Star Citizen

[Nagisan]

You and I have very different definitions of "incredible".

Apparently.

 

I prefer games to look a little more realistic and grungy I suppose, rather than pristine textures and bright unusual colors (red/blue/teal ships and nearly pure-white buildings, etc).

 

Just looking at the city pictures on the first page reminds me of Mirrors Edge art style, which IMO is much less realistic than the images of Skyrim I posted.

 

I never said Star Citizen doesn't look good, I just said I prefer good realistic graphics over the art style Star Citizen has (which I personally don't think looks very realistic, more stylized IMO).

 

The game is definitely technically impressive, but poly count isn't everything when it comes to how good a game looks, and Star Citizen is almost in its own category as far as environment goes, making it difficult at best to compare it with other games.

[Melfster]

Apparently.

 

I prefer games to look a little more realistic and grungy I suppose, rather than pristine textures and bright unusual colors (red/blue/teal ships and nearly pure-white buildings, etc).

 

Just looking at the city pictures on the first page reminds me of Mirrors Edge art style, which IMO is much less realistic than the images of Skyrim I posted.

 

I never said Star Citizen doesn't look good, I just said I prefer good realistic graphics over the art style Star Citizen has (which I personally don't think looks very realistic, more stylized IMO).

 

The game is definitely technically impressive, but poly count isn't everything when it comes to how good a game looks, and Star Citizen is almost in its own category as far as environment goes, making it difficult at best to compare it with other games.

 

 

If you read anything about the game you would know that things may deteriorate over time.  So things do not  always look pristine.    Also there are multiple damage states and may affect handling of ship.  The amount detail for Star Citizen really amazing.  You really need  whole complete picture to understand the real depth of the game. I don't what they will be able to get done verses what the have said will be done. I think it will be more fair to judge  starcitizen at the end this year to get better Idea of what game will be like.    Or least wait until engine updated to allow multi-crew ships maybe sometime during the summer. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

SC is looking to be an awesome game, but it's space scenery can't be compared to a FPS game. 

 

If you're going to compare graphics, compare to games it realistic to compare with, Eve, E:D, well that's pretty much it, and E:D is just launched and is like SC and ever developing game. It's a genre that has pretty much been dead for the last decade or so outside of some very small and generally failed games and the niche group of Eve masochists

Footage has been released on the planetside environment, though as it was only a video there aren't any high quality screenshots to share. Needless to say the graphics were of an extremely high standard. When the FPS module has been released then such comparisons will be made. 

 

Man, what kind of rig (or should I say Titan server farm) is going to be required to handle a 7M poly count density? 

The CryEngine has extremely good occlusion culling, meaning that polygons that can't be seen will not be rendered. That means it won't have to render the entire 7 million polys at once. That said, it will still be a very demanding game, even with DX12 / Mantle.

 

I played the old Wing Commander games and they let you move around the ship (go to the hanger, the bridge, the briefing room, etc.) I'm fine with that being replaced by a FPS view and in fact I'd say that's a natural evolution of those types of games. I'm not saying I don't want any first person in the games... I don't want any First Person SHOOTER.

You might not want it but it's certainly going to be in the game, though it will only be a small fraction of the overall game and players will be able to avoid it for the most part.

 

In the persistent Universe I likewise don't mind being able to walk around the station. Bringing friends to the hanger to show my ship, hanging out at the bar chatting with other players, etc. What I don't want is some FPS goons to burst into the bar and kill me while I'm chatting up my friends.

That won't be an issue. Planetside stations will be safe from such encounters and hangars won't be vulnerable to attack / intrusion.

 

I don't want to HAVE to land my ship and get out and do some FPS style mission to get the good ship upgrades.

You won't, you'll be able to earn credits through ship based gameplay. In order to purchase upgrades you'll need to land on a planet / space station and proceed to a store, though there won't be any FPS combat involved.

 

I don't want to be mining or trading and be boarded and have to defend my ship in a FPS shooter style inside the ship.

If you're a good pilot that won't be an issue. You can only be boarded if your ship has been disabled. Further, if you stick to regulated space there will be a much lower risk of being attacked and boarded.

 

I don't really want to explore the surface of planets though, I want to explore space (find new systems, planets, nebulae, asteroid belts, etc) from inside my ships. Again I am looking for is a Wing Commander (Privateer/Freespace really) sequel not a FPS game.

The game is classed as a first-person universe. Combat is only a tiny part of the experience and certainly it's not going to be a FPS game. It's the natural evolution of the genre. Most games had sections where you explored areas while not in combat - Wing Commander, Starlancer, Tie Fighter, etc. It's just the technology has evolved to the point where high fidelity first-person gameplay is possible.

 

I prefer games to look a little more realistic and grungy I suppose, rather than pristine textures and bright unusual colors (red/blue/teal ships and nearly pure-white buildings, etc).

 

Just looking at the city pictures on the first page reminds me of Mirrors Edge art style, which IMO is much less realistic than the images of Skyrim I posted.

I strongly disagree. The screenshots you posted don't look more realistic - they are stylistically exaggerated. You might disagree with the design aesthetic but that's different to realism.

 

I never said Star Citizen doesn't look good, I just said I prefer good realistic graphics over the art style Star Citizen has (which I personally don't think looks very realistic, more stylized IMO).

I disagree. The design of the buildings is stylised to represent the future but the graphics themselves are grounded in reality, certainly more so than Skyrim or Crysis.

 

Skyrim is a nice looking game and it's one of my favourite games but graphical realism and fidelity aren't its strengths. Certainly I reject the notion that it has better graphics.

 

[Melfster]

 

This does not look pristine to me

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

This does not look pristine to me

Nice shot.

[Nagisan]

 

This does not look pristine to me

Looks better than some of the other shots but those rocks look horrible and the floor looks like painted concrete or something. Still looks overly pristine to me, the only thing that isn't is the metal grates that form the square around the space craft. I think part of the problem is the textures are just too sharp to look realistic to me. Sort of how CGI often times looks too perfect to look real.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Looks better than some of the other shots but those rocks look horrible and the floor looks like painted concrete or something. Still looks overly pristine to me, the only thing that isn't is the metal grates that form the square around the space craft. I think part of the problem is the textures are just too sharp to look realistic to me. Sort of how CGI often times looks too perfect to look real.

So your idea of good graphics is bad textures? 

 

There's nothing 'overly pristine' about it. The paint is chipped, the metal scratched and both the ship and environment look worn to varying degrees. Further, the game will feature a wear system that will see textures on ships degrade over time to reflect usage. Regardless, none of this supports your outlandish claim that Crysis and Skyrim have better graphics - even if you were talking about art style I'd disagree.

[Forjo]

The game no doubt has the best graphics or any game, to date, but I really really don't like the financial philosophy of it.

 

It looks like the biggest magnitude "pay to win" scheme I've ever seen in a game.  The people that buy the ships for hundreds/thousands of dollars are going to expect them to be considerably better against opponents, and that's going to severely wreck the game play.

 

I really hope I'm wrong with those assumptions, but I have a big problem with games that "require" you to spend a crazy amount of money in order to be competitive.

 

It has been made VERY clear over and over that pledge ships will have NO advantages over ships acquired with in-game currency. As backers, we all know this. I don't expect any advantage other than saving a little money on lifetime insurance on my Freelancer. But considering that upgraded items won't be covered, I'm not planning on being careless and dying a lot.

 

This will NOT be pay to win. Those of us who are backers and who have a few brain cells know that purchasing ships is strictly to help fund the game and we don't expect any advantage over other players...

 

..except all that extra practice time we're getting.

 

Now that I think about it, you guys are toast!  I guess it is pay to win. 

 

-Forjo

[Nagisan]

So your idea of good graphics is bad textures? 

 

There's nothing 'overly pristine' about it. The paint is chipped, the metal scratched and both the ship and environment look worn to varying degrees. Further, the game will feature a wear system that will see textures on ships degrade over time to reflect usage. Regardless, none of this supports your outlandish claim that Crysis and Skyrim have better graphics - even if you were talking about art style I'd disagree.

No, my idea of good graphics is realistic textures....same problem CGI has had (more so in the past than now), where everything was too flawless to the point it looked fake. From the pictures I've seen in this thread so far that's how it looks to me, the textures are too sharp and clean (with a high gloss on many of them) to look realistic. They almost look like plastic/metal toy spaceships rather than spaceships actually used in space. Skyrim, mostly with a good ENB preset, looks much more realistic with high quality textures (4k on the upper end) that are not only photorealistic in many cases, but also show enough flaw to be believable. Immersion is a big part of games and in my experience believable textures look better than what is being shown in this thread so far.

 

My opinion could easily change if the ships didn't look in perfect condition, honestly I don't see this chipped paint and scratched metal that you mention in any of the pictures in this thread so far. What I see is maybe a few scuff marks on the paint job here and there and that's it....looks like a vehicle that's had a few years of use but taken care of very well and hasn't had any major damage beyond a minor ding here and there. The pictures could look a lot better if they showed some of the wear and tear that you talk about.

[theyarecomingforyou]

No, my idea of good graphics is realistic textures....same problem CGI has had (more so in the past than now), where everything was too flawless to the point it looked fake. From the pictures I've seen in this thread so far that's how it looks to me, the textures are too sharp and clean (with a high gloss on many of them) to look realistic. They almost look like plastic/metal toy spaceships rather than spaceships actually used in space. Skyrim, mostly with a good ENB preset, looks much more realistic with high quality textures (4k on the upper end) that are not only photorealistic in many cases, but also show enough flaw to be believable. Immersion is a big part of games and in my experience believable textures look better than what is being shown in this thread so far.

Well, needless to say I very much disagree and we're clearly not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter. The screenshots you posted earlier look terrible in comparison to what I posted here and I honestly do not see where you're coming from.

[The Evil Overlord]

Why do people care if it released in timely manner or not?   What I hate is when games are release way too early. This last year has been full of buggy and incomplete games with producers who are trying to make quick buck rather then interest of gamers or consumers in mind.  I wish most games were delayed a year or more.  It more important to get the game right then releasing it early. 

And just to add, please stop selling dlc that only completes the game, dlc should be an addon, or continuation, not, 'oh lets release the game 75% complete and bleed gamers dry for what should have been included to begin with'

[theyarecomingforyou]

And just to add, please stop selling dlc that only completes the game, dlc should be an addon, or continuation, not, 'oh lets release the game 75% complete and bleed gamers dry for what should have been included to begin with'

They aren't selling DLC - they're selling access to ships to fund the game. All the ships and content being sold will be available in-game without charge and won't require grinding to earn. Further, all the best weapons and equipment will only be available in-game. Unlike a traditional game there is no publisher, meaning that the game has to be funded in other ways. CIG will soon be adding an in-game currency to Arena Commander to allow players to earn ships that they haven't paid for.

 

Star Citizen can't be compared to other games as it uses an entirely different funding model. For $35 people can buy the game, with all the ships and content available to earn in-game - it has even been sold for limited periods for just $20. Originally Star Citizen was hoping to raise $500,000 in order to demonstrate to investors that the game was worth investing in. Instead they've been able to do away with investors and rely entirely on the community, dramatically expanding the scope of the game as new funding milestones have been reached. The budget now is way more than most AAA games and CIG is opening a new studio in Germany to take on a lot of old Crytek employees who have been let go due to their financial troubles and have managed to poach some high ranking employees from companies like Blizzard.

 

You don't have to like the funding model but I prefer it, as it makes the developer more accountable to the community. Never before have fans had such influence over the development of a game.

[Astra.Xtreme]

It has been made VERY clear over and over that pledge ships will have NO advantages over ships acquired with in-game currency. As backers, we all know this. I don't expect any advantage other than saving a little money on lifetime insurance on my Freelancer. But considering that upgraded items won't be covered, I'm not planning on being careless and dying a lot.

 

This will NOT be pay to win. Those of us who are backers and who have a few brain cells know that purchasing ships is strictly to help fund the game and we don't expect any advantage over other players...

 

..except all that extra practice time we're getting.

 

Now that I think about it, you guys are toast!  I guess it is pay to win. 

 

-Forjo

The funny part about that is that ships have something called specs.  And those specs are publicly available.  Are you following?

Those of us that can navigate a website can view these specs.  So let's jump into it:

 

$265 ship:  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/redeemer/Redeemer

$45 ship:    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/rsi-aurora/Aurora-LN

 

Gee, that's funny.  The more expensive ship has more weapons, more shields, more engine power, more everything...

 

Would you care to share with the class the conclusion that this leads us to?

[theyarecomingforyou]

The funny part about that is that ships have something called specs.  And those specs are publicly available.  Are you following?

Those of us that can navigate a website can view these specs.  So let's jump into it:

 

$265 ship:  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/redeemer/Redeemer

$45 ship:    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/rsi-aurora/Aurora-LN

 

Gee, that's funny.  The more expensive ship has more weapons, more shields, more engine power, more everything...

Nobody disputes that. The point is that all those ships can be earned in-game and that's half the fun. Can you imagine starting Doom with the BFG? That would certainly take away a lot of the enjoyment. And as I mentioned earlier, all the best weapons and components (shields, armour, sensors, etc) can ONLY be acquired in-game.

 

It's worth pointing out that Star Citizen isn't a traditional game where people will competing with each other directly - some ships are specialised in data running, others in search & rescue, some in salvaging and others for luxury or racing. Allowing people to pledge for ships funds the development of the game and gives them a slight head start but people would be earning those ships anyway. Those who have 40hrs a week to spend playing the game will end up with better equipment than those who can only afford to spend 5-10hrs a week. Chris Roberts said he expects it to take only a week to earn a multi-crew ship like the Constellation, which isn't long for a game which many people will be playing for years. I'd rather have fans pledging money than a publisher influencing the creative process and creating premium DLC that can't be earned in-game.

 

Without ship pledges the game wouldn't have received anywhere near as much funding. I'm not going to claim it's an ideal system but it certainly has its advantages over traditional publishing.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Nobody disputes that. The point is that all those ships can be earned in-game and that's half the fun. Can you imagine starting Doom with the BFG? That would certainly take away a lot of the enjoyment. And as I mentioned earlier, all the best weapons and components (shields, armour, sensors, etc) can ONLY be acquired in-game.

 

It's worth pointing out that Star Citizen isn't a traditional game where people will competing with each other directly - some ships are specialised in data running, others in search & rescue, some in salvaging and others for luxury or racing. Allowing people to pledge for ships funds the development of the game and gives them a slight head start but people would be earning those ships anyway. Those who have 40hrs a week to spend playing the game will end up with better equipment than those who can only afford to spend 5-10hrs a week. Chris Roberts said he expects it to take only a week to earn a multi-crew ship like the Constellation, which isn't long for a game which many people will be playing for years. I'd rather have fans pledging money than a publisher influencing the creative process and creating premium DLC that can't be earned in-game.

 

Without ship pledges the game wouldn't have received anywhere near as much funding. I'm not going to claim it's an ideal system but it certainly has its advantages over traditional publishing.

Those are all great points, and that leads me to favor the game a little more now.

 

I haven't followed all the exact details of this game, but it initially looked like this game would allow somebody to fork over a ton of money for the powerful ships rather than put in the game time, and those are the games that I greatly despise.  I'm looking at you EA!

 

Being that this game is quite a ways from completion, it does make sense that a lot of the stuff offered now is solely for funding purposes.

[HawkMan]

Actually for a lot of people the fun isn't in forced progression and leveling, like CoD introduced into FPS games.

 

remember back in the day, when you could jump into a multi player game and you could pick the weapon you wanted, the one you liked and enjoy it, and then switch when you waned something else, and we still played Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six for years. Or good old racing games where you had access to all the cars right away and you could drive the cars you enjoyed when you enjoyed them, no forced leveling necessary.  If there was an imbalance between stuff, kt was sorted by separate playlists. Class A cars vs Class A cars. Class A spaceships vs Class A spaceships, or a FFA meatball. 

 

Then there's the fact that the ones who buy the biggest and best spaceships right away have a far easier progression through the rest of the game. easier faction rep gain and all that stuff. 

 

I wish I could get a free T9 in Elite Dangerous right away, it would have made making credits for other ships and components a lot easier and faster.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Those are all great points, and that leads me to favor the game a little more now.

 

I haven't followed all the exact details of this game, but it initially looked like this game would allow somebody to fork over a ton of money for the powerful ships rather than put in the game time, and those are the games that I greatly despise.  I'm looking at you EA!

 

Being that this game is quite a ways from completion, it does make sense that a lot of the stuff offered now is solely for funding purposes.

Indeed. If this was EA doing this I wouldn't hesitate to criticise such a business practice but we're talking about a game that literally wouldn't have been made any other way. Publishers simply weren't interested in a project of even the original scale, let alone what it has now become.

 

Actually for a lot of people the fun isn't in forced progression and leveling, like CoD introduced into FPS games.

 

remember back in the day, when you could jump into a multi player game and you could pick the weapon you wanted, the one you liked and enjoy it, and then switch when you waned something else, and we still played Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six for years. Or good old racing games where you had access to all the cars right away and you could drive the cars you enjoyed when you enjoyed them, no forced leveling necessary.  If there was an imbalance between stuff, kt was sorted by separate playlists. Class A cars vs Class A cars. Class A spaceships vs Class A spaceships, or a FFA meatball. 

We're not talking about the forced progression seen in multiplayer games like Call Of Duty, a system that gives experienced players a greater advantage over new players. Star Citizen isn't a competitive multiplayer game where everybody is meant to be equal - it has multiplayer combat but that isn't the primary focus of the game. Progression is an important part of the gameplay. I have no desire in being given every ship and all the best equipment, as there is no sense of accomplishment. Part of the fun is that some people will specialise in cargo hauling, while others will be pirates seeking to steal it; some people will focus on stealth to avoid trouble, while others will arm themselves to the teeth and go looking for it. There is also a consequence to death - you don't have traditional respawns, meaning that at a certain point your character will die permanently (you will then play on as a relative of that character who inherits their possessions). If your ship is destroyed and you don't have insurance for it then you'll lose that ship - even if you do the insurance might only cover certain aspects (i.e. just the chassis, not the weapons or cargo). Everything is designed to give meaning to player actions, unlike traditional multiplayer deathmatch games where it's about everybody being equal.

 

If you want to simply be handed everything in the game then that's fair enough but then Star Citizen is clearly not the game for you.

[HawkMan]

Indeed. If this was EA doing this I wouldn't hesitate to criticise such a business practice but we're talking about a game that literally wouldn't have been made any other way. Publishers simply weren't interested in a project of even the original scale, let alone what it has now become.

 

We're not talking about the forced progression seen in multiplayer games like Call Of Duty, a system that gives experienced players a greater advantage over new players. Star Citizen isn't a competitive multiplayer game where everybody is meant to be equal - it has multiplayer combat but that isn't the primary focus of the game. Progression is an important part of the gameplay. I have no desire in being given every ship and all the best equipment, as there is no sense of accomplishment. Part of the fun is that some people will specialise in cargo hauling, while others will be pirates seeking to steal it; some people will focus on stealth to avoid trouble, while others will arm themselves to the teeth and go looking for it. There is also a consequence to death - you don't have traditional respawns, meaning that at a certain point your character will die permanently (you will then play on as a relative of that character who inherits their possessions). If your ship is destroyed and you don't have insurance for it then you'll lose that ship - even if you do the insurance might only cover certain aspects (i.e. just the chassis, not the weapons or cargo). Everything is designed to give meaning to player actions, unlike traditional multiplayer deathmatch games where it's about everybody being equal.

 

If you want to simply be handed everything in the game then that's fair enough but then Star Citizen is clearly not the game for you.

 

You forgot the word "n my opinion" after the letter "I" a few times.  and that's ok for some game modes, but this game has several game modes where that shouldn't be an issue, and where people just want to fly and fight. 

 

And trust me, the cargo haulers will whine and whine on the forums that the pirates are bugging them, and the pirates will whine that the cargo haulers aren't playing fair and giving them the cargo, already seeing that in E:D.

 

and of course it is a competitive multi player game, everything you just described was elements of a competitive massive persistent online multiplayer game.

 

also you forgot that the early backers got permanent insurance, but that does'nt give them an advantage either, not like death costs them less or anything. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

Nobody disputes that. The point is that all those ships can be earned in-game and that's half the fun. Can you imagine starting Doom with the BFG? That would certainly take away a lot of the enjoyment.

While it's not my thing A LOT of people use cheat codes and hacks in games to give them the best stuff, it doesn't ruin the enjoyment for them. Everyone doesn't like taking a bunch of time to earn things (and may in fact consider much of that 'grinding') and would love to run around Doom from the start with a BFG blowing everything up. Furthermore A LOT of games that many consider "pay to win" ALSO have options to earn the same upgrades in-game but if you throw enough money at it you get them all up front which is a huge advantage. It's really not a big deal in single player games because your experience doesn't effect anyone else but if someone can buy a BFG right from the start and you're in a multiplayer game and face them then they have a distinct advantage over you having not bought it... even if you could theoretically eventually earn that same BFG in time.

I'm not trying to bash the game in general. Again I'm a huge Star Citizen fan myself but I found this particular argument a bit odd. Buying big ships before the game launches does give players with a bunch of spare $$$ a distinct advantage over those without. In that sense you could consider that aspect a bit "pay to win". Likewise new players are at a disadvantage over players who got in early, but what MMO isn't like that? For me neither of these are show stoppers but for others perhaps they are. I bought multiple ships myself and I think the first two have lifetime insurance which was the big draw for me on them.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Here's a reminder of what Crysis looked like:

Compare to Crysis 3 or go home.

[theyarecomingforyou]

While it's not my thing A LOT of people use cheat codes and hacks in games to give them the best stuff, it doesn't ruin the enjoyment for them. Everyone doesn't like taking a bunch of time to earn things (and may in fact consider much of that 'grinding') and would love to run around Doom from the start with a BFG blowing everything up.

And that's why the game supports private servers, where people are free to play however they like. However, it needs to be said that Star Citizen was never designed to appeal to those people. If you want that sort of gameplay then find another game or play on the private servers.

 

And trust me, the cargo haulers will whine and whine on the forums that the pirates are bugging them, and the pirates will whine that the cargo haulers aren't playing fair and giving them the cargo, already seeing that in E:D.

Those players will be able to hire NPC escorts or join one of the many organisations designed specifically to offer support to players who want to avoid pirates. Of course there is going to be an element of risk but that's half the fun, especially if you have a valuable cargo - otherwise you might as well play Euro Truck Simulator.

 

and of course it is a competitive multi player game, everything you just described was elements of a competitive massive persistent online multiplayer game.

There are no scoreboards for the persistent universe, no points to be awarded for killing someone. Players who dislike PvP can adjust an in-game slider to reduce the frequency of such encounters. In fact a lot of the gameplay is cooperative. Further, there are some areas that are secure

[Forjo]

Actually for a lot of people the fun isn't in forced progression and leveling, like CoD introduced into FPS games.

 

remember back in the day, when you could jump into a multi player game and you could pick the weapon you wanted, the one you liked and enjoy it, and then switch when you waned something else, and we still played Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six for years. Or good old racing games where you had access to all the cars right away and you could drive the cars you enjoyed when you enjoyed them, no forced leveling necessary.  If there was an imbalance between stuff, kt was sorted by separate playlists. Class A cars vs Class A cars. Class A spaceships vs Class A spaceships, or a FFA meatball. 

 

Then there's the fact that the ones who buy the biggest and best spaceships right away have a far easier progression through the rest of the game. easier faction rep gain and all that stuff. 

 

I wish I could get a free T9 in Elite Dangerous right away, it would have made making credits for other ships and components a lot easier and faster.

 

You know what will be funny? When I run across one of those "pay to win" mindsets who thought this was true. They'll start the game with their new "biggest and best" spaceship with no idea how to operate them. They'll load up on cargo thinking they're invincible and start attacking those of us with cheaper ships.

 

I hope they enjoy their insurance premiums.

 

You guys are forgetting this is a SIMULATOR. Maybe you weren't around back in the heyday of flight combat sims but starting in the most advanced aircraft was the quickest way to get killed. That is, if you could figure out how to get the engines started to say nothing of selecting the correct radar mode and actually selecting a target.

 

As I said before, the extra practice that beta and especially alpha brings will be the only true "pay to win" advantage.

 

-Forjo

[theyarecomingforyou]

Personally I'm really looking forward to some of the non-combat roles within the game. One of the ships I pledged for is the Herald, which specialises in data running - it's a fast ship designed to transport sensitive information securely, as well as being able to engage in cyber warfare.
 

[HawkMan]

 

 

There are no scoreboards for the persistent universe, no points to be awarded for killing someone. Players who dislike PvP can adjust an in-game slider to reduce the frequency of such encounters. In fact a lot of the gameplay is cooperative. Further, there are some areas that are secure

[HawkMan]

Personally I'm really looking forward to some of the non-combat roles within the game. One of the ships I pledged for is the Herald, which specialises in data running - it's a fast ship designed to transport sensitive information securely, as well as being able to engage in cyber warfare.

 

 

Wait ? so you're saying that by backing you got a head start into a specialized role that other people can't get into until they make enough money after a fairly long time to afford the expensive specialized craft ? ;p

 

that seems like an advantage