The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Once again this thread has gone down to picking on the flight model. Yes thrusters are getting nerfed, and the main thrusters will have more power. This has been confirmed multiple times. The component system should result in weight and mass changes within the ships. The flight model is missing various items such as fuel flow/weight, armor weight, and a few other things.

However, I'm really getting sick of people constantly trying to find the worst possible video to represent the flight model. From the outdated M50 video to the rubbish 1v1 on the other page. I too, can post a video of elite battles where people just fly around in circles. But that's no fun for anyone. Having the audacity to use said videos to judge the flight model when you haven't even played the game is just insulting. I'm pretty sure most of you would attack someone who watches a video of elite and then claims the flight model is wrong without playing the game.

The flight model is a preference. As much as I enjoy exploring in Elite, I find the flight model boring. Even in CQC I dislike it. The SC flight model is far more fun to me. But that's my opinion. There are thousands of people that prefer the E:D flight model, and there are thousands that prefer the SC flight model. From either side of the fence, the flight model on the other side might look "wrong", when in reality they're just different games doing different things. Not every space sim game should have the same flight model as Elite, that'd just be boring. Yes the SC flight model does have issues with controller balance, but it's not necessarily a bad flight model.

The video shown a page or two back was of two highly rated leaderboard pilots, if that is the only strategy that is viable you can't blame the pilots for not being strategic, you can only blame the game mechanics for reducing the game to that style of gameplay. Crab fighting has never been fun to watch or fun to play, it gets boring very quickly and therefore it's hardly surprising people are saying 'ewww'. You're also assuming that most people criticising the gameplay are not backers - most are.
 

jcrg99

Banned
Apparently some people, because love or like something too much close their eyes to reality or what would be best for the great scheme of the things (you know, if you love something, you should be the first to quit your personal preferences, for the sake of a better game for more people, instead the contrary, right? or if you love something (like a son) you would be the first to require him more, not less, because you wouldn't care if he thinks badly or not about you, if he is not mature enough to understand that his wishes can lead him to fail, he must to be prepared to the challenges that will face and the customers that will face that are not so 'good' as your heart makes you be about them and those who require more, are necessary to sustain the long term and tend to be always the majority of any public, of any product/game, whatever... So, I really don't understand the selfish/protective behavior of the SC fans... its more fanaticism than love in my humble opinion, no disrespect intended because everyone, one day, felt in the same trap about something that they 'loved'. I just think that people should start to look to themselves in search for improvement of their attitude and for the sake of the game that they are supporting so eagerly).

Clearly the huge majority of people dislike what Arena Commander is (the actual result of 4 years of development work, so far). Their leaderboards show a steady 'almost nobody' plays it - since it was released.

This is not envious, hate or anything (all this talking and obsession of fans about 'hate' is just something that they created to give themselves a "higher purpose" for thousands of dollars spent in virtual concepts of virtual spaceships anyway, just the "us v.s them" mentality to motivate more cash grabbing, in my point of view, which CIG feeds in their own marketing messages and constant speech).

Anyway, its just the reality that even the most die-hard fans (CIG forum followers) apparently agrees when giving their own feedback about it, disliking their actual results and in fact, only have been hoping for better days, as most of the comments of this thread shown:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustri...ou-play-arena-commander-new-and-improved-poll

The whole problem is a mix of cash grabbing interests that are natural when people see easy money in front of them, and the lack of attitude of the community to use their influence for the best (not for selfish interests or for fanaticism).
People did not notice yet. Many people I guess. But if you check, deeply, with a calm and neutral view, for all things that CR came and stated "that is the plan"..."will work this way", etc. etc... along that entire project, all them, without exception, FAILED. So, people should stop to live in denial when the trend is the same again and again.
People are so, desperate, for a success in the project (guilty of a little arrogance demonstrated by the passionated followers before the CIG showing its capacity and fruit of the own CIG Marketing approach), that one of these days the followers song 'victory' about CR hitting one 'estimate' - in total amnesia - forgetting that what they said that "was released on time", was actually estimated for 1.5 years earlier than the 'Social Module' was released, and when CR gave that estimate (during Gamescon 2013 and along the entire year of 2013 in several interviews), he mentioned two maps and more things to do than just walk and dance.
Then, suddenly, he verified that they wouldn't be capable to release that, and it took more 1.5 years to release it? Seriously people? How long to all of you figure out that they are just lying so you all don't panic, while keeping for longer an "acceptable" cash grabbing scheme?

Recent weeks, I saw reports of several members of the team (including leaders) spending their time (it was reported by Austin along two weeks, and who knows how many more, so yes, they spend a lot of time on that) on "making more emotes for the social module". !
Not a single thread opened in their forums to criticize this kind of priority that they are giving to their development tasks, for a game, that for all intent and purposes, has been delayed by more than 10 months now.

So, its simply won't work in this way. Its repetitive mistakes that are applauded, defended and continue. Because "they work hard" (right... 100% of the companies who failed in the medium/long term worked hard too ok?) And the only benefit that it gets, is more money for the pockets of the leaders of that project. So, those people must to understand that people are corrupted by money, even if they are not corrupt. And to avoid/minimize this side effect, "pressure for results" must to exist from customer.

Or the community changes and put pressure on that team, becoming the "haters" that they so hate (their invention, because there is no such thing of 'haters of Star Citizen'), sacrificing a little their status quo of "oh, the devs love us so much because we embrace everything they do" for the good of the whole, or that project will flop due blindness, proud and egos.
 
Last edited:
Once again this thread has gone down to picking on the flight model. Yes thrusters are getting nerfed, and the main thrusters will have more power. This has been confirmed multiple times. The component system should result in weight and mass changes within the ships. The flight model is missing various items such as fuel flow/weight, armor weight, and a few other things.

However, I'm really getting sick of people constantly trying to find the worst possible video to represent the flight model. From the outdated M50 video to the rubbish 1v1 on the other page. I too, can post a video of elite battles where people just fly around in circles. But that's no fun for anyone. Having the audacity to use said videos to judge the flight model when you haven't even played the game is just insulting. I'm pretty sure most of you would attack someone who watches a video of elite and then claims the flight model is wrong without playing the game.

The flight model is a preference. As much as I enjoy exploring in Elite, I find the flight model boring. Even in CQC I dislike it. The SC flight model is far more fun to me. But that's my opinion. There are thousands of people that prefer the E:D flight model, and there are thousands that prefer the SC flight model. From either side of the fence, the flight model on the other side might look "wrong", when in reality they're just different games doing different things. Not every space sim game should have the same flight model as Elite, that'd just be boring. Yes the SC flight model does have issues with controller balance, but it's not necessarily a bad flight model.

LOL that 1v1 video is of two of the top AC players currently, and was posted in its own thread on the AC forum.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/284879/video-one-vs-one-tempelman-vs-toooski/p1


Some interesting numbers from the past 3 weeks (if his script is correct),

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3lpwgx/arena_commander_participation_last_3_weeks_hourly/

160 unique players per hour in peak times, yes. It translates to slightly around 1100 unique players per day.
Mind you that Single player Vanduul Swarm is not counted in, nor are the people going for Arc Corp 18. So the total active player population at a given time is higher (I have no means on how to guess how higher though).
 
Last edited:
I think the question of flight model is really just one of preference and control. The biggest drawback for me so far in AC is that mouse is almost a requirement. They can possibly change that through additional mechanics though when it comes down to it, aiming well is what will win.

It doesn't seem that bad while playing though, in fact I find it quite fun even though I'm back on the mouse.

In the end you'll all be playing SC anyway, so best to get used to it now. It's really ramping up quickly.
 
Having the audacity to use said videos to judge the flight model when you haven't even played the game is just insulting. I'm pretty sure most of you would attack someone who watches a video of elite and then claims the flight model is wrong without playing the game.


No, insulting is your pompous accusation that we never played the game. I wasted $250 on that junk, which is nothing in comparison with some other people here, FYI.
Also, I don't think anyone cares you are tired of hearing about the bad flight model, IM or controller parity, so I'll repeat it again: Star Citizen, IMO, is the biggest disappointment in gaming industry TO DATE, due to fact that despite their $90M campaign and numerous studios, they STILL haven't solved core problems of the game, yet used it to amass even more funds and attract people who they're catering to now, instead to their original backers.
So, until they solve that, for me, Star Citizen is DEAD bait-and-switch of a game.

But hey, you surely think I'm just one of those angry weirdos. In that case, be my guest and check out these two threads, there you'll find even more weirdos!
One, Two.



Yes the SC flight model does have issues with controller balance, but it's not necessarily a bad flight model.


LOL, what ?
Your credibility just dropped from 0 to -1.



In the end you'll all be playing SC anyway, so best to get used to it now. It's really ramping up quickly.

No, I'll be selling it if they don't get a grip and solve their problems.
The only thing that's ramping up quickly is their delays and people's impatience.
 
No surprise there that you enjoy it a lot, as you called the v.8 a perfect game.

The change in map size will have no effect on the gameplay. Just because you are in more of a closed off arena does not make it different gameplay compared to how it will be on bigger maps, especially if you do a lot of 1v1 matches.

As for AC 2.0 with multi-crew and bigger ships, we will see how that will change gameplay. Going by what was shown in gamescon demo, multi-crew ships might swat single seat fighters.

Never called v.8 a perfect game. You should check on your claims. And you will be surprised on the effects of combat in a bigger space area. There is a lot more tactical thinking going on on top of all the missing long range features that will be included.
 
Last edited:
Erik 'The Cat' McKetten: Calix, I think a more important question is: are you prepared for the storm after you post the Flight Model doc?
CIG Calix Reneau: I think the updates are all super positive ones that will address the vast majority of current concerns, but yes, the sky will rain fire.
CIG Calix Reneau: on the plus side, I have done the first super barebone write up of IM refactor proposal
CIG Calix Reneau: which, before anybody rejoices, retains coupled aim+fly, just reframes the interface to work equally across all devices
Candy Heart: that sounds good Calix, if joystick mode is as smooth or smoother than mouse mode, and this gets adopted, could we see weapon size restrictions on gimbals/turrets relaxed?
CIG Calix Reneau: gimbal v fixed is meant to be a choice even in a full parity space
CIG Calix Reneau: yeah, the gimbal v fixed size thing wasn't motivated by controller parity

So IM is here to stay.
 
So IM is here to stay.

You're only partially correct, Mate. IM isn't just here to stay, it's moving to ALL CONTROLLERS now, instead of just the mouse. The least they could have done was removed the gimbals if they were going this route. I honestly feel now that the obvious hint was with them choosing the Cryengine. The chose an FPS engine and we were hoping that wouldn't limit it. Jokes on us as they either had this planned from point go or they just up and gave up trying cause they couldn't get the Flightstick/Gimbal flightmodel to work as well as the mouse/gimbal aim mode.

All hail the Best Damn First Person Shooter In Space Game Ever! If that's what you were looking for all along that is.
 
Last edited:
So using interactive mode with my flightstick would mean that stick movements will position the aiming reticle and not the actual ship, is that what they're going for?
 
However, I'm really getting sick of people constantly trying to find the worst possible video to represent the flight model. From the outdated M50 video to the rubbish 1v1 on the other page. I too, can post a video of elite battles where people just fly around in circles. But that's no fun for anyone. Having the audacity to use said videos to judge the flight model when you haven't even played the game is just insulting. I'm pretty sure most of you would attack someone who watches a video of elite and then claims the flight model is wrong without playing the game.

I have played the game. It's not fun. Flying and combat in SC simply sucks. There's no sensation of speed and no joy in dogfights. And the problem is the following: People like you defend the current state because you're afraid of change and because CIG can't possibly be wrong about something. Then when the full SC release happens, guys like you will get bored of the game within a few months, and you'll simply play something else - but the damage is here to stay.

Or in other words: If I want SC to fail then all I have to do is agree with folks like you and echo that everything is awesome. Sadly, it looks like SC is turning into a graphically souped-up version of Freelancer, instead of the realistic space sim it was kickstarted as. But hey, most of you diehard SC fans weren't even around back then, which probably explains the schism of the community.

The same is true for Elite btw: The game lacks substance and it's vital that we recognize and communicate this, otherwise Frontier won't feel the need to improve it. We need much better and more varied missions, not people repeating that "you just need to make your own story". We need powerplay to result in tangible consequences and rewards in the form of gameplay situations, not people saying that PP is fine the way it is and that we just need to learn to like it more.
 
It's a funny thing but I find the flying "fun" in SC, just flying about is fine. It's the combat side that makes the model irritating and frankly I feel like I'm going to break my stick trying to keep on target. Shouldn't have to feel like that playing this game.

I give AC 2.0 a good try out and see what shifts with this but if it's still rubbish after that I'll be hanging the SC hat up for good I think.

CIG + FD as one company might be an awesome thing if it were to happen. It won't but still.
 
So using interactive mode with my flightstick would mean that stick movements will position the aiming reticle and not the actual ship, is that what they're going for?

I'm not sure. I think it will move your aiming reticle first and then your ship will also turn in the direction you are aiming.
 
I have played the game. It's not fun. Flying and combat in SC simply sucks. There's no sensation of speed and no joy in dogfights. And the problem is the following: People like you defend the current state because you're afraid of change and because CIG can't possibly be wrong about something. Then when the full SC release happens, guys like you will get bored of the game within a few months, and you'll simply play something else - but the damage is here to stay.

Or in other words: If I want SC to fail then all I have to do is agree with folks like you and echo that everything is awesome. Sadly, it looks like SC is turning into a graphically souped-up version of Freelancer, instead of the realistic space sim it was kickstarted as. But hey, most of you diehard SC fans weren't even around back then, which probably explains the schism of the community.

The same is true for Elite btw: The game lacks substance and it's vital that we recognize and communicate this, otherwise Frontier won't feel the need to improve it. We need much better and more varied missions, not people repeating that "you just need to make your own story". We need powerplay to result in tangible consequences and rewards in the form of gameplay situations, not people saying that PP is fine the way it is and that we just need to learn to like it more.

Holy moley! These two things are what I have been saying for the longest. SC likely has 780,000 people who come from games where they are used to set formulas that are easy to figure out. Where roles and builds dominate the outcomes instead of thinking and skill. That is why RPS sucks as a foundation to build on. They are afraid of what depth and flexibility can bring to SC because they have never been exposed to it. I can tell you right now that when it turns out that their favorite Superhornet is always being outrun by ships they are trying to ambush, they are going to beg for nerfs instead of adapting to the situation. When the M50 kept beating the Hornets it wasn't because they were too tough, it was because they were and quick which allowed them to outmaneuver the armored turret the Hornet is. Common sense says that you are not going to be able to beat every ship every time. But the one thing that the Hornet has in its favor is the time potential. All that armor will enable it to last in a fight and that is where it excels. Just lasting long enough for it to eventually get all its guns on target and last out the fight. But it should still require piloting to do that. But to be given the free gimbal bonus? So instead of it just having the bonus of heaviest armor, powerful shields, # of guns, extra power, and it has gimbals as well? All for the price of $150 to $165. So what's that say about ships that cost $250 or $350? This points to old school game designs and why so many can claim P2W at some level. But back to what you are saying this also point to the problem that with 750,000 people coming from games where cheap and simple design is what pays, you are absolutely correct that the masses are afraid of change and do not want to have to be bothered with learning anything beyond RPS and the item that costs the most should win. That is unless it is a Glaive and then they will waive the Collector's item flag as a reason why their ship should still be top dog in the fight. (Sorry about the rant.)

On your second point yes SC is turning into Freelancer 2.0 even thought it makes Ben look like he didn't know what he was saying when he said during that lame roundtable that SC would not be Freelancer but Wing Commander. But as so many White Knights will often crow, "Subject to change..." It is a living flag for them to follow.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a funny thing but I find the flying "fun" in SC, just flying about is fine. It's the combat side that makes the model irritating and frankly I feel like I'm going to break my stick trying to keep on target. Shouldn't have to feel like that playing this game.

I give AC 2.0 a good try out and see what shifts with this but if it's still rubbish after that I'll be hanging the SC hat up for good I think.

CIG + FD as one company might be an awesome thing if it were to happen. It won't but still.

I have to agree that one of the first things that came to my mind during both campaigns was CIG doing the story telling and the asset designs and modeling, while FD does the procedural generation and the flight models (Sans the yaw gimping.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So using interactive mode with my flightstick would mean that stick movements will position the aiming reticle and not the actual ship, is that what they're going for?

I'm not sure. I think it will move your aiming reticle first and then your ship will also turn in the direction you are aiming.

They are looking to turn the flight model into lag pursuit where you gimbal mouse aim your ship and it lags behind and chases the cursor instead of making the mouse control the ship as is seen with flightstick and gamepad control.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom