Star Citizen - Promises Tracker

[dsmart]

Virtual Captain has updated his tracker for 3.0 Evocati

https://starcitizentracker.github.io

Estimated Total Progress on Major Features: 18% (was 16%)

Some stuff on the main page should probably be marked completed but I'll get to it when they sell their alien bike or something.

New additions:
Gunplay sliding
Pioneer (ship)
Aegis Sabre (ship) <completed lol>
Planetary settlement
Player structures
Aegis Hammerhead (ship)
External Repair Structure
Anvil U9C Hawk (ship)

[dsmart]

The latest stats are up.



Addition highlights to https://starcitizentracker.github.io for January 2018:
Ships ommited except in the completed category (Otherwise it would be blank )

Completed
Just RSI Polaris and Anvil Hornet

In alpha
Dynamic inventory pricing [super](1)[/super]
"First implementation of dynamic inventory and pricing. Locations now have variable pricing that will fluctuate over-time based on stock levels and restock rates. Note: Still a work in progress and implemented at major spawn locations (GrimHex, Port Olisar, and Levski) only."

Not implemented
Cleaning and Mopping [super](1)[/super]
Procedural generation missions [super](1)[/super]
"So we're gonna combine some scripted missions with procedural generation missions."
Science pod [super](1,2)[/super]
Service equipment and crew pod [super](1,2)[/super]
Research pod [super](1,2)[/super]
Fuel pod [super](1,2)[/super]
Salvagable debris fields [super](1)[/super]
"So there will definitely be debris fields you can salvage and there will just be some that will be seeded out there similar to asteroid fields"
Character aging [super](1,2)[/super]
"There definitely by the way will be damage, we have limb damage already part of the system and it's already partially modeled in our first person shooter stuff. So when we show that and reveal it later this year, you'll see a lot of that. But we're also going to have some level of aging for the characters, so as you get older, we'll want them to feel like they get older."

Stagnant
Real-time facial motion capture for ingame avatar annimation (Live Driver/FaceOverIP) [super](1,2,3)[/super]

Broken
Pirate insurance for questionably obtained ships [super](1)[/super]
"insurance for pirates will not be too dissimilar for insurance for people inside the UEE it will just be the sort of pirate version of that"
Ship signature spoofing [super](1)[/super]
"I definitely think there will be systems out there that will potentially allow you to have a signature that would look like a different kind of ship and that could be pretty useful. For instance, you could have a signature to make you look like a freighter but you're not – as a trap"
Fake hull IDs [super](1,2,3,4)[/super]
"You will be able to fly a “hot” ship to the less savory parts of the Star Citizen universe, where you will probably be able to land and may be able to purchase a fake hull id code, but it will take effort and not necessarily be cheap."

[Flashwit]

Cleaning and Mopping/Character Aging.

Who comes up with this craziness? These are things that should be so far down the priority list that no one has even thought about it yet. Jesus.

[David-2]

Backers have been bitching about the crappy flight model for this BDSSE for years (literally: years) and nothing has apparently been done except to make it worse (from their point of view) yet CIG has managed to get "dynamic inventory pricing" into alpha (though it is still a work in progress).

So I'm sure there are a whole lot of backers who are out there thinking "yes it's hard to fly and land ships that seem to have no weight, but that's ok, alpha you know, anyway I've been waiting especially for dynamic inventory pricing: my org and I are going to have a lot of fun with that!

P.S. The thing the backers are moaning about is mass not weight - but they invariably say weight.  That's ok though.  I'm not going to be pedantic about it.

[Noztra]

Mass and inertia, but CIG probably don't know what that is.

[Bubba]

I'm sorry but mass vs. weight is not pedantic to space sim nerds: it's basic. There's a difference, which itself isn't pedantic. And yeah, CR never made in his career a believable space flight model, at least for me, which is one of the twenty reasons why I didn't succumb to the SC hype. You know, that feeling from X-Wing, "Oh this is the SWOTL engine, previously Their Finest Hour, previously BH 1942", only with the speed limit and with genuine UFO physics.

[David-2]

I'm sorry but mass vs. weight is not pedantic to space sim nerds: it's basic.

I know. What I meant was: I'm not going to be pedantic about their confusion about that.  There's such larger fish to fry!

[Bubba]

Fair enough. I just find it funny that these clowns complain about the (space)flight models, when CR has never been involved with any project that's had anything remotely believable. That's cool and all - videogames - but reason #3 I've stayed away is that SC is premised on being A) A Space Sim, that is B) Multiplayer with C) Fancy ships suited for specific roles. Multiplayer means emergent gameplay, and if you're making up the physics and flight models, getting C) to work is really hard. You can claim that the Space Trader ship is the best ship for space trading, but what happens when the players find out that a battleship is the best ship for everything? Since day 1, they've been using carefully-crafted trailers, canned missions, and mocapped cutscenes to pitch emergent experiences. Yeah, the spaceship doesn't feel like a spaceship, no matter what your definition of "feel" is, and the most interesting emergent gameplay comes about from the bugs.

[DemonInvestor]

Fair enough. I just find it funny that these clowns complain about the (space)flight models, when CR has never been involved with any project that's had anything remotely believable. That's cool and all - videogames - but reason #3 I've stayed away is that SC is premised on being A) A Space Sim, that is B) Multiplayer with C) Fancy ships suited for specific roles. Multiplayer means emergent gameplay, and if you're making up the physics and flight models, getting C) to work is really hard. You can claim that the Space Trader ship is the best ship for space trading, but what happens when the players find out that a battleship is the best ship for everything? Since day 1, they've been using carefully-crafted trailers, canned missions, and mocapped cutscenes to pitch emergent experiences. Yeah, the spaceship doesn't feel like a spaceship, no matter what your definition of "feel" is, and the most interesting emergent gameplay comes about from the bugs.

Well the emergent behaviour is especially hard for them as CRoberts hasn't got a strong vision of what he wants. He seems like some small child in an amusement park which gets distracted by something cool every other second. Ohhh look a coaster i want that, oohhh look Mickey Mouse i want that, oohhhh look an old gum on the street i want a gum...

[Backer42]

Fair enough. I just find it funny that these clowns complain about the (space)flight models, when CR has never been involved with any project that's had anything remotely believable. That's cool and all - videogames - but reason #3 I've stayed away is that SC is premised on being A) A Space Sim, that is B) Multiplayer with C) Fancy ships suited for specific roles. Multiplayer means emergent gameplay, and if you're making up the physics and flight models, getting C) to work is really hard.

That is why the initial pitch by CryTek was a single player/co-op 90s style space fighter game. With a multiplayer hosted by players and, with mods for all kinds of community-based developments (many simulations leave it to third party payware to implement advanced physics and system depth).

Then Elite: Dangerous happened and Chris Roberts saw that...

[krylite]

I'd never really got into WC2 or 3. To me , it just looked like sprites slapped on railed scripted movement . Arcade games at the time had more intriguing shooting gameplay. CR has long since failed at any true new innovation. The WC series had cutscenes as a selling point, then after WC, he tried to make a business of movies, failed and now cutscenes and engine scripts heavily edited are his mainstay bread and butter effort to keep his evolved ponzi alive keeping shillizens captive for how much longer.

Yep, ED continues to make SC look obsolete and irrelevant with each passing quarter. ED players are currently debating the effects of the new chieftan's drift inertia. The T-9 had it's mass reduced to accommodate changes affecting fsd. So the discussion is far past the stages of even getting a working physical simulation working stable enough. The new shading changes are significantly improved in the beta, and I bet a similar structure to the SC dock would look just as good today, if not already with some of the megaships out there in the ED-verse ( a real working around-the-verse already) landable and now starting to have interactable external spots. One day there will be EVA and spacelegs all over the ED structures developed, all without wasting over a hundred million dollars and spewing hundreds of bs trailers, jit techdemos and the weekly atv farce.

[N0mad]

I never got into the Wing Commander games because I could never get past the lion thing in all the promotional stuff.

The whole series just looked like a cheap Star Wars clone at a time when I was playing the X-wing games.

[Backer42]

I'd never really got into WC2 or 3. To me , it just looked like sprites slapped on railed scripted movement .

WC was never a pinnacle of video game tech, but nobody expected that from Chris Roberts. Just him sticking to the original KS concept, directing cheesy cut scenes and leaving the gameplay details to someone who knows his shit.

Yep, ED continues to make SC look obsolete and irrelevant with each passing quarter.

ED is a completely different concept from what CryTek pitched. I didn't back ED. But at one point Chris decided to clone it.

[Kyrt]

ED is a completely different concept from what CryTek pitched. I didn't back ED. But at one point Chris decided to clone it.

Star Citizen isn't really an ED clone. While there are strong similarities in what both games are looking to achieve, there are also big differences.

Star Citizen has a much stronger focus on FPS style gameplay and an endgoal of an MMO
ED, if/when it get its space legs, probably won't have the same focus; it's designers appear much more aware of the issues involved and are likely to make use of some of the existing gameplay mechanics to bypass them (e.g. you won't need to walk to the bar to meet Miles, you can send HoloMe instead). More, ED is taking more of a multiplayer approach rather than embracing the requirements for a full MMO. It likely precludes the possibility of 1000 player instances, but at the same time it's a cheaper, simpler solution that works for the game FD is creating.

Having said that, even assuming it gets released, we still have no idea if Star Citizen will be an MMO in anything but name.

[dsmart]

Yeah, they are totally different games. The only thing they share, is the space combat genre. It's the same nonsense I hear each time someone tries to compare Line Of Defense to Star Citizen, when in fact that's a combined arms game which just happens to have space combat levels; and is no way in competition with Star Citizen. Ask them to compare Battlecruiser/Universal Combat to Star Citizen though? They all run for cover.  :lol: