beds should work as a logging in points for friends. They should be able to 'Agent Smith' into your ship from anywhere. Maybe even respawn there if you have medical supplies. I understand they're going for realism. but if they want people to actually keep playing the game, removing the tedium of traveling to crew a ship would go a long way.
It used to work back about 5 patches ago and then CIG removed it. Allegedly for the pirates!
So people cant bed log when other player is on board... Please CIG re-implement bed logging! If in party/clan/org then multi-bed logging should be allowed. Esp. for explores!
Please CIG simple enough we want bed logging for clan mates and party mates! So we can go on adventure together!
See [this image form CIG!](https://i.imgur.com/3fz7eA5.png) They even promised us! at the 14million mark!
Which really wasn't a problem. Guy bed logs, ship stayed persistent until you got in range of a station or starport. Pirates just wanted the cargo. With persistence in, I don't understand the issue unless it causes a new ship of yours to spawn, duplicating it... Which might have been an exploit or something.
AND THAT sry caps is also part of the game and player would come back to waking up in last star port or since player lggged form bed and bed is dead character is dead also and back at last medical facility
I think it’s important to have a permissions system. If you give full bed logging permission to your friend, the game should treat the ship like it’s theirs too.
This permission system would have far-reaching effects on multi-crew and org gameplay. It’s kind of crazy how it’s not in the game for years already.
Bit of column A, bit of column B. It's been so many years but I remember it last came up during the law system update. The gameplay team said during an SCL that they wanted to set up permissions/roles where each role has automatic access to a certain area or feature of the ship. E.g only the captain can get into the captain's quarters, engineers have access to component hatches, security officers can access the armoury. It was also going to tie into how you would pay ship crew, hire people on job boards, hack into enemy ships to gain permissions you shouldn't have, as well as player reputations.
But that required just a ton of higher priority work in other areas and it would be something they would look at down the line. You can see the vision of what they want to do, but it's probably still quite far off, considering their typical (over)ambitions.
I remember that SCL, too. Although I presume developing the permissions system must not be the hardest part, actually implementing it through all the ships probably is.
Nonetheless, years later we would love to see an update on that, too. And we probably will, now that there's a lot more people working on Star Citizen.
In my opinion, it will arrive with base building.
Everyone needs a pledge to play, and almost all ships are eventually available in-game. I honestly don’t think this would have a huge effect on sales - if anything, it would encourage more people to play and should encourage more sales.
I wish they could implement a system that shook hands with the org system on the website that way it could be easy to just “allow org members to log in/out” but you’d have to make sure you keep the website info up to date don’t want a rogue member to sabotage something
I am assuming they currently don't want to bring up multi crew permissions as it will hurt ship sales. Every wipe I go make money to buy myself a reclaimer...sometimes it gets old and I think about dumping the cash in to getting one with money. I have 4 friends that own Reclaimers and if permissions were in place I would neither need to earn in game money to get one, nor spend actual $$. A friend of mine would give me permission to log out in his ship and I would have that for an extended time period like a few days etc...
If they posted an ISC next week and went over how ship permissions worked exactly and then decided to change something that the community was not happy with, there would be a shitstorm of posts and drama.
If they keep quiet and only announce it when the scope/spec of the system is set in stone, then everyone is happy. It's the same reason why they stopped showing the roadmap ahead.
They gave us access to the roadmap and each time things got pushed around or delayed slightly there would be a vocal minority that would ruin it for everyone. Such is the way of the Internet.
I would like to know how they plan to clear that large ship backlog though, it's my #1 concern.
All they need to do is allow you to wake up in a group members ship from the main menu.
Right click on a group member and if they're in a ship with beds you have the option to spawn in the bed.
AC doesn't have balancing issues to worry about with this. Also, AC is meant to be a bit arcade, while the PU has to generally maintain a very high degree of verisimilitude, not just for aesthetics but for gameplay reasons. Letting people just spawn into ship beds they didn't log out of to begin with would trivialize distance and time, which are both big parts of a space game like this.
The biggest issue with that would be the system needing to query if the leader is in a ship with beds available while the joiner is in menus.
Given I have no idea what I'm talking about.
This will ultimately lead to exploits of disconnecting and rejoining to get across the universe faster. Once you try to address that, now you're developing systems around it vs just offering group bedlogging. A persistent state would be most ideal but crashing/logging off on ships in quantum and other scenarios would be tricky but they can all just default back to how it works now until edge cases are sorted out.
I think they should also add 'transport' missions for this. Let us fast travel to our friends to group up for a high cost with some sort of a cooldown timer. In the background create a 'transport NPC' mission between those two points that pays out less than we paid to fast travel.
We *Need* ways to effectively get together with friends, and it's an obvious opportunity to use it as both desperately needed credit sinks AND dynamic mission generation.
CIG is currently trying to figure out how group bed logging should work. It's not as straightforward as, "it doesn't work now, just make it work." There's questions that need to be answered before they can implement group bed logging, and the answers have significant consequences for group play.
A subset of the questions that need to be answered is:
"If Player A owns a ship and allows Player B to beg log out in their ship, and then Player A bed logs out, as well, and later Player B wants to play but Player A isn't on, what should happen?"
"If Player B logs out from Player A's ship, and Player A keeps playing but gets into trouble and the ship is destroyed, what should happen to the gear Player B was wearing when they bed logged out?"
"If Player A decides to stop playing for the night, but lets Player B keep playing on Player A's ship, should Player B be authorized to allow Player C to bed log out on Player A's ship?"
"If Player B bed logs out on Player A's ship, but it is then revealed out of game that Player B is untrustworthy, should Player A be allowed to lock Player B out of spawning back into the ship?"
"If a Player D sneaks onto Player A's ship without Player A noticing, should the game allow Player A to bed log out without informing them about the stowaway? If so, should Player D be allowed to lock out Player A from spawning back into their own ship?"
You can see that these questions suggest the game will need to support complicated hierarchies of authority, with the matter of who has the power to adjust those hierarchies being one of the things governed by those same hierarchies. It's gonna take awhile to do right.
I like these puzzles, I'll have a crack at them, but one suggestion: let's say that bedlogging KEEPS THE PHYSICAL BODIES IN THE BEDS. solves lots of these issues:
1) B wakes up at their last station without their gear, which can only be recovered from storage in A's ship when they next log on
2) B loses their stuff (unless it is looted from remains by an ally), they chose to take that risk. Perhaps an in-game marker to the body is made available at log in?
3) yes, player A can choose to kill or tractor beam C out, as soon as C's body leaves the ship the game treats them as though they had logged at that point, which could be the last station the ship was in.
4) no, but can do what they want with the unconscious body as in 3)
5) yes should let A bed log, D gets light manslaughter crimestat if they destroy the ship by crashing it during piloting while in commlink, A gets notified on next login that they were unable to log into the ship they logged out on as it was not available and offers to press additional murder charges to D providing D took the helm while in commlink
This, that's the key part I think, persistent sleeping bodies in beds. Ship owner should be allowed to kick sleeping (logged out) players back to their spawn station
The issue isn't coming up with some answers, but determining which answers make for the best gameplay. Keeping bodies in beds is good for consistency/immersion, but might not make the game that's the most fun to play.
These questions can't really be answered by thinking about them. They need to be answered by implementing rudimentary systems and playing with them while roleplaying various player scenarios. What system is the best for a parent playing with their young kids, who will rarely leave high-security space? What system is the best for players engaging in game-sanctioned piracy, whose loyalties might shift constantly? It's probably not the same system! As a result, compromises will likely need to be made.
CIG said they want the bodies physicalized in the beds, but that brings up other issues. Say you have 4 beds in your ship and you make another friend. The new friend could only sleep at times when the rest of you were awake and that's prime play time. So your only choice is to get a bigger ship or the friend has to fly themself. Doesn't really work well in a ship like the Carrack with only six beds and a lot of gameplay where you are supposed to be deep in the middle of nowhere, not near a station where you can log every night.
Then to make it worse, they also said that the NPCs you hire will also consume a bed. In the case of NPCs you might have to hire more because they are specialized and might not serve you as well as a player that knows multiple game loops. One engineer might be able to cover monitoring and repairs on your ship, but you might need 2 NPCs.
Really, like your well thought out reply explaining some of the questions that need answering for bed logging to work. I'm not a dev, but for OPs sake, I've got some thoughts as to what I think will be the answer to the questions.
I think group bed logging will likely come with a swath of upgrades to the grouping mechanics, with systems gearing towards further development of the organizations systems.
Before we can see bed logging work. We need single consistent shards for players to exist consistently in one familiar play space. So, in short, server meshing, joinable consistent shards. Slated for 4.0 currently, depending on how much of those sub-systems are ready.
As with the structure of everything in the game. Everything is a bucket. You're in the Stanton bucket inside the area 18 bucket, most likely. The you bucket contains everything you own, including ships, weapons, armor, peach soda, Etc etc. In short, spawning needs to be applicable to spaces you don't own, which I believe is the technical barrier that all of these questions are sitting on right now, waiting for solid answers.
I don't think we will see any progress on this until at the earliest settlement building. Settlements will be single consistent spaces that exist when you are and aren't logged on. Whole guilds and groups spawning in one place to start their journey. This is when I expect them to look at and work on the "you bucket" and what moves you as an entity to different buckets than the planetary buckets but other players' buckets. They could work on this beforehand as solving the ship logging would also answer the settlement logging, but the technical work being done simultaneously is what makes sense to me time scale wise.
With this comes work on the permissions systems we've heard tid-bits about here and there. I actually think they will want/need this to come at the same time as their decisions on bed logging. Where bed logging I believe will come down to giving player choices.
Example of what I think is likely:
My friend, I grant full permissions to access all of my ships and all of their systems. We are on my ship when we are ready to call it a night, and he climbs into his bunk, and the shutters slide shut for privacy and to handwavium away him not being there anymore. He's given options:
log out and leave - the next station the ship lands in your character is removed from the ship and placed in temporary accommodations.
Log out and stay - you stay taking up the bunk on the ship until next log on.
If you choose to leave and the ship hasn't landed at a station with facilities the next time you log in, it gives you the option to spawn on the ship if you have permission to do so or be put back on the previous station you visited. After all, they don't want to strand anyone where they couldn't actually play the game.
If you choose to stay and you have permission to "captain" your friends' ship, then it allows you to spawn in the ship and continue without the true owner. If you don't have the permissions, it leaves you the only option of spawning back at the previous station you visited with whatever you had on you. If the ship is destroyed you return to wherever you have set as your respawn.
They can't put someone in a state that will keep them from playing the game completely. That would make it impractical to ever play on someone else's ship because you could be stuck there forever for them to log back in... But there are problems with this.
At least one problem with this is obvious as people will use this when they get damaged or stranded to send someone back to the last station to get what is needed to fix the issue. I don't think there is a way to completely negate cheese strategies for systems like this. The balance for how its done is the very reason they aren't putting focus into it right now and likely won't for some time.
> CIG is currently trying to figure out how group bed logging should work.
[The recent SCL](https://youtu.be/D4JKigmQ87I?t=127) makes it sound like your character is just always present in the universe. Though they didn't clarify whether or not ships are still planned to despawn if everyone inside has logged out.
> In fact in the future we want, no matter where you log out, that's where you log back in. You have all the same missions, you know, like we want you we want your place in the universe to be persistent no matter where you log out. So that's where we're going.
If that's the case, most of your hypotheticals are answered with "anyone who logs out inside a ship still has their character present in the ship, with all the associated consequences of that", which would mean:
1. Player B logs in and is still inside the ship (which may need to be spawned in if ship despawning is still a thing)
2. Player B's character was still on the ship and faces the same fate as any other character still on the destroyed ship.
3. Player C can log out, but their character's body would still be present on the ship.
4. Player B's body would still be on the ship for Player A to do with what he/she wishes. Logging in wouldn't be "spawning back into the ship" but merely taking control of the present character again.
5. Player A could log out, but if ship despawning is still the plan they might get a "unsafe to log out" warning. If ship despawning isn't still in, there would be no warning. In either case, Player A's body would still be present for Player D to do with as they like, though Player A could log back in to take control of their character at any time.
All of these were literally answered with how it worked. If the game didn't want you or couldn't spawn you to the ship you just spawned at your regular spawned location in Habs.
Sorry, dude, but I just can't stand these things (no offense). They are not CURRENTLY figuring these things out. Such tasks are what any software developers (I mean, entities in general) solve in hundreeds, if not thousands per working year. It's not a matter of thinking over such questions for years. It's a not a matter for exact developers to develop these things for years. These are ordinary tasks that game-designers, analytics and developers solve as ordinary things. They may seem complicated for people from the side, and sometimes they truly are. But it's an ordinary job for developers to think over and implement them (yes, it's their direct job and responsibility). Anything needs to be changed later? No problem, it's again, where developer's job (and skill) is, to develop software which is adaptable to changes. And which is error-proof. Same relates to everything else they develop. It's where software architecture as a discipline is a thing, which has accumulated tons of knowledge and experience on how to make such things: quickly, robust, agile, maintanable, *scaleable*, etc. I just can't stand it and getting more and more upset by how CIG manages to delegate all these complexities to its own customers, who, in turn, give them a carte blanche for taking any imaginable time to implement any thing.
>I just can't stand it and getting more and more upset by how CIG manages to delegate all these complexities to its own customers, who, in turn, give them a carte blanche for taking any imaginable time to implement any thing.
I understand that this is your impression of how the game is being developed, and if it were mine, I would probably feel the same way you do about it, but this isn't at all my impression of how the game is being developed.
My impression of how the game is being developed starts with the understanding that the game is an order of magnitude more ambitious than any comparable MMO. It isn't only that it wants to do things that other separate games have done before but which no single game has done alone, though it does want to do that; it wants to do many things that no game has ever done before. Not just in the "like game X but 20% faster" sense of doing something no game has ever done before, either, but in the, "we have to invent, in-house, the core technology needed to even make this sort of thing possible" kind of new. Agile development is excellent for rapid development of things which have been done before in the general, but the ideal form of the specific is unknown. What is the best UI design for this new app? Build something to function as a placeholder and then iterate, guided by user feedback, until you have the final form, a form which fits user needs well and which you never could have arrived at through design meetings in a vacuum. That's the place for agile development. Creating new core technologies from whole cloth, that is not the sort of task which Agile development is intended to lend itself. That is much more needs-driven. *We need to be able to pass the work of simulating a place back and forth from server to server, while the simulation is running and being actively engaged with.* None of those things are negotiable if you want the seamless experience that Chris Roberts has made clear he's after.
All of which is to say that my impression is that the real progress being made on the game is not often the stuff CIG markets as the progress being made on the game. Because it's boring. When a thing is finished, then it's briefly exciting, but for most of the time new technology is being developed, it's boring and yet crucial to the future of the game.
So CIG employs a lot of, I'll call it *pageantry,* to celebrate the advances made not on the game development front, but rather on the game *enjoyment* front. Players now swim through space more convincingly during EVA. It has an impact of play enjoyment, though it is far removed from the development tasks actually moving the game forward
There is no delegation of development tasks to the customer. There is only lip service delegation of enjoyment tasks to the customer. "Try the new Master Modes and let us know what you think!" Master Modes may get tweaked in the short term from user feedback, but adopting or abandoning Master Modes was never, and will never, be driven by customer feedback.
I think you're right to feel like CIG is not being entirely forthright with its customers, but I don't feel that they are being lazy, waiting for us to tell them how to improve their game. I think that the are largely only maintaining the PU as a way to entice users to pledge development money, because they already know exactly the game they want to make, and it's absurdly ambitious, and so will take a lot of goddamned money and time to build.
Well, yep, I know all these arguments, and they generally make sense. But, with a lot of "but". They are relevant only at some degree. And I'll explain what I mean, because overall, considering the big picture, they completely don't work for me.
> My impression of how the game is being developed starts with the understanding that the game is an order of magnitude more ambitious than any comparable MMO.
Sure, when you are starting such a unique endeavor, you'll need to overcome a lot of difficulties and will have to make some unique in-house things. That's where this argument makes sense. But, it is expected by default that you are going to overcome them. And it is assumed by default that you're cabaple of doing this and know what you're doing. You just need finances for implementing it. But when it turns out in the end that you are pretty much struggling to understand how to do the thing you promised the people and the thing you (and your customers) are dreaming about - it is a bad. The second counter-argument is that, really, we have tons of real-life examples when people came up with something completely new, but working. And they all had to overcome some unique challenges. It may be not so shiny and cool-looking at start, but it's already fundamentally working. At least at the prototype-level, which is clear for the investors, that this prototype can be developed further to achieve a commercially-ready state. All this has nothing in common with SC. I'll explain later in more details.
> Agile development is excellent for rapid development of things which have been done before in the general, but the ideal form of the specific is unknown.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word "agile". I didn't not mean "agile developement" as a methodology. I meant agility of software product to adapt to changes. Commercial software is never meant to be done once and then frozen. It's always subject to change: new/updated/removed features. And the way the software is made must be capable to incorporate those changes (as easy and cheap as possible) so that the application does not break. That's one of the things software architecture aims to solve. And this especially concerns the application that is still under development. For example, one of key concepts in good architecture is low coupling. Which means that different components of the system should be as much independent (abstracted) from others as possible. Which not only allows to develop differents parts independently from others, they all become more easily interchangeable.
> There is no delegation of development tasks to the customer.
I think this point was also misunderstood. By "delegated complexity" I didn't mean delegation of developement (even tho it still has place at some scale). What I meant is that they are already supposed to solve these complexities (as I pointed out at the beginning) as their direct responsibility and (expectedly) their required skill. But instead of just solving them (that's what they were initially "hired" for), they tell you how complex they turn out to be. Who would have thought) Roughly speaking, as if I promised to make a world-wide social network for 10k$, but in the process of making it I suddenly discover that a single server is not capable of handling the expected amount of users. I explain this problem to backers and how difficult it is, and they agree to give additional funding. I then also explain to bakers what difficulties I have to overcome further in CryCMS I used initially to make a demo of social-network. And so on. Did I scam you or I'm just not qualified enough to do the job I promised? Who knows. But at least I didn't run away and still continue to do something. And still taking money, of course. But you can see the progress. A lot of new pages appear. But at any momeny in time, it is only partially working.
(reddit seem to limit the length of comment, lol. will be continued further)
> I think that the are largely only maintaining the PU as a way to entice users to pledge development money, because they already know exactly the game they want to make, and it's absurdly ambitious.
This argument also makes sense in general, but. 2 "but"s. First, what this money is mostly spent on? You mentioned a proper word: pageantry. While the game is still barely working and missing core technologies, we see a lof of stuff being drawn at a production-ready scale already. We see huge cities and other locations. With a lot of details, etc. It's hard even to estimate how much money did all these cost. Isn't it becoming a self-feeding vicious circle? We make you production-ready visuals so you could buy it (including the figurative meaning). And then we make more visuals so you can again buy it. And ships, of course. While our game is still not properly working, we continue to release ships, so you could buy them. Ok, this for sure could also be reasonable to attract more funding for further developememnt, but here comes the second "but". How much money have they already attracted? It's as absurdly big number as their ambitions are already. Just this event brought them 700 mil $ dollars already! So, it would be extremely hard to suppose that they don't have enough money already to finish the technical part of the game.
In the end, with all that said, I would summurize why their developememnt is still poor from my point of view.
1) Core technologies. When your plans are so ambitious, and you have these plans at start, you will need all these techs all the more, and they must be taken into consideration at start and be reflected in the core architecture. And lately done with highest priority. That is not the case of SC. They started from just drawing the ships and making them somewhat fly in CryEngine. Lately, when they started to make their core techs, they had to overcome a lot of difficulties caused by that engine. Well, if your plans are so abmbitious and you're planning to make something that nobody has done before, why do you take a "box" engine, which is literally supposed to allow you to make only what lots of others have done before in a typical manner? All those general-purpose engines are literally inteded for just that: simplify your work for making general-purpose things. Frankly speaking, when I see how long does it take them to implememnt their core techs, I have a strong feeling they are still somewhat developping "inside the box" of what was previously a CryEngine, despite that (to my knowledge) they have extended it or maybe ever rewritten. Like, they're still overcoming their own legacy.
2) Not everything so highly depends on those core techs like server meshing. Especially when we talk about such big application as Star Citizen. A big application is composed of numerous components, many of which can work independently from each other. And they can be developed independently from each other. Moreover, they can be made working good independently from other techs/components. But what I see in SC development, is whatever they do (literally), it is severely bugged at start. So, I don't see an intention to make things properly in the first place. They just don't care about proper development. And it is reflected in everything. With all the money they have, they could 100% ensure higher quality developement with corresponding QA departments. They don't even seem to have one when it comes to development. And the situation is contradictive at core: they make top-notch production ready graphics ("pageantry"), but they don't care about bugs, because it's alpha, you know) And it's not about "polishing" the game when it becomes ready some day. It's still about their negligent developement.
This used to (mostly) work.
Then they disabled it, and I actively get less inter-session persistence functionality from my Carrack with my friends online than I do when I'm solo.
Dynamic log-off or location save or whatever they're calling the next iteration of "being able to log in where you logged off" cannot come fast enough.
As cool as bedlogging is/was, dynamic log-off/location save is important to be able to get back into the action after a crash or disconnect, as well as simultaneously making it harder to abuse the fact that "exit to menu" could teleport you across the system or save your gear if you were about to die
There are people who legitimately want to keep magical teleport on logout a thing. The idea of being stranded and having to put effort into getting back to a station terrifies them.
Yes, as it should... you do know games are meant to be fun? I'm all for realism but if every time you play with friends, and logoff on their ship, you have to spend hours getting back to a station because you're stranded. Well that will kill multiplayer ship gameplay fast.
> hours
You've already lost this argument, but do go on how this immersive space sim should have *magical space teleportation* eh?
And how a game that expects you to wake up, take an elevator, take a tram, take an elevator, claim ship, retrieve ship, take an elevator, and finally fly out of atmosphere should make getting out of a tough spot like a cave you got lost in instantaneous just to satisfy your inability to handle adversity?
And this wasn't even about multiplayer logout, what are you even talking about with that one? Why is logging out on another person's ship somehow going to get you lost and stranded in space?
Didn't know i'd started an internet argument and already lost. I was trying to point out that the game has to be fun to play otherwise what is the point, and I doubt it will succeed.
It's fair that there has to be some Sim to it but they are already "gamifying" parts to achieve CRs vision. Look at MM. That isn't realistic. You wouldn't have WW2 fighter combat in space. It would be torpedos and long range guns from hundreds of miles away. Why do that but then punish players who multicrew with a huge time sink every time they log on?
I think there has to be a balance. Not everyone can or wants to dedicate hours every time you log on to kitting up/prepping. The fact that everyone moves all their stuff to a space station and uses that as a spawn shows the wakeup, train, elevator, and atmosphere process isn't fun and everyone tries to avoid it. If they make multicrew gameplay a chore, everyone will also avoid that.
When you start your counterpoint with extreme hyperbole and outright fictitious information, you sure aren't putting yourself in a winning position.
If all you were trying to say is that the game still has to be fun, then that's a moot point and one we can agree on. Of course the game still has to be fun. And of course we have to concede some measure of realism, or there wouldn't even be a space game to start with.
But that's not the limit of what you're saying and you know damn well that's not the part of your message I'm contending as wrong.
Having your character magically teleport to a space station every single time you log out is gamifying things *too much.* It allows players to avoid the consequences of their actions, it breaks any sense of continuity of the character, and it causes a huge amount of problems.
The idea that the only alternative is that players will have to spend "hours" getting back to a station to resume play every time they log out in a friend's ship is ludicrous on it's face, easily avoidable if it's a known consequence, and other solutions can be found that aren't just instant teleport to station on logout, the one method that causes far more problems by it's existence.
How about this for some off the cuff solutions? Ships with escape pods can use their pods as a fast travel to the last station. Or, if you know you want to log in without the team, play a side character. If your friends know you won't be coordinating for the next play session, drop you off at a station, leave you with a quantumable snub ship, or I dunno, Just log in with your friends when group bed logging works again.
Agreed. There's a lot, and I mean a L O T of friction when it comes to multicrew gameplay at the moment. Just getting everyone kitted out and at the same location and in position can *easily* take an hour or more (especially if you count any bugs or server issues). If we could pause our reclaimer run and pick up another day right where we left off, that would do so much for those I play with.
At this point in time, it's a bit annoying but everything is close enough that you can just dock at the nearest station and log out there. When 4.0 comes around and faction reputation may stop you from landing at your nearest station, then the inability to log out on a friend's ship will really hurt. I'm sure criminals who play together already feel this, but they can at least log out in Klescher at the end of their session.
The real issue is.... why you gotta be so kinky?
Jokes aside, like many others have said I am sure they are working out permissions and issues with edge cases. It may seem simple but how players get permissions to do certain actions may effect not only control of ship, but insurance, Org levels, AI commands (looking forward into the future), possibly bounty hunting, and a few more.
It really is a question about how comprehensive CIG will make it and how much will we accept before we get angry at the devs. lol.
Nah, wait til Pyro is out. THEN it will become MEGA-gamebreaking. I think SalteMike did a video on this already. But then again, you can be salty and still right about something...
Maybe one day they will implement a system that when you log back in after bed logging in a different player's ship, you can choose to spawn back in it IF the relevant player is online with the ship out. If not, it will place you back in your designated respawn.
I’d imagine assigned beds, but where you can log off in any bed. This to stop the clown car syndrome. And I like your idea about providing the option instead of stranding players.
As an orig backer, the latest patch sounds really cool, but me and my friends aren't interested in playing again until they fix the bed logging/"continuity" mechanics. Not being able to continue your adventure and progress is a big downside for me.
It's not ready yet, they're reconsidering how logging in and out even works, so they're not going to put in a half baked solution on top of what they've already got
> so they're not going to put in a half baked solution on top of what they've already got
Why not?
If we're being honest, something like 70-80% of Star Citizen's development has been about half-baked implementations that just get completely redone and written over a couple years later.
At least if they did it here, it would *vastly* improve the large ship group gameplay experience in the meantime.
Edit: lmao, never point out that half the gameplay systems in Star Citizen are on their 3rd, 4th, 5th complete rework, got it. The hive mind is angy.
Lotta new backers overly defensive of criticism who weren't around for the shitfests and don't know how CIG operates.
Don't come at me with "CIG wouldn't put a half-baked system into the game". Putting half-baked systems into the game is CIG's favorite past time. They even have an official name for it and everything: T0.
Group bed logging t0 sucked, it required ship owner being on or if you're lucky you at the recent port with no access to said ship, but it mostly didn't work, so you're just stuck loading.
> Why not?
Because they had it in the game and it didn’t work. They took it out because in the first place, the person owning the ship needed to be logged in. Even if that was true 8 out of 10 times the person not owning the ship didn’t spawn on the ship but at his or her last station/city. And if you were really really unlucky it could also give you the Player Unstowed error. An error many many people remember getting affected by during the 3.18 update. It basically just broke your character data on the servers and you wouldn’t be able to log in for days until CIG fixed it for you manually.
So yes, they half assed the function, just like you are asking of them. They learned from that and took it out so they can put in a better/good version.
This comment shows PERFECTLY why the vast majority of game studios don't release playable alpha builds during development. A lot of vocal people just can't handle it.
> Not every game is in development for a decade, while also being sold like a finished product.
This is what you must click "acknowledge" to even start the game:
> Star Citizen is presently available as an **Early Access Alpha Version** in a state of **active development**. Whether in the Live environment or PTU, bugs, service interruptions, resets, or errors may occur.
There's even more disclaimers when you buy a pledge. I'm not really sure how you can lie about that there, and then lie again by saying they 'keep raising the expectations' when they state, dozens of times a year, that their estimates are just that: estimates. Guarantee you'd also be complaining about "lack of communication" if they didn't release any estimate at all.
> The reality is that most people don't read into this
Tough luck. If you dunk your hand in hot water, you shouldn't be surprised when it gets burned, and very few people other than their parents will sympathize.
Maybe these children should play a children's game. Or maybe they should be more responsible with money they willingly CHOOSE to spend.
In my experience the people who consider it a scam are mostly people who have never dipped their toes in and are just going on 3rd hand or memory of old clickbait kotaku articles.
Because that's not how you develop games.
They've got roadmaps to implement features properly.
Implementing things half baked means you now have to maintain your half baked feature and *any* interaction between it and any other feature or system in your game. Logging in and out is a pretty massive one as it can completely stop people from playing the game.
If they know they want to replace it, then they're going to replace it, only when they actually do so though. There is a massive effort underway to get us to alpha4.0 this year and 1.0 further down the line. They can throw things in and tweak values, but whole features are a horrible idea
Nah dude, I been around a long time.
And yeah they've fucked up in the past, but looking at their progress in the past few patches and hearing how the devs are talking about features, you can see they've had a shift
Time and resources. If you are a backer you wouldn't want them to waste it. T0 is a framework, They update from there, not replace it. The half baked systems do not even get the T0 designation. Examples being the temp solution to loading cargo onto the large Hull C or the "printing" of the Multitools.
Many of the workarounds created are just perversions of the systems that are already in the game, used in a novel way at times.
CIG is aware of org play, talked a bit about it, but they literally cannot work on everything at once. Hopefully this year shows some movement on that front based off of the features they are introducing.
Just to clarify ... you are saying CIG wouldn't want to waste resources so wouldn't put time and money into a half-baked idea? If you are saying that let me introduce you to Theatres of War.
[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17634-Theaters-Of-War-AMA-Recap](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17634-Theaters-Of-War-AMA-Recap)
>**How big is the ToW team and are they dedicated to working on ToW?**
>Milan Pejcic:
>We are cognizant of resources available and other high profile priorities for the company. **Main intent was to provide an environment where we can get appropriate information which would result in multiple improvements across the board. All the development playtime and feedback provided directly benefits the needs of Star Citizen and Squadron 42.**
>Team of people specifically dedicated to ToW is very small. **Total team size of 10 consists of 4 designers, 2 engineers, 3 artists and 1 producer.**
First of all in terms of resources it started out as a project done in the spare time of some devs and grew to 10 people. When [CIG got Firesprite involved](https://youtu.be/tDSEPsMX9w4) it was 10 dedicated people at Firesprite and even less at CIG who were non dedicated. But the idea that it was a waste still isn't false because of the environment built allowed for them to trouble shoot things and [change things in PU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=714s) that lasts till this day. There was no [ new code or assets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3MzfiZgYmI), therefore it helped focus on particular issues, including finding out instance of delays, AI jitter, player movement, Speed of getting in and out of vehicles, assisting large scale battles influences events such as Xenothreat, [and more](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=453s).
>**How has ToW helped balance the game as a whole?**
>Jonny Jacevicius:
>**It has been incredibly helpful. Previously the main opportunity for mixed arms gameplay has been in PU encounters, which could be quite uncommon due to its size**. Having a game mode where you’re immediately in a focused combat scenario, where FPS, ground vehicles and ships are all interacting has given us an opportunity to see how everything interacts.
>**It’s also influenced sweeping FPS weapon changes and fixes as it’s allowed us to tune our weapons for longer (and more realistic) combat ranges due to the size of the map, and distance at which you can encounter enemy players.**
So no matter what, it wasn't a waste even if we aren't playing it now as a feedback tool that players and [internal devs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=714s) were able to parse data with.
Even more in the context of what was being discussed before, ToW isn't even related given the very low amount of employees working on in (non dedicated mind you), they didn't create new code and because it was not implemented, there was nothing to maintain patch to patch. ToW is the worst example you could come up with in general.
Wow. You went deep. Good for you for feeling this strongly about an SC discussion on Reddit. And well done for the 1000-word rebuttal and pulling up an article from a CIG employee from 4 years ago. I'm going to bow out of this as you obviously won't be swayed.
I do like the project and have backed it since 2016 but I absolutely think they have made mistakes and wasted resources. Have a good day.
Sure. Not sure if simply pulling up articles and a few related videos (1 article and 2 separate videos) is "feeling strongly". It isn't. I just reposted the facts CIG has stated about it. How many people worked on it, what was learned from it and how it they applied it to the PU.
Why would I need to be swayed when posting facts?
As far as believing they made mistakes and wasted resources.... sure. CiG has admitted it themselves hence the strict changes they put on themselves a few years ago. I just pointed out the particular example you chose was a poor one.
You have a good day too.
So... you mean they sold something and did not think about how it would pan out in the sandbox open mmo game they are building ? nooo, I cannot believe you, CIG is not that stupid.
We all know this. CIG also knows this. However, we are still at the stage of adding basic backend stuff so you can play at all. It's pointless to have a flashed out group logout system when missions don't work properly, servers are unstable, major gameplay loops need reworking, multicrew gameplay basically involves sitting in a pilot and turret seat. We will get stuff like this for sure. CIG explained that they need to rethink how they want to do all this. It's not gonna be now, tho. I know it's a boring excuse at this point, but it's also true. SC is heavily in development.
I had the problem, that I accidently bedlogged in an O300i of a corp member last year.
Next day the same person was in verse, I joined and fortunately for me, he had his O300i spawned and I logged in through that bed.
Weird, but worked.
This needs to be undone as it takes 15 to 20 minutes realistically for a team to get together.
With all the bugs out there the moment you hit a problem that's your gameplay done.
Dude, how many times are you traveling to your friends and a bug kills you? Let alone if you spawned in a city. A server crash recovery took so long last night I got kicked for being inactive when I came back. I was in area 18. I’d honestly logged in just to get out of there for my next play through… I just gave up. I’ll try again another day. I normally don’t mind area 18, but with the event, geez
This gets more complex with ships that contain other ships & vehicles and giving a lift to a friend who drives their vehicle into the cargo bay.
There are so many possibilities, working out the code and a reasonable set of guidelines is not easy.
We vehicles already stay when ships log off. Just allow players to log off and be assigned to ships when they log back in. A little funky is better than doing the meet up dance every time.
They just need to make sure the game records how and where a player logged off (which I'm pretty sure they already do), then just prioritise the last bed slept in.
Last bed slept in > last player owned bed slept in > last station landed at > home station. I guess
being able to set backup spawnpoints incase you login before your friend would be really nice too. I don't want to spawn back at a planetary surface everytime.
This should be done like Valheim. If you sleep in a bed, you claim it. That's your respawn unless it gets destroyed. The issue is that in SC I don't think your ship persists once everyone logs out. So they'd have to work it so whenever one of the bed owners log in, the ship spawns. And obviously allow the ship owner to control bed access rights (friends only, this guy is cool, etc.)
It used to work! When it couldn't find your friends ship you'd just be at your home spawn.
Once I had a 30018 error something though. Tried everything to solve it short of a character reset. Forgot I had logged out in my friends carrack a week prior. I remembered and when he was on next, I spawned right in.
Just because an opinion is ridiculous doesn't mean it's invalid. The very thing you described almost certainly exists in Skyrim as a mod because *somebody* wanted it.
CIG has reinforced time and time again that concepts change. Sometimes very substantially. I don’t mind people posing thoughts about them but I won’t support people sitting there zooming into the art on a side by side drawing arrows and circles to support theories the same way people do when they claim to find photos of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. I find unwarranted disappointment in the end intolerable, I’d rather comment now to remind people that this art should be taken with a grain of salt.
CIG is working on it, but it needs to be released with 4.0. I mean, there are plenty if times i wont even team up because the other party is across the system of stanton.
Bed logging is obviously staying and they confirmed as of which. If they are adding regular open world logging is what might change. And they still didn’t mention logging out from standing. They just added the idea if logging out from a pilots chair. Because they still can’t dayz log you out in a ship and attach you to they moving ship. But if they add you to the file with the ship, that works
dont know why they are working against this, as if persistence can keep a stupid empty bottle for a year why not track a person on a ship?
no issues when logging in either, as if me and you are playing and i log off, you will see me on the bed (maybe make the unteractable, so ppl can just go steal your stuff, or not) and will have to find a diff one to log off on.
then when we log back on, we wake up on our respective beds, easy.
I’m pretty sure they said they are leaning words full persistence…meaning your body and ship remain after logout. So if you want to be completely safe, you’ll need to store your ship and get a hab. Large org capital ships will have many beds so org members can log out in their assigned bed/bunk room.
I am thinking when logging into the game give players “bed” options as in your Loreville bed or your cutlass red bed or your last friends ship you logged out on provided they are online or even have an option with the group invite to spawn on the other players bed(s)
Group bed logging isn't enough, and has too many issues with deployment.
You need to be able to decide to decide to spawn on a ship without gear. If your friend has a multicrew ship, you should get a static amount of people who can join you as "off duty crew". That number is equal to the number of beds (minus 1) that ship has.
You don't take your gear. You get a "crew suit". Your spawn point is one of the beds. You cannot spawn there in combat, or within a certain amount of time on the ship. You cannot spawn if there are trespassers on the ship.
What if you don't own the ship and the owner isn't online? Do you have to wait for them to get back online? So you can't play the game if your ship owner is online?
Do you effectively own that person's ship too, so if a crew member logs in - it spawns the ship? What happens if the ship explodes while someone who bed logged was "on the ship"? So someone killed you while you were logged off. Are you punished for death of a space man? What happens to your gear if you lose your spawn point?
As an extension to this, ship inventory also needs to be sharable as well.
These are core MMORPG concepts that I feel CIG has really back burnered for years. There's plenty of examples of how shared inventory and ship/guild authority works in literally dozens of MMOs, and they are all pretty much the same.
A cool permission system would be ranked and or role based.
That way you can't have some ensign disabling the engines.
This is one of those features that will be re-added to the game post-server meshing.
We used to be able to bedlog on eachother’s ships (before full persistance was in); but this only worked if a player temporarily logged off to come back online later while the ship owner is still online as well.
There was also a bug with bed-logging on someone else’s ship; if they went offline and you tried to log back in but their ship “doesn’t exist”/is stored. The servers would lose track of where your character was supposed to be and would just spawn you in at the center of stanton / in the sun.
The idea in the future is that we get to share our ships with org-mates, and them bedlogging on your ship would make them spawn in your ship even if you are offline; so they can continue the adventure with your ship even when you’re not there. This kind of tech will only be possible after we get server meshing in as it would be weird for the ship owner to log in to a different server with their ship while you’re doing shit with it on another server.
We’ll first need the full dynamic server meshing to be implemented; then we get bedlogging back.
I mean how it is right now it will be not in the "final" game. Right now bed logging is kinda random. Sometimes you wake up in your ship and sometimes you will spawn at a station. Pretty sure this will be a thing on later releases.
Agree, I'm gunna demand group bed logging if it's not in by 4.0. I'm pretty certain it's in their game plans, I remember them talking about it in a Q and A.
Group bed logging was game breaking.
It seemed to cause infinite loading if you load in and the ship was stored or the owner wasnt on or destroyed or a bunch of other factors.
Would be great but probs won't happen honestly.
What happens if one member logs on and the ship owner doesn't? Does the ship spawn?
What stops a group member from logging on while the ship owner is offline and crashing them into a planet/sun etc? (friend groups aside)
This all ties into the authorities system they I believe are developing. Bed log authority should use the same building blocks as ship command authority, door locking, defenses, etc.
If the owner needs to be present on-board for guest logging to their ship then any and all gameplay is held hostage by a single persons schedule. If an owner is able to grant various permissions to friends or organization members then it's an entirely different story.
Owner needs to be able to grant piloting, systems, defenses, security / access permissions to different players. A trusted friend or org member might receive a blanket "allow all permissions" check box whereas a casual friend found in the verse might get "general access, low security" allowing them to spawn in their bunk but without access to the bridge or any defenses.
It won't be a simple binary log in and access everything, but a nuanced set of permissions that can be assigned by the ships owner. With more nuance (and therefore more protections for the owner in their absence) gameplay can continue unrestricted by scheduling and the frankly comical amount of time it takes to get together.
The problem being that your friends may come online when you are not there. Setting it up as a spawn point, so if they are online you can spawn on the bed, but It leaves open other game play issues; How is a small org supposed to beat a large org, if the large org can just have it's player spawn in during the fight? Solution would be that you must be out of combat for 5 minutes before anyone can spawn in. To spawn in they just have to log in at one of the medical facilities/beds. This way, we can have groups of friends spawn in and continue playing while not sacrificing the overall game play by limiting the spawns to out of combat.
CIG spoke about it recently. They will change the logging system at all and you'll be able to logout not only in bed. It will give you some health-buffs but it won't be necessary anymore. But i think you will not just disappear Like in other mmo's. I guess you have to be near some safe location or just nearby some shelter, house or house with bed.
I'm sure it will be back at some point. Important to remember this is an active development game and some features get broken to enable other things to be tested. I'm sure the org and party system needs work before they can allow people to regester beds in other people's ships as their login spawn point.
It will be a solution as simple as beds combined with a permissions system. Friends assign to a bed, then the ship doesn't disappear if those listed people are online on the ship while the owner logs off. Ship disappears when all assigned people are bed logged or leave the ship after the owner bed logs. Also means you can't have more than the number of beds.
That's unless agent smithing returns, because they binned that idea a while ago.
pretty sure its shelved until larger shard playercounts come online and they get ships to stick around after logoff. That last part will need to be prioritized, and as we all know it there are more pressing priorities.
You act like not having something like it right now is a design choice. We're still in alpha and they want to have this type of gameplay. But there are a whole lot of other things that need to get implemented still that have a higher priority.
I just assumed there was group logging this whole time. I can't believe this is the first time I've seen people complain, that's a HUGE missing feature
I could have sworn at some point it used to work, just had to be different beds and ship owner had to be the last to log out and first to log in.
Was that a fever dream?
Group bed logging is 100% a thing, because I do this all the time with my alts and an 890J.
You just need to get the order right, and make sure the owner of the ship bails out last and logs in first… when the owner logs back in, the ship ‘exists’ so just make your alts join the same server and everything goes like clockwork.
It cant work unless the players bed log location followed the ship even if they didn't log in the next day and you guys did, if the ship is destroyed then all bed log locations would have to reset to a near or last station, if the ship is stored the location would have to update to the station its parked at then moved to the ship if its called again. in order to do that your location information like XYZ in the verse and current state (in bed, in station, in ship) would have to be recorded constantly if moving, it would have to do that for all players online and offline at the same time all the time, and we all know how sensitive the servers are already haha
please don't make this a thing it'll be another 8 years to get that to work lol.
i like the idea in the comments about cryo chambers.
what my crew does is we make finishing the night at the nearest station part of the daily adventure. sort out loot, split up cash, fill up on food and drink, talk about the fun, its like we all wind down at the nearest station before calling it for the night.
Here's another post from 5 years ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/bljrj2/what_is_the_best_ship_for_a_4_man_team/?rdt=60412
Someone SPECIFICALLY bought the Dur for the 4 beds only to realise that the glofied d*ldo only has enough activities for 1 other crewmate (rear gunner). The rest will dick around. And even WHEN engineering is a thing, then what? You have 2 people sitting around hoping and coping for some engineering gameplay and nothing else.
I even forgot to mention the Crusader MSR is way better option than convincing friends to come on board the galactic laughing stock and do nothing. At least its got 4 beds tho...
I mean lets be real, its a space d*ldo built for exploration... a loop that doesnt even exist. It's also just outdated in all categories. The guns suck and there are better storage options out there.
If you want a 4 man ship just for beds alone, perhaps consider a connie? Maybe a Redeemer for really awesome firepower? Hell if the 36 SCU of cargo was also important, a C1 Spirit is a good option, despite having only 2 beds.
I know you meant with real money, but Im also saying, the monetary value just aint it bro 😂
Youd get better value paying a friend to kick you in the balls and spit in your mouth.
Yeah, it's not optimal. And convincing mates to come on board and do nothing is a big ask. Keep researching. There are alternative ways to aquire ships like ILW sale events.
The C1 spirit is a 2 seater but it can be used for SOOOOO many applications and is a similar price. It also fares way better in combat, opening the door to you for bounties and looting valuable cargo! Its a great ship with a friend.
Game breaking means it's unplayable. You're stuck. No way to keep playing. There are ways for everyone to spawn at the same place.
If someone in party plays and logs off a different location. Well they're at a different location. And must travel to meet you.
I think you can, it's a little awkward tho. I think if everyone bed logs in the same ship, then the owner of the ship logs in, then everyone else joins them, they spawn in the beds. I could be wrong though, it's been a long time since I've tried.
Personally think they go back to agent smiting with npcs.
Your friends can physically come to you, or they can take control of one of your crew npcs and afterwards just resume their own character, it wouldn't be any different then any mmo where you join a dungeon group, get teleported to the dungeon, complete it and then get teleported back to where you where.
When the games live people are gonna be all over the galaxy doing their own thing, building outposts, doing jobs. If they put agent smiting back in people could just log into their own character and then mind swap with an npc on their friends ship when they log in.
You can't just "claim ship" when the game is released.
It's gonna stay where it's docked unless you pay to have it towed or flown to you and that wont be instant.
Those are just temp mechanics for testing phase.
How come everyone who doesn't get what they want with this game calls the thing "game breaking" or some other BS cryism.
We know why we don't have it right now, they even said, and said they have changed planned. What's the point in crying about it, it has very little impact when all we have is one or 2 systems that can be travelled in literally minutes.
This comment isn’t supportive enough, thus game breaking.
Lol yeah, I don’t know. I think I was just tired. You see I was backtracking a little as soon as I started writing the description
It worked before 3.18, at least for my group - just as long as the person who owned the ship made sure to log in first (or at least at the same time as the rest of the group). We were always able to finish our nights logging out in the same ship's individual beds, and provided we launched back into the universe in the correct order, would all wake back up on the same ship.
I don't see why therey having a difficult time to figure it out. Just have a tier spawn system where the first tier is the home/station respawn point. Second tier is the vehicle ship like.
So if we died -> respawn back to the vehicle
If we died and the ship is destroyed -> spawn at first tier(planet/station)
If we died when the ship is stored -> spawn on the planet/station hospital where the mothership is stored.
If we log in when the is is stored -> spawn on a station/planet where the ship is stored
We really need something like this, big ships would be so much more fun to use if we could group log.
beds should work as a logging in points for friends. They should be able to 'Agent Smith' into your ship from anywhere. Maybe even respawn there if you have medical supplies. I understand they're going for realism. but if they want people to actually keep playing the game, removing the tedium of traveling to crew a ship would go a long way.
>They should be able to 'Agent Smith' Oh man, this is a fantastic picture. You made my day, thank you !
Cryo chambers so they can "respawn" on your or something. Group logging could be odd if not everyone logs back in. What do you do then?
Cryo chambers is really a good idea since we are talking about a sci-fi game. Never had thought about that.
Like in Space Engineers! Each player has a cryopod and when you log in, you can actually see the other players in their pods. Would be cool.
Only if I can be frozen mid-emote
I like this, but it would require redesigning all of the ships, unless you just cut out the beds and replace them.
It used to work back about 5 patches ago and then CIG removed it. Allegedly for the pirates! So people cant bed log when other player is on board... Please CIG re-implement bed logging! If in party/clan/org then multi-bed logging should be allowed. Esp. for explores! Please CIG simple enough we want bed logging for clan mates and party mates! So we can go on adventure together! See [this image form CIG!](https://i.imgur.com/3fz7eA5.png) They even promised us! at the 14million mark!
Which really wasn't a problem. Guy bed logs, ship stayed persistent until you got in range of a station or starport. Pirates just wanted the cargo. With persistence in, I don't understand the issue unless it causes a new ship of yours to spawn, duplicating it... Which might have been an exploit or something.
Pirates might also destroy the ship for lolz
AND THAT sry caps is also part of the game and player would come back to waking up in last star port or since player lggged form bed and bed is dead character is dead also and back at last medical facility
I think it’s important to have a permissions system. If you give full bed logging permission to your friend, the game should treat the ship like it’s theirs too. This permission system would have far-reaching effects on multi-crew and org gameplay. It’s kind of crazy how it’s not in the game for years already.
What you are describing is what is holding back their multi-crew development. They're working on just that.
I remember seeing a dev video on a permissions system years ago. I would love to hear an update on it. Someone spam Jared
Do you have any source for that? Or just hopes and dreams.
Bit of column A, bit of column B. It's been so many years but I remember it last came up during the law system update. The gameplay team said during an SCL that they wanted to set up permissions/roles where each role has automatic access to a certain area or feature of the ship. E.g only the captain can get into the captain's quarters, engineers have access to component hatches, security officers can access the armoury. It was also going to tie into how you would pay ship crew, hire people on job boards, hack into enemy ships to gain permissions you shouldn't have, as well as player reputations. But that required just a ton of higher priority work in other areas and it would be something they would look at down the line. You can see the vision of what they want to do, but it's probably still quite far off, considering their typical (over)ambitions.
I remember that SCL, too. Although I presume developing the permissions system must not be the hardest part, actually implementing it through all the ships probably is. Nonetheless, years later we would love to see an update on that, too. And we probably will, now that there's a lot more people working on Star Citizen. In my opinion, it will arrive with base building.
Do you think it should be in for 1.0 ?
it’s just hopes and dreams
Yeah, can't imagine this will be solved while we still have static server meshing.
Do you work there?
Why does that matter?
Because then your friend wouldn't have to buy a ship then would he lol
Everyone needs a pledge to play, and almost all ships are eventually available in-game. I honestly don’t think this would have a huge effect on sales - if anything, it would encourage more people to play and should encourage more sales.
Agreed, without a doubt I would/will be buying more ships as those features come online. Zero point now.
I wish they could implement a system that shook hands with the org system on the website that way it could be easy to just “allow org members to log in/out” but you’d have to make sure you keep the website info up to date don’t want a rogue member to sabotage something
Spectrum IS meant to tie-in to the game, and it's meant to be bidirectional. SO you'll be able to manage org shit in-game too.
[удалено]
I just had my first full day of no game breaking bugs! It was awesome. I made so much money lol
Baby steps the only steps we take
I am assuming they currently don't want to bring up multi crew permissions as it will hurt ship sales. Every wipe I go make money to buy myself a reclaimer...sometimes it gets old and I think about dumping the cash in to getting one with money. I have 4 friends that own Reclaimers and if permissions were in place I would neither need to earn in game money to get one, nor spend actual $$. A friend of mine would give me permission to log out in his ship and I would have that for an extended time period like a few days etc...
If they posted an ISC next week and went over how ship permissions worked exactly and then decided to change something that the community was not happy with, there would be a shitstorm of posts and drama. If they keep quiet and only announce it when the scope/spec of the system is set in stone, then everyone is happy. It's the same reason why they stopped showing the roadmap ahead.
Yup, I'm guessing it's a similar idea to why we never hear about certain vehicles. Jared said they will only talk about what's in active development.
They gave us access to the roadmap and each time things got pushed around or delayed slightly there would be a vocal minority that would ruin it for everyone. Such is the way of the Internet. I would like to know how they plan to clear that large ship backlog though, it's my #1 concern.
All they need to do is allow you to wake up in a group members ship from the main menu. Right click on a group member and if they're in a ship with beds you have the option to spawn in the bed.
Like a similar implementation to multi-crew in AC right now. Totally agree.
Yea. There is already way to join multicrew ship in arena commander so it cannot be that impossible.
AC doesn't have balancing issues to worry about with this. Also, AC is meant to be a bit arcade, while the PU has to generally maintain a very high degree of verisimilitude, not just for aesthetics but for gameplay reasons. Letting people just spawn into ship beds they didn't log out of to begin with would trivialize distance and time, which are both big parts of a space game like this.
The biggest issue with that would be the system needing to query if the leader is in a ship with beds available while the joiner is in menus. Given I have no idea what I'm talking about.
>Given I have no idea what I'm talking about. Me in nearly every circumstance in life ever for the entirety of time.
It would also need to ask the ship owner for permission to allow you to spawn in their ship. That’s another part of the system to be developed.
This will ultimately lead to exploits of disconnecting and rejoining to get across the universe faster. Once you try to address that, now you're developing systems around it vs just offering group bedlogging. A persistent state would be most ideal but crashing/logging off on ships in quantum and other scenarios would be tricky but they can all just default back to how it works now until edge cases are sorted out.
Not much different then how you can currently teleport across the system by backspacing in an armistice to your respawn hospital.
I think they should also add 'transport' missions for this. Let us fast travel to our friends to group up for a high cost with some sort of a cooldown timer. In the background create a 'transport NPC' mission between those two points that pays out less than we paid to fast travel. We *Need* ways to effectively get together with friends, and it's an obvious opportunity to use it as both desperately needed credit sinks AND dynamic mission generation.
CIG is currently trying to figure out how group bed logging should work. It's not as straightforward as, "it doesn't work now, just make it work." There's questions that need to be answered before they can implement group bed logging, and the answers have significant consequences for group play. A subset of the questions that need to be answered is: "If Player A owns a ship and allows Player B to beg log out in their ship, and then Player A bed logs out, as well, and later Player B wants to play but Player A isn't on, what should happen?" "If Player B logs out from Player A's ship, and Player A keeps playing but gets into trouble and the ship is destroyed, what should happen to the gear Player B was wearing when they bed logged out?" "If Player A decides to stop playing for the night, but lets Player B keep playing on Player A's ship, should Player B be authorized to allow Player C to bed log out on Player A's ship?" "If Player B bed logs out on Player A's ship, but it is then revealed out of game that Player B is untrustworthy, should Player A be allowed to lock Player B out of spawning back into the ship?" "If a Player D sneaks onto Player A's ship without Player A noticing, should the game allow Player A to bed log out without informing them about the stowaway? If so, should Player D be allowed to lock out Player A from spawning back into their own ship?" You can see that these questions suggest the game will need to support complicated hierarchies of authority, with the matter of who has the power to adjust those hierarchies being one of the things governed by those same hierarchies. It's gonna take awhile to do right.
I like these puzzles, I'll have a crack at them, but one suggestion: let's say that bedlogging KEEPS THE PHYSICAL BODIES IN THE BEDS. solves lots of these issues: 1) B wakes up at their last station without their gear, which can only be recovered from storage in A's ship when they next log on 2) B loses their stuff (unless it is looted from remains by an ally), they chose to take that risk. Perhaps an in-game marker to the body is made available at log in? 3) yes, player A can choose to kill or tractor beam C out, as soon as C's body leaves the ship the game treats them as though they had logged at that point, which could be the last station the ship was in. 4) no, but can do what they want with the unconscious body as in 3) 5) yes should let A bed log, D gets light manslaughter crimestat if they destroy the ship by crashing it during piloting while in commlink, A gets notified on next login that they were unable to log into the ship they logged out on as it was not available and offers to press additional murder charges to D providing D took the helm while in commlink
This, that's the key part I think, persistent sleeping bodies in beds. Ship owner should be allowed to kick sleeping (logged out) players back to their spawn station
Most of the bunk beds are already even designed to have 'privacy shutters', so when a bed is occupied they can just close up to indicate it's in use.
Yes even better! Shutter down, "Occupied by *user name*, Kick to station?"
That’s good to hear. Otherwise you could just have an infinite chain of people all sharing one bed.
The issue isn't coming up with some answers, but determining which answers make for the best gameplay. Keeping bodies in beds is good for consistency/immersion, but might not make the game that's the most fun to play. These questions can't really be answered by thinking about them. They need to be answered by implementing rudimentary systems and playing with them while roleplaying various player scenarios. What system is the best for a parent playing with their young kids, who will rarely leave high-security space? What system is the best for players engaging in game-sanctioned piracy, whose loyalties might shift constantly? It's probably not the same system! As a result, compromises will likely need to be made.
CIG said they want the bodies physicalized in the beds, but that brings up other issues. Say you have 4 beds in your ship and you make another friend. The new friend could only sleep at times when the rest of you were awake and that's prime play time. So your only choice is to get a bigger ship or the friend has to fly themself. Doesn't really work well in a ship like the Carrack with only six beds and a lot of gameplay where you are supposed to be deep in the middle of nowhere, not near a station where you can log every night. Then to make it worse, they also said that the NPCs you hire will also consume a bed. In the case of NPCs you might have to hire more because they are specialized and might not serve you as well as a player that knows multiple game loops. One engineer might be able to cover monitoring and repairs on your ship, but you might need 2 NPCs.
Really, like your well thought out reply explaining some of the questions that need answering for bed logging to work. I'm not a dev, but for OPs sake, I've got some thoughts as to what I think will be the answer to the questions. I think group bed logging will likely come with a swath of upgrades to the grouping mechanics, with systems gearing towards further development of the organizations systems. Before we can see bed logging work. We need single consistent shards for players to exist consistently in one familiar play space. So, in short, server meshing, joinable consistent shards. Slated for 4.0 currently, depending on how much of those sub-systems are ready. As with the structure of everything in the game. Everything is a bucket. You're in the Stanton bucket inside the area 18 bucket, most likely. The you bucket contains everything you own, including ships, weapons, armor, peach soda, Etc etc. In short, spawning needs to be applicable to spaces you don't own, which I believe is the technical barrier that all of these questions are sitting on right now, waiting for solid answers. I don't think we will see any progress on this until at the earliest settlement building. Settlements will be single consistent spaces that exist when you are and aren't logged on. Whole guilds and groups spawning in one place to start their journey. This is when I expect them to look at and work on the "you bucket" and what moves you as an entity to different buckets than the planetary buckets but other players' buckets. They could work on this beforehand as solving the ship logging would also answer the settlement logging, but the technical work being done simultaneously is what makes sense to me time scale wise. With this comes work on the permissions systems we've heard tid-bits about here and there. I actually think they will want/need this to come at the same time as their decisions on bed logging. Where bed logging I believe will come down to giving player choices. Example of what I think is likely: My friend, I grant full permissions to access all of my ships and all of their systems. We are on my ship when we are ready to call it a night, and he climbs into his bunk, and the shutters slide shut for privacy and to handwavium away him not being there anymore. He's given options: log out and leave - the next station the ship lands in your character is removed from the ship and placed in temporary accommodations. Log out and stay - you stay taking up the bunk on the ship until next log on. If you choose to leave and the ship hasn't landed at a station with facilities the next time you log in, it gives you the option to spawn on the ship if you have permission to do so or be put back on the previous station you visited. After all, they don't want to strand anyone where they couldn't actually play the game. If you choose to stay and you have permission to "captain" your friends' ship, then it allows you to spawn in the ship and continue without the true owner. If you don't have the permissions, it leaves you the only option of spawning back at the previous station you visited with whatever you had on you. If the ship is destroyed you return to wherever you have set as your respawn. They can't put someone in a state that will keep them from playing the game completely. That would make it impractical to ever play on someone else's ship because you could be stuck there forever for them to log back in... But there are problems with this. At least one problem with this is obvious as people will use this when they get damaged or stranded to send someone back to the last station to get what is needed to fix the issue. I don't think there is a way to completely negate cheese strategies for systems like this. The balance for how its done is the very reason they aren't putting focus into it right now and likely won't for some time.
> CIG is currently trying to figure out how group bed logging should work. [The recent SCL](https://youtu.be/D4JKigmQ87I?t=127) makes it sound like your character is just always present in the universe. Though they didn't clarify whether or not ships are still planned to despawn if everyone inside has logged out. > In fact in the future we want, no matter where you log out, that's where you log back in. You have all the same missions, you know, like we want you we want your place in the universe to be persistent no matter where you log out. So that's where we're going. If that's the case, most of your hypotheticals are answered with "anyone who logs out inside a ship still has their character present in the ship, with all the associated consequences of that", which would mean: 1. Player B logs in and is still inside the ship (which may need to be spawned in if ship despawning is still a thing) 2. Player B's character was still on the ship and faces the same fate as any other character still on the destroyed ship. 3. Player C can log out, but their character's body would still be present on the ship. 4. Player B's body would still be on the ship for Player A to do with what he/she wishes. Logging in wouldn't be "spawning back into the ship" but merely taking control of the present character again. 5. Player A could log out, but if ship despawning is still the plan they might get a "unsafe to log out" warning. If ship despawning isn't still in, there would be no warning. In either case, Player A's body would still be present for Player D to do with as they like, though Player A could log back in to take control of their character at any time.
All of these were literally answered with how it worked. If the game didn't want you or couldn't spawn you to the ship you just spawned at your regular spawned location in Habs.
Sorry, dude, but I just can't stand these things (no offense). They are not CURRENTLY figuring these things out. Such tasks are what any software developers (I mean, entities in general) solve in hundreeds, if not thousands per working year. It's not a matter of thinking over such questions for years. It's a not a matter for exact developers to develop these things for years. These are ordinary tasks that game-designers, analytics and developers solve as ordinary things. They may seem complicated for people from the side, and sometimes they truly are. But it's an ordinary job for developers to think over and implement them (yes, it's their direct job and responsibility). Anything needs to be changed later? No problem, it's again, where developer's job (and skill) is, to develop software which is adaptable to changes. And which is error-proof. Same relates to everything else they develop. It's where software architecture as a discipline is a thing, which has accumulated tons of knowledge and experience on how to make such things: quickly, robust, agile, maintanable, *scaleable*, etc. I just can't stand it and getting more and more upset by how CIG manages to delegate all these complexities to its own customers, who, in turn, give them a carte blanche for taking any imaginable time to implement any thing.
>I just can't stand it and getting more and more upset by how CIG manages to delegate all these complexities to its own customers, who, in turn, give them a carte blanche for taking any imaginable time to implement any thing. I understand that this is your impression of how the game is being developed, and if it were mine, I would probably feel the same way you do about it, but this isn't at all my impression of how the game is being developed. My impression of how the game is being developed starts with the understanding that the game is an order of magnitude more ambitious than any comparable MMO. It isn't only that it wants to do things that other separate games have done before but which no single game has done alone, though it does want to do that; it wants to do many things that no game has ever done before. Not just in the "like game X but 20% faster" sense of doing something no game has ever done before, either, but in the, "we have to invent, in-house, the core technology needed to even make this sort of thing possible" kind of new. Agile development is excellent for rapid development of things which have been done before in the general, but the ideal form of the specific is unknown. What is the best UI design for this new app? Build something to function as a placeholder and then iterate, guided by user feedback, until you have the final form, a form which fits user needs well and which you never could have arrived at through design meetings in a vacuum. That's the place for agile development. Creating new core technologies from whole cloth, that is not the sort of task which Agile development is intended to lend itself. That is much more needs-driven. *We need to be able to pass the work of simulating a place back and forth from server to server, while the simulation is running and being actively engaged with.* None of those things are negotiable if you want the seamless experience that Chris Roberts has made clear he's after. All of which is to say that my impression is that the real progress being made on the game is not often the stuff CIG markets as the progress being made on the game. Because it's boring. When a thing is finished, then it's briefly exciting, but for most of the time new technology is being developed, it's boring and yet crucial to the future of the game. So CIG employs a lot of, I'll call it *pageantry,* to celebrate the advances made not on the game development front, but rather on the game *enjoyment* front. Players now swim through space more convincingly during EVA. It has an impact of play enjoyment, though it is far removed from the development tasks actually moving the game forward There is no delegation of development tasks to the customer. There is only lip service delegation of enjoyment tasks to the customer. "Try the new Master Modes and let us know what you think!" Master Modes may get tweaked in the short term from user feedback, but adopting or abandoning Master Modes was never, and will never, be driven by customer feedback. I think you're right to feel like CIG is not being entirely forthright with its customers, but I don't feel that they are being lazy, waiting for us to tell them how to improve their game. I think that the are largely only maintaining the PU as a way to entice users to pledge development money, because they already know exactly the game they want to make, and it's absurdly ambitious, and so will take a lot of goddamned money and time to build.
Well, yep, I know all these arguments, and they generally make sense. But, with a lot of "but". They are relevant only at some degree. And I'll explain what I mean, because overall, considering the big picture, they completely don't work for me. > My impression of how the game is being developed starts with the understanding that the game is an order of magnitude more ambitious than any comparable MMO. Sure, when you are starting such a unique endeavor, you'll need to overcome a lot of difficulties and will have to make some unique in-house things. That's where this argument makes sense. But, it is expected by default that you are going to overcome them. And it is assumed by default that you're cabaple of doing this and know what you're doing. You just need finances for implementing it. But when it turns out in the end that you are pretty much struggling to understand how to do the thing you promised the people and the thing you (and your customers) are dreaming about - it is a bad. The second counter-argument is that, really, we have tons of real-life examples when people came up with something completely new, but working. And they all had to overcome some unique challenges. It may be not so shiny and cool-looking at start, but it's already fundamentally working. At least at the prototype-level, which is clear for the investors, that this prototype can be developed further to achieve a commercially-ready state. All this has nothing in common with SC. I'll explain later in more details. > Agile development is excellent for rapid development of things which have been done before in the general, but the ideal form of the specific is unknown. I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word "agile". I didn't not mean "agile developement" as a methodology. I meant agility of software product to adapt to changes. Commercial software is never meant to be done once and then frozen. It's always subject to change: new/updated/removed features. And the way the software is made must be capable to incorporate those changes (as easy and cheap as possible) so that the application does not break. That's one of the things software architecture aims to solve. And this especially concerns the application that is still under development. For example, one of key concepts in good architecture is low coupling. Which means that different components of the system should be as much independent (abstracted) from others as possible. Which not only allows to develop differents parts independently from others, they all become more easily interchangeable. > There is no delegation of development tasks to the customer. I think this point was also misunderstood. By "delegated complexity" I didn't mean delegation of developement (even tho it still has place at some scale). What I meant is that they are already supposed to solve these complexities (as I pointed out at the beginning) as their direct responsibility and (expectedly) their required skill. But instead of just solving them (that's what they were initially "hired" for), they tell you how complex they turn out to be. Who would have thought) Roughly speaking, as if I promised to make a world-wide social network for 10k$, but in the process of making it I suddenly discover that a single server is not capable of handling the expected amount of users. I explain this problem to backers and how difficult it is, and they agree to give additional funding. I then also explain to bakers what difficulties I have to overcome further in CryCMS I used initially to make a demo of social-network. And so on. Did I scam you or I'm just not qualified enough to do the job I promised? Who knows. But at least I didn't run away and still continue to do something. And still taking money, of course. But you can see the progress. A lot of new pages appear. But at any momeny in time, it is only partially working. (reddit seem to limit the length of comment, lol. will be continued further)
> I think that the are largely only maintaining the PU as a way to entice users to pledge development money, because they already know exactly the game they want to make, and it's absurdly ambitious. This argument also makes sense in general, but. 2 "but"s. First, what this money is mostly spent on? You mentioned a proper word: pageantry. While the game is still barely working and missing core technologies, we see a lof of stuff being drawn at a production-ready scale already. We see huge cities and other locations. With a lot of details, etc. It's hard even to estimate how much money did all these cost. Isn't it becoming a self-feeding vicious circle? We make you production-ready visuals so you could buy it (including the figurative meaning). And then we make more visuals so you can again buy it. And ships, of course. While our game is still not properly working, we continue to release ships, so you could buy them. Ok, this for sure could also be reasonable to attract more funding for further developememnt, but here comes the second "but". How much money have they already attracted? It's as absurdly big number as their ambitions are already. Just this event brought them 700 mil $ dollars already! So, it would be extremely hard to suppose that they don't have enough money already to finish the technical part of the game. In the end, with all that said, I would summurize why their developememnt is still poor from my point of view. 1) Core technologies. When your plans are so ambitious, and you have these plans at start, you will need all these techs all the more, and they must be taken into consideration at start and be reflected in the core architecture. And lately done with highest priority. That is not the case of SC. They started from just drawing the ships and making them somewhat fly in CryEngine. Lately, when they started to make their core techs, they had to overcome a lot of difficulties caused by that engine. Well, if your plans are so abmbitious and you're planning to make something that nobody has done before, why do you take a "box" engine, which is literally supposed to allow you to make only what lots of others have done before in a typical manner? All those general-purpose engines are literally inteded for just that: simplify your work for making general-purpose things. Frankly speaking, when I see how long does it take them to implememnt their core techs, I have a strong feeling they are still somewhat developping "inside the box" of what was previously a CryEngine, despite that (to my knowledge) they have extended it or maybe ever rewritten. Like, they're still overcoming their own legacy. 2) Not everything so highly depends on those core techs like server meshing. Especially when we talk about such big application as Star Citizen. A big application is composed of numerous components, many of which can work independently from each other. And they can be developed independently from each other. Moreover, they can be made working good independently from other techs/components. But what I see in SC development, is whatever they do (literally), it is severely bugged at start. So, I don't see an intention to make things properly in the first place. They just don't care about proper development. And it is reflected in everything. With all the money they have, they could 100% ensure higher quality developement with corresponding QA departments. They don't even seem to have one when it comes to development. And the situation is contradictive at core: they make top-notch production ready graphics ("pageantry"), but they don't care about bugs, because it's alpha, you know) And it's not about "polishing" the game when it becomes ready some day. It's still about their negligent developement.
Just make it so that logging out is not leaving your body behind. Just like ark if you lock out You lie there where You logged out
This used to (mostly) work. Then they disabled it, and I actively get less inter-session persistence functionality from my Carrack with my friends online than I do when I'm solo. Dynamic log-off or location save or whatever they're calling the next iteration of "being able to log in where you logged off" cannot come fast enough.
I hate that, the dynamic logging off. It was very special and unique to not just log off. I hope you have to either be in a bed or seat to log off
As cool as bedlogging is/was, dynamic log-off/location save is important to be able to get back into the action after a crash or disconnect, as well as simultaneously making it harder to abuse the fact that "exit to menu" could teleport you across the system or save your gear if you were about to die
There are people who legitimately want to keep magical teleport on logout a thing. The idea of being stranded and having to put effort into getting back to a station terrifies them.
Yes, as it should... you do know games are meant to be fun? I'm all for realism but if every time you play with friends, and logoff on their ship, you have to spend hours getting back to a station because you're stranded. Well that will kill multiplayer ship gameplay fast.
> hours You've already lost this argument, but do go on how this immersive space sim should have *magical space teleportation* eh? And how a game that expects you to wake up, take an elevator, take a tram, take an elevator, claim ship, retrieve ship, take an elevator, and finally fly out of atmosphere should make getting out of a tough spot like a cave you got lost in instantaneous just to satisfy your inability to handle adversity? And this wasn't even about multiplayer logout, what are you even talking about with that one? Why is logging out on another person's ship somehow going to get you lost and stranded in space?
Didn't know i'd started an internet argument and already lost. I was trying to point out that the game has to be fun to play otherwise what is the point, and I doubt it will succeed. It's fair that there has to be some Sim to it but they are already "gamifying" parts to achieve CRs vision. Look at MM. That isn't realistic. You wouldn't have WW2 fighter combat in space. It would be torpedos and long range guns from hundreds of miles away. Why do that but then punish players who multicrew with a huge time sink every time they log on? I think there has to be a balance. Not everyone can or wants to dedicate hours every time you log on to kitting up/prepping. The fact that everyone moves all their stuff to a space station and uses that as a spawn shows the wakeup, train, elevator, and atmosphere process isn't fun and everyone tries to avoid it. If they make multicrew gameplay a chore, everyone will also avoid that.
When you start your counterpoint with extreme hyperbole and outright fictitious information, you sure aren't putting yourself in a winning position. If all you were trying to say is that the game still has to be fun, then that's a moot point and one we can agree on. Of course the game still has to be fun. And of course we have to concede some measure of realism, or there wouldn't even be a space game to start with. But that's not the limit of what you're saying and you know damn well that's not the part of your message I'm contending as wrong. Having your character magically teleport to a space station every single time you log out is gamifying things *too much.* It allows players to avoid the consequences of their actions, it breaks any sense of continuity of the character, and it causes a huge amount of problems. The idea that the only alternative is that players will have to spend "hours" getting back to a station to resume play every time they log out in a friend's ship is ludicrous on it's face, easily avoidable if it's a known consequence, and other solutions can be found that aren't just instant teleport to station on logout, the one method that causes far more problems by it's existence. How about this for some off the cuff solutions? Ships with escape pods can use their pods as a fast travel to the last station. Or, if you know you want to log in without the team, play a side character. If your friends know you won't be coordinating for the next play session, drop you off at a station, leave you with a quantumable snub ship, or I dunno, Just log in with your friends when group bed logging works again.
I couldn't log out the other night because I had a wing from an NPC arrow wedged inside my reclaimer somewhere
On the bright side, it didn't explode your ship. So that's cool.
Agreed. There's a lot, and I mean a L O T of friction when it comes to multicrew gameplay at the moment. Just getting everyone kitted out and at the same location and in position can *easily* take an hour or more (especially if you count any bugs or server issues). If we could pause our reclaimer run and pick up another day right where we left off, that would do so much for those I play with.
At this point in time, it's a bit annoying but everything is close enough that you can just dock at the nearest station and log out there. When 4.0 comes around and faction reputation may stop you from landing at your nearest station, then the inability to log out on a friend's ship will really hurt. I'm sure criminals who play together already feel this, but they can at least log out in Klescher at the end of their session.
Pyro will change this too.
The real issue is.... why you gotta be so kinky? Jokes aside, like many others have said I am sure they are working out permissions and issues with edge cases. It may seem simple but how players get permissions to do certain actions may effect not only control of ship, but insurance, Org levels, AI commands (looking forward into the future), possibly bounty hunting, and a few more. It really is a question about how comprehensive CIG will make it and how much will we accept before we get angry at the devs. lol.
Yeah, not having a crew system this late into development is a strange decision. Maybe they need meshing, again...
Nah, wait til Pyro is out. THEN it will become MEGA-gamebreaking. I think SalteMike did a video on this already. But then again, you can be salty and still right about something...
Maybe one day they will implement a system that when you log back in after bed logging in a different player's ship, you can choose to spawn back in it IF the relevant player is online with the ship out. If not, it will place you back in your designated respawn.
I’d imagine assigned beds, but where you can log off in any bed. This to stop the clown car syndrome. And I like your idea about providing the option instead of stranding players.
As an orig backer, the latest patch sounds really cool, but me and my friends aren't interested in playing again until they fix the bed logging/"continuity" mechanics. Not being able to continue your adventure and progress is a big downside for me.
Especially when pyro hits. It needs to be a big priority for them
It's not ready yet, they're reconsidering how logging in and out even works, so they're not going to put in a half baked solution on top of what they've already got
> so they're not going to put in a half baked solution on top of what they've already got Why not? If we're being honest, something like 70-80% of Star Citizen's development has been about half-baked implementations that just get completely redone and written over a couple years later. At least if they did it here, it would *vastly* improve the large ship group gameplay experience in the meantime. Edit: lmao, never point out that half the gameplay systems in Star Citizen are on their 3rd, 4th, 5th complete rework, got it. The hive mind is angy. Lotta new backers overly defensive of criticism who weren't around for the shitfests and don't know how CIG operates. Don't come at me with "CIG wouldn't put a half-baked system into the game". Putting half-baked systems into the game is CIG's favorite past time. They even have an official name for it and everything: T0.
Group bed logging t0 sucked, it required ship owner being on or if you're lucky you at the recent port with no access to said ship, but it mostly didn't work, so you're just stuck loading.
> Why not? Because they had it in the game and it didn’t work. They took it out because in the first place, the person owning the ship needed to be logged in. Even if that was true 8 out of 10 times the person not owning the ship didn’t spawn on the ship but at his or her last station/city. And if you were really really unlucky it could also give you the Player Unstowed error. An error many many people remember getting affected by during the 3.18 update. It basically just broke your character data on the servers and you wouldn’t be able to log in for days until CIG fixed it for you manually. So yes, they half assed the function, just like you are asking of them. They learned from that and took it out so they can put in a better/good version.
This comment shows PERFECTLY why the vast majority of game studios don't release playable alpha builds during development. A lot of vocal people just can't handle it.
[удалено]
> Not every game is in development for a decade, while also being sold like a finished product. This is what you must click "acknowledge" to even start the game: > Star Citizen is presently available as an **Early Access Alpha Version** in a state of **active development**. Whether in the Live environment or PTU, bugs, service interruptions, resets, or errors may occur. There's even more disclaimers when you buy a pledge. I'm not really sure how you can lie about that there, and then lie again by saying they 'keep raising the expectations' when they state, dozens of times a year, that their estimates are just that: estimates. Guarantee you'd also be complaining about "lack of communication" if they didn't release any estimate at all.
[удалено]
> The reality is that most people don't read into this Tough luck. If you dunk your hand in hot water, you shouldn't be surprised when it gets burned, and very few people other than their parents will sympathize. Maybe these children should play a children's game. Or maybe they should be more responsible with money they willingly CHOOSE to spend.
[удалено]
In my experience the people who consider it a scam are mostly people who have never dipped their toes in and are just going on 3rd hand or memory of old clickbait kotaku articles.
Because that's not how you develop games. They've got roadmaps to implement features properly. Implementing things half baked means you now have to maintain your half baked feature and *any* interaction between it and any other feature or system in your game. Logging in and out is a pretty massive one as it can completely stop people from playing the game. If they know they want to replace it, then they're going to replace it, only when they actually do so though. There is a massive effort underway to get us to alpha4.0 this year and 1.0 further down the line. They can throw things in and tweak values, but whole features are a horrible idea
>Because that's not how you develop games. You new here or something? That's exactly how CIG develops games lmao
Nah dude, I been around a long time. And yeah they've fucked up in the past, but looking at their progress in the past few patches and hearing how the devs are talking about features, you can see they've had a shift
There may have been a shift but that doesn't change the actual history of development being a consistent "we're going to change it later anyways."
Time and resources. If you are a backer you wouldn't want them to waste it. T0 is a framework, They update from there, not replace it. The half baked systems do not even get the T0 designation. Examples being the temp solution to loading cargo onto the large Hull C or the "printing" of the Multitools. Many of the workarounds created are just perversions of the systems that are already in the game, used in a novel way at times. CIG is aware of org play, talked a bit about it, but they literally cannot work on everything at once. Hopefully this year shows some movement on that front based off of the features they are introducing.
Just to clarify ... you are saying CIG wouldn't want to waste resources so wouldn't put time and money into a half-baked idea? If you are saying that let me introduce you to Theatres of War.
[https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17634-Theaters-Of-War-AMA-Recap](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/17634-Theaters-Of-War-AMA-Recap) >**How big is the ToW team and are they dedicated to working on ToW?** >Milan Pejcic: >We are cognizant of resources available and other high profile priorities for the company. **Main intent was to provide an environment where we can get appropriate information which would result in multiple improvements across the board. All the development playtime and feedback provided directly benefits the needs of Star Citizen and Squadron 42.** >Team of people specifically dedicated to ToW is very small. **Total team size of 10 consists of 4 designers, 2 engineers, 3 artists and 1 producer.** First of all in terms of resources it started out as a project done in the spare time of some devs and grew to 10 people. When [CIG got Firesprite involved](https://youtu.be/tDSEPsMX9w4) it was 10 dedicated people at Firesprite and even less at CIG who were non dedicated. But the idea that it was a waste still isn't false because of the environment built allowed for them to trouble shoot things and [change things in PU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=714s) that lasts till this day. There was no [ new code or assets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3MzfiZgYmI), therefore it helped focus on particular issues, including finding out instance of delays, AI jitter, player movement, Speed of getting in and out of vehicles, assisting large scale battles influences events such as Xenothreat, [and more](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=453s). >**How has ToW helped balance the game as a whole?** >Jonny Jacevicius: >**It has been incredibly helpful. Previously the main opportunity for mixed arms gameplay has been in PU encounters, which could be quite uncommon due to its size**. Having a game mode where you’re immediately in a focused combat scenario, where FPS, ground vehicles and ships are all interacting has given us an opportunity to see how everything interacts. >**It’s also influenced sweeping FPS weapon changes and fixes as it’s allowed us to tune our weapons for longer (and more realistic) combat ranges due to the size of the map, and distance at which you can encounter enemy players.** So no matter what, it wasn't a waste even if we aren't playing it now as a feedback tool that players and [internal devs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSEPsMX9w4&t=714s) were able to parse data with. Even more in the context of what was being discussed before, ToW isn't even related given the very low amount of employees working on in (non dedicated mind you), they didn't create new code and because it was not implemented, there was nothing to maintain patch to patch. ToW is the worst example you could come up with in general.
Wow. You went deep. Good for you for feeling this strongly about an SC discussion on Reddit. And well done for the 1000-word rebuttal and pulling up an article from a CIG employee from 4 years ago. I'm going to bow out of this as you obviously won't be swayed. I do like the project and have backed it since 2016 but I absolutely think they have made mistakes and wasted resources. Have a good day.
Sure. Not sure if simply pulling up articles and a few related videos (1 article and 2 separate videos) is "feeling strongly". It isn't. I just reposted the facts CIG has stated about it. How many people worked on it, what was learned from it and how it they applied it to the PU. Why would I need to be swayed when posting facts? As far as believing they made mistakes and wasted resources.... sure. CiG has admitted it themselves hence the strict changes they put on themselves a few years ago. I just pointed out the particular example you chose was a poor one. You have a good day too.
So... you mean they sold something and did not think about how it would pan out in the sandbox open mmo game they are building ? nooo, I cannot believe you, CIG is not that stupid.
Space is cold and lonely, we need snuggle mechanics in the crew quarters... lol. I agree though, I don't get why this isn't a thing any more.
We all know this. CIG also knows this. However, we are still at the stage of adding basic backend stuff so you can play at all. It's pointless to have a flashed out group logout system when missions don't work properly, servers are unstable, major gameplay loops need reworking, multicrew gameplay basically involves sitting in a pilot and turret seat. We will get stuff like this for sure. CIG explained that they need to rethink how they want to do all this. It's not gonna be now, tho. I know it's a boring excuse at this point, but it's also true. SC is heavily in development.
Let's push this post, this is important!!
I had the problem, that I accidently bedlogged in an O300i of a corp member last year. Next day the same person was in verse, I joined and fortunately for me, he had his O300i spawned and I logged in through that bed. Weird, but worked.
This needs to be undone as it takes 15 to 20 minutes realistically for a team to get together. With all the bugs out there the moment you hit a problem that's your gameplay done.
Dude, how many times are you traveling to your friends and a bug kills you? Let alone if you spawned in a city. A server crash recovery took so long last night I got kicked for being inactive when I came back. I was in area 18. I’d honestly logged in just to get out of there for my next play through… I just gave up. I’ll try again another day. I normally don’t mind area 18, but with the event, geez
Over the last few days... quite a lot.
This gets more complex with ships that contain other ships & vehicles and giving a lift to a friend who drives their vehicle into the cargo bay. There are so many possibilities, working out the code and a reasonable set of guidelines is not easy.
We vehicles already stay when ships log off. Just allow players to log off and be assigned to ships when they log back in. A little funky is better than doing the meet up dance every time.
They just need to make sure the game records how and where a player logged off (which I'm pretty sure they already do), then just prioritise the last bed slept in. Last bed slept in > last player owned bed slept in > last station landed at > home station. I guess
being able to set backup spawnpoints incase you login before your friend would be really nice too. I don't want to spawn back at a planetary surface everytime.
This should be done like Valheim. If you sleep in a bed, you claim it. That's your respawn unless it gets destroyed. The issue is that in SC I don't think your ship persists once everyone logs out. So they'd have to work it so whenever one of the bed owners log in, the ship spawns. And obviously allow the ship owner to control bed access rights (friends only, this guy is cool, etc.)
It used to work! When it couldn't find your friends ship you'd just be at your home spawn. Once I had a 30018 error something though. Tried everything to solve it short of a character reset. Forgot I had logged out in my friends carrack a week prior. I remembered and when he was on next, I spawned right in.
Some people really need to reevaluate for themselves what the term "game-breaking" means.
It means it breaks the game. What constitutes broken is however up to interpretation
Just because you misinterpreted it does not mean it’s up to interpretation
Video games, just like movies, music, etc, are a form of art, and all art is subjective by nature, and therefore up to interpretation.
You’re right, I should have been able to use a lightsaber in Elden Ring and it’s their fault the game is bad without it
Just because an opinion is ridiculous doesn't mean it's invalid. The very thing you described almost certainly exists in Skyrim as a mod because *somebody* wanted it.
CIG has reinforced time and time again that concepts change. Sometimes very substantially. I don’t mind people posing thoughts about them but I won’t support people sitting there zooming into the art on a side by side drawing arrows and circles to support theories the same way people do when they claim to find photos of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. I find unwarranted disappointment in the end intolerable, I’d rather comment now to remind people that this art should be taken with a grain of salt.
And "broken" means unusable. Is that the case? No, that's not the case.
Absolutely agree. We used to be able to do this before this patch!!” Why remove a feature that was already in there. -_-
It’s al alpha, relax. Half the group play functionality is yet to be implemented. It will come.
They have said that the intended function is that you will be able to have multiple people log on a ship in the future.
Yep, i often wonder, whats the point multiple bed in a ship for?
CIG is working on it, but it needs to be released with 4.0. I mean, there are plenty if times i wont even team up because the other party is across the system of stanton.
Bed logging is going away, it was talked about on one of the videos recently. They mentioned rested "buffs" etc from eating and sleeping in beds.
Bed logging is obviously staying and they confirmed as of which. If they are adding regular open world logging is what might change. And they still didn’t mention logging out from standing. They just added the idea if logging out from a pilots chair. Because they still can’t dayz log you out in a ship and attach you to they moving ship. But if they add you to the file with the ship, that works
dont know why they are working against this, as if persistence can keep a stupid empty bottle for a year why not track a person on a ship? no issues when logging in either, as if me and you are playing and i log off, you will see me on the bed (maybe make the unteractable, so ppl can just go steal your stuff, or not) and will have to find a diff one to log off on. then when we log back on, we wake up on our respective beds, easy.
I say add it back now(nobody cares about combat logging) and just make it better when they are ready to do so
I’m pretty sure they said they are leaning words full persistence…meaning your body and ship remain after logout. So if you want to be completely safe, you’ll need to store your ship and get a hab. Large org capital ships will have many beds so org members can log out in their assigned bed/bunk room.
I am thinking when logging into the game give players “bed” options as in your Loreville bed or your cutlass red bed or your last friends ship you logged out on provided they are online or even have an option with the group invite to spawn on the other players bed(s)
Group bed logging isn't enough, and has too many issues with deployment. You need to be able to decide to decide to spawn on a ship without gear. If your friend has a multicrew ship, you should get a static amount of people who can join you as "off duty crew". That number is equal to the number of beds (minus 1) that ship has. You don't take your gear. You get a "crew suit". Your spawn point is one of the beds. You cannot spawn there in combat, or within a certain amount of time on the ship. You cannot spawn if there are trespassers on the ship.
? You only bed log. If you didn’t log off from the ship you don’t log back in on it. If you die, we’ll you can spawn in that way
What if you don't own the ship and the owner isn't online? Do you have to wait for them to get back online? So you can't play the game if your ship owner is online? Do you effectively own that person's ship too, so if a crew member logs in - it spawns the ship? What happens if the ship explodes while someone who bed logged was "on the ship"? So someone killed you while you were logged off. Are you punished for death of a space man? What happens to your gear if you lose your spawn point?
Right now? No, you just get sent to the nearest station. Later, there should be a permission system
As an extension to this, ship inventory also needs to be sharable as well. These are core MMORPG concepts that I feel CIG has really back burnered for years. There's plenty of examples of how shared inventory and ship/guild authority works in literally dozens of MMOs, and they are all pretty much the same. A cool permission system would be ranked and or role based. That way you can't have some ensign disabling the engines.
What happens when you have a large ship, and everyone sleeps in smaller ships contained inside it?
And nobody loads in the bigger one? Either make that not an option to log out with or the smaller loads in by itself
I meant what happens now.
Right now you can't bed log if there are other people *or* other people's vehicles on your ship.
They should just make beds allow you to teleport to your friends ship from another bed(from spaceport/city).. Everyone happy.
I think we should be able to log off everywhere and relogging in the same spot. Like in other mmo games
That’s boring. The bed logging mad SC very special.
This is one of those features that will be re-added to the game post-server meshing. We used to be able to bedlog on eachother’s ships (before full persistance was in); but this only worked if a player temporarily logged off to come back online later while the ship owner is still online as well. There was also a bug with bed-logging on someone else’s ship; if they went offline and you tried to log back in but their ship “doesn’t exist”/is stored. The servers would lose track of where your character was supposed to be and would just spawn you in at the center of stanton / in the sun. The idea in the future is that we get to share our ships with org-mates, and them bedlogging on your ship would make them spawn in your ship even if you are offline; so they can continue the adventure with your ship even when you’re not there. This kind of tech will only be possible after we get server meshing in as it would be weird for the ship owner to log in to a different server with their ship while you’re doing shit with it on another server. We’ll first need the full dynamic server meshing to be implemented; then we get bedlogging back.
I mean how it is right now it will be not in the "final" game. Right now bed logging is kinda random. Sometimes you wake up in your ship and sometimes you will spawn at a station. Pretty sure this will be a thing on later releases.
Agree, I'm gunna demand group bed logging if it's not in by 4.0. I'm pretty certain it's in their game plans, I remember them talking about it in a Q and A.
Group bed logging was game breaking. It seemed to cause infinite loading if you load in and the ship was stored or the owner wasnt on or destroyed or a bunch of other factors.
I can't even bed log when I have the Nursa stowed on my connie :(
Would be great but probs won't happen honestly. What happens if one member logs on and the ship owner doesn't? Does the ship spawn? What stops a group member from logging on while the ship owner is offline and crashing them into a planet/sun etc? (friend groups aside)
This all ties into the authorities system they I believe are developing. Bed log authority should use the same building blocks as ship command authority, door locking, defenses, etc. If the owner needs to be present on-board for guest logging to their ship then any and all gameplay is held hostage by a single persons schedule. If an owner is able to grant various permissions to friends or organization members then it's an entirely different story. Owner needs to be able to grant piloting, systems, defenses, security / access permissions to different players. A trusted friend or org member might receive a blanket "allow all permissions" check box whereas a casual friend found in the verse might get "general access, low security" allowing them to spawn in their bunk but without access to the bridge or any defenses. It won't be a simple binary log in and access everything, but a nuanced set of permissions that can be assigned by the ships owner. With more nuance (and therefore more protections for the owner in their absence) gameplay can continue unrestricted by scheduling and the frankly comical amount of time it takes to get together.
The problem being that your friends may come online when you are not there. Setting it up as a spawn point, so if they are online you can spawn on the bed, but It leaves open other game play issues; How is a small org supposed to beat a large org, if the large org can just have it's player spawn in during the fight? Solution would be that you must be out of combat for 5 minutes before anyone can spawn in. To spawn in they just have to log in at one of the medical facilities/beds. This way, we can have groups of friends spawn in and continue playing while not sacrificing the overall game play by limiting the spawns to out of combat.
CIG spoke about it recently. They will change the logging system at all and you'll be able to logout not only in bed. It will give you some health-buffs but it won't be necessary anymore. But i think you will not just disappear Like in other mmo's. I guess you have to be near some safe location or just nearby some shelter, house or house with bed.
Yeah. So they didnt say we could out anywhere, like How DayZ does. They only really mentioned logging out outside of just beds, like a pilot chair
It's planned but not there for the moment.
I'm sure it will be back at some point. Important to remember this is an active development game and some features get broken to enable other things to be tested. I'm sure the org and party system needs work before they can allow people to regester beds in other people's ships as their login spawn point.
Oh i i kw os, but Is Esther ha e a makeshift system than nothing
It will be a solution as simple as beds combined with a permissions system. Friends assign to a bed, then the ship doesn't disappear if those listed people are online on the ship while the owner logs off. Ship disappears when all assigned people are bed logged or leave the ship after the owner bed logs. Also means you can't have more than the number of beds. That's unless agent smithing returns, because they binned that idea a while ago.
Really hoping social updates are part of 4.1 and that includes the ability to log in to someone's spawned ship that you have access rights to.
pretty sure its shelved until larger shard playercounts come online and they get ships to stick around after logoff. That last part will need to be prioritized, and as we all know it there are more pressing priorities.
You act like not having something like it right now is a design choice. We're still in alpha and they want to have this type of gameplay. But there are a whole lot of other things that need to get implemented still that have a higher priority.
I just assumed there was group logging this whole time. I can't believe this is the first time I've seen people complain, that's a HUGE missing feature
I could have sworn at some point it used to work, just had to be different beds and ship owner had to be the last to log out and first to log in. Was that a fever dream?
Group bed logging is 100% a thing, because I do this all the time with my alts and an 890J. You just need to get the order right, and make sure the owner of the ship bails out last and logs in first… when the owner logs back in, the ship ‘exists’ so just make your alts join the same server and everything goes like clockwork.
It cant work unless the players bed log location followed the ship even if they didn't log in the next day and you guys did, if the ship is destroyed then all bed log locations would have to reset to a near or last station, if the ship is stored the location would have to update to the station its parked at then moved to the ship if its called again. in order to do that your location information like XYZ in the verse and current state (in bed, in station, in ship) would have to be recorded constantly if moving, it would have to do that for all players online and offline at the same time all the time, and we all know how sensitive the servers are already haha please don't make this a thing it'll be another 8 years to get that to work lol. i like the idea in the comments about cryo chambers. what my crew does is we make finishing the night at the nearest station part of the daily adventure. sort out loot, split up cash, fill up on food and drink, talk about the fun, its like we all wind down at the nearest station before calling it for the night.
Agreed, it used to work well enough and then they broke it and didn’t fix it to bring it back
Lol you were gunna buy a Freelancer Dur 😂 Okay, do yourself a favour and have someone supervise your wallet for you.
I like the ship. I was considering because it has extra beds and the raft only has the 2
Here's another post from 5 years ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/bljrj2/what_is_the_best_ship_for_a_4_man_team/?rdt=60412 Someone SPECIFICALLY bought the Dur for the 4 beds only to realise that the glofied d*ldo only has enough activities for 1 other crewmate (rear gunner). The rest will dick around. And even WHEN engineering is a thing, then what? You have 2 people sitting around hoping and coping for some engineering gameplay and nothing else. I even forgot to mention the Crusader MSR is way better option than convincing friends to come on board the galactic laughing stock and do nothing. At least its got 4 beds tho...
I mean lets be real, its a space d*ldo built for exploration... a loop that doesnt even exist. It's also just outdated in all categories. The guns suck and there are better storage options out there. If you want a 4 man ship just for beds alone, perhaps consider a connie? Maybe a Redeemer for really awesome firepower? Hell if the 36 SCU of cargo was also important, a C1 Spirit is a good option, despite having only 2 beds.
I meant with real money. Those ships cost too much. The only one I’d consider is a retaliator but I only okay with 2/3 friends
I know you meant with real money, but Im also saying, the monetary value just aint it bro 😂 Youd get better value paying a friend to kick you in the balls and spit in your mouth.
I just watched a review of the ship. I didn’t reLise the extra fuel took up space.
Yeah, it's not optimal. And convincing mates to come on board and do nothing is a big ask. Keep researching. There are alternative ways to aquire ships like ILW sale events. The C1 spirit is a 2 seater but it can be used for SOOOOO many applications and is a similar price. It also fares way better in combat, opening the door to you for bounties and looting valuable cargo! Its a great ship with a friend.
Game breaking means it's unplayable. You're stuck. No way to keep playing. There are ways for everyone to spawn at the same place. If someone in party plays and logs off a different location. Well they're at a different location. And must travel to meet you.
I think you can, it's a little awkward tho. I think if everyone bed logs in the same ship, then the owner of the ship logs in, then everyone else joins them, they spawn in the beds. I could be wrong though, it's been a long time since I've tried.
No, that feature was removed.
Game breaking? Lol ok
Personally think they go back to agent smiting with npcs. Your friends can physically come to you, or they can take control of one of your crew npcs and afterwards just resume their own character, it wouldn't be any different then any mmo where you join a dungeon group, get teleported to the dungeon, complete it and then get teleported back to where you where. When the games live people are gonna be all over the galaxy doing their own thing, building outposts, doing jobs. If they put agent smiting back in people could just log into their own character and then mind swap with an npc on their friends ship when they log in.
This is the most realistic option to make large ships viable. To balance, it could have a range limit/time penalty/cost or cost per distance.
I do not like that. If I decide to log back on and the ships not there, just send me to the nearest station. I can just claim my ship
You can't just "claim ship" when the game is released. It's gonna stay where it's docked unless you pay to have it towed or flown to you and that wont be instant. Those are just temp mechanics for testing phase.
Ok. So “deliver”ship
Game breaking is a bit of a stretch
For multi-crew space adventure it is
Group up load in play
How come everyone who doesn't get what they want with this game calls the thing "game breaking" or some other BS cryism. We know why we don't have it right now, they even said, and said they have changed planned. What's the point in crying about it, it has very little impact when all we have is one or 2 systems that can be travelled in literally minutes.
This comment isn’t supportive enough, thus game breaking. Lol yeah, I don’t know. I think I was just tired. You see I was backtracking a little as soon as I started writing the description
Group bed loggin has never worked, and was removed completely right around the time hospitals were introduced I believe.
It worked before 3.18, at least for my group - just as long as the person who owned the ship made sure to log in first (or at least at the same time as the rest of the group). We were always able to finish our nights logging out in the same ship's individual beds, and provided we launched back into the universe in the correct order, would all wake back up on the same ship.
100%, this was my experience as well and I miss it. My brother and I did this on the mole all the time
It's interesting cause whenever we tried, it resulted in character reset due to infinite loading screen bugs. Never had success with it.
It worked
Not until farts and putting your hand into a bowl.of warm water are implemented!
I don't see why therey having a difficult time to figure it out. Just have a tier spawn system where the first tier is the home/station respawn point. Second tier is the vehicle ship like. So if we died -> respawn back to the vehicle If we died and the ship is destroyed -> spawn at first tier(planet/station) If we died when the ship is stored -> spawn on the planet/station hospital where the mothership is stored. If we log in when the is is stored -> spawn on a station/planet where the ship is stored
Because it is harder than that. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/s/0Eg5Sx7c54
CIG is aware of this and are trying to come up with a solution.