I'm a mostly solo player, I have a real life, at most I get 3-6 hours a week to play with friends in my small org of like 10 people, and it's never a guarantee they get to play as they're parents and have families that come first. Feel free to decry me as a "carebare" I don't care, actually you even nailed it on my head, I'm the "loser" in this system, and I know it. Everything that was shown about base building being the lead-up to org pvp for control of whole systems leaves me feeling utterly disinterested in base building, and everything connected to it... In that same token, I also don't see any reason for myself to be excited for Pyro now because that seems to be the whole point of lawless systems; to be EVE in first person. Dose that mean I can't have fun playing SC? No. It sounds like CIG will have content that caters to me, and I'm excited for that content, but it's absolutely disheartening that this is the majority focus until 1.0, and likely beyond for a while. But when it comes to base building, I now see there is nothing for me in that feature, and I don't care about it anymore... I just worry there's enough people in my position that make up the bulk of backers for SC that will slowly filter out of the game because this isn't something everyone can really continue backing if it's simply not possible for them to make this a second job; I just want to reiterate, most of the people who back SC are real people, with jobs, families, and most importantly precious little free time to enjoy it in. CIG seem intent to make the game a second job "or else" you can't enjoy it, because you become the loser, you have no means to progress unless you agree to the terms of the orgs that control the game... Like I said at the start, everyone can call me a carebare, but at the end of the day, Buzz, you understand something a lot of people don't seem to grasp - if I (players like me) leave the game because you're always winning, you're still losing. I've tried to explain that to others before and they laugh, make fun of me for wanting and expecting a game that isn't just _merderhobo the sandbox_, or _EVE lite_; you put it very succinctly in a way I never have been able to, and that's why I do come to your videos, you and I have very different reasons to enjoy SC, but you fully understand that players like myself are a necessity for it's health and future. On a closing note: I'm going to continue to enjoy the parts of Star Citizen I enjoy, while they're enjoyable to me... but yeah, I don't really have anything "exciting" to look forward to in the next at least 2-4 years based on that CitCon. Actually, I rather dread the day I'm going to have to uninstall the game if it becomes the kind of toxic second job that so many other games have become for trying to push such systems of "player control" to the extend CIG seems intent on making based on that panel. I see you covered it on another comment response, you even listed all the games I would normally list and more as a warning that games that use these "player control" systems that will drive players like me away simply from other players playing the game, as designed; it's a deadly risk, and I know there's a subsect of people who are almost viciously opposed to hearing this truth, but casual and solo players are a majority of gamers of all walks, from all places, it's very rare for games to survive without them; games such as EVE are the exceptions, not the rule, and Buzz, you clearly have enough experience to have seen that time and time again, as have I from the opposite side of the same coin.
Simple fact, they gotta pay for those new luxurious offices. So they focus the large org moneymakers first. Not a complaint, just the reality of the situation.
First thing's first, thank you for using paragraphs in your comment. Makes me actually want to read rather then a blanket wall of text that goes on forever. To the content of your comment, I think you are preemptively dismissing base building. While building a large base is likely out of your group's purview, there is no reason why a small to medium size base is something you can't construct. Yes, the massive org bases and stations is likely content outside your time investment window, many of these locations will have open trading access and potentially available for you to join as a side org. Ultimately we are just seeing all this for the first time and as it isn't in game yet, I would not be so quick to judge.
@@BuzzCutPsycho yeah thats why i am against Hygiene being a thing ( hell i am sure half the community doesn't care about hygiene IRL ) or Pyro tool battery depleting , seriously who likes having to recharge ones phone ?? why put that in game !
Yeah that NPC crews are set for after SC1.0 is quite a bummer. I hope it doesn’t turn into another EVE type of situation where you are in one of two org factions… or you can’t do anything at all.
How is EVE like that? i can do everything solo, exept ofc party/group stuff. And bc its PVP game, it is supose to be harder(more risk of dying) when u solo stuff. Not every game is for everyone. I dont like LoL or WoW so i dont play those games.
Sorry to say but it's probably gonna be like that. At least in lawless systems more then likely. Now I wasn't am EVE player but some of my friends were deep into EVE and everything SC is showing for 1.0 end game and goals is very much going to turn into EVE level PVP. Now I'm sure solo players will have their way and be able to make a living in the Verse. But orgs will no doubt control vast areas and have massive wars.
at this point we really need to push directors of CIG and Chris especially (he really need to stop micromanaging) to learn from EVE Online experience. the good, the bad and the ugly
Things won't ever be allowed to fall into the same state as EVE. One group of players being able to control access to a system would be utterly devastating for the game as a whole. This is even more true for 1.0, as virtually all travel between systems has to go through Pyro.
I can fully see alliances of orgs taking over entire systems. Because that's how people work, it will snowball to the point where they grow to critical mass and nobody (besides the devs) will be able to stop them. Player built stations is a mistake.
@@fenn7437 The devs can’t allow it to happen. Players would be locked out of a huge portion of the game’s content, including being unable to complete the main story quest. This is incomparable to the relatively trivial impact of controlling a system in EVE, where systems are little more than resource nodes. Star Citizen systems contain unique locations, lore, missions, NPC factions, and each represent a huge chuck of the entire game’s content. One group of players being able to control other player’s access to that content would simply kill the game.
As a single player guy I appreciate the insight from your MMO experience. I definitely like the idea of faction-based conflict vs strictly org warfare. Like you say, it allows way more players to get involved, whether solo or small orgs. Also just sounds more like SC instead of EVE. Ya know, the game we all backed not the one we didn't. Hope they go more that route, but it's kinda whatever at this point with SC.
spot on take. If they continue to head towards this player ran universe, The reality is that the majority will need to lose so the few may win. But unlike IRL, the majority will just leave to play some other games. Start Citizen will then become another niche forgotten title with a really small really hardcore audience...like eve online. This is not a surprise. These second job games always become niche as they compete for a finite amount of time and most players will never commit to a single game for the rest of their lives. Its supposed to be a game, not a marriage.
Never forget CIG can decide to have systems which does not allow too big Orgs. They have all ace cards in hands and can allow solo high security systems, lawless freedom for all and systems (a specific alien race or two?) which does not allow big battle but trade in their systems. problem solved, big Orgs won't be able to control the whole universe as CIG can "magically" allow some race Corp to produce endless number of battle ships. The options are endless. CIG interest is to please as many players as possible and they can do it systems per systems, at their leisure without breaking the joy for anyone, except the eternal frustrated that will claim (even if it was never said that way): "you told us we can control the all universe!!!"... because well, such individual doesn't care about others who contributed to SC development. Such attitude is the opposite of a community and have to be gently but firmly denied.
they dont even make the animation capable of escaping your own self destruct timer on some ships. the idea that they can balance some type of player driven economy or get anything more than one system at this point to a playable state is insanity
I have to tend to agree with you. There are so many little things that have been stewing on the back burner for so long; it is hard for me to believe that they can ever save this dumpster fire. I'm not a game developer, I do have experience in project management. The "Alpha" crutch has ruined the entire project, IMHO. This is also exemplified by the phrase, "A failure to commit is a commitment to fail".
I'm already part of an org. It's called work and that's where I earn money. Coming from work I'm not interested in duplicating this. I want to discover, fly, enjoy the time, building my small home somewhere alone. Team meetings, organizing, HR, budget, that's the world I already have in reality.
@@vinct7023 Except org leaders that treat you like an employee; AKA how these orgs will be. Some people just don't want to be in an organization and that should be acceptable for people.
Having SEAL tokens calculated across all shards might be a good thing for preventing outside-the-game coordination of the largest organizations into SuperBlocs that always have protection. If big organizations on other servers can unexpectedly take away your protection, it gives room for even the largest organizations on the shard to become vulnerable. Hopefully they implement something to prevent peace-pacts and always on protection. One thing EVE taught me about human nature is that even the most pvp-oriented amoung us dont like to lose their stuff.
The main issue is that if other servers have a smaller player base they will never, ever get protection. If that is the way it is being designed, which I do not know. What you said isn't wrong, but if server B does not have the population of server A it will never have an option to get protection, the decision is already made based on numbers alone. It would be like voting Republican in New York. Why bother? That is if the system works that way, anyways.
Yeah that NPC crews are set for after SC1.0 is quite a bummer. I hope it doesn’t turn into another EVE type of situation where you are in one of two org factions… or you can’t do anything at all. In the Total War series NPC factions declare war on you if you get too powerful. It would require an NPC faction to regulate too powerful orgs. The Vanduul love a good hunt ain’t they? ;D
How is EVE like that? i can do everything solo, exept ofc party/group stuff. And bc its PVP game, it is supose to be harder(more risk of dying) when u solo stuff. Not every game is for everyone. I dont like LoL or WoW so i dont play those games.
It won't be eve because of high security systems are going to be much more brutal and painful for trolls... There is a actual penalty for p v p m in high security space.
Feels like it's gonna be rust but more stressful for everyone. I wish they stuck with a faction system so that everyone from solo to large can get buffs and negatives.
@@notcarson2227 problem is that everyone want a game that HIS priority. The fact Rust is popular to a population players deos not means CIG can integrate same features. Immediately others players will claim to have EVE or any others MMO which is somehow popular. That said, they may be borrow some features, the goal is to make the game fun for most players;
Great video and breakdown! I agree that we need more clarification from CIG and I would almost expect these concepts to be more fleshed out in Inside Star citizen and Star Citizen Live this autumn and next year, which they also eluded to during citcon. So I hope we need to have some patience with it and it will hopefully be explained further.
I was an officer in an org in SWG and although I played the game a lot, I was rarely online at the same time as most of my guildmates as my play schedule is erratic. Since then, I mostly pay MMOs solo. I'm interested in joining an org in Star Citizen but it will likely need to be an org that doesn't require a lot of participation on their schedule as my schedule isn't much of a schedule. If I can't find the right kind of org for my playstyle, I have no qualms about carving out a living within an org's territory or in the space between territories.
No, its for ground bases. As mentioned the system was designed when miners were on ground with mining outposts. Shielding was provided for the miners who put the most effort into maintaining the system. Unclear if it extends to SS's.
@@vik12D I like it! Keep those that like fighting, fighting each other. Leaving others in peace, cause there too busy fighting amongst themselves. I know there is probably some quote of wisdom about that. And its likely been more than one book/movies/show plot. Those contested zones offer the same.
Firstly, let me say... this is one of the most well thought out takes on the new CIG inductions to the Verse. My two concerns at this rate, as a long-time backer/solo/casual player... are that there will be far too gameplay/things to do org-walled behind this concept of forcing us to have to be in an org, making it less appealing for the casual/solo, and secondly, every single question you have in this video, CIG will NOT have an answer for until it's too late, and the damage is done post-launch. But only time will tell! Great vid!
imo if bases and stations can be destroyed, destroying them should require equal amount or more effort to build them. or else everyone will just team up in small orgs and blast them to bits. have stations to be destructible but requires similar amount of effort of building, and ground bases be damaged to an inoperable state but cannot be completely destroyed would be my wished implementation
I think CIG should have a PTU special event specifically to test all of this. Allow 2 large orgs to have instant access to enough resources to build their own base and fight over these end-game tokens. Collect the data, figure out what's wrong with it and fix it.
I do believe the intend is to have resources exclusive to particular areas. Therefore, even though invulnerable, a base/planet won't be self-sufficient/independent and the org will have to actively battle on multiple other fronts to gather the resources needed to feed the invulnerable base.
Sure, a possible solution. But in the end it is still entirely player run and that doesn't address my main concerns :( Not you addressing them, but rather the game.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Fairly sure they've mentioned like 70% of the economy or so will be simulated by the "Virtual NPCs/Quanta/StarEconomist9000". That should create enough supply of whatever is necessary to avoid monopolization of whatever the org is doing. But who tf knows what they end up doing in the end. My bet is on the whole system getting changed completely like 3 times even after 1.0. I also have no idea what is the intent with multiple orgs having bases/stations on/around the same planet... with those invulnerability shenigans...
@@BuzzCutPsycho Didn't they say like 70% of the economy would be simulated by StarQuantaCitizen? I believe they've mentioned, at some point, most of the economy would be simulated by NPCs, which should lesser the potential of monopolization from large orgs. Also no idea what is the intent for multiple orgs on the same planet and those invulnerability tokens. The invulnerable org could just build a bunch of AA guns around the other org's base and shoot at it for days...
CIG clarified (I forget where exactly) that resources will not spawn infinitely, in other words mines can be mined out. That means that even the top orgs can't just sit back and collect, they'll need to keep expanding which means their territories will keep getting more and more difficult to maintain.
Sneak into a base and start spawning objects in the basement, loads and loads and loads of really small, dense models. Would that slow down that area of the server enough so the occupants wouldnt be able to react to incoming missiles?
I play a game (War Thunder) their is "Clan Battles" with premiums currency for the top 5 clans. One of the Clan Battle mode was removed because the top 10 clans in that game mode came to an agreement and would rotate who was supposed to be in the top 5 to get the reward. They were often seen asking the opposition to just give up so that one day they could join the "top 10 council". This could also be the outcome with some of the bigger Orgs...
As you said, the info we have on the system at this point is still pretty limited. But after watching the panels a couple times the potential meta I could see shaking out is: I think large (think top five or top ten at most) orgs will be able to hog the vast majority of shield tokens in unlawful systems. But depending on the level of resistance they receive, it may become uneconomical to sustain that on a weekly basis. It may very well be that it is easier to pump part of their resources into paying taxes in a lawful system and transporting their goods there instead and receive the same invulnerability protection, but as a guarantee instead of fighting for it every week. This doesn't preclude a smaller scale FOB/distribution center with protection in each unlawful system as well, but having the vast majority of your eggs in a basket without guaranteed protection seems like a risk that you would want to mitigate as much as possible. Especially considering said protection is a few minute trip through a jump point. Under that assumption, lower value resource producing bases could almost become communal. Working for you only as long as you can hold it. It could be very interesting, but again it is all rampant speculation until we get hands on with it.
Yeah you're right. It is all speculation. And I would have liked a bit more meat in the presentation. I just see what they have presented and think "Hmm... I see some issues here" I could also be dumb.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like this all boils down to the amount of systems that will be in the initial release. Pyro is the absolute centre of 1.0. If you want to traverse from any of the 2 neigbouring systems (Castra-Nyx and Stanton-Terra) to the other you have to travel trough Pyro. Large org vs. org gameplay will happen there and with a supposed rich get richer loop like that I very much see said traversal to be heavily impeeded by orgs that are holding that space. You want your rivals out of the system so of course you´ll be blocking access. If we had more systems that large orgs could fight over there might be some space left for smaller orgs to compete in.
You're right. Maybe them just having one system where it can be done is the issue here. How many would we need to make this work? SC just does not have enough, EVE has a lot, right?
9:00 the token system could be used to protect smaller organisations by making the required amount of tokens needed grow exponentially with higher member counts
With info we have about the ingame factions, R&R etc. One possible idea could be if your aligned to a certain NPC faction, an outpost you build would by default be open to other players aligned to same NPC Faction. But only the org running the station could open shops, own it, etc. But others could use it as a home, help defend it, whatever. And if aligned to it, you couldn't damage it, to avoid insiders sabotaging it. Basically aligned members could take advantage of it, like they normally would an NPC station for all purposes. But then that brings in the idea of a couple big orgs all aligning to same NPC faction, .. but it could at least lessen the blow.
They brought all of that info out about the factions, I think three of them, and nothing else was really expanded upon them other than you can do missions for them. It was a major disappointment and what you suggested is what I figured would happen.
I think so. At least in Lawful space. No danger there. Anything is possible. But I think real power will come from unlawful space under the proposed ysstem.
You raised some concerns about small or medium sized orgs being locked out of too much end game content. I hear you and many others raise this concern, but I disagree that it will be as big of a problem as many people claim. I think there will be lots of content for small to medium sized orgs, and I'll explain why. Firstly, even if you didn't want to sign up for a second job by joining a mega org, a smaller organization can still join an alliance to act as an auxillary to a mega org. Your little group of ten could easily just get paid to occasionally run cargo to an orgs build site or do some mining or small raids on their behalf without fully and totally committing to a larger org and joining their chain of command. This alone would allow smaller orgs who have neither the desire nor ability to take part in macro level org gameplay to at least get their share of that gameplay. Secondly, the only thing owning a space station or large base in null-sec space gets you is your manufa facilities closer to higher yield resources. That's it. There's absolutely nothing stopping a small org of twenty or so people with a base in high-sec getting together, going to Pyro, mining until their cargo holds are full, and zipping back to Stanton or Castra or what have you to refine their materials. Its less efficient than having a base right by the resources, sure, but since you are a smaller org you don't need as many resources to kit your people out with end game gear either. My point is that a smaller org doesn't need a space station or massive base to get top tier resources. That's not even touching on things like the Merchantman or Privateer that can take resources from null-sec and efficiently resell them in high-sec or ships like the Arrastra or Expanse that can refine your resources on the move for even more efficiency without needing a null-sec base at all. Third, there's ample content for endgame outside of OrgvOrg PVP. You can get your rare resources and high quality loot from distribution center raids. The totally-not-a-dungeon Depths of ArcCorp. PVE fleet battles. Raids into Vanduul space. The entire main story quest that specifically mentioned tensions between Earth and Terra which sound *a lot* like those NPC macro factions you mentioned. Even IF megaorga and megaorgs alone could manage to build space stations in Pyro and Nyx... I just don't see that as being a massive part of the game, theres tons else more to do that smaller orgs can take on.
Great comment, and I am glad you made it. Always love reading what you write. I raised several concerns, which go beyond simply locking players out of content. They touch on a core design philosophy that, if left unchecked, could stifle growth or even harm the game's population. 1. What you’re describing is a player group being forced into a subordinate role to another group. Being an “auxiliary” is just a more polite way of saying you’re essentially beholden to a larger org. And you’re beholden because the game has structured the system so that you must either serve them, oppose them, or avoid them altogether. This game doesn’t have the scale to justify contracting other orgs to run my cargo or perform other tasks-why would I? I can use people within my own org, especially if it’s large enough. I doubt anyone establishes an org with the intention of being in service to another. The idea that you have to "ask" another group of players-customers just like you-to "play" the game with their permission is a hilarious notion to me, one I dealt with when I ran our server in New World. While funny, that isn't great design to me. 2. In the video, I discuss whether resources really matter in this system. For example, I question why I would choose to build a station in Pyro rather than Stanton and instead launch raids from Stanton into Pyro. If the *only* advantage of having a base in Pyro is access to manufacturing, it suggests the system isn’t all that crucial. If that’s the case, why include it at all? This presents a dilemma-a catch-22: either the system is so crucial that it’s necessary for success, or it isn’t important enough to justify the risk, and I’ll just exploit others who do take the risk. In the latter scenario, the entire system becomes pointless and poorly designed. 3. I don’t disagree with you here. But you and I both know that players are far more likely to be drawn to the “build your base, harvest your resources” endgame rather than fighting the ArcCorp Dragon every Tuesday before reset. As I mentioned in the video, I personally benefit from this system-I’m part of a large org that’s constantly seeking more members. But I’ve witnessed several games that relied on guild/outfit/org ownership and player-driven resources or mechanics reach a premature end: - Shadowbane - Darkfall - Mortal Online - ArcheAge (Player Nations) - New World - Mortal Online 2 - Throne and Liberty The only exception is *EVE*, but only *EVE* can be *EVE*. Banking on long-term success by expecting similar results to *EVE*-instead of learning from every other game that tried to replicate it-seems like a risky choice. We can agree to disagree. But in all of those games (except Mortal Online), I was part of the groups that “killed” the servers. And we did so simply by using the game mechanics as they were intended. There’s always an idealized way we expect people to play in theory, which sounds great, versus the way people actually play in reality. And the two are often very, very different.
I’d agree and disagree, while there is other thing to do in the game having a majority of your player base locked out of ever getting protection. A small org or group will never be able to mine or build bases the mega server org will take over entire planets raiding all who don’t see their favor . And in that case you dont just lock small orgs out of org content you lock them out of base building in any pvp zones and in some case they can’t even mine or farm the areas for the rare unique resources of they system . A org of 20 like you say would probably only have 2-3 people on at a time if they are lucky . And if you think this won’t happen look at what happen in new world with asmondgold took his huge raiding party in new world killing everyone with shear numbers no org could compete or how servers die in any mmo pvp .
A solution to the problem is to have buildable facilities that are smaller which orgs with far fewer members can build. Like orbital refinement facilities, or research outposts. Things that can be used to maximize production of resources and materials that everyone needs, especially the large orgs trying to build their massive space stations. The important thing is making it so everyone has something engaging and purpose-driven at all tiers of org size... or with no org affiliation at all. Something even bigger than space stations could be made available for EVERYONE. Something like building a city on a planet or moon. It would go through a progression path that is pre-determined by CIG, from just a small outpost with a landing pad to a full metropolis over the course of months or years to which players can contribute resources and materials. Even new players can contribute to it. At different stages of progression, CIG could set it up for mission-givers to take up residence. At some point this new city could become a major hub of activity for a planet, including a wide variety of habs and shops that players can live in and run. As it takes shape, or is eventually finished, anyone who contributed to its progression, even if they just made a single small delivery of equipment to kit out one building, would be able to look at it and say "I helped build that." The needs for building such monstrosities would need tremendous amounts of resources. Even if all the huge orgs pitch in, it would ideally take a massive amount of time. This would not be something that would just be done and over with in a month. It would be something that players would potentially be able to watch grow over years, with there always being a new building or facility being completed or going into production. The ability to take part in building something huge should not be locked behind org membership. Nobody should be excluded from the world building mechanics just because they prefer not to get involved with orgs. Maybe they prefer just doing things in a living game world on their own, or maybe with just a small group of friends who just like to play together. In a game like what SC is trying to be, there's no such thing as an invalid playstyle.
That is a potential solution. I think the idea is safe space is for everyone else. But I just have a hard time believing that. Everything you wrote is solid, but it is a lot of work for a problem that could be avoided if faction pvp was a thing.
@@BuzzCutPsycho The best thing I can suggest is try to get your thoughts expressed through channels that CIG will see. They've been known to shift directions on things based on player feedback. It kind of sounds like PVP, at least in Pyro, is going to be driven by faction affiliation, as there are factions aligned with The Council, as well as with the mercenary guild. So it seems to me that just because someone builds a space station doesn't mean it won't get blown up by hostile players who can, in turm build their own in its place. Also, we don't know how many space stations can be built in the entire game. For all we know, every planet or moon in the game can have slots for space stations, with a bunch of points in or near asteroid fields, or even in open space also serving as potential sites that players can find. To be honest, with as much that will go into building just the initial module for a station, many, if not most players will consider it to be too much of a headache to pursue more than just a passing interest. It's also one thing to have a super large org. It's quite nother when the players in that org must treat their gameplay like a second job. Plus, I think that we need to look at the order of things that we were shown to be on the horizon between a4.0 and 1.0. and treat that as the order we can expect things to roll out. We know that crafting and outpost building is coming first, but that's like just the first of many stops between now and 1.0. Station building will likely be the final feature that gets added. And remember, everything we were shown HAS to be in before they are ready to call Star Citizen release version 1.0. The time it is going to take for them to realize all that will likely span several years. As long as each forward-going phase of development introduced new and engaging gameplay loops and elements that feed into the plan they've shown us, the bigger the audience will become, and by the time station construction goes in, many of the issues and concerns we may have will likely be rendered moot. We're playing a massive, long-running game of Wait-and-See. Now as to my idea about smaller facilities for smaller tier orgs being too much work, it's not really much more work than is already in place. They are already producing the depot structures. They are massive, and we know they can be multi-purpose. And that's on the PvE/NPC end. Put their construction in Player hands, make them org structurs and let the orgs decide what they want to use them forand you've got a massive ground-based facility that could double as an org headquarters for smaller orgs. As time goes by, the more assets are introduced, be they structures or vehicles. There are many ways to use any of these elements to facilitate org-related activities. And if a company from Stabnton decides to build something huge on some other planet in one of the four other systems, then All CIG needs to do is make each building that is part of their design for such a city something that can be enabled in a variety of construction states or disabled, and make each one, spreading out from a central point, be a construction project that anyone wishing to can take jobs working to complete. Whether its delivering materials and equipment to actively working on construction, then as long as the sheer number of jobs that need to be completed is massive, you've got a long-term gameplay loop that can be visibly observed through all stages of progress. Throw in hazards and hostile engagements along the way, with occasional windows of PvP activity to attract combatants who want to defend stuff to the area, all of the pre-existing systems and mechanics can be used without having to lay out an entirely new system
They need one or two hundred frontier systems as most solo players I know want to explore, not combat. Elite dangerous had huge potential if the would have added a base building or home orbital station for players. These SC large orgs are just to big though. I may need to learn X-4 for solo play.
I think this video can be summarised as "incentives" and I think CIG designers should read about economics, as the whole concept of incentives seems to be quite alien to them. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You get more of what you incentivise and you get less of what you punish. BCP is bringing up great points, as per usual.
We don't know whether this will be the entire late game, I assume not. This is a resource intensive goal for large orgs to work towards, but the control a station like this imposes really is minimal. SC is just too big.
@@BuzzCutPsycho absolutely get where you're coming from. If CIG decides to center the entire late game around orgs, SC will be a niche game within two months after release. Gatekeeping late game content behind pvp will do the same. Let's hope that when Tyrer said they are making a game for PVP, PVE and noncombat players, they meant it.
#1 assest will be Org learders from Europe because countries from Europe provide resources to their Citizens to survive while neededing limited if any outside jobs. Meaning they will be able to spend far more time on the organization.
It’s happened time and time again in Eve that if you rule with an iron fist then eventually you’ll face a large alliance that’s sick of your shit and will lose everything. There’s a lot of diplomacy that has to occur with these systems. I think it’s super interesting which creates a player driven story and history.
@ Ya idk man I mean I’m an Eve player so the “type” is being too presumptive. We’ll have to see how it works out. I don’t really have a concern because mo’ money mo’ problems and shit. Good luck protecting supply ships to support the infrastructure or gaining tokens when fighting a multi-front war, ya know? There is a diminishing return with effectiveness:size.
I always imagined it'd be something like BDO where a BIG org basically controls say Stanton and the bigger orgs would just have constant back and fourth wars on their bases which is FINE by me as a vulture guy lol
Personally I see this kind of non-stop PVP cutthroat battle happening in low risk systems like Pyro but if you are a smaller org and want to pay the fees for protection in high security then you will have the AI/NPCs in game on your side so it will be very difficult for any org to come and destroy your bases/stations.
They would have to increase the scale of planets as well as opportunities by a few orders of magnitude for any of this to work in an enjoyable and somewhat fair way. Also the impact on a system by any group would have to become inferior to NPC factions. If anything, I think orgs, in order to exist would have to align themselves with larger and more powerful NPC factions. Anything else and a large org can effectively lock down whole systems, not just stations.
I think it all hangs on how well player contracts work out. I think massive orgs like Morph's will probably just outright own half of the systems or something and some of them might be extortionists but I think other large orgs that aren't quite as massive will compete and need outside help to tip the scales in their favor especially since medium to large orgs will probably be the most specialized. Small orgs will mostly be friends who want to play together and will do whatever. Massive orgs will have possibly thousands of players in each role brought together by popularity. but medium to large orgs are the ones with names like "The Miner's Guild" where the founders wanted to make a guild of people with shared interests. Those orgs will need contracts to fill in their blind spots. A larger org that is focused on mining might want a couple medium orgs to help with things like Combat and Trading. Those medium orgs might want to contract small generalized orgs to give a helping hand. EX: Mining org just bought an orion and has diverted most of their internal resources to supporting it. They contract a Combat org and a trading org to support a pair of arrastras. The Mining org expects them to provide for themselves. The combat org decides to contract with a small generalized org to provide a tanker and light freight to support the escort. The trading org on the other hand doesn't have the cargo capacity or combat escort they need to keep up with the Arrastras so they contract a small org to provide a medium-large freight ship, and a couple fighters. This mining org is now able to support its new acquisition without yet having the personnel or ships to do it alone. OR if contracts end up sucking, that won't be possible at all and it'll just be little orgs and solo players are useless losers in the SC universe which i would hate to see. PS I hope that there are systems in place to prevent large orgs form being actual tyrants. Like if they have a massive presence in a star system and have ownership of the region, that doesn't mean they can just block players from going through the star system cause that would be stupid. PPS I also wouldn't mind if they added factions that can compete directly with orgs. Ex: morph's org would voluntarily stand alone because it's big enough that they want resources to themselves. They want their own stations and systems but individuals and smaller orgs could join an alliance and work on collectively owned stations and systems. PPPS i do think that that the way to balance destroying stations would be that stations can only be disabled and on average, it would take a fleet that costs more than a station to do it even if the station had a very rudimentary protective fleet. This way, you could only set back other players instead of removing their influence entirely and you would typically need to balance the cost of building an entire fleet with just knocking your competition out of the race for a week. Mega Orgs would still not need to worry about that though which is why i still think they would simply not have competition in regions they control. You could also implement a system where the immunity is only something like a one-sided cease fire so once the attacker begins a raid by killing a player near a base or breaking the shield of a capital ship or station, they lose the immunity for a week so there would be not only an enormous cost but it would open you up to retribution and opportunists alike. And if there was a bully in a sector that i didn't like, i'd gladly third party against them the moment i saw them get raided while vulnerable PPPPS because i want to talk to someone about this but none of my friends are interested in star citizen so all i can do is puke my thoughts into a comment section. I really am scared of the Mega Orgs. It reminds me of Ark where all of the p0ublic servers are full of pillars so you can't even make a base to try and collect resources to compete or even survive outside of the ruling tribe
Player-(or org)-made contracts could provide incentive for orgs to pay smaller groups/solos. Joint cooperation stations between multiple smaller orgs could provide some breathing room for them. setting up in UEE-backed space should also be viable for smaller orgs (maybe done through certain tax threshholds to drive out larger orgas from the safety of the UEE)
@@BuzzCutPsycho well, it just is a balance of how much you need /want exterior help. And and "exclusion" clause for orgs that you dotn want to have dealings with is relatively implemented. Having neutrals ship your stuff also could prevent your stuff from getting actively targeted by larger orgs. Unless the org is known for shooting anythign that moves, ok xD
Very well articulated. I have had the same thoughts and concerns swimming in my own mind but I have just consoled myself with 'Cig will fix it' 'balance it somehow' etc.. But I understand your point about not wanting to put arbitrary shackles on the system. The thing is they need to foresee all this before it happens. Because the backlash will be immense I imagine, if they start heavily nerfing monopolous org(s) after they have put in the work to get to where they are.
I don’t think Bases will be destroyed. However all the resources in the base will be lootable. Maybe some structure repairs needed and sentry towers damaged. But the biggest problem will be that a superior fo will know your base location and that they can beat you again and again. Essentially farming you for resources that you collect
I imagine a way to do a psuedo faction system is to make it so orgs will loose rep with their allied guild if they mess orgs that also have rep with that guild... excluding the council of course
Thank you for the fine Videos about this topic. I like group play, but also to play solo, as its not so time consuming for my sparse time. You made some valid points here. made me Abo Kudos o7
RIch Tyrer literally doing an 180 from the game we were sold 12 years ago. Not a fan, personally. But I just hope it is well designed and considered, given that I don't think we can really get them to change this direction.
I have been following the game since 2012 myself and the 1.0 announcements are in-line with what I expected the game to be since about 2014-2015. While I did not expect or predict player-manufactured space stations, incentivizing players into a high-risk high-reward gameplay and heavy encouragement for players to join larger groups to facilitate large-scale gameplay should not be a surprise. The game has been heading in this direction for a long, long time. The only real difference compared to back then is the lack of a PVP slider to instance you with other PVE players. Instead, players can choose to live in pvp or pve areas with pvp heavily disincentivized in safe/pve space. Most of the points in this video and comments act as if the whole game will be like Rust; that playing in Pyro will be the only option. I think a lot of people will play mostly in Terra, Stanton, and Castra and have just as much fun as those in Pyro. They may even come out ahead with consistent income and lower losses.
One thing that might be interesting is if they time gated certain rewards in these limited "fortresses", like how they said you go deeper into the station to unlock more rewards. Well what if the big prize was some Tier 3 blueprint for a ship that required you to control the same space station for 4 weeks in a row, after which, if your mega org was successful, there is little purpose in controlling it anymore, other than to block others from getting the same reward. But they may need to move to another area next week to take over that station instead for it's own unique blueprint. Asian MMO's tend to follow this siege model, and some make it easier each week for the attacker so eventually the defender will be at such a disadvantage they lose. People will always game the system though, for example if Test Squadron was able to split into multiple Orgs and have each one control their own station and then they swap between each other. In the Asian MMOs the sieges are typically instanced, so they can control how many attackers and defenders there are, so they have a bidding system to see who can even challenge the defender. In this case that could be abused so one was "attacked" by their own mega org/alliance and there was no real siege.
I expect every build ship that enters a system will be captured or destroyed. Solo players will never get anything big through. Only small walk-behind has a realistic chance. Also, without some form of camo for small bases, there will be no point.
I think that what CIG is going for with seal tokens is to give the more lawful and well-rounded orgs a massive advantage over the rowdier orgs. If you recall from the presentation, the process also involves PvE content like resource gathering, something that eg TEST will have an easier time with than say Mongrel Squad. I believe the theory is that those orgs will be more benign and open to trade with and even defend smaller orgs who are similarly aligned. Basically, player driven Pax Romana. Of course, you could also end up with Pax Germania...
My concern is that these token battles will be locked behind a gimmicky match-made or "fair" scenario where people fight in organized team matches. Unless it allows organizations to bring the full might of their forces into the field, it is no longer an MMO, as imbalanced as that may sound. Now, that may sound contradictory to my video. But keep in mind that we now need these gimmicks and scenarios to counteract the poor decisions a game has made by allowing things to be entirely player or organization-run.
That's the same thing as when we only had Bengals as end game. What did people think of that ? And by people I mean the majority which is middle to small size organizations? I think that people who want to do their own sing we do their own thing, that being crafting stations, enjoying the trucking life, etc. Additionally the game is pvpve which means that big orgs with stations will also become targets to npcs Ps: They mentioned in the presentation that the stations will not be easily destructed and they implied that it would be easier to do that from within (possibly overloading the power reactor?)
Man what a good video. I hope CR see it and think about it. I saw those nice Space Stations and with a casual Org of 10-20 people I know I will never build that - so is all content not available to me. A solution could be a ranking system where loosing Org get to live and play with Losing Org and winning Org get to live and play with winner Org. Divided by Shard Groups. Like evey month Organisations get divided into shards with similar level of Org. All the way down and Up to where even Solo Players can build Stations because they will only be fighting other solo players
@@BuzzCutPsycho To clarify, I don't mind large orgs owning entire systems, having exclusive mechanics etc, and acting as a sort of "dynamic background" to the game of small orgs and solo players but deep crafting mechanic/resource gathering would probably be pointless for those types of players as it would always be cheaper to buy from large trading orgs, it would always be safer to call for medic from Medrunners and probably even more efficient and cheap to hire escort from mercenary orgs, that seems good for casual players who don't care for progression and maybe even immersion but awful to players that want to experience any kind of achievement and impact on ingame world even at small scale. I think the only possible way to prevent that would be to really add large quantity of star systems and restrict large orgs to only operate in one or maybe couple of them, maybe implement chat range, maybe forgo the idea of offline shops and go back to travelling merchants?
Don't you worry. CIG said that SC is for every type of player. Surely, they will not prioritize big orgs because its probably the easiest thing to do instead of balancing the economy and creating fulfilling casual/solo content.
My hope is that they allow players to join NPC orgs like Hurston Dynamics or Sakura Sun or some such, which will basically make harassing them akin to harassing a very large and well-established corporation. In this way they can be protected, while potentially forfeiting whatever you might get from a player-made org, but still having the safety net of being part of a large and well-funded collective.
I'm a solo player as well and the way your explaining it I'll never see end game and will only get to see some systems briefly due to being killed by an org saying I'm trespassing, etc. Then end with permadeath smh. That def will take away from some players and I like to play my schedule and my goals with my limited time.
Good Video! Would like to know what you mean by Faction Based PvP. I also see issues with the effect of giant player communities in SC (even if we ignore social features like Orgs and Alliances), but i have seen over and over again that Factions like in Planetside 2 (Winning Team Joiners), Mortal Online 2 (Zergs) or Foxhole (Winning Team Joiners), still suffer from the same issue. How would you define PvP Factions for SC?
By faction-based PvP, I mean, ideally, a three-faction system that a player or organization signs up for and fights for. This is just a rough idea and description, of course. You have the framework for it in Pyro now, but I am not sure what those factions will mean, if anything. For lack of better wording, it would be akin to PlanetSide 1, but in space, with higher stakes, resources, and a more in-depth metagame. The games you mentioned were all done poorly. PlanetSide 2 ignored everything that PlanetSide 1 did to ensure faction balance, such as character change cooldowns, incentives to be on the losing faction, and an actual reason to play the game beyond farming kills. PS2 was PS1 in name only and got it all wrong. PS2 also failed to making losing fun. Mortal Online 2 provided no basis to bring players together outside of guilds. If we compare it to something like Guild Wars 2's World vs. World or DAOC's realm PvP, you will see how strongly the factions-or in GW2's case, the servers-kept everyone together. DAOC had an incentive and reason to be on the "losing" faction with bonuses, but the three-faction system gave the two weaker ones a reason to keep the stronger one in check. This is something PS2 lacked: a reason to gang up on the winning faction rather than join them. Foxhole was too much in favor of snowballing and made it nearly impossible to turn around. It lacked an upkeep and attrition system like World War 2: Online had. What is funny is that the games I mentioned-DAOC, PS1, and WW2OL-took steps to solve the issues modern games have faced with factions. It is as if we have all forgotten the lessons of older games and stopped looking beyond anything that came prior to World of Warcraft for design inspiration. Good comment.
I assume if you lose the bid you lose your tokens so orgs that think they’ll lose might skip the bid altogether and stock pile for the next week, so the biggest orgs will HAVE to bid every week while smaller orgs are stock piling to win at some point in the future and then just hit the big org hard, or smaller orgs might form temporary alliances to raid a big org I think the system has good bones and we just have to wait for more information
I had the same concern, so I figured I will just build my tiny base for myself in high sec while having my orgs base somewhere in no sec, and just in case we get raided I will always have my safe heaven that I built by replicating my orgs resources... I do share the same concerns, which is why this is my plan.
@BuzzCutPsycho Totally if shit is made in a way I can lose all the hard work it would be best to have a backup... I think is the smartest way to go about it and avoid frustration.
Yes. This should be standard procedures for all players/orgs. Your treasury should be in a secure location, meanwhile you make investments in hostile space.
@@ikapustiv I agree but as for me one single person base, it wont be something so ludicrous just good enough. And I could pay the taxes with the missions I do by bounty hunting
Star Citizen is an org haven right now as they don't have to compete for resources. Once that is implemented the culling will begin and orgs will die quickly. I have played in a few orgs in alpha games. Many don't survive the 1.0 change. It's easier to just solo and small group.
I get the impression that the "BEST" resources will never be static mines of that quality. From what CIG has said, those resources will be limited at any given location they are found. So we will have to only hold the location for a short period and then find the next "Best" location. This means that solos have a real chance to make big money, either exploring and selling the location or mine it quietly and sell the raw ore for big bank.
@BuzzCutPsycho It would still not be easy as you would have to hold that limited supply until used up. In some cases, multiple locations should the exploration team several veins of equal value across systems. So, no one, even the largest Org in the verse, will ever be able to hold all the resources all the time. The best they can do is try to hold the biggest being they find build a small trow away oputpost and get it back to the Main base as quick as possible.
@@BuzzCutPsychoCIG has been pretty clear that on average higher risk areas will give better rewards. However, based on evocati reports it seems like there are unique mineables in pyro/stanton, and we already know hunted creatures should vary, so there will be incentives and profitable items coming from both (and presumably all) systems. Also, I feel like your video really acts like all players will want to base build/operate in Pyro. Small orgs, even most big orgs will be building their big bases in safer systems and a lot of people will likely never join the dogpile that is Pyro unless they particularly want PVP. I do hope they add smaller stations and/or small asteroid bases for smaller orgs to set as a goal, though.
With StarSim, I am wondering / hoping they will have the ability to increase pressure from the NPC side to help address an over powered org / alliance.
@@BuzzCutPsycho fair point, though i would say that depending on the purpose, the AI could be scaled up in numbers and in skill to balance it out. A little bit of a "tilt" if you get my drift.
One sentence at CitCon caught my ear when they mentioned Earth vs Terra rivalry. It's probably nothing, but could hint of an impending civil war scenario where PvP focused factions could form. Other faction like gameplay vs Vanduul as PvE focus is more likely tho.
@@BuzzCutPsycho This is the more likely scenario regarding faction warfare you may be looking for. EVE introduced something similar with their Faction Warfare development. But a PVP sandbox just doesn't naturally align with a Faction game, and the popularity of Faction Warfare is somehow not as appealing to many vs all out sandbox PVP massive battles. Anyways, here's to the future. May CIG pick the right course.
Overall, I personally get about an hour or 2 to play per week, rl just gets in the way of playing. If orgs start to control systems, like it is in eve, i likely wont bother even visiting those systems/places and will end up just chilling in the places I can enjoy without 'working for it' -- after all most of us have to work in real jobs daily, sc is meant to be fun and relaxing, not another job :) i cant imagine being part of an org and having 'defend duty' for our base as soon as i get back home from my daily job... like you said, it will be a second job... and many of us dont want that hehe, we want to just have some fun. Oh and I dont like the token system for orgs they described... like you well described, there are just too many issues with this type of system.
100% agree. Last Oasis is my favorite PVP MMO of all time and the clan I was in dominated NA East. We liked it so much we told the devs to nerf clans or just outright get rid of them in favor of small squads. Unfortunately, these PVP MMO studios have such a hard-on for large clan conflicts because they're "epic" and make for a good story. Well the epic battles happened and it did create some fond memories, but I would have much preferred a game that wasn't dead afterward. RIP.
Spot on observation. Granted it's possible we're accidentally taking about end game too much. CIG implied the org stuff was end game content: between that and starting point, all the faction gameplay and narrative and jobs, and special events SHOULD fill all that. Should. But worth talking about! That all said, it's wild to me how rapidly people are pretending that the rest of the game doesn't exist because i guess base building is all they're is now, and making a small one hidden away for yourself is just not possible (if for some reason you just have to have a homestead).
@BuzzCutPsycho Makes sense, losing is unpleasant. Unfortunately we can't have a Minecraft world for this one. I think the route for that is supposed to be get citizenship, then build in the safe systems where you *won't* lose the planetary shield. Lawful jazz.
My personal idea for a solution to this problem: Instead of invulnerability, the reward is simply a free 'normal' shield (preventing aerial bombing, forcing ground attack) for all that org's bases in the system, but it also speeds up mining, refining, and manufacturing buildings in those bases, *but* also people who successfully attack these bases get extra tokens. (you could have some invulnerability for some number of hours each day and/or buff automated defences if it needs to be balanced to encourage more people to want to win these bids, you could even allow them to select 1 base as completely invulnerable perhaps) The idea is to encourage people to attack the winners, but in exchange the winners get a bunch of bonuses so long as their bases stand. We all know the winners of these events will be the largest orgs who are most capable of defending themselves around the clock, they should also be willing to put their skills to the test and be unlikely to win consecutively from snowballing if enough people really want to stop them. I get the feeling they wanted this system to be non-PvP friendly, but unless they outright stop PvP from having any effect in the system at all, including the winners using the invulnerability to take man-hours away from defence and put all that into raiding others, it won't just effect non-PvP players so there should be some PvP based counter. Also, they should make any kind of 'invulnerability' if they have it (which would be a good idea so long as everyone can get it) be only for so many hours of the day (which hours decided at least e.g. 2 days in advance), maybe dependent on the size of the base (e.g. extra large bases need to be vulnerable 6 hours a day, extra small ones only 1 hour a day, somewhat in proportion to how long it would take to assault such a base with a slight size multiplier) btw 'shards' will be like geographical regions (NA/EU/SEA etc.) most likely, though they hope to reduce the number of shards as much as possible if dynamic server meshing can allow it.
We do know how game universe instances (shards) are going to work in Star Citizen, they have explained it. An instance of the game is a separate game universe that players cannot traverse between, a shard is a collection of game servers with their own support servers ergo it is it's own instance of the game, an exact copy of the game universe in each instance or shard. They do plan to eventually have a single shard instance for all players but that won't come for many years (if at all) due to real world signal travel time limitations and global network backbone hardware limitation. So there will be regional instances of the game universe for a long time to come. What they are talking about is making some game features 'cross shard', so the activity in one shard affects all shards. This uses the persistence database to share that data between all shards, since it is a global database that feeds data to all shards. If you build a base in a particular location on your shard, then other players in other instances of the game universe cannot use that same real estate to build a base. Your base is represented in all shards as well as your own. In shards where no-one is supposed to have access to your base then it will be locked / protected on that shard even though you can physically see it in all instances. For non-fixed game assets like ships etc there will be no cross shard instancing. Like you I am also very concerned about area domination by organisations, to put it bluntly I did not support this project for 12 years and around $9000 for it to be area dominated by the likes of Goonswarm because it then becomes an arms race where that arms race takes up the majority of the resources and since resources are physicalised in Star Citizen that also means anyone who wants that level of resource gathering has to control the real estate where those resources are located. In non-UEE space anyone who discovers a deposit of resources will have to defend that location from much larger groups who have the resources to take your resources. In UEE controlled spaces they say this won't be possible, but we have yet to see the details of how that is going to work. They have vaguely talked about planetary shields and base shields, as well as an ever escalating NPC AI law enforcement spawning , this brings it's own problem of magic inflation of resources, since NPC ships and assets once supplied into the game universe are then available outside of the location based resource gathering, it becomes a virtually infinite resource. You can salvage NPC ships and game assets for as long as you can match those arrayed against you. ie What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger - quite literally. Picking a fight with the game becomes the most efficient predictable way to gather more and more resources. Why go exploring for resources when you can make the game bring those resources to you? The game, or at least very large sections of the game universe, become permanent war zones because it is advantageous to very large organisations to have it that way.
@@BuzzCutPsycho CIG run their shards in AWS Cloud Services. The AWS Network has nodes all around the world. CIG did say at one time you would be able to choose your shard but they have never followed upon it so as of now you are routed to whichever shard is available in the world region you choose with the lowest ping rate.
As a member of one of the mid to smaller sized orgs in SC this vid pretty much summed up what I was assuming the game would end up after this years citizen con… a shame too. They drew so many of us in with the idea that we’d be parts of the UEE citizenry existing in that world with 9 bots to every player in a curated universe. I was a small time corp member in Eve, and was gatekept out of a lot of the big shit in that game because I didn’t have the time to be competitive. I fear star citizen will be the same, except the fanbase isn’t the same type of players Eve had and it will kill the game in under six months
@ agreed, definitely not too late, but CiG is seemingly always too late on the “we just realized” train so we will see. Im hopeful that since its years away we come to meet somewhere in the middle of both camps and have a game where there’s something for everyone from a solo to an org of thousands to do at the endgame.
Isn't there already a system where your land claims cost more exponentially the more land you claim? This would mean it would be hard for larger orgs to claim most of a settled system, and while it won't effect lawless systems, I feel that unless you really build up, nearly anyone could harass your operations, enough to seriously cramp any outlying claims.
Even if it was faction based, as long as there is a method to friendly fire, large orgs could still exclude others but simply killing them and dealing with the consequences later. Most of the time, large enough orgs can overwhelm NPC security forces with ease. We saw this in archeage where large guilds became the defacto rulers of entire factions as they could exclude you from content. They would get all the loot for world bosses in sage zones cause tag/dps, and in war zones you'd be killed on the spot. Casual players don't band up together against organized groups, the second adversity happens, they don't see the fun or value to keep fighting, causing the rich to get richer. Server population then dies off, as a result as the casuals find no purpose to keep going, servers then get merged, and then hardcore groups exhaust themselves, simply fighting to fight as they have free farmed on their previous server.
Systems with factions that also have FF have very severe penalties and that is far from a wide spread issue. It was not an issue in WW2OL, PS1, or PS2. Also, Archage, which let you FF people, have a prison and punishment system. Your argument is a little bit of a stretch. What you described is griefing. Griefing gets punished with potential account bans.
Since there is no local chat, like in Eve... you will be able to stealth around these orgs unnoticed and mine the planet for the good stuff. Big difference. So no matter how big the org... they can’t theoretically lock down a system.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Can't be bombarded, so people can't just nuke them from orbit -- but the tokens do not stop people from infiltrating bases on the ground using stealth tactics, which is awesome for smaller, tactics-based orgs.
Space Trucking is still Trucking, except now you get to do it in Space and in a cool ship you spent your real dollars on so you feel like you have to get the full value out of it
I agree about the way this is headed, we've seen it in many games that let groups have control of content and resources. My main questions come to resource availability, is there enough for everyone or first come first serve? I can already imagine people going to off prime time shards to setup bases, just to get resources back on their preferred shard. Do I lose my base in a raid or just inventory? Am I going to lose progress every time I needed to sleep or go to work? I agree there should be some factions instead, the PS2 model comes to mind. Granted factions can get lopsided, but at least it creates an opportunity to hit back and have some chance at the "high end materials". If anything, I feel like they are dropping the ball by having the focus be on PvP and not having an NPC star system to run high end, complex, story driven raids and fleet battles with vanduul (or lore wise, make it against bandits and add a vanduul system later). I know they are putting the events out as "Org activities", but is that really enough?
All you need to do is check the EVE online Sovereign map. You see these large alliances / corporations(orgs) locking down huge areas of the map from rest of the population. And not having restrictions to size, same thing will happen in SC.
I'm part of one of the largest orgs in the game and I shared much of your take here. Yes I want my org to be successful, but I want to see other players and smaller orgs be able to enjoy themselves as well. It is a concerning development
I play 5-10 hrs per week max I'm in a mid lvl org. I personally don't mind if the mega Orgs control entire systems. I know my org wants the end game but from what I'm seeing it will be difficult to build and maintain. Also, the lawless and lawful systems will have very different end game content according to the sitcon. I would also like to point out: you van still have fun flying around with friends, mining, salvaging, and questing even if an org controls the "end game". We will see what's what when the game goes live in 2035.
I have a strong feeling the Player Run economy thing will get turned around closer to release as the trolls and griefers will kill any of their hope for this to be player run. With how many players already owning some form of large torpedo bombers, any attempt to build anything in Pyto will be moot.
Interesting video. Its of my belief that just like jump Town. These player stations will create dynamic events. Around them. And the protection system is only for pyro and that system is harsh already. I believe it shouldn't be balanced or changed. There should be high risk and high rewards to doing such activities. But lets see.
My understanding is orgs will only have power in completely lawless systems. I have the same fears as you and have had them since hearing about orgs. And even if they are knife to just pyro and other lawless systems, that sounds like it’s keeping the majority of players from enjoying half the game
This just sounds like a different mentality joining a common world of mmo, this system can be incredibly fun. If you look at everything from the mentality of participation i get why it looks awful, But if you feel any bit of competitive and a desire to win, you will love it
I actually think most of this is solved with their tiered security systems/safe zones and Genesis. And by that, I mean, you bring up a good point about what's in it for the losers? Well, most people who start with base building -- unless they are veteran Rust/DayZ players -- will not be building in null-sec spaces. They will start in highly secured zones like Terra or Stanton. Once they build up enough resources and maybe join an org, then they might begin to venture out. Having their bases raided in high-sec areas will be minimal and unlikely to any frequent degree, so instead of being compelled NOT to play, they will be compelled to venture out for higher rewards with a higher risk. Added to this, they mentioned that you can raid base inventories by hacking their freight elevators. Meaning, orgs who aren't just going to be zerg-tier murder-hobos will have to do reconnaisance first; they will have to scout if the base has supplies worth raiding; they will have to scout defences, and they will have to make a judgment call if the base is worth risking their own resources over. This is where stealth-oriented orgs will excel, maybe even as orgs/PMCs-for-hire for larger organisations. Don't want to risk your supplies/fleet raiding a competing base? Hire someone else to infiltrate and steal/sabotage their supplies. Finally, I don't think org control of large space stations and tokens will be much of an issue. In Pyro you have the gang factions that will continue to have base/stations change hands based on non-org (and org) participation in the StarSim contracts, so there will always be an ebb and flow, and an unpredictable nature to who controls what at any given time, unless some mega-org joins a Pyro gang and forces territorial control over all of Pyro. But that in itself crates for some cool emergent gameplay/story opportunities. What's more is that by the time 1.0 approaches, they will have five systems, but with Genesis they will be able to propagate new systems quickly -- so even if an org controls Pyro and becomes super dominate, new solar systems popping up regularly post 1.0 (even giant empty systems with a few sparse moons) will continue to give smaller orgs an opportunity to expand, especially in mid and high-sec systems.
I want to believe in you and hope you are right. But every ounce of my cynicism on this particular subject is based in historical precedent. Outside of EVE I have never seen it work :(
My way of thinking is to divide the organisations up into two teams. A civil war in Star Citizen Earht vs Terra you have 5 Terrain Systems and 5 Earth Systems and 5 systems in the middle which are contested, UEE military will not take part as they fighting the Vandull so it leaves the Civil Military us to fight. Doing this Orgs will either fight for Terra or Earth. Two have 20 employees who will be game masters able to put AI and create jobs for Orgs. Just like Dungeons and Dragons the Dungeon Master. they have to have rules but they can change things up especailly in systems like Pyro and Nyx and Stanton and with NPC crews that way your building a bengal carrier for a reason and other ships. Dual Universe, Pai Dai failed onething to divide us into teams and give us a enemy.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Me would be the Messer Dynasty that have been building in secret to take the UEE on that would be the third. Using the pirates to advantage in the Pyro system to disrupt the UEE economy and causing Chaos
Lots to consider but at the moment i balance my time between solo and part of a small crew. I’m happy to be a small cog in a large wheel but it has to be when the game requires org membership because joining a organisation when the game isn’t ready has just been to up and down in content based on past experiences in SC. Hopefully by 1.0 orgs will start to standout then a decision will be made. Long way to go yet unfortunately.
I can understand the concerns because of how uncertain things are at the moment (like there was ever any kind of certainty in this project - I pledge in 2017...). One thing is for certain though: Chris Roberts is not rushing to release the game. SQ42 will be a polished gem and SC a dream game. His dream game. Is he going to let your worst scenario happen (in which if I understand big orgs control the vast majority of the playable /enjoyable / interesting space and they slowly get richer and less and less destroyable ) ? I don't think so : - The Vanduul threats and other races will bring balance and different kinds of leverages since the development will continue with added systems and events. They (dev team) are not losing control to mega orgs. - SC will be released after all the mistakes you mentioned were made by previous games. I want to be naïve and hopeful: a dream game by a team who has a vision, experience and backers will be better than any other game before. - back to faction pvp: I think it will exist in the form of humans against all other races. The economy will work that way, the control and wars for resources too. - About the tokens you might win that might grant hypothetical protection to your base or station, I seem to remember the vision is about a game based on skills, not on a pay to win type of thing. Therefor I think if you were to get special objects or blueprints, they would be better by a small but not negligible margin. And with the ongoing development I don't think these rewards would mean you, or your org, get overpowered forever. You'd get an advantage, a reward for good use of skills, for a limited time. - Stations will hopefully be hardly destroyable. Keeping the control of them might be the big deal. - So many backers are older gamers, willing to enjoy the game without having to spend a crazy amount of time on it, to keep what you have, and what you have built and achieved. All that for an investment of 45$ +. I don't think they will screw such a large portion of their backers, since the backlash would be greater than the potential gain of taking a route that will make them unhappy. The insurance talks at CitizenCon reassured me on that topic. But again, you have spent a lot of time on this game and other games, to see where important, philosophical decisions can take things. More time on more games than I have. I just hope that we will get respected, and we won't loose all the fun we invested for (in real money and time played to participate to the development). Answers Soon. In 2-3 years ?
Great comment. Glad you appreciate the time of my life I wasted gaining experience in these games ;) Makes me feel a little better. Alien threats would be ideal to me, but I doubt they will ever make NPCs a dangerous thing like they are in other games simply based on how this is a shooter game at heart.
Maybe there needs to be some kind of metric as to how powerful an org is, making bounties on their heads bigger. With enough incentive your average zergfit gets picked apart by the elite farming class. Still with a game this big, there will always be big dogs that rise to the top and start dominating. It's simply the law of the jungle. I don't pretend to have a solution either.
Personally, I just plan to have good relations with the larger orgs and, hopefully, in return I get some semblance of protection/favor. If I make my services and products desirable, they may have reason to keep me up and running, so to speak
@BuzzCutPsycho Indentured service? Nah, it's called a symbiotic relation. The moment an arrangement no longer has positive benefits, I'm moving on. There is too much space and too many orgs, for me to pledge my unwavering loyalties to anybody.
I think the vagueness of this years citcon came at the right time. We’re finally starting to look over the horizon of 4.0, which has eclipsed any ideas of what a finished SC would look like for years. This was the correct year to lay out the rest of the plan, because we can finally start to think of some of these things with major pieces like base building coming along. The silver lining to this is that this is a space where we have the ability to shape that future. The reason you have so many questions, I imagine, is because the devs have those questions too.
@@BuzzCutPsycho I know this is probably coming across as defensive, but I would argue that, at this point, if they aren’t asking the right questions it’s equally as likely because the details just aren’t fleshed out yet as it is that they don’t have a plan to make things work well. We’ll just have to see what more they have to tell us about high-level org stuff, probably next year I would think.
At this point, I find myself hoping for the MMO worlds server system like WoW or FF14. I might be alone here, but it feels like it would be significantly more intuitive.
@BuzzCutPsycho I agree. One massive server would be ideal for org gameplay and I hope we can get there in the end. As it stands, though, the massive singular server wouldn't be sustainable for players.
hi, CIG presentation was good but they didnt told us important informations/details, i played some old games doing just that, just not that throne & liberty thing. -they talked about Orgs, but not alliance, so we don't know if org owning a place can RENT a part of the system for you, to get money and help them defending it, if your corp is large/good enough for them, and if the SEAL program can protect the whole alliance or if main org can give you the right to be protected. -You said, with SEAL program, orgs will be invulnerable, but CIG said u could raid a protected base on ground attack/FPS. -we also don't know if it's gonna be a RUST system(attack & destroy instantly often by orgs living 12timezone from you while you sleep) or a eve system where once attacked, you become invulnerable for 1/2 dozen of hours to organize yourself & prepare for "the last assault" -yes "across all shard" mean across all what we call a "server" in classic mmos, it's to prepare FOR SINGLE SHARD IN THE FUTURE(one server only), for base not overlapping on each other, so yeah, big orgs on server A, will need to destroy base on server B or C etc.... to build their own base back on server A, at the precise place those base were placed on B or C. As said above, if they implement alliance and admin right to the main org, and if you have a interressing enough org, you could rent a south hemisphere moon's, you put a 30% tax for you corp, wich is ok because you would make 2/3times the money vs stanton, the system owner knows economy, and them ask you to pay 1Billion per month, while your org make like 2/3billions, meanwhile the main org defend you, you cant be reimboursed for the ship you lost on a actual War (def or attack) vs other alliance to me, the main problem is : -will this be a Rust or eve/albion base defense system ? -2 pvp system seems not enough, some actual large orgs have enough experience and power to take them both by themself.(and thats why A1 is scared and ask for SEAL program to be server per server, and not across all shard, but thats stupid, it fcks a lot of points A1 is not wired to understand, or preach for his own church (if that make sense in english :D ) Cheers o7 Excuse my frenchglish
You're English is just fine. You're right they didn't tell us enough and citcon really was just a ton of questions with no answers. Guess we just have to wait and see.
I see them making space stations take damage but not be destructible. That way other orgs can simply take control of it, but can't really destroy it. Sort of like an occupation
I really hope they have both. Player stations and then ones with factions. They can balance it out by having faction stations if you hold it for say 2 weeks. Everyone under that faction can get Capital blueprints that is a one time or 5 times use. If you align with the UEE you can get Idris BPC's for cheaper. If you align with Pirates you get Kraken BPC's cheaper. Which then you can sell to other players. Like with EVE where you can get faction blueprints for faction ships. Have something akin to that and make it only for the faction stations to give players a reason to do these. So the losers won't feel totally lost. They can still go to these stations (during a peace period) and still purchase their faction BPC's but at an increased price. Making the other faction want to do the assault to chop off a decent price off the BPC's.
My guess for the tokens: Bids will consume the "winner" tokens amount and the rest will keep them, that way prob things like over dominance would be down (other orgs may get enough to bid and leave a big org unprotected enough time) - that way "losing" a bid doesn't mean the effort is wasted and will be used properly in the future if needed. Still, system is still too green (not even green, too "concept-y", so they can shape it to a thousand things. But yea concerning for the solo player and the small orgs, but i guess they will give "room" somehow ir that i cope/hope. Also well, i do hope bases in contested territory (Such as Pyro which is needed to be traveled to go from Stanton or Terra to Castra) are raided by the local factions AND orgs aligned with those factions encourage that (such as Xenothreat in Pyro, or 9tails in Stanton)
You know I didn't even begin to mention or discuss death of a spaceman and how it goes against all this too. For some reason reading your comment made me think of that
@@BuzzCutPsycho God, death of a spaceman is like a trigger word for me, is such a bad concept i hope we never get as can literally ruin the game by making it a clownfiesta of "no one taking risks or engaging in risky activities at all" yet dying to stupid bugs or game behaviours, with death of a spaceship we have enough. Or if it exist no long term loses should be given which... would defeat the purpose of it existing.
Well. One option for solo players that dont have time to run with orgs...pick up jobs from already existing orgs. If you only have 3 hours per day and want to do cargo running, im sure as shit that some org will pay a good amount for you to run their cargo for 3 hours.
I don’t agree with all of your sentiments, but I do agree that I am very wary of a token based system for base shields in lawless systems. I think it would be much better to have a shield generator that requires fuel and/or power, and that would require logistics and reoccurring shipments that would have to be guarded. That means ships that can be attacked and need defending, which is a perfect potential for the competition and conflict that they want.
@@BuzzCutPsycho I don't agree that the game in general will become a org controlled economy. I think the most noticeable impact orgs will have in in lawless space, where large orgs will constantly be trying to maintain power. Even then, I'm not sure it will be such a dominating influence there. I think that if people want to focus on other aspects of the game, then they will easily be able to do with only occasional interference due to org power struggles. In EVE, jumping into lawless systems as someone passing through or trying to do their own thing can sometimes be very risky. That is mainly due to the fact that the jump gates are way more predictable so it is easier to gank. I don't think it will be as easy in SC. Once you are through the jump point, I think you can hide much easier.
@BuzzCutPsycho I see excactly the same issue with their system. But i would take a more free/better option. Just let every Org buy protection up to a certain space/area in every system. Blue systems are cheaper, red are far more expensive. As more space/area you want to protect, so exponentionally more expensive the protection becomes. If your org reaches the protection space/area limit, you can't protect it with money anymore. You need to defend everything over the limit by yourself. In this way, smaller orgs can also build & keep their bases, while not having too much upkeep, that it becomes too annyoing. Medium orgs can have bigger/more bases if they want, in exchange for more monthly effort. And large orgs with a lot of area/space have to defend some of their territory, while having their core protected (e.g. a big base protected) for a good chunk of money. This is also a good money sink for the game. In this way, large Orgs become defacto Factions in the game, while not having to much power over smaller orgs. Bigger Orgs can buy support from smaller Orgs to portect their extended territory or support them, without that the smaller Orgs have to fear to become the main target of the enemy big org and be burned to the ground for assist the other big org.
Yes an upkeep system to prevent rampant growth would be needed. But what you suggested, while good, is just another necessary system due to a factionless system. The faction system provides the frame work.
I'm a mostly solo player, I have a real life, at most I get 3-6 hours a week to play with friends in my small org of like 10 people, and it's never a guarantee they get to play as they're parents and have families that come first. Feel free to decry me as a "carebare" I don't care, actually you even nailed it on my head, I'm the "loser" in this system, and I know it.
Everything that was shown about base building being the lead-up to org pvp for control of whole systems leaves me feeling utterly disinterested in base building, and everything connected to it... In that same token, I also don't see any reason for myself to be excited for Pyro now because that seems to be the whole point of lawless systems; to be EVE in first person.
Dose that mean I can't have fun playing SC? No. It sounds like CIG will have content that caters to me, and I'm excited for that content, but it's absolutely disheartening that this is the majority focus until 1.0, and likely beyond for a while.
But when it comes to base building, I now see there is nothing for me in that feature, and I don't care about it anymore... I just worry there's enough people in my position that make up the bulk of backers for SC that will slowly filter out of the game because this isn't something everyone can really continue backing if it's simply not possible for them to make this a second job; I just want to reiterate, most of the people who back SC are real people, with jobs, families, and most importantly precious little free time to enjoy it in. CIG seem intent to make the game a second job "or else" you can't enjoy it, because you become the loser, you have no means to progress unless you agree to the terms of the orgs that control the game...
Like I said at the start, everyone can call me a carebare, but at the end of the day, Buzz, you understand something a lot of people don't seem to grasp - if I (players like me) leave the game because you're always winning, you're still losing. I've tried to explain that to others before and they laugh, make fun of me for wanting and expecting a game that isn't just _merderhobo the sandbox_, or _EVE lite_; you put it very succinctly in a way I never have been able to, and that's why I do come to your videos, you and I have very different reasons to enjoy SC, but you fully understand that players like myself are a necessity for it's health and future.
On a closing note: I'm going to continue to enjoy the parts of Star Citizen I enjoy, while they're enjoyable to me... but yeah, I don't really have anything "exciting" to look forward to in the next at least 2-4 years based on that CitCon. Actually, I rather dread the day I'm going to have to uninstall the game if it becomes the kind of toxic second job that so many other games have become for trying to push such systems of "player control" to the extend CIG seems intent on making based on that panel.
I see you covered it on another comment response, you even listed all the games I would normally list and more as a warning that games that use these "player control" systems that will drive players like me away simply from other players playing the game, as designed; it's a deadly risk, and I know there's a subsect of people who are almost viciously opposed to hearing this truth, but casual and solo players are a majority of gamers of all walks, from all places, it's very rare for games to survive without them; games such as EVE are the exceptions, not the rule, and Buzz, you clearly have enough experience to have seen that time and time again, as have I from the opposite side of the same coin.
Have a pin. This is a gem.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Thanks. 😊👍
Simple fact, they gotta pay for those new luxurious offices. So they focus the large org moneymakers first. Not a complaint, just the reality of the situation.
Look how well it worked for EVE online.
First thing's first, thank you for using paragraphs in your comment. Makes me actually want to read rather then a blanket wall of text that goes on forever.
To the content of your comment, I think you are preemptively dismissing base building. While building a large base is likely out of your group's purview, there is no reason why a small to medium size base is something you can't construct. Yes, the massive org bases and stations is likely content outside your time investment window, many of these locations will have open trading access and potentially available for you to join as a side org.
Ultimately we are just seeing all this for the first time and as it isn't in game yet, I would not be so quick to judge.
I like that you are an Org guy , but totally understand the solo or small group players and voice your concerns for them. Great video made me subbed!
You're welcome! I want the game to be enjoyable while also not being a 2nd job for me. So it benefits both of us :)
@@BuzzCutPsycho yeah thats why i am against Hygiene being a thing ( hell i am sure half the community doesn't care about hygiene IRL ) or Pyro tool battery depleting , seriously who likes having to recharge ones phone ?? why put that in game !
Yeah that NPC crews are set for after SC1.0 is quite a bummer.
I hope it doesn’t turn into another EVE type of situation where you are in one of two org factions… or you can’t do anything at all.
That is my concern
@@BuzzCutPsycho I feel like this game has ways to avoid that issue.
How is EVE like that? i can do everything solo, exept ofc party/group stuff. And bc its PVP game, it is supose to be harder(more risk of dying) when u solo stuff. Not every game is for everyone. I dont like LoL or WoW so i dont play those games.
Sorry to say but it's probably gonna be like that. At least in lawless systems more then likely. Now I wasn't am EVE player but some of my friends were deep into EVE and everything SC is showing for 1.0 end game and goals is very much going to turn into EVE level PVP. Now I'm sure solo players will have their way and be able to make a living in the Verse. But orgs will no doubt control vast areas and have massive wars.
We barely have a functional ai to begin with
at this point we really need to push directors of CIG and Chris especially (he really need to stop micromanaging) to learn from EVE Online experience. the good, the bad and the ugly
They must be well aware of EVE at this point I would think
Then they're even dumber than we realize.
Things won't ever be allowed to fall into the same state as EVE. One group of players being able to control access to a system would be utterly devastating for the game as a whole. This is even more true for 1.0, as virtually all travel between systems has to go through Pyro.
I can fully see alliances of orgs taking over entire systems. Because that's how people work, it will snowball to the point where they grow to critical mass and nobody (besides the devs) will be able to stop them. Player built stations is a mistake.
@@fenn7437 The devs can’t allow it to happen. Players would be locked out of a huge portion of the game’s content, including being unable to complete the main story quest. This is incomparable to the relatively trivial impact of controlling a system in EVE, where systems are little more than resource nodes. Star Citizen systems contain unique locations, lore, missions, NPC factions, and each represent a huge chuck of the entire game’s content. One group of players being able to control other player’s access to that content would simply kill the game.
As a single player guy I appreciate the insight from your MMO experience. I definitely like the idea of faction-based conflict vs strictly org warfare. Like you say, it allows way more players to get involved, whether solo or small orgs. Also just sounds more like SC instead of EVE. Ya know, the game we all backed not the one we didn't. Hope they go more that route, but it's kinda whatever at this point with SC.
I remember when SC wasn't going to be eve with cockpits
spot on take. If they continue to head towards this player ran universe, The reality is that the majority will need to lose so the few may win. But unlike IRL, the majority will just leave to play some other games. Start Citizen will then become another niche forgotten title with a really small really hardcore audience...like eve online.
This is not a surprise. These second job games always become niche as they compete for a finite amount of time and most players will never commit to a single game for the rest of their lives. Its supposed to be a game, not a marriage.
I am going to steal that line, btw.
"the majority will need to lose so the few may win"
That is so spot on.
Never forget CIG can decide to have systems which does not allow too big Orgs. They have all ace cards in hands and can allow solo high security systems, lawless freedom for all and systems (a specific alien race or two?) which does not allow big battle but trade in their systems. problem solved, big Orgs won't be able to control the whole universe as CIG can "magically" allow some race Corp to produce endless number of battle ships.
The options are endless. CIG interest is to please as many players as possible and they can do it systems per systems, at their leisure without breaking the joy for anyone, except the eternal frustrated that will claim (even if it was never said that way): "you told us we can control the all universe!!!"... because well, such individual doesn't care about others who contributed to SC development.
Such attitude is the opposite of a community and have to be gently but firmly denied.
@vinct7023 your confidence on a company that can't even get a cup to sit still on a table is amazing. good luck.
they dont even make the animation capable of escaping your own self destruct timer on some ships. the idea that they can balance some type of player driven economy or get anything more than one system at this point to a playable state is insanity
SC is pure insanity at all times.
I have to tend to agree with you. There are so many little things that have been stewing on the back burner for so long; it is hard for me to believe that they can ever save this dumpster fire.
I'm not a game developer, I do have experience in project management. The "Alpha" crutch has ruined the entire project, IMHO. This is also exemplified by the phrase, "A failure to commit is a commitment to fail".
I'm already part of an org. It's called work and that's where I earn money. Coming from work I'm not interested in duplicating this. I want to discover, fly, enjoy the time, building my small home somewhere alone. Team meetings, organizing, HR, budget, that's the world I already have in reality.
Nothing stop you to trade as an org member and contribute at your pace.
@@vinct7023 Except org leaders that treat you like an employee; AKA how these orgs will be.
Some people just don't want to be in an organization and that should be acceptable for people.
I cannot wait for that corporate world to come into the game!
@@karsonkammerzell6955 Simple answer: don't join such org. Contrary to real life we have sometimes to deal with moron manager, we have the choice.
Having SEAL tokens calculated across all shards might be a good thing for preventing outside-the-game coordination of the largest organizations into SuperBlocs that always have protection. If big organizations on other servers can unexpectedly take away your protection, it gives room for even the largest organizations on the shard to become vulnerable. Hopefully they implement something to prevent peace-pacts and always on protection.
One thing EVE taught me about human nature is that even the most pvp-oriented amoung us dont like to lose their stuff.
The main issue is that if other servers have a smaller player base they will never, ever get protection. If that is the way it is being designed, which I do not know. What you said isn't wrong, but if server B does not have the population of server A it will never have an option to get protection, the decision is already made based on numbers alone. It would be like voting Republican in New York. Why bother?
That is if the system works that way, anyways.
Yeah that NPC crews are set for after SC1.0 is quite a bummer.
I hope it doesn’t turn into another EVE type of situation where you are in one of two org factions… or you can’t do anything at all.
In the Total War series NPC factions declare war on you if you get too powerful.
It would require an NPC faction to regulate too powerful orgs.
The Vanduul love a good hunt ain’t they? ;D
Well it looks like we're getting eve lite at least.
How is EVE like that? i can do everything solo, exept ofc party/group stuff. And bc its PVP game, it is supose to be harder(more risk of dying) when u solo stuff. Not every game is for everyone. I dont like LoL or WoW so i dont play those games.
It won't be eve because of high security systems are going to be much more brutal and painful for trolls... There is a actual penalty for p v p m in high security space.
Feels like it's gonna be rust but more stressful for everyone. I wish they stuck with a faction system so that everyone from solo to large can get buffs and negatives.
Rust sucks
@@BuzzCutPsychoi like rust. it’s one of the most popular games on steam
@@notcarson2227 problem is that everyone want a game that HIS priority. The fact Rust is popular to a population players deos not means CIG can integrate same features. Immediately others players will claim to have EVE or any others MMO which is somehow popular. That said, they may be borrow some features, the goal is to make the game fun for most players;
Rust would be great if offline raiding wasn't such an overpowered strategy that favours people who can be 'on-call' 24 hours a day.
More stressful than rust? I think I'd die IRL
Great video and breakdown! I agree that we need more clarification from CIG and I would almost expect these concepts to be more fleshed out in Inside Star citizen and Star Citizen Live this autumn and next year, which they also eluded to during citcon. So I hope we need to have some patience with it and it will hopefully be explained further.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I was an officer in an org in SWG and although I played the game a lot, I was rarely online at the same time as most of my guildmates as my play schedule is erratic. Since then, I mostly pay MMOs solo. I'm interested in joining an org in Star Citizen but it will likely need to be an org that doesn't require a lot of participation on their schedule as my schedule isn't much of a schedule. If I can't find the right kind of org for my playstyle, I have no qualms about carving out a living within an org's territory or in the space between territories.
We don't require a ton of time!
The shield tokens are only for the stations in pyro. It's separate system from bases that are built
I thought it was the other way around? Either way, it's a big deal.
No, its for ground bases. As mentioned the system was designed when miners were on ground with mining outposts. Shielding was provided for the miners who put the most effort into maintaining the system.
Unclear if it extends to SS's.
The concept as a whole, in any application is a bad idea. There shouldn't be an artificial limiting magic mechanic. It doesn't mesh with SC.
@@vik12D While not having any magical mechanics would be great, this game has never been sold as a pure simulation game, this was inevitable.
@@vik12D I like it!
Keep those that like fighting, fighting each other. Leaving others in peace, cause there too busy fighting amongst themselves.
I know there is probably some quote of wisdom about that.
And its likely been more than one book/movies/show plot.
Those contested zones offer the same.
Firstly, let me say... this is one of the most well thought out takes on the new CIG inductions to the Verse. My two concerns at this rate, as a long-time backer/solo/casual player... are that there will be far too gameplay/things to do org-walled behind this concept of forcing us to have to be in an org, making it less appealing for the casual/solo, and secondly, every single question you have in this video, CIG will NOT have an answer for until it's too late, and the damage is done post-launch. But only time will tell! Great vid!
Thanks man! I appreciate that. I was hoping this video would get seen by CIG just so it could get the topics going and discussed.
imo if bases and stations can be destroyed, destroying them should require equal amount or more effort to build them. or else everyone will just team up in small orgs and blast them to bits.
have stations to be destructible but requires similar amount of effort of building, and ground bases be damaged to an inoperable state but cannot be completely destroyed would be my wished implementation
Or station battles would happen in phases. It would take numerous defeats to lose the station. Something that isn't a one and done.
@@BuzzCutPsycho So like EVE online?
I think CIG should have a PTU special event specifically to test all of this. Allow 2 large orgs to have instant access to enough resources to build their own base and fight over these end-game tokens. Collect the data, figure out what's wrong with it and fix it.
Cig would never do anything smart like that
Criminally under-rated video, dude! I have the same questions.... subscribed!
Glad you liked it!
I do believe the intend is to have resources exclusive to particular areas. Therefore, even though invulnerable, a base/planet won't be self-sufficient/independent and the org will have to actively battle on multiple other fronts to gather the resources needed to feed the invulnerable base.
Sure, a possible solution. But in the end it is still entirely player run and that doesn't address my main concerns :( Not you addressing them, but rather the game.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Fairly sure they've mentioned like 70% of the economy or so will be simulated by the "Virtual NPCs/Quanta/StarEconomist9000". That should create enough supply of whatever is necessary to avoid monopolization of whatever the org is doing. But who tf knows what they end up doing in the end. My bet is on the whole system getting changed completely like 3 times even after 1.0.
I also have no idea what is the intent with multiple orgs having bases/stations on/around the same planet... with those invulnerability shenigans...
@@BuzzCutPsycho Didn't they say like 70% of the economy would be simulated by StarQuantaCitizen? I believe they've mentioned, at some point, most of the economy would be simulated by NPCs, which should lesser the potential of monopolization from large orgs. Also no idea what is the intent for multiple orgs on the same planet and those invulnerability tokens. The invulnerable org could just build a bunch of AA guns around the other org's base and shoot at it for days...
That will just result in the biggest orgs controlling all the resources.
CIG clarified (I forget where exactly) that resources will not spawn infinitely, in other words mines can be mined out. That means that even the top orgs can't just sit back and collect, they'll need to keep expanding which means their territories will keep getting more and more difficult to maintain.
Sneak into a base and start spawning objects in the basement, loads and loads and loads of really small, dense models.
Would that slow down that area of the server enough so the occupants wouldnt be able to react to incoming missiles?
Yes
I play a game (War Thunder) their is "Clan Battles" with premiums currency for the top 5 clans. One of the Clan Battle mode was removed because the top 10 clans in that game mode came to an agreement and would rotate who was supposed to be in the top 5 to get the reward. They were often seen asking the opposition to just give up so that one day they could join the "top 10 council". This could also be the outcome with some of the bigger Orgs...
Haha that is hilarious and I never knew that. Sounds like world of tanks.
As you said, the info we have on the system at this point is still pretty limited. But after watching the panels a couple times the potential meta I could see shaking out is:
I think large (think top five or top ten at most) orgs will be able to hog the vast majority of shield tokens in unlawful systems. But depending on the level of resistance they receive, it may become uneconomical to sustain that on a weekly basis. It may very well be that it is easier to pump part of their resources into paying taxes in a lawful system and transporting their goods there instead and receive the same invulnerability protection, but as a guarantee instead of fighting for it every week. This doesn't preclude a smaller scale FOB/distribution center with protection in each unlawful system as well, but having the vast majority of your eggs in a basket without guaranteed protection seems like a risk that you would want to mitigate as much as possible. Especially considering said protection is a few minute trip through a jump point.
Under that assumption, lower value resource producing bases could almost become communal. Working for you only as long as you can hold it.
It could be very interesting, but again it is all rampant speculation until we get hands on with it.
Yeah you're right. It is all speculation. And I would have liked a bit more meat in the presentation. I just see what they have presented and think "Hmm... I see some issues here"
I could also be dumb.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Your certainly not dumb. ;)
The more I think about it, the more I feel like this all boils down to the amount of systems that will be in the initial release.
Pyro is the absolute centre of 1.0.
If you want to traverse from any of the 2 neigbouring systems (Castra-Nyx and Stanton-Terra) to the other you have to travel trough Pyro.
Large org vs. org gameplay will happen there and with a supposed rich get richer loop like that I very much see said traversal to be heavily impeeded by orgs that are holding that space. You want your rivals out of the system so of course you´ll be blocking access.
If we had more systems that large orgs could fight over there might be some space left for smaller orgs to compete in.
You're right. Maybe them just having one system where it can be done is the issue here. How many would we need to make this work? SC just does not have enough, EVE has a lot, right?
Also if they scale up the planets (say) 4 times. Will they scale up the system as well?
9:00 the token system could be used to protect smaller organisations by making the required amount of tokens needed grow exponentially with higher member counts
Could. Then it falls into the bandaid category of fixes and convolution created by the factionless system.
With info we have about the ingame factions, R&R etc. One possible idea could be if your aligned to a certain NPC faction, an outpost you build would by default be open to other players aligned to same NPC Faction. But only the org running the station could open shops, own it, etc. But others could use it as a home, help defend it, whatever. And if aligned to it, you couldn't damage it, to avoid insiders sabotaging it. Basically aligned members could take advantage of it, like they normally would an NPC station for all purposes. But then that brings in the idea of a couple big orgs all aligning to same NPC faction, .. but it could at least lessen the blow.
They brought all of that info out about the factions, I think three of them, and nothing else was really expanded upon them other than you can do missions for them. It was a major disappointment and what you suggested is what I figured would happen.
Do you think like a fleet based organization would be able to have a place in this game? That is kind of what it seems my organization is going tword.
I think so. At least in Lawful space. No danger there. Anything is possible. But I think real power will come from unlawful space under the proposed ysstem.
You raised some concerns about small or medium sized orgs being locked out of too much end game content. I hear you and many others raise this concern, but I disagree that it will be as big of a problem as many people claim. I think there will be lots of content for small to medium sized orgs, and I'll explain why.
Firstly, even if you didn't want to sign up for a second job by joining a mega org, a smaller organization can still join an alliance to act as an auxillary to a mega org. Your little group of ten could easily just get paid to occasionally run cargo to an orgs build site or do some mining or small raids on their behalf without fully and totally committing to a larger org and joining their chain of command. This alone would allow smaller orgs who have neither the desire nor ability to take part in macro level org gameplay to at least get their share of that gameplay.
Secondly, the only thing owning a space station or large base in null-sec space gets you is your manufa facilities closer to higher yield resources. That's it. There's absolutely nothing stopping a small org of twenty or so people with a base in high-sec getting together, going to Pyro, mining until their cargo holds are full, and zipping back to Stanton or Castra or what have you to refine their materials. Its less efficient than having a base right by the resources, sure, but since you are a smaller org you don't need as many resources to kit your people out with end game gear either. My point is that a smaller org doesn't need a space station or massive base to get top tier resources. That's not even touching on things like the Merchantman or Privateer that can take resources from null-sec and efficiently resell them in high-sec or ships like the Arrastra or Expanse that can refine your resources on the move for even more efficiency without needing a null-sec base at all.
Third, there's ample content for endgame outside of OrgvOrg PVP. You can get your rare resources and high quality loot from distribution center raids. The totally-not-a-dungeon Depths of ArcCorp. PVE fleet battles. Raids into Vanduul space. The entire main story quest that specifically mentioned tensions between Earth and Terra which sound *a lot* like those NPC macro factions you mentioned. Even IF megaorga and megaorgs alone could manage to build space stations in Pyro and Nyx... I just don't see that as being a massive part of the game, theres tons else more to do that smaller orgs can take on.
Yep, agreed onall points.
Great comment, and I am glad you made it. Always love reading what you write.
I raised several concerns, which go beyond simply locking players out of content. They touch on a core design philosophy that, if left unchecked, could stifle growth or even harm the game's population.
1. What you’re describing is a player group being forced into a subordinate role to another group. Being an “auxiliary” is just a more polite way of saying you’re essentially beholden to a larger org. And you’re beholden because the game has structured the system so that you must either serve them, oppose them, or avoid them altogether. This game doesn’t have the scale to justify contracting other orgs to run my cargo or perform other tasks-why would I? I can use people within my own org, especially if it’s large enough. I doubt anyone establishes an org with the intention of being in service to another. The idea that you have to "ask" another group of players-customers just like you-to "play" the game with their permission is a hilarious notion to me, one I dealt with when I ran our server in New World. While funny, that isn't great design to me.
2. In the video, I discuss whether resources really matter in this system. For example, I question why I would choose to build a station in Pyro rather than Stanton and instead launch raids from Stanton into Pyro. If the *only* advantage of having a base in Pyro is access to manufacturing, it suggests the system isn’t all that crucial. If that’s the case, why include it at all? This presents a dilemma-a catch-22: either the system is so crucial that it’s necessary for success, or it isn’t important enough to justify the risk, and I’ll just exploit others who do take the risk. In the latter scenario, the entire system becomes pointless and poorly designed.
3. I don’t disagree with you here. But you and I both know that players are far more likely to be drawn to the “build your base, harvest your resources” endgame rather than fighting the ArcCorp Dragon every Tuesday before reset.
As I mentioned in the video, I personally benefit from this system-I’m part of a large org that’s constantly seeking more members. But I’ve witnessed several games that relied on guild/outfit/org ownership and player-driven resources or mechanics reach a premature end:
- Shadowbane
- Darkfall
- Mortal Online
- ArcheAge (Player Nations)
- New World
- Mortal Online 2
- Throne and Liberty
The only exception is *EVE*, but only *EVE* can be *EVE*. Banking on long-term success by expecting similar results to *EVE*-instead of learning from every other game that tried to replicate it-seems like a risky choice.
We can agree to disagree. But in all of those games (except Mortal Online), I was part of the groups that “killed” the servers. And we did so simply by using the game mechanics as they were intended. There’s always an idealized way we expect people to play in theory, which sounds great, versus the way people actually play in reality. And the two are often very, very different.
I’d agree and disagree, while there is other thing to do in the game having a majority of your player base locked out of ever getting protection. A small org or group will never be able to mine or build bases the mega server org will take over entire planets raiding all who don’t see their favor . And in that case you dont just lock small orgs out of org content you lock them out of base building in any pvp zones and in some case they can’t even mine or farm the areas for the rare unique resources of they system . A org of 20 like you say would probably only have 2-3 people on at a time if they are lucky . And if you think this won’t happen look at what happen in new world with asmondgold took his huge raiding party in new world killing everyone with shear numbers no org could compete or how servers die in any mmo pvp .
TLDR, it's going to be rust or ark public servers in space.
A solution to the problem is to have buildable facilities that are smaller which orgs with far fewer members can build. Like orbital refinement facilities, or research outposts. Things that can be used to maximize production of resources and materials that everyone needs, especially the large orgs trying to build their massive space stations.
The important thing is making it so everyone has something engaging and purpose-driven at all tiers of org size... or with no org affiliation at all.
Something even bigger than space stations could be made available for EVERYONE. Something like building a city on a planet or moon. It would go through a progression path that is pre-determined by CIG, from just a small outpost with a landing pad to a full metropolis over the course of months or years to which players can contribute resources and materials. Even new players can contribute to it. At different stages of progression, CIG could set it up for mission-givers to take up residence. At some point this new city could become a major hub of activity for a planet, including a wide variety of habs and shops that players can live in and run. As it takes shape, or is eventually finished, anyone who contributed to its progression, even if they just made a single small delivery of equipment to kit out one building, would be able to look at it and say "I helped build that." The needs for building such monstrosities would need tremendous amounts of resources. Even if all the huge orgs pitch in, it would ideally take a massive amount of time. This would not be something that would just be done and over with in a month. It would be something that players would potentially be able to watch grow over years, with there always being a new building or facility being completed or going into production.
The ability to take part in building something huge should not be locked behind org membership. Nobody should be excluded from the world building mechanics just because they prefer not to get involved with orgs. Maybe they prefer just doing things in a living game world on their own, or maybe with just a small group of friends who just like to play together. In a game like what SC is trying to be, there's no such thing as an invalid playstyle.
That is a potential solution. I think the idea is safe space is for everyone else. But I just have a hard time believing that. Everything you wrote is solid, but it is a lot of work for a problem that could be avoided if faction pvp was a thing.
@@BuzzCutPsycho The best thing I can suggest is try to get your thoughts expressed through channels that CIG will see. They've been known to shift directions on things based on player feedback. It kind of sounds like PVP, at least in Pyro, is going to be driven by faction affiliation, as there are factions aligned with The Council, as well as with the mercenary guild.
So it seems to me that just because someone builds a space station doesn't mean it won't get blown up by hostile players who can, in turm build their own in its place.
Also, we don't know how many space stations can be built in the entire game. For all we know, every planet or moon in the game can have slots for space stations, with a bunch of points in or near asteroid fields, or even in open space also serving as potential sites that players can find.
To be honest, with as much that will go into building just the initial module for a station, many, if not most players will consider it to be too much of a headache to pursue more than just a passing interest.
It's also one thing to have a super large org. It's quite nother when the players in that org must treat their gameplay like a second job.
Plus, I think that we need to look at the order of things that we were shown to be on the horizon between a4.0 and 1.0. and treat that as the order we can expect things to roll out. We know that crafting and outpost building is coming first, but that's like just the first of many stops between now and 1.0. Station building will likely be the final feature that gets added. And remember, everything we were shown HAS to be in before they are ready to call Star Citizen release version 1.0.
The time it is going to take for them to realize all that will likely span several years. As long as each forward-going phase of development introduced new and engaging gameplay loops and elements that feed into the plan they've shown us, the bigger the audience will become, and by the time station construction goes in, many of the issues and concerns we may have will likely be rendered moot. We're playing a massive, long-running game of Wait-and-See.
Now as to my idea about smaller facilities for smaller tier orgs being too much work, it's not really much more work than is already in place. They are already producing the depot structures. They are massive, and we know they can be multi-purpose. And that's on the PvE/NPC end. Put their construction in Player hands, make them org structurs and let the orgs decide what they want to use them forand you've got a massive ground-based facility that could double as an org headquarters for smaller orgs.
As time goes by, the more assets are introduced, be they structures or vehicles. There are many ways to use any of these elements to facilitate org-related activities.
And if a company from Stabnton decides to build something huge on some other planet in one of the four other systems, then All CIG needs to do is make each building that is part of their design for such a city something that can be enabled in a variety of construction states or disabled, and make each one, spreading out from a central point, be a construction project that anyone wishing to can take jobs working to complete. Whether its delivering materials and equipment to actively working on construction, then as long as the sheer number of jobs that need to be completed is massive, you've got a long-term gameplay loop that can be visibly observed through all stages of progress.
Throw in hazards and hostile engagements along the way, with occasional windows of PvP activity to attract combatants who want to defend stuff to the area, all of the pre-existing systems and mechanics can be used without having to lay out an entirely new system
''The Glitter Band'
Alastair Reynolds scifi books.
They need one or two hundred frontier systems as most solo players I know want to explore, not combat. Elite dangerous had huge potential if the would have added a base building or home orbital station for players. These SC large orgs are just to big though. I may need to learn X-4 for solo play.
Faction PvP would prevent you from having to solo!
Elite actually works on colonization right now it is part of the next big update
I think this video can be summarised as "incentives" and I think CIG designers should read about economics, as the whole concept of incentives seems to be quite alien to them. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You get more of what you incentivise and you get less of what you punish. BCP is bringing up great points, as per usual.
It would be nice if cig knew economics beyond selling ships for irl cash
We don't know whether this will be the entire late game, I assume not. This is a resource intensive goal for large orgs to work towards, but the control a station like this imposes really is minimal. SC is just too big.
We do not know. Just questions and concerns I have. Especially about tokens.
@@BuzzCutPsycho absolutely get where you're coming from. If CIG decides to center the entire late game around orgs, SC will be a niche game within two months after release. Gatekeeping late game content behind pvp will do the same. Let's hope that when Tyrer said they are making a game for PVP, PVE and noncombat players, they meant it.
#1 assest will be Org learders from Europe because countries from Europe provide resources to their Citizens to survive while neededing limited if any outside jobs. Meaning they will be able to spend far more time on the organization.
You said what I always believed. Lazy Europeans!
@BuzzCutPsycho America used to be better at it too. Unfortunately, they stopped serving the Citizens, do to bad money leaking into the Government.
It’s happened time and time again in Eve that if you rule with an iron fist then eventually you’ll face a large alliance that’s sick of your shit and will lose everything. There’s a lot of diplomacy that has to occur with these systems. I think it’s super interesting which creates a player driven story and history.
What worked in eve seems to only work in eve. I don't see that happening here. SC is a different beast with a different type of player.
@ Ya idk man I mean I’m an Eve player so the “type” is being too presumptive. We’ll have to see how it works out. I don’t really have a concern because mo’ money mo’ problems and shit. Good luck protecting supply ships to support the infrastructure or gaining tokens when fighting a multi-front war, ya know? There is a diminishing return with effectiveness:size.
I always imagined it'd be something like BDO where a BIG org basically controls say Stanton and the bigger orgs would just have constant back and fourth wars on their bases which is FINE by me as a vulture guy lol
Isn't fine by me as player ownership usually equates to game death
Personally I see this kind of non-stop PVP cutthroat battle happening in low risk systems like Pyro but if you are a smaller org and want to pay the fees for protection in high security then you will have the AI/NPCs in game on your side so it will be very difficult for any org to come and destroy your bases/stations.
I can see smaller orgs being pirates at this point, may be the intention.
They would have to increase the scale of planets as well as opportunities by a few orders of magnitude for any of this to work in an enjoyable and somewhat fair way. Also the impact on a system by any group would have to become inferior to NPC factions. If anything, I think orgs, in order to exist would have to align themselves with larger and more powerful NPC factions. Anything else and a large org can effectively lock down whole systems, not just stations.
That would be ideally what I would see. I thought it was how they were going to do it anyway.
@@BuzzCutPsycho same but I guess not.
I think it all hangs on how well player contracts work out. I think massive orgs like Morph's will probably just outright own half of the systems or something and some of them might be extortionists but I think other large orgs that aren't quite as massive will compete and need outside help to tip the scales in their favor especially since medium to large orgs will probably be the most specialized. Small orgs will mostly be friends who want to play together and will do whatever. Massive orgs will have possibly thousands of players in each role brought together by popularity. but medium to large orgs are the ones with names like "The Miner's Guild" where the founders wanted to make a guild of people with shared interests. Those orgs will need contracts to fill in their blind spots. A larger org that is focused on mining might want a couple medium orgs to help with things like Combat and Trading. Those medium orgs might want to contract small generalized orgs to give a helping hand. EX: Mining org just bought an orion and has diverted most of their internal resources to supporting it. They contract a Combat org and a trading org to support a pair of arrastras. The Mining org expects them to provide for themselves. The combat org decides to contract with a small generalized org to provide a tanker and light freight to support the escort. The trading org on the other hand doesn't have the cargo capacity or combat escort they need to keep up with the Arrastras so they contract a small org to provide a medium-large freight ship, and a couple fighters. This mining org is now able to support its new acquisition without yet having the personnel or ships to do it alone. OR if contracts end up sucking, that won't be possible at all and it'll just be little orgs and solo players are useless losers in the SC universe which i would hate to see.
PS I hope that there are systems in place to prevent large orgs form being actual tyrants. Like if they have a massive presence in a star system and have ownership of the region, that doesn't mean they can just block players from going through the star system cause that would be stupid.
PPS I also wouldn't mind if they added factions that can compete directly with orgs. Ex: morph's org would voluntarily stand alone because it's big enough that they want resources to themselves. They want their own stations and systems but individuals and smaller orgs could join an alliance and work on collectively owned stations and systems.
PPPS i do think that that the way to balance destroying stations would be that stations can only be disabled and on average, it would take a fleet that costs more than a station to do it even if the station had a very rudimentary protective fleet. This way, you could only set back other players instead of removing their influence entirely and you would typically need to balance the cost of building an entire fleet with just knocking your competition out of the race for a week. Mega Orgs would still not need to worry about that though which is why i still think they would simply not have competition in regions they control.
You could also implement a system where the immunity is only something like a one-sided cease fire so once the attacker begins a raid by killing a player near a base or breaking the shield of a capital ship or station, they lose the immunity for a week so there would be not only an enormous cost but it would open you up to retribution and opportunists alike. And if there was a bully in a sector that i didn't like, i'd gladly third party against them the moment i saw them get raided while vulnerable
PPPPS because i want to talk to someone about this but none of my friends are interested in star citizen so all i can do is puke my thoughts into a comment section. I really am scared of the Mega Orgs. It reminds me of Ark where all of the p0ublic servers are full of pillars so you can't even make a base to try and collect resources to compete or even survive outside of the ruling tribe
I do not trust players to produce meaningful content beyond existing.
Player-(or org)-made contracts could provide incentive for orgs to pay smaller groups/solos. Joint cooperation stations between multiple smaller orgs could provide some breathing room for them. setting up in UEE-backed space should also be viable for smaller orgs (maybe done through certain tax threshholds to drive out larger orgas from the safety of the UEE)
Could. But why would orgs ever help their potential enemies? That is the nature of a FFA Org PVP system.
@@BuzzCutPsycho well, it just is a balance of how much you need /want exterior help. And and "exclusion" clause for orgs that you dotn want to have dealings with is relatively implemented.
Having neutrals ship your stuff also could prevent your stuff from getting actively targeted by larger orgs. Unless the org is known for shooting anythign that moves, ok xD
Very well articulated. I have had the same thoughts and concerns swimming in my own mind but I have just consoled myself with 'Cig will fix it' 'balance it somehow' etc.. But I understand your point about not wanting to put arbitrary shackles on the system. The thing is they need to foresee all this before it happens. Because the backlash will be immense I imagine, if they start heavily nerfing monopolous org(s) after they have put in the work to get to where they are.
I too often tell myself cig will fix it. Pure hoping on my part
I don’t think Bases will be destroyed. However all the resources in the base will be lootable. Maybe some structure repairs needed and sentry towers damaged. But the biggest problem will be that a superior fo will know your base location and that they can beat you again and again. Essentially farming you for resources that you collect
I can live with that and I think most others could too
I imagine a way to do a psuedo faction system is to make it so orgs will loose rep with their allied guild if they mess orgs that also have rep with that guild... excluding the council of course
Doesn't eve have faction warfare now? I imagine that's how they may do it if they did.
Thank you for the fine Videos about this topic.
I like group play, but also to play solo, as its not so time consuming for my sparse time.
You made some valid points here.
made me Abo
Kudos o7
Thanks for watching ! It makes me happy knowing some people appreciate them.
RIch Tyrer literally doing an 180 from the game we were sold 12 years ago. Not a fan, personally. But I just hope it is well designed and considered, given that I don't think we can really get them to change this direction.
I want to know the meat behind the systems. It is why I have so many questions.
I have been following the game since 2012 myself and the 1.0 announcements are in-line with what I expected the game to be since about 2014-2015. While I did not expect or predict player-manufactured space stations, incentivizing players into a high-risk high-reward gameplay and heavy encouragement for players to join larger groups to facilitate large-scale gameplay should not be a surprise. The game has been heading in this direction for a long, long time.
The only real difference compared to back then is the lack of a PVP slider to instance you with other PVE players. Instead, players can choose to live in pvp or pve areas with pvp heavily disincentivized in safe/pve space.
Most of the points in this video and comments act as if the whole game will be like Rust; that playing in Pyro will be the only option. I think a lot of people will play mostly in Terra, Stanton, and Castra and have just as much fun as those in Pyro. They may even come out ahead with consistent income and lower losses.
One thing that might be interesting is if they time gated certain rewards in these limited "fortresses", like how they said you go deeper into the station to unlock more rewards. Well what if the big prize was some Tier 3 blueprint for a ship that required you to control the same space station for 4 weeks in a row, after which, if your mega org was successful, there is little purpose in controlling it anymore, other than to block others from getting the same reward.
But they may need to move to another area next week to take over that station instead for it's own unique blueprint.
Asian MMO's tend to follow this siege model, and some make it easier each week for the attacker so eventually the defender will be at such a disadvantage they lose.
People will always game the system though, for example if Test Squadron was able to split into multiple Orgs and have each one control their own station and then they swap between each other.
In the Asian MMOs the sieges are typically instanced, so they can control how many attackers and defenders there are, so they have a bidding system to see who can even challenge the defender. In this case that could be abused so one was "attacked" by their own mega org/alliance and there was no real siege.
Time gates are always an option and not one I am against. It gives people time to catch up. I wish more KR games did them.
I expect every build ship that enters a system will be captured or destroyed. Solo players will never get anything big through. Only small walk-behind has a realistic chance. Also, without some form of camo for small bases, there will be no point.
Invis shields!
I hope the original idea of npc/algorithmic economy is still the backbone of the economy.
I do not think it is :(
@@BuzzCutPsycho unfortunately i fear you may be right
I have been a solo player for almost four years, but I will crew when time comes.
A turret awaits you.
there needs to be room for the top dogs to do battle and have it's own gameplay loop. But i don't think this will be the ONLY gameplay loop availible
Sounds like it will be the only one that matters.
I think that what CIG is going for with seal tokens is to give the more lawful and well-rounded orgs a massive advantage over the rowdier orgs. If you recall from the presentation, the process also involves PvE content like resource gathering, something that eg TEST will have an easier time with than say Mongrel Squad. I believe the theory is that those orgs will be more benign and open to trade with and even defend smaller orgs who are similarly aligned. Basically, player driven Pax Romana. Of course, you could also end up with Pax Germania...
My concern is that these token battles will be locked behind a gimmicky match-made or "fair" scenario where people fight in organized team matches. Unless it allows organizations to bring the full might of their forces into the field, it is no longer an MMO, as imbalanced as that may sound.
Now, that may sound contradictory to my video. But keep in mind that we now need these gimmicks and scenarios to counteract the poor decisions a game has made by allowing things to be entirely player or organization-run.
That's the same thing as when we only had Bengals as end game. What did people think of that ? And by people I mean the majority which is middle to small size organizations?
I think that people who want to do their own sing we do their own thing, that being crafting stations, enjoying the trucking life, etc.
Additionally the game is pvpve which means that big orgs with stations will also become targets to npcs
Ps: They mentioned in the presentation that the stations will not be easily destructed and they implied that it would be easier to do that from within (possibly overloading the power reactor?)
Id be shocked if npcs ever became a true threat
@BuzzCutPsycho supposedly they should
Man what a good video.
I hope CR see it and think about it.
I saw those nice Space Stations and with a casual Org of 10-20 people I know I will never build that - so is all content not available to me.
A solution could be a ranking system where loosing Org get to live and play with Losing Org and winning Org get to live and play with winner Org. Divided by Shard Groups.
Like evey month Organisations get divided into shards with similar level of Org. All the way down and Up to where even Solo Players can build Stations because they will only be fighting other solo players
I doubt CR will see it, or care. Or anyone at CIG for that matter.
As an Elder in a small org (ROUTAB) that does not do the typical org hierarchy thing, having super huge org own assets is a bad idea.
aghreeeed
I fear for game economy to be entirely overwhelmed by large orgs leaving absolutely no space for not only solo players but also small to medium orgs
I fear for it as well and I have genuine concerns for exactly that
@@BuzzCutPsycho To clarify, I don't mind large orgs owning entire systems, having exclusive mechanics etc, and acting as a sort of "dynamic background" to the game of small orgs and solo players but deep crafting mechanic/resource gathering would probably be pointless for those types of players as it would always be cheaper to buy from large trading orgs, it would always be safer to call for medic from Medrunners and probably even more efficient and cheap to hire escort from mercenary orgs, that seems good for casual players who don't care for progression and maybe even immersion but awful to players that want to experience any kind of achievement and impact on ingame world even at small scale. I think the only possible way to prevent that would be to really add large quantity of star systems and restrict large orgs to only operate in one or maybe couple of them, maybe implement chat range, maybe forgo the idea of offline shops and go back to travelling merchants?
Don't you worry. CIG said that SC is for every type of player. Surely, they will not prioritize big orgs because its probably the easiest thing to do instead of balancing the economy and creating fulfilling casual/solo content.
My hope is that they allow players to join NPC orgs like Hurston Dynamics or Sakura Sun or some such, which will basically make harassing them akin to harassing a very large and well-established corporation. In this way they can be protected, while potentially forfeiting whatever you might get from a player-made org, but still having the safety net of being part of a large and well-funded collective.
A potential solution. The disaster of AoC should also open their eyes a bit.
I'm a solo player as well and the way your explaining it I'll never see end game and will only get to see some systems briefly due to being killed by an org saying I'm trespassing, etc. Then end with permadeath smh. That def will take away from some players and I like to play my schedule and my goals with my limited time.
Yea you're not wanted by cig it seems
Good Video!
Would like to know what you mean by Faction Based PvP. I also see issues with the effect of giant player communities in SC (even if we ignore social features like Orgs and Alliances), but i have seen over and over again that Factions like in Planetside 2 (Winning Team Joiners), Mortal Online 2 (Zergs) or Foxhole (Winning Team Joiners), still suffer from the same issue.
How would you define PvP Factions for SC?
By faction-based PvP, I mean, ideally, a three-faction system that a player or organization signs up for and fights for. This is just a rough idea and description, of course. You have the framework for it in Pyro now, but I am not sure what those factions will mean, if anything. For lack of better wording, it would be akin to PlanetSide 1, but in space, with higher stakes, resources, and a more in-depth metagame.
The games you mentioned were all done poorly.
PlanetSide 2 ignored everything that PlanetSide 1 did to ensure faction balance, such as character change cooldowns, incentives to be on the losing faction, and an actual reason to play the game beyond farming kills. PS2 was PS1 in name only and got it all wrong. PS2 also failed to making losing fun.
Mortal Online 2 provided no basis to bring players together outside of guilds. If we compare it to something like Guild Wars 2's World vs. World or DAOC's realm PvP, you will see how strongly the factions-or in GW2's case, the servers-kept everyone together. DAOC had an incentive and reason to be on the "losing" faction with bonuses, but the three-faction system gave the two weaker ones a reason to keep the stronger one in check. This is something PS2 lacked: a reason to gang up on the winning faction rather than join them.
Foxhole was too much in favor of snowballing and made it nearly impossible to turn around. It lacked an upkeep and attrition system like World War 2: Online had. What is funny is that the games I mentioned-DAOC, PS1, and WW2OL-took steps to solve the issues modern games have faced with factions. It is as if we have all forgotten the lessons of older games and stopped looking beyond anything that came prior to World of Warcraft for design inspiration.
Good comment.
@@BuzzCutPsycho i really wish the contents of this comment were in the video, well said.
I assume if you lose the bid you lose your tokens so orgs that think they’ll lose might skip the bid altogether and stock pile for the next week, so the biggest orgs will HAVE to bid every week while smaller orgs are stock piling to win at some point in the future and then just hit the big org hard, or smaller orgs might form temporary alliances to raid a big org
I think the system has good bones and we just have to wait for more information
We do have to wait and see but I'm pretty skeptical
I had the same concern, so I figured I will just build my tiny base for myself in high sec while having my orgs base somewhere in no sec, and just in case we get raided I will always have my safe heaven that I built by replicating my orgs resources... I do share the same concerns, which is why this is my plan.
I think your plan is going to be the standard. I think I hinted at that when I talked about launching raids from security space.
@BuzzCutPsycho Totally if shit is made in a way I can lose all the hard work it would be best to have a backup... I think is the smartest way to go about it and avoid frustration.
Yes. This should be standard procedures for all players/orgs. Your treasury should be in a secure location, meanwhile you make investments in hostile space.
I suppose there will be high taxes and restrictions on certain production in the secured corporate space.
@@ikapustiv I agree but as for me one single person base, it wont be something so ludicrous just good enough. And I could pay the taxes with the missions I do by bounty hunting
Star Citizen is an org haven right now as they don't have to compete for resources. Once that is implemented the culling will begin and orgs will die quickly. I have played in a few orgs in alpha games. Many don't survive the 1.0 change. It's easier to just solo and small group.
We'll see. Even more reason for players to consolidate into the bigger survivors/alliances
I get the impression that the "BEST" resources will never be static mines of that quality. From what CIG has said, those resources will be limited at any given location they are found. So we will have to only hold the location for a short period and then find the next "Best" location. This means that solos have a real chance to make big money, either exploring and selling the location or mine it quietly and sell the raw ore for big bank.
You think they would make it that easy? I thought it came from planets in dangerous systems
@BuzzCutPsycho It would still not be easy as you would have to hold that limited supply until used up. In some cases, multiple locations should the exploration team several veins of equal value across systems. So, no one, even the largest Org in the verse, will ever be able to hold all the resources all the time. The best they can do is try to hold the biggest being they find build a small trow away oputpost and get it back to the Main base as quick as possible.
@@BuzzCutPsychoCIG has been pretty clear that on average higher risk areas will give better rewards.
However, based on evocati reports it seems like there are unique mineables in pyro/stanton, and we already know hunted creatures should vary, so there will be incentives and profitable items coming from both (and presumably all) systems.
Also, I feel like your video really acts like all players will want to base build/operate in Pyro. Small orgs, even most big orgs will be building their big bases in safer systems and a lot of people will likely never join the dogpile that is Pyro unless they particularly want PVP. I do hope they add smaller stations and/or small asteroid bases for smaller orgs to set as a goal, though.
With StarSim, I am wondering / hoping they will have the ability to increase pressure from the NPC side to help address an over powered org / alliance.
That's a good thought but I am certainty skeptical about the power of NPCs to do anything meaningful in a fight against a player.
@@BuzzCutPsycho Me too sceptical. Lets see how it will be in future. Its like in Eve online you have lvl 1,2,3,4,5 mission difficulty.
@@BuzzCutPsycho You know factions will solve many problems in the game and give mutch more freedom for everyone.
@@BuzzCutPsychoCiG will just cheat and destroy org fleets that are "out of control."
@@BuzzCutPsycho fair point, though i would say that depending on the purpose, the AI could be scaled up in numbers and in skill to balance it out. A little bit of a "tilt" if you get my drift.
One sentence at CitCon caught my ear when they mentioned Earth vs Terra rivalry. It's probably nothing, but could hint of an impending civil war scenario where PvP focused factions could form. Other faction like gameplay vs Vanduul as PvE focus is more likely tho.
I'd love to see that. Really would.
I caught that too... "Rising tensions between Earth and Terra" if I'm remembering correctly
@@BuzzCutPsycho This is the more likely scenario regarding faction warfare you may be looking for. EVE introduced something similar with their Faction Warfare development. But a PVP sandbox just doesn't naturally align with a Faction game, and the popularity of Faction Warfare is somehow not as appealing to many vs all out sandbox PVP massive battles. Anyways, here's to the future. May CIG pick the right course.
Overall, I personally get about an hour or 2 to play per week, rl just gets in the way of playing. If orgs start to control systems, like it is in eve, i likely wont bother even visiting those systems/places and will end up just chilling in the places I can enjoy without 'working for it' -- after all most of us have to work in real jobs daily, sc is meant to be fun and relaxing, not another job :) i cant imagine being part of an org and having 'defend duty' for our base as soon as i get back home from my daily job... like you said, it will be a second job... and many of us dont want that hehe, we want to just have some fun. Oh and I dont like the token system for orgs they described... like you well described, there are just too many issues with this type of system.
It is a system I have never understood devs going after. It worked for ONE game. And only one. Which blows my mind.
100% agree. Last Oasis is my favorite PVP MMO of all time and the clan I was in dominated NA East. We liked it so much we told the devs to nerf clans or just outright get rid of them in favor of small squads. Unfortunately, these PVP MMO studios have such a hard-on for large clan conflicts because they're "epic" and make for a good story. Well the epic battles happened and it did create some fond memories, but I would have much preferred a game that wasn't dead afterward. RIP.
Factions can save that!
Spot on observation. Granted it's possible we're accidentally taking about end game too much. CIG implied the org stuff was end game content: between that and starting point, all the faction gameplay and narrative and jobs, and special events SHOULD fill all that.
Should. But worth talking about!
That all said, it's wild to me how rapidly people are pretending that the rest of the game doesn't exist because i guess base building is all they're is now, and making a small one hidden away for yourself is just not possible (if for some reason you just have to have a homestead).
I think it shows how many players love the idea of base building but not the idea of being owned
@BuzzCutPsycho Makes sense, losing is unpleasant. Unfortunately we can't have a Minecraft world for this one.
I think the route for that is supposed to be get citizenship, then build in the safe systems where you *won't* lose the planetary shield. Lawful jazz.
My personal idea for a solution to this problem:
Instead of invulnerability, the reward is simply a free 'normal' shield (preventing aerial bombing, forcing ground attack) for all that org's bases in the system, but it also speeds up mining, refining, and manufacturing buildings in those bases, *but* also people who successfully attack these bases get extra tokens. (you could have some invulnerability for some number of hours each day and/or buff automated defences if it needs to be balanced to encourage more people to want to win these bids, you could even allow them to select 1 base as completely invulnerable perhaps)
The idea is to encourage people to attack the winners, but in exchange the winners get a bunch of bonuses so long as their bases stand. We all know the winners of these events will be the largest orgs who are most capable of defending themselves around the clock, they should also be willing to put their skills to the test and be unlikely to win consecutively from snowballing if enough people really want to stop them.
I get the feeling they wanted this system to be non-PvP friendly, but unless they outright stop PvP from having any effect in the system at all, including the winners using the invulnerability to take man-hours away from defence and put all that into raiding others, it won't just effect non-PvP players so there should be some PvP based counter.
Also, they should make any kind of 'invulnerability' if they have it (which would be a good idea so long as everyone can get it) be only for so many hours of the day (which hours decided at least e.g. 2 days in advance), maybe dependent on the size of the base (e.g. extra large bases need to be vulnerable 6 hours a day, extra small ones only 1 hour a day, somewhat in proportion to how long it would take to assault such a base with a slight size multiplier)
btw 'shards' will be like geographical regions (NA/EU/SEA etc.) most likely, though they hope to reduce the number of shards as much as possible if dynamic server meshing can allow it.
Your idea isn't bad. I just like that all of this thinking has to be done because there is no faction system ;)
We do know how game universe instances (shards) are going to work in Star Citizen, they have explained it. An instance of the game is a separate game universe that players cannot traverse between, a shard is a collection of game servers with their own support servers ergo it is it's own instance of the game, an exact copy of the game universe in each instance or shard. They do plan to eventually have a single shard instance for all players but that won't come for many years (if at all) due to real world signal travel time limitations and global network backbone hardware limitation. So there will be regional instances of the game universe for a long time to come.
What they are talking about is making some game features 'cross shard', so the activity in one shard affects all shards. This uses the persistence database to share that data between all shards, since it is a global database that feeds data to all shards. If you build a base in a particular location on your shard, then other players in other instances of the game universe cannot use that same real estate to build a base. Your base is represented in all shards as well as your own. In shards where no-one is supposed to have access to your base then it will be locked / protected on that shard even though you can physically see it in all instances. For non-fixed game assets like ships etc there will be no cross shard instancing.
Like you I am also very concerned about area domination by organisations, to put it bluntly I did not support this project for 12 years and around $9000 for it to be area dominated by the likes of Goonswarm because it then becomes an arms race where that arms race takes up the majority of the resources and since resources are physicalised in Star Citizen that also means anyone who wants that level of resource gathering has to control the real estate where those resources are located. In non-UEE space anyone who discovers a deposit of resources will have to defend that location from much larger groups who have the resources to take your resources.
In UEE controlled spaces they say this won't be possible, but we have yet to see the details of how that is going to work. They have vaguely talked about planetary shields and base shields, as well as an ever escalating NPC AI law enforcement spawning , this brings it's own problem of magic inflation of resources, since NPC ships and assets once supplied into the game universe are then available outside of the location based resource gathering, it becomes a virtually infinite resource. You can salvage NPC ships and game assets for as long as you can match those arrayed against you. ie What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger - quite literally. Picking a fight with the game becomes the most efficient predictable way to gather more and more resources. Why go exploring for resources when you can make the game bring those resources to you? The game, or at least very large sections of the game universe, become permanent war zones because it is advantageous to very large organisations to have it that way.
will we get east/west coastr servers too?
@@BuzzCutPsycho CIG run their shards in AWS Cloud Services. The AWS Network has nodes all around the world. CIG did say at one time you would be able to choose your shard but they have never followed upon it so as of now you are routed to whichever shard is available in the world region you choose with the lowest ping rate.
As a member of one of the mid to smaller sized orgs in SC this vid pretty much summed up what I was assuming the game would end up after this years citizen con… a shame too. They drew so many of us in with the idea that we’d be parts of the UEE citizenry existing in that world with 9 bots to every player in a curated universe. I was a small time corp member in Eve, and was gatekept out of a lot of the big shit in that game because I didn’t have the time to be competitive. I fear star citizen will be the same, except the fanbase isn’t the same type of players Eve had and it will kill the game in under six months
It is not too late for them to reverse that course.
@ agreed, definitely not too late, but CiG is seemingly always too late on the “we just realized” train so we will see. Im hopeful that since its years away we come to meet somewhere in the middle of both camps and have a game where there’s something for everyone from a solo to an org of thousands to do at the endgame.
Isn't there already a system where your land claims cost more exponentially the more land you claim? This would mean it would be hard for larger orgs to claim most of a settled system, and while it won't effect lawless systems, I feel that unless you really build up, nearly anyone could harass your operations, enough to seriously cramp any outlying claims.
I do not know how it works in low sec, I thought it had no cost.
I love the org control, I hope it's going to be like EVE Online, that is a very popular game!
No it isn’t and we don’t want eve players over here. Back to your closet!.
It was popular, yes, but the games are pretty different in a lot of ways.
Even if it was faction based, as long as there is a method to friendly fire, large orgs could still exclude others but simply killing them and dealing with the consequences later. Most of the time, large enough orgs can overwhelm NPC security forces with ease. We saw this in archeage where large guilds became the defacto rulers of entire factions as they could exclude you from content. They would get all the loot for world bosses in sage zones cause tag/dps, and in war zones you'd be killed on the spot. Casual players don't band up together against organized groups, the second adversity happens, they don't see the fun or value to keep fighting, causing the rich to get richer. Server population then dies off, as a result as the casuals find no purpose to keep going, servers then get merged, and then hardcore groups exhaust themselves, simply fighting to fight as they have free farmed on their previous server.
Systems with factions that also have FF have very severe penalties and that is far from a wide spread issue. It was not an issue in WW2OL, PS1, or PS2. Also, Archage, which let you FF people, have a prison and punishment system.
Your argument is a little bit of a stretch. What you described is griefing. Griefing gets punished with potential account bans.
Since there is no local chat, like in Eve... you will be able to stealth around these orgs unnoticed and mine the planet for the good stuff. Big difference. So no matter how big the org... they can’t theoretically lock down a system.
But if they keep winning the tokens they cannot be attacked, no?
@@BuzzCutPsycho Can't be bombarded, so people can't just nuke them from orbit -- but the tokens do not stop people from infiltrating bases on the ground using stealth tactics, which is awesome for smaller, tactics-based orgs.
they are adding org IDs to your nick names and ships, even org logos for your hips, so no, you will be blown to pieces on the spot xD
@@InTVS hahaha... There is no way you even know I’m there. But you can try
Space Trucking is still Trucking, except now you get to do it in Space and in a cool ship you spent your real dollars on so you feel like you have to get the full value out of it
honk honk
I agree about the way this is headed, we've seen it in many games that let groups have control of content and resources. My main questions come to resource availability, is there enough for everyone or first come first serve? I can already imagine people going to off prime time shards to setup bases, just to get resources back on their preferred shard. Do I lose my base in a raid or just inventory? Am I going to lose progress every time I needed to sleep or go to work?
I agree there should be some factions instead, the PS2 model comes to mind. Granted factions can get lopsided, but at least it creates an opportunity to hit back and have some chance at the "high end materials". If anything, I feel like they are dropping the ball by having the focus be on PvP and not having an NPC star system to run high end, complex, story driven raids and fleet battles with vanduul (or lore wise, make it against bandits and add a vanduul system later). I know they are putting the events out as "Org activities", but is that really enough?
If you think ps2 factions were okay PS1 and DAoC did it better. Good comment. A lot of concerns that won't be addressed anytime soon.
@@BuzzCutPsycho I played PS1, I'm just old enough to not remember it :D
All you need to do is check the EVE online Sovereign map. You see these large alliances / corporations(orgs) locking down huge areas of the map from rest of the population. And not having restrictions to size, same thing will happen in SC.
Seems like a bad experience to me
I'm part of one of the largest orgs in the game and I shared much of your take here. Yes I want my org to be successful, but I want to see other players and smaller orgs be able to enjoy themselves as well. It is a concerning development
Good to see somebody such as yourself capable of bigger thought
I play 5-10 hrs per week max
I'm in a mid lvl org.
I personally don't mind if the mega Orgs control entire systems.
I know my org wants the end game but from what I'm seeing it will be difficult to build and maintain.
Also, the lawless and lawful systems will have very different end game content according to the sitcon.
I would also like to point out: you van still have fun flying around with friends, mining, salvaging, and questing even if an org controls the "end game".
We will see what's what when the game goes live in 2035.
Lol at thr 2035 bit
I hope as a "solo player" you could "rent or own" a hab on a player run star base
I too want to pay rent to digital land barons.
I have a strong feeling the Player Run economy thing will get turned around closer to release as the trolls and griefers will kill any of their hope for this to be player run. With how many players already owning some form of large torpedo bombers, any attempt to build anything in Pyto will be moot.
I have very little hope for a true player run economy. Not sure i want it either.
Interesting video. Its of my belief that just like jump Town. These player stations will create dynamic events. Around them. And the protection system is only for pyro and that system is harsh already. I believe it shouldn't be balanced or changed. There should be high risk and high rewards to doing such activities. But lets see.
You know JT is a good example of it happening now. People just control it and nobody gets to do it.
@@BuzzCutPsycho they cannot hold it for long someone will come in and take it iv seen it happen. Let Game nature Do its thing and balance things out.
The tokens are only a thing in unlawful systems like pyro. In lawful systems all planets have shields.
Unlawful is the best resources
My understanding is orgs will only have power in completely lawless systems.
I have the same fears as you and have had them since hearing about orgs. And even if they are knife to just pyro and other lawless systems, that sounds like it’s keeping the majority of players from enjoying half the game
A major chunk are kept away!
This just sounds like a different mentality joining a common world of mmo, this system can be incredibly fun. If you look at everything from the mentality of participation i get why it looks awful, But if you feel any bit of competitive and a desire to win, you will love it
Yeah all these types of games just die off though. Except what eve?
I actually think most of this is solved with their tiered security systems/safe zones and Genesis. And by that, I mean, you bring up a good point about what's in it for the losers? Well, most people who start with base building -- unless they are veteran Rust/DayZ players -- will not be building in null-sec spaces. They will start in highly secured zones like Terra or Stanton. Once they build up enough resources and maybe join an org, then they might begin to venture out. Having their bases raided in high-sec areas will be minimal and unlikely to any frequent degree, so instead of being compelled NOT to play, they will be compelled to venture out for higher rewards with a higher risk.
Added to this, they mentioned that you can raid base inventories by hacking their freight elevators. Meaning, orgs who aren't just going to be zerg-tier murder-hobos will have to do reconnaisance first; they will have to scout if the base has supplies worth raiding; they will have to scout defences, and they will have to make a judgment call if the base is worth risking their own resources over. This is where stealth-oriented orgs will excel, maybe even as orgs/PMCs-for-hire for larger organisations. Don't want to risk your supplies/fleet raiding a competing base? Hire someone else to infiltrate and steal/sabotage their supplies.
Finally, I don't think org control of large space stations and tokens will be much of an issue. In Pyro you have the gang factions that will continue to have base/stations change hands based on non-org (and org) participation in the StarSim contracts, so there will always be an ebb and flow, and an unpredictable nature to who controls what at any given time, unless some mega-org joins a Pyro gang and forces territorial control over all of Pyro. But that in itself crates for some cool emergent gameplay/story opportunities. What's more is that by the time 1.0 approaches, they will have five systems, but with Genesis they will be able to propagate new systems quickly -- so even if an org controls Pyro and becomes super dominate, new solar systems popping up regularly post 1.0 (even giant empty systems with a few sparse moons) will continue to give smaller orgs an opportunity to expand, especially in mid and high-sec systems.
I want to believe in you and hope you are right. But every ounce of my cynicism on this particular subject is based in historical precedent. Outside of EVE I have never seen it work :(
Enjoy the video new subscriber here. I plan to always be a solo player so I will be navigating the org to play I guess
Thanks for subbing up. We'll just have to see how it goes I goes.
My way of thinking is to divide the organisations up into two teams. A civil war in Star Citizen Earht vs Terra you have 5 Terrain Systems and 5 Earth Systems and 5 systems in the middle which are contested, UEE military will not take part as they fighting the Vandull so it leaves the Civil Military us to fight. Doing this Orgs will either fight for Terra or Earth. Two have 20 employees who will be game masters able to put AI and create jobs for Orgs. Just like Dungeons and Dragons the Dungeon Master. they have to have rules but they can change things up especailly in systems like Pyro and Nyx and Stanton and with NPC crews that way your building a bengal carrier for a reason and other ships. Dual Universe, Pai Dai failed onething to divide us into teams and give us a enemy.
Who would be the third faction you think? Gotta have 3 for balance imo
@@BuzzCutPsycho Me would be the Messer Dynasty that have been building in secret to take the UEE on that would be the third. Using the pirates to advantage in the Pyro system to disrupt the UEE economy and causing Chaos
Lots to consider but at the moment i balance my time between solo and part of a small crew. I’m happy to be a small cog in a large wheel but it has to be when the game requires org membership because joining a organisation when the game isn’t ready has just been to up and down in content based on past experiences in SC. Hopefully by 1.0 orgs will start to standout then a decision will be made. Long way to go yet unfortunately.
Very long. Still good to consider the ramifications of such a system.
I can understand the concerns because of how uncertain things are at the moment (like there was ever any kind of certainty in this project - I pledge in 2017...). One thing is for certain though: Chris Roberts is not rushing to release the game. SQ42 will be a polished gem and SC a dream game. His dream game. Is he going to let your worst scenario happen (in which if I understand big orgs control the vast majority of the playable /enjoyable / interesting space and they slowly get richer and less and less destroyable ) ? I don't think so :
- The Vanduul threats and other races will bring balance and different kinds of leverages since the development will continue with added systems and events. They (dev team) are not losing control to mega orgs.
- SC will be released after all the mistakes you mentioned were made by previous games. I want to be naïve and hopeful: a dream game by a team who has a vision, experience and backers will be better than any other game before.
- back to faction pvp: I think it will exist in the form of humans against all other races. The economy will work that way, the control and wars for resources too.
- About the tokens you might win that might grant hypothetical protection to your base or station, I seem to remember the vision is about a game based on skills, not on a pay to win type of thing. Therefor I think if you were to get special objects or blueprints, they would be better by a small but not negligible margin. And with the ongoing development I don't think these rewards would mean you, or your org, get overpowered forever. You'd get an advantage, a reward for good use of skills, for a limited time.
- Stations will hopefully be hardly destroyable. Keeping the control of them might be the big deal.
- So many backers are older gamers, willing to enjoy the game without having to spend a crazy amount of time on it, to keep what you have, and what you have built and achieved. All that for an investment of 45$ +. I don't think they will screw such a large portion of their backers, since the backlash would be greater than the potential gain of taking a route that will make them unhappy. The insurance talks at CitizenCon reassured me on that topic.
But again, you have spent a lot of time on this game and other games, to see where important, philosophical decisions can take things. More time on more games than I have. I just hope that we will get respected, and we won't loose all the fun we invested for (in real money and time played to participate to the development).
Answers Soon.
In 2-3 years ?
Great comment. Glad you appreciate the time of my life I wasted gaining experience in these games ;) Makes me feel a little better.
Alien threats would be ideal to me, but I doubt they will ever make NPCs a dangerous thing like they are in other games simply based on how this is a shooter game at heart.
Maybe there needs to be some kind of metric as to how powerful an org is, making bounties on their heads bigger. With enough incentive your average zergfit gets picked apart by the elite farming class.
Still with a game this big, there will always be big dogs that rise to the top and start dominating. It's simply the law of the jungle. I don't pretend to have a solution either.
or just have factions and ignore those issues!
Personally, I just plan to have good relations with the larger orgs and, hopefully, in return I get some semblance of protection/favor. If I make my services and products desirable, they may have reason to keep me up and running, so to speak
I wish you the best of luck in your journey to indentured service.
@BuzzCutPsycho Indentured service? Nah, it's called a symbiotic relation. The moment an arrangement no longer has positive benefits, I'm moving on. There is too much space and too many orgs, for me to pledge my unwavering loyalties to anybody.
Don't worry, I'd be surprised at this point if they ever finish the game.
YEah you're right
I think the vagueness of this years citcon came at the right time. We’re finally starting to look over the horizon of 4.0, which has eclipsed any ideas of what a finished SC would look like for years. This was the correct year to lay out the rest of the plan, because we can finally start to think of some of these things with major pieces like base building coming along.
The silver lining to this is that this is a space where we have the ability to shape that future. The reason you have so many questions, I imagine, is because the devs have those questions too.
I hope they are asking the same questions I am. That is for sure. Sometimes I fear they do not.
@@BuzzCutPsycho I know this is probably coming across as defensive, but I would argue that, at this point, if they aren’t asking the right questions it’s equally as likely because the details just aren’t fleshed out yet as it is that they don’t have a plan to make things work well. We’ll just have to see what more they have to tell us about high-level org stuff, probably next year I would think.
At this point, I find myself hoping for the MMO worlds server system like WoW or FF14. I might be alone here, but it feels like it would be significantly more intuitive.
I rather one big world but it aint happening
@BuzzCutPsycho I agree. One massive server would be ideal for org gameplay and I hope we can get there in the end. As it stands, though, the massive singular server wouldn't be sustainable for players.
hi, CIG presentation was good but they didnt told us important informations/details, i played some old games doing just that, just not that throne & liberty thing.
-they talked about Orgs, but not alliance, so we don't know if org owning a place can RENT a part of the system for you, to get money and help them defending it, if your corp is large/good enough for them, and if the SEAL program can protect the whole alliance or if main org can give you the right to be protected.
-You said, with SEAL program, orgs will be invulnerable, but CIG said u could raid a protected base on ground attack/FPS.
-we also don't know if it's gonna be a RUST system(attack & destroy instantly often by orgs living 12timezone from you while you sleep) or a eve system where once attacked, you become invulnerable for 1/2 dozen of hours to organize yourself & prepare for "the last assault"
-yes "across all shard" mean across all what we call a "server" in classic mmos, it's to prepare FOR SINGLE SHARD IN THE FUTURE(one server only), for base not overlapping on each other, so yeah, big orgs on server A, will need to destroy base on server B or C etc.... to build their own base back on server A, at the precise place those base were placed on B or C.
As said above, if they implement alliance and admin right to the main org, and if you have a interressing enough org, you could rent a south hemisphere moon's, you put a 30% tax for you corp, wich is ok because you would make 2/3times the money vs stanton, the system owner knows economy, and them ask you to pay 1Billion per month, while your org make like 2/3billions, meanwhile the main org defend you, you cant be reimboursed for the ship you lost on a actual War (def or attack) vs other alliance
to me, the main problem is :
-will this be a Rust or eve/albion base defense system ?
-2 pvp system seems not enough, some actual large orgs have enough experience and power to take them both by themself.(and thats why A1 is scared and ask for SEAL program to be server per server, and not across all shard, but thats stupid, it fcks a lot of points A1 is not wired to understand, or preach for his own church (if that make sense in english :D )
Cheers o7
Excuse my frenchglish
You're English is just fine. You're right they didn't tell us enough and citcon really was just a ton of questions with no answers. Guess we just have to wait and see.
I see them making space stations take damage but not be destructible. That way other orgs can simply take control of it, but can't really destroy it. Sort of like an occupation
Damage and raids is fine by me
I really hope they have both. Player stations and then ones with factions. They can balance it out by having faction stations if you hold it for say 2 weeks. Everyone under that faction can get Capital blueprints that is a one time or 5 times use. If you align with the UEE you can get Idris BPC's for cheaper. If you align with Pirates you get Kraken BPC's cheaper. Which then you can sell to other players. Like with EVE where you can get faction blueprints for faction ships. Have something akin to that and make it only for the faction stations to give players a reason to do these. So the losers won't feel totally lost. They can still go to these stations (during a peace period) and still purchase their faction BPC's but at an increased price. Making the other faction want to do the assault to chop off a decent price off the BPC's.
I can see that. I never knew EVE had factions either. Never played it.
My guess for the tokens: Bids will consume the "winner" tokens amount and the rest will keep them, that way prob things like over dominance would be down (other orgs may get enough to bid and leave a big org unprotected enough time) - that way "losing" a bid doesn't mean the effort is wasted and will be used properly in the future if needed.
Still, system is still too green (not even green, too "concept-y", so they can shape it to a thousand things. But yea concerning for the solo player and the small orgs, but i guess they will give "room" somehow ir that i cope/hope.
Also well, i do hope bases in contested territory (Such as Pyro which is needed to be traveled to go from Stanton or Terra to Castra) are raided by the local factions AND orgs aligned with those factions encourage that (such as Xenothreat in Pyro, or 9tails in Stanton)
You know I didn't even begin to mention or discuss death of a spaceman and how it goes against all this too. For some reason reading your comment made me think of that
@@BuzzCutPsycho God, death of a spaceman is like a trigger word for me, is such a bad concept i hope we never get as can literally ruin the game by making it a clownfiesta of "no one taking risks or engaging in risky activities at all" yet dying to stupid bugs or game behaviours, with death of a spaceship we have enough.
Or if it exist no long term loses should be given which... would defeat the purpose of it existing.
Well. One option for solo players that dont have time to run with orgs...pick up jobs from already existing orgs. If you only have 3 hours per day and want to do cargo running, im sure as shit that some org will pay a good amount for you to run their cargo for 3 hours.
Right back to being a slave for the bigger orgs
@@BuzzCutPsycho >Being paid for running cargo is slavery
?????
I don’t agree with all of your sentiments, but I do agree that I am very wary of a token based system for base shields in lawless systems. I think it would be much better to have a shield generator that requires fuel and/or power, and that would require logistics and reoccurring shipments that would have to be guarded. That means ships that can be attacked and need defending, which is a perfect potential for the competition and conflict that they want.
Which ones do you not agree with in particular?
@@BuzzCutPsycho I don't agree that the game in general will become a org controlled economy. I think the most noticeable impact orgs will have in in lawless space, where large orgs will constantly be trying to maintain power. Even then, I'm not sure it will be such a dominating influence there. I think that if people want to focus on other aspects of the game, then they will easily be able to do with only occasional interference due to org power struggles. In EVE, jumping into lawless systems as someone passing through or trying to do their own thing can sometimes be very risky. That is mainly due to the fact that the jump gates are way more predictable so it is easier to gank. I don't think it will be as easy in SC. Once you are through the jump point, I think you can hide much easier.
@BuzzCutPsycho I see excactly the same issue with their system. But i would take a more free/better option. Just let every Org buy protection up to a certain space/area in every system. Blue systems are cheaper, red are far more expensive.
As more space/area you want to protect, so exponentionally more expensive the protection becomes.
If your org reaches the protection space/area limit, you can't protect it with money anymore. You need to defend everything over the limit by yourself.
In this way, smaller orgs can also build & keep their bases, while not having too much upkeep, that it becomes too annyoing. Medium orgs can have bigger/more bases if they want, in exchange for more monthly effort. And large orgs with a lot of area/space have to defend some of their territory, while having their core protected (e.g. a big base protected) for a good chunk of money.
This is also a good money sink for the game.
In this way, large Orgs become defacto Factions in the game, while not having to much power over smaller orgs.
Bigger Orgs can buy support from smaller Orgs to portect their extended territory or support them, without that the smaller Orgs have to fear to become the main target of the enemy big org and be burned to the ground for assist the other big org.
Yes an upkeep system to prevent rampant growth would be needed. But what you suggested, while good, is just another necessary system due to a factionless system. The faction system provides the frame work.