Welcome to Star Citizen Base

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Nova-Prime

100 systems no longer planned on release

76 posts in this topic

Soooooo....  from the Gamestar Magazine it looks like at game release we will no longer get 100 systems to go crazy with. It's been downsized to 5-10 systems. :( I hate that I have to find this stuff on Reddit and not heard from the company that's in open development. 

Gingernaut and radoorid like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While 5-10 might not sound like a lot from what we've been seeing these systems are going to feel and be genuinely enormous. And frankly anything that lets them get on with it while still producing the quality experience we're all expecting I'm all for.

BryGen, radoorid and Nova-Prime like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 100 system was when there were no planets or any number of other things in the game. They say "on launch" but launch of what? When? 

Yes it's disappointing but those 5-10 systems will feature 15 to dozens of hero landing zones, full planets, countless moons, hundreds of space stations, and unlimited play space.

I too wanted to wander off in a direction and keep going until I hit something unknown. IMO it's those landing zones. They're bigger than we've expected and very unique. It'll take them a lot of time to build their asset library to they point they can crank them out.

So while it's disappointing to hear this from a magazine, I'm going to check my disappointment and/or hype at the door until I learn more facts. Right now it's more or less without any context. 

Revinix, Puls0nic and Nova-Prime like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people have been crying about it in the past week, but most of those guys look only at the numbers and start panicking. I prefer 10 full systems that can be explored on 100%, rather than 100-200 landing zones. It's been discussed a lot lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add, that I fully expect them to create tools to speed landing zone production. Right now everything is hand placed and bespoke. 

But, give the team six months and you get something like their truck stop space stations. A full set of complete spaces that they stick together like lego bricks. As their library of assets increases their need to build bespoke spaces will decrease, 

Revinix, Nova-Prime, XLB and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the key phrase in the above statement is "At release". Does it somewhere say...never? I agree with @FoxChard, release of what?

In addition, you want to see some serious butthurt? What if you have to buy more content outside of the 5-10 systems in a DLC format?

J. Coren, Nova-Prime and FoxChard like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Juntau said:

Also, the key phrase in the above statement is "At release". Does it somewhere say...never? I agree with @FoxChard, release of what?

In addition, you want to see some serious butthurt? What if you have to buy more content outside of the 5-10 systems in a DLC format?

THat won't happens since the 100ish systems were a kickstarter deal, but again it's undeniable the magnitude of the solsystems had changed drastically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I prefer to have 5-10 systems with fully explorable planets and moons compared to the original idea of 100 systems where each planet was basically nothing more than a few landing zones with limited exploration (like the 'planets' in SWTOR).

Besides, the 5-10 systems would only be at launch and more systems will be added. Personally I think this is best otherwise we'd be looking at another 5+ years before the game is released. Have to draw a line somewhere. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Personally I prefer to have 5-10 systems with fully explorable planets and moons compared to the original idea of 100 systems where each planet was basically nothing more than a few landing zones with limited exploration (like the 'planets' in SWTOR).

Besides, the 5-10 systems would only be at launch and more systems will be added. Personally I think this is best otherwise we'd be looking at another 5+ years before the game is released. Have to draw a line somewhere. :P

TBH I'd really love to have at least the main hubs of the Empire available or a very very good explanation of why Earth is out of bound.

Going from 5: we know we have Stanton, most likely Terra ( it's a jump away and apparently they have at least part of it modeled already), we should get Nyx and consequantly Pyro as well ( since you need to go Stanton-Pyro-Nyx), plus one more system.

Pyro/Nyx would scratch the need for combat ( I doubt we will see Vanduuls until SQ42).

Cincinnatus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riley Egret said:

TBH I'd really love to have at least the main hubs of the Empire available or a very very good explanation of why Earth is out of bound.

Going from 5: we know we have Stanton, most likely Terra ( it's a jump away and apparently they have at least part of it modeled already), we should get Nyx and consequantly Pyro as well ( since you need to go Stanton-Pyro-Nyx), plus one more system.

Pyro/Nyx would scratch the need for combat ( I doubt we will see Vanduuls until SQ42).

I'm betting that Earth will be destroyed by some Vanduul superweapon in SQ42 (as you'd need a motivator to really hate them). Wasn't the timeline of SQ42 set to take place a couple years before the PU?

But I agree that I would have liked to see at least the other main hubs available. 5 systems would be extremely low and 10 systems would be considered the bare minimum imo.

 

Riley Egret likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FoxChard said:

*Snip*

 

57 minutes ago, Juntau said:

*Snip*

I'm guessing the 5-10 systems are going to be strictly curated, and the other systems of the UEE will likely be not far behind.

Or who knows, by release the Techwizards at Frankfurt might have invented a way to procedural produce entire populated systems with minimal curation and have them not be janky.

 

16 minutes ago, Riley Egret said:

TBH I'd really love to have at least the main hubs of the Empire available or a very very good explanation of why Earth is out of bound.

Going from 5: we know we have Stanton, most likely Terra ( it's a jump away and apparently they have at least part of it modeled already), we should get Nyx and consequantly Pyro as well ( since you need to go Stanton-Pyro-Nyx), plus one more system.

Pyro/Nyx would scratch the need for combat ( I doubt we will see Vanduuls until SQ42).

Spoiler
Spoiler

That 5th system will be Odin, where SQ42 is.

 

There could be more beyond the 5th. For sure they'd want Operation Trebuchet to be possible, so they'd probably have Virgil. Of possible candidates for 7-10 (if there are that many) would be Bremen, Hadrian, Magnus, Ellis (where the Arena Commander Races happen), Castra or Vega. All of those would be rendered in some form or another because of SQ42, or would be a large jump point along the way to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that they'll burn earth up in SQ42. Its too big of a community content card to spend during the single player campaign. I think we'll see earth under siege in a few years, but before that they'll play up the Earth-Terra divide. 

Riley Egret likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disappointing that CR and CIG can't deliver 100 star systems at launch, as promised... but it's not unexpected. I'm not even upset about it because t was never a realistic stretch goal. In the beginning, I didn't imagine that the star systems in SC would be as expansive or elaborate as CIG intends to make them. I thought they'd be like Homeworld maps, just larger. Mostly empty space with a dozen points of interest per star system: a few asteroid clusters to mine, a gas giant to harvest fuel, a space station to RRR and trade, a few derelict ships to salvage, possibly a hidden alien relic to find, and one or two planets to land, each with a single landing zone comparable to a Mass Effect planet; either a cityscape or an open sandbox to rove around. That's about it. I would've been content with that.

However, once CIG decided to do procedural generation of planets and star systems, the scale of the game space expanded 1000 times! Since No Man's Sky was doing the same thing (just with a quadrillion star systems that were all the same), I figured that SC could use PG to create the 100 star systems relatively easily -- the computers and algorithms would do all the work. Then NMS was released and revealed how terrible reliance on PG is. It would be a terrible mistake for CIG to rely on PG. I'm glad that CIG is taking the time to build hand-crafted environments. I understand that it will take longer to do, but the end result will be far superior than PG hosed environments.

That said, 5-10 star systems at launch is a big difference from 100. I think CIG should wait until SC has 10 highly developed star systems, like Stanton, and 10 less developed star systems, like Nul, including at least 3 frontier Vanduul star systems. The HD star systems will be the high traffic, relatively safe systems for non-PVP players. The LD star systems will be for the risk takers and outlaws. "5-10" star systems at launch seems like 5 star systems of any type. That could mean Stanton and one other HD star system, if we're lucky, and 3 or 4 LD star systems. I imagine that LD star system will require less than 1/10th the amount of time and effort to create than a HD star system like Stanton. I think they'll basically be like the Homeworld-style star systems that I mentioned earlier, with only a dozen points of interest. LD star systems like those aren't going to impress the game reviewers, many of which are already biased against SC.

I'd prefer if Star Citizen's Beta starts sometime in 2018 and continues into 2019 with 5-10 star systems, and SC doesn't launch until late 2019 or 2020 with 20 star systems. Star Citizen's "launch" is completely arbitrary anyway. If the Beta goes from 2018 to 2019, it'll still be playable to everyone. There'd essentially be no difference between the Beta and the launch game. I know that Star Citizen is already (unfairly) criticized for being in development for so long, but if SC officially launches with only 5-10 star systems, I'm worried that it's going to bellyflop and get ripped apart by critics and mainstream gamers, and never recover. I don't want that. I'd prefer a Beta that gradually grows to 10 star systems, rather than a game that launches with only 5-10 star systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 100+ systems at launch and no idea what we'd really be able to do with them beyond land at a few locations crafted by CIG, but with PG tech unexpectedly so early in the game's development, 5-10 fully explorable/exploitable systems with planets/moons/asteroids vice essentially just visiting 100+ systems with maybe 1-2 landing sites is preferable as a goal.

 

Things change too fast in a game's development. I don't care that I found out from another outlet. In the end, it will still be a better game whether they tell me personally (so what) or not - as long as it is factual information and not something spread from that blowhard DS or his goon acolytes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they get the other 90 in relatively soon after release, say in the next year after release or so, it'll probably be fine.

But the "universe" will feel really small with so few systems.  What difference does small and large jump points make if there's only a few places you can go anyways?  Won't everyone cluster at the jump point entrance-exits?  Do some easy math on how many Idris and Javelins have been sold, then consider maybe 5% of them are online at any given time, and you still have a fucking huge number of the largest capital ships per star system.  I thought it was problematic when we had 100 star systems, and wrote about it on these forums before, but now its an order of magnitude worse.

I'm extremely skeptical that only 10 will feel "right" if they don't expand it consistently, regardless of the scale of the star systems.

I guess an interesting way to look at it is, what's a reasonable timeframe to create an entire star system?  One week?  One month?  They need multiple teams running in parallel to get up to 100 in less than a decade the way they're going now.  I thought procedural generation was supposed to take care of this but now it sounds like they're handplacing more content than they let on.

destra and Cincinnatus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily we're lined up to have some good insights into how long it takes to build a system. Their next Happy Hour Game Dev will be focused on demonstrating SolEd and PlanEd. If they can even use those tools to even perform the basic set up of a system in an hour, we should be reasonably confident that they could build as many systems as they want. Its the harder aspects that include artist driven content that delay us. Until they've got the tools around to help them build hero landing zones like they do with the Truck Stops they'll continue to take ages. I think once they've got the correct tools in place new content should be significantly quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a no win situation. 5-10 systems packed with content may not be enough to accommodate all the big ships...100 systems with no content will seem void and could be boring as hell. There will most likely either be a huge tech breakthrough or a huge compromise.

Gremlich and FoxChard like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cincinnatus said:

I just find it comical that cig is the first company to use procedural generated planets as a reason to cut scope in the minimally viable product.  

As with everything that CIG does, I think this is subject to change depending on the backslash received by the community...except the flight model.

AstroJak likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Juntau said:

As with everything that CIG does, I think this is subject to change depending on the backslash received by the community...except the flight model.

 I love you Juntau. The problem is that it is hard to make a good pvp FM that is cinematic.  The planets will be fine.  They will be very cinematic with high fidelity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so i guess im the only one here who feel cig is pushing their unprecedented level of bull shit to a new level. The big issues in only supplying 5 systems are;
1 - crowdfunding goal promised to players established at 100.
2 - PG an add on, not a main aspect of inital game i supported.
3 - planet side ventures an add on and not part of the space sim we have been supporting
4 - keeping 1.5 mil+++ players in a smaller overall play area which is designed for pve rather than pvp will lead to unsatisfactory gameplay for some groups.
5- current lore for game has at least 20-30 systems within the UEE which are regular destinations. So how do you explain why we cant go there? Because cig can build on systems released... Do they only want them released content complete? That's awsome in a perfect world but i think its a narrow point of view when taking into context of retaining players interest in supporting this game development.
6- allow cig to casually roll back main game aspects for the sake of them adding more tech and geeking out to it is a bad presidence. Which wont stop here...
7 - i supported the best damn space sim... Not the best damn world builder game!!!

If we end up with all UEE home worlds content complete with low sec and unowned systems only having 1-3 main landing zones upon release, i believe the community wont feel deprived and if cig claimes this isnt possible maybe they should have down played their PR tech. Maybe they should also stop reworking ships multiple times and finally just draw a line in tge sand and say thats good enough for release, otherwise it will be 2025 and we will still be waiting!!! All things considered this news is rather dissapointing and i believe more people should be vocal about it.


Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


Cincinnatus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry that per CIG release is when the company owners can start taking profits and not just put all the cash into game development. I don't want CR taking a $ of profit until we have 100 systems in game. 

AstroJak likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 to 10 systems at launch really has me worried for the Exploration profession.
The potential issue with the previously planned 100 systems was that anything worty of note would be discovered in the first month..
With just 5-10 systems? Give it a day or two. A week at most.
We won't just have the current active community in the game but everyone. EVERYONE.
All 1.8+ million of us, plus everyone buying the game when it launches. It's a metric ass-tonne of people, spread out over 5 to 10 systems.

That idea of exploring a system and feeling isolated, like you're in the middle of nowhere?
Yeah, sorry, that's right out the window.

Every moon, planet and derelict will have many MANY people on it, fighting eachother for the spoils.
Yeah the moons/planets are big so if you're cruising across a desert you won't always see people everywhere...  but trust me, you'll be fighting over every Point of Interrest. Every derelict/outpost/ancient ruin/etc.. Miners will be heavily competing for every space rock. Salvagers fighting over every scrap. There will be multiple spacebattles in every system.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

I'm really happy I'm part of Imperium, we have the numbers and the resources, but I feel sorry for the small corporations. Solo players are probably F*cked without help from the big dogs in the 'verse.


sorry for the rant but this stuff gets under my skin.
I hope they get their tools in order to get it to go faster and faster and that they can push out more then just 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they read my depth of content post and decided that a star system isn't "done" until it has the necessary depth to avoid the travel time dilemma.  At least, that's my (very irrational) hope.  What they should really do is keep SC in persistent "beta" until all the pledge goals are met.  Even if its basically done other than having enough content, lots of games (and software in general) keep the "beta" label for a long time.  If they label 10 systems as "released" and out of beta, then I think they've made a huge mistake.  Its basically saying "fuck you" to one of the core pledge goals, and not even one of the more obscure ones (private servers), but to a core one that has been talked about and counted on by a huge proportion of the playerbase (no offense to the vocal but tiny private server minority). And I agree that its a bad precedent / slippery slope / etc for the future (but one we should have seen coming because private servers).

AstroJak and Cincinnatus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now