Windows Star Citizen

Hey Cei, I'm here, but on my Chromebook so no steam chat. I'll PM you my gmail and you can share it via google drive?

Organisation release is before the end of the month, folks, stay tuned.

ALSO - for anyone thinking about getting a joystick the X52 Pro is just £111 at Amazon at the moment, an all time low. Bargain!

 

Just thought i'd post this

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46095085/The BIG Star Citizen Admirer's Manual.pdf

 

While we're talking about organization might I suggest a fixed-term democratic leadership?

Honestly, I don't recognize the current Bit-Sec leadership as legitimate because I didn't vote. When the thread name was changed to "High Council voting now on" I assumed that it referred to something similar to Eve's CSM, not the Bit-Sec leadership, so I didn't read it all those months ago before I could afford to invest in the game - As the game isn't going to be out for a year and many simply aren't engaged yet, you're going to find that an increasingly frequent complaint.

I'd also suggest you don't over-think the organizational structure. It must remain fluid as the number of members logged in at any given time isn't fixed.

I know Bit-Sec are supposedly in it just for the pew-pew, but you simply don't know how much of a disadvantage that would put us - i.e. how advantageous is securing a factory, and how much protection does it need? It may require round-the-clock protection. It may require recruiting players from different time zones, and with the leadership being 100% GMT, those in other time zones are going to feel disenfranchised.

I know you're enthusiastic (as am I), and in lieu of the game, this is the only way to channel that enthusiasm - But I can tell you from the experience of managing a couple of hundred players in an Eve Alliance that over-planning can be just as damaging as under-planning.

Slow Down.

 

As a logo for you guys, I'm going to suggest a black background, with silver/chrome text. Simply have B.S.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but we haven't really said we are just in it for the pew-pew - just that the general 'vibe' of the squadron isn't super-mental-24/7-mini-hitler-hardcore. We'll do everything we can to be the best, but no one is going to be expected to be on at any time, just when people have the time spare from their real life.

I think we initially said we'd revote the leadership every 12 months, which seems a good way to go about things.

I've seen that - its a mental amount of writing isn't. The next time someone asks what Star Citizen is, we should just say 'have a quick read of that'. We'd get another post 24 hours later saying 'yep, finished guys, think I know what's up now'.

 

So we should have an election every time somebody new joins, because they didn't get a say? Errr, no? If you join BitSec and haven't been involved in voting for the leadership you're going to have to trust those who did do the voting. It's how we vote for governments - all those 17 year olds at election time didn't get a vote either.

Saying that, leadership will be democratic at the higher levels. Once the structure document has been revised it will be released to all for comments.

For most things people will be solo flying or maybe in a small group, where players would simply decide on a leader. Flying as wing pairs would be encouraged, but not mandatory. The formal structure would come in when we are deploying larger numbers, and also to do with management of group resources and assets.

As Parge said, you've underestimated us. The timeline thing may well be an issue, but we need more details to know for sure.

Slow down? We're moving at a snails' pace as is, with everything that is being done clearly labelled as temporary pending further details closer to launch. The other issue is that without a private forum on the RSI site, which we get when the org pages launch, it is a nightmare using a single thread for planning.

 

I'd rather have the leadership stay as it is than have to constantly go through waves of voting.
I'd say keep the leaders as they are until they wish to step down, or do something that warrants the take-over of their position... not that I foresee any of our three leaders doing anything bad for the team.

As EVE is being used as a point of reference... again.
Most major EVE alliances don't change leadership roles all too often, the lower divisions may change hands a couple of times but the core leadership or founders remain as a specific group.

Saying you missed the vote because you assumed the thread title was relating to something else isn't really a valid reason not to vote, even if someone isn't a backer there was nothing stopping them from reading the current conversations and having their say... we had more votes than members of the fleet at the time, so it was definitely inclusive to people who weren't yet joined up.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that we're going to be a 'pew pew' team; all of our conversations in this topic have involved us discussing all the elements of the game, we've explained many times to interested parties that we plan on being a diverse group who dive in and try every possible feature.

I won't comment on what the time commitment will be for doing something like taking control of a station, maintaining a trade route or managing a planet. As it's still in development, we don't know what it'll involve so there's not much to plan how much time is needed for each activity.
All we can do at this point is put together a set of plans of what we think we'd like to do/achieve in the game and as time passes adjust our plans based on what information we get as time rolls on.
I cans see how to readers who haven't been involved in the conversations, it may sound like we're all jumping the gun or rushing things, but all we're really doing is discussing broad ideas of things we could potentially do with what we currently know. As time moves on, we'll make our plans more suitable for the released game and if needed will likely produce time-scales for certain elements.

There's no telling how the Organisation system is going to work at this point, so we can't be sure how anything from operating within an EVE alliance will translate across.
I'm going into Star Citizen with the mindset that nothing I've learnt in EVE, except perhaps negotiating trades, is relevant. It's very hard to put aside all the content absorbed from EVE, but I fear using one games mechanics for experience could make things more challenging.

 

Well, if the elections are 12 months apart you can count me out right now - That's far too long to commit to untested leaders for my liking.

Untested - That's why I think it would be better to have held off voting until the dogfighting module is released and we can actually interact with each other in game. I have no idea if any of you can fly or not, if you have a business head on your shoulders, or even a squeaky voice I simply can't tolerate. Delaying the election until we got to know each other a little would have allowed people to make informed decisions.

Informed - That's the thing. We don't know. No one does. It's premature and inappropriate to create any form of structure when you don't know what the foundations are. Sure, we know the concepts behind the gameplay, but not how those concepts have been systematized. Which is what really counts when formulating tactics and strategies, & why you need to slow down.

 

That's fine, if people aren't happy they are of course free to come and go as they please.

 

Ninja'd, so...

Eve is a very mature game. It took time for leaders to prove themselves and the cream to rise to the top.

As you know, many people are holding off investing in the game until they get know it's worth investing in. That wasn't me. I simply couldn't afford even the cheapest package at the time. The reason I avoided reading about the game is that I knew it would depress me that I could not afford enfranchisement in the universe. I think that's a pretty valid reason

More vote than players you say? Do you really think that's a good counter-argument my leadership legitimacy issue? Think it through...

 

Can we hold off all the bitching about leadership until we've set out our idea how it might work? We can then have a discussion about longer term planning. The current leadership is here for the run up to launch - as an option we could have a round of elections then.

 

Perfect solution.

Don't think this is my attempt to secure a leadership position myself, btw. Been there, done that, and not particularly interested in doing it again...but I insist that those I do align myself with secured their position through merit in fair elections - Hence the bitching

 

My post about voting numbers wasn't a counterargument to the legitimacy in any way, it was simply in reply to you stating that you didn't vote due to reading the title and not the posts at the time.


I'm mostly against voting for leaders, from my history of games (EVE being one of them) I come from the mindset that a group of people should found the organisation/team and then they remain the controlling members until they don't want to continue in those positions.
Voting has in the past always yielded negative results from my experiences.

 

And here we all are on the Bit tech front page

 

Nice

 

Game don't launch pre 2015 not sure a leadership argument is needed before 5-6 months into the game. Where the more hardcore will probably of left already to more alliances that suit there needs.

Can't say I've voted for leadership or been voted into leadership in another game, I was founder of my own guild for the wow years.

Leadership is more hassle than its ever worth anyway.

 

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how the game's organisation structures are going to work, especially with them planning to allow for a player to have to option of being a member of more than one organisation at a time.

 

What's the tagline for Bit Sec? Preferably something amusing.

 

'Bit of everything'?

 

'Home of B.S.'
'B.S. thorough and thorough'
'definitely nothing to do with butt-sec'
or simply
'Pew, Pew, Pew'