Star Citizen Online - The search for more money

Remember, Roberts waxes eloquent about how this is his passion and every dime is going back into the project... but he has some serious fucking incentive to say that.

Highest bidder wins to name a planet.

mkopec_sl said:

So when is this supposed game coming out? This decade?

Click to expand...

When people stop paying for shit they can't play yet, then they'll get right on it.

Test Drive the Arena Commander Lineup! - Roberts Space Industries


5 ships available to test until Friday.

Tuco_sl said:

I think it'll have a very staggered release ala PoE. They'll need to keep the fans fed with intermediate shit.

Click to expand...

Burnout factor in PoE was pretty high due to staggered release of content.

New content releases are hype for a couple months, easy game to quit and come back to though.

Do you feel like star citizen is looking to be easy to quit but easy to come back to as well?

PS: I almost prefer this model over the hard burnout types I've seen.

No way to tell since we have no idea what the game is actually going to be.

Space Tycoon? I am not sure either, but I am hoping Freelancer on Steroids, with an interesting Economy. And I guess, PvP. Which is the biggest questionmark for me now, what that will actually mean in the game for ownership, regional control and the economy. Maybe Variis knows more.

Treesong_sl said:

Space Tycoon? I am not sure either, but I am hoping Freelancer on Steroids, with an interesting Economy. And I guess, PvP. Which is the biggest questionmark for me now, what that will actually mean in the game for ownership, regional control and the economy. Maybe Variis knows more.

Click to expand...

I don't have any inside info. I wish. All I have is what they tell us in their letters on the site, interviews with various devs etc. I find this stuff interesting so I do remember quite a bit about it.

The closest approximation of a game that I personally played would be limited multiplayer Privateer/Freelancer.

Limited because they will never have the ability to field thousands of ships per instance like EvE does in each "node". I wrote a massive post on the official forums explaining why but long story short our Internet infrastructure is in the way of that type of gameplay with too much interactivity per ship or as they like to call it... fidelity for the network to handle with enough accuracy. Bandwidth is not the culprit so much as response times. At some point you loose a ton of accuracy and so developers have to put more stuff locally but that opens a whole other can of worms. So even before you start having issues with the engine handling multiple players you run into the Internet doing the same. We won't know what that limit is until around AC 2.0 when we see multi-crew ships because that's when you get out of your chair and move around along with a half dozen other people in a Connie. What if there are two or three other Connies along with a couple of dozen single seat fighters. It just looks like a nightmare for the network team to me. The engine limitations CIG had to overcome just to get as far as the PU demo might seem like the most worrisome aspect of this but to me it's our connection to the Internet.

As far as the Economy goes again we haven't seen anything beyond a couple of pictures and a very short video of the current in-game model of it which is basically an in-engine miniaturized version of a number of planets in the PU for test purposes. They are trying to play with real numbers to see how the simulation behaves under certain conditions. We have no clue how that's going because they only started that a month or two ago but we do know what they want out of it.

They want the economy to be made up of at least 90% by NPCs. If you watched the PU preview presentation you saw a 300i taking off as the Connie came in for a landing. They also want to model that as part of the PU and the economy. While you won't be allowed interaction with the NPCs in their NPC launch pads at launch the ships you see modeled coming in and leaving are supposed to be accurate representations of ships the NPCs actually have that they will pilot and take from planet to planet or wherever they are doing... say mining or salvaging. So in theory you can see a Banu Merchantmen leaving and you call your Pirate friends and they track him down and take the NPCs cargo or whatever. Then again you won't know if it's an NPC because other players will be similarly represented. That is by design.

Beyond the Economy tracking the NPC's ships, remember they are only modeled when someone sees them so they exist in nothing but an ever changing database or number of databases otherwise, it will also spawn pirates based on how a system's economy is going and how far away it is from the primary UEE planets. They haven't talked much about this but every region will have some kind of security rating similar to EvE that will have a direct impact on the economy due to crime. On top of that the Economy model will be further complicated by it's granular detail at every level. Everything is supposed to be tracked and have its own impact on the economy/crime model. Here it is as best as I can currently understand it:

Everything from ships to clothing to guns has to be created in the economy through various goods. The economy model may start with a certain state but after that what happens can vary greatly. Rare items/ships will be created based on the economy so you may have a situation where the entire galactic economy can only produce 50 890 Jumps a month. If 100 get blown up in a month it can take you a very long time to replace it. It's just an example.

Cities (permanent cities/variable cities)/Outposts/Space Stations - on the ground spawn NPCs based on the economy with appropriate behavior. eg. Economy is going badly: spawn more criminals and vandals that attack or interact with the local police/player or spray paint walls. Economy is going well: spawn less criminals and more workers doing tasks based on the economy, boom towns and emerging economies might spawn more industry type NPCs doing that type of work or hyper economies might spawn countless shoppers and STEM type NPCs doing whatever their job is. Also spawn appropriate ships for NPCs in that economy. A poor economy will see far less luxury ships like the 300 series and perhaps more Auroras, security/bounty hunter vehicles like the Avenger and and Cutlass Blue (Police) ships and the local system will be brimming with pirates. Whereas a hyper economy might see lots of 300 series ships as those are luxury ships, racers like the M50 and 350R and the occasional yacht like the 890 Jump. Pirates will still exist but in more out of the way areas. There will always be grime though as you have a divide between the haves and have nots. On top of all this variable worlds, not sure what the actual in game term for it is, will grow and contract based on the economy. They can go down to as little as an Outpost or grow into a mega city. The game is supposed to open up areas to the player to explore as things expand or remove them as they contract. Permanent cities like Prime on Terra will not have this as the economy is supposed to have a less dramatic impact on core planets. Those are hyper economies and are used to booms and bust cycles. However emerging economies on other planets can be completely devastated by this. Not sure how much of this will make it into PU 1.0 but its definitely planned for implementation at some point.

Worlds are made up of various cities and each one has some unique things that they need/want or that they produce or have that other worlds may want. How in demand these things are will always vary from place to place but these won't go away. For example a world might produce high grade medical supplies and a frontier world experiencing war on its doorstep might want those medical supplies at a premium but it will be dangerous to get there. Those same supplies might not give you much on more peaceful worlds.

Local Star Systems will of course include planets but they also include resources meant for mining. A rich system will have rare ores or just plentiful more standard ore similar to EvE while poor star systems will have little to no mining opportunities. All of the best ore will be outside of UEE space just like in EvE where all the good stuff is in null space. This further impacts piracy. A poor system will have no reason for pirates to stick around too much. A rich system however has plenty of reasons.

Between Star systems there will be "highways" that the NPCs will frequent just in terms of taking the shortest route between two points. This might be modified by the player unlocking jump points and making them public or not. These will be the most secure areas but nearby will be pirates watching for stray ships and those hoping to make a quicker but less safe jump between planets/systems in unexplored areas.

Then there are Regions that are broken up into various star systems. The UEE will likely have a number of regions under its control with the core worlds making up the more rich planets and the surrounding ones feeding it resources for its war machine against the Vanduul. Just like how each city, each planet and each star system has its own economy each Region will also have its own based on the sum of its parts. All of these economies feed into NPCs spawning and boom and bust in the economy of variable worlds.

Each NPC ship will carry goods based on the economy. Those NPCs take missions that the game generates not only for them but for the players. So in theory a player could take the place of an NPC to take goods wherever they need to go. It's the same for security missions. The UEE can't be everywhere so they will post missions for NPCs and players to take to secure "highways" or escort ships through pirate infested areas or simply go and clean out pirates. The pirates and other outside factors such as the war against the Vanduul will also impact the economy because they will either take or destroy goods that are actually tracked by the Economy model. If pirates are allowed to roam freely and attack ships at will it will increase crime and hurt the economy of every planet it involves.

The economy of any world or region will also impact what equipment is available for purchase everywhere. Auroras might be plentiful almost everywhere but the 300 series ships might not be and could be in more limited supply in far away worlds or those experiencing a poor economy. This is supposed to be reflected in stores found wherever you land not just for ships but clothing, weapons and any other equipment you can think of. Even what type of stores that are open are supposed to be reflected on variable worlds based on the economy.

Since the loss of goods to piracy, war or the general economy has a direct impact on what items you can purchase or how quickly you can replace a lost ship the player has an incentive to take part in the economy. Take those missions to outposts and help them expand, hunt down pirates etc or do the opposite and watch it all burn to the ground. Having said this CIG doesn't want us to control the entire economy directly. Our participation is supposed to be locked in at aprox 10% while the other 90% are NPCs. However that 10% can have a significant impact should people go out of their way to try.

Of course until we see any of this implemented its just theory. We shall see around this time next year.

Very interesting, thanks a lot, Variise. Especially good to learn more about the fact that NPC's will be a major factor in the Economy and can be used to cushion and direct it.

Tuco_sl said:

Just so you know, Variise, the more you hang onto the parts from interviews you like, and the more you fill in whatever gaps with what you want, the more your soul will be crushed when the game starts to come together in an unexpected way!

Click to expand...

? Wish I could +net you more Tuco. This should be the sub-text for the everquest next thread.

Variises post was a good read though. Contextual exclusion or not.

Based on that review, I look forward to this game when it releases in 2025 if it is not bought out by Mattel inc. The good news is that the internet should have a better infrastructure by then if there is no great Ebola plague.

Tuco_sl said:

Just so you know, Variise, the more you hang onto the parts from interviews you like, and the more you fill in whatever gaps with what you want, the more your soul will be crushed when the game starts to come together in an unexpected way!

Click to expand...

I thought my parting sentence summed that up rather well. There is what they tell us and then there is what we get. They just hope it's one and the same in the end. That's almost impossible with such an open development.

Here is one example that I can easily give just off the top of my head.

There was an interview during one of the first few AtV where one of the devs were asked to describe how planetary interaction could work. One solution was you get within range of a planet/space station and you prompt or get prompted by orbital control to land. So far that is the same no matter what the solution is. But here is where they differ. In one scenario you go towards the planet, enter the atmosphere, control is taken from you either before and during this process, and as you get closer to the city the game engine dynamically creates the assets as they enter your visual range. You eventually land and off you go. This one had a massive hurdle in how you handle the pixels and objects forming and they had some R&D actively trying to solve it. Then there was the other solution mentioned previously and since then by Chris Roberts of how he thinks it will likely work. Control is taken from you immediately after accepting landing instructions, you are shown flying towards the planet in-engine and you enter the atmosphere where you stay in the clouds/re-entry as the game assets load and you get spat out on the other end and you get control back as you land. You would also be allowed to move around in the ship during this process and it wouldn't interrupt you or your crew one bit.

Now which one did you see in the PU preview? Minus the movement around during landing it was the latter. So either they abandoned the former concept of landing as too difficult/ambitious and a money waster or they are continuing R&D on it. I'm going to guess they have left it behind and are moving on as they should. I think it was impressive enough and I doubt many would complain about how the landing will be handled now that they have seen it first hand. But on paper it didn't sound that great compared to the first one.

Anyway that's just one example. I'm sure there will be lots of others before the game is launched.
I'm nothing if not a realist.

I have often been thinking about the wish of people to be able to handle (and experience) the transition between being in Space and going Planetside, through atmospheric flight, and I wonder for how long this would stay fun to do. If you would allow this somewhat realistically, you are talking at least a few minutes of going through the atmopshere, and since this is not Flight Simulator 2014, you will have to restrict people where they can go. So you are talking about a boxed path that would get boring quickly imo. I guess you could let people roam the skies a bit and have them look at fake-surface beneath them where they can not land, but that would get old fast too.

I am guessing in the end, most people would opt for a rather quick, assisted landing. However I can understand those people that get a kick from the landing itself, since that could require some skill(the "HOTAS" players). Those are the real Sim-fans. However, would they still enjoy this as much this if they knew that the other 90% of the players always chooses for the cutscene/assisted landing?

I think we are getting into the realm of "earn your stuff and ltp, noob" and that is always tricky. I for one would not like it if I was obliged to do a manual landing every time, where I could even do damage that would cost me. So I liked what I did see in the PU demo.

Having said this, wasn't there talk about some ports needing manual landings? That could be a way to cater to both groups. If the more remote ports would require some skill still, that could be cool.

Edit: was that actually a manual landing in the PU demo? I must say, that looked very real. So the landing itself is manual in the current iteration?

Treesong_sl said:

I have often been thinking about the wish of people to be able to handle (and experience) the transition between being in Space and going Planetside, through atmospheric flight, and I wonder for how long this would stay fun to do. If you would allow this somewhat realistically, you are talking at least a few minutes of going through the atmopshere, and since this is not Flight Simulator 2014, you will have to restrict people where they can go. So you are talking about a boxed path that would get boring quickly imo. I guess you could let people roam the skies a bit and have them look at fake-surface beneath them where they can not land, but that would get old fast too.

I am guessing in the end, most people would opt for a rather quick, assisted landing. However I can understand those people that get a kick from the landing itself, since that could require some skill(the "HOTAS" players). Those are the real Sim-fans. However, would they still enjoy this as much this if they knew that the other 90% of the players always chooses for the cutscene/assisted landing?

I think we are getting into the realm of "earn your stuff and ltp, noob" and that is always tricky. I for one would not like it if I was obliged to do a manual landing every time, where I could even do damage that would cost me. So I liked what I did see in the PU demo.

Having said this, wasn't there talk about some ports needing manual landings? That could be a way to cater to both groups. If the more remote ports would require some skill still, that could be cool.

Edit: was that actually a manual landing in the PU demo? I must say, that looked very real. So the landing itself is manual in the current iteration?

Click to expand...

No that landing was assisted and that's how it will be for every planetside location until they open up the worlds maybe for PU 2.0 or 3.0. In fact I hope we don't get manual planetside landings for PU 1.0 because it's a fuckton of complexity based on how one dev explained it. They need to move the fuck on and don't waste dev time on it. They can always go back to it later. As cool as it was I think they will regret ever showing that interview or not cutting it. So far nobody has really noticed on the forums or elsewhere but you can bet that at some point some douche canoe is going to use it as a rallying cry on how CIG lied to them again. I swear to god those people have no fucking lives and just live to make everyone else miserable.

Having said that in the last AtV Ben mentioned that they just got assisted and manual landing working on capital ships. Can't wait to see what that looks like.

Now lets switch gears for a minute. Perhaps this is a good time to talk about the game industry culture or lack thereof. There is some shit flinging going on from some former CIG staff saying things like it's the most toxic environment they ever worked in, although he somewhat backtracked later, and another one mentioning the poor work conditions, long hours and low pay.

You can check it out here if you like. In the comments people mention some of the other comments these ex employees made since posting that.http://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/...tar_citizen_i/

Besides the poor tact that basically burns your bridges and ensures you never work in the industry ever again there is the other side of that coin.

If what they said is true it saddens me that they would treat their employees no better than the big studios. However I do have to question what a lot of people expected. Despite the millions we throw at them they have a tight budget and even tighter timeline. Apparently it was one of the reasons some production moved to LA and some of these people exited the company. Chris seems like a tyrant probably because that's pretty much what he has to be to meet expectations. I do wonder if that shouldn't be someone else's job though. It's not good to have your corporate head drench their hands in blood. In government you have the Chief of Staff for the role of "Heel" so the CIO/CCIO/ADM/DM/M and the rest of the alphabet soup of big shots can be the "Face". I'm surprised they don't have something similar in the gaming industry.

On another note it's pretty standard in the industry to work 70-80 hour weeks on salary and it seems CIG is no different. One problem with this is you suck the life out of people. You get games like ME3 or worse, DA2, that are half brilliant and half asleep just like the devs. It burns people out and sucks the creativity out of them, not to mention their life. My understanding is that high turnover is pretty common on projects like this. At some point they will give up and move on to another project or leave the industry entirely. Usually at the first opportunity.

One problem is us. We demand things now like right the fuck now. I see it on the Official Forums in the General Chat and even the Den on occasion but especially on Reddit and gaming magazines. Just don't get me started on the magazines. I will never click on another link from them again. The industry is all to happy to take advantage of that attitude and use it against their employees. It treats them like tissue paper after a good wank. Soon as they are through there is someone else to take their place.

Maybe the issue with CIG is the combination of too many big promises in the stretch goals and constantly re-iterating the graphics. There really isn't a lot of room left for paying staff properly when you need a massive army of them just to deliver on those initial promises. I'm not sure how fair it is to compare CIG to a more established studio. Apparently there are some out there that have great culture but they seem to be the absolute minority. Plus they have an established name and money bag to lean on. Still it's no excuse for poor behavior. Assuming that's how things are at CIG.

Honestly I don't have an answer. Short of game industry people having their own advocacy group I don't think things will get better. Even if they somehow managed that it's a global economy. Look at the VFX industry. It has been systematically gutted in North America and moved to College campuses, mine has a studio, and over seas for cheap labor. Primarily because the big studios don't believe VFX should cost anything and are not willing to pay for it anymore. It's kind of depressing to see the industries I always looked up and dreamed about being really no different from my 9 to 5 job. Except I still get benefits.

Anyway just thought I bring this up to see what some of you thought. The closest I got to this industry is a bit of gaming journalism that went nowhere. Perhaps some of you are closer to the fire and know more about the industry and how it operates.