Worst timing on a decision I have seen from CIG so far

Esctasy

Admiral
Donor
Nov 28, 2018
483
1,533
800
RSI Handle
Esctasy
I'm really curious to know what the true reason for them implementing this actually is. Surely there are other things they can do with their time.
I hope it isn't their marketing team that came up with this, because that would be bad for SC going forward (letting marketing decide game function).
 

PeppaPigKilla

Admiral
Sep 15, 2019
449
1,407
800
RSI Handle
PeppaPigKilla
I'm really curious to know what the true reason for them implementing this actually is. Surely there are other things they can do with their time.
I hope it isn't their marketing team that came up with this, because that would be bad for SC going forward (letting marketing decide game function).
Finance dictates everything, in everything
 

Blind Owl

Hallucinogenic Owl
Donor
Nov 27, 2015
20,862
73,607
3,160
RSI Handle
BlindOwl
I'm really curious to know what the true reason for them implementing this actually is.
Right?! There's almost always more to the story than we know. People just tend to react emotionally without knowing the full story.


Also, for me, who rarely plays, this has no impact on my life. And when I do play, I won't know the difference, so I'm probably not the best one to be commenting, lol.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,755
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I'll have to wait and see how it effects me in game. I rarely have more than an hour to play at a time and if my Starfarer goes down at 50 minutes claim time before this change, that's game over until next play session.

The last time I had 3 hours to play I was put in prison for 3 hours because those Hippies at New Babbage sent me to the spaceport roof and then accused me of trespassing. I like their choice in soft toys but disrespect their choice in getting suckers off their planet.

EDIT - I saw a comment on that there Spectrum that makes a good point - if it's purely to stop players from useing it to replenish their ship stocks like ammo, fuel and missiles, if you only have Energy weapons that should make it negligible....? If so, that's a new kind of Meta right there.
 
Last edited:

Cugino83

Space Marshal
Apr 25, 2019
1,544
4,931
1,500
RSI Handle
Cugino
Indeed this is some stupid decision by business people who never played this game.

Here is my solution, feel free to upvote if you agree:
I like the Idea, but as first as @PeppaPigKilla mentioned that solution relay on the rearming mechanics that is, right now, the couse of a good amount of reclaim, second, this will not work for ship that have energy weapons (since you don't have to refill ammo) and as such will be unbalanced versus the ballistic setup.
The solution for tthe problem CIG has came up with is not a bad one, the problem is that right now it will severely impact a whole lott of peole at which is not aimed. Solution to this: fix the f***ing bug!


I guess they have to fix it at some point so they should not make changes until it's fixed.
I guess no...
Htere was a card in the roadmap for 3.2 (??? i Think don't remember exactly the patch) for substiture the actuall refuel and rearm menù on the mobiglass with an interaction console, like the trading one, that option got scrapped and since then there is no news about a different solution for that.
What piss me off mostly about this is that actually there are gameplay that relay on identify the ship on the pad that works dam well, I'm tolking of cargo and mining (or selling the minable actually).
If those system actually work why the hell CIG can't use the same base code logic to implement a new R&R system?! I'm not a programmer, but itt doen't seam so complicated to my un-educated point of view...
 

vahadar

Grand Admiral
Donor
Mar 4, 2020
2,787
9,071
1,250
RSI Handle
vahadar
The timing of this is about the dumbest decision I have seen from CIG
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/alpha-3-12-insurance-timer-and-price-changes-1

I do not agree with it and think it could use some more attention.

This is along the same lines as the problem with the decision here back in August.
https://testsquadron.com/threads/player-economy-3-10-player-time-roi.17802/

It is as if they do not want the average gamer with limited time playing this alpha.

They are just punishing us for bugs on their end... Even if people are abusing the system most probably, i bet most of us are mostly reclaiming because of game issues.

I will simply not play at all and wait for final release if they steal even more of my time when we are TESTING an Alpha right now, full of bugs, and when reclaiming a ship is most of the time the only solution.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,755
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I had to reclaim my Star-G today after a single Cutlass Blue took it out.

Last week claim time was 1.25 hours. Today, 45 minutes. Claimed my standard Starfarer, only 35 minutes, whereas before even the extension changes it was 55 minutes.
 

atpbx

Space Marshal
Jan 2, 2016
421
1,477
2,300
RSI Handle
General Fisting
Well, I put the boot into CIG all last weekend and most of the start of the week about how brain dead a decision this was (and they did roll it back quite a bit in the new patch).

You simply cannot charge people hundreds of dollars for digital assets, then deny people access to those assets because of YOUR incompetence.

Thats all it comes down to in the end.

However it did underline a more important point as well, excessive insurance timers are just not going to fly going forward for what ever reason, they will have to be kept in check or people simply wont play and more importantly wont PAY either.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,755
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Well, I put the boot into CIG all last weekend and most of the start of the week about how brain dead a decision this was (and they did roll it back quite a bit in the new patch).

You simply cannot charge people hundreds of dollars for digital assets, then deny people access to those assets because of YOUR incompetence.

Thats all it comes down to in the end.

However it did underline a more important point as well, excessive insurance timers are just not going to fly going forward for what ever reason, they will have to be kept in check or people simply wont play and more importantly wont PAY either.
I see it slightly differently - I don't see people claiming on insurance to get a afresh loadout of missiles or a top-up of Q fuel as incompetence, I see it as there being a path of least resistance which players are choosing to take over other options the game makers would rather you use. Their attemt to introduce more resistance to an exploit is not incompetence it's balance and Beta is going to be a world of butt hurt for those who think otherwise.

That said, no I don't feel they went around it the right way, as we have discussed in this thread just upping claim times blanket across the board in this stage of development is to not understand the reasons why backers must claim and assumes everyone is claiming to take advantage of an exploit where maybe only 30 percent of players are doing it for that.

At the end of every play session I claim all my ships back on insurance. I do it because it's easy to do and guarantees my next play session begins with all options available to me. Is it the only reason I claim? Hell no I claim twice as much because of bugs including gameplay problems refule/repairing in a legit way and also by being destroyed by PvP asshats who think the 'Verse and everyone in it is their own private shoot'em up.

I see a viable solution being penalties which build up over a chain of claims, starting with a couple extra minutes for a second claim building to additional hours after 6/7 claims and 3 hours jail time for persistent insurance fraud, like 5 claims in one play session where each claim is after missiles/ammo reaches zero.

IRL if you torch your car because it's unecenomical to repair it and claim the wreck on insurance you've committed fraud and there are IRL consequences for that. No reason why the 'verse should not have the same.
 
Last edited:

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,452
21,832
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
I see it slightly differently - I don't see people claiming on insurance to get a afresh loadout of missiles or a top-up of Q fuel, I see it as there being a path of least resistance which players are choosing to take over other options the game makers would rather you use. Their attemt to introduce more resistance to an exploit is not incompetence it's balance and Beta is going to be a world of butt hurt for those who think otherwise.
If they make it so I can refuel my ships, I would agree with CIG - but I can't always refuel. Once they fix that, and the 30K's and falling through the ship during QT - I might be more agreeable with it. Until then, it's just a huge annoyance.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,755
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
If they make it so I can refuel my ships, I would agree with CIG - but I can't always refuel. Once they fix that, and the 30K's and falling through the ship during QT - I might be more agreeable with it. Until then, it's just a huge annoyance.
Yep, I agree entirely - an exploit has been identified and in the eagerness to quash it all other possibilities for multiple claims have not been taken into account.

Remember when our ships were spawning without components? You had to claim to get a fresh spawn and get a working ship. Not sure if the attempt to kill the exploit would have been the same back then, but the community reaction sure would have been.

Even now, building penalties would have to be session/day specific as there are just so many things still going wrong in any given playthrough that need claims for other reasons.
 
Last edited:

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,452
21,832
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Yep, I agree entirely - an exploit has been identified and in the eagerness to quash it all other possibilities for multiple claims have not been taken into account.

Remember when our ships were spawning without components? You had to claim to get a fresh spawn and get a working ship. Not sure if the attempt to kill the exploit would have been the same back then, but the community reaction sure would have been.

Even now, building penalties would have to be session/day specific as there are just so many things still going wrong in any given playthrough that need claims for other reasons.
I'm not so sure it's an exploit, I think it might be people just getting frustrated. Rearming a ship is one of the options in the same menu as repair/refuel isn't it? None of that is working, for me at least. The only option is to claim the ship. To do that I have to travel to another location or fly the ship up and self destruct. If CIG doesn't like that, maybe they can suggest another alternative instead of blaming players.

Yeah I'm a little salty today. It took me 2 hours to get one of my ships launched and to the station I was going to because either the elevators or the trains at New Babbage were broken. Everything at the station was working fine, except I have no targets to quantum to from there - and I can't even make a contribution on the issue council because it's busted (at least, it is for me).
 

atpbx

Space Marshal
Jan 2, 2016
421
1,477
2,300
RSI Handle
General Fisting
I see it slightly differently - I don't see people claiming on insurance to get a afresh loadout of missiles or a top-up of Q fuel as incompetence, I see it as there being a path of least resistance which players are choosing to take over other options the game makers would rather you use. Their attemt to introduce more resistance to an exploit is not incompetence it's balance and Beta is going to be a world of butt hurt for those who think otherwise.

That said, no I don't feel they went around it the right way, as we have discussed in this thread just upping claim times blanket across the board in this stage of development is to not understand the reasons why backers must claim and assumes everyone is claiming to take advantage of an exploit where maybe only 30 percent of players are doing it for that.

At the end of every play session I claim all my ships back on insurance. I do it because it's easy to do and guarantees my next play session begins with all options available to me. Is it the only reason I claim? Hell no I claim twice as much because of bugs including gameplay problems refule/repairing in a legit way and also by being destroyed by PvP asshats who think the 'Verse and everyone in it is their own private shoot'em up.

I see a viable solution being penalties which build up over a chain of claims, starting with a couple extra minutes for a second claim building to additional hours after 6/7 claims and 3 hours jail time for persistent insurance fraud, like 5 claims in one play session where each claim is after missiles/ammo reaches zero.

IRL if you torch your car because it's unecenomical to repair it and claim the wreck on insurance you've committed fraud and there are IRL consequences for that. No reason why the 'verse should not have the same.
Thats not why people were angry.

People were angry about losing access to their ships for an hour and half because of a 30k, or it falling through a planet, despawning randomly, ejecting them into space during quantum, randomly exploding, spawning in damaged, quantum jumping into a planet, spawning with no doors etc, or quite simply there being NO WAY to refuel or repair your ship because no landing pads work.

Some people lost access to their entire available fleet.

The incompetence part is CIG introducing an event their servers and game code and economy cant handle and trying to balance it by introducing punitive insurance claim times across the board, no matter what the reason for losing hour ship and flat out refusing to address the majority of bugs that cause the claims in the first place.

Its a complete disconnect from their players and backers:

”Hey buy this Carrack for $600 its shiny look look buy buy”

”Oh no, our shitty servers and bug ridden code have made your ship disappear or explode, sucks to be you, you can now go fuck yourself for an hour and half you filthy exploiter”.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,755
43,207
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Thats not why people were angry.

People were angry about losing access to their ships for an hour and half because of a 30k, or it falling through a planet, despawning randomly, ejecting them into space during quantum, randomly exploding, spawning in damaged, quantum jumping into a planet, spawning with no doors etc, or quite simply there being NO WAY to refuel or repair your ship because no landing pads work.

Some people lost access to their entire available fleet.

The incompetence part is CIG introducing an event their servers and game code and economy cant handle and trying to balance it by introducing punitive insurance claim times across the board, no matter what the reason for losing hour ship and flat out refusing to address the majority of bugs that cause the claims in the first place.

Its a complete disconnect from their players and backers:

”Hey buy this Carrack for $600 its shiny look look buy buy”

”Oh no, our shitty servers and bug ridden code have made your ship disappear or explode, sucks to be you, you can now go fuck yourself for an hour and half you filthy exploiter”.
Yep, not arguing with you on that - the thread came to that conclusion and I attempted to reiterate that when I put:

"That said, no I don't feel they went around it the right way, as we have discussed in this thread just upping claim times blanket across the board in this stage of development is to not understand the reasons why backers must claim and assumes everyone is claiming to take advantage of an exploit where maybe only 30 percent of players are doing it for that."

However it seems I didn't get that across very well.

- EDIT -

I have a suspicion that this attempt to extend insurance timing was a result of the Attack On Stanton server event testing and the extension was to counter what I think was identified to be an imbalance in the insurance structure, where players might have been able to throw wave after wave of bodies at the Idris with ships full of fresh S9 torps until it fell, giving an artificial advantage to players over NPCs... Just a thought, no proof for that but the timing and the sudden delay in the mission coming to the servers just feels like they are related.
 
Last edited:

Cugino83

Space Marshal
Apr 25, 2019
1,544
4,931
1,500
RSI Handle
Cugino
...

I have a suspicion that this attempt to extend insurance timing was a result of the Attack On Stanton server event testing and the extension was to counter what I think was identified to be an imbalance in the insurance structure, where players might have been able to throw wave after wave of bodies at the Idris with ships full of fresh S9 torps until it fell, giving an artificial advantage to players over NPCs... Just a thought, no proof for that but the timing and the sudden delay in the mission coming to the servers just feels like they are related.
If that is the case it means that this was an even more stupid decision: I0ve no doubt that there'll be some player willing to reclaim the ship to avoid the R&R cost and to speed up the process (suicide and respawn is faster then fly to the pad, request landing, and R&R), but that event, deleayed or not, is not granted to involve all the players all the time, and even less impact all the ship (890J, 600i...).

So even if that is the reason for this solution I think it has a big grade of shittiness, especially consider all the other reason for a player have to reclaim his ship right in the current state of the servers.
 

atpbx

Space Marshal
Jan 2, 2016
421
1,477
2,300
RSI Handle
General Fisting
Yep, not arguing with you on that - the thread came to that conclusion and I attempted to reiterate that when I put:

"That said, no I don't feel they went around it the right way, as we have discussed in this thread just upping claim times blanket across the board in this stage of development is to not understand the reasons why backers must claim and assumes everyone is claiming to take advantage of an exploit where maybe only 30 percent of players are doing it for that."

However it seems I didn't get that across very well.

- EDIT -

I have a suspicion that this attempt to extend insurance timing was a result of the Attack On Stanton server event testing and the extension was to counter what I think was identified to be an imbalance in the insurance structure, where players might have been able to throw wave after wave of bodies at the Idris with ships full of fresh S9 torps until it fell, giving an artificial advantage to players over NPCs... Just a thought, no proof for that but the timing and the sudden delay in the mission coming to the servers just feels like they are related.
Thats exactly why they did it bud.

The game is not ready for an event like that, neither the servers or net code can handle it, and the game itself is too buggy to support it.

Its like they have no idea what we have to put up with in SC, their internal testing is either made up of complete idiots, or they dont play on the live servers, only local network.
 

Cugino83

Space Marshal
Apr 25, 2019
1,544
4,931
1,500
RSI Handle
Cugino
...., or they dont play on the live servers, only local network.
^^ This one...
Most likely the internal testing is made on local servers that, even with the higth player cound doesn't have to deal with network latency for all the player.
It's a reasonable solution to keep the internal cost down, since large stability test are not, I suppose, a major thing to test internally, that is the purpose of the PU, what they need to test is that the major feature and the general playability is not falling apart.
 
Forgot your password?