From a software engineering perspective if static server meshing is “almost resolved” and in testing now (meaning development is not fully done and we expect bugs) and we have to then finish and test dynamic server meshing (more development and bugs to test, triage, and fix)… and then finally we can complete many systems that could not be completed without it (more development and then likely a lot more bugs as implementing many interconnected system in a bug free-ish way you could not end to end simulate is more akin to arcane wizardry than anything lol)... ... and then as the feature works and one thinks about people flocking to it / scaling you did note how it might lead to actual redesign of some areas and functionality if overcrowded.
Look, you made me appreciate the engineering effort on the ground, but the meat of the game still seems so so far away.
Wanted to take time to reply to you friend,
Glad I could pick your morbid curiosity on the development of Star Citizen
I hope I don't look like a crazy person from your perspective.
Even if they crash and burn, the tech they've cooked over all these years is mighty interesting. There's so many "safe" & budgeted to a cent, or made by committees games out there nowadays that it feels we're stagnating a bit honestly. I kind of like to have that crazy motherfucker aiming for the stars. Back in 2013 or so I used to be heavily favoring Elite dangerous' approach to development and release plans over Star Citizen, I probably even made fun of CIG on this very forum, but alas, ED fell flat on its face. Nowhere near its vision.
The puzzle of implementing the tech they've developed on the side but on hold due to servers will be interesting. Thankfully a lot of it was also done for single player campaign where servers are not important, so a lot of proofs of concepts are not pure unknowns.
I think the biggest bumps to dynamic server meshing is all the groundwork to get to static server meshing to stability and big number of players. Dynamic is basically to either resize the regions on the fly or to spun up/down servers depending on how many peoples are in the region. I think at that point its pretty much a done deal compared to the previous work.
I would say that the biggest pieces for MMO part after server meshing is the economy AI and having NPCs participate in that universe. By the same logic, dynamic events and missions.
For the problems of too many peoples due to higher server capacity, they're as of now looking into simply spreading peoples forcibly as a short term solution. The problem is mainly when servers get online for the first time, and get especially crowded when players know a huge feature is implemented and hype takes hold, but inevitably in time peoples will spread. Eventually the idea is to have an instanced "home" on big planets. Base building which was talked about last year and returns on a dedicated panel in the coming week, will again spread peoples as you'll spawn in your base. So that part of overcrowding is not worrying imo.
I understand that without the right core tech they may corner themselves, but at some point you need to limit scope, polish, ship, and then iterate based on players’ use and needs which seems to scare them if I have to put it bluntly (Carmack, in his interviews with Meta’s Boz and also with Friedman, talked about a local gradient of evolution … something also explained in this wonderful talk I really advice anyone to watch ).
Too late on feature creep
It was absolutely mismanaged in that era of funding.
I'm not even expecting 1.0 to even fill the whole checklist item by item, some promises completely changed scope due to changes in technology too. Can I point fingers at them the day they go 1.0 but have say, 5 solar systems, rather than the 100 once promised? Those 100 systems were promised back when the technology was basically like Starfield, not seamless solar system, planets were jpegs, not modeled for every surfaces, the transition from space to ground was through well hidden loading (ala Star wars outlaws), and the sequences of landing were on-rail. I mean sure, easy to pull off 100 systems in that kind of tech. But I prefer them to have 5 good well designed systems with pertinent gameplay with seamless tech they have now than whatever Starfield ended up being.
I think RSI looks concerned about shipping something they do set the expectations of “done and production ready”. If the monetisation strategy once you are properly live and “1.0 done” does not work well funding would dry up and they would not be able to iterate.
At the moment it is both working against them and for them the fact that they are in this very long public development pre-release status. Part of what helps money come in is the fact that it is ambitious and not declared done and successfully painting a “over the horizon if you could only see it from my vantage viewpoint” angle that attracts people and funding (gives people hope).
But even 1.0 would not be "done", 100% sure. I think it would have all the core mechanics implemented, but there would still be a lot of work to be done to make it a "game". Creating events, "dungeons", raids, story missions, etc. That could be, like any MMO, continue in time.
I can't find the exact video of it but SaltEMike had a very good and down to earth what to expect in 1.0 and if the game would be done. Its basically a big nope. 1.0 for him is more like
now CIG can start making a game. Tech behind the game now allowing to flesh it out.
But of course they must be concerned about monetization long term. Elite Dangerous dried up. How to avoid that? I'm not sure. I haven't followed the rumours about that I'll be honest. A release of Squadron 42 and if it reviews well, would inject massive cash into CIG and bring a new userbase too.
Citizencon next week will be mighty interesting. I hope you watch it and we can comment on the tech we see in the thread I'll probably make by end of week. I don't want to convince anyone to buy it, but please, let's discuss what we'll see.
kutthoat5150
, me too I’m waiting on 4.0
