- Registriert
- Mai 2004
- Beiträge
- 10.064
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...atmospheric-room-system-4-years-later/3366236
sehr interessanter Ausblick von CR.
sehr interessanter Ausblick von CR.
-
Mitspieler gesucht? Du willst dich locker mit der Community austauschen? Schau gerne auf unserem ComputerBase Discord vorbei!
Star Citizen [Sammelthread] Star Citizen [PreRelease] Teil III
- Ersteller charmin
- Erstellt am
- Status
ZeT
Vice Admiral
- Registriert
- März 2008
- Beiträge
- 6.889
charmin schrieb:
Da bin ich wirklich gespannt wo sich die Corsair da einordnet. Ist ja eigentlich genau so ein Mittelding zwischen Freelancer und Connie.
Ergänzung ()
shoKuu schrieb:
Bis auf die Bewaffnung ist die 100i doch völlig okay. Und es ist ja nicht gesagt das CIG da nicht noch was tun wird. 2x S2 anstatt S1 und alle sind glücklich. ^^
shoKuu
Admiral
- Registriert
- Jan. 2008
- Beiträge
- 8.437
Ich finde Carrack vermittelt durch die Größe einfach einen absolut falschen Eindruck. IMHO ist die Carrack im Alltag mit 3 Mann locker zu bewältigen. Exploration Gameplay entschleunigt einfach komplett und da muss man weniger effizent arbeiten. Viele Stationen müssen nur in bestimmten Situationen besetzt werden. Gefechtssituation (min. 4 Personen), Erkundung im All (min. 3 Personen), Erkundung mit der PIsces (min. 2 Personen), ... Selbst mit jeder kommenden neuen Profression und Mechanik wird sich das nicht viel ändern.
Gerade darum geht es doch bei Exploration. Gemeinsam neue Dinge entdecken und ein entspannendes und entschleunigtes Gameplay geniessen.
Nachtrag: Ich fliege die Carrack im Solo und selbst das Medic Station lässt sich Solo bedienen. So kann man sich einfach selber verarzten. Funktioniert aktuell noch recht gut.
Gerade darum geht es doch bei Exploration. Gemeinsam neue Dinge entdecken und ein entspannendes und entschleunigtes Gameplay geniessen.
Nachtrag: Ich fliege die Carrack im Solo und selbst das Medic Station lässt sich Solo bedienen. So kann man sich einfach selber verarzten. Funktioniert aktuell noch recht gut.
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
Bulletchief
Rear Admiral
- Registriert
- Nov. 2011
- Beiträge
- 5.506
Jein. Ich finde bei einigen alten Schiffen wie Freelancer und Constellation ist es noch sehr gut kontrolliert. Selbst die Cutlass ist noch iO, auch wenn man den vorderen Raum sicherlich etwas effizienter gestalten hätte können.Tiger_61 schrieb:
Caterpillar ist auch noch ok, wenn auch gnadenlos verwinkelt. Hammerhead ist klasse, gefällt mir.
600i ist ein Totalausfall, auch aus Terrapin und Reliant hätte man mehr machen können.
Die Mercury ist schon sehr nah an Terrapin und 600i dran...
Whaaaat... CR himself und dann noch voller Inhalt in einem ordinären Thread und zusätzlich nicht zu sehr auf Marketing bedacht?charmin schrieb:
Was ist passiert? Hat er Ausgang bekommen für ne Stunde 😅?
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
- Registriert
- Mai 2004
- Beiträge
- 10.064
Na fürs Mining mit dem ROC ist die Carrack definitiv die falsche Wahl. Dafür ist sie zu groß und träge.
Der Innenaufbau der Carrack ist sehr gut geworden, alles schön strukturiert und nicht so ein Desaster wie die Starfarer. Die Reclaimer ist auch deutlich verwinkelter, aber das geht noch finde ich.
Dafür ist sie zu groß und träge.Der Innenaufbau der Carrack ist sehr gut geworden, alles schön strukturiert und nicht so ein Desaster wie die Starfarer. Die Reclaimer ist auch deutlich verwinkelter, aber das geht noch finde ich.
ZeT
Vice Admiral
- Registriert
- März 2008
- Beiträge
- 6.889
charmin schrieb:Na fürs Mining mit dem ROC ist die Carrack definitiv die falsche Wahl.
Wie viele da wohl rein passen? Ich stells mir grad vor... Carrack im Tiefflug und die ROCs hüpfen vorne aus der Luke raus. Später dann alle wieder einsammeln.
Aber das ich auf meinem Hauptaccount keinen weiblichen Char erstellen kann... nach dem einloggen renn ich immer nur mit nem Typ rum - egal was ich tu.
Wenigstens hat das auf dem anderen Account geklappt mit dem weiblichen Char. Die übrigens verdammt gut aussehen können. ^^
Tharamur
Commodore
- Registriert
- März 2010
- Beiträge
- 4.195
Die alte Carrack hat mir optisch deutlich besser gefallen. Deshalb hab ich damals auch lange überlegt, ob ich mir die nicht einfach holen soll. Derzeitiger Stand bei mir:
Mercury: bleibt im Stall
Avenger Titan: wird mein Starterschiff
FC7 Hornet Wildfire: schaut geil aus und bleibt deswegen (hatte die nicht auch mal ein Pinup Girl auf der Seite?)
Arrow: weiß noch nicht, was ich damit mache
Mustang Alpha (Starter Pack): weiß ich noch nicht, was ich damit mache
Buyback:
Cutlass Black
2-3 X1 Base mit LTI
Die C2 als größeres Transportschiff wäre für mich eventuell noch interessant. Das Mustang Starterpaket hatte ich mir mal gekauft, weil es ja mal geheissen hat, daß man dadurch ein Crewmitglied bekommt, welches nichts kostet. Ist da mittlerweile mehr dazu bekannt?
Jedenfalls hätte ich die Arrow oder das Starterpack zum upgraden auf eine C2, wenn die mal zu kaufen ist. Ist aber alles noch in der Schwebe. Könnt also gerne mal euren Senf dazu abgeben. Ich werde ingame wohl weniger der Entdecker sein. Vielmehr will ich eben mit Handel meinen Weg bestreiten. Zum dogfighten tauge ich derzeit weniger. Aber auch das werde ich bestimmt mal austesten. Eventuell könnte Racing noch was sein.
@th3o
Gratz zur 890.
Mercury: bleibt im Stall
Avenger Titan: wird mein Starterschiff
FC7 Hornet Wildfire: schaut geil aus und bleibt deswegen (hatte die nicht auch mal ein Pinup Girl auf der Seite?)
Arrow: weiß noch nicht, was ich damit mache
Mustang Alpha (Starter Pack): weiß ich noch nicht, was ich damit mache
Buyback:
Cutlass Black
2-3 X1 Base mit LTI
Die C2 als größeres Transportschiff wäre für mich eventuell noch interessant. Das Mustang Starterpaket hatte ich mir mal gekauft, weil es ja mal geheissen hat, daß man dadurch ein Crewmitglied bekommt, welches nichts kostet. Ist da mittlerweile mehr dazu bekannt?
Jedenfalls hätte ich die Arrow oder das Starterpack zum upgraden auf eine C2, wenn die mal zu kaufen ist. Ist aber alles noch in der Schwebe. Könnt also gerne mal euren Senf dazu abgeben. Ich werde ingame wohl weniger der Entdecker sein. Vielmehr will ich eben mit Handel meinen Weg bestreiten. Zum dogfighten tauge ich derzeit weniger.
Aber auch das werde ich bestimmt mal austesten. Eventuell könnte Racing noch was sein.@th3o
Gratz zur 890.
Tharamur
Commodore
- Registriert
- März 2010
- Beiträge
- 4.195
Ah ok. War der Meinung, daß die Wildfire auch mal eines hatte. Hab ich dann einfach verwechselt. War die C2 eigentlich mal wieder zu kaufen, seit sie damals vorgestellt wurde? Hab die letztes sales bewusst ausgelassen, um nicht wieder mit irgendwelchen Schiffchen getriggert zu werden. Oder ist die sogar als Upgrademöglichkeit vorhanden?
th3o
Admiral
- Registriert
- Aug. 2004
- Beiträge
- 8.814
Nach ein bisschen umschmelzen und rumsortieren sieht meine Flotte aktuell so aus und wirds wohl auch lange so bleiben. Das einzige was ich erwägen würde zu verändern wäre die 890J für ein Capital Schiff von Crusader weil mir deren Style einfach sehr gefällt. Ansonsten ists das erstmal.
Nur schade dass wir die Polaris sicher frühestens Mitte 2021 sehen werden, ich stell mich aber eher auf Ende ein.
Nur schade dass wir die Polaris sicher frühestens Mitte 2021 sehen werden, ich stell mich aber eher auf Ende ein.
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
stolperstein
Lt. Commander
- Registriert
- Aug. 2010
- Beiträge
- 1.437
Ganz interessant.
Viele Grüße,
stolpi
Viele Grüße,
stolpi
th3o
Admiral
- Registriert
- Aug. 2004
- Beiträge
- 8.814
Chris Roberts war die Tage ja öffentlich mal wieder aktiv seit langem und hat zwei längere Forumposts gemacht, von denen der eine mehr allgemein die Entwicklung angeht und die Kritik daran:
"I wouldn't normally do this but I know you've invested a lot of time into Star Citizen, including on the testing and community content creation so I'm going to take your reply to as a sign of frustration and try to add a little more context to help you see a bigger picture.
What were you hoping to get from your Original Post? I was assuming it was -
I shared information on where we are, and why you don't see something you thought you should. Part of my motivation for answering is that I commonly see people assume things that aren't true like the room system not being in the game because one aspect of the system doesn't have the behavior that they think it should. I wanted to give you extra context and information so you (and others in this thread) had a better understanding of what is in, what isn't and why it isn't and what is left to do.
If you want to encourage me or other developers to answer questions then it helps to not turn around and question people's professionalism or make sweeping statements. If someone did that to you in your job I am sure it would be irritating. I have a thicker skin than most of the developers at CIG, and realize that not everyone is speaking in their first language or realizes how they phrased things may not have been the best, but in general it is best to approach things with constructive criticism, leaving the ad hominems out. You wouldn't be putting this much time into something if you didn't care, so why put energy into posting something that a developer will dismiss because it feels like an attack? I can tell you that being considerate of someone and treating them with respect will get you much further than than being dismissive. The development team reads these forums and other places like reddit, and the community's feedback really helps, but the feedback that gets actioned on, that gets passed around internally and is discussed is the constructive type, not the overly negative type. Just saying something sucks isn't helpful. Explaining why it sucks for that user, and their ideas to potentially rectify it is helpful.
My biggest disappointment with modern internet discourse is that there's a significant amount of cynicism, especially in forum or reddit debates, and a portion of people assume the worst. If a feature is missing, late or buggy it's because the company or the developer lied and or / is incompetent as opposed to the fact that it just took longer and had more problems than the team thought it would when they originally set out to build it. Developers by their very nature are optimistic. You have to be to build things that haven't ever been built before. Otherwise the sheer weight of what is needed to be done can crush you. But being optimistic or not foreseeing issues isn't the same as lying or deliberately misleading people. Everyone at CIG is incredibly passionate about making Star Citizen the most immersive massively multiplayer first person universe sandbox, and everyone works very hard to deliver that. If we could deliver harder, faster, better we would. We get just as frustrated with the time things take. We practice bottom up task estimation where the team implementing the feature breaks it down and gives their estimates of how long it will take them. Management doesn't dictate timelines, we just set priorities for the teams as there are always a lot more things to do at any one time than we have people to do them. We are constantly reviewing and trying to improve our AGILE development process and how we estimate sprints. As the code, feature and content base grows there is more maintenance and support needed for the existing features and content, which can eat into the time a team has for new feature development, meaning you always have the push and pull of current quality of life in a release versus delivering new features and content. The same push and pull exists in the community as there is a strong desire for polished bug free gameplay now but also new features and content, often from the very same people.
Things like Salvage haven't been pushed back on a whim, but because in terms of priority we felt that it would premature to work on Salvage before the iCache and physical damage system is implemented in the game as this fundamentally changes how we manage state, handle damage and debris. So when presented with a priority call to make on resource allocation we deprioritized Salvage in order to build the infrastructure to really make it sing, as opposed to working on a system we will have to refactor when the iCache and new damage system came on line.
We have also decided we wanted to invest more time into the quality of life, performance and stability in Star Citizen as it is actively played every day by tens of thousands of people; on normal days we have an average of over 30,000 different people playing and at the peak during events this year we've hit 100,000 unique accounts playing in one day which is pretty impressive for a game in an early Alpha state. We are on track to have over one million unique players this year. Star Citizen already has the main gameloops of a space sim; cargo hauling, commodity trading, mercenary, pirate, bounty hunting and mining. Just spending time refining and finishing out these would make Star Citizen with all it's detail and fidelity more engrossing than any "finished" space sim you can play today.
We've shown a preview of the new roadmap format ( https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...17727-Star-Citizen-Squadron-42-Roadmap-Update ) that we are working on. Part of the motivation for changing how we share the tasks we are working on and their progress is so the community can get better visibility into the hard choices that we face everyday on the project and see what exactly every team is working on as opposed to just the few tasks we feel comfortable sharing because we think have a high probability to make that quarter. When we make a priority call and move up or add a task there is always something that needs to be pushed back. The new format which tracks our 58 feature and content teams that work on Star Citizen and Squadron 42, will be able to show what each team is working on and if a new initiative like improving the cargo hauling experience gets added you'll see the tasks that get pushed back on the teams that will work on this new initiative. As a point of data these teams can be anywhere from 4 people to over 20 people and of the 58 teams only 11 are exclusively dedicated to Squadron 42 and 12 for Star Citizen and the rest are shared (things like graphics, engine, actor, vehicle, AI, VFX, sound and so on), although a lot of the priorities for things like actor, vehicle and AI are driven by what Squadron needs.
Switching the roadmap format was something that I made a priority for us at the start of the year when it was clear that the current roadmap format wasn't helping, especially as the teams really didn't want to commit until absolutely definitely their feature would make it, which you'll normally only know about six weeks before release, due to the vitriol they would see when a task was pushed back, despite our best efforts to get everyone that looks at the current Road Map to read and acknowledge the caveats ( https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citizen/info ) which explicitly say some of the tasks are likely to slip. Getting tired of this I felt it would be best for the community to see the same view I and the rest of the senior development management see on Star Citizen and Squadron 42. This won't stop people from disagreeing with our priority calls or how long something takes, but at least it will share the overall picture and people can see exactly what everyone is working on at any moment and how long it is projected to take. They will be able to see it change when it does for us and hopefully appreciate how many people are working really hard to make Star Citizen a game like no other. One of the reasons the new Road Map is taking time because we're building a system that visualizes all this as a top level directly from our JIRA database. We plan to use a more verbose version of the public roadmap for our internal sprint scheduling, so the data you see will be a sanitized version of what we see (we won't share individual developer names and assignments publically for obvious reasons but internally we will see this).
I sense from your reply to me that it's the time taken and priorities that you're frustrated with, as you feel like we're focusing on the wrong things. I can see that point of view, but you're looking at it from the outside without the full knowledge of exactly what it will take, and the order it needs to be done in to deliver the gameplay that will set Star Citizen above everything else. This is the game I've dreamed of my whole life. Now I am in a position to realize it, I am not willing to compromise it's potential because it is taking longer than I originally envisioned. What I will commit to, and what is an internal priority is to improve the current gameplay and quality of life as we go, as Star Citizen is already fun in many ways, even if more buggy and not as stable as I would like, and just finishing off and polishing the basics will make it play as well or better than most other games.
I can promise you the gameplay I described is not a pipe dream, nor will it take 10 to 20 years to deliver. I described systems we either have working, or are working on; we've even shown early versions of some of this like fire on Inside Star Citizen. I can't promise you exactly what quarter it will come together but once the new Road Map web work is done you'll be able to see the teams progress to achieving what I describe in real time.
Thank you for your support and passion over the years. I hope this extra insight was helpful."
What were you hoping to get from your Original Post? I was assuming it was -
I shared information on where we are, and why you don't see something you thought you should. Part of my motivation for answering is that I commonly see people assume things that aren't true like the room system not being in the game because one aspect of the system doesn't have the behavior that they think it should. I wanted to give you extra context and information so you (and others in this thread) had a better understanding of what is in, what isn't and why it isn't and what is left to do.
If you want to encourage me or other developers to answer questions then it helps to not turn around and question people's professionalism or make sweeping statements. If someone did that to you in your job I am sure it would be irritating. I have a thicker skin than most of the developers at CIG, and realize that not everyone is speaking in their first language or realizes how they phrased things may not have been the best, but in general it is best to approach things with constructive criticism, leaving the ad hominems out. You wouldn't be putting this much time into something if you didn't care, so why put energy into posting something that a developer will dismiss because it feels like an attack? I can tell you that being considerate of someone and treating them with respect will get you much further than than being dismissive. The development team reads these forums and other places like reddit, and the community's feedback really helps, but the feedback that gets actioned on, that gets passed around internally and is discussed is the constructive type, not the overly negative type. Just saying something sucks isn't helpful. Explaining why it sucks for that user, and their ideas to potentially rectify it is helpful.
My biggest disappointment with modern internet discourse is that there's a significant amount of cynicism, especially in forum or reddit debates, and a portion of people assume the worst. If a feature is missing, late or buggy it's because the company or the developer lied and or / is incompetent as opposed to the fact that it just took longer and had more problems than the team thought it would when they originally set out to build it. Developers by their very nature are optimistic. You have to be to build things that haven't ever been built before. Otherwise the sheer weight of what is needed to be done can crush you. But being optimistic or not foreseeing issues isn't the same as lying or deliberately misleading people. Everyone at CIG is incredibly passionate about making Star Citizen the most immersive massively multiplayer first person universe sandbox, and everyone works very hard to deliver that. If we could deliver harder, faster, better we would. We get just as frustrated with the time things take. We practice bottom up task estimation where the team implementing the feature breaks it down and gives their estimates of how long it will take them. Management doesn't dictate timelines, we just set priorities for the teams as there are always a lot more things to do at any one time than we have people to do them. We are constantly reviewing and trying to improve our AGILE development process and how we estimate sprints. As the code, feature and content base grows there is more maintenance and support needed for the existing features and content, which can eat into the time a team has for new feature development, meaning you always have the push and pull of current quality of life in a release versus delivering new features and content. The same push and pull exists in the community as there is a strong desire for polished bug free gameplay now but also new features and content, often from the very same people.
Things like Salvage haven't been pushed back on a whim, but because in terms of priority we felt that it would premature to work on Salvage before the iCache and physical damage system is implemented in the game as this fundamentally changes how we manage state, handle damage and debris. So when presented with a priority call to make on resource allocation we deprioritized Salvage in order to build the infrastructure to really make it sing, as opposed to working on a system we will have to refactor when the iCache and new damage system came on line.
We have also decided we wanted to invest more time into the quality of life, performance and stability in Star Citizen as it is actively played every day by tens of thousands of people; on normal days we have an average of over 30,000 different people playing and at the peak during events this year we've hit 100,000 unique accounts playing in one day which is pretty impressive for a game in an early Alpha state. We are on track to have over one million unique players this year. Star Citizen already has the main gameloops of a space sim; cargo hauling, commodity trading, mercenary, pirate, bounty hunting and mining. Just spending time refining and finishing out these would make Star Citizen with all it's detail and fidelity more engrossing than any "finished" space sim you can play today.
We've shown a preview of the new roadmap format ( https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...17727-Star-Citizen-Squadron-42-Roadmap-Update ) that we are working on. Part of the motivation for changing how we share the tasks we are working on and their progress is so the community can get better visibility into the hard choices that we face everyday on the project and see what exactly every team is working on as opposed to just the few tasks we feel comfortable sharing because we think have a high probability to make that quarter. When we make a priority call and move up or add a task there is always something that needs to be pushed back. The new format which tracks our 58 feature and content teams that work on Star Citizen and Squadron 42, will be able to show what each team is working on and if a new initiative like improving the cargo hauling experience gets added you'll see the tasks that get pushed back on the teams that will work on this new initiative. As a point of data these teams can be anywhere from 4 people to over 20 people and of the 58 teams only 11 are exclusively dedicated to Squadron 42 and 12 for Star Citizen and the rest are shared (things like graphics, engine, actor, vehicle, AI, VFX, sound and so on), although a lot of the priorities for things like actor, vehicle and AI are driven by what Squadron needs.
Switching the roadmap format was something that I made a priority for us at the start of the year when it was clear that the current roadmap format wasn't helping, especially as the teams really didn't want to commit until absolutely definitely their feature would make it, which you'll normally only know about six weeks before release, due to the vitriol they would see when a task was pushed back, despite our best efforts to get everyone that looks at the current Road Map to read and acknowledge the caveats ( https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citizen/info ) which explicitly say some of the tasks are likely to slip. Getting tired of this I felt it would be best for the community to see the same view I and the rest of the senior development management see on Star Citizen and Squadron 42. This won't stop people from disagreeing with our priority calls or how long something takes, but at least it will share the overall picture and people can see exactly what everyone is working on at any moment and how long it is projected to take. They will be able to see it change when it does for us and hopefully appreciate how many people are working really hard to make Star Citizen a game like no other. One of the reasons the new Road Map is taking time because we're building a system that visualizes all this as a top level directly from our JIRA database. We plan to use a more verbose version of the public roadmap for our internal sprint scheduling, so the data you see will be a sanitized version of what we see (we won't share individual developer names and assignments publically for obvious reasons but internally we will see this).
I sense from your reply to me that it's the time taken and priorities that you're frustrated with, as you feel like we're focusing on the wrong things. I can see that point of view, but you're looking at it from the outside without the full knowledge of exactly what it will take, and the order it needs to be done in to deliver the gameplay that will set Star Citizen above everything else. This is the game I've dreamed of my whole life. Now I am in a position to realize it, I am not willing to compromise it's potential because it is taking longer than I originally envisioned. What I will commit to, and what is an internal priority is to improve the current gameplay and quality of life as we go, as Star Citizen is already fun in many ways, even if more buggy and not as stable as I would like, and just finishing off and polishing the basics will make it play as well or better than most other games.
I can promise you the gameplay I described is not a pipe dream, nor will it take 10 to 20 years to deliver. I described systems we either have working, or are working on; we've even shown early versions of some of this like fire on Inside Star Citizen. I can't promise you exactly what quarter it will come together but once the new Road Map web work is done you'll be able to see the teams progress to achieving what I describe in real time.
Thank you for your support and passion over the years. I hope this extra insight was helpful."
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
th3o
Admiral
- Registriert
- Aug. 2004
- Beiträge
- 8.814
Er sagt: "Star Citizen already has the main gameloops of a space sim; cargo hauling, commodity trading, mercenary, pirate, bounty hunting and mining. Just spending time refining and finishing out these would make Star Citizen with all it's detail and fidelity more engrossing than any "finished" space sim you can play today."
und
"... as Star Citizen is already fun in many ways, even if more buggy and not as stable as I would like, and just finishing off and polishing the basics will make it play as well or better than most other games."
Nun will ich nicht pessimistisch klingen, aber die Tatsache dass er im Grunde 2x sagt, dass das, was aktuell im Spiel ist, wenns bloß aufpoliert wird, schon ein gutes Spiel darstellt, läßt mich befürchten dass wir uns auf ein paar Jahre ohne echte neue Gameplayloops freuen können.
Ich meine, klar, wenn das was jetzt drin ist tadellos funktionieren würde, geile Serverperformance und so, ja, wäre schon mal richtig gut, aber für mich weit von einem spaßigen Spiel entfernt, da fehlt trotzdem immernoch Tiefe in den jeweiligen Systemen.
und
"... as Star Citizen is already fun in many ways, even if more buggy and not as stable as I would like, and just finishing off and polishing the basics will make it play as well or better than most other games."
Nun will ich nicht pessimistisch klingen, aber die Tatsache dass er im Grunde 2x sagt, dass das, was aktuell im Spiel ist, wenns bloß aufpoliert wird, schon ein gutes Spiel darstellt, läßt mich befürchten dass wir uns auf ein paar Jahre ohne echte neue Gameplayloops freuen können.
Ich meine, klar, wenn das was jetzt drin ist tadellos funktionieren würde, geile Serverperformance und so, ja, wäre schon mal richtig gut, aber für mich weit von einem spaßigen Spiel entfernt, da fehlt trotzdem immernoch Tiefe in den jeweiligen Systemen.
shoKuu
Admiral
- Registriert
- Jan. 2008
- Beiträge
- 8.437
Warum nicht? Als Beispiel Cargo: Was kaufen, einladen (lassen), zur nächsten Station fliegen, verkaufen und ausladen (lassen). Mehr habe ich von Cargo nie erwartet. Star Citizen ist letztendlich ein Sandbox MMO. Diese sind immer "langweilig". IMHO wird Star Citizen einfach nur EVE Online mit FPS Gameplay Elementen. Elite Dangerous in "breiter" von den Mechaniken, aber nicht tiefgehender. Das ist halt das Problem einer Idee. Jeder interpretiert was anderes und entwickelt so entsprechende Wünsche.
Ohne Server Abbrüche, Resets und mit QoS Patches wäre Star Citizen einfach ein Elite Dangerous 2.0. Wer da mehr erwartet hat ist hier sicherlich falsch. Natürlich geht das Gameplay später in die breite, aber komplexer wird es nicht mehr werden.
Ohne Server Abbrüche, Resets und mit QoS Patches wäre Star Citizen einfach ein Elite Dangerous 2.0. Wer da mehr erwartet hat ist hier sicherlich falsch. Natürlich geht das Gameplay später in die breite, aber komplexer wird es nicht mehr werden.
th3o
Admiral
- Registriert
- Aug. 2004
- Beiträge
- 8.814
Cargo für mich: Eine Mission annehmen für die ich eine bestimmte Cargoschiff-Klasse brauche, mit diesem Schiff zu Punkt A hinfliegen, einladen lassen (nicht selbst für bezahlen), nach B bringen, ausladen, Geld kassieren. Unterwegs evtl noch Piraten abwehren müssen etc.
Beispielsweise Mission: "Bringe 2 Panzer von Hurston UEE Base nach Microtech UEE Base, mindestens 400 SCU Frachtkapazität benötigt. Bezahlung: 30 000 UEC"
Beispielsweise Mission: "Bringe 2 Panzer von Hurston UEE Base nach Microtech UEE Base, mindestens 400 SCU Frachtkapazität benötigt. Bezahlung: 30 000 UEC"
- Registriert
- Mai 2004
- Beiträge
- 10.064
@th3o
Magst du die Wall of Text in einen Spoiler packen?
(und Glückwunsch zur 890!)
Das was CR zum Schadensmodell geschrieben hat finde ich schon sehr interessant und das ist auch das was ich mir von SC erhoffe. Der grad an Komplexität klingt einfach klasse. Ob und wann das kommt steht natürlich in den Sternen.
Magst du die Wall of Text in einen Spoiler packen?
(und Glückwunsch zur 890!)Das was CR zum Schadensmodell geschrieben hat finde ich schon sehr interessant und das ist auch das was ich mir von SC erhoffe. Der grad an Komplexität klingt einfach klasse. Ob und wann das kommt steht natürlich in den Sternen.
- Status
Ähnliche Themen
- Gesperrt
Star Citizen
Star Citizen [PreRelease Sammelthread]
