The good news for SC is that RSI seem to have learnt / evolved / matured. Maybe coupled with having enough money to finish. Unless anyone believes they are operating exactly as they did last year things have changed.
As evidenced by 3.1 and 3.2. With no sign that 3.3. won't happen.
Simply because they decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps public and commit with quarterly releases.
Now they will no longer commit with longer-term estimates because those estimates will be ignored the moment they either want to work more on something, refactor it, develop new tech, whatever it is, they have that maneuverability.
Their fail was ever giving release dates and then when they wanted to expand the scope and take more time developing technology and so forth (such as achieving procedural planets to what was once small maps in on-rails loadings), their estimates went down the drain.
I am not quite sure what point you are making about "simply because they have decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps".
They planned to do that after 1.0 was released - they "failed" to follow through.
3.0 was supposed to be a short to medium term release - CR's brief was only to include stuff that could be released by the end-June so about 5-months max? And we know the trials and tribulations that followed.
This is not about how hard what is being done is it is about the process they follow to do it.
And today - at last! - there is evidence of a process for creating and maintaining a drumbeat. A pipeline that is delvering quarterly updates. Yes some things slip but as I said that happened with 3.0 and they couldn't cope with the slippage.
It may look easy and inconsequential. Its not. And everything points to them having learnt - probably the hard way - how to do that! And its to their credit that they have "matured".
Before we forget, during 2.x.x the pipeline was on average update every 2 months. 2.6.0 was only a year away from 2.0.0 release. If you measure by time between patches, then this pipeline is worse.
The good news for SC is that RSI seem to have learnt / evolved / matured. Maybe coupled with having enough money to finish. Unless anyone believes they are operating exactly as they did last year things have changed.
As evidenced by 3.1 and 3.2. With no sign that 3.3. won't happen.
Simply because they decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps public and commit with quarterly releases.
Now they will no longer commit with longer-term estimates because those estimates will be ignored the moment they either want to work more on something, refactor it, develop new tech, whatever it is, they have that maneuverability.
Their fail was ever giving release dates and then when they wanted to expand the scope and take more time developing technology and so forth (such as achieving procedural planets to what was once small maps in on-rails loadings), their estimates went down the drain.
I am not quite sure what point you are making about "simply because they have decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps".
They planned to do that after 1.0 was released - they "failed" to follow through.
3.0 was supposed to be a short to medium term release - CR's brief was only to include stuff that could be released by the end-June so about 5-months max? And we know the trials and tribulations that followed.
This is not about how hard what is being done is it is about the process they follow to do it.
And today - at last! - there is evidence of a process for creating and maintaining a drumbeat. A pipeline that is delvering quarterly updates. Yes some things slip but as I said that happened with 3.0 and they couldn't cope with the slippage.
It may look easy and inconsequential. Its not. And everything points to them having learnt - probably the hard way - how to do that! And its to their credit that they have "matured".
Before we forget, during 2.x.x the pipeline was on average update every 2 months. 2.6.0 was only a year away from 2.0.0 release. If you measure by time between patches, then this pipeline is worse.
And If you compare with the content added, it's better...
The good news for SC is that RSI seem to have learnt / evolved / matured. Maybe coupled with having enough money to finish. Unless anyone believes they are operating exactly as they did last year things have changed.
As evidenced by 3.1 and 3.2. With no sign that 3.3. won't happen.
Simply because they decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps public and commit with quarterly releases.
Now they will no longer commit with longer-term estimates because those estimates will be ignored the moment they either want to work more on something, refactor it, develop new tech, whatever it is, they have that maneuverability.
Their fail was ever giving release dates and then when they wanted to expand the scope and take more time developing technology and so forth (such as achieving procedural planets to what was once small maps in on-rails loadings), their estimates went down the drain.
I am not quite sure what point you are making about "simply because they have decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps".
They planned to do that after 1.0 was released - they "failed" to follow through.
3.0 was supposed to be a short to medium term release - CR's brief was only to include stuff that could be released by the end-June so about 5-months max? And we know the trials and tribulations that followed.
This is not about how hard what is being done is it is about the process they follow to do it.
And today - at last! - there is evidence of a process for creating and maintaining a drumbeat. A pipeline that is delvering quarterly updates. Yes some things slip but as I said that happened with 3.0 and they couldn't cope with the slippage.
It may look easy and inconsequential. Its not. And everything points to them having learnt - probably the hard way - how to do that! And its to their credit that they have "matured".
Before we forget, during 2.x.x the pipeline was on average update every 2 months. 2.6.0 was only a year away from 2.0.0 release. If you measure by time between patches, then this pipeline is worse.
And If you compare with the content added, it's better...
How much is added is mostly unimportant.
What matters is how much content remains to be delivered to reach the minimally Marketable Product and by when so they can actually start selling the game.
But they continue to bring in $20 to 30M per year in donations, so I'm not expecting things to change until that ceases. (If it ever does)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
What matters (to you) or me is irrelevant. It's not for us to decide, we have no say on the matter.
The only thing we know now right now is that the game is being actively developed, company is healthy (hiring), funding is steady and progress is clearly showcased by quarterly updates that have been well received by the community.
If one can't enjoy the process of game development ignoring it is the next best thing, it saves a lot of the useless "are we there yet" frustration.
Eventually, It will be done when it's done!
Just like Chris Robert wanted and all it's backers dreamed since they were little kids fascinated by sci-fi
The good news for SC is that RSI seem to have learnt / evolved / matured. Maybe coupled with having enough money to finish. Unless anyone believes they are operating exactly as they did last year things have changed.
As evidenced by 3.1 and 3.2. With no sign that 3.3. won't happen.
Simply because they decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps public and commit with quarterly releases.
Now they will no longer commit with longer-term estimates because those estimates will be ignored the moment they either want to work more on something, refactor it, develop new tech, whatever it is, they have that maneuverability.
Their fail was ever giving release dates and then when they wanted to expand the scope and take more time developing technology and so forth (such as achieving procedural planets to what was once small maps in on-rails loadings), their estimates went down the drain.
I am not quite sure what point you are making about "simply because they have decided to do these short and medium term roadmaps".
They planned to do that after 1.0 was released - they "failed" to follow through.
3.0 was supposed to be a short to medium term release - CR's brief was only to include stuff that could be released by the end-June so about 5-months max? And we know the trials and tribulations that followed.
This is not about how hard what is being done is it is about the process they follow to do it.
And today - at last! - there is evidence of a process for creating and maintaining a drumbeat. A pipeline that is delvering quarterly updates. Yes some things slip but as I said that happened with 3.0 and they couldn't cope with the slippage.
It may look easy and inconsequential. Its not. And everything points to them having learnt - probably the hard way - how to do that! And its to their credit that they have "matured".
Before we forget, during 2.x.x the pipeline was on average update every 2 months. 2.6.0 was only a year away from 2.0.0 release. If you measure by time between patches, then this pipeline is worse.
And If you compare with the content added, it's better...
What I am suggesting is that the process they are now following is much more "controlled" as opposed to what I believe was the "ad-hoc" nature of 2.x pathces.
If you insist they have gotten worse though ......
Hi. I can not say how long it takes for me to be frustrated when waiting on a game to be developed that I already paid for. I can't reveal how long I personally think a game should be in an alpha, beta, closed beta, open beta, early access state because it would crash my operating system. My developers did not code me with this response.
I do have a sub-routine that allows me to press "LOL" on anything that we disagree with though.
I am happy. I am happy. I am happy.
Reclaiming my time.
Awesome, even though that isn't Maxine Watters, the quote she did makes you start to see her in that pic.
Well Done!
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
I guess being frustrated is kinda different of being reasonable, hence the arguing lol
All comes from people having different concepts of what crowdfunding and game development are (or should be).
Makes for a fun discussion, useless but fun.
Sometimes frustration is reasonable.
For example, one could reasonably be frustrated with the level of absurdity often present in the Star Citizen forum from both detractors and defenders over the most trivial of things.
A stuck navmesh is nothing special in this state of the game.
Every NPC that moves need to run on an extra instance (which should be able to hold a couple NPCs).
There are different approaches to solve this task:
1. Static NPCs Static could be replaced with a talking box they are the vendors or quest NPCs who never need to move and act above what their behaviour tree is telling them. They don't need to be shared through network because it is not important to which direction they face. Though their inventory (sorry I don't buy rat tails today), basic state (i.e. alive or dead) or (maybe) behaviour tree state (shop closed) needs to be shared but it is not neccessary to do this outside of the main frame because a player can not interact with the behaviour tree itself, though this kind can read out states from a player (like faction, quest status ... etc).
2. Follow Me NPCs
Protect NPC quests or "follow me to the other side of the shoppe" quest like guys. They give out a Hash to a player and act like a players pet, most of the time they have a static mesh to follow and a state (activated not activated) and some basic behaviour tree with raycasts (something in the way, need to stop, follow player, player gone need to despawn) problem here is when the player who holds the control is riding to the sunset and let the NPC alone. The hash could jump to the nearest player but when there is no client near to calculate the behaviour the NPC "should" simply despawn and reset itself.
3. static Mesh NPC
They are calculated with a server that holds information of a mesh that is reachable by the NPC. The server just needs the static mesh that is pre calculated, a basic state (dead, alive, fighting) and a behaviour tree with raycasts (raycasts here needs to be more complex like sound detectors, Rays to other entities, reacting on changes of other NPCs). Problem here is the static nav mesh because it needs to be very precise to not have the NPC floating, seeing through walls or passing walls and to respect complex terrain like Slopes, Ramps, Doors).
4. Dynamic NPC
This kind of NPC needs almost the whole client to run they have no static mesh , the are controlled by their behaviour (be back at point X at time Y, move from your point 500m and look for rats). those NPC have basically no restrictions you can model every kind of sensors, behaviour and inventory and they could react. but they need the whole game client and network traffic from their surroundings so they are using as much traffic as a player + the behaviour calculation.
This is where the fun starts because if you have PBR shaders the textures needs to be known by the NPC (for stuff like visibility) if you have powerful enough servers you can let them react on stuff like shadows and reflections.
All those are very easy to create in a single player game because your own client is doing the calculations there is no need to share the stuff and if your client is offline or out of range the NPC could i.e. follow a timed script (close the shop after 10pm).
The "subsumption" is just a behaviour tree which calculates in an (global) inventory (if I have enough rat tails generate mission to carry rat tails to town). This is nothing new, throw in some RNG make it a bit complex and you are ready to go. New though is that they want to have millions of NPCs dynamic which means they need a lot servers to calculate them. which would be no problem if they would be free but with the power costs alone they need at least to have a $100 subscription for every player.
Most MMOs or online games tend to have "box" or follow me NPCs or none at all
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
Comments
What matters is how much content remains to be delivered to reach the minimally Marketable Product and by when so they can actually start selling the game.
But they continue to bring in $20 to 30M per year in donations, so I'm not expecting things to change until that ceases. (If it ever does)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
What I am suggesting is that the process they are now following is much more "controlled" as opposed to what I believe was the "ad-hoc" nature of 2.x pathces.
If you insist they have gotten worse though ......
― George Carlin
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
https://i.imgur.com/xYxc1fY.gif
This thread in a nutshell.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Static could be replaced with a talking box they are the vendors or quest NPCs who never need to move and act above what their behaviour tree is telling them. They don't need to be shared through network because it is not important to which direction they face. Though their inventory (sorry I don't buy rat tails today), basic state (i.e. alive or dead) or (maybe) behaviour tree state (shop closed) needs to be shared but it is not neccessary to do this outside of the main frame because a player can not interact with the behaviour tree itself, though this kind can read out states from a player (like faction, quest status ... etc).
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.