Jump to content

CIG Catering to Pirates and Thieves?


Donut

Recommended Posts

After a certain time, items left in 'verse shouldn't belong to anyone. When you find and scan those items, and nothing comes up, it's yours for the taking. When you equip those items on yourself, your vehicle or load them in a container or object you own, they should become yours by default. The owner is now you. Leaving them as default as the "universe ownership" leaves a lot of loopholes that CIG is opening themselves up to imo. 

If I go to the beach and put some sand in a bottle then put that sand in my vehicle but walk over to a vending machine, that doesn't invite others to my vehicle to grab the sand out and take it. That sand is my sand. It doesn't still belong to the earth for others to take as they please out of my possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple solution to this is for CIG to setup simple rules of possession and ownership.

1.)  Anything on a player's character model belongs to them: clothes, helmet, weapons, Mobi-glass, med-pens, etc. If the player finds an "ownerless" item in the 'verse, picks it up, it is "tagged" as their property.

2.) Any item placed inside a player's ship is tagged as belonging to them -- unless that item was stolen. Meaning if the player places the item they found inside their ship, it remains their property. If a thief steals an item belonging to another player and drops it in their ship, it does not become their property; it remains tagged as stolen.

The first two are straightforward and I expect everyone will agree. The third rule gets more complicated.
 
3.)  If the player drops a tagged item in a public space, they retain ownership of the item as long as they remain in close proximity to it and don't leave for a certain amount of time. For example, if a player sets a cargo box down in a spaceport, they have to remain within 10 metres of the item to retain ownership. If they exceed that distance, they have to touch it again within 10 minutes or it will become ownerless, and anyone can claim it. Alternatively, if the player leaves the "room" where the item was left, that starts the countdown timer. If the player is in a huge hangar, they can roam further than 10 metres and retain possession. Whereas if they set an item down outside a shop and go inside the shop, the 10 minute countdown will initiate, even if the player is less than 10 metres from the item.
 
4.)  If a player is killed, they have a limited amount of time to return to where they died to recover any items they dropped. For small items, like weapons or cargo boxes, the amount of time is 1 hour. For ships and vehicles, it is at least 24 hours. Perhaps the more expensive the ship, the longer the player retains ownership. If the player chooses to file an insurance claim for a replacement ship rather than retrieve their ship (perhaps it's deep in hostile territory and too dangerous to retrieve), the player forfeits ownership of the "lost" ship, because insurance gives them a new ship.
 
If the player files a claim for a replacement ship, then goes back for their original ship and finds it, they cannot keep both ships. The player has to return one of the ships (probably the replacement) and they'll receive some sort of reward. Probably not UECs, because that could be scammed. Instead, the next time the player files an insurance claim, the "instant replacement" fee is waived, so the player will receive a replacement ship instantly for free.
 
5.) The owner of an item has the right to use lethal force against players or NPCs that steal from them.
 
I think those 5 rules cover all the bases and should resolve this "issue" of brazen thieves waltzing onto another player's ship and walking off with the cargo. Rule 5 gives players the right to shoot thieves to stop them. Simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, xKiLlFrEnZyx said:

@faquarl25 When I was talking about "universe loot" I was meaning objects that were spawned in by the game as loot/resources and not someones (probably now dead) ship+cargo. 

I could have worded my 2nd point

Better by saying that after this timer expires said items ownership would no longer be yours, from there if a claim is made the insurance company can seize it (or however that system will work) and a mission is generated to try and retrieve it or it becomes a sort of free game object where passer-byes that were in the right place at the right time can loot/salvage/steal? take the items/wreck/ship....

 

I agree with this and assume youre talking about doing shipping missions set out by an NPC... where by if you get attacked and lose items thoes items would belong to whoever gave them to you (e.g. said NPC) for a period of time untill thier "ownership-upon-loss" timer expires.

 

Its just my opinion and view on it but it seems its going to be the least griefy way to do it.

Why would they just spawn loot? I thought the entire idea for the PU(not 3.0) was not to have gamey features like this but base it on the actual economy? Has this changed and they will now have a planned economy? because that would destroy entire sections of the game (they would be doing this by stating the minimum amount that can be salvaged.

 

20 hours ago, Reavern said:

The simple solution to this is for CIG to setup simple rules of possession and ownership.

1.)  Anything on a player's character model belongs to them: clothes, helmet, weapons, Mobi-glass, med-pens, etc. If the player finds an "ownerless" item in the 'verse, picks it up, it is "tagged" as their property.

2.) Any item placed inside a player's ship is tagged as belonging to them -- unless that item was stolen. Meaning if the player places the item they found inside their ship, it remains their property. If a thief steals an item belonging to another player and drops it in their ship, it does not become their property; it remains tagged as stolen.

The first two are straightforward and I expect everyone will agree. The third rule gets more complicated.
 
3.)  If the player drops a tagged item in a public space, they retain ownership of the item as long as they remain in close proximity to it and don't leave for a certain amount of time. For example, if a player sets a cargo box down in a spaceport, they have to remain within 10 metres of the item to retain ownership. If they exceed that distance, they have to touch it again within 10 minutes or it will become ownerless, and anyone can claim it. Alternatively, if the player leaves the "room" where the item was left, that starts the countdown timer. If the player is in a huge hangar, they can roam further than 10 metres and retain possession. Whereas if they set an item down outside a shop and go inside the shop, the 10 minute countdown will initiate, even if the player is less than 10 metres from the item.
 
4.)  If a player is killed, they have a limited amount of time to return to where they died to recover any items they dropped. For small items, like weapons or cargo boxes, the amount of time is 1 hour. For ships and vehicles, it is at least 24 hours. Perhaps the more expensive the ship, the longer the player retains ownership. If the player chooses to file an insurance claim for a replacement ship rather than retrieve their ship (perhaps it's deep in hostile territory and too dangerous to retrieve), the player forfeits ownership of the "lost" ship, because insurance gives them a new ship.
 
If the player files a claim for a replacement ship, then goes back for their original ship and finds it, they cannot keep both ships. The player has to return one of the ships (probably the replacement) and they'll receive some sort of reward. Probably not UECs, because that could be scammed. Instead, the next time the player files an insurance claim, the "instant replacement" fee is waived, so the player will receive a replacement ship instantly for free.
 
5.) The owner of an item has the right to use lethal force against players or NPCs that steal from them.
 
I think those 5 rules cover all the bases and should resolve this "issue" of brazen thieves waltzing onto another player's ship and walking off with the cargo. Rule 5 gives players the right to shoot thieves to stop them. Simple.

Lethal force seems excessive on say... Terra. While in some systems this would work, in heavily policed systems, not so much. Not saying that this won't be a component, just seems a little to vigilante for earth and terra

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, faquarl25 said:

Why would they just spawn loot? I thought the entire idea for the PU(not 3.0) was not to have gamey features like this but base it on the actual economy? Has this changed and they will now have a planned economy? because that would destroy entire sections of the game (they would be doing this by stating the minimum amount that can be salvaged.

It depends on how you define "loot spawning". In Crusader PU, there are only 10 or so missions that are the same for every player. This is a far cry from what I hope the SC PU will be like, but I understand that it's only an Alpha. Based on the info that CIG has provided about 3.0, there should be more missions and more variations. It won't be infinite variety, but it should be a marked improvement.

I expect that "loot spawning" will be similar. CIG's ultimate goal is for the game to generate content organically, meaning nothing will spawn out of thin air. If a player stumbles on a dropped cargo container on the surface of a moon, there's an explanation for how it got there. It could've been a NPC ship that was attacked by NPC Vanduul; the ship broke up in the air and a cargo container crashed to the surface. If a player loots the cargo container, then stays there and watches the empty container, it won't magically respawn a full container that the player can loot again. Instead, if the player waits long enough, they might witness another NPC ship get shot down by Vanduul -- or NPC Pirates this time -- and another cargo container will land nearby.

That NPC ship and that container came from somewhere in the PU. It's a question of how deep the simulated universe goes. I understand that the PU's economy will be introduced in 3.0, but it will be limited version. There will be some degree of gaming "magic" at work. However, it won't seem as "gamey" as most MMORPGs, hopefully.

4 minutes ago, faquarl25 said:

Lethal force seems excessive on say... Terra. While in some systems this would work, in heavily policed systems, not so much. Not saying that this won't be a component, just seems a little to vigilante for earth and terra

I thought of that too. But since SC is a game, firing warning shots or shooting to wound won't have the same deterrent as RL. If a thief tried to steal something from your ship and just waltzed away, if you shot the thief in the leg, that probably wouldn't incapacitate them, and they probably wouldn't surrender. They'd use a Med-Pen to patch themselves up and try to escape, or they'd draw their weapon and engage you in a firefight. It wouldn't matter if it happened in the Terra system, Stanton, or Nul. A thief isn't going to obey the law, so the player will have to use lethal force to stop them and/or defend themselves. The only thing that might stop the thief is if NPC law enforcement was present and reacted to the theft in progress. The NPCs would try to stop the thief, so the player wouldn't need to stop them. The thief would be arrested by the NPC law enforcement and the player would recover their stolen property.

It's a question of whether CIG will introduce NPC law enforcement in Alpha 3.0 to try to police players' misbehaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, faquarl25 said:

Why would they just spawn loot? I thought the entire idea for the PU(not 3.0) was not to have gamey features like this but base it on the actual economy? Has this changed and they will now have a planned economy? because that would destroy entire sections of the game (they would be doing this by stating the minimum amount that can be salvaged.

Lethal force seems excessive on say... Terra. While in some systems this would work, in heavily policed systems, not so much. Not saying that this won't be a component, just seems a little to vigilante for earth and terra

 

They'll spawn derelicts with parts to salvage, spawn areas to mine, and loot at places like the Miles Eckhart mission showcase are supposed to be unclaimed to allow the player to pick them up without stealing. CIG will be spawning a lot of loot, most of it in a believable "left by NPCs" way. From years ago, they said that they wouldn't be spawning much actual usable equipment- so you won't be finding legendary overclocked guns and such, just regular trinkets and cargo that's believable left there. 

If someone boards your ship they probably have bad plans for you, Terra or not. I think it would fall under "home defense" and while it may be illegal in some of the larger cities (analog to Chicago and places in CA) I expect it will be fine to shoot intruders in most other civilized places. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karmaslap said:

They'll spawn derelicts with parts to salvage, spawn areas to mine, and loot at places like the Miles Eckhart mission showcase are supposed to be unclaimed to allow the player to pick them up without stealing. CIG will be spawning a lot of loot, most of it in a believable "left by NPCs" way. From years ago, they said that they wouldn't be spawning much actual usable equipment- so you won't be finding legendary overclocked guns and such, just regular trinkets and cargo that's believable left there. 

If someone boards your ship they probably have bad plans for you, Terra or not. I think it would fall under "home defense" and while it may be illegal in some of the larger cities (analog to Chicago and places in CA) I expect it will be fine to shoot intruders in most other civilized places. 

So will the derelicts be owned by an insurance company? Or are we to assume that the NPCs did not have insurance. Or does insurance not work that way in Star Citizen (I think it would be way cooler if it did)? I know that having an in game court system would be excessive, but that is what salvage is really all about. Salvaging something and then defending your claim. If not whatever. Just thought it would be a cool way to show people the right direction to the wrecks and make actual jobs in the job board by having insurance companies pay you (or you buy the wreck+location from the insurance company).

 

Lastly, I was saying that shooting might be excessive in response to "seeing that the other person stole your stuff". While in my ship, I see no problem defending myself. If a get pickpockets/robbed (not armed) at the bar, it hardly seems to be a justifiable plan to track down the guy, find him with your stuff, and then just shoot him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole shooting is an excessive thing is a load of poop....
 SC isn't like real life and the consequences in the game will never be like real life.... the only time this could possibly apply/work is on the ground in bases/stations/shops etc.... having AI cops patrolling like in ESO and if they see you taking loot they deal with you... and as a player you don't have to take the situation into your own hands....

When it's happing behind closed doors in your ship, with someone you don't know/shouldn't be there..... you shoot the guy...end of story 

 

As for the loot spawning in the verse.... i am almost certain the game will spawn in derelicts and items for players to loot...(it probably won't be like other MMO's where if you wait near X spot you can get Y item) its will most likely be randomly spawned around the verse (procedural gen?)...they can attach whatever lore they want to that specific loot as to how it got there and what not. And that stuff will be free pickings... I do want to point out that i dont think there will be a crazy ammount of this spawing happening... only enough to make the verse (in more "active/lived around" areas) to not look empty.

This won't include mission items/objects as with that it can be like I or others have said before where the mission giver/insurance company will own that item and get you to do what they need with it. (retrieve/salvage/destroy)

having all that stuff only come from players ..... yeah I don't think it's too great of an idea.... the economy will be perfectly fine with a few random spawns of loot/resources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/08/2017 at 6:22 PM, Reavern said:

It seems like the majority of the time, Lone Wolf players choose to fly solo because they're selfish and greedy and don't like to share the rewards from missions. Most MMORPGs have resolved this problem by paying out missions/quests the same no matter how many party members are involved, and I expect SC will do the same for PU generated missions. However, for "freeplay" missions that players create for themselves, for example, buying some items cheaply somewhere, travelling to somewhere far away and selling them for a large markup, the profits would/should be split between the party members.

Solo players don't like to share. They'd rather go it alone and reap all the rewards. But if anything happens to them along the way, they whine, "That's unfair! Pirates shouldn't be able to attack me and steal my stuff!" They want the game's rules to cater to them and reinforce their reckless behaviour.

That is why I have no sympathy for Lone Wolves. SC is a online multiplayer game. Playing with other players is what we all signed up for. It's pointless to complain if and when other players do something you don't like. You need to adapt and overcome. The best way to do that is team up with other players with shared interests and goals, and together you'll be stronger and less likely to be victimized by hostile players.

I'm humbled by your words of praise but really, reality is much simpler - experience just made me a staunch cynic and misanthrope (TL;DR for you: there's nothing I can possibly do that doesn't become a million times better just by being done alone. Yes, really. "Hell is other people" - Jean-Paul Sartre). And no, what I set out to sign up for was definitely not a multiplayer game - but then the bastards at E:D went back on their promise to deliver a strictly offline game, so I got a refund which they tried to weasel out of but ultimately had to grant; then SC came along promising a single player campaign and I went for it because of that and that alone. Seeing as how the more fancy stuff to explore is going to be unquestionably reserved for the PU, yes, I'm here and I'll be playing it - while making sure I stay as far out of absolutely everyone's way and under everyone's radar as is humanly possible (and permitted by CR the almighty, who apparently loves "emergent gameplay"). Meanwhile, all I care is making enough while exploring to allow me to carry on doing it. There will be no team-up. There will be no escort hiring. Only the least-trodden routes and a few ships custom-tailored to survive them. Then again, that's just me - I wouldn't dream of telling you how you shall play "or else".

Back on point though, I seem to recall they mentioned physical and legal ownership meant to be two clearly distinct concepts - physically stuff belongs to whoever has it equipped / stored in his cargo bay and that's that; legally, to whoever has it registered - which is pretty obvious with things like ships you start out nominally owning or cargo you may have purchased / declared on a manifest at some point, but a bit less clear for things you acquire as you go, especially if the previous owner doesn't seem to be around at the time. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, anticipating that there will be a bunch of funny corner cases CIG most likely didn't foresee (or at least bothered to handle) right off the bat. I'm sure there will be much noise made about the more lucrative loopholes (mostly from the, uh, "donor" side) prompting CIG to close them eventually - but all that seems in the far, far (far) future. Initially? Just expect mayhem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Porcupine You can fly solo if you choose, and a lot of players will try, but you can't expect SC to cater to solo play style and stack the deck in your favour. If you choose to lone wolf a Freelancer DUR, for example, and you're ambushed by a small Pirate band of 2 Buccs and a Cutlass, you have to accept that the odds are against you. If and when your ship is captured or destroyed, you can't whine about it and claim it's unfair. It's perfectly fair, because it's three combat ships versus one civilian transport. The Freelancer should lose 9 times out of 10.

Lone wolves will have to learn how to avoid combat encounters, and if they're successful, they'll "defeat" Pirates by flying under their radar. That's fair. That's how I expect the PU will work.

If you choose to be a lone wolf, you can't complain when Pirate-players gang up on you. That's why my suggestion is to always play in a group. It doesn't matter what you're doing -- even exploring. I imagine that having a second player aboard a DUR to man the aft turret will probably increase the ship's odds of survival by 50%. Having a long-range fighter escort, like a Vanguard Warden, probably will increase your odds by 100%. And for that, you might have to share your payout for completing missions or selling exploration intel or selling salvaged artifacts. I doubt there will be a split for game-generated missions, because most MMORPGs figured out that problem and resolved it years ago; so there will be no downside to grouping up.

My prediction is that solo players will fall victim to Pirates and PvPers far more often than multi-players, and they'll bitch and moan about it. Solo players won't get any sympathy from me. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think catering to pirates and thieves is not in CIG's plans. there will be mechanics to sort the issues out, but anybody sane would trust CIG to cater more towards law-abiding citizens and penalize transgressors as appropriate. Read Matt Shermans views on this in the following thread

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2017 at 1:04 AM, Gremlich said:

I think catering to pirates and thieves is not in CIG's plans. there will be mechanics to sort the issues out, but anybody sane would trust CIG to cater more towards law-abiding citizens and penalize transgressors as appropriate. Read Matt Shermans views on this in the following thread

 

To be fair, everything I ever heard from CIG, by Matt Sherman or not, went out of its way to emphasize that albeit transgressions are meant to have consequences, CIG will move Heaven and Earth to make them possible. Which immediately implies that all those of suitable disposition who, for whatever reason, don't fear consequences will definitely aggro the hell out of anyone in sight in a CIG-sanctioned rich multitude of ways. Which makes CIG significantly not-law-abiding-citizen friendly in a rather non-arguable way: no amount of ulterior justice served (if any, at all) does anything to undo a crime once it happened. That said, it remains to be seen how big of a problem that will be in practice of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/18/2017 at 1:05 PM, Reavern said:

*bring ya posse snip*

Traveling out of secure space or into contested waters alone is just asking to get smashed regardless of it you have a multicrew or not. Anyone who doesn't understand that deserves everything they have coming to them. Anyone found doing this in Imperium should rightfully be given a forum tag in the shape of a dunce cap, because they will have a mission board where they could ask for escort at their disposal.

If you and and some friends flying escort get blown up you can fall back on that you were bested in something resembling a fight. But if you're ganked alone, it just shows you were either too confident, greedy, or downright stupid to use the tools made available to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying solo just increases the risk-reward.  Its a legit playstyle.  You'd probably have to find techniques to avoid contact with unknown situations, because the majority of those situations will go badly for you.  But there are ships designed to do just this.  Be uncatchable in a straight line, be stealthy enough to not be seen, and/or have sensors good enough to identify them before they know you're even there.  Maybe it takes you 80% longer to complete a cargo run, but then you get to keep 100% of the profits.  Maybe hiring NPCs is all you need for your turret gunner, and they don't cost very much.

Anyways, I don't think its fair or right to tell a solo player that they're going to have a bad time in Star Citizen.  We know nothing of that sort, in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/08/2017 at 10:05 PM, Reavern said:

@Porcupine You can fly solo if you choose, and a lot of players will try, but you can't expect SC to cater to solo play style and stack the deck in your favour. If you choose to lone wolf a Freelancer DUR, for example, and you're ambushed by a small Pirate band of 2 Buccs and a Cutlass, you have to accept that the odds are against you. If and when your ship is captured or destroyed, you can't whine about it and claim it's unfair. It's perfectly fair, because it's three combat ships versus one civilian transport. The Freelancer should lose 9 times out of 10.

Lone wolves will have to learn how to avoid combat encounters, and if they're successful, they'll "defeat" Pirates by flying under their radar. That's fair. That's how I expect the PU will work.

If you choose to be a lone wolf, you can't complain when Pirate-players gang up on you. That's why my suggestion is to always play in a group. It doesn't matter what you're doing -- even exploring. I imagine that having a second player aboard a DUR to man the aft turret will probably increase the ship's odds of survival by 50%. Having a long-range fighter escort, like a Vanguard Warden, probably will increase your odds by 100%. And for that, you might have to share your payout for completing missions or selling exploration intel or selling salvaged artifacts. I doubt there will be a split for game-generated missions, because most MMORPGs figured out that problem and resolved it years ago; so there will be no downside to grouping up.

My prediction is that solo players will fall victim to Pirates and PvPers far more often than multi-players, and they'll bitch and moan about it. Solo players won't get any sympathy from me. :P

 

I got myself a Hull B for the reason of being a lone wolf from time to time... on the off times when my friends aren't online or when I just feel like running some cargo solo. With that I fully accept that, if I get jumped by pirates, I'm screwed. However, saying that I "can't complain" is unfair, I have every right to do so😜 It's still unfair for multiple players to pick on one solo player...

but hey, life's unfair. I'll have to accept I'm a target.

The fact that there are single seat merchant ships available does indicate CIG caters somewhat to solo players.

The fact that the starter ships are single seaters is a strong indication that they expect a lot of people to play solo or at least start out that way.

That said, venturing out beyond high sec space is probably not a good idea without an escort and even in high-sec you will probably run into the occasional pirate.

 

On 08/08/2017 at 5:22 PM, Reavern said:

It seems like the majority of the time, Lone Wolf players choose to fly solo because they're selfish and greedy and don't like to share the rewards from missions.

 

That's quite the claim, do you have any proof?

I don't really think that's the case, I think most people just choose to play alone because they find it enjoyable or because they have just a little bit of time to play. I like playing solo because I just have to depend on myself and my own skill. If something goes wrong, I have to find my own way out. I like finding my own way in the world, it has nothing to do with not sharing rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love cooperative play, i play Arma 3 and squad for the team play and coordination. However, there are just days where im fed up with people from all walks of life, and would like a little peace and quiet on my own little ship. Hauling some goods around while listening to rock n roll. Is that so much to ask without being judged?

Also, just to point out that just because a ship is single seated does not mean it caters to solo play, it just means its a single person aircraft. Most small fighters are single seated, but are expected to work in a wolf pack of sorts. Tehnically you can solo any ship, I mean my cutlass is a 3 person ship, but you bet im gonna solo with it from time to time XD. I'll solo with an idris if i darn well feel like it!  Also this brings up an interesting thought, if you hire NPCs to crew your ship with you, do you still consider this solo?

Also what is this about solo players whining? Ofcourse they are, but they wont be the only ones, im sure fully crewed idris's will complain about being ambushed by a few pirates that wont hesitate to throw a few S9 torps in their direction. I would be a very angry idris crewmember if 4 pirates in eclipses manage to almost take out a cap ship on their own, more so than being jumped by 3 pirates during a solo trading run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should go Witcher style. A sector of players is being harassed by pirates, they gather money, hire our fleet, and we go and kick the pirates out? :D 

As for solo players... Well, that's the dangers of the trade for them. Higher rewards and better stealth, but if they get caught, they're boned. I think we're talking about a very small minority here that doesn't understand this concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Caldon said:

Maybe we should go Witcher style. A sector of players is being harassed by pirates, they gather money, hire our fleet, and we go and kick the pirates out? :D 

As for solo players... Well, that's the dangers of the trade for them. Higher rewards and better stealth, but if they get caught, they're boned. I think we're talking about a very small minority here that doesn't understand this concept.

The number of "solo" players is not insignificant. Just have a look around the RSI forums and you start to see that there is a sizable portion (though not as vocal) of the population that is under the impression that SC will have distinct PVE/PVP zones, can opt out of multiplayer, or some other experience that caters to their specific antisocial interest.

There will be lots of buttmads on Spectrum to be had, come release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J. Coren said:

The number of "solo" players is not insignificant. Just have a look around the RSI forums and you start to see that there is a sizable portion (though not as vocal) of the population that is under the impression that SC will have distinct PVE/PVP zones, can opt out of multiplayer, or some other experience that caters to their specific antisocial interest.

There will be lots of buttmads on Spectrum to be had, come release.

I agree. Remember that the active community is just a small percentage of the whole community. Many people bought into the game once and just sit back and wait for the release. The amount of Aurora starter packs sold is way higher then it seems. I reckon with 3.0 a large number of people will flood in that haven't played yet, and that still won't be everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J. Coren said:

The number of "solo" players is not insignificant. Just have a look around the RSI forums and you start to see that there is a sizable portion (though not as vocal) of the population that is under the impression that SC will have distinct PVE/PVP zones, can opt out of multiplayer, or some other experience that caters to their specific antisocial interest.

There will be lots of buttmads on Spectrum to be had, come release.

I thought CIG already clarified that there is no Opt-out option, only a slider that reduces or increases your chances. I believe they also mentioned something about low security sectors always being PVP, didn't matter if you slide your bar all the way down or not. Can't remember where i read this, it wasn't too long ago, maybe a week or 2 ago. The only fully single player part of the game from i understand is Squadron 42 campaign, and u enter that before entering the PU, unless you opt out of it.

Aside from that, i agree the solo player portion of the community is not insignificant, then again, neither is the multiplayer community either. There will be feelsbads on spectrum come 3.0 when they dont get their "singleplayer experience", but that happens in every space game i ever knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LtAttack said:

I thought CIG already clarified that there is no Opt-out option, only a slider that reduces or increases your chances. I believe they also mentioned something about low security sectors always being PVP, didn't matter if you slide your bar all the way down or not. Can't remember where i read this, it wasn't too long ago, maybe a week or 2 ago. The only fully single player part of the game from i understand is Squadron 42 campaign, and u enter that before entering the PU, unless you opt out of it.

Aside from that, i agree the solo player portion of the community is not insignificant, then again, neither is the multiplayer community either. There will be feelsbads on spectrum come 3.0 when they dont get their "singleplayer experience", but that happens in every space game i ever knew.

I do believe the slider idea has been tossed out the window(or should I say, out the airlock?) and the chance of pvp encounters will just be; wherever you can find pirates there's a chance you'll get attacked... which is pretty much anywhere, anytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually a solo player and I'm usually a cargo runner.  I enjoy the increased danger of trying to go through places I shouldn't and especially the challenge of succeeding in delivering my cargo safely.  Part of it is that I suck at combat so I learned to become a greased pig and squirm my way out despite the efforts of extremely competent players from time to time.  If they succeed without exploits, I salute and move on.  Good Game and all.  Afterall, it's just a game.

But, I don't see CIG favoring any game style as much as accepting there are differing play styles and putting in rules that allow them all, with consequences.  Piracy done in hi sec areas will have consequence.  Solo play in low sec will also have consequence.  I am hopeful that regardless of groups, that high rewards go toward those taking high risks and low rewards to those doing low risk.  Pirates attacking in low sec should get less reward than those bold enough to attack in hi sec.  The reverse for solo cargo runners.  If I take a solo cargo run across a well patrolled route, I should expect less of a chance for attack but also a smaller payout per SCU.  If I do a solo run to Spider with well chosen cargo, I should expect a higher payout for my increased risk.  It just requires players to do research and planning.  Unfortunately, many don't.

Some of my most fun gaming was in Pirates of the Burning Sea where I would do solo cargo runs through contested seas.  I would plan everything out.  My skills, my ship, my fittings, my route.  Even time of day.  I would go in knowing that people would definitely /try/ to gank me and some might even succeed.  That was the challenge.  And, the thrills of successfully conquering that challenge was why I played even if I sometimes had 'issues'.  PvP doesn't always mean both parties are playing the same game.  Victory is in achieving your goals.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Squirrel said:

*snip*

Unless you leave Imperium and strike out on your own, you playing solo in dangerous waeters is just an unnecessary risk.

Good on you if you're competent and self-reliant, but the solo mindset needs to be broken if you intend to work in an org because you're no longer working for your own interests. Your costs and profits will be shared, so taking unneeded risks is just gambling with the org's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually not a part of Imperium but am checking out guilds I think I might like while I wait for the game to get more fleshed out.

I often, but not always, play solo.  But always at my own risk.  And, that is exactly my point.  People who play solo do so at their own risk.  The playstyle should be accommodated because it is quite popular.  But, it should not be favored in my opinion.  Just like group play should be accommodated but not favored.  Different strokes for different folks.  This seems to be the direction the Devs are going and I find that encouraging.  This is not a binary choice.

My history of gaming, which I am sure you don't know, is that I often do solo enterprises at great risk and share my enormous profits with my in game 'family' (guild).  I also often play support roles in large gameplay.  But, I find it frustrating to sit around doing nothing because a group is not available, so I play solo rather than not play at all.  I don't let others dictate my play times just as I don't try to dictate theirs.

I don't think any guild should be so intolerant of differing playstyles that they can't accept folks that play differently than others.  It is just as wrong to force all players to be one game style as it is to force them all to any other.  That will very quickly lead to a failed guild.  There are lots of different ways for players to contribute to any organization and not all of them fit into a narrow framework.  If it's Imperium's stance that only group play is acceptable, I would suggest making that clear to everyone early on so people like me won't waste their time.  If I'm misinterpreting a member's opinion from a leadership policy, my apologies.  Like I said, I'm not in Imperium and so don't know the leadership structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

I don't think any guild should be so intolerant of differing playstyles that they can't accept folks that play differently than others.  It is just as wrong to force all players to be one game style as it is to force them all to any other.  That will very quickly lead to a failed guild.  There are lots of different ways for players to contribute to any organization and not all of them fit into a narrow framework.  If it's Imperium's stance that only group play is acceptable, I would suggest making that clear to everyone early on so people like me won't waste their time.  If I'm misinterpreting a member's opinion from a leadership policy, my apologies.  Like I said, I'm not in Imperium and so don't know the leadership structure.

It's not policy, rather a stating of simple fact. This is how orgs/guilds and corporations have worked in MMOs for years: Your losses are shared, and your gains go to fuel the war machine that expands the group's domain. You now work for a collective interest. Your group's collective interest is furthered by group play, whether that be patrolling your waters, escorting cargo haulers, gathering intel, mining resources, or any other number of important tasks which all contribute in some way. Group play mitigates risk at some cost to efficiency and personal rewards, but in the end does more to further the group's interest than any one person could achieve. Individual efforts and initiative does go a way to keeping the lights on and the fighters fueled, but at some point you will have to submit to the group's demands of you and not make a fuss about it.

If that's what someone considers "intolerance of playstyle", then group play is probably not for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...