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

I am ok with 5 systems. Yes it could obviously be more but it should be ok to start off with.

Also, these orgs dont really have 10k users. Trust me they dont. Far from it. Why? Because I’m a member of some of them plus pagen and others LOL.

My point is currently you can be a member of multiple orgs but soon with social/org feature mode, you can only represent one.

What is operation pitchfork?

What i mean by 1.0 branches i mean an actual 1.0 develop branch where ALL the teams merge into.

Currently from what we know, teams all merge into the current up and coming big patch ie 4.0 but i reckon they have an actual 1.0 branch where feature a and feature b gets merged into this branch and they test and make sure it all works. Ie base building merging into 1.0 and also the genesis being merged in and they can test to see if the dynamic weather etc works and check what happens if someone places a building in a forest etc.

They will then have another team merging the sandworm in and check how that reacts next to someone’s base!!!

Hope that makes a bit of sense?

Normally they would wait until they have planned what the next patch is and merge these 3 features in there but i reckon they are doing that now on a 1.0 dev branch
Yeah, multi-orgs inflates a lot of numbers, i guess, but im sure the guys in front of me were saying there was an org with 50k members, the same one that CR mentioned once or twice i think (someone else could have been additional mentions). I'd never heard of them, and cant remember their name, but it was short, 3-5 letters i think.

Operation Pitchfork is a community event that was talked about in the early years. The idea being when the game is about to release, we'd all come together to attack the Vanduul and have one crazy irresponsible event, safe in the knowledge that the server would be wiping for release, meaning nothing would be lost by it, and it'd kinda stress test the server, the AI and see how well balanced and plausible this sort of activity would be for the future. You could join in with the attack, support it with ammo & medical, or just hoover up the mess afterwards... it didnt really matter. However that becomes impossible if there isnt a huge Vanduul army to fly head on into it. If its just small groups for PvE content, i'll be happy for gameplay content, but it wont work for Op Pitchfork, and it becomes impractical post 1.0 because you wont see the same numbers participate if the risk means losses that arent reset. People wont want to take in ships they use day-to-day if it means losing them for 2 days on an insurance claim (thinking Perseus, Hammerhead, Idris type ships). Maybe by the time its possible, people will have excess funds and backup ships and it'll be fine, but having the wipe meant no inconvenience.
 
Apparently the Galaxy has no module to build with at all now!!! Apparently they never got that far and the slide from 2023 CitCon was a lie. That ship needs to be refunded. I get scope change be it small, medium, large etc. That same as like shield gens, power units, turrets blah blah etc. But to fully remove a module and claim it was never planned or concepted to us is rubbish.
They've never actually sold that module though, while they've sold the rest, so i think it'd be a bit of a stretch for angry mobs to form, but it'd annoy me (if it was true) cos i was planning on getting it largely because of building, with the Pioneer being too hard to snatch in sales and no CCU path. I'd actually pointed out to someone in reddit last night that was asking about CCU advice, CIG ignored that ship in the presentation and the Starlancer BLDR is a large constructor bot ship, so dont bank on the Galaxy till we get confirmation its still getting them.

Glad its still getting them at some point. It didnt really make sense to go back on that decision, but i could understand it if they hadnt made it public, the Galaxy is kinda OP with hauling, refining and medical as it is, add a 4th distinct role and you get a lot of function for about $650, you'd barely get 3 roles in smaller ships for that money (Starlancer MAX, BLDR & Expanse is $730 and no medical ship)
 
Last edited:
They've never actually sold that module though, while they've sold the rest, so i think it'd be a bit of a stretch for angry mobs to form, but it'd annoy me (if it was true) cos i was planning on getting it largely because of building, with the Pioneer being too hard to snatch in sales and no CCU path. I'd actually pointed out to someone in reddit last night that was asking about CCU advice, CIG ignored that ship in the presentation and the Starlancer BLDR is a large constructor bot ship, so dont bank on the Galaxy till we get confirmation its still getting them.

Glad its still getting them at some point. It didnt really make sense to go back on that decision, but i could understand it if they hadnt made it public, the Galaxy is kinda OP with hauling, refining and medical as it is, add a 4th distinct role and you get a lot of function for about $650, you'd barely get 3 roles in smaller ships for that money (Starlancer MAX, BLDR & Expanse is $730 and no medical ship)
I think sticking it up on a giant screen amd saying "we are doing this" and then putting ship back up for sale at IAE on that info and selling hundreds of them suddenly is the issue cause it is being sold as something and then taken away. If they had said we are considering putting module in there instead of its going to have and come with ability it wouldn't of sold at all like it did. So the expectation ver something that is a huge feature and game mechanic is critical for a $380 ship.

Do get your point on cost, expect the Galaxy to go up in price this IAE I expect tbh just like previous years.
 
A lot of it will depend on navigation data and how that's handled, if we all need to discover or purchase our own nav data then perhaps POI markers will vary, sometimes taking us out of radar range of each other when we jump in. If we're all using the same nav points, which is the current case, then I can see camping and bottlenecking becoming a problem.

I believe the idea always was that you'd be able to discover and buy nav data to give options though.
They need to work out something with nav and POI amd scanning cause you can't read the 70 odd POI now so having like 6000+ on a planet is going to be impossible unless they make those regions named areas etc like you have country, counties, cities, towns, regions, whatever etc.
 
I think sticking it up on a giant screen amd saying "we are doing this" and then putting ship back up for sale at IAE on that info and selling hundreds of them suddenly is the issue cause it is being sold as something and then taken away. If they had said we are considering putting module in there instead of its going to have and come with ability it wouldn't of sold at all like it did. So the expectation ver something that is a huge feature and game mechanic is critical for a $380 ship.

Do get your point on cost, expect the Galaxy to go up in price this IAE I expect tbh just like previous years.
Yeah, its certainly not good. They will have sold Galaxy's on the basis of having a BB module, and the alternative (Pioneer $850 + tax) being quite a bit more expensive with limited qty sales.
Im glad we have 2 options for the same task, rather than being told this is the intended ship for a specific role, but it also makes me wonder about the timeline for the Starlancer. We obviously didnt know about it until last weekend, but i wonder if they've been working on it for say 18mo and only more recently decided to extend it to include the BLDR, so last year there wasnt any plan for a 2nd large BB ship. The nice thing about the BLDR is that is should bring the price down on Large BB. Previously it was $380 + $100ish for the module, now i'd imagine it'll be closer to $350, which is a better starting price.
The Galaxy will be a great ship for multi-purpose, and i wish we had more of this, but if it was the only Large BB ship, you'd be forced into paying a premium for a ship thats main selling point is its modularity, yet you only want it for one thing.
 
Yeah, its certainly not good. They will have sold Galaxy's on the basis of having a BB module, and the alternative (Pioneer $850 + tax) being quite a bit more expensive with limited qty sales.
Im glad we have 2 options for the same task, rather than being told this is the intended ship for a specific role, but it also makes me wonder about the timeline for the Starlancer. We obviously didnt know about it until last weekend, but i wonder if they've been working on it for say 18mo and only more recently decided to extend it to include the BLDR, so last year there wasnt any plan for a 2nd large BB ship. The nice thing about the BLDR is that is should bring the price down on Large BB. Previously it was $380 + $100ish for the module, now i'd imagine it'll be closer to $350, which is a better starting price.
The Galaxy will be a great ship for multi-purpose, and i wish we had more of this, but if it was the only Large BB ship, you'd be forced into paying a premium for a ship thats main selling point is its modularity, yet you only want it for one thing.
I think relative it was pretty quick build out to get the Max out and the BLD is another year off so you are 18-24months total build. The BLD will be another £10 on top of what the max sold easy by then tbh so likely £320 ish at least I would think. Then the Galaxy at £380+£100 makes sense since it is modular and has more options.

Just going to earn in game or borrow an Org members lol.
 
Just watched the SQ42 trailer. That was better than some films I’ve watched this year. Well apart from the actual gameplay which has been done before.
 
Just been reading reddit and... jeeze :D

Its things like this that i make me double down on my approach with ships - Dont buy them, and if you must, buy a CCU and use it when the ship is done and you want to commit to it.
Buying it before its done, is committing to something that isnt set in stone.

I get why its annoying if you commit to something and it changes, but you put yourself in this situation when there are ways to drastically eliminate that problem.
Instead of buying a $380 ship with cash (if your buying with credit, melt it, problem solved) buy a couple of CCUs like the Anvil Valkyrie to Galaxy for $5, something that isnt getting a rework and isnt a concept ship, basically avoid ships that may increase in price, and hard to obtain ships like Phoenix or Glaive. Pick up a couple of different CCUs like this, and just wait. In this instance, you've wasted $5 on a CCU, and when you want the Galaxy you just fill in the gap. Grab a budget LTI or a starter package, then CCU that to Valkyrie, add the Galaxy CCU, and you've got a Galaxy on par at its $380 price. What you havent done, is spend $380 for a ship that you wont get for another year or 2, doing nothing, and potentially changing in a way that you dont approve of. This is why i have CCU chains to an Orion, BMM, Perseus & Pegasus, and about 50% of the CCUable ships in the game. Part of that being to exploit price increases to my benefit, but also because i dont know what i want and what might come out in the future either, so why go full commitment now.
If you have $380 to spend now (or then) and might not have those funds in the future, buy something temporary that you like like a Conny and melt it when you need the funds to complete the Galaxy etc.

Throw in the fact that you can build discounted CCUs and get it for much less, i just dont see the reason to fully commit to it so early. Looking at my nerdy spreadsheet, i have it down from $380 to $255 and thats using meh CCUs rather than my best ones. The best CCUs in there are 2x $25 saving (Sabre to A1 Spirit, and Gemini to Valkyrie) and half of them could be found most events where warbond CCUs are sold, or when ships like the Zeus are concepted. They're gonna get a $20 increase cos CIG are gonna CIG.

Side note: My account spend is 60% CCUs, 30% credit, 10% ships. Their MSRP is kinda wild though :D
 
Last edited:
Just watched the SQ42 trailer. That was better than some films I’ve watched this year. Well apart from the actual gameplay which has been done before.

Agree, it felt like an episode of BSG or the Exspanse. Gameplay wise it was fine for a prologue mission, some of the later parts of the game shown years ago looked far more involving and have likely had multiple iterations.
 
I criticise CIG a fair bit but Chris Roberts knows how to tell a good old fashioned "hero" story made for games IMHO. It's why WC games were so popular, he knows you need a bit of cheese in there, it can't be too perfect either. If only Disney remembered this with Star Wars :|
 
When people talk about values like $380 or £250 are they talking about real money or in-game currency and just using $ or £ to indicate they're talking about currency?
I'm not even sure the store will still be available once it's fully released. Maybe they'll still need more funds for DLC/Add-ons.
But everything should be able to be earned using in game currency on the full game.
 
Apparently the Galaxy has no module to build with at all now!!! Apparently they never got that far and the slide from 2023 CitCon was a lie. That ship needs to be refunded. I get scope change be it small, medium, large etc. That same as like shield gens, power units, turrets blah blah etc. But to fully remove a module and claim it was never planned or concepted to us is rubbish.


JCrewe CIG@JCrewe_CIG

Update on Galaxy’s Base-Building Capabilities​

discussion
Yesterday at 17:33
Hey everyone,

I realise my previous comments may have given the wrong impression, and I spoke too soon on this topic. I’ve since regrouped with the larger team(s) to ensure we’re all fully aligned on the Galaxy’s future. To clarify: while there’s no base-building module currently in active development for the Galaxy, we’re fully committed to enabling a large base-building drone module for it down the line. The Galaxy won’t be the first ship for building large-scale structures when base building launches, but will come soon-after, and its potential for that role is very much intact.

My earlier comment about when things are "speculative" was incorrect. We want to make sure that when we walk on stage, during ISC, or in any presentation, you can walk away feeling confident in the information we share.

We’ll share more information on this module as it becomes available. Thanks for all of the feedback, and I'll be monitoring threads closely if you have any more questions.

QlUNkBC.png
 
Last edited:
It wouldnt surprise me if a longer load time is partly about it not being a trivial action, and also keeping in mind that theres going to be plenty of people on SATA SSDs still - hopefully nobody is using HDDs for modern game storage.
They could hold you in the jump only as long as it takes to load and then spit you out, but 2 people flying in with the same ship should exit at the same time, so i suspect if it takes 2m for an SSD to load in that system, the jump point would need to take 2m15sec etc.
 
It wouldnt surprise me if a longer load time is partly about it not being a trivial action, and also keeping in mind that theres going to be plenty of people on SATA SSDs still - hopefully nobody is using HDDs for modern game storage.
They could hold you in the jump only as long as it takes to load and then spit you out, but 2 people flying in with the same ship should exit at the same time, so i suspect if it takes 2m for an SSD to load in that system, the jump point would need to take 2m15sec etc.
Hope not, game is literally unplayable with a mechanical HDD.
 
Back
Top Bottom