PVE Servers In Star Citizen? Could/Should It Happen? Grolo Chimes In

[@cdkraft]

100% on griefing comment. I think pvp adds immersion when it is economically motivated. "Tear collecting" typically offered up by cruel/abused people needing to spread their hate is a massive repellent for me.

[@CitizenScott]

How about the people that just enjoy blowing stuff up? Ya know, the overwhelming vast majority.

[@1aatlas]

Pfft, anything that interrupts your single player experience in this multiplayer game is considered griefing to some of you, and those tears taste all the sweeter for it. The problem is many many people misused the word griefing to the point that it stops having any power whatsoever.... a meaningless term abused by people with an agenda or anyone who has just had a bad day online. Yall really need to stick strictly to only calling behavior that actually violated the ToS griefing.

[@grygaming5519]

@@1aatlas This is why faction systems should exist. If you want to play the bad guy, then you should expect to be terminated on sight be it lawful or unlawful sectors. The biggest problem CIG has is their own CM team does not come down hard enough on players like yourself who thrive on tears. I mean if you want to play the bad guy and shoot down people who are not impeding yourself. Then the penalties should match the crimes committed. Lets say after hitting T3 on crime stat its a 5mil bounty, and 7 days in Klesher with no chance of escape, T4 will be 10mil with 14 days and T5 will be 30 mil + 21 days. Sure you can try to escape and maybe luck out but each time you do so will just double your sentencing. I like that idea very very much. Want to play the criminal/pirate then the time should reflect the crime.

[@CitizenScott]

​@@grygaming5519 Why do you think CIG should literally punish and essentially suspend players in-game just for engaging in intended criminal gameplay that many devs themselves enjoy? Genuine question.

[@grygaming5519]

@@CitizenScott Honestly if the devs want to play criminals....then they should act like Bosses. Like Killa, Rashala, The goons, ect from Tarkov. Put them in high end custom ships with 5-10 hyper tuned AI ships. Challenge the player to attack them and the reward for downing a CIG boss employee is high tier gear and bragging rights.

[@Alkvaarder]

Space policing and escorting should be rewarded generously. The Avenger Titan is made just for that. Give it a gameloop.

[@yulfine1688]

No reason to, people will do it on their own and there are going to be security zones that exist, higher security zones will be near impossible to grief anyone in, mid security zones will probably have some, and low security or null zones will probably have more, plus those zones will be filled with the larger alliances and orgs anyways you'll see a few players or smaller groups who do well in those zones but otherwise most people will be in the higher security zones.

[@grygaming5519]

This is a point I've made before but I'll reiterate. At the start of the backing and when CIG hit the milestone to expand it to Star Citizen. Roberts penned the idea that Star Citizen would be a sandbox given to the backers to run for themselves. Meaning that at the point this game was establishing itself similar to games similar of Rust and Day Z. You would have a player ran server with all the client files being accessible. Roberts even noted of renting out server space for player ran Universes meaning the player was responsible for upkeep and managing players connected to that server. So people thought they could choose to play the game as they saw fight, be it PvE hard core, PvPvE or strait up PVP with zero armistice. It also made sense as to the ability to get AI to run your large capitol ships. Along the way CIG just forgot to update the backers or the game shifted that way. That build of the game moved away from player hosted Universes to a MMO where CIG would retain conservatorship of the universe. The problem now lays before CIG that they need a dedicated team of Game Masters and Community Team that can balance both the PVP and PVE equation. The last two major events have been a mix bag (Save Stanton and the Xenothreat) because for some god forsaken reason they thought it was a smart idea to turn PVE players into content for PVP players around one of the missions in each. The Community Management team loves to call this "emergent gameplay" but I call it lazy event coordination as they have yet to put anything of value for PVP players other then Jumptown. They had a good chance to do something with the Invasion of Orsirson by allowing Players who sided with the enemy Op4 creating a win-win for both sides. Is PVE Star Citizen an inevitability. The question is when and how inept Reputation 2.0 will be, if the system does not curtail bad behavior then yes a PVE server for players who do not want to deal with bad actors will be on the table. I like to use Tarkov because was at similar crossroads. The last 3 years of Battlestate Games has been marred with controversies namely the discontinuation of Edge of Darkness and the creation of Unheard Edition with its whopping 250 dollar price tag. The addtion of PvE and gating it to Unheard edition and their take down of modders who created the Single Player Tarkov mod because players were getting fed up with how the official servers were running. I firmly suggest you should watch and maybe react to g0at's The Wiggle that killed Tarkov video. Where he put his own account on the line (he got it banned) to prove a point that BSG was doing nothing to curb the cheating epidemic in Tarkov. That alone pushed players to PvE along with other things like sound not being fixed, desync, the inconsistency of damage and overall player progression being a complete mess for anyone that does not make that game their 2nd job. Even before the cheating epidemic, streamers had a lot of say and even got Nikita to bump the player ran economy unlock from level 10 to 15. Remove obtaining good ammo off the flea market and overall things that would benefit the streamer over the average player. The changes from the flea market all the way to the cheating epidemic (that has yet to resolve itself) saw the population drop within the game on the PVP side. Many players who start the wipe would not even make it past 25 because by the time they would get to 15 it was already a struggle when you're fighting a level 42 player with Class V armor, a full tricked out primary with the best ammo. It killed the mid and casual players completely that they would just not bother. Hence why so many TTV/KZbinr personalities keep pumping out their yearly videos of "what's happening to Tarkov PVP". They know something is off but quite honestly are too blinded by their hubris. Mind this that Nikita made unheard edition and PVE Tarkov to combat SPT specifically. To this day Nikita is surprised that PVE tarkov is more popular over PVP tarkov. He's also shown active disdain for the PVE side often calling PVE players cowards for not playing the 'real game'. Yet how can a player interact with the actual PVPVE Tarkov when some 12 year old running a scrip from Cheatowning will headshot you instantly as you spawn. Then from the safety of their lil hideaway autoloot your gear without ever interacting with your body. With all the game systems that CIG has planned for the game that are more or less time sinks to waste time, people will start looking for that PvE game within Star Citizen and of course SQ42 will be shoved in peoples faces for that PvE experience. A lot of the backers who backed the game in 2013 are now older, have families, and other responsibilities. They can no longer dedicate a full day to playing Star Citizen and even though CIG may not have wipes. Having a murder hobo come in and blow your ship from out under you sets you back not just 20 minutes or so...but hours. You bring up that PVP serves as a means to put road bumps in player progression. Again I like to point out, if the game takes an hour to go from hab to ship, then from ship to doing activity A, and finally Activity A being disrupted by someone who shoots first and goes "IM a PiRaTe, give me loot" followed by you finding yourself respawning. Why should that player continue playing when they can go play something else that wont waste their time. There's hundreds of games demanding attention already, CIG has to compete with those games for attention. Again...why play Tarkov when you can play 6 hours of CoD/Battlefield...probably have a better experience more or less vs the soul crushing feeling of completing a task and dying to a script kiddy....now having to redo that whole task again. These road bumps mean little to nothing when the player has options to go play something else. Something CIG has to balance to keep a healthy player count. The era of "this is only game I play" is long and gone, CIG is not going to be that game for a lot of players if they keep the systems they want to keep in the game. Players will just go find something else to pour their time into. PVPVE has to be balanced in a way that its fun for the loser as well. Games that have tried to put X item in a known PVP area deserve every thread calling the devs out because its lazy. As noted again, you're turning players who may not interact with PVP into content for PVP players. In turn these PVP players will choose to punch down given the chance as its little to no cost for them. Of course PVP players want to say "we're not punching down" but if there's a choice between going up against a flight of F8Cs vs a duo running Mole, the choice is to attack the mole because its an easier target to stroke their e-peen. Its always been that way in every PVPVE game because the actual PVP players that want to test themselves go into areas where there's no loss of XP, Gear or durability. The question is can CIG pull it off...maybe. Its a long shot but the way I can see PVPVE working is with a faction system and those who want to be pirates and outlaws be auto marked as enemy combatants from the start. Also I want to point out PVE players do not need PVP players (XIV and WOW more or less prove that PVE is more profitable, with PVP being secluded to its own arenas). Its the other way around and most PVE players see PVP players as complete leeches and blights on the landscape. A good case study is Black Desert Online that billed itself as a PVPVE open world game. The catch was, since it was a KR game, dying meant losing XP. So at a certain level around 55 or so the XP curve would double, go past 60 and you're looking at months to get 1% XP because the devs did not want players obtaining high levels rapidly. To add more salt onto this, the devs sold an item that hid your name from other players not in your party. This meant if you did not want to get ganked, you had to fork over 20 dollars. If you want to actively target high level players you also forked over 20 dollars. So for the most part the game was kill or be killed even if you did not go out of your way to seek PVP. The funny thing is, this pushed BDO's player count sub 10k for years because most PVE players would up and drop the game once they hit their 50's because going any further was a waste of time. Knowing full well some whale was going to run around in your farming zone and just jump you for no reason other then they are out there to hunt players. Well PearlAbyss bought themselves out from Kalico games and revamped their PVE side of things, now the player numbers are healthy and the largest servers are PVE servers. The PVP servers while numerous are sparsely populated. No one honestly wants to PVP in the open world, especially if you're in the 60's because we're talking months of XP loss when you get KO'd, and players will sit on your body to make sure you respawn out of the zone so it sticks (as the game does have an revive item that restores lost Xp but as noted most players who win make sure you lose that XP or you burn money as they readily beat you down).

[@CatalystDestiny]

What they need to do is add in FULL CONSEQUENCES for griefers, that's it. Griefers are 100% the problem with the outrage right now. There is no consequence in any way shape or form for griefers who are literally sitting there waiting for 4.0 to drop to camp the jump point and mission areas to prevent as many people as possible from being able to play the game to cause them to quit, that is their goal to damage the game "for the lulz". No one at all cares about the actual legitimate game design PvP systems of the game like cargo piracy, what they care about is griefers being removed from the game and punished fully. They will need full consequence systems in the game for griefers that make it so when they face those consequences, the game is all but unplayable for them and extremely hard to do literally anything at all, or just have full punishment systems in place for bans. If they cannot do any of this, then simply put they'll be forced to add in a PvP toggle as so many threads have stated, because otherwise the damage to the game would be extreme and irreversible otherwise and let's face it, the tiny handful of griefer children is nothing in the bucket compared to the overwhelming majority of others who leave games who have let griefers run the show and take their money with them, the thing CIG cares about. The little kid griefers aren't going to fund this game themselves, and we've already started seeing funding decline, much less how much would take their money and walk away with open griefing season 4.0 being thrown in and ending up an absolute clownshow. That's why there's so much overwhelming outrage, mass threads, and media coverage on it right now, because everyone is warning them and blaring warning sirens right in CIG's faces, but will they listen? Who knows, but the backers who have money to buy ships, subscribe monthly and buy merch are certainly watching to see their response.

[@grolo-af]

Absolutely. There needs to be a reason to make you think... "Is what I'm about to do worth the cost?" Part of it is in our hands as players. A large part is on CIG and having rules of the game well enforced both systematically and via moderation. 100%

[@CatalystDestiny]

@@grolo-af Honestly just based on history, and having played MMO's since the 1990's even before MMO was even a term, when MUD's existed, the predecessor to MMO's, only so much is in player hands. Trolls always parrot troll remarks such as "players will band together and counter griefers" and other such dribble, but the reality is, no they won't. They leave the game. This is what happened to EVERY SINGLE "PvP MMO" since the 90's, every one, that had griefer problems, where devs ignored the warnings and did nothing about it. Everyone quit, the games died, and were nothing but a mocked laughed at joke. Some stragglers that weren't just "PvP" but some other elements tread water but have pitiful player counts and aren't "good", they're also mocked. This is the scenario CIG currently faces. No one is going to "band together", or "make friendly support groups", or other such nonsense when they throw pyro out, they're just going to ignore it, or quit the game once they get prevented from doing anything in pyro by the griefers waiting to point and quest camp. Unlike the griefer kids that don't spend money on the game past maybe 1 ship, the overwhelming majority of the actual wider playerbase that do spend money on ships, and subs, merch and such are watching what CIG's response will be, and if they'll very simply take their money and walk away or not. CIG cares about money, and their funding already starting to decrease this year has been a big topic, so the question is how much would they respond to a vastly larger part of that funding walking away and next year ends up being far lower in funding? Time will tell if/what CIG does and responds, and how much their decision affects the games funding and player count. This is what I see anyways being the current situation, and it's the kinda situation I've seen countless times since the 90's over so many failed MMO projects that promised so much lol. Even Ashes of Creation had that devastating "asmongold griefer incident" recently that gave a very permanent black and and huge reputational hit to that game, even the developer had to desperately scramble to try and scrape up any sort of public response after that backlash. That's what happens when devs ignore warnings about griefers having free reign, they pay the price for that in a games reputation to the wider consumer audience.

[@grygaming5519]

@@CatalystDestiny This right here, hence why Grolo is wrong about adversity. Players want adversity but they also do not want their time wasted. If they feel their time is being wasted and the Community Manager team goes "solve it in game". Then the player will just move to something else. There's other games that they can play and the Sci-Fi space combat genere is staring to make some waves again. It'd only be a matter of time before a SC killer starts showing up (X4 looks like its going to put pressure on CIG, not as grandiose but still its pressure). Its the same call to arms Tarkov players (who are not streamers) we begging Nikita to put a workable anti-cheat into the game. The PVP side was suffering due to the rampant hacking that many chose to use an illegal mod to keep playing Tarkov over the official servers. That's CIG's path if they cannot get their collective heads around it. AoC as you said still has reputational damage, the same with BDO as well...their Top player lost 10% of XP at level 63. SO much that they almost quit the game. 10% in BDO was about 9 months of 20 hours a day. A griefer team hunted them down and mercilessly killed them, no one wanted to help because they didnt want to risk their XP and the GM team at the time was actually fired because of that incident. The player got half their XP back as an apology but still 9 month's down the toilet. Maybe Pryo needs to be a complete shit show in order for CIG to start actively hiring a GM team, and start canning this current rabble of CM workers.

[@matteobarbarini3120]

I funded this game quite a lot and the only thing I do not want to see is a PVE server.

[@yohanzeta]

I’ll weigh in since I’m in a PVP org and I have a back being in the defense industry. I believe the SC player-base has issue of culture and the game has fostered expectations (regardless of their stated intentions of the game) that conflict with one another with the PvE types being the vast majority. The state of the game up this point been has conditioned players to expect and behave certain ways that conflict with each other. By this I mean if you wanted to PVE, you could basically spend 99% of the time of the time doing it and only get greifed 1% of the time. If you’re a PVP player, typically griefing is part of the loop, and you’re the sort that’s in it for emergent gameplay. you could spend 85% of your time doing things like greifing and after years of playing you’re likely to only ruin the same individual maybe once or twice in a year at most. At an individual level its a lot of people but it’s not enough to move the needle and most players can experience the game never running into a pvp encounter. It’s a tremendous shift in expectations since that 1% of the time that the two will types will have some level of interaction that will turn to maybe 15%, which is too much for a PvE player. And there in-lies the issue. Right now, there is very little to-no in game incentive to drive PVPers that are by in-large looking for emergent experiences (that would be worth their time) to play differently. The ones that exist have been gutted which leaves griefing as the one of the only few remaining options. PVE types by-in-large want their interactions with PVPers to basically be 0%. The idea of formulating solutions to reduce risk is not something they want to put an effort into at all. And to them, experiencing the game at its fullest does not include emergent interventions that have risk. Fair enough I’d say but its worth pointing out. There is no solution that will make everyone happy given the diametrically opposed player experiences. But I will say that the game as it is right now is SEVERELY lacking in fun and worthwhile incentives for PVPers to play security or patrol the verse organically. Arguably since the vast majority are PVE players and an argument could be made that making it only PVE is the play, but that to me kills what makes this game special and turns it all to a theme park. Instead of going the nuclear option, I’d say they need create more meaningful incentives and gameplay loops for pvp players that intersect positively with pve players. It will reduce the odds of griefing and create more emergent gameplay opportunities.

[@grolo-af]

Good comment; thanks for it! "Arguably since the vast majority are PVE players and an argument could be made that making it only PVE is the play, but that to me kills what makes this game special and turns it all to a theme park." As I tried to outline in the video, without this conflict, the game will die. Or it will have to change to a very different game (that I for one would not want to play). Yes, people are risk and adversity averse in general. That doesn't mean its what we/they NEED. I'm sure many people would love to walk onto a football field and just score touchdowns to much applause over and over, but the game of football would have died long ago if that was the whole game. In much the same way, SC will die if it's just unchecked progression all the time. We need conflict. But we also need rules that prevent players from treating other players poorly. Pad ramming, spawn camping, killing for no other reason than to set them back and make their day worse... Many people are here because they want a simulation. We would not see that kind of behavior in a future we imagine. Yes, we'll have pirates in space, but not rampant murder on a station. It doesn't make sense. The systems, rules of the game, and moderation need to converge on establishing rules that's fun for everyone.... even if nobody gets exactly what they want all the time, the overall experience will remain compelling to all. And it needs moderation to ensure the systems are working.

[@yohanzeta]

@@grolo-af I also see moderation a potential solution like a game master (as you pointed out) but I think CIG has an opportunity to try something that hasn’t been done before which is heavily enabling moderation at the player level. They expect it to happen based on their stated intentions but it’s not something they’re enabling with the way the game is right now. Now expecting best behavior out of the player base but its worth seeing what happens if they put more effort into enabling it. (see Dark souls series… smaller scale but its an interesting proof of concept) There are entire orgs that advertise providing security and defense and want to play that role but they’re presence in game is basically non-existent since there are aren’t large enough incentives for player driven moderation even at the cultural level. Now the idea of a game master is interesting to me in that there are ways they could implement within world itself to fill the gap in security. They could spawn (preferably functioning) AI to act as a quick reaction force to reapond to griefing and perhaps even include a trauma team to revive downed pve players. It would make for more emergent experiences without the need for it to be exclusively player driven all and still enabling PVE progression without eliminating PVP encounters as an possibility. More immediately, Pyro’s biggest issue is that its a PVP/hybrid world that’s more appealing to the PVE players. Most PVP players rather stay in Stanton and most of the PVP gameplay loops in Pyro are just Ghost area or greifing 🤣. Or to put it differently, the only role PVPes can meaningfully play in Pyro is the villain role. And worse, the rewards are locked into things that both PVE and PVP players dont want to do as the only means of getting them. Right now, both sides are just tolerating it. IMO Pyro is coming in too early (due to lack of fundamental features and technology to enable a more positive player interactions) and they should have prioritized bring a more PVE centric system. The things that would make Pyro work as they imagined aren’t here yet. Full disclosure I’m still looking forward to it, but that’s my objective view on the matter.

[@honey-fe6pj]

PVE only servers is not the nuclear option for PVE players- only PVPers think that and we all know why. Do you really trust CIG to do this ,' create more meaningful incentives and gameplay loops for pvp players that intersect positively with pve players' I don't (not so much a failing of them rather they are against human nature) and believe something like or equivalent to the PVP slider CR spoke about will come into play.

[@yohanzeta]

@ You’re thinking about this too linearly. There are second order consequences to PVE only servers for a game designed like SC. Whether CIG can or can’t pull positive interactions between pve and pvp players off via direct intervention is almost irrelevant, what matters much whether it can even happen at all organically. We have proven models of positive interactions (albeit in simpler forms) in games such as Dark Souls which was not even intended to be primarily multiplayer game. You can technically do it now, if people just took the time to ask in the chat for help. But what’s ultimately missing is the motivation and reward for it. The *only* meaningful option available for playing security/BLUEFOR is larping and protecting friends. You will not be able to articulate any other available options that will shift the paradigm in how pvp players play without completely nuking them off the game. Tbh I want PVE players that think this deep inside to really say this part out loud and be much louder about it. Because then they would be honest. The consequences of PVE only servers is that the game will essentially lose all forms of risk and consequences as the game is right now. Maybe that’s what people want, but they’re better off asking for an offline mode with some co-op element to it if that’s what they are asking for. To me that would be committing to the point, where as PvE only servers would be the lazy brain-dead solution. The reason that intersection pve and pvp is an issue is fundamentally because it heavily leans going one way: playing the villain or self isolate into arenas that dont take full advantage of the strengths of Star Citizen. There are’t many available options (currently) that facilitate a positive interaction that involves both pve and pvp in a positive way. Incentivizing player driven security is just one of many possible ways they can do this.

[@honey-fe6pj]

@@yohanzeta yes exactly PVE players want to play the game - maybe NPCs will react and give them a thrill but not groups of org members.I personally don’t even believe PVPers will stay in the PVP systems so a blunt response will be needed to keep the massive number of PVE players happy. As simple as that if they want people to play the game.

[@maack87]

"There is no perfect solution". I agree. But it could be a lot better. I will preface this by saying I don't account for griefing in this statement as the definition of griefing is pretty clear and CIG has mentioned that exploit and griefing is not something they will tolerate. I'm for PVP in general and think it's a valid gameplay loop in Star Citizen. However, in it's current implementation it is flawed. If you weight PVP vs. PVE in its current form they are not balanced. If you PVP you have no risk whatsoever compared to PVE gameplay loops. If you die, you just put on a spermsuit and jump right back in whatever you were fighting. That's it. The ones doing PVE has a lot more to lose. Rep, money, more time wasted etc. If they could bring it so that these were more balanced I don't think we would see the same opposition to PVP as we do now. So I hope CIG, sooner rather than later, will address this to even it out.

[@CitizenScott]

CIG's definition of griefing is pretty clear yeah, and it's very different from what most anti-PvPers think. What they consider griefing is very rare, and even then they absolutely do openly tolerate actual griefing. They literally tell players to deal with it themselves in-game. They only actually care about "excessive griefing," which is so extremely rare that they only take action twice per year on average, despite "countless reports" they receive. Just sayin.

[@grolo-af]

Well said! I agree. One solution to this imbalance, I think, is the reputation/karma thing I mentioned (and surely there's alternatives). If in an example encounter the PVPer is basically risking/paying large eventual loss (via DOTSM, etc) in the form of wealth and reputation in exchange for achieving their PVP goals, now both sides are anteing up something.

[@fwdcnorac8574]

@@grolo-af I think reputation is everything. If you camp in a small town that's owned by gangs and shoot players who are under contract with a controlling gang, you should be considered an enemy of that gang. They need a reputation and an AI difficulty that rivals Escape From Tarkov, too. That difficulty doesn't have to represent AI across the board, either. AI difficulty could scale depending on the opponent. Maybe a criminal will face Terminator T-1000s with pinpoint accuracy and x-ray vision, and law-abiding, new players would face off against low-difficulty AI? Perhaps the difficulty should scale when faced against a group, but at the same time, is the loot better? A negative reputation could also have some upsides. Like the ability to intimidate opposing faction NPCs? Imagine rolling into a town and doing some shopping, and while you are making some purchases, the shopkeeper shuts down the store, locks the doors, and alerts the rest of the town because another player just rolled in, and he's been causing some trouble for folks in the area. Does that player get an intimidation buff that causes NPCs to flee or head to a saferoom instead of the current shooting-on-sight model? Then you could be that guy who stands up to that other player and gets a huge reputation boost for shooting him down? It's a straight-up shootout out of a Clint Eastwood movie. That's the kind of juice I wanna see in this game.

[@grygaming5519]

@@CitizenScott However not being able to control a small fire eventually leads to a larger one. CIG is being lazy and loose with its own ToS because the community management team does not want to get their hands dirty. There should be player freedom but that should stop once it starts causing issues. Something relitively small and being left uncheck will allow it to fester. So them going deal with it in game makes no sense, I GM'd in a server that had similar rules. It was a complete shit show because these people will get as close to the line without crossing it, then back off. It got very bad that I just started banning people for what they were doing. Sure they complained to the server's owner but I had enough information that these people were being habitual, getting close to the line without crossing it. So I made them examples that even playing with the line will be punished. Think I perma banned 20 accounts and IP banned 10 of them.

[@CitizenScott]

@@grygaming5519 CIG have straight up said that it’s not a problem at all. Next time you get “griefed” remember that odds are it was a CIG employee. Just sayin.

[@BobWobbles]

Hey Grolo, I think you're on the right track around the 20:00 mark. The reputation system could become a very powerful behavioural moderator once it becomes fully fleshed out. If done correctly, a full on ganker who kills indiscriminately everywhere they go is likely to become such a persona non grata with all the factions that it becomes almost impossible for them to refuel and rearm. That should be a strong deterrent to the murder hobo game style. As far as in game moderators are concerned, if they do have them I think they should be mainly concerned with cheaters/hackers and let the game systems take care of the griefers.

[@grolo-af]

I agree for the most part. I think any system has limits. In the video I mentioned Asmongold. Good example of no system like this handling ALL the edge cases... but in general, yes, I agree with you 100%

[@BobWobbles]

@@grolo-af Yeah, stream sniping is pretty egregious and 100% a job for mods. I forgot about that tbh so I'll modify my original statement to say the mods should be handling cheaters and the edge cases that the in-game systems miss.

[@cdkraft]

PvE has drains too. You would probably add item/ship decay. Would i want it? Not really. Eve handles griefing with the concept of security zones. Not perfect but is a method to add some controls.

[@grolo-af]

Yeah good point on PVE drains... usually not as entertaining though. ; )

[@KumachiYoshimura]

@@grolo-af for you, they are not entertaining for you. Always remember that. People come from work and play ETS or Construction Simulator, cause for them this is fun. I mostly play pvp games but I understand that people like different things. Also co-op games are vastly superior to pvp games, breed better communities and are equally as sustainable, PVE servers would be fine with a couple of good resourse sinks like pve fleet battles.

[@grygaming5519]

@@KumachiYoshimura Also a PvE game that is geared towards co-op over solo play will have far more replayability. You're not overall worried about gear loss.

[@JoseJimenez-fc6pu]

I don't ever go to Spectrum. It's why I'm a generally less angry person and any bugs or frustrating glitches I encounter, I tend to mostly laugh it off and quit to desktop rather rage or bitch about it on a toxic forum.

[@grolo-af]

Same!

[@Diogenes76]

This is probably the smart way. Spectrum is very culty. Everyone just trying to push their personal version of the game onto each other. Nothing but speculation of things that CIG themselves are still working out.

[@ChadSutton]

Fantastic video! It is so nice to see someone discussing the topic without being ridiculous on either side. Most of the panicked posts on Spectrum are by people who haven't even set foot in Pyro. That is not to say that the murder hobos aren't also out in force, but even in Pyro, the game bugs are still much more likely to kill you than another player. I would love to see a few things that are added with the reputation and law systems. I would like to see players have the ability to add money to the bounty of a player criminal. That bounty would continue to grow until someone captures or kills them. I would also like the amount of the bounty also have an inverse effect on that player's rep with NPC factions after they are captured or killed. I also think that after a certain amount of aggressive kills or crimes, that the aggressive player becomes a "criminal" and is permanently red so they can be attacked on sight by anyone that wishes to do so. They would also be attacked on sight by any lawful NPCs. The criminal reputation could decay slowly over time as long as new criminal activity isn't being added. This means that players still have a range of choices to make, which is key in a sandbox game. There are times where you just need to waste somebody before they waste you. Doing that once in a while won't make you a "perma-criminal" immediately, but the other player could still put a sizable bounty on your head which could cause some temporary issues until you do your jail time. Once someone goes past the crime threshold (how many? 5 kills in 5 days? 10 kills in 5 days? Base it on crime status instead? anything higher than X crime status?) they are marked as red to everyone and that crime status doesn't go away without 2 weeks of no new crimes. You can still live at Grim Hex or Pyro as a perma-criminal. The higher your bounty the more bounty hunters will want to hunt you down.

[@grolo-af]

Great thoughts! Thank you! I really love player-driven measures like bounties and stuff. Can't believe I forgot to include that in the video. Thanks for bringing it up! Going red and being vulnerable to NPCs is also a great (known) system... and frankly one most PVPers love. It brings them more of the gameplay they are after (in my experience). So win/win.

[@WhiteLineRambler]

I believe as in real life you need real consequences in these types of games. If you murder someone it needs to hold a high degree of consequences within the game.

[@grolo-af]

100% agree.

[@4tonmike]

I didn't think this topic would ever get any attention. I mentioned it once and it seemed like people just tell me to git gud or fk off and play Starfield (yeah right, play a different hollow shell of a game when I could be playing Helldivers 2) . For solo miners, maybe an option to hire an npc escort? Haven't worked out the details, but it would give the otherwise squishy Prospector, ROC, or Vulture player who does not have friends currently ready, willing, and able to fly top cover a chance to get away, and provides an obstacle for your average baby seal clubber to enjoy. Maybe a different take on the PvP slider. Say Griefer A atracks Salvager B in Stanton, and B presses charges. A either gets away with it or goes to prison, whatever. The damage has been done. Next time A logs in or after some amount of time, Player A logs back into Stanton but the server silently uses dynamic matching only into Stanton instances with other players who have griefed 1 or more times within a 30 day period. Escalate for number of griefing incidents. (griefed 3 times within a 30 day period, only matches with other players who have griefed 3 times in a 30 day period). Access to lawless systems like Pyro is not affected, but when a baby seal clubber with 1 griefing incident within 30 days jumps to Stanton, they are in an instance devoid of players who have zero griefing incidents. Obviously the system would be overseen by a moderator. That way we can all continue to play with the players we want to play with. Lawless sectors like pyro remain dangerous and unrestricted and PvE players at least don't risk being harassed by the same guy. Interesting tidbit: One guy in another comment section mentioned that there used to be 1 Griefer per instance back when the server cap was 25 people. So scaling that up to 500 person servers is about 20 people, or 4% of the population which tracks with the statistics of psychopathy (the literal psychological condition) in any given population.

[@grolo-af]

Great comment; thanks! To clarify - I'm fine with miners being attacked. Activities like mining and transporting and etc should never be "safe". Space is a big place. It should be up to players to make the activities safe for themselves by going off the beaten path, etc. It should be challenging for other players to find you. You're describing a similar system to "corruption" but with a different penalty. It's akin to what you see in some MOBAs actually so we know it works to an extent; however, it may fly in the face of what CR wants for SC in terms of sharding the universe. What we need in the "rules of the game" is that it's okay for a pirate to locate, track, and attack a miner... but the same system penalizes them for shooting someone in the face in a station for no reason, or ramming them on a pad, or etc.

[@4tonmike]

@grolo-af I was thinking it was a soft PvE/PvP mechanic, miners in lawless sectors are still subject to the full population of player pirates. "Just stay out of Pyro" actually makes sense then.

[@yulfine1688]

There's already so many things you can do, hire people or later npcs maybes, but npcs won't be useful against any decent player, that's just the nature of the game, secondly there's already going to be zones of different security anyways, meaning if you want the more rare resources etc, you'll have to venture out to those zones or pay more for those goods, many will hide in the higher security zones and rarely if ever leave them anyways, lawless systems are going to be filled with pvp players because there's no issues of other systems containing them except other players, maybe some npcs later on for different factions. Death of a spaceman coming slowly online already adds penalties, that inlcudes with rep, meaning if your main character is a griefer and you die, will that rep might go down some but it still remains and people are going to know anyways with the whole next of kin ideology that may change, so again as grolo mentioned there could be things done here that messes around with penalties. Im not shocked it was brought up because pyro is new, its lawless as well, so people are flocking over to it and the expansion in population size only adds to that, as more systems come online with nyx, castra and terra it will slow down, since some of these systems like castra and terra will be heavily protected, nyx less so similar to pyro.

[@4tonmike]

@@yulfine1688 I find hiring players tough because trading, mining, and salvaging margins don't make enough to compete with bounty contracts in UEC/hr, at least for me as a new player with low rep.

[@yulfine1688]

@4tonmike yeah rep plays a role which also means you shouldn't be targeted much either unless its a jerk to which often calling the server works as players will rally against greifers pretty commonly or just quit and come back a few minutes later. Couple times we've dealt with greifers either the server rallied and we very harshly turned on them until they quit and reported to cig with evidence.

[@Sgt_Bilko]

The hardest part to solve is so many people die doing stupid things that are avoidable with skill, but turn around and equate it to griefing. That decision can’t be left to many players.

[@TurgeonJimmy]

I think we just need real security in safe systems. Something like EVE. Right now, they are completely useless. For greifing in particular, we need a way to easily report them when it happens. PVP is necessary. They said we will be able to create mission ourself, it seems to me to be a great way to get security for people who don't like to interact in the chat. We have to keep in mind that a lot of systems are still missing in the game.

[@sasori720]

In the not too distant future, we will discover a human trait / disease / gene that makes death in video games hit different for different people. Much like how cilantro tastes like soap to a percentage of the population. We will only then realize we have been talking passed eachother. 2 completely different experiences for the same experience. TLDR: PvP tastes like soap to PvE'rs

[@Diogenes76]

Different people have different preferences. Make a solar systems for each, problem solved everyone wins. Put PvP / PvE resources in their respective systems to keep things balanced. This is what MMOs currently do.

[@randymorris5296]

"Active Moderation" as a necessary adjunct to "systems" is an idea that is near and dear to me. I believe that CIG will be in a fairly unique position as an MMO game company that owes essentially nothing to shareholders, and because of that they may very well be able to devote a reasonable amount of ongoing resources to having a fully staffed in-game moderation team. This would be such an amazing boon to the player experience, in terms of policing "griefing," but also in just keeping a live connection to the active player base that is directly game related rather than just responding to the forum troll population.

[@grolo-af]

Wholeheartedly agree, especially on the connection part. 100%

[@Diogenes76]

This is not a long-term viable solution. It does not scale and is very expensive. That is why MMOs stopped doing it.

[@randymorris5296]

@@Diogenes76 I think my point still stands. The concept of "very expensive" within a shareholder-corporate paradigm can be very different with a company that decides to take a different path. On the "corporate" path, the humans working for the company are the first to be cut to satisfy impending earnings fears, but CIG has shown some signs of departing from that perspective, by treating its employees like the invaluable assets they actually are. While it is still possible that the numbers wouldn't line up with CIG's eventual funding goals, they have an opportunity that most MMO companies never will, that is, to put some of the money that would have been diverted into dividends and stock options into the infrastructure of the Persistent Universe. Part of that infrastructure could be a few extra employees that are professional in-game mods.

[@Diogenes76]

@@randymorris5296 It is all a matter of scale. I added more info on a post below. I should run some math on this to show people how crazy expensive it gets and how that money could have been spent on devs instead.

[@randymorris5296]

@@Diogenes76 you should absolutely provide concrete evidence for your perspective, it would definitely help me evaluate your position. 👍

[@R1po]

Griefing to me means that you get killed the second you respawn That's not possible in SC. But I'd still suggest a solution that's a combination of Albion Online and The Cycle. Different zones like in Albion and Equipment Insurance like in The Cycle. Green zone: can't be attacked - Yellow: Can be killed - but insurance works - Red: Can be killed an Equipment is lost. That's also how Albion keeps the market in check. Iirc, EVE does something similar.

[@maddogs1989]

Tell me more that you don't pay attention to development and the direction SC is going. With lawful systems and unlawful systems and how insurance is going to work. All of this has been covered.

[@Jeremy_Walker]

PVP is an element of the game- not a mode. CIG has to figure out how to reward PVP where they want it and punish PVP where they don't. The most challenging is going to be griefers. Anyone can spend a couple bucks to buy multiple accounts and harass people without consequence. The only real way to keep players safe is literally "safe zones" where you can't damage other players- which is pretty dumb. Not sure how they are going to work it out.

[@ross4814]

Yeah, I don't think having a PVE server will work. The game doesn't have that idea built in. Star Citizen plays more like a survival game. I like the idea of penalizing bad behavior with a game mechanic. That could keep a player motivated to play knowing that there are protections. However, I think outside controlled zones, like a space station or a region with protection, a player should be free to attack another player without penalty. Thinking about it, you are basically saying the same thing, but it's interesting to talk about.

[@Aklys]

The PvE view I think was a bit oversimplified as I would consider NPCs being a conflict aspect. But agree that it is boring longer term. I think there is a ton more to be done in game to handle griefing that is within lore. I love the aspect that PvP exists, including the griefing aspect it generates. I think there is a ton of behaviour influencing mechanics that can be implemented yet. Even some reasonably simple methods like spawning NPCs both on foot and in ships after a timer to attempt to remove aggressors when called. Moderation in game would be a great move and it could also be more factionally driven knowing you'd likely be safer around the factions you are respected by. Would definitely be good to have more in game consequences to actions. I want that PvP to exist more in a way that also encourages players to help with stopping Griefers as well. More missions in game for people to do patrol work is another thing I want to see to help deal with it.

[@mikehoncho116]

I don't think there will be separate servers and I don't think it would be good for the game if there was. I'm not a pvp'r but I think players should be able to test their skills against other players in combat. I also think pirate gameplay is completely legitimate as well. I just hope there will be some game system that will discourage the seal clubbing which feels like the majority of "pvp" we have right now.

[@patryn36]

eve online had/has the perfect beginning to the 'issue': hi sec, low sec, null sec. In high sec you have protection and most of your pve'ers reside there, null sec is where the hardcore pvp'ers reside, and low sec is the blending zone. Resources are scattered in such a way to provide incentive to venture out of comfort zones and reputation either impowers or prevents depending on one's past actions. Granted concord was a bit lax but that helps players from getting too comfortable in how they play. I would not mind cig importing, and i think they have based on my limited awareness, this setup. If you do not want pvp do not go into dangerous areas and do not give another a means to attack you, but that comes at a cost. If you want to pvp you stay in the dangetous areas because that is the point but that should come at a cost as well. If you do not want to lose it then do not fly it or store in a vulnerable site, all else is just plain stupid, i did both pve and pvp in eve and operated in all the zones but i did not get into the whole group thing like so many clamored for.

[@grolo-af]

I like this approach too and it certainly seems like CIG will adopt something similar.

[@XXweelyXX]

100% agree on the griefing.. There needs to be systems in place to combat that in certain areas like high sec etc etc. But im also 100% a no for PVE servers. IMO there needs to be risk in the game, that is what makes it exciting..Even if you do not come accross another player in the verse, just knowing they are out there makes you play the game in a better more tactical way. I like PVP ( mostly FPS) but that doesnt mean im doing that 24/7... I want to do all the other things as well, craft, build basses, manfufacture, explore. But just doing it for myself or for the NPCs in a PVE server sounds proper borning. PVP for me does not just mean shoot at the first person you see. For me it means PLAYER INTERACTION.... I want to have genaral conversations with randoms players, or your neighbour, I want to sell stuff to players not npcs, i want to have to buy things off players not npcs, i want to have to refuel my ship from a player not a npc, i want risk in the game. Elite has a solo only server, and while maybe good as a noob to test games mechanics etc, it is stale and boring floating around on your own in this huge space. And for what in the end? In Eve online, both PVP and PVE players live in harmoney, yes there are gankers, but theres also systems in place to combat that in particular areas.. In the end PVP and PVE needs each other for the longevity of this game we all love.

[@shurikenv]

I absolutely agree and I think people are jumping the gun. It's not bad to voice worries so that cig knows and they can work that in but I think cig has plans already that will make a good mix of PVE PVP within the game that people just don't realize yet and we won't realize until that content is released it. Could it be anywhere within the next year or two? But I think we're at a point where they can start working on that now

[@fwdcnorac8574]

I think having a negative reputation sticking to a criminal after death is a great idea. Committing crimes every now and then would be easily fixable. But being a psychopath responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths should be catastrophic for a reputation. I also think reputation should "grow". Become infamous enough, and other factions may take notice. To the point where the criminal is the most wanted in the galaxy. Also, the most feared. It could have upsides to be the most hated. You could get an intimidation boost to NPCs. I suggest exclusive access to special overpowered gear. So they can be an actual fear? That doesn't sound like the best idea from the perspective of the more peaceful players, but it makes sense. Also, could one of you be the one that takes him down? Then, the galaxy would know your name. Lastly, with reputation, I think the death of a spaceman should reset it for the most part. For example, your next character may be the son of the psychopath killer, so it's not like you committed those crimes, but your family name now has a reputation, and it's up to you to correct it or live up to it.

[@grolo-af]

Love where you're going with this. Couldn't agree more.

[@blaqkstar]

As an occasional asshole / murder hobo, I fully support more aggressive penalties for ganking other players. Maybe a system that compared the relative skill levels of aggressor/target players? Regardless, I think once we've got a proper reputation system implemented some of that behavior will naturally level off, as wrecking our standing with important regional factions may prove to be more tedious than helpful. If I'm out doing bad guy stuff, scan a player and notice that he's aligned with a faction that I don't want to piss off, I'd probably think twice before engaging.

[@grolo-af]

Great perspective; thank you! Makes sense.

[@stephanmilius3598]

Griefing is an immersion breaker. I hope CIG can fix those non-game related aggressions via mechanics of reputation and economics. The possibility of a fight adds to the immersion and artificial ways of preventing it (like armistice zones) break the immersion. However you should have a really strong reason to attack since you will have to deal with the consequences.

[@codyshaner3258]

Grolo, I have done web dev knowledge. What do I need to do to be anetwork engineer!?!? I want to get a job out side of construction. Ty!

[@Durion7]

Pvp is fine. Griefing is not. Maybe the should make vanduul as playable species and then make pvp like other games do it. Attacking only the other faction. And pirating etc against the own people as a crime. But griefing with zero consequences will destroy the game and make many people quit the game.

[@grimhizzer]

This video makes me want to have PVP in Satisfactory. haha. Good video again.

[@grolo-af]

*lol* Yeah I can see why : )

[@ranger275th9]

In my opinion... People need to stop trying to get CIG to change the game to suit their individual needs and wants! That mindset doesn't work in real life, and it certainly wont work in this type of game. People on both sides need to be smarter in the way they play and experience the game, and use it to your advantage. PvP'ers want to PvP so the PvE'ers should hire them. Both sides get what they want, I know myself and others would probably do it for free even. Having PvE only would make the game boring and stale, and people would move on eventually to a different game. Also, I think a lot of people claim "griefing" for every little thing that doesn't go their way. Have a "mission" screen PvP'ers can go to and get hired to escort a PvE'er, and the price can then be negotiated.

[@the_babbleboom]

any honest PVP player that isn't a griefer would insist on CIG hurrying up on creating systems that make PVP work for those on the attacked end. that means insurance for their trading goods for example. insurance for their gear. that means fines that *have* to be paid by attackers and similar punishments that cannot just simply be escaped or turned off by switching a flip in the comm arrays. it means making multi crew ships survivable and viable. that means making org gameplay possible. that means payouts that cover for the cost of escorts too. but none of that is on most pseudo PVP-ers mind. they just want to have an as easy as possible time to shoot someone who has no way in hell to do anything about an attack, and they know that. it's not about skill or enjoying the game, it's about enjoying having taken a dump on someone elses game. if they truly believe this one dimensional pew pew is what they want they would play counterstrike, but they probably stink in real shooters and get clapped when it's a game that is properly set up for PVP of that kind.

[@Crittek]

I think this whole thing is way overblown. There is no risk, there is no reward in basically anything right now. Especially in the PTU where everyone starts with 15M credits… As far as I’m concerned pressing play is consenting to PvP. Learn to navigate adversity or give up. If I kill you and you alt f4 the strategic win is that you’re one less potential threat.

[@grolo-af]

Maybe play Call of Duty?

[@Crittek]

@ lol okay? Go play Minecraft I guess? Pretty reductive coming from someone that wants to supposedly discuss perspectives. I don’t play AAA slop. It’s not 2009. Eve, Tarkov, DayZ. You know, interesting risk reward emergent gameplay. I think getting upset on the forums over a tech demo is a bit embarrassing. If you think I’m one of these griefers you are mistaken. I play maybe 10 hours a month because I have self respect.

[@ryeaye2278]

@@grolo-afwhat a bad take, being dismissive in a few words is not cash money

[@ross4814]

That doesn't address greifing, which is the main point of what the video is about.

[@Crittek]

@@ross4814 The video title is PVE servers and the state of open PvP in general…

[@Solice07]

I mentioned in another video that I like the idea of a stiffer penalty system. Just not sure what that would be. We definitely need PVP in SC. The added risk, problem solving and random chance of it is invaluable. However, the fact that it’s currently only a major risk to the PVE side of gameplay is what makes it such a big issue at the moment. The standard everyday gameplay should not be akin to Unreal Tournament, where it’s you against the world, and you kill everyone onsite like someone else mentioned. You should ABSOLUTELY be able to do that, if you really want to. However it should come with penalties that stack and increase in severity the more you do it. We just need a more balanced risk system.

[@grolo-af]

Exactly.

[@KickstarterRadio1024]

PvE servers simply need to introduce NPCs to replace the loss of threat. Rift MMO had villages and towns that could be taken over my npc's that had to be pushed back to reclaim. Was very problematic when trying to hand in a quest and you needed more players to rescue the town. Also in EVE Online, the PvE missions, many missions had hard NPCs creating more threat. So in short, the npc pirates in SC will be the ones to fire up the pve server. But my vote goes on a RP PvE server.

[@grolo-af]

I addressed the possibility of NPCs in the video. It's possible, but in my mind, it only slows down the PVE server death - does not prevent it. Eventually, how to manage the NPC menace will be an exact science. And it's expensive ($$$ wise).

[@Barnz1980]

As I fly out into Pyro in my starter ship I think of all these posts & laugh. I don’t get it at all. Wave 1 tester here with only a starter ship btw. So many comments Grolo! I think this game has lots of players that have spent up & are salty🤪

[@sjoer]

I don't like the idea of PvE/PvP servers, but there is this online "PvP" culture that is just kill on sight and that is something I'm not a fan of in any MMO as it is just bad behavior which you can see it in the many "threats" from self proclaimed "PvP"'ers telling the "PvE"'ers to do whatever... It is just bad behavior, something that should be punished and not rewarded.

[@sjoer]

Wow Asmongold caused a ban wave? It is good that it happened then, shame on all those people ruining someones day not once or twice... but over and over.

[@FlippinMonkey]

There are prisons and player bounties. I'm not sure how this is an issue. Open pvp areas can have ways to "guide" pvp. As far as griefers go, they exist.

[@cyberclaw360]

The game needs a system that has potentially really harsh punishments for being a cold blooded killer. They need to incetivise not killing everyone all the time. its gona be a real pain but. I can think of a few potentially balancing systems. So. Im sure they have there own ideas. i think your right on that it cant all by a game systemdping the work They will need some human monitoring. Im on a wait and see. The game is missing so many features rep being the biggest one. Theres a few option to balance pvp just in that system... well potentially anyway

[@luminisunhinged]

The thing i think people don't often think about is that there is griefing on PVE servers too. Area denial - resource denial - proximity griefing. A lot of ways that people can interrupt progress or deny things in PVE too. I am in the camp that would rather be able to do something about it - rather than not be able to threaten them. Though that goes both ways. I think overall with a working reputation and faction system working - we can see a robust pvpve environment. With more threatening than anything over actual fighting.

[@grolo-af]

Good point on PVE griefing!

[@Diogenes76]

These are very old problems that have been addressed in most modern MMOs. You never hear about people griefing in WoW or ESO etc anymore. Back in EQ it was a thing, but the games evolved. I find that many people complain about MMO mechanics because they don't know the history of how and why they came about.

[@mikehoncho116]

The reason you haven't been griefed much in SC is because we had 100 player servers and the engagement overall has been low for a while due to the lack of patches. When we have thousands of players on a shard if we don't have systems in place to prevent it you will see a lot of griefing if the EPTU has been any indication.

[@iroquoisplissken3583]

Welcome to Mastermodes…the problem is you are now trapped in combat and the skill requirement is so low that any common asshole can kill you.

[@kn1ne]

There wont be any PvE servers. PvP is a part of the game.

[@warren3174]

I think they'll just nerf and adjust. They've done it before. Main POIs involved in missions will get attention after they see all those scared to play them. They tried armistice free spawn habs in evocoti. Morons camped it and killed people as they walked out of the hab. So they made armistice areas. Originally they weren't going to have so many secure areas in Pyro but it will continue to creep to draw the PVE players in. There shouldn't even be a fight over PVP and PVE. CIG has to find the balance.

[@Diogenes76]

I would just love Stanton to be PvE only and Pyro to stay open PvP. Something for everyone.

[@alejandrotroche6381]

Will continue educating my self a little later.... Puerto Rico has at least one fan

[@Gnubbelhurz]

PVE without conflict? It's a game to be designed. Why should there be no conflict because of not initiated by other players. In other games there are all sorts of events so this is just an assumption if you don't do some sort of compensation. If I'm flying around long enough even today in SC I will be found by some none player ship that annoyes me. I have the decision to deal with it or fly away because I'm not in the mood to try a fight with the mole.

[@1aatlas]

I like CIG's proposed solution to the pve server/slider problem. I pvp all the time, i also dislike griefing as defined in the ToS, You can get economic benefit from any kill, Armor sets, Ship components, Ship cargo etc... I would even argue that killing someone "in cold blood" and not taking any loot from them whatsoever still credits me with an economic and strategic benefit by way of denying someone access to a space ensures all of the resources/missions are available for me/my org to benefit from, but lets face it, most misuse the term griefing as a catch all for "someone who killed me in the open world" and that devalues the term.

[@grolo-af]

Yeah I agree with all that. Denying access to a space is valid. As is blowing up a miner and taking their haul. All of that is valid gameplay. I don't want miners and haulers feeling safe... and that's coming from me, who primarily wants to mine & haul. But I don't want to see people shot in the face while eating a double dog in a food court. That's just lame.

[@icemanA84]

The problem is simply the game isn’t ready… features are still to be implemented, the AI and reputation in game isn’t to the point where players can be punished for the actions both sides agree with, that players shouldn’t be able to repeatedly kill players leaving hangers, once this is resolved many more will be happy. Anyone who thinks pvp shouldn’t exist in this game is just delusional.

[@BC-vv3ot]

I haven’t had much time to play. I see a lot of videos about a lot of people going with the shoot on sight mentality. Piracy makes sense for pyro. Hunting down everyone that comes across your path seems a little extra. Seems like cig is trying to balance this with the ammo restocking and price balancing.

[@AaronAlso]

At this point, none of those things are ever coming to the game. At the very least, failure to refine those systems prior to opening the game world up to "Greifo". Having a refined reputation and mission system that brings pvp oriented players together is mandatory, but they never have and never will.

[@neofromthewarnerbrothersic145]

​@@AaronAlsoOk, later.

[@maddogs1989]

​@@AaronAlsoyeah umm you clearly don't pay attention to what SC is, a tech demo to the investors(players), and what SC will be.

[@Diogenes76]

I think the problem a lot of us have is that their ideas addressing PvP are untested, vague, and do not seem viable.

[@skystarr658]

Did Chris Roberts say anywhere that this would be a PVE game only? No, the answer is NO. Players who come here to play Star Citizen know this. It’s a PVE/PVP open world MMO. When you sign up, you understand and accept there is a PVP element to the game. Pirate is a legitimate profession in this game. As a pirate, I don’t feel I should ask permission to shoot someone and loot them. Are you kidding me? So forget about your little consent flag. That’s unacceptable. As if people would be like, go ahead and shoot me I consent to die with 20 million worth of cargo on board. Of course not. What they want is to be left unchallenged so they can make billions and build up their own empire in the game no sweat. CIG had made it very clear that Pyro would be a Lawless system full of criminals and pirates alike. They also said that players will be able to find high-level commodities and for those willing to take the risk will also get handsomely rewarded and I think it’s fair enough. People know this and take the risk. PVEers won’t get their cake and eat it too.. again we have another case of mixing up PVPers/griefers here. Griefers can be reported and dealt with by CIG and that’s the way it should be. For those who can’t accept PVP and pirates in our game then maybe they should look elsewhere.

[@skystarr658]

No sir… but we are role-playing as pirates and I hate being mixed up as griefer.

[@grolo-af]

Hey, this isn't the place to come in assuming the worst of intent. I just got done saying PVP is required for the survival of the game, and that we need checks to progression and power growth... be need conflict based set backs at every step along the way. And you still assume I'm some carebear? What you're describing can be fixed with forced consent. In Ashes of Creation, the moment you start transporting resources from one location to another, you are consenting to PvP. Systems CAN work. For BOTH sides. Like I said, don't give up so easily. All games require rules.

[@grolo-af]

I 100% respect you playing as a pirate. You're PVPing with a purpose. We want that allowed for in the rules of the game. I absolutely do NOT want anyone transporting anything anywhere to feel safe.

[@skystarr658]

Anyway! You bring some good content. This debate has been raging for years. Sorry for coming across a little strong.

[@barcidstudios]

If they pve servers I'm done with SC at that point. 80% SC players are waaay over soft.

[@cdkraft]

Additions: Gather-resource availability; Store-decay/spoilage; Craft-failure/loss of materials. This is the classic conversation of economic model of faucets and drains. No economy can work without it.

[@grolo-af]

Yup.

[@Snicklefritts]

Ewwww no pve servers. I generally stay away from pvp and even I can see how this would adversely effect the game as a whole..

[@Beardfrey]

Fellas, Bounty Hunters are your friends. Use us. Most of us will gladly fight the griefers.

[@grolo-af]

Truuuue! o7

[@Chris-u8s7c]

The only system that works for a pve/pvp mix environment is a faction/reputation system. Ultima online had the workings of a good system but they eventually split the world into felicca and trammel

[@grolo-af]

Which killed the game, eh?

[@Chris-u8s7c]

@grolo-af yes. Having a server for pvp and a separate one for pve didn't help the game at all even though you could freely jump back and forth. I'm a non pvper myself and enjoy the open pvp world of Ultima

[@Diogenes76]

It is actually easier to add risk via NPC vs players in an MMO. MMOs are not like short form shooter games. Because they are open it turns the power pyramid on its head. Power = numbers, build, then skill in that order. This goes for PvP and PvE. For example the safest place to play and get rich with little to no risk in Eve in null sec by a long shot. This is counterintuitive for those who have not played a lot of open world PvP MMOs. I have been at this since UO over twenty years ago. PvE does not need advanced AI to become challenging because it is not a fair fight. Devs struggle to tone down NPCs to give humans a chance at winning, to make it feel fun. Guilds in PvE MMOs take months of work to beat the new content, most will never beat the hard mode versions. This is all massively complicated by the open nature of the games. It is almost impossible to make the right level of challenging content without being able to control numbers (the most important thing remember). That is why MMOs have evolved over time to have so much instancing. Want a good PvE fight, jump in a raid instance. Want a reasonably fair PvP fight, arena instance woot! Everything else just becomes a number game, and death balls are born. To make this worse, these issues are not technical, they are rooted in human nature. Look at New World, or Eve (or any PvP MMO). It only takes a couple of months for the consolidation to start. Eventually the entire server is cut up into territories controlled by mega guilds. Hell in Eve, they don't even seriously fight anymore unless they get board and have a controlled battle. The whole skill based or skill based PvP open world gameplay is just a dream in an open long form game like an MMO. Rust is the closest thing we have and it is med form and needs resets and heavy moderation to make it work. I could prob write a book on this, I will stop here =)

[@grolo-af]

What games have had organized NPC-based risk in an open world like SC will offer? NPCs that would disrupt supply lines, mining operations, assault bases, etc. This isn't your traditional MMO in which you can just run across a pack of wolves along the road... and I'm not saying they don't exist :). I'm genuinely curious. I know New World attempted something with incursions, but it was pretty pathetic in practice and was quickly mitigated by players.

[@Diogenes76]

@@grolo-af No MMOs have had those mechanics in PvP or PvE as far as I know. I know ashes is trying, but we have yet to see that pans out. I have played Eve for years and we just don't have those problems in null sec at our size, and that is the closest game I can think of. New World does incursions, and they could have turned them up but to what end? Do people really want their cities to be constantly being destroyed? Why not make it just enough of a struggle that it is something to sink resources into. New world, and Eve is a great example of how PvP or PvE does not really matter players consolidated and even outsourced the work. Power = Numbers, build, then skill. Also, there are so many more ways to add challenge than just combat. Resource and market logistics come to mind (that is the real PvP in Eve). PvP is not really inherently more challenging in open games. It takes structures gameplay to make it work same with PvE. Micro PvP is exciting, Macro PvP is well something else. -BTW I am Diogenes in your discord.

[@serrethindustries9468]

Nah, PVP is fine. Honestly, as long as they stick to the model they proposed, most of the toxic PVPers will quit anyways. The best part of MM was always culling the worst part of the community.

[@honey-fe6pj]

I know in GTA V they was always the opt out of PVP and in Sea of Thieves it got so bad they now have PVE only servers. All i remember is playing Rust and it was so violent all the time it got boring and was way too stressful. Whales want to relax on a Saturday night with a glass of wine. My belief is either CIG will bring back the PVP 'slide' as CR once spoke about or they are not going to have as many players as they would hope.

[@grolo-af]

Remember, SC is a much bigger place than all of those games. Finding one another will be much more difficult in the future. You won't even spawn on stations.

[@chrisbaldbudgie8623]

I'm all for PVE servers. Keep it a seperate economy and don't let the flower pickers and space truckers take their easy earned money or ships to the real servers.

[@erikssavrasevics1635]

I find it funny that in competetive pvp games if you are not aggressive enough at high elo it's considered griefing. If you are missing out on a chances on killing the enemy, you are griefing. Competetive pvp asside, what i'm looking for in SC is less PVP and less PVE. I just want to fly space ships, explore while interacting with highly detailed space ships and stations. The game has to have freedom to be fun. There must be more ways to avoid griefers than there is ways to grief to make griefers impotent in most scenarious... and having nearly infinite space makes distance the best anti griefing option. It's fun to hide in a large sandbox space as a pve player. Also, ban hackers, specially griefing hackers.

[@grolo-af]

I think over time it will feel more this way. The area we're all playing in is MASSSSIVE. We're currently forced to congregate in a few areas of that vast space and so it makes it easy for murders to find pray. But once we're spread out all over the verse in our own little hide aways... and we're spawning on our own base instead of a common station... and we have jump drives that make it easier to chart our own path rather than jumping to OMs... that kind of thing... will make it fare more rare to run across rampant murders I think. Good comment btw. Thanks!

[@alejandrotroche6381]

Ignorance is blissful ro the click baiters.... You are the best anti click bait the only thing left is to be a mature community in order for the game be a reality and not some victim of social myths as many wonderful thing would be cancelled by human nature. Then they wont admit they were the biggest part of the problem

[@copyright9767]

Majority of players are focused on blaming the wrong people. Its not the griefers fault, its CIG's. You must have the checks in place, they release this completely new system without any of the essential backend subsystems. IMO CIG doing this ass backwards creating this amazing landscape and then however many years down the line they will slap a governing system on it.

[@grolo-af]

Ehhhh.... I'd say they're at least equally accountable. If I "get away with" stealing a book from the library, I'm still an asshole for doing it. But I hear you and agree with the sentiment that CIG needs to deliver and like I said we need to hold them accountable. I'd like to think it won't go that far. They may release without coverage just to see the starting point. I hope they quickly walk it back pending better systems. Even if that means armistice zones in Pyro for now, until they have proper systems in place that deincentivize poor behavior.

[@copyright9767]

@@grolo-af oh I hate griefers 1000% and yes they should be held accountable, but this is the "world" CIG created without consequences so technically players are playing the game within CIG rules. Griefing should have been identified as a top 10 issue when developing a lawless system. Arm zone would be the easy fix for now, at least let us get our gear and be able to q jump from the hanger without getting destroyed.

[@Gnubbelhurz]

I don't care if someone calls it pvp or griefing. I as a pve player give a shit on others motivation if they tow me into a gameplay that I don't like. For me it doesn't matter if they kill me or destroy my ship take something as a trophy or not. It's just not my sort of gameplay I'm interested in. So have your own pvp area, server, shard what so ever and you can smash each other's head for what ever reason and call it immersion. So just leave pve players alone and look for other victims of your kind of favoured gameplay.

[@schlagzahne6741]

No, no, and.. no.

[@alejandrotroche6381]

I have a machinima that the protagonist work's with eclipse insurance he makes drifters land rats and if anybody transports them of planet or to another system all passengers become land rats.... I show up to criminal org and demand an extra payment to compensate insurance losses and a great way to balance criminal activity by taking away ship insurance from grifters so he walks up to the leader with a list of rats and only 1 person can be bought back into the loop bit the rats must repay all losses.

[@alejandrotroche6381]

Im tryin to carve a underground professional who is a spectre special tactical reclamations expert. A retiered Pathfinder from Ellis system who is involved with Academy of science polemologist

[@AaronAlso]

IMHO, anytime players in any game world are engaging other players out of just boredom; it is griefing. This demostrates a failure on behalf of the developer to manage, moderate, and design their game experience.

[@yulfine1688]

not always people will grief anyways, people will purposely go after someone for any number of reasons other than boredom

[@Diogenes76]

Punishment in MMOs has never worked out. It has been tried, but the problem is that people do not like games that are too punishing. They simply won't play. Hell even short form games avoid punishing for the same reasons. Any punishment system will have significant false positives. Banning and moderation is not a viable long term strategy because it does not scale. EQ and UO tried this, it is too expensive, and causes too many false positives that are very expensive to deal with. If you don't want players to do it, don't let them do it, code it out. The first rule of the internet is "If they can, they will." Also, these reputation and punishment systems are very easy to exploit and have a massive amount of edge cases. It becomes a very expensive arms race. The UO team did some great writeups about this. WoW has talked about their gold farming arms race. GMs are no longer viable at scale. That is why every MMO has walked away from that model. BTW I am personally for PvE only flagged solar systems, and then full open PvP ones (no offline raiding).

[@grolo-af]

"GMs are no longer viable at scale. That is why every MMO has walked away from that model." I must disagree with this. They want us to believe this. But look at the profits the companies who walked away from this are taking in. A small fraction of that wealth could fund these initiatives for a loooong time. Funding human moderation would be far cheaper than paying for NPC compute en masse.

[@Diogenes76]

@@grolo-af Rust depends on private servers with very dedicated GMs to keep things going. It would never scale. MMOs when they first started did have GMs but the overhead was overwhelming, they could not keep up. The idea of designing a technical system that depends on human intervention is not something I could ever get past the finance department. Even being a huge corp to corp dev like I used to be it was very hard for my clients to get good customer service. It is an outdated paradigm and very not hockeystick graph like (ahh traumatic flashbacks!). The idea is to have customer service / GMs handle the things that are edge cases, that cannot be automated and to keep the ratio as small as possible. 1 FTE CSR/GM for 10k users etc. With 500k users we are still talking about a lot of FTE positions! All that money could have been spent no pizza and mtn dew to keep devs going ;) It simply will not happen :/

[@randymorris5296]

@@Diogenes76 Ok, I think I see your perspective here. If what you're saying is something equivalent to "Scaling, paid GMs will never happen across the general gaming industry" then I am in agreement. But I'm not making that argument, and I don't think @grolo-af is either; what I think is being advocated by both of us is that CIG re-engages with that old model because they are in a fundamentally different position than so many other MMO companies out there. CIG's stated goals are that they wish to be a player-centric company, providing a virtual environment unlike anything else available today; developers, along with other employees at the company, have shown a willingness (and even enthusiasm) to engage regularly and positively with the SC community, and I believe this shows the long-term culture across the company. It's not a stretch to imagine CIG breaking with the mindset you correctly attribute to other game companies in an effort to further that "player-centric" focus, and if SC and SQ42 are successfully launched, the fact that millions of dollars per year will NOT be paid out to shareholders will provide a lot of wiggle room to have more folks on staff than "normal" corporate game companies.

[@paulyskidda387]

Lmao STANTON is the PVE slider/server

[@HitmannDDD]

PVE servers are a problem because the wealth gained in a reduced risk PVE environment chases goods in the real economy. The only way it would work is if they irrevocably split the playerbase between the PVP and PVE environment, so there is no intermingling of persistence between the two. That PVE server sounds boring to me.

[@grolo-af]

Ditto.

[@gorganhorn6872]

As a PVE player I would take harder tuned AI enemies and more spawned ships as long as these threats are grounded IN-UNIVERSE. I don’t want butter milk Bob and his gang of geriatrics ruining hours of gameplay while spamming immersion killing neck beard brain rot on chat destroying the limited game sessions that we have in our busy lives. You PvP players can have your servers and PvE players who value maximum immersion can have theirs. That way both types can be happy except for the griefer tools whose main gameplay focus is to ruin other people’s game play experiences. PVE SERVERS ARE ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY FOR STAR CITIZEN TO SUCCEED COMMERCIALLY. Otherwise it’s only destination will be FLOP CITY.

[@Diogenes76]

This does not hold true in open MMO games. PvP can be just as cloistered and PvE even more so like in Eve. Power = Numbers, build, then skill in open games. It is not like CoD.

[@Gnubbelhurz]

Yes split it and leave pve alone. All will have the fun they looking for.

[@randydurnil1824]

PVE servers 😂 Maybe SC is not the droid you are looking for 👋

[@skurjo9975]

World of Warcraft has PVE and PVP servers you pick witch one you want or both. Why is that not a viable option. both sides get what they want

[@grolo-af]

World of Warcraft drips content. I said in the video, if you want PVE, you must do something along those lines. The game (SC) as outlined will not survive as PVE. It would have to change substantially. That was the whole point of the video : )

[@Diogenes76]

Would be better if they just had PvE and PvP solar systems IMO. That way we don't bisect development.

[@randymorris5296]

@@Diogenes76 It feels to me like they are kind of experimenting with a variation of this with the Pyro/Stanton dichotomy. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I for one have yet to be killed by anything more aggressive than a random bug in the EPTU Pyro since I started testing it early last week.

[@Diogenes76]

@@randymorris5296 I agree. It is too early to make a PvE only solar system because of the old server NPC issues. I want to try stanton PvE only, and Pyro open PvP and see how it goes. Because this is an alpha people are not complaining about the PvP thing because how it is now, but how it will be.

[@cmdrls212]

Honestly CIG deserves this latest meltdown because their so called law and order and consequences system is totally broken, totally ineffective, and totally overdue. Once again CIG talks and talks about something it hasn't actually built to any degree, even relative to other games imperfect systems. Patience is simply running out.

[@jsmith5681]

Haha you left out server loss, the biggest loss leader in SC.

[@grolo-af]

You got me there! lol

[@PingWhisper]

It will have to happen, Sea of thieves had to do it, Tarkov, probably more games. Anyways, games can't survive on a hardcore PvP tilt. It's way to niche

[@grolo-af]

Don't give up so easy friend!

[@jaelzana]

My issues with PVP do not fall into the griefing argument. They fall into other aspects that are part of how that affects me based on the systems that will be in place. PVP as the source of conflict. I'm an older player, I am less skilled at PVP combat that the average player. Simply put, I will _NEVER_ win a PVP conflict. Combine that with the fact that in the future, there will be massive penalties to dying, that makes even regular conflict PVP into a ruination of my game experience. Why? The game's version of permadeath. If I get attacked by NPC pirates, I can usually fight them off. If I get attacked by player pirates, I'm generally getting killed. 1 in 20 times I might escape. This puts my reputation gains at risk. This puts my character at PERMANENT risk. Additionally, it makes for an untrusting community. No one trusts that the person they are interacting with isn't going to just kill them. It virtually eliminates certain aspects of gameplay for me. In particular, the type of gameplay I'm most interested in. Medical. My ultimate gameplay would be to provide a hospital in area where there isn't easy access to medical facilities. I can't do that, because those areas of Star Citizen have 0 protections for a player in my position (Not a good PVPer and not really in a position to become a good one, no longer a social butterfly. I'm not a solo player, but my group of friends who play are small and I am not good at making new friends anymore). So, the end result is that now I'm locked out of the gameplay I wanted most. And even in Statnon, responding to a medical beacon requires me to go, "Do I feel like dying today?" Pretty much every player encounter I've had in the 'verse that started outside of an armistice zone started with that player shooting me immediately. Usually, because they didn't want to risk that I was someone who was going to shoot them first. These are the things I see as an issue with _forced_ PVP. For me personally. There are many many many things that can be put in place to make a PVE server not get boring, I think that's more an opinion than an objective argument. Gather - Transport - Store - Build - Maintain is an often used methodology for completing that circle rather than ending it with Defend. I think that the best options I've personally played in the past are ones where PVP had to be enabled, and there was a good amount of PVE and Maintenance costs to maintaining what you build. Personally, I never would have tried Star Citizen if I had known before I did that it was a forced PVP. The game hooked me before I knew that was the case. I want the game to be made and I'll continue to support it even if, in the end, I've donated as much as I have and I only get to experience 10% of the game because of the un-necessary PVP gate.

[@grolo-af]

I love your comment and perspective and I'm glad you shared it. I have one question and one comment: Question: What will your hospital do if there's no pvp? Treat people wounded in bunkers? I'd expect your hospital to get less & less busy over time if that's the case. Comment: Join us on Discord (discord.gg/unhinged); guarantee you make some new friends. I'm old too : ) Stay safe out there!

[@jaelzana]

@@grolo-af PVE and PVP related help. I don’t believe in removing all PVP, just forced PVP. I like the system of PVP that Star Wars Galaxies had. You went and enabled a flag that marked you as willing to engage in open PVP. It isn’t a perfect system, but it does allow both types of players to exist on one shard. I am even okay with having trade offs for enabling a no PVP experience. Like slower rep gains or lower sell prices or higher maintenance costs. I am just not a fan of having to avoid random players because they might present a risk to my progression in the game that I will never be able to fight off. I mean, as it is I recently lost everything on me while working as a crew member on a reclaimer just a kilometer outside the armistice boundary of Port Tressler trying to clean up old abandoned ships. We got attacked, then it lead into a massive getting murdered twice situation by different people because we came back to try to recover stuff lost from the first attack and another group saw the ship I was on had turned red (due to the conflict) and attacked thinking we were pirates. I don’t want those kinds of misunderstandings and general forced fighting/dying after the new systems are online. I don’t understand the mentality of wanting to attack another player to take their harvested items and gear instead of earning my own. I am just not someone who gets the appeal of PVP or piracy in general. I get people want it, and cool. They do them. It isn’t fun for me when it is forced on me, and does cause me to lose interest in the game overall. Which saddens me. I really feel Star Citizen is the single biggest achievement in gaming, and it isn’t even finished yet. And I really hope that I get to have as much fun as I can with the cool things they have shown are coming. And I desperately hope that this PVP vs PVE situation doesn’t ruin the concept and visions of player created communities.

[@ravendagrey]

this will kill the game

[@CitizenScott]

Define "griefing." Some say it's killing without gain. Some say it's any non-consensual PvP. Everyone seems to have their own definition, but CIG have addressed this countless times down the years. For them the term implies conscious intent to cause others grief over enjoyment of the game as intended, and even that is deemed acceptable in SC unless it becomes "excessive," which is also pretty clearly defined. So based on CIG's definition, which is the only one that matters since it's CIG's game, most "griefers" are not "griefing" at all. They're really just enjoying the fun pew-pew gameplay as intended. If you disagree with that, then you have to say that CIG themselves are "griefers," because many devs openly engage in exactly the type of non-consensual, non-profitable PvP that many PvEers consider "griefing." Do we really think it's reasonable to say that CIG should be punished for playing the game they're making? Come on...

[@grolo-af]

"conscious intent to cause others grief over enjoyment of the game as intended" is a better way of describing it than how I did in the video. I was giving my (biased) perspective. Totally on board w/ CIG's definition. I don't; however, think they have a high tolerance for things like pad ramming.

[@CitizenScott]

@@grolo-af You might be surprized actually. Zyloh's "meta-gaming" post earlier this year was pretty eye opening, saying despite "countless reports" they only take action on griefing two times per year on average, and that includes cases of stream sniping. They really don't seem to care unless someone seriously crosses the line into legit harassment. They've even greenlit pirates ramming in armistice to break open ship doors, but yeah if you're repeatedly pad-ramming the same person multiple times for the lulz then you're gonna hear from them. Whether or not that's good for the game is another debate, but that's where they're at with it.

[@WJS145]

Now here’s the thing, people will call it griefing for killing someone. The victim will think “he killed me for no reason, I don’t have any cargo in my ship” the attacker “he has components I can salvage”. As a pirate may want the players armor, it could be a super rare item, they shoot you without warning killing you and looting your armor. The only thing I consider griefing is if you pad ram and killing someone over and over for no reason other than to be a dick, stream sniping. The sad thing about killing a streamer that is hauling and/or mining is that you could get punished for it even though you weren’t stream sniping.

[@grolo-af]

I'm pretty much in agreement... I probably didn't stress that well enough in the video... but mining, transporting, or even traveling in the verse should NOT be safe, ever. You should always be at risk. What should be safe, is waking up, brushing your teeth, using the bathroom, walking to the feed court, chilling out with a double dog while you catch up on the news... getting ready for takeoff...

[@WJS145]

@@grolo-afnot saying you weren’t clear about it. A PvE MMO would just be boring and would kill the entire game. Without risk, there is no point in playing, NPCs will never act like a player. You never hear anything about PvP in something like DayZ, the only PvE servers are through modding, and they don’t allow players who go from one modded server to another modded server without wiping their character. If there is a PvP and a PvE server that you can decide I get that a ton of people are going to join the PvE server. Then now you have a true problem, the casual players that like PvP but mainly does PvE content will have to deal with a HUGE influx of players that will just kill you, anyone you meet in the PvP server will instantly kill you. Because of that people will either do one of 2 things quit the game cuz they don’t want a pure PvE game, or they bite the bullet and go to PvE servers. The PvP server would eventually become purely players just looking for other players to kill other players. Finally, last time I was pirated was 2 months ago, it happens very little because of the fact not everyone pirates.

[@RicoZaid_]

💯 o7

[@FrazzleCat]

I have been saying for quite some time now that a PvE server is inevitable. If CIG wants to stay in business then they need money. Money comes from the far more massive casual crowd. What we are seeing here is merely the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg. PvP games have routinely either failed or become niche (eg; Shadowbane, Eve). Eve has a total of tens of thousands of players. a single WoW or FFXIV server, conversely, holds 8,000+ each (eg; Aggramar, Anvilmar, Balnazzar = 24,000 players on just 3 out of their 226-or-so servers; XIV's Adamantoise, Cactuar, Faerie again, 24,000 or so players on just 3 out of their servers, compared to Eve's grand total of tens of thousands of players). For all of the passionate opposition to it, for all of the talk of the funding up to this point, none of it beats the numbers game. CIG is a business. They will have PvE servers.

[@grolo-af]

Maybe. The point of the video, aside from delivering my opinion in the end, is to point out that if a PVE server exists, it must be a fundamentally different game. The game they've advertised will not function for very long as a PVE game. They will need drips. I'm as casual as they come. But I don't want a content drip game. I want a properly policed game instead. I don't think you can say all casual players want PVE servers. But I also don't think I can say the masses wouldn't prefer a PVE content drip game. In the end it's about what CIG and CR want to make. I disagree that being a business will force their hand. Look at what's going on with Ashes of Creation. Or the many other "niche" games you just called out yourself. Being a business did not force any of their hands.

[@FrazzleCat]

9:50 , I disagree that they vanish. PvP players will say that NPCs will help the PvE crowd because of blades and NPC crew eventually, and so on. That same tech can easily be used to create PvE challenges. This is what MMOs have done for decades now, except SC will be able to do it on another level. NPC raids on territory, NPC pirates hunting haulers, NPC bounty hunters and so on. Their difficulty and / or frequency scales according to the star system that they're in.

[@FrazzleCat]

Another note to add. You're very intelligent, I enjoy hearing your thoughts. I will point out that griefers however do not care about punishment systems. They don't care about character death, crime stats, corruption, or the inability to dock at locations, or losing ships / items, or so on. These are all systems that punish legitimate players (proper pirates, thieves, etc). Griefers throw characters away, they throw items away, they even throw accounts away, and they find it even more entertaining that "the system" punishes legitimate players (because then they'll "cry about it" on forums). The system itself is one of their tools. Griefing in-and-of itself /is/ their game play, /is/ their enjoyment. Paying for a cheap new account, starting a fresh character, whatever, to continue that "game play" is, to them, the same cost that is paid by players who enjoys the legitimate game. Sometimes it's even less money to replace an account every now and then because they have no interest in the item mall or other optional purchases. And, ultimately, they can just as easily have a "legitimate" account on the side that never engages in that behavior where they do "well respected" activities like lead guilds / orgs, run crafting businesses or so on.

[@FrazzleCat]

​@@grolo-af Fair points all around, and personally I look forward to some PvP being in the game. So, a part of me hopes that I am wrong about all of my speculation. On the other hand, I want to be able to convince my friends to get into Star Citizen and an open PvP game will be an immediate blocker for them. I need to look at Ashes of Creation. I backed it twice on Kick Starter and then pulled the backing both times, and I haven't kept up with it. I do feel that PvE servers are inevitable however, and that we may see PvE-only systems as a stop gap (eg; possibly Terra if not a future system). Of course I can't know for sure, but I do not think that CR / CIG will want the game to remain niche. It's only my opinion, but I feel that they're building and spending too much money and too much time on server meshing technology to settle as a niche game. If this tech works the way that CIG and all of us are hoping that it will work, then SC will be capable of much more than niche player numbers. We'll have DLC (expansions) with each new star system and I see that as their doorway to content drip. New systems and all of its content will be added, but also at the same time new bases, new star ports, new settlements, new mini-games like contested zones or such, can be added to then-older star systems as well as to Arena Commander (and AC is likely to be sold separately). And, they have that Perfect World International guy running their marketing team so I don't see them shying away from these tactics, but rather, embracing them. Does that make me happy? Not in the slightest. Consider me cynical I suppose. Let's hope that I'm wrong about most of this.

[@sverebom7069]

As a first and foremost PVE Player who hates griefing both from the receiving as well as the delivering side, I'm against PVE-Servers. Reasoning: - MMOs don't have to make everything accessible/achievable to/for everyone. It's okay for there to be content that is locked behind gameplay that some people won't be able to enter or master. Ideally though the game will offer multiple paths to acquire certain item quality grades of course (just like many MMOs have more or less equivalent crafting-alternatives to the raid- or PVP-exclusive gear). - SC is a social game, whether some lone-wolf Polaris-owners want this to be the case or not. If there are areas and content you can't enter and survive on your own, gather some friends around you and try again. -SC will be a huge game. Even inside 1.0 with its five star systems Pyro will only be small part of the Verse that you'll be able to bypass. In fact, the game doesn't need playstyle-specific servers because there will be playstyle-specific/exclusive areas of which the relatively save mostly-PvE areas like Stanton will dominate the Verse. - In my 12 years (Oct. 2012 ) as backer and player of the game I had exactly one encounter with a griefer. I think that this debate only comes up now because with Pyro the game will go into an anomalous stage in its lifecycle. After many years of enjoying the relative safety of Stanton, we are about to enter an era that will for once do something for PVP. Of course, that is fuel for all kinds of fears concerning griefing that are further confirmed by every report about or experience with PTU-griefers. Here is a preview for the first few months after Pyro arrives on the Live-servers: - there will be an initial onslaught of griefers and the forums/reddit will be full of complains by people about it is impossible for them to explore and enjoy Pyro. - Over time things will balance out as people learn more and more how to survive Pyro (by sticking close to their buddies and the Pyro factions they side with) and further gameplay and QOL features make the occasional "death by asshat" more bearable. - Some players will write off Pyro as a no-go zone they'll simply stay away from. - As we progress towards 1.0 it will become more and more apparent that Pyro is just an anomaly - the one "free for all and everything" star system in a sea of relatively PvE-friendly star systems that due to the production plan at one point accounted for about half of all content in the game before more star systems came online. My plan for "surviving" Pyro: Only enter explore surrounded by buddies until I/we unterstand the system. While doing so earn reputation with the local "outlaw authorities" to enjoy their protection. Organize my resources in a way to quickly recover from setbacks (at first on the Stanton side, eventually in whatever pocket of relative safety me and my buddies can create for ourselves). Accept the occasional punch to the face, wipe off the blood, learn and be smarter next time. And I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to having a rough start and experience a sense of risk and danger for once that will make every small thing that goes right feel like an achievement until that sense of danger fades away as I/we learn to survive Pyro. And com on guys, after many years playing in Stanton only fearing bug, glitches and dreaded 30Ks, we can survive the upcoming Pyro era and the occasional bloodied nose,

[@grolo-af]

Great comment; well articulated. Thanks for the insights! FWIW - I agree on all points.

[@Crivicus]

I would want to see a PVE sever for one major reason only and that is to prove to us that they can spin up other servers. This is highly important for the future for if/when they stop supporting star citizen that someone else can spin up a server to continue the legacy. Think classic WoW or the Warhammer Online return of reckoning servers. People that are willing to drop $15000+ on Star citizen are bound to want to keep the game running in the future when CIG collapses.

[@ShaoruneXYZ]

as PVE player. just dont. just let the game be PVPVE. PVE gonna be the most boring game ever.

[@PsychicSoldierPro]

There will be solutions to it, one which isn't quite in the game yet is the evolution to bounty hunting, where bounty hunters can go hunt down griefers for high reward. Harder in pyro, but probably with introducing the more advanced scanning systems, a bounty hunter could maybe track the signature of the griefer's ship in order to either kill them as per normal or, when V2 comes online and you can non-lethally capture them and bring them to a prison, maybe you can do that for higher reward. I believe another thing CIG did say, if I remember correctly, is that if your griefing (not just doing PVP), when reputation is working, you'll actually damage rep not only with legal entities like the space cops, but you'll also loose rep with the criminal factions since, I believe they explained it as, you are such a wild card that not even criminal gangs want to work with you and will either deny you access to their stations or even shoot you down when you come into weapon range. Plus with DOAS comes online eventually, since you were discussing it, if you did have that griefer level of negative reputation, even though as you say, you loose some of it as this in lore is your descendent or child, but you get this sort of "sin of the father/mother" sort of deal where, when you interact with NPC orgs, that griefer reputation your last character has carries over, so you might not be shot on sight, but NPC orgs will be less willing to work with your character, maybe saying "your father/mother was a bit of a wild one and we ain't trusting you till you can prove your not like them", then as you said, maybe you do traditional PVP or do missions with the criminal orgs or orgs in general to try and repair your bloodied legacy. Have it take a while too since, let's say your a normal player coming to a criminal org at 0 rep, your not negative or positive, you start from a better place to gain rep, but let's say your character with the griefer's legacy, let's say you have -50 rep with this same org, meaning that they aren't willing to trust you with anything till you've gotten up to at least neutral reputation. I do agree that people give up too easily, I've seen it myself (and I consider myself more a PVE/Roleplayer sort of player), but even know, there are ways to combat the griefers, to get escorts, to take up a bounty hunter, maybe offering a reward to someone to kill the griefer. People acting like Pyro is the death of the game seem to forget that Pyro was adverse and explained by CIG for years that Pyro is a lawless system, where you don't have the safety nets of lawful systems, where only the law of might and the gangs that rule the system are permitted. It feels very like "CIG: Hey guys, Pyro is lawless, pvp focused system. The player base: ok, cool, whatever. *Pyro comes out*, the player base: why are there no laws and why is pvp everywhere". Saw this too when they had it where missiles/bombs/torps didn't come back to your ship after a claim, which I was in favour of since it will cull both some griefing and insurance abuse by using these heavy ordinance to blow up people, then just reclaim the ship for free reloads. People complained and it was walked back, but before it was, I was having this conversation where, instead of people complaining that it wasn't fair or too expensive to fire them, I told them "well, maybe try investing in a logistics squad" since then, you start introducing that gameplay loop where you have some people earning lots of money, then when it comes to a battle, the logistics team can help rearm ships with their ordinance, repair them and get them on their way. Reversing the whole no ordinance on claim removed the ability for that conflict and also stops the gameloops from being able to tie into each other in a meaningful way

[@honey-fe6pj]

When orgs take over vast areas how does a bounty hunter or two do anything about that? And all this rep this and rep that people keep talking about mean nothing when orgs take over servers. Servers will be full of orgs fighting orgs- very annoying and boring for solo/small group players.

[@PsychicSoldierPro]

@@honey-fe6pj that's addressing more future stuff, but I don't see griefers being able to hold a system, mainly since to grief, you have to spend your time hunting players, you don't have time to spend doing other more productive things. Besides, firstly, the system war thing is only in lawless systems, which if you count come 1.0, is 2 out of the five systems planned and 2 out of 5 isn't a majority. we're talking about rep and these other systems that are planned for a reason since that is the current end goal. Dismissing it out of hand doesn't really show well for you to make a point when its doom and gloom stuff and, as even Grolo himself said in his video, this speaks more of players being unwilling to put up with conflict, rather then overcoming adversity. And speaking of solo/small group players, which I consider myself one as I tend to play either solo or, at the end goal, play with a small group, system control gameplay won't affect anything I'm doing since my end goal isn't the system warfare planned for lawless systems, but simply to help others in need from escorts to medical rescue and logistics. Griefers only grief because currently, it is easy to do so (pad ramming, attacking random players, etc), what I stated in my first post is CIG's planned response to that. Just because it isn't here yet, doesn't suddenly mean that the game is dying. Pyro is and was always planned as a lawless system, where the rule of might and the system's gangs ruled. Complaining there is PVP going on in a lawless system they have told us repeatedly is going to be a lawless system with heavy pvp, you can't act surprised when it comes out and its what they told us it was going to be. You go to pyro at your own risk and peril. And you ask "what if griefers are a org" and I ask you: you know how many lawful bounty hunters there are that can rise up, flagging these orgs and their members and hunting them down? this was one of many things we are already aware of as planned systems from panels like a social universe panel at this year's citizencon. I suggest rather then complaining and just doom talking, maybe try and be constructive and give solutions, rather then wailing in your own filthy ignorance

[@honey-fe6pj]

@@PsychicSoldierPro You don’t know what you are talking about - maybe you’re special needs so I’ll make it simple for you.Mark my words PVE servers(or whatever CIG need to offer to keep the player base) will be the solution.

[@PsychicSoldierPro]

@@honey-fe6pj wow, real original, making fun of someone's disability then coming up with any real ideas. PVE servers won't ever be a thing, that defeats the point of one shared universe. Is it normal for you netrotypical people to not read anything and just make things up? the only servers I see coming up come release are modded servers as was originally in the vision of the project for full mod support. Is this PVE server really the hill you want the game to die on? and considering that you refuse to do the research into what was said and keeping your information up to date, maybe go back to arguing with people on spectrum since aparently, all you can do is make fun of my disabilities, rather then actually have a constructive conversation, so maybe don't reply again unless you have something worth saying beyond petty insults that won't get you anywhere