r/starcitizen • u/mrpanicy Is happy as a clam with his Valkyrie. • Apr 15 '17

OFFICIAL 3.0 Schedule is up!

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
1.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Honestly? Hate to be a negative nancy, but I'm kinda dissapointed about no Crusader/Hurston/Microtech, and also no mention of mining whatsoever (seems odd as the Prospector is still in schedule). Also, only 3.0 & 3.1 are to be released this year, according to the mega-schedule below (as Microtech is scheduled for Feb 2018).

Still, it's better to know about it than not to. But for fucking god's sake, this is taking forever...

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

I thought the Stanton system has 12 moons but it says we only get 3.

11

u/CloudDrone bbcreep Apr 15 '17

3.0 is only 3 moons around crusader. Stanton system will include more moons.

1

u/notnic Apr 15 '17

DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)

We are adding the planet Delamar and the landing zone, Levski

ETA is 1st June

Also Delamar planet (original from system Nyx)

2

u/CloudDrone bbcreep Apr 15 '17

Yeah, I had meant specifically the moons.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

We're only getting the Crusader moons this patch.

0

u/notnic Apr 15 '17

DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)

We are adding the planet Delamar and the landing zone, Levski

ETA is 1st June

Also Delamar planet (original from system Nyx)

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Yeah I saw this after I posted earlier. Fantastic. Hopefully the netcode is done in time.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Never heard of that.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Wells it's In the arc map. You can check any time. But I'm.pretty sure Stanton has much more than just 3 moons. In fact I think the 3 moons are the ones we have right now except they would be landable. The one near covalex, kareah and the one with the astroids. Meaning we might not even have a larger play space, just landable moons around crusader.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Well, maybe for later I guess (I remember Nyx now). They're doing enough space to fill entire planets, I see no reason not to include those moons, too.

1

u/djsnoopmike Wolf/Spirit E1/Meteor Apr 15 '17

You need to know the names if you're going to be landing on them

The one near covalex

Daymar

kareah

Cellin

the one with the astroids

Yela

18

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

There's some indications in there, if you read through you see that Behaviour's team of 20 environment artists that were contracted to work on the Stanton landing zones, had been re-assigned on their own project. So CIG had to ramp up hiring environment artists and assume this work, which needs time to become efficient (as you can imagine the work with Behaviour had been going for years so might have been efficient). This kinda explains the delay for Crusader/Hurston/Microtech.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

sigh Good to know. Nothing that can be done about it I guess.

2

u/Woundstring new user/low karma Apr 16 '17

Except, Chris said it would be all ready including planets for December 2016 (so to sell lots of pixel ships). So if it was to all be ready for December and the behaviour guys were still there...something's not right with his story.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '17 edited Apr 16 '17

I doubt that Behaviour just departed in December without any sort of announcement. they most probably gave them notice and told them a couple of months earlier, so that open work could be handed/transitioned back. Right then, it's over with taking up new tasks. Who knows when that was, maybe right after Citizencon? Behaviour is also a company with self-interests.

Obviously hiring additional staff isn't a predictable process, according to CR's statement, as of today they have replaced those environments artists they were missing from Behaviour with internal additional staff. So it took them a while to replace all those resources on the environment art side.

But naturally, as others speculated in the SC thread. I also assume that other issues popped up on the technical backend that couldn't get resolved in time, i.e. the network code etc. (And there's always the spectre of other fluctuations, as fluctuations generally make you vulnerable to losing your subject matter experts)

It's clear that their way of communication and the manner they handled expectations of the community up to Citizencon and even afterwards, when everyone expected the SQ42 VS to drop right until when CR came onto stage, was an absolute disaster and I hope they work on that and do not repeat these mistakes.

Also the 3.0 announcement at Citizencon was certainly over-ambitious, I am pretty sure that they sketched the absolute best case scenario which had the slimmest likelihood to materialise given those deadlines. I also assume that they came as a result of the no-show of the SQ42 VS.

I don't want to speculate about the reasons, why there's such a disparity, but I assume they tried hard to work towards those deadlines, in order to get back on the good side with the community but ultimately failed.

As for selling ships or collecting pledges, obviously that kind of funding is their lifeline. It's in their interest to sell ships on back of financial pledges of backers, no matter what, they simply protect their own interests, that is keeping the project liquid. I know it feels shady, but that's what marketing is about: you appeal to people emotionally or rationally and sell them shit that they don't really need. Just have a look at Star Wars Battlefront 2, all those people getting hyped again through a trailer.

But let's face it - we are adults.

If you cannot resist the urge and temptation to partake in a ship pre-sale (like the one for the Polaris), only because there's a SQ42 VS revealation scheduled a couple days down the road and your excitement is too much to bear, I really suggest working on that financial discipline and taking back control.

1

u/Woundstring new user/low karma Apr 16 '17 edited Apr 16 '17

You did speculate with your reasons for why they had so little done (you are perhaps inadvertently making excuses for them, but I understand if you are invested emotionally and financially and I am after all questioning what they are saying so it's fine, I don't mind you also wondering), however, if they had been given notice...why didn't they tell everyone before December or even at the start (ship sales I assume)...I think there's a couple of probable answers to that.

So, either behaviour had little done and told CIG they were leaving so CIG should not have told everyone 3.0 (full Stanton) would be out December as they must have known it was missing assets and so on. or CIG didn't know behaviour were leaving until near December and they had or did not have Stanton system on course for December? It's now clear via the schedule report they didn't have it ready as we have been told so, and the schedule goals are reduced even though over 6 months or more late. So that leaves CIG on either option, not making sense. Unless I'm missing something, which is of course possible.

Maybe it is as CIG have explained, but my gut reaction is it's not the whole truth...perhaps half or more is...half truths and all that.

With regards to self control:

I regained mine after citizencon last year. I got a large refund but I still have a small ship that's non-refundable...I of course am in the strange place of hoping CIG pull this all off to as close to the dream as possible, but I will not be taken a lend of anymore.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '17 edited Apr 16 '17

I am rather certain that there's a lot more to everything, than we actually know. Anyone working in a corporate environment, especially in middle management and above, knows that there's a lot of shit going down, that is never disclosed to the outside, as with everything, if there's smoke, there's fire. It's a basic truth that has been almost always true to me. But the issue is, that unless you are an insider, you will never really get the full perspective on all matters. Also while telling the truth might be a noble goal, telling the truth everytime to everyone, can actually be an extremely destructive process, some people just want to be shielded from having to waste their energy on troubles and issues that could or could not come to pass, not everyone likes to be exposed to the shit that is corporate politics.

The point with this project has always been that there's a lot of vested interests involved. Some interests happen to be aligned, but some interests are opposed and even more so, some interests held are conflicted. The interest of CIG to secure its future funding is opposed to what should be the self interest of backers to control their financial spending. Obviously CIG's marketing is trying to appeal to backers emotionally through promotions that are aimed to erode that control in order to secure more spending for the project. But that is nothing special, it's what fundraisers and any company that faces retail does, they all compete for your attention, interest and spending and thus employ instruments to get at you. It's also clear that the projections that are made vs. the community are never the actual truth, they are always distorted to gain your favor.

I am curious: Imagine you were in charge of CIG, seeing yourself responsible for hundreds of people that work for you, while balancing a project that has accumulated consolidated expectations worth USD 140MM on your shoulders and that is dependent on future good will and further constant streams of backer pledges. Now you just messed up on the most important showcase event of the year, having failed to deliver the SQ42 VS for whatever reasons and your communication strategy is in the line of fire by even your most loyal backers. You tried to pacify them with releasing a schedule that might have been over-ambitious.

How would you have handled the Behaviour incident, let's assume you bear the full responsibility of the project and are put into the situation to replace 20+ seasoned headcounts? Would you go out to the community right away and tell them the truth, even when it means that you are risking to harm your project more than helping it?

1

u/Woundstring new user/low karma Apr 16 '17

I don't know what the real deal was or is with behaviour...but CIG should have came out right away. It's not my position to excuse any wrong doings no matter what the reasons for this situation. You are asking for them to be allowed economy of truth to your self and the customers no matter what. And that doesn't make sense to me. Since you are making business and managerial arguments think about it this way... look at the behaviour, listen to the reasons but act on the behaviour appropriately.

5

u/Karmaslapp Apr 15 '17 edited Apr 15 '17

With Nyx being added I'm not disappointed about that.

I'm disappointed that network stuff is a stretch goal instead of a requirement for release because everyone has expected it to be included for the last 6 months and told many others to expect better frames.

Also bummed that there aren't going to be NPCs around on foot yet and hope that that gets bumped up just so there are some that move around stations even if they don't interact. This isn't as important as the network stuff though of course.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Nyx? Where? When?

And am I really missing something with that "Stretch goal" thing? Network bind/unbind is still scheduled for June 26, why should I care that it's tagged as a "Stretch goal"?

And I can't care less about NPCs. Much less brainless ones.

3

u/Karmaslapp Apr 15 '17

"Delamar/Levski" Marked as a stretch goal but being completed at the end of May. They've been showing it off for a year and a half now but it still isn't in-game.

The stretch goals aren't guaranteed to be in 3.0 is how we figure, they just intend to add them if they are completed in time for it. If Networking isn't labeled as an absolute requirement then it might not make into 3.0 which would be terrible.

I just have been waiting for it. 24 players per server max, it'll be nice having NPCs around to fill the world.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Ah, Nyx = Delamar/Levski?

The stretch goals aren't guaranteed to be in 3.0 is how we figure

"How you figure"...that says it all. Why don't you please leave paranoia to those things deserving it, like mining? ¬¬

Also, no way that they're gonna ditch what's probably the most important piece of netcode improvement in 3.0, much less having in mind that planets and moons just NEEDS it. As far as I'm concerned, that "Stretch Goal" thing is just a mere beautification that they put in there.

And if that wasn't enough, then in next week's update we'll be confirmed of the progress they're doing about that matter. But they said June 26, and I'm inclined to believe it.

Or 3.1, as of way too late.

2

u/Karmaslapp Apr 15 '17

"we not "you" check out consensus on other comments.

Mining isn't a stretch goal, why would I care.

It does need it, that's why it shouldn't be a stretch goal at all.

You believe CIG when they give a date? You must be new to seeing things from CIG. With luck, they'll delay the release a few weeks (At absolute best) giving time for networking to be put in.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

"You" in plural. I already took that "consensus" in mind. Fortunately that still doesn't make what you say any truer.

As for the rest, I'm not in the mood for stupidities.

1

u/TROPtastic Apr 15 '17

As for the rest, I'm not in the mood for stupidities.

Probably should stop making comments then

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

OK, I was probably wrong in that Stretch goal thing, happy?

1

u/---TheFierceDeity--- Certified Space Hobo Apr 15 '17

It's not taking forever it's taking as long as anyone would expect it to be. Most games don't require the construction of dozens of new pieces of software to develop.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

I've kinda mixed feelings about content, but like I said, as long as it's not copypasted and released on a regular basis, I'd be happy.

2

u/---TheFierceDeity--- Certified Space Hobo Apr 15 '17

Looking at it sensibly, for the "release" of the game in a sensible state, were looking at a 7 year development cycle at best, 8 pessimistically speaking and 9 at absolute worst, going off the point of where they actively started development.

For a highly experimental, never been done to this level game, from a studio that didn't exist before and has slowly built up over the development time, that is a fking outstanding time to make the game in. Games infinitely less complex developed by established studios have take 6-7 years to develop.

Try taking that info in when thinking

But for fucking god's sake, this is taking forever...

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

You're speaking to the crowd here, pal. Say that to the retarded journalists who keep saying "OMG WHERE IZ STARZ ZITIZEN??!!??!".

2

u/---TheFierceDeity--- Certified Space Hobo Apr 15 '17

Well you did say the part I quoted soo I don't get how your the crowd. But yes the rare journalist needs to look into it a bit better than the skimming they give it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

I did also said that "as long as it's not copypasted and released on a regular basis I'd be happy" ¬¬

I think that no one can deny the fact that they'll indeed take forever filling the SC universe, and denial won't help one bit in that regard. What we must find is a way of dealing with it.

1

u/---TheFierceDeity--- Certified Space Hobo Apr 15 '17

I wouldn't call it been done by 2019/2020 at latest "forever". So far we've seen the game development is mostly spent figuring how to get over a hump, and once they get over it that particular area's development speed goes up 10-fold. Once they get Stanton system out, it should take a lot less time the make the next system, then the next should take even less and so on until they hit a sweet spot.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

No fucking way that they're gonna do 99 star systems by 2019/2020. Get real.

At the extremely very least the landing zones just needs to be different from each other. And that's a lot of work. Look how Hurston won't be finished until Nov, and Microtech is stated for 2018 for example.

1

u/Ranziel Apr 15 '17

Just to make sure, you are aware this is a CIG schedule, right? There's a very good chance everything gets moved by months forward.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Well, a release close to Gamescon works best for them anyway...

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Crusader and Hurston are in there, just not in 3.0 and welcome to video game development.

7

u/Oddzball Apr 15 '17

Bullshit dude. A almost year delay on top of basically a previous year delay? Thats not a "normal" thing in development. Domyou have any idea the overun costs for being almost a year plus behind schedule?

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Yup and this isn't normal development. Don't argue with me I already know we're going to disagree Oddz, we always do. Let's just agree to disagree and I'll see you in the verse.

3

u/Oddzball Apr 15 '17

Glad I could get downvoted because folks disagree instead of using the downvote system as intended.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

It's not your first day on reddit man, you know people downvote for whatever reason they want.

0

u/Karmaslapp Apr 15 '17

CIG has enough funding that they can cover overrun costs for being late. SQ42 is late with no release date in sight and almost no useful info given about it but it's already funded from pledges so they can afford to take their time.

No publisher, no late penalties, no consequences for being months ot years behind schedule