The Star Citizen Thread V10

[sovapid]

From the latest video - they want to "encourage subscription" by offering - well, we don't know quite what yet. I'm tempted to think certain ship rentals will be part of it, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if they link it to "persistence" somehow.

No matter which way you look at it though, it's still money grubbing.

Subscribers already get a different "free" ship each month. $20 subs also get the Scythe, which was really strong in 3.4, but is trash now.

Right now they are talking about things that are significantly different cosmetically: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/bpgvos Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/bpgvos/holographic_centurion_helmet_subscribers_flair/

 

[sovapid]

Meh, i want to fly the ship, not sit in a turret.

I understand why ED doesn't put you in the ship for turrets though. Just imagine with the ship flinging itself this way and that, you'd never hit anything.

In ED, any ship you use for multicrew, you have made it objectively worse for combat because you have to put turrets on it. Also, the pilot is losing guns to the multicrew players.

In SC, a hammerhead with just a pilot is nearly useless. The most fun is to be had in the turrets. Being the pilot is the boring position.

The games are just different. I enjoy the multicrew experience in SC, but would never do it ED.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

In ED, any ship you use for multicrew, you have made it objectively worse for combat because you have to put turrets on it. Also, the pilot is losing guns to the multicrew players.

In SC, a hammerhead with just a pilot is nearly useless. The most fun is to be had in the turrets. Being the pilot is the boring position.

The games are just different. I enjoy the multicrew experience in SC, but would never do it ED.

But i run ships with turrets anyway without MC.

Turrets have value, especially smaller ones, because the trade off in DPS is compensated for by ToT. If you are running something agile with fixed weapons, then sure, turrets will mainly be a loss. But if you are running something fatter and less nimble, turrets can be a good choice, especially for PvE. I've also seen the odd video of PvP where people ran turrets and won... but that's kind of edge case.

Mainly though, multicrew i value more for the SLFs.

 

[Surefoot]

The most fun is to be had in the turrets. Being the pilot is the boring position.

I tried that with the Retaliator (which has no direct weapon either if we arent considering the torps) and it feels like being a school bus driver, with rather turbulent children. I'm ok with doing that, positioning correctly the ship so my mates can blast things out could be fun. Now if combat was not so rubber bandy and game was not so crashy...

 

[sovapid]

But i run ships with turrets anyway without MC.

Turrets have value, especially smaller ones, because the trade off in DPS is compensated for by ToT. If you are running something agile with fixed weapons, then sure, turrets will mainly be a loss. But if you are running something fatter and less nimble, turrets can be a good choice, especially for PvE. I've also seen the odd video of PvP where people ran turrets and won... but that's kind of edge case.

Mainly though, multicrew i value more for the SLFs.

I guess I did have a turret equipped ship too. For AFK combat

 

[VR Golgot]

The Agent on SA has come up with some more .... ahem... rumours as well, they make interesting reading (just don't accept them as fact).

• subscription benefits (as told in leaks months and months ago) to increase "on a massive scale"

 

[sewerratuk]

Meh, i want to fly the ship, not sit in a turret.

I understand why ED doesn't put you in the ship for turrets though. Just imagine with the ship flinging itself this way and that, you'd never hit anything.

I actually hoped ED was going to implement sitting in the ship. The current method just sucks. They may as well implement 3rd person for flying as well and be done with it

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I guess I did have a turret equipped ship too. For AFK combat

Boooooo!

 

[MTBFritz]

Our servers are full, we cannot put anymore content on them.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zPhpxYD7f8&feature=youtu.be&t=1453

So 3.5 = MVP confirmed?

 

[Viajero]

I actually hoped ED was going to implement sitting in the ship. The current method just sucks. They may as well implement 3rd person for flying as well and be done with it

How does IL2 make it fun?

WW2 related turret simulations are fun imho because of a few reasons: To start with most planes involved fly most of the time in a straight line (or close enough to it) especially the ones with turrets, airplanes can not 6DoF and also their relative speeds are pretty close. In WW2 aswell, a single hit event was pretty much definitive for effect, so players in manned turrets can actually do meaningfull stuff. At least WW2 actual bomber designers seemed to think so too.

In games like SC or ED, ships twist and turn and accelerate/decelerate in a dime (more so in SC), turrets time to kill is measured in eons, ships also 6DoF (incluiding the one you are in the turret) making manual targeting without assist a nightmare and windows of opportunity really small. All that contributes to not being very fun at the core in both games.

Now, while SC has kept the feeling of a cool WW2 bomber turret forcing the player to physically be in a fixed unique spot with his own ship obstructing a large chunk of the view, that only manages to exacerbate all the problems listed above. Like it or not, I think that FDEV at least has actually put some thought into all this and tried to design it to minimize and alleviate some of that, whereas CIG does not really seem to give a darn about real gameplay and pretty much just wants you to remember the battle of Britain, weather you can shoot something or not.

 

[Tippis]

CIG does not really seem to give a darn about real gameplay and pretty much just wants you to remember the battle of Britain, weather you can shoot something or not.

Makes sense. It was the first game series Chris stole “was inspired by” wholesale, and got into legal trouble for, so I'm sure it has some kind of nostalgic glow to it…

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Is it out yet?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Is it out yet?

Its been out for years you FUDster!

 

[Skizomeuh]

WW2 related turret simulations are fun imho because of a few reasons: To start with most planes involved fly most of the time in a straight line (or close enough to it) especially the ones with turrets, airplanes can not 6DoF and also their relative speeds are pretty close. In WW2 aswell, a single hit event was pretty much definitive for effect. Players in manned turrets can actually do meaningfull stuff. At least WW2 actual bomber designers seemed to think so too.

In games like SC or ED, ships twist and turn and accelerate/decelerate in a dime (more so in SC), turrets time to kill is measured in eons, ships also 6DoF (incluiding the one you are in the turret) making manual targeting without assist a nightmare and windows of opportunity really small. All that contributes to not being very fun at the core in both games.

Now, while SC has kept the feeling of a WW2 bomber turret forcing the player to physically be in a fixed unique spot with his own ship obstructing a large chunk of the view, that only manages to exacerbate all the problems listed above. Like it or not, I think that FDEV at least has actually put some thought into all this and tried to design it to minimize and alleviate some of that, whereas CIG does not really seem to give a darn about real gameplay and pretty much just wants you to remember the battle of Britain, weather you can shoot something or not.

This, so much this. Because it looked effective during subsonic Era, or cool in a fantasy movie you can't help but pillage, doesn't mean it will be a good thing gameplay wise.
The problem when "cool" and a whimsical pre-teen are ruling everything.

 

[Mole HD]

So 3.5 = MVP confirmed?

Nah...not quite yet. Watch the vid, they talk about some stuff of general interest. For a change, I actually liked the vid conversation. A lot less handwavium than usual fares.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You know - I still cannot work out this whole “servers are full but we have all this new content we want to show you, but can’t because our servers can't handle it” nonsense.

How many states can be represented in one byte?

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

You know - I still cannot work out this whole “servers are full but we have all this new content we want to show you, but can’t because our servers can't handle it” nonsense.

How many states can be represented in one byte?

Seeing as they intend on making 100 systems couldn't they put the new assets into them?

 

[PhanttoM]

Viajero is spot on with the TTK and short time on target.

I was a multi-crew bomber pilot in Planetside 2, which I also used for Air-to-Air combat.
Old 3 minute video for reference:

Spoiler

Source: https://youtu.be/nVbMO_lBKc4

Not quite 6DoF, but all aircraft were VTOLs and specifically fighters had strong vertical thrusters which made strafing fights and dodging standard for fighters. The aircraft were quite maneuverable (my bomber in the video has a boost/afterburner loadout!) and the TTK was extremely low.
For example: The belly gunner could 1-shot fighters and 2-shot other bombers.

The time-on-target only gets worse the more turrets you have — and the number of turrets you can stick on ships in Elite or Star Citizen, could result in putting SEVERAL gunners in "the boring seats".
This was a massive problem for the guys I played with in Planetside 2. My bomber had two gunners (+fixed nosegun for the pilot), but in a 1 aircraft vs. 1 aircraft fight, only one of them would have a perfectly clear angle to shot. The same even applied to bombing runs, but the fixed the tailgunner angle in later patches.
The most fun multi-crew battles was when everyone on board could shoot at something and get kills from doing so.

I think Elite went the right direction by giving 1 gunner control over all turrets but the TTK problem remains, the interface is horrible and the gunner can only shoot at 1 target at any given time, despite having potential control over half a dozen turrets.
What little multi-crew I played of Star Citizen, out of trying the Superhornet, Retaliator and Constellation — the Superhornet was the most fun because both me and my gunner could focus one target, or split our attention.

 

[CMDR Pugwash]

Its been out for years you FUDster!

Really! How did I miss that then?! I thought it was still in beta or a demo or something.

 

[Tippis]

Viajero is spot on with the TTK and short time on target.

I was a multi-crew bomber pilot in Planetside 2, which I also used for Air-to-Air combat.
[…]

Another problem PS2 had that it inherited from PS1, but which they at least knew of and considered was the effective use of manpower, where the game mechanics often dissuaded the use of certain multi-crew vehicles because it was just a waste of people.

If you stuck Y people in a 2, tanks, you'd get, say, 8000 hitpoints and 600 DPS on the field. if one of them was blown up (because 8000 HP doesn't last all that long), you'd now have 300 DPS and a single target for everyone to shoot at. If you instead stuck them in Y solo vehicles, you'd instead get, Y×2000 HP and Y×200 DPS, not to mention Y individual targets that the enemies had to deal with. Consequently, it was often hugely inefficient to roll the fancy multi-crew vehicles, because they just meant you lost more people quicker while doing less damage to the enemy. On the other hand, you couldn't massively increase the capabilities of the multi-crew vehicles, or they'd be nigh impossible to defeat no matter what.

The more complex the setup, the larger the headache to make it remotely balanced and worth-while to play.

e: Maths r hurd.