Avenger__1 video on ship combat as of 3.24

[Cugino83]

Tuning and balancing takes time as I'm sure you're aware, it also takes all of the components of MM to be in the game, to date quantum boost isn't in. So how are you going to balance an incomplete product?

I agree with that, except CIG is constantly doing the opposite.
The weapons and component flattening happens several years ago so why doing that if half or so of the then needed to fully balance them is not in there yet?
Why nerf ballistic weapons ammo count to the point of making them worthless if the ships' armour game play are not in game (and very likely not even on work)?

Form the time CIG have work on mining they get into the habit of spitting out half baked system the then abandon them, as they do with ship naming just to name another example: released on 3 ship and then left rotting with not only all the old ships not being updated, but also all the newer ship release not having that function (at least as far as I know).

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

The weapons and component flattening happens several years ago so why doing that if half or so of the then needed to fully balance them is not in there yet?

At what point several years ago were we ready to balance the ships in game? Wouldn't that be more prudent when they are using the FM they want going forward? Does it make sense to balance ships and their flight capabilities first, then weapons and armor? Seems a logical process to me. Doing it in a replaced flight model would only mean they'd be doing it again with a new flight model.

 

[Bruttle]

Im not watching 43min of what ever he is saying, but in gaming terms, the solution is PVE and PVP servers.

Or the mythical PVP slider.

100% this.

It's one of the reasons why I haven't jumped back into the game. Non-consensual PVP is rarely gratifying for anyone but the aggressor. The main reason is because the aggressors in these encounters almost always make their actions incontestable. They attack with overwhelming force because they can. They do it because, why wouldn't they? "Hire guards" is usually the response, but if you do the aggressors will just bring more until it's overwhelming again. Hence the "zerg". It will always be this way because the aggressors choose the conflict, not the players being attacked.

That means that the players will spend hours/days/weeks gathering resources only to loose it immediately in a completely imbalanced conflict. The aggressor has zero investment and zero risk but all the reward while the non-aggressor has all the investment and risk. That leaves a game with all aggressors and no time investors. Everyone that was interested in investing the time and effort into creating the conflict generating resource leaves the game. Next thing you know, it's just a bunch of aggressors fighting over nothing in a shell of a game that quickly dies. We have all seen this happen over and over again.

MMO after MMO has tried to find a way around this issue. Many have stuck to their vision and kept non-consensual PVP integral to their game. The first one I came across was Aion. It was fun, gorgeous and ended quickly when nobody could progress due to non-consensual pvp where they had 0.00% chance of winning due to overwhelming force. When the community complained and asked for PVE servers, they stuck to their guns with the explaination "if we made pve servers, nobody would play on the pvp servers". That was the dumbest arguement I have ever heard.

Trying to balance this game based on non-consensual pvp is similarily dumb. It won't work. There's no way it can work. It's too complex of a system. PVP in any game lives and dies by the "meta". Anything out of the meta, without overwhelming skill gaps, dies. Simplicity is the only way and that is not this game. They need to incentivise consensual PVP, not empower non-consensual PVP. I've seen far too many games throw away their potential and die because of this issue.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

100% this.

It's one of the reasons why I haven't jumped back into the game. Non-consensual PVP is rarely gratifying for anyone but the aggressor. The main reason is because the aggressors in these encounters almost always make their actions incontestable. They attack with overwhelming force because they can. They do it because, why wouldn't they? "Hire guards" is usually the response, but if you do the aggressors will just bring more until it's overwhelming again. Hence the "zerg". It will always be this way because the aggressors choose the conflict, not the players being attacked.

That means that the players will spend hours/days/weeks gathering resources only to loose it immediately in a completely imbalanced conflict. The aggressor has zero investment and zero risk but all the reward while the non-aggressor has all the investment and risk. That leaves a game with all aggressors and no time investors. Everyone that was interested in investing the time and effort into creating the conflict generating resource leaves the game. Next thing you know, it's just a bunch of aggressors fighting over nothing in a shell of a game that quickly dies. We have all seen this happen over and over again.

MMO after MMO has tried to find a way around this issue. Many have stuck to their vision and kept non-consensual PVP integral to their game. The first one I came across was Aion. It was fun, gorgeous and ended quickly when nobody could progress due to non-consensual pvp where they had 0.00% chance of winning due to overwhelming force. When the community complained and asked for PVE servers, they stuck to their guns with the explaination "if we made pve servers, nobody would play on the pvp servers". That was the dumbest arguement I have ever heard.

Trying to balance this game based on non-consensual pvp is similarily dumb. It won't work. There's no way it can work. It's too complex of a system. PVP in any game lives and dies by the "meta". Anything out of the meta, without overwhelming skill gaps, dies. Simplicity is the only way and that is not this game. They need to incentivise consensual PVP, not empower non-consensual PVP. I've seen far too many games throw away their potential and die because of this issue.

This is what I believe Master Modes is all about. Speed is the only mechanic which (in an undisruptive way) dominates Combat which otherwise dominates and can force itself on all others to the detriment of the target, as outlined in this old thread here:

Some thoughts on Player Verses Player when it lacks the "Verses"

Hello TESTies. TL;DR I'm not sure but I think I've observed a complication with multi-disciplinary PvP games which might be giving a misleading impression whenever anyone says "SC is a PvP game" it's more than that and I might have picked up on something which has always been there but I don't...

testsquadron.com

Master Modes with it's weapons hot low speed or weapons off high speed forces combatants to make a confrontation an intentional one with Quantum Dampening. No longer is it able to be aggression on a whim, it has to be intentional, if you want to chase a target in Cruise mode you yourself have no weapons to hurt them making it just more difficult to play the sociopath simulator...

It's just unfortunate it's just so janky changing between Modes, it in part denies the joy of flight we used to get in SC... if the change was natural based off cooler capacity shutting down heat vulnerable systems like weapons and shields as the ship got faster with a speed limiter for combat speeds rather than separate bands, I feel it would be a lot more fluid and enjoyable.

 

[Smashdaddy]

I am also questioning how I feel about having to spend a lot of time getting ready and prepared to do something then when I start doing it getting popped and then spending the rest of my gaming time trying to get ready to do it again, along with drinking eating going to the toilet and having a shower... I can just do IRL those things lol

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

I am also questioning how I feel about having to spend a lot of time getting ready and prepared to do something then when I start doing it getting popped and then spending the rest of my gaming time trying to get ready to do it again, along with drinking eating going to the toilet and having a shower... I can just do IRL those things lol

CR has said multiple times that this will have survival aspects in the game, otherwise there are responses like "you smell" if you don't shower before going to the Hurston corp center not showering and going into a McDonalds to order food to eat indoors would elicit the same response. He's also stated that planning whatever mission you want to do. If you don't want to plan intricately like multiple stop cargo hauling compared to commodities trading because the former takes a lot more planning than the latter.

 

[Sky Captain]

For PVP to exist in a largely PVE-dominated universe, we'll need to see CIG eventually focus much more on factional gameplay (in some form) than we have seen so far.

It feels that Star Citizen has light years to go on this because, as is, we barely see any Vanduul vs. UEE gameplay in their updates. But maybe they are withholding this until the release of SQ42.

What would factional PVP game play look like in Star Citizen? A UEE-oriented 'order' faction vs. a pirate-oriented 'chaos' faction, with a chance for orgs to affiliate with one faction? Something else?

 

[Bruttle]

If they can pull off always on PVP without resorting to PVE and PVP servers, it would be amazing. I hope they can, but I've only seen games die an early death trying to pull it off. People are going to be people. I don't blame anyone for that. However, the ones getting attacked will always plan for the minimum possible investment for maximum profit. So they will take their investment risks with the least possible protection. The attackers will always plan for maximum effort, because they take no risk. It's all profit with no investment. It's a horrible design that no game that I know of has broken out of. I haven't seen a single game that makes the attacker risk as much as those being attacked.

As @Thalstan and @KuruptU4Fun mentioned though, if they flood the universe with NPCs, that might just do it. If the NPCs are easier targets than players, the problem will just sort itself out. Pirates are free to pirate and will largely take the path of less resistance. So the NPCs will be the target and not the player. I can see it working if they can pull it off and do it right. It would take a huge shift and change of focus though. I think it will need to be a mix between flooding with NPCs and balancing the risk though.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I am also questioning how I feel about having to spend a lot of time getting ready and prepared to do something then when I start doing it getting popped and then spending the rest of my gaming time trying to get ready to do it again, along with drinking eating going to the toilet and having a shower... I can just do IRL those things lol

This is perhaps a good time to remind folks, SC is not a game yet. We’re not players. We’re play-testers. So the whole notion of grinding doesn’t actually make much sense. It’s really far smarter to focus on learning the game mechanics than playing high Rick roulette by trading, mining, etc. In the future the core systems will be far lower risk than they are now.

So for example, if you want to mine, now is the time to develop your own intel sources for mining, without taking so much of the risk of mining.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I haven't seen a single game that makes the attacker risk as much as those being attacked.

What is supposed to happen is every time a crimestat player appears in core world space, half dozen security flying Penguins and such show up, and a contract is simultaneously issued through the bounty system. The security craft merely need to delay players who show up in Redeemers and such and expect to make short work of their bounty.

None of this is in play yet, but it will be. I don’t see why it should not work. The SC computer knows every time a crimestat appears anywhere. Surely it can create some troopers.

 

[Smashdaddy]

well I see what you guys are sayin and it sounds good and all but..

if I have 2-3 hours a night to play it wont take many nights of not being able to achieve what I am tryin to do and no success before people move onto games that have things that can be achieved in that time.

I do love the game but if it turns out to be to much time preparing and too little time doing in the game it will putter out I think.

 

[BUTUZ]

well I see what you guys are sayin and it sounds good and all but..

if I have 2-3 hours a night to play it wont take many nights of not being able to achieve what I am tryin to do and no success before people move onto games that have things that can be achieved in that time.

I do love the game but if it turns out to be to much time preparing and too little time doing in the game it will putter out I think.

Agreed, we do not want real life sim 2.0

 

[Scape]

I'm useless at dogfighting, In every iteration of the flight model since I joined....I think I'm the problem...

 

[NomadicHavoc]

@Scape: You wouldnt be the only flight challenged pilot. I’ve never been particularly good at flight sims either.

 

[NomadicHavoc]

As @Thalstan and @KuruptU4Fun mentioned though, if they flood the universe with NPCs, that might just do it. If the NPCs are easier targets than players, the problem will just sort itself out. Pirates are free to pirate and will largely take the path of less resistance. So the NPCs will be the target and not the player. I can see it working if they can pull it off and do it right. It would take a huge shift and change of focus though. I think it will need to be a mix between flooding with NPCs and balancing the risk though.

Agreed. I think CIG also alluded that there might be a certain percentage of NPC pilots that are better skilled than others. Love this…especially if they have overall different characteristics like they are developing for NPC soldiers. That is, some might be more or less aggressive (attack vs flee), while others might be heavier on the trigger than others. Whatever CIG can do to make NPC pilots feel unique from one engagement to another, would be great!

 

[KuruptU4Fun]

well I see what you guys are sayin and it sounds good and all but..

if I have 2-3 hours a night to play it wont take many nights of not being able to achieve what I am tryin to do and no success before people move onto games that have things that can be achieved in that time.

I do love the game but if it turns out to be to much time preparing and too little time doing in the game it will putter out I think.

Then plan for what you want to do and then acquire the means to do it. BH only requires a flight suit and helmet, bunkers requires a flight suit, helmet, backpack and a pistol/ ammo. If you take along a P4 then grab minimal ammo as it can easily be replaced by dead NPC's, this applies to med pens as well.

Hauling requires a MT, tractor component, and a tractor rifle, all which can be added to just a flight suit and helmet. going between stations allows you access to food and water so you really don't need those.

 

[Han Burgundy]

The idea of PVP and PVE servers is naturally going to be included in the game via Star System security status. Your interaction with others on the battlefield will be determined by practicality and not some gameified system. If you want to gank players in a high-security system then get ready for a nearly instant security Hammerhead to jump in and play with your butthole. Everyone seems to be forgetting that, all said and done, there are supposed to be 100 star systems and I believe they can pull it off with the tools they've been building.

 

[Ayeteeone]

Lots of good thoughts here, I appreciate that all of you have kicked in on the discussion.

Some of my underlying 'angst' (if you will) from the original post relates to the loss of Todd Papy as Director of the PU. He had a clear idea of how it was intended to work, and an understanding of the problems we have been kicking around. He was also willing to put himself out there to talk with people 1 on 1, and gave me well over my fair share of time at CitizenCon. I am not sure who is filling that hat atm.

From a gameplay perspective, there ARE a lot of details which are not fully implemented, or not in the game at all yet, which could have a mitigating effect on non-consensual PvP. This is in my opinion the single biggest hurdle that CIG faces for the game to succeed commercially.

On that, I'd like to point out that retribution-after-the-fact is not a highly functional deterrent. EvE Online, though it still limps along today, is absolutely famous for it's Cliff of a learning curve and very high rates of new player failure. Within the 'High-Sec' star systems exists a brutal retaliation response.. it spawns in overwhelming law enforcement immediately. But the cost for commiting acts against other players isn't steep enough to prevent the behavior; it literally just becomes the cost of doing business. CCP accepted this, possibly even intended this, but the game has struggled financially for much of it's existence because this reality filters out the casuals who actually pay the bills.

 

[Bambooza]

Lots of good thoughts here, I appreciate that all of you have kicked in on the discussion.

Some of my underlying 'angst' (if you will) from the original post relates to the loss of Todd Papy as Director of the PU. He had a clear idea of how it was intended to work, and an understanding of the problems we have been kicking around. He was also willing to put himself out there to talk with people 1 on 1, and gave me well over my fair share of time at CitizenCon. I am not sure who is filling that hat atm.

From a gameplay perspective, there ARE a lot of details which are not fully implemented, or not in the game at all yet, which could have a mitigating effect on non-consensual PvP. This is in my opinion the single biggest hurdle that CIG faces for the game to succeed commercially.

On that, I'd like to point out that retribution-after-the-fact is not a highly functional deterrent. EvE Online, though it still limps along today, is absolutely famous for it's Cliff of a learning curve and very high rates of new player failure. Within the 'High-Sec' star systems exists a brutal retaliation response.. it spawns in overwhelming law enforcement immediately. But the cost for commiting acts against other players isn't steep enough to prevent the behavior; it literally just becomes the cost of doing business. CCP accepted this, possibly even intended this, but the game has struggled financially for much of it's existence because this reality filters out the casuals who actually pay the bills.

Indeed ccp failed at the whole gradient security and threat response from beta forward. In fact they balanced their game initially around the long grind and limited battleships in play but that was soon thrown out the window with jet can mining and how it utterly wrecked the economy.

The issue with pve is one of content creation. As the players are digesting the content created by designers and even with procedural poi as found in no mans sky and starfield the gameplay tends to be limited and engagement wanes quickly. Even with juggernaut like WOW the player population significantly drops months after each content patch.

One of the easy ways around this is with player driven emergent game play where players by their actions create new poi and engagement. It's why fps games generally do not see the same short lived spike in their player numbers. And it's why eve online has such a rabid fan base so many years later.

It is why game features like base building and com sats are so very interesting as they give meaning to pvp. The first being a contested area with value hopefully beyond just a flag on the ground and the later a way for pirates to invest in the risk of opertunity.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I’m curious what others think. I know Avenger believes pirate fighters the hands down winner in every contest they create (which arguably should be the case), but I have to wonder what percent of such contests are against fully crewed ships? Most multies are still being flown solo. So what happens when pirates attack a fully crewed Reclaimer with a couple fighters escorting?

I always hear the objection that miners and haulers can’t afford to pay escorts, but I think we all know that is bullshit. Haulers and miners make great cash. So let’s set the bullshit aside. When is the last time pirates even bothered a fully crewed Reclaimer with escorts?

Also I must object to Avenger’s flawed reasoning. While it is true no one who is being pirated is having fun, it is also true that without the pirates, no one would have fun when they’re successful. Haulers and miners are grateful when they escape the nuisance of being pirated. That wouldn’t be so with no pirates.