Support NeoGAF

[sol740]

That seems correct. Some people have $15,000 and hundreds of ships in the game. From the numbers thrown about it seems you'd need thousands of hours to get close to having that, and everything you have could be permanently lost while theirs is infinitely replaceable, still leading to big difference in power.



You can pay Cash for in-game UEC, which you can use to buy ships and weapons and all the rest. That's just buying real money ships with extra steps?

Someone dumping that much cash, or even a grand into the game would seem like a relative minority of the overall backers, but I haven't scanned the numbers, so I could be wrong.

Also I wasn't aware you could buy ships by paying for UEC, so that's a bit disappointing, but since I backed at a somewhat small cost, in hopes of getting a "dream", at this point I am just hoping for a decent space-travel sim, with interesting missions/jobs and player interactions.

 

[staticneuron]

It's not crystal clear, but that quote seems to point to work on AI going into both games. Why not use the complex AI they are building for the PU in the single player game? Quite frankly I don't think Chris Roberts can resist delaying SQ42 until they can integrate the same AI functionality that will be found in the PU. I will gladly eat crow if they ship any flavor of SQ42 before 3.1 when they can implement basic AI routines.

Congrats, you found the section under Foundry 42 DE, which is the studio, working on S42. But how could you link to the page, ask a question about subsumption and the answer is there already, below the section you quoted.

Which basically means they had Subsumption system up for S42 before the PU team ironed out kinks for SC.

Just continue to read the entire section you quoted. It is explained there not only for mission givers, NPC and combat. The PU work is going to have to deal with variance much more, which makes thier task harder. Foundry 42 doesn't have to worry about that because it is a scripted experiences and options are confined. Main scenario is already designed and supposedly playable from start to finish meaning the additional work the PU team is doing is only for the PU.

 

[Zabojnik]

Make LTI on hull standard then and avoid any headaches they are getting from the thing. It would be the most sensible thing to do.

As long as the need for buying insurance isn't something that's written in small text on the back of the imaginary SC game box, I don't why you'd want to cut out this feature. I'm sure it could be used in a variety of ways for gameplay purposes. I'm a firm believer that laziness and wilful ignorance should be punishable offenses. In life and games.

 

[staticneuron]

Someone dumping that much cash, or even a grand into the game would seem like a relative minority of the overall backers, but I haven't scanned the numbers, so I could be wrong.

Also I wasn't aware you could buy ships by paying for UEC, so that's a bit disappointing, but since I backed at a somewhat small cost, in hopes of getting a "dream", at this point I am just hoping for a decent space-travel sim, with interesting missions/jobs and player interactions.

Well

In order to regulate the economy, the Central Core Bank has imposed restrictions on acquiring and stockpiling UEC. Each account can obtain a maximum of 25,000 UEC per 24 hour period, and can hold a maximum of 150,000 UEC on account in your ledger at any time. Buying items with UEC does reduce your ledger balance, and does not count towards the maximum UEC cap. These restrictions may be modified at the order of the CCB in the future when additional gameplay options become available.

So no, they are not going to create a system where you can dump money into UEC and then use that to buy larger ships.

To put that cap in perspective, one Size 9 missile costs 70,000 UEC. Chances of you being able to buy a ship with that cap is zero. They might change thigns later, and you probably can get enough for an aurora or something but chances are they are going to make you earn the bigger stuff in game.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

The idea is that you can buy in game cash through the site. But there is going to be a limit that any individual player can buy from it. Which might as well not exist because turbo whales will just have multiple accounts to keep funneling money through.

Its honestly an incredibly shitty design they are planning to superficially appease people that scream p2w without actually taking a second to see how it can be gamed. Also its bad "immersion" wise because people are magically generating money into a system instead of using pre-existing money in game.

Instead they could do what every other fucking korean MMO has been doing for decades and have you be able to trade store items for in game cash and then tax it further. So it actually creates something that benefits the in game economy by whipping excess credits from the market and allowing people with more time than money to get cosmetics or whatever.

Yeah, that... doesn't sound cool to me.

I'm ok with backers getting ships and filling out the universe to make it feel more fleshed out right now. Especially when it seems like it is more, pay to progress than pay to win.

Pay to win to me has always meant that you pay cash for advantages that you absolutely cannot achieve without paying. I don't like pay to progress either, but it is different to me still.

To me, pay to progress is unfair still because I don't know if that guy has just spent the time for all his stuff or if he just paid for it. But again, this is still better than pay to win for the same reason, I don't know and probably never will. But it would be easy to tell if I get steamrolled by someone with advantages that I can't get at all without cash and that would feel vastly more unfair to me. On one side, I can eventually get to where that guy is and have all the same stuff, on the other, I can never have that unless I pay.

Optimally, I'd like the cash shop to be for nothing more than cosmetics after launch. Give equal footing to players after that point. Let the rewards of peoples investments in-game speak for them and don't let peoples real life monetary advantages let them also have the same advantages over those who might not be as privileged in-game.

IMO we play these games to escape the realities of the real world, not to expound upon them.

I like the idea rewarding backers who are taking a risk and actually helping fund the game and help it get made... for me. I like the idea of that fleshing out the world a bit. I can imagine the impact it would have on a new player starting fresh who never backed. Walking out onto the observatory for the first time overlooking the landing pads and seeing these crazy looking ships coming and going. And then looking up into space and seeing these gigantic spaceships. Then walking onto one of them and seeing it piloted and crewed by real people inspiring you to want to join and work your way to getting one of your own some day... That is really important to me at launch.

But leave it there lol.

Either that, or jack the prices SKY. HIGH. For the pay to proceed stuff. Something ridiculous. I honestly wouldn't mind then. Especially if it meant more content coming for everyone to enjoy faster. You wouldn't be running into those people often at all anyway compared to the number of players playing.

Wait... can you lose ships? Like actually lose it and not get it back and have to pay for it all over again with in game currency? Can you lose ships you pay for with cash?

 

[RubberJohnny]

Wait... can you lose ships? Like actually lose it and not get it back and have to pay for it all over again with in game currency? Can you lose ships you pay for with cash?

Ones with cash - no.

Ones earned in game - yes.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Ones with cash - no.

Ones earned in game - yes.

THAT is a big no, no then. I don't like that at all.

Peoples time investments should equal the same as cash investments if there are going to be any at all.

 

[staticneuron]

Wait... can you lose ships? Like actually lose it and not get it back and have to pay for it all over again with in game currency? Can you lose ships you pay for with cash?

As I showed above there is a cap on the UEC so chances are they will limit what you can purchase. The only ships that have LTI were for those that backed during kickstarter, concept sales, and commander packages. Even if you purchase a ship now, you get standard insurance, normally in months.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships

As you can see the normal is 6 months. Some specials had it go up by 24 months and anniversary was as high as 3 years. But since this is detailed and linked to above, the advantage insurance provides is simply you don't loose the hull of your ship. If you hired a crew, purchased weapons had cargo they all go away. So it is a help but doesn't mean everyone that backed is willing to lose ship for no reason.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

Just in case you do not know though you can have the minimal insurance auto renewing for not much in-game scratch throughout your entire game experience and never have to worry about losing a ship ever.

At most you would just have a bit of a wait time to get it back.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

As I showed above there is a cap on the UEC so chances are they will limit what you can purchase. The only ships that have LTI were for those that backed during kickstarter, concept sales, and commander packages. Even if you purchase a ship now, you get standard insurance, normally in months.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships

As you can see the normal is 6 months. Some specials had it go up by 24 months and anniversary was as high as 3 years. But since this is detailed and linked to above, the advantage insurance provides is simply you don't loose the hull of your ship. If you hired a crew, purchased weapons had cargo they all go away. So it is a help but doesn't mean everyone that backed is willing to lose ship for no reason.

Just in case you do not know though you can have the minimal insurance auto renewing for not much in-game scratch throughout your entire game experience and never have to worry about losing a ship ever.

At most you would just have a bit of a wait time to get it back.

That makes me feel a little better about it to be honest. Like I said, as long as everyone is on equal footing after launch I'm more than fine.

 

[Burny]

Just in case you do not know though you can have the minimal insurance auto renewing for not much in-game scratch throughout your entire game experience and never have to worry about losing a ship ever.

No you cannot currently. That's supposed material for a future, currently entirely unreleased meta game, where Star Citizen has turned into a released game with actual persistent player ingame credit balances, which can buy the players ingame ships. A game, which btw. has never been showcased in integrated, working form.

Currently, you only get to play in the tech demo what you buy with RL moneys or what you can "rent" with an intermediate currency (iirc?). And for all we know the eventual meta game, is just as much subject to change as 3.0 was going to release before the end of 2016, Star Marine in the middle of 2015 and the Squadron 42 campaign was going to be a coop enabled drop-in/drop-out affair and the game was to launch with a 100 star systems.

Yes, I'm pettifogging. But it's an important distinction and just goes to show, that anything coming out of CIG has to be taken with two buckets of salt.

 

[Pepboy]

The Pay 2 Win moniker implies someone starting at level one noob and then buying their way to a superiority that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to match without also ponying up cash. If the game is Free2Play, the model at least makes sense if the devs want to see some kind for return for their time investment, but that's hardly what's occurred with SC.

SC is for all intents and purposes, a game paid for exclusively by backers, and the ships are just "some kind of good" you get for helping to get the game developed, and for taking the risk in the first place. The game isn't going to be free, and a "Pay Cash Now For X Ship" mechanic won't exist in the game proper. Yes,the folks who backed the game will get the ships they bought, as reward for paying for the development of the game, and yes, they will have an advantage over someone who did not back the game at the start. That's hardly a standard Pay 2 Win model.

To be fair, the quote about not buying ships on release was pretty vague and exactly the sort of thing they can easily backtrack on.

For example, you cannot buy the ships CURRENTLY available after launch. But each new ship could have preorders.

They can even wrap these new ships into "expansion packs" so you are ostensibly backing the expansion pack that comes with an expensive ship.

At the end of the day they have 400 employees that need to be paid, rent of four studios, and other fees. Most people interested in the game will already be getting it, plus all the scalpers who bought duplicates who will probably flip keys. SC will no longer be a multimillion dollar revenue stream, and Star Citizen 2 could not reasonably be announced for 2+ years.

Once you add in all the disappointment (because everyone has a different idea of what SC will be due to a lack of transparency) and reduced donations, selling ships is the only thing that will keep them afloat. They'll package it in some way that 70% of fans will be fine with..
Such as "these ship sales ultimately contribute to development and server maintenance. Without this, frankly, we would have to close up shop or reduce to a skeleton crew of bugs. With all of your tremendous support, we can keep creating new, free content for everyone! Such as X and Y launching next year."

The only question in my mind is whether they sell ships currently available (complete 180 from past statements), they focus on pre-selling unreleased ships, or whether they just drag their feat on the "full" SC so they can still sell ships without directly contradicting past statements. The only other option is a drastic reduction in staff post release, but maybe that's inevitable with a huge studio that's ultimately making what is likely a one trick pony (successful or not).

Edit: I suppose CIG might be counting on streamers and word of mouth to sell more copies of SC or SQ42, but I think that will be somewhat unlikely. 1 million copies are already sold, for what is likely to be a gameplay loop that most feel is boring (shipping cargo, fighting pirates, mining ore). While I enjoy those games, it doesn't necessarily lend itself to a broad, engaged audience. Maybe if they add crafting, but I doubt their current engine can handle it anytime soon.

 

[Cabbagehead]

That makes me feel a little better about it to be honest. Like I said, as long as everyone is on equal footing after launch I'm more than fine.

I think folks with this mindset are being a little naive. Sorry to say.

In reality and in games with permadeath and the like, there will always be those with advantages and disadvantages (natural and unnatural). Just like in real life. You can't escape that. But at the same time there will be server wipe before and after beta, i believe. Someone correct me if i'm wrong. As it would only make sense to do that, if they aren't doing that, they should. Regardless you shouldn't really be worried about, what other players have. Especially given how large the game space is going to be and the fact that nost encounters will be npc related and those characters will most likely, have more then you. Or you will see no one at all for most of your travels. Depending on the surrounding population/density of that sector or system.


Its the reason why now of that "P2W" label is weak. Its the reason that CIG wants to get AI and Subsumption right and working as designed. So you players like you and me won't be able to tell, if you are facing another person or a npc. Since there won't be icons over ships or characters, unless you scan them or are in a certain mode like in AR/VR.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I think folks with this mindset are being a little naive. Sorry to say.

There will always been those with advantages and disadvantages. Just like in real life. You can't escape that. But at the same their will be wraps, i believe. Someone correct me if i'm wrong. As it would only make sense to do that.

Yeah, there are always going to be a certain amount of innate natural advantages that you are born with like reflexes etc. from person to person but there is a difference between trying to make it a level playing field and expounding on advantages that not everyone is privileged to have. I don't find that naïve at all. This is what pretty much any sport tries to do. Not that this is a sport, but people are competing when they race for the loot and whatever other competitive scenario happens to evolve.

The thing that really solidifies it as being something less than casual is the fact that you have the ability to lose everything. So yes, I think trying to make it more fair is absolutely called for.

I don't know what you mean by wraps?

 

[Cabbagehead]

Yeah, there are always going to be a certain amount of innate natural advantages that you are born with like reflexes etc. from person to person but there is a difference between trying to make it a level playing field and expounding on advantages that not everyone is privileged to have. I don't find that naïve at all. This is what pretty much any sport tries to do. Not that this is a sport, but people are competing when they race for the loot and whatever other competitive scenario happens to evolve.

The thing that really solidifies it as being something less than casual is the fact that you have the ability to lose everything. So yes, I think trying to make it more fair is absolutely called for.

I don't know what you mean by wraps?

I edit a lot. Might want to re-quote...XD

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I edit a lot. Might want to re-quote...XD

Still don't know what server wraps are and what I said still stands.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Still don't know what server wraps are and what I said still stands.

I might server wipe.

You're stance is still a bit naive. There will never be a "level playing field" in a mmo open world/sandbox enviroment. Now the illusion of that type will be at the beginning. Just before paths, goals and personal gains start fanning out and expanding.


A nartual process that will leave much more than a few behind. I mean the casual path will be there no doubt and those folks should plan accordingly to make sure, they don't venture into areas. They arent prepared for. Still this isn't EVE. The biggest ship doesn't win the battle and having it doesn't mean that it's the "endgame".

Nor will you be forced to join a group.

The players don't rule the playing field. Npc's do. We just influence it.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I might server wipe.

Ok, why?

EDIT: I'm getting this image of a router on the toilet.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I don't see how a server wipe is supposed to be an answer.

People who paid real money don't lose their purchases, so the only people it would affect are those who earned it in-game.

That's an argument that there'll be a bigger power gap at launch, not lesser, right?

 

[Cabbagehead]

Ok, why?

EDIT: I'm getting this image of a router on the toilet.

Ok, why?


Well like any MMO that's goes from alpha to beta to release. You'll get a server wipes or wipes. To "wash the data" and restart the system and start from scratch, sorta speak. But of course that usually happens within the context of alpha and beta. Usually unless there's a huge expansion or shift in some key areas of the game.

lol my brain went on stupid. With the server thing...

 

[staticneuron]

Yeah, there are always going to be a certain amount of innate natural advantages that you are born with like reflexes etc. from person to person but there is a difference between trying to make it a level playing field and expounding on advantages that not everyone is privileged to have. I don't find that naïve at all. This is what pretty much any sport tries to do. Not that this is a sport, but people are competing when they race for the loot and whatever other competitive scenario happens to evolve.

The thing that really solidifies it as being something less than casual is the fact that you have the ability to lose everything. So yes, I think trying to make it more fair is absolutely called for.

I don't know what you mean by wraps?

I think it is the misconception that because it is an MMO that there will be either constant PVP or a rush to the biggest ship. As it is shaping up it looks to be none of those things.

The concept of fair as you are espousing seems to be rooted in the belief that this is some sort of competition. The inequalities are going to be more along the lines of experience based. Solo Play versus Group play. And there is nothing you are going to do solo that is going to put you near the pecking order of a group or org...... that is unless you join one. The concept of worrying about what other people have doesn't make to much sense unless it negatively affects your experience.

As far as wipe iirc, CIG is hoping not to have to do a wipe at the end of beta, which will be a reward for players who put in the time to make the beta testing a success. They reserve the right to do a wipe if they have to (like if a massive market bug is exploited which de-stabalises the in-game economy). It is not set in stone so we will see what happens. The alpha will always receive wipes as we know it. the currency is unique as aUEC will have no value in full release.

Imo, leaving things coming from beta sounds awesome as the economy will be alive, there would be Orgs up and running, possibly recruiting and things like refuel, repair, mining, salvage, transport, medical, criminal systems and more will carve out driven niches in the universe. Despite owning multiple ships backers cannot fly all of them at same time, so I expect fluctuations until people find their favorite thing to main. As shown with mission givers it is really the players versus NPC's in the universe outside of criminality systems and I imagine Org wars.

EDIT: And server wipe means everything gets reset to default as far as player persistence is concerned.

 

[RubberJohnny]

If it's a game that lets people shoot each other then it's an issue, I don't get this trying to pretend the game is entirely kum-ba-ya cooperative. There's piracy, mercenary work, bounty hunting, player corporation politics and wars promised. People using real money will be an issue.

 

[KKRT00]

Yeah, there are always going to be a certain amount of innate natural advantages that you are born with like reflexes etc. from person to person but there is a difference between trying to make it a level playing field and expounding on advantages that not everyone is privileged to have. I don't find that naïve at all. This is what pretty much any sport tries to do. Not that this is a sport, but people are competing when they race for the loot and whatever other competitive scenario happens to evolve.

The thing that really solidifies it as being something less than casual is the fact that you have the ability to lose everything. So yes, I think trying to make it more fair is absolutely called for.

I don't know what you mean by wraps?

Game will never be balanced around 1vs1. Its not a MOBA or Fighting game, its an MMO where tactics, skills and numbers all are important.

You can be the most skilled Super Horner fighter on earth but you will still lose most of the time to two decent Auroras and all the time against three Auroras.

---

That makes me feel a little better about it to be honest. Like I said, as long as everyone is on equal footing after launch I'm more than fine.

Btw there wont ever be equal footing, especially after launch. One player that starts few months later cannot be on the same page as someone how played for two months already.
Same goes for people that play the game for 5-6 hours everyday vs somebody who plays just on weekends.
Same goes for ones organized in heavy pvp corporation vs some casual solo player.
Etc.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

If it's a game that lets people shoot each other then it's an issue, I don't get this trying to pretend the game is entirely kum-ba-ya cooperative. There's piracy, mercenary work, bounty hunting, player corporation politics and wars promised. People using real money will be an issue.

Yeah, you can look at Elite, there is and will be a faction of players using every exploit and advantage to grief other players. Even in the most mundane of cooperative tasks.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I think it is the misconception that because it is an MMO that there will be either constant PVP or a rush to the biggest ship. As it is shaping up it looks to be none of those things.

The concept of fair as you are espousing seems to be rooted in the belief that this is some sort of competition. The inequalities are going to be more along the lines of experience based. Solo Play versus Group play. And there is nothing you are going to do solo that is going to put you near the pecking order of a group or org...... that is unless you join one. The concept of worrying about what other people have doesn't make to much sense unless it negatively affects your experience.

As far as wipe iirc, CIG is hoping not to have to do a wipe at the end of beta, which will be a reward for players who put in the time to make the beta testing a success. They reserve the right to do a wipe if they have to (like if a massive market bug is exploited which de-stabalises the in-game economy). It is not set in stone so we will see what happens. The alpha will always receive wipes as we know it. the currency is unique as aUEC will have no value in full release.

Imo, leaving things coming from beta sounds awesome as the economy will be alive, there would be Orgs up and running, possibly recruiting and things like refuel, repair, mining, salvage, transport, medical, criminal systems and more will carve out driven niches in the universe. Despite owning multiple ships backers cannot fly all of them at same time, so I expect fluctuations until people find their favorite thing to main.

I personal think they will be small groups they will or could take out a fairly large group. Maybe not head to head. But guerilla warfare style and spec ops in nature, could hurt any group. Just on meta alone.

 

[staticneuron]

I personal think they will be small groups they will or could take out a fairly large group. Maybe not head to head. But guerilla warfare style and spec ops in nature, could hurt any group. Just on meta alone.

Of course, the stealth components and E warfare elements look like that is set up to do that. But that would have to be one hell of a surprise attack for it to work. And also rely on people overlooking specialized scanners.

I guess that is what Eclipse and Sabre is really for.

 

[Starbuck2907]

Ones with cash - no.

Ones earned in game - yes.

Not totally true.

Insurance is the method for replacing ships.

Cash ships either have lifetime insurance or two year insurance. After the two years, you can "lose" the ship unless you keep up the insurance with in-game currency.

Ships earned in-game can also have insurance policies, but you pay with in-game currency, and the devs have said it will be cheap.

Either way, so long as you have insurance, you can get your ship replaced.

 

[staticneuron]

Not totally true.

Insurance is the method for replacing ships.

Cash ships either have lifetime insurance or two year insurance. After the two years, you can "lose" the ship unless you keep up the insurance with in-game currency.

Ships earned in-game can also have insurance policies, but you pay with in-game currency, and the devs have said it will be cheap.

Either way, so long as you have insurance, you can get your ship replaced.

I detailed it above, Most ships actually have 6 months insurance. The 2 year and 3 year insurance were only during special sales and events. One of the first packages I pledged years ago was only 6 months. I still see it in by BB page. Ahh the memories.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Yeah, you can look at Elite, there is and will be a faction of players using every exploit and advantage to grief other players. Even in the most mundane of cooperative tasks.

Elite has its own inherent issues and odd design choices that. Highlight those problems ton fold. Almost every time Frontier puts out an update or decides to change something or not change something. But i'm not trying to have a debate about that company. Just that CIG seems to understand the sharp edges and traps at play here. Plus it's going to something that will be pretty glaring. The mintue the game gets out of beta or heads into 4.0.

(So of course there will be exploits and attempts at finding them. That's humanity at its core. We're opportunist and always trying to find that angle. Just have to keep track of that stuff and close it out)


Still what Elite and ED don't have is the cushion of having npcs being more active in the world and not just reactive. In SC they will take up most of the population both in the background and the npc characters/ships that will be running. A fact that most folks don't seem to talk about, when they harp on the "P2W" mantra.

 

[KKRT00]

The whole debacle about buying power is just meaningless as we have EVE Online where you can buy ships and modules for real money and it changes nothing in normal gameplay scenarios.
Same will happen in Star Citizen.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Either way, so long as you have insurance, you can get your ship replaced.

Should also note.

Many backers, including myself have pointed out over the years. That the insurance system will be one of the first ways people. Will try to game the system and try to poke holes it in. Hence the reason why CIG is going to be mentoring it heavily and abuse of insurance, even with LTI. Could very well be voided.

Still it's a subject i want to bring up again during 3.0. Since it will introduce the first real implementation of that mechinac. That will be tested along with everything else.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Just that CIG seems to understand the sharp edges and traps at play here.

Haha, really dude? Players still get criminal status for being the victims of crime. You can steal ships with no access control systems. You could blow up people in the FPS station through walls by detonating your ship outside. You can blow up ships on the landing pad from outside of the no-weapons zone. You could skip criminal penalties by moving the time forwards on your system clock. You can see and shoot through walls in Star Marine. I'm probably forgetting a bunch. They've got a pretty terrible track record so far.

The whole debacle about buying power is just meaningless as we have EVE Online where you can buy ships and modules for real money and it changes nothing in normal gameplay scenarios.

I don't think you know how Eve Online works - there's no real money purchasing. You can buy gametime and trade it to other people for in-game money, but no money is being created out of nowhere there, it's just existing money moving around - a completely different system from what CIG is doing with SC.

 

[staticneuron]

Elite has its own inherent issues and odd design choices that. Highlight those problems ton fold. Almost every time Frontier puts out an update or decides to change something or not change something. But i'm trying to have a debate about that company. Just that CIG seems to understand the sharp edges and traps at play here. Plus it's going to something they will be glaring. The mintue the game gets out of beta or heads into 4.0.

(So of course there will be exploits and attempts at finding them. That's humanity at its core. We're opportunities and always trying to find that angle. Just have to keep track of that stuff and close it out)


Still what Elite and ED don't have is the cushion of having npcs being more active in the world and not just reactive. While they take up most of the population both in the background and simulated. A fact that most folks don't seem to talk about, when they harp on the "P2W" mantra.

In every MP game I have played, from destiny to even BDO that I have seen gamers trying to exploit. Gamers are going to be gamers, it is up to devs to manage and take care of it so it isn't a large blight on the game.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

I might server wipe.

You're stance is still a bit naive. There will never be a "level playing field" in a mmo open world/sandbox enivorment. Just the illusion of one at the beginning, before paths, goals and personal gains start fanning out.


People will natural be left behind. I mean the casual path will be there no doubt. But this isn't EVE. The biggest ship doesn't win the battle and having it doesn't an it's the "endgame". Nor are you force to join a group.

The players don't rule the playing field. Npc's do. We just influence it.

Please read my earlier post. It shows how I feel about pay to proceed vs pay to win.

Yeah, that... doesn't sound cool to me.

I'm ok with backers getting ships and filling out the universe to make it feel more fleshed out right now. Especially when it seems like it is more, pay to progress than pay to win.

Pay to win to me has always meant that you pay cash for advantages that you absolutely cannot achieve without paying. I don't like pay to progress either, but it is different to me still.

To me, pay to progress is unfair still because I don't know if that guy has just spent the time for all his stuff or if he just paid for it. But again, this is still better than pay to win for the same reason, I don't know and probably never will. But it would be easy to tell if I get steamrolled by someone with advantages that I can't get at all without cash and that would feel vastly more unfair to me. On one side, I can eventually get to where that guy is and have all the same stuff, on the other, I can never have that unless I pay.

Optimally, I'd like the cash shop to be for nothing more than cosmetics after launch. Give equal footing to players after that point. Let the rewards of peoples investments in-game speak for them and don't let peoples real life monetary advantages let them also have the same advantages over those who might not be as privileged in-game.

IMO we play these games to escape the realities of the real world, not to expound upon them.

I like the idea rewarding backers who are taking a risk and actually helping fund the game and help it get made... for me. I like the idea of that fleshing out the world a bit. I can imagine the impact it would have on a new player starting fresh who never backed. Walking out onto the observatory for the first time overlooking the landing pads and seeing these crazy looking ships coming and going. And then looking up into space and seeing these gigantic spaceships. Then walking onto one of them and seeing it piloted and crewed by real people inspiring you to want to join and work your way to getting one of your own some day... That is really important to me at launch.

But leave it there lol.

Either that, or jack the prices SKY. HIGH. For the pay to proceed stuff. Something ridiculous. I honestly wouldn't mind then. Especially if it meant more content coming for everyone to enjoy faster. You wouldn't be running into those people often at all anyway compared to the number of players playing.

Wait... can you lose ships? Like actually lose it and not get it back and have to pay for it all over again with in game currency? Can you lose ships you pay for with cash?

Again I realize that due to various time investments and other factors there will never be a constant equal footing in a game this big. However, there is a reason that almost every type of competition tries to have guidelines to make things more fair. It isn't out of naivety. It's to help make everyone involved feel like they've earned the right to be a competitor just as much as everyone else because of the time and effort they have invested.

Again, we are talking about a game, where the majority of people go to escape the realities of the real world. A lot of people who are less privileged in a variety of ways look at games with any type of competitive slant as an opportunity to finally have an equal chance at competing since everyone has to follow the same guidelines. This all goes out the window though if you start to let peoples real life privileged advantages reflect in-game in more ways than time played.

I'm not saying that this is the way this game is going to be and I'm not saying that games aren't allowed to be that way either. Just that it's not going to be looked upon in a positive light by the majority IMO since it's not fair and since the majority aren't flush with cash to be blowing on virtual ships. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people that are flush with cash though. But that's the point.

Personally, for me, even though Star Citizen is literally my most anticipated game of all time and the thing that finally pushed me to build a PC in preparation... If they really do go with an unfair model, I will just skip the game. As much as it would hurt I just couldn't justify a time investment that wouldn't mean anything in the face of others who pay cash when it came to the competitive aspects which I would be interested in.

EDIT: Before I get piled on for saying something even slightly negative about the game, I'd like to say that this is literally the only tentatively negative thing that I've found about the game. I say tentatively because it may not end up this way and it looks like it won't. It just happens to be something that I really don't like in other games.

 

[mnannola]

Congrats, you found the section under Foundry 42 DE, which is the studio, working on S42. But how could you link to the page, ask a question about subsumption and the answer is there already, below the section you quoted.



Which basically means they had Subsumption system up for S42 before the PU team ironed out kinks for SC.

Just continue to read the entire section you quoted. It is explained there not only for mission givers, NPC and combat. The PU work is going to have to deal with variance much more, which makes thier task harder. Foundry 42 doesn't have to worry about that because it is a scripted experiences and options are confined. Main scenario is already designed and supposedly playable from start to finish meaning the additional work the PU team is doing is only for the PU.

AI will have routines and daily schedules in Squadron 42:

Just because they have the main scenario worked out doesn't mean they have AI scripting anywhere near a playable state. We have seen basically zero video evidence that AI routines even exist. I'm sure as soon as they are ready they will be shown off.

 

[staticneuron]

Please read my earlier post. It shows how I feel about pay to proceed vs pay to win.



Again I realize that due to time various time investments and other factors there will never be a constant equal footing in a game this big. However, there is a reason that almost every type of competition tries to have guidelines to make things more fair. It isn't out of naivety. It's to help make everyone involved feel like they've earned the right to be a competitor just as much as everyone else because of the time and effort they have invested.

Again, we are talking about a game, where the majority of people go to escape the realities of the real world. A lot of people who are less privileged in a variety of ways look at games with any type of competitive slant as an opportunity to finally have an equal chance at competing since everyone has to follow the same guidelines. This all goes out the window though if you start to let peoples real life privileged advantages reflect in-game in more ways than time played.

I'm not saying that this is the way this game is going to be and I'm not saying that games aren't allowed to be that way either. Just that it's not going to be looked upon in a positive light by the majority IMO since it's not fair and since the majority aren't flush with cash to be blowing on virtual ships. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people that are flush with cash though. But that's the point.

Personally, for me, even though Star Citizen is literally my most anticipated game of all time and the thing that finally pushed me to build a PC in preparation... If they really do go with an unfair model, I will just skip the game. As much as it would hurt I just couldn't justify a time investment that wouldn't mean anything in the face of others who pay cash when it came to the competitive aspects which I would be interested in.

We have been trying to point out that the game is not competitive. That is the point, yet you are trying to double down on it. No one should be steam rolling you unless they are trying to target you.

And the truth is you will never know if it is money that bought the equipment, or simply time invested. So that would be pointless. It could possibly be something given by org members for all you know.

If you are creating your own definition of what the game is, then at least understand why the concerns you have are next to pointless. Mission givers are PvE, you are going to be dealing with NPC's and only other players if the decide to be obnoxious. I myself in the alpha got on the wrong side of this.

A guy blew up my ship while I was completing a mission. Here I am EVA'd and some dude with a Khartu al is going to kill me.

I took cover near asteroid and too out pilot with this

Then took his ship for a victory lap.

Probably would not have worked against a tougher ship but this is the emergent gameplay that is attained in the alpha alone. It is going to get crazier when more is implemented. So people are going to be annoying, you might get outgunned, but who knows, you might win the encounter despite all this.

AI will have routines and daily schedules in Squadron 42:

I was aware of this. I said nothing to the contrary.

Just because they have the main scenario worked out doesn't mean they have AI scripting anywhere near a playable state. We have seen basically zero video evidence that AI routines even exist. I'm sure as soon as they are ready they will be shown off.

I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you talking about AI in general because they showed that off in the videos, or are you talking about AI in S42 which they intentionally have not shown off except for people who have had studio tours? Are you implying that it doesn't exist or something else? I am not understanding what you are trying to say here.

 

[Cabbagehead]

snip

Well CIG isn't trying to cater to the "majority".

Especially since the real majority has already backed the game and most already have a good inkling in regards to the direction. The studio is going towards. Its not really about hand holding, its about consequences and tangibly objectives/subjects and objects that should matter to the person using them. So that means the character and his or her equipment.

Plus the game will have its own version of permadeath and that alone is going to turn people off and frankly. The game doesn't need folks that want to change that core part of the game, so it makes it easier for "casuals" or folks that don't like thoses types of checks and balances. I mean like I said there should be plenty of ways to enjoy the game and that includes people with limited time or those that just want to cruise around.

Not at the detriment of CR, ER, and CIG's vision.

To be honest. I dread the growing popularity of this game and the possibilities of CIG listening to the wrong group, at the wrong time and changing something. That hurts the project. They got to stick to their guns and try to tweak and change it first on their own. Before they succumb to the masses.


The masses that will try to stick their hands in the cookie jar. Given how open CIG will be. The masses who are often wrong and can almost never come to a consensus.

We have seen basically zero video evidence that AI routines even exist.

You would be wrong.

 

[staticneuron]

You would be wrong.

Are you finally ready to break NDA? C'mon, just whisper in my ear, I promise not to tell anyone!

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

We have been trying to point out that the game is not competitive. That is the point, yet you are trying to double down on it. No one should be steam rolling you unless they are trying to target you.

And the truth is you will never know if it is money that bought the equipment, or simply time invested. So that would be pointless. It could possibly be something given by org members for all you know.

If you are creating your own definition of what the game is, then at least understand why the concerns you have are next to pointless. Mission givers are PvE, you are going to be dealing with NPC's and only other players if the decide to be obnoxious. I myself in the alpha got on the wrong side of this.

A guy blew up my ship while I was completing a mission. Here I am EVA'd and some dude with a Khartu al is going to kill me.



I took cover near asteroid and too out pilot with this

Then took his ship for a victory lap.

Probably would not have worked against a tougher ship but this is the emergent gameplay that is attained in the alpha alone. It is going to get crazier when more is implemented.

The reason I think it's competitive is because I can see it... I mean, we already had that one video shown of a crew flying to a planet to get loot and being intercepted by another crew competing for the loot...

Well CIG isn't trying to cater to the "majority".

Especially since the real majority has already backed the game and most already. Have a inkling on what the direction. The studio is going for and it's all about. Not hand holding, consequences and tangibly objectives/subjects and objects that should matter to the person using them. So that means the character and his or her equipment.


The game having permadeath alone is going to turn people off and more to the effect. The game doesn't need folks that want to change that core part of the game, so it makes it easier for "casuals" or folks that don't like thoses types of checks and balances. I mean like I said there will be plenty of 2ays to enjoy the game, with people with limited time or those that just want to cruise. But not at the detriment of CR, ED, Communitites and CIG vision.

To be honest. I dread the growing popularity of this game and the possibilities of CIG listening to the wrong group, at the wrong time and changing something. That hurts the project. They got to stick to their guns and try to tweak and change it first on their own. Before they circum to the masses.

(Because they will try to stick their hands in the cookie jar)


Who are often wrong and almost never come to a consensus.

I don't want CIG to cater to any specific group. My nightmare for any game I'm excited about is that it will be a mainstream focus tested mess. I'm not saying they should stray from their vision at all. In fact, I hope they stick to their guns just like you said. As someone who follows the development non religiously I've never been upset with scope changes and what not because I'm always game for more shiny things and I really want to see them push this game. I can wait.

The cash shop as I have said is the only thing I have a problem with if it ends up that way. Again, peoples time investment should be able to equal anyone else's cash investment if there is going to be any at all.

I don't see how a fair cash shop or even making the game as fair as possible like I have already explained would harm the game in a negative way. In fact, I think it would greatly benefit. That's the whole point of my argument and maybe why there is some conflict here.

I realize that people often come to crap on the game in many ways shapes and forms so people have their guard up and it's tiring. But please, let me assure you this is not my intention.

I fully intend to become part of the SC GAF family come launch. I haven't been very active here because I just tend to shy away from games in development these days if I find myself getting so close because I'm so excited for it that I become less objective about it. NMS hurt a lot. While I trust CIG and have the UTMOST respect for the way they are handling this transparently and will defend that till I die, I just want to be sure that I don't get so close in case something ends up disappointing me. I really don't want to bend any of my preferences/morals just for a game. I think this happens a lot for people in other aspects of life for things we get close to and we don't really notice until time has passed in self reflection, if we ever do.

 

[RubberJohnny]

A guy blew up my ship while I was completing a mission. Here I am EVA'd and some dude with a Khartu al is going to kill me.

I took cover near asteroid and too out pilot with this. Then took his ship for a victory lap.

"The game isn't competitive, to prove this here's my anecdote of someone blowing me up and me blowing them up"

I really wonder what goes through peoples heads for them to not grasp the points they're making.

 

[staticneuron]

The reason I think it's competitive is because I can see it... I mean, we already had that one video shown of a crew flying to a planet to get loot and being intercepted by another crew competing for the loot...

The only Demo that is similar to what you are talking would be the Miles Eckhart Demo from Gamescom 2016. The PVP was only for spectacle, as was the betrayal at end of demo. Which means that unless you expect people just waiting to kill you on a planet, there must be a better reason than just for fun if you are trying to speak about "competitive". I wouldn't put it past CiG to create missions that put people in conflict, especially with the criminality system but again, this type of mission is still role based which means it is not an exploration, mining, rescue or anything else. That mission is an example of a class based mission. It makes no sense for people on a starfarer or an idris to do something like this. Competition implies a goal. Money, leaderboards, or stealing something for example. Without a goal it isn't competition but mindless slaughter and griefing.

Hence this..

No one should be steam rolling you unless they are trying to target you.

And the truth is you will never know if it is money that bought the equipment, or simply time invested. So that would be pointless. It could possibly be something given by org members for all you know.

still holds true.

I fully intend to become part of the SC GAF family come launch.

Then you certainly wouldn't lack backup or firepower.

Behold, the GAF armada:
Full size: http://i.imgur.com/liWp2qS.png

EDIT: As an observation.... I am surprised we ave so many avengers.... such an ugly ship...

 

[Cabbagehead]

Snip

I can get behind some of the sentiments here. Of course we also disagree at the same time. But at least your mind is in the right place (not going off the deep end, with assumptions and accusations). In regards to this project overall.

Here's something to breakdown, the cash shop thing;

https://www.engadget.com/2013/09/08/stick-and-rudder-on-star-citizens-cash-shop/

Now of course this is from 2013. But CIG been pretty consistent in regards to this subject over the years. Plus the author does a good job pointing out his own hang-ups and why CIG may be on to something. If they continued onwards with their idea.

Are you finally ready to break NDA? C'mon, just whisper in my ear, I promise not to tell anyone!

Hell no! i want to take another tour. Don't get me in trouble...

I'm talking things they've shown in the AtV's over last few months. Its not some serect. Its been on display before and will get a full showcase soon enough. Especially early on in 3.0.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Haha, that GAF Armada pic certainly explains the vociferousness of responses on here.

Fun to compare all the "I actually only have $25 in the game" statements from the most active members with that image.

I suppose you just pooled all those to buy the multiple $1,250 capital ships?

 

[staticneuron]

Hell no! i want to take another tour. Don't get me in trouble...

I'm talking things they've shown in the AtV's over last few months. Its not some serect. Its been on display before and will get a full showcase soon enough. Especially early on in 3.0.

Lol, I kid I kid.

Well they showed elements of AI, it is hard to tell though if some of the footage we seen of NPC's doing their thing is Subsumption, as that would require them following the npc for some time. Which would then lead to questions of if it was scripted and only made to "look" like subsumption is working.

Making the endeavor pointless as base subsumption is supposed to be in 3.0 and playing is believing I guess. I wonder if there will be people that stalk the NPC's just to see what they are doing. lol.

 

[Zabojnik]

How much did you invest in SC, RubberJohnny? Other than a whole lot of free time, apparently.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Lol, I kid I kid.

Well they showed elements of AI, it is hard to tell though if some of the footage we seen of NPC's doing their thing is Subsumption, as that would require them following the npc for some time. Which would then lead to questions of if it was scripted and only made to "look" like subsumption is working.

Making the endeavor pointless as base subsumption is supposed to be in 3.0 and playing is believing I guess. I wonder if there will be people that stalk the NPC's just to see what they are doing. lol.

lol

Yeah, just this last ATV they showed AI walking to a Gladius, getting into the cockpit. Turning it on and flying off. Then you got the many other previews into the routine subsumption system itself. With the images you posted or someone posted and the handful of other times they've spent. Time lingering on the importance of it and the new features they've added onto it.

I'm postive that we will have a dictated segment on the subject soon enough. But it is a huge undertaking and it would have to be a two parter.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

The only Demo that is similar to what you are talking would be the Miles Eckhart Demo from Gamescom 2016. The PVP was only for spectacle, as was the betrayal at end of demo. Which means that unless you expect people just waiting to kill you on a planet, there must be a better reason than just for fun if you are trying to speak about "competitive". I wouldn't put it past CiG to create missions that put people in conflict, especially with the criminality system but again, this type of mission is still role based which means it is not an exploration, mining, rescue or anything else. That mission is an example of a class based mission. It makes no sense for people on a starfarer or an idris to do something like this. Competition implies a goal. Money, leaderboards, or stealing something for example. Without a goal it isn't competition but mindless slaughter and griefing.

Hence this..



still holds true.




Then you certainly wouldn't lack backup or firepower.

I mean did they say that? That it was just for spectacle?

Are they/you really saying that people aren't going to do this?

People are also going to be trying to catch your ship and take your loot.

I mean, this is what they've decided to show. From this footage, I can't imagine they wouldn't craft missions where like you said, you are put in a position of conflict with other crews. This is what I expect when I see footage like this.

As for your second point. I already answered this, there is a reason that almost every type of competition tries to have guidelines to make things more fair. It isn't out of naivety. It's to help make everyone involved feel like they've earned the right to be a competitor just as much as everyone else because of the time and effort they have invested.

I definitely think aspects of this game are competitive. It may not be the entire goal of the game, but it is there. As far as I know, one of the biggest staples and draws of the game is emergent gameplay. All sorts of competitive scenarios can and will emerge from this. When the time invested stakes are so high with ships being able to be lost and damage needing to be repaired and crew rehired and munitions restocked... All of which take in game money to do. (And I actually love that aspect, don't get me wrong.) Money that is gotten from a time investment for most people... There is a lot on the line. This makes it more than just for fun to me and more of a competitive risk. With the reward being the other crews cargo or whatever emergent gameplay aspect you where trying to achieve really.

All I am saying, is that a more fair cash shop at the least, would make this feel like a better experience for most people. That is all I'm saying.

I can get behind some of the sentiments here. Of course we also disagree at the same time. But at least your mind is in the right place (not going off the deep end, with assumptions and accusations). In regards to this project overall.

Here's something to breakdown, the cash shop thing;

https://www.engadget.com/2013/09/08/stick-and-rudder-on-star-citizens-cash-shop/

Now of course this is from 2013. But CIG been pretty consistent in regards to this subject over the years. Plus author does a good job pointing out his own hang-ups and why CIG may be on to something. If they continued onwards with their idea.

Thanks, I'll watch this in a bit, have to go work out now.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I mean did they say that? That it was just for spectacle?

No, he's making up a justification.

I mean, this is what they've decided to show. From this footage, I can't imagine they wouldn't craft missions where like you said, you are put in a position of conflict with other crews.

They've actually stated the missions coming in Alpha 3.0 will be fostering conflict like this by giving a player a mission and another player a mission to stop him, so they seem to see it as important and representative of the final game, which hugely undermines cabbagehead and KKRT00s posts.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I mean did they say that? That it was just for spectacle?

Are they/you really saying that people aren't going to do this?

People are also going to be trying to catch your ship and take your loot.

I mean, this is what they've decided to show. From this footage, I can't imagine they wouldn't craft missions where like you said, you are put in a position of conflict with other crews. This is what I expect when I see footage like this.

As for your second point. I already answered this, there is a reason that almost every type of competition tries to have guidelines to make things more fair. It isn't out of naivety. It's to help make everyone involved feel like they've earned the right to be a competitor just as much as everyone else because of the time and effort they have invested.

I definitely think aspects of this game are competitive. It may not be the entire goal of the game, but it is there. As far as I know, one of the biggest staples and draws of the game is emergent gameplay. All sorts of competitive scenarios can and will emerge from this. When the time invested stakes are so high with ships being able to be lost and damage needing to be repaired and crew rehired and munitions restocked... All of which take in game money to do. (And I actually love that aspect, don't get me wrong.) Money that is gotten from a time investment for most people... There is a lot on the line. This makes it more than just for fun to me and more of a competitive risk. With the reward being the other crews cargo or whatever emergent gameplay aspect you where trying to achieve really.

All I am saying, is that a more fair cash shop at the least, would make this feel like a better experience for most people. That is all I'm saying.



Thanks, I'll watch this in a bit, have to go work out now.

Ships will have security on it, you'll be able to hire security, able to lock doors, implement gun control protocols and loot won't act like normal video game goods.

Like let's make it clear. This game has had two to three years of pure brain storming and thousands of discussions . I mean Sataball ( That Enders Game like mode that was attached to Star Marine) was created by a joint backer and CIG lead effort. The rest of the ideas for the game, naturally was due to CIG's own internal design thoery and concepting sessions. Plus a few community polling events.

We should be good, baring any massive fucks up (not inflated ones) or end of the world. Just take solace in the fact they you will be able to give them feedback in different ways and they will listen. Points for if it's constructive . So you nor me will be totally left in the dark. Another fact that this whole project has on it's side for better or for worse.

Have a good day at work.

 

[RubberJohnny]

I mean Sataball ( That Enders Game like mode that was attached to Star Marine) was created by a joint backer and CIG lead effort.

That's a pretty terrible example considering the thing they brainstormed was nothing like the version they made (which was basically based on CR ripping off yet another film), and then the whole thing was scrapped with the rest of Illfonics work.

This game has had two to three years of pure brain storming and thousands of discussions. The rest of being CIG's own internal design thoery and concepting sessions. Plus a few community polling events.

Yeah, there's 3000 page threads on the forum about Operation Pitchfork over 4 years - what has any of that achieved exactly? They've just found out that the release game might not even have any Vanduul space for them to invade. How are you crafting the game together? They didn't even hold a backer poll on the reduction of the scope! Hell, they didn't even tell the backers, only mentioning it to a German magazine!

The backers are shouting into the void, and the devs ignore them.