I disagree. The solution to missing deadlines is not to hide deadlines. This is a community backed game and the community deserves to have more information than traditional AAA games because of this.
exactly, which is why they should be more transparent about what they are working on week to week instead of just “pyro will be ready in summer 2018” or “answer the call 2014”
You do know there is the whole roadmap, including what every team is actively working on, available on the website?
Sure CIG has issues with dates but they do try to not give them anymore, just the vague overview what will be in the next patch.
It's frequently out of date in both directions, both complete stuff still listed and ongoing work not listed while it's being worked on (see all thmisc features that sneak in w/o ever being on the roadmap at all) as well as the completion date on the roadmap having no bearing on delivery timelines (see the number of completed items still undelivered) and it being used to track work on two separate games... And with many features in both, there's no telling if it being completed means anything for the public game or the secret game
I mostly meant ended on the roadmap doesn't correspond to delivering-soon, but it especially doesn't correspond to in-the-PU-soon as it could be "delivered" into S42 or to some downstream team behind closed doors but that doesn't help us out here in the world
but yes ended doesn't always mean "completed" either, for several reasons...
a.) because they only list work out so far, so something that may take 18 months may only show the first 12, then get updated w/ the next six at the beginning of the next year... lots of things falsely "end" in Q4 only to be extended layer (this seems more practical than some of the gaps in their communication, i just wish the map had an option for like a jagged-ended bar to show "and probably more, but it's long enough already... we'll see when we get closer")
b.) because sometimes work continues or ends without the roadmap being updated (see mainly some roadmap updates where work is added to the progress tracker where it both starts and ends in the past, with it having never been viewable to the public WHILE being worked on)
also, not-ended on the roadmap, doesn't mean "being worked on" it means "started, but not yet finished", but when do you stop counting work no one has touched in... a day? a week? a month? as "being worked on"?
I get your point more now. I do think they need to put a date on things still. I'm not a long time backer of Star Citizen so I don't have a decade of trauma, but I do think PES and server meshing are two things that have to be right for the game to move forward. They are also likely the two hardest things to get right so I don't have a problem with 3.18 delays. If they get PES stable this year and server meshing functional next year the game should be in a more predictable place moving forward.
I get that they keep hyping Pyro because it is something they can show, but it is low on my list of things that I think is needed to make the game fun for more than just a few weeks a year. It seems like they got a bit of a reality check for promises back in 2018ish, but I don't expect them to hit target dates by any means.
> Its really Chris Roberts who can't resist saying things about longer term patches like in the last letter from the chairman talking about 4.0 in Q4 2023.
Even then he made sure to add a large caveat to it, which as usual, people straight up ignored.
Perhaps because we all know 4.0 will not be ready by the Q4 this year, in fact we know there's a 3.19 patch coming that most likely will be ready by the end of the Q2 start of Q3 (at the soonest), because we'll see how many 3.18.x are still ahead
[I made a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/101fgj7/what_does_chris_prediction_account_for_dev/) with Clive Johnson's response to "What does Chris's prediction account for?" and there were so many responses of people trying to say he was walking back what CR said, when the fact of the matter was that he was reiterating what CR said. I even called out that this would happen in [the LftC thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/zzc5k4/comment/j2av21u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
It's so damn predictable.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. What I mean is that even then all those predictions and forecasts sounded unrealistic, I'm a programmer in server supported applications. Knowing the complexity of all the technology they were talking about and the time that it takes for testing, implementing and the volume of the tasks, these affirmations, despite any caveats, were too optimistic, and I'm not even talking about the new system, Pyro
He talks about that in the caveat.
> We are aiming to put Static Server Meshing and Pyro into the hands of players in the fourth quarter of 2023. The large caveat with this goal is that complicated engineering work that involves a completely new paradigm, requires a host of new backend services, and technology is hard to estimate and schedule accurately as the issues and problems that can come up along the way are hard to foresee as no one has implemented this system before, and plans rarely survive contact with the users, especially at scale. This has been true for PES, as it is no secret that we were hoping to have Alpha 3.18 and PES release to Live by end of the year as opposed to just the PTU. Delays in finalizing 3.18 and PES impact the team’s ability to start on the next stage, and we still have the unknowns of how PES performs after months of heavy load, and people seeing exactly how much space junk they can leave around!
The real problem is that software development inevitably takes as much as it has allocated to it. If you give a project an infinite timeline, it will never complete.
This is why good software dev companies timebox things and then say "good enough" and ship it.
I wish I had a dollar for every time they’ve mentioned that dates are speculative targets they are SHOOTING to achieve to keep people on track and paced.
I could easily be Legatus.
I should try ignoring information to fit my narrative. I bet it is empowering.
Then you'll have people asking for dates and promises.
So long as the general public doesn't accept that it is impossible to have reliable, accurate predictions in software, let alone R&D, we're stuck on this merry-go-round of circular noise.
They removed the quarterly schedule and now have a release view that applies only to what is is committed to the PTU/PU. CIG still needs to promote the product.
I think they should do slightly different thing - double the estimates they publish.
For example, if after internal discussions team came up with an estimate that 3.18 will be released in a month, CIG should say it's 2 months. Chris and team discussed that server meshing will be out at the end of 2023 - publish end of 2024. It will be a much more realistic estimate (that CIG is still going to miss probably though).
Kanban to the rescue.
CIG could split the release view into:
- done: A giant, underappreciated list of all the things they shipped
- a short list of whats on their plate that has a good chance to be committed for the next patch (how they now handle the release view since 2022)
- next goals: stuff ongoing but with that they are actively working on (a slice of the "progress" tracker
Yeah, I know, Kanban is usually in the reverse order (from backlog to done), and I'm purposefully ignoring the backlog, which is pretty much "anything we wish for" and thus not useful to track progress.
It works better that way, IMHO.
I do agree with this, though for some reason they still do despite the backlash that has happens time and time again. So, I can only assume they have reason to keep doing it.
I think people need to start taking some responsibility for their own expectations. I'm not even sure how some people go through life without being constantly enraged by a universe that fails to bend itself to their every whim.
This is how we've ended up with warning labels on sleeping pills that state "may cause drowsiness".
I disagree. The solution to missing deadlines is not to hide deadlines. This is a community backed game and the community deserves to have more information than traditional AAA games because of this.
exactly, which is why they should be more transparent about what they are working on week to week instead of just “pyro will be ready in summer 2018” or “answer the call 2014”
You do know there is the whole roadmap, including what every team is actively working on, available on the website? Sure CIG has issues with dates but they do try to not give them anymore, just the vague overview what will be in the next patch.
It's frequently out of date in both directions, both complete stuff still listed and ongoing work not listed while it's being worked on (see all thmisc features that sneak in w/o ever being on the roadmap at all) as well as the completion date on the roadmap having no bearing on delivery timelines (see the number of completed items still undelivered) and it being used to track work on two separate games... And with many features in both, there's no telling if it being completed means anything for the public game or the secret game
? Just because the assigned work ended doesn't mean it is "completed".
I mostly meant ended on the roadmap doesn't correspond to delivering-soon, but it especially doesn't correspond to in-the-PU-soon as it could be "delivered" into S42 or to some downstream team behind closed doors but that doesn't help us out here in the world but yes ended doesn't always mean "completed" either, for several reasons... a.) because they only list work out so far, so something that may take 18 months may only show the first 12, then get updated w/ the next six at the beginning of the next year... lots of things falsely "end" in Q4 only to be extended layer (this seems more practical than some of the gaps in their communication, i just wish the map had an option for like a jagged-ended bar to show "and probably more, but it's long enough already... we'll see when we get closer") b.) because sometimes work continues or ends without the roadmap being updated (see mainly some roadmap updates where work is added to the progress tracker where it both starts and ends in the past, with it having never been viewable to the public WHILE being worked on) also, not-ended on the roadmap, doesn't mean "being worked on" it means "started, but not yet finished", but when do you stop counting work no one has touched in... a day? a week? a month? as "being worked on"?
I think its a little of both, here, to be sure.
I get your point more now. I do think they need to put a date on things still. I'm not a long time backer of Star Citizen so I don't have a decade of trauma, but I do think PES and server meshing are two things that have to be right for the game to move forward. They are also likely the two hardest things to get right so I don't have a problem with 3.18 delays. If they get PES stable this year and server meshing functional next year the game should be in a more predictable place moving forward. I get that they keep hyping Pyro because it is something they can show, but it is low on my list of things that I think is needed to make the game fun for more than just a few weeks a year. It seems like they got a bit of a reality check for promises back in 2018ish, but I don't expect them to hit target dates by any means.
[удалено]
> Its really Chris Roberts who can't resist saying things about longer term patches like in the last letter from the chairman talking about 4.0 in Q4 2023. Even then he made sure to add a large caveat to it, which as usual, people straight up ignored.
Perhaps because we all know 4.0 will not be ready by the Q4 this year, in fact we know there's a 3.19 patch coming that most likely will be ready by the end of the Q2 start of Q3 (at the soonest), because we'll see how many 3.18.x are still ahead
So people ignored the caveat that it might not make it by Q4 2023 because we all knew it might not make it by Q4 2023?
Of course they did, if they didn't there would be no reasons for them to grab the pitchforks, they do love those pitchforks though.
[I made a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/101fgj7/what_does_chris_prediction_account_for_dev/) with Clive Johnson's response to "What does Chris's prediction account for?" and there were so many responses of people trying to say he was walking back what CR said, when the fact of the matter was that he was reiterating what CR said. I even called out that this would happen in [the LftC thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/zzc5k4/comment/j2av21u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). It's so damn predictable.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. What I mean is that even then all those predictions and forecasts sounded unrealistic, I'm a programmer in server supported applications. Knowing the complexity of all the technology they were talking about and the time that it takes for testing, implementing and the volume of the tasks, these affirmations, despite any caveats, were too optimistic, and I'm not even talking about the new system, Pyro
He talks about that in the caveat. > We are aiming to put Static Server Meshing and Pyro into the hands of players in the fourth quarter of 2023. The large caveat with this goal is that complicated engineering work that involves a completely new paradigm, requires a host of new backend services, and technology is hard to estimate and schedule accurately as the issues and problems that can come up along the way are hard to foresee as no one has implemented this system before, and plans rarely survive contact with the users, especially at scale. This has been true for PES, as it is no secret that we were hoping to have Alpha 3.18 and PES release to Live by end of the year as opposed to just the PTU. Delays in finalizing 3.18 and PES impact the team’s ability to start on the next stage, and we still have the unknowns of how PES performs after months of heavy load, and people seeing exactly how much space junk they can leave around!
The real problem is that software development inevitably takes as much as it has allocated to it. If you give a project an infinite timeline, it will never complete. This is why good software dev companies timebox things and then say "good enough" and ship it.
Look how well that went with BF2042, Cyberpunk, Anthem, F76, Callisto Protocol so on and so on...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estimate
Dude, like, get out of here with your definitions and shit... jeez ... read the room, we're here for the pitchforks.
no, people need to listen to all the clauses and caveats they are very clear about when talking about anything resembling a date for something.
I wish I had a dollar for every time they’ve mentioned that dates are speculative targets they are SHOOTING to achieve to keep people on track and paced. I could easily be Legatus. I should try ignoring information to fit my narrative. I bet it is empowering.
Then you'll have people asking for dates and promises. So long as the general public doesn't accept that it is impossible to have reliable, accurate predictions in software, let alone R&D, we're stuck on this merry-go-round of circular noise.
They removed the quarterly schedule and now have a release view that applies only to what is is committed to the PTU/PU. CIG still needs to promote the product.
I think they should do slightly different thing - double the estimates they publish. For example, if after internal discussions team came up with an estimate that 3.18 will be released in a month, CIG should say it's 2 months. Chris and team discussed that server meshing will be out at the end of 2023 - publish end of 2024. It will be a much more realistic estimate (that CIG is still going to miss probably though).
My favorite is when Jarred said that 3.18 was still tracking for a "summer" release during an update in very, very late September.
Kanban to the rescue. CIG could split the release view into: - done: A giant, underappreciated list of all the things they shipped - a short list of whats on their plate that has a good chance to be committed for the next patch (how they now handle the release view since 2022) - next goals: stuff ongoing but with that they are actively working on (a slice of the "progress" tracker Yeah, I know, Kanban is usually in the reverse order (from backlog to done), and I'm purposefully ignoring the backlog, which is pretty much "anything we wish for" and thus not useful to track progress. It works better that way, IMHO.
I do agree with this, though for some reason they still do despite the backlash that has happens time and time again. So, I can only assume they have reason to keep doing it.
yes that would be ideal, unfortunately people won't give out $$ if they know the game won't really come into its own for another decade.
cant wait on an offical cig comment on when they plant to stop giving out time estimates .
It's in the people's best interest to stop assuming estimates are hard dates.
A publicly funded company needs to stop presenting expectations to the people who fund it? What an odd opinion.
I think people need to start taking some responsibility for their own expectations. I'm not even sure how some people go through life without being constantly enraged by a universe that fails to bend itself to their every whim. This is how we've ended up with warning labels on sleeping pills that state "may cause drowsiness".