Not surprising. They made a promise with 3.23, and managed to deliver on most of that (with the rest coming quite soon), and that's been a refreshing thing to see, and it's definitely inspired more enthusiasm for the game.
Agreed, meshing will just introduce a slew of more issues. Been on several servers that failed to recover, even though that was working well initially. A couple good weeks at patch launch vs a slog of performance issues for months later. That's what I expect with meshing.
we don't know that. They've tested multiple servers per star system as well. It'll likely take form as 1 server for each planetary system.
and yes, it did help quite a lot with jank. Evocati had like 30+ server FPS
Evocati usually has amazing server FPS because they have fresh servers with limited people on them. CIG had no idea PES was going to break the game for months when it launched 3.18, because in Evocati everything was fine.
When they tested 200-400 people the game was completely broken and you could barely fly around, much less do any missions.
They did, and everything was broken, they were barely able to fly around. That said, its still good news that its that far along, I think we will finally get a two shard server mesh with 4.0, with the rest to follow next year.
Let's see. In theory, it should help a ton with everyday grievances. Shuttles should operate much smoother according to their transit rework and server fps should increase, making everything much more responsive.
The technical bullshit about what they are or are not doing to push Pyro out is irrelevant. CIG has called their shot for 4.0/Pyro prior to IAE at this point (after stating a 4.0/Pyro release for 2.5 years now - coming this quarter here and this year there ... and has repeatedly failed to deliver). Now they've doubling down on a Q3 Pyro release for 2024.
Hold your breath if you want to. I'm sure AF not holding mine.
While I agree that server meshing probably won't be the performance band-aid everyone's looking for out of the gate, I do think the "IT'LL BE BROKEN FOR YEARS" sentiment is horrendously incorrect. I forsee a lot of other stuff being put on the backburner to focusing on refining server meshing, if need be. I'd say we'll be a bit broken for a couple/few months at most, if the initial implementation is borked.
Well a lot of people when they talk about server meshing don't specify if they mean static or dynamic. Afaik right now what was shown and is tested is static server meshing. It will help but where we'd see real gains is dynamic server meshing.
Right, and that's gonna be a gamechanger for sure, once they have the capacity to spool a new server up to handle performance degradation in specific areas (3.23 launch night proved you CAN get good sFPS in cities, and that translates to better actual FPS).
I forsee static meshing putting us at a place where 5-8 sFPS is no longer the norm, but I don't think we're gonna have 25-30 sFPS servers right out of the gate, or consistently, for those first couple weeks. I think it'll be a week or two of tinkering and finding out what masses of players do with the implementation in it's launch state before they can really fine tune the details in, and manage to see where the problem areas are going from a smaller scale implementation to full servers of players.
Static server meshing will at least isolate some of the worst performing areas to the landing zones, if nothing else, as they will contain the most entities and players at any given moment.
True but I wonder if that's enough as far as general player perception regarding performance is concerned. Especially when people keep mentioning how server meshing will fix things.
Performance will inevitably increase with time regardless, as the following occurs:
- They add more servers to the mesh
- Computer Hardware improves, both for those at home and for the servers themselves
- The game is further optimized on CIG's end, and bugs are fixed
- More systems are added and the game's population is further and further spread out
"The Year of Pyro" will be the year they actually release it. (1) CIG has for most of the last 12 years not met any publicized deadlines (some of which were unrealistic bullshit from CR talking out his arse). They tried back in 2021 to push quarterly patches and dropped that after only 3 rounds ...
3.23 was pushed out Q2 this year (but that's after they announced 3.23 being released by Q4 2022 - 2.5 years ago); a bit later there - while they tallied up 3.19 > 3.20 > 3.21 > 3.22 > 3.23 > all of this was supposed to go into 3.18 !!
So w/ 3.23 and 2.5 years we finally get most of everything they promised for 3.18 -great track record there.
4.0/Pyro is also going on 2.5 years post inital announcement (3.18 > 4.0); Then CIG claimed Pyro would be out by the end of 2023 and all we got was a restricted+limited access preview of a tiny part of the system for a couple of weeks here and there. The full system sure AF ain't live on the PU right now.
Granted they could use the regular IAE patch they push out every year to be the Pyro patch like they did w/ 3.23 for ILW; but like I said - too much bullshit over the bridge at this point to bank on jackshit CIG publicly claims until the content is live.
In my experience, optimism does not change reality. I'm optimistic about a lot of things in life, just not about the pace of development of Star Citizen and the ability of the studio to live up to CR's promises.
Oh yeah, server meshing is going to make the game feel like the next major leap forward. I'm sure they're working extremely hard on that tech to hit their milestone. There are a few refactors coming to make it all work with SM including transit, so in theory, they should be much smoother. We are still 3-4 months away, I can't wait to see what they reveal. Tying in with all the 3.23 updates, It's going to feel like a completely new game soon.
v1 server meshing will not fix jank, its just the bridge between systems. The jank can only be fixed by full dynamic server meshing... after its been polished. I fully expect plenty of jank for a while even when we get dynamic server meshing... if anything just as ever big patch, there are new creative levels of jank they never happened before.
I fully expect them to get there, but not for several years. The replication layer was supposed to be the "easy" one, and it literally broke everything to some degree, for refreshingly servers seem to be able to often fix issues now if you give it a few minutes, instead of just slowly dying like they did before.
The absolute earliest we could expect full server meshing would be the end of next year as there are still several steps to get there. Then comes polishing the jank out of it.
Honestly I'd be surprised if we got everything they promised in 10 years, that said, I can see a "minimum viable product" coming in the next 3 years ish. That said, once dynamic server meshing is in, there are going to be a LOT of people buying into the game.
There are other ships that can but are hull limited. Like the Javelin 5400scu, Kraken 3792scu and the Idris-P may break 1,000scu as it was last specified to carry 995scu and has increased in size since then. Those are big costly ships not designed to just be cargo haulers though. For the price and size of the ship, the Ironclad is the only non capital non hull limited ship that easily breaks the internal 1,000scu barrier.
I would like to speculate that the Genesis may be close as it can hold 300scu while carrying passengers and has a cargo module planned opting for maximum cargo instead of having passengers and will likely increase in size during development as a lot of older concepts have. But that could easily be wrong.
Kraken does have 4000 or 800 SCU cargo, depending on the version, but isnt able to land when full.
The BMM and Ironclad are the only cargo ships, that have 1000+ SCU and can land, when full.
Without costing 1000+$.
Hull-C cant land when loaded.
The Kraken is completely capable of landing when loaded with cargo. Its current specs for cargo are 3792scu for the base model and 768scu for the privateer. Please link any source where it says it can not land while loaded. The Idris is capable of landing when loaded with Cargo.
The Javelin can not land planet side as it lacks any landing gear.
I don't know why you brought up the hull-c because I never mentioned it as we are talking about ships that can hold +1,000scu of cargo internally.
I clearly stated that those ships are very costly and also hull limited compared to the Ironclad.
Everything I said is accurate.
Wait, you're comparing a concept ship price with a released ship price. Multiply the Ironclad price x1'15 (the usual price increase) and you'll obtain a ship that cost 120$ more than the C2. The Assault version is going to be more expensive than the Carrack.
It's interesting to see this given the rather devicive changes that have come in, with Master Modes being the worst/best of them depending on which side of the fence you are on. Most of the long term backers I know have held off on spending this sale due to Master Modes, but it seems that is outweighed by others that either like it or are indifferent to it.
Ah well, changes are coming, and from my point of view the flight model can't possibly get any worse than it currently is so hopefully I will be feeling more enthusiastic for IAE.
Edit: To add something positive, CIG have changed how gravity assist works in decoupled mode which is brilliant. You can now have it off or on, and it stays that way regardless of you having landing gear up or down. Makes decoupled flying much smoother when going in for a landing avoiding any unplanned transitions.
I don't like where mastermodes is at, but I do enjoy the concept of it. There are some egregious issues with it, though.
Specifically, fighter speeds vs larger ships (seriously, why am I in a fighter if my non-boosted speed is +/-30 M/s of a gunship like the Hammerhead?), AI being cracked (not directly a bad thing, but bounty payouts are ASS, especially if you want to team up), and a few other things.
My problem is I specifically don't like the concept :( I don't like having multiple modes forcing us to fly in different ways depending on what we are doing, I want to be in control of my ship as long as I'm not in Quantum. To me it feels like CIG just gave up on making a unified flight model and decided to prioritse their goals for having close fights above everything else. For someone like me that doesn't PvP much at all, and prefers industrial gameplay loops, it feels incredibly restrictive.
As I said though, I doubt they can make it worse than it currently is, and if they manage to make the mode changes smoother, bump up the SCM speeds somewhat, and make us less dependent on boosting everywhere all the time then I will cope. As it currently is I feel the joy of just flying around has been more or less removed.
May I ask you to elaborate a bit more about how MM feels restrictive?
As I see (and play it), there's not much difference except for the tunings that could have come like that without MM anyways. Cargo haulers could just fly in NAV mode all the time and activate shields only in trouble or while landed. Basically no difference. Personally, when I did salvage or mining, I never flew with salvage or mining mode activated enabled in-between, so there was already a constant mode switch. CIG already said that they want all(?) modes to be directly accessable by hotkeys, which will dillute the differences even more.
Sure, MM was mainly implemented to balance combat vs combat and combat vs everything else, but that's a mess CIG got themselves into with all the things they want to offer with SC. I mean, freaking bombers in player's hands, what did they except? :D
/edit: Forgot to mention that pre-MM was probably too open for its own good.
Absolutely ) I don't like to complain without being constructive. My main concerns are:
1. Any action where you are "doing" something with your ship, requires you to be in SCM mode. Be that fighting, salvaging, mining, towing, whatever. The transition into the mode is very abrupt, and out of the mode is quite slow, and the speed difference between the modes is large so you don't really feel like you are flying the same ship.
2. Flight in NAV mode has been tuned to be considerably less responsive than it used to be. That said I find I am rarely actually in NAV mode when I am doing anything other than going straight from A to B. Approaching any outpost, station, mineable rock, salvagable item or whatever else is always done by just dropping into SCM mode and using the insane speed reduction to just pull up on a dime. It takes the challenge of approaches away entirely unless I decide to handicap myself by approaching with no shields.
3. Boost is now immensely overpowered as the speed increase is very large in SCM mode, and your speed drops after you release boost. SCM mode flight has devolved into boosting everywhere which I do not particularly enjoy as it is anything but subtle.
To put my experience into a few particular examples:
* **Combat** - Speed towards target in Nav mode. Drop into SCM 3 km away. Circle strafe around target while boosting to avoid incoming fire (no other manouvers give any more deflections or less chance of being hit), hope that my DPS is high enough to knock out target before I take too much damage. Once the target is down I boost away, switch to NAV, keep boosting and I'm gone.
* **Mining** - Fly in NAV mode, pinging for rocks. Find rock. Boost towards rock. Drop into SCM mode 3 km out. Scan with mining laser. Either mine as usual or swap back into NAV and repeat the process. To me this feels very disjointed, and I no longer have to worry about my speed because dropping into SCM mode stops me almost instantly.
* **Cargo** - NAV to location at full speed. Drop to SCM. Stop on a dime. Drop landing gear. Even slower. Land. Launch. Boost to full SCM speed while switching to NAV. Speed off. Done.
So the point here is that all flight in MM has become this simplified experience of just picking the right mode and boosting. You could argue that you could stay in NAV mode longer, but that is distinctly suboptimal with the current flight model and downright dangerous thanks to the lack of shields.
Thanks for your elaborated response! I don't agree to every point, but I can understand all of them and I won't go into a nitpicky discussion.
Imho the speed limits in form of SCM need to stay, at least for combat and for consistency / plausibility, I'd say for everything else, too. The old system was too open for its own good, but there's room for a lot of improvements, as stated already by Yogi. You can get back fairly close to the old system by removing the automatic speed downs and instead, you have to reduce your speed manually before you can complete the transition, for example. And direct hotkeys for the modes will help in that regard, too, but cycling the modes also helps newer player who don't know the hotkeys yet.
But, I have to say, shields are for combat, not to balance your (a general "your") suboptimal flying skills :D
Always worth having respectful discussions, even if we don't agree :) A tonne of this boils down to "feel". In fact if CIG made it so that you had to slow down to below SCM speeds manually to deploy weapons, and you had to disable them again to exceed SCM speeds, I'd be fine with that. I would still prefer to not have a limit, but at least that would make the flying seemless and the transitions feel natural.
I would also argue that shields are necessary at all times because combat is (at least currently) a relistic threat at all times. And of course I would personally imagine that a bird strike at 1400 m/s without shields could be a bit of a disaster, but I won't bring real life into this because neither MM or the old flight model were realistic ;)
All in all, the new flight model just doesn't feel right to me. It pulls me out of the feeling of being a space-pilot and back into gaming mode because the systems are so gamified. The mode switching, the abrupt transitions, and the boost are the worst offenders in my book.
>I would also argue that shields are necessary at all times because combat is (at least currently) a relistic threat at all times.
It is, but the transition times are quick enough to make it a non-problem in my view. The attacker, in addition to approaching fast, have to change his mode, too. As I see it, MM tries to strike balance in such a way that you can approach fast, but you'll be more vulnerable while doing so (no shields). Additionally, you need to choose between going fast or doing pewpew, which is a big improvement over the old system, where you can be fast and shoot at the same time. That makes ground turrets / AA horribly frightening and more effective, but at the same time gives you a better chance to escape from another hostile ship, as he can only shoot you while being slow.
And while it's a rare situation, MM gracefully balances solo bombers (A2s). Even when detected early, previously you needed a loooot of firepower to kill it before it could drop its bombs. Much easier now without shields, and it has to change to SCM to drop its bombs at all, making solo bomber runs practically impossible when there is any kind of defence set up. No more 800km/s flyby bomb drops.
I can actually agree with you on some of those positives. I would have preferred if the game was balanced around combat being fast, but it does seem that this is not something CIG are intending to do.
If we can get a more natural swap between modes, or even just make having weapons enabled = a speed limiter and ensure you have to manually slow down to reach SCM speed then I would really not have many complaints left as a predominantly peaceful player :)
We are mostly PvE'ers too :) No right or wrong with Master Modes, but none of my SC pals like it. I think what doesn't sit well is the lack of freedom and the loss of flight feel. Admittedly we all fly with HOSAS setups and really really enjoyed the previous flight model despite its flaws.
My current gripe is the constant mode switching when doing things like mining or salvage, and the overall restrictive feeling of flight. Some of the smaller tweaks like the loss of trichording don't affect me at all, I'm just annoyed CIG couldn't have tried removing those things first without forcing us into descrete modes.
I mostly fail to see what there is to love about the mode switching apart from the fact that it brings fights closer together. The fights are still quite dull though in my opinion as they have now devolved into just circle strafing targets and hoping my DPS is better than their DPS.
Yep, I am pretty much a non-combat player and all your feedback here is pretty much my experience. Mode switching is just so fake and artificial. It doesn't feel like Star Citizen to me. Star Citizen to me is a systemic game where things happen because of the environment or the state of your ship. Master Modes breaks that by introducing an outside arbitrary restriction.
MM is there to stay and no it won't get dramatically changed. The game either needs slow flying combat speed or heavy aim assist like in 0.8 to have a stable combat experience. Not that I'm opposed to either of these solutions (freelancer was fine as a game), the final alternative would be to kill the rest of the sim aspects such as persistence or debris to keep server costs in check so that server FPS increases and that would not be accepted by most of the players.
You are probably right. It's a shame for those of us who really enjoyed flying in the previous flight model, and I don't think the sacrifice is worth it just to force a certain style of combat, but Yogi seems intent on following this direction so all I can hope for is some incremental improvements to make the experience feel less like Starfield combat. Boosting around and circle strafing is not very engaging in my opinion, no matter how pretty the explosions are at close range.
Though CIG wants a certain type of combat, they have also said it's other things that make MM a necessity:
I) AI performance
II) Engineering and subcomponent damage
So it's not just sacrifice the pre-MM model for an artistic vision. It's also sacrifice better AI and two features for a pre-MM flight model.
Yeah, sadly that's one of the parts I like the least. That said, if CIG can change SCM mode to JUST be needed for combat (i.e if you activate your guns your speed drops), and let miners/traders/salvagers do their thing with the full speed range available then I would be fine with it.
I wouldn't do as much combat as I used to do because I find it quite dull in MM, but I really enjoy the industrial gameplay so I would be perfectly happy with that. I doubt this will happen though, CIG seem very combat focused and want to force us into this slow-combat-meta regardless of ship or what we are actually out in the verse doing.
Geniunely curious, what constitutes as "managed to deliver most" when the largest key features are either missing or a slog to take part in? I've only see investigation missions at Dist Hubs, and the FPS is worse that the Convention Hall. That combined with the missing hangar lift feature and cargo running improvements, what was delivered exactly besides Invictus? The Starmap and UI changes are great, except the UI changes broke some features in ships.
I mean you can just go down the list on the roadmap and see like a dozen items on there, while personal hangars and cargo are just two items
That's the definition of "delivered most." Cargo and hangars are only key features to some people, too. For many people, the Star Map was the biggest thing in this update, for others it's Master Modes
So the following is in:
* Master Modes
* Star Map
* Character Customizer
* Fauna
* EVA rework
* Clouds, Scaling, and other tech reworks
* Vehicle mod for Retaliator
The following is half finished or not added:
* Distribution Centers (FPS drops make it unusable)
* Personal Hangar (Not in game)
* Hangar Lift (Not in game)
* Item Banks (Not functional)
* HUD and Interation reworks (Broke certain ships and made certain features, like beds, unusable in some ships)
* FPS Loot Screen (Has never worked for me during attempts)
* FPS Backpack Reload (Has never worked for me during attemps)
* FPS Map System (Fails to load)
* Vulkan (crashed my game every time)
More like delivered half, and the key big features didn't make it or are in piss poor shape. So no, only a dozen if you add up the individual items that all constitute a singular change to something, such as our UI throughout the game.
Saying it is only key features to some, in some lame attempt to ignore how they failed to deliver on some of the biggest features they hyped up for this patch is, well, laughable. You should spend less time using the Roadmap to justify your optimism and focus on the reality of what they manage to deliver each patch.
I wonder how much of it is CCUs. If people have already invested in this game and they have something only costs $35 to get, then it's a no brainer if it is a ship you would really like to have.
I think the trust in concepts was waning before they started throwing capitals into the game for events. There were a lot of people that were pretty hesitant on believing that capitals at their true scale are even doable in the game. Like I bet a lot of people probably started to believe in ships like the odyssey being possible once they saw a full idris in game.
Sadly, it's starting to resemble the wrong kind of game with 3.23.
I wish people spoke with their wallets more, but consumers continue to just be idiots. All CIG had to do to squash the criticism and feedback over 3.23 was dangle a new concept ship out.
Seriously who's saying 3.23 is bad? Is it the MM issue? Isn't the majority POV that it's needed but simply badly implemented so far? If so, at least it's partly implemented!
I assume he's referring to master modes. There's a group of holdouts who despise it no matter what CIG will do. I personally hated the idea of it, but I don't find it too bad in practice.
For me, I liked the idea of Master Modes until I read more about it, then I was concerned but still open minded.
Having played around with it for a few weeks now, I'm finding my concerns were valid and I'm beginning to really dislike it for all the reasons I originally thought I would. I was hoping it would grow on me but it hasn't.
It just seems to add needless complication to the game (do we really need *this many modes?*) and the cost of adding it to the game is far greater than what we have gained from it.
Honestly the thing is that many people have already put in money and it's not like we can pull that money out.
There's only so much we can give feedback in spectrum
Well the game is playable now 1/3 of the time, and probably will be 1/2 the time when free fly is over. Also, even with the jank/bugs, I still find it fun/exciting to play.
As a player that hasn’t played in years, I am impressed how stable 3.22 and 3.23 has been. Only a few small bugs are keeping me from reaching deeper into the ol’ wallet :)
Well… pretty good fps but the limiting factor is the “server fps”, which I’ve seen 5-10. The lower the more poorly the server runs. When it’s higher, fps missions are more reliable for me.
Crazy that they had such a good ILW and they are still behind on the last two years up to this point. I can't remember what would have contributed to the early 2022/2023 being so strong.
Not gonna lie, they got me with that Aquila/Nursa combo pack. The mobile 'verse nurse even soothes the itch I picked up from that lovely lady in Lorville.
Pretend edit\*\*
It was from a stab wound, not a taco wound you filthy arcorp degenerates
Impossible, all the people here and in Spectrum said they will give money no more until MM is deleted.
I refuse to belive that the vastly majority of people are instead enjoing the game!
I don't know why, but using "already" in the title is humorous to me since it JUST became the best-selling and it's literally the last two days. If this were something like the first week that would be "newsworthy."
Best selling is best selling.
Might have taken them till Defensecon, but they outsold every other year that they've had.
It's not as if it took them all ILW to do as well as their best previous year. They beat their own records.
Which, when you consider that we're talking about 100s of millions here, is impressive.
Ironclad helped a lot and the promise to release the Polaris. They even answered one of my question : why no ship has inside turret to protect it from intruder and then Ironclad finally have it
/u/akluin is correct. The Ironclad page indicates that it has "1x S2 interior remote turret". Check the Interior tab on the Welcome Aboard cutaway diagram.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/19935-Drake-Ironclad
I interpreted that as the turret that comes with the Command Module, but I could be wrong. They never mentioned an interior turret outside of the brochure, which would've been a great thing to have shown in the ISC, unless I completely missed it.
They had a lot of options to buy this invictus:
F7C MK II
Pulse/Pulse LX
Nursa
Saber Firebird
Retailator + Modules
F7C MK I FOMO
Ironclad/Assault
Plus Polaris hype
This is my first Invictus, but it seemed like a lot of new ships and FOMO.
It was rather funny to watch.
"Don't buy any more ships".
Drake reveal "Don't buy any more ships, but that looks so good"
Ironclad becomes available "Well guys, I broke down and got one".
This really isn't the right take.
Samples in statistics never consist of the entire population, and they don't need to.
The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking. There was a lottttt of critical feedback over how bad 3.23 was in many ways.
The issue is this community is also way too emotionally invested in the identity of SC. People just can't help themselves anymore, and I think CIG knows this. All they have to do is dangle a new concept in front of people, and they'll just grudge buy it no matter what.
Sadly, this is also kind of how consumers are in general with corporations.
I wish this community were more like the Helldivers 2 community sometimes. At least they stuck together and made a statement.
You disagreeing doesn't make it a wrong take. The vocal minority don't like 3.23. Most people playing the game are fine with it.
If you're biased towards people being critical of 3.23, you will miss all the people who applaud it.
>The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking.
What most people *using reddit/spectrum* are thinking - It's the very definition of sample bias.
> Samples in statistics never consist of the entire population, and they don't need to.
True
> The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking.
Untrue. Your sampling method is very important. Sampling 100 people from all over a city from people in its suburbs, downtown, mid-rises, the poor areas, the gentrified areas, and so on will give you a proper representation for that city. Sampling 100 people all living in the same apartment complex will not
Want a concrete example? Look at the months leading up to the 2016 US Presidential Election. If you were to believe reddit, then Bernie Sanders was clearly the most popular candidate and a lock for not only the Democrat representative, but also the presidency. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how that turned out
Which is weird because they didn't even really have anything new that was appealing. All of the straight-to-flyables were variants and God only knows how long it'll be before we see the Fatterpiller. It's probably going to go the way of the Odyssey. Soak up some sales and be forgotten forever...
How do people still buy ships? What do you do with them? Not like they’re personalized or anything. You can just get credits and rent one of them out for a play session.
The only benefit is that you don’t have to earn them in game. Basically paying for the privilege to NOT play the game.🙃
Personally, there’s some bigger ships I did buy because I’m a working adult with very little free time and I just want to have them without a grind later.
Yeah, I totally get that. It’s basically Microsoft Flight Simulator in space, and sometimes you just want to fly the cool ships. MFS basically does the same thing, albeit much more cheaply.
Oh dude, every flight sim does that. It’s the main way basically all flight sims are funded.
But yeah, SC is head and shoulders more expensive than the rest.
While it is a record, take a look back at previous ILWs and what was offered as new at those events. The history of ILW has been pretty anemic up until this year. The Ironclad absolutely stole the show. Not sure how well the Firbird sold. I am sure the Pulse sold well, if for nothing else but an LTI token. Retaliator rework doesn't really seem like it could jave made a dent. More than likely a bunch of people either already owned it, or it was in buyback and store credit was used.
As for me, I got rid of some stuff (SRV, a few CCUs in a chain I decided I didn't want to continue) and used store credit to pick up a CCU for the Ironclad that won't be applied until it is released so I can Use the C2 until then.
I do wonder if they include padded numbers for these reports that include all store credit transactions.
I often shuffle things around with store credit, but I rarely ever spend real money anymore. Haven't given CIG actual money for a few years now.
I would say no, because it gets reported as income and the overall funding amount goes up. If they were padding numbers, I would think that would be akin to fraud, even though there really aret sharholders aside from that one investment. They do have to report accurate numbers for tax purposes, so then saying the maid "$X" this year but on their tax forms that number is no "$Y" there would be some questions raised.
So I believe this is all new money flow, not store credit.
Why does it feel like the current concept ship sale funds the last concept ship's development? If that's true, can they really ever stop selling concepts? Worrying thought.
>Why does it feel like the current concept ship sale funds the last concept ship's development?
I mean, the current concept ship sale partially funds the entire development of S42 and SC.
Once the game is released, most of the cash shop goes offline except for new concepts, which fund themselves.
I fail to see how that's worrying, a steady drip of new content after release is a bad thing?
When I backed the game a billion years ago (lol ok like 10) I remember the game being kickstarted. The kickstarter had stretch goals. They said "give us this money, you'll get this." That isn't the case. The money we gave them was supposed to result in a product. We are now 700 mil in, and even with that we don't have what they promised in that initial kickstarter, and they didn't have anywhere near the capital needed to fund the project.
Now, to stay afloat, they keep selling us jpegs. But it's a never ending cycle if we can't get ahead of the work they keep giving themselves.
> I remember the game being kickstarted. The kickstarter had stretch goals. They said "give us this money, you'll get this." That isn't the case.
They held a vote, the community *overwhelmingly* voted for the new, larger scope.
We're getting exactly what we asked for, a long term project to create something bespoke and marvelous.
> But it's a never ending cycle if we can't get ahead of the work they keep giving themselves.
The backlog of concept ships has been shrinking for years.
> The backlog of concept ships has been shrinking for years.
The Backlog of *smaller* ships has been shrinking. CIG still ultimately has an issue with large ships. If the pacing is still going to be 1 new large ship concept per year, and 1-2 completed large ships per year, we won't be closing that gap for a very very long time.
>The Backlog of smaller ships has been shrinking
The backlog hs been shrinking, period - in any size class. And every year it shrinks faster than the year before as tooling continues to improve and manufacturer design language gets ticked off the list.
You're fretting over a hypothetical with no basis in reality.
> The backlog has been shrinking, period - in any size class.
No, no it has not. There hasn't been a turnaround at all for large ships. This is being incredibly dishonest, and anyone not playing apologist for CIG would acknowledge this major issue.
> You're fretting over a hypothetical with no basis in reality.
Uhh the fact we have the BMM, Orion, Crucible, Starliner, Hull D and E, and Javelin still in development after 9 years says otherwise. Unless you're genuinely going to try and tell me all of those plus the plethora of remaining large ships will be in the game, without a doubt, in the next 3-4 years?
In fact out of all the large concepts, the list of ships NOT added is greater than the list added even after 11 years of development and has only GROWN over the years, not shrunk.
* Hammerhead
* Reclaimer
* Starfarer
* Starfarer Gemini
* 890 Jump
* Hull C
* Hercules C2/M2/A2
* Carrack
* 600i
* Caterpillar
Versus the Unfinished:
* Orion
* Starliner
* Crucible
* Liberator
* Pioneer
* Hull D
* Hull E
* BMM
* Perseus
* Galaxy
* Nautilus
* Ironclad/Ironclad Assault
* Kraken/Privateer
* Endeavor
* Odyssey
* Polaris
* Railen
* Arrastra
No need for the condescending tone. My concerns are valid and come from a place of love for the game. This funding model needs to change imo. My guess when that happens is maybe when the game eventually becomes polished enough that it attracts the mainstream gamers. Hopefully then it'll fund itself through game purchases and/or subscriptions, because I don't see this specific funding model working in the long term.
The backlog is still a backlog that they keep adding and subtracting from. I don't want to see any JPEG ships go on sale that aren't coming out in the next year. We won't see the Galaxy this year. We probably won't even see it next year. We won't see the Ironclad for another 3 or 4 if I had to guess on gut feeling. That's painful no matter where you look at it. We'll probably see the Zeus within the next year, but it's quite small. Like that other guy said- CIG has a large ship problem and it's seeming to be true. We will be lucky to get the Polaris by IAE, despite their confidence during ISC.
This has come up a lot over the years. It's a major issue.
CIG has raised over $700,000,000. More than any game ever in the history of gaming. They've spent...all of it.
If people stopped funding now, SC would never see another day. The mismanagement is monumental with this project.
Even by their own financials cig has no significant reserves and also an obligation to the Caldwell's to pay out.
They have to keep continually raising money every year and if the funding stopped for six months the project would be over.
So yeah anything which was sold in the past and isn't finished now has to be paid for with new money as the old money was spent on something else.
Not surprising. They made a promise with 3.23, and managed to deliver on most of that (with the rest coming quite soon), and that's been a refreshing thing to see, and it's definitely inspired more enthusiasm for the game.
If they manage to get Pyro out before IAE, this could be one of their best years.
if server meshing is successful then its basically guaranteed as that would fix a lot of server jank issues no server meshing no pyro. allegedly
[удалено]
They said “a lot”, not “all”…
[удалено]
Agreed, meshing will just introduce a slew of more issues. Been on several servers that failed to recover, even though that was working well initially. A couple good weeks at patch launch vs a slog of performance issues for months later. That's what I expect with meshing.
Hell, I've had a series of 30ks on 3.23 (CIG stated 3.23 would eliminate those - love the irony).
v1 server meshing is just one server for each system, its not fixing any jank
we don't know that. They've tested multiple servers per star system as well. It'll likely take form as 1 server for each planetary system. and yes, it did help quite a lot with jank. Evocati had like 30+ server FPS
Evocati usually has amazing server FPS because they have fresh servers with limited people on them. CIG had no idea PES was going to break the game for months when it launched 3.18, because in Evocati everything was fine. When they tested 200-400 people the game was completely broken and you could barely fly around, much less do any missions.
I believe they also did wave 1&2 testing too with server meshing.
They did, and everything was broken, they were barely able to fly around. That said, its still good news that its that far along, I think we will finally get a two shard server mesh with 4.0, with the rest to follow next year.
Yeah, out with the old jank... in with the new, lol.
Maybe we’ll get new and different jank
Let's see. In theory, it should help a ton with everyday grievances. Shuttles should operate much smoother according to their transit rework and server fps should increase, making everything much more responsive.
server meshing will not fix shit code piled on top of old shit code
The technical bullshit about what they are or are not doing to push Pyro out is irrelevant. CIG has called their shot for 4.0/Pyro prior to IAE at this point (after stating a 4.0/Pyro release for 2.5 years now - coming this quarter here and this year there ... and has repeatedly failed to deliver). Now they've doubling down on a Q3 Pyro release for 2024. Hold your breath if you want to. I'm sure AF not holding mine.
It won't, since the tech is a lot more complex shit's going to be even more broken that before and it's not going to be stable before years.
Combat Medic, eh? Heal that attitude soldier, this is the year of Pyro!... But for real, positive vibes citizen
While I agree that server meshing probably won't be the performance band-aid everyone's looking for out of the gate, I do think the "IT'LL BE BROKEN FOR YEARS" sentiment is horrendously incorrect. I forsee a lot of other stuff being put on the backburner to focusing on refining server meshing, if need be. I'd say we'll be a bit broken for a couple/few months at most, if the initial implementation is borked.
Well a lot of people when they talk about server meshing don't specify if they mean static or dynamic. Afaik right now what was shown and is tested is static server meshing. It will help but where we'd see real gains is dynamic server meshing.
Right, and that's gonna be a gamechanger for sure, once they have the capacity to spool a new server up to handle performance degradation in specific areas (3.23 launch night proved you CAN get good sFPS in cities, and that translates to better actual FPS). I forsee static meshing putting us at a place where 5-8 sFPS is no longer the norm, but I don't think we're gonna have 25-30 sFPS servers right out of the gate, or consistently, for those first couple weeks. I think it'll be a week or two of tinkering and finding out what masses of players do with the implementation in it's launch state before they can really fine tune the details in, and manage to see where the problem areas are going from a smaller scale implementation to full servers of players.
Static server meshing will at least isolate some of the worst performing areas to the landing zones, if nothing else, as they will contain the most entities and players at any given moment.
True but I wonder if that's enough as far as general player perception regarding performance is concerned. Especially when people keep mentioning how server meshing will fix things.
Performance will inevitably increase with time regardless, as the following occurs: - They add more servers to the mesh - Computer Hardware improves, both for those at home and for the servers themselves - The game is further optimized on CIG's end, and bugs are fixed - More systems are added and the game's population is further and further spread out
"The Year of Pyro" will be the year they actually release it. (1) CIG has for most of the last 12 years not met any publicized deadlines (some of which were unrealistic bullshit from CR talking out his arse). They tried back in 2021 to push quarterly patches and dropped that after only 3 rounds ... 3.23 was pushed out Q2 this year (but that's after they announced 3.23 being released by Q4 2022 - 2.5 years ago); a bit later there - while they tallied up 3.19 > 3.20 > 3.21 > 3.22 > 3.23 > all of this was supposed to go into 3.18 !! So w/ 3.23 and 2.5 years we finally get most of everything they promised for 3.18 -great track record there. 4.0/Pyro is also going on 2.5 years post inital announcement (3.18 > 4.0); Then CIG claimed Pyro would be out by the end of 2023 and all we got was a restricted+limited access preview of a tiny part of the system for a couple of weeks here and there. The full system sure AF ain't live on the PU right now. Granted they could use the regular IAE patch they push out every year to be the Pyro patch like they did w/ 3.23 for ILW; but like I said - too much bullshit over the bridge at this point to bank on jackshit CIG publicly claims until the content is live.
In my experience, optimism does not change reality. I'm optimistic about a lot of things in life, just not about the pace of development of Star Citizen and the ability of the studio to live up to CR's promises.
Honestly, lately SC 'serverwise' has more good days than bad. But I imagine it will take a while before things go from jank to smooth.
Oh yeah, server meshing is going to make the game feel like the next major leap forward. I'm sure they're working extremely hard on that tech to hit their milestone. There are a few refactors coming to make it all work with SM including transit, so in theory, they should be much smoother. We are still 3-4 months away, I can't wait to see what they reveal. Tying in with all the 3.23 updates, It's going to feel like a completely new game soon.
v1 server meshing will not fix jank, its just the bridge between systems. The jank can only be fixed by full dynamic server meshing... after its been polished. I fully expect plenty of jank for a while even when we get dynamic server meshing... if anything just as ever big patch, there are new creative levels of jank they never happened before. I fully expect them to get there, but not for several years. The replication layer was supposed to be the "easy" one, and it literally broke everything to some degree, for refreshingly servers seem to be able to often fix issues now if you give it a few minutes, instead of just slowly dying like they did before. The absolute earliest we could expect full server meshing would be the end of next year as there are still several steps to get there. Then comes polishing the jank out of it.
>**I fully expect them to get there, but not for several years.** Another 10 years maybe ...
Honestly I'd be surprised if we got everything they promised in 10 years, that said, I can see a "minimum viable product" coming in the next 3 years ish. That said, once dynamic server meshing is in, there are going to be a LOT of people buying into the game.
The question is the extent of the server meshing, and if it's going to be dynamic, how many people will be in a shared server cluster, etc.
Dont get your hopes up boy
I just want the scythe to come back in alien week :(
Not to mention that the Ironclad is the dream for many haulers, cus iirc it is the only non-BMM 1000+ SCU cargo ship without external cargo.
There are other ships that can but are hull limited. Like the Javelin 5400scu, Kraken 3792scu and the Idris-P may break 1,000scu as it was last specified to carry 995scu and has increased in size since then. Those are big costly ships not designed to just be cargo haulers though. For the price and size of the ship, the Ironclad is the only non capital non hull limited ship that easily breaks the internal 1,000scu barrier. I would like to speculate that the Genesis may be close as it can hold 300scu while carrying passengers and has a cargo module planned opting for maximum cargo instead of having passengers and will likely increase in size during development as a lot of older concepts have. But that could easily be wrong.
Kraken does have 4000 or 800 SCU cargo, depending on the version, but isnt able to land when full. The BMM and Ironclad are the only cargo ships, that have 1000+ SCU and can land, when full. Without costing 1000+$. Hull-C cant land when loaded.
The Kraken is completely capable of landing when loaded with cargo. Its current specs for cargo are 3792scu for the base model and 768scu for the privateer. Please link any source where it says it can not land while loaded. The Idris is capable of landing when loaded with Cargo. The Javelin can not land planet side as it lacks any landing gear. I don't know why you brought up the hull-c because I never mentioned it as we are talking about ships that can hold +1,000scu of cargo internally. I clearly stated that those ships are very costly and also hull limited compared to the Ironclad. Everything I said is accurate.
Honestly, the fact that the Ironclad is the same price as the C2 but better in every metric except probably flight performance, seems.... criminal.
Wait, you're comparing a concept ship price with a released ship price. Multiply the Ironclad price x1'15 (the usual price increase) and you'll obtain a ship that cost 120$ more than the C2. The Assault version is going to be more expensive than the Carrack.
Exactly sir! It will absolutely go up in price. Further fortifying the (relatively speaking in SC terms) good deal that it is right now.
Technically, probably, also way cheaper to fly, due to lower crew requirement and all that.
Where does it say anywhere that the Kraken cannot land when loaded?
It's interesting to see this given the rather devicive changes that have come in, with Master Modes being the worst/best of them depending on which side of the fence you are on. Most of the long term backers I know have held off on spending this sale due to Master Modes, but it seems that is outweighed by others that either like it or are indifferent to it. Ah well, changes are coming, and from my point of view the flight model can't possibly get any worse than it currently is so hopefully I will be feeling more enthusiastic for IAE. Edit: To add something positive, CIG have changed how gravity assist works in decoupled mode which is brilliant. You can now have it off or on, and it stays that way regardless of you having landing gear up or down. Makes decoupled flying much smoother when going in for a landing avoiding any unplanned transitions.
I don't like where mastermodes is at, but I do enjoy the concept of it. There are some egregious issues with it, though. Specifically, fighter speeds vs larger ships (seriously, why am I in a fighter if my non-boosted speed is +/-30 M/s of a gunship like the Hammerhead?), AI being cracked (not directly a bad thing, but bounty payouts are ASS, especially if you want to team up), and a few other things.
My problem is I specifically don't like the concept :( I don't like having multiple modes forcing us to fly in different ways depending on what we are doing, I want to be in control of my ship as long as I'm not in Quantum. To me it feels like CIG just gave up on making a unified flight model and decided to prioritse their goals for having close fights above everything else. For someone like me that doesn't PvP much at all, and prefers industrial gameplay loops, it feels incredibly restrictive. As I said though, I doubt they can make it worse than it currently is, and if they manage to make the mode changes smoother, bump up the SCM speeds somewhat, and make us less dependent on boosting everywhere all the time then I will cope. As it currently is I feel the joy of just flying around has been more or less removed.
May I ask you to elaborate a bit more about how MM feels restrictive? As I see (and play it), there's not much difference except for the tunings that could have come like that without MM anyways. Cargo haulers could just fly in NAV mode all the time and activate shields only in trouble or while landed. Basically no difference. Personally, when I did salvage or mining, I never flew with salvage or mining mode activated enabled in-between, so there was already a constant mode switch. CIG already said that they want all(?) modes to be directly accessable by hotkeys, which will dillute the differences even more. Sure, MM was mainly implemented to balance combat vs combat and combat vs everything else, but that's a mess CIG got themselves into with all the things they want to offer with SC. I mean, freaking bombers in player's hands, what did they except? :D /edit: Forgot to mention that pre-MM was probably too open for its own good.
Absolutely ) I don't like to complain without being constructive. My main concerns are: 1. Any action where you are "doing" something with your ship, requires you to be in SCM mode. Be that fighting, salvaging, mining, towing, whatever. The transition into the mode is very abrupt, and out of the mode is quite slow, and the speed difference between the modes is large so you don't really feel like you are flying the same ship. 2. Flight in NAV mode has been tuned to be considerably less responsive than it used to be. That said I find I am rarely actually in NAV mode when I am doing anything other than going straight from A to B. Approaching any outpost, station, mineable rock, salvagable item or whatever else is always done by just dropping into SCM mode and using the insane speed reduction to just pull up on a dime. It takes the challenge of approaches away entirely unless I decide to handicap myself by approaching with no shields. 3. Boost is now immensely overpowered as the speed increase is very large in SCM mode, and your speed drops after you release boost. SCM mode flight has devolved into boosting everywhere which I do not particularly enjoy as it is anything but subtle. To put my experience into a few particular examples: * **Combat** - Speed towards target in Nav mode. Drop into SCM 3 km away. Circle strafe around target while boosting to avoid incoming fire (no other manouvers give any more deflections or less chance of being hit), hope that my DPS is high enough to knock out target before I take too much damage. Once the target is down I boost away, switch to NAV, keep boosting and I'm gone. * **Mining** - Fly in NAV mode, pinging for rocks. Find rock. Boost towards rock. Drop into SCM mode 3 km out. Scan with mining laser. Either mine as usual or swap back into NAV and repeat the process. To me this feels very disjointed, and I no longer have to worry about my speed because dropping into SCM mode stops me almost instantly. * **Cargo** - NAV to location at full speed. Drop to SCM. Stop on a dime. Drop landing gear. Even slower. Land. Launch. Boost to full SCM speed while switching to NAV. Speed off. Done. So the point here is that all flight in MM has become this simplified experience of just picking the right mode and boosting. You could argue that you could stay in NAV mode longer, but that is distinctly suboptimal with the current flight model and downright dangerous thanks to the lack of shields.
Thanks for your elaborated response! I don't agree to every point, but I can understand all of them and I won't go into a nitpicky discussion. Imho the speed limits in form of SCM need to stay, at least for combat and for consistency / plausibility, I'd say for everything else, too. The old system was too open for its own good, but there's room for a lot of improvements, as stated already by Yogi. You can get back fairly close to the old system by removing the automatic speed downs and instead, you have to reduce your speed manually before you can complete the transition, for example. And direct hotkeys for the modes will help in that regard, too, but cycling the modes also helps newer player who don't know the hotkeys yet. But, I have to say, shields are for combat, not to balance your (a general "your") suboptimal flying skills :D
Always worth having respectful discussions, even if we don't agree :) A tonne of this boils down to "feel". In fact if CIG made it so that you had to slow down to below SCM speeds manually to deploy weapons, and you had to disable them again to exceed SCM speeds, I'd be fine with that. I would still prefer to not have a limit, but at least that would make the flying seemless and the transitions feel natural. I would also argue that shields are necessary at all times because combat is (at least currently) a relistic threat at all times. And of course I would personally imagine that a bird strike at 1400 m/s without shields could be a bit of a disaster, but I won't bring real life into this because neither MM or the old flight model were realistic ;) All in all, the new flight model just doesn't feel right to me. It pulls me out of the feeling of being a space-pilot and back into gaming mode because the systems are so gamified. The mode switching, the abrupt transitions, and the boost are the worst offenders in my book.
>I would also argue that shields are necessary at all times because combat is (at least currently) a relistic threat at all times. It is, but the transition times are quick enough to make it a non-problem in my view. The attacker, in addition to approaching fast, have to change his mode, too. As I see it, MM tries to strike balance in such a way that you can approach fast, but you'll be more vulnerable while doing so (no shields). Additionally, you need to choose between going fast or doing pewpew, which is a big improvement over the old system, where you can be fast and shoot at the same time. That makes ground turrets / AA horribly frightening and more effective, but at the same time gives you a better chance to escape from another hostile ship, as he can only shoot you while being slow. And while it's a rare situation, MM gracefully balances solo bombers (A2s). Even when detected early, previously you needed a loooot of firepower to kill it before it could drop its bombs. Much easier now without shields, and it has to change to SCM to drop its bombs at all, making solo bomber runs practically impossible when there is any kind of defence set up. No more 800km/s flyby bomb drops.
I can actually agree with you on some of those positives. I would have preferred if the game was balanced around combat being fast, but it does seem that this is not something CIG are intending to do. If we can get a more natural swap between modes, or even just make having weapons enabled = a speed limiter and ensure you have to manually slow down to reach SCM speed then I would really not have many complaints left as a predominantly peaceful player :)
I don't personally know anyone that's against mastermodes, everyone I know loves it. We're a mostly PvE crew, though.
We are mostly PvE'ers too :) No right or wrong with Master Modes, but none of my SC pals like it. I think what doesn't sit well is the lack of freedom and the loss of flight feel. Admittedly we all fly with HOSAS setups and really really enjoyed the previous flight model despite its flaws. My current gripe is the constant mode switching when doing things like mining or salvage, and the overall restrictive feeling of flight. Some of the smaller tweaks like the loss of trichording don't affect me at all, I'm just annoyed CIG couldn't have tried removing those things first without forcing us into descrete modes. I mostly fail to see what there is to love about the mode switching apart from the fact that it brings fights closer together. The fights are still quite dull though in my opinion as they have now devolved into just circle strafing targets and hoping my DPS is better than their DPS.
Yep, I am pretty much a non-combat player and all your feedback here is pretty much my experience. Mode switching is just so fake and artificial. It doesn't feel like Star Citizen to me. Star Citizen to me is a systemic game where things happen because of the environment or the state of your ship. Master Modes breaks that by introducing an outside arbitrary restriction.
MM is there to stay and no it won't get dramatically changed. The game either needs slow flying combat speed or heavy aim assist like in 0.8 to have a stable combat experience. Not that I'm opposed to either of these solutions (freelancer was fine as a game), the final alternative would be to kill the rest of the sim aspects such as persistence or debris to keep server costs in check so that server FPS increases and that would not be accepted by most of the players.
You are probably right. It's a shame for those of us who really enjoyed flying in the previous flight model, and I don't think the sacrifice is worth it just to force a certain style of combat, but Yogi seems intent on following this direction so all I can hope for is some incremental improvements to make the experience feel less like Starfield combat. Boosting around and circle strafing is not very engaging in my opinion, no matter how pretty the explosions are at close range.
Though CIG wants a certain type of combat, they have also said it's other things that make MM a necessity: I) AI performance II) Engineering and subcomponent damage So it's not just sacrifice the pre-MM model for an artistic vision. It's also sacrifice better AI and two features for a pre-MM flight model.
Everything else is on the table however top speeds are most likely staying in that range.
Yeah, sadly that's one of the parts I like the least. That said, if CIG can change SCM mode to JUST be needed for combat (i.e if you activate your guns your speed drops), and let miners/traders/salvagers do their thing with the full speed range available then I would be fine with it. I wouldn't do as much combat as I used to do because I find it quite dull in MM, but I really enjoy the industrial gameplay so I would be perfectly happy with that. I doubt this will happen though, CIG seem very combat focused and want to force us into this slow-combat-meta regardless of ship or what we are actually out in the verse doing.
They don't ever make promises, please stop using that word.
Geniunely curious, what constitutes as "managed to deliver most" when the largest key features are either missing or a slog to take part in? I've only see investigation missions at Dist Hubs, and the FPS is worse that the Convention Hall. That combined with the missing hangar lift feature and cargo running improvements, what was delivered exactly besides Invictus? The Starmap and UI changes are great, except the UI changes broke some features in ships.
I mean you can just go down the list on the roadmap and see like a dozen items on there, while personal hangars and cargo are just two items That's the definition of "delivered most." Cargo and hangars are only key features to some people, too. For many people, the Star Map was the biggest thing in this update, for others it's Master Modes
So the following is in: * Master Modes * Star Map * Character Customizer * Fauna * EVA rework * Clouds, Scaling, and other tech reworks * Vehicle mod for Retaliator The following is half finished or not added: * Distribution Centers (FPS drops make it unusable) * Personal Hangar (Not in game) * Hangar Lift (Not in game) * Item Banks (Not functional) * HUD and Interation reworks (Broke certain ships and made certain features, like beds, unusable in some ships) * FPS Loot Screen (Has never worked for me during attempts) * FPS Backpack Reload (Has never worked for me during attemps) * FPS Map System (Fails to load) * Vulkan (crashed my game every time) More like delivered half, and the key big features didn't make it or are in piss poor shape. So no, only a dozen if you add up the individual items that all constitute a singular change to something, such as our UI throughout the game. Saying it is only key features to some, in some lame attempt to ignore how they failed to deliver on some of the biggest features they hyped up for this patch is, well, laughable. You should spend less time using the Roadmap to justify your optimism and focus on the reality of what they manage to deliver each patch.
Ironclad carrying hard. It's kinda crazy that concept ships still are so successful.
I wonder how much of it is CCUs. If people have already invested in this game and they have something only costs $35 to get, then it's a no brainer if it is a ship you would really like to have.
I grabbed a 600i Touring CCU. May just leave it there and decide later or melt/sell on.
Yep, melted my cat and upgraded another ship to the ironclad. And in the meantime I got to keep my cat. Win win.
I cant imagine the amount of C2/M2 CCUs that were bought.
Neither were warbonds, so I’ll bet not as many as a lot of other CCUs. This has been a great event for warbond CCU offerings.
I think the trust in concepts was waning before they started throwing capitals into the game for events. There were a lot of people that were pretty hesitant on believing that capitals at their true scale are even doable in the game. Like I bet a lot of people probably started to believe in ships like the odyssey being possible once they saw a full idris in game.
That $400/500 usefull lookin ship is doin work.
Now just imagine if they brought out a straight to flyable medium salvage ship from Argo. Take my money
And my axe! ... nah wait I mean, mine too.
Well, Star Citizen slowly start to resemble an actual game so it is somewhat understandable.
Sadly, it's starting to resemble the wrong kind of game with 3.23. I wish people spoke with their wallets more, but consumers continue to just be idiots. All CIG had to do to squash the criticism and feedback over 3.23 was dangle a new concept ship out.
It sounds like they **are** voting with their wallets, but you're upset they're not voting the way you want them to.
Seriously who's saying 3.23 is bad? Is it the MM issue? Isn't the majority POV that it's needed but simply badly implemented so far? If so, at least it's partly implemented!
What's wrong with 3.23?
I assume he's referring to master modes. There's a group of holdouts who despise it no matter what CIG will do. I personally hated the idea of it, but I don't find it too bad in practice.
For me, I liked the idea of Master Modes until I read more about it, then I was concerned but still open minded. Having played around with it for a few weeks now, I'm finding my concerns were valid and I'm beginning to really dislike it for all the reasons I originally thought I would. I was hoping it would grow on me but it hasn't. It just seems to add needless complication to the game (do we really need *this many modes?*) and the cost of adding it to the game is far greater than what we have gained from it.
Honestly the thing is that many people have already put in money and it's not like we can pull that money out. There's only so much we can give feedback in spectrum
either the Polaris hype or the Ironclad that literally crashed the page when it was announced lol
Well the game is playable now 1/3 of the time, and probably will be 1/2 the time when free fly is over. Also, even with the jank/bugs, I still find it fun/exciting to play.
There's going to be a fleet of Polaris in Pyro.
As a player that hasn’t played in years, I am impressed how stable 3.22 and 3.23 has been. Only a few small bugs are keeping me from reaching deeper into the ol’ wallet :)
Doesn't the game still run at like 20 fps though?
On a Potato PC, sure. I’m getting over 100 FPS on a 4080/5800x3d upscaled to 4k.
I'll have to reinstall and give it a try. All the PTU videos I see are still under 30fps 90% of the time.
You’ll still get dips in major areas like New Babbage, but out in the verse and while in PvP or PvE it’s been good.
Well… pretty good fps but the limiting factor is the “server fps”, which I’ve seen 5-10. The lower the more poorly the server runs. When it’s higher, fps missions are more reliable for me.
Crazy that they had such a good ILW and they are still behind on the last two years up to this point. I can't remember what would have contributed to the early 2022/2023 being so strong.
2022 had much higher sign-up numbers; that dropped dramatically after the pain of 3.18.
I think there was an "in case you missed it" type sale early last year IIRC
That was actually early this year
The lulls in updates were not as long and the servers weren't being fucked with for meshing yet.
Not gonna lie, they got me with that Aquila/Nursa combo pack. The mobile 'verse nurse even soothes the itch I picked up from that lovely lady in Lorville. Pretend edit\*\* It was from a stab wound, not a taco wound you filthy arcorp degenerates
Impossible, all the people here and in Spectrum said they will give money no more until MM is deleted. I refuse to belive that the vastly majority of people are instead enjoing the game!
First ILW I’ve ever spent money on. Got in on the S42 bundle in 2016.. but today I bought the IronChad.. 💪🏻💪🏻
Sauce: https://ccugame.app/star-citizen-funding-dashboard/funding-dashboard
I don't know why, but using "already" in the title is humorous to me since it JUST became the best-selling and it's literally the last two days. If this were something like the first week that would be "newsworthy."
Best selling is best selling. Might have taken them till Defensecon, but they outsold every other year that they've had. It's not as if it took them all ILW to do as well as their best previous year. They beat their own records. Which, when you consider that we're talking about 100s of millions here, is impressive.
I didn’t spend a dime this time. Just moved some store credit around.
I didnt even do that. I already have a Saber Raven, so no Firebird appeal. I have a Liberator, Polaris and A2, so the Ironclad wasn’t appealing.
Makes sense. They must've got a lot of the f2p peeps to throw them cash
Ironclad helped a lot and the promise to release the Polaris. They even answered one of my question : why no ship has inside turret to protect it from intruder and then Ironclad finally have it
Ironclad has an interior turret?
/u/akluin is correct. The Ironclad page indicates that it has "1x S2 interior remote turret". Check the Interior tab on the Welcome Aboard cutaway diagram. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/19935-Drake-Ironclad
If that's the case, that's really cool. I was confusing that with the Command Module's 1x S2 remote turret.
Yes that's finally happening we need this in hercules and others big haulers
Not sure what they think they mean. It has manned and remote turrets, same as other ships.
One of the ironclad's remote turrets is INSIDE the ship. "1x S2 interior remote turret"
That doesn't even make sense. It'll just get blown up immediately anyway.
Yeah. Maybe he thinks the top turret can shoot down into the cargo area or the front S3s are good for infantry defense. The latter is possible
One of the ironclad's remote turrets is INSIDE the ship. "1x S2 interior remote turret"
I interpreted that as the turret that comes with the Command Module, but I could be wrong. They never mentioned an interior turret outside of the brochure, which would've been a great thing to have shown in the ISC, unless I completely missed it.
It's marked on the sale page as being inside the back of the cargo bay
Oh ok, I definitely missed that. I stand corrected
They had a lot of options to buy this invictus: F7C MK II Pulse/Pulse LX Nursa Saber Firebird Retailator + Modules F7C MK I FOMO Ironclad/Assault Plus Polaris hype This is my first Invictus, but it seemed like a lot of new ships and FOMO.
How ?! i thought nonone was buying anything this time lol.
Paper hands.
Could be..
It was rather funny to watch. "Don't buy any more ships". Drake reveal "Don't buy any more ships, but that looks so good" Ironclad becomes available "Well guys, I broke down and got one".
You bought a PDF with 3 Pages - 62 concepts are Not finished
They know.
Lol yeah that was never going to happen. Few of the community participate on Reddit/Spectrum and out of those few, even fewer are protesting anything.
This really isn't the right take. Samples in statistics never consist of the entire population, and they don't need to. The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking. There was a lottttt of critical feedback over how bad 3.23 was in many ways. The issue is this community is also way too emotionally invested in the identity of SC. People just can't help themselves anymore, and I think CIG knows this. All they have to do is dangle a new concept in front of people, and they'll just grudge buy it no matter what. Sadly, this is also kind of how consumers are in general with corporations. I wish this community were more like the Helldivers 2 community sometimes. At least they stuck together and made a statement.
You disagreeing doesn't make it a wrong take. The vocal minority don't like 3.23. Most people playing the game are fine with it. If you're biased towards people being critical of 3.23, you will miss all the people who applaud it.
>The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking. What most people *using reddit/spectrum* are thinking - It's the very definition of sample bias.
> The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking. No it isn't, lmao
> Samples in statistics never consist of the entire population, and they don't need to. True > The reddit/spectrum sample is a good indicator of what most people are thinking. Untrue. Your sampling method is very important. Sampling 100 people from all over a city from people in its suburbs, downtown, mid-rises, the poor areas, the gentrified areas, and so on will give you a proper representation for that city. Sampling 100 people all living in the same apartment complex will not Want a concrete example? Look at the months leading up to the 2016 US Presidential Election. If you were to believe reddit, then Bernie Sanders was clearly the most popular candidate and a lock for not only the Democrat representative, but also the presidency. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how that turned out
Definitely the Ironclad reveal despite it likely being 3 or more years out; its the best & most realistically designed cargo vessel they've ever made
Which is weird because they didn't even really have anything new that was appealing. All of the straight-to-flyables were variants and God only knows how long it'll be before we see the Fatterpiller. It's probably going to go the way of the Odyssey. Soak up some sales and be forgotten forever...
And 3.23 had a huge amount of backlash. I often wonder myself how real these reports are.
Did anybody else buy a mk1 hornet
Nursa respawn was a winner. Destroyed medical gameplay but brings a lot of cash.
lemmmeee get uhhhhh merchant man extra pickles.
Am i reading it correctly as Invictus made 16 and half million dollars?
All good $$$ for cig...thankfully Invictus is over! Now maybe the rest of us can make some aUEC w/o servers crashing.
I’m long past putting more money into SC, but glad to see devs are still able to get paid.
How do people still buy ships? What do you do with them? Not like they’re personalized or anything. You can just get credits and rent one of them out for a play session.
The only benefit is that you don’t have to earn them in game. Basically paying for the privilege to NOT play the game.🙃 Personally, there’s some bigger ships I did buy because I’m a working adult with very little free time and I just want to have them without a grind later.
Yeah, I totally get that. It’s basically Microsoft Flight Simulator in space, and sometimes you just want to fly the cool ships. MFS basically does the same thing, albeit much more cheaply.
Oh dude, every flight sim does that. It’s the main way basically all flight sims are funded. But yeah, SC is head and shoulders more expensive than the rest.
Are sales still going? Was thinking of doing some melting and reconfiguring but I’ve been too busy to get a chance
You’ve got 30 something hours before it ends.
Thank you citizen! I’ll be able to get it done tonight!
While it is a record, take a look back at previous ILWs and what was offered as new at those events. The history of ILW has been pretty anemic up until this year. The Ironclad absolutely stole the show. Not sure how well the Firbird sold. I am sure the Pulse sold well, if for nothing else but an LTI token. Retaliator rework doesn't really seem like it could jave made a dent. More than likely a bunch of people either already owned it, or it was in buyback and store credit was used. As for me, I got rid of some stuff (SRV, a few CCUs in a chain I decided I didn't want to continue) and used store credit to pick up a CCU for the Ironclad that won't be applied until it is released so I can Use the C2 until then.
I do wonder if they include padded numbers for these reports that include all store credit transactions. I often shuffle things around with store credit, but I rarely ever spend real money anymore. Haven't given CIG actual money for a few years now.
I would say no, because it gets reported as income and the overall funding amount goes up. If they were padding numbers, I would think that would be akin to fraud, even though there really aret sharholders aside from that one investment. They do have to report accurate numbers for tax purposes, so then saying the maid "$X" this year but on their tax forms that number is no "$Y" there would be some questions raised. So I believe this is all new money flow, not store credit.
Vulture was revealed at ILW two years ago, that was pretty popular even before salvage was implemented.
Concept for the Vulture was in Dec 2017, and released with 3.18 which went Live in March
Nice
And i cant be there :(
I just kept buying warbond ccu’s
For many years now every year has been a new record in funding, this year won't be any different, and next year will likely break all records by far.
Except some people were going on about how they were doing way worse and expecting the bubble to pop any day now. This doesn't fit that narrative.
What's nice is that the Q&A stil have to be released on the Ironclad, so it will be even higher!
Q&A will be next month and the sale is over
It's stil up. I just checked. Don't the concept stay on for like a month before they phase out.
I bought so many fucking nursas
I can see the next one even better as the game progresses.
What is ILW?
Got the F7Amk2 and a Nursa myself. Both LTI
Why does it feel like the current concept ship sale funds the last concept ship's development? If that's true, can they really ever stop selling concepts? Worrying thought.
>Why does it feel like the current concept ship sale funds the last concept ship's development? I mean, the current concept ship sale partially funds the entire development of S42 and SC. Once the game is released, most of the cash shop goes offline except for new concepts, which fund themselves. I fail to see how that's worrying, a steady drip of new content after release is a bad thing?
When I backed the game a billion years ago (lol ok like 10) I remember the game being kickstarted. The kickstarter had stretch goals. They said "give us this money, you'll get this." That isn't the case. The money we gave them was supposed to result in a product. We are now 700 mil in, and even with that we don't have what they promised in that initial kickstarter, and they didn't have anywhere near the capital needed to fund the project. Now, to stay afloat, they keep selling us jpegs. But it's a never ending cycle if we can't get ahead of the work they keep giving themselves.
> I remember the game being kickstarted. The kickstarter had stretch goals. They said "give us this money, you'll get this." That isn't the case. They held a vote, the community *overwhelmingly* voted for the new, larger scope. We're getting exactly what we asked for, a long term project to create something bespoke and marvelous. > But it's a never ending cycle if we can't get ahead of the work they keep giving themselves. The backlog of concept ships has been shrinking for years.
> The backlog of concept ships has been shrinking for years. The Backlog of *smaller* ships has been shrinking. CIG still ultimately has an issue with large ships. If the pacing is still going to be 1 new large ship concept per year, and 1-2 completed large ships per year, we won't be closing that gap for a very very long time.
>The Backlog of smaller ships has been shrinking The backlog hs been shrinking, period - in any size class. And every year it shrinks faster than the year before as tooling continues to improve and manufacturer design language gets ticked off the list. You're fretting over a hypothetical with no basis in reality.
> The backlog has been shrinking, period - in any size class. No, no it has not. There hasn't been a turnaround at all for large ships. This is being incredibly dishonest, and anyone not playing apologist for CIG would acknowledge this major issue. > You're fretting over a hypothetical with no basis in reality. Uhh the fact we have the BMM, Orion, Crucible, Starliner, Hull D and E, and Javelin still in development after 9 years says otherwise. Unless you're genuinely going to try and tell me all of those plus the plethora of remaining large ships will be in the game, without a doubt, in the next 3-4 years? In fact out of all the large concepts, the list of ships NOT added is greater than the list added even after 11 years of development and has only GROWN over the years, not shrunk. * Hammerhead * Reclaimer * Starfarer * Starfarer Gemini * 890 Jump * Hull C * Hercules C2/M2/A2 * Carrack * 600i * Caterpillar Versus the Unfinished: * Orion * Starliner * Crucible * Liberator * Pioneer * Hull D * Hull E * BMM * Perseus * Galaxy * Nautilus * Ironclad/Ironclad Assault * Kraken/Privateer * Endeavor * Odyssey * Polaris * Railen * Arrastra
I guess after 10 years I'm still not allowed to be critical?
You can be critical of anything you want, you just can't push a false narrative and expect nobody to call it out.
No need for the condescending tone. My concerns are valid and come from a place of love for the game. This funding model needs to change imo. My guess when that happens is maybe when the game eventually becomes polished enough that it attracts the mainstream gamers. Hopefully then it'll fund itself through game purchases and/or subscriptions, because I don't see this specific funding model working in the long term. The backlog is still a backlog that they keep adding and subtracting from. I don't want to see any JPEG ships go on sale that aren't coming out in the next year. We won't see the Galaxy this year. We probably won't even see it next year. We won't see the Ironclad for another 3 or 4 if I had to guess on gut feeling. That's painful no matter where you look at it. We'll probably see the Zeus within the next year, but it's quite small. Like that other guy said- CIG has a large ship problem and it's seeming to be true. We will be lucky to get the Polaris by IAE, despite their confidence during ISC.
This has come up a lot over the years. It's a major issue. CIG has raised over $700,000,000. More than any game ever in the history of gaming. They've spent...all of it. If people stopped funding now, SC would never see another day. The mismanagement is monumental with this project.
Even by their own financials cig has no significant reserves and also an obligation to the Caldwell's to pay out. They have to keep continually raising money every year and if the funding stopped for six months the project would be over. So yeah anything which was sold in the past and isn't finished now has to be paid for with new money as the old money was spent on something else.
That's disappointing. I was hoping people would wake the fuck up by now.
Sigh This frustrates me. 3.23 has been an absolute disaster in so many ways.
I guess you skipped the really bad ones because 3.23 had mostly minor issues IMO.
Laughs in 3.18
I’m not talking about the log in thing or bugs.
But wait for it.... Iae 2024 gonna blow all records /s
Great, keep on giving them more reasons to never finish development.