81–90 of 143 posts
I know the words on this site. But I dont know what they mean. "Quantum Economy Scaling", "Subsumption AI", "pCache". Can someone ELI5? ~Im assuming this has to do with a service mesh and kubernetes of some sort. But I'm a bit lost.~ Edit: Ah! Seems like this is a game. But I still have no idea what any of this means :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks to me like "server meshing" is a concept coined by SC for the architecture they have planned. The top page of Google for the term turns up only SC-related results. EVE uses a different, simpler model where each system is a process, and players connect to proxy servers that keep track of which system they're on (and therefore which server they need to connect to) [0]. I'm sure there are layers of caching and…
Star Citizen is trying to handle physics for objects in stations/planets/ships, debris, asteroids etc. A couple orders of magnitude more objects, I think. Note that I don't play or follow either game, but I think you're making an unreasonable comparison.
Judging from the games performance, this looks probably better than what their dev team has.
Have you built anything comparable? It's in alpha, making performance/presentation comments seems really out of place. If you were well-informed on the project, you would know that they intentionally put performance optimizations on the backburner, because optimizing tech they intended to replace is not a good use of time. Besides, in the last 6 months performance has drastically improved, as anyone that actually pla…
This is a ridiculous statement. They've collected half a billion dollars from customers and have been in alpha for over 10 years.
Over the past two years I've played maybe 10-20 hours of SC. I paid $45 for the starter ship and then made some money moving boxes and doing bounties to upgrade my ship and then have enough to buy a bigger one. The game is pretty fun if you're used to MMO style grinding. The only problem is that during the past two years there have been many server state wipes so you lose everything except for the starter ship you pu…
Something that needs to be pointed out here is the fact that nearly all of CIG's resources are allocated to finishing their single player game, Squadron 42: Episode 1, and a veritable skeleton crew is working on the Persistent Universe (the MMO). Considering this, and the fact that most of the work done on Squadron should directly translate over to the PU, a lot of the skepticism over how fast development is going is…
As do we all, but CIG doesn't make it easy to hold on to that hope when their transparency has all but disappeared. Squadron 42's store page has been removed from their website for months now, where any links to "pledge" lead to a 404 error. The only acknowledgement of it from them was buried as a reply to a days-old, user-posted forum thread where they claim it was removed for a price change. That was months ago. Meanwhile, multiple ships' prices have been updated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, procedural trash grinds? Squadron 42, the cinematic, single player, space campaign, was supposed to come out in 2014!
Isn't that all games though? Especially MMO's. Why do people think it's so much different for star citizen than any other game? At the end of the day, they're all just entertaining ways to waste time.
Perhaps you don't know how evocative that is, and how cynical it is for you to compare that to procedural MMO quests.
They're very different things. It's like paying for a gourmet meal and then being given a month's supply of tasteless protein bars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I have to build something comparable to be able to comment on the performance issues I have witnessed? I don't think so. Do I have to accept all those excuses, which like those pictures of ships never run low in this company, to comment on the performance? I don't think so. They promise a lot. They don't deliver. They break things which were already working and I'm still waiting. Those are clear signs of terrible…
[flagged]
More like 10 years in time. We've long passed "a moment" of promises and underdelivery.
> I know you now have no choice but to double down in bravado because we're on the internet, but it is what it is.
This is projection at its finest, considering you have to justify actual money being put into a project that has not really delivered on promises for a decade now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sure about that? There are several EVE battles that involved multiple thousands of players at once.
Those battles all take place under .25 or lower time dilation so that the servers can handle the load. Star Citizen plans on having a massive player count per shard under full normal time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who glimpsed inside for a little bit during the first days - it's a curse of having too many resources, or too few pressure points. They were well funded from the beginning (read their founding history) and got a lot of additional money throughout the way (well, including but not limited to SoftBank) - so they were free to explore their vision, and gosh did they take their time to do it. They had good idea…
Ah. Lack of Product-Market fit. Classic. Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky, as well as Eve online depending on what you're looking for. All have their faults, but there are obvious alternatives to StarCitizen out there that's not vaporware.
I think that of the two, Elite Dangerous is the only one that scratches a similar itch, especially in terms of the spaceship mechanics. But it too has suffered from severe mismanagement (pursuing features that got advertising hype over those that made the game fun, abandoning features and leaving them in a broken state, taking forever to fix bugs but being quick on exploits, poor communication and of course the gener…
It's funny, we've seen games released by the previous generations leading lights in game design and they're all disappointing so far. Relying on boring grinds, poor difficulty curves, etc.. Julian Gollop, David Braben, Chris Roberts, Peter Molyneux, etc.
It's like they can't adopt the new ideas from the next generation to make their games fun. Quite eye opening on how old age or perhaps success, not sure which, can make your thinking rigid.
Elite Dangerous is one of the worst. It's simply not fun. So pointlessly grindy for what is predominantly a single player game. I was so excited for the first 5-10 hours, and then so disappointed as it was obvious that every mechanic was just another massive progress bar that barely moved after hours of play.
No Man's Sky was much better, 40-50 hours fun play before the procedural nature of it became too obvious for me to enjoy it anymore. I played it 2-3 years after launch though, after all the updates. I'd probably play it again over a holiday weekend if I ever get the MS game pass again.
Over the past two years I've played maybe 10-20 hours of SC. I paid $45 for the starter ship and then made some money moving boxes and doing bounties to upgrade my ship and then have enough to buy a bigger one. The game is pretty fun if you're used to MMO style grinding. The only problem is that during the past two years there have been many server state wipes so you lose everything except for the starter ship you pu…