I'm taking you to MasterModes School, and its not what you think.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @avenger__one
JOIN US ON TWITCH: / avenger__one
OR ON DISCORD: / discord
OR ON TWITTER: / aonettv
TOBII DISCOUNT CODE: AVENGERONE
PREDITOR MOUNTS DISCOUNT CODE: AVENGERONE
Be sure to check out the "CORE SKILLS PLAYLIST" for your first steps into PVP
and welcome to the most active PVP skills channel for StarCitizen. Now get your ship ready
and lets put in our 1% improvement ethos to work, and make a killer pilot out of you.
![[EP18] DOGFIGHTING MASTERCLASS wave-pattern/profile/deflection](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pKMtHrMYoDY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EP18] DOGFIGHTING MASTERCLASS wave-pattern/profile/deflection](/img/tr.png)
![BASICS NEW PILOTS SHOULD KNOW! [StarCitizen Combat 3.23]](/img/n.gif)
Oh I get it now, engagement ranges are so long and speeds so low, It's like if two guys in hobble skirts were fighting with wiffleball bats. Once committed, you have no option but to duke it out.
this is the funniest comment i've seen in weeks.
Saw this live on stream and made a note to go look for the VOD later cause I had to step in and out and missed parts. Glad you uploaded it as it’s REALLY helpful understanding cons of MM changes. Thanks!
I was listening to a real world F14/F18 pilot describing dissimilar combat training with most of the US fighter line. After going on about 40 minutes about how and why, then he stopped and told: "OK, these were nice and exciting games: in real life you don't want to be dancing at all with an enemy as you'd immediately be shot down by his pal while you are slow and focusing".
In WWII air combat tactics, it is very important to pick your engagements, and not fly into any furball. The furball is movie magic, no pilot who wants to live for more than 5 minutes would ever fly into one of those (Go pickup IL2 BOS, and go into the Wings of Liberty server, and then fly into a furball... You'll find out). You need to gain altitude advantage, and then pick your angle of attack, spending many minutes lining up your run. You boom and zoom, and then disengage. Then go about setting up your next attack. Or bait a weaker turning opponent into a turn fight. And then roll them to their death. (Rolling scissors is the most fun and rewarding kill, because it's so hard to control, and easy to lose orientation)
@@TheNefariousFox Именно примитивность боя в CIG меня отталкивает. Приятно видеть что я тут не один из Il-2 BoS )
@@NJGr.10Grasser, They may yet find the right balance. Yogi has shown that he cares about the combat quite a lot.
I don't need to prematurely hang him out to dry.
His biggest concern is tuning for fleet battles, and I suppose I understand how important that is to get right.
Adding master modes feels like, "We promised ship tuning, but what we promised is hard. This is our way of keeping our promise without actually implementing proper ship tuning."
This is just the ship tuning we have at home. At the end of the day, it's a dumbing down of the interesting and unique systems/gameplay we were promised.
Master modes has effectively killed the idea of ship tuning in the same way mining modules that minimize inert material killed the idea of filtering out and/or jettisoning unwanted mining material
CIG needs to understand that topspeeds and acceleration are directly related to each other and the reason Mastermodes is feeling so "caged" is because we have WW2 fighter speeds, whilst maintaining the status quo on accelerations. A WW2 fighter had not even 1 G of forward acceleration, that is why they couldn't do vertical climbs with them, Mastermodes tries to squeeze us into those speeds whilst we still have 10+ G's of forward acceleration.
I concur with the increase to an average 500 m/s, that way we can have more sci-fi esque accelerations, but they still need to reduce acceleration down by, in my opinion, at least 30 % of what they are now, so the speed envelope is actually meaningful and it takes a few seconds to move around in the speed ranges suggested.
you are correct about top speed and acceleration ratio and projectile speeds all work together you could probably make a very close to live feeling model at 100ms with low accels low top speed low projectile speed and have the same live like problems its an interesting thought.
Yes but its 3 things: speed, acceleration, and turn rates. Its about the RATIO of these things to each other!
A1 i would limit boost max velocities to that of max base velocities.
And turn boost into high acceleration mode, and reduce base acceleration to below 12g, and interceptors and racers with an +15% to base acceleration.
This will make for more velocity choices, as wanting high velocities costs you time, or lose of agility if boost used to get that higher velocities.
If deceleration is also set the same, would teach players that joist they only have a few seconds of engagement and 0.5-1minute to re-engage due to turn radius being so large due to high speed.
While lower velocities allows for small turn radius and faster direction changes.
Correct me if i am wrong, but in space should bigger engines not mean higher speeds? Id get gamifying it so that the proprtionality of thrust to mass makes higher accelleration, but why are the largest shios with the largest engines not capable of the highest top speeds? Shoukdnt THAT be the primary defence/manuervering benefit of heavier ships? Then you simulate additional "launch speed" by "slowing" XXL ships so that you simulate relative motion without having to REALLY simukate it to give the more WWII feel? Are they at least going to implement armor as a damage nullifier bellow a certain point to make up for crippling the effectivness of Heavy and Large combat ships?
Avenger1 have you posted this into spectrum so you get some feedback for other backers?
So the mods can hide the evidence? That place is worse than reddit.
A1 I love you but if you're "taking me to school" a few minutes into this and I already have to make a couple points.
1. there are more ships than just the arrow and CIG is trying to balance the game to make them ALL fun for AS MANY people as possible in or out of PVP.
2. Weapons range SHOULD be long. In your previous impeachments of mastermodes you have called it "Arcade-y" But in all actuality Lasers are light, Light moves faster than our ships ever will...that's more realism than arcade. Also, in a low pressure environment with near 0 drag such as space, Bullets can and will absolutely travel much farther much faster than they do in the current live model.. the mastermodes weapon range increases are MORE realistic.
3. The 400M/s afterburner speed is still 100 MPH above Mach 1, nobody is merging at Mach1 all the way through the follow through, you bleed way too much energy by the time you get the apex.
4. We want "realism" over arcadeyness but we hand waive the fact that 'realistically' two enemy fighters meeting is a huge failure on the part of everyone, because a mere 900+ year old 5th Gen fighter from Earth would carry scant bullets due to the fact that it would engage enemies with devastating missiles attacks from far Beyond visual range... so if we want dog fights we have to accept some hand waivium and arcadyness, to explain the comical frailty of our missiles in this game.
5.Interestingly the 220M/s seems rather deliberate, cannot be a mere coincidence, that this is a direct conversion to about 430 KIAS (Which is about what an F-14 would do in a full throttle vertical maneuver). How much more real can we get than that? The problem is that the reason for that limit is IRL WING LOAD...in an EARTH LIKE ATMOSPHERE. But we are in space or otherwise generally very thin atmospheres (See below)
The speeds aren't the problem.
The Turning rates are the problem. They are comically low for a game representing empty tin cans being pushed by jet thrusters in space.
Anything smaller than a connie should be able to pivot about it's center of mass nearly instantly under jet propulsion.
I should not need to worry about Turn rates unless I am in atmosphere, with working flight control surfaces.
In space I should be able to fly right past you and without changing my trajectory at all, pivot my nose to face you and fire.
THIS is the problem with the flight model. Not the speeds.
But CIG won't change this because they are not going for realism and they never were. The vision was always sold to us as WW2 style dog fights in space. But there is a reason WW2 style dog fights are called WW2 style.... Because after WW2 dog fighting very quickly evaporated from existence in favor of BVR weaponry.
You got some good points. I really think A1 is not right about this one. What do You think about human body tolerance to G forces being the main limitation to space ships speeds and turns??
@@il2csichannel298 Thanks. I think the g forces are only relevant in so far as the devs wish for them to be. The same way the realities of IFR flying are not relevant because they don't want them to be, BVR weaponry is not relevant because they don't want it to be, vision augmentation in the black is not relevant because they don't want it to be etc.
At the end of the day, this is not, and was never promised to be DCS in space. It was in the very same clip A1 used in his previous video, billed as "a fun place to fight NPCs and other humans in a space video game"
A1 keeps asking "Does Mastermodes require enough skill for him and others like him to continue dominating with impunity".
The correct question is: "Is Mastermodes Fun"
the latter can only be answered by consensus of the entire community.
Personally having spent many an hour in Pirate Swarm MM.... I also find it too easy to be fun. But that's just because the AI are still brain dead.
I do agree that something still feels off and needs addressing. I just don't think it's the SCM speed.
I think that if they got rid of the idiotic auto decel when you get off the afterburner but are still full throttle IN SPACE with 0 Drag, and gave every ship like 20 to 30% more pitch and roll speed in space.... it would fix almost everything that feels artificially slow, and drastically limiting about MM.
This was so close, but SO wrong right at the last second. The problem IS the turn rates, specifically the ratio of turn speed to movement speed, but the turn rates should be made WAY LOWER to be closer to modern day fighters--because this would bring in all the depth that is in modern realistic games like DCS.
Yes that would be less realistic, but no, no one gives a shit because the game would be dogshit with turn rates as high as you are describing.
You know what is the funniest thing the stuff he is describing is almost how physics would have to work in space for dogfights to actually happen. Real physics unfortunately in space allow objects to go too fast for dogfights. Space would be more of an artillery battle with mathmaticans and computer calculating trajectories and flight paths. They actually need to commit to fighters flying like they are in atmosphere if they want that feel. Although if they want to make fighters almost soley atmospheric based and large ships long range behemoths in space cool still works and technically more sim less game.
Personally give all fighters a 20% speed buff in scm mode and that might help I do think they are a bit slow.
I see what your getting at, I like the idea of 400 with boost of only to 500, we cant have these fast speeds anymore man, one CIG cant tackle desync, they have been saying that for years, I know its a factor.
One thing I have noticed is you may not be looking at the big picture, CIG is trying to make a multi player experiance while using all ships. I can see what there trying to accomplish with making every ship have a piece of the puzzle.
With the Vanguard I agree its turn is dumb, it should at least have the acceleration of a interceptor, its literally 1/2 engines but its purpose is to fight at range. In your example you show a Vanguard closing distance, I feel like this might be due to your only choice in combat being LFs prior to this, not YOU specifically, just CIG making the LF the meta and only viable dogfighter. The Vanguards best option is actually backstrafe and keep distance, extending the time that interceptor is on your nose.
I gotta call you out on something though, every chance I get I get into MM, and its not a bunch of Buccs flying, its a mix of hornets and Gladius' I maybe see the snubs and Buccs 1nce in a blue moon. If its atmo its all Vanguards, with maybe a couple Gladius', and one thing about the Gladius... its way too much of a tank for a LF, it can stay at the nose of a SH and sometimes outlast it, which is wrong since the SH is a medium fighter that has been said to be both a brawler and have heavy armor for a fighter.
So the only compromise I can agree with you on really is 400 with boost to 100 over.
But isn't it kinda hard to hit stuff at range with fixed weapons and NO aim assist? I heard they are removing aim assist? Or maybe they aren't? I dunno. Haven't logged in for months. Anyway, while what you say might be the best tactic for a vanguard, it seems really dumb for a ship like the vanguard. Its' looks are really aggressive with 2 engines and such.
@@latjolajban81 nah the weapon speeds are high enough that youll get hits with the s5 guns, and the Bucc is pretty squishy.
Best case is for the Vanguard to have the same mechanics as an interceptor, so it can keep distance and stop LFs and the Bucc from just wrappin around it, because the rotation rate on the Vanguards just plain suck
See..this is the danger though.
"CIG is trying to make a multi player experience while using all ships" ..
This sounds like trying to please everyone, fixing some things not broken. I feel you on dsync, but let's look at the MCU, Star Wars, etc, and how the last decade went for them when they tried to please the wrong demografic/audience.
Just sayin.. maybe CIG should work with what we have, instead of reinventing the wheel in favor
of new players who may only care to play until the next PS5 game comes out.
@@seekerhooligan781 its not so much trying to please everyone, more so trying to make ships other than the LF class viable. I mean they have a ton of fighters intended to fight other ships. I imagine they want to utalize them. Yes it is trying to please other styles of gameplay, but I dont know if thats a completley bad idea, different people have different play styles, there should be options in combat rather then just 1 meta.
@Avenger__One My guess is that server meshing might be involved in these changes as well. Slowing down fight migh help with ai precision when tick rate for servers is low. I also believe that high velocity and cone of fire is for the same reason. It's just an educated guess, but making combat more mathematical like you say actually makes it easier to make challenging ai encounters.
All in all it is an educated guess but I would love to hearyour thought about this.
Still love your content! Have a nice one avenger!
I don't understand CIG slowing heavies down. I mean, physics says that once that high mass heavy is moving, it's not going to slow down. So, why are we making them wallowing pigs? Hard to turn? Sure. Hard to slow? Sure. But straight up slow? Errrr.... @.@
Dont forget we are talking about arcade game play (aka... master modes). Reality has NOTHING to do with it!
@Roob_65 CIG, and pretty much every other space sim, has thrown out physics long ago. Otherwise, you'd be able to accelerate to millions of meters per second. Whether speeds are capped at 1200 or 200, it's still a cap.
No one wanted realistic. Otherwise you would only be using missiles in fighters fired from beyond visual range. Stealth would be king in fighter aircraft in atmo. In space no one would use small ships they have 0 advantage. And laser anything would be moving at the speed of light. Let's not try to pretend we want realistic
@@westleighcrain4613what I learned from all the Milsims and historical shooters is: people dont want realism - they want authenticity. People are just used to the term "realism" and using it wrong. A situation, event or entire universe has to feel authentic... yet MMs just dont feel authentic, not in general, but also not in the SC universe.
@@KarlBarbosa We can still have physics in close range. Having physics doesn't mean everything has to be in millions of (insert unit).
Elite Dangerous veteran here. It sounds like CIG is bending the knee to crybabies and casuals with these "master modes". What's the point of having these highly detailed and unique SPACE ships if they all fly like the cloth covered wooden biplanes of WW2? Everything you are saying here is spot on. Speed is king in space combat. It dictates almost all of the terms of every single engagement, whether it be 1v1 or X v X opponents. I hate that they are turning this gorgeous simulation into a face tank numbers game with no dynamic and challenging piloting. The game is dead on arrival if they keep going on this path.
I see the biggest problem right now isn't with the flight model, but, it's the elephant in the room no one is talking about. That is the dsync and not being able to see visually what actually is happening in most engagements because the d-sync is so bad. I think if CIG would fix the d-sync then people would see why their dieing and wouldnt complain. As it is, many times you just blow up and the player you had position on is now behind you.
Theres only one fix, Server Meshing. Any gimmicks to reduce desync like they did in 3.17 patch will break in the next patch anyway
The amount of sheer weight inside this game, be it planets moons station ports in atmo, out of atmo. The ships player and NPC flying inside the server. IDK how they could make "much" progress in this area( the desync ) ATM.
I really get the feeling that the problem MM is secretly trying to solve is the desync that the game experiences at high speeds. That manifests itself as the SDS shields not being able to follow the ship amongst other desync related issues. They were probably told to get the speed of combat way down where the desync doesn't happen, and then sell it as "making combat better".
I am suspicious of it as well. Regardless, the lack of transparency, has become a tipping point.
this isnt a secret at all its been alluded to bringing speeds down means less lag compensation is needed and less space physical distance moved in between ticks etc.
The boost for speed suggests otherwise.
Since if removed, the top speeds would be 500, instead of 225.
The boost limit could be whatever their server limit needs to be, but there is no good reason for that mechanic, other than a choice by CIG to do it that way. And it makes combat flight worse.
The game also has massive desync at walking speed. Try fps combat, depending on how the server is doing you can kill someone in full armor in a second or empty an entire fs9 mag into a naked player without doing a single point of damage.
Raise agility by 50%, kill off boost raising speed entirely, lower weapon velocity by 71%. Done. Best dogfighting patch SC has ever seen that would check all the boxes.
"rookies gonna get destroyed"
of course... you wanted lower speed rate and master mode back then to prevent players from always leaving the fight and reseting...
but that was the only way most rookies could manage to survive... by running away
preventing players to flee and reset was to inevitably make it impossible to survive any fight ... and that's what you wanted back then...
now you realize that!!??
I have a video idea for you. Have a series of 1v1s and squadron battles with big and small ships where you test out different max speeds by limiting them. The speed options could be what we have now / MM speeds / something around 500m/s
You should do a full react to Kreion's old Fighters Combat video. A lot of people agree it has always hit the nail on the head of what made combat good and it had little to do with needing 500m/s velocities.
This was a great call-out. I'd never seen that video but it anticipates many of the same things we're talking about today... 4 years later. Thanks for mentioning it!
It's unfortunate that this video was deleted by Nightrider-CIG
What a joke this company is. Constant damage control. Zero public trust.
That dude is legitimately a liability for CIG
@@raccoona_nongrata BAN reason: assuming pronoun.
@@project.jericho yeah they are the lowest form of life for sure
@@hangglidingmontana6134you trollin or srs?
It does seem like there needs to be a balance found between master modes and what we have now in live. But there will never be a perfect option. And realistically certain ships will always destroy other ships in a scissors, paper, rock contest. There should never be a single ship that can do everything because it would be too op and nobody would use anything else. There has to be a great scenario and a poor scenario for every ship.
Ill say this i think what nevel was pushing for in this conversation was this. If an interceptor enters "theoreticly" a duel with a vangaurd with better armor yes the bucc has the wepons to punch and yes the bucc usually gonna be the more experiance pilot. But. And ive seen this in the live modle with the F8 and the new MKII where they lose the rate advantage but still chance the win on more skilled pilots because where they can make fifteen mistakes in a row maybe get punished for it a little bit. In the live modle they can push out reset the fight as many times as they have to cuz they have stronger hull and sheilds they can afford to make the mistakes if the bucc in this mastermodes senario makes even one mistake hes dead. If he sits in turret range while trying to rate fight and cant clutch for sheilds hes gonna die. All it takes os for one mistake and i think he has a point if bigger ships had more armor it would yes just increase TTK but were all human. I my self hate fighting the classic live modle F8 pilot cuz they like to constantly run for sheilds and reset the fight and it takes so long to kill them it become absurdly exhausting. But maybe and im not advocating cuz i genuinly hate that mechanic about the F8 but maybe thats what nevel's getting at.
Level 3 armor? Sounds heavy! Will the weight of that slow you down too when they implement it or will armor value not increase gross ship weight?
Isnt everything you're talking about all just relative to each other though? You dont have to change speeds to address some of the things you're talking about no? You could instead change the speed or range of projectiles instead of ship speeds. Or change acceleration. The game would be identical to the current model if you brought EVERYTHING down in a relative manner correct? (Except for ship size) The high speeds seem to have so many negatives in relationship to visual aesthetic, ground to air play, desync, group battles (keeping the fight localized) etc. Just wondering if we're barking up the wrong tree with asking for higher speeds.
Yes and no, as A1 said a lot of the issues could also be solved by bringing the weapon projectile velocities down in same ratio: so down to something like 300m/s, but that's just ridiculous.
Thank you for the video.
I think that is the trade-off: tanky slow high DPS Vanguard vs fragile fast moderate DPS Buccaneer. 2 Vanguard can't chase 2 Buccs, but are not afraid of them either as long as they keep together and keep situational awareness.
In a way MM replaces a lot (maybe too much) of raw piloting skill with other skills:
- bring right ship and loadout
- situational awareness
- team tactics.
So, I agree interceptors can dictate the fight, but I don't see that as an overwhelming advantage.
Is it a correct summary to say that two pilots in light fighters have no choice but to strafe + face tank each other until someone’s dead & the interceptor can ignore all of this by repeatedly diving the enemy & staying out of the way via massive SCM speeds?
Aww crap I’m parked, outside my shop exploring but my ship is in “fast” mode and my shields are down and hostile ship incoming…. What to do? Run to ship “I can make before it blows up, then either run off quickly or switch over and defend myself?
So have to switch to “pew-pew” mode EVERY time I land so my shields stay up, then Switch back to “fast” mode when I am ready to go, or need to run from another ship, but not defend myself at all…
Sorry for the multiple posts, I’m beyond aggravated!!
Thanks for all the explanations :) Even if I disagree on the speeds and come to different solutions, it's good & important to share & give rich feedback!
Good work!
Flying in Elites Dangerous with flight assist off is really something if you can understand the movement.
Yet i find no people mention it...... hard to believe since they more or less the same.
I not saying SC should be exactly the same, and i understand E:D also have crazy skill level, but that just what space game looks like in term of reality, at least what I expect SC to be.
Yes it is a game and it doesn't have to matching the reality.
Yes lots player don't have the time to learn.
Live FM needs to change, sure i totally agree.
But you don't cut the pizza into spaghetti because it's too big, it's not a pizza anymore, and I want pizza!
And there's another thing bothers me...
Why people who don't PVP or E or Racing complaining about those community who do as a loud minority,
How much saying you guys should have?
Since you barely FLY any fighter or racer.😅
What you getting here?
You can't even run away with MM if some pirate torpedo you.
Let's just make none flight part a click on game like WOW and pilots denying your deny, see how that feels.
Fast planes in WW2 always had significantly better survivability. The 109 had amazing climb and the FW190 was a beast in level flight or a dive. The ME262 was gone before they knew what hit them.
When you have a wingman that never leaves your backside It's much easier to survive you can switch and converge
@@SeerreuS The United States learned the hardway to not turn fight with the Japanese zeros.
They developed a system called drag n bag. One plane would drag a tailing Japanese fighter only to have another bird come in behind lighting him up.
@@macaw172 you always have to coordinate to win you need teammates. I am a solo player just came into the game a month ago without coordination we're just out all out there aimlessly ships and if you get even two coordinated players on the other side it's very difficult
@@macaw172 2v1 is always an advantage of course. His point still stand that when the US figured out that a plane with higher speed can control when to engage and disengage (and not go into a turnfight because that was the strength of the zero), the kill ratio started to massively favor the US.
@latjolajban81 Even in a 2v2 the slower zero cannot gain an advantage with two well coordinated US fighters.
unfortunate you dont have any footage showing what it looks like.
He doesn't even play master mode.
@@borkug1566did he not say he had countless hours in master mode
Remove boost 4 speed.
Remove the asymmetrical limits.
Lower acceleration rates and tune them for pitch authority preference. (use accel to tune directional and turning limits desired)
Tune speed based on a logarithmic accel curve, so that upper limits are harder to achieve. (This can tune engagement distances, without ruining disengagement possibility)
For the love of the Gawdess please get rid of the vile wretched auto-brake. It ruins the fun of flying.
Strange narration for forcing higher speeds back. Its wierd that zero other solutions to fix interceptors that could be implemented were mentioneded
Like.. for example reduce the HP :D
Interesting video, but it's really just You, and the relative understanding of what the finished product will be.
1. light fighters are done, CIG has all but said that the CONCEPT of "fighters" as they have been defined is finished. Every fighter will now have a role and it won't be light/medium/heavy. like WW2 the TASK will determine the ship needed. Saying that Interdictors will control the fight is relative to what it's interdicting. interceptors have always been fast and gunned up to task. The VANGUARD has ALWAYS been a MEH ship, because it's role of RANGE has been subjective to a single system. it's all well and good to speculate, but the current flight model was a slower version of the previous flight model. this is the first version that actually will impact gameplay in a massive way, and doesn't prioritize what single seater pew pew craft are doing. I for one am interested to see what long term group and large ship gameplay is going to look like. no more stick jockeys orbiting a large target min maxing their orbital velocity while the new player misses every shot because they don't understand how the targeting pip works.
2. Fighters are fun, but now I can start to see how LOGISTICS are gonna dominate the game space. It's interesting,and I want to see what they are thinking
What's up with the hate for joystick everywhere? Just cause you're a gamepad,l "stick jockey" or your mamma can't buy you any, doesn't mean everyone should conform so you can keep up with AV1 piloting in-game. LoL
I said essentially the same thing with different words on Spectrum - speeds need to come up by at least 50-60%, boost needs to be less dramatic (except on racers and to a lesser extent interceptors), the fuel cost for boosting needs to be significantly higher, the maneuver space needs to look more like a teardrop than an egg, and strafe thrust should be a helper to more aggressively turn/jink, etc., to allow for cat/mouse, overshoots, splits, etc. Doesn't need to be DCS, but it needs to feel like you're flying a combat ship, not getting into stupidly boring dps races and lopsided rate fights.
I belive DCS vehicles are slower than ships in SC. 😅
best pic of a vanguard EVER!"
And what about the massive red square surrounding the target in MM... i thought the point of the new mode was to get close to the ship and see the details while engaging...so they put a huge red square for more focuse ? Seems like theyre catering for a more arcade style now
So right now LF's are Meta in LIVE, and Interceptors are Meta in MM. This seems somewhat correct. As in WW2 Warplanes originally going for tight turns, until it was discovered that turn rates are not as important as Speed. So in this way, the development is at least somewhat more alligned with target WW2 in space. The main problem I see in both FM's is the artifical limit on top speeds. As these don't actually exist in Space, at least unless you are approaching lightspeed at which your mass exponentially increases and denies further linear acceleration.
While the limit now is at quite high speeds (1200-1300) it still dictates the outcome. You fly an LF and can fight anyone to death, but if anyone decides to run, you can't catch up. You fly an interceptor and lose to everyone UNLESS you somehow manage to get the upper hand and the other guy tries to run, in which case you can chase. That doesn't help though if the guy decides to QT away so you have to bring a QED equipped ship :-(
I think that this mechanic in LIVE right now is really frustrating. It does already push in the direction of proper teamwork and bringing more different ships to the table to enhance capabilities. But then you are so strong in terms of fighting power that you don't need the QED, or the chasing speed, because you just get destroyed before it comes to that.
I will have to test MM a bit more before I can make further conclusions, but my impression in AC-MM was: I can't really evade or separate during direct combat in a fighter, limiting me to focussing my target and hope for the best. In the buccaneer I can separate, which is nice, but can't stay on target enough to do damage in rate fights. The recharge rates on shields like the Gladius' one are only 3 seconds or so. You need way more between Boom n Zoom attacks, effectively resulting in endless game of doing damage and recharging shields.
I think shield recharge in combat should be something to get looked at and basically eliminated in a way that during an engagement, you can't really have meaningful recharges. I also think its silly and its detrimental to gameplay. It should be more of one-time off damage negation without taking module damage before things get hairy. Just enough so can enter the fight, gather enough info to decide on a tactics, then execute that tactics and see who comes out on top. They way it is right now, you can always drag an engagement into a draw, recharge shields, completely change tactics and try again. All in one fight. Not decisive enough and way too high TTK.
If you keep speeding up fighters though. Won't that hurt what they are partially trying to do is give non combat focused ships a way to possibly get out? I really enjoy these videos but it just seems very difficult balance between a model that either heavily favors fighters or heavily favors non-combat ships
alright you convinced me, I do not have any rational arguments. So now what do we do and how do we convince CIG? That too me is the challenge. It is great Avenger has an issue with current MM and not just complaining about it and has a solution. So what is next?
Go to spectrum and put your feedback In, then pray
@@Avenger__One Will Do.
From I notice after I engage an enemy since we are turning so much and losing so much energy in a fight what end up happening is even though the speed limit is at 200 the majority of the time my ship speed is between 100-150. That is without utilizing boost. When using boost, my speed will go up for a short amount of time and hit 200 again and then drop below 150 when turning again.
Yesssss, increase standard speed to 400-500, then give a small amount boost, 100-200, depending on the ship type
I'd recommend people just try it and decide for themselves. Let the majority win.
The way you're explaining this, it makes me think they reverted to previous builds where the flight model felt extremely arcadey and the folks pvping at the time LOVED that model, they bemoaned the loss of it for years!
I’ve found much easier kills now using the larger, higher dps ships in AC pirate swarm. It’s much easier to get nose on target when you allow your ships to attract fire but use your nose to line up along with back strafe to shred them.
I saw you on space tomato. I feel you bro. Everything you said about the flight model was entirely accurate. The cruise speeds needing to be closer to boost speeds is so obvious. I feel the vets have been sold down the river to go for new blood and feel everything in the game is being setup to be easily copied and pasted. So they can scale big with less depth and sell more systems. This is a bad move for longevity. Companies looking for the bottom line and not looking at the big picture is what we entrusted Chris not to do.
It sounds to me like they had a board room meeting that went something like this. We have X new players. What can we do to appeal to these new players AKA "buyers". We already got our money from these people playing for 10 years. So we are going to cater to these casual younger players that want everything easier. They will play it for a few months and then put it on a shelf and move to the next game. Like every other forgotten title out there. This is what we are going to do with "STARCITIZEN" and all the potential it had? Come on Chris you are better than this.
Whats even more insane is this wont be appealing to new players at all even though that is their goal. People that dont know how the game works think that master modes will protect them. WRONG because like you said any mob of ships will kill you. There is no way to escape. Ganking will be worse than it has ever been. Master modes doesn't protect anyone. It dooms them indefinitely from any swarm with no chance to escape. They think that is going to be fun? No they are just so bad at development they dont even see the issues... Sad. I think as we get older CIG is hiring new younger people advocating for new ideas and Chris is getting less involved. Most likely why Todd left.
I mean that is one way to look at it, the other is the fact you have to commit to an engagement and if you are going to run, you have to think it out. If you try to cruise away, you asking for a missle, so you have to chaff out to try to cover that escape. Multiple skill checks - the first, how to disengage, do you roll around then boost, or do you boost into his direction to build up speed/chaff to break lock to cover your em buildup.
The other player is going to have to read your intent, begin spooling missles which stops his incoming fire as he readies the missle. So they had multiple choices
I think MM is a step in the right direction, just needs a bit of tuning. Being able to tricord out of any engagement in the pu was not a healthy gameplay loop in live.
That being said, if you want to experience true frustration, roll a connie fully crewed for a bit 😅
@@Brian-us2xz I have probably more hours than anyone with a few exceptions in this game. There is no choice to engage anything in master modes. You will be engaged whether someone wants to fight or not. That's my point. There is no escape with master modes. Unless you are in something very very fast. Anything larger than a light fighter will be forced into a fight every time and be destroyed. Watch. There will be no option to disengage or re-engage or anything of the sort. You can barely do this now with light fighters. Do you really think anyone has any chance to get away with something big fat and slow? lol. It will be Mob rule without even using any type of tackle ship and nothing but interceptors will be able to escape any type of combat in MM. Mark my words.
@jasonmaxwell9762 I only have 30 to 40 hours in mm currently, i didn't notice not being able to disengage, it was far more difficult and required chaff and shield manipulation, but was not impossible.
Either way, I would just say these are the first steps, back in the kiltedfrog Era of arena commander, there were growing pains as well.
5:28 I'm following but it sure seems like you got this 5:43 backwards.
Your comment at 41:35 directly contradicts what you said in your Tomato Talk interview. You stated in the interview that in the current MM it's not possible to take on multiple opponents, and that was one of your main gripes with MM. Now here you say that 2 experienced guys are gonna eviscerate 20 guys. Your criticisms are all over the map, bro. Just admit it. You don't want light fighter, own everything meta to go away. Just admit it.
this for sure
You're too dumb for this topic aren't you?!?
The biggest part of star citizen is the flying its the core and if that suck the game sucks, if it feels great the game feels great. I'm DCS player and I prefer the current flight model of star citizen but hope they get Master Mode right for everyone as I do see the potential.
Solutions for Master Mode, just get rid of the auto couple mode thing that happens.
The ship should just retain speed and be punished with less maneuverability at higher speed .DCS for example, every aircraft has its best rate speed all pilots know what that is for there aircraft and makes sure not to fly out of that envelope or you loose the dog fight. Everyone should have to focus to make sure they fighting within there ships envelope if you are out of this margin you get punished by your ship for not flying it in its best performance range. All ships vary they could work with that but the arcade feel has to go not good for star citizen. Flying needs to feel good and the auto breaking is so far from what it actually feel like to fly and I have my PPL so I do have good idea.
To round it off, the arcade feeling comes from the auto breaking that the ship does, get ride of that and it will feel much better!!
sc should be more like dcs. otherwise the Arcady turn rates will always be a problem with jousting.
large ships don't have enough hit points and turrets need an auto aim zone to hit cracked out turn rates in sc ships.
they're should be repercussions for turning to hard . g rates are also pretty cracked.
with the uncountable list of lies cig has shown, and the huge lack of progress with live or the bare bones flight model im sure avanger you will get your point across but do you think theyll actually listen?
everything they said they would release has been a stripped down version of what they say has been released, think hard about it.
I've never played SC but I follow it's development closely. I'm fascinated by this master modes debate. Having no experience playing, I'm obviously ignorant, but wondering if going back to the previous flight mode, but similar to blacking out, have various ship systems powering down/start to lose function, relative to higher speeds. So you'll get your high speeds in combat, while temporarily sacrificing weapon damage output for example, or maybe even some turning speed at highest speeds. I know boosting already does this if I understand correctly. Maybe I'm off, just a thought I had while listening.
Do you think we could frame the speed argument as 2 arguments - one for higher SCM speeds and total speeds, or another for current tuning speeds and slower acceleration rates. Or even a 3rd argument for a combination of both; which I actually believe, considering a modern era F22 can fly at 670 m/s in Earth's atmosphere. Frankly I don't know why we're limited to 2/3s of that in space.
Agree that speed need to be raised in MM, but all your arguments are focused on tactical warfare in the current game, ignoring strategy and logistics of the larger game. Twitch pilot skill cannot totally trump the rock, paper, scissors of ship type roles. Then there is the symmetrical warfare of what you discuss against asymmetrical warfare of what could be possible. I do feel the concern you have is very valid, but not a panic, the flight model had changed before, it can change again.
That can be fixed with weapon velocities, ranges, and armor. Simply, you make smaller weapons have shorter range and slower velocities, and less able to affect bigger armor.
the reality is, that this isnt' going to change much in the game, because the "pvp" crowd doesn't really want to PvP, but to attack those that dont' want to fight back anyway. They will continue to attack those that aren't interested in fighting, and steal their stuff, so the MM isn't going to change any of that.
"They're getting incorrect stats from these heavy fighters" is one way to frame it. The other way is that they are looking at performance on a macro level, where statistically across the entire playerbase heavy fighters are outperforming, but maybe with a deeper look into the top 1% of pilots the heavy fighters are egregiously underperforming. This is what I mean by framing, CIG either chooses to base their balance around the majority, or they choose to base their balance around the best.
I'm sure you have good reasons why CIG basing their balance around the majority is a mistake, but without voicing that your point will come across as 'elitist' to those with no room for nuance. That's the key sticking point that isn't contested... why should CIG focus on the most competitive for balance over the many?
It's unsurprising that the average backer wants CIG to balance around themself, but you can do a better job optically of representing your point. Most rebuttals to your in-depth analysis will boil down to "Yes BUT, I find it more fun and I'm having more success in my multicrew ship", because they aren't fighting avenger squadron in most of their engagements.
Hold back space and yell “ree” while shift+W towards the enemy
It sounds like we need to make SCM speeds the current boost speeds and make afterburner be all about accelerations and add no top speed at all.
So would one of the solutions to Vanguard v Interceptor be that quicker turn radius for the vanguard, while the Interceptor retains its greater top speed (Vanguard having a slower speed, but faster turrets, and better agility, but interceptor/light fighter had the option to bail out)?
I guess I'm trying to figure out what the endgame would look like, ideally, for you. Pretty sure this is what CIG is aiming for - rock-scissors-paper. So heavies have the big guns, lights have the speed, and mediums have something in between? Would that balance it out (at least with the fighters - we also have the bigger game of fighter v bomber v corvette, but that's something else). Also, I suppose armor is going to throw a wrench into all of this.
How much would dropping the acceleration proportional to the drop of velocity go to correct some of the issues. Since lots of people are commenting on that the velocity drop may be a quiet way to address de-sync rather than the claimed gameplay "improvement"?
It was never a "quiet" way to address desync, CIG people have said it many times over (and it's obvious from pure math perspective) that speeds (and acceleration) needs to come down to address desync. The less a ship can change vector (or heading) within a say 4 packet roundtrips (lets say about 50ms per roundtrip) the less desync there is going to be when one or two packets are inevitably dropped. As A1 keeps saying it's all about ratios, high speeds could be kept if accelerations were dropped through the floor because when ships can't change vectors fast then predicted position vs real position cannot differ much. It would suck as an experience in many ways for most people (those who enjoy lunar lander simalutor probably wouldn't mind).
Master modes Pirate swarm is just insanely easy in any ship atm, I can do it quickly without taking hull damage in a Syulen which is a huge weak ship.
You feel powerful the first time doing it but the pve experience is even more shallow than in live, the cone fire and insane aim assist makes it trivial.
Not sure how they plan to balance out PvE, in the PU combat will be even easier with the low server fps
First, thanks for your feedback. Im not from the fighter-bubble. The thing is, and i think thats why people are renting so much about your feedback on other platforms, that you come out of a bubble and claim to speak for all Star Citizens against CIG, but from all the stuff people are telling you only picked one argument (hull armor) into account. You see, the devs allways said: Star Citizen isnt a PvP-Game. PvP should be like 10% of the SC-Content in the final game. But its a PvE-Simulation. And people dont have time to learn dogfighting in the way you want it. And i say "you want" extra, because you transported the feeling that people have to play fights like you said. That they have to learn aerial maneuvers and stuff to play the game. And thats not what most of the players want. They want a system that feels good for the casual gamer against PvE, and your videos feel like you wanna take that from them.
Coming to my feedback to your videos: I agree with many suggestions you say. Im still not a fan of higher fighting speeds. I dont know about meta and stuff. But i dont like the distances we fight right now. I dont like jousting, it gets boring pretty fast and endlag creates suicide NPCs. However i, a casual PvE-Fighter who mainly likes building, trading, exploring, mining and space-van-life wants to have a spacefight like in star wars, if i can get this. This means id love to flight close to targets, shoot from like 200 meters or so and idealy fly through the explosion. But at 500 m/s i won't see this. I'll probably still dont see an enemy ship with MM, but more likely the icon. Id love to see a general weapon overhaul. For repeaters: The bigger the gun, the further it shoots and the stronger it is. That catapults light fighters with size 1 weapons into lowest tiers, cause they would need to get super close to hit anything. Light fighters like the arrow could get good hits on a higher distance, but would become more deadly when they lock behind a ship and hit it also with the small guns. You get the idea. And other weapons bring other fighting styles. You get the idea. Thats something i, as a non PvPler, would love to see. I dont care if the skill ceiling is lowered.. Without meaning any harm, but for people like me, MM makes the game more enjoyable. I hope you understand (or already did and just didnt delivered it good enough)
200 m/s speeds are more appropriate for games where you do NOT have full 6 DOF maneuverability. WWII flight sims are a great example of this. Even in modern air combat if you get to the merge and into a guns fight corner airspeed for most fighters is around 400 knots which is just over 200 m/s. The old X-Wing games did not have very high speeds but again even with no stall speed or gravity like aircraft have they still did NOT have 6 DOF. The one time it worked with 6 DOF that I know of is the old Descent series, and that was because you were fighting inside of a damn cave with VERY low velocity weapons! (If they were not the couple of hitscan weapons.) CIG has a choice, increase speeds or (GASP!) remove full 6 DOF and make it more like X-Wing/TIE Fighter/Alliance. Even Elite Dangerous with slower speeds only has very LIMITED lateral thrusters and thus only limited 6 DOF (but unfortunately 30 minute TTK for some ships).
More reason for me to stick to on-foot FPS gameplay and pick a ship that is good at getting me in/out of the AO. Maybe something that can also carry a light vehicle to drive a couple kilometers to a bunker or objective.
yea no shit its fucked, its like cig doesnt know wtf its doing and theyve designed ships with no fucking consideration of ship balance at all. unless this turns into a eve 2 within 5 years and its all roll the dice mechanics.
So, what I'm hearing is, speed kills, and if you are a highly trained pilot, you are still going to control and destroy other less trained players. This hasn't changed from what it is in Live, you and anyone else at the top 5% are still going to destroy lesser skilled opponants. It's just M50s and Buccaneers that we have to fear now, instead of arrows and hornets.
the good point is that MM are not a bad idea , finally is just a matter of fine tuning about ration armor lp velocity etc, so at the end im sure the balance will be nice ;), hope cig have a look on your demonstration to help fixing issue MM can have
Having a mode for combat and a mode for transport is not a bad idea. But the flight model and the different systems involved in combat are shite.
If Avenger has taught me anything, to be a great pilot, you must have a solid understanding of combat logging. Because all the best pilots have huge egos and insecurities about dying in a video game...
What A1 has used his blackboard was to explain a ton of DCS and IRL dog fighting theory. Around 5:30 he basically explains a "no respect lead turn" when your adversary is too fast and cannot turn, leaving you to turn early. If your adversary gets too far from you in DCS, they take missiles in the tail pipe. They're trying to extend and can't "jam the WEZ." In DCS, missiles actually accelerate and have non-magical turn rates. So if your adversary is too close when the missile comes off the rail, it can miss. In SC, this would be diving inside the minimum range. Outside of that, DCS missiles either need to be spoofed or terrain masked because odds are you're in the MAR.
Idk looks to me like CIG is deliberately getting rid of the high skill ceiling dogfighting currently has. Just look at any other gameloop, they're all so much more simple. Mining's only required skill is finding the cheat sheets online, salvage is completely braindead, the only skill check of box missions is to dodge all the mission breaking bugs, fps combat is nothing special either, anyone who's played a shooter before will feel right at home and engineering is going to get a repair beam. The only outlier here is dogfighting, it's an anomaly in terms of skill requirements compared to the entire rest of the game. So from that angle it absolutely makes sense that they wanna dumb it down and bring it in line with the rest of their skill free activities.
you lost me on this one. sounds like we want a cruise ship to out turn a speed boat now. in my head the Nevel guy makes since to me. increasing scm speed across the board just creates the same issue just at larger distance. (mostly my lack of understanding im sure)
but i think the main issue nobody has mentioned is Coupled vs Decoupled. i feel the game needs to be limited to 1 or the other. Coupled is a huge disadvantage against the other, the decoupled guy can follow your trail while always being nose on no matter what side of the ship he moves to. the coupled guy can only aim in the direction of the ships movement .
best way i can paint that picture is Drones vs rc planes. the drone can fly just as fast in 1 direction but while looking at and circling the target at all times no matter what the plane does.
None of this makes any sense.
First, there's no gravity in space ergo you can't have G forces at the speeds we're flying. Well, that's a problematic statement as i don't actually know what speed these ships can attain. I'll assume it's under 20 m/s. If that's the case at best, you're doing 2 Gs at best. turning radius in space is insane as there's no friction, no air, and no lift! Turning can be done instantly!
If you wish to turn right, you fire off your left side strafing thrusters. Turning left is the opposite! You can accelerate the turn by also hitting the opposing directional forces either forward or backward strafe, whichever is relevant.
(Picture a zero turn lawn mower or typical tank style drive).
So again, none of these game mechanics make logical sense! There are only two sci-fi shows that depict space combat accurately Babylon 5 and the expanse.
The circles you drew are moot in space you can turn on a dime instantly, there are no ifs and / or butts about it provided the thrusters are powerful enough. I'd argue there's no weight in space, and thus, the mass of the ships is irrelevant, but that's way beyond my knowledge, so I'm stipulating an appropriate size thruster is required.
In theory, when I fire up my main engine towards the moon, turning off the engine has no effect on my forward movement. I will eventually hit the moon.
If I fire left forward strafe thruster and right rear thruster, I will instantly spin to the right. No Gs will occur. My forward motion has not stopped.
If I was headed to the moon and the earth was to my back and the sun to my right when this occurred, my current facing is towards the sun, yet my directional heading is still towards the moon! Until I fire the main engine, I will still maintain my heading to the moon.
The firing said engine will never incurre Gs because the ship has to overcome its current velocity, which means the ship slows and then starts heading in the opposite direction.
Either this is a space simulation, or it's not! Having characteristics of atmospheric flight in space such as turning radius is ludicrous. The community needs to decide whether you want a space sim or space arcade!
I know you likely won't read this comment or care about what I am about to say. But everything on what you covered with masters modes has just been so off the mark. I know I have not provide the detail you are looking for as to related feedback, but I think many others have said what I am already thinking within the comments of these videos and others related to Master-modes. And I am not referring to those who want higher-speeds as an example. I just simply can't continue to follow your content. I wish you the best of luck with your channel and community.
Why not just make afterburner last longer? For example a minute before recharging.
In the old Wing Commander: Privateer your energy was shared between the afterburner, shields, and guns. If you wanted to run you would have to stop shooting, drop a shield level, and then you had "unlimited" afterburner.
If you post some links to spectrum post about this, we can give them a vote so its gets on CIG's radar a bit more.
Hey avanger,
Stupide Thing i got from halfe the Video:
We could Cut the acceleration down and have a Close effect to 500ms scm?
20:29 realist physics is naturally balanced/ship roles as AV1 alludes to.
I don't think you will ever get CIG to increase the speed of ships so since everything is relative you are way better off recomending changes to bullet speeds and turn rates to fix the problem.
Ahhh, so just concede that the game is going to be absolute garbage, bc CI refuses to listen to the backers? Sounds like it's time to sell.
Dont nerf turn rates, just reduce the G limits. That automatically scales based upon the ship mass. Net effect is largely, but not entirely the same, Because YOU the pilot gets to decide whether you are willing to give up speed in order to gain turn rate, or vice versa.
I'd rather see velocity of weapons drop rather than speed of ships raise.
laser speed? in that distance it's instant
Wait for the hammerhead to have engineering and than gl hf with a snapfighter
Who labeled the buccaneer an interceptor?!
what acout the karthual? I don't have that ship...
Thanks for putting effort into making this game not turn to a bore fest
All of us dcs pilots that play star citizen are like “ finally “.
I think the only thing this discussion is missing is a discussion of how acceleration, or time to top speed, is part of the tuning that needs to be considered. Otherwise I fully agree with the concepts you are laying down.
I will however ask you this, is there a time to kill or time to disable (ex thruster damage) for interceptors as a class of ship that would fix this current MM balance issue?
Too me is seems the criticism of master modes, boils down to expecting a f/a-18e super hornet to have the same ability do dogfight like a f-22 raptors to use real world examples. That would be two simple minded and Arcady.
Maybe this is a dimb question, but since we're in a space sim why don't we make better use of 6dof? Why not strafe backward in a heavy to keep a smaller ship in front of you? Or flip 180 and then burn instead of making wide turns?
Turn rates are too slow in heavys. A experienced pilot would be able to see the ship physically turning and realize what's happening and counter
You hit the A symmetric speed wall that "forces" close fights
@@Avenger__One You really need to expand on this. Pretty sure you have discussed it in the past, but with these changes/discussion it is even more important that people understand the issue. Maybe part of the solution is eliminating the asymmetry.
Backward strafe is slower than your foreward strafe. You won't keep any ship faster than yours off of you that way. As heavy you don't have the speed to run and live or chase and kill versus skilled players. 180 ? You retain no velocity, you have to nullify your initial inertia first. You gain little to no gun solution at best.
Oh wow, I really haven't played much in the last year or two but I didn't realize that things were like that. Granted I've never been a good dog fighter, but I remember doing things like getting up to high speed, going into decoupled, swiveling around, and then shooting at things that were chasing me
oh no, an interceptor that can intercept.....
like it not MM actually does fix a lot of scenarios...
besides light fighter Vs. light fighter scenarios. have to plan around a moving Cap ship. for one, probably don't want Caps moving at 100m/s in space to allow the launching and landing of ships, or the ability to keep a moving perimeter. the fighters need to be balanced to allow orbiting of a moving carrier ship or escort ship in space, basically...
although, if the speeds are grouped too close, then you don't have a lot of diversity, which is bad for racing and combat interceptors. however, the reality of falling behind a escort while fighting and it needing to stop or you to QT back to it should be a thing. that is also "combat".
i.e. an Arrow, an obvious carrier fighter, meant to work in 2-3+ flight groups. should be able to orbit their carriers, but also fall behind. it's ok, though, because it has a QT drive. Gladius should basically be tuned to an Idris, with Arrows being able to move in that radius faster/easier.
Current SCM speed in live is too high but SCM speed in Master Modes surely can't be lower than 550 m/sec, otherwise the game would not be enjoyable to play.
Armor, engineering, and etc haven’t even been added to the game. This could play out completely differently when these things are added.
I am willing to give it a year, for I am sure the first implementation will have a lot of feedback. Arena Commander is not a massive amount of people.
You know why this is actually a big problem. I agree with Avenger one obviously. But the biggest problem in c I g's flight model is very bare bones.
No mass or weight to ships no weapon balance or armor.
Eve has a better flight model.
Honestly sc needs alot of a dcs flight model to be good.
Cig sold as a space Sim. Not a space arcade....
I'm starting to call it "starfield citizen"
Great breakdown thank you, hope cig are taking notes!
Totally get it. I wish cig would take this advice and run with it. I think your suggestions at the end of your master mode video we're very good. I'll say it again they don't have to scrap all of Master modes. It just need to implement some changes ship velocity weapon velocity in a couple other minor things.
Speed is life.
This will fall on def ears, as a DCS flight sim geek who likes/studies dogfighting everything you have said is pretty much spot on. I think the starfield/eve care bares are going to win out. The original concept of realistic physics is gone.
DCS is really for everybody. I can see from here the amount of money made and the player base size. =P
Do you play in DDCS hardcore by any chance?
@@lss247 what do you mean? DCS barely makes any money, and if I remember properly the player base is 17.000 world wide, there are probably more SC channels than there are DCS players lol
@@StoneCooldswell ya. It’s super complex to get into BUT we can come to a fun medium. When I played DCS, it was super confusing to understand.
@@lss247 Yeah the fly by knights (pun intended) arcade people play WarThunder. But then again look at the player base for chess.
they should just make all ship with the same speed acceleration and turn rate and give a stats of avoidance and a button to press to avoid being hit...
ships would be just cosmetics...
I hope you're posting this on spectrum and getting all the feedback you can and tagging Yogi there :)
respect...this video is like top gun strategy class
I am a multicrew operator. Very rarely do I take the stick of a ship, Should MM be as dramatic to me as it is to single seater combat pilots? Why should I care?
Oh You are fine!! The Constelation is a killing machine now :) It explain a lot about the crying.
What kind of tool thinks ruining the experience for others is good for them?
If you want people to play, it needs to be good on all fronts...
How are you this dense?!?