Why with few concerns ? CIG adding classic type of vehicles for a game intended to have air and ground combat, nothing new here...
If you say that for SC, you should be worried for EDO which will have also ground to ship and ship to ground combat.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
If you say that for SC, you should be worried for EDO which will have also ground to ship and ship to ground combat.
The handbag lady was head of marketing...the only noteable PR thing she ever did was to slag off concierge backers live on video. If I recall correctly, she called us all 'entitled whiners'
Did you read that recently linked article about the company contracting out its system creation to (I forget the name, but CIG have minority in it)? In that article is a brief summary of CIG foundation and the people involved with the usual blurb about what they did / qualifications for the 4 of them.....well I say for the 4 of them, its written very cleverly but do have a look. Its changed since Linked In thats all Ill say and sometimes its whats not being said
EDO has ground to ship combat? That is news to me.
Without even reading the article I already see that you made up hot air as usual.
You can do it now in an SRV v a ship but you gotta be quick while its low or it will often fly out of range even while attacking. Good fun though, not intended gameplay as such whereas in Odyssey there is intended Ship / Vehicle/ Foot support roles for attacking as well as solo and sneak obviously.
not sure what the ground to air weapons will be if there are specific ones though or if that is intended gameplay as such or the base turrets will be expected to do that and the ships are mainly for attacking the ground not defending against it. So I think a by-product will be attacking ships (BGS defence etc) from the ground rather than the intention. But Im only theory crafting from what little I do know for sure. If they bring out super SAMs we gonna have some fun!
And after reading the article I can see why. But it's still hot air.
Come on, do you really think some rifleman can take down a starship? The same starship that would take another starship extended amount of time to chew through shields and hull?
Of course you "can" shoot back at ships. It's just not gonna have any noticeable effect.
It's a great hobby. The forum on the scammer EEStor (the magical battery company) was tremendous fun. It was hilarious watching the true believers as it all collapsed. We tried to warn them! Every year was more delays, delays, delays and future promises of a release coming soon.
Wow....I d love to play "mouse" under your kitchen window when you are arguing with your better half but the memory of your "farm cats" makes me NOPE out of that thought quickly. Where would I run? Into the barn? To the DEMONIC COWS? I dread to imagine where I would stumble from there (a nuclear "shelter" comes to mind....oh great, now I have THAT in my head...).....your property sounds like a gateway to eternal damnation
On the thread topic I m sure the developers and employees working on Star Citizen are floored at how much they can get away with these days while other games are being ripped apart for mundane things
What the expression "hot air" mean ? I though it was something like "lie" but that's about an official quote of Piers Jackson so it should be less strong. Some exaggerated statement ?
Maybe they should make sure they can actually do that before starting to play with otherwise pointless vehicles.
“Will”? It has had it for half a decade. There's no need to be worried for something that already exist from a developer who has already proven they're able to do it. This makes it in every single way the exact opposite of what you're trying to compare it against. Your whataboutisms are normally really stupid, but this one is just cringe-worthy in how ignorant it is.
There used to be a time when reading about SC was at least full of drama and interest. These days (unless I've missed anything) it appears that it just limps along in a state of development boredom.
Basically just a load of talk with nothing to back it up. Like when politicians make promises that they never fulfil.
Not at all, thats what I specifically said, I dont think it is intended gameplay as much as a bit of fun and a by-product, but if they do bring out SAMs then it is intended. I know the SRV can destroy an Asp a lot quicker than youd expect if you get it on the ground, those lasers are for some reason not balanced against ships (not intended gameplay probably) but once its off the ground its hardly ever in range to be hit, meanwhile they never hit me at all....the only issue is neither of us is dead and I want to recall my ship
I would think that base turrets and other ships would be the preferred way to attack other ships, not from the ground, but I dont know. I said I was theory-crafting and used the surprise attack on a BGS target while players were inside as an example of when it might happen, again not that its intended that way, not afaik.
Hot air doesn't last and gets cold again pretty quickly, it just fades away. Just empty words or bluster. More of a 'bluff/boast' than a 'lie' on that spectrum although yes it is actually not telling the truth. English is very subtle in language, we live on a small island so have to be careful calling someone a liar coz we cant just run to the next country
(seriously its one theory about the linguistics of English, all the politeness was due to limited space, when you cant retreat and calm down its best not to need to retreat in the first place) Its fine to stand and shout at each other from opposite ends of a field but do it in a cupboard and someone is gonna hit someone so you much more polite....or subtle so you dont directly accuse.Those SAM's would be quite gamy stuff. Meaning I have ship than can last minutes of pretty continuous fire from other starship. Single missile is not going to bring it down, and if it does it would need heavy handwavium to explain why ships themselves cannot have such weapons.
You say that SC is intended to have air and ground combat, but have you seen even some basic starter theory-crafting about how it's supposed to work? They're surprisingly light on discussion of it, despite a hand-waving culture where Chris will say yes to mocapping dogs at the drop of a hat
Yet despite that they've sold the Ballista variants ($140+), Nova tank ($105), & Cyclone AA ($80).
Of those only the Ballista & Cyclone AA are in-game. Let's check out how they're doing currently:
The Ballista:
'Are Ballistas reliable/usable in their current iteration?'
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/jjo19w/are_ballistas_reliableusable_in_their_current/gae22x4/
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/jjo19w/are_ballistas_reliableusable_in_their_current/gadplq9/
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/jjo19w/are_ballistas_reliableusable_in_their_current/gadu3cn/
(But hey don't trust those amateur views. Sean Tracy is also of the opinion that it's currently pointless and dull to try and use one in the PU
)The Cyclone AA:
2 years after it arrived in the PU, someone has finally got a kill with it
---
In short, they're both currently pretty terrible. They neither function well currently, nor have an in-game reason to exist, beyond sandbox foolery.
I'm sure adding a tank will magically resolve issues such as these though
. (Not add loads of balancing issues, plus some bonus technical nightmares, like getting tracked wheels to play nice with proc gen surfaces )---
You are right that ED is planning some form of full spectrum combat for EDO, seemingly. The distinctions for me though are:
- A) They're not trying to charge $140 for one vehicle during the pre-alpha stage...
- B) As such, they are not likely to get stuck with a concept vehicle if it proves technically unworkable, a poor fit with other design objectives, or unfun to use in practice.
- C) They're focused on a smaller sub-set of work than SC, with a deadline, and should be able to see it through to some form of MVP at least. In the case of 'full spectrum' combat, that could mean:
- Locations designed with ground-to-air / air-to-ground combat in mind.
- Missions designed to use those locations
- 'Rock, Paper, Scissor' pros and cons to ship / vehicle / foot armaments and defences. (Ideally harnessed by objectives used in the above)
But hey I'm sure the test version of the Theatres of War testing module will fix all of this. With tests
So long as it's not a dead duck that is
(Apologies for the sudden shift into animal idioms
)
Last edited:
Or when Chris Roberts develops a game.
Yep, its fun in theory and I can see why theory-crafting is so popular, but a moments thought throws up all those questions and reasons why it wouldnt work, still makes me laugh in my mind though. I could see an ECM type though, not ECM that thing after a nuclear blast that kills electrics, something that kills the ship and brings it to the ground but thats it, stay out of range to be safe could be fun But yeah all the talk so far is about using ships in conjunction with foot to attack a base or ground target not the other way round.....but there is that weapon thats larger than the player themselves and we dont know what that does yet