Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3061
Dinosawer wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:54 am
But hiring an extra game developer doesn't necessarily speed up development of the game whatsoever.
Money is fixed. Resources are fixed. If you divert resources away from the game, and toward developing the website, the only elastic resource at that point is time. Do you watch the amount of content CIG puts out? All the videos, web stories, screenshots, email, etc? They're probably putting 30% of their energy toward that endeavor. It's a massive amount of content, and it doesn't make itself.

You should try it. Video yourself working, then put together an entertaining video explaining what you did that week. How much time did you spend working vs. making the video of you working?
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3063
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:51 am
Dinosawer wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:54 am
But hiring an extra game developer doesn't necessarily speed up development of the game whatsoever.
Money is fixed. Resources are fixed. If you divert resources away from the game, and toward developing the website, the only elastic resource at that point is time. Do you watch the amount of content CIG puts out? All the videos, web stories, screenshots, email, etc? They're probably putting 30% of their energy toward that endeavor. It's a massive amount of content, and it doesn't make itself.

You should try it. Video yourself working, then put together an entertaining video explaining what you did that week. How much time did you spend working vs. making the video of you working?
That's not my point. My point is that the development speed of a project is not necessarily increased by adding programmers. When you already have the optimal amount of people working on it, adding more only slows stuff down.

Your comparison is also false - it's not me who would be making the video. I would lose barely any time of actually working, since it would be my coworker Bob from PR who would drop by for a few minutes and then leave me be while he makes the video.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3064
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
CIG has focused its resources in sales, not game development, and it shows: they are so far behind schedule that this game will not be completed within our lifetimes.
Frack on, Chris Roberts!

Yeah what troubles me is that they constantly pitch their tech demo as a gameplay trailer. One year to add one mission to a NPC? We're screwed at this pace. What about Cargo? Mining? Wild life? Storytelling? RIP Piracy. There is no currently no purpose for anything other than fighter ships except some pretty weak cargo mechanics that don't detect your ship half the time.

The 2018 schedule on their new site paints a grim picture, its practically all about ships (3D art). And kiss any idea of SQ42 in 2018 goodbye.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3065
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:26 am
One year to add one mission to a NPC?
soo... in one sentence you complain about them adding a quick script to get a ship to explode at the right time for the cinematic effect they wanted to archieve with their demo
and in the next one you complain about them not doing that but (trying to) build a solid underlying layer for that stuff to work naturally.

decide
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3066
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:53 am
soo... in one sentence you complain about them adding a quick script to get a ship to explode at the right time for the cinematic effect they wanted to archieve with their demo
and in the next one you complain about them not doing that but (trying to) build a solid underlying layer for that stuff to work naturally.

decide
My post contains no self-contradictions. You also have no idea what was a "quick script" and what took months. Let us not forget The Road to CitizenCon showed a stark display as developers (even at the Director level) were crunching for a month or more, losing sleep, stressed out of their minds to produce the sand worm level which some sources say has been scrapped.

Image


When people claim “CIG doesn’t spend money on marketing” they ignore that several months out of any given year are spent by CIG’s own development staff in the production of marketing material for ship sale purposes. The normal defense for this is the "ship team" works separately from the game developers. I don't believe it, please don't bore me with that tired argument.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3068
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:32 am
The normal defense for this is the "ship team" works separately from the game developers. I don't believe it, please don't bore me with that tired argument.
The fact you apparently don't "believe" it doesn't mean programmers suddenly gain the ability to do 3D modelling and texturing :ghost:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3069
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:26 am
One year to add one mission to a NPC?
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:42 pm
Their MMO is so poorly programmed that they had to script a ship exploding when it got shot.
ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:32 am
My post contains no self-contradictions.
absolutely [/sarcasm]

ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:32 am
You also have no idea what was a "quick script" and what took months.
you seemingly neither.
setting a trigger for the ship destruction function call is a whole lot less work than getting the NPCs hooked up to quest mechanics.
and they#ve been reporting work on NPC-quest interaction systems for years to my knowledge.

ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:32 am
Let us not forget The Road to CitizenCon showed a stark display as developers (even at the Director level) were crunching for a month or more, losing sleep, stressed out of their minds to produce the sand worm level which some sources say has been scrapped.
yes, thats what happens. stuff that got made gets scrapped again. happens all the time, thats nothing special or outrageous.
not fun for the devs who made that stuff in the first place, but a known event.

ResultsMayDiffer wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:32 am
When people claim “CIG doesn’t spend money on marketing” they ignore that several months out of any given year are spent by CIG’s own development staff in the production of marketing material for ship sale purposes. The normal defense for this is the "ship team" works separately from the game developers. I don't believe it, please don't bore me with that tired argument.
can you do high quality programming and high quality modeling?
i've been doing both at various levels of proficiency for 8+ years now and the skills dont translate between them at all.

should they waste man hours getting the modelers to learn programming?
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3070
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
So much wrong here.
Amazing how people misread statistics and are generally incompetent.
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
First, CIG is based in LA, CA. The average web developer salary there is $80,073/yr. The average game developer salary there is $86,934/yr. These are, for all intents and purposes, the same.
Indeed it is amazing - they are based not only in California (could you please use full names - the world is actually mostly NOT Americans, and LT forums are quite diverse), but also have studios in other states. But it doesn't matter. You don't compare the averages from different distributions, ever, unless you goal is to mislead the audience. Web developer salaries in California, according to Glassdoor, follow a normal distribution - so average is about what the most people get. With game developers, the distribution is bimodal - there's a peak at around 80-90k, and another, fairly significant peak at 110+K, and there's also a significant sub-set of what I assume are indie/self-funded game devs with low salaries. Such distribution makes averages absolutely pointless.
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
Second, you absolutely can throw bodies at a problem and get faster outcomes for many software development tasks. For some linear tasks, say developing the network code, there's diminishing returns in assigning more workers. For parallel tasks like ship building, mission creation, environment creation, and the like, you can throw bodies at the problem and achieve results proportionally.
No you can't, you are bottle-necked - in case of SC - with an ever-expanding scope. And in most other - saner - projects, you are limited by the capacity to coordinate different branches of development / investigation.
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
As for China, they've been throwing educated bodies at their defense problems and, lo and behold, they're getting results. The Type -055 destroyer rivals any equivalent design in Asia, and possibly the United States. Also, they're developing not one, but two stealth fighters.
National Interest is rubbish, don't ever quote it as a serious source. I'm not closely familiar with Chinese stealth fighter programs, but in all likelihood, much more familiar than you are, and the tech level that went into them is a at least a decade behind what Russians and (especially) Americans have, and their engines are at least 30 years behind when it comes to PWR and - most importantly - the engine lifespan which is absolutely abysmal. Same actually goes for their ships - they certainly look impressive, and rival American and Japanese ships in their peak characteristics, but suffer from poor reliability, short lifespan of many critical components, and much lower non-peak performance.

I deal with Chinese science on a daily basis, and while there are many good, well-performed investigations, an awful lot of it is simply repeating what was already done many years ago with no regard for the fact that it was already done.
Arclite wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:18 am
CIG has focused its resources in sales, not game development, and it shows: they are so far behind schedule that this game will not be completed within our lifetimes.
Most companies these days focus on marketing rather than delivery; I was unfortunate enough to run such a company myself (to my eventual dismissal due to insisting on having actual production instead of EVEN. MOAR. PR!); so why single out only CIG for this?
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3071
outlander wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:03 am
Most companies these days focus on marketing rather than delivery; [...]; so why single out only CIG for this?
If CIG wants to comprehensively fail at making a video game, that’s fine, so long as it’s on their own dime. But they're using backers money to fund the ongoing shoddy marketing trailers and demos.


'So this is the clip I feel most strongly about. As NPCs aren't claimed to be in the game we must assume this is a depiction of one group of players fighting against another group. It clearly states this is captured inside 3.0 but seeing as me and friends have had numerous moments where we couldn't see each other it seem questionable how this is a fair representation of the game.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3072
If only people had the same outrage at Space Shuttle program. Or SLS. Or Zumwalt-class whatever-those-are-they-are-not-ships. Or, I don't know, Commercial Resupply Program, where taxpayer's money are used to fund the development of actual crewed spaceships - with how many years of delays now? How about millions of your moneys spent training terrorists in Syria, all the while misrepresenting them as people fighting for FreedomTM and DemocracyTM. Where is your outrage when Solar roadways not only got that sweet, sweet crowdfunding money, but also a lot of even sweeter governmental subsidies and grants, all for an idea that is absolute bollocks?

But no, it's CIG, because I pay them my moneyz and they no deliver me dream game, maaaAAAH!

Go ask for a refund already. Or sell your pledge to somebody with more money than common sense.

Oh, humanity, you'll be the bane of us all.
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3074
outlander wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:51 am
If only people had the same outrage at Space Shuttle program. Or SLS. Or Zumwalt-class whatever-those-are-they-are-not-ships. Or, I don't know, Commercial Resupply Program, where taxpayer's money are used to fund the development of actual crewed spaceships - with how many years of delays now? How about millions of your moneys spent training terrorists in Syria, all the while misrepresenting them as people fighting for FreedomTM and DemocracyTM. Where is your outrage when Solar roadways not only got that sweet, sweet crowdfunding money, but also a lot of even sweeter governmental subsidies and grants, all for an idea that is absolute bollocks?
Gaming is a hobby, Government waste is an institution. I am engaging in my hobby.

outlander wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:51 am
sell your pledge to somebody with more money than common sense.
FYI you currently loose 40% on the grey market. Ships turned out to not be such a good "investment"


Unless it's a Javelin maybe.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron