ResultsMayDiffer wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:14 am
I was looking at this reddit list of features
they've actually delivered.
2015-07-24 - SC alpha 1.1.5
backend: 16 player AC (extremely laggy above 10)
Are you telling me they've been struggling with 10 players tanking the server for 2+ years? CryEngine, or Chris was the fatal nail in this coffin.
I think much of my early SC posting was an attempt to get backers to hold CIG accountable, I gave up on that some time ago because they are apparently incapable and CIG is just going to ignore their pleas even if I was successful.
But I need to remember nothing will ever make this into the EvE killer we were all imagining even if the company was on board with firing Chris Roberts and getting over their 3d art obsessive incompetence.
Actually they haven't been struggling with player counts at all. What has been happening is that they've been optimizing and increasing the limits at the same time which gives the appearance of "no progress" but if you increase the size and object capabilities of something by 5000% and you can only have the same amount of people on as you could before that or less... that isn't "no progress" or struggles like detractors such as yourself might think. That's just choosing to focus on different areas. Instead of focusing on player performance they're focusing on game engine performance. How much can they squeeze out with roughly the same effect on players. They're pushing the limits, on purpose.
This often comes down to a glass have empty vs glass half full perspective. Detractors very much view everything regarding CIG as a glass half empty situation, even to the point of taking things that aren't issues and making issues of them. Whereas backers generally view it the other way around. I myself am a backer of a not insignificant amount. I am also a pessimistic realist. I look at things realistically but generally with a pessimistic view. I am very cynical about things. Most of the issues I see detractors (including yourself) bringing up is simply not true. Or at least not true in the way it is presented. Most of your issues seem to come from anecdote, pre-supposition and conjecture. People who said something that you for some reason believe or going into any situation assuming malice and ill intent because well you already dislike them (This turns into a feedback loop very easily btw) or you draw a conclusion from something without really knowing all the facts.
Such as you seeming to take something from two years ago and apply it today as if it is the same thing, based probably on anecdote. AC is and has been remarkably stable in most cases even in 3.0 except when there has been a specific issue such as a memory leak. (which was pretty bad during the PTU)
Or generally suggesting that they have made no progress and still have a very unstable game because they can still only barely support 16 players. Lets just ignore the fact that they have increased the size and object capacity in the game maps by several orders of magnitude while still retaining MOSTLY the same performance. That is disingenuous at best. Possibly deliberate at worst. If it is deliberate then you have an agenda, for whatever reason you are going out of your way to (ironically) misrepresent the game all while claiming that CIG themselves misrepresent things.
Which is actually an interesting topic in and of itself. You want to hold them accountable yet all of the things you claim you want to hold them accountable for really come down to choice. Like their marketing for example. Ooo their marketing is terrible! They pressure people!!! OMFGZOR! Buttttttt that is a pre-supposition right out the gate. You've assumed they're in the wrong before you've even thought about what it is they're wrong about.
I can say as a person who has been involved as a significant backer since the beginning I have never once EVER felt pressured to buy anything. I have seen thousands of times at every corner YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING BEYOND A BASE PLEDGE! Now let me break that down VERY simply for you. If someone tells you that you don't have to buy something, then offer you all these amazing cool things for you to buy... even if they turn out not to be very cool... if you buy them YOU are responsible for that fact. Not them. Your "Holding them accountable" in terms of their marketing is really just entitlement. It's something certain people do when they want to shift responsibility (blame) from themselves onto someone else for what they perceive as a bad decision. Star Citizen is a crowd funded project. It can only exist by virtue of said crowd funding at this point. Crowd funding is like investing and like gambling without any of the benefits of either. So it is kind of inherently dodgy, but we all know that going in. The only people who can claim otherwise are people who may have backed without really understanding how crowd funding works. Which is a legitimate issue BUT those people have had MANY chances to pull out up until about two years ago maybe. And even now they can still pull out of they genuinely want to and push hard enough. So that is literally not an excuse.
So when you think about it, you're wanting to hold CIG and CR accountable for your own actions. You bought something that you regret buying and you want to place that blame on them rather than yourself for taking a punt and it not panning out the way you hoped.
Now you say they lie and/or misrepresent. I'd ask you to show where that has been the case? Lying would require clear intent to deceive. I will absolutely admit that they've gotten things wrong. Hell even a lot, but getting something wrong is not lying. You coming here and claiming that they're lying and need to be held accountable is ridiculous because everything that has actually happened is pretty standard with crowd funding. It happens to many of them if not most of them. This very forum you are on RIGHT NOW is a crowd funded project that has been subject to much of the exact same criticisms.
So let's be honest. This isn't really about CIG, Chris Roberts or Star Citizen and it sure as hell isn't about accountability. It is about a dislike. You dislike the project and you like to make that known and I think you like to give people grief who you feel are "white knights" to the project or who in your eyes defend it without cause. Now the problem with that is that many of us backed the project because we believe in it. I can't speak for the others but I defend things I believe in and thus far I've not seen a single complaint of yours that cannot be traced back to a certain individual (Derek Smart) and he is absolutely not a legitimate source of criticism with Star Citizen. He has gotten an insane amount of claims wrong. If you have someone who constantly makes claims that turn out to be wrong, even if they get a few right... you don't keep believing them.
Now you might think that you aren't speaking on behalf of Derek or that you are actually really getting your info from someone else or hell even honestly believing that you have come to these conclusions yourself but I can say with almost certainty based on what you've said that IF you have come to the conclusions yourself then you have sought to reaffirm those conclusions by looking up people who are likely associated with Derek. Either that or you literally got much of it from him. Even that video of the guy you posted has a situation that SEEMS clearcut. "Oh he was totally entitled to a refund!" except that's not really how it works. When the games scope expanded they had to revise their TOS. If people wanted out they should have got out before accepting the new TOS. Legally speaking anyway. If they didn't then they agreed to be bound to the new TOS which honestly isn't as sinister as it seems. Offering perpetual refunds is something pretty much no one does these days. People have had their chance to get out of the project. People who didn't take that chance should not be getting given refunds unless they have a really good reason.
Now I want to go into the whole marketing thing a bit. Many people (especially detractors) like to push the idea that they should stop selling ships. That is ridiculous. For a few reasons. People don't have to buy them if they don't want to. This game is very likely a 250-350m game at its fully realized scope. Probably most importantly though is that people clearly want to buy ships/vehicles/etc. You cannot blame someone for selling something when people clearly want to buy the something being sold. That is just plain stupid. So as much as you might not LIKE their marketing practices, they're selling stuff that people clearly want to buy (As indicated by the fact that people buy them). The only semi-legitimate concern on the marketing side as far as I can tell is that they don't sell everything all the time. People like to say "THEY'RE CREATING FALSE SCARCITY!!!". To that I'd say... of course they're creating false scarcity. How else would they do it? These things can be created in whatever numbers they want so any scarcity HAS to be intentionally created. Then there is the other issue. Part of why they probably do limited sales is to have better control of their big cash influxes which makes sense from a business perspective. At the end of the day nothing about their marketing is really an issue beyond the OPINION of people who simply dislike it. Which is fine, you can hate their marketing for all it matters. You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. Nor are you entitled to place the blame of your poor spending choices on the company who sold you the stuff.
So yeah, it's been awhile since I've looked at the LT forums let alone this thread but it is really sad that there is one person here who seems pretty hell bent against CIG/SC. As others have said, move on. If you cannot visit this thread without being triggered into your normal anti-CIG rhetoric don't visit the thread. You're more than welcome to discuss here but your perspective benefits no one, that includes yourself. There are people who love SC and there are people who hate it but no one should be trying to piss on other peoples dreams because of what they think about said dreams.