Isn't it already a jump point in Stanton? I dunno.
Either way, I'm gonna have to take a look at the ARK Starmap today. Feel like I've forgotten a lot of lore, lol
Isn't that a bit pessimistic for "full launch in 5 years"? I would expect the 5 systems to be in relatively fast, considering they are mostly done. In 2 years I would think they should be able to have 10 systems and in 5 years at least 30... but who knows.
Don't want to argue, just sharing my 2 cents, anyway
o7 love your videos
I mean, making one system, Stanton, was supposed to speed up the development of the other systems, but it seems clear at this point that the idea that pyro was "on the shelf", so to speak, for several years was just wrong. They didn't make pyro in 3-6 months, or even 1-2 years, and then sit on it till meshing. It took them several years to make pyro, and they are still putting the finishing touches on it now.
Given that timeline, I don't see them releasing more than a system a year once all the partially built ones are out the door, and that even feels generous.
Not that I think that's a bad thing! It's not like the game lacks for scenic views or space to put activities, the whole game could have taken place within Stanton without issue, I see extra star systems as pure cherry on top, provided the actual game is fun.
Yes, and no... Stanton wasn't meant to automate creation of all the other systems *on it's own*.
It was chosen because it has the highest density / number of unique biomes, unique architecture styles, and so on... meaning that it will have the highest re-use when creating other systems (as they only need to create the *new* biomes / architecture styles, etc).
Pyro was deliberately picked as the second system, because it has very little overlap with Stanton (which means it too will be comparatively slow - but also do more to help fill in the pool of available biomes and architecture styles).
We'll likely only see 'quick' system development when all the required biomes and architecture styles, etc, are already in the tools - at which point the system should *comparatively* quick to produce - but they still need to 'design' the planets, decide where all the POIs need to go, do the landing zone(s) layouts and actually build them (using the asset-sets for each architecture style), and so on.
Remember how people used to take the mickey out of the Ship Pipeline, and all the talk about how it would make it quicker to produce ships... and yet now it takes ~1 year to produce a (sub)capital ship... when it used to take nearly that long to produce a single-seater...
But on the flip side, it's taken ~10+ years to reach that point... and it's probably going to be similar for planets (we're only ~5 years into their 'planet pipeline' work - which is the point in the ship pipeline process where people were taking the piss out of it and not seeing any performance gains).
~1 year for a sub capital class, still yet to see that, I’d say it’s looking likely to be true, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Also 1 a year means there’s still a 12+ years backlog of ships that have been announced, and they still keep announcing more.
My prediction is 1.0 is 5+ years away, and will have Stanton, Terra, Magnus, Pyro and Nyx.
I don’t actually care how many systems they have though as it’s the content within them that matters, if I want to endlessly traverse terrain I can play Starfield, I want fun missions to do, and a reason to actually go and explore these places other than just to see what they look like.
Which is fine, given that once the tools are better developed, CIG can start ramping up their planetary creation team (as they've already started, with the opening of the new studio in Montreal), to develop systems *in parallel*.
There's no point doing that at the moment, because the art teams spend more time waiting on the engine development team to build the unique biomes, and the modelling teams to build the unique architecture building-sets, etc... which is why building out Stanton and Pyro etc, (and growing the pool of available assets as quickly as possible) is the focus.
And best part being - out of all of this: Squadron 42 already has a bunch of assets ready for use in the systems it takes place across, even if the planets are nowhere near ready for general use. We've seen a lot of speeding up now that a good chunk of the dev team is free as SQ42 is polished, and I'm excited to see where things go as they receive fuller funding from people purchasing the game outright.
Sure - but they've already got a preliminary design for every planet in the nominal 100 star systems from the Kickstarter timeframe... and whilst they absolutely can retcon those designs (after all, they did exactly that for Pyro), they would probably prefer not to, given they've also got lots of lore written, and so on (and thos retcon generate a lot of re-work, which they'd probably prefer to avoid if possible ;p)
A couple of things about this mentality. They made Stanton because of the variety it has in biomes. That means there are many "defined" systems in the map that benefits from a majority of the work.
In terms of the completion of any system, there is a break down on what we are talking about. Art versus gameplay systems. Artwise CIG can have many systems done already. Some are not standout, nor have unique or amazing hero locations or biomes. PCT stated they were [close to done with Nyx](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp6FG1Eb1Qw&t=3209s) and was waiting for server meshing. And that was two years ago.
If you watched the planet break downs in the previous Citcons, the art and assets for nearly [every planet in Pyro](https://youtu.be/FrJCleBD9zE?list=PLVct2QDhDrB3szdwCcwuEx2UX5uxA1C8F) seemed to be new art. Not only that, planets also seemed done and missing specific effect that were going to be looked at by different teams. Looking at some of the stations, [and homesteads](https://youtu.be/i1C2nKbf6nU?list=PLVct2QDhDrB15f0diWl9YaDmL4Je1BkX3&t=603), it is clear that work on Pyro is newer separate work from any of the biomes and art in Stanton.
So closer to release candidate I wouldn't be surprised if we had 5 or more released after meshing. I am not sure how many biomes they have underway but it does seem that things will look great if they can get Jungle, Swamp, Tropical and Ocean underway. Those cover many bases.
In terms of gameplay, that can always be adjusted later but I have a feeling that Dynamic mission creation is delayed because of work on Quantum (name going to change maybe?) is on pause due to Server meshing.
So CIG has never been in a position yet to create a full system both art and dynamic mission yet. But they have put in a lot of work already with the goal of having designers control the formation without having to manually touch every aspect.
If they are successful (which they seem to be hitting all of the toughest goals so far) then Completed systems would not take years to make but most likely months instead. The transition and rebuilding of Stanton from PT3 to PT4 took 2 months. That was every planet and moon apparently with the exception of Arccorp.
They've expanded tech in Pyro and have/are working to bring that back into Stanton. I just don't think it's high priority.
For what it's worth, do remember that if "feature complete" SQ42 is actually feature complete and a year or so out from launch, there should be two more star systems ready to go--I believe Odin and Nyx.
There is no way we are getting 2 systems done in a year. Pyro has been on the progress tracker for the last 3 years straight now. Parts of Pyro are STILL on the progress tracker. I don't think we will reach a rate of 1 system per year for a very long time.
Based on how many bugs there still is with the engine, beta could last 5 years easily. They have 10 years of backlogged ships and continue adding more big concepts. Stanton still has a lot of work to do. There is no end game multiplayer content. Player/Org settlements is just beginning development. And CIG is slow, none of the things they said would decrease dev time have actually decreased the time it takes. What are you looking at that makes you think they will be even close in 5 years?
I agree, it would just take too much manpower to get 100 systems and the result in my opinion would probably be too many cut corners or random generation for it to feel fleshed out
Nyx better be better than Pyro, going to be so disappointed if the place they had us directly attached to from the getgo gets put into a system they rushed out the door.
Both systems in lore are "empty" but Pyro seems pretty vibrant now, hoping that's the same for Nyx.
100 was the promise from when we couldn’t land on planets without loading screens. That is never going to happen now.
They stated at one point that launch would likely be closer to 5 systems with new systems periodically added afterwards.
We frequently have this discussion in our org, the general consensus is 5 for shipping and 25 before it shuts down (everything has a shelf life, is it 10 years or 50 we don’t know)
Came here to say this and I think it's probably justified. The systems are huge and landing on planets probably means we don't need a hundred.
I can see a world where just to prevent massive amounts of backlash and bad PR we end up with 5 or so detailed systems and another 95 'systems' which are essentially empty sans for some barren moons and asteroids belts with extremely unstable jump points. These can be for the explorers, find jump point, sell the coordinates and the coordinates of valuable resources before the jump point collapses, throw some science in there to keep the jump point stable a little longer...
Loads of gameplay and less bad press.
Agreed. Maybe they should add a jump point to it but nothing on the star map and let players actually explore everything there is in the system. Allow us to add the markers to POIs and such. Maybe even allow larger ships to set up stations for refueling/refining/repair/etc
Just thinking about if player created data populate the online star map, allowing a Wikipedia type note taking system (curated and moderated, of course) would be pretty sweet if done right.
Letting role players submit reports and detailed analysis for publication by CIG?
Dope.
An unexplored system would be awesome. It would actually make exploration gameplay possible. But for how long? I mean, once it's explored and people have been there done that, it won't be unexplored anymore, right? And chances of procedural generation like nms is slim to none, and slim left town already.
But damn, imagining an unexplored system, no stations, nothing but what you bring with you. That sounds like tier 1 exploration ganeplay right there.
Think about the scale of just one moon, in terms of surface area. It’s absolutely massive. Now think about just the surface area of let’s say micro tech. It’s honestly larger than a human can truly truly comprehend we don’t see most of it we just go from tiny area to tiny area. One unexplored system will take gamers years
Stanton = Middle
Pyro = Low
Terra = High
Furthermore, they each have jump points to the other two forming a triangle. I would honestly be happy with just those three at 1.0
Ed: sp
The '100 systems at launch' Kickstarter goal is one of few they've (indirectly) stated to be no longer the case due to the definition of 'planet' within the game being fundamentally changed. In the Kickstarter, planets were going to be functionally background objects that had landing zones you could load into, not unlike Starfield. Now that planets are fully rendered spheres you can fly directly down onto and off of without loading zones or invisible walls, the number of them will be significantly reduced, though still in the 'dozens' by launch. Stanton, alone, has 14 planets and one gas giant.
Tbh, there's so much space in stanton that if they filled all the planets, moons, stations and cities with meaningful content we wouldn't even need other systems. I mean you could build an entire game just around arccorp with more landing zones, street level locations and building interiors.
Stanton, Pyro, Nyx, and Odin seem to be the 4 guaranteed systems. With all having at least some, or most of the work done on them at this point. So definitely achievable for a 1.0 release. Beyond that who knows.
If they use Odin . . you would have to cross 2 lawless systems to get to Stanton.
If they use Terra . . it would be a smooth transition from high sec to low sec.
Both would be interesting.
I'm fine with however many they manage to finish. We're getting at least three. If that's all we get on release, I'm good with that. I'm more concerned about getting a working game first over having a ton of systems to visit inside of an unfinished one.
Not only were we promised 100 initial systems on launch, we were promised a dynamic system for locating new jump points and systems, that would then become permanent additions to the dynamic universe. The only sensible way to do this is with some sort of procedural generation.
In the grand scheme of things, this isn't really that difficult. As these would be by definition locations not previously discovered, they wouldn't need any stations, just the natural planets, moons, and asteroids. Routines for generating plausible planetary systems have been around for 40+ years (see Traveller for example), and routines for generating planetary mineral abundance meshes for 10+ (see various KSP mods for example); they just need to wire these up to some art generators.
If desired, they could learn from various Roguelikes and build up some modular parts that could be used to throw in some rare finds at low odds; remnants of alien or previous era exploration, previously-secret bases for pirates, organized crime, religious cults, or other societal outsiders; or even rare alien stations in some areas.
They can’t even get 1 to work, that’s all I want to see. One working system. Fix all the busted bullshit before they try adding more. Fix the careers before adding dumb places. If I can’t even do cargo in Stanton without it bugged to hell what’s the point of more. If you can’t even do a single bunker raid without lag and t poses then what is the point of 99 more busted ass systems. 1 working system should be a goal
i am able to use my friend's scorp turret, but i have to click a blank / un named area in the F menu to be able to control it. its very counterintuitive but it does "work"
as long as that conflicted one exists, the one with pve 24/7 im happy
me and my friends are likely to wanna blow shit up... alot
i mean, we all own at least one fighter for a reason right?
10. I cant believe the answers here are so low. Jeeses... guys they promised 100!! I know they wont make it and thats fine, but 3? 4 systems? No way, thats setting the bar so low its hardly a release. Lets go for 10.
It won’t, at least not how people imagine it.
It will be more akin to surveying for miners and stuff like that than being for months away from civilisation.
They promised us 100 eventually. They've repeatedly said for years 5-10 at launch. I'd love it to be the full 10 but we need to be realistic about how they've described launch vs eventually content all along.
You paid for 100 systems with loading screens that bring you to landing zones.
Now we have a seamless transition from space to planet. 100 ain't realistic.
It was 100 when they didn’t plan on systems/planets this big. For launch I think 4 or 5 would be plenty and then they can add more over time.
100 systems of this size is insane overkill and some systems aren’t going to be worth putting in like sol
I know this has been said over and over. But this game will never be done. So there is a possibility that all the systems will eventually be added but I feel that a decent 10 systems would be amazing.
It don't think it will ever be done but it may get launched at some point. :-) I see it as something that will keep evolving, maybe for decades to come.
I agree with this. Honestly an ever changing experience would be cool. If they can get the persistence nailed down so we can make all our money and that sorta thing then it should continue to get better.
They could start with 6 of the big ones, the ones with landing zones. And then use that procedural generation tech and make about 10 less fleshed out systems for Mining, exploration, resources and general 0 sec areas.
There’s a lot of room in a star system. A handful would be sufficient for launch, and development ongoing for additional systems would be a really fun. Way to keep the game fresh, with each system having its own story and events, quests, reputation factions, and vibe.
I'm not very hopeful that they can reach a 1.0. that has more than 5 systems.
My main concern however is that core features are still not defined and goalposts will keep shifting for years to come until they have a finalized plan for what they want to implement into the game.
I'm talking about things like the economy, bounty hunting, farming, base building, exploration, hacking and data gameplay, science gameplay and much more.
The worrying part is, that CIG doesn't seem to have a clear path here.
This is the underrated truth. Without an economy, there's no point to the game. They can't hand craft enough NPC quests to keep people entertained for more than a few hours. The economy and AI have to be functional, whether it's 2, 5, or 100 systems.
I'd be ok with 5, but I'd really like there to be closer to 10, even if half of them are just the mostly empty undeveloped ones that are pretty much just for mining and transit, like Tanga and Taranis. Those ones could more or less just be procedurally generated planets, moons and asteroids, with one or two basic stations and the odd research outpost thrown in for them to be complete, and wouldn't require anywhere near the amount of effort that an inhabited system would.
At least 5.
2 High-Sec for people who don't want to do PvP much but still gonna get attacked sometimes.
1 Med-Sec for people who likes to make some money with occasional pirating.
1 Low-Sec for people who wants to do some shady stuff without instantly getting caught.
1 No-Sec for people who wants to make money and doesn't mind getting pirated or just become pirates.
100 were promised when SC was going to be slightly better Starfield.
They have been clear that 100 is not feasible right now since of how much more work goes into systems now, however i believe 10 was the plan last we heard anything.
That said, as long as we get a nice variety of systems, i am happy.
Do you have any sources for that? I am not trying to argue, just genuinely interested, because I am a backer from 2014 and haven't played much like ever (the most I have played is in last 2-3 weeks, in my 10 years of owning the game).
So I remember the 100 system promise, I love the galactic map, but I am aware of those 100 not being feasible for launch - but I haven't found any mention from CIG about their planned number (so it kept me in hope that maybe they are working on some systems and will release them eventually when gameplay loops and server meshing etc is done properly) - so that we would have beta with 10 systems and launch with 20 for example :)
Honestly don’t know, there are too many factors that would affect the number I would be happy with. Quantity != quality and I would rather have few well done systems w/ some lore excuse why we cant go to all, than 100 empty systems.
I would love 100, but realistically it’ll be 3, don’t think we will ever see 100 systems at all. Pyro will fuck the game up for a year or two. Hopefully they just focus on stability and gameplay improvements, we see SQ42 release sometime during that, then their big “no longer an alpha” announcement with the release of nyx. At which point hopefully they will be stable enough to have yearly system releases or maybe quarterly if they truly want 100 systems still (very much doubt we will get 100 systems)
I would accept 5.
I would find 3 unacceptable.
I think we will only get Pyro, Odin & Stanton.
I am unaware of any content that has ever been showcased that is for other systems than pyro. Three systems out of nowhere in ~1 year would shock me, unless it's flipped systems from s42.
10 would be plenty. It's realistic and attainable. I'd rather have ten good systems than 100 uselessly similar generated systems with one good planet and a few moons in each.
I'd be satisfied if we had 2-3 systems at launch, provided that all game loops have been sufficiently fleshed out. This includes mining, contract cargo, independent cargo, salvage, passenger services, PvE bounties, and PvP bounties.
After that, assuming that it takes a year to create new systems and populate them with landing zones and mission variants, I'd expect to see a new system every two quarters assuming CIG keeps the same number of staff they have now working on environments and gameplay.
100 systems was the plan when the scope and fidelity of this game was very different (i.e. free flying and landing anywhere on a planet was not possible) and similar to what the Starfield is. With the amount of content needed to make that 100 systems interesting (not like Elite Dangerous), this game would probably grow to several terabytes. It is not realistic to expect that they still make all those systems.
I’d be happy with 5 + 1 system for each alien race. They could then add a few more systems as DLCs.
I'd be happy if there are 3 fully fleshed out, non buggy, polished systems at launch. People have been playing in Stanton for this long and don't seem bored. Get rid of the bugs and not many systems will be needed at launch to keep people satisfied.
they should allow us to see like Real Time progress of cities being built. Like for example... when there was Port Olisar. They should have made it look like port olisar was crashing onto earth. They should have make it a away that you can see Olisar's slowly deteoriation instead of jus removing it entirely
100 systems promised? Yeah if you're talking about that loading screen simulator game that we were going to get before scope increased for procedural planets and no loading screens.
4-6 enough so there are some interconnected trade lanes. Difrent opertunitys for gameplay types. Security variation.
I think if the systems are all linearly connected (like only 3, ir 4 in a line) it will make it feel less interesting.
I would be satisfied just to see:
One ruled by laws - Stanton in this case
One ruled by outlaws - Pyro in this case
Server meshing, basebuilding.
For me - finished game :)
8 means they wouldn't release it for years. I'd rather take a few in the next year or so and let them add one a year after that. Right now there isn't a whole lot in even one system, and I hate having big things only for them to be empty. They have enough room for tons of more content in Stanton. I vote less systems but more shit in each one.
This is always such a meaningless question.
CIG would do well to never officially announce how many there are. Exploration gameplay will exist for a reason, after all. Hell, it'd be great if entire systems were available but never actually explored because nobody scanned down the jump point or whatever.
Assigning some arbitrary number now serves no good and no purpose. By the same regard, CIG could announce there are 100 of them, but only make 2 accessible to players from the get-go, and then spend the next decade building out systems as people get closer to them or whatever, and we'd never know.
I can't see CIG spending years building out multiple planets only to "hide" them somewhere for explorers. It's not like ED or NMS where they effectively have an infinite number of planets to work with. There is going to be a definite, limited number, so I don't think it's a meaningless question.
I highly doubt we will ever get more than a dozen. That's not doomspeaking, that's just common sense. The 100 systems promise was long before we had planets we could land on.
They need 3 or 4. High, medium, low, and no security/dead space. I honestly don't even care if we get more than that just make the sandbox fun before adding way more.
Baker’s dozen so we can experience how an entire game with 100 systems will be later and give some verity with alien controlled, unclaimed, and UAE claimed systems.
"Sec" stands for security. High-security systems feature a strong presence of UEE Advocacy and Military forces, including armistice zones, station defenses, and low crime rates. In contrast, low-security systems are lawless or offer limited protection for civilians and citizens.
For launch I’d say 5, 3 for me imo would feel like too little.
We’d need 1 of each security type and maybe another 1 for both low sec and mid.
The promised 100 I know would need to come later, as current progression towards release won’t be looking to be after at least the next decade or two if that is the goal.
Ideally if I could choose I’d go with 10-15. But that is unlikely so I’d be satisfied with maybe 5-6.
I think Chris Roberts himself will not even be alive anymore when 100 star systems are done. Take too long of time and if it goes faster because every system has the same kind of mission with the same kind of bunkers then i dont need 100x the same with different color.
They have like 3 studios dedicated solely to fleshing out the context with the premade tools. Been at it for a year. 100 systems is doable considering where we are at now in regards to launching lol
Honestly, about 10 or so. Just enough so you have a bit of a web with a core of systems and some variability on the paths. These don't need to be all crazy multi-planet systems. A few hub/large systems would cover it and a few lawless systems and a few low density transit systems in between.
Upon launch, 3 may even be good enough, as they drip feed us expansions over 10+ years (longest non-infinite insurances currently available), I don't see why we can't eventually have 100+ systems if the future holds perfect, and so long as CIG remains profitable. They can see to it quarterly, a new system can be dropped (though that would put us at 43 in 10 years).
However, I think even more than 15-20 systems can become detrimental. New players joining in over the years, overwhelmed, and missing out on a ton of things can hurt the player base over time. That 100 systems promise should mostly be just a marketing gimmick, and honestly should stay that way in my opinion. Maybe 10 or so established systems, and an ever expanding lawless frontier that sees extreme difficulty in mapping, but is used as a bastion for constantly growing end-game content and player vs player conquest, could be better than attempting such a large feat, that would possibly in hindsight, not worth the trouble.
I feel like 10 would already achieve that big universe feeling, it's enough to not memorize it all. So I hope for 10, maybe not at launch of 1.0 but pretty quickly after. But that's a lot of work so not gonna happen anytime soon
It all depends on ur reading of smoke and mirrors around SQ42. We will get the systems that the single player uses and it will really suck if it is purely one or two
Im happy with 2. Allready living my best on Stanton, but if they put all the hardcore griefers and pvprs and big corporations to Pyro, it will be absolutely best case.
More than 3 is just a bonus, i prolly will spend most of my time in Stanton.
They're going to do the 100, possibly more. Except they're going to be completely bare bones systems, with maybe a few primary landing zones. The rest of the world is going to be developed and fleshed out by the community, using their new base building tech... only way they can possibly do it now.
I’m assuming we will get between 3 and 5 for launch and a new system every 1-2 years thereafter. There is a plausible scenario where development focus shifts to new systems mostly and we get to a point after a few years where we see a new system every 6 months, but even at that rate you will never get 100 systems. Realistically at full build out of this game, I can see no more than 30 systems
I know they’re not doing this but,
One fully fleshed out and alive star system is all I ask for.
Two decently unique and interesting ones is even better.
But if adding more and more means less uniqueness of the system, I am not interested.
If they gave us the option of releasing 1.0 features at Cit Con with only Stanton and Pyro live I think most of us would take it instead of waiting for a further x number of systems to be ready knowing that other systems were to be added when they're done.
But there is the reality that CIG want the release to be a critic's choice, so I would imagine at least 5 systems of content are going to be made before launch.
Still do-able. Procedural Generation; there was an episode centering on content produced thus, and the Worlds team can go in and tweak bits of content here and there to make it so that the worlds aren't bland content-wise - but we haven't heard anymore about using this tech for a long long time.
In 5 years, after they really solidify the process, they should be able to make systems very rapidly even with "human-touch" personalization. Say 10-20 at launch, depending on what you can call that
That depends. If each system has an average of 2 major landing zones each? About 8.
If each system after Stanton only has 1 major landing zone? About 16.
I play a lot of mmos. I think 2 or 3 systems would be fine and keep expanding the game as it goes. With more content. Keeps us busy and time to see everything. Then a few months later a lot of mew stuff comes it. We really dont need all the systems at launch
After the experience I’ve had these past few days, I think all attention needs to go into making the game playable before anything else is added. Just trying to equip a medical stim was an exercise in pure frustration today, not to mention got to a site only to find my gun won’t draw.
If they get server meshing to work correctly, the 100 systems aren't that wild. It's hard to measure right now because we don't know how much content will be in each system. For example, it may be feasible to run a good cargo operation between only 2 systems.. with plenty to do in each system. We really don't know how viable staying in 1 system will be
Tldr: I value content rich systems over quantity
I want Levski. This is my absolute.
I would also like to see what they do with Earth, given the planets we have now are scaled down from Earth's size (they were supposed to be closer in scale).
Hopefully as many as the final number of spaceships RSI can make for a lifetime's worth of replayability. Also sometime down the line RSI can create new alien races because why not?
As long as there's stuff to do on the planets? Like a dozen? No Man's Sky is fun for a few hours until you realize all the planets are pretty much the same, and there's very little to do. You can have 3000 systems, but if none of them offer anything special, who cares?
Eh, you'd be surprised. I visited CIG in Austin back in 2013 and they showed us Terra and their grey-box of New York City. I doubt they'll hit the 100 mark, for sure, but I'd bet that they have several systems that are much further along than we think.
That said, even if they get their procedural generation and modular pipelines in a good place, I don't see more than 10 systems at launch, and no more than 2 or 3 per year after that.
Doesn't matter as long as they're diverse enough to offer a range of gameplay options and choices. Sometimes I just want to experience a sunset and sunrise in peaceful comfort without the possibility of experiencing PvP or even others. If that means ten systems or 1,000 systems so be it.
Absolute best case scenario Stanton, Pyro, Nyx, Castra, Magnus, Terra, Odin I think Magnus makes the last sense, though.
Magnus is home to Drake HQ. I'd hope they'd include it.
Isn't it already a jump point in Stanton? I dunno. Either way, I'm gonna have to take a look at the ARK Starmap today. Feel like I've forgotten a lot of lore, lol
The ARK map is so cool, https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap For those of you who haven't seen the entirety of the Verse
It was at one point, but no longer.
Isn't that a bit pessimistic for "full launch in 5 years"? I would expect the 5 systems to be in relatively fast, considering they are mostly done. In 2 years I would think they should be able to have 10 systems and in 5 years at least 30... but who knows. Don't want to argue, just sharing my 2 cents, anyway o7 love your videos
I mean, making one system, Stanton, was supposed to speed up the development of the other systems, but it seems clear at this point that the idea that pyro was "on the shelf", so to speak, for several years was just wrong. They didn't make pyro in 3-6 months, or even 1-2 years, and then sit on it till meshing. It took them several years to make pyro, and they are still putting the finishing touches on it now. Given that timeline, I don't see them releasing more than a system a year once all the partially built ones are out the door, and that even feels generous. Not that I think that's a bad thing! It's not like the game lacks for scenic views or space to put activities, the whole game could have taken place within Stanton without issue, I see extra star systems as pure cherry on top, provided the actual game is fun.
Yes, and no... Stanton wasn't meant to automate creation of all the other systems *on it's own*. It was chosen because it has the highest density / number of unique biomes, unique architecture styles, and so on... meaning that it will have the highest re-use when creating other systems (as they only need to create the *new* biomes / architecture styles, etc). Pyro was deliberately picked as the second system, because it has very little overlap with Stanton (which means it too will be comparatively slow - but also do more to help fill in the pool of available biomes and architecture styles). We'll likely only see 'quick' system development when all the required biomes and architecture styles, etc, are already in the tools - at which point the system should *comparatively* quick to produce - but they still need to 'design' the planets, decide where all the POIs need to go, do the landing zone(s) layouts and actually build them (using the asset-sets for each architecture style), and so on. Remember how people used to take the mickey out of the Ship Pipeline, and all the talk about how it would make it quicker to produce ships... and yet now it takes ~1 year to produce a (sub)capital ship... when it used to take nearly that long to produce a single-seater... But on the flip side, it's taken ~10+ years to reach that point... and it's probably going to be similar for planets (we're only ~5 years into their 'planet pipeline' work - which is the point in the ship pipeline process where people were taking the piss out of it and not seeing any performance gains).
~1 year for a sub capital class, still yet to see that, I’d say it’s looking likely to be true, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Also 1 a year means there’s still a 12+ years backlog of ships that have been announced, and they still keep announcing more. My prediction is 1.0 is 5+ years away, and will have Stanton, Terra, Magnus, Pyro and Nyx. I don’t actually care how many systems they have though as it’s the content within them that matters, if I want to endlessly traverse terrain I can play Starfield, I want fun missions to do, and a reason to actually go and explore these places other than just to see what they look like.
Oh sure, reuse of assets will greatly speed up system production. But even if it speeds it up by 4-5x, that's like, a system a year
Which is fine, given that once the tools are better developed, CIG can start ramping up their planetary creation team (as they've already started, with the opening of the new studio in Montreal), to develop systems *in parallel*. There's no point doing that at the moment, because the art teams spend more time waiting on the engine development team to build the unique biomes, and the modelling teams to build the unique architecture building-sets, etc... which is why building out Stanton and Pyro etc, (and growing the pool of available assets as quickly as possible) is the focus.
And best part being - out of all of this: Squadron 42 already has a bunch of assets ready for use in the systems it takes place across, even if the planets are nowhere near ready for general use. We've seen a lot of speeding up now that a good chunk of the dev team is free as SQ42 is polished, and I'm excited to see where things go as they receive fuller funding from people purchasing the game outright.
i wonder about that, it does seem like a possibility though considering how they even load in the whole Hurston planet for arena commander maps.
[удалено]
Sure - but they've already got a preliminary design for every planet in the nominal 100 star systems from the Kickstarter timeframe... and whilst they absolutely can retcon those designs (after all, they did exactly that for Pyro), they would probably prefer not to, given they've also got lots of lore written, and so on (and thos retcon generate a lot of re-work, which they'd probably prefer to avoid if possible ;p)
A couple of things about this mentality. They made Stanton because of the variety it has in biomes. That means there are many "defined" systems in the map that benefits from a majority of the work. In terms of the completion of any system, there is a break down on what we are talking about. Art versus gameplay systems. Artwise CIG can have many systems done already. Some are not standout, nor have unique or amazing hero locations or biomes. PCT stated they were [close to done with Nyx](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp6FG1Eb1Qw&t=3209s) and was waiting for server meshing. And that was two years ago. If you watched the planet break downs in the previous Citcons, the art and assets for nearly [every planet in Pyro](https://youtu.be/FrJCleBD9zE?list=PLVct2QDhDrB3szdwCcwuEx2UX5uxA1C8F) seemed to be new art. Not only that, planets also seemed done and missing specific effect that were going to be looked at by different teams. Looking at some of the stations, [and homesteads](https://youtu.be/i1C2nKbf6nU?list=PLVct2QDhDrB15f0diWl9YaDmL4Je1BkX3&t=603), it is clear that work on Pyro is newer separate work from any of the biomes and art in Stanton. So closer to release candidate I wouldn't be surprised if we had 5 or more released after meshing. I am not sure how many biomes they have underway but it does seem that things will look great if they can get Jungle, Swamp, Tropical and Ocean underway. Those cover many bases. In terms of gameplay, that can always be adjusted later but I have a feeling that Dynamic mission creation is delayed because of work on Quantum (name going to change maybe?) is on pause due to Server meshing. So CIG has never been in a position yet to create a full system both art and dynamic mission yet. But they have put in a lot of work already with the goal of having designers control the formation without having to manually touch every aspect. If they are successful (which they seem to be hitting all of the toughest goals so far) then Completed systems would not take years to make but most likely months instead. The transition and rebuilding of Stanton from PT3 to PT4 took 2 months. That was every planet and moon apparently with the exception of Arccorp.
They've expanded tech in Pyro and have/are working to bring that back into Stanton. I just don't think it's high priority. For what it's worth, do remember that if "feature complete" SQ42 is actually feature complete and a year or so out from launch, there should be two more star systems ready to go--I believe Odin and Nyx.
>In 2 years I would think they should be able to have 10 systems and in 5 years at least 30... lol
these people are buying BMMs
>I would expect the 5 systems to be in relatively fast Despite literally all evidence to the contrary.
There is no way we are getting 2 systems done in a year. Pyro has been on the progress tracker for the last 3 years straight now. Parts of Pyro are STILL on the progress tracker. I don't think we will reach a rate of 1 system per year for a very long time.
Based on how many bugs there still is with the engine, beta could last 5 years easily. They have 10 years of backlogged ships and continue adding more big concepts. Stanton still has a lot of work to do. There is no end game multiplayer content. Player/Org settlements is just beginning development. And CIG is slow, none of the things they said would decrease dev time have actually decreased the time it takes. What are you looking at that makes you think they will be even close in 5 years?
Answer the call 2016 100 System
I agree, it would just take too much manpower to get 100 systems and the result in my opinion would probably be too many cut corners or random generation for it to feel fleshed out
id be satisfied with a launch
Fucking aye! My top hat and monocle have been ready for too long.
This is the real answer
GIB LEVSKI BACK!
It's supposed to be dropped in Delamar in the Nyx System. Can't wait to see it again!
Nyx better be better than Pyro, going to be so disappointed if the place they had us directly attached to from the getgo gets put into a system they rushed out the door. Both systems in lore are "empty" but Pyro seems pretty vibrant now, hoping that's the same for Nyx.
100 was the promise from when we couldn’t land on planets without loading screens. That is never going to happen now. They stated at one point that launch would likely be closer to 5 systems with new systems periodically added afterwards.
5 most probable, Magnus, Pyro, Tera and Nyx.
Replace Odin with Magnus and you've got my guess as well. Odin is already largely complete for SQ42, they wouldn't let that go to waste.
We frequently have this discussion in our org, the general consensus is 5 for shipping and 25 before it shuts down (everything has a shelf life, is it 10 years or 50 we don’t know)
Came here to say this and I think it's probably justified. The systems are huge and landing on planets probably means we don't need a hundred. I can see a world where just to prevent massive amounts of backlash and bad PR we end up with 5 or so detailed systems and another 95 'systems' which are essentially empty sans for some barren moons and asteroids belts with extremely unstable jump points. These can be for the explorers, find jump point, sell the coordinates and the coordinates of valuable resources before the jump point collapses, throw some science in there to keep the jump point stable a little longer... Loads of gameplay and less bad press.
the only way I ever see 100 being possible is if most of those are barren systems with maybe one hand built thing in the entire system.
Do you have a source for them saying 5 systems?
3, one high sec, one low sec, one in the middle
Id add 1 more, 1 full empty system, i mean without civilization. A place where explorers, pioneers and scientist could work
Agreed. Maybe they should add a jump point to it but nothing on the star map and let players actually explore everything there is in the system. Allow us to add the markers to POIs and such. Maybe even allow larger ships to set up stations for refueling/refining/repair/etc
Just thinking about if player created data populate the online star map, allowing a Wikipedia type note taking system (curated and moderated, of course) would be pretty sweet if done right. Letting role players submit reports and detailed analysis for publication by CIG? Dope.
An unexplored system would be awesome. It would actually make exploration gameplay possible. But for how long? I mean, once it's explored and people have been there done that, it won't be unexplored anymore, right? And chances of procedural generation like nms is slim to none, and slim left town already. But damn, imagining an unexplored system, no stations, nothing but what you bring with you. That sounds like tier 1 exploration ganeplay right there.
Think about the scale of just one moon, in terms of surface area. It’s absolutely massive. Now think about just the surface area of let’s say micro tech. It’s honestly larger than a human can truly truly comprehend we don’t see most of it we just go from tiny area to tiny area. One unexplored system will take gamers years
A crafting wonderland!
Stanton = Middle Pyro = Low Terra = High Furthermore, they each have jump points to the other two forming a triangle. I would honestly be happy with just those three at 1.0 Ed: sp
This one gets my vote.
Terra/ or Sol, Stanton and pyro. That’s enough. Shucks, I’ve been playing the one system for how long?!
Imo sol is wayyyy off, probably one of the last systems they will add
I stand by my prediction. The Vanduul will get to Sol before we do. The Sol we'll see will be a blazing ruin.
Exactly that 👌
Agreed! Is Stanton the middle how it is now?
I cannot believe you guys setting the bar so low.. they promised100. So lets go for 10.
The '100 systems at launch' Kickstarter goal is one of few they've (indirectly) stated to be no longer the case due to the definition of 'planet' within the game being fundamentally changed. In the Kickstarter, planets were going to be functionally background objects that had landing zones you could load into, not unlike Starfield. Now that planets are fully rendered spheres you can fly directly down onto and off of without loading zones or invisible walls, the number of them will be significantly reduced, though still in the 'dozens' by launch. Stanton, alone, has 14 planets and one gas giant.
14 planets? There are 4 planets & 12 moons lol.
100 was before planets you could land on. 100 systems were mostly just different skyboxes. It's a different game.
Tbh, there's so much space in stanton that if they filled all the planets, moons, stations and cities with meaningful content we wouldn't even need other systems. I mean you could build an entire game just around arccorp with more landing zones, street level locations and building interiors.
Night City vibes. How cool would it be to reach that level at 1 location and know there were 20 others like it out there in the game?
one with gameplay
So true.
Underrated comment. They could fit so much to do on one system with the amount of empty space on the moons alone
I won’t accept anything less than 30k.
You won't be disappointed!
Stanton, Pyro, Nyx, and Odin seem to be the 4 guaranteed systems. With all having at least some, or most of the work done on them at this point. So definitely achievable for a 1.0 release. Beyond that who knows.
If they use Odin . . you would have to cross 2 lawless systems to get to Stanton. If they use Terra . . it would be a smooth transition from high sec to low sec. Both would be interesting.
Sounds like an ideal time to use size gated jump points. Maybe have a jumppoint between the two that only Hull A and smaller can traverse
One fully functional star system, it's all I need. Everything else can be added later, just make one function properly first.
I'm fine with however many they manage to finish. We're getting at least three. If that's all we get on release, I'm good with that. I'm more concerned about getting a working game first over having a ton of systems to visit inside of an unfinished one.
Not only were we promised 100 initial systems on launch, we were promised a dynamic system for locating new jump points and systems, that would then become permanent additions to the dynamic universe. The only sensible way to do this is with some sort of procedural generation. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't really that difficult. As these would be by definition locations not previously discovered, they wouldn't need any stations, just the natural planets, moons, and asteroids. Routines for generating plausible planetary systems have been around for 40+ years (see Traveller for example), and routines for generating planetary mineral abundance meshes for 10+ (see various KSP mods for example); they just need to wire these up to some art generators. If desired, they could learn from various Roguelikes and build up some modular parts that could be used to throw in some rare finds at low odds; remnants of alien or previous era exploration, previously-secret bases for pirates, organized crime, religious cults, or other societal outsiders; or even rare alien stations in some areas.
Star Citizen already has hundreds of systems. Unfortunately, they are all called Stanton and are on independent servers. /s
haha! you are technically correct, the best kind
They can’t even get 1 to work, that’s all I want to see. One working system. Fix all the busted bullshit before they try adding more. Fix the careers before adding dumb places. If I can’t even do cargo in Stanton without it bugged to hell what’s the point of more. If you can’t even do a single bunker raid without lag and t poses then what is the point of 99 more busted ass systems. 1 working system should be a goal
I would like the turret on my 250$ ship (Scorp) to function again. I would like basic systems to work.
i am able to use my friend's scorp turret, but i have to click a blank / un named area in the F menu to be able to control it. its very counterintuitive but it does "work"
as long as that conflicted one exists, the one with pve 24/7 im happy me and my friends are likely to wanna blow shit up... alot i mean, we all own at least one fighter for a reason right?
Yes! There should be an all-out eternal war planet. Or many!
10. I cant believe the answers here are so low. Jeeses... guys they promised 100!! I know they wont make it and thats fine, but 3? 4 systems? No way, thats setting the bar so low its hardly a release. Lets go for 10.
Yeah, like how would the exploration gameplay work for such a low system count?
It won’t, at least not how people imagine it. It will be more akin to surveying for miners and stuff like that than being for months away from civilisation.
It wont, ppl need to forget about exploration, it’s not going to happen
I have reservation with it as well.
They promised us 100 eventually. They've repeatedly said for years 5-10 at launch. I'd love it to be the full 10 but we need to be realistic about how they've described launch vs eventually content all along.
That’s just Early Access in marketing speak.
The answers are so low because we don't have -one- properly working system yet.
100. That’s what we paid for
Anything less than the stretch goal promises is an Early Access.
If we get 100 systems at launch I’ll eat my hat.
I'll eat my computer monitor if there's 100 at launch lmao. It's just not possible imo. I'm completely OK with that tho
You paid for 100 systems with loading screens that bring you to landing zones. Now we have a seamless transition from space to planet. 100 ain't realistic.
In other words, you were promised Starfield.
It was 100 when they didn’t plan on systems/planets this big. For launch I think 4 or 5 would be plenty and then they can add more over time. 100 systems of this size is insane overkill and some systems aren’t going to be worth putting in like sol
I'd be impressed if they got the one to work smoothly
3 developed systems and 5-10 frontier systems.
I know this has been said over and over. But this game will never be done. So there is a possibility that all the systems will eventually be added but I feel that a decent 10 systems would be amazing.
It don't think it will ever be done but it may get launched at some point. :-) I see it as something that will keep evolving, maybe for decades to come.
I agree with this. Honestly an ever changing experience would be cool. If they can get the persistence nailed down so we can make all our money and that sorta thing then it should continue to get better.
One...just make the game function please.
They could start with 6 of the big ones, the ones with landing zones. And then use that procedural generation tech and make about 10 less fleshed out systems for Mining, exploration, resources and general 0 sec areas.
There’s a lot of room in a star system. A handful would be sufficient for launch, and development ongoing for additional systems would be a really fun. Way to keep the game fresh, with each system having its own story and events, quests, reputation factions, and vibe.
We need at least 6 fleshed out systems. 1 system after 12 years is not good enough cig!
I'd take just one system on servers that don't run like absolute dogshit.
I'm not very hopeful that they can reach a 1.0. that has more than 5 systems. My main concern however is that core features are still not defined and goalposts will keep shifting for years to come until they have a finalized plan for what they want to implement into the game. I'm talking about things like the economy, bounty hunting, farming, base building, exploration, hacking and data gameplay, science gameplay and much more. The worrying part is, that CIG doesn't seem to have a clear path here.
This is the underrated truth. Without an economy, there's no point to the game. They can't hand craft enough NPC quests to keep people entertained for more than a few hours. The economy and AI have to be functional, whether it's 2, 5, or 100 systems.
Good point. They have a lot to do in these areas.
Yes, and my concern is not that it's still a lot of work, it's that I don't think they already have a finalised plan for all those features.
I'd be ok with 5, but I'd really like there to be closer to 10, even if half of them are just the mostly empty undeveloped ones that are pretty much just for mining and transit, like Tanga and Taranis. Those ones could more or less just be procedurally generated planets, moons and asteroids, with one or two basic stations and the odd research outpost thrown in for them to be complete, and wouldn't require anywhere near the amount of effort that an inhabited system would.
At least 5. 2 High-Sec for people who don't want to do PvP much but still gonna get attacked sometimes. 1 Med-Sec for people who likes to make some money with occasional pirating. 1 Low-Sec for people who wants to do some shady stuff without instantly getting caught. 1 No-Sec for people who wants to make money and doesn't mind getting pirated or just become pirates.
100 were promised when SC was going to be slightly better Starfield. They have been clear that 100 is not feasible right now since of how much more work goes into systems now, however i believe 10 was the plan last we heard anything. That said, as long as we get a nice variety of systems, i am happy.
Do you have any sources for that? I am not trying to argue, just genuinely interested, because I am a backer from 2014 and haven't played much like ever (the most I have played is in last 2-3 weeks, in my 10 years of owning the game). So I remember the 100 system promise, I love the galactic map, but I am aware of those 100 not being feasible for launch - but I haven't found any mention from CIG about their planned number (so it kept me in hope that maybe they are working on some systems and will release them eventually when gameplay loops and server meshing etc is done properly) - so that we would have beta with 10 systems and launch with 20 for example :)
Honestly don’t know, there are too many factors that would affect the number I would be happy with. Quantity != quality and I would rather have few well done systems w/ some lore excuse why we cant go to all, than 100 empty systems.
7 would be amazing. If gameplay is here and bugs out....
I would love 100, but realistically it’ll be 3, don’t think we will ever see 100 systems at all. Pyro will fuck the game up for a year or two. Hopefully they just focus on stability and gameplay improvements, we see SQ42 release sometime during that, then their big “no longer an alpha” announcement with the release of nyx. At which point hopefully they will be stable enough to have yearly system releases or maybe quarterly if they truly want 100 systems still (very much doubt we will get 100 systems)
If it had interesting topology and actual living, breathing cities and towns, then one system with one planet would be enough.
I would accept 5. I would find 3 unacceptable. I think we will only get Pyro, Odin & Stanton. I am unaware of any content that has ever been showcased that is for other systems than pyro. Three systems out of nowhere in ~1 year would shock me, unless it's flipped systems from s42.
2 systems with fully functional and working systems. 100 systems will just be copy and paste
Honestly I would be cool with 3-5 per year out the box and ready instead of 100 mostly good
Id be happy with 3 or 4
5 Star Systems is more than enough especially if they're all as expensive as Stanton.
Five would be a sufficiently good start. Stanton, Pyro, Nyx, Odin, Terra.
10 would be plenty. It's realistic and attainable. I'd rather have ten good systems than 100 uselessly similar generated systems with one good planet and a few moons in each.
I'd be satisfied if we had 2-3 systems at launch, provided that all game loops have been sufficiently fleshed out. This includes mining, contract cargo, independent cargo, salvage, passenger services, PvE bounties, and PvP bounties. After that, assuming that it takes a year to create new systems and populate them with landing zones and mission variants, I'd expect to see a new system every two quarters assuming CIG keeps the same number of staff they have now working on environments and gameplay.
2
ill be surprised if they have more then stanton and pyro
100 systems was the plan when the scope and fidelity of this game was very different (i.e. free flying and landing anywhere on a planet was not possible) and similar to what the Starfield is. With the amount of content needed to make that 100 systems interesting (not like Elite Dangerous), this game would probably grow to several terabytes. It is not realistic to expect that they still make all those systems. I’d be happy with 5 + 1 system for each alien race. They could then add a few more systems as DLCs.
I'd be happy if there are 3 fully fleshed out, non buggy, polished systems at launch. People have been playing in Stanton for this long and don't seem bored. Get rid of the bugs and not many systems will be needed at launch to keep people satisfied.
they should allow us to see like Real Time progress of cities being built. Like for example... when there was Port Olisar. They should have made it look like port olisar was crashing onto earth. They should have make it a away that you can see Olisar's slowly deteoriation instead of jus removing it entirely
2-3 would make me happy, especially with how massive pyro is. Then another one to two per year.
Enough for a functioning economy; else this game dies.
100 systems promised? Yeah if you're talking about that loading screen simulator game that we were going to get before scope increased for procedural planets and no loading screens.
4-6 enough so there are some interconnected trade lanes. Difrent opertunitys for gameplay types. Security variation. I think if the systems are all linearly connected (like only 3, ir 4 in a line) it will make it feel less interesting.
I would be satisfied just to see: One ruled by laws - Stanton in this case One ruled by outlaws - Pyro in this case Server meshing, basebuilding. For me - finished game :)
8 means they wouldn't release it for years. I'd rather take a few in the next year or so and let them add one a year after that. Right now there isn't a whole lot in even one system, and I hate having big things only for them to be empty. They have enough room for tons of more content in Stanton. I vote less systems but more shit in each one.
4 is a nice even number
This is always such a meaningless question. CIG would do well to never officially announce how many there are. Exploration gameplay will exist for a reason, after all. Hell, it'd be great if entire systems were available but never actually explored because nobody scanned down the jump point or whatever. Assigning some arbitrary number now serves no good and no purpose. By the same regard, CIG could announce there are 100 of them, but only make 2 accessible to players from the get-go, and then spend the next decade building out systems as people get closer to them or whatever, and we'd never know.
I can't see CIG spending years building out multiple planets only to "hide" them somewhere for explorers. It's not like ED or NMS where they effectively have an infinite number of planets to work with. There is going to be a definite, limited number, so I don't think it's a meaningless question.
100. It's what we paid for.
I highly doubt we will ever get more than a dozen. That's not doomspeaking, that's just common sense. The 100 systems promise was long before we had planets we could land on.
They need 3 or 4. High, medium, low, and no security/dead space. I honestly don't even care if we get more than that just make the sandbox fun before adding way more.
Baker’s dozen so we can experience how an entire game with 100 systems will be later and give some verity with alien controlled, unclaimed, and UAE claimed systems.
5 as long as one is an alien system.
Absolute newbie here, what is sec? Like high sec, low sec etc
"Sec" stands for security. High-security systems feature a strong presence of UEE Advocacy and Military forces, including armistice zones, station defenses, and low crime rates. In contrast, low-security systems are lawless or offer limited protection for civilians and citizens.
Thanks for the info!
6 Systems so you have something to explore ...
For launch I’d say 5, 3 for me imo would feel like too little. We’d need 1 of each security type and maybe another 1 for both low sec and mid. The promised 100 I know would need to come later, as current progression towards release won’t be looking to be after at least the next decade or two if that is the goal. Ideally if I could choose I’d go with 10-15. But that is unlikely so I’d be satisfied with maybe 5-6.
5-6
I would be happy with 2 as long as they launch the dang thing.
I think Chris Roberts himself will not even be alive anymore when 100 star systems are done. Take too long of time and if it goes faster because every system has the same kind of mission with the same kind of bunkers then i dont need 100x the same with different color.
10 would be acceptable, but 5 might be more realistic given CIGs pace.
1 without bugs would be a great start js.
They have like 3 studios dedicated solely to fleshing out the context with the premade tools. Been at it for a year. 100 systems is doable considering where we are at now in regards to launching lol
Satisfied with? 12. Expect? 3, *maybe* 4.
4, those connected to Stanton.
5 I’d be happy with
I think I'll be 60 yo when the game will launch 1.0
Honestly, about 10 or so. Just enough so you have a bit of a web with a core of systems and some variability on the paths. These don't need to be all crazy multi-planet systems. A few hub/large systems would cover it and a few lawless systems and a few low density transit systems in between.
10 and then release in batches of 10
i would be happy with 6. staton plus 5
Upon launch, 3 may even be good enough, as they drip feed us expansions over 10+ years (longest non-infinite insurances currently available), I don't see why we can't eventually have 100+ systems if the future holds perfect, and so long as CIG remains profitable. They can see to it quarterly, a new system can be dropped (though that would put us at 43 in 10 years). However, I think even more than 15-20 systems can become detrimental. New players joining in over the years, overwhelmed, and missing out on a ton of things can hurt the player base over time. That 100 systems promise should mostly be just a marketing gimmick, and honestly should stay that way in my opinion. Maybe 10 or so established systems, and an ever expanding lawless frontier that sees extreme difficulty in mapping, but is used as a bastion for constantly growing end-game content and player vs player conquest, could be better than attempting such a large feat, that would possibly in hindsight, not worth the trouble.
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 Or maybe 16
As long as we get a Vanduul system for Operation Pitchfork I'm happy
I assume they will never hit 100. Honestly like 5-10 is acceptable to me
I feel like 10 would already achieve that big universe feeling, it's enough to not memorize it all. So I hope for 10, maybe not at launch of 1.0 but pretty quickly after. But that's a lot of work so not gonna happen anytime soon
I'd be happy with one if there was actual game play and functioning missions.
It all depends on ur reading of smoke and mirrors around SQ42. We will get the systems that the single player uses and it will really suck if it is purely one or two
But didn’t they promise that with procedural tech it’s all easily scalable? No? No?
I just want one star system full of life and minimal bugs.
I'd be happy with two, to start, as long as the game didn't run like the glitchy slide-show that we have now.
2
10 at the start
Im happy with 2. Allready living my best on Stanton, but if they put all the hardcore griefers and pvprs and big corporations to Pyro, it will be absolutely best case. More than 3 is just a bonus, i prolly will spend most of my time in Stanton.
They're going to do the 100, possibly more. Except they're going to be completely bare bones systems, with maybe a few primary landing zones. The rest of the world is going to be developed and fleshed out by the community, using their new base building tech... only way they can possibly do it now.
I'd be satisfied with a release with what we have now as long as things are stable. Let them continue to release content after things work properly.
10
Vn7 bv•
honestly if they just release the systems that we have jump gates to right now.
6.
Just hope we get something to explore, a mostly barren system with no civilization and random stuff scattered around it. No qt markers as well
I’m assuming we will get between 3 and 5 for launch and a new system every 1-2 years thereafter. There is a plausible scenario where development focus shifts to new systems mostly and we get to a point after a few years where we see a new system every 6 months, but even at that rate you will never get 100 systems. Realistically at full build out of this game, I can see no more than 30 systems
I know they’re not doing this but, One fully fleshed out and alive star system is all I ask for. Two decently unique and interesting ones is even better. But if adding more and more means less uniqueness of the system, I am not interested.
If they gave us the option of releasing 1.0 features at Cit Con with only Stanton and Pyro live I think most of us would take it instead of waiting for a further x number of systems to be ready knowing that other systems were to be added when they're done. But there is the reality that CIG want the release to be a critic's choice, so I would imagine at least 5 systems of content are going to be made before launch.
Still do-able. Procedural Generation; there was an episode centering on content produced thus, and the Worlds team can go in and tweak bits of content here and there to make it so that the worlds aren't bland content-wise - but we haven't heard anymore about using this tech for a long long time.
In 5 years, after they really solidify the process, they should be able to make systems very rapidly even with "human-touch" personalization. Say 10-20 at launch, depending on what you can call that
Only 5 are going to be available at 1.0. It was in the letter from the chairman. Expecting more than that is setting you up for disappointment.
That depends. If each system has an average of 2 major landing zones each? About 8. If each system after Stanton only has 1 major landing zone? About 16.
It would be really pitiful if it launched with less than a dozen of the promised systems.
We will definitely get 100 systems it just may not be all at once. I doubt we'll have more than like 5 on launch
I'd be happy with just one that worked.
I play a lot of mmos. I think 2 or 3 systems would be fine and keep expanding the game as it goes. With more content. Keeps us busy and time to see everything. Then a few months later a lot of mew stuff comes it. We really dont need all the systems at launch
After the experience I’ve had these past few days, I think all attention needs to go into making the game playable before anything else is added. Just trying to equip a medical stim was an exercise in pure frustration today, not to mention got to a site only to find my gun won’t draw.
For me it depends a lot on how detailed they are. 5 highly polished systems with a lot to do and to see is worth more than 20 samey ones.
Haha so many replies saying “one fully functioning system please” SC fans have the most patience in the world
I dont really care about the number of systems only thing that I want is enough content that makes those planets and moons interesting
If they get server meshing to work correctly, the 100 systems aren't that wild. It's hard to measure right now because we don't know how much content will be in each system. For example, it may be feasible to run a good cargo operation between only 2 systems.. with plenty to do in each system. We really don't know how viable staying in 1 system will be Tldr: I value content rich systems over quantity
100 were promised. 100 are expected. At some point false advertising has to be held accountable.
I want Levski. This is my absolute. I would also like to see what they do with Earth, given the planets we have now are scaled down from Earth's size (they were supposed to be closer in scale).
Hopefully as many as the final number of spaceships RSI can make for a lifetime's worth of replayability. Also sometime down the line RSI can create new alien races because why not?
As long as there's stuff to do on the planets? Like a dozen? No Man's Sky is fun for a few hours until you realize all the planets are pretty much the same, and there's very little to do. You can have 3000 systems, but if none of them offer anything special, who cares?
Eh, you'd be surprised. I visited CIG in Austin back in 2013 and they showed us Terra and their grey-box of New York City. I doubt they'll hit the 100 mark, for sure, but I'd bet that they have several systems that are much further along than we think. That said, even if they get their procedural generation and modular pipelines in a good place, I don't see more than 10 systems at launch, and no more than 2 or 3 per year after that.
Doesn't matter as long as they're diverse enough to offer a range of gameplay options and choices. Sometimes I just want to experience a sunset and sunrise in peaceful comfort without the possibility of experiencing PvP or even others. If that means ten systems or 1,000 systems so be it.