KuruptU4Fun
Admiral
This would pair well with Sandi's twitter post with John Rhys-Davies
SQ42 development status
- Thread starter Brictoria
- Start date
honestly, they MIGHT be waiting for SC to be in a better place. Let's face it, SQ42 is not only a game in and of itself, it's a giant advertisement for SC. If they release SQ42 tomorrow and it goes and gets 20 million sales, how many people do you think would stick around in the PU if they went and tried it out?
If they can get Pyro in, a reasonable amount of concurrent people (Static Server Meshing), and most importantly, squash the bugs, then maybe people would stick it out. (they could also add in Odin and a few other systems from SQ42 as well), then you might retain 50-70 percent of them. If you put them in a buggy pre-alpha where they get 30k disconnects, etc., then you might retain 10 percent at most..and most of those would already be backers.
just food for thought.
If they can get Pyro in, a reasonable amount of concurrent people (Static Server Meshing), and most importantly, squash the bugs, then maybe people would stick it out. (they could also add in Odin and a few other systems from SQ42 as well), then you might retain 50-70 percent of them. If you put them in a buggy pre-alpha where they get 30k disconnects, etc., then you might retain 10 percent at most..and most of those would already be backers.
just food for thought.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
They don't have to "stick it out," they just have to buy.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I was thinking Pyro was hoped to be CIG’s response to SF opening but now I’m curious if they won’t dump a bunch of other ships and features this September instead. Certainly we should expect something that showcases what SC can do that SF cannot, like vehicles.
we will not see pyro for a while. They need several things working before opening up a separate system
1) jump points - no yet in game, no tech for it as of yet (yes, we had a demo, no, it doesn't count)
2) most critically, they need static server meshing up and running and working. So far, we have heard nothing about this since last year. The first test will be to break up Stanton into logical servers. This means putting things like Crusader, Hurston, Microtech, and ArcCorp systems, as well as space/aaron halo belt onto separate servers, This will allow for a good testing of server meshing without adding something new into the mix. Does servercrash because of how we broke the system up, or a flaw in SM. Not...is it how we broke the system up, a flaw in server meshing, or because we screwed up something in Pyro
If they were going to be doing Pyro for sure (like they though we would last year), we would be hearing "Road to Pyro" again. They are not. That means that while it's still the plan, it's not until next year at the earliest.
Have we heard about server meshing at all recently? When they were getting close to Persistence, we were bombarded with info. Server meshing...not so much it seems.
So no...we are not getting Pyro this year, and if I were to give odds, it would not be great for us getting Pyro next year.
SF and SC are not in competition. Apples and oranges again. SF is just so much bigger than anything CIG can pull out of it's hat. Every single potentially shared customer's money WILL go to SF first, unless they do a huge messup like they did with Fallout76 and I doubt they will. CIG will just have to wait it out, cos the reason they are not in competition is that SF has an ending. It is a Single player rpg with a storyline. Not an endless sandbox MMO. Context matters, people should know better and stop acting like these games do the same. They just don't.
CIG should be smart enough to do a big push 1-2 months after Starfield's release, when ppl have gotten bored of that and looking for the next step, and most importantly, they have the budget to buy a new game/ship!
As for getting Pyro or SQ42, both would be ideal by this point but my money is still on us getting the big nothingburger, and by that I mean the Battlefield mode, whatever it was called.
There were rumors of it, it was mentioned after a very long time in some more recent QnA I think, and we are getting (or already have?) a refreshed Arena Commander and FPS mode (again, forgot the name cos who cares?)
Need I remind you all that at last years citcon they announced going back to basics yet again and changing flight, spacewalk and on foot traversal from the ground up? I doubt they are anywhere close to finishing these changes, let alone adjusting the whole of SQ42 to it. It's just not happening for like another 3-5 years... Even if we get to see something of it, with all the changes it will be totally outdated by this time next year, so I just can't be bothered to be excited about it anymore.
I do want to see another big lie at CitCon ("squadron beta is only a year away!"), it's always exciting when CR does that and I miss it, but it won't be anything more, just a lie like every time before.
The amount of areas that the Squadron 42 teams are working on is getting a lot smaller, with nothing new being added to the roadmap for the project...
Chapter 17 - finishing mid\late July
MFD rework - finishing early August) - Vehicle Features Team but listed for both PU and SQ42
Chapter 21 - Finishing mid August
Misc Support (listed through to late November) - multiple teams for both PU and SQ42
Bug Fixing and Tech Debt (listed through to mid December) - multiple teams for both PU an SQ42
RSI Polaris (Listed through to mid December) - EU Vehicles team for both PU an SQ42
SQ 42 Vehicle Support (Listed through to mid December)
Unless there is something blocking further work\progress (misc support\bug fix\tech debt\Polaris), this is giving the impression of a project that is close to completion...
Chapter 17 - finishing mid\late July
MFD rework - finishing early August) - Vehicle Features Team but listed for both PU and SQ42
Chapter 21 - Finishing mid August
Misc Support (listed through to late November) - multiple teams for both PU and SQ42
Bug Fixing and Tech Debt (listed through to mid December) - multiple teams for both PU an SQ42
RSI Polaris (Listed through to mid December) - EU Vehicles team for both PU an SQ42
SQ 42 Vehicle Support (Listed through to mid December)
Unless there is something blocking further work\progress (misc support\bug fix\tech debt\Polaris), this is giving the impression of a project that is close to completion...
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
The same thing happened 2 years ago. I wouldn't read anything into that.
Just because a line on the tracker ends, that does not mean the work is done, it's ready for launch, or it has even been worked on at all.
For example, two years ago lines for 31 chapters completed, as did the Retaliator Gold Standard, work on the Liberator, and the Boreal Stalker. Except for the Liberator, which finished in September, they all finished in May through July.
Where is the Liberator?
The Retaliator Gold Standard?
Squadron 42?
They were worked on but aren't finished.
AccidentProne8
Space Marshal
My poor Tali. I finally ditched her in despondency for an Aquila.
The point being made wasn't centered around the work finishing, but rather that nothing new is being added\extended... Something ending on the tracker only means they have stopped working on that (complete or not) and have moved focus to something else, but with regards to Squadron 42, there is nothing else being added for those teams to work on outside of "bug fixing", "tech debt", "misc support" or the Polaris.
The only reason that the various teams have nothing on the tracker for Squadron 42 would be either there is nothing left to be worked on, or there is something blocking their ability to work on an area. With Squadron 42 being CIG's main focus, this would logically imply that unless there is something in one of those remaining areas being worked on which is blocking work on any and all other areas of the project, there is nothing left to be worked on.
It's quite possible that there is some "tech debt"\"bug fixing" required for further work on existing "finished" lines on the tracker (much as tech required for the Hull C was also needed to allow modularity in ships - retaliator, for example), but if so, it's unusual to see that they haven't been able to clear whatever is blocking even a single area of Squadron 42 that is preventing staff commencing\returning to working on an area of the project...
With regards to your "where are they examples" where work ceased in the past:
For the Retaliator, if you look at the team assigned (EUVC) at the end of the "allocated time", they went from that to working on the Spartan.
For the Liberator, if you look at the teams assigned (VCA and Narrative), you would be aware that it was only concepting work and providing the ship a "background"\story that was worked on. The last team working on it (Narrative) then appear to have moved to either zero G push\pull, or to working on 4 Squadron 42 chapters that work returned to at that time.
If go to the "teams" view on the tracker, not a single "sq42" team has a deliverable being worked on (The last finished at the start of the month)...
What I am highlighting is that the more time that goes by with nothing being added to the progress tracker regarding Squadron 42, the more it looks like there is nothing remaining to be worked on for the project and so it is nearing completion.
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
My point is, this is the exact same state the tracker was in 2 years ago with regards to the SQ42 teams. The work lines ended and the teams had nothing new on the schedule.
They purged that far back on the tracker or you could go back and see it.
Note John Crew said, recently, that the Retaliator Gold Standard wotk was back to active production, first for Squadron, then for the PU, yet that isn't on the tracker.
He also said modularity was finally finished and working, but that isn't there either.
As near as I can tell, the tracker means absolutely nothing.
Last edited:
Richard Bong
Space Marshal
There are several reasons I still have mine.
- It is one of the ships that got me to pledge for SC.
- I really like the aesthetics, both inside and out.
- It is my one large crew ship for loading up and playing with friends.
- The Hammerhead, which I've considered as a replacement, doesn't look like it can perform it's role with the new shorter gun ranges.
- I just don't like the Redeemer aesthetics.
- I really can't stand RSI ship aesthetics, so the Polaris and Perseus are out.
- Some serious changes to game development and transparency have to happen for me to spend any more money.
AccidentProne8
Space Marshal
While I wish this was a good sign I have to agree with @Richard Bong that its more that they are not being good about updating the teacker then things are wrapping up. In fact i would say the sq42 email is a better indicator of the state of the game and it still has them working on core mechanics.
As for this year's citizencon I'm far more optimistic as to the road to Pyro. I really hope that we get to see Pyro and 4.0 drops shortly after like they did with 3.0. While multiple locations will not be shared onto different game servers it would be easy 2000 tech to use the jump gate as a gate between game servers and allow flight between Stanton and Pyro.
But I realize that I'm still overly optimistic and drinking the CIG kool-aid as evident by the amount spent.
AccidentProne8
Space Marshal
And the ugliest landing profile this side of Terra.
Friendship ended with Tali. Perseus is our new anti-capital friend now!
Why not all three?
AccidentProne8
Space Marshal
This. I fell in love with Tali. I have all the modules. I get dissapointed with zero progress every year. I still can't get rid of it.
It could be a decent ship overall once blade and NPC turrets come in and possibly modular missile bays imaghine it as a fighter screen with 48 x S3 missiles? :D
But yeh I got Perseus too coz no ones drawn a pixel on my Tali in 10 years, and like big boom boom guns
KuruptU4Fun
Admiral
This is likely one of the things lined up as a high priority for Exp. Mode testing in AC.