Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The Game Room (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Star Citizen is the Future of PC Gaming, and it's Free to Play this week (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=772015)

Czarcasm 10-20-2015 04:20 PM

I would love to know how much of the investor's money he spent on celebrity voice-overs instead of actual game development.

Quartz 10-20-2015 05:19 PM

We all remember Duke Nukem Whenever, right? Seems like Star Citizen is the next one.

Airk 10-21-2015 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jophiel (Post 18770576)
From the sound of it, the criticism about Star Citizen seems to be the enormous amount of money they've taken in but not really "justified" via results. Maybe that's part of the sausage making process of video games but there's also enough failed games that it's legitimate to question it, especially as they continue to pass the hat for more funding via what may be virtual swampland.

The thing about video game crowdfunding is that most games that crowdfund don't crowdfund anything near their full budget. "Big budget" video game kickstarters are getting like 6 million (Shenmue 3) and 5.5 million (Bloodstained). And the backers look at them and go "These games made a fortune!" when in actuality, they are getting the lion's share of their funding from other sources, and the 5/6 million they got is more of a "let's see how interested people are" measure than an actual attempt to fund the entire game.

Other games that are Kickstarted/crowdfunded whatever are often very small teams working on relatively manageable projects, and even they often are doing a sort of "Welp, our team of four lads will be working on this in their spare time, because there's no way that the money from this Kickstarter would keep us fed for the amount of time we need to make this game." arrangement.

Star Citizen, on the other hand, seems to be trying to fund themselves, a fairly large studio, full time, on crowdfunding dollars. They're doing it, for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicio (Post 18771483)
Chris Roberts has been basically making variations of this same game since the mid-90's. So its not totally crazy to give him money and expect him to make a game out of it.

I feel obliged to contest this - Chris Roberts has been basically making failed (at least, financially) versions of this game for a good long time. So it IS completely crazy to give him money for it. Yeah, Starlancer and Freelancer did eventually come out, but it would be unfair to call them successful. And now we have Mr. Roberts coming back promising everything bigger, better, biggerer, more impressive, more shiny, and WAY BEYOND the scope of any previous projects.

I honestly don't think he can deliver. I looked at this project back when it was on Kickstarter and said "Yeah, this is WAY too ambitious. Especially for a brand new studio." Nothing I have seen since leads me to believe I was incorrect in that assessment.

Uosdwis R. Dewoh 10-21-2015 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 18790139)
I would love to know how much of the investor's money he spent on celebrity voice-overs instead of actual game development.

IIRC celebrity voice overs was one of the stretch goals that was met so they kinda have to do it.

Ike Witt 10-21-2015 01:30 PM

Did anyone here actually take part in the free weekend? If so what was there to do and how was it?

Quartz 10-21-2015 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 18792380)
I feel obliged to contest this - Chris Roberts has been basically making failed (at least, financially) versions of this game for a good long time.

Do you have numbers? For profit and loss, that is.

MichaelEmouse 10-21-2015 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hamster King (Post 18770499)
1. Create concept pieces to establish a visual target.
2. Create a crude set of gameplay assets for development and testing
3. Get the foundations of the engine sorted, particularly with regards to server/renderer/physics. This gives you a sense of polygon/texture/effects budgets.
4. Iterate on the game to make it fun to play. Use this information to iterate your gameplay assets. Do ships have distinctive silhouettes? Does your damage model look right in-game?
5. Execute a vertical slice. Build out a narrow bit of the game to high quality. Verify your previous assumptions. Get production metrics for asset production. Adjust scope accordingly.
6. Ramp up to full production. Hire a bunch of artists or bring an outsourcing house into the picture. Start building the game for real.

That order surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that the gameplay mechanics would have come first with only concept work being done on audiovisuals until the mechanics were fully worked out, up to and including making every level using programmer art.

As an analogy, I saw it as starting and finishing the frame, plumbing and wiring of a house before you get started on the drywall, fixtures and finishes.



In your experience, what do neophyte developers tend to spend too much time on? How about not enough time?




Quote:

Originally Posted by Uosdwis R. Dewoh (Post 18792585)
IIRC celebrity voice overs was one of the stretch goals that was met so they kinda have to do it.

Indeed, it was a stretch goal and they have to deliver it, as much as they have to deliver any of the promises they made. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals ( 5M$)

However, it doesn't need to be a high priority. It's also a vague enough promise a few celebrities would have been enough. I don't know how others feel about it but as long as the voice actor is competent and suited to the role, I don't care who it is. So, voice acting should be at the tail end of priorities in terms of resources and time of delivery.

Unless, of course, their goal is to attach big names to generate publicity and more funding.






Is nepotism common within game developers? Chris Roberts making his wife a member of the team reminds me of John Romero doing the same with his girlfriend Stevie Case.

Johnny Bravo 10-21-2015 01:50 PM

I just spent a bit of time looking at various Wikipedia pages connected to Chris Roberts, and they're kind of funny. None of the posts are breathlessly worshipful, but they're all written in the best possible light, even when discussing his failures. The cult of personality around this guy is strong.

Airk 10-21-2015 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quartz (Post 18792732)
Do you have numbers? For profit and loss, that is.

I don't (though it's probably worth taking a read over the wikipedia page for Freelancer) but my general feeling from my lazy research is that while Starlancer/Freelancer were reasonably well received, they were never popular.

I'm curious if anyone here has ever played either of them, and how many people had HEARD of them prior to this Star Citizen stuff.

To put it another way: Chris Roberts is a man with big visions, but he hasn't had a "hit" since the Wing Commander series ended. I'll bet if you asked anyone what he was known for before Star Citizen, they'd tell you he was the "Wing Commander guy" not "The Starlancer guy"

Teuton 10-21-2015 02:08 PM

I played Freelancer quite a bit. It's actually a good game in the free spaceflight genre, although there is a definite story and it's not as open as any of the Elite games.

Quartz 10-21-2015 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 18792852)
I'm curious if anyone here has ever played either of them, and how many people had HEARD of them prior to this Star Citizen stuff.

Actually, I played pretty much all of the Wing Commander series, apart from the extra missions of Prophecy, and I played Starlancer. I played one or more of the Freelancer series, but the trading side wasn't for me.

Quote:

To put it another way: Chris Roberts is a man with big visions, but he hasn't had a "hit" since the Wing Commander series ended.
Well, that depends upon the numbers, doesn't it?

Quote:

I'll bet if you asked anyone what he was known for before Star Citizen, they'd tell you he was the "Wing Commander guy" not "The Starlancer guy"
I've got to agree with you there.

Quartz 10-21-2015 02:17 PM

I remember Freelancer being innovative in that you used the mouse instead of a joystick.

lazybratsche 10-21-2015 02:27 PM

I played both Freelancer and Starlancer. Freelancer was entertaining enough, though between the world space being broken up into a bunch of small boxes and the "mouselook" flight controls I wasn't impressed. Starlancer was... a game I played. I think. I honestly had to look it up, and couldn't remember much about it other than it came out around the same time as X-Wing Alliance and Freespace 2 and wasn't as good as either.

smiling bandit 10-23-2015 05:40 PM

Took a while to think this over.

Here's my very short question, because I can't figure this out. What is this game actually supposed to be? Depending on who is talking and where, it seems like Star Citizen is meant to be somewhere from a purist single-player experience to something akin to Eve Online but better. Some of the side modules alone seem rather... non-trivial.

Johnny Bravo 10-23-2015 08:02 PM

In short, it's supposed to be everything.

The Hamster King 10-25-2015 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse (Post 18792784)
That order surprises me somewhat. I would have thought that the gameplay mechanics would have come first with only concept work being done on audiovisuals until the mechanics were fully worked out, up to and including making every level using programmer art.

Concept art is cheap compared to the production of in-game assets and it's useful to have a visual target that you're shooting for. It helps focus development resources. Also, if you're pitching the game to get funding, it's good to be able to show the look you intend for the finished game. Is it dark? Cartoony? Stylized? It gives investors a better idea of what they're buying into.

Early concepts aren't essential though. Putting them off until later isn't a huge deal. But moving too quickly to final art is.

Quote:

In your experience, what do neophyte developers tend to spend too much time on? How about not enough time?
Interesting question. Common errors I've seen:

Spending too much time designing the social elements surrounding the game (friends lists assets, trading, posting to outside media) while neglecting core gameplay.

Not getting metrics on asset production times. How long does it take to make a character? A level? Figure out how long it takes you to make something, and scope your game accordingly.

Not budgeting for tools. Spending time to create a level editor at the beginning of a project can pay big dividends at the end.

Conversely, spending too much time on tools while ignoring the game itself. Or rewriting big chunks of an off-the-shelf engine for minor visual/performance gains.

Leaving hard challenges to last. You need a custom animation system for your boss battles? Start building that early.

Allowing scope creep. Making a level 20% larger than planned. Making 10 enemy types when you only need 6. Adding a feature because you saw it in another game that was just released. You don't want your game so stripped down that it feels sparse, but at the same time you should be able to justify everything you build. Why is this going into the game? Could the time spent on this feature be better spent on something else?

Airk 10-27-2015 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 18799981)
In short, it's supposed to be everything.

This. Which is exactly what ended up warning me away from it when I first heard about it.

smiling bandit 10-28-2015 06:39 PM

If I'm reading this right, they have three separate but intertwined games?

Airk 10-29-2015 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smiling bandit (Post 18812914)
If I'm reading this right, they have three separate but intertwined games?

Right now they have one, barely.

Their PLAN is another question. I believe there they intent for one Ubergame and two essentially cut down versions of it with some extra stuff. i.e. the super-mega-nutso-MMO-with-everything, the dogfighting arena, and the single player campaign.

I wouldn't really call those "intertwined" though, since I don't think there's any feedback from one to the other.

Skywatcher 10-29-2015 12:06 PM

Spore, in space.

Teuton 10-29-2015 12:44 PM

I'm actually downloading it now, to give it a look and see what they've got.


I'll let you know.

Czarcasm 10-29-2015 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18814899)
I'm actually downloading it now, to give it a look and see what they've got.


I'll let you know.

What you are currently downloading-what does it cost, and how large is it?

Teuton 10-29-2015 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 18814953)
What you are currently downloading-what does it cost, and how large is it?

The very fact that those aren't straightforward questions is indicative of what the problems with this game and the associated circus are.

Well, one's easy. It's 33gb.

How much is it?

Well, this page lists the 'game packages' that you can buy. The cheapest ones are $54. One of the things they don't make particularly clear as they try and get you to spend $240 on a multi-crew starship is that all the spaceships they list there are going to be available, in game, for in-game money. So what do you also get for your $240? There's a big list of things in the "more info" tab, but I don't understand a lot of them. What's a Fishtank Mark 1? I dunno.
Anyway, $54 gets you into the game, and a ship you can fly.


What is it? It's the "Arena Commander" mode, which promises the chance to fly your ship around some asteroids, and also some multiplayer combat. I don't know myself what is involved - that's why I'm downloading it.

Hilariously, the more expensive your ship is, the less likely it is to actually be available to fly in Arena Commander mode yet. And if they ship you've bought is not available yet... you get to fly the cheapest one!


It's nearly DLed.

Teuton 10-29-2015 04:00 PM

Actually, I'm impressed.

If he'd just been creating a spaceship fighting type game, it'd be great. The graphics are smooth, the ship control is pretty intuitive (although there's lots of keys to learn for nav commands and weapon systems and things), and it is very, very pretty.

Well, I got in it for free, so I can afford to be optimistic.

Ike Witt 10-29-2015 04:32 PM

The info screens for the ships mention insurance. What exactly is that insurance for?

DigitalC 10-29-2015 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18815649)
The info screens for the ships mention insurance. What exactly is that insurance for?

For when your ship gets blown up i would assume.

Teuton 10-29-2015 05:29 PM

Yeah, I think it's based on the Eve Online model of owning a ship, but possibly losing it if it's blown up in battle. It's not remotely implemented yet.

Ethilrist 10-29-2015 05:55 PM

Yep, a guy I work with is insane about this game. The insurance is to get your ship re-spawned.

He's probably spent several thousand on it so far. In addition to in-game ships, he's gotten all sorts of bling--coffee mug, t-shirt, baseball cap, mouse pad deluxe (it's about 3' wide, so you can put your offhand controlle & joystick on opposite sides of your keyboard, and nothing slides around when you play). When he first told me about it, it sounded like it was actually available as a playble game so I spent the $60 to buy the basic package. Logged in once about a year and a half ago, found out that it was just an unplayable space combat simulator and haven't logged in since. There have been a lot of improvements, but there's currently no playable game (so far as I know; I'm just going off of the reports he gives because he thinks I'm interested in a pre-release game...). If and when they actually announce the game is up and doing something, I'll try logging in again; when I upgraded to Win10, it seems to have forgotten how to recognize that I have a joystick, which will make the space combat problematic.

Airk 10-30-2015 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teuton (Post 18815560)
Actually, I'm impressed.

If he'd just been creating a spaceship fighting type game, it'd be great. The graphics are smooth, the ship control is pretty intuitive (although there's lots of keys to learn for nav commands and weapon systems and things), and it is very, very pretty.

Well, I got in it for free, so I can afford to be optimistic.

Not really sure why this would breed optimism. These things are the things that are basically solved problems. They're the minimum acceptable threshold to get a playable space flight game.

Once again, we come back to this: If he had said "I'm gonna make a new singleplayer spaceflight game in the vein of Wing Commander!" then this WOULD be grounds for optimism, because this is probably the HARDEST part of making a good single player spaceflight sim. But they're among the easiest parts of making a massively multiplayer spaceflightradingplanetconqueringeveonlinealike.

Gothic 10-30-2015 02:56 PM

All I was hoping for was a Privateer like MMOG with combat similar to the game Jump Gate. When I heard of the plans for FPS combat in ships I became wary, we had Star Wars battle front for that. A few squads I am in from the old Jumpgate days bought an Idris.

BigT 10-30-2015 03:15 PM

I would definitely hope not. Not even the lofty goals of this game appeal to me. The funding system seems to be large microtransactions before the game is even released.

This seems to be the type of game that should be released in pieces, anyways. What you guys describe as expansions to Elite sounds like the right direction to go. Make a core game, sell that game, then sell more stuff to attach to it.

drachillix 01-17-2016 06:40 PM

I am one of the older backers of the game and occasionally bump my package with a little larger ship.

I have flown my ships around a bit, I know this is a process and that most of this process is usually hidden from the end users. It is ambitious and I full well realize that the $250 or so I have invested in the game could very well be wasted. Some people buy expensive gym equipment and use it twice before letting it collect dust in the garage.

The last couple months have been seeing alot of progress with flyable ships and filling out of features. I think it will work, I am not holding my breath for any given release date or demanding my current ship (Constellation) be 100% ready.

If they don't make a decent working game, it isn't because they are not trying. They have sufficient funding and not all of the funding is coming from the crowdfunding. Chris Roberts was by no stretch of the imagination broke when he started this whole thing.

The "damning article" from the escapist is pretty much parroting Derek Smart, a developer who failed to make a similar game many years ago. Google "Battlecruiser 3000AD" for a lovely tale of disaster 10 years in the making. Maybe he is speaking from his own failed experience, maybe its just sour grapes. <shrug>

As far as the price tags, like many things in life, you can pay for experiences. Packages offering spending a day at the studio, lunch with Chris Roberts, etc are common to KS campaigns and many of them are not cheap options. Those of us not working in game development might like such options just as much as someone who partakes of $1K bottles of champagne in a fancy nightclub.

Johnny Bravo 01-17-2016 06:56 PM

The bump prompted me to check up on the game's progress. Apparently they released 2.1 of their "alpha" today. A mere $410 will net you the two-ship Aegis Fighter Pack.

At this point, I honestly don't know how this game will ever live up to its own hype train. It's certainly earned its place in history, for good or ill.

SenorBeef 01-17-2016 07:01 PM

I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo (Post 19024571)
The bump prompted me to check up on the game's progress. Apparently they released 2.1 of their "alpha" today. A mere $410 will net you the two-ship Aegis Fighter Pack.

At this point, I honestly don't know how this game will ever live up to its own hype train. It's certainly earned its place in history, for good or ill.

The basic ship packs are still $45. That fighter pack is by no stretch of the imagination required to play.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Witt (Post 18768732)
$90+ for an in game ship? Is that for real? Pay to win is no way to make an MMO.

The pre-purchased ships can be earned in game...however many of those ships will take a long time to earn. There are no "super duper bulletproof" ships, and the biggest player controlled ships are a handful of frigates that could be defeated by a skilled squadron of $45 starter players if they are not supported. The guy who pays for the massive ship packages does not have the ability to conquer planets or anything.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

I'm still cautiously optimistic.

I agree, I think there is way too much focus on "high twitch" gaming and looking for the "optimized" method or ultimate sniper perch to rack up kills.

The folks like that hate the game because characters can be killed. Combat centric occupations like piracy will be dangerous and loss of ships and advancement are real possibilities. The insurance program basically hands a cash payout to your "heir" < a fresh character> if you are killed.

Being smart, choosing your battles wisely, and knowing when to run or not bite off more than you can chew are valuable. This is the exact opposite of high twitch meat-grinders like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Rumors of bounty systems for players killing characters in ejection pods and such are popular ideas. A large chunk or players are looking to operate as ambulances, tow trucks, and field repair services. Being a pirate in a crippled ship and being worth more in bounty than as a repair client will not be a pleasant place to be.

drachillix 01-17-2016 07:36 PM

The ship packages
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages

the ship I have at the moment.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/p...llation-Taurus

Johnny Bravo 01-17-2016 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
I think there's a circle jerk against this game in a lot of the gaming media because it's so ambitious and so obviously bucks the trends of gaming through rehashing, unambitious development, short turnaround games pumping out iterative franchises, dumbing down, consolization, etc.

And there are a lot of console users who resent technically ambitious games they'll never be able to play and instead just try to bash it.

Well... no, I don't think so. I think it's more that Chris Roberts's Kickstarter, the subsequent fundraising, and the way money has been spent has been viewed by a lot of folks (console users and reasonable people both, natch) as hubristic and spendthrift. Obviously this isn't the case for many if not most of the of the backers, who remain very optimistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19024582)
Why anyone gives the slightest fuck what Derek Smart thinks I have no idea.

The Escapist's article was much more interesting for the ex-employee interviews than for the Derek Smart bits, which had already been documented elsewhere.

Maybe those employees were lying - time will tell.

Chronos 01-18-2016 12:15 AM

Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

drachillix 01-18-2016 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 19025237)
Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

Vs
Diablo 3?
Fallout 3
Half life 2
Neverwinter Nights
Team Fortress 2
Warcraft3
Spore

Many of those had much longer development and were sequels with existing lore, gameplay structure, graphical styling, and in many cases dev teams that had worked on the prequels.

I expect a good game to take 3-5 years to happen, we are just past 3.

SenorBeef 01-18-2016 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 19025237)
Isn't the fact that it's been in development for so long and is still only in alpha (a very expensive paid alpha, at that) enough reason to hate it? And the last few months have seen a lot of progress in flyable ships? What does that mean, that they weren't flyable before? That they're still not flyable, but they're closer to being flyable? If you're this far along in development and you're still making progress on something that fundamental, there's something seriously wrong.

Wha? You're mad that they're taking time to craft an incredibly ambitious, large, and detailed game? Would you rather they be like Ubisoft and crank out another assassin's creed game every 9 months?

3 years is not at all a very long development time for a game. Even mildly ambitious games are a huge amount of work.

If you're mad that you can only fly this or that, then obviously crowdfunding this game isn't for you, and you wouldn't (or shouldn't) have done it.

I would much rather have the most ambitious game of all time after 5 years than shoveled shit after 2.

drachillix 01-18-2016 03:12 AM

I am also expecting huge things but I am willing to wait for them. If CIG pulls off a significant percentage of its promised game it is going to be groundbreaking on several levels.

I am a die hard space gamer, Cosmic balance, the wing commander series, alliegance, freespace, XvT, pretty much every space x4 title in existence, ST:O. I have always craved more detail.

Palooka 01-18-2016 07:31 AM

Until the recent burst of visible progress, it was easy to get the impression that they were spending more time producing $200 microtransactions than the game.

Johnny Bravo 01-18-2016 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorBeef (Post 19025324)
3 years is not at all a very long development time for a game. Even mildly ambitious games are a huge amount of work.

We're in year 5 right now - the game's been in development since October 2011.

Even the current release of "end of 2016" puts it at the 6 year mark, and that release was, I believe, set before the pushback of certain other goals like the Star Marine module. Drachillix can correct me there if I'm wrong.

Airk 01-18-2016 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19024606)
The pre-purchased ships can be earned in game...however many of those ships will take a long time to earn. There are no "super duper bulletproof" ships, and the biggest player controlled ships are a handful of frigates that could be defeated by a skilled squadron of $45 starter players if they are not supported. The guy who pays for the massive ship packages does not have the ability to conquer planets or anything.

...

So you're saying it's totally not Pay-to-win because "the biggest ships can totally be taken down by a skilled squadron" if no one is around to protect them?

Teuton 01-18-2016 11:53 AM

I think it would be a different conversation if Elite: Dangerous hadn't come along and got itself released last year.

drachillix 01-18-2016 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airk (Post 19025858)
...

So you're saying it's totally not Pay-to-win because "the biggest ships can totally be taken down by a skilled squadron" if no one is around to protect them?

a $450 team being able to take out a $2500 ship does not sound like PTW. I would tend to define PTW as game breaking. The hundred or so frigates and corvettes out of over a million players is not.

There will also be plenty of players out there looking to prove themselves by killing or capturing those ships, making them popular targets for pirate groups.

Czarcasm 01-18-2016 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drachillix (Post 19026143)
a $450 team being able to take out a $2500 ship does not sound like PTW. I would tend to define PTW as game breaking. The hundred or so frigates and corvettes out of over a million players is not.

There will also be plenty of players out there looking to prove themselves by killing or capturing those ships, making them popular targets for pirate groups.

I'm confused as to what $2500 ship is being taken out by a $450 team in this scenario. Are you perhaps referring to $2700 package of ships and equipment?

drachillix 01-18-2016 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 19026198)
I'm confused as to what $2500 ship is being taken out by a $450 team in this scenario. Are you perhaps referring to $2700 package of ships and equipment?

There are a couple larger ships which were available for limited sale namely the Idris Frigate Which if I recall correctly was offered for sale standalone for $2500.

Having a big bad ship is not in and of itself any guarantee of invincibility. Larger ships will be able to take immense amounts of punishment before being destroyed but can be rendered combat ineffective without being destroyed. Targeting of and damage to critical subsystems like turrets, engines, powerplants, is a valid tactic. An opposing pilot who knows where the power systems/avionics/main power conduits/etc. on a given ship can focus fire on that area hoping that a shot that penetrates the hull will destroy/cripple the system leaving the ship disabled but minimally damaged. The amount of planned damage possibilities is huge and is one of the time issues with ship creation is they are not just modeling a frame and skin, they are placing pathing for power, data, fuel lines, locations of sensors, thrusters, and a broad variety of ship systems that can be individually damaged both by ship to ship weapon fire or in some cases small arms and grenades in boarding actions.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.