Lets not forget the intrepid has zero vehicle capacity as well. Honestly not surprised, CIGs pricing has been really wacky lately (even for CIG). CIG nerfed the Ares because no one at CIG actually plays the game, and they saw data metrics showing the Ares blowing up small fighters (as it should with any fighter stupid enough to go head to head with one), and brought out the nerf bat because light fighters must always win against heavy fighters. The under passages of the Mercury were always a stupid gimmick that made the ship too fat.
For a business model that relies entirely on selling digital ships, CIG sure knows how to craft dumb ships! Lots of wasted space, turrets with intentional blind angles, huge ships with tiny guns & tiny ships with huge guns, bombers that only carry a handful of bombs, "secret tunnels" to waste otherwise useful space, pointless "living areas". The game has 10 years and they haven't figured out a way to standardize vehicles sizes to fit ships! They keep selling the next bigger/better ship to old backers, while most of the new players just got a 45 USD aurora and are not even playing, just waiting until the game is somewhat playable.
We need to set a new requirements, If new ship brings new fun gameplay we should be interested to learn more, but if new ship doesn't bring anything new we have to close our wallets immediately and don't bother about it at all.
If the Intrepid had at least 12 SCU. One of the cargo areas could have been easily a 2x4 grid. This would at least allow for "small cargo" missions (4 SCU max size). It could be for those that like the RPG aspect of a nice interior over practical use. Looks like the ship was originally designed for Exploration or Data running. Instead it is labeled a "starter hauler". For the same price you would get a 315p. Still some nice interior, but more Cargo, better shields and even a tractor beam. I guess people with store credits might pick one and melt it, once novelty wears of. I admit it might no be easy to add new ships after 10 years, knowing that you will have to add even more ships to fund the game in the future. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Yeah the Ares really should have been a single ship with an Ion and an Inferno loadout (modulair). Also Genesis now a 10 year old JPEG... There is no excuse for it. After 10 years of undelivered goods you should get your money back.
CIG is remarkably bad at Gamedesign / Worldbuilding. Since there's no consistency and so on, they produce dumb stuff you just can't ignore. If you look at a Game like Armored Core or the like, you know it's not super realistic, but the Robots, Parts, Weapons etc. still are made to fit the level of technology the Gameworld has and relative to each other. CIG makes one ship that's heavily restricted by all kinds of things, can't use bigger weapons, has small shields etc. then makes another ship that has a similar footprint and outperforms the first ship in every regard many times over. One Ship has reasonable Turrets, another has ones so constrained by artificial spoilers and what not, that it's not viable to have a player (or paid NPC) in it, regardless of weaponry. Another example are the multiple types of ground vehicles. They have no ground clearance, they have completely obscure proportions, their weaponry is all over the place because some get "hero" weapons while others don't, the weird wheels make no sense at all and Grav-Lev seems like a depreciated feature.
@Power5 oh this is CIG. Ships, cockpits, vehicles are comically over sized. The Nova tank is way bigger than a world war 2 super heavy Maus, which was a terrible design. I understand CIG has their metrics, but Michelin Man suck. There is tons of clipping in Star Citizen even with Michelin Man, so why even go that route? Only exception is the Pulse. Rangers are terribly designed and will be huge.
Remember folks! If you want a new ship. Just sell an old one and buy the new one with store credits. You can always buy back the old one before the game releases. You have years to spare...
Oh, the IAE started today. Completely forgot about it. My hype levels are critically low this year. And that Intrepid 65 money pricetag is comical.
"this is what you get for the price of a game?" Yeah. I'm starting to think this project isn't sustainable at the current level.
Your hype level, my level of fks to give.. maybe Santa will bring us both this Christmas.
It's that time of the year again..
Camural is the Gordon Ramsay of roasting every ship!
@-NateTheGreat I didn't roast every ship/vehicle.
It is not my fault that CIG is nerfing ships after sales and is so bad at designing in general.
"
@-NateTheGreat "Camural is the Gordon Ramsay of roasting every ship!"
"YOU'RE AN IDIOT SPACESHIP!"
So fed up with this. All the ships are a buggy mess. Most aren’t gold standard. There’s also nothing fun to do.
Looks like someone doesn't have an imagination. Bro its a sandbox. Make your own fun.
Lets not forget the intrepid has zero vehicle capacity as well. Honestly not surprised, CIGs pricing has been really wacky lately (even for CIG). CIG nerfed the Ares because no one at CIG actually plays the game, and they saw data metrics showing the Ares blowing up small fighters (as it should with any fighter stupid enough to go head to head with one), and brought out the nerf bat because light fighters must always win against heavy fighters. The under passages of the Mercury were always a stupid gimmick that made the ship too fat.
For a business model that relies entirely on selling digital ships, CIG sure knows how to craft dumb ships!
Lots of wasted space, turrets with intentional blind angles, huge ships with tiny guns & tiny ships with huge guns, bombers that only carry a handful of bombs, "secret tunnels" to waste otherwise useful space, pointless "living areas". The game has 10 years and they haven't figured out a way to standardize vehicles sizes to fit ships!
They keep selling the next bigger/better ship to old backers, while most of the new players just got a 45 USD aurora and are not even playing, just waiting until the game is somewhat playable.
$68 warbond for the intrepid starter pack?! Go home CIG, you're drunk.
The guy on the ground in front of the Storm Tank is the designer. He's high on widow again which explains the design language...
We need to set a new requirements, If new ship brings new fun gameplay we should be interested to learn more, but if new ship doesn't bring anything new we have to close our wallets immediately and don't bother about it at all.
What did they do to our top hat? Nothing is sacred anymore HAHA
I was so in love with the Ares. The nerf was nonsense and it has no place now.
If the Intrepid had at least 12 SCU. One of the cargo areas could have been easily a 2x4 grid. This would at least allow for "small cargo" missions (4 SCU max size). It could be for those that like the RPG aspect of a nice interior over practical use.
Looks like the ship was originally designed for Exploration or Data running. Instead it is labeled a "starter hauler". For the same price you would get a 315p. Still some nice interior, but more Cargo, better shields and even a tractor beam. I guess people with store credits might pick one and melt it, once novelty wears of.
I admit it might no be easy to add new ships after 10 years, knowing that you will have to add even more ships to fund the game in the future. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Yeah the Ares really should have been a single ship with an Ion and an Inferno loadout (modulair). Also Genesis now a 10 year old JPEG... There is no excuse for it. After 10 years of undelivered goods you should get your money back.
CIG is remarkably bad at Gamedesign / Worldbuilding. Since there's no consistency and so on, they produce dumb stuff you just can't ignore.
If you look at a Game like Armored Core or the like, you know it's not super realistic, but the Robots, Parts, Weapons etc. still are made to fit the level of technology the Gameworld has and relative to each other.
CIG makes one ship that's heavily restricted by all kinds of things, can't use bigger weapons, has small shields etc. then makes another ship that has a similar footprint and outperforms the first ship in every regard many times over.
One Ship has reasonable Turrets, another has ones so constrained by artificial spoilers and what not, that it's not viable to have a player (or paid NPC) in it, regardless of weaponry.
Another example are the multiple types of ground vehicles.
They have no ground clearance, they have completely obscure proportions, their weaponry is all over the place because some get "hero" weapons while others don't, the weird wheels make no sense at all and Grav-Lev seems like a depreciated feature.
The Ares costs as much as the Starlancer Max. Insane.
Vote with your wallets!
I saw ranger on map and thought we were getting lucky. Oh well. I hope those holo rangers were not 100% scale because they are stupidly big as usual.
@Power5 oh this is CIG. Ships, cockpits, vehicles are comically over sized. The Nova tank is way bigger than a world war 2 super heavy Maus, which was a terrible design.
I understand CIG has their metrics, but Michelin Man suck. There is tons of clipping in Star Citizen even with Michelin Man, so why even go that route?
Only exception is the Pulse. Rangers are terribly designed and will be huge.
Remember folks! If you want a new ship. Just sell an old one and buy the new one with store credits.
You can always buy back the old one before the game releases. You have years to spare...
Most of these ships will be getting several reworks and "gold star passes"
Maybe hiring an engineer would help ...
NPC engine.... oh wait......
Ranger's whitebox looks fucking awfull. Its way too long and ground clearance is terrible. Chris will have to build highways to drive this thing.
Every year the same! Already know all the ships ad nauseam, except the Intrepid which is a joke ship. So nothing really to see there.
C1 issues aside, it's still way better cargo ship than a Zeus Mk II CL. I traded my CL in for one, and I don't regret it one bit.
C💩G