Star Citizen looking at some hot topics and dev responses covering the 0 aUEC Problem many players find themselves in, Exploits, Some info on Vulkan Integration in Star Citizen and Suggested Missile Changes and short term plans.
Reset to 0 aUEC – A huge number of players had their aUEC & REC set to Zero yesterday… there appears to have been an issue with the backend services/databases and when players logged back on they had no money! Tho some people are reporting success at just relogging in later…
CIG have said: Hey all. We’ve seen the reports on the Issue Council and the threads popping up about this issue and are currently looking into this.
Looking into it some people are claiming that it’s been caused by some people exploiting selling mineables from your ship really quickly, using an auto clicker, bugging out to get infinite cargo and then selling it constantly. If that’s the case then it’s something that CI need to build resistance to. Maybe it’s just a massive backlog of exploited transactions causing issues… maybe it’s not.
Don’t worry too much about anyone getting “away” and profiting from exploits at this stage.
CI are able to track and monitor that and this sort of stuff is much better to happen at this stage before we have any form of truly LIVE game.
So hopefully CIG can solve that ASAP… I don’t think that the funds have been wiped, I think there is a disconnect / latency issue with the services that handle your assets, I’d expect that issue will be fixed in the next day or so OR at least CI to make a bigger statement on the issue if not.
There was A couple of questions about the Vulkan API from Snydder which Ben Parry Replied to so I’ll merge the reply and questions together:
1. Will we have more detailed graphics options once it’s implemented? (texture detail, lighting, shadow fidelity, ambient occlusion, etc)
1) No. Well, you might, but the two aren’t related to one another
2. Is it expected to improve the visual fidelity of the game in any way, right away, or will the change from DX11 to Vulkan be most noticed in the performance aspect?
2) If the conversion works, there’ll be no visual difference at all and the performance will be better (in cases where the CPU graphics workload was the limiting factor)
3. How do you test the API as you are converting it? Does it have to reach a working state where all the graphical features from DX11 are implemented for it to even render on screen, or can you render the game in an “incomplete” way and test it as it goes?
3) We’re working on two fronts. First, we have a new renderer, arbitrarily named Gen12, which wraps the graphics API in an interface that forces things to be Vulkan friendly. The D3D11 backend for Gen12 is already working and we’re converting features over to it, so we can test old-D3D11 vs new-D3D11 on a switch, feature by feature. At the same time, work is progressing on writing the Vulkan backend for the same renderer, so the people working on that can compare new-D3D11 vs Vulkan on any of the things that have already been ported to Gen12.
4. Is there already a working version of the game running in the Vulkan API internally?
4) It’s possible to run with the Vulkan backend, but it’s not working in the sense of being in a playable state.
Ben went onto say:
Introducing more graphics options is completely orthogonal to supporting Vulkan. It’s a thing that obviously needs doing, but the two don’t relate to one another.
That said, tweaking the exact meaning of high/medium/low probably ought to be done after the switch.
There was a Missiles and Torpedoes: If You Play, You Know thread by GorgonTheDestroyer
Basically talking about Missile Spam being a problem and missiles are too effective currently, let me quickly summarize the post:
Missiles Cost too little and shouldn’t be restocked on reclaiming your ship.
Lock Times are too quick at least for larger missiles and small targets AND should exceptionally go up based on size of target and size of missile, smaller targets and a large missile should take ages to lock.
Dumb Firing Missiles, like a rocket could be an option.
Large torpedoes are way too maneuverable.
There needs to be working harder missile counters including EMPs affecting them.
CS missiles should maybe take longer to lock or require a lock at a shorter distance.
Missiles should do large amounts of damage BUT maybe less to a shielded target.
CIG’s YogiKlatt did respond:
That’s a good read and we agree with a lot of your points. We didn’t really have time to take a look at missiles during 3.10, but with gunnery and targeting now in a much better state we can turn our focus on vehicle weapon gameplay in the next quarters … and that of course includes missiles (actually, it’s missiles first).
The current priority for us is to fix the inability of missiles to react to certain countermeasures. We already identified the main issues why they so successfully ignore chaff and we hope to get at least that fix done for 3.11. Further steps beyond those basic fixes will be to improve the CM gameplay, adding better and meaningful UI, re-adding lock limitations, missile operator mode and ofc balancing them out so that we can achieve our intended gameplay. We won’t achieve these goals all in one release but we’re quite hopeful that we can take incremental steps to make the missile gameplay a lot more enjoyable.
I can’t discuss anything further at this point but I just wanted to say that we’re listening and working on improving the experience.
I really liked that Missile Post – I largely agree with Gorgon. Make missiles great again by making them more expensive and used less BUT also balancing their use. They should be powerful but not a silver bullet.
I want to see more variety in missiles… have ones that are very very effective against shields OR are just for concussing targets BUT you would have had to make that loadout choice. I think they are updating the derpy IFCS that the Missiles use in the near future as well… though don’t quote me on that.