That happens even to the released alpha, it already did, it's part of the development process as things completed in schedule can be revisited if they do want to change or add stuff to it.
The schedule is pretty transparent about delays, so it is about its caveats, it also did put under Stretch Goals what is at risk of not making it to the release, as it happened to network culling early on.
I'm not implying a conspiracy but that I don't trust most game devs to deliver on all of their promises. When it gets in game then I'll believe it's real but until then it can be cut, reworked, pushed back, or any other manner of scenarios that prevent it from going live.
Also their schedule is constantly delayed so using it as proof something is coming is not exactly the smartest thing to do. I've followed your schedule tracker post and a few times things have been marked as completed but then went back to in progress if I am remembering correctly.
That happens even to the released alpha, it already did, it's part of the development process as things completed in schedule can be revisited if they do want to change or add stuff to it.
The schedule is pretty transparent about delays, so it is about its caveats, it also did put under Stretch Goals what is at risk of not making it to the release, as it happened to network culling early on.
Which is why I keep saying until it's in the game then I'll have a hard time believing that it's coming
Not
sure why you brought up DS unless it's been too long since someone
referenced him in a strawman argument and so you had to make your quota.
Ok
so you only want to talk about the rainbows and unicorn farts because
things like a loan where all assets are promised to a bank if they
default (that should have been told directly to the backer community
instead of them learning about it through other sources) is considered a
non issue to you and just ignored.
Im not sure where you get the
idea I want the project to fail. If it fails I will be here laughing
hysterically at the nerd rage that will flood most forums but if it
succeeds and is everything it was promised to be then I will be happy
fans got the game they were promised.
So if us haters are wasting
our most precious commodity, time, as you say by posting stuff that
will have no impact on the development of the game does that mean you're
even worse off then us since you're posting about the haters posting
about a game? Man I hope you don't get too depressed.
Lol
despicable attitude. You might want to take a look at your own actions
as well if you want haters to apologize for the horrible things we post
about a game that apparently doesn't affect the devs at all but you just
attack the posters.
Maybe tomorrow rational Bab will be back and we can go back to decent conversation s
We still can have a good back and forth, me being a proud
Star Citizen backer, player, supporter and interested gamer while
thinking of you as a hater or negative cynic is nothing new or
unfounded. On the contrary, every time you post you just reiterate that
negative towards Star Citizen and it's development.
What you
catalog as "rainbow and unicorn farts" is simple Star Citizen game
updates, news and discussion around it. This is what happens in every
single game thread in this forum.
If you don't like to follow
games in development or don't have the patience to wait for the game to
release why spend to much time posting about it? And why Star Citizen
from all the other games anyway?
Yes Star Citizen is a game in
open development and has gotten a lot of exposure and money because of
their ambition and huge scope. But why does it seem you feel the need to
attack it specifically when there's plenty of other games in
development who amassed plenty of money, plenty of other games that are
delayed, changed scope, cancelled features and so on.
Why is Star
Citizen the target for such dedicated emotional fixation from people
that never played it, don't like the way it's being developed or the way
it's business model is being managed?
That's what's intriguing in all of this back and forth from all the things lol
Because,
for Star Citizen supporters, asking why we are here or in any other
forum, so engaged in Star Citizen from following it's development to
discussing it the answer is simple:
As backers, players and
supporters for years. We like what we see week in week out. We love the
passion of the developers, We love their ambition, We love the way they
connect with the community and thrive for a bigger and better game no
holds barred, we understand how groundbreaking the game is
To
any gamer discussing a game is just an extension of loving to play it
and support it. This is completely normal behaviour and can be found in
any game forum thread across the internet.
That some are so
emotionally attached to something they don't like is intriguing but also telling considering the past event's. And sure it's a
depressive and negative attitude that will lead to more and more
depression as Star Citizen keeps on getting more and more impressive.
Ofc saying
sorry is not an option in the internet, or it will not make amend, people will just lick their wounds and
eventually move on once they understand how wrong they were all along.
Maybe in a couple of years look back and notice that maybe all that time wasted being negative about a game was a waste of their life. For what?
internet lulz lol? There's absolutely no winning for haters, not in gaming or in life in general.
Meanwhile Star Citizen backers happily play,
support and discuss their dream game while other's wait for the endless
90 day's extinction lol
No matter what, there's fun to be had that's for sure , maybe that's the point lol
Not
sure why you brought up DS unless it's been too long since someone
referenced him in a strawman argument and so you had to make your quota.
Ok
so you only want to talk about the rainbows and unicorn farts because
things like a loan where all assets are promised to a bank if they
default (that should have been told directly to the backer community
instead of them learning about it through other sources) is considered a
non issue to you and just ignored.
Im not sure where you get the
idea I want the project to fail. If it fails I will be here laughing
hysterically at the nerd rage that will flood most forums but if it
succeeds and is everything it was promised to be then I will be happy
fans got the game they were promised.
So if us haters are wasting
our most precious commodity, time, as you say by posting stuff that
will have no impact on the development of the game does that mean you're
even worse off then us since you're posting about the haters posting
about a game? Man I hope you don't get too depressed.
Lol
despicable attitude. You might want to take a look at your own actions
as well if you want haters to apologize for the horrible things we post
about a game that apparently doesn't affect the devs at all but you just
attack the posters.
Maybe tomorrow rational Bab will be back and we can go back to decent conversation s
We still can have a good back and forth, me being a proud
Star Citizen backer, player, supporter and interested gamer while
thinking of you as a hater or negative cynic is nothing new or
unfounded. On the contrary, every time you post you just reiterate that
negative towards Star Citizen and it's development.
What you
catalog as "rainbow and unicorn farts" is simple Star Citizen game
updates, news and discussion around it. This is what happens in every
single game thread in this forum.
If you don't like to follow
games in development or don't have the patience to wait for the game to
release why spend to much time posting about it? And why Star Citizen
from all the other games anyway?
Yes Star Citizen is a game in
open development and has gotten a lot of exposure and money because of
their ambition and huge scope. But why does it seem you feel the need to
attack it specifically when there's plenty of other games in
development who amassed plenty of money, plenty of other games that are
delayed, changed scope, cancelled features and so on.
Why is Star
Citizen the target for such dedicated emotional fixation from people
that never played it, don't like the way it's being developed or the way
it's business model is being managed?
That's what's intriguing in all of this back and forth from all the things lol
Because,
for Star Citizen supporters, asking why we are here or in any other
forum, so engaged in Star Citizen from following it's development to
discussing it the answer is simple:
As backers, players and
supporters for years. We like what we see week in week out. We love the
passion of the developers, We love their ambition, We love the way they
connect with the community and thrive for a bigger and better game no
holds barred, we understand how groundbreaking the game is
To
any gamer discussing a game is just an extension of loving to play it
and support it. This is completely normal behaviour and can be found in
any game forum thread across the internet.
That some are so
emotionally attached to something they don't like is intriguing but also telling considering the past event's. And sure it's a
depressive and negative attitude that will lead to more and more
depression as Star Citizen keeps on getting more and more impressive.
Ofc saying
sorry is not an option in the internet, or it will not make amend, people will just lick their wounds and
eventually move on once they understand how wrong they were all along.
Maybe in a couple of years look back and notice that maybe all that time wasted being negative about a game was a waste of their life. For what?
internet lulz lol? There's absolutely no winning for haters, not in gaming or in life in general.
Meanwhile Star Citizen backers happily play,
support and discuss their dream game while other's wait for the endless
90 day's extinction lol
No matter what, there's fun to be had that's for sure , maybe that's the point lol
To Be Continued.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
Not
sure why you brought up DS unless it's been too long since someone
referenced him in a strawman argument and so you had to make your quota.
Ok
so you only want to talk about the rainbows and unicorn farts because
things like a loan where all assets are promised to a bank if they
default (that should have been told directly to the backer community
instead of them learning about it through other sources) is considered a
non issue to you and just ignored.
Im not sure where you get the
idea I want the project to fail. If it fails I will be here laughing
hysterically at the nerd rage that will flood most forums but if it
succeeds and is everything it was promised to be then I will be happy
fans got the game they were promised.
So if us haters are wasting
our most precious commodity, time, as you say by posting stuff that
will have no impact on the development of the game does that mean you're
even worse off then us since you're posting about the haters posting
about a game? Man I hope you don't get too depressed.
Lol
despicable attitude. You might want to take a look at your own actions
as well if you want haters to apologize for the horrible things we post
about a game that apparently doesn't affect the devs at all but you just
attack the posters.
Maybe tomorrow rational Bab will be back and we can go back to decent conversation s
We still can have a good back and forth, me being a proud
Star Citizen backer, player, supporter and interested gamer while
thinking of you as a hater or negative cynic is nothing new or
unfounded. On the contrary, every time you post you just reiterate that
negative towards Star Citizen and it's development.
What you
catalog as "rainbow and unicorn farts" is simple Star Citizen game
updates, news and discussion around it. This is what happens in every
single game thread in this forum.
If you don't like to follow
games in development or don't have the patience to wait for the game to
release why spend to much time posting about it? And why Star Citizen
from all the other games anyway?
Yes Star Citizen is a game in
open development and has gotten a lot of exposure and money because of
their ambition and huge scope. But why does it seem you feel the need to
attack it specifically when there's plenty of other games in
development who amassed plenty of money, plenty of other games that are
delayed, changed scope, cancelled features and so on.
Why is Star
Citizen the target for such dedicated emotional fixation from people
that never played it, don't like the way it's being developed or the way
it's business model is being managed?
That's what's intriguing in all of this back and forth from all the things lol
Because,
for Star Citizen supporters, asking why we are here or in any other
forum, so engaged in Star Citizen from following it's development to
discussing it the answer is simple:
As backers, players and
supporters for years. We like what we see week in week out. We love the
passion of the developers, We love their ambition, We love the way they
connect with the community and thrive for a bigger and better game no
holds barred, we understand how groundbreaking the game is
To
any gamer discussing a game is just an extension of loving to play it
and support it. This is completely normal behaviour and can be found in
any game forum thread across the internet.
That some are so
emotionally attached to something they don't like is intriguing but also telling considering the past event's. And sure it's a
depressive and negative attitude that will lead to more and more
depression as Star Citizen keeps on getting more and more impressive.
Ofc saying
sorry is not an option in the internet, or it will not make amend, people will just lick their wounds and
eventually move on once they understand how wrong they were all along.
Maybe in a couple of years look back and notice that maybe all that time wasted being negative about a game was a waste of their life. For what?
internet lulz lol? There's absolutely no winning for haters, not in gaming or in life in general.
Meanwhile Star Citizen backers happily play,
support and discuss their dream game while other's wait for the endless
90 day's extinction lol
No matter what, there's fun to be had that's for sure , maybe that's the point lol
Dammit you're throwing me off with these well written posts. It kinda fell apart at the end there but the first half I liked lol.
I don't know why you would think you that I don't have the patience to wait for games but still post about SC. I wait for games all the time so little confused on this point.
Im not attacking SC, I'm criticizing it and the way that CR has run the company. That and his past makes me very wary of anything he tries to put out especially with no accountability. I have criticized other games in the past just not on this forum. Plenty of other forums out there
It's also completely normal to be critical of any game. The backers might love it and everything it does but why does that make you all normal while the people who criticize it are depressive and emotional people? If you aren't being critical of something and asking the proper questions then you are have a very good chance of being taken advantage of. Some of us are more critical of others but hey that's the beauty of a public forum.
Ill stop here since the rest of your post kinda descends into ranting and thinly veiled insults while using DS as a strawman again.
But that's the point: you aren't being critical, constructive or even asking "proper" questions lol
You just come off as obtuse as an ign comments section.
You seem to lack basic understanding of how crowdfunding works, how games develop, how cig operates, the essence of what makes Star Citizen special while constinuosly spluring out reashed goon babble lol
Maybe it's just the "playing dumb" thing but its getting kinda repetitive lol
Thank god it's thursday and we have a fresh ATV coming by the end of the day with news and updates
But that's the point: you aren't being critical, constructive or even asking "proper" questions lol
You just come off as obtuse as an ign comments section.
You seem to lack basic understanding of how crowdfunding works, how games develop, how cig operates, the essence of what makes Star Citizen special while constinuosly spluring out reashed goon babble lol
Maybe it's just the "playing dumb" thing but its getting kinda repetitive lol
Thank god it's thursday and we have a fresh ATV coming by the end of the day with news and updates
I am being critical actually by asking why wasn't the loan made public to backers instead of them learning through a 3rd party? Or why is it CIG says Star Marine is weeks not months away and then it shows up over a year later? A lot of this is what CIG is saying to the backers so you can't really blame me or say its rehashed goon babble when its coming directly from the fingers of CIG and they are caught with their pants down months or years later.
Lol I have a very good understanding how crowdfunding works, I just don't like the way CIG does it. I don't know how games develop since I'm not a game developer and I've stated this multiple times but perhaps CR needs to have that conversation as well since I'm not sure he knows what hes doing in this day and age either. I'm dying to know what the essence is that makes SC special.
If I'm repetitive I'm not sure how to describe you since you just go on the offensive and like to attack people for posting their opinions over and over again.
MaxBacon said: I think you are blowing things out of proportion dramatization to defend a rather extreme standing... I think this is more damage control because CIG is in vias of releasing the biggest update yet hence you need a way to dismiss everything they show as upcoming features.
If, as backers of SC, you keep talking about proposed features as though they are actual, complete, in game features, that is no good for anyone.
If CIG show a video of a feature being worked on, it is just that, a feature being worked on.
You cannot really count that as progress of the game, until you actually see it and experience it in the game.
For example, just look at the video from CitizenCon 2014 that @Kefo linked earlier in this thread. That was a PU Demo that also showed a planetary landing, which is now totally obsolete because they changed how that works. Anything and everything they show at this stage, is subject to change, or removal.
Do you want SC to end up like NMS?
They talked about some features for that game, people were expecting those features, but did not get them.
How well was that received?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
When I point out that they still cant have many players in, you point to 3.0.
When i say, ok, then when 3.0 is here we can take a look at their tech and judge them. Then you say we cannot, as 3.0 is just the first step.
So which is it: Is 3.0 when we can start talking about how they are doing, or is that going to be always "after the next patch" with you guys?
Because you are talking of player pops, then you are not talking of what 3.0 is about but what's after, to judge what they achieve in the network front we quite need to wait the tech and features related to it under-dev are finally released, until then it's this placeholder solution.
Was talking specifically to network not to the rest of tech and features of this next update.
Hey, you where the one who said that with 3.0 all the base tech would be in place, and thus the project as a whole much closer to final state and certainly not only 15-25% done.
So if it is really that finished, how come we can never judge anything "in its current state"? It is simply too convinient that you guys always pull a "oh thats going to be better later".
So, in 3.0, what is finished enough that we can actually start to talk about it? Not networking then. Planetary stuff? Station stuff? Balance? Ship handling? What?
Yes Star Citizen is a game in
open development and has gotten a lot of exposure and money because of
their ambition and huge scope. But why does it seem you feel the need to
attack it specifically when there's plenty of other games in
development who amassed plenty of money, plenty of other games that are
delayed, changed scope, cancelled features and so on Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/446842/star-citizen-development-updates/p30#GRXZ7ev0M7eZE409.99"
Not really anything like SC.. The reason I'm on the fence about it is because I believe you are being hoaxed.. The game might default and will clearly not deliver on it's founders goals ..
I do not endorse that, never will .. Fanboi'ism as justification for a grand scale hoax will not save the game ..
MaxBacon said: I think you are blowing things out of proportion dramatization to defend a rather extreme standing... I think this is more damage control because CIG is in vias of releasing the biggest update yet hence you need a way to dismiss everything they show as upcoming features.
What does this word vias even mean?
Don't know, but considering how their estimation for time before 3.0.0 release has been fluctuating between 3 months and 1 1/2 months since October 2016 when first estimation was released a new word for their situation might be appropriate.
When Star Citizen is late from schedule, fans are always very vocal of how it's a hugely ambitious and technically challenging game and that should be expected.
When it's talk about Star Citizen's features and content, their opinions suddenly change and things are suddenly so close we should count them to be in game already.
Anything and everything they show at this stage, is subject to change, or removal.
Do you want SC to end up like NMS?
They talked about some features for that game, people were expecting those features, but did not get them.
How well was that received?
Again, what I exemplified wasn't a demo, it was a feature already as schedule states complete that are undergoing bug fixing.
Don't go twist was is with what isn't. This isn't talking about features that "will be", it's features that are already completed for the 3.0 build of the game.
Things are subject to change even after they are released, that doesn't justify dismiss the entire alpha, standing by such logic for me is nothing but one-sided bias.
Hey, you where the one who said that with 3.0 all the base tech would be in place, and thus the project as a whole much closer to final state and certainly not only 15-25% done.
So if it is really that finished, how come we can never judge anything "in its current state"? It is simply too convinient that you guys always pull a "oh thats going to be better later".
So, in 3.0, what is finished enough that we can actually start to talk about it? Not networking then. Planetary stuff? Station stuff? Balance? Ship handling? What?
I didn't.
I said 3.0 is heavy in tech, and it IS as it clearly shows, but as you can clearly see by the schedule:
Tech is already scheduled up to 3.2, and the global schedule up to 2018. So as you see especially the object containers, the serialized variables, the network bind/unbind, the network writes, are all part of the necessary network bits go up to next year already. You can judge 3.0's network if you want, but you will be judging the same placeholder network the alpha already runs on as not much changed for this next update. So if we're to talk about 3.0 we might want to talk about the things that are actually releasing with it.
Anything and everything they show at this stage, is subject to change, or removal.
Do you want SC to end up like NMS?
They talked about some features for that game, people were expecting those features, but did not get them.
How well was that received?
Again, what I exemplified wasn't a demo, it was a feature already as schedule states complete that are undergoing bug fixing.
Don't go twist was is with what isn't. This isn't talking about features that "will be", it's features that are already completed for the 3.0 build of the game.
Things are subject to change even after they are released, that doesn't justify dismiss the entire alpha, standing by such logic for me is nothing but one-sided bias.
I was not referring to any one thing specifically, but to the way SC features are talked about in general by certain backers.
But since you went there, ok, you say you are talking about a feature that is complete for 3.0, but since 3.0 is not released yet, and is still being worked on, how do you know that any of the features that are supposed to be in 3.0 are complete? or that they will actually be part of 3.0?
Lots of things could change between now, and the release of 3.0.
All you really know is that CIG have shown some video's of what they are doing just now.
All you really have is what is playable right now, and a future development schedule that is not written in stone, and a feature list, that is also not written in stone.
When it suit's your narrative, you do not mind playing the "it is alpha, things change" card, but for some reason you take umbrage to me using it, and claim one sided bias.
All I am pointing out is that if you change the way you discuss the development of SC, those of us that are sceptical might not have such an issue with what you say.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
But since you went there, ok, you say you are talking about a feature that is complete for 3.0, but since 3.0 is not released yet, and is still being worked on, how do you know that any of the features that are supposed to be in 3.0 are complete? or that they will actually be part of 3.0?
And I am referring to the schedule, much of what was talked in features for 3.0 that are indeed marked with their own status in the schedule, most as complete, the rest in progress.
That is how, or you man up and state the schedule is a lie so you can stand that the progress and the completion of features for 3.0 are not real, or you don't.
I don't need to change how I talk about the development because I understand game development, I'm not going to throw doubt that features already completed and shown may be cut from the game because that's what you want to hear, by implying likeness that features already implemented and undergoing bug-fixing are going to be cut, it's just looking out for one easy way to dismiss everything.
But since you went there, ok, you say you are talking about a feature that is complete for 3.0, but since 3.0 is not released yet, and is still being worked on, how do you know that any of the features that are supposed to be in 3.0 are complete? or that they will actually be part of 3.0?
And I am referring to the schedule, much of what was talked in features for 3.0 that are indeed marked with their own status in the schedule, most as complete, the rest in progress.
That is how, or you man up and state the schedule is a lie so you can stand that the progress and the completion of features for 3.0 are not real, or you don't.
I don't need to change how I talk about the development because I understand game development, I'm not going to throw doubt that features already completed and shown may be cut from the game because that's what you want to hear, like a feature already implemented and undergoing bug-fixing is going to be cut from the game...
No need to man up and claim the schedule is a lie, it is what it is, just a schedule, and subject to change.
Read it, it contains the word estimates a few times.
So, according to you, they are not going to remove features that have already been implemented?
Also, until 3.0 is released, for backers to play around with, nothing about it is implemented.
What happened to planetary landings? that is a feature that was implemented, and used in a PU Demo video back in 2014, you know the one, it has already been discussed in this thread, you have commented on it.
Well, that feature no longer exists, it was removed, and replaced with a different planetary landing feature, according to you.
Contradict yourself much?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
No need to man up and claim the schedule is a lie, it is what it is, just a schedule, and subject to change.
Read it, it contains the word estimates a few times.
So, according to you, they are not going to remove features that have already been implemented?
What happened to planetary landings? that is a feature that was implemented, and used in a PU Demo video back in 2014, you know the one, it has already been discussed in this thread, you have commented on it.
Well, that feature no longer exists, it was removed, and replaced with a different planetary landing feature, according to you.
Contradict yourself much?
I'm not talking about dates, either demos of future features that weren't part of any specific release or shared production reports as they now do.
This is a schedule for the 3.0 build update, as the 2.6 before proven, the schedules are pretty transparent, the main features that moved out of 2.6 were the Stretch Goals for the release, the MegaMap, and the network variables (except bind culling) were the bigger points of 2.6.1 and 2.6.2.
Schedules are already the proper work being made for implementation in the build in question, 2.6 didn't have any scheduled feature marked complete that didn't get to release.
As we’re introducing cargo with 3.0.0, players will be able to manually interact with their cargo to load and unload it properly on their ships.
Feature Complete
How is this feature complete?
CARGO
Code Complete. Now supporting bugfixing.
They are still bug fixing cargo, Pick up and Carry deals with cargo, how did they feature complete that, when cargo is not feature complete?
INVENTORY SYSTEM
Very closely linked to the cargo manifest App. This will be the place to look for you personal inventory.
Delayed due to team focusing on this week’s milestone review.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)
CARGO MANIFEST APP
After buying items at a Kiosk, players will be able to head to their ship and check their cargo manifest This incorporates the work that was previously accounted for in the “Cargo UI” task
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)
INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
The inventory will offer a way to manage the cargo and commodities that are being carried by the ships a player owns.
Date will remain connected to the UI team’s progress on the inventory.
ETA is 14th July (was 3rd July)
So these three features are all linked to each other, and to cargo, which is linked to Pick Up and Carry, which is feature complete, but these are not?
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
So these three features are all linked to each other, and to cargo, which is linked to Pick Up and Carry, which is feature complete, but these are not?
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
Yes, from the completion to the bug-fixing that phase goes during dev, to the test phases to beyond release as we all know, different features can relate and depend on each other but they will still be different pieces of code.
Pickup & Carry is the ability to pick, transport and place things that are complete, Cargo doesn't depend on it because it's done by interfaces that bypass that process.
Pickup and Carry seem to be its own mechanic independent of those, the rest will likely be interactivity between systems, say place box inside ship > appears in inventory app (if that's how they're doing it).
But this is still different things, cargo is code complete, then it needs the rest that is the UIs for management and the inventory that shows to be derivated from the same mechanic.
So these three features are all linked to each other, and to cargo, which is linked to Pick Up and Carry, which is feature complete, but these are not?
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
Pickup & Carry is the ability to pick, transport and place things that is complete, Cargo doesn't depend on it because it's done by interfaces.
Pick Up and Carry depends on Cargo, Cargo is not feature complete, they are bug fixing it, but PUaC is feature complete.
While they are trying to bug fix cargo, problems could arise that break or have an adverse effect on PUaC, so how can it be feature complete?
Plus all those other features that are not finished, also tie in with cargo, so while they are working on those, other problems could arise, which again, could cause issues with PUaC.
I just wonder how they fully tested it when other features that tie in with it are not finished.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
This depends on terminology. Feature Complete generally means that they are not adding anything new to it. However, there is still code churn. There was a reference to Code Complete earlier on in your post. That's more likely a reference to something where there is zero code churn or churn is limited to higher-priority or game-breaking bugs.
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
This depends on terminology. Feature Complete generally means that they are not adding anything new to it. However, there is still code churn. There was a reference to Code Complete earlier on in your post. That's more likely a reference to something where there is zero code churn or churn is limited to higher-priority or game-breaking bugs.
Ok, I understand what you are saying, but I was under the impression that they were using the term feature complete in the schedule to mean that the feature itself needed no more work, and was ready to be implemented.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
My earlier comment wasn't meant personally for you. But rather to what's been discussed during last 7 or so pages. I think I made a bad choice quoting that post at all. Sorry.
Comments
Also their schedule is constantly delayed so using it as proof something is coming is not exactly the smartest thing to do. I've followed your schedule tracker post and a few times things have been marked as completed but then went back to in progress if I am remembering correctly.
The schedule is pretty transparent about delays, so it is about its caveats, it also did put under Stretch Goals what is at risk of not making it to the release, as it happened to network culling early on.
What you catalog as "rainbow and unicorn farts" is simple Star Citizen game updates, news and discussion around it. This is what happens in every single game thread in this forum.
If you don't like to follow games in development or don't have the patience to wait for the game to release why spend to much time posting about it? And why Star Citizen from all the other games anyway?
Yes Star Citizen is a game in open development and has gotten a lot of exposure and money because of their ambition and huge scope. But why does it seem you feel the need to attack it specifically when there's plenty of other games in development who amassed plenty of money, plenty of other games that are delayed, changed scope, cancelled features and so on.
Why is Star Citizen the target for such dedicated emotional fixation from people that never played it, don't like the way it's being developed or the way it's business model is being managed?
That's what's intriguing in all of this back and forth from all the things lol
Because, for Star Citizen supporters, asking why we are here or in any other forum, so engaged in Star Citizen from following it's development to discussing it the answer is simple:
As backers, players and supporters for years. We like what we see week in week out. We love the passion of the developers, We love their ambition, We love the way they connect with the community and thrive for a bigger and better game no holds barred, we understand how groundbreaking the game is
To any gamer discussing a game is just an extension of loving to play it and support it. This is completely normal behaviour and can be found in any game forum thread across the internet.
That some are so emotionally attached to something they don't like is intriguing but also telling considering the past event's. And sure it's a depressive and negative attitude that will lead to more and more depression as Star Citizen keeps on getting more and more impressive.
Ofc saying sorry is not an option in the internet, or it will not make amend, people will just lick their wounds and eventually move on once they understand how wrong they were all along.
Maybe in a couple of years look back and notice that maybe all that time wasted being negative about a game was a waste of their life. For what? internet lulz lol? There's absolutely no winning for haters, not in gaming or in life in general.
Meanwhile Star Citizen backers happily play, support and discuss their dream game while other's wait for the endless 90 day's extinction lol
No matter what, there's fun to be had that's for sure , maybe that's the point lol
To Be Continued.
MAGA
I don't know why you would think you that I don't have the patience to wait for games but still post about SC. I wait for games all the time so little confused on this point.
Im not attacking SC, I'm criticizing it and the way that CR has run the company. That and his past makes me very wary of anything he tries to put out especially with no accountability. I have criticized other games in the past just not on this forum. Plenty of other forums out there
It's also completely normal to be critical of any game. The backers might love it and everything it does but why does that make you all normal while the people who criticize it are depressive and emotional people? If you aren't being critical of something and asking the proper questions then you are have a very good chance of being taken advantage of. Some of us are more critical of others but hey that's the beauty of a public forum.
Ill stop here since the rest of your post kinda descends into ranting and thinly veiled insults while using DS as a strawman again.
You just come off as obtuse as an ign comments section.
You seem to lack basic understanding of how crowdfunding works, how games develop, how cig operates, the essence of what makes Star Citizen special while constinuosly spluring out reashed goon babble lol
Maybe it's just the "playing dumb" thing but its getting kinda repetitive lol
Thank god it's thursday and we have a fresh ATV coming by the end of the day with news and updates
https://mobile.twitter.com/RobertsSpaceInd/status/885264286112772096/video/1
I am being critical actually by asking why wasn't the loan made public to backers instead of them learning through a 3rd party? Or why is it CIG says Star Marine is weeks not months away and then it shows up over a year later? A lot of this is what CIG is saying to the backers so you can't really blame me or say its rehashed goon babble when its coming directly from the fingers of CIG and they are caught with their pants down months or years later.
Lol I have a very good understanding how crowdfunding works, I just don't like the way CIG does it. I don't know how games develop since I'm not a game developer and I've stated this multiple times but perhaps CR needs to have that conversation as well since I'm not sure he knows what hes doing in this day and age either. I'm dying to know what the essence is that makes SC special.
If I'm repetitive I'm not sure how to describe you since you just go on the offensive and like to attack people for posting their opinions over and over again.
I tend to agree with @Kefo.
If, as backers of SC, you keep talking about proposed features as though they are actual, complete, in game features, that is no good for anyone.
If CIG show a video of a feature being worked on, it is just that, a feature being worked on.
You cannot really count that as progress of the game, until you actually see it and experience it in the game.
For example, just look at the video from CitizenCon 2014 that @Kefo linked earlier in this thread.
That was a PU Demo that also showed a planetary landing, which is now totally obsolete because they changed how that works.
Anything and everything they show at this stage, is subject to change, or removal.
Do you want SC to end up like NMS?
They talked about some features for that game, people were expecting those features, but did not get them.
How well was that received?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
So if it is really that finished, how come we can never judge anything "in its current state"? It is simply too convinient that you guys always pull a "oh thats going to be better later".
So, in 3.0, what is finished enough that we can actually start to talk about it? Not networking then. Planetary stuff? Station stuff? Balance? Ship handling? What?
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/446842/star-citizen-development-updates/p30#GRXZ7ev0M7eZE409.99"
Not really anything like SC.. The reason I'm on the fence about it is because I believe you are being hoaxed.. The game might default and will clearly not deliver on it's founders goals ..
I do not endorse that, never will .. Fanboi'ism as justification for a grand scale hoax will not save the game ..
When Star Citizen is late from schedule, fans are always very vocal of how it's a hugely ambitious and technically challenging game and that should be expected.
When it's talk about Star Citizen's features and content, their opinions suddenly change and things are suddenly so close we should count them to be in game already.
Don't go twist was is with what isn't. This isn't talking about features that "will be", it's features that are already completed for the 3.0 build of the game.
Things are subject to change even after they are released, that doesn't justify dismiss the entire alpha, standing by such logic for me is nothing but one-sided bias.
I said 3.0 is heavy in tech, and it IS as it clearly shows, but as you can clearly see by the schedule:
Tech is already scheduled up to 3.2, and the global schedule up to 2018. So as you see especially the object containers, the serialized variables, the network bind/unbind, the network writes, are all part of the necessary network bits go up to next year already. You can judge 3.0's network if you want, but you will be judging the same placeholder network the alpha already runs on as not much changed for this next update. So if we're to talk about 3.0 we might want to talk about the things that are actually releasing with it.
But since you went there, ok, you say you are talking about a feature that is complete for 3.0, but since 3.0 is not released yet, and is still being worked on, how do you know that any of the features that are supposed to be in 3.0 are complete? or that they will actually be part of 3.0?
Lots of things could change between now, and the release of 3.0.
All you really know is that CIG have shown some video's of what they are doing just now.
All you really have is what is playable right now, and a future development schedule that is not written in stone, and a feature list, that is also not written in stone.
When it suit's your narrative, you do not mind playing the "it is alpha, things change" card, but for some reason you take umbrage to me using it, and claim one sided bias.
All I am pointing out is that if you change the way you discuss the development of SC, those of us that are sceptical might not have such an issue with what you say.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
That is how, or you man up and state the schedule is a lie so you can stand that the progress and the completion of features for 3.0 are not real, or you don't.
I don't need to change how I talk about the development because I understand game development, I'm not going to throw doubt that features already completed and shown may be cut from the game because that's what you want to hear, by implying likeness that features already implemented and undergoing bug-fixing are going to be cut, it's just looking out for one easy way to dismiss everything.
Read it, it contains the word estimates a few times.
So, according to you, they are not going to remove features that have already been implemented?
Also, until 3.0 is released, for backers to play around with, nothing about it is implemented.
What happened to planetary landings? that is a feature that was implemented, and used in a PU Demo video back in 2014, you know the one, it has already been discussed in this thread, you have commented on it.
Well, that feature no longer exists, it was removed, and replaced with a different planetary landing feature, according to you.
Contradict yourself much?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
This is a schedule for the 3.0 build update, as the 2.6 before proven, the schedules are pretty transparent, the main features that moved out of 2.6 were the Stretch Goals for the release, the MegaMap, and the network variables (except bind culling) were the bigger points of 2.6.1 and 2.6.2.
Schedules are already the proper work being made for implementation in the build in question, 2.6 didn't have any scheduled feature marked complete that didn't get to release.
How is this feature complete?
They are still bug fixing cargo, Pick up and Carry deals with cargo, how did they feature complete that, when cargo is not feature complete?
INVENTORY SYSTEM
INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
So these three features are all linked to each other, and to cargo, which is linked to Pick Up and Carry, which is feature complete, but these are not?
How can PUaC be feature complete when all these other features which are linked to it are not?
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Pickup & Carry is the ability to pick, transport and place things that are complete, Cargo doesn't depend on it because it's done by interfaces that bypass that process.
Pickup and Carry seem to be its own mechanic independent of those, the rest will likely be interactivity between systems, say place box inside ship > appears in inventory app (if that's how they're doing it).
But this is still different things, cargo is code complete, then it needs the rest that is the UIs for management and the inventory that shows to be derivated from the same mechanic.
While they are trying to bug fix cargo, problems could arise that break or have an adverse effect on PUaC, so how can it be feature complete?
Plus all those other features that are not finished, also tie in with cargo, so while they are working on those, other problems could arise, which again, could cause issues with PUaC.
I just wonder how they fully tested it when other features that tie in with it are not finished.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
This depends on terminology. Feature Complete generally means that they are not adding anything new to it. However, there is still code churn. There was a reference to Code Complete earlier on in your post. That's more likely a reference to something where there is zero code churn or churn is limited to higher-priority or game-breaking bugs.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
My earlier comment wasn't meant personally for you. But rather to what's been discussed during last 7 or so pages. I think I made a bad choice quoting that post at all. Sorry.