|
On June 02 2014 18:06 loginn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2014 11:22 Orcasgt24 wrote:On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_- Typing pay to win is shorter than typing pay to have better success then someone not paying. Same damn thing. That fact that people are even denying the pay to win aspect of this game is hilarious. At launch the guys who spent money will be at a HUGE advantage and the more they spend, the bigger that advantage. Over time that advantage will shrink in theory but I highly doubt that. They will likely just add more stuff to buy. So the people who spend money will always beat the people who do not spend money assuming equal skill. And I'd wager the money player beats the no money player even if the no money player is marginally better then the money player. Assuming large skill gaps is pointless. It doesn't matter what race I play, I'll never beat Soulkey, Maru or Zest in SC2, regardless of the handicap. Same goes here. If someone is leagues better than you, you lose. Just like in any other PvP game What if my goal is to enjoy the game ? What if success to me is feeling some progression, as I get richer and have a feeling of accomplishement when I get a better ship ? Surely then this is pay to win ! I don't give a fuck about guys having the best pvp ships cause they paid for it. Good for them. I just want to enjoy the game and do w/e the fuck I want. Maybe I'll try to gank big ships one day, and maybe I'll never do it. So what ? Just enjoy the game, and let people who want to pay, do whatever they want. I'm the kind of person that wants to fight. Exploring is boring. That achievement in wow was the longest hour of gaming ever(Human priest named using ACSII characters Dora, needed that title ).
So for me to enjoy the game, I have to pay to create a level playing field since the ability to sink in time is not possible yet and even if I do, they money players are also sinking in time + money meaning I can not really ever catch up. That kind of system makes the game unenjoyable because what I find enjoyable isn't fair.
The system is broken and I along with many others have made posts about the mammoth flaws. The response of well just play and you can get the stuff too is flawed as well because money players also play and thus get to use their in game money on whatever else other than ships.
|
On June 02 2014 11:22 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2014 07:23 loginn wrote: Let me get this straight for you. There is NO WIN in Star Citizen. You CAN'T WIN the game. It's not a game made to be won. It'd be as if you could say : Yeah I got to the end of the main storyline in Skyrim, so I pretty much won the game. -_- Typing pay to win is shorter than typing pay to have better success then someone not paying. Same damn thing. That fact that people are even denying the pay to win aspect of this game is hilarious. At launch the guys who spent money will be at a HUGE advantage and the more they spend, the bigger that advantage. Over time that advantage will shrink in theory but I highly doubt that. They will likely just add more stuff to buy. So the people who spend money will always beat the people who do not spend money assuming equal skill. And I'd wager the money player beats the no money player even if the no money player is marginally better then the money player. Assuming large skill gaps is pointless. It doesn't matter what race I play, I'll never beat Soulkey, Maru or Zest in SC2, regardless of the handicap. Same goes here. If someone is leagues better than you, you lose. Just like in any other PvP game What if my goal is to enjoy the game ? What if success to me is feeling some progression, as I get richer and have a feeling of accomplishement when I get a better ship ? Surely then this is pay to win ! I don't give a fuck about guys having the best pvp ships cause they paid for it. Good for them. I just want to enjoy the game and do w/e the fuck I want. Maybe I'll try to gank big ships one day, and maybe I'll never do it. So what ? Just enjoy the game, and let people who want to pay, do whatever they want. [/QUOTE]
Yes, more power to you, you can enjoy the game no matter what other people do Great. Just don't call other people morons and idiots because they say people get crazy advantages for buying ships like other people in this thread do. Because that would be ridiculous.
On June 02 2014 01:53 Maxhster wrote: game hasnt even reached balancing phase, stupid internet nerds still debating pay 2 win. Most of the smaller Spacecrafts are going to be VERY VERY similiar in performance. Most of the bigger ones are bad at dogfighting. You can upgrade your shit with ingame work, most of the hulls that you buy are just that, empty hulls. And it will be Play to Win much more than it will pay to win, but explaining this to fucking idiots who can only read the pledge page and dont bother having an in depth look isnt worth anyones time.
The Pledges are there to support development, a stock Aurora will be able to fight a stock Hornet. An upgraded Aurora will probably have an easy time with a stock Hornet. You dont "get what you pay for", you pay mostly for aesthetics.
Like you. You are ridiculous. The difference between a hornet and a Aurora is cosmetic? Are you serious. Have you seen the specs?
Aurora: 2 Class 1 hardpoints, 1 class 3 hardpoint Hornet: 2 Class 1, 2 class 2, 2 class 3 1 class 1 hardpoint
How are these ships comparable. How is the aurora, a slow, fat jack-of-all-trades ship in any way able to beat a hornet, ever, against an equally skilled pilot?
And to those that brought the exploration argument up, that one is even more one-sided. A player starting with an aurora has to manually unlock equipment needed to explore and then has to use a ship not designed for it or buy a ship designed for it. Meanwhile, a ship specially designed for exploring has been sold a 1000 times for cash. That player might even already have the basic equipment for exploration on that ship. And he can start with it on day 1. Now, how many people will be able to find and cartograph a wormhole for the first time? 1. How many uncharted Wormholes will a player without a pledge find? 0?
Now, i am not saying i hate the game for it, but denying that you can buy incredible advantages over other players in that game is delusional.
|
On June 02 2014 18:06 loginn wrote:What if my goal is to enjoy the game ? What if success to me is feeling some progression, as I get richer and have a feeling of accomplishement when I get a better ship ? Surely then this is pay to win ! what? no, you just start with whatever ship and work your way up; nobody is stopping you.
On June 02 2014 19:00 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm the kind of person that wants to fight. ... So for me to enjoy the game, I have to pay to create a level playing field since the ability to sink in time is not possible yet and even if I do, they money players are also sinking in time + money meaning I can not really ever catch up. That kind of system makes the game unenjoyable because what I find enjoyable isn't fair. no, you're wrong. you're assuming everyone will be doing this, and they won't. furthermore, you are free to stay in more secure space until your ship is upgraded how you like, or you have the ship you want. finally, there will be some measure of match-making, so it should be fair regardless of what ship you have.
again, people are blowing this way out of proportion. what someone else does will have little-to-no impact on your gameplay, unless you choose it to. there are always options; you don't have to go out into the middle of nowhere with your aurora alone.
|
I haven't called anyone a moron or an idiot Oo.
What if my goal is to enjoy the game ? What if success to me is feeling some progression, as I get richer and have a feeling of accomplishement when I get a better ship ? Surely then this is pay to win ! @CycoDude I was being sarcastic.
|
No, Maxhster did. You just said that you don't care whether it's pay2win or not and that is as valid an opinion as it gets. Heck, i am pretty sure that i won't ever argue in game that i got beaten in a fight cause the other guy threw cash at the monitor.
However, i get madly green when i see people saying money gives you no advantage in this game. It's like playing WoW on a pvp server, everyvody started the same day but some people started at level 30. And you say, it doesn't really matter, just don't define your goal as being the first to clear the top raid instance, stay in noob areas all the time and don't join the pvp queue.
Will i only fight Idrises with my Aurora in the first week of gameplay. No i won't. Will i be able to participate in "high level" content in the foreseeable future? No, i won't.
|
Northern Ireland20834 Posts
This is not to say concerns can't be raised, albeit I'll see how it all develops. There are cases to be made for 'P2W' elements, namely that as far as I can tell the demographic most excited for this game seems older, so real life commitments will cut into playing time, so enabling shortcuts to content can equalise things that way. In addition the money for such ships etc adds an incentive at the dev end to keep developing yet more content.
Roberts seems confident that the game being a realtime sim will enable skill to invariably out. I haven't seen much to prove that assessment either way at this stage. Don't underestimate the power of hatred of the rich either :p I can see some clan coming in with all their expensive ships, other players banding together and ganking and adding some spice to proceedings.
I just haven't been this excited for a game in forever. I'd contend that this kind of title cannot really be made with the current studio model, with cross-platform support being so financially important. Funding it how they are, involving the community and enabling them to focus on a high-end PC market gives them the potential to actually pull this off.
Can we not all be excited guys? :p been waiting for something genuinely next-gen of this ilk for forever.
|
On June 02 2014 20:13 Broetchenholer wrote: No, Maxhster did. You just said that you don't care whether it's pay2win or not and that is as valid an opinion as it gets. Heck, i am pretty sure that i won't ever argue in game that i got beaten in a fight cause the other guy threw cash at the monitor.
However, i get madly green when i see people saying money gives you no advantage in this game. It's like playing WoW on a pvp server, everyvody started the same day but some people started at level 30. And you say, it doesn't really matter, just don't define your goal as being the first to clear the top raid instance, stay in noob areas all the time and don't join the pvp queue.
Will i only fight Idrises with my Aurora in the first week of gameplay. No i won't. Will i be able to participate in "high level" content in the foreseeable future? No, i won't.
comparing this to wow, saying "high level content"... you are hopeless beyond retribution. THIS IS NO FUCKING MMO, get that into your head. This is a new Wing Commander release with more realistic flight, its basically a glorified flight sim. Theres not gonna be a giant world boss, there wont be EPIC PHAT LOOTS that you need to grab straight away. Your misconception of what this game is gonna be is the problem here.
You say that an aurora will be beaten by any Hornet based on stats that are not only subject to change, but the BALANCING phase of the game hasnt even started yet. Its bitching about a problem that is a non-issue as of this moment. I get that you feel some kind of entitlement as any MMO-player does, but this game is different. As i said before, you dont get what you pay for with the higher value ships, they will be easily available ingame. Anyone who pledged for more than an aurora and wasnt aware of this is a fool.
|
Are you for real? You want to argue that the hornet and the Aurora will be balanced? In Privateer, a game that is probably the spiritual ancestor to Star Citizen, did all the ships have only cosmetical differences? No, their power progressed with your time played. You started with a sorry excuse of a ship in a safe area and if you wanted to get into harder territories, you upgraded to a centurion or whatever after some time. Both ships were roughly the same compared to Aurora and Hornet, one with 3 weapons max, one with 6 if i recall correctly. Of course Idrises will be balanced versus several fighters, but that does not mean all fighters are as strong as each other. And if different ships have different power levels, then different game areas need different powerlevels as well. And if there are areas with different powerlevels, those areas progress in rewards to reflect the higher risks. And that means that people starting with a more expansive ship, be it one Idris or 5 Hornets or 3 Constellations, will make more money as people who start with 5 Auroras. And be ahead in PVE Content which will of course exist like in an MMO. Or Privateer. Or Freelancer. Or Starlancer. Or Eve. Or WoW. Yes i compared it to WoW, again. And believe it or not, it will have some form of endgame pve content as well. Because that is how people justify spending tons of time on a game, by feeling a form of progression.
If it wouldn't have that, they wouldn't have any content for the solo space farer who just wants to play an extended single player campaign and Roberts stated more then once, that this game wants to serve that guy as much as everybody else.
|
single player content is squadron 42s singleplayer campaign... but im guessing you left that out on purpose? everything else is gonna be a big sandbox like DayZ.
|
On June 03 2014 01:08 Maxhster wrote: single player content is squadron 42s singleplayer campaign... but im guessing you left that out on purpose? everything else is gonna be a big sandbox like DayZ.
And what they're arguing is that it would be like starting with supplies, guns, and ammunition because you paid more for the game when everyone else starts with nothing, and getting dropped into the same areas to tackle the same challenges. Sure it is possible for the people with nothing to come out on top due to sheer skill and a little bit of luck, but it doesn't diminish the fact that the others had an advantage to begin with.
I'm one of the people who bought a Hornet, so I'm certainly not going to complain about it, but I understand where these concerns are coming from. But this guy is right in that without any factual information about how balancing will take place, it's kind of silly to complain about it. For all we know they may have some ingenious way of leveling the playing field while making people feel like they got their money's worth, we just don't know it yet. They certainly have enough money to come up with such a system.
|
DFM has been officially announced and in process of release.
|
On June 04 2014 15:16 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: DFM has been officially announced and in process of release.
yuuup, here we go , 10 gigs to glory.
|
Northern Ireland20834 Posts
|
On June 04 2014 16:39 Wombat_NI wrote: DFM?
the dogfighting module. Now titled Arena Commander. The game will be developed in modules so that backers have something to play with. The first module was the hangar where you could walk around and see your ship. Now there's the dogfight module v0.8 with a bunch of single-pilot-fighters (Aurora, Hornet, 300i) that you can fly around and fight with in a few game modes. (It will be single-player modes at first and they will slowly give multiplayer access to players). This is basically the alpha-access they promised: instead of getting alpha of a full game they'll release modules with the different parts of the game.
After this, the dogfighting module will slowly be updated with the other small ships and then with bigger ships (like the Constellation etc.). Also there will be a module for the FPS-combat that will then be combined with the dogfighting module so you can board ships and fight in them (also 0G FPS-combat!). Some time after that they willl release the first 10 missions of the campaign as a module, then slowly add more episodes, then the module of the persistent universe with only a few star systems and finally a real beta with everything combined and then after that (my guess would be in 2-3 years) the final game.
|
On June 02 2014 23:28 Maxhster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2014 20:13 Broetchenholer wrote: No, Maxhster did. You just said that you don't care whether it's pay2win or not and that is as valid an opinion as it gets. Heck, i am pretty sure that i won't ever argue in game that i got beaten in a fight cause the other guy threw cash at the monitor.
However, i get madly green when i see people saying money gives you no advantage in this game. It's like playing WoW on a pvp server, everyvody started the same day but some people started at level 30. And you say, it doesn't really matter, just don't define your goal as being the first to clear the top raid instance, stay in noob areas all the time and don't join the pvp queue.
Will i only fight Idrises with my Aurora in the first week of gameplay. No i won't. Will i be able to participate in "high level" content in the foreseeable future? No, i won't. comparing this to wow, saying "high level content"... you are hopeless beyond retribution. THIS IS NO FUCKING MMO, get that into your head. This is a new Wing Commander release with more realistic flight, its basically a glorified flight sim. Theres not gonna be a giant world boss, there wont be EPIC PHAT LOOTS that you need to grab straight away. Your misconception of what this game is gonna be is the problem here. You say that an aurora will be beaten by any Hornet based on stats that are not only subject to change, but the BALANCING phase of the game hasnt even started yet. Its bitching about a problem that is a non-issue as of this moment. I get that you feel some kind of entitlement as any MMO-player does, but this game is different. As i said before, you dont get what you pay for with the higher value ships, they will be easily available ingame. Anyone who pledged for more than an aurora and wasnt aware of this is a fool.
poor delusional you. You are so wrong. It will turn into an MMO because THATS WHERE THE MONEY IS ... massivley multiplayer oinline, there will be character progression, it will be massive and it will be online. Not every game is wow, some games are pay to win (oh wait).
The game has a subscription so how is it not going to be an mmo? How else do you get peopel to play the same game for years on end if it doesnt turn into one.
WAKE UP and smell the EPIC PHAT LOOTS as you say.
You sound like one of these fanboys that were about when people were saying the difficulty ramping in diablo 3 was wrong.
|
Northern Ireland20834 Posts
The most excited and hyped people for this seem to be folks who are:
1. Fans of his former games. 2. People who like the scale and scope of traditional MMOs, but find their combat systems limited. 3. People who want a more immersive and less grind-focused game, gear focus and are looking something more sandboxy.
I might be wrong, I just don't see them attempting to suck the fan base dry by importing the worst aspects of MMOs. Myself I think this looks potentially awesome, I've been reading about Eve lately and I love the idea of space MMOs, but it seems to be insanely grind-heavy.
@Yello cheers for the additional info, it was just the acronym that threw me. I read there are 5 separate modules being worked on ATM, one is the aforementioned, another is the walking around and I'd assume the other is the server architecture. Any ideas what the additional ones are?
|
On June 04 2014 18:15 Wombat_NI wrote: The most excited and hyped people for this seem to be folks who are:
1. Fans of his former games. 2. People who like the scale and scope of traditional MMOs, but find their combat systems limited. 3. People who want a more immersive and less grind-focused game, gear focus and are looking something more sandboxy.
I might be wrong, I just don't see them attempting to suck the fan base dry by importing the worst aspects of MMOs. Myself I think this looks potentially awesome, I've been reading about Eve lately and I love the idea of space MMOs, but it seems to be insanely grind-heavy.
@Yello cheers for the additional info, it was just the acronym that threw me. I read there are 5 separate modules being worked on ATM, one is the aforementioned, another is the walking around and I'd assume the other is the server architecture. Any ideas what the additional ones are?
afaik it's Planetside, First-Person combat, Arena Commander, the Persistent Universe and Squadron 42 (the single-player/co-op-campaign)
btw it's now working. I'm still downloading the patch but some people are already streaming (I found this stream: http://www.twitch.tv/kgb_hitman)
|
It's not even about the money. It's about basic game design. People want to progress, people want to feel like they are improving their situation all the time. Which is why ships are getting better, more expensive, "loot" is getting higher. The only game that can do without this basic principle of gaming is one that is based solely on competition. Like CS.
And although competition will be a huge part of the game, it's not just a lobby with games starting every 10 seconds. Squadron 42 is the pure singleplayer campaign, yes, but that does not mean there won't be pve content in the persistent universe. They already stated, that ai pilots will ship goods if there are no players around. Basically every part of the gameplay for humans will be also done by the ai, be it pirating, smuggling, transport and so on. So that a low skilled player can use his little ship in a sysytem with pvp-restrictions and still have something to do.
And if a game has this kind of pve content, it also means that firsts will go to the group that is willing to invest the most money in this. Most of us won't ever realize that they are missing out on something. First, because their matchmaking should provide equal fights. But also, because we wouldn't be in the position to challenge those endgame firsts anyway, so who cares. And third, because, if they do it as they stated, it's not eve, people are not completely locking whole production branches and space regions off by being the first to be at this point.
But still, i will never be able to be the guy that found a wormhole and got it named after himself. Ever. That pretty much is the definition of pay2win. I won't be able to participate in content if i don't pay money. I am not even pissed about it, i am just pissed about the people who insult those that mention it.
And if that does not make sense to you and you still think i am hopeless beyond retribution, a fucking idiot and a stupid internet nerd, then i really can't help you.
|
On June 04 2014 19:14 Broetchenholer wrote: It's not even about the money. It's about basic game design. People want to progress, people want to feel like they are improving their situation all the time. Which is why ships are getting better, more expensive, "loot" is getting higher. The only game that can do without this basic principle of gaming is one that is based solely on competition. Like CS.
And although competition will be a huge part of the game, it's not just a lobby with games starting every 10 seconds. Squadron 42 is the pure singleplayer campaign, yes, but that does not mean there won't be pve content in the persistent universe. They already stated, that ai pilots will ship goods if there are no players around. Basically every part of the gameplay for humans will be also done by the ai, be it pirating, smuggling, transport and so on. So that a low skilled player can use his little ship in a sysytem with pvp-restrictions and still have something to do.
And if a game has this kind of pve content, it also means that firsts will go to the group that is willing to invest the most money in this. Most of us won't ever realize that they are missing out on something. First, because their matchmaking should provide equal fights. But also, because we wouldn't be in the position to challenge those endgame firsts anyway, so who cares. And third, because, if they do it as they stated, it's not eve, people are not completely locking whole production branches and space regions off by being the first to be at this point.
But still, i will never be able to be the guy that found a wormhole and got it named after himself. Ever. That pretty much is the definition of pay2win. I won't be able to participate in content if i don't pay money. I am not even pissed about it, i am just pissed about the people who insult those that mention it.
And if that does not make sense to you and you still think i am hopeless beyond retribution, a fucking idiot and a stupid internet nerd, then i really can't help you.
I think this a really good post. I usually fight very hard against cash shops/p2w. I'm also not to concerned with the paw options in Star Citizen. I think the above points pretty much nails it.
|
Just played my first fight in the arena commander. Making big changes of direction is really hard, but the game is really fun. Graphic wise, it's beautiful, although design wise, the dying star is really much better looking than the broken moon (for those wondering, these are the two currently playable maps).
For now it's basically a space shooter, with waves incoming when you kill the previous one. I made it to wave 5 before i had to abandon ship because of a collision. TBH, collisions are probably my main cause of death in the game so far. You're flying towards an enemy, you kill it then collide with the wreckage -_- Also missiles are really fucking powerful afaik.
I'm not too found of the missile UI though. It takes too much space and is too eye catchy, especially since there's a voice telling you "missile locked", so I don't need a big ass red circle twice the size of anything else on screen. And I don't need an animation for it either, I'd rather have it blink around the target rather than coming all across the screen from nowhere.
Anyway, Arena Commander is really nice and I can't wait to try and fly with you guys.
|
|
|
|