Star Citizen Exclusive Interview: Erin Roberts

WhatTheDuck

Posts: 72

Posted:
Edited: by WhatTheDuck
Posted: -
Hi citizens,

i found a interesting interview with erin roberts on reddit and want to share it with the community.

Interview:

wccftech.com/star-citizen-exclusive-interview-erin-roberts/



Short version:

Erin won't give dates about 3.0 because there is still a lot of schedule work at the beginning of the year. But we will see 2-3 big content releases with more locations, gameplay and content.

They work at a job system which will give you the possibility to request fuel when your tank is empty for a reward x or looking for a escort. But all of this job systems are much easier to programm than the core stuff like procedural technic.

"So with the next big release a lot of the underlying game is there and then we can look at transferring people between servers so we can have hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance, but that doesn’t come online until later."

The framerates in Starmarines are fine and this is because not all data is streamed to the client. The expecations for the PU are the same framerates after they implemented the needed technology for less data streamed informations.

Ingame progression will need time. Big Multicrew ships will need a group of people to run and contribute them.

Its hard to manage a project with this size. They are building like 4 or 5 games in terms of technology, company etc. But things like the ship-pipeline work after 2 years very accurate.



Greetings from Germany





Short Version:
starcitizenportal.com/interview-with-erin-roberts/


Original Thread:
https://reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5uketu/the_star_citizen_exclusive_interview_erin_roberts/
My own Star Citizen website for newcomer
http://starcitizenportal.com/
  • tom5598

    Posts: 121

    Posted:
    Posted:
    OMG !!!!!!!!!!! (giant explosion)
    "hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance," - Erin Roberts
  • ilkhani

    Posts: 766

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Another one of those articles that doesn't ask the tough questions.
    Nothing on the communication issues of 2016 that still plague 2017.
    No question on the disparity between management and development, the lying of 3.0 and the vertical slice.
    The sad part is that it follows the community ritual of spending 1/4th of the beginning to basically tell the community "I am one of you guys" at the beginning.
    Meh, until we have proper questions with proper answers, rest is semantics.
    signature_RSI.jpg
  • Stoofolo78

    Posts: 136

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Isn't this article communication?? gg
    ZopTT9B.jpg
  • WhatTheDuck

    Posts: 72

    Posted:
    Edited: by WhatTheDuck
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Another one of those articles that doesn't ask the tough questions.
    Nothing on the communication issues of 2016 that still plague 2017.
    No question on the disparity between management and development, the lying of 3.0 and the vertical slice.
    The sad part is that it follows the community ritual of spending 1/4th of the beginning to basically tell the community "I am one of you guys" at the beginning.
    Meh, until we have proper questions with proper answers, rest is semantics.


    I also wasnt happy about the "maybe 2016" without a chance of a release, but partial you got your answer

    "W: So at some point, when/who says (and we all really love Chris obviously) to Chris “please stop giving dates to the community!”?

    ER: To be fair, Chris isn’t really giving hard deadlines, he says we’d like to do XYZ and we would, we’d all love to give everything as soon as we can, but this is something that gets brought up repeatedly and this was why at the end of last year we really started opening up with our production schedule to the community.

    I’ve done this all my life though and it’s often, you know developers saying “oh yeah, we can do that!”, it’s not Chris making up dates, people want to give their best but then a roadblock appears, some contingent work isn’t finished in time or sometimes priorities change. It’s like last year when we delayed Star Marine and everyone reported that we’d killed it (W: We didn’t! In fact we reported it was still coming!) but we needed to reprioritise for other things.

    So now sure, now there are often frank conversations saying “OK, I know you think you can get X out in 2 days, but what happens if all of a sudden you need to fix bugs for a day or some blocker happens or how sure are you that the other team delivers you what you need when you need it?” etc.

    As we mature as a company, things continue to improve. When I was doing the Lego games for 10 years, it was so easy. There was no tech change. It was literally, ok this time we’re going to do Lego Batman, so reskin it all and put in 2 or 3 new gameplay features, bang, we could knock those out every 4 to 6 months. This is an order of magnitude more complex."
    My own Star Citizen website for newcomer
    http://starcitizenportal.com/
  • tom5598

    Posts: 121

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    Nothing on the communication issues of 2016 that still plague 2017.

    Care to elaborate?
  • youknowmyname

    Posts: 1007

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    OMG !!!!!!!!!!! (giant explosion)
    "hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance," - Erin Roberts

    doesn't tell much to us so long as we don't know exactly what is 'an instance' and what it can do.
    if an instance is the same region of space but people can't see each other as they are effectively segregated in various local instances, this phrase is only appearing to be revolutionary but doesn't mean much in practice.

    speaking of hundred of thousand when for now it's just a few people who can play together seems a little premature to me, and jumping the gun.
  • tom5598

    Posts: 121

    Posted:
    Edited: by tom5598
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    OMG !!!!!!!!!!! (giant explosion)
    "hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance," - Erin Roberts

    doesn't tell much to us so long as we don't know exactly what is 'an instance' and what it can do.
    if an instance is the same region of space but people can't see each other as they are effectively segregated in various local instances, this phrase is only appearing to be revolutionary but doesn't mean much in practice.

    speaking of hundred of thousand when for now it's just a few people who can play together seems a little premature to me, and jumping the gun.
    yes i know it probably serves as a player pool and the system will phase in and out players according to rules and such and the actual ppl you will be able to see is somewhere in the hundreds or a few thousands.(Lumberyard should be capable of that)
  • WhatTheDuck

    Posts: 72

    Posted:
    Posted:
    *Main post updated
    My own Star Citizen website for newcomer
    http://starcitizenportal.com/
  • Eurofighter

    Posts: 1621

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Disappointing to see that Erin is not really up front about the schedule slips. He downplays it massively and makes it sound like they just miss their targets by a few days but come on, man... most of the releases have been several months late with SM taking the cake with its 1.5 years of delay.

    Also disappointing to see that the interviewer did not ask more S42 questions or go more in-depth with regard to the delivery of the entire PU (100 star systems AT LAUNCH) and gameplay systems and how/when it is all supposed to come together in a playable fashion (lag and performance wise).

    It's almost like they sent Erin an interview request and let him make up his own easy questions solely for marketing purposes. In fact, that would be right up WTFTech's alley as they are a pure clickbait type of website.
    -= Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum =-
  • Phaethon

    Posts: 448

    Posted:
    Edited: by Phaethon
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Well, it was a read, and something happens, that is nice.
    But, why did he even mention SM...

    "It’s like last year when we delayed Star Marine and everyone reported that we’d killed it (W: We didn’t! In fact we reported it was still coming!) but we needed to reprioritise for other things."
    Open and honest is two different things it seems like, with information(kotaku 23 Sep 2016) this was in a way the truth until the release of the "new" Star Marine, incl Lumberyard. Killed and reborn?
    The past seems to be timeless here, yesterday has no time, and last year not even a day, and where is the like button?
  • ilkhani

    Posts: 766

    Posted:
    Edited: by ilkhani
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Another one of those articles that doesn't ask the tough questions.
    Nothing on the communication issues of 2016 that still plague 2017.
    No question on the disparity between management and development, the lying of 3.0 and the vertical slice.
    The sad part is that it follows the community ritual of spending 1/4th of the beginning to basically tell the community "I am one of you guys" at the beginning.
    Meh, until we have proper questions with proper answers, rest is semantics.


    I also wasnt happy about the "maybe 2016" without a chance of a release, but partial you got your answer
    Partial doesn't properly fill the point, does it?
    He, the journalist, is not digging in and asking the follow-up question to it.
    Let me give you a few questions that undoubtedly would be a golden article if asked and answered.

    Regarding 2016 specifically:
    "Erin, why was CIG completely non-communicative after Gamescom in regards to status updates of both projects, especially in regard to 3.0, the vertical slice and general SQ42 status?"

    Q:
    "Can you see why three ship sale events can seem opportunistic and misleading when they follow a Gamescom event that projected a goal that was never technically possible to achieve in the first place in the allotted time?"

    Q:
    "Can you understand that there is an issue when a company can reek in millions on ship sales, quarter after quarter, while not providing a genuine estimate to content and progress release for long-term?

    Follow-up after he says that they released the production schedule.
    Q:
    "The production schedule, while certainly a step in the right direction, seems to miss the point about general production direction and steps in broader terms, allowing the management to dodge long-term accountability by focusing on the very narrow short term goals.
    Is this why 3.0 was taken out of the schedule? To avoid accountability a second time, after it missed the initial goal?"

    Regarding general communication.
    Q:
    "Is there a cultural development issue where the management and development are at odds with each other, causing the publicly marketed and inflated status of the project to later be reeled back by the developments actual progress, causing miscommunication at best or mismanagement at worst?"

    Q:
    "There seems to be a tendency to show internal running demos, that are nowhere near implementation or even remotely capable of running anytime soon in the PU, as if they are "done and achieved". Do you see an issue here with misleading the community and does this cause for a concern when it is timed with ship sales that drives the money incentive?"

    Q:
    "Does the project suffer from proper internal communication and accountable internal checkpoints?"

    Q:
    "Are these cultural internal issues being rectified in 2017 and are we looking at a proper open communication and production schedule transparency?"

    Q:
    "Is there a reason as to why you have two community managers, yet neither of them are capable of honestly understanding this issue and neither of them seem to use the official forums as a means of communication?"

    Point being, his article is a bit too much of the same ol' same ol' game journalism, where the person interviewing, feels gratified by the interview itself, that he or she refuses to actually ask the hard questions and merely moves past these to get to the usual "in the end all is good".
    signature_RSI.jpg
  • tom5598

    Posts: 121

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Disappointing to see that Erin is not really up front about the schedule slips. He downplays it massively and makes it sound like they just miss their targets by a few days but come on, man... most of the releases have been several months late with SM taking the cake with its 1.5 years of delay.

    Also disappointing to see that the interviewer did not ask more S42 questions or go more in-depth with regard to the delivery of the entire PU (100 star systems AT LAUNCH) and gameplay systems and how/when it is all supposed to come together in a playable fashion (lag and performance wise).

    It's almost like they sent Erin an interview request and let him make up his own easy questions solely for marketing purposes. In fact, that would be right up WTFTech's alley as they are a pure clickbait type of website.

    they stated already that there will NOT be 100 systems at launch since there is no way they can create them to the standard they want. Those systems will be added incrementaly.
    as for sq42 srsly what do you want to hear? story? you cant get that gameplay? you can check it in the pu
    for a singleplayer game there isnot much to show there never was and they are not running marketing campaigns like publishers so dont expect anything other than a few youtube videos later.
  • Lightneed

    Posts: 144

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    OMG !!!!!!!!!!! (giant explosion)
    "hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance," - Erin Roberts

    IKR! I SAW THAT TOO! WOOOOOHOOOOO! More than a MMO!!! DAMN RIGHT!!!
  • KeithStorm

    Posts: 931

    Posted:
    Posted:
    The problem is the community doesn't listen. When Chris Roberts says something is a goal he means "we are going to try to do this" and unsaid is "but there is a 99% chance we will not succeed". When Chris Roberts gives a goal it is the same as saying soonTM.

    A legitimate date is given with a statement like." Cloud Imperium Games will deliver X by Y date". If any qualifiers are used goals, try, aiming, target etc. Then it is not a real date but PR.
  • Dfox

    Posts: 11601

    Posted:
    Edited: by Dfox
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    vin34hk.png
  • Dfox

    Posts: 11601

    Posted:
    Edited: by Dfox
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Duplicate post
    vin34hk.png
  • Eschatos

    Posts: 12461

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Most interesting parts for me:

    ...of course there will be mechanics for mining and everything else, but these systems are much simpler to do than all the core tech stuff we’ve been working on like planets, making the game 64 bit etc.

    Right now what we’re working on is the intelligence for when things stream in which is what we need for the next big release. Once we have that, core tech is basically done and then it’s about layering on a bunch of very cool gameplay.

    The Convoy™7Txqb5L.png est. 2943
    PLEASE VOTE >>
  • Connor_Hudson

    Posts: 335

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I love how people are complaining that they are not giving straight answers and remaining cryptic. But you all forget that the interviewer knows more then what he put in the interview because there are things that the devs and Erin CANNOT talk about. So we will never get a date from one of these interviews , or the full scale of where they are at so we can speculate the release date on our own. I know a lot you have been waiting for a while. But we have to stop asking for absolutes and stop taking it like they are giving absolutes.People need to stop taking estimates like they are set in stone. If we ALL stopped doing that we would have less problems.
    My odds of navigating through an asteroid field are WAY better then 3720 to 1...Just sayin'
  • WhatTheDuck

    Posts: 72

    Posted:
    Edited: by WhatTheDuck
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.

    I just wrote the thread in 1 minute at work and I m not a native english speaker, so maybe i missunderstood it.


    I fixed it with this sentence: "Ingame progression will need time. Big Multicrew ships will need a group of people to run and contribute them."

    Is this better now?
    My own Star Citizen website for newcomer
    http://starcitizenportal.com/
  • Dfox

    Posts: 11601

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.

    I just wrote the thread in 1 minute at work and I m not a native english speaker, so maybe i missunderstood it.


    I fixed it with this sentence: "Ingame progression will need time. Big Multicrew ships will need a group of people to run and contribute them."

    Is this better now?
    I think it's more accurate now, yes. It'd be nice if Erin clarified what he means - combat caps only, or caps in general, or what? I know that's not on you though.


    Thanks, by the way.
    vin34hk.png
  • WhatTheDuck

    Posts: 72

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Most interesting parts for me:

    ...of course there will be mechanics for mining and everything else, but these systems are much simpler to do than all the core tech stuff we’ve been working on like planets, making the game 64 bit etc.

    Right now what we’re working on is the intelligence for when things stream in which is what we need for the next big release. Once we have that, core tech is basically done and then it’s about layering on a bunch of very cool gameplay.

    Yeah, i agree with you. Sounds promising : ) +42

    My own Star Citizen website for newcomer
    http://starcitizenportal.com/
  • Herne

    Posts: 4839

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    "Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that."
    and then :-
    "People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it."

    And to be honest I think that's fair enough. If you want to own a Idris, that's great. But it's not going to be the kind of ship you take out for a Joy Ride on a Sunday afternoon. These ships were built with orgs in mind, not freelancer 2.0 gimbal mouse action. At least I really hope not.
    “The Eleventh Hour
  • sabre-tooth

    Posts: 9256

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    My understanding is that "technically" it will be possible but "financially" it will be a whole other story because the purchasing as well as the running costs for larger Ships will be significantly high that for a single player it could be quite a challenge so as to suggest a "pooled up" effort from a multitude of players rather then all from a single player.

    The real question to ask, though, would be another and something which I have yet to see anything said about.

    If larger Ships will, realistically, need a "pooled up" efort from a Team of players, clearly, I think, there will need to be a system for Star Citizen to allow "multi-shared" ownership of Ships.

    Multi-shared which means that it won't be like X players contributing to the purchasing and the running of a larger Ship but then only 1 player or account owning it but, instead, make it possible in the game for X players to actually have X shares, even of an unequal amount, possibly, of that given Ship and regarding its running costs.
    Of course, this would also bring in then, the need to allow for a majority "voting" mechanics in regards to what would happen to that Ship like when needing to sell it, to purchase equipment for it etc. etc.
    Also, "share-holders" to that Ship should also be given priority, if so they desire, to fly on that Ship as Crew over someone else who would hold no shares in it.

    Etc. etc.

    I mean, all of the ins and outs that would be needed to regulate and facilitate such a multi-owned ownership and the managing of it.

    Never heard of it being discussed and yet, at least to my viewing, it would much look quite a necessity to avoid injustices unfairnesses.
  • Dfox

    Posts: 11601

    Posted:
    Edited: by Dfox
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    "Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that."
    and then :-
    "People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it."

    And to be honest I think that's fair enough. If you want to own a Idris, that's great. But it's not going to be the kind of ship you take out for a Joy Ride on a Sunday afternoon. These ships were built with orgs in mind, not freelancer 2.0 gimbal mouse action. At least I really hope not.
    Well, never has CIG stated that "These ships were built with orgs in mind", with the exception of the Javelin. Also, all of these ships have been sold to individuals.

    Yes, we know you won't be profitable just joyriding in the large ships. On the other hand, large industrial ships do need to be profitable with an NPC crew and a solid plan. It cannot be the case that large industrials don't make money, even under the solo play condition. Most backers will be soloing large ships most of the time. Even an Idris should be profitable, while being run by a single player, if the plan is right.

    Once again, besides the above opinions from myself, CIG is on the record, very strongly, as having these large ships viable for a solo player. Erin's statement looks to contradict some of this, but I suspect that he's really just talking about combat ships going out for a fight, rather than performing a mission that results in a paycheck.

    vin34hk.png
  • Herne

    Posts: 4839

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    My understanding is that "technically" it will be possible but "financially" it will be a whole other story because the purchasing as well as the running costs for larger Ships will be significantly high that for a single player it could be quite a challenge so as to suggest a "pooled up" effort from a multitude of players rather then all from a single player.

    The real question to ask, though, would be another and something which I have yet to see anything said about.

    If larger Ships will, realistically, need a "pooled up" efort from a Team of players, clearly, I think, there will need to be a system for Star Citizen to allow "multi-shared" ownership of Ships.

    Multi-shared which means that it won't be like X players contributing to the purchasing and the running of a larger Ship but then only 1 player or account owning it but, instead, make it possible in the game for X players to actually have X shares, even of an unequal amount, possibly, of that given Ship and regarding its running costs.
    Of course, this would also bring in then, the need to allow for a majority "voting" mechanics in regards to what would happen to that Ship like when needing to sell it, to purchase equipment for it etc. etc.
    Also, "share-holders" to that Ship should also be given priority, if so they desire, to fly on that Ship as Crew over someone else who would hold no shares in it.

    Etc. etc.

    I mean, all of the ins and outs that would be needed to regulate and facilitate such a multi-owned ownership and the managing of it.

    Never heard of it being discussed and yet, at least to my viewing, it would much look quite a necessity to avoid injustices unfairnesses.
    Might make sense to allow org ownership. I'm not talking about current owners, but in game, if the org gets a tax on earnings from it's members, this pool of money could be used potentially to purchase ships or weapons that could be used by members of the org. Perhaps with some items being Rank (within the org) limited. Only your officers might be able to command an org Idris for example.
    “The Eleventh Hour
  • sabre-tooth

    Posts: 9256

    Posted:
    Edited: by sabre-tooth
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    My understanding is that "technically" it will be possible but "financially" it will be a whole other story because the purchasing as well as the running costs for larger Ships will be significantly high that for a single player it could be quite a challenge so as to suggest a "pooled up" effort from a multitude of players rather then all from a single player.

    The real question to ask, though, would be another and something which I have yet to see anything said about.

    If larger Ships will, realistically, need a "pooled up" efort from a Team of players, clearly, I think, there will need to be a system for Star Citizen to allow "multi-shared" ownership of Ships.

    Multi-shared which means that it won't be like X players contributing to the purchasing and the running of a larger Ship but then only 1 player or account owning it but, instead, make it possible in the game for X players to actually have X shares, even of an unequal amount, possibly, of that given Ship and regarding its running costs.
    Of course, this would also bring in then, the need to allow for a majority "voting" mechanics in regards to what would happen to that Ship like when needing to sell it, to purchase equipment for it etc. etc.
    Also, "share-holders" to that Ship should also be given priority, if so they desire, to fly on that Ship as Crew over someone else who would hold no shares in it.

    Etc. etc.

    I mean, all of the ins and outs that would be needed to regulate and facilitate such a multi-owned ownership and the managing of it.

    Never heard of it being discussed and yet, at least to my viewing, it would much look quite a necessity to avoid injustices unfairnesses.
    Might make sense to allow org ownership. I'm not talking about current owners, but in game, if the org gets a tax on earnings from it's members, this pool of money could be used potentially to purchase ships or weapons that could be used by members of the org. Perhaps with some items being Rank (within the org) limited. Only your officers might be able to command an org Idris for example.
    I am not a fan of Organizations' ownership because what happens then, if after a member has greatly contributed with time and UECs to that Organization the Member is then kicked out or somehow forced to leave one way or the other ?

    A "shares" mechanics would be much fairer, at least to my viewing, where assigning shares of ownership on things and also voting rights comparable to what shares one may have was to be made functional and a "core" aspect of that given Organization. When a member leaves, whatever the reasons, they would need to get their shares be refunded in their UECs value before they are dismissed (or just leave the Organization out of their choice).

    Perhaps, relevant members could have a few extra votes in certain more relevant issues but definitively, I'd love to see in Star Citizen an interface and a mechanics that would allow a public, democratic and multi-shared "governance" of any given players' organization and of whatever Ships, equipment etc. are purchased and maintained by a multitude of players.

    I think it would be a much better mechanics as compared to players putting in a lot of time, efforts and UECs into any given organization and then leave it empty handed, whatever the reasons......
  • Herne

    Posts: 4839

    Posted:
    Edited: by Herne
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    My understanding is that "technically" it will be possible but "financially" it will be a whole other story because the purchasing as well as the running costs for larger Ships will be significantly high that for a single player it could be quite a challenge so as to suggest a "pooled up" effort from a multitude of players rather then all from a single player.

    The real question to ask, though, would be another and something which I have yet to see anything said about.

    If larger Ships will, realistically, need a "pooled up" efort from a Team of players, clearly, I think, there will need to be a system for Star Citizen to allow "multi-shared" ownership of Ships.

    Multi-shared which means that it won't be like X players contributing to the purchasing and the running of a larger Ship but then only 1 player or account owning it but, instead, make it possible in the game for X players to actually have X shares, even of an unequal amount, possibly, of that given Ship and regarding its running costs.
    Of course, this would also bring in then, the need to allow for a majority "voting" mechanics in regards to what would happen to that Ship like when needing to sell it, to purchase equipment for it etc. etc.
    Also, "share-holders" to that Ship should also be given priority, if so they desire, to fly on that Ship as Crew over someone else who would hold no shares in it.

    Etc. etc.

    I mean, all of the ins and outs that would be needed to regulate and facilitate such a multi-owned ownership and the managing of it.

    Never heard of it being discussed and yet, at least to my viewing, it would much look quite a necessity to avoid injustices unfairnesses.
    Might make sense to allow org ownership. I'm not talking about current owners, but in game, if the org gets a tax on earnings from it's members, this pool of money could be used potentially to purchase ships or weapons that could be used by members of the org. Perhaps with some items being Rank (within the org) limited. Only your officers might be able to command an org Idris for example.
    I am not a fan of Organizations' ownership because what happens then, after a member has greatly contributed with time and UECs to that Organization the Member is then kicked out or somehow forced to leave one way or the other ?

    A "shares" mechanics would be much fairer assigning shares of ownership on things and also voting rights comparable to what shares one may have. When a member leaves, whatever the reasons, they would need to get their shares be refunded in their UECs value before they are dismissed (or just leave the Organization out of their choice).

    I think it would be a much better mechanics as compared to players putting in a lot of time, efforts and UECs into any given organization and then leave it empty handed......
    Not sure how you would get the game to enforce that though. Either way, I think it's a good thing if the cost of just running the bigger ships is prohibitive for single players, Yes they might be able to afford to take them out solo now and again, but not all the time. Otherwise 5 years after launch every man and his dog will be cruising around in their own Javelin
    “The Eleventh Hour
  • Logical_Chimp

    Posts: 21685

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Disappointing to see that Erin is not really up front about the schedule slips. He downplays it massively and makes it sound like they just miss their targets by a few days but come on, man... most of the releases have been several months late with SM taking the cake with its 1.5 years of delay.

    Also disappointing to see that the interviewer did not ask more S42 questions or go more in-depth with regard to the delivery of the entire PU (100 star systems AT LAUNCH) and gameplay systems and how/when it is all supposed to come together in a playable fashion (lag and performance wise).

    It's almost like they sent Erin an interview request and let him make up his own easy questions solely for marketing purposes. In fact, that would be right up WTFTech's alley as they are a pure clickbait type of website.

    Sigh... again with the Star Marine.

    CIG did clarify (albeit obviously not loudly enough or widely enough for some people), that the original release was shit-canned because CIG screwed up managing Illfonic (CR has said on record that CIG gave Illfonic the wrong metrics for all the assets, and then didn't do oversight, which is why it wasn't spotted until Illfonic delivered).

    As such, what we're playing now uses some of the concept work Illfonic did - but all the assets and most of the code has been written from scratch by CIG, starting second half 2015.
    I'm not a complete idiot. Some parts are missing.
  • Ibly1

    Posts: 3360

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    OMG !!!!!!!!!!! (giant explosion)
    "hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance," - Erin Roberts

    Although I liked the interview this comment actually raised flags with me. When I hear stuff like that it worries me a bit.
  • Dfox

    Posts: 11601

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Hmm, this quote from the OP sounds suspicious:

    Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person

    This goes against everything CIG has said up until this point. Can someone confirm where in the larger thread this was stated?

    Here's the actual statement:

    ER: It’s really about the way the game is intended. There will be a lot of balance iterations on the economy side but if you really want one of the bigger ships, you’re kind of going to need a team of people. Like on the Enterprise, you’ve got Kirk and Spock etc. Running some of the larger ships will cost significant resources and you’ll need people to contribute to that. Missiles will of course also cost. Right now, if your ship blows up, so what, in the future though it will carry real consequences. People are really going to need to work together to figure this stuff out and fund it.

    It seems to me that he's once again, saying that you'll need crew (NPC or Human) and that the largest Combat ships won't make money from combat itself. This we already knew.

    Personally, I think it's quite a stretch to simplify this into "Bigger ships will be only viable for teams/corps and not for a single person". Which, once again, goes against everything CIG has said up to this point (Which Erin's actual statement does not).



    If it actually turns out that individual players, through NPC crews, can't be viable using their Carracks and Endeavors and even Idrises there's going to be hell to pay from the community.
    My understanding is that "technically" it will be possible but "financially" it will be a whole other story because the purchasing as well as the running costs for larger Ships will be significantly high that for a single player it could be quite a challenge so as to suggest a "pooled up" effort from a multitude of players rather then all from a single player.

    The real question to ask, though, would be another and something which I have yet to see anything said about.

    If larger Ships will, realistically, need a "pooled up" efort from a Team of players, clearly, I think, there will need to be a system for Star Citizen to allow "multi-shared" ownership of Ships.

    Multi-shared which means that it won't be like X players contributing to the purchasing and the running of a larger Ship but then only 1 player or account owning it but, instead, make it possible in the game for X players to actually have X shares, even of an unequal amount, possibly, of that given Ship and regarding its running costs.
    Of course, this would also bring in then, the need to allow for a majority "voting" mechanics in regards to what would happen to that Ship like when needing to sell it, to purchase equipment for it etc. etc.
    Also, "share-holders" to that Ship should also be given priority, if so they desire, to fly on that Ship as Crew over someone else who would hold no shares in it.

    Etc. etc.

    I mean, all of the ins and outs that would be needed to regulate and facilitate such a multi-owned ownership and the managing of it.

    Never heard of it being discussed and yet, at least to my viewing, it would much look quite a necessity to avoid injustices unfairnesses.
    Might make sense to allow org ownership. I'm not talking about current owners, but in game, if the org gets a tax on earnings from it's members, this pool of money could be used potentially to purchase ships or weapons that could be used by members of the org. Perhaps with some items being Rank (within the org) limited. Only your officers might be able to command an org Idris for example.
    I am not a fan of Organizations' ownership because what happens then, after a member has greatly contributed with time and UECs to that Organization the Member is then kicked out or somehow forced to leave one way or the other ?

    A "shares" mechanics would be much fairer assigning shares of ownership on things and also voting rights comparable to what shares one may have. When a member leaves, whatever the reasons, they would need to get their shares be refunded in their UECs value before they are dismissed (or just leave the Organization out of their choice).

    I think it would be a much better mechanics as compared to players putting in a lot of time, efforts and UECs into any given organization and then leave it empty handed......
    Not sure how you would get the game to enforce that though. Either way, I think it's a good thing if the cost of just running the bigger ships is prohibitive for single players, Yes they might be able to afford to take them out solo now and again, but not all the time. Otherwise 5 years after launch every man and his dog will be cruising around in their own Javelin
    This, IMHO, is a terrible idea. First we all payed to play the same game, and not all of us are in, or want to be in, large orgs. Secondly, even those in large orgs are very likely going to find that solo playing large ships with NPC crews is the only option for them in many cases. Also, all of these ships have been sold, to date, to individual players. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, players will make up 10% or less of the "playing" population in SC< thus, it will never be the case that large ships dominate.

    Large ships should require good planning to be profitable with, not a large friends list.


    This effort by some player to try to dictate to other players how the must play the game in order to enjoy the game that we all backed together, needs to stop. All of us should have access to all of the game.
    vin34hk.png
Sign In or Register to comment.