Star Citizen General BS

[Phraccy]

Disco Lando mentioned that Private Servers are the last thing they will look into and that some of us will be probably dead before it will be released ...
On top of that ... with all this planned server cluster structure in an AWS cloud, it's pretty impossible to make it local, furthermore if you are planning to have local servers you need to think of them from day one ... you can not tack them on ...

Thanks.
Yeah that was the biggest question mark for me too, if they want to ue the cloud structure how the fuck do you implement private servers into that??

[nightfire]

@dsmart in your recent article, you mentioned that private servers are out? Tried searching for any news on that but came up empty. Could you provide a link?

Thanks!

As Narrenbart said.

For reference, here's the original source:

[dsmart]

I just saw this post in an OSC thread (in response to my latest article on networking & instancing) on Reddit

Related:

10FTC Episode 42 Question 9

Question: "Other large MMO games - especially "single server" sorts of universes - have historically seen large groups of players banding together in the name of "disruptive" behavior. This can take the form of denying an area of the game to other players, controlling the economy, or just generally causing havoc. What are your plans for the Star Citizen universe to accommodate the lone freelance miner caught up in the madness?

Chris Roberts: "even the largest player group in a given area will make up less than 10%. The other issue is, because we have such high fidelity, we can't have too many people in one particular instance, like in AC the limit at the moment it's only 8 people, with 1.0 we'll have some new tech that we've made that allows much greater player numbers in one instance, but even with a best case scenario at the moment of 50-100 players, there are only so many people that can be crammed into one instance. Matchmaking will help limit these things, like say an organisation might only be able to occupy a certain portion of an instance, there will be slots reserved for friends of other players in that instance as well. It won't be a case where a thousand people can get together and control an area anyway, even if they fill that instance, there could be another instance of the same space that matchmaking might put you into because you're unrelated to whatever activity is going on there."

10FTC Episode 43 Question 8

Chris Roberts:"Most planets have instanced space around them, it's not unique. So if there's a planet and you got 50 people in orbit and our limit is 50 people per instance, the 51st and 52nd player that enter that orbit get put into a second instance around the planet again, they just don't see the other 50 people etc etc"

[StanTheMan]

I just saw this post in an OSC thread (in response to my latest article on networking & instancing) on Reddit

Related:

10FTC Episode 42 Question 9

Question: "Other large MMO games - especially "single server" sorts of universes - have historically seen large groups of players banding together in the name of "disruptive" behavior. This can take the form of denying an area of the game to other players, controlling the economy, or just generally causing havoc. What are your plans for the Star Citizen universe to accommodate the lone freelance miner caught up in the madness?

Chris Roberts: "even the largest player group in a given area will make up less than 10%. The other issue is, because we have such high fidelity, we can't have too many people in one particular instance, like in AC the limit at the moment it's only 8 people, with 1.0 we'll have some new tech that we've made that allows much greater player numbers in one instance, but even with a best case scenario at the moment of 50-100 players, there are only so many people that can be crammed into one instance. Matchmaking will help limit these things, like say an organisation might only be able to occupy a certain portion of an instance, there will be slots reserved for friends of other players in that instance as well. It won't be a case where a thousand people can get together and control an area anyway, even if they fill that instance, there could be another instance of the same space that matchmaking might put you into because you're unrelated to whatever activity is going on there."

10FTC Episode 43 Question 8

Chris Roberts:"Most planets have instanced space around them, it's not unique. So if there's a planet and you got 50 people in orbit and our limit is 50 people per instance, the 51st and 52nd player that enter that orbit get put into a second instance around the planet again, they just don't see the other 50 people etc etc"

It is not a game worth playing if you want an MMO type experience.  Far too few players can influence your gameplay -and thats if it ran well - which it isnt going to do.   It is almost pointless owning anything worth anything in this type of game because you are going to have no lasting impact on the game world and can only hope to acquire assets from a very small number of other players.

it will be far far more "fun" working out how to steal or destroy the assets of those that have them than to try and preserve assets you have spent a lot of $$ on whilst doing something with them (other than holding them in a hangar to pull yourself off over)

[dsmart]

It is not a game worth playing if you want an MMO type experience.  Far too few players can influence your gameplay -and thats if it ran well - which it isnt going to do.   It is almost pointless owning anything worth anything in this type of game because you are going to have no lasting impact on the game world and can only hope to acquire assets from a very small number of other players.

it will be far far more "fun" working out how to steal or destroy the assets of those that have them than to try and preserve assets you have spent a lot of $$ on whilst doing something with them (other than holding them in a hangar to pull yourself off over)

Yeah. And that's going to be their problem soon because since they can't build an MMO, it is going to remain a session based game. And with those games, there is no way to save a game's state, only player stats and items.

[StanTheMan]

I suppose there is always going to be a percent of players who will enjoy collecting ships to use in this very limited way, just as there are people that collect cars and hide them away in private garages. 

That's not the vast majority of the player base and in that type of system the thing has to work extremely well with sufficient gameplay. 

The assets have to hold their value (even appreciate) which simply isn't going to be the case if the game is released. 

So that aspect is screwed too.

[dsmart]

Everspace just beat them to the planetoids in space.

[Motto]

And Take-Two Interactive beats them by buying another game (company). All hail the Kerbal  :woop:

[dsmart]

And Take-Two Interactive beats them by buying another game (company). All hail the Kerbal  :woop:

Yeah I saw that this morning. It's great for those guys!

[dsmart]

Star Citizen quality degradation continues. In today's ATV showing Miles Eckhart NPC

[dsmart]

So the latest 3.0 schedule is out. Here is a diff between previous and current versions.

Looks like a bunch of things are delayed but up to 3 weeks. A bunch of others are now TBD. Which means they're likely to be cut from the schedule.

At this rate, they will be lucky to have 3.0 out by Gamescom (Aug 22-26). Which means they're probably going to make it the highlight of their fundraising.

[dsmart]

Schedule began 7 weeks ago on April 14th 2017

• 77 = Total tasks
• 27 (35%) = Tasks completed
• 11 (14%) = Tasks in-progress, not-delayed-yet
• 32 (42%) = Tasks in-progress, delayed
• 7 (9%) = Tasks in-progress, postponed/TBD

[dsmart]

2017 is a bust. $150 million & this schedule, means another 2yrs + >$28m to finish the project

Latest stats from https://starcitizentracker.github.io/

[Flashwit]

In a strange sort of way I'm impressed at their progress on 3.0. I expected even more delays than this.

So that's something I guess.

[dsmart]

In a strange sort of way I'm impressed at their progress on 3.0. I expected even more delays than this.

So that's something I guess.

Define "progress".