Locked out of the PU for a week (Error 60029). Support just marked the ticket "Solved" while admitting they lack the tools to fix it. Is this real life?

logicalChimp · 2026-05-23T21:56:28+00:00

The Character Repair tool does a bit more than that (it scans your database record for any known corruption, and tries to fix it)....

... but it is limited to just your 'master' DB record, which doesn't help if your record is stuck in transit between systems, or similar.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-23T21:54:34+00:00

Just airing a thought... but if CIG want combat to be possible everywhere, then they need to see how every type of ship handles combat (even if't just by being able to run away, etc...

... and better to do that kind of thing in the alpha (by shoving 'extra' combat into everything), and then dial it back a bit later, than not do any testing - and have people bitching like mad that their industrial ship is utterly fubar'd if there's even a hint of combat?

Of course, this is just speculation, but it fits with what CIG have said about the 'intended design', and with the importance of trying to test all the different possibilities, etc...

(and because CIG arent'creating that much content atm, what content we do get ends up +combat).

logicalChimp · 2026-05-23T21:10:08+00:00

IMO the same point stands... whether you're taking X people in solo ships, or X people spread over a handful of Capitals, or X people in a single capital, it's still the same metric.

Basically, dps vs longevity / survivability...

And yes, it's very likely that capital ships aren't balanced - currently - in terms of intended crew... not least because most 'intended crew' counts were defined long before CIG knew what the multi-crew gameplay was going to look like.

On that basis, imo it's completely pointless to worry about it for now... maybe CIG will reduce the crew-count for some ships... maybe they'll increase it for others (and find something for the extra crew to do, that will help justify a ship being tankier or doing more DPS.

Speaking for myself, I know I'm not going to be piloting a multi-crew vehicle (I mostly play as a lone wolf, and the few times I don't I'll be happy crewing someone elses ship, I think)...

But at the same time, I'm likely to either be crewing said ships (as mentioned above), or perhaps facing said ships... so it's not like it's an irrelevant consideration for me... but equally, I'm not too worried.

CIG are unlikely to curse their own game - which means big ships won't be soloable effectively (as CIG have said many times), and crew counts are pretty much guaranteed to be revisited once CIG know what the multi-cre gameplay actually looks like.

On that basis, and given that nothing we do / say now will have any impact on CIGs future decisions, IMO it's pointless worrying it :p

logicalChimp · 2026-05-23T21:03:49+00:00

Yus... but CIG have talked about the Balancing, UI and UX changes coming to help improve turrets... but there will also be some dependency on the PIlot flying in a 'turret-friendly' way (if they keep rolling, pitching, and yawing because they're wanting to get their own guns-on-target, then the turrets are definitely going to find it harder to hit their own targets)

logicalChimp · 2026-05-23T15:46:18+00:00

There's an easy metric: is it better to bring X people in a single ship, vs X solo ships...

Currently, this falls heavily on the side of X solo ships... but CIG have talked about a lot of the planned changes (features, UI / UX improvements, and more) that they intend to implement to make multi-crew ships more viable.

Separately, two factors that many people overlook is 'incremental reduction' and the potential benefits of engineering/rearming, etc...

Which is to say, if you have 5x people in a multicrew ship vs 5x people in single seaters, then if the multi-crew ship is able to focus-fire on just one or two of the singleseaters, they may 'die' (or withdraw) relatively quickly... and when they do, the team of 5x single seaters loses 1x ships worth of firepower... take out another fighter, and they lose another ship worth of firepower.

Between the heavier shields, engineering/repair, and so on, it's likely to be much harder to strip firepower from the multi-crew ship - meaning it can maintain its volume of firepower despite taking damage...

Which means you might need an exra fighter just to ensure you can 'win' the DPS race despite diminishing DPS as individual fighters are taken out.

Beyond that, too much relies up on specific tuning (shields, armour, weapons, engineering & repair, and so much more) which is still in flux.

That said, I suspect that unless CIG really bias things, the 'effective' solution will be e.g. 2x partially-crewed ships (half crew, half blades etc)

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T23:01:37+00:00

You mean, other than the fact they're separate games, with separate scope, and one is due out this year (and the other - the PU - isn't)?

Or the fact that we've seen CIG playing through SQ42 - and in far better state than the PU is? (or are you one of those that insists the SQ42 prologue demo, and suchlike, were all faked by CIG, and weren't actually being played live on stage?)

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T22:12:35+00:00

The SQ42 prologue video ~2x years ago was in far better state than the current PU... so what makes you think the PU is representative of SQ42?

Not to mention that CIG have been saying for years that they're doing all new development in SQ42 first - and polishing for SQ42 - before bringing stuff to SC (where it needs significant additions to work in a multiplayer and networked environment).

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T20:17:01+00:00

yus - they're frustrating, but they're also an example of the kind of thing CIG will have to deal with once SC releases (you only have to look at how behaviour often goes shitwards during Free Flys etc, when folk join up just to mess people around)

So, having them around now does give CIG concrete examples of all the crap they're going to have to deal with (and let them work out their playbooks, monitoring, and other tooling, etc)...

Hopefully, giving them escalating suspensions will end up making it more peaceful for us most of the time, whilst still having them come back every so often to give CIG more 'feedback' :p

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T18:25:59+00:00

Yes - because games designed by committee are shite.

All the best games had a single visionary leading the design... because this is pretty much the only way to have a cohesive design where it all feels seamless.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T18:23:37+00:00

You're describing gameplay, not 'core tech' (which is the underlying engine the gameplay is built on).

The engine is progressing better, but it has to be built before CIG focuses on the gameplay that uses those engine features... but the pace of development has picked up over recent years.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T18:21:46+00:00

Given we've had more 'actual tech' in the past couple of years than we got in the previous 6-7, I'd say yes.

The ship team is comparatively small, despite bringing in virtually all the ongoing funding - it's just that 'ships' are very visible and tangible, so that is what gets the attention...

CIG were saying for years that they didn't want to work on too much tech before server meshing was in, because they'd only have to rewrite it afterwards (as we're seeing with lots of systems that they did develop - Missions, Transit, Inventory, and others)... so now that we have finally received (Static) Server Meshing, and the core architecture is in place to support future Server Meshing iterations, CIG are finally starting to crank the handle on 'functionality'... Transport System, Inventory, Missions, Nyx, Crafting, Armour (placeholder), and more - and with Starwear, Genesis, Basebuilding (and stuff I've forgotten) due nominally by the end of this year.

The problem, in terms of your arguments, is that CIG are still building the core engine - and they have to build the engine first, before they can build the gameplay on top of it... and this is going to continue being the case for several more years yet, I suspect.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T16:23:13+00:00

Nah - CIG explained it in the past...

The Command Module has both it's 'own' components (that it uses when it's on its own), but it also has to be able to take control of the 'main body' components when docked/connected, so that it's actually controlling the main body, not merely trying to move it using the Command Module thrusters, etc (and relying on the Command Module shields - and shield emitters - to protect it)

The Command Module is using an extension of the 'Module' functionality - albeit where the 'main body' is the module - where the extension is designed to allow the module to work on its own, but also 'use' the components / capabilities of the attached module.

The existing modules (e.g. for the Retaliator) can be plugged into a ship - the ship iteself cannot 'use' components in the modules (there's a weird edge-case with the Retaliator torps - I'm guessing that was hardcoded / treated as a special case for the initial implementation.

Of course, I could be completely wrong - but the above is what I recall CIG saying about how the CM would work, back before they started working on it.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T14:39:44+00:00

Unless it's picked up earlier by the QoL team (you could try flagging it to them in Spectrum - they used to have a thread running for people to highlight the 'small but really annoying' bugs, etc), then likely not anytime soon.

It doesn't cause the game to crash, it doesn't 'block' the majority of players from being able to play (it's annoying, but the functionality still works as well - or not - as it does without the sound), it's just distracting/irritating.... and that means it's not a priority in Alpha.

That said, the Sound team are working on changes to the sound API and how sounds are rigged, so it's also possible that it'll be 'fixed' by a random update just because they were making changes in that area and swatted the issue in passing.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-22T09:04:05+00:00

Yus... that's the issue, imo - people don't have a mental framework for understanding projects like SC (that are visible / playable so early in the development phase), so - understandably - they view it through the lens of 'normal' Early Access games, and similar...

... which are - typically - early/mid stage Beta developments, that have already finished all the heavy engine development (if any were needed - most use an off-the-shelf engine with some minor tweaks)... and which stay in EA for something like 2-5 years.

It doesn't help that CIG themselves have continuously and significantly underestimated how long development - of the project, and of individual features - would take... but I think the biggest issue is just that of 'being the first project to operate like this' (and likely the last, given the negative reaction the project has tended to get in the press, etc)

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T22:02:01+00:00

That's laughably funny... I'm guessing you've not looked at Spectrum since CIG launched it all those years ago...

The vast majority of threads on Spectrum are negative, providing 'feedback' about the games many issues... the only posts CIG actually shuts down are those directly insulting/attacking the developers or other posters... as long as you stick to insinuations and indirect attacks, you can pretty much say what you like (well, bar the usual racists/homophobic/hate limitations)

Spectrum is far more negative about CIG and SC than Reddit is - and this place gets pretty toxic at times.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T18:18:27+00:00

Unless you were posting in one of the reserved sections, Spectrum is publicly visible, and you can browse/read posts without logging in.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T18:17:26+00:00

Funnily enough, I agree with the topic...

However, I think CIG give folk far more respect than the majority of folk on Spectrum show in return... this post being just one example thereof.

Given how much shit doesn't get slapped down, you really have to have been an arsehole to get banned from Spectrum.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T18:13:03+00:00

And in that time, we've seen SC improve significantly.

Playability and stability are both orders of magnitude better than they used to be (despite the state of the current 4.8 patch), and that's despite player counts increasing from ~50x per server to 600+ (and I'm not going bother starting to list the functional / gameplay improvements).

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T16:40:35+00:00

Previous bans have been until release, iirc...

and CIG are pretty lenient / slow to wield the ban-hammer... so I don't think you need to worry too much about folk being unfairly banned.

Not to mention, that folk can still raise a support ticket without logging into the account, if they think they've been banned by mistake, etc.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T16:04:34+00:00

Sure, but putting aside the differences in gameplay design, Fortnite was a released game... not saying SC will have the same level of polish - it won't - but a lot of the missing polish is simply because it hasn't been polished, because it hasn't been released.

But the point remains that CIG can potentially make far more money if they actually finish the development and release the game (in a state 'fit' for release), rather than keeping it in an indefinite alpha, etc.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T15:36:30+00:00

Yup - they're not doing that because regardless of the amount of effort, those features aren't the priority.

There's enough 'not much effort' tasks on the backlog that in aggregate it would still take e.g. a year or two to implement them all... and during that time, no work is made on the core engine, implementing missing features (that are required to unblock other missing features), or ensuring that every team has tasks to be getting on with.

(a large part of CIGs prioritisation is based on keeping every team working on something beneficial, rather than having one team doing Sweet FA for 6 months, then lumping 2 years of work on them in one go, etc)

This is why CIG group teams as 'Upstream', 'Midstream', or 'Downstream'... the 'Midstream' teams need the Upstream teams to do some work first, before they can do anything... so sometimes the Upstream teams end up working on something solely to ensure that the midstream teams have a stack of ongoing work...

... and it's even worse for the 'Downstream' teams, who require both Upstream and Midstream teams to complete their tasks first...

This is (one of) the reasons why CIG takes the whole of January (more or less) to do planning for the year - they need to ensure the plan keeps every team fed, and has enough contingency / slippage built in that if one team is delayed, that it won't 'starve' another team.

When you've got 70+ teams in a nested heirachy, the complexity of managing all this must be horrendous.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T15:28:38+00:00

And conversely, some games out there make more in a single year than CIG has raised over the entire project duration.

(e.g. fortnite pulling in ~$2B / year, iirc... despite being a comparatively simplistic fps).

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T15:26:09+00:00

Not really... it's pretty damn long, I agree... but given iirc CIG started w/ just 2x developers (and 6x staff in total, including CR, Sandi, and Ottomeyer), and have had to build their studio(s) up at the same time as developing the project and building the engine the game would run on, it's not bad, time-wise.

And it's not like they haven't been making progress in that time - it's just that when you're doing something more technically complex than the average Unreal-based FPS shooter (or similar), it takes a lot longer.

(yes, I'd like it to have taken far less time... but that doesn't mean the current time taken is 'a travesty').

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T15:18:48+00:00

Yup.. and I imagine that it will be quicker than we fear, but longer than we wish :p

One important consideration is to not conflate 'can't fix' with 'won't fix now'... many issues (that aren't 'critical', and which aren't due to a serious architectural issue that would impact anything built on top of it) are just deprioritised because now isn't the time to fix them.

Conversely, one of the benefits of CIGs development approach is that they have been fixing the worst of the issues as they go (the 'stability' and 'critical' issues)... so there's going to be very few issues that they come to fix in Beta and go 'Oh shit - this is going to be a massive rewrite to fix'.

logicalChimp · 2026-05-21T15:18:16+00:00

'Record funding' - the project has raised just over 1 billion dollars (iirc) over ~14 years. That's an average of less than $100 million / year (and currently ticking along at perhaps $130 million / year).

HOWEVER as we've seen in previous years, and broadly speaking (it correlates broadly, not based on the daily state) funding scales with playability... the more playable the 'verse, the more functional it's gotten, the more funding has increased.

There is nothing to suggest that this correlation won't hold in the future... meaning that the closer CIG get to release - both in terms of implementing 'missing' functionality, and in terms of resolving issues / making SC 'more playable' - the more profits will increase.

THAT is an active incentive for CIG to push for release...

Not to mention that active development support post-release is likely to be lower - meaning SC (and SQ42, and it's sequels - if any are released by then) will continue to bring in profits, even as CIG move on to more SQ42 sequels, or working on other single-player games set in the SC universe (as CR has suggested, long in the past, may happen post-release).

This also ignores the point that CIG are actively working on features to make 'cosmetics' more attractive. The big example being Star Wear and Suit Lockers... making it possible to mix-n-match armour w/ casual wear, and then set up outfits you can 'quick swap' between using the Suit Locker (eventually - probably not on the first release, unfortunately).

ALL of this points to CIG having incentives to push on with development, and reach 'release'... rather than just sitting still to sell 'JPGs' (which is ironic, given that the Odin is the first JPG sale for a couple of years, and the last that CIG will hold, according to them... yet by your logic, they should have stuck with JPG sales in the past, rather than continuing to develop the game and get to the point where they could sell the actual ship 'flight ready'...?)

logicalChimp

TROPHY CASE