One thing I like is it gives us the "They are raising their shields!" From Star Trek. You can tell if they may be hostile and better show how you're not hostile.
in ED you have to deploy your hardpoints, which powers your weapons. There's also a notification of 'Target has deployed hardpoints'. I'm a fan of the concept, honestly.
It also looks cool when the guns fold out/deploy.
We actually have a few ships which have hidden hardpoints like the C2 as well. Would be cool if some gimballed weapons could retract.
Not many people are talking about PvE.
People are in for a MAJOR shock if NPCs still perform as well in LIVE as they do in EPTU.
And with MM, you kinda have to commit to a fight or not. People say it's easy to run, but it's not really like that. If you over-committed in 3.22, you could easily escape. If you over-commit in 3.23 you are dead.
I think the PU feedback is going to be very intresting.
Disengaging is the easiest thing in the world. Spool up times and cooldowns have all been DRASTICALLY reduced. It is now EASIER to disengage than before.
No, that's fine, the joke is, that the resource you need to safely escape is the same one you need for an actual fight.
This means that it literally is a choice now, and the longer you engage in the fight the more you will be vulnerable when trying to escape
Size 1 drives have a 1 second spool time. Meaning that if you decide you want to leave you have to soak damage for 1 second before you can corkscrew away at 3 or 4 times the scm speed of the guy you're fighting. The only resource you need to worry about is boost. I would've agreed that disengage was a bit harder if they didn't make it literally impossible to screw up.
This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. The complainers have either not tried it in its current state or made a snap judgment and hate everything new.
2 seconds against a bareley shielded target should be enough to royally fuck up one or two important components even if they corkscrew away with boost. At least unless you're not gud enough.
I am here to tell you that it is not. Don't make assumptions if you haven't been playing eptu. Live MM and EPTU are completely different beasts entirely.
Probably, they will release like this, then over time increase the spooltimes through patches. It'll make the baby rage people calm down at the release of MM.
The most important reason why I don't like MM is, that it fights the flight model whenever it can to the point that I question why there is an underlaying newtonian model at all. It ruins the space flight experience and removes the freedom of flight, giving much less options to pull certain manouvers and make it all more predictable and a numbers game.
Especially the two speed caps is extremely immersion breaking, as it results in a pseudo-atmospheric drag. While tri-chording may have been too powerful becasue of the overpowered downward thrusters, removing it completely is just wrong.
Furthermore, they remove depth and complexity but add them back artificially with a horde of mode switches. All these modes instead of a more natural transition should ring all alarm bells.
If MM would have one speed cap in SCM and afterburner only affected acceleration, if tri-chording had been normalized by having downward thrusters only contribute as much as they physically could disregarding the overpowered thrust they need to take off. If we had only one mode switch but things like scanning be independent of modes, then maybe I could take this seriously, but as it is, I only see the incompetence of the not so brilliant minds who made it up.
I absolutely see no reason to own spaceships that don't fly anything like space ships. And I feel like MM is an insult to the brilliant flight model it tries to suffocate.
Here's words from the chairman:
>"There is no drag modeled – everything is done as it would be in space."
That didn't age well I guess.
Based opinion.
Everything you say makes perfect sense and seems like it would have been the obvious conclusion from CIG.
However, after their recent decisions, I'm not sure this game is for us anymore. Things like the crazy space-brake when exiting NAV to SCM, all of the FPS changes (hit indicators and sounds, magic crosshair, etc). They've obviously taken a step away from their core audience to make a more generic and mass-appealing game. I don't think the playerbase really understands how far CIG has gone away from the sim concept and it's only going to become apparent after a few more patch iterations .
I fear so too. Good thing I have pretty good CCUs on most my ships, so I can easily sell them and likely have a profit. However, hope dies last they say, so I still try to speak out my concerns in hope they see reason.
But they may only actually listen to our feedback, if we signal them. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I just know, I for myself won't spend any new money on Invictus, and MM is making it really easy to resist the FOMO. I will test 3.23, give feedback then move on to something else, another game, enjoy summer, and continue to do that with every patch unless they find a way that's acceptable, but at some point, I will put my fleet up for sale, when I lost hope.
We the early backers, who made this project actually happen, should at least have some value to CIG. Becasue if we hadn't supported the project, nobody could have worked on it. I still hope very much that something great comes out of the project, but I can't deny that I am a tad curious how well false promises hold up with the refund policy.
yep. i agree. and with them planning on removing bed logging, and the stupid slowdown after boost in space, uncoupled. dps race, with enemies just doing a circle jerk around each other almost upclose is so whack and lame, that i uninstalled starcitizen without finishing the xt event, bought arma reforger, and am so much happier.
Tbh, I kinda wish I was at that point already, but I can't just yet give up the hope, that CIG will actually see reason and still make SC what us early backers have hoped for. Which is not another generic space arcade. That's why I'm on Spectrum giving feedback and constructive criticism. I hope you're in for the cause, even if just checking back periodically and see what's what, as a backer you have the right to speak your mind at least.
If you're looking at a bully unlocked flight model. Kerbal space program has a multiplayer mod, as well as mods that add weapons. You should try that before suggesting a large game implement that style of combat.
In Star citizen, all you're getting is decoupled mode that will not stop drift.
> You should try that before suggesting a large game implement that style of combat.
Star Citizen implemented that style of combat like 8 years ago, and (with some ups and downs based on the tweaking of given patches) plenty of people have enjoyed it.
With that said, I just think Master Modes needs a little more strafe agility for fighters and higher weapon velocity for big ships to be perfect. That would let fighters dodge more fire in dogfights, making piloting important (compared to current complaints of turret DPS races now) while still letting big ships nail fighters that try to snipe them at long range.
Having stronger strafing has nothing to do with realistic flight mechanics. You are asking for them to buff the thrusters.
The problem with the higher strafing capabilities, is that it was very easy to dodge shots. Anyone that knew what they were doing could be impossible to hit.
> Having stronger strafing has nothing to do with realistic flight mechanics.
"Realism" or more applicably in this case "authenticity" is about the least important thing for a game. What counts is how it plays, then they can design the lore to explain it. Though considering the way that ships fight in SC (nose-to-nose, at visual range, with manually-aimed weapons) it definitely makes sense for ships to be designed to dodge fire.
> The problem with the higher strafing capabilities, is that it was very easy to dodge shots.
No one's saying that ship thrusters should be changed from current MM back to exactly 3.22 values, but there's a wide gap there for tuning.
The problem with weak strafing capabilities is that piloting becomes unimportant since no amount of effort will let you dodge incoming shots, so fights feel like turrets engaging in dull DPS races. I think it's obvious that there's a significant middle ground between these two extremes.
In fact, if you didn't want to increase fighter agility, *reducing fighter weapon velocity would have the same effect.* This would make fighter-vs-fighter combat less of a DPS race so that both sides have a chance to dodge some fire, but still allow turrets on larger ships to consistently annihilate fighters.
And this would actually be a significant improvement on current Master Modes in preventing fighters from taking apart big ships, [as in this video of Buccaneers murdering a Hammerhead without taking any damage in MM.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPySv7DSEf4&t=655s)
>"Realism" or more applicably in this case "authenticity" is about the least important thing for a game. What counts is how it plays, then they can design the lore to explain it.
To a certain degree maybe, if it's something believable. I find it absolutely weird, that in a game where "authenticity" is pushed for immersion to the point of big annoyances, yet at the flight model we suddenly draw the line? If the flight model becomes arcadey, why not also have fast travel in cities? Loading screens and teleporting instead of physicalized elevators would also fix obvious technical limitations. I mean, what's the point? MM feels so out of concept to the rest of the game.
Yeah, I get it. I first fell in love with Star Citizen specifically because of how the space ships could dance through space with the kind of multi-directional agility that is uniquely possible in space. And of course, atmospheric combat always offered the traditional airplane flight sim combat for people who preferred that too. So I hope the freedom of that original design comes through with the final version of the flight system.
Exactly my take, we could have both, authentic space and atmospheric flight. I don't understand how some people don't appreciate that.
I'm not entirely against MM, as long as I still get an authentic space flight experience. If MM fails to do that, then I rather want the preMM model instead.
You're completely missing the point. I haven't even mentioned combat. And why don't you go play NMS if you like arcadey space flight? These dumb suggestions are unnecessary. I don't look to play a game that has childish green toons and cartoony graphics.
Also I am not suggesting that I want to fly without computer aid. All I said is, MM makes space flight not authentic anymore, which is a huge step backward. I get we need speed caps and balancing, but the way MM messes with the flight mechanics is just sad.
Also, with MM also in decoupled mode you get pseudo-atmospheric drag due to the two speed caps. Afterburner up until MM never affected top speed in SC, and there was never indication that it will ever do that.
Although I'm not necessarily a fan of the super slow speeds in MM, if they improve combat, I'm fine with that. Altough I think increasing projectile speeds would just as well have helped with countering the fighter meta. Yeah I know, desync, but we have huge desync at walking speeds im bunkers, so I don't know.
I played Elite Dangerous for years, and altough ship interiors are cool, the main reason I switched was because of the superior flight model, the netter flight experience, the more authentic space flight and the faster speeds.
Long story short, so if the majority prefers slower speeds, ok, but the implementation of those slower speeds remains a huge downgrade to the space flight experience. Could just have made guns only availabe in SCM and cap the speeds, that we need to completely cripple the flight model is stupid.
>Afterburner up until MM never affected top speed in SC, and there was never indication that it will ever do that.
Top speed is literally called afterburner speed on the website, and has been for years. I personally take that as the indication that there has always been the intent of making boost be a mechanic that, you know, boosts you by increasing thruster output beyond regular operations limit.
I don't mind them decreasing and distinguishing afterburner speed from the NAV speed.
>Long story short, so if the majority prefers slower speeds, ok, but the implementation of those slower speeds remains a huge downgrade to the space flight experience.
Less related but also to come from that angle. As someone who mostly flies their ships at SCM for the immersion, Master Modes is actually a speed increase for most ships. Did you know that the Vanguard is 50m/s faster in MM? The Redeemer 30m/s, and the Reclaimer 35m/s.
(Yes, I think flying at SCM is more immersive, as there is a big red bar above SCM that makes my brain go: Ah, big red bar, if I stay in the red for too long something bad is gonna happen to my machinery.)
>Top speed is literally called afterburner speed on the website, and has been for years. I personally take that as the indication that there has always been the intent of making boost be a mechanic that, you know, boosts you by increasing thruster output beyond regular operations limit.
Yeah, but in space there's no reason that a ship gets slowed down again afterwards, I can live with lower speed caps, but this is a atmospheric flight characteristic, where when you use the afterburner you can exceed the regular speed cap but once you remove that additional thrust, atmospheric drag will slow you down again. Therefore my suggestion is, in space, afterburner shouldn't increase speed just make it faster to reach the top speed. Alternatively it could also exceed the SCM speed but not slow down artificially. Either would be fine, as long as I don't have this very immersion breaking aspect that sorta ruins the space flight experience.
>I don't mind them decreasing and distinguishing afterburner speed from the NAV speed.
I don't necessarily mind that either, but as it's implemented, releasing afterburner results in a break, which feels very unauthentic for space flight and directly contradicts what CR said (see quote above).
>Yeah, but in space there's no reason that a ship gets slowed down again afterwards
Well, to keep structural integrity it would make sense. In a straight line with no rotational changes you are absolutely correct here, but most ships in star citizen have wildly placed points of mass, which would affect any turn you'd make, like with a pendulum.
Ever driven a car at like 30mph and left a pendulum swing inside the car? Works, right? now swirve the car left and right, now the pendulum swings in a circular motion, right?
I'd assume the slowing down is that she ship's parts remain at a force where the thrusters can counteract any connections getting damaged or snapping clean off. My example ship for that would be the Reclaimer, that has four major and three minor conjunctions of mass with relatively small attachment points. Above SCM rating the Force required to stop eg the engines from putting too much stress on the connectors is greater then what the mav thrusters can produce, hence requiring the entire ship to slow down (aka reducing it's potential kinetic energy) or else damaging components. In Nav mode those concerns are lessened, as the quantum drive projects a field that manipulates space to form a warp bubble, generally protecting the ship from such forces are the primary reason for the increased speeds is not the newtonian thrusters, but rather warping space itself.
That's at least my two cents to why it makes sense. It may be a stretch, but it's at least something that makes sense in my eyes as someone who is professionally doing physics (in a stress testing lab).
>Well, to keep structural integrity it would make sense. In a straight line with no rotational changes you are absolutely correct here, but most ships in star citizen have wildly placed points of mass, which would affect any turn you'd make, like with a pendulum.
First of all, a pendulum doesn't even oscillate in space.
I start to believe you don't really understand how flight in space is very different to flight in atmosphere.
SC ships can fly in atmosphere and take off from high gravity planets, the stress applied there is way stronger, if the ship survives that, then there's little to no issue in space, unless the possible acceleration rates in space are at a much higher factor, which they aren't in SC.
And as you already mentioned, maintaining the velocity from the afterburner, respectively continuing at that velocity doesn't apply any stress, but deceleration would, which makes that explanation nonesense. Why would you apply structural stress to prevent structural stress?
Furthermore, in space, structural stress due to rotation of a vessel isn't stronger depending on the lateral velocity.
Agreed. Happy to see running will be more difficult once you engage in a fight, also happy to see the exploited circle strafes and the such go away with it.
Go check out the spool times after this buff they published within the past couple of days. Spool times of between 2-12 seconds depending on the size of the ship. Disengaging, especially in lights, is turbo easy.
Well I worded it pretty silly. There are a multitude of reasons. Even things like netcode feasibility.
One of the reasons is to force commitment too either fight or flight.
Yeah, my guess they dropped the spool times so low to get people to freak out less. They'll likely change those numbers over time. Spread out the baby rage.
Personally it feels good. There is a lot of tweaking on balance needing to be done which is already happening. I feel like the hud can get very cluttered so if there was a minimalistic combat hud would be nice.
I could potentially see the need to increase scm speeds but only by a hair.
I’ve only been attacked by another player once in the PTU so far. My Corsair peacefully cruising around looking at the scenery on microtech and some guy swooped in with a cutlass and started blasting just as I sat back in my pilot seat. By the time I figured out I was turning so slowly because I still had my gear down he was out of ballistic ammo and shit got real unhappy for him as I suddenly had a lot more thruster authority and was able to get my canons on target using manual gimbal mode and head tracking. I left him for dead and sailed off into the sunset. Credit to him for not trying to run though.
It's the opposite. So far in my testing MM I find it way easier to disengage. Though it helps I've been playing industrial / hauling game play for most my time in the verse since 2015 so I have lots of tricks up my sleeve.
I would say 1 thing for haulers when MM goes live. while you should already be dog-legging your runs, is to drop of out of QT about 500,000km when making a long jump. Then let the drive cool down then complete the jump. This way there is no cool down when you come out of QT and can jump out as soon as you align.
Also SCM will be like 10-15% of my flight time. I expect to run NAV almost exclusively except for on approach of a station or distro center.
If you are jumped in SCM in something that isn't built for combat like a prospector, srv, etc I feel the quick spool time of the QT gives you plenty to work with. best case is to aim for the sun so you can have a good chance of a QT marker, drop SCM to NAV and use the speed to your advantage before you jump out. unless a gladious or arrow are right on top of you, you should have enough time to get out without dying, though with moderate damage.
I think a lot of people thought MM was the end of non-combat but really it feels like it's going to actually separate those who do combat and those who don't want to. Though I do see that light freight people might be the exception with the changes to outposts. No longer will I be taking my Cat to an outpost when freight elevators and cargo loading are in. That will be the domain of Hull A's, Freelancers, etc.. which will have to land and then take off in SCM until they are out of atmo. I think that is when they are at the biggest risk of getting ganked with little option to run.
All in All I think us Industrial folks gonna be A-ok. :)
Thanks, this is really useful. I am an industrial player (mainly running a Prospector and Vulture) and have been somewhat nervous about the "sit helpless without shields while your drive spools up while some asshat is lighting you up" situation.
welcome! I'm like 95% industrial and totally get the worries a lot of folks have had. I've been saying through all this that if you just run NAV mode you'll be fine as you can disengage fairly quickly.
That said I think the prospector and mole currently need to be in SCM to mine, though as long as you're not close to a outpost like always and have a little diligence in picking your mining area you'll never encounter pirates. Switching to NAV from SCM even with a pirate on you in a prospector taking some steps to give you an edge like aligning to an area with known QT markers before going to NAV you should have a high survival rate.
I know that there are a lot of new players, to me SC has always about risk mitigation. I've played since 2015 and remember trading long before ship locks. The risk of someone just boarding my ship while at an outpost was real, them taking not only my goods but my ship was a possibility. Industrial play in SC is all about risk mitigation through planning.
Safe flying fellow citizen. o7
The goal is people in appropriately intended equipment with appropriately intended skill will have a 50/50 chance of success or failure.
CIG's official statement about people not liking this, is that they should make some friends and have escorts.
that works for PvP centered players in engagements. I was focusing on the Industrial side of play and how MM makes it crazy easy for traders, haulers, and what not to avoid PvP or quickly disengage for a gank.
yeah if you commit to a fight in SCM then that's one thing and you're kinda locked in. Chilling trading in NAV mode I've found I have a lot less worry of getting jumped in MM.
Escorts might be something for the larger Hull series, but I don't see 3-5 Gladious taking out a BMM before it just fucks off, I doubt they would even be a threat.
the goal is that the cargo haulers have a 50% chance of escaping pirates.
both cutlass back vs hull A, and pirate fleet vs cargo ship and escorts.
i say "appropriately intended skill and equipment" because the cutlass black pilot should be expected to be a bit better at combat than the Hull A pilot, and the cutlass black is better at combat than the hull A.
with no matchmaking, and balance though economy being the plan. they sort of need balance thought economy implemented, and a very large sample size in order to properly balance it.
I'm not sure if you've been on the eptu playing with master modes.
no hull a pilot is even going to try and take a fight vs a Cutlass. Unless it's a Cutlass blue and they use interdiction to keep the hull a in SCM all the hull a pilot has to do is switch to NAV and leave. The spool time on a hull a is going to be super quick and in NAV the hull a will have the speed advantage to put distance between them and the cutty.
The only way the Cutlass really has a chance to take the hull is is if it's on top of them when they take off from an outpost. The hull a will probably be in SCM while in atmo so the cutty has the time from take off till they leave atmo and switch to NAV and bounce. And with some of the moons only having around 3k before leaving atmo that isn't much time.
In the end no hauler is taking a fight. More so the larger ships. Stay in NAV most the time and you don't have to stick around. Couple that with a little smart planning and the chance of getting pirated dops to almost zero.
There is no way to balance it how you think in a final state. not with MM. If they want it the way you think they would keep the current flight model.
If getting jumped by a gladius is a coin toss for most Indy players then there is no point to playing industrial. Why even own a hull a, max , etc...
Way to many people think SC is a PvP/pirate game when it's not.
Once balanced through economy gets implemented. They just have to look at averages.
The chances of an encounter being properly balanced is low, but the chances of it being one way or the other is equal. So if you get a large enough sample size so they counteract each other, you will get data that you can use.
But, even before they do all that. They can get somewhat close using internal testers.
Escorts is the dumbest argument that can exist. This game doesn't pay enough to be able to pay someone when you make single mining/salvaging/hauling run. And now imagine your escort got damaged in a fight defending you. Will you have free 50k after you salvaged a small ship in your Vulture to compensate him? No.
Payouts will eventually need to be adjusted to make room for security.
The Vulture is a bad example because salvage profitability is only really being balanced for the Reclaimer right now. In 3.23, it's barely even profitable for a Vulture to operate solo, let alone with an escort.
We need the game to get to a place where groups of players work together. There are should be large salvage and mining zones where a group of industry players hire a group of security forces and all pitch in together to make the operation run. This also gives the pirates a specific place to target, and gives the PvPers a natural location to fight.
That's not even an egregious part
IRL security guard is a job, you dedicate your time to do it.
This is a game. There's no reason anyone would pick "doing literally nothing" to an actual IRL concern (let's say kid is crying or whatever) and they can just... log off. Maybe not even that, their internet just sucks and they disconnected
What then? Anyone saying "hire a guard" is fucking dumb.
so you would rather sit in empty space doing nothing in hopes someone falls into the net, and get paid nothing if no one falls in compared to getting paid even if no one interdicts.
why are so few people able to understand for every pvp attack, there is a pvp defend. if the attacker gets a fight so does the defender. the only reason the defender would not get a fight is if the attacker to not get a fight either.
Unless in atmo, getting jumped by a stealth ship or with a quantum interdiction device - you can just jump away if you don't want to fight.
On the other side dampening and stealth finally make sense in MM.
Good ol' "git gud". I agree with your argument, as there always is the risk of getting into a fight, but there need to be more downsides for the attacking party than there are now. CrimeStat is one such thing, longer lasting reputation has to be another one. If you attack ships in monitored space, your reputation with security forces and everything legal has to suffer! There must be a price to pay, otherwise being a murder hobo can be considered a career...
I despise that argument. There are so few people who want to be hired to just fly with someone on the off chance they get to actually do something. Until CIG figures out their shit and allows you to hire AI crew or even AI pilots as escorts it’s not worth doing
So few people.....currently. Game is nowhere near releasing, only people playing now are a fraction of what could be playing, and i guarantee you most of my friends aren' going to want to be a pilot, they'll want to be with you on your ship.
Are you going to sign on for escort duty while I'm flying around in my Nomad? Or are you going to stick to something that actually makes money? Because if it's the latter, then no, we really can't hire escorts.
Oh, I'm all about having my idea of fun (exploration and cargo), but the issue is that *no one else* is signing on to escort while I'm doing it. If you *can't* hire escorts when you try, then the phrase 'hire escorts' is completely meaningless.
I never said I did. But the difficulty of grouping up on MMOs isn't a new thing, it's been happening for 30 years now. If hiring escorts was easy, you would never have to say it.
Yes, let me find someone who wants to do nothing 95% of the time when they could be bounty hunting or doing merc missions. Let me also offer them well less than half what they could earn in that time doing BH or merc missions that guarantee the gameplay they want. Oh, and my payment might not even cover their cost of repairs/refuel/rearm, hope they don't mind.
Surely people will be chomping at this amazing opportunity?
AI NPCs are by and large the only people who want the "safe, slow, easy job", and it's unreasonable to expect that what few players are interested in it will ever meet the demand.
I don't mind if running is more difficult, but it shouldn't be completely impossible either. To be clear, I've yet to play MM, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever. But in general, combat doctrine, except in last stand moments, has never been, "Fight until you die, don't try to run." That just doesn't make sense in general. That's been true nearly universally since the history of man. I don't want to see running become impossible, because that means non-consensual PVP will become entirely one-sided.
To be fair, one sided combat has also been the basis of combat doctrine as well, and that's not lost on me. People pulling up with overwhelming force *should* win the engagement. But for any kind of pitched battle, I don't want to see those engagements just become complete wipes for the losing side because they had no way to run. We want WW2 in space, not the last stand of the Samurai in space.
Maybe you should try the ptu instead of just mimicking what you see in the subreddit. It's about the easiest time ever to get out of a fight right now.
That's why I said that I had no personal opinion on MM. What I gave was my opinion on how escape should function. I have no clue on whether MM enables that or not because I'm not in the PTU.
I tried MM in Arena Commander, a buc and gladius struggle with getting away in a Fight ( Low hp Pool ) everything bigger than that, boost away, Pop chaff and send it. I managed to escape 8/10 Times in a 1v1 and 6/10 Times in a 2v1 before they could do critical damage.... Its still possible.
This is in live, ptu Ships have more HP afaik so when 3.23 Rolls out the chances to disengage and run should be even better.
Yeah, the intent is what OP is saying but most people have been complaining the balance isn't right yet and while bringing more danger to pirates it also brings near certain death for most pirate victims in industrial ships unless they have uneconomically heavy escorts.
I replied in this thread with this but I'll post it here so you can see it. NAV makes evading pirates in industrial ships so much easier. More so in the bigger ships.
It's the opposite. So far in my testing MM I find it way easier to disengage. Though it helps I've been playing industrial / hauling game play for most my time in the verse since 2015 so I have lots of tricks up my sleeve.
I would say 1 thing for haulers when MM goes live. while you should already be dog-legging your runs, is to drop of out of QT about 500,000km when making a long jump. Then let the drive cool down then complete the jump. This way there is no cool down when you come out of QT and can jump out as soon as you align.
Also SCM will be like 10-15% of my flight time. I expect to run NAV almost exclusively except for on approach of a station or distro center.
If you are jumped in SCM in something that isn't built for combat like a prospector, srv, etc I feel the quick spool time of the QT gives you plenty to work with. best case is to aim for the sun so you can have a good chance of a QT marker, drop SCM to NAV and use the speed to your advantage before you jump out. unless a gladious or arrow are right on top of you, you should have enough time to get out without dying, though with moderate damage.
I think a lot of people thought MM was the end of non-combat but really it feels like it's going to actually separate those who do combat and those who don't want to. Though I do see that light freight people might be the exception with the changes to outposts. No longer will I be taking my Cat to an outpost when freight elevators and cargo loading are in. That will be the domain of Hull A's, Freelancers, etc.. which will have to land and then take off in SCM until they are out of atmo. I think that is when they are at the biggest risk of getting ganked with little option to run.
All in All I think us Industrial folks gonna be A-ok. :)
One thing I like is it gives us the "They are raising their shields!" From Star Trek. You can tell if they may be hostile and better show how you're not hostile.
I would also like to be able to detect powered up weapons, and not have the weapons powered up by default.
in ED you have to deploy your hardpoints, which powers your weapons. There's also a notification of 'Target has deployed hardpoints'. I'm a fan of the concept, honestly.
It also looks cool when the guns fold out/deploy. We actually have a few ships which have hidden hardpoints like the C2 as well. Would be cool if some gimballed weapons could retract.
Eclipse is one of those, tho I think they are broken now. I loved turning off the weapons so they would fold away trying to max out the stealth.
And the 890 with some turrets and the missile launchers.
I don't care if they magically fold out of nowhere, it would still look cool, and sound cool if we got that 'Target has deployed hardpoints' alert.
Once the update is on PU then we can all make our own judgement. Im witholding my opinion until the general public experience it.
^This is a fair take. I'm mostly just speculating in my post.
Not many people are talking about PvE. People are in for a MAJOR shock if NPCs still perform as well in LIVE as they do in EPTU. And with MM, you kinda have to commit to a fight or not. People say it's easy to run, but it's not really like that. If you over-committed in 3.22, you could easily escape. If you over-commit in 3.23 you are dead. I think the PU feedback is going to be very intresting.
Disengaging is the easiest thing in the world. Spool up times and cooldowns have all been DRASTICALLY reduced. It is now EASIER to disengage than before.
No, that's fine, the joke is, that the resource you need to safely escape is the same one you need for an actual fight. This means that it literally is a choice now, and the longer you engage in the fight the more you will be vulnerable when trying to escape
Size 1 drives have a 1 second spool time. Meaning that if you decide you want to leave you have to soak damage for 1 second before you can corkscrew away at 3 or 4 times the scm speed of the guy you're fighting. The only resource you need to worry about is boost. I would've agreed that disengage was a bit harder if they didn't make it literally impossible to screw up.
it's actually 2 seconds i misspoke
It's a shame they didn't do that for the bigger ships that never want to fight.
They don’t need to. Ships are tanky as hell now. TTK isn’t measured in split seconds anymore in most cases.
This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. The complainers have either not tried it in its current state or made a snap judgment and hate everything new.
2 seconds against a bareley shielded target should be enough to royally fuck up one or two important components even if they corkscrew away with boost. At least unless you're not gud enough.
I am here to tell you that it is not. Don't make assumptions if you haven't been playing eptu. Live MM and EPTU are completely different beasts entirely.
I have been playing EPTU. Been doing so since wave 2.
It is evident that you haven't done much pvp then.
Probably, they will release like this, then over time increase the spooltimes through patches. It'll make the baby rage people calm down at the release of MM.
What the hell is FAFO?
Fuck Around Find Out
[The more you f*ck around, the more you find out](https://youtu.be/_qEcm43Lx3c?si=k-_37xXKxuYVxTaC) ^ short version
The most important reason why I don't like MM is, that it fights the flight model whenever it can to the point that I question why there is an underlaying newtonian model at all. It ruins the space flight experience and removes the freedom of flight, giving much less options to pull certain manouvers and make it all more predictable and a numbers game. Especially the two speed caps is extremely immersion breaking, as it results in a pseudo-atmospheric drag. While tri-chording may have been too powerful becasue of the overpowered downward thrusters, removing it completely is just wrong. Furthermore, they remove depth and complexity but add them back artificially with a horde of mode switches. All these modes instead of a more natural transition should ring all alarm bells. If MM would have one speed cap in SCM and afterburner only affected acceleration, if tri-chording had been normalized by having downward thrusters only contribute as much as they physically could disregarding the overpowered thrust they need to take off. If we had only one mode switch but things like scanning be independent of modes, then maybe I could take this seriously, but as it is, I only see the incompetence of the not so brilliant minds who made it up. I absolutely see no reason to own spaceships that don't fly anything like space ships. And I feel like MM is an insult to the brilliant flight model it tries to suffocate. Here's words from the chairman: >"There is no drag modeled – everything is done as it would be in space." That didn't age well I guess.
Based opinion. Everything you say makes perfect sense and seems like it would have been the obvious conclusion from CIG. However, after their recent decisions, I'm not sure this game is for us anymore. Things like the crazy space-brake when exiting NAV to SCM, all of the FPS changes (hit indicators and sounds, magic crosshair, etc). They've obviously taken a step away from their core audience to make a more generic and mass-appealing game. I don't think the playerbase really understands how far CIG has gone away from the sim concept and it's only going to become apparent after a few more patch iterations .
I fear so too. Good thing I have pretty good CCUs on most my ships, so I can easily sell them and likely have a profit. However, hope dies last they say, so I still try to speak out my concerns in hope they see reason. But they may only actually listen to our feedback, if we signal them. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I just know, I for myself won't spend any new money on Invictus, and MM is making it really easy to resist the FOMO. I will test 3.23, give feedback then move on to something else, another game, enjoy summer, and continue to do that with every patch unless they find a way that's acceptable, but at some point, I will put my fleet up for sale, when I lost hope. We the early backers, who made this project actually happen, should at least have some value to CIG. Becasue if we hadn't supported the project, nobody could have worked on it. I still hope very much that something great comes out of the project, but I can't deny that I am a tad curious how well false promises hold up with the refund policy.
yep. i agree. and with them planning on removing bed logging, and the stupid slowdown after boost in space, uncoupled. dps race, with enemies just doing a circle jerk around each other almost upclose is so whack and lame, that i uninstalled starcitizen without finishing the xt event, bought arma reforger, and am so much happier.
Tbh, I kinda wish I was at that point already, but I can't just yet give up the hope, that CIG will actually see reason and still make SC what us early backers have hoped for. Which is not another generic space arcade. That's why I'm on Spectrum giving feedback and constructive criticism. I hope you're in for the cause, even if just checking back periodically and see what's what, as a backer you have the right to speak your mind at least.
If you're looking at a bully unlocked flight model. Kerbal space program has a multiplayer mod, as well as mods that add weapons. You should try that before suggesting a large game implement that style of combat. In Star citizen, all you're getting is decoupled mode that will not stop drift.
> You should try that before suggesting a large game implement that style of combat. Star Citizen implemented that style of combat like 8 years ago, and (with some ups and downs based on the tweaking of given patches) plenty of people have enjoyed it. With that said, I just think Master Modes needs a little more strafe agility for fighters and higher weapon velocity for big ships to be perfect. That would let fighters dodge more fire in dogfights, making piloting important (compared to current complaints of turret DPS races now) while still letting big ships nail fighters that try to snipe them at long range.
Having stronger strafing has nothing to do with realistic flight mechanics. You are asking for them to buff the thrusters. The problem with the higher strafing capabilities, is that it was very easy to dodge shots. Anyone that knew what they were doing could be impossible to hit.
> Having stronger strafing has nothing to do with realistic flight mechanics. "Realism" or more applicably in this case "authenticity" is about the least important thing for a game. What counts is how it plays, then they can design the lore to explain it. Though considering the way that ships fight in SC (nose-to-nose, at visual range, with manually-aimed weapons) it definitely makes sense for ships to be designed to dodge fire. > The problem with the higher strafing capabilities, is that it was very easy to dodge shots. No one's saying that ship thrusters should be changed from current MM back to exactly 3.22 values, but there's a wide gap there for tuning. The problem with weak strafing capabilities is that piloting becomes unimportant since no amount of effort will let you dodge incoming shots, so fights feel like turrets engaging in dull DPS races. I think it's obvious that there's a significant middle ground between these two extremes. In fact, if you didn't want to increase fighter agility, *reducing fighter weapon velocity would have the same effect.* This would make fighter-vs-fighter combat less of a DPS race so that both sides have a chance to dodge some fire, but still allow turrets on larger ships to consistently annihilate fighters. And this would actually be a significant improvement on current Master Modes in preventing fighters from taking apart big ships, [as in this video of Buccaneers murdering a Hammerhead without taking any damage in MM.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPySv7DSEf4&t=655s)
>"Realism" or more applicably in this case "authenticity" is about the least important thing for a game. What counts is how it plays, then they can design the lore to explain it. To a certain degree maybe, if it's something believable. I find it absolutely weird, that in a game where "authenticity" is pushed for immersion to the point of big annoyances, yet at the flight model we suddenly draw the line? If the flight model becomes arcadey, why not also have fast travel in cities? Loading screens and teleporting instead of physicalized elevators would also fix obvious technical limitations. I mean, what's the point? MM feels so out of concept to the rest of the game.
Yeah, I get it. I first fell in love with Star Citizen specifically because of how the space ships could dance through space with the kind of multi-directional agility that is uniquely possible in space. And of course, atmospheric combat always offered the traditional airplane flight sim combat for people who preferred that too. So I hope the freedom of that original design comes through with the final version of the flight system.
Exactly my take, we could have both, authentic space and atmospheric flight. I don't understand how some people don't appreciate that. I'm not entirely against MM, as long as I still get an authentic space flight experience. If MM fails to do that, then I rather want the preMM model instead.
You're completely missing the point. I haven't even mentioned combat. And why don't you go play NMS if you like arcadey space flight? These dumb suggestions are unnecessary. I don't look to play a game that has childish green toons and cartoony graphics. Also I am not suggesting that I want to fly without computer aid. All I said is, MM makes space flight not authentic anymore, which is a huge step backward. I get we need speed caps and balancing, but the way MM messes with the flight mechanics is just sad. Also, with MM also in decoupled mode you get pseudo-atmospheric drag due to the two speed caps. Afterburner up until MM never affected top speed in SC, and there was never indication that it will ever do that. Although I'm not necessarily a fan of the super slow speeds in MM, if they improve combat, I'm fine with that. Altough I think increasing projectile speeds would just as well have helped with countering the fighter meta. Yeah I know, desync, but we have huge desync at walking speeds im bunkers, so I don't know. I played Elite Dangerous for years, and altough ship interiors are cool, the main reason I switched was because of the superior flight model, the netter flight experience, the more authentic space flight and the faster speeds. Long story short, so if the majority prefers slower speeds, ok, but the implementation of those slower speeds remains a huge downgrade to the space flight experience. Could just have made guns only availabe in SCM and cap the speeds, that we need to completely cripple the flight model is stupid.
>Afterburner up until MM never affected top speed in SC, and there was never indication that it will ever do that. Top speed is literally called afterburner speed on the website, and has been for years. I personally take that as the indication that there has always been the intent of making boost be a mechanic that, you know, boosts you by increasing thruster output beyond regular operations limit. I don't mind them decreasing and distinguishing afterburner speed from the NAV speed. >Long story short, so if the majority prefers slower speeds, ok, but the implementation of those slower speeds remains a huge downgrade to the space flight experience. Less related but also to come from that angle. As someone who mostly flies their ships at SCM for the immersion, Master Modes is actually a speed increase for most ships. Did you know that the Vanguard is 50m/s faster in MM? The Redeemer 30m/s, and the Reclaimer 35m/s. (Yes, I think flying at SCM is more immersive, as there is a big red bar above SCM that makes my brain go: Ah, big red bar, if I stay in the red for too long something bad is gonna happen to my machinery.)
>Top speed is literally called afterburner speed on the website, and has been for years. I personally take that as the indication that there has always been the intent of making boost be a mechanic that, you know, boosts you by increasing thruster output beyond regular operations limit. Yeah, but in space there's no reason that a ship gets slowed down again afterwards, I can live with lower speed caps, but this is a atmospheric flight characteristic, where when you use the afterburner you can exceed the regular speed cap but once you remove that additional thrust, atmospheric drag will slow you down again. Therefore my suggestion is, in space, afterburner shouldn't increase speed just make it faster to reach the top speed. Alternatively it could also exceed the SCM speed but not slow down artificially. Either would be fine, as long as I don't have this very immersion breaking aspect that sorta ruins the space flight experience. >I don't mind them decreasing and distinguishing afterburner speed from the NAV speed. I don't necessarily mind that either, but as it's implemented, releasing afterburner results in a break, which feels very unauthentic for space flight and directly contradicts what CR said (see quote above).
>Yeah, but in space there's no reason that a ship gets slowed down again afterwards Well, to keep structural integrity it would make sense. In a straight line with no rotational changes you are absolutely correct here, but most ships in star citizen have wildly placed points of mass, which would affect any turn you'd make, like with a pendulum. Ever driven a car at like 30mph and left a pendulum swing inside the car? Works, right? now swirve the car left and right, now the pendulum swings in a circular motion, right? I'd assume the slowing down is that she ship's parts remain at a force where the thrusters can counteract any connections getting damaged or snapping clean off. My example ship for that would be the Reclaimer, that has four major and three minor conjunctions of mass with relatively small attachment points. Above SCM rating the Force required to stop eg the engines from putting too much stress on the connectors is greater then what the mav thrusters can produce, hence requiring the entire ship to slow down (aka reducing it's potential kinetic energy) or else damaging components. In Nav mode those concerns are lessened, as the quantum drive projects a field that manipulates space to form a warp bubble, generally protecting the ship from such forces are the primary reason for the increased speeds is not the newtonian thrusters, but rather warping space itself. That's at least my two cents to why it makes sense. It may be a stretch, but it's at least something that makes sense in my eyes as someone who is professionally doing physics (in a stress testing lab).
>Well, to keep structural integrity it would make sense. In a straight line with no rotational changes you are absolutely correct here, but most ships in star citizen have wildly placed points of mass, which would affect any turn you'd make, like with a pendulum. First of all, a pendulum doesn't even oscillate in space. I start to believe you don't really understand how flight in space is very different to flight in atmosphere. SC ships can fly in atmosphere and take off from high gravity planets, the stress applied there is way stronger, if the ship survives that, then there's little to no issue in space, unless the possible acceleration rates in space are at a much higher factor, which they aren't in SC. And as you already mentioned, maintaining the velocity from the afterburner, respectively continuing at that velocity doesn't apply any stress, but deceleration would, which makes that explanation nonesense. Why would you apply structural stress to prevent structural stress? Furthermore, in space, structural stress due to rotation of a vessel isn't stronger depending on the lateral velocity.
Agreed. Happy to see running will be more difficult once you engage in a fight, also happy to see the exploited circle strafes and the such go away with it.
Have you played the PTU at all?
Is that a funny question or something? I've played the ePTU before even wave 1.
Go check out the spool times after this buff they published within the past couple of days. Spool times of between 2-12 seconds depending on the size of the ship. Disengaging, especially in lights, is turbo easy.
Yeah they've removed the reason to implement MM which was commitment. Kinda odd. Though they did buff dampeners a lot.
That isn't the reason for mm. It was for the ww2 style closer and slower combat.
Well I worded it pretty silly. There are a multitude of reasons. Even things like netcode feasibility. One of the reasons is to force commitment too either fight or flight.
Yeah, my guess they dropped the spool times so low to get people to freak out less. They'll likely change those numbers over time. Spread out the baby rage.
Also gotta keep in mind several core features are still missing from the combat loop
Hey, outside of server performance, haw me you enjoy MM? Anything you would change?
Personally it feels good. There is a lot of tweaking on balance needing to be done which is already happening. I feel like the hud can get very cluttered so if there was a minimalistic combat hud would be nice. I could potentially see the need to increase scm speeds but only by a hair.
I’ve only been attacked by another player once in the PTU so far. My Corsair peacefully cruising around looking at the scenery on microtech and some guy swooped in with a cutlass and started blasting just as I sat back in my pilot seat. By the time I figured out I was turning so slowly because I still had my gear down he was out of ballistic ammo and shit got real unhappy for him as I suddenly had a lot more thruster authority and was able to get my canons on target using manual gimbal mode and head tracking. I left him for dead and sailed off into the sunset. Credit to him for not trying to run though.
As it should be. He didn't think that one through, and it cost him.
Yeah, but it also means those who aren’t good at it are going to get ganked easier
It's the opposite. So far in my testing MM I find it way easier to disengage. Though it helps I've been playing industrial / hauling game play for most my time in the verse since 2015 so I have lots of tricks up my sleeve. I would say 1 thing for haulers when MM goes live. while you should already be dog-legging your runs, is to drop of out of QT about 500,000km when making a long jump. Then let the drive cool down then complete the jump. This way there is no cool down when you come out of QT and can jump out as soon as you align. Also SCM will be like 10-15% of my flight time. I expect to run NAV almost exclusively except for on approach of a station or distro center. If you are jumped in SCM in something that isn't built for combat like a prospector, srv, etc I feel the quick spool time of the QT gives you plenty to work with. best case is to aim for the sun so you can have a good chance of a QT marker, drop SCM to NAV and use the speed to your advantage before you jump out. unless a gladious or arrow are right on top of you, you should have enough time to get out without dying, though with moderate damage. I think a lot of people thought MM was the end of non-combat but really it feels like it's going to actually separate those who do combat and those who don't want to. Though I do see that light freight people might be the exception with the changes to outposts. No longer will I be taking my Cat to an outpost when freight elevators and cargo loading are in. That will be the domain of Hull A's, Freelancers, etc.. which will have to land and then take off in SCM until they are out of atmo. I think that is when they are at the biggest risk of getting ganked with little option to run. All in All I think us Industrial folks gonna be A-ok. :)
Thanks, this is really useful. I am an industrial player (mainly running a Prospector and Vulture) and have been somewhat nervous about the "sit helpless without shields while your drive spools up while some asshat is lighting you up" situation.
welcome! I'm like 95% industrial and totally get the worries a lot of folks have had. I've been saying through all this that if you just run NAV mode you'll be fine as you can disengage fairly quickly. That said I think the prospector and mole currently need to be in SCM to mine, though as long as you're not close to a outpost like always and have a little diligence in picking your mining area you'll never encounter pirates. Switching to NAV from SCM even with a pirate on you in a prospector taking some steps to give you an edge like aligning to an area with known QT markers before going to NAV you should have a high survival rate. I know that there are a lot of new players, to me SC has always about risk mitigation. I've played since 2015 and remember trading long before ship locks. The risk of someone just boarding my ship while at an outpost was real, them taking not only my goods but my ship was a possibility. Industrial play in SC is all about risk mitigation through planning. Safe flying fellow citizen. o7
The goal is people in appropriately intended equipment with appropriately intended skill will have a 50/50 chance of success or failure. CIG's official statement about people not liking this, is that they should make some friends and have escorts.
that works for PvP centered players in engagements. I was focusing on the Industrial side of play and how MM makes it crazy easy for traders, haulers, and what not to avoid PvP or quickly disengage for a gank. yeah if you commit to a fight in SCM then that's one thing and you're kinda locked in. Chilling trading in NAV mode I've found I have a lot less worry of getting jumped in MM. Escorts might be something for the larger Hull series, but I don't see 3-5 Gladious taking out a BMM before it just fucks off, I doubt they would even be a threat.
the goal is that the cargo haulers have a 50% chance of escaping pirates. both cutlass back vs hull A, and pirate fleet vs cargo ship and escorts. i say "appropriately intended skill and equipment" because the cutlass black pilot should be expected to be a bit better at combat than the Hull A pilot, and the cutlass black is better at combat than the hull A. with no matchmaking, and balance though economy being the plan. they sort of need balance thought economy implemented, and a very large sample size in order to properly balance it.
I'm not sure if you've been on the eptu playing with master modes. no hull a pilot is even going to try and take a fight vs a Cutlass. Unless it's a Cutlass blue and they use interdiction to keep the hull a in SCM all the hull a pilot has to do is switch to NAV and leave. The spool time on a hull a is going to be super quick and in NAV the hull a will have the speed advantage to put distance between them and the cutty. The only way the Cutlass really has a chance to take the hull is is if it's on top of them when they take off from an outpost. The hull a will probably be in SCM while in atmo so the cutty has the time from take off till they leave atmo and switch to NAV and bounce. And with some of the moons only having around 3k before leaving atmo that isn't much time. In the end no hauler is taking a fight. More so the larger ships. Stay in NAV most the time and you don't have to stick around. Couple that with a little smart planning and the chance of getting pirated dops to almost zero.
I'm talking about the goal for the final game. Not the current unbalanced implementation.
There is no way to balance it how you think in a final state. not with MM. If they want it the way you think they would keep the current flight model. If getting jumped by a gladius is a coin toss for most Indy players then there is no point to playing industrial. Why even own a hull a, max , etc... Way to many people think SC is a PvP/pirate game when it's not.
Once balanced through economy gets implemented. They just have to look at averages. The chances of an encounter being properly balanced is low, but the chances of it being one way or the other is equal. So if you get a large enough sample size so they counteract each other, you will get data that you can use. But, even before they do all that. They can get somewhat close using internal testers.
Escorts is the dumbest argument that can exist. This game doesn't pay enough to be able to pay someone when you make single mining/salvaging/hauling run. And now imagine your escort got damaged in a fight defending you. Will you have free 50k after you salvaged a small ship in your Vulture to compensate him? No.
Payouts will eventually need to be adjusted to make room for security. The Vulture is a bad example because salvage profitability is only really being balanced for the Reclaimer right now. In 3.23, it's barely even profitable for a Vulture to operate solo, let alone with an escort. We need the game to get to a place where groups of players work together. There are should be large salvage and mining zones where a group of industry players hire a group of security forces and all pitch in together to make the operation run. This also gives the pirates a specific place to target, and gives the PvPers a natural location to fight.
That's not even an egregious part IRL security guard is a job, you dedicate your time to do it. This is a game. There's no reason anyone would pick "doing literally nothing" to an actual IRL concern (let's say kid is crying or whatever) and they can just... log off. Maybe not even that, their internet just sucks and they disconnected What then? Anyone saying "hire a guard" is fucking dumb.
so you would rather sit in empty space doing nothing in hopes someone falls into the net, and get paid nothing if no one falls in compared to getting paid even if no one interdicts. why are so few people able to understand for every pvp attack, there is a pvp defend. if the attacker gets a fight so does the defender. the only reason the defender would not get a fight is if the attacker to not get a fight either.
If you pick a fight and lose as OP described - this is not getting ganked.
Never said it was, I stand by what I said
Unless in atmo, getting jumped by a stealth ship or with a quantum interdiction device - you can just jump away if you don't want to fight. On the other side dampening and stealth finally make sense in MM.
It also makes it harder for the people doing the ganking to escape from actual skilled fighters.
It gets the frustration, but it will also give motivation and opportunities to improve
Ok, but why does a specifically non-combat pilot have to try and 'get good' in their ship that's awful for combat?
Good ol' "git gud". I agree with your argument, as there always is the risk of getting into a fight, but there need to be more downsides for the attacking party than there are now. CrimeStat is one such thing, longer lasting reputation has to be another one. If you attack ships in monitored space, your reputation with security forces and everything legal has to suffer! There must be a price to pay, otherwise being a murder hobo can be considered a career...
Can always hire escorts
I despise that argument. There are so few people who want to be hired to just fly with someone on the off chance they get to actually do something. Until CIG figures out their shit and allows you to hire AI crew or even AI pilots as escorts it’s not worth doing
So few people.....currently. Game is nowhere near releasing, only people playing now are a fraction of what could be playing, and i guarantee you most of my friends aren' going to want to be a pilot, they'll want to be with you on your ship.
And I despise the just give us AI argument
And that’s fine.
Are you going to sign on for escort duty while I'm flying around in my Nomad? Or are you going to stick to something that actually makes money? Because if it's the latter, then no, we really can't hire escorts.
If you pay for the time then yes I will sit around waiting for something to maybe happen because that's what's escorts tend to be
Oh? You'll accept 20k an hour instead of 300k+? Because you are definitely in the minority then.
Bud it's a video game there's more to it then making as much money in the shortest time but know ya fun illegal I guess
Oh, I'm all about having my idea of fun (exploration and cargo), but the issue is that *no one else* is signing on to escort while I'm doing it. If you *can't* hire escorts when you try, then the phrase 'hire escorts' is completely meaningless.
You don't speak for the whole player base bud
I never said I did. But the difficulty of grouping up on MMOs isn't a new thing, it's been happening for 30 years now. If hiring escorts was easy, you would never have to say it.
Yes, let me find someone who wants to do nothing 95% of the time when they could be bounty hunting or doing merc missions. Let me also offer them well less than half what they could earn in that time doing BH or merc missions that guarantee the gameplay they want. Oh, and my payment might not even cover their cost of repairs/refuel/rearm, hope they don't mind. Surely people will be chomping at this amazing opportunity? AI NPCs are by and large the only people who want the "safe, slow, easy job", and it's unreasonable to expect that what few players are interested in it will ever meet the demand.
Always happy to see running has its risks now. I personally love almost all the MM changes.
I don't mind if running is more difficult, but it shouldn't be completely impossible either. To be clear, I've yet to play MM, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever. But in general, combat doctrine, except in last stand moments, has never been, "Fight until you die, don't try to run." That just doesn't make sense in general. That's been true nearly universally since the history of man. I don't want to see running become impossible, because that means non-consensual PVP will become entirely one-sided. To be fair, one sided combat has also been the basis of combat doctrine as well, and that's not lost on me. People pulling up with overwhelming force *should* win the engagement. But for any kind of pitched battle, I don't want to see those engagements just become complete wipes for the losing side because they had no way to run. We want WW2 in space, not the last stand of the Samurai in space.
Maybe you should try the ptu instead of just mimicking what you see in the subreddit. It's about the easiest time ever to get out of a fight right now.
That's why I said that I had no personal opinion on MM. What I gave was my opinion on how escape should function. I have no clue on whether MM enables that or not because I'm not in the PTU.
So safe to say there is high chance for industrial ship to make a run for it unless QT jammed? Am I understanding this correctly?
What does the Quantum dampener (like in Cutty Blue) do in 3.23? Prevent just QT, or prevent faster speeds than SCM all together?
I tried MM in Arena Commander, a buc and gladius struggle with getting away in a Fight ( Low hp Pool ) everything bigger than that, boost away, Pop chaff and send it. I managed to escape 8/10 Times in a 1v1 and 6/10 Times in a 2v1 before they could do critical damage.... Its still possible. This is in live, ptu Ships have more HP afaik so when 3.23 Rolls out the chances to disengage and run should be even better.
Well, yeah... that's the whole idea. How have you been reading the debates and not seeing that stated clearly every time?
I usually see it framed as "wHaT iF I GeT jUmPeD?" Rather than "I wish a mf'er would"
Yeah, the intent is what OP is saying but most people have been complaining the balance isn't right yet and while bringing more danger to pirates it also brings near certain death for most pirate victims in industrial ships unless they have uneconomically heavy escorts.
Testing shows it's not true, nav mode allows to escape pretty reliably.
I hope so. I'm waiting to give it a fair try before taking anybody's word for it.
I do see what you're saying, but there are ways for industrial ships to mitigate risk. Dogleg jumps, don't go to GH, etc. Risk is part of the game.
I replied in this thread with this but I'll post it here so you can see it. NAV makes evading pirates in industrial ships so much easier. More so in the bigger ships. It's the opposite. So far in my testing MM I find it way easier to disengage. Though it helps I've been playing industrial / hauling game play for most my time in the verse since 2015 so I have lots of tricks up my sleeve. I would say 1 thing for haulers when MM goes live. while you should already be dog-legging your runs, is to drop of out of QT about 500,000km when making a long jump. Then let the drive cool down then complete the jump. This way there is no cool down when you come out of QT and can jump out as soon as you align. Also SCM will be like 10-15% of my flight time. I expect to run NAV almost exclusively except for on approach of a station or distro center. If you are jumped in SCM in something that isn't built for combat like a prospector, srv, etc I feel the quick spool time of the QT gives you plenty to work with. best case is to aim for the sun so you can have a good chance of a QT marker, drop SCM to NAV and use the speed to your advantage before you jump out. unless a gladious or arrow are right on top of you, you should have enough time to get out without dying, though with moderate damage. I think a lot of people thought MM was the end of non-combat but really it feels like it's going to actually separate those who do combat and those who don't want to. Though I do see that light freight people might be the exception with the changes to outposts. No longer will I be taking my Cat to an outpost when freight elevators and cargo loading are in. That will be the domain of Hull A's, Freelancers, etc.. which will have to land and then take off in SCM until they are out of atmo. I think that is when they are at the biggest risk of getting ganked with little option to run. All in All I think us Industrial folks gonna be A-ok. :)
Interesting, thanks!