LOL. Then I'm sure all the "funders" will be happy to give up all their ships when the game is released?
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
But...along with rebuys, you also have those who are allergic to losing their ships...combat logging, ganking, griefing, engineered meta build PvP ships.... So far, I've not had that experience in SC during PvP moments either as an aggressor or victim. If you lose a ship with upgrades, it can be painful so folks tend not to drive over powered PvP tanks so if you're a reasonable pilot, there's a good chance you'll have an even contest.
Neither behaviour is prevalent enough to be of note on the servers I play on...possibly elsewhere on the busier US servers but generally, I've noted PvP combat readily accepted by folks of a PvE disposition with lots of "GG" comments in the chat...I certainly prefer the PvE to PvP in most games I play, SC being no exception...but playing in a system with no solo or private groups tends to breed less discontent and suspicion of other play styles... just a personal observation and might not be the case for others playing SC of course.
Saying that, engineers put paid to most of my running in open playing E-D...as it did for a few folks. The meta builds killed off the fun for me when it turned into a specialist PvP arms race instead of general play with bouts of competitive scrapping. Just through personal preference in E-D rather than by way of complaint... I run all my ships as multi-role armed traders, not much fun against a group of PvP meta Ferdie-de-la-clownshoes and Corvettes.
I quite enjoy a bit of PvP in SC due to it's agreeable nature in the main, no hard feelings and relatively fair competition on either side.
One thing I have noted of late since the new flight model came in, those playing with M/KB as ship controls still attempt to fly laterally (turrets in space circle strafing) and can't quite handle the few of us who fly with a HOTAS rig and are used to the 6 axes of flight control from E-D. The ones I've had as opponents do the same old strafe forward/back/left/right instead of 'flying' the ship and using the thrusters to exaggerate the stick inputs rather than be rigid and linear with the M/KB setups.
Last edited:
I think its because, at least in part, because its alhpa. I don't think there were many cases of complaints or combat logging in ED during alpha/beta either.
Wait and see what happens when SC goes live and the wider population comes in, and for the backers it starts to hit home they can lose assets permenantly.
I don't think SC has an inherently better or different community, just the current nature of the game creates a "who cares if i lose it" attitude towards PvP.
For a better comparison, look at ED during betas.
...Or pre engineers
Hypothetically, you can't combat log in SC. You log out, but you ship will still be there on the server.
This does work with varying effectiveness. Right now though, ships get cleaned up pretty quick. But in SC it is usually the same thing as your ship being destroyed. Unless you log off in a bed and that feature is working when you do it. If you disconnect your ship will be Unknown, instead of Destroyed.
For varying levels of "working" perhaps.
In testing, my mate driving my Lancer and me plonked up in the turret with a inactivity timeout - whole ship sometimes disappears for him a few seconds after he either falls through the floor / rubberbands in place or is simply left there as if nothing happened. Me dying in the crew compartment or getting squished by the ramp / landing gear has led to some interesting effects, but their repeatability is low so it isn't fair to comment on them. Bedlogging I don't think I've ever got to work properly, with or without anyone else on board.
![[VR] Merkir](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Statistically speaking, yes, it's huge in this case. Any statistician will tell you an unbiased sample size of 21,220 is complete overkill for most purposes. For the same reason a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error.
The main issue though, is whether the sample is unbiased.
Even if the sample is accurate, the poll didn't say, "Is it OK if we delay this past 2021?"
Thanks for the info. I can imagine people who are not aware of this trying though.
Probably self selecting based on those who watched the forums most closely, therefore the most invested. As I understand as well, the vote wasn't open for too long. I'm not aware of CIG sending out any mail telling backers there was a vote going on either.
It's like going into MacDonalds and asking the diners who makes the best burgers.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The main issue is not related to statistics though. The main issue is simply that no such poll is contractually or commercially meaningful in any way.
CIG had committed to a very specific set of original stretch goals and scope in exchange for money. The scope of the project and the decision on resources applied to develop (and its price tag) is 100% solely the responsibility of the developer.
The poll was just a great PR way for CIG to bulldoze their previous commercial commitments at Kickstarter and the original stretch goals (committed to in exchange for money), and change them at whim all the while appearing to cater for the whole customer base (which is false). Any changes to the deal have been and still are fully and solely the responsibility of CIG.
Last edited:
A bigger issue regarding those polls is that backing a kickstarted product is not a form of democracy, where the majority can approve a large change and the minority have no say.
It's more a case of each backer having an individual contract with the developer, who agrees that in exchange for the backer's pledge, will make a best-endevours attempt to deliver the product described within the time stated (plus a certain allowance for slippage).
Other backers voting to change the terms of their agreement does not invalidate the contract of any other backer who does not agree.
If they wanted to change the deal, CIG should have done the following:
1. Sent an email to all backers detailing the change and offering them the chance to vote yes/no.
2. Set a reasonable time limit (30 days) for the vote, with a non-response defaulting to agreement to the change (this default behaviour must be explained in the email).
3. If the majority of voting is for the change, then all backers who voted 'no' are entitled to a full refund, as the product being delivered is no longer the one they backed.
Edit: Semi-ninja by Viajero
It's more a case of each backer having an individual contract with the developer, who agrees that in exchange for the backer's pledge, will make a best-endevours attempt to deliver the product described within the time stated (plus a certain allowance for slippage).
Other backers voting to change the terms of their agreement does not invalidate the contract of any other backer who does not agree.
If they wanted to change the deal, CIG should have done the following:
1. Sent an email to all backers detailing the change and offering them the chance to vote yes/no.
2. Set a reasonable time limit (30 days) for the vote, with a non-response defaulting to agreement to the change (this default behaviour must be explained in the email).
3. If the majority of voting is for the change, then all backers who voted 'no' are entitled to a full refund, as the product being delivered is no longer the one they backed.
Edit: Semi-ninja by Viajero
Last edited:
Or in this case, a minority approved the change. The majority either abstained or were not even aware of the poll.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The level of awareness does not matter. The polls are simply not commercially or contractually meaningful at all.
What happen if you log off in a bed with other commandos in the ship? Theoretically I get what they aim to do, practically I don't know how they can manage to implement this in an effective way with the ton of side effects, paradoxes, bugs and exploits their concepts can and will generate. Let alone they can't manage to make mundane things like doors or standing still ships behave right yet.
Last edited:
Imagine how much better it would be if CIG had said they understand the project is taking a lot longer than originally anticipated and offered refunds with no questions asked. Perception of the company would be so much different than the "We've got your money and you're along for the ride whether you like it or not, no matter how long it takes."
City State Games who are working on Camelot Unchained completed their kickstater in 2013 with an expected delivery of late 2015. They are nowhere near completion but they repeatedly address this without trying to weasle their way out of it and on top of that they offer refunds to anybody who is fed up with waiting. I think that is far more commendable and far more fan-orientated that the behaviour of CIG. It's such a huge difference of appreciating where your money has come from and treating your backers like one-way cash cows.
City State Games who are working on Camelot Unchained completed their kickstater in 2013 with an expected delivery of late 2015. They are nowhere near completion but they repeatedly address this without trying to weasle their way out of it and on top of that they offer refunds to anybody who is fed up with waiting. I think that is far more commendable and far more fan-orientated that the behaviour of CIG. It's such a huge difference of appreciating where your money has come from and treating your backers like one-way cash cows.
Which is a thing you could detect within minutes once you have it happen ten, hundred, thousand times, and then, you know... disable.
Edit: Maybe if there were ten or twenty such stations, with very low local presence (an officer or none, they are hunting criminals after all) and they would have various levels of security (some are super easily hackable, some not at all) which would change over time (let's say as security version patches are distributed - which could lead to easily recognizable level of security, if it's on the latest version, you know it will be tough), then it could be believable. You'd have to find (or get from other players) which terminal is easy to hack this week, consider whether it's okay to hack it (maybe it's too far and you should go for some tougher, but closer one) and then proceed as usual, maybe avoiding killing the local AI if you wish (or not, for extra "fun").
Of course, for this CI~G would have to have NPCs, AI, multiple outposts and means to implement variables in hacking terminals.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Agreed. But that requires a level personal integrity, ethics, and pledge funds custodian focus that Chris Roberts very sadly seem to lack.
- Status