******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******

PaulC2K said:
@Jaws

Okay, fair enough.

Im not a betting person, but I wouldnt bet on CIG using funding to try and sell more copies (i feel they'd rather spend say $5m on future development, directly on the game itself and peoples wages, than giving that money away in exchange for promotion) but i dont know and cant honestly say one way or another. They've got as far as they've got without needing to use funds to sell the game, they've used them to make a better game and let that sell itself, and by being open and honest where its been advantageous - and in some cases when its not, bugsmashers and live demonstrations arent optimal ways to show your work, but it embraces that open spirit and often that 'sells' the project too.
These days, free press (social media :o) can get you a long way, short of TV spots and in-store promotions (neither which fit PC-exclusive title these days) im not sure theres much point trying to reach much wider than they can get naturally, by paying for advertising. Things like the AMD promotions might work, which dont really cost them money (possibly potential sales lost?), but not banner ads and off-site promotional stuff to reach new audiences.

I just find it a weird rational, or perhaps just a weird way of putting it, that marketing is what will make SC better than another game. I could list half a dozen things i'd put ahead of that which has more of an impact with a gaming audience, and maybe the vast amount of direct communication CIG has with the community and what in turn filters out in the gaming community, is generating a constant reminder and hitting a wider audience, i still dont see it as a determining factor in its success. I see it as a huge factor in its funding and free advertising/marketing, and would allow them the possibility of never needing to go down the route of paid advertising to succeed (even if it may be more financially rewarding), but the success of the end product wont come down to marketing by any stretch - if it does, then IMO it wont be the game we've been hoping for, and given the effort already and what we're seeing, it'll be ruined potential.

I'd accept self-promotion (maybe a more appropriate term for what you're referring to? i guess its no better either) has certainly been a huge part of SCs success funding it to get it where it is, but its success will only be judged by the end product.

I think whats grating at me is im reading 'A is better than B because of marketing' as being somewhat undermining of what i see SC achieving, and being honest, not really seeing ED as a threat even if they do all the things SC does, just because it all appears to be happening on lesser scale (visually, complexity, budget, storytelling etc).
CIG are trying to build a heavyweight, Frontier i feel are being more sensible and going middleweight, if both do a decent job then it really shouldnt be much of a contest going blow for blow, but if CIG's offering cant tie its own shoelaces then it'll KO itself. CIG just need to avoid KO'ing themselves, and marketing wont be the reason it wins.




For real? :eek: It feels too trolly to be real, and yet so very plausible by SC community standards to be certain :D Congrats & thx if you're being legit, and if you're not, then :p
Click to expand...

No I did buy it twice, but I only own one Polaris.

If you know what I mean.
 
BaDBoY_uK said:
I wrote a long message about fairness, mismanagement, poor choices, fan boys... then deleted it. Because fan boys are fan boys... and OMG if you want a laugh, try saying some constructive in the Reddit SC subforum. Jesus... it's like you just insulted their mothers.

Good video Speed. Enjoyed it. The sad thing is it kinda made me wanna buy them
Click to expand...

It's a very strange subreddit, I get down voted just for posting the odd video then I'll post something that's taken zero effort and get gold. It's almost as if they flip a coin when voting, some say it's bots but I guarantee it's not, there is just a very strong herd voting mentality.. If you start heading down, it'll only get worse, if you get a few early up votes, you're sorted.
 
Last edited:
Despite owning a Polaris the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Capital class ship with very little capital about it, not even shields which it apparently relies on.. It's very fast but apparently vulnerable to torpedoes which we know are slower than missiles and just as easy to use counter measures on, it also has less utility than a Carrick despite having far greater internal space even excluding the hangar.

Either they've not explained it well it's rule hasn't been fleshed out. Right now all you get is capital running costs for a beefed up retaliator.
 
Sega Mega Dave said:
Events are advertising, show floors are advertising, magazine articles are advertising.

Paul I know you're at the complete end of most people and won't have a bad word said about the whole project but to say they don't advertise?

It's exactly what Citcon is knowing every major gaming game site will have articles on it, yes they want to show new stuff and update people but it's as much about getting exposure as anything else. They don't just want to rely on old backers regularly chucking their credit card at the game, they want new blood.
Click to expand...

No, we're just having different interpretations of what we'd consider advertising, and i made that very clear, both in that post you quoted ("$128m and not a penny spent on advertising it, just events and communication.") and since. So if you're going to work on a different interpretation of what you call advertising, then dont completely ignore the context i give to explain my interpretation when telling me im wrong.

I've said plenty against the project, where it deserves it. Just a few days ago I highlighted the 20% off Polaris for cash only, only offered to concierge, subscribers and CitCon attenders, and access to the ship info without letting everyone see it. Hiding information, cash-grab offers, and disrespecting what people have already pledged and rejecting credit - that goes against what they claim, and all that information went public shortly after, of course it was, but CIG still chose to hide it. I've been critical of the $175/$195 Starfarer going to $300, but mainly the Gemini being sold at its current spec for $240 on multiple occasions before being bumped to $340 and 'because it got bigger' being used as an excuse. Same thing with the $50 Reliant going to $65 (30% increase) with absolutely nothing changing to spec, size... nothing except it being flyable. None of those things impacted me in the slightest, but the arguments CIG have given arent justifiable or they've only acted on them selectively.

What i dont agree with is people acting like toddlers & spoilt brats who dont get their own way when things dont go to plan, ignoring rational reasoning and making irrational suggestions because you're acting on emotion and not on practicality and whats best for the project.

Theres so many factors people ignorantly gloss over, drawing comparisons to other projects in completely unfair circumstances, and then using them to infer mismanagement or irresponsibility etc. Whether its their view that games take about 2yrs to make cos thats when they find out about them, comparing progress of completely different games done to different quality and visions, not caring about things being done to a high standard if it means waiting a while longer yet complaining about all the games released with bugs and flaws because releasing came before pride and quality, and being under the impression that because one studio is being transparent and communicating its thoughts and some of those things needing to change along the way that this simply doesnt happen behind closed doors in other studios.
Those are the things i'll call people out on. If CIG do a dumb thing, like show us a level of a hyped game that isnt of a presentable quality, purely because they said they'd have it, then i'll call them out on that too - but i certainly wont criticise them when the make the right call even if its against what i really want. Its called objectivity and understanding.
 
Halfmad said:
Despite owning a Polaris the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Capital class ship with very little capital about it, not even shields which it apparently relies on.. It's very fast but apparently vulnerable to torpedoes which we know are slower than missiles and just as easy to use counter measures on, it also has less utility than a Carrick despite having far greater internal space even excluding the hangar.

Either they've not explained it well it's rule hasn't been fleshed out. Right now all you get is capital running costs for a beefed up retaliator.
Click to expand...

The FAQ changed my view of it quite a bit, but you seem to have come away thinking less of it, i came away thinking more of it.

Shields - Its the smallest of the capital ships, i can understand why it wouldnt & couldnt have everything capital sized and i thought they explained that quite well. Its intended to be the 'boom & zoom' of capital ships not a tanky bruiser, so the larger the components the more weight, the bigger & easier the target it is to hit (torpedoes are all Cap ships main threat, having a target thats easier to outmanoeuvre a torp and smaller to hit, is a positive). So having better comes at a cost, and while i might be wrong, i'd have thought both missiles and torpedoes dont care about shields and go straight through to the hull, the armour. You're adding more protection against energy weapons, and they've said realistically those arent going to be a big threat unless its in vast numbers. So sacrificing shield (space, weight, cost, plus the added requirements on power, cooling etc) to be even better at non-threat attacks seems counter-intuitive to me.

The Carrack wont have any real threat, it'll be well armoured and have reasonable firepower to defend itself, but the Polaris is a threat. It'll scare off fighters and capital ships, because it can hurt both of them (without being able to go toe-to-toe with capitals).

Not sure about other functionality, the Polaris can take a Sabre into its hangar bay and a rover into the cargo bay. The Carrack isnt confirmed what it can dock, but it doesnt seem like it wont be much more than the snub/parasites P52/P72/x85/Dragonfly? etc and also its rover.

Its going to come down to what you want to do. If its a bit of bullying and showing force, then the Polaris is a no-brainer. If you're just wanting to operate in the universe, the Carrack has a 'day job' purpose in exploration.

I also think people might be over-thinking running costs, they even referred to them as being easily paid for with casual gaming stuff (words to that effect) so if you're going to misuse them (Polaris for hauling & general purpose, Carrack for attacking Cap-ships and shows of force) then they wont be cost effective for those roles (Polaris being overkill and impractical, Carrack being weak and likely to get half-wrecked... and impractical).
 
Hopefully it wont be too long till we're able to buy ships with aUEC, but within an Org i dont think there'll be too many issues like a lack of Sabre. On your own, you've probably got greater money-making opportunities to fund your own Sabre with the Gemini, than you'd have with the Sabre and trying to buy a Gemini.

Darkstar said:
There stands a man with deep pockets :eek:

I like the look of the Polaris, but I'd have to sacrifice Starfarer Gemini and Carrack. both of those have too much utility value to sacrifice for a combat ship, plus it's a bit too big considering the max crew! It's definitely something to work for though.

Also, finally watched the CitCon presentation. I can see why folks were getting their knickers in a twist about no S42, but I believe it was withheld for good reason. If you're not impressed by the planetary exploration they showed then I don't know what will. Great example of how everything will integrate, as well as emergent gameplay. I'm happy I've seen enough of the individual bits and pieces they are working on that I'll be more than satisfied when it all comes together. Until then i'm happy for them to take their time and get it right!
Click to expand...

They actually mentioned in the FAQ that their crew numbers are based on shifts, like a day & night shift, so theres reason to think it could be played with half their listed amount. It seems a very odd way to list it really, and i cant think whether this is because it'll be a persistent ship (everyone logs out, its still sitting there in space, vs smaller ships which when you sleep/log in a safe location then it magically disappears till you're online), so maybe they're thinking if you need 10 people to operate it, you'll still need 10 NPCs to operate it while all you're player crew are offline. Its very weird, because i can even see flaws with the above, and i cant think of another plausible reason to inflate the number and potentially put buyers off.

On CitCon - yeah, to me the planetary demonstration speaks to what they're capable of doing in SQ42 and SC. SQ42 probably wouldnt have much solo stuff like we saw (equally, im not sure SC would either, but its more single-player relatable) but while the actual objectives werent mind-blowing or game-changing, the setting, the mood, was brilliant. I can take that footage and imagine how that fits into the SC universe like being tasked with infiltrating nomad settlements, and trying to sneak around places like this for information, a hostage/prisoner etc. What this showed was they can create these locations as the backdrop in stories, and they can feel both authentic and exhilarating. The mission itself wasnt the focus, but it still evoked memories of scenes in things like Star Wars and the landscape was a big part of that - You put the same mission on the Delmar surface and it's going to feel underwhelming.
That demonstration says they've done realistic looking landing zones like ArcCorp & Nyx, they can create fairly realistic sized planets with correct mavity and the environmental attributes you'd expect one to have, and now we know they can look very realistic (albeit vastly empty/uninhabited). So locations are looking authentic and as good as anything else they've done or are aiming to do. Its another piece of the huge SC jigsaw that we've seen and has exceeded expectations.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^ No problem :)

speeduk said:
Ok last video for a while I promise lol I really need to get back to work....

Click to expand...

dgd.png

And i take it those curtains are not your choice? :D
 
humbug said:
Is anyone coming online tonight, 9PM ?
Click to expand...

Im actually in at the moment looking at the other ships in the hangar, and was going to try and keep myself somewhat familiar with using the HOTAS, and only just seen the post. Are you on atm, if so where?
Theres a Humbug1 on SC's discord playing atm but no idea if thats you (if it is you, im PaulC2K on that too, gimmi a shout if you have a lobby you're normally in) :D
 
Well worth a watch


I think when you see the point where they're just a couple of days away from CitCon and they realise right then neither demonstration is without sizeable flaws... it was never a decision taken lightly and unfortunately the right solution was to try to ensure at least 1 was polished, and not split work over both and possibly end up with 2 they're not happy about showing and still cut SQ42. I know some people say they shouldnt have said they're show something and then pull it, but really, if they'd said nothing all along in the lead up and shown nothing (for the same reason), would we have been any happier with that?? Wouldnt that just feel like they're not even close to showing something worth seeing, so they werent even comfortable talking to the press about its state and how they expect to have something (which is true), but not enough to tell others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom