Is Killing Justified in Star Citizen?
- Thread starter Wolfy
- Start date
Sounds like a great policy.
There have been a number of games that have tried to make a system where death has meaning and impact. Some of them introduced a hard core mode where if you died the save files were deleted. Eve tried to incorporate a time/financial penalty with having to buy a new clone and any of the implants lost on top of replacing ships and components. To a degree it was successful but gamers being crafty found loop holes to exploit the system. The final part that any of the pvp systems have shown is their is power in numbers and so gamers typically just grouped up into mass organizations and then go around flexing their might against smaller groups. It is going to be interesting to see how having a significant population that is not player controlled will have on the player population and their actions. I have a feeling that its all going to depend on how strong the AI is, if it can be exploited and the penalties for death.
This is a very real and possible risk and will be detrimental to the game play and the longevity of the game.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
Okay so, you believe then that if the consequences of unlawful killing in game are harsh enough, then we would be best off to avoid killing. If the consequences are not harsh, grief on! Is that your position? No reason to not kill unless the consequences to us individually are in some utilitarian sense preventative?
I can buy that. It's just a game, but I would not willing waste time with a game that embraces griefing.
I'm not advocating any position, i'm advocating the perspectives that influence individuals positions. While someone may find the pleasure they gain from being a dick and griefing worth it, others may enjoy staying inside the "law" and not killing. I'm interested to see where people fall on the spectrum in regards to lawlessness and law-abiding. I'm not stating my particular position yet.
Griefing is one of those undefined terms as it really depends on the perspective of the individual. I as an outlaw have targeted you and pushed you out of the airlock as it saved me on ammunition. From my perspective you just happen to have cargo and a ship and I had the means to liberate it from you. It was not like I was targeting you specifically just the opportunity presented itself and I weighted the risk and took the chance. You as the victim of the boarding and spacing could easily view it as griefing as you were not looking for a fight and in fact more then likely were actively avoiding the confrontation. And yet you were killed your cargo and ship stolen and are now negativity impacted by the experience due to the lost of time and resources. The experience is compounded further if this wasn't the first time such a action happened to you during this play time even if an outside observer can clearly see that your actions significant increased your chances of this outcome. IE not hiring a security wing and/or flying a risking route due to the high payout.
Or the scenario of a gunman shooting everyone who comes out the airlock at grim hex. It could be they don't trust anyone and are simply providing cover for the transfer of rare illegal goods and cannot take the risk to trust anyone. Or they can just enjoy being a dick, but from your perspective how can you tell what is the truth or is the default to think they are a griefer and should be banned?
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I think one needs to look at the perceived gain. Killing someone because you want to take their stuff is not griefing. Killing them because that's fun, when you derive no benefit from it, is griefing. When people play psychopathic mass murders they make the game less fun for everyone and do indeed need to be banned. And a trip to the shrink would be good too.
Yet the individual killing and not taking the victims stuff because they are providing area security would be easily perceived as being a griefer. And i think a lot of us could spend some time before a shrink for a magnitude of reasons. My kill count in BF4 alone would make many a dictator jealous.
I agree... but in life we get one shot... no do-overs, no exploits... one thing is certain in life. Someone who dies 50x in two weeks, I do not understand why that is beneficial. I would say we think about growing our clones, max 3 at a time, with a month gestation period for each one. That way the players cant suicide their way around the universe. They would have up to 3 lives to waste then they are stuck until one grows. Could this impact the player base - yes of course, could this impact the bottom line for star citizen, yes... but I still think this could provide a interesting twist. For first person shooter... maybe use the Dark Matter TV show (transfer transit) method where you get a clone that can live for 24 hours... if the clone dies all the xp is gone. So you get one chance to board this ship... if your clone dies you are sol - but you are ok (minus the money you lost in armor and equipment). The last person standing or objective met wins. No re spawns, you end up back at your home station - no harm done.
I don't know... I'm just trying to find a happy medium. There has got to be a better way, and I am sure it not rocket science.
Last edited:
Maybe SC will hire Joseph Mallozzi - He is a awesome story teller
https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/
https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/
The perma-death mechanic.
Sooner or later although your character may be saved from a near death experience a few times your character will die - it's always been Chris Roberts intention to have this as a mechanic in the game. Your next of kin or person named in your will inherit your gear, likely minus Death Taxes, and then you have to start all over again building a name for your new character who was a nobody until the point they inherited a load of stuff and a huge beef with the guy who killed your original body.
Wouldn't it be crummy if you'd spent 200 hours building up a character with great rep and even got a bit of a name for yourself in the SC community, and then someone who just bought a starter package and wants to make an instant name for themselves by killing one of the bigger presences in the 'verse comes and blasts you in the head.
Game over man, game over!
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
There are many, many reasons that indiscriminate killing ruins the game. Chris Roberts has always said the top of his list is immersion, and though many don't care to roleplay, some do. If you're roleplaying with a psychopathic serial killer on the loose, pretty much everyone will drop what they'r doing and end the guy. And here's the rub--one small child out of control in the SC universe is empowered to upset that universe and ruin people's playtime, for no reason other than that they can. Roberts knows from past experience that emotionally disturbed children will play like this so he plans to have strong measures in place to make the whole universe much more plausible and enjoyable.
Lets be honest griefers occur in all games and killing will be that for some and actually just normal gameplay for others (i.e. not actually griefing).
I think the nature of funding in this game will very much encourage some to grief, the same way a Porche will get keyed some ships will be targets. Maybe they can actually do whale shooting missions?
I think the nature of funding in this game will very much encourage some to grief, the same way a Porche will get keyed some ships will be targets. Maybe they can actually do whale shooting missions?
Imagine that as an old character, whoever had quiet a few near deaths already, you start play it safe. Basically you will become a pensioner, move to the Florida planet and trynot to go outside the safe zone. Emergent gameplay! :D
Or you can keep playing dangerously for more rewards, but risk being shot in the head by above mentioned psychotic noob. Your choice.
Or you can keep playing dangerously for more rewards, but risk being shot in the head by above mentioned psychotic noob. Your choice.
Grimm_Reaper
Space Marshal
Depends on my role in the universe. If I'm an assassin for hire, its my job. If I'm a bounty hunter and the person I'm capturing is easier to handle dead than alive then sure. Its all about the situation I'm in and my job.
We need to make the distinction between indiscriminate killing, aka griefing and legitimate gameplay, aka combat. If the griefers aren't held in check, the game will fail.
What won't kill the game is imperfect immersion. It will never be total. While the game universe is a simulation of the future 800 years on, it is entirely inhabited by 21st-century gamers, who bring their 21st-century cultural references into that future.
How many of us have signed up with the names we've grown attached to in other MMOs? Will you be able to suspend your disbelief when you find yourself in a dogfight with a x_DeathFairy_x or an ElfenCrunk? Hell, Maynard G. Krebs (the G is silent) is a character from a 1950s American television comedy.
What matters is whether the gameplay is fun and engaging. Will the game design allow the expression of our timeless human needs and aspirations? Can we find a sense of purpose in the Persistent Universe? If so, even if achieving that purpose involves virtual killing, the game will succeed.
Last edited: