This pretty much obliterates one of the largest appeals of a pirate career and a hefty aspect of emergent gameplay (as shown by the large amount of devastated and sad aspiring pirates in the thread)
Not even.
Aside of the strong feedback this is getting that will likely get CIG to react and find a balance between what is being criticized that it needs to be more than just a gameplay session, only on its own, the ability to salvage and so the stolen ship already provides profitability.
So steal > sell, or board > steal, or destroy > salvage game loops are there, hence piracy lives.
Now the core point lies on insurance but it's very well possible to still let stolen ships live past the session and once destroyed they're gone forever, they can very well balance it with simple things such as having the AI being capable to detect the X ship is stolen and engage the player to even it out.
Wasn't this always one of the reasons why the game was apparently not P2W?
What's irritating about them walking back on things like persistant ship theft is this why people funded the game, it was these difficult-to-do features that normal AAA games were not bothering with and why CIG were going to be different.
@Erillion Plenty of fans on Spectrum and the subreddit who are not happy with this, plenty of people who were planning their playstyle or their org's playstyle around this. The trouble here is that once again the devs run their mouth (to gain more money/players) before knowing if something feasible.
Sorry, i have no sympathy for those that proudly proclaim on Reddit how they plan to rip off CIG on purpose, plan to corner the market via ships gained via suicide attacks/boardings and control prices at leisure in the same way it has been done in EVE Online in the past (before CCP had to intervene).
If an orgs playstyle is based on preying on others in prepared "PvE safezones" (controlled by advocacy and navy) via system loopholes, the SC universe is better off without those orgs. Good riddance.
I support hard core piracy rules in outlying systems not under UEE control (similar to 0.0 space in EVE Online). There anything goes. Including keeping captured hulls.
Sorry, i have no sympathy for those that proudly proclaim on Reddit how they plan to rip off CIG on purpose, plan to corner the market via ships gained via suicide attacks/boardings and control prices at leisure in the same way it has been done in EVE Online in the past (before CCP had to intervene).
If an orgs playstyle is based on preying on others in prepared "PvE safezones" (controlled by advocacy and navy) via system loopholes, the SC universe is better off without those orgs. Good riddance.
I support hard core piracy rules in outlying systems not under UEE control (similar to 0.0 space in EVE Online). There anything goes. Including keeping captured hulls.
Have fun
I don't think those who planned to exploit it is who he is talking about. Yet those who wanted to make more use of a ship they stolen, such as flying it until it gets destroyed.
I think there is a clash on the design, certainly pushing that back because of exploiting concerns, because CR himself wants legitimacy piracy gameplay and even wanted ways to legitimate a ship you might steal, so I'd say CR hasn't given the final say on this, but that will surely depend on how can they balance a mechanic without providing a "ship spawning exploit" mechanic for those who will try to abuse it.
To me they shouldn't put game mechanics in literal lockdown because of who exploits. That is like those MMO's that don't let you trade currency with other players because of gold sellers.
Eh, in the day and age of star citizen, wouldn't it be common place to have some kind of serious antitheft device on your ship? Hell even a remote detonator if nothing else?
Eh, in the day and age of star citizen, wouldn't it be common place to have some kind of serious antitheft device on your ship? Hell even a remote detonator if nothing else?
I'm not too bummed about it.
"Anti-theft Rating 4 is the final word in vehicle protection; it includes all of the previous level’s features and adds a remote triggered self-destruct option. The modified vehicle is reduced to medium-to-small component parts."
Triggered by pilot biomonitor dead-man switch .... BOOM ... Gotcha ...
Everyone remembers the whole risk/reward and if you lose a ship you pay cash for too bad. Key word, paid cash for.......if people can lose money so easily this will impede their cash flow...ship sales. Makes sense to go back on what they said. And the whole game constantly goes back on what they said because they know it sounded good at the time.
Still no game, but they got the cash shop module working years ago. Working as intended.
Everything still subject to change, based on balancing passes. Could be like this described above, could be more strict (like one of the devs suggested).
Playtesting will show us the loopholes and the extend of exploitation.
Weren't they supposed to "increase the scope" though? I thought that was the argument for the many delays and failures from cig, and right there it's not what they're doing.
Weren't they supposed to "increase the scope" though? I thought that was the argument for the many delays and failures from cig, and right there it's not what they're doing.
At the moment they are developing and playtesting and see what works.
I totally understand that, it's just that I find that it goes directly against the idea of expanding the scope that they promoted years ago.
The current scope is as described by the core and stretched goals - which haven't changed in some time. And the stretched goals were a part of that expanded scope.
Doesn't mean that in the future - as a minimum after it has launched - there couldn't be further scope expansion. Surely though you are not suggesting they start introducing new goals? Pretty sure if they did you would have something negative to say.
Oh well. Dammed if they don't; dammed if they do in some peoples eyes it seems.
Hmm, when it comes to scope i do not recall a stretch goal that specifically promises free ship theft via privacy. The goal that adds "boarding other ships" might fall into that category.
The aim for persistence and immersion also may be a good argument for letting pirates keep their booty - but i guess game mechanics, game balance and player demands have to be weighed and considered in equal measure here.
Hmm, when it comes to scope i do not recall a stretch goal that specifically promises free ship theft via privacy. The goal that adds "boarding other ships" might fall into that category.
Capturing ships was promised during Kickstarter:
"there will be boarding parties in both Squadron 42 SP game and Star Citizen's persistent universe. You'll be able to capture bigger ships, or perhaps an asteroid base or space station"
I noticed when asked general questions about future game play they usually say yes to everything so you end up with quotes about all types of promised features that usually end up getting scaled back when it comes to actual execution.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Everything still subject to change, based on balancing passes.
Too bad CiG (or is it RSI!? It matters because legal reasons!) never mentioned that here in this FAQ (or in pretty much every other place)
But hey, that's fine. I saw several people saying "I might as well get a refund now" and they still have it in their legal right to do that, even if CiG says otherwise in their new website disclaimer about "Star Citizer" (how did they make a typo like that, anyways? The R key isn't anywhere near the N key!). Thank goodness for consumer protection laws to protect consumers from companies like CiG (and RSI!).
If those looking forward to this now-bunk feature don't go get a refund, then oh well. At this point everyone buying into this deserves what they get.
>>> At this point everyone buying into this deserves what they get. >>>
I absolutely agree.
Maybe not for the same reasons as you do ;-)
Have fun
Yea, paying $40 to waffle about in 3.0 isn't a bad deal for those who are in to that sort of thing.
Games like Star Citizen however need big spending whales to survive. It's well-known everywhere that those $40 players are pretty much insignificant to revenue models that sell big ticket items that cost hundreds or even thousands. So what happens to those who spent $40 on the game and don't get a refund is of no consequence to the grand scheme of things. In the end, it will be the whales who will suffer the most because they had the most to lose. And that's good, because hopefully they'll learn some valuable lessons from all of this and thus hopefully things like this won't happen again in the future as much.
I'm always surprised how people expect games to be exactly as they were initially planned. Very few games end up at launch as they were originally planned. Any doubts about a game, just wait at least til final beta when you will have a very good idea about how a game will actually be. If you don't want to wait then jump in but realize you could end up with anything including a game that dies before it launches or launches as a complete mess taking taking a few years to reach it's potential.
Financial situations do change and it's good that federal laws override business EULA agreements. I think it says a lot about a company that doesn't create a hassle over giving a refund.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I totally understand that, it's just that I find that it goes directly against the idea of expanding the scope that they promoted years ago.
The current scope is as described by the core and stretched goals - which haven't changed in some time. And the stretched goals were a part of that expanded scope.
Doesn't mean that in the future - as a minimum after it has launched - there couldn't be further scope expansion. Surely though you are not suggesting they start introducing new goals? Pretty sure if they did you would have something negative to say.
Oh well. Dammed if they don't; dammed if they do in some peoples eyes it seems.
I'm not suggesting they introduce new goals, I'm saying they're cutting features as development struggles forward.
If the design changes it changes. If it doesn't it doesn't.
It's also very heavily driven by feedback, if the strong opinion of the backers is that there must be more persistence on the stolen ships as originally intended, then we will see if they go try to meet that, if not, then it is as it is.
There are legitimate reasons of why the design is as it is, it's not a conspiracy from the evil CIG against its backers; but it's something that for me can clearly meet somewhere in the middle to attend to the original design.
I'm not suggesting they introduce new goals, I'm saying they're cutting features as development struggles forward.
They are not.
The how long a stolen ship lasts is not the feature, it's one of the details of the feature, being the feature the ability to capture (steal) the ship itself.
Comments
Aside of the strong feedback this is getting that will likely get CIG to react and find a balance between what is being criticized that it needs to be more than just a gameplay session, only on its own, the ability to salvage and so the stolen ship already provides profitability.
So steal > sell, or board > steal, or destroy > salvage game loops are there, hence piracy lives.
Now the core point lies on insurance but it's very well possible to still let stolen ships live past the session and once destroyed they're gone forever, they can very well balance it with simple things such as having the AI being capable to detect the X ship is stolen and engage the player to even it out.
If an orgs playstyle is based on preying on others in prepared "PvE safezones" (controlled by advocacy and navy) via system loopholes, the SC universe is better off without those orgs. Good riddance.
I support hard core piracy rules in outlying systems not under UEE control (similar to 0.0 space in EVE Online). There anything goes. Including keeping captured hulls.
Have fun
I think there is a clash on the design, certainly pushing that back because of exploiting concerns, because CR himself wants legitimacy piracy gameplay and even wanted ways to legitimate a ship you might steal, so I'd say CR hasn't given the final say on this, but that will surely depend on how can they balance a mechanic without providing a "ship spawning exploit" mechanic for those who will try to abuse it.
To me they shouldn't put game mechanics in literal lockdown because of who exploits. That is like those MMO's that don't let you trade currency with other players because of gold sellers.
I'm not too bummed about it.
includes all of the previous level’s features and adds a
remote triggered self-destruct option. The modified vehicle
is reduced to medium-to-small component parts."
Triggered by pilot biomonitor dead-man switch .... BOOM ... Gotcha ...
Have fun
It's like they're constantly walking back on promises made to the backers.
Still no game, but they got the cash shop module working years ago. Working as intended.
Playtesting will show us the loopholes and the extend of exploitation.
Have fun
Nothing written in stone yet.
Have fun
Doesn't mean that in the future - as a minimum after it has launched - there couldn't be further scope expansion. Surely though you are not suggesting they start introducing new goals? Pretty sure if they did you would have something negative to say.
Oh well. Dammed if they don't; dammed if they do in some peoples eyes it seems.
The aim for persistence and immersion also may be a good argument for letting pirates keep their booty - but i guess game mechanics, game balance and player demands have to be weighed and considered in equal measure here.
Have fun
"there will be boarding parties in both Squadron 42 SP game and Star Citizen's persistent universe. You'll be able to capture bigger ships, or perhaps an asteroid base or space station"
Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/11wivt/i_am_chris_roberts_creator_of_wing_commander/
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
But hey, that's fine. I saw several people saying "I might as well get a refund now" and they still have it in their legal right to do that, even if CiG says otherwise in their new website disclaimer about "Star Citizer" (how did they make a typo like that, anyways? The R key isn't anywhere near the N key!). Thank goodness for consumer protection laws to protect consumers from companies like CiG (and RSI!).
If those looking forward to this now-bunk feature don't go get a refund, then oh well. At this point everyone buying into this deserves what they get.
I absolutely agree.
Maybe not for the same reasons as you do ;-)
Have fun
Games like Star Citizen however need big spending whales to survive. It's well-known everywhere that those $40 players are pretty much insignificant to revenue models that sell big ticket items that cost hundreds or even thousands. So what happens to those who spent $40 on the game and don't get a refund is of no consequence to the grand scheme of things. In the end, it will be the whales who will suffer the most because they had the most to lose. And that's good, because hopefully they'll learn some valuable lessons from all of this and thus hopefully things like this won't happen again in the future as much.
Financial situations do change and it's good that federal laws override business EULA agreements. I think it says a lot about a company that doesn't create a hassle over giving a refund.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's also very heavily driven by feedback, if the strong opinion of the backers is that there must be more persistence on the stolen ships as originally intended, then we will see if they go try to meet that, if not, then it is as it is.
There are legitimate reasons of why the design is as it is, it's not a conspiracy from the evil CIG against its backers; but it's something that for me can clearly meet somewhere in the middle to attend to the original design.
They are not.
The how long a stolen ship lasts is not the feature, it's one of the details of the feature, being the feature the ability to capture (steal) the ship itself.