3:10 is live!

[Deroth]

Unrealistic yes, but Chris has always been very clear he wants space battles to be like Starwars which is like WWII fighter planes in space. Realistic would be more like combat seen in the Expanse where you shoot things with rail guns you cannot see out the window.

Only way to accomplish that would be to reduce staffing to about 5% of what it currently is and implement some kind of magic stall in space logic.

That sounds neither fun nor immersive to me.

He's realized his mistakes on things in the past then gone a different direction, I'm hoping he does the same soon with trying to force WW2 style combat in space.

At this rate it'll play more like a submarine simulator, and his last foray into that logic was the idiocy of silent mode on a space carrier in the Wing Commander movie.

 

[Deroth]

It has been very clearly stated from the very first trailer that CR wants this game to have classic ww2 style dogfights, and repeated year over year that they are trying to get away from what you call realistic space combat, as in the idiotic jousting and death spiral strafe. It might be closer to realistic, but it sure aint thrilling fun, especially for many many people who joined on the premise of finally having a "proper old-school spacesim" like wing commander or tie fighter.

Btw, with all this bullshit about what's realistic and not:
You know what was the very best way to fight any AI ship, and most humans also? Just stop. Period.
Throttle to zero, shields forward, and shoot up the morons trying to strafe, dodge, and aim at the same time. Act like a stationary turret, aim and fire. If you have big enough guns, you win easily. I could easily kill a pirate Connie with a stock aurora mr after figuring this out instead of trying to "fly" around and act all cool. Some patience was needed cos the guns were weak but still...
Realistic? Maybe. But It was fucking stupid! Not skillful, the opposite of anything immersive, just blatantly idiotic! Where's the point in having a space ship if you're just better off not moving at all!?!

Tbh I'm not sure they can get to the "WW2 dogfights" unless they drastically alter the flight mechanics to be even less physically correct. But they now came up with this idea for targeting and adjusted the ships to move people away from just jousting. They are doing what they said for ever and ever they would try to achieve. Classic WW airplane style dogfights.
If you want the sensless jousting and death spiral of who has better ping, you might be looking at the wrong game. It's probably never coming back once they can truly get rid of it.




Tldr.: some might want "realistic" combat. I want fun combat even if "unrealistic", where actual flying skills come into play instead of just who has bigger guns and better ping.
That's what I signed up for, not what we had since launch.

As technology changes, tactics change.
Thousands of years ago when Greece had a dominant Navy the preferred tactic was to reinforce the bow to support ramming the broadside of an enemy. With the advent of the cannon, attempting that same tactic was considered suicide.

Some popular WW1 aerial maneuvers stopped seeing use by WW2 due to planes being faster, more aerodynamic, and having more powerful engines. Additional advances in jet engines further eliminated the practicality of many WW1 maneuvers but made new ones feasible.
With the most technologically advanced fighter planes on the planet it is now a race to be able to eliminate the enemy at greater ranges using radar and satellite integration, C&C, and advanced missile technology. I remember reading about some force on force training involving advanced fighters against fighters from a decade or so ago, when using the full suite of tech the modern fighters took out everything before anyone knew they were there but once the command restricted radars and missiles it became evident the pilots of the modern fighters hadn't trained in dogfighting for a very long time.

With the tech already introduced into SC, WW2 style combat is not feasible without implementing restrictions that or removing technology (such as eliminating shields and gutting maneuvering thrusters to extremes that hover mode demonstrated is not going to be well received.)

 

[Lorddarthvik]

As technology changes, tactics change.
Thousands of years ago when Greece had a dominant Navy the preferred tactic was to reinforce the bow to support ramming the broadside of an enemy. With the advent of the cannon, attempting that same tactic was considered suicide.

Some popular WW1 aerial maneuvers stopped seeing use by WW2 due to planes being faster, more aerodynamic, and having more powerful engines. Additional advances in jet engines further eliminated the practicality of many WW1 maneuvers but made new ones feasible.
With the most technologically advanced fighter planes on the planet it is now a race to be able to eliminate the enemy at greater ranges using radar and satellite integration, C&C, and advanced missile technology. I remember reading about some force on force training involving advanced fighters against fighters from a decade or so ago, when using the full suite of tech the modern fighters took out everything before anyone knew they were there but once the command restricted radars and missiles it became evident the pilots of the modern fighters hadn't trained in dogfighting for a very long time.

With the tech already introduced into SC, WW2 style combat is not feasible without implementing restrictions that or removing technology (such as eliminating shields and gutting maneuvering thrusters to extremes that hover mode demonstrated is not going to be well received.)

All true!
And Non of this matters, because this not a real life military simulator of how space combat might be in a thousand years.
It is a Game of CR's vision. And both him and his employees keep talking about getting rid of jousting cos it's boring and sux.
If he wants ww2 combat, that's what we will get.
If he changes his mind and wants us to play medieval knights, that's what we gonna get. I would rather see the ww2 style. Otherwise I'd just stick to playing Bannerlord with a large spear on a horse and would have never backed in the first place.

I highly doubt ppl would be so upset if the flight model slowly progresses to a more "flight" oriented model then the current one. The hover mechanic was really cool imho but suddenly and rather badly implemented. It would make a lot more sense now that ships are finally weaker in atmosphere. I hope they bring it back later with a bit more thought and maybe some automation put into it.

Btw, by the "realism" logic almost all ships should just fall like a rock in atmo unless standing upright like a current day rocket. They could also do this nose down as the retro thrusters are at least as powerful as the main thrust lol. Imagine all the large ships just hanging above the ground perpendicular ,nose down. Remember how stupid that looks when an 890 hangs 3 feet off the ground perfectly still, with its nose pointing exactly down? Yeah..
I'm pretty sure that I don't want to see that "realism" ever again, I'll happily accept any non realistic excuse they wanna give me for not allowing that ever again.

 

[Deroth]

All true!
And Non of this matters, because this not a real life military simulator of how space combat might be in a thousand years.
It is a Game of CR's vision. And both him and his employees keep talking about getting rid of jousting cos it's boring and sux.
If he wants ww2 combat, that's what we will get.
If he changes his mind and wants us to play medieval knights, that's what we gonna get. I would rather see the ww2 style. Otherwise I'd just stick to playing Bannerlord with a large spear on a horse and would have never backed in the first place.

I highly doubt ppl would be so upset if the flight model slowly progresses to a more "flight" oriented model then the current one. The hover mechanic was really cool imho but suddenly and rather badly implemented. It would make a lot more sense now that ships are finally weaker in atmosphere. I hope they bring it back later with a bit more thought and maybe some automation put into it.

Btw, by the "realism" logic almost all ships should just fall like a rock in atmo unless standing upright like a current day rocket. They could also do this nose down as the retro thrusters are at least as powerful as the main thrust lol. Imagine all the large ships just hanging above the ground perpendicular ,nose down. Remember how stupid that looks when an 890 hangs 3 feet off the ground perfectly still, with its nose pointing exactly down? Yeah..
I'm pretty sure that I don't want to see that "realism" ever again, I'll happily accept any non realistic excuse they wanna give me for not allowing that ever again.

The funny thing is how many releases they've done where ships like the Caterpillar and Starfarer CAN NOT leave atmosphere flying vertically as they stall due to insufficient thrust but can exit atmosphere horizontally, albeit slowly, due to their embarrassing attempts at making atmospheric flight more realistic. I know they finally fixed that for the Caterpillar, but haven't tested it with the Starfarer in a while.

 

[Aramsolari]

So....what's the general consensus so far?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

So....what's the general consensus so far?

I'll have to play it before I can form an opinion and I 'aint playing it until it hits PU.

 

[Michael]

So....what's the general consensus so far?

My consensus is i like it.

Flight model needs some tweaking, but overall positive (Ship flight feels a lot more like the ship "looks.")
Athmosspheric flight needs control surfaces (soon™)

Targeting mechanic is confusing, once you're setup you can get used to it. I see potential for future improvements. (Radar operator mode soon™?)
But it is still, at its current state, worse than it was before.

Several pips, targeting etc. are too small/thin/wrong color/hard to see. Nothing which can't be improved.

I like the "new" gimbal assist
I like the new ESP (maybe OP?)

Turret Overhaul haven't tested yet. If its like ESP probably very good.

Trading app is simple and good. Transaction history confirmed soon™

High speed combat changes. Time will show.

 

[Deroth]

So....what's the general consensus so far?

No consensus.

In the Spectrum feedback page, the majority of the feedback is negative but there are those that defend it as well.

 

[Heartwood]

In the Spectrum feedback page, the majority of the feedback is negative but there are those that defend it as well.

In the Spectrum feedback page, the majority of the feedback is negative positive but there are those that defend dislike it as well. (checked just now, majority are positive threads under "hot" selection)

 

[Phil]

I keep reading WW2 style dog fights, that is just not reasonable in this technological atmosphere, WW2 dogfighting was 100% visual based, in other words, they see you and you see them, you literally see their planes, in SC everything is radar or tracking, the ranges are much farther, the speeds are much higher there is really no way to implement a visual based dogfighting scenario, everything is done with PIPs and targeting.

Turn off the radar and see how much fun you have trying to actually dogfight in a WW2 style lol. If CR said WW2 it was most likely early on, there is really no way to dogfight by visuals only in this game. I understand people are upset, but when I didn't like the survival or prison aspect I was constantly told it was part of the game and necessary and to deal with it, so for all the dogfighters our there I say back unto you, deal with it, its necessary and part of the game. :)

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Word on the street:

--Large ships handle terrible in atmo, just as should be.

--The Reclaimer cannot get off the ground for more than two seconds--sounds broken.

--Light fighters are flying their best since 2.6, and a real blast to fly. So maneuvering is both worse in big birds and better in small ones.

 

[Bambooza]

I really like the weight and feel of the large ships in Atmo so far. And you are right light fighters are a blast to fly. Still think the wind on New Babbage has to much force as its treating the large ships like they are plastic bags.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

The whole getting behind the other airplane tactic is due to the physics of planes having to fly forward. . .

It is natural and expected for the two dominant space combat approaches to being either jousting or death spiral stafing.

Yes, there are differences, but you're equivocatiing. If a pilot rotates their bird to face an opponent that was behind them, that opponent is no longer behind them. This does not negate the need to get behind your opponent.

The point is, a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) or a command channel to someone with full situational awareness both now offer significant advantages and they did not in the previous scheme. Yes, you can rotate your bird and fly in other than the direction you were pointed, so you're tempted to fly a turret, but the issue is that solo pilots can not see behind them. A turret gunner/RIO can.

Players almost always fly the Cutty, Vanguard, Connie, Lancer etc. without a turret gunner and now they have reasons to have one.

Sorry if that upsets the soloists. The game was designed to reward group play.

 

[Bambooza]

Yes, there are differences, but you're equivocatiing. If a pilot rotates their bird to face an opponent that was behind them, that opponent is no longer behind them. This does not negate the need to get behind your opponent.

The point is, a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) or a command channel to someone with full situational awareness both now offer significant advantages and they did not in the previous scheme. Yes, you can rotate your bird and fly in other than the direction you were pointed, so you're tempted to fly a turret, but the issue is that solo pilots can not see behind them. A turret gunner/RIO can.

Players almost always fly the Cutty, Vanguard, Connie, Lancer etc. without a turret gunner and now they have reasons to have one.

Sorry if that upsets the soloists. The game was designed to reward group play.

I wouldn't count out the soloist as there are plenty of opportunities for them. In fact, some of the ships/jobs like bounty hunters are specifically geared towards the soloist. Or the prospector and lots of the smaller trade ships which will be far more effective at getting goods to the ground.

But there is value in the fact that it is an MMO that does support the idea of its purpose is to team up with others before heading out on an adventure.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I wouldn't count out the soloist as there are plenty of opportunities for them.

I didn't mean to count them out. Everyone needs the opportunity to play alone at times. We all need this. The real difference though is going to come in large engagements, with dozens of birds in the sky. Those who have the benefit of skilled C&C are gonna wipe the field against those who do not. In the past it's always been up to individual pilot skill and some luck. Now victory is going to be in the hands of those who really work together.

Without these changes, the Bengal is nothing more than a moveable parking lot. With these changes it is the greatest power of the UEE. Do not be surprised to see huge differences in the AI of pirates v Naval fighters.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Has anyone flown the new Sledges yet? What are they like?

 

[Deroth]

In the Spectrum feedback page, the majority of the feedback is negative positive but there are those that defend dislike it as well. (checked just now, majority are positive threads under "hot" selection)

This is the feedback page for the new targeting:

[PTU Feedback] Ship Targeting UI and Functionality - Star Citizen Spectrum

Greetings, We have completely overhauled the targeting UI and the targeting gameplay flow which includes: New UI for the TVI, PIP, indicator, range indication, firing indication, assisted gimbals,...

robertsspaceindustries.com

I have no idea how someone can look at that and think the majority of the feedback is positive. The top ten most voted on comments are all negative and the quantity of negative feedback is far greater than the positive.

 

[Deroth]

Yes, there are differences, but you're equivocatiing. If a pilot rotates their bird to face an opponent that was behind them, that opponent is no longer behind them. This does not negate the need to get behind your opponent.

The point is, a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) or a command channel to someone with full situational awareness both now offer significant advantages and they did not in the previous scheme. Yes, you can rotate your bird and fly in other than the direction you were pointed, so you're tempted to fly a turret, but the issue is that solo pilots can not see behind them. A turret gunner/RIO can.

Players almost always fly the Cutty, Vanguard, Connie, Lancer etc. without a turret gunner and now they have reasons to have one.

Sorry if that upsets the soloists. The game was designed to reward group play.

I don't know what you think I'm being ambiguous about or are trying to conceal as I've been completely upfront on my feelings about the new targeting system and the blind pursuit of forcing WW2 style tactics into SC.

SOME of that will be addressed when features such as organizations being truly implemented into the game as well as systems to encourage group play (such large scale as group missions and resources to defend), but expecting one-v-one battles to be mostly attempts to get behind each other in space will require such significant revamps that if it is done I doubt you'll enjoy the overall sacrifices to achieve it. Shields on light fighters would have to be so negligible that one to two short bursts from S2 weapons would wipe them out then another one to two short bursts would take the fighter out. Medium fighters wouldn't be much better. The time to kill on most ships would have to be so short that it'd force people to play in large groups and center their play around large and capital ships for security.
While I can understand seeing an appeal to that, ultimately I think such drastic measures will be very unappealing and make SC feel unapproachable in a similar way EVE has to a multitude of people.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I didn't say you're ambiguous. I said you're equivocating by using the term "behind" in two different ways.

Look, this is a done deal. CIG did this to give us a reason to have people in the turrets, and performing C&C on cap ships. They have to do this to make cap ship combat a real thing, and the execution is excellent. They're not going to undo it because the players whined loud enough.

Soloists can still play but they have an extreme disadvantage compared to cooperative players. Until now there was never enough a reason to put someone in the turret of a Cutty or Vanguard, and now there is. Not only that, but the someone in the turret needs to be a PC.

 

[Deroth]

I didn't say you're ambiguous. I said you're equivocating by using the term "behind" in two different ways.

Look, this is a done deal. CIG did this to give us a reason to have people in the turrets, and performing C&C on cap ships. They have to do this to make cap ship combat a real thing, and the execution is excellent. They're not going to undo it because the players whined loud enough.

Soloists can still play but they have an extreme disadvantage compared to cooperative players. Until now there was never enough a reason to put someone in the turret of a Cutty or Vanguard, and now there is. Not only that, but the someone in the turret needs to be a PC.

Equivocating: use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

So that is exactly what you said, and I didn't use 'behind' in two different ways.

It is a bad system because it is trying to force something with a system that it isn't really forcing and when fully implemented still won't force it. I'd much rather see positive feedback loops added to encourage group play than a system that if fully implemented as CIG had advertised it will not be fun (forcing someone to sit in a Capital ship micromanaging targets for everything sounds tedious, boring, and unimmersive.)

Examples of positive feedback loops to encourage group play:

• Group missions only available while grouped and reward everybody individually better than solo missions
• Player created missions that support hiring someone to fill a specific role (such as running a turret)
• Improve the economy so it is profitable for traders to hire crews
• Add differentiated mining locations with the most valuable being announced but also guarded by pirates requiring miners to take support
• Etc

In short, add rewarding group play instead of trying to punish those playing solo.