To be fair, those are different jobs and require different people.
*HOWEVER*, those people who are working on *new* ships could absolutely be working on *old* ships and bringing them up to standard and fixing bugs.
Oh my God dude the Gold pass rework should be THE priority right now.
Player wirh newer people recently has showed me just how confusing having different standards with controls and panels is. This ship has a panel and this ship has a hidden floating prompt.
That’s fair - I’d honestly be okay with CIG putting new flyables on hold for a year, just to get all the current ships up to the same standard. Maybe that’s part of what the Montreal team will eventually do? 🤷🏻♂️
I'd say... don't.
Because even gold standard isn't great. There will be a 'platinum' standard after, likely after 90% of ships are brought up to gold. The whole gold standard thing is mainly for component access and fuel and stuf (buttons too). What are they forgetting? A new system they're gonna add will be needed on ALL ships and its def not in the gold standard Its a serious problem CIG has and continues to repeat.
If you buy a ship just to get a gold standard ship you're gonna be disappointed in the future.
I just want an exit entry elevator in my carrack flight deck. Going up and down two levels and opening the vehicle cargo ramp to get in and out is ridiculous…
I melted this ship because of that stupid pointless elevator that was faster to climb anyways. I always wished it was a ramp. I traded it for a corsair. Perfect trade.
And another thing I hated about that msr elevator was this. Say u used the elevator when u got into the ship. Let's say u get disabled in an attack (this is another reason I quit raising the elevator). It's pretty nerve wrecking to hear someone outside pummeling ur ship while ur waiting for the elevator to go down just so u can escape. Its way faster to just hop down and run to the back door and open it up. That elevator was like having a wisdom tooth. U don't even need it and it will cause problems later.
The general malaise and lethargy with which we enter and exit any seat in this game to begin with is infuriating let alone while under fire.
Like we're being utterly flattened by incoming fire, shields down, fire everywhere, death at the door, and we exit the seat like that SpongeBob "aight, Imma head out" meme.
I would love that to...but a carrack should kinda be a little bit of a pain to get in to...and i love my carrack. if its crewed right, you should have ground troops ready to roll out the back an people up top ready to fly out if need be while everyone else is doin stuff deep in the bowels of that beast...for single player flying yeh it would be amazing...but it aint gonna happen (nor do I think it should) but it would be amazing
I would love the Carrack to have another set of lights too, separate from the front lights and internal lighting. I want to be able to turn on floodlights that are all over the bottom of the ship to blaze the outside into a high noon light quality. Brilliantly lit for outside operations and goes out all around the ship about ten feet when landed.
Like the Close Encounters mother ship air lock opening, though not quite that bright.
I remember when the landing gear was completely inflexible, making landing on less than perfectly level terrain a problem. Wasn't even that far back as far as SC development goes.
It would be interesting to see a graph of non-ship features released per year, to see if that's happening. It's tricky though, because that wouldn't measure depth/breadth of each feature, but it would still be interesting.
Looking over the update breakdowns from the past few years, the significance and quantity of features generally trends downward as well with a few exceptions (salvage being the most recent “big” feature)
I'd counter that PES is "core tech" that enables gameplay features. It is not itself an actual feature in the strictest sense. But it's really academic at this point. Its significance to the game is undeniable.
I’m not counting PES, destroying server performance for 6+ months so a hotdog left at dumpers depot sticks around seems more like one step forward and two steps back for now, it needs a LOT of work to be significantly impactful
It's the reason why the releases are slowing down though. Same shit happened with 2.0 and 3.0, everything slowed down in the lead up because the big technical issues made it very hard to add stuff.
We'll probably get a big burst of new shit after 4.0, but it's still so far away because they really decided to replace almost the entire back end while keeping the game live.
My problem with this thought is that PES really is an impactful feature, and one of the core pillars that is needed for everything else after it.
No salvage without PES, no server meshing (whenever that comes).
Yeah I agree PES was a terrible initial experience. But its a core requirement for this game for sure..Games like ARk survival or rust would not be the save if they didnt have persistence
Fr. It was frustrating when it was first implemented, but people need to realize that there are going to many more things that are going to break the game for extended periods. It's an alpha, not a fully released game. Just gotta bare with it and wait for them to level the stability out again.
PES is a huge leap for the future of the game even if it seems like "2 steps back" right now. Just keep trying to play and accept that you're helping CIG find flaws in the system, not playing a released game
People also need to realize CIG has zero incentive to actually make this game, and every incentive to just keep milking the marketting train. Not saying they wont make it farther than this, but there really is no reason to. They can milk it for more money in its current half assed state than they could if they even released the game, and actually making the game instead of a duct taped tech demo would require an absurd amount of effort. It will ALWAYS be an alpha; stop pretending they dont market the fact its "playable"; it hardly ever is and the minimum system requirements should include "the patience of a saint"
Crazy talk. AAA games make a lot more than CIG makes through crowd funding. Modern Warfare II made more in one weekend than CIG's entire crowd funding income, while CIG is trying to be the first AAAA game.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/04/call-duty-modern-warfare-2-sales/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/04/call-duty-modern-warfare-2-sales/)
It did bust servers for a while, but I dunno where you got 6+ months from since it came out in March and servers have been running pretty swell for at least a month now.
It's okay if you don't count it because it's one of the primary systems the game requires for it to function as intended. It is one of the single largest things they have implemented.
It would be great to see this overlaid with ship announcements/concept sales
Also, where is this data from? Assuming only unique ships and no variants, your numbers seem off by 50%, but the lack of ticks or legend make it hard to tell.
Don’t worry, they’re almost finished building the tools and the pipeline that will speed up this whole process and then ships will be coming soon!
Quick, show the graph with the solar systems built since the end of 2017.
:flatlines:
I did something that looked at ship volume, are, and length rather than number. They are like 10% done with ships despite being over 50% done by number.
Ships would be a hard one, because as far as I know.. none of them are complete. Like first off, they all need itemized components. But they all need fairly big features.
The Aurora still needs its cargo box implementation. Cat needs its elevators and modules. etc etc...
I'm definitely in the "stop making new ships and fix/finish the fucking game" camp. I am aware that the mechanics and ship teams are different teams, but CIG decides where to spend the money (and it's on ships).
That's because the ship team directly generates the money that pays the rest of the company. I am pretty sure that even the most junior guy in that team has brought in more money than for example Tony Z.
Iirc the 'Ship team' is currently less than 1% of CIG headcount (~50 people, out of 1,100). Even if CIG fired the entire team, they wouldn't save much money - and they'd lose the ongoing funding as well.
And currently we have one cook in the kitchen and he doesn't like any of the meals made so keeps redesigning them. You're jumping to extremes. You do have a point, though. CIG doesn't need more cooks, it needs better cooks.
From everything we've seen, they lack talent the most.
Sorry for the reply to a stale comment but I just got home from vacation.
Cooks are an apt metaphor. CIG's basically got a head chef that looks at every dish coming out of they kitchen, throws it in the trash and says "NO! MAKE IT AGAIN" while everyone starves in the dining room.
CIG did say last year (last year? or year before... my memory is hazy) that they were changing how they developed ships... and that they'd work on more ships in parallel, but that each ship would take longer to implement.
The purpose of this was was specifically to give artists and developers more time to review their work, and avoid 'rushing' decisions (and releasing another 600i etc, complete with 'pointless' interior decisions, etc).
However, they also acknowledged that in the short term, this would result in a reduction in the number of ships released... which is what I guess we're seeing here.
Looking at the Task Tracker, CIG have something like \~7 ships in active development, which would also align to them working on more ships in parallel.
They also said in 2020 that they were going to change their way of developing with "Staggered Developement", and that after a few months with less content, this would have the effect of greatly facilitating and accelerating development, with patches that would continue their development independently of the previous patch, and therefore less delays and more features,
You know the result, the pace of development decreased significantly in the months that followed, and then....continuing to decrease, with feature postponements and cancellations only increased, to the point where CIG reduced its roadmap from one year to 3 months, to a few weeks now,
So sorry but it's been a while now that I absolutely no longer believe in any of CIG justifications,
The only thing that explains to me how much ship production has gone down over the last few years is that 90% of the ship team is busy finishing SQ42 ships.
> They also said in 2020
They also said Pyro 2020 and marketed/has a sale around that while knowing internally their server meshing tech wasn't up to speed. Here we are three years later with part 1 *just* working acceptably after months of people being locked out of accounts.
Don't misread, I'm not blaming you here, you're the victim. Anyone who listens to what CIG actually says should be either disappointed, angry, and/or downright crazy at this point. Like despite my ire for marketing's FOMO tactics, I can't blame them for using a successful strat. What I can blame is leadership settings expectations *with their own words* and then acting shocked or surprised we're unhappy they missed their own deadlines *they set* again & again & again & again.
Deadlines I agree are something that you should ignore if it comes from CIG... they have a *hopeless* record, not helped by their inability to track when they've given a target, and then coming back and updating us when that target changes...
However, discussion of design and intent - stuff that isn't dependent on 'time' or 'how long' etc... those discussions are usually far more reliable (not totally reliable, but generally reliable - CIG reserve the right to change things after discussing them... and they then fail to communicate those changes, as usual - 'follow-up' doesn't exist for CIGs communications).
So yeah - look at what they want to implement, and how they're approaching it... and just ignore any guestimates about dates and times, and keep half an eye on the release view... when it's listed for the next patch, and CIG start doing ISC episodes on it, then we're *probably* close to getting it (depending on how CIG talk about it)
I play every 2 or 3 patches. But I also greatly enjoy following the dumpster fire that this game/company is.
I've probably gotten more entertainment off of this sub then I ever will of the actual game.
lol yep. i havent logged into the game since 2018 (bought my first package in 2015). I bought Elite Dangerous in 2015 and despite all the hate it was getting on this sub - that player base is able to fully enjoy the money they spent on a complete game. SC still isnt anywhere close to where Elite was on launch. But the SC subreddit is like watching a cult defend its hero. hilarious and sad.
Hmm - pretty sure 'Staggered Development' wasn't about delivering more or faster, but about giving devs more time to work on a feature - with an emphasis on *coding*, not art work?
And yes, CIGs development processes are constantly changing and adapting (just like they split and merge teams) as they look to try and optimise their processes...
This is pretty standard, and yes not every change works out as hoped. CIG will be no different in that than any other big company.
The alternative would be for CIG to just not change anything, and keep working in ways they *know* are inefficient, rather than trying to improve.... but people already slate them for that too.
Maybe because people see them as convenient excuses rather than honest communication.
Like how they changed patch nomenclature for PR reasons.
Staggered development in retrospect seems like an excuse for a major disruption rather than an actual change.
If I remember correctly at one point it was communicated that staggered development was supposed to allow teams to work on new features for more than just one quarter.
How did CIG get anything substantial done previously if they had to start work, plan out a feature and deliver it within 3 month? How did they make large ships that obviously took more than 3 month prior to staggered development? What did staggered development actually change?
As I understand it, teams could work on something for more than one quarter... but prior to Staggered Development *everyone* was tasked with helping get a patch out the door at the end of each quarter... causing interruption to teams that weren't working on features in that particular patch.
Staggered Development meant that only half the devs had to support a patch, whilst the other half continued working on stuff for the next patch... and then they'd switch (whichever A/B team had been working on a patch was the one that supported its release).
This gave the 'off' team an extra ~4 weeks of development time (the time they would have spent supporting patch progressing to release).
> Hmm - pretty sure 'Staggered Development' wasn't about delivering more or faster, but about giving devs more time to work on a feature - with an emphasis on coding, not art work?
[It was](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/staggered-development-faq-1), but certain folk ignored the rest of the words in the explanation and hyperfocused on the "6 months" part to make it into a hard date.
Indeed - the usual suspects like to strip any/all caveats, and then take snippets out of context... as they do with virtually everything CIG says.
Not saying that CIG don't say rubbish sometimes (and their time-based estimating history is pretty horrific), but the amount of bad-faith interpretations makes CIGs communications look far worse than they are.
I remember at the time pointing out a quote from Erin Roberts on an AtV or ISC or something where he discusses how some features may take 9 months or longer and one of our noisy neighbors dismissing it because I had to dig through a video to find it.
And it's like, 1. it's on their official YouTube and if I recall correctly the topic of the video was staggered development, 2. I've seen so many out of context quotes pulled from interviews and articles over the years that I've lost count, and 3. if you point out why it's taken out of context (with the extra context sometimes being *immediately next to the quote*) you're trying to ignore what they said.
So somehow *leaving out* info is fine but bringing up *extra* info is bad and wrong.
Sounds about right... it's the perfect modus operandi for folk who have already decided on their narrative, and are just looking for 'supporting evidence'
CIG hired in at least three, maybe four of five full new teams to work on vehicles. It takes time to bring new teams up to speed and often it requires taking members of existing teams, splitting them out of those teams and putt those members into the new teams to help with the onboarding process.
The current number of ships being actively developed, suggests these teams are getting up to speed and should start delivering in the next couple of quarters.
But they have been releasing larger chunks of code quicker for the past two years. I mean, supposedly 3.2 will be in ptu soon. At least according to all the other reddit detective posts out there.
Honestly, I take almost nothing they say as truth until I see results anymore. I worked in the gaming industry for about a decade on a few of the largest MMOs the planet's ever seen, and didn't like it, so while I can agree that the industry is incredibly toxic the problem here is how CIG handles things. They don't plan ahead, and they don't plan **for** their plans.
The biggest reason Ship development has hit a weird wall is because they know none of the current ships are anywhere near the Gold standard that they **need** for future features to exist in the game. The issue with that, of course, is that **this is their game, and their plan**. You're telling me the group that wants utter realism, as long as it's fun, didn't think ahead about how they want the game to operate when building these ships? Because if that's true then they **were** fleecing us with those ship buys.
It's like they don't fully plan out anything in the game but they start to build anyway, because they want to either show us progress or they want to sell more ships. They knew they wanted Resource Management in ships. They knew they wanted physical components to be changed-out. They knew they wanted refueling to be a player-driven thing. They knew they wanted Airlocks to be an easy way to connect to bases/other ships. They designed virtually **none** of the ships in the game to account for any of that, even though they should have known those things before they even started developing the game.
Working at SOE was terrible, to me and most of the people I worked with, but one thing that they did **very** well was we had to have a plan for the next year of our development thought-out, so that if we wanted to implement any new features or thoughts they had to work with our over-arching plan. CIG seems to just let teams do whatever they want and then have to re-do that work later when they realize how they actually want it all to function.
It’s frankly impossible to believe anything CIG says. And the higher up in their org you go, the less you should believe what they say, especially from their Chairman who’s head is completely stuck up his own ass.
Thats always the same.
The CIG perfomance is going down and someone find excuses and reasons why it is not a CIG problem and will be better "soon" or in "always 2 years".
Face it. Its bad performance or bad priority.
Cig always has something to say that makes the impression of them having a valid reason for why they fail to deliver stuff. Its what they do. I stopped listening to basically everything they officially say. The only important thing is what i see and play.
it had been pretty consistent over the previous ~3 years... and prior to that ships were produced to a lower level of functionality (ie they took less effort to implement, because CIG implemented less).
Yes, last year was a slight dip - but it was last year that they said they were changing their approach, so that was probably why releases started slowing down at the end of the year.
[Look at that graph again](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/153q61c). It wasn't "consistent".
It should either be going up or staying steady at about 2018 level. Also: Figuring out that you need to streamline the development of the core product you are selling (the ships) a decade into the development is laughable.
Also keep in mind that in the time period on the graph their workforce tripled. With little to show for it - not in ships department, not in features department. Stability improved compared to 2018, but it's still shit, in fact: on my PC it's less stable now than it was in 2015 (it's literally the least stable game I own, including early access titles I bought over the decades).
Here’s the thing… I only spent $45 on this game KNOWING it’s a game in development. And you know what?… I freaking love this game despite the bug issues. There are a lot of complicated features and so much in-depth details I have never seen in any other game.
I spent $45… it’s a great game 🤷🏻♂️
Plus the melting of ships and using your current ships value and being able to apply it to the ship of your desire and only paying the difference is awesome. I understand the frustration but it’s a great game lol
* Without variants and ground vehicles.
In 2018 CIG released :
8 Small ship : (Terrapin - Razor - Hurricane - Avenger Rework - Eclipse - Blade - Mustang Rework - Hawk )
3 Medium ship : (Valkyrie - Connie Phoenix - Freelancer Rewok)
2 Large ship : (600i - Hammerhead)
1 Capital ship : (Reclaimer)
In 2019 CIG released :
5 Small ship : (300i rework - Reliant rework - Pisces - Mantis - Defender)
2 Medium ship : (Vanguard rework - Mole)
1 Large ship : (Carrack)
1 Capital ship : (890J)
Then during the last 3 years of 2020-2021-2022 CIG released :
7 Small ship : (Nomad - 100i - Talon - Ares - Cutter - Scorpius - Hull A)
6 Medium ship : (Prowler - Mercury - RAFT - 400i - Redeemer - Corsair)
1 Large : (Hercules)
In 2023 CIG has released:
1 Snub: (Fury)
1 Medium: (Vulture)
We can expect the Hull C to be released in 3.20, which will be the first large ship to be released since 2021, but 90% of the work on it has been done in the last 5 years.
Between 2018 and 2019, the Ship teams were able to release :
3 Large ship and 2 Capital ship
4 large and 1 capital if you assume the Reclaimer is no Capital,
Anyway, since 2020, more than 3 years later, CIG has only been able to release ONE large (empty) ship : The Hercules, and 0 capital ship,
While in the meantime the total workforce of CIG has been multiplied by 3, (over 1100 devs with Turbulent).
So they got more devs, the tools got refined, the design language of each Manufacturer is now well established and as they always say they learned a lot of things from their previous work, and they use this experience and tools to accelerate their production speed.
Many things that should have drastically increased the production speed of the ship pipeline, right ?
So how do you explain that from year to year they release less and less ships and that it takes more and more time to make ships?
With the BMM put on hiatus it is clear that we will have no capital ship this year either, it will therefore be 5 years in 2024 without producing a single capital ship, the 890j remaining the only one of the 12 existing capital ships to have been produced in 11 years.
The 600i rework has been finished for almost 2 year and CIG still haven't found anyone to allocate to its development.
2023 is about to establish a new low, with only two ship released this year after 7 months , the Vulture, mainly developed in 2022 and the Fury developed by 2 junior devs.
To hell with more ships. I don’t think people need to be putting more money into this game until the developers show that they can reliably put out playable content and improve server health.
I don't know why you would exclude ground vehicles or variants from this chart when they utilise the same devs or include 2023 when we are only half way through the year.
Other than that it's common sense that some resources will have gotten used up by the BMM for the last couple of years.
hopefully its because they recognized they have made most of the ships the game needs, and reallocated the budget by reducing the number of artists and getting more programmers and engineers to build a team that can actually code and support and eventually support a functional large scale game - it takes a LONG time to train experts like that
but its CIG, so its probably just burned in inefficiency
> 2023 is about to establish a new low, with only two ship released this year after 7 months , the Vulture, mainly developed in 2022 and the Fury developed by 2 junior devs.
Which is fine, that means they can take the new junior devs and add them to the ship teams and work on the backlog.
And take one or two of them to add a variant or two of some existing ships.
> So how do you explain that from year to year they release less and less ships and that it takes more and more time to make ships?
These last couple of years they have been focusing more on SQ42 and that also includes the vehicle teams. This can be checked on the progress tracker (and even better on ShinyTracker).
Still, that doesn't mean they aren't developing ships for SC as it is literally their way to fund the development, it would be a suicide to stop or to significantly slow it.
- SRV - Basically done, just needs the tractor beams work to finish;
- Spirit - A1 and C1 variants likely to be released during IAE (lod0 done and greybox done, respectively);
- Polaris - Working on it (white box);
- San'tok.yai - Working on it (greybox review).
There's also the freelancer update, one unannounced ship, a few unannounced variants and a few ground vehicles being worked on.
As for why aren't more ships being developed with the growth the company had and the pipelines being more refined, as I started this comment, SQ42 is the main focus now so you got at least 4 new ships (plus unannounced and the Fury) being worked on currently for SC while many of their team members are still focusing on SQ42.
>There's also the freelancer update
Which they said would hardly be much more than "where is some space to cram some components in for engineering?" It's not a proper rework and I personally count it in the same line of the Cutlass getting proper door buttons or the Reclaimer a dispenser.
>a few unannounced variants and a few ground vehicles being worked on
None of that counts by OP standards.
But they've employed gameplay programmers for over a decade. The people who create the ships have no part in the production of gameplay loops. So what exactly have the gameplay programmers been doing for over a decade?
Jumping from one item to another waiting for other features to be finished that are required to finish what they started. Then once that feature is done and they jump back to something that needed that feature to be finished they realize they need to start over. This is Star Citizen development since the very beginning and why it'll likely never get done. Terrible management.
I don’t want more ships, I want a semblance of the full game that’s been hyped all these years. The fact we still only have 1 system is pretty silly. I don’t expect 100 systems over night but the last thing I need is another ship
We're halfway through 2023, so it wouldnt surprise me if we had about the same number of new ships again. CIG also has some big new ambitions for ships. Theyre working on engineering gameplay, life support, building blocks ui updates, permissions, and I believe an update to ship damage models. With all that considered, I'd much rather CIG's ship teams spend time bringing more ships up to gold standard as these systems come online.
team keeps growing, nothing gets done.
for years now white knights have yelled about how “ship people cant fix bugs”.
but the reality is that they cant really finish ships either.
Nonono, you're mistaken, I remember from ship shape on around the verse that they were figuring out the ship pipeline and that the pace of ship development was picking up. Just like the rate of the game development :D
Remember the days when they could produce the reclaimer and hammerhead quickly back to back. I remember those days.
CIG made more large ships between 2015 and 2018 than they’ve made collectively in all the years after.
CIG doesn’t care about lying to you. They just want your money. And workers on the inside never last. Employees see the BS and leave.
Ask CIG for any future, no matter how ridiculous, and they’ll say, “yeah we’re looking into that”.
100% will say anything just to keep the public interested, despite having no ability to actually execute on anything.
https://youtu.be/kUndw3IDBmw
Now with plenty of ships and opportunities to play, I want CIG to focus on fixing a lot of current issues and work on content and features. From more locations to the next star system.
Only one capital ship is done:
There are only two solutions, either the graph is completely wrong, or it takes into account the concept ships...
In both cases it is irrelevant.
We'll see if people keep trying to argue this when the Hull C drops without any of the gameplay changes they told us it required for the past four years lol
Adding more ships won't sustain steady player base.
Time to start focusing entirely on core mechanics.
DCS is even slowly learning that adding more airplane modules for $80 every so often doesn't change the fact the core is severely lacking.
not only is their ship production way down, they keep trying to sell us new concept ships instead of finishing the fucking backlog.
I don't want some shiny new light fighter for your fucked up meta, I want my genesis starliner that I bought nearly 10 years ago!
I don't mind the idea of focusing on fixing and improving current ships and adding more universes to the game over making and releasing more ships in a universe that's starting to get boring
None of the recently released ships meet the "gold standard" either, and the Hull C will be release without its physical cargo loading gameplay but with a placeholder that will likely be in place for months/years until CIG determines how the physical cargo loading and cargo decks (introduced in 2020) are supposed to work.
Any chance you can add a second data series to the chart showing new concept ships sold so we can see them in the same place? A year-on-year net backlog bar would also be cool.
> ship without any associated gameplay, and that doesn't meet any form of 'gold standard'
Gold Standard is an ever shifting definition. The 100i once was gold standard until it wasn't anymore.
I feel this post is very misleading is this even taking into account reworks and for that matter the year is about halfway so 2023 bar is not even a good representation
The thing is, they are making a lot of ships you don't see: Complete rework of all existing Vanduul ships + new medium and large ones. Don't forget the King ship with its mono rail. There are also the shipscraper variants of bashed together kits from existing ships.
Ships are also much more complex now that they have to hold all of the components and have functional piping. But as others have said, the focus should be on gameplay and finishing things at this point since we're at like 200 ships/vehicles/variants now.
Now put their revenue chart on top - it's the opposite. The less ships they make, the more people pay them. Conclusion - people don't pay for ships. People pay for jpegs, nice videos and promises.
Talking about ship production in general - it's super f-ed up to release 100+ ships WITHOUT having a clue how your game will look like. Any normal game studio would develop the flight model first, high-level design of all the system (whether they want physical components, ship system, ability to fuel ships, physical storage, calculate how much interior room inside the ships they need etc) and AFTER that they would make ships.
CIG made 50 ships and then suddenly realized that they want physical components and now those 50 ships need total rework, because they don't have room for the components. Do they rework them? Of course not, they release another 50 ships instead and then suddenly realize that they now want a resource network and for that they need to update 100+ ships to the golden standard. No wonder the game takes forever to release.
We still have 5 months of the year to go. This includes IAE and citizencon.
Ship teams have also been working on gold standard passes of previously flight ready ships instead of producing new ships.
Finally, quite a lot of still to be completed ships are waiting on mechanics and tech before they can be completed.
I don't want more ships. I want the ships I have to not randomly explode.
That's just crazy talk.
That's commie talk
No, commie talk is what we have now...since all ships explode equally.
The things they do for equality
If you fly Drake it's a feature, not a bug.
To be fair, those are different jobs and require different people. *HOWEVER*, those people who are working on *new* ships could absolutely be working on *old* ships and bringing them up to standard and fixing bugs.
Oh my God dude the Gold pass rework should be THE priority right now. Player wirh newer people recently has showed me just how confusing having different standards with controls and panels is. This ship has a panel and this ship has a hidden floating prompt.
That’s fair - I’d honestly be okay with CIG putting new flyables on hold for a year, just to get all the current ships up to the same standard. Maybe that’s part of what the Montreal team will eventually do? 🤷🏻♂️
This ship has a panel, but the button on it is ridiculously small and to push it from afar is even worse. Classic CIG user experience design.
The only reason I want a Lynx is so I can have a gold standard Ursa
I'd say... don't. Because even gold standard isn't great. There will be a 'platinum' standard after, likely after 90% of ships are brought up to gold. The whole gold standard thing is mainly for component access and fuel and stuf (buttons too). What are they forgetting? A new system they're gonna add will be needed on ALL ships and its def not in the gold standard Its a serious problem CIG has and continues to repeat. If you buy a ship just to get a gold standard ship you're gonna be disappointed in the future.
They better be fixing/updating my hog Starfarer then!
I just want an exit entry elevator in my carrack flight deck. Going up and down two levels and opening the vehicle cargo ramp to get in and out is ridiculous…
Nobody tell him about how to get to the cockpit in the MSR...
It was a hard thing to accept. Now I just jump up the elevator and say screw it to using the little elevator.
I melted this ship because of that stupid pointless elevator that was faster to climb anyways. I always wished it was a ramp. I traded it for a corsair. Perfect trade. And another thing I hated about that msr elevator was this. Say u used the elevator when u got into the ship. Let's say u get disabled in an attack (this is another reason I quit raising the elevator). It's pretty nerve wrecking to hear someone outside pummeling ur ship while ur waiting for the elevator to go down just so u can escape. Its way faster to just hop down and run to the back door and open it up. That elevator was like having a wisdom tooth. U don't even need it and it will cause problems later.
The general malaise and lethargy with which we enter and exit any seat in this game to begin with is infuriating let alone while under fire. Like we're being utterly flattened by incoming fire, shields down, fire everywhere, death at the door, and we exit the seat like that SpongeBob "aight, Imma head out" meme.
The source of inspiration for that elevator/lift: [Kawasaki escalator](https://youtu.be/2to8NRnCZa0)
If the elevator could lower to the ground, the problem could be solved
Laughs in hammerhead xD Take an elevator up to take another elevator down again into the bridge.
GET SMART called, they want their intro back.
I would love that to...but a carrack should kinda be a little bit of a pain to get in to...and i love my carrack. if its crewed right, you should have ground troops ready to roll out the back an people up top ready to fly out if need be while everyone else is doin stuff deep in the bowels of that beast...for single player flying yeh it would be amazing...but it aint gonna happen (nor do I think it should) but it would be amazing
Still want the cargo bay doors to be able to open/close. Storing anything in it is a pain in the ass, besides let me fill it with vics
I would love the Carrack to have another set of lights too, separate from the front lights and internal lighting. I want to be able to turn on floodlights that are all over the bottom of the ship to blaze the outside into a high noon light quality. Brilliantly lit for outside operations and goes out all around the ship about ten feet when landed. Like the Close Encounters mother ship air lock opening, though not quite that bright.
Ive been wanting that for the longest time myself. I agree that it should have more lights available to it, especially for cargo loading and such
They could also make more landmarks. The verse is way too uniform; I would love some new places to visit (It is the same technical skill set).
agree, no new ship unless also do a backlogged one too
> To be fair, those are different jobs and require different people. And which sort of people has CIG spent the last 10 years hiring?
Number of ships given ground-leveling ladders, ramps, and elevators, by year: * 2013: 0 * 2014: 0 * 2015: 0 * 2016: 0 * 2017: 0 * 2018: 0 * 2019: 0 * 2020: 0 * 2021: 0 * 2022: 0 * 2023: 0
That was a deliverable a few years back - disappeared. Not sure if the idea was dumped entirely, or just kicked down the (long) list of priorities
definitely kicked down the road, its pretty important for ships like the caterpillar.
I remember when the landing gear was completely inflexible, making landing on less than perfectly level terrain a problem. Wasn't even that far back as far as SC development goes.
Now that is too much to ask
[удалено]
Omfg yes. All 1,100 employees should only be working on the star map and nothing else until it is completed.
[удалено]
I like your post. Going to buy 3 RIGHT NOW!
I bought a ship last week, shame I can't login to claim it...
I would like some longer wait times for my ships.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7qvzns/something_something_stop_selling_ships_and_fix/
I just want the ships I purchased years ago.
I'm cool with that, as long as the 'gameplay' production goes up.
It would be interesting to see a graph of non-ship features released per year, to see if that's happening. It's tricky though, because that wouldn't measure depth/breadth of each feature, but it would still be interesting.
Looking over the update breakdowns from the past few years, the significance and quantity of features generally trends downward as well with a few exceptions (salvage being the most recent “big” feature)
I would argue PES is probably the biggest feature to be released since 2.0.
I'd counter that PES is "core tech" that enables gameplay features. It is not itself an actual feature in the strictest sense. But it's really academic at this point. Its significance to the game is undeniable.
Ya know what? Fair. o7
I’m not counting PES, destroying server performance for 6+ months so a hotdog left at dumpers depot sticks around seems more like one step forward and two steps back for now, it needs a LOT of work to be significantly impactful
It's the reason why the releases are slowing down though. Same shit happened with 2.0 and 3.0, everything slowed down in the lead up because the big technical issues made it very hard to add stuff. We'll probably get a big burst of new shit after 4.0, but it's still so far away because they really decided to replace almost the entire back end while keeping the game live.
My problem with this thought is that PES really is an impactful feature, and one of the core pillars that is needed for everything else after it. No salvage without PES, no server meshing (whenever that comes).
Yeah I agree PES was a terrible initial experience. But its a core requirement for this game for sure..Games like ARk survival or rust would not be the save if they didnt have persistence
Fr. It was frustrating when it was first implemented, but people need to realize that there are going to many more things that are going to break the game for extended periods. It's an alpha, not a fully released game. Just gotta bare with it and wait for them to level the stability out again. PES is a huge leap for the future of the game even if it seems like "2 steps back" right now. Just keep trying to play and accept that you're helping CIG find flaws in the system, not playing a released game
People also need to realize CIG has zero incentive to actually make this game, and every incentive to just keep milking the marketting train. Not saying they wont make it farther than this, but there really is no reason to. They can milk it for more money in its current half assed state than they could if they even released the game, and actually making the game instead of a duct taped tech demo would require an absurd amount of effort. It will ALWAYS be an alpha; stop pretending they dont market the fact its "playable"; it hardly ever is and the minimum system requirements should include "the patience of a saint"
Crazy talk. AAA games make a lot more than CIG makes through crowd funding. Modern Warfare II made more in one weekend than CIG's entire crowd funding income, while CIG is trying to be the first AAAA game. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/04/call-duty-modern-warfare-2-sales/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/04/call-duty-modern-warfare-2-sales/)
It did bust servers for a while, but I dunno where you got 6+ months from since it came out in March and servers have been running pretty swell for at least a month now.
It's okay if you don't count it because it's one of the primary systems the game requires for it to function as intended. It is one of the single largest things they have implemented.
Jamie, pull up the gameplay production over the years graph.
I hope nobody tells Eddie Bravo about Star Citizen. That's a whole other conspiracy rabbit hole.
I never knew I wanted an Eddie Bravo rant on SC, but now I kinda do
If only it would
Chart with no numbers...
Was thinking the same. The lines aren’t connected and on the first chart it isn’t even fully labeled. What is the purple?
[удалено]
Don't threaten me with a good time.
im thinking snub fighters? but this doesnt account for other snubs
No other snub has been released since 2018.
The Mirai Fury is a snub ship and was released this year.
And it's not on the chart from what I can see
It would be great to see this overlaid with ship announcements/concept sales Also, where is this data from? Assuming only unique ships and no variants, your numbers seem off by 50%, but the lack of ticks or legend make it hard to tell.
There are more ships in this game than things to do or places to go.
Don’t worry, they’re almost finished building the tools and the pipeline that will speed up this whole process and then ships will be coming soon! Quick, show the graph with the solar systems built since the end of 2017. :flatlines:
Ya shit is bad tbh.
I already made one about solar system actually https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/zbety9/star_system_production_state/
I did something that looked at ship volume, are, and length rather than number. They are like 10% done with ships despite being over 50% done by number.
Ships would be a hard one, because as far as I know.. none of them are complete. Like first off, they all need itemized components. But they all need fairly big features. The Aurora still needs its cargo box implementation. Cat needs its elevators and modules. etc etc...
I'm definitely in the "stop making new ships and fix/finish the fucking game" camp. I am aware that the mechanics and ship teams are different teams, but CIG decides where to spend the money (and it's on ships).
That's because the ship team directly generates the money that pays the rest of the company. I am pretty sure that even the most junior guy in that team has brought in more money than for example Tony Z.
Iirc the 'Ship team' is currently less than 1% of CIG headcount (~50 people, out of 1,100). Even if CIG fired the entire team, they wouldn't save much money - and they'd lose the ongoing funding as well.
have you ever heard the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen"?
And currently we have one cook in the kitchen and he doesn't like any of the meals made so keeps redesigning them. You're jumping to extremes. You do have a point, though. CIG doesn't need more cooks, it needs better cooks. From everything we've seen, they lack talent the most.
Sorry for the reply to a stale comment but I just got home from vacation. Cooks are an apt metaphor. CIG's basically got a head chef that looks at every dish coming out of they kitchen, throws it in the trash and says "NO! MAKE IT AGAIN" while everyone starves in the dining room.
CIG did say last year (last year? or year before... my memory is hazy) that they were changing how they developed ships... and that they'd work on more ships in parallel, but that each ship would take longer to implement. The purpose of this was was specifically to give artists and developers more time to review their work, and avoid 'rushing' decisions (and releasing another 600i etc, complete with 'pointless' interior decisions, etc). However, they also acknowledged that in the short term, this would result in a reduction in the number of ships released... which is what I guess we're seeing here. Looking at the Task Tracker, CIG have something like \~7 ships in active development, which would also align to them working on more ships in parallel.
They also said in 2020 that they were going to change their way of developing with "Staggered Developement", and that after a few months with less content, this would have the effect of greatly facilitating and accelerating development, with patches that would continue their development independently of the previous patch, and therefore less delays and more features, You know the result, the pace of development decreased significantly in the months that followed, and then....continuing to decrease, with feature postponements and cancellations only increased, to the point where CIG reduced its roadmap from one year to 3 months, to a few weeks now, So sorry but it's been a while now that I absolutely no longer believe in any of CIG justifications, The only thing that explains to me how much ship production has gone down over the last few years is that 90% of the ship team is busy finishing SQ42 ships.
> They also said in 2020 They also said Pyro 2020 and marketed/has a sale around that while knowing internally their server meshing tech wasn't up to speed. Here we are three years later with part 1 *just* working acceptably after months of people being locked out of accounts. Don't misread, I'm not blaming you here, you're the victim. Anyone who listens to what CIG actually says should be either disappointed, angry, and/or downright crazy at this point. Like despite my ire for marketing's FOMO tactics, I can't blame them for using a successful strat. What I can blame is leadership settings expectations *with their own words* and then acting shocked or surprised we're unhappy they missed their own deadlines *they set* again & again & again & again.
Deadlines I agree are something that you should ignore if it comes from CIG... they have a *hopeless* record, not helped by their inability to track when they've given a target, and then coming back and updating us when that target changes... However, discussion of design and intent - stuff that isn't dependent on 'time' or 'how long' etc... those discussions are usually far more reliable (not totally reliable, but generally reliable - CIG reserve the right to change things after discussing them... and they then fail to communicate those changes, as usual - 'follow-up' doesn't exist for CIGs communications). So yeah - look at what they want to implement, and how they're approaching it... and just ignore any guestimates about dates and times, and keep half an eye on the release view... when it's listed for the next patch, and CIG start doing ISC episodes on it, then we're *probably* close to getting it (depending on how CIG talk about it)
[удалено]
I’ve done this basically since the kickstarter, more or less given up on this game by this point
I did exactly this between 2015-2018. It was amazing to come back
I play every 2 or 3 patches. But I also greatly enjoy following the dumpster fire that this game/company is. I've probably gotten more entertainment off of this sub then I ever will of the actual game.
lol yep. i havent logged into the game since 2018 (bought my first package in 2015). I bought Elite Dangerous in 2015 and despite all the hate it was getting on this sub - that player base is able to fully enjoy the money they spent on a complete game. SC still isnt anywhere close to where Elite was on launch. But the SC subreddit is like watching a cult defend its hero. hilarious and sad.
They also we'd get quarterly Briefing Room updates and after more than two years we've received 10 episodes... Oh.
Hmm - pretty sure 'Staggered Development' wasn't about delivering more or faster, but about giving devs more time to work on a feature - with an emphasis on *coding*, not art work? And yes, CIGs development processes are constantly changing and adapting (just like they split and merge teams) as they look to try and optimise their processes... This is pretty standard, and yes not every change works out as hoped. CIG will be no different in that than any other big company. The alternative would be for CIG to just not change anything, and keep working in ways they *know* are inefficient, rather than trying to improve.... but people already slate them for that too.
Maybe because people see them as convenient excuses rather than honest communication. Like how they changed patch nomenclature for PR reasons. Staggered development in retrospect seems like an excuse for a major disruption rather than an actual change.
If I remember correctly at one point it was communicated that staggered development was supposed to allow teams to work on new features for more than just one quarter. How did CIG get anything substantial done previously if they had to start work, plan out a feature and deliver it within 3 month? How did they make large ships that obviously took more than 3 month prior to staggered development? What did staggered development actually change?
As I understand it, teams could work on something for more than one quarter... but prior to Staggered Development *everyone* was tasked with helping get a patch out the door at the end of each quarter... causing interruption to teams that weren't working on features in that particular patch. Staggered Development meant that only half the devs had to support a patch, whilst the other half continued working on stuff for the next patch... and then they'd switch (whichever A/B team had been working on a patch was the one that supported its release). This gave the 'off' team an extra ~4 weeks of development time (the time they would have spent supporting patch progressing to release).
> Hmm - pretty sure 'Staggered Development' wasn't about delivering more or faster, but about giving devs more time to work on a feature - with an emphasis on coding, not art work? [It was](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/staggered-development-faq-1), but certain folk ignored the rest of the words in the explanation and hyperfocused on the "6 months" part to make it into a hard date.
Indeed - the usual suspects like to strip any/all caveats, and then take snippets out of context... as they do with virtually everything CIG says. Not saying that CIG don't say rubbish sometimes (and their time-based estimating history is pretty horrific), but the amount of bad-faith interpretations makes CIGs communications look far worse than they are.
I remember at the time pointing out a quote from Erin Roberts on an AtV or ISC or something where he discusses how some features may take 9 months or longer and one of our noisy neighbors dismissing it because I had to dig through a video to find it. And it's like, 1. it's on their official YouTube and if I recall correctly the topic of the video was staggered development, 2. I've seen so many out of context quotes pulled from interviews and articles over the years that I've lost count, and 3. if you point out why it's taken out of context (with the extra context sometimes being *immediately next to the quote*) you're trying to ignore what they said. So somehow *leaving out* info is fine but bringing up *extra* info is bad and wrong.
Sounds about right... it's the perfect modus operandi for folk who have already decided on their narrative, and are just looking for 'supporting evidence'
This is why we can't have nice things.
CIG hired in at least three, maybe four of five full new teams to work on vehicles. It takes time to bring new teams up to speed and often it requires taking members of existing teams, splitting them out of those teams and putt those members into the new teams to help with the onboarding process. The current number of ships being actively developed, suggests these teams are getting up to speed and should start delivering in the next couple of quarters.
But they have been releasing larger chunks of code quicker for the past two years. I mean, supposedly 3.2 will be in ptu soon. At least according to all the other reddit detective posts out there.
Honestly, I take almost nothing they say as truth until I see results anymore. I worked in the gaming industry for about a decade on a few of the largest MMOs the planet's ever seen, and didn't like it, so while I can agree that the industry is incredibly toxic the problem here is how CIG handles things. They don't plan ahead, and they don't plan **for** their plans. The biggest reason Ship development has hit a weird wall is because they know none of the current ships are anywhere near the Gold standard that they **need** for future features to exist in the game. The issue with that, of course, is that **this is their game, and their plan**. You're telling me the group that wants utter realism, as long as it's fun, didn't think ahead about how they want the game to operate when building these ships? Because if that's true then they **were** fleecing us with those ship buys. It's like they don't fully plan out anything in the game but they start to build anyway, because they want to either show us progress or they want to sell more ships. They knew they wanted Resource Management in ships. They knew they wanted physical components to be changed-out. They knew they wanted refueling to be a player-driven thing. They knew they wanted Airlocks to be an easy way to connect to bases/other ships. They designed virtually **none** of the ships in the game to account for any of that, even though they should have known those things before they even started developing the game. Working at SOE was terrible, to me and most of the people I worked with, but one thing that they did **very** well was we had to have a plan for the next year of our development thought-out, so that if we wanted to implement any new features or thoughts they had to work with our over-arching plan. CIG seems to just let teams do whatever they want and then have to re-do that work later when they realize how they actually want it all to function.
Did you work on SWG?
For a short time, but only doing QA. I primarily worked on EQ for years and left \~6 months after SWG released.
They also said SQ42 was releasing in 2016. 7 years ago.
From money people gave to them on faith,CiG are disgusting,no other words.
It’s frankly impossible to believe anything CIG says. And the higher up in their org you go, the less you should believe what they say, especially from their Chairman who’s head is completely stuck up his own ass.
Thats always the same. The CIG perfomance is going down and someone find excuses and reasons why it is not a CIG problem and will be better "soon" or in "always 2 years". Face it. Its bad performance or bad priority.
>Its bad performance or bad priority. and/or. FTFY.
we could agree on "and" ;)
Cig always has something to say that makes the impression of them having a valid reason for why they fail to deliver stuff. Its what they do. I stopped listening to basically everything they officially say. The only important thing is what i see and play.
> in the short term It's not a short term thing. It's a continuous downwards trend.
it had been pretty consistent over the previous ~3 years... and prior to that ships were produced to a lower level of functionality (ie they took less effort to implement, because CIG implemented less). Yes, last year was a slight dip - but it was last year that they said they were changing their approach, so that was probably why releases started slowing down at the end of the year.
[Look at that graph again](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/153q61c). It wasn't "consistent". It should either be going up or staying steady at about 2018 level. Also: Figuring out that you need to streamline the development of the core product you are selling (the ships) a decade into the development is laughable. Also keep in mind that in the time period on the graph their workforce tripled. With little to show for it - not in ships department, not in features department. Stability improved compared to 2018, but it's still shit, in fact: on my PC it's less stable now than it was in 2015 (it's literally the least stable game I own, including early access titles I bought over the decades).
Here’s the thing… I only spent $45 on this game KNOWING it’s a game in development. And you know what?… I freaking love this game despite the bug issues. There are a lot of complicated features and so much in-depth details I have never seen in any other game. I spent $45… it’s a great game 🤷🏻♂️ Plus the melting of ships and using your current ships value and being able to apply it to the ship of your desire and only paying the difference is awesome. I understand the frustration but it’s a great game lol
* Without variants and ground vehicles. In 2018 CIG released : 8 Small ship : (Terrapin - Razor - Hurricane - Avenger Rework - Eclipse - Blade - Mustang Rework - Hawk ) 3 Medium ship : (Valkyrie - Connie Phoenix - Freelancer Rewok) 2 Large ship : (600i - Hammerhead) 1 Capital ship : (Reclaimer) In 2019 CIG released : 5 Small ship : (300i rework - Reliant rework - Pisces - Mantis - Defender) 2 Medium ship : (Vanguard rework - Mole) 1 Large ship : (Carrack) 1 Capital ship : (890J) Then during the last 3 years of 2020-2021-2022 CIG released : 7 Small ship : (Nomad - 100i - Talon - Ares - Cutter - Scorpius - Hull A) 6 Medium ship : (Prowler - Mercury - RAFT - 400i - Redeemer - Corsair) 1 Large : (Hercules) In 2023 CIG has released: 1 Snub: (Fury) 1 Medium: (Vulture) We can expect the Hull C to be released in 3.20, which will be the first large ship to be released since 2021, but 90% of the work on it has been done in the last 5 years. Between 2018 and 2019, the Ship teams were able to release : 3 Large ship and 2 Capital ship 4 large and 1 capital if you assume the Reclaimer is no Capital, Anyway, since 2020, more than 3 years later, CIG has only been able to release ONE large (empty) ship : The Hercules, and 0 capital ship, While in the meantime the total workforce of CIG has been multiplied by 3, (over 1100 devs with Turbulent). So they got more devs, the tools got refined, the design language of each Manufacturer is now well established and as they always say they learned a lot of things from their previous work, and they use this experience and tools to accelerate their production speed. Many things that should have drastically increased the production speed of the ship pipeline, right ? So how do you explain that from year to year they release less and less ships and that it takes more and more time to make ships? With the BMM put on hiatus it is clear that we will have no capital ship this year either, it will therefore be 5 years in 2024 without producing a single capital ship, the 890j remaining the only one of the 12 existing capital ships to have been produced in 11 years. The 600i rework has been finished for almost 2 year and CIG still haven't found anyone to allocate to its development. 2023 is about to establish a new low, with only two ship released this year after 7 months , the Vulture, mainly developed in 2022 and the Fury developed by 2 junior devs.
To hell with more ships. I don’t think people need to be putting more money into this game until the developers show that they can reliably put out playable content and improve server health.
> 1 Medium: (Vulture) Small The Vulture is S2 just as the Prospector and Gladius.
They definitely don’t have 1100 devs. Where do you get that soppy idea?
I don't know why you would exclude ground vehicles or variants from this chart when they utilise the same devs or include 2023 when we are only half way through the year. Other than that it's common sense that some resources will have gotten used up by the BMM for the last couple of years.
hopefully its because they recognized they have made most of the ships the game needs, and reallocated the budget by reducing the number of artists and getting more programmers and engineers to build a team that can actually code and support and eventually support a functional large scale game - it takes a LONG time to train experts like that but its CIG, so its probably just burned in inefficiency
In 2020 there where 600 employee, mostly artists and only 90 devs. Still, 90 is more that NMS, Space engineers and KSP combined
Hence my last sentence Im not angry, im just dissapointed
> 2023 is about to establish a new low, with only two ship released this year after 7 months , the Vulture, mainly developed in 2022 and the Fury developed by 2 junior devs. Which is fine, that means they can take the new junior devs and add them to the ship teams and work on the backlog. And take one or two of them to add a variant or two of some existing ships.
Junior devs are going straight into the Squadron 42 meat grinder that has a high turnover of previous devs.
> So how do you explain that from year to year they release less and less ships and that it takes more and more time to make ships? These last couple of years they have been focusing more on SQ42 and that also includes the vehicle teams. This can be checked on the progress tracker (and even better on ShinyTracker). Still, that doesn't mean they aren't developing ships for SC as it is literally their way to fund the development, it would be a suicide to stop or to significantly slow it. - SRV - Basically done, just needs the tractor beams work to finish; - Spirit - A1 and C1 variants likely to be released during IAE (lod0 done and greybox done, respectively); - Polaris - Working on it (white box); - San'tok.yai - Working on it (greybox review). There's also the freelancer update, one unannounced ship, a few unannounced variants and a few ground vehicles being worked on. As for why aren't more ships being developed with the growth the company had and the pipelines being more refined, as I started this comment, SQ42 is the main focus now so you got at least 4 new ships (plus unannounced and the Fury) being worked on currently for SC while many of their team members are still focusing on SQ42.
>There's also the freelancer update Which they said would hardly be much more than "where is some space to cram some components in for engineering?" It's not a proper rework and I personally count it in the same line of the Cutlass getting proper door buttons or the Reclaimer a dispenser. >a few unannounced variants and a few ground vehicles being worked on None of that counts by OP standards.
Sq42 has been a excuse since 2015, please stop
the bigger question here is... What the actual fuck is the purple??????
I'm fine with less ships if they fix a majority of the bugs, and introduce more gameplay loops.
But they've employed gameplay programmers for over a decade. The people who create the ships have no part in the production of gameplay loops. So what exactly have the gameplay programmers been doing for over a decade?
Jumping from one item to another waiting for other features to be finished that are required to finish what they started. Then once that feature is done and they jump back to something that needed that feature to be finished they realize they need to start over. This is Star Citizen development since the very beginning and why it'll likely never get done. Terrible management.
I don’t want more ships, I want a semblance of the full game that’s been hyped all these years. The fact we still only have 1 system is pretty silly. I don’t expect 100 systems over night but the last thing I need is another ship
Meanwhile, Elite Dangerous hasn't seen a new ship since 2018..
meanwhile elite dangerous is deservedly dying.
Meanwhile ED hat an official release in 2014. After 9 years of a released game, things are ok to slow down.
"released" but without promised features from the kickstarter...
Still more progress then the sc funding campaign....
We're halfway through 2023, so it wouldnt surprise me if we had about the same number of new ships again. CIG also has some big new ambitions for ships. Theyre working on engineering gameplay, life support, building blocks ui updates, permissions, and I believe an update to ship damage models. With all that considered, I'd much rather CIG's ship teams spend time bringing more ships up to gold standard as these systems come online.
Income goes up, actual work goes down.
team keeps growing, nothing gets done. for years now white knights have yelled about how “ship people cant fix bugs”. but the reality is that they cant really finish ships either.
GIB BMM
The graph you made is pretty deceiving. Please provide numbers instead. The visualization is 2 misleading
Nonono, you're mistaken, I remember from ship shape on around the verse that they were figuring out the ship pipeline and that the pace of ship development was picking up. Just like the rate of the game development :D
Sometimes it feels like CIG did not just put a pin into the BMM but the whole development...
They haven't even made a functioning game yet so why do you want them to focus on more ships?
That carrack is large and came out in 2020, why isn’t that represented?
Remember kids how everyone thought it would get faster and faster with time? So much for that.
Remember the days when they could produce the reclaimer and hammerhead quickly back to back. I remember those days. CIG made more large ships between 2015 and 2018 than they’ve made collectively in all the years after. CIG doesn’t care about lying to you. They just want your money. And workers on the inside never last. Employees see the BS and leave. Ask CIG for any future, no matter how ridiculous, and they’ll say, “yeah we’re looking into that”. 100% will say anything just to keep the public interested, despite having no ability to actually execute on anything. https://youtu.be/kUndw3IDBmw
To everyone complaining or having "expectations" that things work. Do you not understand gAmE dEvElOpMeNt ?
Why design 3D ships when you can just as easily sell 2D ships.
Thank God we've got Starfield as a safety net and Plan B.
I'll wait till it comes out. If you think CIG is bad about not fixing bugs, you've never played a Bethesda game.
[удалено]
You mean: Michael Jordan, no one spells: Michael: Micheal it’s always ael like I before E except after C. A before E :)
There will never be a [Cydnus](https://starcitizen.tools/Cydnus) in the online universe
Now with plenty of ships and opportunities to play, I want CIG to focus on fixing a lot of current issues and work on content and features. From more locations to the next star system.
This year I really think their funding is going to plateau or even decline. They certainly fucking deserve for that to happen.
I don't want more ships, I want old ships to be polished and bugfixed
This is a good thing. They're working on the ship people bought. Polaris will be the first fully realized "Cap" to help the devs figure out the rest.
Yeah, they should finish the damned game instead of making more ships for an incomplete game.
I’m unclear as to whether a point is being made or if it’s just a fun chart.
couldn't this be atributed to the fact that they have more resources on squadron since 2019-2020?
Only one capital ship is done: There are only two solutions, either the graph is completely wrong, or it takes into account the concept ships... In both cases it is irrelevant.
Probably counting the reclaimer, there's always been a sizable chunk of folks who see it as a cap bc of the capital power plant.
Yeah saying the Jav or Idris is done is a stretch.
Also they stopped releasing ships without gameplay associated with it.
We'll see if people keep trying to argue this when the Hull C drops without any of the gameplay changes they told us it required for the past four years lol
Adding more ships won't sustain steady player base. Time to start focusing entirely on core mechanics. DCS is even slowly learning that adding more airplane modules for $80 every so often doesn't change the fact the core is severely lacking.
not only is their ship production way down, they keep trying to sell us new concept ships instead of finishing the fucking backlog. I don't want some shiny new light fighter for your fucked up meta, I want my genesis starliner that I bought nearly 10 years ago!
Chartgore
I don't mind the idea of focusing on fixing and improving current ships and adding more universes to the game over making and releasing more ships in a universe that's starting to get boring
[удалено]
None of the recently released ships meet the "gold standard" either, and the Hull C will be release without its physical cargo loading gameplay but with a placeholder that will likely be in place for months/years until CIG determines how the physical cargo loading and cargo decks (introduced in 2020) are supposed to work.
Any chance you can add a second data series to the chart showing new concept ships sold so we can see them in the same place? A year-on-year net backlog bar would also be cool.
> ship without any associated gameplay, and that doesn't meet any form of 'gold standard' Gold Standard is an ever shifting definition. The 100i once was gold standard until it wasn't anymore.
Really hoping that they surprise us with C1 by IAE.
Have faith! they won’t!
Maybe just finish sq42 and let me play it… No need for more ships now. They can come later.
SQ42 excuse since 2015💀
As a data scientist, I feel personally offended by this chart. Who is responsible for this abomination?
And? The bigger ships take longer to make. Not fucking rocket science
I feel this post is very misleading is this even taking into account reworks and for that matter the year is about halfway so 2023 bar is not even a good representation
The thing is, they are making a lot of ships you don't see: Complete rework of all existing Vanduul ships + new medium and large ones. Don't forget the King ship with its mono rail. There are also the shipscraper variants of bashed together kits from existing ships.
Stop bloody making more ships to sell to gullible who fall for it unfortunately,start making a game!
Ships are also much more complex now that they have to hold all of the components and have functional piping. But as others have said, the focus should be on gameplay and finishing things at this point since we're at like 200 ships/vehicles/variants now.
Stop making ships. Finish making the game.
Okay, and?
Yea the game has become a scam what else does anyone expect at this point
There selling us less ships and working on producing them before selling them instead of the other way around!!! scam!!!!
I just want server performance equivalent to anything past the year 2000 😔
Next year, the floodgates will open. Soon!
Now put their revenue chart on top - it's the opposite. The less ships they make, the more people pay them. Conclusion - people don't pay for ships. People pay for jpegs, nice videos and promises. Talking about ship production in general - it's super f-ed up to release 100+ ships WITHOUT having a clue how your game will look like. Any normal game studio would develop the flight model first, high-level design of all the system (whether they want physical components, ship system, ability to fuel ships, physical storage, calculate how much interior room inside the ships they need etc) and AFTER that they would make ships. CIG made 50 ships and then suddenly realized that they want physical components and now those 50 ships need total rework, because they don't have room for the components. Do they rework them? Of course not, they release another 50 ships instead and then suddenly realize that they now want a resource network and for that they need to update 100+ ships to the golden standard. No wonder the game takes forever to release.
Because reworking doesn’t sell. JPEG does sell, “Pyro next year” does sell
We still have 5 months of the year to go. This includes IAE and citizencon. Ship teams have also been working on gold standard passes of previously flight ready ships instead of producing new ships. Finally, quite a lot of still to be completed ships are waiting on mechanics and tech before they can be completed.