100 systems no longer planned on release

[Juntau]

@Karmaslap To me it makes sense that they would rush out some additional ground based vehicles to compliment the vast playspace provided by the new planet tech. Older vehicles are certainly still getting some love, take the Cutlass for example. And yes, there have been many ships pushed ahead by the needs of SQ42. 

I think folks need to take a step back, look at the big picture and once again realize this is a marathon, not a sprint. If anyone out there thinks that 3.0 is some magic bullet that will propel this game into a finished state, they are setting themselves up for some major disappointment as detailed by @CyberianK.

I also agree with the idea that 5-10 systems could have potentially more playable area than that which would have occurred in 100 systems based on the tech that has been developed. So many unknowns still exist, and will continue to haunt us for a long time to come.

[FoxChard]

Well said @Juntau

[VFL]

I like to look at the bright side if this. Instead of everything being there on launch, we'll all learn the game in a limited universe instead with the promise of more to come. Instead of hardcore player's discovering everything within a month, we'll all have to wait together, knowing more is coming. It's like a book that we all have to read chapter by chapter instead of skipping to the end for spoilers.

It also puts pressure on CIG to make sure they release more content over time after launch.

[Tom Villder]

20 minutes ago, VFL said:

I like to look at the bright side if this. Instead of everything being there on launch, we'll all learn the game in a limited universe instead with the promise of more to come. Instead of hardcore player's discovering everything within a month, we'll all have to wait together, knowing more is coming. It's like a book that we all have to read chapter by chapter instead of skipping to the end for spoilers.

It also puts pressure on CIG to make sure they release more content over time after launch.

Its also interesting to see this approach to development take place, its pretty much the opposite of E:D's model, rather than having the systems all present at launch and then adding planetside/multicrew etc, you have all the features there and then add all the worlds.  Knowing that one of the most common complaints about E:D was that it was "a mile wide and an inch deep", I wonder how this will fold out and what complaints would be said about SC in its initial official release.

[Gremlich]

On 7/23/2017 at 2:44 AM, Boildown said:

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.

Here's the thing about PG as it stands in the rest of the Game development industry - you have the offerings of Frontier and Hello Games as examples - "lifeless" gray planets/moon/etc. The same old shit, as it were.

CIG has developed, and continues to refine, the PG tools which give their planetary bodies variety and life by giving themselves a palette which will create a different gaming experience for any celestial body we come across - different and more unique than other companies struggle unsuccessfully to provide. And this is hand-crafted content that neither ED nor NMS (or anybody else for that matter) gives its players.

Consider that. 

[Boildown]

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Karmaslap said:

I would love for CIG to compromise and give us 5-10 detailed, fully fleshed out and completed systems and another 10 or so "barren" systems with one or two detailed parts and mostly proc-gen areas for players to explore. Simpler and quicker to create, it would be easy for CIG to patch content into these systems to keep gameplay fresh while they focus on creating more complete ones. They could also give us some Vanduul systems which, aside from wreckage and a lot of hostile encounters, would likely not have any landing zones or super detailed stations. 

 

This!

I keep going back to my Everquest 1 experience.  It was one of the first MMOs and it tried things hardly anyone has done since.  In that game, some zones weren't ready at release.  I remember Kedge Keep specifically was in the game, but it had generic monsters (it was an underwater zone, so it had piranha and giant seahorses and things like that), no bosses, and no loot drops.  Over time they itemized it, first with generic loot, and much later they finished it with a raid boss, monsters that made sense, an overarching theme and story to the zone, parts of an epic quest, and many other reasons to go there.  Long before there was a profitable reason to go there, occasionally guilds would bring their players there to see a zone hardly anyone had ever seen (because there were no normal reasons to go).

There's no reason Star Citizen can't do the same thing.  Have release quality star systems and also have beta or in-development-quality star systems.  This lets them open up many more jump routes, and people can go see the sights, maybe have generic encounters with generic loot or profit.  But everyone will know that those star systems are going to change as they're fleshed out in development.  This would be a far better way to handle things than purely releasing 5-10 star systems, and that's it.

[VFL]

 
This!
I keep going back to my Everquest 1 experience.  It was one of the first MMOs and it tried things hardly anyone has done since.  In that game, some zones weren't ready at release.  I remember Kedge Keep specifically was in the game, but it had generic monsters (it was an underwater zone, so it had piranha and giant seahorses and things like that), no bosses, and no loot drops.  Over time they itemized it, first with generic loot, and much later they finished it with a raid boss, monsters that made sense, an overarching theme and story to the zone, parts of an epic quest, and many other reasons to go there.  Long before there was a profitable reason to go there, occasionally guilds would bring their players there to see a zone hardly anyone had ever seen (because there were no normal reasons to go).
There's no reason Star Citizen can't do the same thing.  Have release quality star systems and also have beta or in-development-quality star systems.  This lets them open up many more jump routes, and people can go see the sights, maybe have generic encounters with generic loot or profit.  But everyone will know that those star systems are going to change as they're fleshed out in development.  This would be a far better way to handle things than purely releasing 5-10 star systems, and that's it.

I just can't agree with this... Everquest just isn't a good comparison in this day and age. Like the previous poster, I think E:D is a much better comparison, or even No Man's Sky. An empty universe might sound fine to us early testers but it'll be a huge disappointment to the player base. There'll be tech sites and YouTube videos ranting on it and trying to ruin CIG for views like always. Half the player base will be fine with it, the other half will go on IGN and rant about empty planets.

The Cutlass Black might actually be a good analogy here. When it was first sold, it was a great idea and it sold like crazy. But people quickly found huge flaws with its flight model and started to really knock it. Now CIG is putting in a ton of time completely redoing the ship with the things they've learned from designing ships since then. The same thing definitely applies to the larger universe. If they launch the game with 10 systems, they can take what they learn and make the next 20 systems much better rather than putting them in the game unfinished.

The launch version of Star Citizen has to be flawless, the bar has been set way too high. CIG knows that, we all know that. I think it's a smart move.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[LowZone]

It seems that this whole "5-10 systems at release" was just a misunderstanding, as clarified by CIG Zyloh

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/could-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a/350872

 

Now the question remains: why did it take so long for CIG to correct the misinformation? 

Oh well, normal service resumes.

[FoxChard]

34 minutes ago, LowZone said:

It seems that this whole "5-10 systems at release" was just a misunderstanding, as clarified by CIG Zyloh

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/could-we-please-get-an-official-cig-confirmation-a/350872

 

Now the question remains: why did it take so long for CIG to correct the misinformation? 

Oh well, normal service resumes.

Zyloh-CIG: Hey guys! This is a case of things being lost in translation; Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. There are no changes with regards to the planned amount of systems which are well documented on the current Star Map.

Also, it’s important to remember that the scope of the game has increased greatly since the original crowdfunding campaign. Since those early days we’ve created procedural planet tech, moved from 32 bit to 64 bit… all of it leading to billions of kilometers of space and millions of square kilometers of landmass to explore, all rendered in detail that matches the most detailed 1st person games that only have to worry about a few dozen kilometers of playable area. 

This takes time to fill out, so while it will take us longer to fully deliver and populate every system at this fidelity rather than if we had only a handful of points of interest per star system, we have no intention of reducing the size of the Star Citizen universe.

---

So, a few tortured sentences there (like normal CIG), BUT it still says a lot. They will have 5-10 systems when all of the core gameplay mechanics are in. This does not mean they are 'launching the game' when they hit 5-10 systems. Expect this to continue to get tossed around by trolls for the foreseeable future.

Of course, this whole episode may have been a marketing tactic by CIG to serve a variety of purposes. They tested the waters by having a random quote in a magazine. They knew people would seize on this (like the magazine did) as a mini-bombshell announcement and CIG sat back for a week (Gamestar dropped, what, just last Wednesday?) to watch the community. I'd say that their response is coming a week later because they wanted time for it to sink in, permeate to all the corners of the CIG fan community (Spectrum, Reddit, here, troll sites, youtube, twitch, other fan forums). After they got their feedback, they decided to clear it all up. They now know that their chosen release date and content level (to mollify the backers) must contain sufficient systems to allow the playerbase to fan out, that the explorer community is relatively silent but gets all weird about things quickly, and on and on.

A less cynical answer as to why this took so long is, it was just only 5 working days ago. CIG does take weekends off, which is when most of this blew up and started festering everywhere. CIG is a company and it takes time for them to ask Chris what he meant and what the context was. Identified as a serious community issue on Monday, email sent to Chris. Chris reads email Tuesday when he gets around to answering non-game dev questions, post goes up on Wednesday. It sounds slow, but CIG is very centrally directed by Chris still and they likely couldn't really ask anyone else what happened (except maybe Brian Chambers?) who knows.

[LowZone]

Interesting. I hadn't even considered the possibility of a deliberate spread of Fake News as a marketing tactic or even to distract "Smart" people!

Enjoy it while it lasts, guys. Open game development will rarely be as entertaining!

[CyberianK]

This opens up the broader question when Release actually is.

For me it is when there are no more resets of Ingame credits. And I don't think they wait for that until they have most of the systems in.

Quote

at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience

It would be strange if they didn't do something like a special beta release when they consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. And if they then decide to do no resets anymore I consider the game released even if they officially say it is still beta.

Anyway I guess good news? But I keep my original point that it could be 10+ years and multiples content patches after release until the full potential and original vision of this game has been reached. Most important though is now for them to deliver something working and having a good game experience like a Sq42 so they don't have to rely on the backer ship sales anymore and can broaden the customer base. Ship sales won't last forever.

[Major Dex]

1 hour ago, CyberianK said:

But I keep my original point that it could be 10+ years and multiples content patches after release until the full potential and original vision of this game has been reached. 

I'm not sure what to expect. Nobody knows what timelines we can expect for the initital release of the PU and SQ42. But I really hope it doesn't take 10+ years to get everything in the game that they promised. I mean if you are saying they will continue to add content for 10+ years then I certainly hope GIC will support the game this long. But 10 years, jeez. Not sure if I have time to play games in 10 years.

[destra]

Hello so 5-10 solar systems is missed in translation.. an incorrect statement,  chriss was asked a specific question about how many systems to expect to have online at the point where they have most of the core mechanic's completed, and consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience. there is no changes to regard of the plans of planned amounts of systems that are well documented on the current starmap,also it's important to realize the scope of the game of the game has greatly increased because of the recent crowd campaign that is 155.3M since the early days we moved to procedural planet tec. moved to 32 bit to 64 bit, all of it  leading to Billions of Km of space, and millions of square km of Landmass to explore, all rendered into detail. that matches the most detailed First person games, that only have to worry about a few dozen km of playable area. this takes time to fill out, it'll take them longer to fill and fully deliver. and populate every system at this fidelity. rather than if we had to do an handful of points of interest in star citizen. they have no intensions in reducing the size of the star citizen universe. meaning maybe 10 at beta stage, so people can see the game, and get adopted and seen by the wider audience. there will be more released. the last time they talked about it, they're aiming for 120, but 40-50-60 at launch state.

so this discussion should be over  cause it's not true. it's now confirmed by Zilo.  Hope it cheered you guys up   Be proud of star citizen my friends, we are making history in the gaming community. They can Keep their Triple A DLC infested games.. we have star citizen  the Best Space Sim to ever be Released. 

[Juntau]

@destra The discussion is never over. There will always be an insurmountable mountain of drama surrounding this games development. I kind of like it. It makes for interesting and engaging banter. 

[destra]

i Couldn't agree more  

[Reavern]

I guess I'll get my wish then: 5-10 star systems in the Beta. The lost-in-translation mistake was about how many star systems would be playable when Star Citizen's core gameplay and mechanics were implemented. That milestone was misinterpreted as the game's official release. However, CR/CIG apparently meant the Beta. It's understandable that the Star Citizen Beta will "only" have 5-10 star systems. That's plenty for a Beta. Once the core game has been nailed down, CIG can switch gears to crank out star systems and create missions for those locations. The amount of playable content CIG generates will ramp up at that stage.

I'm pleased to hear that CIG intends to have 40-60 star systems for the official release of Star Citizen. I know the stretch goals unlocked something like 120 star systems, but that is excessive. In a way, it's better to release the game with ~50 star systems and give players time to explore them. Then unlock additional star systems every few months, and leave it to players to discover and navigate the new jump points.

CIG released the Star Map and star systems info years ago, and players began thinking about where they'd start in the galaxy and which star systems and planets they visit first. I was eager to start my Vanduul scalp collection and intended to fly straight to Tiber (The Grinder) on Day One.  I think a lot of players, especially Orgs, would stake a claim in a particular star system and operate there exclusively. It's possible that many players wouldn't bother to explore Star Citizen galaxy; they'd just stick to the places they know, especially if they found success there.

However, if roughly half of the star systems are unlocked at launch and more are added gradually, I expect that players will be more inclined to check out the new star systems as they come online. That would be best for players and the SC universe.

I know that some haters and cynics will criticize CIG if they don't deliver all ~120 star systems at launch, but there's just no pleasing some people. I think ~50 star systems will be more than enough for launch, and unlocking more star systems over time is the best way to do it.

[CyberianK]

 

Discussion is probably not over because the clarification basically just said "Don't worry we are still doing 100+ eventually" but I never questioned that anyway.

The first sentence "Chris was asked a specific question about how many systems we expect to have online at the point that we've got most of the core mechanics completed and we would consider the gameplay experience suitable for a larger audience" in the clarification could still mean that we eventually get 5-10 systems for release even if CIG does not call it release but Beta. Then its more the question what you define as a released game. I think for a persistent MMO the point at which there are no player state resets is still the best definition and that could actually be at the point in the above sentence.

Maybe Beta Release with 5+ systems in 2019???

 

[Uthrac]

I read the Comm Links from CIG from waaaay back when in 2011-2013.

 

Fact 1:  The $6 million pledge from CIG was the game would start with 100 systems on launch.

Below is the link:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12811-55-Million-On-To-The-Stars

 

Fun Relevant Fact 2:  Chris Roberts also stated in another interview around the same period, and in response to concerns that more and more money with more and more CIG pledges- well wouldn't that in turn only delay the game further, etc.  The exact interview topic was:

           In an exclusive interview, Chris Roberts clarified how the money raised would be used to develop Star Citizen and he defused concerns              that more money means more features which means longer development cycles and the dreaded launch delays.

CR's response was:

“Everyone sees us expanding the scope of the game, but we’re additionally expanding the team to meet those new needs. For instance, we also just added a new team in Manchester, UK that will be led by my brother, Erin. These are some of the same guys that worked on Privateer, so they know what they’re doing. Also, we’re expanding wide as well as deep, so we don’t just bring on people to handle new components like the boarding actions. We also add to existing teams so that they can do more as well.”

          Chris went on to say that the game is still scheduled to come out in 2015.

 

So in a nutshell, CR said "No".  That he would not allow it to be delayed further, and that with increases in the scope and scale of the game would also come increases in the number of people working on the project to keep on schedule so that CIG would work on the project in more depth.  Also must be mindful that this all occurred back in the day when SC was originally projected to launch in 2 years, sometime in 2014.

Below is the link:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13433-Press-Roundup

 

Fact 3:  It's now 2017 and CR was recently quoted in an interview that the game will launch with 5-10 systems. 

 

My take on this?  If they launch the game with 5-10 systems VERY SOON (like THIS YEAR) and provide regular and FREE updates with more systems every couple months then that is better than waiting until 2025 with 100 systems on launch.   I guess we could call it my pragmatic opinion.  It's not a perfect world, but we do want CR to make an awesome fantasy universe for us :-)

 

So....   I think we as a community might want to start applying some friendly pressure on getting us a game we can play this year (launched with a PU), otherwise too much understanding and too much patience on our parts may result in a 2020+ launch date :-(    IMHO that is what I fear the most and what would kind of kill my trust in CR/CIG.

 

Just my 2 cents :-)

 

 

[FoxChard]

No.

[Chimaera]

@Uthrac you probably need to read a little bit above your post. Some of your facts aren't facts, just mistranslations.

[XLB]

I don't care on how many systems as long as these things are met

 

• Interdiction
• minning
• salvage
• repair (on crucible) 
• Imperium Victor, we control a system through and through
• e-warfare

5-10 systems or 100 systems, as long as interdiction is in, Salvage is in, Im happy. If it is not.. I will be sad. Gameplay/ mechanics > how many systems.

[Porcupine]

I have the absolute most surreal feeling about all this - I was under the distinct and exceedingly strong impression that it was common knowledge, having been announced (at least) months ago that only a modest number of the full promised amount of systems will be ready at launch - unfortunately I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to look for the source of a potential quote, not even an approximate time-frame. It may well be "just" deja-vu but I could have sworn it was so...

[FoxChard]

1 hour ago, Porcupine said:

I have the absolute most surreal feeling about all this - I was under the distinct and exceedingly strong impression that it was common knowledge, having been announced (at least) months ago that only a modest number of the full promised amount of systems will be ready at launch - unfortunately I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to look for the source of a potential quote, not even an approximate time-frame. It may well be "just" deja-vu but I could have sworn it was so...

Chris said...nearly a year ago? They want 20-30 systems. That number didn't rile the community up so much as 5-10. I'm cool with 20-30. They just need to get crackin on their tools to facilitate rapid construction of bases, landing zones, wrecks, and stations. Or whatever else they want to put in as a location in a star system. Guarantee that is what is going to take the longest.

[Comet]

Look. They have taken considerable time building the starmap, producing the backstory of each system. 
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap?camera=85.95,-44.36,1,0,0

I don't know if on release date SC will have 1 sytem, 5, 10 or 200.
It's irrelevant.

Whatever the number, the game will have to be "big" enough so to speak for players to be entertained. Much like any other MMO is filled with enough content for players to explore in the starting months. And over time it expands.
Given the work they have taken in building the starmap we already know all those systems will come. 

And anyway. CIG has the tech. If they just wanted to go by the numbers, they could just build 100 generic systems.

Don't worry and relax.
The number of systems is the least of CIG problems if the gameplay ends up being awful, if its not fun to explore the SC universe and so on and on and on.

 

[Gremlich]

On 7/23/2017 at 1:00 PM, AstroJak said:

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!!!

1. At game's release, that hasn't happened yet so reserve judgement
2. PG was talked about and made functional within 2 weeks of bringing on Crytek engineers from Crytek instead of the years they were originally estimating - this is a goiod thing because 100+ systems without PG at launch would be extremely boring otherwise, particularly when the instances still aren't that big, and people would still bitch about content. Wish in one hand and shit in the other - which one fills the fastest?
3. See point 2
4. See point about limited instance numbers atm
5. see point 1
6. see point 1
7. see point 2 (Plus, we aren't building the worlds, CIG are)
8. I don't care how long it takes, software development for any product is hard, particularly with respect to a game of such scope
9. CIG needs to work on their customer engagement.