1. #7261
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyanion View Post
    Oh I read it, you don't want a hug box, but really that is what you want.

    Also, you say the thread is a dumpster fire of shitposting and here we are with you insulting me. Come on now, you can be civil about this.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Oh it is clear that an echo chamber is sought after. They can't handle negativity about their special dream game. Myobi made some great points and yet they are being ignored by the supporters of this game.
    I find it funny that someone provides quotes from the guy in charge and all they got to come back with is "derailing".

    And yet there are people in here praising the dude as if he's already won game of the year. Which let's face it this game won't ever win.

    Although it has won 2 awards. Wired gave it the Vaporware award and MassivelyOP gave it "game most likely to flop" award. Not even joking.

  2. #7262
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleccybubb View Post
    I find it funny that someone provides quotes from the guy in charge and all they got to come back with is "derailing".

    And yet there are people in here praising the dude as if he's already won game of the year. Which let's face it this game won't ever win.

    Although it has won 2 awards. Wired gave it the Vaporware award and MassivelyOP gave it "game most likely to flop" award. Not even joking.
    I guess the next milestone would be the "Duke Nukem Lifetime Achievement Award for longest game in development hell" in a few years.

    OT: I don't know what to think about this thread sometimes. Myobi provided useful information about the past of this game and yet it is ignored by the fans of the game. I mean I get being hype about a project and even being invested in it, but being blind about criticism is just weird.

  3. #7263
    You all are so preoccupied with arguing and calling each others asshats that you can't even follow the topic. Thanks for the answers.

  4. #7264
    Quote Originally Posted by Saphyron View Post
    I fully agree here with Myobi.

    You can call it soft P2W or hardcore P2W all you want its still P2W.
    P2Skip can be in both spectrums. Straight from hey I'm literally saving years of time vs I'm getting a small percentage more credits per mission.
    So which is it, P2W or P2Skip? To me the biggest difference is P2Skip you can't tell if someone has gained something through normal play or paying money. P2Win they'll have something that is only available for cash.

    The whole problem behind all of this is, its generated out of nothing. If it was closer to eve online i.e. everything is player driven and it had to be built by a player I would not have minded it too much. Because it means everyone starts at the same location. But this literally gives a headstart to those who spend more money. How big of a headstart well.
    So your objections to people paying money for in-game advantages disappear if it's part of a player-based economy?

    Based on the few missions I've done so far and the prices on the star citizen homepage for ships with ingame currency. That is a massive headstart. Heck, me starting the game I can't even do trading. Because the first ship has no cargo bay.
    Is that because you chose the fighter specialised ship instead of the all-rounder that does have cargo?

    You will have to grind 4500 credits from doing missions to get the smallest hauler in the game (as of now) the Aurora CL. Unless you buy that ship for 51 euro. (proof).
    I think you're misunderstanding what those prices are. REC is currency that you earn from playing the current game, you use it to rent ships - those 4,500 credits give you seven 24hr tokens to try out that ship. BTW if you are feeling buyers remorse about your choice of ship you can get an upgrade pack and only pay the difference between them, or you may be able to get a refund on your initial pledge and choose the package with a ship that can carry freight.

    Don't get me started if an organisation bought the Hull E which has 16384 times more space than the Aurora CL(Aurora CL has 6 cargospace, Hull E has 98304 cargospace. (which can't be bought anymore though)
    So?

  5. #7265
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    So which is it, P2W or P2Skip? To me the biggest difference is P2Skip you can't tell if someone has gained something through normal play or paying money. P2Win they'll have something that is only available for cash.
    This is a pretty archaic (or pedantic) viewpoint on it though. The common perception of P2W is buying an advantage for cash, that advantage can be as little as a +5% experience flask to some people or as much as $1500 spaceships to others.

    Paying to skip grind is still P2W because you gain a time advantage over other players, and in SC's case that time advantage can be significant. While one player is working their way up the ship ladder the other can be earning credits at a considerably faster rate which allows them to min/max their ships far sooner, making them considerably more of a threat to others, it allows them to get a foothold in the economy much earlier on, it allows them the freedom to pick the best resource spots on planets due to having the capabilities to hold and control etc.

  6. #7266
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    “no one gives a flying fuck about it!”

    *throws a ridiculous childish tantrum over it*

    Sounds legit… but then again, nothing really surprising about it at this point.

    Thanks for the original, kind, mature and totally not desperate answer to the points I just brought up mate.
    But, but, but, Roberts said he doesn’t care because “he knows what he’s developing”!

    When you look up ‘post-purchase rationalization’ you’ll see a picture of whoever is defending this pile of dung masturbating to a screenshot of some meaningless event in the ‘game’s’ current state.
    success comes in the form of technical solutions to problems, not appeals to our emotional side

  7. #7267
    Quote Originally Posted by 1001 View Post
    This is a pretty archaic (or pedantic) viewpoint on it though. The common perception of P2W is buying an advantage for cash, that advantage can be as little as a +5% experience flask to some people or as much as $1500 spaceships to others.
    I guess "pedantic" is one way of looking at it but I prefer "nuanced." Some games have microtransactions that give you something uniquely powerful that can not be matched through normal play. Whilst the games have now removed the systems, the best examples are the special gold ammo for World of Tanks and extra gear slots for RIFT.

    MW:O has (or at least had when I played) long discussions about whether certain hero mechs (ones that could only be bought with RL money) made the game p2w or if you could get something that played as well using only c-bills (the in-game currency.) According to you that conversation is moot as the fact any mech could be bought for money instead of grinded in-game made it pay-to-win.

    Paying to skip grind is still P2W because you gain a time advantage over other players, and in SC's case that time advantage can be significant. While one player is working their way up the ship ladder the other can be earning credits at a considerably faster rate which allows them to min/max their ships far sooner, making them considerably more of a threat to others, it allows them to get a foothold in the economy much earlier on, it allows them the freedom to pick the best resource spots on planets due to having the capabilities to hold and control etc.
    As I said, I disagree. Ignoring the fact that Star Citizen (and other, similar space sims) aren't games where "winning" really applies, I still don't think that paying to skip grind counts as pay-to-win unless the grind has been purposefully set so normal play would take a ridiculous amount of time to achieve (and of course everyone has their own definition of "ridiculous.")

  8. #7268
    Pay to win is as such, If you can pay for an advantage that another player can't have or will take any amount of time to get, It's a pay to win game. It's as simple as that, There isn't really any degrees, If you can pay for an instant advantage over a segment of the player base, It's P2W.

    There is no nuances to it.

    I backed Star Citizen at like the 40 dollar tier back in the day, right after the end of the KS I believe and I am just disappointed that they are so worried about selling more ships instead of developing the game at a better pace.

    Seriously, this game has hundreds of millions of dollars and this is how far they've come in 7 years? It's getting beyond ridiculous at this point.

  9. #7269
    Quote Originally Posted by ReD-EyeD View Post
    I didn't really follow any Star Citizen news or anything, only barely the surface. I'm just curious about performance optimizations.

    Now don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that everything we can touch right now or being shown to us is far from actual gameplay and just barely pre-alpha, but I'm still curious about how good it runs, even those little pieces. Please, give me a short briefing on that, I'm very interested.
    3.3.0's OCS has greatly improved framerate. I'm typically ranging between 40-60 FPS; though this drops a bit in Hurston, which I believe is still unoptimized. I haven't played during 3.4.0 yet, so I can't say if anything has improved since. I'm using a relatively old machine, but I am running on SSD, so I'd expect some better numbers on a better setup. I would expect 3.5.0 to deliver additional performance improvements with additional OCS improvements and server meshing, though those may be offset a bit with some network performance improvements allowing more players per instance.

    Personally, I'm probably going to wait until 3.6.0 before I really jump back in. At that point, the game should have the basic law/reputation system in place, and the first pass for salvaging, player performed repairing, ship-to-ship refueling, and guilds. Combine those with the mining, trading and transport, and bounty hunter stuff, and you have a pretty solid gameplay loop. This is, of course, assuming they hit all of their milestones. They did well during 2018, so here's hoping they are able to repeat that in 2019.

  10. #7270
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    … and by the 3rd or 4th time I can go over how much bullshit that is.

    You can apply that same logic to every game, “it’s not about winning, it’s about having fun!”.
    Most games have clearly defined goals or objectives. A lot of the time there is some sort of story or campaign to complete. Games like WoW you can define "winning" as seeing the story through, completing content on your preferred difficulty, getting BiS gear or completing one of the many dozens of grinds. Assuming Star Citizen sticks pretty close to Elite you don't really have that sort of end-point to go for. It's more about the simulated experience of being a spaceship pilot. Much like things like Euro Truck Simulator you don't really play them to "win," you play them because they're cool to play.

    As for the “pay-2-skip”, look, we can spend all day here coming up with new labels to avoid calling it pay-2-win, in the end the result is still the same, you are getting advantage over everyone else that isn’t paying the extra cash, now that doesn’t have to be necessarily a problem, take Warframe for example… a f2p game that you can buy pretty much EVERYTHING, from weapons to frames, with real-life cash, yet there it is, sitting with 235,808 (92%) positive reviews on steam, as one of the best examples of Free-to-Play done right on the market.

    Why? Because the limitations that are set around what may be described as a “Pay-2-Win” system, you can buy every single weapon in-game, yet you can’t use it till you reach X rank with it, and to level your rank you need to level unranked/low-rank tier equipment, and by the time you are done with that, you’ll probably be sitting on enough materials to craft the shit you want, meanwhile the only Player vs Player content of it, is a optional duel-system inside clan dojos…
    Now Google "Is Warframe pay-to-win?" and see how the community for the most part reject the notion, because they can grind and buy all the items in game without paying anything.

    This is a topic that could be easily settled if Chris Roberts just shined some light on the kind of measures that Star Citizen is adopting to make that kind of microtransaction tolerable to the players instead of just giving a way poor ass “it’s not about winning!” excuse or going on about how it’s not his concern despite being aware of the discussions around it.
    I'm pretty sure anyone who has bought in to Star Citizen would find the ship buying thing "tolerable" as that's been the model since its inception.

  11. #7271
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Jack View Post
    3.3.0's OCS has greatly improved framerate. I'm typically ranging between 40-60 FPS; though this drops a bit in Hurston, which I believe is still unoptimized. I haven't played during 3.4.0 yet, so I can't say if anything has improved since. I'm using a relatively old machine, but I am running on SSD, so I'd expect some better numbers on a better setup. I would expect 3.5.0 to deliver additional performance improvements with additional OCS improvements and server meshing, though those may be offset a bit with some network performance improvements allowing more players per instance.

    Personally, I'm probably going to wait until 3.6.0 before I really jump back in. At that point, the game should have the basic law/reputation system in place, and the first pass for salvaging, player performed repairing, ship-to-ship refueling, and guilds. Combine those with the mining, trading and transport, and bounty hunter stuff, and you have a pretty solid gameplay loop. This is, of course, assuming they hit all of their milestones. They did well during 2018, so here's hoping they are able to repeat that in 2019.
    This is very informative, thanks a lot. What rig are you running this on? "Relatively old machine" can mean literally anything.

  12. #7272
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    This thread has become a fucking dumpster fire... We don't expect this to be a bloody hug box but the amount of constant derailing of any attempt at discussion on topics about the game gets derailed. Can't even talk about a patch without...
    Honestly, I blame the poor moderation rules the most. They would rather Infract frustrated people that grow weary of the constant, consistent derailment, than ban the people who clearly have no real interest in the game other than posting in bad faith to ruin the thread. And even in the rare blue moon they are banned, it's like a 3 day and they're back at it for weeks or months before that happens again.

    I wish they had a way to at least ban people on a per-thread basis and just revoke their posting rights to this specific thread.

  13. #7273
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    I recommend you just using this section:
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/...s-amp-Feedback
    Instead of "derailing" the thread even further. Also, "frustration" is no excuse to start flinging around insults over a video game like a bloody child.
    They're well aware their moderation rules allow bad actors to goad users into reprisals and get away with nary a slap on the wrist. They've known for years. Hence why eventually frustration spills over when you feel you have no other outlet short of literally abandoning the thread to the wolves and discussing elsewhere.

    PS: That forum is not for moderation issues. They expect you to PM a mod to discuss mods... See the conflict of interest there? Also if nobody else can see what you write then it prevents discussion on the pros/cons of those ideas by other users. So it's literally your suggestion vs. the mods personal knee-jerk reaction to whatever you wrote.
    Last edited by stellvia; 2018-12-29 at 09:41 PM.

  14. #7274
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    Quote Originally Posted by stellvia View Post
    Honestly, I blame the poor moderation rules the most. They would rather Infract frustrated people that grow weary of the constant, consistent derailment, than ban the people who clearly have no real interest in the game other than posting in bad faith to ruin the thread. And even in the rare blue moon they are banned, it's like a 3 day and they're back at it for weeks or months before that happens again.

    I wish they had a way to at least ban people on a per-thread basis and just revoke their posting rights to this specific thread.
    I've lost count of how many posts I've reported for trolling in this thread, they aren't doing anything about it. Meanwhile I get an infraction for being snippy

  15. #7275
    Quote Originally Posted by Myobi View Post
    I don’t need to google it, I’ve sunk over a thousand of hours on it, I’m aware about it.

    …and I’ll say it again, it’s not just because you can “buy all the items in-game without paying”, because, you can’t, there are multiple items that are cash-only for your information, it’s mostly because the limitations that are set in place to prevent players from using the high-rank weapons before going trough the low-tier ones, among other reasons.
    Well if Warframe has weapons that give you an advantage that can only be bought for real money then I would say it was pay-to-win, and personally I'd consider that worse than Star Citizen where you will at least be able to earn everything in game. In fact I'm surprised that anyone defends a game that gives clear advantages for cash that can't be obtained through normal gameplay regardless of whther you have to level through lower tiers first.

    If I recall correctly, you could also just “grind” your shit in Star Wars Battlefront II… yet , guess what?
    I guess that they made the grind so long (through a random loot-box system) that people felt the only practical way was to put down real money - again with a random lootbox system so they wouldn't know how much it would cost - which puts it well within a "soft" pay-to-win as well as including the much maligned loot box system. Now if Star Citizen implements a similar system where you can only buy random boxes that may or may not have the ships you want I'd call it a pretty bad system, and if it's fairly difficult to get one of those boxes I'd say they were making it effectively pay-to-win, but I doubt that's the road they are going to go down.

  16. #7276
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Well if Warframe has weapons that give you an advantage that can only be bought for real money then I would say it was pay-to-win, and personally I'd consider that worse than Star Citizen where you will at least be able to earn everything in game. In fact I'm surprised that anyone defends a game that gives clear advantages for cash that can't be obtained through normal gameplay regardless of whther you have to level through lower tiers first.



    I guess that they made the grind so long (through a random loot-box system) that people felt the only practical way was to put down real money - again with a random lootbox system so they wouldn't know how much it would cost - which puts it well within a "soft" pay-to-win as well as including the much maligned loot box system. Now if Star Citizen implements a similar system where you can only buy random boxes that may or may not have the ships you want I'd call it a pretty bad system, and if it's fairly difficult to get one of those boxes I'd say they were making it effectively pay-to-win, but I doubt that's the road they are going to go down.
    I haven't played Warframe in a long time but IIRC, isn't it a PVE online game anyway? To me, pay to win isn't as big of a deal if it's a game that has no PVP in it. SC will have both, which I think makes it a bit of a different scenario, and will be entirely dependent on how the public vs private server thing is going to work out. In any kind of public game, pay to win = no bueno.

  17. #7277
    Quote Originally Posted by ReD-EyeD View Post
    This is very informative, thanks a lot. What rig are you running this on? "Relatively old machine" can mean literally anything.
    i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX970.

  18. #7278
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Jack View Post
    i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX970.
    SSD I assume?
    9

  19. #7279
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    SSD I assume?
    Yeah, they're about 2 yrs old. Samsung EVOs.

  20. #7280
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone Jack View Post
    Yeah, they're about 2 yrs old. Samsung EVOs.
    Once the new flight model releases next quarter, I'll finally be reinstalling.

    Get to see how well it runs on;
    i7-6700k @ 4.2GHz, 64GB RAM, RTX 2080, and a 1TB 970 Evo M2
    Btw, no...I didn't buy that much RAM. My brother did for some stupid reason, lol.
    9

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •