Borb_1

Amazing numbers!!

Thanks for the numbers. Such large orgs might find DU's ships very fun and rewarding for carrying so many of their members? Does "Test Squadron" take interest in DU? I know I said I'd bow out earlier, but I saw the vid you linked on a youtube feed so decided to watch it: I have a problem with these "wannabe journos" who say they'll do the balance that no else wants to, then do exactly what everyone else does: 1. Much of the footage is VIDEO not GAME. 2. The narration is comfort food presentation. It's not logically organizing the game design into a whole view of what it actually is then breaking it down to dissect and discuss. The value or nutrition. 3. Little in the way of vital statistics. 4. No clear scope vs aspirational vs conceptual limitations Eg the ideas you propose above are all woolly - not your ideas but CIGs communication of them. \Edit: My dog was biting my arm off dragging me out into the rain... just back. What I'm boiling down to with the above is: SC NEEDS to provide hard information that is valid or matched successfully. What they provide is videos and advertisement that is vague. Hence imho they receive inordinate air-time, un-earnt undue discussion with respect to this. People are selling based off information that is far far from valid. I am not accusing SC/CIG of scam, fraud or p2w that is anti-advertising. But I think they won't change: The demand for funds is too high - despite receiving 200m and apparently developing since 2011. A lot of backers are putting a lot of energy into this above process: I hope it works out for them but it seems a great risk.

Probably hearing this so many times... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMngjDMZTWo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvUTlunPtN8#t=52m It is interesting to hear some numbers. It is not a lot to hear but it is enough for interest. SC there is so much said, but so little that makes sense to boomerang back to the OPs intention with this thread. On that note, I do not wish to get in the way of discussion on topic, and must bow out.

He Who Must Not Be Named ; "Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!" ; "Be Good Or The General Will Get You!" ? Perhaps someone will make a "Cities In The Sky" monument on Alioth? Le Corbusier. The Monster speaks in riddles. The foolish are devoured, the wise... respect the rules of the game: What is the connection to SC, OP?

Blowing up a ship of 50 crew will always be fun. But the scale is the real arena not the actual mechanics: A large battle might be strategically decisive on a vaster scale: Economy, territory, pollical, terror and the sanctity of peoples' cherished creations and civilizations. It's for that reason that I think PvP MUST be scaled up also - the biggest scale being it's own specialization.

A lot could be elaborated and contextualized. But to keep it short: SC is a Space Sim. Of the $200m apparently raised, well under 'less than half of that' would have produced a very solid space sim that would be playable by now. Instead probably most of that money has gone towards mere decorations on top along with the technical challenge to increase the networking... as above from a basis right at the very opposite end of MMO to that of Dual Universe or EVE Online. In the above video, Roberts mentions 1,000 players. But that is subdivided across separate instances within a star system. So distribution will be large to achieve this in the first place and by necessity. Secondly even in that given above, the density (with dynamic gameplay) will be limited to small. Now come back to Dual Universe, on the other end of the scale, with design eg multi-crew ships, let's just pluck 50 avatars and put them in 1 large ship. This immediately cuts down the client update on other clients required. The dynamic network balance system (which does not exist and never will in SC) already handles the density of those players in that spaceship. Overall if you were to then take 20 large such spaceships, you could theoretically get to that 1,000 player battle number. Further not taking into account associated battles removed in distance but related to that say "mega focal point", the number can again increase. There's even options for example to have targeted manned-turrets but you could abstract this and have players at consoles looking at screens on board doing some form of "min-game mini-map" that then if successful fires a successful shot (thus again reducing dependency on what the client needs to update with (I assume). Thus again the ship can abstract the problem along with game design to manage the networking more simply. So far so ambitious, but all for 10m euros and 2yrs to alpha to contrast. Roberts, in a recent interview, mentioned Minecraft being inspiration for Early Access. Yet, this contradicts what they were actually selling SC as back in 2012: 2yrs to release; macro-transactions and changing both the engine and scope of the game. Finally a successful EA must have a solid, core and fun MVP which is exactly what Minecraft achieved thanks to it's voxels. Star Citizen is highly uninteractive with the most impressive gameplay taking stills and pictures of the game world. And because of this: They are on an endless funding drive: Probably needing at least $300m let alone $60m ("we have enough now but more makes SC better."). Coming back to Dual Universe, from blocky voxels in Minecraft, to smoothed voxels in Landmark (but they never had networking solutions) to networking solutions and dynamic moving voxel constructs: These are as seen in the alpha 1 video a positive Early Access basis. Probably not for Alpha 1 given limited server time, but with more - definitely - seeing the player constructs. On the one hand, you can throw your money into a bottomless pit with SC, and on the other hand, your gameplay can raise grand designs to life in DU. I know which activity I would place my trust, my hope and my money into the hands of.