Star Citizen

A place for all the city-builders, world-creators, transport managers, block-arrangers and intergalactic explorers.
User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 22 Apr 2017, 18:20

bender wrote:
22 Apr 2017, 14:58

There is always going to be a fundamental latency between regions. As you put it "THERE IS NO BEATING THIS PART". There's nothing that can be done about that, except better prediction to hide it.

The servers don't wait for each other. Each server sends a multicast packet(s) to all other linked servers every tick. They synchronise their states, fixing any conflicting states due to latency (the CPU intensive part). When there are no conflicting states, there is no need to update the clients. They already have the correct information and can use client side prediction to smooth movement out.

There is no central/master server.

You could have a bunch of US and AU players just walking around, but very little recalculation will need to be done most of the time due to motion prediction (as is the case with current game server tech). Most of the time, for all players it would seem like they are playing on a local server (as they in fact are). The only time things would start to get a bit laggy is when, say, both the AU and US player started shooting each other and moving around erratically.

Where this can get a bit confusing is, for example, if all the US players started shooting each other and the AU players started shooting each other, there would be no latency issues. There are no players from different regions interacting. All players would feel like they are playing on local servers (as they in fact are).

This would mean that if you're playing star citizen with your mates, you could interact and play with each other with minimal latency. Even if you join up with a US/EU player, most of the time latency wont be an issue.
This logic is broken.

Lets say 2 players, 1 in the US, 1 in the AU on their respective region servers aim at each other, instant kill to who gets the shot off 1st, timing of said shots is exactly the same. who wins in that situation between them? cause it cannot have both, the US server would say their player killed player AUS with player AUS not getting a shot off, the AUS server says the exact opposite. So which server is considered the "master" that determines the killer. It's straight up conflicting info, the servers are going to shit themselves trying to work out what the fuck is going on going into this continuous loop looking for the correct answer.

Even in your logic where AUS players are shooting each other and only themselves, that info HAS TO BE SENT TO OTHERS if they need it; and they always will. How would they know if the guys died or not? you have to tell them you shot someone, opened the door started a mission, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SENT OTHERWISE DON'T SEND ANYTHING. Your still interacting with the other region even if you don't think you are

There has to be a "master" server to resolve these kind of conflicts, from shooting to reloading to just opening a damn door in the level, because if server A says "Ok opening the door", server B can just go "No door still closed here because to me your guy hasn't reached the door yet" and well who's correct then?

You mentioned multicast. Multicast is having a master server with the correct info so lets run with this because it also resolves the conflict in question of who shot 1st even though it's still broken in a myrad of ways. I'll call it Central from here on out.

Central server takes the data it receives from the region servers it took from the players and sends it back as correct info then those regional servers send that info to players as correct data. Lets say for sake of argument it's in the US.

So back to US vs AU player, same situation as before, in fact lets adjust it a bit, lets make the Aussie player shoot 150ms before the US player shoots, in that situation the AUS loses. why? because even though he shot 1st, that info hasn't reached the Central server yet, it takes 175ms ( FYI. this was the ping I got with my website in the US using my own hosted VPS in sydney) from AU to Central, where as the US server with a whopping low ping of 20 between it and the Central, Central confirmed the kill from the US server 1st, processed it and it already sending the data about the kill to the AUS server, any data it recieves from the AUS server about the kill is then considered "junk", error in the log would show as "player already dead when killshot confirmed lols", so even in your logic, the AU player would have a brief moment of celebration before the server was given the correct info, rolls back and goes "well I just got info from Central you died"

So 2 ways to fix this issue.
1. Remove the interaction between regions, you cannot shoot them and they cannot shoot you, get into your ship, join you on missions and whatever else, you can see them and stuff sure, but to each other, your a bunch of ghosts.
2.Lower the tickrate on the servers so it's less updated than the ping between the the AU-US. that tickrate is 5

Nobody would play a shooter with a tickrate of 5, thats not shooting, thats god damn turn base.
0 x

User avatar
bender
Posts: 105
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 18:08

Re: Star Citizen

Post by bender » 23 Apr 2017, 19:05

stingtwo wrote:
22 Apr 2017, 18:20
Lets say 2 players, 1 in the US, 1 in the AU on their respective region servers aim at each other, instant kill to who gets the shot off 1st, timing of said shots is exactly the same. who wins in that situation between them? cause it cannot have both, the US server would say their player killed player AUS with player AUS not getting a shot off, the AUS server says the exact opposite. So which server is considered the "master" that determines the killer. It's straight up conflicting info, the servers are going to shit themselves trying to work out what the fuck is going on going into this continuous loop looking for the correct answer.

Even in your logic where AUS players are shooting each other and only themselves, that info HAS TO BE SENT TO OTHERS if they need it; and they always will. How would they know if the guys died or not? you have to tell them you shot someone, opened the door started a mission, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SENT OTHERWISE DON'T SEND ANYTHING. Your still interacting with the other region even if you don't think you are

There has to be a "master" server to resolve these kind of conflicts, from shooting to reloading to just opening a damn door in the level, because if server A says "Ok opening the door", server B can just go "No door still closed here because to me your guy hasn't reached the door yet" and well who's correct then?
In a normal server setup, this scenario is resolved by whoever sends their data to the server first (lowest ping, assuming both players react simultaneously). With the mirrored server architecture, the scenario is resolved based on whoever sends their data to their local server first.

Using your scenario, I'll walk through the process for the mirrored server architecture. I'll explain how the US server resolves the scenario, then the AU server. In this example, we will ignore the latency between player clients and the servers - pretend its 0.

So the AU server sends a frame to the US server indicating the AU player shot at server time t=5. When the US server receives the frame (100ms later), it goes back in time and adds in the event of the AU player shooting. If the AU player shot after the US player (US player shot at t=2, hence AU player is dead), the US server does not need to rewrite history. If the AU player shot before the US player (US player shot at t=10), the server needs to rewrite its history. The same thing effectively happens on the AU server. State synchronisation of the servers is deterministic, so each server can calculate independently and achieve the same result.

Think of it like the servers compare their versions of history and figure out what actually happened, changing anything that doesn't match up. One of them has the correct version, they just have to figure out who it is and change the one who has it wrong. They have the same notes (because they shared with each other), so they form the same version of history.
stingtwo wrote:
22 Apr 2017, 18:20
You mentioned multicast. Multicast is having a master server with the correct info so lets run with this because it also resolves the conflict in question of who shot 1st even though it's still broken in a myrad of ways. I'll call it Central from here on out.

Central server takes the data it receives from the region servers it took from the players and sends it back as correct info then those regional servers send that info to players as correct data. Lets say for sake of argument it's in the US.
From wikipedia:
IP multicast is a technique for one-to-many and many-to-many real-time communication over an IP infrastructure in a network. It scales to a larger receiver population by requiring neither prior knowledge of a receiver's identity nor prior knowledge of the number of receivers.
...
IP multicast operation does not require an active source to know about the receivers of the group.
...
Multicast, by its very nature, is not a connection-oriented mechanism, so protocols such as TCP, which allows for retransmission of missing packets, are not appropriate.
There is no requirement for a master server for multicast. As I described above, when synchronisation is performed, each server has the same state, as the process is deterministic.
0 x
Asus P8P67|2600K @4.5GHz-EK WC|16GB DDR3|Crucial MX100 512GB|HD6970 2GB-Aquacomputer WC|MCP35X|Obsidian 800D|X-fi Titanium|AD900

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 24 Apr 2017, 03:17

bender wrote:
23 Apr 2017, 19:05

In a normal server setup, this scenario is resolved by whoever sends their data to the server first (lowest ping, assuming both players react simultaneously). With the mirrored server architecture, the scenario is resolved based on whoever sends their data to their local server first.

Using your scenario, I'll walk through the process for the mirrored server architecture. I'll explain how the US server resolves the scenario, then the AU server. In this example, we will ignore the latency between player clients and the servers - pretend its 0.

So the AU server sends a frame to the US server indicating the AU player shot at server time t=5. When the US server receives the frame (100ms later), it goes back in time and adds in the event of the AU player shooting. If the AU player shot after the US player (US player shot at t=2, hence AU player is dead), the US server does not need to rewrite history. If the AU player shot before the US player (US player shot at t=10), the server needs to rewrite its history. The same thing effectively happens on the AU server. State synchronisation of the servers is deterministic, so each server can calculate independently and achieve the same result.

Think of it like the servers compare their versions of history and figure out what actually happened, changing anything that doesn't match up. One of them has the correct version, they just have to figure out who it is and change the one who has it wrong. They have the same notes (because they shared with each other), so they form the same version of history.

From wikipedia:
IP multicast is a technique for one-to-many and many-to-many real-time communication over an IP infrastructure in a network. It scales to a larger receiver population by requiring neither prior knowledge of a receiver's identity nor prior knowledge of the number of receivers.
...
IP multicast operation does not require an active source to know about the receivers of the group.
...
Multicast, by its very nature, is not a connection-oriented mechanism, so protocols such as TCP, which allows for retransmission of missing packets, are not appropriate.


There is no requirement for a master server for multicast. As I described above, when synchronisation is performed, each server has the same state, as the process is deterministic.
Again, read what I wrote, both servers have conflicting data because in in both cases, 1 player killed the other without the dead player shooting at all, it's who killed who is the conflict, the ping was level for both players to their respective servers, everything can be on a Lan for all I care. , it's a conflict that cannot be resolved without an arbitrator, it's back to my question of "who is the master server that dictates the outcome?".

You cannot sync up servers with just frames from the server. here are a few reasons. Hardware/software can spike for a fraction of a second and make you lose a frame or 20(this is called choke). Unless you keep churning frame counters (and bandwidth) while the server is idle it throws that idea into a fire. Hell if one of the servers crash, how does it play catchup once it reboots, it can't(because as you said, no master server), so lets put an example here; AUS server crashes and takes 2 minutes to reboot, players joins it 3 minutes after that, for whatever reason he just shoots at frame=10000(which is 5 minutes into his join time) down an empty hallway, if there was a player in the US server (now at lets say 20000) at frame=10000 in said hallway, which was about 5 minutes ago for that server, does the server roll back, instantly kill him and make every player go what the fuck just happened.

The term "State synchronisation" is taking something from a master server and sending it to others and ignoring their states. It's this http://gafferongames.com/networked-phys ... onization/ So besides some wording, it's what i said previously.
0 x

User avatar
bender
Posts: 105
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 18:08

Re: Star Citizen

Post by bender » 24 Apr 2017, 15:07

stingtwo wrote:
24 Apr 2017, 03:17
... it's a conflict that cannot be resolved without an arbitrator
Yes it can. The 2 papers I link to originally go into detail exactly how it can work. I have been trying to provide a simplified overview of how, but it seems to me you are more interested in arguing your own point of view, ignoring what I say, rather than actually trying to understand.

I suggest if you want to argue your point any further, you PM me and we continue the discussion there. My original post was simply to indicate that there are some potentially major problems with SC server/network design for us aussies, and indicate there are some interesting/potential solutions to those problems. I'd rather not hijack this thread any further.
0 x
Asus P8P67|2600K @4.5GHz-EK WC|16GB DDR3|Crucial MX100 512GB|HD6970 2GB-Aquacomputer WC|MCP35X|Obsidian 800D|X-fi Titanium|AD900

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 24 Apr 2017, 15:45

On page 22 of said white papers, they mention using a uberserver,

I agree, we are debating this on dumb netcode when the company itself cannot fix what is standard client-server with former Crytek staff who wrote the original code.

Lets move onto lovely lawsuit exhibit A.
Image
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 24 Apr 2017, 16:12

The original code is shit though, let's all be honest, cry engine probably wasn't the smartest move to begin with. Anyway all one can only wait and see what eventuates...

As for lawsuits, at least it'll be pretty and pink?

Also the amount of annoyance generated by the updates to the referral program could probably power a small town.
0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 24 Apr 2017, 16:43

No idea on being pretty but Hello Kitty lawyers tend to spank people till their pink with copyright infringement often.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 24 Apr 2017, 16:53

Worth more than 5 billion a year, they can afford some decent lawyers. Crazy.

There's definitely money to be made in bringing some real world companies into the universe but I'm sure that'd cause all sorts of fan angst.

Personally I'd love some real world companies like Kawasaki or Suzuki producing some sort of sports jet bike. Not saying right now... Priorities and all that.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 23 Jun 2017, 21:50

https://youtu.be/STwVI6_xWqc?t=1561

As a motorcycle fan, i find it hard not to love this one. :shock:

Love the look of it, love the sound of it.

Game, no game, on time or not on time, that's one sexy model.
0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 26 Jun 2017, 18:39

Image
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 26 Jun 2017, 18:48

0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 26 Jun 2017, 19:03

LOL @ statement. It's not common to put the entire companies assets up as collateral for a payday loan on future tax credits.

Edit, caught up with the Somethingawful thread. better explaination
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showt ... t473762672
Since I stupidly asked to be probated just as this awesome and interesting news came out, this is a little late. And it's going to be boring and long. So skip it if you will.

There are two reasons why (generally, lets not talk about monetary arbitrage here, it's just fucking stupid to suggest such) financially health corporations take out loans: for leverage and for cash flow normalization. Allow me to explain:

First, let's imagine a company of a net worth of $20 million with no debt has a yearly net profit of $2 million. That's a really awesome rate of return! 10% of it's capital in net profit a year. Wow! If it wants to keep giving its shareholders that $2 million in profit each year, what does it need to do to expand? Well, the smart thing to do is borrow money against its assets. This is called "LEVERAGING" the company. Let's say they find a bank willing to loan $10 million with a 5% interest rate.

So after the loan, the company has $30 million in assets. Assuming it can make the extra money work as well as the initial $20 million, the company is now making a yearly net profit (not including the loan interest) of $3 million!!!! (still 10% of its capital) After paying the interest on the 5% loan, the company made $2.5 million. That's great!! The bank made money for a good investment and the company made extra net profit with a smart loan (and knowing how to allocate the capital to get the increased rate of return). A company is smart to do this.

Second, let's imagine a company that has weird collection rates on its account receivables. You are a company that everyone loves.... but only every other quarter of the year. Your revenue is as follows: $2 million in Jan-Mar, $10 million in Apr-Jun, $2 million in Jul-Sep, $10 million in Oct-Dec. But you have $5 million of expenses every quarter. Taken at years end, you would make $4 million ($24 million in yearly revenue minus $20 million in yearly expenses). But... because you don't receive the bulk of your revenue until certain quarters, you would run out of money to keep your business open until the good times. So what do you do? You get a revolving loan for $5 million! You are behind and lose money some quarters when expenses outweigh revenues, and make it back when the revenues far outweigh the expenses (plus loan expenses). Win-win for you and the bank! Awesome.

So... what is the loan that CIG has taken out? Is it in group (1) or group (2)? It is in group (2), but in a really bad way. As mentioned by other commentators previously, this is not an ordinary corporate loan, but a PAYDAY LOAN. CIG must be hard-up for liquidity. What they have done does not fall into group (1) mentioned above, instead, it is the worst type of no. (2) above.

CIG is borrowing money against future tax credits. And paying extra money (interest) for the privilege. The only reason a company would do that is if it could not wait for the tax credit because it didn't have enough cash to make to to get to earning that next tax credit. This is similar to the company that is seeking to "smooth out" its revenue stream (no. (2) above). But in the case of the normal company seeking to "smooth out" its income, it has "A REGULAR AND EXPECTED SOURCE OF INCOME." CIG does not have this. CIG is looking to move future income (tax credits) into the present. Why is this bad? Because the tax credits are not ordinarily used as INCOME STREAMS! When a company is reduced to borrowing against tax credits, it is at the end of its life. Tax credits are not something a healthy company bases its income on. CIG is treading water and about to lose muscle control. This is bad, folks. This is the end. CIG, absent a miracle, won't be here next time next year.

Get out now, assholes. Run if you can.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 26 Jun 2017, 20:36

Interesting read. Generally speaking, not sure I can think of SA posters as honest or accurate. Would love to read an actual neutral opinion on what they're doing. That's never going to happen though as we never get a full picture and what company ever paints that. None.

I also wonder if brexit is causing them currency conversion fun times, I'm assuming most of their income isn't in pounds.

I do find it hard to believe that particular bank would loan something on shaky grounds but I'm not exactly an expert on the British banking sector either.

Edit: auto correct failure [exit/expert] :)
Last edited by boars on 26 Jun 2017, 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 26 Jun 2017, 23:21

Don't know how you can get a non honest opinion of a somethingawful(or anywhere else) post for explaining what that CIG did and why despite the fact that they have said numerous times have ample of cash, is bad idea. they put the company into a banks hands for exactly the reasons Ortwin said they did. IF anyone is being dishonest, it's Ortwin. He may of mentioned he "teamed up" with Coutts, but the filings say otherwise https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

If you want, i can link to other places more "neutral" like the frontier forums or a non star citizen subreddit thats talking about why this little ember has become a forest fire.
boars wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 20:36
I do find it hard to believe that particular bank would loan something on shaky grounds but I'm not exactly an exit on the British banking sector either.
No different to putting up your house to get a loan, only that bank wants the house, everything in the house, future earnings.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 26 Jun 2017, 23:39

Goons by and large took their marbles home when it was said that SC was going to be 90% AI driven and you'd be unable to gatecamp. AKA it wasn't EVE FPS. Ever since they've mostly been declaring SC is dead or not going to work, for 2 years - I'm kind of a bit sceptical of anything that comes out of there.

It's also hard to tell if they're stirring DS up, drinking the cool aid or alternating between the two. I haven't got time to read their huge threads to work out who is and isn't a troll. I'm sure there's more than a few legit users amongst them but by and large I only ever notice the trolls.

The ED SC thread is full of trolls and the like... not sure I see that as impartial either.
stingtwo wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 23:21
boars wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 20:36
I do find it hard to believe that particular bank would loan something on shaky grounds but I'm not exactly an exit on the British banking sector either.
No different to putting up your house to get a loan, only that bank wants the house, everything in the house, future earnings.
Yeah, except the narrative that comes out of some of these fields seems to change every time the wind blows.

One minute, it's a scam,it cannot be done. The next minute, oh you can build seamless planet landings in a weekend, anyone can do that.

The funding chart isn't real, they haven't made that much money.
Then they work out how many staff there are and guesstimate how much money they're consuming and then base how much money they have left... by using the funding chart.

There's no star marine, it doesn't exist, it won't be in the next patch.
Oh they just implemented something anyone can do to prove me wrong.

The games been going to be dead for over 2 years, any day now.

There's mass staff exodus underway, soon, probably, definitely one next week.

So there's no S42, what's the loan based on?
Cannot be they have any liquid assets because they supposedly have no money.
Cannot be on S42 because that doesn't exist.
Maybe the offices, oh no, cannot be that, they're rented.
Uh, I guess the 220+ computers they have are enough to pay off the debt if it all goes bad?

I don't know, the little dealings I've had with banks you have to have two things:
Some sort of asset that the bank can take control of, as you say, like a house so that they can bail out without losing.
An actual income that will allow you to pay back what you borrow.

If they have no assets, no money and not enough income, I find it a risky proposition for a bank... and one they just wouldn't touch.
I have more faith* in a large multinational bank than some random person on the internet, especially considering they'll have access to actual facts around the solvency of the business.
No one on any of the forums, even an impartial one, that I'd trust implicitly is going to have access to that data so ultimately we're left at best guessing.

*Obviously not every banking decision has ended well... but they (bank in question) have a better track record than someone who said something on the internet.

@The discourse has been amusing as hell though - micro meltdowns by certain individuals, glorious. *popcorn*

Edit: Also looking at the latest fictional graphs of the funding chart, I'm struggling to find where everything is failing: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1694467207
Nox has currently sold ~1 million USD worth
If you were having financial issues, surely you'd also lay off on the hiring?
0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 27 Jun 2017, 03:11

boars wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 23:39
Goons by and large took their marbles home when it was said that SC was going to be 90% AI driven and you'd be unable to gatecamp. AKA it wasn't EVE FPS. Ever since they've mostly been declaring SC is dead or not going to work, for 2 years - I'm kind of a bit sceptical of anything that comes out of there.

It's also hard to tell if they're stirring DS up, drinking the cool aid or alternating between the two. I haven't got time to read their huge threads to work out who is and isn't a troll. I'm sure there's more than a few legit users amongst them but by and large I only ever notice the trolls.

The ED SC thread is full of trolls and the like... not sure I see that as impartial either.
Are trolls to you critics of the game. The Frontier forums are probably the most balanced, it's probably the most balanced of most forums that have both pro and anti star citizen fans talking. it would be even more balanced if most of the pro-citizens didn't hurl personal insults and call everyone Derek Smart mouthpieces** when the debate doesn't go in favor of the game they have spent hundreds of dollars on, run off to the starcitizen or dereksmart subreddits and cry about the moderators being in Derek's back pocket(or sucking his gentials) because Derek Smart happens to occasionally post in it. Or is that exactly the reason it's a troll forum?

The SA forums, yeah it's on megathread #9 of starcitizen or #5 of the mocking of it, 90% of the posters had/have money in it, including me. We were sold on doable ideas. SA didn't take their marbles home because Star Citizen wasn't EVE FPS. We took up mocking this game because everything they say and show is lies, time and time again. For the record, more than most have said in that very thread if they game turns out the way it was promised, we would buy back in. We do like playing good games.

Yeah we rile up Derek Smart for lols, he says a lot of stuff, tries to push his Line of Defense game into the discussion, He has been right more often than wrong, he's getting his info from somewhere in the company.

Also LOL at this game being AI driven when there is zero AI in the game.
boars wrote:
26 Jun 2017, 23:39
Yeah, except the narrative that comes out of some of these fields seems to change every time the wind blows.

One minute, it's a scam,it cannot be done. The next minute, oh you can build seamless planet landings in a weekend, anyone can do that.

The funding chart isn't real, they haven't made that much money.
Then they work out how many staff there are and guesstimate how much money they're consuming and then base how much money they have left... by using the funding chart.

There's no star marine, it doesn't exist, it won't be in the next patch.
Oh they just implemented something anyone can do to prove me wrong.

The games been going to be dead for over 2 years, any day now.

There's mass staff exodus underway, soon, probably, definitely one next week.

So there's no S42, what's the loan based on?
Cannot be they have any liquid assets because they supposedly have no money.
Cannot be on S42 because that doesn't exist.
Maybe the offices, oh no, cannot be that, they're rented.
Uh, I guess the 220+ computers they have are enough to pay off the debt if it all goes bad?

I don't know, the little dealings I've had with banks you have to have two things:
Some sort of asset that the bank can take control of, as you say, like a house so that they can bail out without losing.
An actual income that will allow you to pay back what you borrow.

If they have no assets, no money and not enough income, I find it a risky proposition for a bank... and one they just wouldn't touch.
I have more faith* in a large multinational bank than some random person on the internet, especially considering they'll have access to actual facts around the solvency of the business.
No one on any of the forums, even an impartial one, that I'd trust implicitly is going to have access to that data so ultimately we're left at best guessing.

*Obviously not every banking decision has ended well... but they (bank in question) have a better track record than someone who said something on the internet.

@The discourse has been amusing as hell though - micro meltdowns by certain individuals, glorious. *popcorn*

Edit: Also looking at the latest fictional graphs of the funding chart, I'm struggling to find where everything is failing: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1694467207
Nox has currently sold ~1 million USD worth
If you were having financial issues, surely you'd also lay off on the hiring?
They constantly prove they can't do shit. Look at the patcher, 3 years now, still not fixed, bet you a $10 steam game it's still the same broken open as many ports as possible fuckass patcher when 3.0 arrives(anyone else want to take the bet is more than welcome)

Hooray, they sold a concept ship that made a million supposed dollars, hows the planets, the netcode fixes...the million and one other things that 3.0 was supposed to have or are we moving the goalposts to 4.0 now?

Heres the amazing thing about hiring people in times when you shouldn't, for companies like CIG, they won't do it, like ever. two reasons
1. Chris Roberts has to appear successful in every way, even layoffs show the company is in trouble, he'll hire people right upto the moment the padlocks are placed on the office doors. There are so many god damn instances of this it would be naive to think this cannot happen at some point.

2. Just because they are listing jobs, doesn't mean they are actually hiring. People have noticed the exact same jobs have been listed for months, programmers being a common one being listed all the time.

**you have done this
0 x

User avatar
Otto-matic Reiffel
Posts: 539
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 23:23

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Otto-matic Reiffel » 27 Jun 2017, 10:44

stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
Also LOL at this game being AI driven when there is zero AI in the game.
Not particularly interested in the rest of the rants from both sides, but how do you figure this one? There is AI in the game, it's been there since the first release of the dogfighting module however many years ago that was.
0 x

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 27 Jun 2017, 16:23

I did sorta forget that there is some in the aegis module, but it's not particularly good or engaging AI. It doesn't actively chase you, avoid your fire, it follows a set path, if you happen to be in it's path/cone of vision, it will fire at you till your not, then just continues onto it's path. It's a bare basic AI that would rival early 2000 era shooters, only with 6 degrees of movement.

To say a positive; something to show backers early in development, it showed they could do something in a test environment, "hey heres some NPC's to try out",

That was 3+ years ago, the only true update it got was removing the water line in cry engine because people started to notice water hitting their visors, it hasn't been updated since the PU was released. AI is nowhere else in the game.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 27 Jun 2017, 16:27

stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 16:23
AI is nowhere else in the game.
Will reply to the other post later when I have time but...

AI is in the PU so that statement is false.
Not that it's good AI ... But it's there in the missions and "random" encounters (read boring event triggered AI spawning in)
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 27 Jun 2017, 20:48

stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
Are trolls to you critics of the game. The Frontier forums are probably the most balanced, it's probably the most balanced of most forums that have both pro and anti star citizen fans talking. it would be even more balanced if most of the pro-citizens didn't hurl personal insults and call everyone Derek Smart mouthpieces** when the debate doesn't go in favor of the game they have spent hundreds of dollars on, run off to the starcitizen or dereksmart subreddits and cry about the moderators being in Derek's back pocket(or sucking his gentials) because Derek Smart happens to occasionally post in it. Or is that exactly the reason it's a troll forum?

The SA forums, yeah it's on megathread #9 of starcitizen or #5 of the mocking of it, 90% of the posters had/have money in it, including me. We were sold on doable ideas. SA didn't take their marbles home because Star Citizen wasn't EVE FPS. We took up mocking this game because everything they say and show is lies, time and time again. For the record, more than most have said in that very thread if they game turns out the way it was promised, we would buy back in. We do like playing good games.

Yeah we rile up Derek Smart for lols, he says a lot of stuff, tries to push his Line of Defense game into the discussion, He has been right more often than wrong, he's getting his info from somewhere in the company.
It's quite possible that the Frontier forums are on the whole mostly balanced but I haven't read them religiously. There's been what? Over 6 threads deep, each more than 10,000 posts within. I've probably only been directed over that way when DS has been sprouting his often entertaining monologues of pure popcorn (or other interesting characters).

Just picked the most recent page and it looks like the moderators have their work cut out:
Thread will be temporarily closed while the off topic content is removed.
6 pages worth of replies "moderated" in one go... haha
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthrea ... ost5657771

Maybe all I've seen is the drama in the Frontier forums and I've missed the legitimate discussions... or maybe I've just seen content pre-moderation. I don't hang out long enough to really see, my opinion is possibly coloured by that. *shrug*

I'll get concerned when big media starts reporting on things, not just the little guys with their click bait articles, some which have already been retracted in the last couple of days.

Have to say the SC dev Vs Derek posts were always interesting to read.
Tier 1 Network engineer (I think that means twitter user) vs someone who actually seems to work in the industry.

Anyway its sometimes hard to distinguish between someone hating for the lols and someone with legitimate grievances. Having said that, don't like it, get a refund and play something else, why stick around for years afterwards flinging shit? (not pointing fingers at you in this before you think I'm having a go at you personally).

For the record I don't run off and cry on /r/ds, I've never posted there. I admit I've trawled it occasionally looking to read some drama but in all honesty it's just an old man shouting at the clouds these days, it's pretty sad.

It's pretty clear we're not going to see eye to eye on the DS issue if you think most of what he says is true, I cannot fathom how you could reconcile that point of view.

He was so adamant that Star Marine wasn't being tested by Avacados, his inside source must be pretty good.

Oh and if you got refunded, according to ToS you're not allowed to buy back in IIRC.
stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
Also LOL at this game being AI driven when there is zero AI in the game.
The intent, not the reality... but let's be honest let's assume the most critical people are correct and the multiplayer is impossible to get any more than 20 people into an instance/region/whatever. It's going to *require* AI in large numbers to even make the game semi-populated. The reality is it's just not possible to do FPS to the scale of Eve, time dilation and the likes just wouldn't work with FPS. These dynamic server mesh multiplayer setups or whatever you call them are also completely unproven and are likely not to get too far ahead of what's already out there. AI has to be a big part of the PU, it's ridiculously inadequate at present, it's there but it's in such a basic form right now that there's nothing to talk about.
stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
They constantly prove they can't do shit. Look at the patcher, 3 years now, still not fixed, bet you a $10 steam game it's still the same broken open as many ports as possible fuckass patcher when 3.0 arrives(anyone else want to take the bet is more than welcome)
Completely agree with the patcher, quite an oddball that one - supposedly been internally testing that one for a while but thbat means sfa in the grand scheme of things until it's in our hands.
stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
Hooray, they sold a concept ship that made a million supposed dollars, hows the planets, the netcode fixes...the million and one other things that 3.0 was supposed to have or are we moving the goalposts to 4.0 now?
Only reason I mention the fact they just made a cool million by developing a tiny ship with SFA work compared to their bigger endeavours is to highlight that they're not exactly having money issues, which is what this current drama is about.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1694467207

If this graph is remotely true then I cannot see where the issues lay. Unless you say it's fabricated, in which case there's no point even debating any issues around money or using it to calculate that they're out of money. Cannot have it both ways. Not talking about you in particular, just the debate raging at present as some people like to use it for purposes to say they're burning money faster then they're making it and then also saying the figures aren't correct. How can you work out when a burn rate will result in bankruptcy using nothing but incorrect data? Ask this question you get attacked and told to read it again slowly. ;)

stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
Heres the amazing thing about hiring people in times when you shouldn't, for companies like CIG, they won't do it, like ever. two reasons
1. Chris Roberts has to appear successful in every way, even layoffs show the company is in trouble, he'll hire people right upto the moment the padlocks are placed on the office doors. There are so many god damn instances of this it would be naive to think this cannot happen at some point.

2. Just because they are listing jobs, doesn't mean they are actually hiring. People have noticed the exact same jobs have been listed for months, programmers being a common one being listed all the time.
I think you stuffed up your first sentence, but I get what you're trying to say... because otherwise you're saying they wont hire to protect his ego? That sounds like a frugal ego :D and I'm pretty sure that's not your point. :lol:

You say they aren't hiring, then you say they are but they shouldn't be.
I mean, which is it? Just trying to work out which you believe.

As an aside, a community video maker just got hired as a junior I believe, according to him at least.

Just because jobs are listed a lot, doesn't mean the right applicant has applied, or that you don't have natural (or drama related) attrition. We're frequently hiring at work and we use the same boilerplate application template for many of the roles. *** We're by no means anywhere near as large as CIG nor as specialised and we frequently fail to find any decent applicants.

Cannot comment about Chris Roberts craziness and if he's Ion Storm levels of crazy with money but I'm of the belief he had considerable finances going in. That's something neither of us are going to actually be able to know or prove though.
Maybe he's got gold toilet seats and he's going to take the company down with everyone on deck... fail of a way to scam money though.
stingtwo wrote:
27 Jun 2017, 03:11
**you have done this
I accuse one person of "channelling" a bit of DS and that means I think every critic is a DS mouth piece. I might add that I apologised a post or so later - pretty sure I got him confused with another user but I'm unable to go back to GoN forums to check.

*** We're much bigger than CIG holistically but the area I'm responsible for is much smaller.
**** I think I enjoy drama too much >_> and enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing... nothing contained here is personal :P Cheers :mrgreen:
0 x

User avatar
DarkMellie
Posts: 1441
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 22:36
Location: GoNer

Re: Star Citizen

Post by DarkMellie » 02 Jul 2017, 13:13

Wow, lots of conversation happening in here.

The idea that a game that raised as much money as this is looking for an advance on tax concessions is an indicator of severe financial ill-health. Am I right in saying I've heard they had to scrap a bunch of already recorded actor-based stuff for S42 due to a move to a new engine? If that's true, the level of poor-planning that indicates shows some serious gaps in the process. Measure twice, cut once doesn't even cut it. Given the scale of what they wanted to achieve, the money brought in off Kickstarter was never going to be enough... unless they invested more time into planning than they did coding. I work for a bank and am heavily involved in project governance and steering which is exactly what SC would need so I'm boggled as to how this has all come about.

I only ever bought into SC so I could feel enfranchised to have an opinion when it failed... as it always looked to me to be a poorly managed project with benchmark goal after benchmark goal... every change is a risk, and each of those risks can become an issue... looks like they're sitting on a mountain of issues. But now I don't want them to fail.. I want the game they intended to make and not Squadron 42 but the open universe.

All quite sad really.
0 x
Image

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 02 Jul 2017, 13:35

DarkMellie wrote:
02 Jul 2017, 13:13
Wow, lots of conversation happening in here.
Like it or hate it, it's controversial and would suffer from tall poppy syndrome even if it was mostly on track ;)
Don't get me wrong, it's got issues... :lol: just like ~70% of IT projects that "fail" (level and depth of failure varying)
DarkMellie wrote:
02 Jul 2017, 13:13
The idea that a game that raised as much money as this is looking for an advance on tax concessions is an indicator of severe financial ill-health.
*supposedly* hedging against brexit currency waves... supposedly.
If they're still here in 12 months... maybe that wasn't a dire sign or maybe they dodged a bullet.
DarkMellie wrote:
02 Jul 2017, 13:13
Am I right in saying I've heard they had to scrap a bunch of already recorded actor-based stuff for S42 due to a move to a new engine? If that's true, the level of poor-planning that indicates shows some serious gaps in the process. Measure twice, cut once doesn't even cut it.
You've never heard that from official sources... so really? Did you know SC is built with unicorn tears?
The only official things around that, that I'm aware of is some of their mocap required touch ups as it is ok for cinematic-like cutscenes but blending various animations together is a bit trickier if an NPC reacts to a player and such.

They didn't switch to a new game engine, they switched to pulling things from Amazons fork of Cry Engine (CE), known as Lumber Yard. SC (or Star Engine) is already a fork of CE. They're already off the reservation in terms of sticking to core CE. Pulling components from EITHER CE or LY requires them to do integration work with SC. I'd imagine Amazon are spending more money on developing LY than Crytek can afford to with CE... the fact that SC also has a large number of CE developers in their staff would make these integrations somewhat easier regardless of where they are pulling them from.

It's not like they went from SC/CE - > Unreal Engine or something. That kind of engine migration this late in the game would be a critical disaster. IF this were the case, more people would be up in arms about this one. Mostly this topic is trolling imho. Which I believe originated in the usual place, where said developer is/was considering moving his game from a Havok based engine (with bits of middle-ware bolted on) to Unreal Engine. Which WOULD be going backwards aside from unreal being a better engine. Most of the development wouldn't be portable in such a migration.
DarkMellie wrote:
02 Jul 2017, 13:13
Given the scale of what they wanted to achieve, the money brought in off Kickstarter was never going to be enough... unless they invested more time into planning than they did coding. I work for a bank and am heavily involved in project governance and steering which is exactly what SC would need so I'm boggled as to how this has all come about.

I only ever bought into SC so I could feel enfranchised to have an opinion when it failed... as it always looked to me to be a poorly managed project with benchmark goal after benchmark goal... every change is a risk, and each of those risks can become an issue... looks like they're sitting on a mountain of issues. But now I don't want them to fail.. I want the game they intended to make and not Squadron 42 but the open universe.

All quite sad really.
You bought into the game so you could be justified in winging about it? :shock:
That hasn't stopped the rest of the internet - haha.

I'm not sure I'm reading the above correctly or if you just didn't put it across correctly but you're saying you want them to build the game they intended (SC)? The actual kick-starter was for Squadron 42 not SC. You're wanting them to complete a stretch goal, which according to most people is the issue (too many stretch goals, just complete the originally intended game).

What they originally wanted to achieve was a single player campaign, without any of this extra guff like a persistent universe/sudo mmo. The original intent was also to get several million in crowd funding, prove to traditional investors that there was enough interest in a space game as the genre looked fairly dead at the time compared to the heyday. Except the funding never stopped... and they could go it alone. They did have a vote early on whether to continue to expand the scope or not. Sadly for some, the overwhelming response was bigger, more, bigger, more... and here we are.

If they'd complete S42 they'd probably rake in a pile of money and that might silence some of their actual critics... probably not but eh.

Their eyes have certainly been bigger than their stomach but it's fascinating to watch.
Personally I love 3d modelling and spaceships, the level of fidelity on the ships is great to look at.
Been amazing to watch them go from the initial hornet, to version 2, to version 3 and now to version 4? (I've honestly lost track on the number now).

-----

This reminds me, the latest community angst is that they're implementing engine trails, similar to a lot of other space games. Think Home World if you will. If you go waaaay back to the original Kick Starter video/demo they're there in the footage. It's not something new but people forget, it's been a while. ;) Chris seems to love them for gameplay reasons. I love them in Home World, not sure about here but I'll sit on the fence on this one till I see a final (or an actual) implementation in something playable.
0 x

User avatar
brimlad
Posts: 900
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:56
Location: Canberra

Re: Star Citizen

Post by brimlad » 02 Jul 2017, 15:49

I bought the Nox the AOPOA NOX LTI :D
0 x
Image

User avatar
stingtwo
Posts: 100
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:47

Re: Star Citizen

Post by stingtwo » 02 Jul 2017, 21:56

Star citizen from the kickstarter was both a single and multiplayer game from day 1, says so https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen, changing the name of something of it doesn't remove the obligations to what backers are owed.

Roberts is not some naive kid who pitched an mmo wanting half a million dollars on kickstarter, the dude worked at Origin, pretty much the 90's DICE or Infinity Ward. He mentioned in the early days he could do SC on $20M, $75M to get all the stretch goals done, he's raised 7 times the initial $20M since and is still failing to make the game.

The onus falls directly on CIG for asking if players wanted to increase scope of the game, all of it, they did this, this wasn't a bunch of players asking if this or that could be added into the game in tiny increments later on, CIG took a poll that few actually voted in, came up wanting more and then they never said no to a feature of any kind since no matter how dumb is request is. Want drink serving mini-game to serve the crew while flying somewhere; done, want to go to a bar, shoot 8-ball and chat to some female NPC, get one pregnant start a family and take a job as laser gun maker to pay child support till someone asks you to become a gunner in his ship, basically be Second Life in space; done. Not a single thing was rejected, there was no episode where this occured
Chris "this is fucking stupid, why do you want to become a farmer collecting carrots and hunting squirrels, more importantly, why would there be a tiny rodents in the biodome, why don't you want to be a Han Solo type character shooting people and looting junkyard ships." It was pretty much always "yeah we're spending $10,000 on mocapping a squirrel, to mocap one, we have hired a world renouned park ranger 1st teach it not to eat the rubber balls on the suit"
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 02 Jul 2017, 22:24

Well shit, looks like my memory of 2012 is pretty rat shit. 3rd Stretch goal was the first expansion of already existing Universe goal, my bad. 40 Systems... haha, that seems a long way off and it's only the third :\ Clearly not in order of appearance.

Don't disagree that the onus is on CIG but do feel there's a large number of the player base that don't really care how long it takes and are happily just sitting about while it continues on. 88% or so of the 20,000+ voters agreed with the feature creep. Be interesting to see if that high a percentage would be similar across the entire player base. Probably not, as the whales/crazies are definitely more involved and no doubt a higher percent of those voted. Their is a limit to even their patience though, I'm sure there'd be a few people changing their mind haha.

Pretty sure those features you've just rattled off are not planned - mocapping a squirrel sounds amusing though. For instance there's literally no player crafting, all crafting will supposedly be NPC driven (INTENDED not actual as things just magically reappear at present). Someone could probably implement playing pool in an afernoon though, a drinking mini game was talked about but don't recall it being on the cards for release, seemed an off the cuff comment of something that could be.

There's literally bugger all info on what or how anything works. That's the bigger problem in my mind. We've got multi-years old rough ideas and no actualisation of them... or updates. Also random off the cuff comments from Chris about things that would be cool... blugh.

I feel like we'll have this conversation next year....... the money hasn't stopped flowing... and progress is slow.
0 x

Post Reply