The Star Citizen Thread v 4

[Tuub t Tute]

Yeah Behind Enemy lines and after, shouldn't be considered expansions of Star Citizen, neither far said, are they supposed to be built upon SQ42 side of lore-wise, but stand-alone games. So on that aspect it's not where SC's revenue to come from.

On the "carnage one", be aware PvP is not legal on any of the starter areas, this will be shaped by the Universe map, it's not go kill all the newbies, it's not PvP Enforced on that aspect. And would you think the people who *PAID* for big expensive ships, risk their insurance by just going into the "troll / griefing" attitudes to other players? That's that real one xD... Then obviously, the areas where PvP is legal, where there will be a lot of player competition.

PvP Slider is pretty much what defines legal and ilegal PVP, with game consequences or not, from the areas where PvP is legal by default and in there far i read, the sliders do not save you, as there is no consequence.

These are all good talking points. As we can see from "The Other Game", the difference between the design map for law enforcement response to unsporting play and what has actually come to pass are not the same. I think it will be a real achievement if SC can implement a functional in-game law enforcement response from Day 1.
What could be a legal can of worms would be if someone who had pledged / paid / used RL money for a ship with LTI, had that taken from them for questionable behaviour. FDev have found it seemingly hard enough to shadow-ban open and blatant repeat offenders, let alone take action that could be construed as having financial implications?

 

[MaxLexandre]

These are all good talking points. As we can see from "The Other Game", the difference between the design map for law enforcement response to unsporting play and what has actually come to pass are not the same. I think it will be a real achievement if SC can implement a functional in-game law enforcement response from Day 1.
What could be a legal can of worms would be if someone who had pledged / paid / used RL money for a ship with LTI, had that taken from them for questionable behaviour. FDev have found it seemingly hard enough to shadow-ban open and blatant repeat offenders, let alone take action that could be construed as having financial implications?

They will have to have before day 1, this is exactly why the Alpha, on the 2.2 update, is supposedly starting to have action > consequence, with what was said of reputation being added. So i wouldn't worry for day 1, because this kind of problems will generate enough player outcries to make them very aware of what they need to deal with till then.

I'm not talking about enforcement by the company, by MMO GM's and stuff, i'm talking about the automated system in place. You have a ship, even with LTI, you just go DERP TROLL MODE, and kill some players on their auroras on a starter area, you are in for trouble. This game being the game put Bounty on you, legal PvP on you, and the most important matter, you did something your Insurance does not cover, Illegal PvP. That is where i mean, the balance hits, the consequence.

It's kinda the core of what EvE does PvP-Wise, with more severe height on consequences.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

The two are inter-linked though? If I pay for LTI and then due to crossing some arbitrary behaviour line in game I lose that LTI, people (not me!) are going to raise hell. Petition the rule wasn't clear enough, they weren't given a warning, that CiG are breaching their 1st amendment rights... whatever noise they can make.

Long gone are the days when an MMO EULA can get away with the clause "We reserve the right to refuse service for any or no reason".

 

[MaxLexandre]

It's not based on that.

LTI has never said, and it is not, immortal ships. It's simply a life time insurance ship, you do not have to pay the insurance cost.
Over that, it's the normal thing, like any insurance around has something in common: They will not cover everything.

And on SC, no matter how pretty your LTI ship is, if you get yourself into a situation not covered by insurance, like illegal PvP on a said, security intensive area of the Universe, and you get to loose it because of it.... Then goodbye ship!
This is exactly why, people were asking CR, if Pirates will have insurance, because, by default, if you are Pirate, you are doing one activity that is not covered by the game's default insurance policy, as said.

Then, once pirates get some kind of black market insurance, certainly more expensive and shady, you might be able to attack others on safe area, or do other activities the normal insurance wouldn't pay up back. The risk is still there, for one pirate org of players, there is certainly going to be security enforcement Orgs that will take on the opportunity to get you back.

And that balance that needs to be made, will add one interesting layer of gameplay of the Law vs Outlaw.

 

[Marc Alexander]

Well, considering I thought it was too cheeky a request, thank you for all the responses. Obviously, this being an internet forum, nobody is under any obligation to reveal their true expenditure, so all I have to go on is your goodwill (as long as you realise that any fibbing will be dealt with severely by the ghost-of-businesswomansandi).

Anyhoo, it appears that (unscientifically) spending on the game does not always reflect the level of commitment. (Outliers appear to be Asp Explorer who enjoys distinctly expensive nights out, and Aleksej who appears to have donated a considerable amount to RSI). Now, I'm using 'commitment' here in terms of those who would readily defend the game/CIG in the face of any hostility/negativity. But I'm also suggesting that a defence is being maintained, disregarding some fairly major shifts in the project.

Those shifts are well known, and some are disputed. That is not my interest here. Here is what I would like to know from those that display an overwhelmingly positive outlook towards the project: if you are not financially invested then the natural inference (imo) is that you are emotionally invested. If you are emotionally invested then please tell me your reasoning in the continued defence of a game that appears to have so many inherent 'floors'? (floors could relate to project management, community management, game design, game application, game architecture, etc - of course these topics are disputed)

Personally, I'm not invested in any way. I'm just fascinated how a project that has, in my humble opinion, suffered from and is suffering from such dubious decision making, such a 'fanatic' following...

Thanks

Well, the lack of response is interesting...

What's that old adage?... conspicuous by its absence

 

[Backer42]

I understand that some backers may have come to terms and accepted this a long time ago (you say it's 3 years), and so may take the view that whether SC is pay to win or not is essentially irrelevant, it is how it is. But in all honesty I think the notion of pay to win within SC is a valid topic, a large number of "gamers" are vehemently anti-pay to win and feel implementing it negatively affects a game.

"Negatively affects a game" is euphemism for a harsh reality: The gameplay of P2W games is specifically designed around luring the player into spending more and more money. P2W game companies often employ professional psychologists to specifically address weak spots in troubled personalities and exploit them for money.

What's more CIG selling assets has been a huge part of their funding model and as such will certainly factor into CIG's/SC's future one one way or another. I should probably also add CIG's selling of assets at such prices is completely unprecedented, they are pioneering in this regard. Other publishers (unfortunately) will be looking on and taking notes.

Indeed. Lawmakers will takes notes, too. Back in the analog age, there was a another problematic phenomena called gambling and it got completely outlawed in most jurisdictions. Legislators take time to catch up to new developments, but I'm quite sure, P2W will face the same fate and become illegal in the long term. The public exposure of SC with their exorbitant price tags will accelerate this process for sure.

 

[Jenner]

Well, the lack of response is interesting...

What's that old adage?... conspicuous by its absence

I'll bite.

So I've spent several hundred on SC, which I would imagine puts me into the medium-high range. I'm certainly no 'whale' - I'm not even concierge - but I've spent more than I have on most games. (Elite being another one I really opened my wallet for). Am I emotionally invested in SC? Sure. I'm emotionally invested to some extent in every kickstarter I've taken part in. That's not a 'bad thing' in my opinion, as any kickstarter is at its heart a leap of faith. If you don't have some faith in a project you're not going to fork over your hard earned money for it. With regards to SC, I grew up on Roberts' games and have fond memories of Privateer and Wing Commander, so of course there is a lot of nostalgia at the heart of my enthusiasm for SC.

As I've said before, I don't like everything that CIG has done. I don't like everything that Bethesda has done, and I'm a huge fan of theirs. I don't like everything that Frontier has done, and I still love Elite. I suppose I do have more confidence in Star Citizen than several frequent posters in this thread, though. I'm not expecting it to the best game ever - just a good game. Maybe even a great one. Chris and his team are incredibly supportive of their fans and, on the two occasions I've had the pleasure of meeting them in person, have given me no impression that they take the support people have given them for granted. Do they make frequent PR snafus? You bet. Does that mean they are inherently evil or incompetent? Nah. Just human. Does this make me doubt the success of the project? No.

So yeah. I'm emotionally invested to a certain extent, but in the end it's only a game. I'm certainly not emotionally invested in SC's failure, which is something that I see again and again on the internet. That I just don't understand.

 

[Aleksej]

"Negatively affects a game" is euphemism for a harsh reality: The gameplay of P2W games is specifically designed around luring the player into spending more and more money. P2W game companies often employ professional psychologists to specifically address weak spots in troubled personalities and exploit them for money.

We are yet to see how is this going to work in SC. And so far there is no evidence that people are going to be forced to pay them in order to play.

Indeed. Lawmakers will takes notes, too. Back in the analog age, there was a another problematic phenomena called gambling and it got completely outlawed in most jurisdictions. Legislators take time to catch up to new developments, but I'm quite sure, P2W will face the same fate and become illegal in the long term. The public exposure of SC with their exorbitant price tags will accelerate this process for sure.

While gambling might be prohibited in many jurisdictions, this does not mean that it is banned completely. Actually, I would say that it is exact opposite of this. A compromise to prohibiting gambling from many jurisdictions is the creation of special areas where gambling is allowed. This totally busts your argument that P2W games are going to become non-existent.

While I consider that the probability that this happens is near 0, even if something like this happens, it simply changes the business model that would allow earning money from the player base. E.g. subscription fees, expansion sales etc. If you close one opportunity to earn money, they are going to find another one.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Indeed. Lawmakers will takes notes, too. Back in the analog age, there was a another problematic phenomena called gambling and it got completely outlawed in most jurisdictions. Legislators take time to catch up to new developments, but I'm quite sure, P2W will face the same fate and become illegal in the long term. The public exposure of SC with their exorbitant price tags will accelerate this process for sure.

A lot of the things you post make sense and are a fun read. This one is out there like Pluto, old chap!

Online gambling, Poker, Casinos, etc are enormous in Europe. A growing number of top level sports teams are sponsored by betting sites. I think the idea that P2W monetised / microtransaction games are the next big evil to be squashed is a bit of a stretch. I always reserve the right to be wrong though.

That being said, I do wonder if the whole Kickstarter thing will need a legal shakeup. The line between KS and open-ended crowdfunding became blurred and then totally disappeared with SC. If the whole thing did disappear in a puff of smoke and mirrors I wonder if any accusations of poor governance could be leveled at KS? I have doubts anyone could make them legally liable for any kind of contractual obligation... It might cause them to tighten up rules around what the KS name can be used for?

 

[Stigbob]

I'll bite.

So I've spent several hundred on SC, which I would imagine puts me into the medium-high range. I'm certainly no 'whale' - I'm not even concierge - but I've spent more than I have on most games. (Elite being another one I really opened my wallet for). Am I emotionally invested in SC? Sure. I'm emotionally invested to some extent in every kickstarter I've taken part in. That's not a 'bad thing' in my opinion, as any kickstarter is at its heart a leap of faith. If you don't have some faith in a project you're not going to fork over your hard earned money for it. With regards to SC, I grew up on Roberts' games and have fond memories of Privateer and Wing Commander, so of course there is a lot of nostalgia at the heart of my enthusiasm for SC.

As I've said before, I don't like everything that CIG has done. I don't like everything that Bethesda has done, and I'm a huge fan of theirs. I don't like everything that Frontier has done, and I still love Elite. I suppose I do have more confidence in Star Citizen than several frequent posters in this thread, though. I'm not expecting it to the best game ever - just a good game. Maybe even a great one. Chris and his team are incredibly supportive of their fans and, on the two occasions I've had the pleasure of meeting them in person, have given me no impression that they take the support people have given them for granted. Do they make frequent PR snafus? You bet. Does that mean they are inherently evil or incompetent? Nah. Just human. Does this make me doubt the success of the project? No.

So yeah. I'm emotionally invested to a certain extent, but in the end it's only a game. I'm certainly not emotionally invested in SC's failure, which is something that I see again and again on the internet. That I just don't understand.

I'm not certain there are many (if any) people emotionally invested in SC's failure.

There are people who don't believe the game will be delivered as advertised and doubt the hype can be believed based on CIG's past performance. They don't want to see people ripped off, but would like (and hope) to play the game on a successful release. (I'm in this category I also advise against gambling, organized religion and believing in mediums).

There are people supporting the game who are less than rational/reasonable in their behavior, and some people would enjoy the fallout of failure in those circles (the goons). They still want the game to be released and be worth playing, they just enjoy teasing the super-fans and expect a huge internet meltdown if SC goes under. Here is an example of counterproductive SC support : https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/new/

Obviously trolls (pretending to be on one side or another, probably on both sides in some cases) they don't want the game to fail they want to troll. They have no emotional investment in failure either way.

 

[MaxLexandre]

It's one action > reaction game. Only if some people haven't put this silly situation into it being one "WAR".

But there is people that for real want to watch the world burn, on this case, SC failing... Otherwise i wouldn't understand why some people run through all internet forums and media articles and stuff like that, to warn people Star Citizen is a scam and to stay away from it, causing that reaction > action game that only leads to a massive mess.

And that mess, well, it's one war-front of attacks against the Backers, how deluded they are, how part of a cult they are, how much whales they are, how awful and toxic they are, and so on...

It's like preaching the end of the world. On this case, the Star Citizen's Apocalypse.

 

[Cotic]

It's one action > reaction game. Only if some people haven't put this silly situation into it being one "WAR".

But there is people that for real want to watch the world burn, on this case, SC failing... Otherwise i wouldn't understand why some people run through all internet forums and media articles and stuff like that, to warn people Star Citizen is a scam and to stay away from it, causing that reaction > action game that only leads to a massive mess.

And that mess, well, it's one war-front of attacks against the Backers, how deluded they are, how part of a cult they are, how much whales they are, how awful and toxic they are, and so on...

It's like preaching the end of the world. On this case, the Star Citizen's Apocalypse.

Here we go again with the circular stuff. No one can pretend that there isn't the polar opposite of this situation that also exists, where should any criticism be levied towards the game, either in article or video comments, then a veritable army of respondees all but lynch in the criticizer(s).
A subset of Star Citizen's fanbase are reknowned for this sort of behaviour now, hence the awful and toxic accusations that they face. It's not by any stretch of the imagination the bad side picking on the good side.

Both sides are as bad as the other, pretending one side is the poor, innocent victim is laughable.

 

[Ben Parry]

Both sides are as bad as the other, pretending one side is the poor, innocent victim is laughable.

No, you don't understand, the outgroup must be demonized!
They're baby-eaters, the lot of them, I tell you.

 

[MaxLexandre]

There's extremist behavior on both sides, on part of a community that just goes too far.

The massive generalization of all the backers on the same box, and i have been through this so many times, when the vibe is just "point and laughing at you", one of those cultists we all are, at least we are if we don't have something negative to say about Star Citizen, you are put on that box from that start.

 

[Aleksej]

There will always be those who like the game, those who don't lie, and those who hate. Due to the nature of open development there will always be people who are going to dislike some of the design decision made.

 

[Voivod]

The massive generalization of all the backers on the same box, and i have been through this so many times, when the vibe is just "point and laughing at you", one of those cultists we all are, at least we are if we don't have something negative to say about Star Citizen, you are put on that box from that start.

Just like if you're critical of the game the white knights will call you a Derek Smart alt or don't understand gaming development or you're just speculating or just insert one of the cliche responses here.

There will always be those who like the game, those who don't lie, and those who hate.

You forgot those that fanatically love the game.

 

[Aleksej]

Just like if you're critical of the game the white knights will call you a Derek Smart alt or don't understand gaming development or you're just speculating or just insert one of the cliche responses here.




You forgot those that fanatically love the game.

You can add them to the list to counter the haters.

 

[MaxLexandre]

Just like if you're critical of the game the white knights will call you a Derek Smart alt or don't understand gaming development or you're just speculating or just insert one of the cliche responses here.

You forgot those that fanatically love the game.

I myself was already called out for being Derek Smart of its minion. If there weren't so many goons constantly trolling around, there could be a better middle ground to avoid people with legit concerns and discussions from being attacked, or trolled back for it. Now it's just too late, having such discussions can lead to witch hunts, only the game will get people playing a game instead of fighting each other.


Oh, you forgot those that fanatically hate the game. (balance!) ~~ oups got ninjad

 

[Tuub t Tute]

No, you don't understand, the outgroup must be demonized!
They're baby-eaters, the lot of them, I tell you.

Ben, any chance the drinkomatic will be playable in 2.2?

 

[Zieman]

Talking about the game, I've been wondering about one thing...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that stealing other players' ships is (going to be) a thing in Star Citizen.
And the ships will be persistent, even if the player is logged off?

So, what will happen if someone steals a ship that the original owner has bought for real life money, maybe even hundreds or thousands of dollars?