And if you delve into the article I mentioned, it details that modern displays use the kind of high frequency spatial images that are conducive to more sensitive awareness.
The article you linked literally offers conflicting viewpoints. Chopin is not DeLong. Additionally, we're not talking about reaction times, but, again, the experience. With VR, the need for higher framerates is exacerbated due to the visual stimuli presented on our periphery, which is even more sensitive to such rate changes. Chopin makes the argument that we cannot react any faster above 24hz, not that it is imperceptible.
Can you imagine getting the recommended 90 fps from Star Citizen?
While the UI might have been built with VR in mind, what about all the other no no's? Loss of character control, forced camera movements, bobbing etc.
Given that the human eye usually cannot see a meaningful difference beyond 24 fps (maybe 40 fps for extreme lateral movement), i do not see a need for 90 fps. 24 Hz is movie industry standard for a reason.
Everything must also be rendered twice (once for each eye) which is why most VR games... look the way they do.
Thank you for that source. Interesting new datum.
>>>"...The higher the refresh rate, the less perceptible flicker is. This is one of the reasons it is so critical to run at 75fps v-synced, unbuffered. As VR hardware matures over time, refresh rate and frame rate will very likely exceed 75fps. .... " >>>>
I may have to revise my estimate on effective lower fps limits w.r.t. the VR issue.
In the chapter about simulator sickness i guess you refer mostly to sickness from "Flicker", maybe from "Latency and Lag", correct ? I have not seen a sentence that directly says "...75 fps minimum is recommended to avoid simulator sickness...".
And if you delve into the article I mentioned, it details that modern displays use the kind of high frequency spatial images that are conducive to more sensitive awareness.
The article you linked literally offers conflicting viewpoints. Chopin is not DeLong. Additionally, we're not talking about reaction tomes, but, again, the experience. With VR, the need for higher framer ates is exacerbated due to the visual stimuli presented on our periphery, which is even more sensitive to such rate changes.
I did delve into the article, thank you for that source.
Hmm, we seem to have different starting points ... you speak more about experience, i speak more about effectiveness.
Effectiveness was the more important issue in topics i have looked into in the past, related to VR in space mission analog research e.g.
While I understand the effectiveness argument, as @Phaserlight mentioned, the experience is first and foremost. If wearing VR makes you physically sick, you won't be able to enjoy the effectiveness.
We can perceive changes faster than we can react to them. That makes sense, if only for the fact that the reaction has to follow the perception, and there's a delay between perceiving and firing the motor neurons needed to move your body in reaction.
As an aside... When the VR technology reaches a point where I can have one of those "walking pads" in my office to play FPS war game and such... Nirvana is close!
As an aside... When the VR technology reaches a point where I can have one of those "walking pads" in my office to play FPS war game and such... Nirvana is close!
One of those ? (All direction treadmill)
Have fun
PS: Those walking pads i showed in my picture are nice, but do not feel like the real thing. You could make them yourself with a bit of effort and DIY skills. However, they ARE a cheap and a useful start into the topic of VR simulation and walking around.
With the gameplay we’re adding in to 3.0.0, we’re conscious that there may be some other players that would love to kill you and take your ship. To help prevent this, we wanted to implement some basic security that will allow you to lock the ship, so only you have the ability to pass freely through its doors. Part of this work includes adding destruction for external ship doors to allow for the other half: basic breaching / boarding."
So this seems to follow up the requests that made them confirm the ability to lock ships in 3.0, but with that brings in basic breaching by adding the ability to destroy doors.
About VR in Star Citizen: I don't think it's any hurry to implement it, since we don't have graphic cards powerful enough to play the game in VR yet. The VR glasses aren't ready yet either, IMO. Time will work for our benefit though. The game will be more optimized and frame rates going up, while new generations of graphic cards will provide the necessary output to get 90+ FPS on each eye in glorious 4K. But for StarEngine to output at least 180 FPS the general PC hardware must be improved and it'll take years until this hardware is available to the average consumer.
The 3.0's update mobiglas latest cut bits, the UI in 1st/3rd person:
And a more completed look at the star map:
Also on the mobiglas, people talking on hacking/jamming the UI, say, being affected by one EMP:
Another relevant bit is how they are going for the heart rate to have that impact Stamina has, as seen here: http://imgur.com/a/XMqoA ~~ Shows the heart rate impacting Oxygen consumption.
Not sure if they would add a "stamina bar", though the heart rate achieves the same thing.
Seeing the term hacking reminded me that with several systems there is no way it all runs server side.So how is the SC team going to handle real game hacking?On the fly byte checking?Not handle it at all,so cheating will be the fun side of gaming?
You cannot make a pvp game and not be fully integrated to handle cheating because it will exist big time.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Seeing the term hacking reminded me that with several systems there is no way it all runs server side.So how is the SC team going to handle real game hacking?On the fly byte checking?Not handle it at all,so cheating will be the fun side of gaming?
You cannot make a pvp game and not be fully integrated to handle cheating because it will exist big time.
Hacking is no doubts server-side, say hacking a ship is your ship but it's spawned in by the server, and its stats are maintained by the server, just like MMO's do with character health, etc...
BDO for example even moved skill casting timers to the server to prevent cheating, it's just one of the annoyances they will have to deal with.
So we were having a convo in Spectrum about a random of different things, here's some dev words on roleplay, rewarding game mechanics, penalties for reckless behavior, passive income (AFK play), and piracy vs. griefing
"Forced RP concepts are the worst thing possible for actual in-game roleplay. Incentivise, never force."
"Don't expect conventional-mmo progression mechanics just slapped onto things. We haven't been building anything like that."
"How well you perform an action/activity will be based on the tools you have available and how well you execute the actions."
"You won't have some back-end baby-sitting mechanic artificially making you better just because you ground out enough grind points."
"Like I felt I progressed a ton when we launched the Buccaneer for how well that build-out went for the ship. Didn't need some arbitrary stat-bar incrementing."
"We're aiming to be something different. We're not aiming to just be another conventional MMO though."
"SC is not a hotbar-masher MMO, it's not being made just to offer the same experiences other existing hotbar-mashers offer. We're trying to make something new."
"Though just for other game-mechanics, like the electrical you mentioned, making things just a parity of IRL also isn't always the best option. Some things will need abstraction for approachabilities sake."
"To enough extent, just because we're still building out systems, there won't be any actual answer to a lot of those questions. The best thing you can do is not expect existing MMO conventions to be followed though."
"We're trying to be different, to make something new."
"Having activities have rewards to them, sure, those things can happen, but those reward structures and means of aquisition don't have to just be built off conventional-mmo systems."
"Like making a chain of titles just because you do activity X well Y times, those are the most boring, souless non-content systems in gaming."
"The catch is making sure the in-game activity lives up to that challenge, and isn't something that can be botted/macroed/wiki-walkthroughed. That its something where if your hands tremble, you fail."
"If you mess up the inputs, that should be the lynch-pin, not some stat-sheet progression gate."
"In part a big chunk is just making sure piracy has just as stiff a consequence when caught/captured."
"Pirate some cargo? probably get away with a slap on the wrist. kill a man? expect to not get far past a UEE checkpoint. that sort of deal."
"Even go back a few weeks to the happy-hour where we started talking a bit more about the insurance systems. We're not trying to accomodate reckless behaviours. Expect that to extend to all-aspects of the game."
"Just herp-derp shooting whoever? Guess what! You're probably going to be caught/killed and enjoy some super fun penalties for it."
"Just like if you herp-derp ram your ship instead of using any caution while flying. Eventually, you're going to cross a fun cost/benefit threshold where you'll end up the losing participant."
"Pirates can be AI just as much as they can be players."
"I don't think we've ever said all pirates are just player-pirates."
"Something else to consider with any PvE / PvP balance is that neither side deserves to exclude participation from the other outright. IE, PvE doesn't deserve to whole-sale ignore/remove PvP aspects, just like PvP-centric players don't deserve to ignore/remove PvE aspects. The game is going to be a blend of both."
"Eh, I'm also personally vehemently against any notion of passive-earnings/income."
"People should be required to be actively involved at all times, or stop expecting to get anything from it."
"owning a refinery then waltzing off to profit is passive"
"AFK lame-play isn't gameplay though."
"Ya, from my time being a GM, the real notion of if something was griefing vs just pvp always centered to "Is the person going after the player or the character."
"If your goal is attacking the person at the controls, that is griefing, dick move. If you're just interrupting an in-game thing from happening unimpeeded, that's just gameplay happening."
"The line I'd draw between griefing and piracy was already stated: If they're attacking the player behind the controls, griefing. If they're just attacking a character in-game using normal game mechanics, normal gameplay."
The big caveat here is that these comments must be taken with a grain of salt and in no way means this is the official stance on the discussed mechanics and how they will actually play out when released; from reddit.
Reading this and the continued tone in which that they've expressed the outright protection of players, gives me the impression the average survival shooter fan is not going to enjoy PvP in this game. Pirating in lawless space will have to be lucrative on both sides in order for this to be interesting and the difficulty in recovering from death, destroyed vessels/property and penalty for piracy seems steep.
Every time Goonsquad/SA/DS post salt on Star Citizen, I spend more money on it. Every time a mentally disturbed former backer or Elite CMDR toxic emo comments, I spend more money on it. Every time they refuse to answer why they spend so much time arguing about a game they don't even like, I spend more money on it. Want to watch the world burn because you can't have your way? You got whats coming to you.
Reading this and the continued tone in which that they've expressed the outright protection of players, gives me the impression the average survival shooter fan is not going to enjoy PvP in this game. Pirating in lawless space will have to be lucrative on both sides in order for this to be interesting and the difficulty in recovering from death, destroyed vessels/property and penalty for piracy seems steep.
A part that is missed in that resume from the convo I lost also is the population cut. The numbers claimed are as before, 90% AI, 10% Players, that means from the ground-up PvP is very unlikely if the population gap is that large.
But the thing is they make piracy as part of gameplay, not just "bad players", but the driver of piracy needs to be in lawless areas, not on the lawful ones that are policed, from what I can tell the most dangerous areas are not monitored but also are highly rewarding, risk vs reward balance.
But PvP/Piracy still seems to have a place in lawful areas, with their ability to disable comm arrays/etc that will turn communications that would report crimes down, what allows for the possibility without consequence but certainly won't be easy to pull off.
Honestly the fact that it has open-world PvP with consequences (for both victim and pirate) at all means that there's a high chance Star Citizen will be more niche than people might realize. History has shown that open-world PvP, no matter how much the developers try, always ends up being appealing to only a small amount of people while ostracizing a whole lot more. The only alternative is to smack down on it with a karma system so harsh and restrictive and/or remove the consequences for the victims so much that it almost becomes pointless to be there in the first place, like what WoW and Black Desert did to their open-world PvP mechanics.
Honestly the fact that it has open-world PvP with consequences (for both victim and pirate) at all means that there's a high chance Star Citizen will be more niche than people might realize. History has shown that open-world PvP, no matter how much the developers try, always ends up being appealing to only a small amount of people while ostracizing a whole lot more. The only alternative is to smack down on it with a karma system so harsh and restrictive and/or remove the consequences for the victims so much that it almost becomes pointless to be there in the first place, like what WoW and Black Desert did to their open-world PvP mechanics.
You could be right. Honestly, my main motivation to back SC was SQ42. I know some others are in the same boat too.
Honestly the fact that it has open-world PvP with consequences (for both victim and pirate) at all means that there's a high chance Star Citizen will be more niche than people might realize.
If they are going for 90% AI vs 10% Players, that being achieved alone makes the open-world PvP itself the niche, being the world NPC-driven.
This includes piracy, NPC pirates, etc...
Most importantly, the fact pirates would not have to focus on PvP other players to get something out piracy, with the existence of lawful AI on that scale. And that is what drives so much PvP on games where if you are one "unlawful" player you don't really benefit from it if you don't PvP. The moment in SC say raid one AI Trader ship, breach into and take over the ship/cargo, is something of importance to embed Piracy into PvE.
Honestly the fact that it has open-world PvP with consequences (for both victim and pirate) at all means that there's a high chance Star Citizen will be more niche than people might realize.
If they are going for 90% AI vs 10% Players, that being achieved alone makes the open-world PvP itself the niche, being the world NPC-driven.
This includes piracy, NPC pirates, etc...
Most importantly, the fact pirates would not have to focus on PvP other players to get something out piracy, with the existence of lawful AI on that scale. And that is what drives so much PvP on games where if you are one "unlawful" player you don't really benefit from it if you don't PvP. The moment in SC say raid one AI Trader ship, breach into and take over the ship/cargo, is something of importance to embed Piracy into PvE.
Trying to mix the PvP with PvE in the karma system adds a whole ton more complications and balance cans of worms. Like, how do you balance what's a working proper consequence and punishment for a pirate who only targetted AI vs one who targetted players? How would a pirate being able to gank NPC ships change how much he ganks other players? When death has varying consequences, will it or won't it be too stressful for a non-PvPer to always have to worry if that pirate out there is a plausible PvE target or a PvPer that's going to kick his ass and take his stuff? And technically vice versa for anyone playing a pirate, but I'd be kinda surprised if anyone playing a pirate wasn't doing so for the PvP in the first place. On that note, another potential issue to deal with is would most player pirates (assuming most of the PvP lovers gravitate towards pirates) even WANT PvE? These are just a small amount of possibilities that will come on top of all the other complexities and salt and players actively searching for loopholes that an open world PvP system brings to any MMO.
Making something 90% AI vs 10% players is the equivalent of taking an amusement park sandbox and then periodically sprinkling deadly antlion quicksand traps throughout 10% of it. On paper you'd think maybe some players would find that fun and exciting to never know if that antlion trap is around the corner in the sandbox, but again, history has shown that in the end, most people end up hating that sort of thing.
Alternatively, I'll repeat that if they're really seeking to make the world primarily NPC driven and trying to make PvP a super rare niche thing, then it potentially becomes just like so many other open-world PvP games where they ended up relegating the PvP to such a niche that it probably wasn't worth the time, resources, and extra heapings of sphaghetti code (in an MMORPG that, if they somehow manage to pull it off with all its features, will already have a ridiculous amount of sphaghetti code) to have it there in the first place.
Maybe they'll magically have an open world PvP game where everyones' having fun and it isn't niche. If they pull that off, it'll be the first successful attempt after a history of failed attempts. Lots and lots and lots of failed attempts to do it (or at least, to do it while also having it be mainstream). But really, assuming they can do that is the equivalent of wishing upon a shooting star, especially in a game that already has so many other complex systems that will affect the PvP and vice-versa. Of all of Star Citizen's myriad of features, tech, and complexities they intend to have in the game, "an open-world PvP game with consequences that isn't niche" is probably going to be the hardest one to pull off. At that point you're not just working against a difficult programming task. You're working against human nature, itself.
Maybe they'll magically have an open world PvP game where everyones' having fun and it isn't niche. If they pull that off, it'll be the first successful attempt after a history of failed attempts. Lots and lots and lots of failed attempts to do it (or at least, to do it while also having it be mainstream). But really, assuming they can do that is the equivalent of wishing upon a shooting star, especially in a game that already has so many other complex systems that will affect the PvP and vice-versa. Of all of Star Citizen's myriad of features, tech, and complexities they intend to have in the game, "an open-world PvP game with consequences that isn't niche" is probably going to be the hardest one to pull off. At that point you're not just working against a difficult programming task. You're working against human nature, itself.
The driver of PvP in open-world mixed with PvE is the fact you do not get real benefit from piracy/unlawful gameplay if you do not PvP other players, that is the core driver of it; side of those who just PvP cause that's their focus.
The game design itself drives multiplayer interaction, see the missions they're creating, You are one Lawful Player set to get a mission to say recover something in a ship wreck to return it to the client, the game in the other back is generating the same mission to Unlawful players to get that same item with another objective. So that is generating possible PvP on the fly.
The smart approach to this, is to make the PvP the higher focus in late-game, on Organizations, and the higher-tier dangerous areas of the game, because by the time PvE-focused players reach late game I think you would already be under one Org and would have support to focus in PvE activities as those who want to focus on PvP activities.
But it's just what the game is, it has one important side of PvE/co-op that is the multi-crew that no doubt is when in late game becomes a necessity, promoting group play moves away from that typical vibe on open world PvP where you just feel it's you vs everyone. We will see the approach they take as it develops but surely will be driven by the feedback given on this.
Maybe they'll magically have an open world PvP game where everyones' having fun and it isn't niche. If they pull that off, it'll be the first successful attempt after a history of failed attempts. Lots and lots and lots of failed attempts to do it (or at least, to do it while also having it be mainstream). But really, assuming they can do that is the equivalent of wishing upon a shooting star, especially in a game that already has so many other complex systems that will affect the PvP and vice-versa. Of all of Star Citizen's myriad of features, tech, and complexities they intend to have in the game, "an open-world PvP game with consequences that isn't niche" is probably going to be the hardest one to pull off. At that point you're not just working against a difficult programming task. You're working against human nature, itself.
The driver of PvP in open-world mixed with PvE is the fact you do not get real benefit from piracy/unlawful gameplay if you do not PvP other players, that is the core driver of it; side of those who just PvP cause that's their focus.
The game design itself drives multiplayer interaction, see the missions they're creating, You are one Lawful Player set to get a mission to say recover something in a ship wreck to return it to the client, the game in the other back is generating the same mission to Unlawful players to get that same item with another objective. So that is generating possible PvP on the fly.
The smart approach to this, is to make the PvP the higher focus in late-game, on Organizations, and the higher-tier dangerous areas of the game, because by the time PvE-focused players reach late game I think you would already be under one Org and would have support to focus in PvE activities as those who want to focus on PvP activities.
But it's just what the game is, it has one important side of PvE/co-op that is the multi-crew that no doubt is when in late game becomes a necessity, promoting group play moves away from that typical vibe on open world PvP where you just feel it's you vs everyone. We will see the approach they take as it develops but surely will be driven by the feedback given on this.
They try something like that with every PvP game. It's why Albion's higher end areas tend to be PvP more often than not and why Black Desert Online (and almost every other Korean MMO with it, really) doesn't enable the open world PvP until you hit level 50 or whatever.
It never really works. It's not like they don't try to get feedback about their systems, either. If anything, that feedback typically boils down to "It sucks!", resulting in them clamping down on the open world PvP with every patch.
Well, if Star Citizen somehow manages to find the magic solution that does work, all the more power to them, I guess.
They try something like that with every PvP game. It's why Albion's higher end areas tend to be PvP more often than not and why Black Desert Online (and almost every other Korean MMO with it, really) doesn't enable the open world PvP until you hit level 50 or whatever.
It never really works. It's not like they don't try to get feedback about their systems, either. If anything, that feedback typically boils down to "It sucks!", resulting in them clamping down on the open world PvP with every patch.
Well, if Star Citizen somehow manages to find the magic solution that does work, all the more power to them, I guess.
I know this is of complex balance. But as Albion and such it's the PvP driven approach that surfaces on them not the PvE one, what drives people who want mainly PvE gameplay as they would deal with secondary types of gameplay side of what would be the main focus at late game.
Usually, the open-world PvP games I see have that downside, even BDO that without the open-world PvP and conquest type of mechanics, being the guild mechanics focused on PvP, the game late game has very little else to offer.
Maybe they'll magically have an open world PvP game where everyones' having fun and it isn't niche. If they pull that off, it'll be the first successful attempt after a history of failed attempts. Lots and lots and lots of failed attempts to do it (or at least, to do it while also having it be mainstream). But really, assuming they can do that is the equivalent of wishing upon a shooting star, especially in a game that already has so many other complex systems that will affect the PvP and vice-versa. Of all of Star Citizen's myriad of features, tech, and complexities they intend to have in the game, "an open-world PvP game with consequences that isn't niche" is probably going to be the hardest one to pull off. At that point you're not just working against a difficult programming task. You're working against human nature, itself.
The driver of PvP in open-world mixed with PvE is the fact you do not get real benefit from piracy/unlawful gameplay if you do not PvP other players, that is the core driver of it; side of those who just PvP cause that's their focus.
The game design itself drives multiplayer interaction, see the missions they're creating, You are one Lawful Player set to get a mission to say recover something in a ship wreck to return it to the client, the game in the other back is generating the same mission to Unlawful players to get that same item with another objective. So that is generating possible PvP on the fly.
The smart approach to this, is to make the PvP the higher focus in late-game, on Organizations, and the higher-tier dangerous areas of the game, because by the time PvE-focused players reach late game I think you would already be under one Org and would have support to focus in PvE activities as those who want to focus on PvP activities.
But it's just what the game is, it has one important side of PvE/co-op that is the multi-crew that no doubt is when in late game becomes a necessity, promoting group play moves away from that typical vibe on open world PvP where you just feel it's you vs everyone. We will see the approach they take as it develops but surely will be driven by the feedback given on this.
They try something like that with every PvP game. It's why Albion's higher end areas tend to be PvP more often than not and why Black Desert Online (and almost every other Korean MMO with it, really) doesn't enable the open world PvP until you hit level 50 or whatever.
It never really works. It's not like they don't try to get feedback about their systems, either. If anything, that feedback typically boils down to "It sucks!", resulting in them clamping down on the open world PvP with every patch.
Well, if Star Citizen somehow manages to find the magic solution that does work, all the more power to them, I guess.
WoW managed to do it pretty well. Sure there were some misses, but the contested areas saw some of the best PvP in the game. I still remember starting several Tarren Mill wars in that game, and those could rage for days at a time. Even in the non-contested areas, such as the major cities, you would still see a lot of action. The servers Alliance population would rally to a single capitol city if it was under attack by Horde. What did in that games open world PvP was the introduction of closed PvP battlegrounds.
Ah, the old PvP vs PvE debate - again. I really shouldn't comment (again) but it's hard not to. So many assumptions and presumptions in the debate, dug-in trenches, and comparing with other games. Besides, people don't define it the same, so it's hard to have any reasonable debate at all.
- Many PvP-ers think PvE-ers are afraid of combat ... - Many PvP-ers think that AI opponents can't fight, so it must be a universe with real players to be fun ... - Many PvP-ers couldn't care less with other things than combat ... - Many PvP-ers believe a PvE game like Star Citizen is flawed/boring because it spreads out players too thin between different occupations. See also previous pt.
I say, find some (other) game where there's only (brain-dead & senseless blood-splurting) combat, which makes you happy. <yawn> Or you can wait to see what Star Citizen will offer in this respect and stop whining about what other players do in the game.
Related to this, is one-genred games ... which we have 13 on the dozen of ... and Patrick Bach's (DICE) epic statement about why Star Wars Battlefront didn't have space battles:
We want players to stay in the same [environment] – we don’t want players to fly off and do something over *here.*
Star Citizen will be different. Not something you buy and play until you're "finished" or bored and go to another boring one-genred game which is a re-released warm-up of last year's game from the same company ... <double-yawn>
Comments
I was speaking to experience, not effectiveness.
And if you delve into the article I mentioned, it details that modern displays use the kind of high frequency spatial images that are conducive to more sensitive awareness.
The article you linked literally offers conflicting viewpoints. Chopin is not DeLong. Additionally, we're not talking about reaction times, but, again, the experience. With VR, the need for higher framerates is exacerbated due to the visual stimuli presented on our periphery, which is even more sensitive to such rate changes. Chopin makes the argument that we cannot react any faster above 24hz, not that it is imperceptible.
I may have to revise my estimate on effective lower fps limits w.r.t. the VR issue.
In the chapter about simulator sickness i guess you refer mostly to sickness from "Flicker", maybe from "Latency and Lag", correct ? I have not seen a sentence that directly says "...75 fps minimum is recommended to avoid simulator sickness...".
Have fun
Hmm, we seem to have different starting points ... you speak more about experience, i speak more about effectiveness.
Effectiveness was the more important issue in topics i have looked into in the past, related to VR in space mission analog research e.g.
http://www.extreme-design.eu/doc/2016AHFE_Schlacht_Irene_1469.pdf
Have fun
We can perceive changes faster than we can react to them. That makes sense, if only for the fact that the reaction has to follow the perception, and there's a delay between perceiving and firing the motor neurons needed to move your body in reaction.
Have fun
PS:
Those walking pads i showed in my picture are nice, but do not feel like the real thing.
You could make them yourself with a bit of effort and DIY skills. However, they ARE a cheap and a useful start into the topic of VR simulation and walking around.
So this seems to follow up the requests that made them confirm the ability to lock ships in 3.0, but with that brings in basic breaching by adding the ability to destroy doors.
Viking
And a more completed look at the star map:
Also on the mobiglas, people talking on hacking/jamming the UI, say, being affected by one EMP:
Another relevant bit is how they are going for the heart rate to have that impact Stamina has, as seen here: http://imgur.com/a/XMqoA ~~ Shows the heart rate impacting Oxygen consumption.
Not sure if they would add a "stamina bar", though the heart rate achieves the same thing.
Aloha Mr Hand !
You cannot make a pvp game and not be fully integrated to handle cheating because it will exist big time.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Who knows the launch date, I'm more up to play through the alpha as it updates.
Hacking is no doubts server-side, say hacking a ship is your ship but it's spawned in by the server, and its stats are maintained by the server, just like MMO's do with character health, etc...
BDO for example even moved skill casting timers to the server to prevent cheating, it's just one of the annoyances they will have to deal with.
The big caveat here is that these comments must be taken with a grain of salt and in no way means this is the official stance on the discussed mechanics and how they will actually play out when released; from reddit.
http://i.imgur.com/drsP91y.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rJIrYPp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jjOzA18.jpg
But the thing is they make piracy as part of gameplay, not just "bad players", but the driver of piracy needs to be in lawless areas, not on the lawful ones that are policed, from what I can tell the most dangerous areas are not monitored but also are highly rewarding, risk vs reward balance.
But PvP/Piracy still seems to have a place in lawful areas, with their ability to disable comm arrays/etc that will turn communications that would report crimes down, what allows for the possibility without consequence but certainly won't be easy to pull off.
You could be right. Honestly, my main motivation to back SC was SQ42. I know some others are in the same boat too.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This includes piracy, NPC pirates, etc...
Most importantly, the fact pirates would not have to focus on PvP other players to get something out piracy, with the existence of lawful AI on that scale. And that is what drives so much PvP on games where if you are one "unlawful" player you don't really benefit from it if you don't PvP. The moment in SC say raid one AI Trader ship, breach into and take over the ship/cargo, is something of importance to embed Piracy into PvE.
Making something 90% AI vs 10% players is the equivalent of taking an amusement park sandbox and then periodically sprinkling deadly antlion quicksand traps throughout 10% of it. On paper you'd think maybe some players would find that fun and exciting to never know if that antlion trap is around the corner in the sandbox, but again, history has shown that in the end, most people end up hating that sort of thing.
Alternatively, I'll repeat that if they're really seeking to make the world primarily NPC driven and trying to make PvP a super rare niche thing, then it potentially becomes just like so many other open-world PvP games where they ended up relegating the PvP to such a niche that it probably wasn't worth the time, resources, and extra heapings of sphaghetti code (in an MMORPG that, if they somehow manage to pull it off with all its features, will already have a ridiculous amount of sphaghetti code) to have it there in the first place.
Maybe they'll magically have an open world PvP game where everyones' having fun and it isn't niche. If they pull that off, it'll be the first successful attempt after a history of failed attempts. Lots and lots and lots of failed attempts to do it (or at least, to do it while also having it be mainstream). But really, assuming they can do that is the equivalent of wishing upon a shooting star, especially in a game that already has so many other complex systems that will affect the PvP and vice-versa. Of all of Star Citizen's myriad of features, tech, and complexities they intend to have in the game, "an open-world PvP game with consequences that isn't niche" is probably going to be the hardest one to pull off. At that point you're not just working against a difficult programming task. You're working against human nature, itself.
The game design itself drives multiplayer interaction, see the missions they're creating, You are one Lawful Player set to get a mission to say recover something in a ship wreck to return it to the client, the game in the other back is generating the same mission to Unlawful players to get that same item with another objective. So that is generating possible PvP on the fly.
The smart approach to this, is to make the PvP the higher focus in late-game, on Organizations, and the higher-tier dangerous areas of the game, because by the time PvE-focused players reach late game I think you would already be under one Org and would have support to focus in PvE activities as those who want to focus on PvP activities.
But it's just what the game is, it has one important side of PvE/co-op that is the multi-crew that no doubt is when in late game becomes a necessity, promoting group play moves away from that typical vibe on open world PvP where you just feel it's you vs everyone. We will see the approach they take as it develops but surely will be driven by the feedback given on this.
It never really works. It's not like they don't try to get feedback about their systems, either. If anything, that feedback typically boils down to "It sucks!", resulting in them clamping down on the open world PvP with every patch.
Well, if Star Citizen somehow manages to find the magic solution that does work, all the more power to them, I guess.
Usually, the open-world PvP games I see have that downside, even BDO that without the open-world PvP and conquest type of mechanics, being the guild mechanics focused on PvP, the game late game has very little else to offer.
- Many PvP-ers think PvE-ers are afraid of combat ...
- Many PvP-ers think that AI opponents can't fight, so it must be a universe with real players to be fun ...
- Many PvP-ers couldn't care less with other things than combat ...
- Many PvP-ers believe a PvE game like Star Citizen is flawed/boring because it spreads out players too thin between different occupations. See also previous pt.
I say, find some (other) game where there's only (brain-dead & senseless blood-splurting) combat, which makes you happy. <yawn> Or you can wait to see what Star Citizen will offer in this respect and stop whining about what other players do in the game.
Related to this, is one-genred games ... which we have 13 on the dozen of ... and Patrick Bach's (DICE) epic statement about why Star Wars Battlefront didn't have space battles:
Star Citizen will be different. Not something you buy and play until you're "finished" or bored and go to another boring one-genred game which is a re-released warm-up of last year's game from the same company ... <double-yawn>
Edit: spelling
Viking