Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

Blackwulf · Aug 27, 2016

Denaut said:
I clicked through the videos you linked (I didn't sit through everything) and these are good examples of what is not actually design. Unless I missed something (let me know what the video and time code is) I heard nothing that went beyond a very high level number of "wishlist ideas" that are generated within the first few weeks of a project.

This is not design. This is what people think design is, and part of the reason that design as a discipline is looked down so much even within the industry itself. Design lives in the details, the rules, the numbers, and the all of the decisions those things generate.

It is a massively interacting network of tiny, tiny dials that have knock on effects across the entire game where an almost insignificant tweak here can render an entire game system over there pointless.

Your description of design is basically the same kind of stuff Tony Zurovec talks about. I'm not gonna listen through all the interviews he's done to find timestamps for you, though. I thought you'd be interested, as he's basically working on one of the largest projects in the industry doing the job that you say you do. He's a game designer. These aren't ex baseball players making an MMO - Chris Roberts and Tony Zurovech have developed good games before, and they've been cognizant of the need for a solid foundational game design for SC from day one.

I get a_skeleton_03's objection - it makes sense saying that the proof will be in the pudding, but I think it's naïve to assume they don't understand that the design itself is important or to assume it isn't there.

a_skeleton_03 · Aug 27, 2016

Blackwulf said:
I get a_skeleton_03's objection - it makes sense saying that the proof will be in the pudding, but I think it's naïve to assume they don't understand that the design itself is important or to assume it isn't there.

Understanding and being able to deliver is two different stories.

Tesla wrecked how many rockets before he finally self landed one?

There are plenty of brilliant people out there that have started projects that on paper looked great and they were the people that could do it if anyone could but they still failed.

My two favorite are the Microsoft Courier and Apple Newton.

Rafterman · Aug 27, 2016

Blackwulf said:
Nah, P2W means you can use real money to do something someone can't do in game. I mean, that's what most of us consider P2W. It will take time and effort, but you can earn the ships you want in game. On top of that, buying large ships now removes actual content for you in the game. I'm guilty of "collecting" more ships than I actually want right now. I plan to give some of them away to friends/family before the game launches because I want to have the fun of growing my merchant/mining operation from something small into something large, expanding into bigger and better ships as I go.

Let me put forth another idea you might not have considered. Forget, for the moment, that this game may fail and not deliver up to expectations. Let's assume it does deliver on the promises and releases to great fanfare. That couldn't have happened without people putting money into the development. Do you have a better idea than selling ships that can and will be stolen, destroyed, and earned in game? Would you rather CR just got a bunch of investors to fund the game, having to listen to their input on design and being forced to release the game before it was ready? That's what happens to most games, is that working well for you?

First off, your definition of P2W is extremely narrow. Being able to singlehandedly buy a ship with real money that will take a large group of people a long time in-game is P2W. On top of that the bigger your ship the more advanced missions you get and the more money you earn, so not only do you have a head start from day one but that won't change as people play, because while everyone else is scraping by to buy a ship you will be rolling in money.

As for your second point why are you assuming there is no middle ground between the two? There is no reason they couldn't have made this game just selling starter packages. I actually supported this game so it's not like I want it to fail, but it's troubling to me that the defense force has basically changed their tune from "you can easily get a ship without paying" to "how else were they supposed to fund the game?" type arguments and the latest interview with Roberts didn't help.

a_skeleton_03 said:
How do you earn these ships in game?

...

The way they will probably implement earning the ships is selling them from a vendor for an equivalent amount of in game money that you could potentially purchase with the same amount of real cash. If you can't directly buy real cash in game they will algorithm a real cash to man hours ratio and then in game cash to hours spent ratio and match that up.

Well, according to Roberts himself buying one with real money is a better deal and they will be more expensive come release, so I don't see this happening. Watch the first 5 minutes of this video where he flails around trying to answer the question only to pretty much confirm the people who pay real money now will come out ahead.

GhenghisKhan · Aug 27, 2016

Lots of people streaming this on Twitch if anyone wants to see actual gameplay.

Blackwulf · Aug 27, 2016

Edit: Forgot to quote Rafterman.

Okay, man - I get that it's a problem for you. Some people are using money to accomplish two things: 1. Fund the game's development, and 2. Remove a time-sink for themselves from the game should it ever release. I don't really see a problem with it. The really expensive ships are going to be a pain in the ass to upkeep, unless you have a big org. If you have a big org, why not do a little fund raiser and buy one of the big ships next time they're on sale? If you don't want to give more money to development, then use your big org's #'s to farm up the cash when it launches. Yeah, it's going to take a fucking long time for an individual who is starting with a base Aurora package to earn an Idris in game, but why would an individual even want an Idris? Honestly, a lot of us are going to be happy never having anything much above the size of a Cutlass or Freelancer - piracy and trade runs are pretty popular. The small Hull ships are cheap, and I think a lot of fun could be had earning your way from a Hull A to a Hull D doing trade missions.

Denaut · Aug 27, 2016

Blackwulf said:
Your description of design is basically the same kind of stuff Tony Zurovec talks about. I'm not gonna listen through all the interviews he's done to find timestamps for you, though. I thought you'd be interested, as he's basically working on one of the largest projects in the industry doing the job that you say you do. He's a game designer. These aren't ex baseball players making an MMO -

I, being a glutton for punishment, watched the first 2 videos in full and the relevant part of the third. The only part where he gets into discussing design itself is at 27:15 of the first video. And even then he doesn't say anything that a would be out of place on this board. That doesn't mean he is a bad designer, just that there is nothing to indicate he has a deep and sophisticated knowledge of design.

That is certainly asking for a lot, but it isn't completely unreasonable. I remember pre-ordering X-Com 2 based on a marketing video (which I can't find) where like 10 seconds of listening to Jake Solomon speaking about the game convinced me utterly that he possessed a correct and deep grasp of game design. I don't remember what the his words were, all I remember is a bell going off in my head and thinking "this guy gets it."

I've also learned that some of the best designers have worked on nothing of note, with the opposite being true as well. The most egregious example is a designer that got his start on the original Baldur's Gate, and has his name on a list of acclaimed and successful games a mile long.

He's turned this resume into a consulting gig, which is how we met when the publisher hired him to oversee design and act as a liaison between them and our development studio. He was, without a doubt, one of the worst designers I've ever had the misfortune to deal with. In one instance he had a (terrible) design for a progression system, we (the design team) offered a much better alternative. His "solution" was to literally put the 2 designs together int a jumbled mess of both simultaneously. It wasn't taken very well when we told him that was a shockingly terrible idea and we'd prefer to just go with his original one. His pride prevented him from taking even that suggestion and the shitty smashed together system is what we ended up with.

We soon realized how he could be so bad yet get his name on so many successful games when he would steal credit for work, present our work as his own through omission, insist only he email anyone outside of the design team, or (sometimes within the same meeting) decline a suggestion only to present it later as his own. It soon became clear why he had such a large list of credits, he didn't stay anywhere terribly long.

Anyway, the point of that story which went on way too long (I get carried away) is that "experience" counts for little to nothing in my eyes.

Chris Roberts and Tony Zurovech have developed good games before, and they've been cognizant of the need for a solid foundational game design for SC from day one.

Here is the problem, their concept of "foundational design" seems to consist only of a high level wishlist of vague features. I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise.

Blackwulf · Aug 27, 2016

Denaut said:
I, being a glutton for punishment, watched the first 2 videos in full and the relevant part of the third. The only part where he gets into discussing design itself is at 27:15 of the first video. And even then he doesn't say anything that a would be out of place on this board. That doesn't mean he is a bad designer, just that there is nothing to indicate he has a deep and sophisticated knowledge of design.

That is certainly asking for a lot, but it isn't completely unreasonable. I remember pre-ordering X-Com 2 based on a marketing video (which I can't find) where like 10 seconds of listening to Jake Solomon speaking about the game convinced me utterly that he possessed a correct and deep grasp of game design. I don't remember what the his words were, all I remember is a bell going off in my head and thinking "this guy gets it."

I've also learned that some of the best designers have worked on nothing of note, with the opposite being true as well. The most egregious example is a designer that got his start on the original Baldur's Gate, and has his name on a list of acclaimed and successful games a mile long.

He's turned this resume into a consulting gig, which is how we met when the publisher hired him to oversee design and act as a liaison between them and our development studio. He was, without a doubt, one of the worst designers I've ever had the misfortune to deal with. In one instance he had a (terrible) design for a progression system, we (the design team) offered a much better alternative. His "solution" was to literally put the 2 designs together int a jumbled mess of both simultaneously. It wasn't taken very well when we told him that was a shockingly terrible idea and we'd prefer to just go with his original one. His pride prevented him from taking even that suggestion and the shitty smashed together system is what we ended up with.

We soon realized how he could be so bad yet get his name on so many successful games when he would steal credit for work, present our work as his own through omission, insist only he email anyone outside of the design team, or (sometimes within the same meeting) decline a suggestion only to present it later as his own. It soon became clear why he had such a large list of credits, he didn't stay anywhere terribly long.

Anyway, the point of that story which went on way too long (I get carried away) is that "experience" counts for little to nothing in my eyes.

Here is the problem, their concept of "foundational design" seems to consist only of a high level wishlist of vague features. I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise.

Okay, I get what you're saying. Basically, you're skeptical, and the only thing that will convince you is a good, finished product. I can't help you with that! Only time will tell - fingers crossed!

Denaut · Aug 27, 2016

Rafterman said:
Well, according to Roberts himself buying one with real money is a better deal and they will be more expensive come release, so I don't see this happening. Watch the first 5 minutes of this video where he flails around trying to answer the question only to pretty much confirm the people who pay real money now will come out ahead.

This is actually one of the big red flags for me. They have trapped themselves utterly in a design box of their own making. One that was obvious from the very first moment, and which I think they too late realized they crawled into.

By selling ships for a cost so exorbitant that it defies belief they set a "time-played" price such that they have to make 1 of 2 decisions that will piss people off. Make the "time cost" of those ships so ridiculously high that purchasing them is PtW in any meaningful sense of the word, or devalue those ships in terms of time cost/ gameplay effectiveness to a point where people will rightly feel they have been ripped off.

There is no middle ground in their situation due to the unbelievable prices they charged (and idiots paid). They should made a decision one way or the other, announce it, and live with the consequences rather than giving only waffling vagaries. Personally I think they should side with the people that already paid and just go with the PtW model, valuing time-cost appropriately.

Denaut · Aug 27, 2016

Blackwulf said:
Okay, I get what you're saying. Basically, you're skeptical, and the only thing that will convince you is a good, finished product. I can't help you with that! Only time will tell - fingers crossed!

Well, yes

But I'd add that I am highly and professionally skeptical, not just normally skeptical

I don't want to be right mind you, this is by far my favorite genre of game (as indicated by the embarrassing amount of time I've sunk into the X games among others).

When NMS launched my boss was like "you were right!" Apparently I called the state of the launch so accurately that reading reviews was exactly like listening to me talk about it a year ago (I had forgotten).

Axamander · Aug 28, 2016

a_skeleton_03 said:
Understanding and being able to deliver is two different stories.

Tesla wrecked how many rockets before he finally self landed one?

There are plenty of brilliant people out there that have started projects that on paper looked great and they were the people that could do it if anyone could but they still failed.

My two favorite are the Microsoft Courier and Apple Newton.

Except those are hardware which cannot be fully prototyped in a virtual setting as opposed to software which allows for easier prototyping.

Axamander · Aug 28, 2016

Denaut said:
Well, yes But I'd add that I am highly and professionally skeptical, not just normally skeptical I don't want to be right mind you, this is by far my favorite genre of game (as indicated by the embarrassing amount of time I've sunk into the X games among others).

When NMS launched my boss was like "you were right!" Apparently I called the state of the launch so accurately that reading reviews was exactly like listening to me talk about it a year ago (I had forgotten).

And you fail to articulate anything that actually indicates a professional skepticism. You name drop games, have story time, and add lots of incredulity.

a_skeleton_03 · Aug 28, 2016

Axamander said:
Except those are hardware which cannot be fully prototyped in a virtual setting as opposed to software which allows for easier prototyping.

Easier but in no way does that guarantee success. There have been plenty of games and other software out there with a much smaller scope that were scrapped despite the best minds for it working on it.

Titan and Starcraft Ghost both by Blizzard and both scrapped.

Variise · Aug 28, 2016

Well you asked:

a_skeleton_03 said:
I didn't "leave out a second part" at all. I highlighted the most relevant part to why I am tired of waiting for this game. There is nothing else in your post at all that can get rid of that because the game. is. not. done. yet. You can't convince me that they are going to make all of these models AND get a game working inside those models until one or the other is done. It's impossible.

Tired of waiting for the game has nothing to do with your comment or mine about the pricing scheme. You don't even know what you wrote. Arguing that the game is essentially done is not something I have done since page 1 so wtf? I gave up convincing you or anyone after the troll mob showed up the last time. I'm trying to provide facts and when there are no facts I'm giving the most information we currently have which obviously are either R&D stuff they showed off in the past 2 years and I point out that everything is subject to change or has changed multiple times thereby changing the facts around the game. When I was trying to convince you and others of the merits of the game I was accused of not providing facts or information about the game and when I do I'm accused of parroting. It's a no win scenario you clearly relish.

a_skeleton_03 said:
I am not nitpicking words, they were YOUR words. "We" here can't establish shit, we can conjecture only. So "we" haven't established shit, I have guessed at a probability myself. I don't think Christ has talked at all about how you will "earn" these ships, has he? Hail mary's and cudgels? WTF are you smoking? Neither one of us are objective you mongoloid. There is NO GAME to be objective about. There are pieces and rumors and press releases and changes and software life cycles and delays and early finishing and model rewrites and all kinds of things but not a finished game. Even when it's done the only thing to be objective about is does it do this exact function. You or I can't be subjective about it being a 'good game' or not.

You literally nitpicked words in the first sentence just now. We established a common ground on where the game is headed price wise. You lost your shit and made a mountain out of an molehill and just now went off on arguing things I didn't stand up for. You clearly like arguing for the sake of arguing. It's facepalm inducing.

I gave you the answer that Chris gave about earning ships. You were too busy shitting on me to comprehend it. The rest of your commentary is basically arguing that there isn't a complete game. Well no shit. Who is arguing that there is one? I'm looking around confused because I haven't tried to argue the things you are upset about.

a_skeleton_03 said:
Where have I cut you down? Where am I going to lengths to troll you? Quote it.

See above.

Honestly I'm not sure what you are doing at this point. I'm at my wits end dealing with your flagrant disregard for any information given to you. You purposefully do it and create scenarios that don't exist or twist facts so you can try to twist the knife. The other trolls were doing that but you mostly at least tried to make arguments. That's now gone.

a_skeleton_03 said:
No I am not going to go search through 3,000 posts to find a snippet of where you have mentioned your experience. If you didn't want to provide it just don't provide it. Now it looks like you are embarrassed about it and that it shows you don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to MMO's.

Thank you for proving my point.

a_skeleton_03 said:
It does matter what you have to say or I wouldn't waste my time replying .... If you are just going to stick your fingers in your ears and not have a discussion though then you are the troll and just let us all know. If so you are wasting your time on this forum because people that don't actually debate things find themselves ostracized fairly quick and get bored. Your choice my friend, your choice.

If what I say matters why do you write about things I haven't wrote. Why do you claim ignorance over information I already gave you literally in a previous comment. Why do you relentlessly attack the messenger instead of arguing over the game's merits.

Maybe we're just operating on different wavelengths and that happens when people are passionate about a subject. Sometimes the written medium is not a place to reach consensus for certain people. I'm assuming that's what it is at this point because I honestly try to see the best in people and not the worst all the time. It's too depressing to live like that.

Variise · Aug 28, 2016

a_skeleton_03 said:
Oh yeah I get the end goal and if done it should be fun.

I don't see the successful leap for the tech modules to a fun game is all. Not by this time next year at a minimum.

What Variise doesn't understand and that you do is that on paper we can agree it sounds like a good game. He also doesn't understand that right now "Chris said" is not worth toilet paper.

Like @Mist said some of the tech is getting better and better and they are finally tying things together. It is just the graham cracker crust to the pie though.

The lifecycle on this thing has taken way to long and a lot of missteps have occurred. I am thrilled people are hopeful but if you aren't prepared to open your email tomorrow and learn that they completely shut down and your money is gone you just aren't being realistic. You gambled and things are getting better and better but those last final steps are going to be epic leaps.

I literally wrote the same thing Blackwulf did and I'm the one that doesn't understand that what isn't in game has no value in an argument.

Combined with your previous statements thank you for proving unequivocally that you are trolling me.

I'll keep that in mind.

a_skeleton_03 · Aug 28, 2016

Variise said:
Combined with your previous statements thank you for proving unequivocally that you are trolling me.

Can't troll the mentally deficient.

If you did say the exact thing as Blackwulf then you cleverly disguised in between "Chris said" quotes or your only other thing you say which is "stop listening to DS".

You have only those two lines. Not an original thought if you tried.

Variise · Aug 28, 2016

Rafterman said:
First off, your definition of P2W is extremely narrow. Being able to singlehandedly buy a ship with real money that will take a large group of people a long time in-game is P2W. On top of that the bigger your ship the more advanced missions you get and the more money you earn, so not only do you have a head start from day one but that won't change as people play, because while everyone else is scraping by to buy a ship you will be rolling in money.

You make it sound like it would be linear when that isn't the goal. Chris also mentioned that the cost of upkeep would rise with the value of the ship. Their later plans for Subsumption is to allow you to buy full crews for ships. Pilots for fighters or an entire crew for a Constellation or Idris which you then have to pay for. The quality of the crew at initial purchase would also impact their cost. It gives you an advantage but AI crews would never be as good as players and it would obviously cut into your profits. That doesn't include the cost of insurance that is only negated by LTI which won't help players if they buy new modules/weapons for ships. As they add ever more expensive items the insurance dramatically increases or at least that's their current plan. Obviously until implementation we don't know how well/badly it works.

Variise · Aug 28, 2016

a_skeleton_03 said:
Can't troll the mentally deficient.

If you did say the exact thing as Blackwulf then you cleverly disguised in between "Chris said" quotes or your only other thing you say which is "stop listening to DS".

You have only those two lines. Not an original thought if you tried.

Did you purposefully say after the forum move you hoped I would come back so you could try to hurt me because this is fun to you?

Well keep your Kleenex handy and don't rub too hard it might come off.

Cinge · Aug 28, 2016

Perfect thread title for this. Though a added "And for the suckers that give it to them", would of been great too.

a_skeleton_03 · Aug 28, 2016

Variise said:
Did you purposefully say after the forum move you hoped I would come back so you could try to hurt me because this is fun to you?

Well keep your Kleenex handy and don't rub too hard it might come off.

I did not say that.

You not seeing there is room for two opinions is not fun. You being an insane level fanboy does not bring me pleasure.

Denaut · Aug 28, 2016

Axamander said:
And you fail to articulate anything that actually indicates a professional skepticism. You name drop games, have story time, and add lots of incredulity.

You mean like the post about their cock-up with the preordered ships and "Pay to Win" right before the one you quoted?

Search

Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

Blackwulf

N00b

a_skeleton_03

Rafterman

Molten Core Raider

GhenghisKhan

Molten Core Raider

Blackwulf

N00b

Denaut

Trump's Staff

Blackwulf

N00b

Denaut

Trump's Staff

Denaut

Trump's Staff

Axamander

N00b

Axamander

N00b

a_skeleton_03

Variise

N00b

Variise

N00b

a_skeleton_03

Variise

N00b

Variise

N00b

Cinge

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

a_skeleton_03

Denaut

Trump's Staff