Starfield - Discussion Thread

[Richard Bong]

The date is unknown but given Pyro is 4.0 they can't be before each other. :)

I have a feeling that this Citizencon will either showcase SQ42 or Pyro and I am leaning heavily towards the possibility of Pyro before the end of the year.

3.20 is listed as a target date of Q3 2023. In the past, that typically means IAE. Even if it is out for CitizenCon (22 Oct) that still doesn't leave enough time for a major working patch by mid December (when they go on their winter break.) I'm thinking no sooner than end of Q1 2024, and I would bet we'll get it significantly later than that.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Pyro was showcased last year instead of being delivered, and the year before that when it was said we'd get it by last years Citcon.
If they do Pyro AGAIN, it's gonna be a real bad look imo. I know I'm gonna be pissed!
I think they'd rather we forget about it for at least 2 more years while they try to refactor the whole database/meshing system again and hope it will work this time around...

I'd rather place a bet on a them showing a bit of SQ42 with promises of "it's only 5 more years out"... just like 5 years ago.

 

[AccidentProne8]

Pyro was showcased last year instead of being delivered, and the year before that when it was said we'd get it by last years Citcon.
If they do Pyro AGAIN, it's gonna be a real bad look imo. I know I'm gonna be pissed!
I think they'd rather we forget about it for at least 2 more years while they try to refactor the whole database/meshing system again and hope it will work this time around...

I'd rather place a bet on a them showing a bit of SQ42 with promises of "it's only 5 more years out"... just like 5 years ago.

Hahaha. In hindsight I think they should have gone with a star citizen one and a star citizen two, with star citizen one being a modern freelancer on the old engine and star citizen 2 being a game developed on a custom engine. I think they could have pulled it off. That being said, if they still manage to pull it off it will still be one of the greatest games of all time, and I'm in for that. My confusion about the development time non-withstanding, finally releasing the hull c suggests real progress to me. Starfield won't have multiplayer, space fantasy and levels of polish aside, so I'm not going to make apples to apples comparisons.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Hahaha. In hindsight I think they should have gone with a star citizen one and a star citizen two, with star citizen one being a modern freelancer on the old engine and star citizen 2 being a game developed on a custom engine. I think they could have pulled it off. That being said, if they still manage to pull it off it will still be one of the greatest games of all time, and I'm in for that. My confusion about the development time non-withstanding, finally releasing the hull c suggests real progress to me. Starfield won't have multiplayer, space fantasy and levels of polish aside, so I'm not going to make apples to apples comparisons.

While in theory I like that idea of having SC1 and 2, I don't think it would have gone down well. A lot of backlash for spending money on something inferior, why aren't they just adding all the features aimed at 2 to 1, and so on... it wouldn't have worked.
What they should have done is followed the original Kickstarter goal which was for SQ42 first (yes it was, I know a lot of you like to argue it wasn't but you are just factually wrong), and just finish it up as fast as possible in the shape it was first pitched to us. Even if inferior by todays standards it would have been fine like 7 years ago because we didn't have anything similar for over a decade.

I don't think SC and Starfield can be compared, it's like comparing WoW vs Skyrim (as Montoya said), they are two very different games, and I think a lot of us will enjoy both for what they are.
SQ42 comparisons are on the same level of pointless if not even more as squadron is yet again a totally different style, being a fully linear story driven space-shooter rather than open world sandbox or rpg.

 

[Richard Bong]

Pyro was showcased last year instead of being delivered, and the year before that when it was said we'd get it by last years Citcon.
If they do Pyro AGAIN, it's gonna be a real bad look imo. I know I'm gonna be pissed!
I think they'd rather we forget about it for at least 2 more years while they try to refactor the whole database/meshing system again and hope it will work this time around...

I'd rather place a bet on a them showing a bit of SQ42 with promises of "it's only 5 more years out"... just like 5 years ago.

My guess is new features for professions that aren't ready yet.

 

[Thalstan]

The date is unknown but given Pyro is 4.0 they can't be before each other. :)

I have a feeling that this Citizencon will either showcase SQ42 or Pyro and I am leaning heavily towards the possibility of Pyro before the end of the year.

Umm, no.

it’s going to take months of work to get server meshing working correctly. If you think that full persistence was bad, this is yet another step down that road. 3.20 to. Y knowledge, isn’t even close to going to EVO. If they make it in Q3, it will be LATE Q3. We also don’t know how much further we are going down this road. We might be getting a 3.21 after this.

Once 4.0 goes to EVO expect t least 6 months of testing before it goes live.

Finally, 4.0 doesn’t mean Pyro. It could mean a split of the Stanton system into multiple areas. In fact, this is exactly how I would be testing it. Separate servers for each planetary system (including moons) and another for the rest of the star system. (Asteroid belts, Lagrange point stations, etc). Pyro,would then be added in 4.1 or 4.2. After all, Pyro and jump points will be a big enough test of new content. Adding in Server meshing on top of Pyro is just asking a horrible bug laden experience worse than 3.18 and 3.19 ever were.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I’m pretty sure they committed that Pyro is 4.0.

 

[BUTUZ]

As much as I would infinitely rather multiplayer games so I can play with friends. Starfield may actually be worth a go - something to do when fed up of SC bugs. I used to play COD for this purpose but I appear to be getting slower in my old age which makes COD frustrating to play too! The old Quake snap railgun days I was famed for seem to have dwindled :-/

They call me grandpa when i enter a server now :D

 

[Brictoria]

 

[Richard Bong]

When you have a Starship that can maneuver in Atmo, and land where you need it to land, ground vehicles aren't really necessary.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

When you have a Starship that can maneuver in Atmo, and land where you need it to land, ground vehicles aren't really necessary.

so no adverse weather is confirmed too? Always safe to fly, no storms?

 

[Brictoria]

When you have a Starship that can maneuver in Atmo, and land where you need it to land, ground vehicles aren't really necessary.

When you have a game that appears to require you to choose the pixel you want to land on from space, then lands the ship randomly in it without permitting manual atmospheric flight or choosing a specific site you want to land at, having a way to move to somewhere else (the next pixel, for instance), a way to move to somewhere that lacked the space for the ship to land on (which could be some distance away), a way to allow travel through environmental conditions which the space suit doesn't protect against, a way to transport cargo into\out of the ship to a storage area, etc. a ground vehicle could be quite useful\neccesary.

The only reason that they would have decided that ground vehicles "aren't really necessary" would be if the game was designed so that there was no reason (whether looking for resources, "Points of Interest", quest items, etc.) to move more than a small distance from wherever the ship is landed by the game, regardless of where a player selects as a landing spot from orbit.

 

[Richard Bong]

so no adverse weather is confirmed too? Always safe to fly, no storms?

If you can't fly a starship, you are unlikely to be able to drive.

 

[Richard Bong]

When you have a game that appears to require you to choose the pixel you want to land on from space, then lands the ship randomly in it without permitting manual atmospheric flight or choosing a specific site you want to land at, having a way to move to somewhere else (the next pixel, for instance), a way to move to somewhere that lacked the space for the ship to land on (which could be some distance away), a way to allow travel through environmental conditions which the space suit doesn't protect against, a way to transport cargo into\out of the ship to a storage area, etc. a ground vehicle could be quite useful\neccesary.

The only reason that they would have decided that ground vehicles "aren't really necessary" would be if the game was designed so that there was no reason (whether looking for resources, "Points of Interest", quest items, etc.) to move more than a small distance from wherever the ship is landed by the game, regardless of where a player selects as a landing spot from orbit.

Like Star Citizen, it is likely to have nothing of interest where you can't land.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

If you can't fly a starship, you are unlikely to be able to drive.

So... From what you have seen of the game... No weather...?

 

[CRISS9000]

i can guess that the reasons why there are no ground vehicles in Starfield are

a) in the grand scheme of the game's design, vehicles just don't have a place. whatever their benefits are are invalidated by [something].
b) bethesda don't do vehicles
c) they don't intend to start now
d) maybe they'll do that in an expansion? but it's un-fucking-likely.

 

[Brictoria]

i can guess that the reasons why there are no ground vehicles in Starfield are

a) in the grand scheme of the game's design, vehicles just don't have a place. whatever their benefits are are invalidated by [something].
b) bethesda don't do vehicles
c) they don't intend to start now
d) maybe they'll do that in an expansion? but it's un-fucking-likely.

Regarding "b)" - They do "mounts", however, so a reskin of something like a horse from Skyrim into a mechanical "horse" (or a "bike"\similar) should be possible.

Spoiler: After all, something like a Skyrim horse would certainly help with exploration...

 

[Richard Bong]

So... From what you have seen of the game... No weather...?

I haven't seen anything but the promo videos.
Since starhips have to be able to land on most planets, they are going to be able to handle severe weather.
The whole "bad weather" excuse is just so CIG can sell ground vehicles.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

I haven't seen anything but the promo videos.
Since starhips have to be able to land on most planets, they are going to be able to handle severe weather.
The whole "bad weather" excuse is just so CIG can sell ground vehicles.

I thought they were selling ground vehicles because they are fun and cool looking and thus adds easy money for them...
The more ya know lol
With the paywall to meaningful mining being so high with the Prospector, the addition of the roc was quiet welcome, at least for me. Never thought about the weather aspect though, we already have space ships that can fly out to space no matter the winds or what direction they face, feels like a poor excuse really.

I'm guessing just like in previous Bethesda RPGs there will be weather, but it won't affect gameplay apart from maybe visibility. I don't remember anything being mentioned or shown to point otherwise.

 

[Mudhawk]

The whole "bad weather" excuse is just so CIG can sell ground vehicles.

Well, I did buy a vehicle. 15.000 aUec for a Mule. Makes doing those hostile bunkers missions a lot less punishing for my poor legs.
I admit though, I never had a reason to use the Mule because the ship wasn't physically able to touch down safely. I just would have been a bad idea at the time.
Guess nature has nothing on angry landowners, huh?
On the bright side, maybe this tells us that there are no hot landing zones in Starfield.
Or maybe it tells us that we need to walk our 10.000 steps after sitting around in starships all day.
We do get a Smartwatch right at the start.
THIS may be the reason for that... :-P