Current Component Stats are Placeholders for 4.0

Han Burgundy

Space Marshal
Jan 15, 2016
2,147
9,434
2,900
RSI Handle
Han-Burgundy
With the implementation of the engineering system, I wouldn't be surprised if everything had to be re-done from scratch. My assumption is that the first few iterations of everything will be a bit rough trying to balance time to kill and component health. For the first time our ships will have an actual depletable pool of power to shunt into different systems whose performance is tied directly to how much power they are getting. It is a tough egg to crack, but it is a journey that we will all have to wade through together. The synergy of different components is going to open up a whole new world of gameplay for tinkerers. Not to mention the second-hand market for scavenged subcomponents. Its the granularity of everything that will end up being Star Citizen's golden goose for scalability and emergent experiences. Exciting times, ladies and gentlemen.
 

Talonsbane

Space Marshal
Donor
Jul 29, 2017
5,504
18,981
3,025
RSI Handle
Talonsbane
The Lancers all had their IR nerfed, but picked up a third shield. Makes it harder to chose the Cutties. Nerfing stealth over and over is bad. I am not liking this at all.
Nerfing stealth in an Origin 404i is a good thing, when it prevents the pilot that blindly found their way to, into, through & around inside in order to get the ship ready for takeoff, only to accidentally engage an self destruct mechanism instead of powering on the ship. Oops! Other than that scenario, I agree. Cheers!
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,969
14,205
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Nerfing signatures could possibly be a sign that the stealth coefficient is returning. If you’ll recall, originally the scan detection radius was the higher signature (EM or IR) multiplied by the coefficient of the sensor: .5 for S1, .75 for S2, 1.0 for S3 and eventually 1.5 for S4. That was all nerfed several patches back and all ships have been using 1.0.

No idea why save that CIG always breaks stuff before they offer a seeming fix. Maybe we’ll see a fix in Q4 this year. Right now, the Cutty’s sig is 60% the Lancer’s sig and that is crazy wrong.
 

Talonsbane

Space Marshal
Donor
Jul 29, 2017
5,504
18,981
3,025
RSI Handle
Talonsbane
Nerfing signatures could possibly be a sign that the stealth coefficient is returning. If you’ll recall, originally the scan detection radius was the higher signature (EM or IR) multiplied by the coefficient of the sensor: .5 for S1, .75 for S2, 1.0 for S3 and eventually 1.5 for S4. That was all nerfed several patches back and all ships have been using 1.0.

No idea why save that CIG always breaks stuff before they offer a seeming fix. Maybe we’ll see a fix in Q4 this year. Right now, the Cutty’s sig is 60% the Lancer’s sig and that is crazy wrong.
I can understand why the Cutter would have a sig 60% the size of a Lancer, it's approx 50% the size. Which in my opinion would make a logical 1st step in determining an algorithm for stealth for the game. The overall size or mass of the ship should be variable 1. Next take in consideration of the 2 dimensions of the ship as well as its shape from the angle that its being viewed or observed being variable 2. Case in point the Aegis Sabre, head on is relatively stealthy with it's slim outline, compared to a much larger target if viewed from directly above or below. Then add in a variable that would detract for angles or materials that might hamper the detection of the various types of scans. Perhaps add another variable for future / alien / rule of cool that they say the ship requires for whatever reason. These are just variables for observable stealth, add in those for EM & IR for those types of scans & the whole system gets more complicated, but given that there are people that have been hired as professionals to assist with this sort of thing, they should be able to figure it out to where it makes more or less sense & finally works in the game. Am I looking at this from the wrong perspective?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ayeteeone

Ayeteeone

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 22, 2018
577
2,240
2,000
RSI Handle
Ayeteeone
I can understand why the Cutter would have a sig 60% the size of a Lancer, it's approx 50% the size. Which in my opinion would make a logical 1st step in determining an algorithm for stealth for the game. The overall size or mass of the ship should be variable 1. Next take in consideration of the 2 dimensions of the ship as well as its shape from the angle that its being viewed or observed being variable 2. Case in point the Aegis Sabre, head on is relatively stealthy with it's slim outline, compared to a much larger target if viewed from directly above or below. Then add in a variable that would detract for angles or materials that might hamper the detection of the various types of scans. Perhaps add another variable for future / alien / rule of cool that they say the ship requires for whatever reason. These are just variables for observable stealth, add in those for EM & IR for those types of scans & the whole system gets more complicated, but given that there are people that have been hired as professionals to assist with this sort of thing, they should be able to figure it out to where it makes more or less sense & finally works in the game. Am I looking at this from the wrong perspective?
During a past show it was put out that the CS values were created by doing a simple 'voxelization' of the ship's profile. It is supposedly a dynamic value now, and 'should' represent physical size in the game. Since we can't see that value or how it's calculated experimentation is about the only way to check anything.
 
  • o7
Reactions: Talonsbane

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,969
14,205
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Aren’t you referring to the Radar Cross Section though? The EM can actually be lower with a larger ship, since there’s more hull shielding emissions. That’s what we were told about the 400i. The Sentinel we were told has special shielding around the reactor that the other Vanguard don’t have. Even this is fubar right now. The Warden has lower EM and IR than the Sentinel with the Sentinel’s EMP turned off.

That’s not supposed to happen. Things are screwy.

One thing that is consistent is IR is way up—about double what it was with most ships. So either CIG wants to move ships apart, or they are going to reintroduce the coefficient, or they are planning an about face on the most recent stats.

Just makes no sense as is. Why should there ever be a time when the Lancer is brighter than the Cutty, and the Sentinel is brighter than the Warden? CIG specifically told us the opposite and the opposite has always been true until now.

Interestingly, the Ghost and Eclipse stats are untouched. With the 300 series, IR is up while EM is down. The Sabre and M50 have the lowest stats they’ve ever had. It looks like someone made a balancing pass and didn’t understand where ships like the 400i and Lancer are supposed to fit in.

I think there are rabid space monkeys loosed at CIG headquarters.

Some of the nerfs are troubling. It used to be the Lancer MIS running cold had an sig less than the lock range of S3 missiles. That’s no longer true and forms a serious problem for that ship. I don’t think whomever toyed with the stats understands Chris’ public commitments that the Lancer is a stealthy ship.
 
Last edited:

Ayeteeone

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 22, 2018
577
2,240
2,000
RSI Handle
Ayeteeone
Aren’t you referring to the Radar Cross Section though? The EM can actually be lower with a larger ship, since there’s more hull shielding emissions. That’s what we were told about the 400i. The Sentinel we were told has special shielding around the reactor that the other Vanguard don’t have. Even this is fubar right now. The Warden has lower EM and IR than the Sentinel with the Sentinel’s EMP turned off.

That’s not supposed to happen. Things are screwy.

One thing that is consistent is IR is way up—about double what it was with most ships. So either CIG wants to move ships apart, or they are going to reintroduce the coefficient, or they are planning an about face on the most recent stats.

Just makes no sense as is. Why should there ever be a time when the Lancer is brighter than the Cutty, and the Sentinel is brighter than the Warden? CIG specifically told us the opposite and the opposite has always been true until now.

Interestingly, the Ghost and Eclipse stats are untouched. With the 300 series, IR is up while EM is down. The Sabre and M50 have the lowest stats they’ve ever had. It looks like someone made a balancing pass and didn’t understand where ships like the 400i and Lancer are supposed to fit in.

I think there are rabid space monkeys loosed at CIG headquarters.
CS refers to physical cross section, what a traditional radar pulse would bounce off of or an optical system would observe. For IR and EM the subroutines are pretty much in place, visible and adjustable by player choices.

I'll completely agree that there are lots of weirdness in the values if you look across the range of ships, and what they have been said to be. It's possible, even likely, that those who are putting the values in are not following older statements.
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,969
14,205
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
Yeah. Keep in mind that at least for now, RCS matters little since players don’t bother to ping. Conversely, what we expect with true cap ships and fleets is they’ll be pinging constantly unless they’re trying to go unnoticed. So only true stealth ships with reduced RCS due to radar absorbent materials can sneak up on cap ships—ships like the Sabre and Eclipse, or anything the player chooses to put Void Armor on in the future.
 

Stoutman

Space Marshal
May 1, 2016
768
1,446
2,350
RSI Handle
Stoutman
Just wait until the science ships are able to start tweaking components. Then everyone will be paying top dollar for the few components that end up with super high stats. I remember this type of item rarity in SWG when Smugglers could 'slice' weapons. Good times.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,956
43,895
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
Just wait until the science ships are able to start tweaking components. Then everyone will be paying top dollar for the few components that end up with super high stats. I remember this type of item rarity in SWG when Smugglers could 'slice' weapons. Good times.
My Endeavour waits impatiently to tweak my nuts and bolts.
 

Shadow Reaper

Space Marshal
Jun 3, 2016
4,969
14,205
2,850
RSI Handle
Shadow Reaper
I’m not sure you’ll need a science ship to tweak components. I think they moved most of that to perishable sub-components and the rest to any workbench. So anyone with a Carrack who learns the mini-game or gathers the proper parts should be able to buff a whole range of both ship and personal items.
 

NaffNaffBobFace

Space Marshal
Donor
Jan 5, 2016
11,956
43,895
3,150
RSI Handle
NaffNaffBobFace
I’m not sure you’ll need a science ship to tweak components. I think they moved most of that to perishable sub-components and the rest to any workbench. So anyone with a Carrack who learns the mini-game or gathers the proper parts should be able to buff a whole range of both ship and personal items.
My Endeavour waits impatiently to tweak my nuts and bolts.

That and the supercollider has a date with a box of fridge magnets.
 

Talonsbane

Space Marshal
Donor
Jul 29, 2017
5,504
18,981
3,025
RSI Handle
Talonsbane
Just wait until the science ships are able to start tweaking components. Then everyone will be paying top dollar for the few components that end up with super high stats. I remember this type of item rarity in SWG when Smugglers could 'slice' weapons. Good times.
Wait, the Endeavor isn't in game yet? Damn that was a dream. Here I was thinking that my extra TP had developed ultra stealth capabilities keeping me from finding it when really I'm on my last roll. Time to stock back up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ayeteeone
Forgot your password?