Star Citizen - Ballistic Weapons & Ares Inferno Nerfed - CIG Responded! Get NORDVPN + BIG Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer Become a Channel Member | ua-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin ALPHA 4.0 ARES INFERNO THREAD | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/ares-inferno-nerfed-in-the-ptu/7551327 Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/ Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/ LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 4.0 OPEN PTU
These should be a horrible menace to the verse 😂 . They should do the SAME damage as a size 7 gun on any other ship... That was the whole point on the ship
Agreed. People should have ways to combat these the problem is they knew they were going to slow down the flight with MM they had to destroy the ship after they realized what they did with the stupid new slight model. But I don't agree that they had to touch these at all. It was not right to nerf them that shows that new flight model does not work.
You couldn't be more right. At lease that's how they promoted it, but now? Well now they need to nerf our Inferno ships so we buy the next newest shiny for sale.
The problem is that ships that can do that sort of damage are supposed to be sluggish to compensate, but a ship the size of an Ares being sluggish doesn't make sense. So unless you do something you have this game balance nightmare that can one-shot anything. I think CIG should have kept the damage and agility, but made the guns cannons with a big cooldown time (like maybe 5 seconds) so that they remain viable snipers but won't one-shot every small and medium ship in a dogfight. Putting a gatling was a dumb move.
@@fnunez Why not do what the pilots in the A-10 have to deal with. The A-10 can only fire its Cannon for 3 seconds any longer and the gun will stall out the engines on the plane causing it to crash. In turn they can do the same thing with the Inferno where you can only fire the S7 cannon for 5 seconds before it overheats and goes into cycle. Even if you were to slow tap the gun...it will fire go max heat and you're into a cooldown cycle. The Ion can have the same thing but with power, if you fire that thing for 5 seconds it'd go into a power draw cycle state and no matter what MFD manipulation you do it will stay that way. This way the ship can still have the high DPS (increase the damage output) but the drawback is massive heat and power requirements. The fighter has just enough cooling and power to carry and use those weapons for 5 seconds max. So from the proposed 1980 damage current, i'd push for 3600 both ships but have those drawbacks as to compensate.
@@jookmthe “big ship killers” are referencing the Ares ships (Ion and the Inferno). They have been absolutely NERFED INTO THE GROUND since launch and continue to have issues. What MoDeL is saying is the Ares needs to be redone entirely because CIG isn’t even confident in what the Ares is SUPPOSED to do anymore, which is to kill big ships. The Ares has become essentially hot garbage and now they can’t even be good at what they are SUPPOSED to be good at, which is killing big ships.
@undersmack648 Ah gotcha, thanks for elaborating. I bought the Ares ships in game but unless it's a special event with an Idris and Hammerheads, I don't normally come across larger ships that I want to attack so I haven't played with it. I thought the only thing they "nerfed" was accuracy to avoid sniping small ships.
I swear by the time of launch the ARES and ION are just going to have a seat with a npc using a hand held rifle in place of the main gun. Just let the damn thing be ridiculous its a ridiculous design... Just leave it that way
That's part of the problem. They built too many ships with ridiculous designs and roles before they figured out the flight model and are now having a hard time balancing ships and roles. They designed ships so they would sell. Now balance is all out of balance and they still have not figured out the flight model. They are going to have a really hard time balancing some of these ships.
@@TH-qr9vp There are some very cool designs/concepts, and at least at a basic level most of them make a lot sense wither for real world roles or at least very solid sci-fi tropes. Unfortunately, real world military equipment has always been designed to be as unbalanced as possible. Human portable launcher for $200k that can shoot down helicopters worth 10s of millions? Unbalanced! Never mind drones!.. crossbow that takes little training able to pierce wildly expensive heavy armor and well trained (rich) knights? Terrible balance! Makes it hard to balance things.
@@RocketSurgn_ yeah you are totally correct. The biggest threat to tanks in urban environments are infantry with portable launchers. I hope CIG try to push for systems that reward skill instead of rock paper scissors mechanics that we seem to be getting lately. I want certain ships and weapons to have actual defined traits that reward specialization and player knowledge. An example of this could be to allow manual guidance of long range torpedoes instead of having them always rely on ship signature tracking. Being able to direct the weapons to gaps in a ship’s defensive systems where their PDCs or Shields are down would be an engaging and rewarding mechanic. I like what they said about strategically targeting specific areas of ships, I just hope they expand more on that knowledge and strategy aspect of the game in more areas of the game.
@hogfry, the worst thing about it is they're not even that hard to balance. Ares Ion just needs to become a long-range ramping DOT laser, low damage to start, high damage after a number of seconds, over-heat after maybe full ramp +100% (so if it takes 10 seconds to get to full ramp, laser over-heats at 20 seconds) then drop it's maneuverability a little bit. Light fighters now have a margin of error, but they *should* evaporate if they go nose to nose. Big targets meanwhile have the option of concentrating fire on the Ion to force it to evade (and pull the nose off target) but also can take advantage of it's cooldown windows and ramp-up to rotate new shields into place, flare, or warp out. Inferno meanwhile i'd give a significant ROF buff, but a rapid over heat. I'd drop it's maneuverability but buff it's speed. This would emphasize aggressive, slashing passes while the missiles would still give the pilot options for standoff. This would let it dump a lot of damage into large ships quickly, but force it to make relatively linear attack runs and leave it vulnerable on cooldown. light fighters probably get less grace if they do get caught in this model, but the less-flexible and shorter range weapons of the inferno will allow them more time to avoid a nose-to-nose engagement while punishing them if they insist on jousting . . . as it should be. As usual, CIG has all the tools they need to actually do a good job. But they won't per normal, gotta sell those Starlancers and Paladins.
I think backer trust in CIG is a bit shaky right now. A stable 4.0 would definitely help, but I've been bracing for a 3.18-like debacle regardless. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised when 4.0 goes live.
This is sad to me - cig finally doing some stuff right - being clear about what can go into 1.0 and what the game actually is, an mmo with crafting based economy. And adding in game ship rewards.... I guess backers who dont wanna play the game just wanna play the pledge store are the most pissed
CIG really should take a page from Subnautica's playbook and put in something like what that game had for reporting bugs. For those who never played it, when playing Subnautica, you just pressed F8 and an pop-up window came up, instantly screenshoted what you were looking at when you pressed F8, took note of your exact map location coordinates, your inventory, etc. Then gave you some pulldown choices for the type of error you were reporting and a field to type in a proper description. Players would submit FAR more bug reports with MUCH better data if they did something like this.
Most of the "Out of touch changes" are often backers making a huge fuss out of things without actually checking what has changed, they simply see a single figure change or see a line in the patch notes then grab the torches and pitchforks without finding out for themselves what's actually been done or even just asking first.
While unintended by CIG, the perception of yet another Ares nerf before the new guardian heavy fighter is up for sale is already happening. Will the Guardian now out damage the nerfed again Ares? If so, why would you ever want an Ares? It will be interesting to see what happens with the size 7 weapons on both Ares models (the Ion is ion a particularly bad spot). Some folks are even wondering about the Perseus, as that is a dual size 7 weapon. The impression we get isa that perhaps CIG hasn't quite thought out these larger weapons?
I think your absolutley right about the larger weapons not having been thought through properly. Theyre supposed to be large/cap ship damaging beasts (and in turn would be devastating to smaller craft) but without the planned damage model being in place, they just come off as "overpowered" so have to be toned down. The Larger guns with that intended purpose need to have a crutch against smaller ships somehow, I just cant think what the most sensible way of doing so would be (projectile speeds or rate of fire maybe?) but it certainly shouldnt be by crippling theyre damage output though.
Yeah the larger weapon sizes do just seem poorly thought out in the first place. I already disliked how every gun size feels the same anyway. Feels like they set themselves a trap by using weapon sizes as a marketing tool
I think it's more likely that larger weapons haven't been well-tested. We JUST got the first capital-sized vessel like a month ago, in Live. This also happens to coincide with major impending features (resource management, armor and physicalized damage).
CIG’s solution to everything: 1. Nerf whatever reasonably works well. 2. Do whatever it takes to advertise a need for a new ship. 3. Skip over fixing basic game mechanics and server desync to push a new ship sale. 4. Have absolutely no idea what’s going on but all be unified under the idea that the player is wrong and they’re all going under and ship sales are going to somehow save them.
😂 basically it goes like this.. Players- This ship is great, buy, buy, buy. CIG- oh you like it huh 🤔 we have to nerf it for blah blah reason. Players- I want my ship back CIG- look we made a new ship to fix the old broken ship Players- the older ship was fine till you broke it. CIG-......... Look we made another new ship to replace the old broken one, buy it.😈
'Nerf whatever works reasonably well.' That's quite a euphemism for, 'I'M MAD MY FIGHTER CAN'T ONE- OR TWO-SHOT ALL SMALLER SHIPS WITH INFINITE AMMO' (the Ion) and 'I'M MAD MY MEDIUM-SIZED SHIP RESPONSIBLE FOR 40% OF ALL KILLS CAN'T SOLO EVERYTHING UP TO AN IDRIS ANYMORE' (the Corsair). What's ACTUALLY happened with these is they design a ship, the testers discover an exploit (which is what they're for), the designers fix the unintended exploit (which is what they're supposed to do), and then the testers lose their effing minds because their overpowered toy was taken away (which is childish and stupid). 🙄 And your complaint about 'the player is always wrong' is pretty funny, considering that the single biggest and most unpopular design problem in the game right now (master modes) is a result of listening to a vocal minority of players who wouldn't stop whining about combat...
@@dawnfire82 all I read was "thnx CIG I'll eat whatever 💩 burger you will give me and dink what ever piss ass excuse you give me to destroy my ship". Another white knight clown for CIG. Tell Chris Daddy hi while your on our knees infront of him next time.
Ohh Mann I just posted my comment like this 😂.. you beat me to it, but basically yes. And the thing is they have been doing it way too hard and way to often and there are just alot of people mad and paying attention now.
I just don't think CIG has any idea of what to do with ballistics. If they want to player feedback; great. But then they have to actually implement what the players want. (Within reason) Don't listen to the players and then ignore everything they say!
"It's not a money grab...it's because management said we had to push an entirely new game model on zero notice with no planning and zero testing." This answer isn't really better is it? Now they are saying they aren't greedy, the top of the company is just directionless and incompetent. Nice save!
@@Muzzy_66 There is a HUGE difference between testing a planned change, and making things up as you go. Changing something, then changing it again, then changing it back, then trying something else...this is why everything takes so long and why bugs keep being introduced. There is no plan.
@@secretweapon7764 Again, it's the PTU. If they come up with an idea and decide to test it out, that is precisely the place for them to do it. If they come up with an idea people like and take too long "planning" it then everyone complains they are screw-assing around wasting time. They really can't win can they? The PTU is specifically intended to be a place where they try out new ideas, and then see what kind of feedback / data they get back from it to see if it's something they should proceed with or not. That's what it's there for. Once they commit more to an idea and get it further developed that's when it gets pushed out to the PU - which for the record is also a big work in progress and is itself constantly getting tweaked.
All of this weapon fiddling boggles my mind! Theyre adjusting all of these things "nerfing etc." in a vacuum of the incomplete damage model we have and it makes no sense. A ship comes down to 3 main things needed in order to properly balance/design/make sense of. Damaging capability (aka weaponry), damage resistance (aka Armour) and Avoidance capability (aka Flight model) NONE of these things are properly implemented yet!! I really wish that CiG would get their finger out and finalise what should have been one of the first things to be nailed down in a space combat game. Until these three aspects are done, no amount of fiddling weapon damage, overheat rates, ammo counts etc etc. is going to make one bit of logical sense. Get the armour/damage model done and implemented properly (as the primary factor thats missing at this time) and everything else will start to slot into place and can be adjusted to where its supposed to be based on each individual ship or weapons purpose and capabilities.
They explain this in the video, literally switching to different heat models. Get ready for more as we switch to an entirely different damage model too lol. How do you "finalize" something that isn't finished?
The heat model ,imo, is an intricate part of the overall balance (tied to weapon performance) that's something that should be fiddled AFTER the main systems are in place and functional. @@evanmartin1271
@evanmartin1271 He is saying, these should have been finalized years ago....and I agree. The fact they haven’t locked down the damage, damage resistance, and flight model 13 years into a space combat game's development is just shameful. The PU should have never been opened prior to these 3 fundamental pillars of design being at least at tier 0. Everyone knows it, yet some still overlook it because they’re so heavily invested, they’re literally drowning in the sunken cost fallacy. along with CIG as a whole... How people can fork over hundreds and even thousands of dollars for ships where you have zero understanding of how the damage, resistance, and flight model will land at launch (if that ever happens), and thus no idea what and how your "pledged" ship will be or work is mind boggling to me. This is why SC is labeled as a cult, because this is textbook cult-like behavior
6:35 Really... "You really like that response" them stating, the data provide form the last patch is incorrect and the last reliable stat was in 3.24.1. Nah, that sound horrible.
@@danny1988221 it's absolutely not, he asked for a video and Camural being the trolling POS that he is, instead of saying "Hey, sure thing, here is where we see the issue so you can see the full context" he decides to be an AH about it and cause drama instead of trying to just be helpful. Context is sooo important, for example there was a patch recently where the Corsair Ramp became invincible, if you were shooting at it and hitting that spot with say an Areas you could say "OMG, SEE, IT'S NERFED!, IT TOOK ME ALL THESE SHOTS!" when a lot of them were simply hitting a spot that was bugged. This exact thing could be happening with the person that reported it taking 77 shots, where exactly was it hitting? was there anything network related causing it? This is the context they need to investigate properly.
Ships like Ares are pretty tricky - from one side they should be an absolute meta in DPS, but from the other side players will use them against small fighters like Aurora and insta-kill them, which is not nice. What most folks miss is that Armor Penetration will be a thing in the future, so even if Ares will have similar DPS as a hornet, it will still be the only one fighter that can penetrate heavy armor of sub capital ships, while smaller guns will not be able to even scratch them.
If the flight model was better the ares would never shoot down a light fighter. Just ask the a-10 warthog… gun is big enough to smash a fighter in half, and yet could never ever come close to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight
@@nikolaivodka6969 that's what's baffling about the whole thing, even in a heavy fighter it's never been hard to get behind an ares, especially the ones with good turrets, light fighters that go nose to nose with them deserve to get shredded, just like light fighters that go against armored ships they can't damage (fat chance that fantasy concept stays to launch) should eventually mess-up and die. If anything make the ares faster (to survive AA fire) but even less maneuverable to really give small ships the hand holding they apparently need to get out of the way of those guns.
@@matthewhain1483 so have faster straight way speed and slower turning thus design its flight engines to litterly built to go straff runs. maybe even have the cannon slow down the ship if you hold the trigger to long so comeing in at full speed can out run the AA fire abit but if stick around and find out by holding trigger suddenly AA turrets can now catch up to you
The Ares Ion and Inferno need to be a threat to the Polaris in their role, and right now they just aren't. Even if it makes them also potentially lethal against smaller / other fighters, they should be fyi they are heavy fighters, I' dactually propose both need a buff, even over original numbers, cause both with the new shield changes need adjusting as capital ship killers.
There is a reason we are still playing this build on EPTU. Things are expected to be frequently broken and frequently changing. The important thing is to identify the problems, and that is what's happening. People also need to have some sense of perspective here. A random person is complaining that the dev is not trusting them, when they aren't trusting the dev. Programmers are not customer support, and having worked both jobs, you can believe me on that.
We played with the Inferno the other day with the new changes and overheating gun. It is absolutely worthless now. Glad I melted mine in the last nerf.
Maybe once they shift to Mailstrom they can let the Ares and Ion do damage appropriate for a size 7 gun, which would overpenetrate smaller ships without one shotting them But I'm not expecting that before 1.0 at the earliest.
As an IT Admin myself I do hate it when a person just says this is broken without giving any real details or showing me how it is broken. Makes my life so much harder trying to replicate what they did to see why they think it is broken.
Its tough for a developer to deal with necessary change, especially when they're changing something that is fun or perceived as powerful. Communication helps, I hope they do that well.
I'd say top marks all around, from the backers for pointing out the issue is unbalanced and from CIG for acknowledging the evidence as presented and looking into it.
I like how the dev addressed this and also acknowledged that something is not right. When I first saw your video, I thought it was about the Paladin Q&A which I am waiting for with baited breath after reading all of the top questions.
The game is in Alpha, things are going to get nerfed and buffed over and over again as other ships are added in and the meta and mechanics evolves closer to the final product. We're going to see major swings until the majority of ships are in and ships have been nesteled into their selected niches. Right now whenever ANY ship is added, it will throw the meta into chaos, any time any ship is reconfigured the meta is going to be thrown into chaos. You're an alpha tester and along for the ride
@@XShadowAngel So sometime in the next 4 years it will be good. People keep talking about planned systems to justify bad changes in the PU. But I shouldn't have to drag my nuts through 60 miles of glass so that maybe sometime in the next decade I will see the intended implementation. How about having the complete system or mechanic in the game before you chop shit off an leave a bleeding wound you neglect for years.
@XShadowAngel Change is fine. Half assed change with vague promises of something to make the change make sense just burns my trust and patience. I keep hearing, oh, when they add this or when they change this, it all be better. But then we sit for 5 fucking years on the garbage and it never improves. I have no confidence that CIG will produce a complete product until they stop tiptoeing and half assing this shit. I want to love this game, but the fact that it's been 12 years and there are still glaring flaws in CIG's process and development style that are the same thing that got CR kicked out by Microsoft gives me nothing to hold onto for hope. If they can't even make the ground work properly after 12 years, why should I have any hope for these promises and fixes?
It's good to see the devs respond honestly when something is amiss. As the development progresses, patience and diligence will go along way from any side of 'Verse. Great stuff, Bored!
they felt pretty good in right before MolassesModes. My org actually started using them quite a lot when every wallet warrior was rocking the F8$ or the ghost. It had enough DPS to challenge the F8$ and was almost as durable with only a bit less maneuverability meanwhile it had enough shields to last against the ghosts and let smaller fighters jump on them. Their potential as missile boats was also nice for anyone that wasn't heavily engaged. Great team ships, look great, nice fuel capacity too. It's a shame CIG seems to hate anything not the gladius or new to the store.
I have an Ares Ion, but mostly because it's the only livery I like, other paints are just boring and a ship's aesthetic is the number one factor for me. I used to like it a lot, but the nerf took away a lot of the fun I had flying it. It's a combat only ship and combat with it got increasingly tedious. I wish there would be a third variant with a big S7 laser repeater, for the fun of it, or even better, the ability to swap guns for other S7 size weapons.
Maybe CIG needs to implement mandatory questionnaires when us backers log in. For example, when you log in, you are presented with 5 multiple choice questions while the game is loading like (If you have flown or fought a Crusader Ares, please answer the following (otherwise select “N/A”: The Crusader Ares is A- over powered B-fine how it is C- underpowered
It's good that he was interested enough to be checking forums on a day off (and taking the time to respond, too!) :) This is one of the reasons I don't play much though, as I'd be unsure what info to pass along if I thought there was a problem (and didn't just think "Oh, these weapons suck. I'll get some pewpew lazors!") ;)
When a Gladius with NDBs, sitting still shooting the same spot on a Corsair, can kill it within 1 second difference of the Ion doing the same thing with Full Charge Shots...there is a problem. And BoardGamer, while this particular problem may not be a nerf-before-sale issue, don't even PRETEND that they don't do it. We have seen it too many times before to know it is not bugs or coincidence...lol. Keep it 100 brother!
I understand that us gathering all the info for them will assist in getting things resolved quicker but there is a point were I have a job already. Its great that content creators are getting this data for them but there is also a point when a lot of people are reporting an issue CIG could also do a test to check it out instead of pushing it back to the community.
I generally don’t care about ballistics at all and use energy based cannons or repeaters with no worries of ammo depletion or expense. They just need to get Pyro to live and work through the bugs, they always have.
I think a big concern on the issue of ship balance is how/if this signals their approach to any future behavior in after 1.0, particularly if they continue fund raising through ship sales which is quite likely
this makes me scared for the perseus, heres 4 size 7 guns that do the samage damage as a size 1 repeater and have limited ammo but hey, we have special ammo, HE to do no damage in an area, AP to do no damage to a specific point, APHE, to do no damage to a single point and thn do no damage to an area
it makes sense that there is tension between the community and the ship and flight model teams. This issues surrounding MM and new ships seemingly coming out along with nerfs of old ships is not a good look. I am sure its not intentional but that branch of the dev team is probably favorably viewed from the community. glad to see communication coming from the team though.
Kinda sounds like CIG isn't as evil as many seem to assume and don't always nerf things to nerf them. Sometimes it's a bug related to a change, and if properly reported they will review it.
Nice to see CIG taking the time to respond to these issues but also this highlights what and how to appropriately provide feedback and why being clear and concise is important
I love that developers take the time to respond. Unfortunately, some in the community reply rudely, blame individual developers, and take things personally. Their frustrations are understandable, but we just need to treat each other with respect. If developers feel they are attacked every time they respond, eventually, they’ll stop. Then, we all lose.
The community is growing more and more wary towards small changes even if the game is still in beta. On the other hand, the community itself is growing with less patience. Multiple “we’re going to do that” made so. It’s understandable. I love how this game is growing, how much effort is put. People do not realize that the dev working on ships are not the same devs as bug fixes dev. Hats to the dev, love to see updates that we all waited for.
They nerfed my Corsair & Redeemer into the "Useless Zone". So I recently purchased the Ares Inferno and now this? 🤔 I guess they haven't sold enough Paladins yet.
The fact that CIG has repeatedly released ships, only to nerf (adjust)them later, USUALLY and COINCIDENTLY after the sale has ended, is to the point that their trust, credibility and reputation has been damaged. I think that is a problem. This may have been an honest mistake / error, however, the timing (new ship inbound shortly) is, again, another coincidence? Better and more refined internal testing before these ships are released moving forward needs to happen. CIG can spin up the same game we are playing, on a private server to test these ships so they do not need to be "adjusted" as much later on. I'm not JUST talking about TTK, overheating, etc., but the flight characteristics as well. Someone at CIG signs off on ALL of these ships before they are live. Maybe those people responsible should be / should have been held more accountable in the past so those types of "issues" aren't as prevalent and coincidental moving forward?
"Stop! Stop! He's already dead!" Pretty much how I feel about CIG and the Ares. How many times are they going to nerf this thing? It's already so far from how they advertised it originally.
The Ares series were op upon release and then they had them in the right place. Now they are completely borked, I hope CIG goes back and fixes these. They need to test them in threes, as a squadron. For example, have three Ions firing at a single shield face of a Polaris. My feeling is that it should take 8-10 shots from each to drop a shield face to zero.
I would like to believe CIG are well aware of the absolute balancing hellscape they have created for themselves with all these ships..... Launch is going to be wild, spectrum is going to be filled with cries from people for nerfs for ships they don't use and buffs for ships they do. I feel sorry for the balancing team, what can you do when the ship is sold on it being unbalanced to begin with. Capital ships will be the fun one. With how much they cost people will want them to be powerful and if there not... Well I think there will be pitchforks.
Well, I hope they get that fixed bc the inferno is one of my favourite ships ingame, but I think a stable 4.0 launch is more desirable than anything else atm.
I played with the Ion around end of 3.23/ beginning 3.24, and the charge effect is interesting, but it charges so slow that you cant make meaningful progress against ship shields at that time. Between max charge, aim, and actually getting these things to line up right, it is a problematic ship. I would prefer a long delay but full charged shot for when I need it. Not a spin up laser cannon.
It's an inevitable consequence of the nature of the project. There is an underlying intention to be open and share information but as you say, the communication isn't perfect. It can never be perfect and I'm sure there are lots of internal competing tensions given the size of the company and the pressure that everyone must be under. We had a CIG employee on the PTU yesterday (shout out to Dan). He was getting a bit of hate from one player but the majority of us were supporting the dev. I think that's probably a reflection of the player base, we're generally on board and frustration rarely becomes toxic but that frustration is still real.
This is the kind of thing that I feel like CIG gets around to eventually but for those flying around in the verse it takes way too long. I have more than one ship so I've never been too impacted by this sort of thing but I can see how it would be a big issue for some.
I honestly feel like they are in a sort of panic mode right now and just throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks. I think they need to just step back, read up on the community forums and do some much needed tuning and rethinking especially on the core fundament of the game, that being how our beloved ships work all around flight, combat and components wise.
I can see how problematic it can be to have users/customers in the role of QA bug hunters. Their expectations are as a customer rather than part of the development process. This also shows how problematic it is to sell ships that will definitely be changed along the way as the entire set of systems is fully realized. I have found that it's best for my mental health to have no expectations that the ships I've purchased will remain as-is and that I may very well need to trade them all out at some point.
Open PTU is running fairly well, though full or griefers just camping the outposts, where it gets laggy. Now I've seen 4.0 running pretty well, I'd be keen for them to release it and get rid of the short-term thinking play styles.
I think everyone needs to post dev feedback constructively without being cynical. It’s nice we get level headed responses I know of no other publishers that are this interactive, let’s treat the devs with respect.
That a dev can directly answer questions without a marketing moutpiece inbetween is great ^^ And it would be nice if the community managers would have some way to give feedback that the threat was noticed by devs ... regardless of if the topic was picked up or not ... a chechmark or something but in the end knowing that they summerise that for the devs and it doesnt just gets lost in the void is nice ^^
The reason I stopped working tech support, even though I love problem solving and fixing things -- having to deal with customers who have misplaced anger towards the person trying to fix the problem. "It broken, fix now!" "How is it broken?" "Yes, broken!" "You need to be more specific." "Why you no fix?" "Because I don't know what's wrong." [repeat]
IMHO I believe CIG should have balanced these ships far differently than the generic, lazy and thoughtless “drop DPS” BS. If it were me? I would move the center of g and handling very close to the gun, changing the entire dynamic of how they handle. Then I would slow the turning rate to match the heavy gun on each. This would make it very difficult to use as a fighter. It’s not a fighter. (At least it wasn’t originally meant to be a fighter. Perhaps that has changed?) More of a threat to capital class ships with the original high DPS.
Just do a video screen cap, Nvidia Overlay does it very easily and I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has in-game capture baked in too. This isn't difficult to "Learn", you could have looked it up instead of making a silly comment like this trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
@@WallyAMV Was that supposed to be a burn? You know the best way to learn something? Ask if somebody knows, and keep asking until you find somebody who isn't a tool. I'll keep asking.
Aside from all the other comments that are pretty much echoing the same about these particular ships. On my own take, when I first saw these ships being promoted. They were classified as capital ship killers. So yeah naturally it attracted many for the DPS they could shell out. I can't say if CIG will fix this or go about it some other way. However, I hope that something gets done before 4.0 or I might be looking to melt both of my so-called capital shipkillers in favor of something better. Here's an idea. Someone take on Aries ion and/ or Aries inferno and go against a Polaris. Doesn't even need to be a fight. Just bring out a Polaris and have it just sit there while The ion or inferno just blast it away. I'm almost willing to bet that neither one of these ships will provide enough damage to a Polaris to consider them any longer a capital shipkiller.. Both of those ships being classified as capital shipkillers is starting to sound a lot more like false advertising.
I’m starting to think high fire-rate weapons shouldn’t go beyond Size 3 or 4. If ballistic repeater speed was capped there, large ships with smaller turret mounts would actually have some value, making ship roles more distinct. Take the Redeemer it’d have a clear advantage over the Paladin when dealing with fighters. Balancing ships around large ship armor before that armor even exists seems rushed. It’s the same issue we saw with the new flight model. Smaller weapons just feel useless, and now it seems like every ship needs a Size 4 or bigger to keep up. Maybe weapons need a general buff. Even the Intrepid struggles with a Size 5, and the Ares burns through ammo way too fast. At this rate, it’s hard not to wonder: what’s the point?
Smaller weapons in general feel useless. It seems every ship is getting a Size 4 and up just to compete. I think they just need to a weapon buff across the board. Even with a Size 5 the Intrepid can't handle a fight. So with the Ares now starting to be in that same boat it's just a question of "what's the point"? Ares and Inferno were meant to be fast and hard-hitting medium ship attackers. Now they even struggle fighting fights as they need to fire what feels like 1/10th of their ammo stores
inferno supposedly was built to hunt ships like those CIG wants to sell (though how they expect to sell ships that cannot defend themselves or require a full crew to man is beyond understanding). so yes, it really isn't a far stretch seeing CIG nerfing the inferno then doing their typical hand waving; but it really doesn't matter as CIG got their money for the inferno duo and have no further interest in pleasing those customers who bought it (like so many other older ships)...
I don't like that they require ten others to confirm the report. I also don't understand why some feel the need to respond that they are not having the same errors. It feels counterproductive.
At least we don't need to worry about them nerfing it due to another ships imminent release... I mean that would take what to compare to the Inferno... a large single seat craft with a large payload of laser weaponry to avoid the nerf/bug/issue with ballistics... luckily nothing like that is looming with the release of 4.0... right?
Why exactly is there still gun overheating in 29XX? Especially on a ship (Inferno) specifically designed around a single gun? Wouldn't you think they'd design an efficient enough cooling solution to keep the gun going at least.... As for the Ion, it's useless in it's current state. You can't even effectively outperform shield regen, nevermind trying to actually consistently hit a mid-/large size ship in an actual fight. It should either get some gimbal+precision or just also be turned into a repeater like the Inferno with all it's pros and cons.
Star Citizen - Ballistic Weapons & Ares Inferno Nerfed - CIG Responded!
Get NORDVPN + BIG Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer
Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer
Become a Channel Member | ua-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin
ALPHA 4.0 ARES INFERNO THREAD | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/ares-inferno-nerfed-in-the-ptu/7551327
Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist
Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni
Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer
Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass
Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate
Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer
Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer
Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk
Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK
Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/
Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk
Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/
LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 4.0 OPEN PTU
These should be a horrible menace to the verse 😂 . They should do the SAME damage as a size 7 gun on any other ship... That was the whole point on the ship
Agreed. People should have ways to combat these the problem is they knew they were going to slow down the flight with MM they had to destroy the ship after they realized what they did with the stupid new slight model. But I don't agree that they had to touch these at all. It was not right to nerf them that shows that new flight model does not work.
Yeah but pvp kiddies cried and closed their wallets...
You couldn't be more right. At lease that's how they promoted it, but now? Well now they need to nerf our Inferno ships so we buy the next newest shiny for sale.
The problem is that ships that can do that sort of damage are supposed to be sluggish to compensate, but a ship the size of an Ares being sluggish doesn't make sense. So unless you do something you have this game balance nightmare that can one-shot anything. I think CIG should have kept the damage and agility, but made the guns cannons with a big cooldown time (like maybe 5 seconds) so that they remain viable snipers but won't one-shot every small and medium ship in a dogfight. Putting a gatling was a dumb move.
@@fnunez Why not do what the pilots in the A-10 have to deal with. The A-10 can only fire its Cannon for 3 seconds any longer and the gun will stall out the engines on the plane causing it to crash.
In turn they can do the same thing with the Inferno where you can only fire the S7 cannon for 5 seconds before it overheats and goes into cycle. Even if you were to slow tap the gun...it will fire go max heat and you're into a cooldown cycle.
The Ion can have the same thing but with power, if you fire that thing for 5 seconds it'd go into a power draw cycle state and no matter what MFD manipulation you do it will stay that way.
This way the ship can still have the high DPS (increase the damage output) but the drawback is massive heat and power requirements. The fighter has just enough cooling and power to carry and use those weapons for 5 seconds max.
So from the proposed 1980 damage current, i'd push for 3600 both ships but have those drawbacks as to compensate.
They need to just change these Ares ships as a whole they aren't even confident enough to have the big ship killers kill big ships
Give it ground bombs. Boom. Space a-10 warthog
What a weird way to think.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. They aren't confident a big ship can kill a big ship? You're confusing.
@@jookmthe “big ship killers” are referencing the Ares ships (Ion and the Inferno). They have been absolutely NERFED INTO THE GROUND since launch and continue to have issues.
What MoDeL is saying is the Ares needs to be redone entirely because CIG isn’t even confident in what the Ares is SUPPOSED to do anymore, which is to kill big ships.
The Ares has become essentially hot garbage and now they can’t even be good at what they are SUPPOSED to be good at, which is killing big ships.
@undersmack648 Ah gotcha, thanks for elaborating. I bought the Ares ships in game but unless it's a special event with an Idris and Hammerheads, I don't normally come across larger ships that I want to attack so I haven't played with it. I thought the only thing they "nerfed" was accuracy to avoid sniping small ships.
I swear by the time of launch the ARES and ION are just going to have a seat with a npc using a hand held rifle in place of the main gun.
Just let the damn thing be ridiculous its a ridiculous design... Just leave it that way
That's part of the problem. They built too many ships with ridiculous designs and roles before they figured out the flight model and are now having a hard time balancing ships and roles. They designed ships so they would sell. Now balance is all out of balance and they still have not figured out the flight model. They are going to have a really hard time balancing some of these ships.
@@TH-qr9vp There are some very cool designs/concepts, and at least at a basic level most of them make a lot sense wither for real world roles or at least very solid sci-fi tropes. Unfortunately, real world military equipment has always been designed to be as unbalanced as possible. Human portable launcher for $200k that can shoot down helicopters worth 10s of millions? Unbalanced! Never mind drones!.. crossbow that takes little training able to pierce wildly expensive heavy armor and well trained (rich) knights? Terrible balance! Makes it hard to balance things.
@@RocketSurgn_ yeah you are totally correct. The biggest threat to tanks in urban environments are infantry with portable launchers. I hope CIG try to push for systems that reward skill instead of rock paper scissors mechanics that we seem to be getting lately. I want certain ships and weapons to have actual defined traits that reward specialization and player knowledge. An example of this could be to allow manual guidance of long range torpedoes instead of having them always rely on ship signature tracking. Being able to direct the weapons to gaps in a ship’s defensive systems where their PDCs or Shields are down would be an engaging and rewarding mechanic. I like what they said about strategically targeting specific areas of ships, I just hope they expand more on that knowledge and strategy aspect of the game in more areas of the game.
@hogfry, the worst thing about it is they're not even that hard to balance. Ares Ion just needs to become a long-range ramping DOT laser, low damage to start, high damage after a number of seconds, over-heat after maybe full ramp +100% (so if it takes 10 seconds to get to full ramp, laser over-heats at 20 seconds) then drop it's maneuverability a little bit. Light fighters now have a margin of error, but they *should* evaporate if they go nose to nose. Big targets meanwhile have the option of concentrating fire on the Ion to force it to evade (and pull the nose off target) but also can take advantage of it's cooldown windows and ramp-up to rotate new shields into place, flare, or warp out.
Inferno meanwhile i'd give a significant ROF buff, but a rapid over heat. I'd drop it's maneuverability but buff it's speed. This would emphasize aggressive, slashing passes while the missiles would still give the pilot options for standoff. This would let it dump a lot of damage into large ships quickly, but force it to make relatively linear attack runs and leave it vulnerable on cooldown. light fighters probably get less grace if they do get caught in this model, but the less-flexible and shorter range weapons of the inferno will allow them more time to avoid a nose-to-nose engagement while punishing them if they insist on jousting . . . as it should be.
As usual, CIG has all the tools they need to actually do a good job. But they won't per normal, gotta sell those Starlancers and Paladins.
Ares-DS LoL
I think backer trust in CIG is a bit shaky right now. A stable 4.0 would definitely help, but I've been bracing for a 3.18-like debacle regardless. Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised when 4.0 goes live.
100% 4.0 won't be stable, they introduced server meshing after all
'a bit shaky' is an understatement
This is sad to me - cig finally doing some stuff right - being clear about what can go into 1.0 and what the game actually is, an mmo with crafting based economy. And adding in game ship rewards.... I guess backers who dont wanna play the game just wanna play the pledge store are the most pissed
A bit? 😂
people have said this every patch since 3.18 and then act surprised when each time it's nowhere near 3.18 levels of issues.
CIG really should take a page from Subnautica's playbook and put in something like what that game had for reporting bugs.
For those who never played it, when playing Subnautica, you just pressed F8 and an pop-up window came up, instantly screenshoted what you were looking at when you pressed F8, took note of your exact map location coordinates, your inventory, etc. Then gave you some pulldown choices for the type of error you were reporting and a field to type in a proper description.
Players would submit FAR more bug reports with MUCH better data if they did something like this.
It feels like they are making a lot of these seemingly out of touch changes, then doing damage control recently
Most of the "Out of touch changes" are often backers making a huge fuss out of things without actually checking what has changed, they simply see a single figure change or see a line in the patch notes then grab the torches and pitchforks without finding out for themselves what's actually been done or even just asking first.
While unintended by CIG, the perception of yet another Ares nerf before the new guardian heavy fighter is up for sale is already happening. Will the Guardian now out damage the nerfed again Ares? If so, why would you ever want an Ares? It will be interesting to see what happens with the size 7 weapons on both Ares models (the Ion is ion a particularly bad spot). Some folks are even wondering about the Perseus, as that is a dual size 7 weapon. The impression we get isa that perhaps CIG hasn't quite thought out these larger weapons?
Pretty much,another nerf before the new ship 🤔 not looking too good.
I think your absolutley right about the larger weapons not having been thought through properly. Theyre supposed to be large/cap ship damaging beasts (and in turn would be devastating to smaller craft) but without the planned damage model being in place, they just come off as "overpowered" so have to be toned down. The Larger guns with that intended purpose need to have a crutch against smaller ships somehow, I just cant think what the most sensible way of doing so would be (projectile speeds or rate of fire maybe?) but it certainly shouldnt be by crippling theyre damage output though.
Yeah the larger weapon sizes do just seem poorly thought out in the first place. I already disliked how every gun size feels the same anyway. Feels like they set themselves a trap by using weapon sizes as a marketing tool
I think it's more likely that larger weapons haven't been well-tested. We JUST got the first capital-sized vessel like a month ago, in Live. This also happens to coincide with major impending features (resource management, armor and physicalized damage).
perceived doesn't mean actual nerf. The numbers need to be tested more before saying nerf.
CIG’s solution to everything: 1. Nerf whatever reasonably works well. 2. Do whatever it takes to advertise a need for a new ship. 3. Skip over fixing basic game mechanics and server desync to push a new ship sale. 4. Have absolutely no idea what’s going on but all be unified under the idea that the player is wrong and they’re all going under and ship sales are going to somehow save them.
😂 basically it goes like this..
Players- This ship is great, buy, buy, buy.
CIG- oh you like it huh 🤔 we have to nerf it for blah blah reason.
Players- I want my ship back
CIG- look we made a new ship to fix the old broken ship
Players- the older ship was fine till you broke it.
CIG-......... Look we made another new ship to replace the old broken one, buy it.😈
'Nerf whatever works reasonably well.' That's quite a euphemism for, 'I'M MAD MY FIGHTER CAN'T ONE- OR TWO-SHOT ALL SMALLER SHIPS WITH INFINITE AMMO' (the Ion) and 'I'M MAD MY MEDIUM-SIZED SHIP RESPONSIBLE FOR 40% OF ALL KILLS CAN'T SOLO EVERYTHING UP TO AN IDRIS ANYMORE' (the Corsair).
What's ACTUALLY happened with these is they design a ship, the testers discover an exploit (which is what they're for), the designers fix the unintended exploit (which is what they're supposed to do), and then the testers lose their effing minds because their overpowered toy was taken away (which is childish and stupid). 🙄
And your complaint about 'the player is always wrong' is pretty funny, considering that the single biggest and most unpopular design problem in the game right now (master modes) is a result of listening to a vocal minority of players who wouldn't stop whining about combat...
@@dawnfire82 all I read was "thnx CIG I'll eat whatever 💩 burger you will give me and dink what ever piss ass excuse you give me to destroy my ship". Another white knight clown for CIG. Tell Chris Daddy hi while your on our knees infront of him next time.
It seems you just want to rant since none of your 4 points are relevant in this exchange, whether actually true or not, or whether I agree or not. 😂😂
Or just… don’t buy more ships based on patch balance and wait for them to eventually fix it! FOMO isn’t even an excuse, sales happen every year.
Translation: "What actually happened, is we nerfed a ship hard, and will leave it that way if there isn't enough backlash."
Ohh Mann I just posted my comment like this 😂.. you beat me to it, but basically yes. And the thing is they have been doing it way too hard and way to often and there are just alot of people mad and paying attention now.
I just don't think CIG has any idea of what to do with ballistics. If they want to player feedback; great. But then they have to actually implement what the players want. (Within reason) Don't listen to the players and then ignore everything they say!
"It's not a money grab...it's because management said we had to push an entirely new game model on zero notice with no planning and zero testing." This answer isn't really better is it? Now they are saying they aren't greedy, the top of the company is just directionless and incompetent. Nice save!
Well this is the PTU, so yes - it's literally an environment designed for changes like this to be made and tested.
@@Muzzy_66 There is a HUGE difference between testing a planned change, and making things up as you go. Changing something, then changing it again, then changing it back, then trying something else...this is why everything takes so long and why bugs keep being introduced. There is no plan.
It is actually an improvement. Greed comes from the top and can't be fixed, incompetence can often be fixed with some shuffling.
@@secretweapon7764
Again, it's the PTU. If they come up with an idea and decide to test it out, that is precisely the place for them to do it.
If they come up with an idea people like and take too long "planning" it then everyone complains they are screw-assing around wasting time. They really can't win can they?
The PTU is specifically intended to be a place where they try out new ideas, and then see what kind of feedback / data they get back from it to see if it's something they should proceed with or not. That's what it's there for. Once they commit more to an idea and get it further developed that's when it gets pushed out to the PU - which for the record is also a big work in progress and is itself constantly getting tweaked.
All of this weapon fiddling boggles my mind! Theyre adjusting all of these things "nerfing etc." in a vacuum of the incomplete damage model we have and it makes no sense. A ship comes down to 3 main things needed in order to properly balance/design/make sense of. Damaging capability (aka weaponry), damage resistance (aka Armour) and Avoidance capability (aka Flight model) NONE of these things are properly implemented yet!! I really wish that CiG would get their finger out and finalise what should have been one of the first things to be nailed down in a space combat game. Until these three aspects are done, no amount of fiddling weapon damage, overheat rates, ammo counts etc etc. is going to make one bit of logical sense. Get the armour/damage model done and implemented properly (as the primary factor thats missing at this time) and everything else will start to slot into place and can be adjusted to where its supposed to be based on each individual ship or weapons purpose and capabilities.
They explain this in the video, literally switching to different heat models. Get ready for more as we switch to an entirely different damage model too lol.
How do you "finalize" something that isn't finished?
So they’re loose players rapidly and funding, and your reward for buying a new ship to bail them out is to get it nerfed.
The heat model ,imo, is an intricate part of the overall balance (tied to weapon performance) that's something that should be fiddled AFTER the main systems are in place and functional. @@evanmartin1271
@@tropicthndrI am not taking sides in that argument! 😅. Much too complicated and open to easy bias viewpoints in both directions for me.
@evanmartin1271 He is saying, these should have been finalized years ago....and I agree. The fact they haven’t locked down the damage, damage resistance, and flight model 13 years into a space combat game's development is just shameful. The PU should have never been opened prior to these 3 fundamental pillars of design being at least at tier 0. Everyone knows it, yet some still overlook it because they’re so heavily invested, they’re literally drowning in the sunken cost fallacy. along with CIG as a whole... How people can fork over hundreds and even thousands of dollars for ships where you have zero understanding of how the damage, resistance, and flight model will land at launch (if that ever happens), and thus no idea what and how your "pledged" ship will be or work is mind boggling to me. This is why SC is labeled as a cult, because this is textbook cult-like behavior
6:35 Really... "You really like that response" them stating, the data provide form the last patch is incorrect and the last reliable stat was in 3.24.1. Nah, that sound horrible.
Yea it's yogis "oops you cought me nerfing shit" response
@@danny1988221 it's absolutely not, he asked for a video and Camural being the trolling POS that he is, instead of saying "Hey, sure thing, here is where we see the issue so you can see the full context" he decides to be an AH about it and cause drama instead of trying to just be helpful.
Context is sooo important, for example there was a patch recently where the Corsair Ramp became invincible, if you were shooting at it and hitting that spot with say an Areas you could say "OMG, SEE, IT'S NERFED!, IT TOOK ME ALL THESE SHOTS!" when a lot of them were simply hitting a spot that was bugged.
This exact thing could be happening with the person that reported it taking 77 shots, where exactly was it hitting? was there anything network related causing it? This is the context they need to investigate properly.
@@WallyAMV you sure about that?
@@MSFTJustice sure about which particular point? Context is needed here too!
Glad to see that CIG is reaching out, even over smaller issues like this
I'm glad there are people out there paying attention to this sort of thing while I'm out here delivering boxes.
Ships like Ares are pretty tricky - from one side they should be an absolute meta in DPS, but from the other side players will use them against small fighters like Aurora and insta-kill them, which is not nice.
What most folks miss is that Armor Penetration will be a thing in the future, so even if Ares will have similar DPS as a hornet, it will still be the only one fighter that can penetrate heavy armor of sub capital ships, while smaller guns will not be able to even scratch them.
What cig needs to understand is that "big + fast bullet" is a big and fast bullet whether its being shot at a small ship or a large ship
If the flight model was better the ares would never shoot down a light fighter. Just ask the a-10 warthog… gun is big enough to smash a fighter in half, and yet could never ever come close to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight
@@nikolaivodka6969 that's what's baffling about the whole thing, even in a heavy fighter it's never been hard to get behind an ares, especially the ones with good turrets, light fighters that go nose to nose with them deserve to get shredded, just like light fighters that go against armored ships they can't damage (fat chance that fantasy concept stays to launch) should eventually mess-up and die. If anything make the ares faster (to survive AA fire) but even less maneuverable to really give small ships the hand holding they apparently need to get out of the way of those guns.
@@matthewhain1483 so have faster straight way speed and slower turning thus design its flight engines to litterly built to go straff runs. maybe even have the cannon slow down the ship if you hold the trigger to long so comeing in at full speed can out run the AA fire abit but if stick around and find out by holding trigger suddenly AA turrets can now catch up to you
I can understand the frustration backers of the ares might feel
Thank you for sharing this. Not all of us have time to read the forums every day and I found this helpful.
The Ares Ion and Inferno need to be a threat to the Polaris in their role, and right now they just aren't. Even if it makes them also potentially lethal against smaller / other fighters, they should be fyi they are heavy fighters, I' dactually propose both need a buff, even over original numbers, cause both with the new shield changes need adjusting as capital ship killers.
There is a reason we are still playing this build on EPTU. Things are expected to be frequently broken and frequently changing. The important thing is to identify the problems, and that is what's happening. People also need to have some sense of perspective here. A random person is complaining that the dev is not trusting them, when they aren't trusting the dev. Programmers are not customer support, and having worked both jobs, you can believe me on that.
We played with the Inferno the other day with the new changes and overheating gun.
It is absolutely worthless now. Glad I melted mine in the last nerf.
Maybe once they shift to Mailstrom they can let the Ares and Ion do damage appropriate for a size 7 gun, which would overpenetrate smaller ships without one shotting them But I'm not expecting that before 1.0 at the earliest.
As an IT Admin myself I do hate it when a person just says this is broken without giving any real details or showing me how it is broken. Makes my life so much harder trying to replicate what they did to see why they think it is broken.
4.0 is ready for Live! Ship it and then run out of the building for your month-long Christmas vacation CIG! 🤦
Its tough for a developer to deal with necessary change, especially when they're changing something that is fun or perceived as powerful. Communication helps, I hope they do that well.
They could try telling us BEFORE they do something. That helps.
The bigger issue is going to be CIG locking components behind a PvP wall.
I'd say top marks all around, from the backers for pointing out the issue is unbalanced and from CIG for acknowledging the evidence as presented and looking into it.
I like how the dev addressed this and also acknowledged that something is not right. When I first saw your video, I thought it was about the Paladin Q&A which I am waiting for with baited breath after reading all of the top questions.
Its pleasing that staff are responding to us, especially if not on duty. Happy with 4.0 in PTU, no need to push.
I really feel it's CIG not fully communicating the reasonings behind all these balance changes. So far we've seen this with several ships.
The game is in Alpha, things are going to get nerfed and buffed over and over again as other ships are added in and the meta and mechanics evolves closer to the final product. We're going to see major swings until the majority of ships are in and ships have been nesteled into their selected niches. Right now whenever ANY ship is added, it will throw the meta into chaos, any time any ship is reconfigured the meta is going to be thrown into chaos. You're an alpha tester and along for the ride
This without exception.
Ion fix when?
F8C deals twice as much damage with far less horrible shooting mechanics so...
when?
Once armor is working, the F8C weapons will do basically nothing against large/capital ships, while the Ares will.
@@XShadowAngel So sometime in the next 4 years it will be good. People keep talking about planned systems to justify bad changes in the PU. But I shouldn't have to drag my nuts through 60 miles of glass so that maybe sometime in the next decade I will see the intended implementation. How about having the complete system or mechanic in the game before you chop shit off an leave a bleeding wound you neglect for years.
@@NatCr3w Drama llama much? Why even play a game in alpha development if you're going to whine over every change?
@XShadowAngel Change is fine. Half assed change with vague promises of something to make the change make sense just burns my trust and patience. I keep hearing, oh, when they add this or when they change this, it all be better. But then we sit for 5 fucking years on the garbage and it never improves. I have no confidence that CIG will produce a complete product until they stop tiptoeing and half assing this shit. I want to love this game, but the fact that it's been 12 years and there are still glaring flaws in CIG's process and development style that are the same thing that got CR kicked out by Microsoft gives me nothing to hold onto for hope. If they can't even make the ground work properly after 12 years, why should I have any hope for these promises and fixes?
CIG: We don’t accept any “when?” questions. Because we couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
It's good to see the devs respond honestly when something is amiss. As the development progresses, patience and diligence will go along way from any side of 'Verse. Great stuff, Bored!
Good to know the nerf is not intentional, the Ares ships have been quite targeted for these sever changes.
Bought both the Ion and the Inferno two years ago just to see them being nerfed into the ground, feels bad man
Its interesting that discussion about the Ares ships is from 3.24.1 to 4.0. The Ares ships have been nerfed for years.
they felt pretty good in right before MolassesModes. My org actually started using them quite a lot when every wallet warrior was rocking the F8$ or the ghost. It had enough DPS to challenge the F8$ and was almost as durable with only a bit less maneuverability meanwhile it had enough shields to last against the ghosts and let smaller fighters jump on them. Their potential as missile boats was also nice for anyone that wasn't heavily engaged. Great team ships, look great, nice fuel capacity too. It's a shame CIG seems to hate anything not the gladius or new to the store.
I have an Ares Ion, but mostly because it's the only livery I like, other paints are just boring and a ship's aesthetic is the number one factor for me. I used to like it a lot, but the nerf took away a lot of the fun I had flying it. It's a combat only ship and combat with it got increasingly tedious. I wish there would be a third variant with a big S7 laser repeater, for the fun of it, or even better, the ability to swap guns for other S7 size weapons.
yeah agreed i have an ion, and it sucked all the fun out of it when they added the charge mechanic
Maybe CIG needs to implement mandatory questionnaires when us backers log in. For example, when you log in, you are presented with 5 multiple choice questions while the game is loading like (If you have flown or fought a Crusader Ares, please answer the following (otherwise select “N/A”: The Crusader Ares is
A- over powered
B-fine how it is
C- underpowered
It's good that he was interested enough to be checking forums on a day off (and taking the time to respond, too!) :) This is one of the reasons I don't play much though, as I'd be unsure what info to pass along if I thought there was a problem (and didn't just think "Oh, these weapons suck. I'll get some pewpew lazors!") ;)
The Drake Herald is a thruster with a cockpit attached. The Ares series are guns with cockpits attached. Let them be what they are.
A good insight into CIG and good to see devs hopping onto the forums in spare time.
When a Gladius with NDBs, sitting still shooting the same spot on a Corsair, can kill it within 1 second difference of the Ion doing the same thing with Full Charge Shots...there is a problem.
And BoardGamer, while this particular problem may not be a nerf-before-sale issue, don't even PRETEND that they don't do it. We have seen it too many times before to know it is not bugs or coincidence...lol. Keep it 100 brother!
I understand that us gathering all the info for them will assist in getting things resolved quicker but there is a point were I have a job already. Its great that content creators are getting this data for them but there is also a point when a lot of people are reporting an issue CIG could also do a test to check it out instead of pushing it back to the community.
Good on Yogi for replying, and good on CIG for looking into this matter. Hopefully, it was just a mistake placed decimal.
I have bridge to sell you for cheap!
You sound the perfect owner for it..
What is worse?
A bad design decision or abject incompetence?
I generally don’t care about ballistics at all and use energy based cannons or repeaters with no worries of ammo depletion or expense.
They just need to get Pyro to live and work through the bugs, they always have.
I think a big concern on the issue of ship balance is how/if this signals their approach to any future behavior in after 1.0, particularly if they continue fund raising through ship sales which is quite likely
Assuming the stats on Erkul are true, ballistic weapons having less DPS than lasers make no sense at all. But as Yogi said, we'll have to test it out.
Really timely and informative, thanks Bored.
this makes me scared for the perseus, heres 4 size 7 guns that do the samage damage as a size 1 repeater and have limited ammo but hey, we have special ammo, HE to do no damage in an area, AP to do no damage to a specific point, APHE, to do no damage to a single point and thn do no damage to an area
Hopefully once maelstrom and armor are online CIG can focus fully on the weapon system rebalance and return the Ares to their full glory
I find that footer "social gameplay in Pyro" very sarcastic. After the waves opened, Pyro has become "shoot everything that moves" most of the time.
Thank you for covering these dev responses. I hardly spend time on spectrum so I usually miss these communication unless you cover them. :)
Sounds like a good peak into how these things reach the devs in the long run
it makes sense that there is tension between the community and the ship and flight model teams. This issues surrounding MM and new ships seemingly coming out along with nerfs of old ships is not a good look. I am sure its not intentional but that branch of the dev team is probably favorably viewed from the community. glad to see communication coming from the team though.
It’s good to see the devs actually trying to fix issues and asking precise stuff to save on their time so we can play more of the game we love
Kinda sounds like CIG isn't as evil as many seem to assume and don't always nerf things to nerf them. Sometimes it's a bug related to a change, and if properly reported they will review it.
Bait 'n' switch, is CIG's entire business model at this point. 😆
If you don't get excited, you won't be disappointed.
Being on a crunch, having visual representation for context of an issue is very valuable. Greatly reduces the time to find for issues.
Nice to see CIG taking the time to respond to these issues but also this highlights what and how to appropriately provide feedback and why being clear and concise is important
Highly appreciate you making time keeping us all up to date with CIG's progress and updates!
why are gatling guns going to overheat in space? they don't overheat in real life
I love that developers take the time to respond. Unfortunately, some in the community reply rudely, blame individual developers, and take things personally. Their frustrations are understandable, but we just need to treat each other with respect. If developers feel they are attacked every time they respond, eventually, they’ll stop. Then, we all lose.
The community is growing more and more wary towards small changes even if the game is still in beta.
On the other hand, the community itself is growing with less patience. Multiple “we’re going to do that” made so. It’s understandable. I love how this game is growing, how much effort is put. People do not realize that the dev working on ships are not the same devs as bug fixes dev.
Hats to the dev, love to see updates that we all waited for.
They nerfed my Corsair & Redeemer into the "Useless Zone". So I recently purchased the Ares Inferno and now this? 🤔 I guess they haven't sold enough Paladins yet.
Good to have a clarification, the overheating did seem like a bug.
The Ion has been dead for years. Ever since they first nerfed back in 2021.
The fact that CIG has repeatedly released ships, only to nerf (adjust)them later, USUALLY and COINCIDENTLY after the sale has ended, is to the point that their trust, credibility and reputation has been damaged. I think that is a problem. This may have been an honest mistake / error, however, the timing (new ship inbound shortly) is, again, another coincidence? Better and more refined internal testing before these ships are released moving forward needs to happen. CIG can spin up the same game we are playing, on a private server to test these ships so they do not need to be "adjusted" as much later on. I'm not JUST talking about TTK, overheating, etc., but the flight characteristics as well. Someone at CIG signs off on ALL of these ships before they are live. Maybe those people responsible should be / should have been held more accountable in the past so those types of "issues" aren't as prevalent and coincidental moving forward?
"Stop! Stop! He's already dead!"
Pretty much how I feel about CIG and the Ares. How many times are they going to nerf this thing? It's already so far from how they advertised it originally.
It’s definitely a plus that the devs engage with the community
The Ares series were op upon release and then they had them in the right place. Now they are completely borked, I hope CIG goes back and fixes these. They need to test them in threes, as a squadron. For example, have three Ions firing at a single shield face of a Polaris. My feeling is that it should take 8-10 shots from each to drop a shield face to zero.
I would like to believe CIG are well aware of the absolute balancing hellscape they have created for themselves with all these ships.....
Launch is going to be wild, spectrum is going to be filled with cries from people for nerfs for ships they don't use and buffs for ships they do.
I feel sorry for the balancing team, what can you do when the ship is sold on it being unbalanced to begin with.
Capital ships will be the fun one. With how much they cost people will want them to be powerful and if there not... Well I think there will be pitchforks.
Well, I hope they get that fixed bc the inferno is one of my favourite ships ingame, but I think a stable 4.0 launch is more desirable than anything else atm.
It's nice that they respond on a weekend. Especially at this time of year.
I played with the Ion around end of 3.23/ beginning 3.24, and the charge effect is interesting, but it charges so slow that you cant make meaningful progress against ship shields at that time. Between max charge, aim, and actually getting these things to line up right, it is a problematic ship. I would prefer a long delay but full charged shot for when I need it. Not a spin up laser cannon.
It's an inevitable consequence of the nature of the project. There is an underlying intention to be open and share information but as you say, the communication isn't perfect. It can never be perfect and I'm sure there are lots of internal competing tensions given the size of the company and the pressure that everyone must be under. We had a CIG employee on the PTU yesterday (shout out to Dan). He was getting a bit of hate from one player but the majority of us were supporting the dev. I think that's probably a reflection of the player base, we're generally on board and frustration rarely becomes toxic but that frustration is still real.
This is the kind of thing that I feel like CIG gets around to eventually but for those flying around in the verse it takes way too long. I have more than one ship so I've never been too impacted by this sort of thing but I can see how it would be a big issue for some.
I somehow missed the entire Spectrum exchange, so thank you for sharing it here.
I honestly feel like they are in a sort of panic mode right now and just throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks. I think they need to just step back, read up on the community forums and do some much needed tuning and rethinking especially on the core fundament of the game, that being how our beloved ships work all around flight, combat and components wise.
I can see how problematic it can be to have users/customers in the role of QA bug hunters. Their expectations are as a customer rather than part of the development process. This also shows how problematic it is to sell ships that will definitely be changed along the way as the entire set of systems is fully realized. I have found that it's best for my mental health to have no expectations that the ships I've purchased will remain as-is and that I may very well need to trade them all out at some point.
Open PTU is running fairly well, though full or griefers just camping the outposts, where it gets laggy. Now I've seen 4.0 running pretty well, I'd be keen for them to release it and get rid of the short-term thinking play styles.
I think everyone needs to post dev feedback constructively without being cynical. It’s nice we get level headed responses I know of no other publishers that are this interactive, let’s treat the devs with respect.
That a dev can directly answer questions without a marketing moutpiece inbetween is great ^^ And it would be nice if the community managers would have some way to give feedback that the threat was noticed by devs ... regardless of if the topic was picked up or not ... a chechmark or something but in the end knowing that they summerise that for the devs and it doesnt just gets lost in the void is nice ^^
The reason I stopped working tech support, even though I love problem solving and fixing things -- having to deal with customers who have misplaced anger towards the person trying to fix the problem.
"It broken, fix now!"
"How is it broken?"
"Yes, broken!"
"You need to be more specific."
"Why you no fix?"
"Because I don't know what's wrong."
[repeat]
Except Yogi is the one breaking the stuff not fixing it.
IMHO I believe CIG should have balanced these ships far differently than the generic, lazy and thoughtless “drop DPS” BS.
If it were me?
I would move the center of g and handling very close to the gun, changing the entire dynamic of how they handle.
Then I would slow the turning rate to match the heavy gun on each.
This would make it very difficult to use as a fighter. It’s not a fighter. (At least it wasn’t originally meant to be a fighter. Perhaps that has changed?)
More of a threat to capital class ships with the original high DPS.
It's just a temporary issue; there's nothing set in stone with any of the ships, so why would this be a final look into the Ares series' performance?
How do you give them video? Is there an in-game method, or does it require learning still yet another program to accomplish?
Just do a video screen cap, Nvidia Overlay does it very easily and I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has in-game capture baked in too. This isn't difficult to "Learn", you could have looked it up instead of making a silly comment like this trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
@@WallyAMV I feel you may need to re-evaluate your conception of 'mountain'.
@@TheBetterManInBlack says the person that can't even figure out how simple it is to do an ingame video capture 😂
@@WallyAMV Was that supposed to be a burn? You know the best way to learn something? Ask if somebody knows, and keep asking until you find somebody who isn't a tool.
I'll keep asking.
Aside from all the other comments that are pretty much echoing the same about these particular ships. On my own take, when I first saw these ships being promoted. They were classified as capital ship killers. So yeah naturally it attracted many for the DPS they could shell out. I can't say if CIG will fix this or go about it some other way. However, I hope that something gets done before 4.0 or I might be looking to melt both of my so-called capital shipkillers in favor of something better.
Here's an idea. Someone take on Aries ion and/ or Aries inferno and go against a Polaris. Doesn't even need to be a fight. Just bring out a Polaris and have it just sit there while The ion or inferno just blast it away. I'm almost willing to bet that neither one of these ships will provide enough damage to a Polaris to consider them any longer a capital shipkiller..
Both of those ships being classified as capital shipkillers is starting to sound a lot more like false advertising.
I’m starting to think high fire-rate weapons shouldn’t go beyond Size 3 or 4. If ballistic repeater speed was capped there, large ships with smaller turret mounts would actually have some value, making ship roles more distinct. Take the Redeemer it’d have a clear advantage over the Paladin when dealing with fighters.
Balancing ships around large ship armor before that armor even exists seems rushed. It’s the same issue we saw with the new flight model. Smaller weapons just feel useless, and now it seems like every ship needs a Size 4 or bigger to keep up. Maybe weapons need a general buff. Even the Intrepid struggles with a Size 5, and the Ares burns through ammo way too fast. At this rate, it’s hard not to wonder: what’s the point?
The Ares sits in a spot where it will need to be re-balanced and re-balanced again. I am sure it's a massive headache for the devs.
I don't understand how Balistic weapons generate more heat that Lazer weapons. 😂
Smaller weapons in general feel useless. It seems every ship is getting a Size 4 and up just to compete. I think they just need to a weapon buff across the board. Even with a Size 5 the Intrepid can't handle a fight. So with the Ares now starting to be in that same boat it's just a question of "what's the point"? Ares and Inferno were meant to be fast and hard-hitting medium ship attackers. Now they even struggle fighting fights as they need to fire what feels like 1/10th of their ammo stores
Awesome, I hope in the end everything will get worked out correctly
inferno supposedly was built to hunt ships like those CIG wants to sell (though how they expect to sell ships that cannot defend themselves or require a full crew to man is beyond understanding). so yes, it really isn't a far stretch seeing CIG nerfing the inferno then doing their typical hand waving; but it really doesn't matter as CIG got their money for the inferno duo and have no further interest in pleasing those customers who bought it (like so many other older ships)...
Aren't ballistics due for a nerf (sort of) anyway? Like, less effective against shields once ship armor is there?
I don't like that they require ten others to confirm the report. I also don't understand why some feel the need to respond that they are not having the same errors. It feels counterproductive.
At least we don't need to worry about them nerfing it due to another ships imminent release... I mean that would take what to compare to the Inferno... a large single seat craft with a large payload of laser weaponry to avoid the nerf/bug/issue with ballistics... luckily nothing like that is looming with the release of 4.0... right?
The battle against META ships, and the re-balancing will be forever ongoing throughout development, but also the entire life of the game.
Forums can be great for community bug detection but sometimes toxicity takes over and wipes out good progress….
This hurts my heart as the Inferno is one of my favorite designs, but now this all or nothing ship is without a purpose.
Why exactly is there still gun overheating in 29XX? Especially on a ship (Inferno) specifically designed around a single gun? Wouldn't you think they'd design an efficient enough cooling solution to keep the gun going at least....
As for the Ion, it's useless in it's current state. You can't even effectively outperform shield regen, nevermind trying to actually consistently hit a mid-/large size ship in an actual fight. It should either get some gimbal+precision or just also be turned into a repeater like the Inferno with all it's pros and cons.