After 2/15's Distribution Center ISC and @Zyloh-CIG responding to concerns about griefing, it's evident to me that CIG do not understand the fundamental flaw in their commitment to in-universe solutions to every problem: they simply don't work. Why? 1) Griefers don't get discouraged. No amount of NPC security, prison time, or player bounties are going to stop a griefer. Because they derive enjoyment from ruining others' fun, any punishment short of stopping them from playing is not a punishment. Negative response to a griefer (i.e. placing a bounty on them, complaining about them, etc.) is part of the fun for them. 2) What CIG considers PvP vs griefing is unhelpfully vague. During both Xenothreat and Siege of Orison, a number of players decided that even though this was decidedly a PvE event, they were going to make it PvP. They would receive no rewards for helping the enemy, only the satisfaction of disrupting the intended experience, which by most conventional definitions would be defined as griefing. CIG, on the other hand, seemed to consider it "emergent PvP" and let it happen, only implementing an IFF system that sort of worked half the time. 3) PvE players can only mitigate PvP, not avoid it. There's a reason most games provide a hard barrier between PvP and PvE: To the PvE player, inflicting PvP on them is tantamount to griefing. To the PvE player, their fun is being interrupted by something distinctly unfun just because another player decided it so. No amount of PvP is fun for them. In this system, however, they can never truly opt out. They can take steps to mitigate their chances of a PvP encounter, but the only way to avoid it entirely is not to play, which isn't a choice at all. 4) Diegetic solutions are reactionary and prone to failure. A traditional anti-griefing or PvP/PvE separation measure works because it's preventative: want to stop players from dealing damage to each other? Just hard code it so they literally can't. In CIG's diegetic, "player-driven" system, you can only react after the fact. The griefer has already ruined the event. The PvE player has already been pirated. Even if you see it coming, there's no guarantee you will succeed in preventing it: Look at the Daymar Rally getting bombed even with security in place, the aforementioned IFF system in SoO, or players managing to blow up the Bengal during Fleet Week. -- Ironically, the few instances where CIG has implemented non-diegetic solutions have worked quite well - particularly Armistice Zones. Yes there was a temporary issue with medgun overdosing as a way to bypass the Armistice Zone, but guess what? They just hard coded medguns/pens to not work in Armistice Zones, and boom, problem solved. Tractor beams are also hard coded to only work in hangars in Armistice Zones to prevent their undue weaponization (i.e. whacking people over the head with a cargo box). If the mission statement is indeed to "push it to real, then dial it back to fun", it would seem that CIG's blind commitment to only diegetic solutions is in conflict with that. There is so much grief and vitriol between the PvP and PvE communities that could be fixed with the inclusion of even just one non-diegetic feature. That feature? I propose the Fallout 76 method. Players can only inflict menial damage on another player until the other player chooses to engage them, at which point both players receive full damage. This would allow cooperative interaction between all players, while letting anyone dynamically opt in and out of PvP as they wish, and griefers would be unable to significantly disrupt anyone's play unless they choose to fight back. Granted, there would have to be refinement (does ramming count as fighting back, how do QEDs work, etc.) but it's at least a reasonable foundation on which to start. -- Just to head off some of the inevitable comments... "If you don't want PvP, then you shouldn't play this game." What other game should I play, then? What other game does what this one does, just without the PvP? If I want everything Star Citizen has to offer except the PvP, I have no other options. "Hire escorts." Again, prone to failure. "CIG has always said..." Yeah, CIG always says a lot of stuff. They change their minds all the time. The game was originally going to have a PvP slider, you know. "I'm a PvPer and I don't think PvEers should be allowed to opt out." Why though? What bearing does it have on your experience? "I pirated a PvEer once and they thanked me for giving them such a cool new experience." Yeah, 'once.' I guarantee that is not a common response. "It's still in Alpha. Just wait and see." Yes, you're right. It could be that I'm totally wrong and their preventative systems work perfectly. I hope that's true. But their track record demonstrates a repeated underestimation of the playerbase's ability and determination to circumvent their mechanics. There is no game in the world that is devoid of exploits, but when you handicap yourself with such an arbitrary restriction as "everything in-universe", you're not doing yourself any favors. "It's a PvA/PvPvE game and nothing is going to change that." It's strange to me that people assume mass feedback can't change a game, despite numerous examples of exactly that. Star Citizen itself barely resembles what was initially promised, based entirely on the community saying "we want X, Y, and Z". If you think any of what CIG says today is set in stone, you're only fooling yourself.