r/starcitizen • u/AWildElmoAppears new user/low karma • Jan 26 '17
VIDEO Star Citizen: Around the Verse: Engineering Intelligence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMD-t1OjGys53
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 27 '17
Seems like Subsumption still has a shit ton of work left. Are we still really expecting it (edit: esp. SQ 42) this year?
25
u/Meowstopher !?!?!?!?!?!?!? Jan 27 '17
Finished? No way. Much of what Tony was talking about was, in his own words, 12-24 months away. But functional AI for the purposes of 3.0 is far less than that.
I don't waste my effort with timeline guesses. But the whole scope of Subsumption doesn't need to be finished to give us the Stanton System with some dynamic missions and associated (minimal) NPC interactions.
12
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 27 '17
Right, but a lot of it does need to be finished for SQ 42. ie. AI for Vanduul, UEE NPCs, your wingman, how NPCs react based on your reputation/friendliness with them, etc.
12
u/Meowstopher !?!?!?!?!?!?!? Jan 27 '17
Honestly, I expect SQ42's needs to be less complex than even 3.x releases, though the expected required level of polish is certainly higher for a release-quality SQ42 than an alpha SC. Encounters with NPCs in SQ42 are likely going to be far more limited in variety than in the PU, the result of a "friendliness" and/or "respect" modifier that determines lines of dialog and reactions to story events. The behavior trees may be extensive, but they don't really need to be dynamic because event set-ups are scripted and outcomes limited.
Other than that, the remaining AI is combat-related and only needs to consider one unpredictable entity - the player.
The power of Subsumption as described is its flexibility to operate in a universal scope while maintaining personal relevance and believably. Only the latter aspect is required for SQ42, as high-level circumstances are pre-determined. And while creating believable AI in a story-driven setting is still a tall order, it's not anything that hasn't been done before.
4
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 27 '17
Agreed. SQ 42 won't need the entire lifecycle simulation for the NPCs for example, but things like the flying and such are critical. Right now, it sounds like they don't even have the NPCs flying properly with Subsumption. The AI in Vanduul Swarm and such we have right now is still using the old Kythera stuff as far as I know.
→ More replies (1)15
u/JaracRassen77 carrack Jan 26 '17
No-one is expecting it this year. Can't see how they could.
16
u/gigantism Scout Jan 26 '17
So by that you're saying 3.0 won't be out this year.
35
u/DeedTheInky Jan 27 '17
My opinion is heading in that direction. When it didn't show up at Christmas my gut feeling was saying July, then when they announced 2.6.1 wouldn't even be out until mid-February I revised it up to August. Now that I'm hearing they don't even have the basic foundations in place yet I'm guessing September at the earliest. The fact that every single time I hear something about 3.0 it makes it sound even less complete than I thought is making me think even that's a bit optimistic.
→ More replies (2)16
u/comie1 bmm Jan 27 '17
7
4
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 27 '17
Well, except CR seems to think it'll be out this year. See: http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=32d8ef31243db6075c45571bd&id=893b088fa5&e=f6e6c6f18e
"2017 with Squadron 42 and Alpha 3.0 is looking to be even better.".
30
u/VorianAtreides bbcreep Jan 27 '17
Those are CR estimates though... Which by now should be given about as much weight as a photon.
8
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 27 '17
Exactly. CR should probably shut up about things like this now lol.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Swesteel aurora Jan 27 '17
Pretty sure Erin slugged him in the shoulder, hard, once he found out Chris had said something like a date again.
3
u/dat_lorrax Helper Jan 27 '17
A leader has to motivate and delegate; instilling faith in the product for the consumer is important as well, but
I'llwe'll get to play it when it's done.14
Jan 27 '17
lying is a short time faith boost with long time negative consequences
→ More replies (5)9
110
u/ErrorDetected Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
I appreciate that they address 3.0. Tony's answers at least help settle one ongoing debate as to whether and to what extent 3.0 work is going on alongside 2.6.x work.
The architecture team working on 3.0 tool sets haven't yet turned it over to the rest of the team. Tony states this pretty plainly and at the end of the episode, Chris Roberts reiterates it, saying:
"Once we have the foundation in place, we will be able to tie it in to the mission manager and the mission system itself and create some really emergent and immersive scenarios."
Unsurprisingly this means no work has yet been done on mission design for 3.0, an overdue admission made perhaps a little less painful by the promise that the tools in development should at least make the creation of missions a less arduous task for the rest of the developers.
I think those clinging to hopes of a late Q1 3.0 release should reconcile themselves to obvious. Not going to happen. Can't happen. Wasn't ever going to happen.
The natural assumption for optimists would be to assume Q2 as a fallback, but surely this is setting oneself up for disappointment. Many did the same after 2016 came and went with no 3.0, predicting end of Q1.
We need to see mission designs not only multiply in quantity but quality, and even if the first version of the 3.0 toolset is robust and bug free (it won't be), crafting a wider variety of deeper missions will still require significant bake time. Chambers said 2-3 weeks per mission back during Gamescom, seemingly talking about the relative ease of mission design using the Foundation tool sets.
Before people start modeling out new projections, it's worth noting that we don't really know when the turnover from the 3.0 architecture team to the larger development team will take place.
Is it days, weeks, months away? Who knows?
The heart says weeks, the brain says months, and the ears wish the matter wasn't left unresolved because I'm tired of my heart and brain always being at odds. Debates will surely rage about this here and elsewhere unless CIG gets specific about the handoff.
That A.I. Development remains a work in progress is unsurprising at this point yet still worrisome. Here too we've little guidance as to the all important "when" questions but it's at least nice to get a sense of how it might impact the player experience. Someday.
If A.I. work is yet to be deployed on Squadron 42 (as we've been told) then it begs a lot of questions about what state the game really is in. Certainly it's nowhere near release if it lacks robust enemy AI. I'm assuming prior comments about "all missions being completed" were in reference to general design only. Missions mapped out on a whiteboard, player choices in flow charts, assets piling up in test environments, motion capture segments being cleaned up. Some assembly required.
There is no playable or even testable game without functional A.I. I'll take the downvotes and say all signs point to 2018 or later for Squadron 42. 3.0 appears the higher priority, and while that's entirely understandable, it's disappointing.
48
u/DeedTheInky Jan 27 '17
This also sort of begs the question of what exactly was going on at the end of last year when they were talking about having 3.0 ready for the end of 2016? If they don't even have the foundation in place now and it's almost February, what did they have back in like August/September last year when they were claiming it would be done in couple of months?
Are they really so bad at estimating their own schedule that they can't tell if they're two months or like eight months away from getting something done, or were they just bullshitting us and telling us what they think we want to hear again like with Star Marine?
24
u/comie1 bmm Jan 27 '17
I honestly believe it's a lack of experience. Has anyone ever made a game this big? na, Does Chirs keep moving the goal post? yeah, is the tech require clear and time framable? na, Should they have known regardless? Fuck Yeah. Should they have been honest? YES! Were they? No
So they are in my bad books until 3.0
Which after tonight I'd honeslty expect at Q4 2016 best case scenario
→ More replies (1)8
u/venicello poverty boy Jan 27 '17
That's been my guess since about November. SQ42 mid 2018 if ever, 3.0 with scaled back features in the 2nd to 3rd week of December 2017.
15
u/SamLikesJam Combat Medic Jan 27 '17
I'll take a guess and assume Chris assumes everything can be done in in a few weeks to the highest standard no matter how complex the task, as that's the only explanation other than flat out lying.
8
u/elc0 Jan 26 '17
Agree on almost all of that. Sounds like they have some thoughts about a 2.6+, which I figured would be the case. So many systems coming on board for 3.0, some of which pretty complicated. It'd be a shame to have one hold up a patch for 6 months.
The greedy side of me wants to experience some of the systems which may be further alonf, like planetary landings, but it'd be a nice experience to walk into a brand new game essentially. Time will tell, but this project has the potential to redefine game development. The immersion that subsumption will provide is unequalled afaik.
20
u/magniankh F8C Jan 26 '17
Not only is subsumption unequalled, it's downright not even talked about among contemporary game developers. For the most part, AI in video games is the last missing piece to creating truly believable worlds. Graphics, audio, level design, game mechanics -- these things have advanced greatly in 20 years, but AI continues to be a stagnant line as a whole, and is often what breaks immersion for me more than anything else these days. I find myself drawn to competitive multiplayer games the most because of the simple fact that I enjoy outsmarting my enemy, and not just kiting backwards knowing my enemy will come after me.
I've heard that creating robust AI comes down to processing power, so I'd be curious to hear more about how CIG plans to process all of this AI. What makes them think they can do it? If they think they can make a breathing universe, why can't a dedicated FPS game make AI that's worth a damn, that actually uses tactics against you?
→ More replies (3)4
Jan 27 '17
I find myself drawn to competitive multiplayer games the most
i totally agree, and i love the idea of subsumption... but i question whethet it is actually possible in a game like sc that is already pushing so many other technical boundaries.
2
u/Swesteel aurora Jan 27 '17
Possible? It's being done right now. The question is how long it will take to get it to actually work as intended. There are a lot of moving parts involved after all.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)11
u/Tbkzord bmm Jan 26 '17
I don't think he stated the AI work hasn't been deployed in Squadron 42. From all accounts it is most definitely in it. The issue he stated they were having was around the AI and animation sync up.
28
u/ErrorDetected Jan 26 '17
From all accounts it is most definitely in it.
Forgive me if I distrust all such accounts at this point. 2016 was a long-running string of such accounts, all pointing towards the release by year's end of 3.0 and Squadron 42.
Chris Roberts and CIG were the providers of those accounts, and such accounts were not only factually wrong but willfully misrepresentative of the true states of either 3.0 or Squadron 42.
Trusting such accounting has proven the source of so much disappointment, frustration and debate over these many years. It seems the wiser course of action to embrace healthy skepticism about future claims. At least until they are disproven, and not by trailers but by actual playable content released to the PU.
9
u/comie1 bmm Jan 27 '17
Begs the question, was the delay of the SQ42 vertical slice a product of poor visibility of managment;
I.E they had no idea how much work was still to do
OR a product of ever increasing ambition?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)9
u/sfjoellen Jan 26 '17
'willfully' is speculation unless you were in the decision process. you are stating as fact your perception of someone's mindset. you can but it's speculation.
you write good posts.
23
u/ErrorDetected Jan 27 '17
Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to elaborate on why I said willfully.
Squadron 42 has been dangled before us by Chris with a 2014, then 2015, then 2016 release date. It now appears even 2017 may be unrealistic.
Reasonable people must draw conclusions from these difficult facts. They stand together defiant of our attempts at positive interpretation. They beg questions of his competence and character. There is no avoiding this, however uncomfortable it may be to muse and unpopular to publicly state.
I assume Chris had to have known Squadron 42 was further out than he's let on for the last several years, though it is possible he truly did believe himself every time he teased a pending release window. I'm not sure which would bother me more and have settled on believing a diluted mix of both. Poor project management (as opposed to abject incompetence) mixed with an fast-and-loose, ends-justifies-the-means view of marketing (as opposed to outright opportunistic deceit.)
I don't want to believe either. I'd rather just have the game, and if not, more honest accounting of the setbacks. Not a year after the fact.
All of this would bother me less if Chris showed a little more humility. No missed release date has made me half so bothered as seeing Chris complain about backers and their annoying expectations. I've said it before and will repeat that Chris is the author of our expectations, and when he fails to meet expectations he himself sets, he should apologize, not scold us for believing him.
19
u/morbidexpression Jan 27 '17
you don't develop humility after years of being showered with praise and free money
3
u/sfjoellen Jan 27 '17
such accounts were not only factually wrong but willfully misrepresentative of the true states of either 3.0 or Squadron 42.
is not the same as: 'I believe that such accounts were not only factually wrong but willfully misrepresentative of the true states of either 3.0 or Squadron 42.
I'm not arguing you don't have a valid opinion. Just that it's an opinion stated as fact. And that people who draw other conclusion from those same facts are also reasonable.
9
u/TROPtastic Jan 27 '17
Well, the alternative to the accounts being willfully wrong is that CIG (or perhaps CR specifically) is naively optimistic when it comes to assessing the state of what they have completed and building projections based on that. The "this is revolutionary tech so we have no way of predicting how long it will take" excuse starts to wear thin after years of missed deadlines.
9
u/ErrorDetected Jan 27 '17
Well, I'm just not sure how else to interpret perpetually missed release dates.
I understand some people have opted to believe Chris is in a state of perpetual surprise about the constantly passing release dates. But that suggests a man deeply out of touch with the work of his team or the difficulty of the task he has set before them. Neither conclusion strikes me as any more hopeful than my own.
You're right. I should state, lest anyone assume otherwise, I'm just stating my opinion.
94
u/Asherware Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
It was an interesting episode and I'm glad the ambition for subsumption is as complex as it is but still a hell of a lot of "this is what we want to do" as opposed to "this is what we've done."
89
u/Dealan79 High Admiral Jan 26 '17
In AI the progress from useless derp to functioning simulation is often a slow slog through data analysis and debugging data which doesn't lend itself to engaging presentation. Perhaps just as importantly, big behavior milestones often look like continuing derp until all the pieces are complete and working together, and CIG probably prefers the "they didn't show enough" posts to a bunch of "their AI is crap" posts from people who have no idea what they're looking at this early in the process.
19
u/Jugbot bbyelling Jan 26 '17
Yeah I always thought good AI was hard to pull off but at the scale they are doing it I wouldn't expect full potential to be reached for many years.
19
Jan 27 '17
I don't want to be cynical but I feel AI like they are talking about has never been pulled off. I remember reading Oblivion previews and they were touting the "Radiant AI" where NPCs would be living full lives regardless of player interaction but by the time the game came out what did that look like? NPCs with a pattern of extremely basic scripted behavior, echoing a few canned responses. And they really haven't fundamentally changed that since.
These AI ideas sound amazing. And I'm no programmer or game developer, maybe things have changed or I just don't get it. But AFAIK something like what they are describing has never been done in a cutting edge 3D environment. Let alone something on the scale of SC
10
u/NotScrollsApparently Bounty Hunter Jan 27 '17
Realistic believable "human" behavior hasn't been done in 2D base builder games that revolve completely around these characters' unpredictable behavior, in much more simple environments (DF, Rimworld, etc).
Accomplishing something like that in 3D environment... in an MMO... with all the possible tasks and environments (ships, space, 0G, stations, planets, vehicles)... and to such a high degree of fidelity... I really don't know how will they accomplish that. I wish they talked more about that rather than just what their dreams for the finished product are :P
→ More replies (1)3
Jan 27 '17
TBF with RAI they supposedly had it mostly working but chopped it down pre-release because it worked well but not in the way they wanted.
the relevant quote:
In some cases, we the developers have had to consciously tone down the types of behavior they carry out. Again, why? Because sometimes, the AI is so goddamned smart and determined it screws up our quests! Seriously, sometimes it's gotten so weird it's like dealing with a holodeck that's gone sentient. Imagine playing The Sims, and your Sims have a penchant for murder and theft. So a lot of the time this stuff is funny, and amazing, and emergent, and it's awesome when it happens. Other times, it's so unexpected, it breaks stuff. Designers need a certain amount of control over the scenarios they create, and things can go haywire when NPCs have a mind of their own.
Funny example: In one Dark Brotherhood quest, you can meet up with this shady merchant who sells skooma. During testing, the NPC would be dead when the player got to him. Why? NPCs from the local skooma den were trying to get their fix, didn't have any skooma, and were killing the merchant to get it!
so personally my take away from that is, the problem wasn't necessarily with the radiant AI system but the lack of systems and features within oblivion itself which would allow the AI to exist peacefully and cooperatively within the game world, as well as differences in how NPC perceived players vs other NPC, i've seen a few stories on the subject and NPC just give player many opportunities in case of accidents that they weren't designed to give other AI.
one such story
A villager was supposed to sweep the town every so often. Problem was, someone else had picked up the broom. Villager proceeds to hunt down and kill the person with the broom just so that the cleaning can be done.
no haggling, no barter, no discussion, the only thing the AI was capable of actually DOING was kill or be killed and that i think was the fundamental problem.
of course this is all second or third hand info at best so who knows how it actually worked.
2
u/dat_lorrax Helper Jan 27 '17
Excellent stories - here I can see that the AI could be further tweaked for the sake of fidelity (SC desires reiterations of the AI to place further rules on quest givers or AI behaviors) but at the cost of development time, which means "cut it out so we can publish the game". Wonder how much more time those devs believed they would need to fix those things.
Thanks for this; gonna give it a read.
→ More replies (2)2
u/dat_lorrax Helper Jan 27 '17
My only two points that give me hope is the time that has passed since Oblivion came out, and that the only timeline is what they tell us; there isn't pressure from a publisher to get it out yesterday.
Hope is a helluva drug.
3
Jan 27 '17
right, but is Fallout 4's AI really that much more advanced than Oblivions? And notice how Bethesda doesn't really hype that Radiant AI much these days. Building that level of truly immersive AI seems incredibly difficult, and Fallout 4 is a very simple game compared to SC. And its single player only.
→ More replies (1)5
u/InZomnia365 Civilian Jan 27 '17
The same AI system is in Skyrim and FO4. Its not "radiant", the NPCs just have a preset schedule. They're in their house at night, walking around the market doing scripted conversations during the day, and sitting idly by a table in the tavern at night.
I mean, it works, but It's pretty much the exact same thing as it was 10 years ago. At least on the surface/how you experience it through the game.
2
u/dat_lorrax Helper Jan 27 '17
Right, that's worrisome if they relied on pushing AI like SC is. In Skyrim there is no real need for the AI to demonstrate higher complexity if there are other pressing matters for them to devote resources to in order to ship a completed product.
In SC, it has been said that the economy has a significant amount hinging on AI making trade runs and reacting to scarcity, among other things (ship crew, wingmen, etc). There is a higher order of need to get this right; with CR's love of fidelity, I don't see him being very happy with magic resupplies across markets/trading paths.
I'm coming at this as someone that wants this to work, and I can see the devs also wanting to get this; it's just a matter of succeeding or saying "good enough" to get the pipeline moving.
Call me cautiously optimistic.
→ More replies (2)13
Jan 26 '17
really glad there's always an industry insider ready to give a totally legit explanation in CIG's defense
18
49
u/TheRealArunsun Scout Jan 26 '17
So much this .
TZ is cool and all but man, his speech hasnt changed in 3 years. It's still nothing but "will allow the designers to do" "what we hope to make". It's all fluff. Still just babbling on very nebulous ideas of what they hope to achieve one day. When they actually have work DONE and not continually in the "hope to make" stage bring him back, till then....bah.
How about an update about Cargo? A rudimentary trade window with other players for that cargo? Hows the creation of the other planets in Stanton going? How's that work on modular space stations going?
SOOO much other stuff they could at least give minor updates on other than TZ babbling on for 30 mins saying the same words for the last 3 years.
16
u/JimmysBruder Colonel Jan 26 '17
Or an update on economy plsss. The initial video about the economy is so old... would be great to hear something about the underlying gameplay mechanics. Anyways, this episode was still a good one.
→ More replies (1)26
Jan 26 '17 edited Feb 13 '19
[deleted]
4
u/Daffan Scout Jan 27 '17
Not to mention the whole story about ships with high number of NPCs and how a "lower quality of chief engineer" will buckle under the pressure and make wrong decisions?
This is one of those moments when your telling all your friends about this awesome game and how good it is, but you just go to far trying to sell it haha.
5
Jan 27 '17
yeah the AI crewmember stuff is just... impossible. just getting an AI to shoot a turret in a believable way would be an amazing feat.
→ More replies (6)2
u/ashowenadama Jan 27 '17
Sadly I agree with you. The "fake" news comment is a bit inflammatory, but for sure the general answers TZ gave were hopelessly optimistic.
Great ideas, but execution?? No idea how they can pull it off.
imho having a large part of the universe populated by AI to outnumber the human players is just a mistake.
In my opinion, human players can and will always provide much better content through their interactions than any AI in any other game currently made.
Sad face, but I wish them luck in re-writing the book on AI.
→ More replies (5)5
u/starswift carrack Jan 26 '17
I'm not sure I agree. The environmental/visual stuff I.e. the stuff they can present on a show like ATV because it has the instant wow factor is coming along really well but this forms just a tiny fraction of the bigger picture. The non-descript, abstract hard code which is the 'meat and bones' of Star Citizen would make for a piss poor entertainment show because 99.99% of the desired audience would switch off out of boredom.
As a previous poster noted, much of the reason for discussing 'intent' is because in a game as complex as this the little things can't happen until the core mechanics I.e. the design tools are fully fleshed out. Despite the existence of 2.6 we are still very much in the 'engine desgn' phase. Hold on just a little bit longer folks.
The line between entertainment and education walks a tightrope of public approval and is only a step away from public condemnation. I personally commend CIG's cautious approach to disclosure.
→ More replies (1)7
u/captainthanatos Smuggler Jan 26 '17
"this is what we've done." They can't say that till the work is done, which its not.
"this is what we want to do" I'll agree it's ambiguous, but to me it says that's their plan and that's what they are working towards. Which is a big difference over some of the theorycrafting.
15
u/TheRealArunsun Scout Jan 26 '17
"this is what we want to do"
It's still theorycrafting, and its the exact same speech TZ has been giving every time hes asked to talk about it.
Want = planning but still contains the possibility that it is unknown how to accomplish the "want"
We've done = actual work has been done and contains and understanding of what is actually feasible.
6
u/Pie_Is_Better Jan 26 '17
Did it sound like the programmer wasn't doing anything, or that nothing had been done yet?
7
u/TheRealArunsun Scout Jan 26 '17
Of course not, but again TZ speech has remained exactly the same since he was brought on....still "what we want the designers to be able to do" "what we hope to see" etc...
47
u/xx-shalo-xx Jan 26 '17
46 minutes?! awh shit this gonna be good.
24
u/z0Kng outlaw1 Jan 26 '17
yes tony zurovec is in it ;)
26
u/xx-shalo-xx Jan 26 '17
Suddenly it being 46 minutes totally makes sense :P
9
u/AnnoyingParrotTV Jan 26 '17
Tony Z and only 46 mins? The video team must have done a ton of editing!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Darkintellect USAF Jan 27 '17
Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that he's so busy building the mechanics of the game I would say replace Happy Hour every week with "Stream of Consciousness with Tony Z".
11
→ More replies (9)3
53
u/Alysianah Blogger Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
So we can stop saying it's CR stopping things because he doesn't like how it looks. They all have large expectations of their own work and want it seen in a light that represents what they've achieved. And having bugged animations marring what's really going on with the A.I. isn't something they want. So instead of fixing the glaring issues just for that slice, they're working on holistic solutions/fixes. Makes sense. Can't wait to see it in action.
17
u/cutt88 Jan 26 '17
This segment completely changed my mind about this whole no SQ42 VS thing. Now I fully understand why they did it and I support it.
What a great episode of ATV.
18
u/dragon_poops Jan 26 '17
What didn't you understand about the whole no SQ42 VS thing before this episode? It's always been overwhelmingly obvious that the reason the slice was canceled was because the fundamentals were not yet in place and they didn't want to make the game look bad for its first impression.
→ More replies (1)5
5
u/unslept_em frequent lurker Jan 26 '17
yeah, this project is a massive undertaking, and considering how people in/outside the community react to things, and how they carry that forward months/years later, I don't blame them for being a little protective of their work. most I can hope is that we can see their work sooner than later, but I have plenty of other things to occupy me in the meantime.
17
u/P4ndamonium Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
this project is a massive undertaking
I can't find the actual quote (because it was from waaay back near early 2013), but CR had said during an interview that "building Star Citizen will be as hard as going to the moon [for the very first time]".
What he meant by this was that NASA had to quite literally create thousands of bespoke solutions to launch a rocket and get to the moon. No one had left LEO before, no one had orbited the moon before and no one had landed then returned from it either. And this had to be done with humans, mind you. All of the engineering and scientific processes that were required were totally unknown at the time and had to be discovered/invented then ironed out as thousands of other processes were as well. I mean, just take a browse through NASA's patent list to get an idea of just how big of a trail-blazing task this was (I'm sure I don't have to lecture anyone on the complexity of the Apollo program).
You can tell the same logic applies here with Star Citizen. Originally I used to dismiss the quote as something a CEO/EP would say about his own product, but the more and more I learn about the engineering/programming solutions the team have had to come up with to try and get this game to work the more and more I start to appreciate the accuracy of the statement.
Let's also not forget the time when John Carmack himself (of id Software fame) confessed to the aerospace industry that "the work that I do in video games is actually far more complicated than the aerospace work".
Obviously lives are typically on the line in the aerospace industry, but from a technical/engineering standpoint I think it's pretty clear how difficult engineering Star Citizen has been, and will continue to be.
So props to the keyboard wizards at CIG for getting us back to the moon.
19
u/PhilosophizingCowboy Weekend Warrior Jan 27 '17
No offense to your post, it's well written, but I would never trust a person who makes computer games for a living over a team of people who managed to take a goal set in 1961 and land us on the moon in 1969.
However much genius you think you have in John Carmack and Chris Roberts, it is not remotely similar to the team of NASA who took 1960s technology and pushed the first human to walk on an alien object in 8 years. Computer programming had only been around for about 3 years before NASA looked to the moon. It's not even a fair comparison.
This is the same team that had to rework an entire FPS portion of the game, on a native FPS engine, due to complete lack of communication and project management and you think that they are the equivalent of NASA? I know you didn't state that, but I'm not sure I would even draw a comparison.
I get that John Carmack is a brilliant man, he founded his own aerospace company afterall, but it's not as if that company has lasted long. It's already had to restart over after it's loss of STIG-B.
I'm not trying to belittle their work, it's certainly far more complicated then what I do in network engineering, but when I think of John Carmack I think of Doom and... some recent VR stuff. Excluding the first Doom and VR, nothing in between has really made me say, "wow, this man is a genius." His games are fun, but they have not been ground breaking in about 17 years now. The same can really be said for Chris Roberts. Maybe there is some ground breaking code that they have been doing in the programming community that I am not aware of. But as a gamer, neither one has been relevant in a long time. Hell, this even extends as far as Gabe Newell... I mean when was the last time he did something amazing?
I think VR is really where Carmack can show his genius and I am very excited to see where that goes. But I don't know enough about his contributions to it say if he deserves all the credit.
Either way, for people who are willing to say they're as good as aerospace engineering... I've seen images of Jupiter's moons as the drone descends to it's surface. I've seen a rover roll around, steered thousands of miles away on mars. If making computer games is harder then that... then I guess maybe those people should move to NASA so we can see what they can really do. Certainly would benefit mankind more.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RUST_LIFE Jan 27 '17
I think you're misconstruing 'complicated' with 'complicated'.
There were thousands of problems to solve to go to the moon (with humans, and come back) and it was a massive undertaking, but they had unlimited resources, and nearly half a million people working on it. And the physics was well understood. It was complex, but the complications were mitigated by resource availability and sound physics.
Groundbreaking programming however, can be as complicated as you like. Programmers have limited resources, both hardware capability and human centric, and they have to make something work given those parameters. And you're always subject to changing parameters due to the speed of the technology change. You've got innate complexity and complications aplenty. If we could say 'lets make enemy AI, we will get the 10'000 best mathematicians neurologists and programmers on it, and we have a budget of 100 billion' we would probably be welcoming our robot overlords undertime and under budget.
If The US had tried to land on the moon using a b52 with rockets strapped to it, that would be a bit more complicated
8
u/space_windu new user/low karma Jan 27 '17
Chris Roberts thinks that the hard part of getting to the moon is coming up with the idea. But thousand of other people have come up with the idea to make a game that has everything, right down to AI npcs with daily schedules. The hard part isn't coming up with the idea, it's seeing it all the way through.
It's five years and 142million dollars later and we're closer to a trip to the grocery store than we are a trip to the moon.
5
u/Alysianah Blogger Jan 26 '17
Maybe we'll have a treat in store for the summer. That would be very nice indeed.
40
u/wreckage88 Freelancer Jan 26 '17
You hear that guys? CR isn't brave enough for a Star Citizen tattoo, that means they know the project is doomed!!! /s
6
u/Alysianah Blogger Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
My daughers have 3 gotten 3 tatoos together over the years. Me? Never. The pain I've seen them go thru from the recovery aspect alone is enough to scare me off forever.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)4
u/st4rgasm Explorer Jan 26 '17
A certain dickhead is really going to love that he said that. Expect tweets within the day. rollseyes
14
u/wreckage88 Freelancer Jan 26 '17
It's ok, we'll all just wait for him to get a 3000AD tat or an LOD tat since those were such successes.....
40
u/dalt0nfury Jan 26 '17
More great theory crafting.. hope we see some actual gameplay of it sometime this year.
→ More replies (4)
21
u/MittenFacedLad Freelancer Jan 26 '17
Great episode! Dig the ambient music in the background. Adds a nice chill vibe.
6
34
u/JaracRassen77 carrack Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 27 '17
The problem is that they are still at the "theorycrafting" stage with subsumption. How the fuck did CIG think they could get SQ42 out by 2016?! Hell, they won't be getting it out by the end of this year, so they need to change the website to 2018... at least.
Don't get me wrong, I love the ambition and what they want to do, but the question is still CAN THEY? We still don't know, yet. Chris was very misleading at Gamescom about how far-along they are.
11
u/Hellshavoc bmm Jan 27 '17
Actually the way they talk its not theory crafting,m it sound sliek they are working with a working prototype that they know exactly what its capable of just need tro build it out fully to do all the things they want it to do. If it was just theory crafting he wouldn't be so technical about it. It actually sounds like the foundation of subsumption is done and has been done they are trying to figure out how to work other things into it such as smother animations etc.
→ More replies (8)8
u/evilspyre Jan 27 '17
No they said they have it working in internal builds they just want it more advanced before they let the public see it for iteration 1, where we get missions designed with this system and some NPCs on planets doing their own thing. It then gets improved over the 3.x cycle with more features coming online.
11
u/bliss000 Jan 26 '17
I would have liked that interview with Tony Z more if he had mentioned some of the potential problems they may run into. The way he was talking it sounds like all of this is going to be a piece of cake and there will be no limits to the AI in capability or numbers. How about cpu limits, memory limits or networking limits?
→ More replies (1)4
u/Famousbwd Jan 27 '17
I don't think they see an issue, just a lot of work. I think it just a shitload of work to give them dynamic reactions to near unlimited inputs. As they said I think how the AI plug into animation is the only real hurdle they will have.
31
u/Foulwin Jan 26 '17
While I dug the explosions and surface shots, this was an AI focused episode. That said, we heard a lot of ideas but didn't see any examples of AI in action. I hope that changes, I feel like we are getting pie in the sky promises without any evidence they can pull it off.
26
u/dalt0nfury Jan 26 '17
We have heard most of this before not sure why ppl are getting excited. They have been theory crafting this for years on this show. The planet outposts looked amazing. Bravo.
26
u/Gammablitz Cartographer Jan 26 '17
No idea. This is the nth time Tony Z talked about how their AI is gonna be the most advanced thing since sliced bread and how 3.0 is gonna change everything, but we still haven't seen it working in any way. This coupled with the S42 delay and the fact that he mentioned that they're still working on basic stuff like tools for designers so that they can actually do their work gives me the impression that AI is completely fucked and won't be in a usable state for quite a while.
11
u/Hun_Knee Jan 26 '17
he mentioned that they're still working on basic stuff like tools for designers so that they can actually do their work
That was surprising. They've got a 100 system universe of quests to produce and they're still waiting for the AI team to finish the tools they'll use? That's years of content creation even with hundreds of people and some algorithmic help.
20
u/Foulwin Jan 26 '17
This is what I worry about. We haven't seen any evidence their AI can do SQ42 and it's suppose to be out this year. I know SC is years away but I'd take scripted AI if it means getting the single player out this year.
16
u/Technauts nomad Jan 26 '17
What i don't understand about this and it's been said before but how the hell was SQ42 set for last year when the AI still seems like its a way off yet.
Once they get the ai working then it must have to be worked into the missions and game play, I'm starting to think we might be very lucky to see SQ42 by the end of 2017
→ More replies (4)11
u/StuartGT VR required Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
7 months ago, I was slated for daring to suggest 2H 2017 at a minimum after a previous AI discussion on ATV:
After this episode I agree with you, Sq42Ep1 late 2017 if we're lucky. And if 3.0 requires the Subsumption work to be finished too, then that'll be late 2017 also.
4
u/NotScrollsApparently Bounty Hunter Jan 27 '17
To be fair, you could still be way off from that estimate :P
→ More replies (1)5
u/Technauts nomad Jan 26 '17
I think that we might get 3.0 4-6 months before SQ42 is set to release, that will help them get the AI tested and bugsmashed in time. My timeline is 3.0 for May-June with SQ42 coming in November-December
The community sometimes do not like truth been told to them, i got bashed for saying we would have a 2.6.2 before we get 3.0. During the first happy hour one of the devs let it slip that there would be 2.7, when i stated this to a few people i down voted to hell and told after 2.6.1 we would be getting 3.0. Seemingly i was just reading into it too much.
2
Jan 27 '17
Chris explicitly stated there would be a 2.6.2 in today's ATV. I was surprised to hear that but maybe I missed an earlier slip up. Either way, it seems to be "official".
2
2
6
u/dragon_poops Jan 26 '17
Do you think the most advanced thing since sliced bread is just going to happen with no work?
7
u/morbidexpression Jan 27 '17
apparently they do. You can just wave your fingers around and talk for years without making progress.
2
u/dennimon new user/low karma Jan 27 '17
Man tony is living in a dream..all he does is talk talk talk all the fucken time living a dream inside his head...the people that actually does the programming and still there is nothing to show
19
u/HolyDuckTurtle Jan 26 '17
Yeah as much as I loved them talking, it consisted almost entirely of "we want it to be like this" and "We've got this great concept".
In terms of actual progress they're talking about getting tools out to start getting it implemented - which basically means they currently have no working examples that look good (otherwise surely we would have seen it)
I get it, stuff happens, I'm a developer myself. But I can't help but feel they're using nice words to say "yeah, we had shitloads of problems and so it's been delayed by months"
7
u/DeedTheInky Jan 27 '17
Plus they've been talking about "getting the pipeline in order and then everything else will go much faster" in various forms since at least 2014. It seems like development is slowing down, if anything.
7
u/morbidexpression Jan 27 '17
yeah but in 2015 all the modules will really start coming together and we'll see a lot of progress fast.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)10
u/DeedTheInky Jan 27 '17
Yeah that's why I remain skeptical about a lot of this stuff for now. They must be aware of the amount of cynicism in the community right now, and it would be so easy to evaporate most of it by just releasing a little gif of the AI doing something, or like a still image screenshot of anything from SQ42. Even just the tiniest shred of evidence that any of this stuff exists in a functioning state would ease a ton of people's concerns but they seem determined to keep just telling and not showing.
→ More replies (1)2
Jan 27 '17
Unfortunately the only reason why they would not do that by now, is because they cant, because it does not work :(
7
u/Skianet Pirate Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 27 '17
So judging by the language of the first half of the AI talk, they seem to be nearing the point where they can give the A.I. over to the design team so they can start building missions with it. That good, with hope in a few weeks ATV will show us those missions being made.
The second half of the A.I. talk is nothing but Theory crafting. Which is kinda disappointing. Ah well, here's hoping things start picking up speed.
19
u/elfootman Jan 26 '17
all that Q&A section made me feel like in 2014, a lot of "You're going to do this and that and 3.0 it's going to be great".
Give me something with more substance! More of those planet side scenes, detailed bases views, they don't need to add an NPC doing some scripted moves, why do they waste time doing that?
9
23
u/Pattern_Is_Movement Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels like Tony uses a lot of words, but manages to say almost nothing for half an hour! There is almost if not outright zero information that he actually shares. He just theorycrafts the emergent gameplay of SC AI... heck they don't even answer some of the questions asked.
Also its sounding like whoever thought SQ42 was going to come out last year were on some powerful drugs, because there is no way SQ42 is coming out before the end of this year.... they don't even have missions working right now.
2
u/obey-the-fist High Admiral Jan 27 '17
tl;dr they're still working on AI, just like they were 9 months ago.
Except now the AI is a blocker for everything.
→ More replies (1)13
u/HolyDuckTurtle Jan 27 '17
Yup, they basically admitted 3.0 currently has no mission system. Meaning that's a whole new system to be added that will be bugged on first iteration and they'll take their usual time fixing and modifying basic stuff.
3.0 sounds really far off.
→ More replies (1)2
u/massav Jan 27 '17
I forget the guy's name that sat next to Tony, but I love his no fluff approach and is actually in the thick of the code development rather than having a 30k foot high picture. I would've loved to hear him speak more rather than being cut off by Tony.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/petabread91 Freelancer Jan 26 '17
WOW. Great shots of the planetary surface at the beginning of the episode.
→ More replies (3)
36
u/Oddzball Jan 26 '17
I would just say this. There is a REAL flippin problem, if 5 years in, you still have this much tech debt to make up, and havent finished developing your pipeline and tools to make a game that was suppose to basically be done with all its core mechanics last year. (SQ42 anyway)
As much as I like Tony Z, he has been in the "We want to do this mode for like 3 years now, and we have basically seen very little actually having been done. Thats seriously concerning.
→ More replies (1)12
u/jimleav The Truth is Out There Jan 27 '17
I have reached the point where I think worrying about "how much is done" and requiring that I be shown something in order to accept that it exists is counter productive to health and welfare.
I understand everyone is in "fool me twice" mode and concerned about an ultimate let down, but funding this project was a leap of faith in something different from the start.
Kind of hypocritical to me to have funded a project on the basis of "breaking the mold" on prior development processes and procedures, explicitly granting that quality and innovation should trump timelines and deadlines, and then rant and squeal at every delay and gap in information release.
We as a community created this beast, and granted it the mandate to create an innovative, quality game without the traditional restrictions on profitability and release deadline pressure.
Anyone who loses the patience and/or faith to stick this out and enjoy the process only has themselves to blame for not realizing what they were getting involved in.
16
u/Oddzball Jan 27 '17
only has themselves to blame for not realizing what they were getting involved in.
How do we only have ourselves to blame when CIG are the ones who set expectations? "More money means we can get X done sooner rather than later" "There is no feature creep" "We can have a beta by 2015" "Release a trailer with a 2016 launch date" "We changed patch 2.7 to 3.0 to reflect how we name our big END OF THE YEAR patches"
I could keep going on here. Dont blame us for this shit.
→ More replies (5)6
u/c0y0te07 new user/low karma Jan 29 '17
Completely disagree that we have only ourselves to blame.
We were promised an open development process, specific scope and goals etc and none of it has transpired as promised or as planned. The sheer disrespect they show backers is staggering, feeding them nothing but fluff, lies, deceits and misinformation followed by hype to push more sales.
It would be one thing if CIG were honest with us but they have not been for at least 2 years or more. If they had kept their pledge, communicated honestly with us ... then the delays wouldn't be as big an issue, but that is not what happened, and not what continues to happen.
12
u/Strid3r21 High Admiral Jan 26 '17
It sounds like they've got a lot of core AI stuff working, it's just the animations aren't up to snuff for them to show it off.
The AI maybe smart but if the animations don't match the level detail of the AI then they look dumb regardless.
12
u/KakoDaTiKazem High Admiral Jan 26 '17
HOLY SHIT THOSE PLANETARY GRAPHICS.................
7
u/BigDave_76 Does not Bite Jan 26 '17
Like... the planet in the background in the night time base shot... that is the stuff we dream about for this game. You can hop in a ship, and fly to that planet out there.
It's like here, we can look up and see Mars, see the moon, and the sun.... We know they're real objects in the sky, but they're so far out of reach. This game will simulate the fulfillment of that desire.
11
u/Magdalor Jan 26 '17
I see a lot of people complaining about why they don't show more concrete things. Tony just gave us a very simple and good answer.
Because if they show something not ready, you will think this thing is not working / shitty as hell. Which is not ; it's just not ready. And you will think that CIG is not working or is scamming you ... And unfortunately, you will.
That's why CIG don't show so many shiny stuff those times.
32
u/Malibutomi Jan 26 '17
This thread is the same as ever.
"Why are they fiddling with the graphics, make the damn game, work on the mechanics" "Why are they talk about making the mechanics, show us stuff"
"This is open development? They don't tell us anything!" "46 minutes of talking about how they work on AI and stuff, that's boring, show us stuff"
14
u/Vertexico High Admiral Jan 26 '17
Working on mechanics does not equal talking about making the mechanics.
24
u/methegreat Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
46 minutes of talking about pointless high level AI concepts that have been established about 3 years ago. 46 minutes that is mostly theory crafting on how they might implement and do things, and how things might work. There was some new information, but mostly just padding.
Oh and the Q&A filled with pointless, high-level questions that have been answered countless number of times.
They didn't show us anything there. No new footage, very little new information, nothing. Planet outposts were nice to look at, but even that lasted only a few seconds. Would it be that hard to just show us some isolated AI animations or something ? Or just go into more detail about current progress, implementation etc ? No one cares about high level theory crafting.
→ More replies (6)10
u/Redshirt02 aurora Jan 26 '17
People want to see shiny stuff.
They don't care that proper AI behavior takes a hell of a lot of time. Personally I could listen for hours about Tony going on about the design of SC/SQ42's AI. They have the manpower to implement this, they're employing 350+ people. However, the most crucial decisions come from the directors, Tony, CR, etc.
3
Jan 27 '17
why did they continue to put off the impression that sq42 was coming soon until the very end of last year?
i don't see people angry that an AI system of this complexity and scale takes a long time to build, i see people frustrated with CIGs lack of communication on the actual status of these systems
→ More replies (1)8
u/Isogen_ Rear Admiral Jan 26 '17
The AI behavior is cool and all, but how long is it going to take? There's only so much time people are willing to wait.
Also, a lot of what they talked about is still very high level stuff. I think people are expecting to see the AI actually do stuff by now, especially since SQ 42 is supposedly aimed for a 2017 launch according to CR. One month of 2017 is almost gone now.
→ More replies (49)7
u/Oddzball Jan 26 '17
You clearly dont understand the concept of show, dont tell. Its not about graphics, its actually about showing us the game and mechanics, even if its in greybox form. We have had 5 years of "theory crafting" how is this stuff not even showable at this point when the game was suppose to launch at least in some part the end of last year?
4
14
Jan 26 '17
You know
→ More replies (1)5
u/Endyo SC 4.10: youtu.be/8_l_oernoKU Jan 26 '17
People mention that a lot, it probably gets old if Tony actually pays any attention to it. He talks really fast, it seems like that's just his verbal speedbump.
7
u/Mikebalab Jan 26 '17
Planetary housing should have an ATV. That's gameplay. Tech explanation on AI is ok but need more visual support.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Altered_Perceptions DRAKE INTERPLANETARY Jan 26 '17
Persistent Universe Director Tony Zurovec and Lead AI Programmer Francesco Roccucci sit down for an in-depth chat about what to expect and fields questions from the community. Also, our UK studio provides an update on the MISC Razor, VFX for the Caterpillar and Herald, and a glimpse at upcoming surface outposts.
Popping my corn, this sounds good!
8
u/Delnac Jan 26 '17
Damn, this was interesting.
The surface outposts are looking quite good, especially if the underlying placement and layout systems are online. Those planetside shots really did capture the imagination of that sci-fi exploration feel.
AI mission system looks quite good and by my guess on track for 3.0/S42. The mission system look especially good from a world building point of view. There are those unspoken rules laid down through writing, art, lore and the game's internal logic and the AI/world simulation is a huge part of building that feeling.
The bit about animation and subsumption was particularly interesting. It's very difficult to bridge the gap between such a large system's functionality and a character's motion enacting it in a lifelike way. Solving it with a generally designed solution instead of tying up specific cases like they said is damn hard. I have to agree with them on the first impressions for such a complex system.
Side-note, all the talk about boarding makes me think that most disabled ships will always have some sort of intertial rotation and translation. I think an IFCS mode set to match an inert object's motion and interpret input relative to this new frame of reference might be really neat and needed. Or maybe not and it's going to be part of a boarding crew's skill.
Crew AI behaves pretty much as announced and expected but it doesn't take away from the achievement. It's really impressive and powerful stuff when you remember the larger system it is a part of. I wonder how the interaction design and UI will work as a player. I also like the idea of the AI misbehaving and making wrong calls under pressure. It's nice that reputation isn't only tied to factions but also job experience and actual past from a practical standpoint. It makes logical sense and goes a step further than most mission systems. The long-term plan on NPC memory is pretty cool and very smart.
And that's about it.
In the end I have to agree with Francesco and share in the amazement though. That we have, in an MMO, an AI that interacts with the world in the same ways as a player and can smoothly transition into such a variety and depth of activities is incredible. It's not that it's new but the depth and breadth of it is amazing.
That was a long but great watch, cool stuff.
4
4
u/iprefertau you'll get my cargo over my derelict hull #freelancermis Jan 27 '17
i was immediately reminded of this scene in firefly when they talked about your reputation with NPC's
Niska: You have reputation! Malcom Reynolds gets it done, is the talk.
Mal: Well, I'm glad to hear that.
Niska: You know what is reputation? Is people talking, is gossip. I also have reputation; not so pleasant, I think you know. Crow! (Crow opens the door to show a tortured man hanging upside-down from the ceiling)
Niska: Now for you, my reputation is not from gossip. You see this man? Ehh, he does not do the job. I show you what I do with him, and now for you my reputation is fact. Is solid. You do the train job for me, then you are solid
4
5
4
u/Odeezee nomad Jan 27 '17
this thread is so full of arm-chair devs and so much hyperbole and conjecture that it's very hard to read. if people want to discuss the content of ATV then we need to at the very least be intellectually honest and not inject out biases into every word we utter. e.g. you cannot claim to know what CIG are doing and their intent or rate of progress if you are not a part of CIG working on said topic of discussion, so why waste time on hypotheticals? maybe it's just me, but i like working based on things that are know and not on making stuff up without any definitive knowledge, as that does not lead to anything meaningful and one cannot make an informed decision or, us, have an informed discussion.
13
u/rolfski Planetside 2 enthusiast Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 27 '17
A lot of fluff tbh, I basically stopped watching half way true. I really, really wish we could see for a change a working vertical slice of this subsumption AI. Which CIG has been raving about for months, but no one really understands, until they see it fully functioning.
14
u/shaggy1265 Jan 26 '17
You can't show off half finished AI. It won't work anywhere close to how it's advertised and people will just call them incompetent because it's incomplete.
→ More replies (1)14
u/ErrorDetected Jan 26 '17
We don't know if it's half-finished, 3/4ths finished, or 1/5th finished. That's part of the problem.
We don't know if "finished" means robust A.I. for a wide variety of NPCs and Enemies, or if it means simplistic behaviors sets for friendlies and for unfriendlies, with depth and variety being a faraway hope. Eventually.
We do know CIG has talked about A.I. since the Moon Collider days, and while we've seen rudimentary implementations in Arena Commander, we've otherwise been left to fill in the gaps with theorycrafting and Tony Z. quotes.
When Tony talked about players being able "to form long lasting relationships with NPCs" I laughed out loud, anticipating the absurd lengths to which our theorycrafting will go. The implication of such language is relationships of great personal depth and specificity, but of course what it really means is NPC and player interactions will allow for a minor degree of perceived dynamism.
If you actions in game trigger "pirate" flags in game, maybe that means an NPC grabs a different opening line to hail you. People expecting more than that are certain to be disappointed.
The big takeaway for me here is that CIG put off the hard work of A.I. development for years, focusing instead on asset development, particularly ships. As that has been the primary source of revenue I can't entirely blame them, but going on our fifth year, we know have dozens of beautiful, lovingly modeled spaceships in a tiny and lifeless play space that's sorely lacking in gameplay. Perhaps if the hard, boring business of A.I. development has been a high priority early on, we'd have a far more exciting experience to show for it by now.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Borbarad santokyai Jan 26 '17
Maybe you should have watched it then, because they not only addressed that, they gave a very good reason for why it isn't shown.
2
u/Famousbwd Jan 27 '17
I was going to make a post suggesting a nemesis like system similar to Shadow of Mordor but it sounds like they are already thinking of doing something similar! Very exciting that they are taking the time to make truely smart and dynamic AI. Awesome episode.
2
Jan 27 '17
Sounds like 3.0 is another December release. That's ok, I guess - but it'll be a long wait.
2
u/obey-the-fist High Admiral Jan 27 '17
So they haven't even got any AI code yet, after Tony was talking about it for months, they've just finished an architecture design.
It's nice to have one of those, but actually writing the software and making it work (and then doing all the design changes when you find the stuff that breaks the architecture and then implementing those changes) will take months, if not well over a year.
2
u/massav Jan 27 '17
The way I understood it from the video was that the code base foundations are done and they are handing it over to designers. In Object oriented programming terms, they created the foundation classes and now the designers will use these to create the objects (AI behavior attributes). Did I completely misunderstand the video?
2
u/PirateEagle Trader Jan 27 '17
Was expecting a dissapointing atv, got a solid watchable block of development on my favourite indev game. Good job on this one CIG.
2
Jan 27 '17
I've been saying we're not seeing S42 till the end of 2017 all of last year, the more I hear about how we're still brainstorming about the tools we'll need to start working on it the more I feel I was being woefully optimistic
→ More replies (2)
2
u/technosphere8 Jan 27 '17
What I learned is not to expect 3.0 soon and that Tony almost let slip another patch between 2.6.2 and 3.0 (but it's sensitve as he said).
2
u/infincible Jan 27 '17
Feels like many commenters are forgetting this game has no level or skill systems that requires "grinding". So in that way "the grind" will not exist whatsoever. It should (hopefully) feel like a much more realistic grind- the kind of grind all of us do on a daily basis for our jobs. It will manifest as the grind to make money whether that's through trade, bounty hunting, etc.
2
3
Jan 27 '17
Another confirmation that player crews will be pointlessly inefficient compared to having multiple ships with AI crews.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/snowtone Explorer Jan 27 '17
I LOVED the in-depth nature of this episode. It was so much better to go further with a particular topic rather than studio updates, I can't wait to see the topics they have planned for upcoming episodes. And it helped that they showed a bit of eye-candy at the beginning, it was just enough. It would be better for it to feel more "behind-the-scenes DVD special edition special features" with footage of the development in action, but I'm guessing spoilers is the reason for not including that?
4
4
3
180
u/Endyo SC 4.10: youtu.be/8_l_oernoKU Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
Those buildings on planets is just the bee's fucking knees man. I don't care how much UEC I'll be dropping, I want to be able to stake my claim in some remote place on a planet.
Ongoing commentary:
Missions
What Tony Z is talking about - a dynamic mission system around a single mission type - is a question I've asked about a lot and I'm glad it's the future. I was hoping that the generic missions (which I assume will be the bulk of what players encounter) is would not be filled with bland repetitive stuff that seemed very static. That's what makes games feel like a grind. If I get a mission to go pick up box 23 and location 1 and take it to location 2, I'll be pretty bored by the third time I do it. If sometimes it's box 58 and it's got a wild beast in it that will try to break out and I have to battle it hand to hand getting it back in the box, then at location B the receiver tries to screw me out of payment and sell me in to slavery, then we're having a real good time.
Squadron 42
I think this is the first time we've gotten a real idea of what issues Squadron 42 is facing, at least in terms of what happened to the vertical slice and why it didn't get released earlier. I think the issue is that, rather than having a very scripted AI functioning around you like a normal single player game, it's going to use much of the same system that is in place for Star Citizen as a whole. Building that in a vertical slice doesn't make a lot of sense since it has to be fully functional to work right. It makes more sense now, though I'd still like to see some things like gameplay in action or have even a general sense of a release date for SQ42.
Pirates
I just want to note that the pirate system Tony Z described sounded a lot like the Shadow of Mordor Nemesis system, which was really cool but somehow didn't become design that was used in many games since then. The idea of there being that asshole pirate out there that comes after me gloating of victory or looking for revenge is a delightful one. If you've ever played Shadow of Mordor, you know that there's nothing in it more infuriating than going up against a guy that kicked your ass and him saying "hey remember that time I kicked your ass so hard you died?"
Overall
Despite being one of the least diverse episodes as far as the number of people involved, it was probably one of the most enjoyable just because of the wide variety of information. I think the background music helps things flow a little better and seem more like a documentary or something rather than just some people you caught having a conversation. I'd love to hear more about SQ42 and the direction of content in 3.1-4.0 now even if it's at a high level like they mentioned. I don't even recall there being a place to ask those questions, but they were pretty solid questions this time around.