Quavers posted:

Your suffering is exactly why I backed this game.

It's impossible to develop the kind of game CIG is trying to develop under the traditional investor/publisher model. The technology has to be invented, and this cost sink on its own is an unacceptable risk to these kinds of people. "Too much time, not enough profit and not soon enough!" they say. They don't invest in order to make good games, they invest in order to take money back out of it all for the next round of investment. If you really want to hold yourself to this kind of scheduling, go play COD 20.

I didn't back the game because I knew I would have a space shooter to play in 5 years. I backed the game because I knew this was the only possible way we would get the kind of mechanics I want to see. That seamless and full simulation of environment inside and outside your space ship, in which you are a person existing in a fully simulated universe, as opposed to being a camera that clicks on a bunch of menus. Seriously, that's what most of the "game loops" you compare this game to boil down to, flying between A-Z, never leaving your chair, and clicking on menu item after menu item. That experience is dead rear end boring, I'm sorry. I don't want it. But when I get an itch for it, there are plenty of risers to that challenge.

What I want is what CIG is making. I don't care about how long it takes, in fact, I hope they take as long as they need to to make this, because if they don't, nobody else will. There are too many impatient vampire investors and self-important CTOs out there who think entirely according to schedules and business cycles. This is one of the few opportunities we have to invest in a development where it is truly the game that comes first. Not as a secondary concern to profit extraction. Not as an attachment to a release date.

Get mad about trailers being delayed. Get mad about estimates not being deadlines. Maybe go play all those other games that are more than happy to stay inside the realm of the already possible? What is it you really want, here? Scream against the wind! The funding model exists to be free of demands like yours.

​
Long ago, a storm was heading for the city of Quin'lat. Everyone took protection within the walls except one man who remained outside. Kahless went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," the man said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." Kahless honored his choice and went back inside. The next day, the storm came, and the man was killed. Kahless replied, "The wind does not respect a fool".

Quavers posted:

Your suffering is exactly why I backed this game.

It's impossible to develop the kind of game CIG is trying to develop under the traditional investor/publisher model. The technology has to be invented, and this cost sink on its own is an unacceptable risk to these kinds of people. "Too much time, not enough profit and not soon enough!" they say. They don't invest in order to make good games, they invest in order to take money back out of it all for the next round of investment. If you really want to hold yourself to this kind of scheduling, go play COD 20.

I didn't back the game because I knew I would have a space shooter to play in 5 years. I backed the game because I knew this was the only possible way we would get the kind of mechanics I want to see. That seamless and full simulation of environment inside and outside your space ship, in which you are a person existing in a fully simulated universe, as opposed to being a camera that clicks on a bunch of menus. Seriously, that's what most of the "game loops" you compare this game to boil down to, flying between A-Z, never leaving your chair, and clicking on menu item after menu item. That experience is dead rear end boring, I'm sorry. I don't want it. But when I get an itch for it, there are plenty of risers to that challenge.

What I want is what CIG is making. I don't care about how long it takes, in fact, I hope they take as long as they need to to make this, because if they don't, nobody else will. There are too many impatient vampire investors and self-important CTOs out there who think entirely according to schedules and business cycles. This is one of the few opportunities we have to invest in a development where it is truly the game that comes first. Not as a secondary concern to profit extraction. Not as an attachment to a release date.

Get mad about trailers being delayed. Get mad about estimates not being deadlines. Maybe go play all those other games that are more than happy to stay inside the realm of the already possible? What is it you really want, here? Scream against the wind! The funding model exists to be free of demands like yours.

​
Long ago, a storm was heading for the city of Quin'lat. Everyone took protection within the walls except one man who remained outside. Kahless went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," the man said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." Kahless honored his choice and went back inside. The next day, the storm came, and the man was killed. Kahless replied, "The wind does not respect a fool".

Quavers posted:

Your suffering is exactly why I backed this game.

It's impossible to develop the kind of game CIG is trying to develop under the traditional investor/publisher model. The technology has to be invented, and this cost sink on its own is an unacceptable risk to these kinds of people. "Too much time, not enough profit and not soon enough!" they say. They don't invest in order to make good games, they invest in order to take money back out of it all for the next round of investment. If you really want to hold yourself to this kind of scheduling, go play COD 20.

I didn't back the game because I knew I would have a space shooter to play in 5 years. I backed the game because I knew this was the only possible way we would get the kind of mechanics I want to see. That seamless and full simulation of environment inside and outside your space ship, in which you are a person existing in a fully simulated universe, as opposed to being a camera that clicks on a bunch of menus. Seriously, that's what most of the "game loops" you compare this game to boil down to, flying between A-Z, never leaving your chair, and clicking on menu item after menu item. That experience is dead rear end boring, I'm sorry. I don't want it. But when I get an itch for it, there are plenty of risers to that challenge.

What I want is what CIG is making. I don't care about how long it takes, in fact, I hope they take as long as they need to to make this, because if they don't, nobody else will. There are too many impatient vampire investors and self-important CTOs out there who think entirely according to schedules and business cycles. This is one of the few opportunities we have to invest in a development where it is truly the game that comes first. Not as a secondary concern to profit extraction. Not as an attachment to a release date.

Get mad about trailers being delayed. Get mad about estimates not being deadlines. Maybe go play all those other games that are more than happy to stay inside the realm of the already possible? What is it you really want, here? Scream against the wind! The funding model exists to be free of demands like yours.

​
Long ago, a storm was heading for the city of Quin'lat. Everyone took protection within the walls except one man who remained outside. Kahless went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," the man said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." Kahless honored his choice and went back inside. The next day, the storm came, and the man was killed. Kahless replied, "The wind does not respect a fool".

Thoatse posted:

Star Citizen: Your suffering is exactly why I backed this game

Quavers posted:

Quavers posted:

Your suffering is exactly why I backed this game.

It's impossible to develop the kind of game CIG is trying to develop under the traditional investor/publisher model. The technology has to be invented, and this cost sink on its own is an unacceptable risk to these kinds of people. "Too much time, not enough profit and not soon enough!" they say. They don't invest in order to make good games, they invest in order to take money back out of it all for the next round of investment. If you really want to hold yourself to this kind of scheduling, go play COD 20.

I didn't back the game because I knew I would have a space shooter to play in 5 years. I backed the game because I knew this was the only possible way we would get the kind of mechanics I want to see. That seamless and full simulation of environment inside and outside your space ship, in which you are a person existing in a fully simulated universe, as opposed to being a camera that clicks on a bunch of menus. Seriously, that's what most of the "game loops" you compare this game to boil down to, flying between A-Z, never leaving your chair, and clicking on menu item after menu item. That experience is dead rear end boring, I'm sorry. I don't want it. But when I get an itch for it, there are plenty of risers to that challenge.

What I want is what CIG is making. I don't care about how long it takes, in fact, I hope they take as long as they need to to make this, because if they don't, nobody else will. There are too many impatient vampire investors and self-important CTOs out there who think entirely according to schedules and business cycles. This is one of the few opportunities we have to invest in a development where it is truly the game that comes first. Not as a secondary concern to profit extraction. Not as an attachment to a release date.

Get mad about trailers being delayed. Get mad about estimates not being deadlines. Maybe go play all those other games that are more than happy to stay inside the realm of the already possible? What is it you really want, here? Scream against the wind! The funding model exists to be free of demands like yours.

​
Long ago, a storm was heading for the city of Quin'lat. Everyone took protection within the walls except one man who remained outside. Kahless went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," the man said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." Kahless honored his choice and went back inside. The next day, the storm came, and the man was killed. Kahless replied, "The wind does not respect a fool".

colonelwest posted:

Good stuff. What a loving dork with that Star Trek quote, and that’s coming from me (a big Star Trek dork).

Lammasu posted:

To get back to the bartender thing, do drinks have any effect? At last nights dnd game the DM randomly generated a cocktail that made me temporarily immune to fire damage.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

Spite.
Pledge.

L. Ron Hoover posted:

drinks stop you from dying of thirst. they also generate fidelity.

also CIG can actually make a drinking mechanic and they need to make something once in a while.

Mirificus posted:

Simulation does not mean accurate to reality, or even internally consistent. Simulation is just a form of representation, and all representation is an abstraction.

quote:

Hi everyone,

When we realized that our old Roadmap didn’t represent our development progress very well, we started exploring options for how to build something more informational that fit how we develop games. Our original message about this was in one of March’s Roadmap Roundups, and we followed up with hints about this in our Squadron 42-focused Calling All Devs on March 13.

We mentioned then that we are happy with Squadron 42 development and committed to a few things I’d like to bring up again. We talked about injecting more Squadron 42 content into our regularly scheduled releases, which is why you may have noticed things like the Squadron 42 themed episode of Calling All Devs, or the Inside Star Citizen updates on Vanduul ships, gas tech, a deeper look at the Aciedo Comm Array, and other related content. This was all alongside our monthly Squadron 42 Reports (March, April, May, June). One of the important elements to messaging Squadron 42 updates has also been to raise awareness that work completed for Star Citizen is also work done for Squadron 42. The only content that’s exclusively SQ42 are people, places and plot – and we don’t want to spoil those.

With all SQ42 updates, our goal has been to find balance in sharing SQ42 content while minimally impacting the development team so they can focus on what matters most: finishing the game.

The recent SQ42 video update, which is a brand-new show we were debuting called “The Briefing Room,” was a lower-effort video that we embarked on with the goal of sharing more information with you but in a scrappy and fast manner, so as to minimize the disruption to the dev team and yet still give you new information. We planned for this to be a semi-regular show, with its cadence depending on how well the content was received and how disruptive (or not) this first episode would be to our dev team. This first episode was meant to focus specifically on (spoiler alert) updates on our conversation interrupt tech and level design in SQ42. What we discovered after the whole piece was finished and getting ready for publish was that our approach resulted in an underwhelming show. Not only did the episode have major audio issues due to WFH recording, but it lacked visuals to support the talking, and we truly prefer to show rather than tell. Ultimately, we decided that it wasn’t good enough to show, even for a “scrappy” video that was not meant to be a marketing sizzle trailer. However, before that “stop ship” message could permeate our entire marketing org, we had moved forward with a public publish date.

Originally, we thought we could simply splice in fresh b-roll, but as we spent the next few days reviewing the show, we saw the need to update our visuals to better reflect what we were discussing, and that led us to the realization that we still didn’t have the right footage, at our quality bar, to tell the story we wanted to tell. So, we ended up deciding to re-shoot the entire episode with our usual quality standards. As mentioned, The Briefing Room was never meant to be such a disruption to the team that we would prioritize footage for the show above our internal milestones for development. Therefore, our SQ42 art team could only work on capturing new footage after normal work hours. Add to the mix that key personnel were actually out sick for over a week, and you can see how our schedule kept getting pushed back further and further.

We’ve certainly communicated the delays and the reasons for it, and have even had Brian Chambers relay the news initially, with our CMs repeating that message when the topic cropped up multiple times. We’ve had to do that a couple of times over the past weeks. And unfortunately, the plain truth was always the same: The initial video didn’t meet our standards and we are redoing it. We didn’t get into such details as sick personnel nor did we explicitly spell out that the video footage couldn’t leapfrog actual dev work in our priority list. After all, we don’t like to make excuses. But it’s clear that the confluence of the prolonged delay to the Briefing Room and the lack of any new information (because there was none) created angst within the community.

Something that’s often not seen externally is the actual amount of time and effort it takes to put together the video content we regularly release. Delivering the updates to the standards we want takes time, and despite those saying they would be fine with a rough cut of talking heads, we get endless complaints when that’s what we deliver, example being that the Monthly Reports or linked examples above are quickly dismissed or forgotten. The SQ42 video is still coming (probably in the next few weeks), along with an assortment of other updates, including an overhaul to our Public Roadmap.

The new Roadmap is something we hinted at in March but because that is still very much in development, we can’t share as much about it as I would like. Believe me when I say I’m personally very eager to release it to you. We took the time to explore options for how we could better represent our progress, and I believe we are getting close to landing in a pretty great spot. Our goal with this new Roadmap is to give you better visibility into what teams are working on, share the progress of more teams, and go so far as to indicate the size of the projects for our tech, features, and content teams. This new Roadmap will drastically change how you follow the development progress for both Squadron 42 and Star Citizen. The new Roadmap will focus more on breaking out teams and features so you can interactively see what is being worked on across all teams, as opposed to what features will make X release. While it’s not quite ready, it’s currently top priority on the web team’s current projects. In the immediate future, we plan to deliver the following communications:

Give an explanation of the goals of our new Roadmap and what to expect from it
Show a rough mockup of the proposed new Roadmap
Share a work in progress version of the Roadmap for at least one of our core teams
And then finally transition to this new Roadmap

We’ll approach them in the order above, and we’ll likely need a few weeks between steps, so I don’t want to create the impression that this is happening overnight. But we should be announcing step 1 pretty soon if my meeting on Thursday about this is as good as I think it will be.  

Thuorn posted:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/squadron-42-roadmap-update



The classic CIG nonupdate update. lol

quote:

our approach resulted in an underwhelming show

quote:

but it lacked visuals to support the talking, and we truly prefer to show rather than tell

ComfyPants posted:

Almost 9 years in and we're still way behind on the roadmap. Just remarkable.

Thuorn posted:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/squadron-42-roadmap-update



The classic CIG nonupdate update. lol

colonelwest posted:

Lol they really brought out all of the classics.

Sick/absent employees, bad recordings, “we’re exploring options to possibly plan a new roadmap format that will blow you away!”, passive aggressively calling the backers entitled whiners, focusing on pointless minutae (conversation interruption system lol) instead of answering the big questions like “why is SQ42 5 years late and about to blow its latest deadline?”, and of course not even giving a release date for the 2 month delayed update video on the 5 year delayed game.

trucutru posted:

They are onto you, beets



I guess lowtax won't be the only cockroach king to fall this year.

Thuorn posted:

Give an explanation of the goals of our new Roadmap and what to expect from it
Show a rough mockup of the proposed new Roadmap
Share a work in progress version of the Roadmap for at least one of our core teams
And then finally transition to this new Roadmap

We’ll approach them in the order above, and we’ll likely need a few weeks between steps, so I don’t want to create the impression that this is happening overnight.

quote:

Tyler, the frustration often felt by the community is that CIG spend too much time worrying about what people think about their 'quality levels' and virtually no time considering what it is that drives the enthusiasm for the project - the community. There is constant negativity and FUD being spread. I understand it is not CIG's responsibility to answer every conspiracy theory.. however the community works hard, many hours of unpaid work to produce content to entice new backers into the project. We deserve some level of support from CIG in the face of the negativity and insults we have to take on an almost daily basis, some of which occurs within this community. Where is CIG support for it's community, where is it's commitment to inform new backers of all of what older backers already knew? The community is fragmenting because of this change in approach, those who were around when the original dream was being discussed, and those who only arrived after radio silence set in.

How can it be a 'spoiler' if we already know what some of the plans were prior to 2016? Why isn't anyone looking at what information was given back then and deciding.. OK. We can cover that again and update it, no point in keeping that secret. You may be of the opinion that the information is 'out there' but is is so spread out, old references and even deleted parts of the website and forums. No new backer could be expected to trawl through the many hundreds of hours of videos and CIG lore posts , design posts etc going back years to have an idea of what exactly CIG are attempting. The Community Team and the Dev team seem so deep into the weeds of every single drat detail that you have forgotten how to share the big dream.

I understand that details of the story plot, characters and places would be spoilers.. but surely talking about the scope of Squadron 42 Chapter One in general terms would not be a spoiler. Roughly how many hours of playtime can players expect? What is it that connects our Squadron 42 characters experience to the eventual experience in the PU? Is there any connection? As we were previously lead to understand?

They used to talk about this, now CIG go quiet. New members of the community don't know about the original broad plan, when we give them links to information about the scope of the game we are faced with a barrage of negativity from those who want to paint the project as small, niche and insignificant, who rightly point out that the information is now years old.. but then tack on the FUD that everything was wastefully 'dumped' by CIG. The leader of the biggest organisation, TEST Squadron casually says in one of his Youtube videos that CIG 'dumped' all the landing location work that was done prior to 2016 - people believe it, and it is made all the more believable by the fact that no-one at CIG challenges this notion. Surely it would NOT be any more of a spoiler for someone senior to say.. No we didn't dump everything, the original storyline, the original locations and the original game assets that were planned are all still there.. just updated and upgraded.

There is one piece of FUD which is attributed to Chris Roberts himself... that Squadron 42 Chapter One all takes place in the Odin system. If that is true people would be rightfully angered by CIG taking 7+ years to make a game that is set in ONE star system. Surely it would not be a great spoiler to have Chris stand in front a of a camera for 10 seconds to say.. No, it doesn't all take place in the Odin system! We haven't spent hundreds of millions developing one star system for Squadron 42.

Please consider, members of this community who don't care about building a social media channel following with Patreon supporters and paid subscriptions still might spend many hours informing people who ask about the project on social media - trying to dispel FUD and feeling like they get absolutely no help from the Community Team whose job it is to support dissemination of accurate information. What we need most is an updated restatement of the view of the project from 10,000 feet. We don't need to know about plans for seaweed.

Less of the big grand redesigns please that seem to involve endless community patience, just some simple updates to what were the original goals and plans would be nice. Part of the frustration in the community is that right now CIG are giving the impression that it is as the gaming media suggests, all about Chris Roberts and CIG. They never understood that the ones who have the most invested are the players, the community - have YOU forgotten that? It looks like it sometimes when you're so drat preoccupied with 'influencers' and your view of how the company should be represented. As long as game packages get sold, you don't seem to care anymore about making sure that new supporters actually know anything before they go around shouting their heads off in the forums. There is no 10FTC for them to watch and absorb information any more, just costume designers and CT members sharing in-jokes on camera. I don't watch every CI video output to be entertained, I have a paid streaming service for that, I watch it to get information about the project both for myself, and as a reference source for those who come asking questions.

Help us to help you. Please.

Breetai posted:

The thread was an absolute feeding frenzy when I read it, the majority of people are really pissed off, and coming out with extremely negative feedback without even bothering to preface it was a spiel about how much they love the game.

quote:

"Why didn't you get any of your homework done over the last two months Timmy!?"

"But mommy, I didn't feel good for one whole week!"
"But Timmy, that's only ONE week. Why didn't you say anything after?"

"But mommy, I DID tell you! Remember when I said I'd get it done later?! I didn't have the right kind of paper!"
"But you could have used ANY paper Timmy, it didn't have to be college ruled!"

"But mommy, I always use college ruled paper! If I used plain paper I'd be embarrassed!"
"Even if it meant getting your homework done on time?"

"..........."

quote:

I know right... Thats exactly what i felt when reading this.
Like myself and my own poo poo excuses for procrastinating.

trucutru posted:

The honestly published a roadmap for the roadmap (for the beta what was supposed to be already here) and that fills me with joy.

Popete posted:

Correction, they alluded to a soon to be revealed roadmap for the roadmap!

Popete posted:

The bar for this project has sunk so low that a roadmap to a roadmap is now a success. Star Citizen might be the most pathetic endeavor in the history of gaming.

Bootcha posted:

The Road to Roadmap.