Roadmap to 1.0

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
2,060
7,298
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
The roadmap to 1.0 was a bad freaking idea by CIG, because when they have to change things, like it seems quantum has been changed to StarSim, people will start asking questions. I get it that they want to show progress, but how many YEARS have they been telling us that 4.0 is coming "that year" I think 2018 was the first year they promised us 4.0, and then I think 2020 was the next year they promised us 4.0 that year, now it's 2024 and it's finally being tested, but who knows how long until it's really working correctly.

1.0 is probably a 6 year plan. Putting that up now with the number of changes, revamps, and times they have completely dropped a feature and replaced it with a new feature, putting this out will just cause them problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NomadicHavoc

BUTUZ

Space Marshal
Donor
Apr 8, 2016
3,579
12,098
2,850
RSI Handle
BUTUZ
Hmm Id rather 4.0 be Q1 2025 so that they don't release a rushed mess of a patch and then al go off for xmas for 2 weeks.

I'd also rather 1 be another few patches over the next couple of years. Theres plenty of easier stuff in 1 that could be outed much sooner and thus tested by us for example AI blades insuarance and taxes etc player trading. I am hoping we will get 4.1 4.2 and 4.3
 
  • Like
Reactions: NomadicHavoc

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
12,212
44,900
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I never look at the roadmap as it's always going to be a work in progress boosted or hampered by everything going on in and around it, It's how they work.

Obstacles Object Container Streaming, object permanence and Server Meshing are well on their way to being cleared so i'm happy with that, as long as progress is forwards it's all cool.
 

NomadicHavoc

Captain
Donor
Nov 19, 2023
443
1,383
200
RSI Handle
NomadicHavoc
I really like that they put out this roadmap. It helps to have a birds eye view of game development so I know what’s coming and going. I’m generally super chill and don’t get worked up over the road bumps and even landslides. I’m just truly enjoying watching this game unfold and hanging with my fellow Testies. But, I did think CIG would be further along at this time than they appear to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lorddarthvik

Lorddarthvik

Space Marshal
Donor
Feb 22, 2016
2,853
9,914
2,860
RSI Handle
Lorddarthvik
I think the state of the 1.0 maps shows how far behind they are due to working mainly on squadron. At least that's my very optimistic assumption.

I think putting out a 1.0 end-of-roadmap thing is important. Not for us. We already know that it's mostly meaningless.
It's a marketing tool. It's there to show total newcomers and fence sitters that there is a clear end goal defined, it looks fancy, grandiose, ambitious with the naming, yet the detailed text is easy to understand and makes you nod your head that yeah, that makes sense. Exactly what you need when trying to sell an idea instead of a product.

Even though having that thing posted means fuck all when it comes down to them actually doing things. They might bloat up some parts, and entirely delete others depending on what mood they are in that day. We know this, but others don't.


As for a breakdown of what's posted, I feel like there's stuff that should get implemented right after 4.0 is stabilized (so in what would be half a year/year if they didn't break the game every 3-4 months with new stuff), like the insurance changes. I also think that there's a lot of stuff, mainly progression stuff that would be perfectly fine for a much later release, like player built stations. That would be fine 1-2 years after release, not day1. Presuming it would require significant guild/rep progression, it's totally pointless to stall development on the millions of issues that will carry.
Unlike player trade and party systems and such, which we need like yesterday.

So all in all I'm not happy with what I'm seeing, but I understand why they think it's necessary at this point to put this out there.
 

Sky Captain

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 13, 2018
1,823
6,166
2,750
RSI Handle
TheSkyCaptain
Interesting that the Star Citizen 1.0 Roadmap includes development of 'AI Blades' - but not the long-rumored NPC crewmen - intended to automate a ship's 'seats', such as turrets. I guess it makes sense to program the functionality of multiple AI blades first. The blades' functionality can then next be made to look like NPCs sitting in a seat. But one would figure that CIG would have already coded 'AI blades' to fly NPC ships in Squadron 42. Are AI Blades and NPC crewmen a feature on ships in Squadron 42? Or does CIG really still need to build that tech as suggested by the Star Citizen roadmap?
 

NomadicHavoc

Captain
Donor
Nov 19, 2023
443
1,383
200
RSI Handle
NomadicHavoc
Interesting that the Star Citizen 1.0 Roadmap includes development of 'AI Blades' - but not the long-rumored NPC crewmen - intended to automate a ship's 'seats', such as turrets. I guess it makes sense to program the functionality of multiple AI blades first. The blades' functionality can then next be made to look like NPCs sitting in a seat. But one would figure that CIG would have already coded 'AI blades' to fly NPC ships in Squadron 42. Are AI Blades and NPC crewmen a feature on ships in Squadron 42? Or does CIG really still need to build that tech as suggested by the Star Citizen roadmap?
From what I understood AI blades are coming with 1.0 but NPC crewmen are not. NPC crewmen are coming sometime after. Big bummer as my heart pangs for having some crew that you could hire with various levels of specialization. Like the the idea of fretting over having a ship go down in a ball of flames and maybe loosing your trusty gunner Teddy who you’ve come to love. Gives the game more gravitas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky Captain

Sky Captain

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 13, 2018
1,823
6,166
2,750
RSI Handle
TheSkyCaptain
Interesting that the Star Citizen 1.0 Roadmap includes development of 'AI Blades' - but not the long-rumored NPC crewmen - intended to automate a ship's 'seats', such as turrets. I guess it makes sense to program the functionality of multiple AI blades first. The blades' functionality can then next be made to look like NPCs sitting in a seat. But one would figure that CIG would have already coded 'AI blades' to fly NPC ships in Squadron 42. Are AI Blades and NPC crewmen a feature on ships in Squadron 42? Or does CIG really still need to build that tech as suggested by the Star Citizen roadmap?
 

Lorddarthvik

Space Marshal
Donor
Feb 22, 2016
2,853
9,914
2,860
RSI Handle
Lorddarthvik
That's a good point regarding AI blades.

Last time I heard about NPCs, they supposedly have personality traits that control how likely they are to fight you and in what style, how aggressive they are, and they also have a skill level assigned in the thing they want to do (aiming, flight, whatever). On top of all this, I don't know how much player interaction CIG wants to program into NPC crews but I have a feeling they wanna go deeper than necessary for their basic functionality. (NO Chris, I don't need romanceable NPC crewmembers!)
This is a way more complex and very different use than what an AI blade should do. As I imagine, AI Blades are way more simple and function in a much more direct way, and most of all, under the control of the player. With all those differences I think they need to be coded from scratch. That being said, I think those should be waaaaay easier and faster to get done than proper quantum-simmed-NPCs.

I'm guessing the answer is both, they already have what is basically the same functionality as AI blades for SQ cos you can bet your ass they are not using the full NPC-sim meant for the PU for their highly scripted and balanced missions, but they also need to implement it for player control and the PU setting.
 

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
2,060
7,298
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
Blades will. Ot have the functionality of NPC crew. They can do things like fire turrets (possibly only remote turrets), maybe mine rocks, or hull material off a hulk, but I highly doubt they will be able to perform repairs, replace fuses, fight fires, etc. Saying we get AI blades instead of NPC crew means we have a huge downgrade in capability.

Yes, it’s better than nothing, but CIG should (IMO) have included NPC crew in the 1.0 roadmap.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,308
6,425
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
Well, here’s what to expect for the next *%$@#!& number of years. Fasten your seatbelts boys and girls, this may be a bumpy ride.

It's at least 5 years out.
On a positive note, presuming they don't change it, at least we now have a definition of "done." That's something we've never had before.

Given the previous behavior, I expect more feature creep.
 

Richard Bong

Space Marshal
Jul 29, 2017
2,308
6,425
2,850
RSI Handle
McHale
Interesting that the Star Citizen 1.0 Roadmap includes development of 'AI Blades' - but not the long-rumored NPC crewmen - intended to automate a ship's 'seats', such as turrets. I guess it makes sense to program the functionality of multiple AI blades first. The blades' functionality can then next be made to look like NPCs sitting in a seat. But one would figure that CIG would have already coded 'AI blades' to fly NPC ships in Squadron 42. Are AI Blades and NPC crewmen a feature on ships in Squadron 42? Or does CIG really still need to build that tech as suggested by the Star Citizen roadmap?
They can't get NPCs to cross a physics boundary. They can't get NPCs to cross doors.

NPCs are no where near close.

AI blades doing point defense is already in the code.
 
Forgot your password?