STAR CITIZEN! WHAT WE ARE LOSING!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 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.
![THE 3.23 META YOU NEED TO KNOW! [StarCitizen]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8-IElUJOOB4/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't know why they just don't wait until their armor and weapons balancing is done before changing the flight model. A lot of the issue with small fighters taking out large ships that they shouldn't is due to easy numbers tweaks that could be done. Just make size 3 and below lasers not able to out-damage shield regen of size 3+ shields (or whatever, don't get caught up my specific example). Change some of the imput response to decrease pip wobble, or increase projectile speeds on large-ship anti-fighter turrets. The list of potential balance changes goes on. Things like this can easily be done with our current model.
*edit* okay I kept watching and you suggested like exactly some of the things I mentioned, because of course you did lol
So much this. EVE solved so many of these problems eons ago. Don't reinvent the wheel as a jank square.
Also, for Corvette size ships, WE NEED FLACK CANNONS!!!❤❤❤❤❤
So replace the weapons on the turrets with the shotgun weapons.
Flak cannons achieved.
@@graveyardshift6691 🤡
technically not flak is basically air burst ammo
@@graveyardshift6691that’s not a flak gun. For comparison sake a flak gun Is more like a grenade launcher or an XM25. It explodes on target at a certain distance instead of firing conical spread from the barrel.
It’d be really cool to have one for larger ships.
You're right with a lot of what you say and I disagree on only one thing:
I really hate that you reduce speed in space, when you release boost.
While you say, you would only want to have that in the forward direction,
i don't want to have any boost speed bonus at all (not to mix up with boost accelleration bonus),
rather than being slowed down by immersion breaking "wind in space".
I just cannot bear that, it feels so wrong.
agree to the moon! zero g is zero g, you shouldn't slow down when you release boost. I know its not a sim but cig is literally ignoring the laws of physics here. That type of stuff should only happen in atmo
jep
@@nydabeatsI’d rather have this than some real physics game were people are going 2,000 m/s backwards while they keep their front on a target like a turret. This just needs adjustment. Real life physics will never be possible in a game unless servers make leaps in technology…
100000%
@@ArcAngelttvAbsolutely. Those guys forget it's a game, and it's much better to shoot at a ship you can see well at 200 scm, than a pixel 2k meters away moving 2000mps because it's ReAlisT.
An Arrow taking out Hammerhead and just move around several turrets meant to engage fighters seems silly though
if armor was in, the arrow wouldnt do anything to a Hammerhead
I agree and I adress how to fix this in the video
Large ships not in fighter class need constant shield recharge! Anything with a size 3 shield should have constant recharge.
Everything shield have constant recharge but the opponent's DPS should overcome it
@@ronja99the opponent in the right ship with the right size of guns will break shield recharge.
Do you believe 1 arrow should be able to take out the shields/each turret one by one/then the anti fighter hammerhead, 1v7? No ducking way, if that’s the case I want a refund lol
They need to tie in Power Management and component size MORE to the gameplay. Right now it feels like just a tacked on extra.
Example1 : If ship size category of coolers and powerplant directly effected weapon recycle rate and range , respectively, you could have the same S4 weapon on a hammerhead and a fighter and they would perform differently than one another.
Example2: If we assume 33% power to engines is the norm and they want 250 m/s ... then perhaps 100% power to engines could be 500 or even 750 m/s and let in combat power management be a new skill vector.
An in depth flight model is great; but small fighter superiority (quick shield regen, quick ability to take out a Carrack size ship, short weapon ranges, and tricording at speeds beyond the server tick rate) is another thing. You should be able to have a superb time dog fighting small ship to small ship and prey upon haulers, but not be able to easily deflect and shrug off hits from size 4 and up weapons or be able to zoom away beyond 2000 meters and not be capable of being hit by turret fire.
But that's the mobility is the entire utility of fighters. Being able to exit the cone of enemy fire is in the core design of fighters. People just have to accept that a turret will never be as versatile or as useful in combat as a fighter. That's why even in the SC universe Carriers are the king of the battlefield.
I think half of the things you list are things that small fighters should do, and the rest are problems. Agility-based fighters need to be able to reasonably evade attacks using their agility and engage and disengage from fights against heavier vessels. But kiting by instantly reversing vectors or otherwise exploiting engine problems is bad physics and bad gameplay.
IMO shield tanking is way too much a thing for fighters and I'm honestly at the point where I'm not sure shields belong on anything except larger multi-crew vessels. High agility and mobility as a trade-off for armor is correct, but coupling it to infinite regenerating hit points creates problems that encourage jousting and DPS race gameplay.
As for turrets... tbh they're already pretty good but we need more variety. There's reasonably a place to add something like an AEGIS system with great tracking and hit rate at the expense of pure damage, but it should come at a trade-off, not just be a default buff to heavy turrets. We also could use more ammo selection for things like proximity-fused flak shells (which might also be a welcome breath of life for ballistic cannons).
A12 here. I like your idea of no shields. Health would just need to be adjusted for the fighters. Nice thinking, never though about that@@joshuabrown4030
As others stated, the very core design of small fighters is intended to make them harder to hit in light of the fact that they already can’t tank size 4 weapon fire easily. Turrets are usually intended to provide support to a larger or less agile ship, and if these turrets alone were capable of going head to head with an agile fighter like the arrow without any challenge, then they would cease to hold their function as a support weapon, teamwork would dissolve, gameplay would become boring, and small fighters would become useless.
@@polaroidsky concise and well stated
The problem we have no that any larger ship barely can defend against a fighter, this is not a problem of skill, this is a problem that fighters can cicle around larger ships and turrets can't turn fast enough.
I am a large ship pilot in SC, I usually just backspace when fighters engage with me because I already know I lose even with a full crew.
This is simply just not fair, Master Modes helps us larger ship pilots a lot, and don't make them next to useless when being attacked.
The whole thing here is LF pilots are mad because the future of this will make them lose all the power they used to have. They usually had it just because of "their skill". Now most of the points are made just to preserve some of that power.
Because armor is not a thing in game yet.
They wasted time on Master Mode when they should have been implementing the LONG needed armor mechanics that makes weapons below a certain size just ping harmlessly off the hull and force fighters to specialize in only taking certain weapons that make them incapable of responding to an equal sized opponent.
I fully agree that larger ships should be able to defend themselves against lights better and should be more of a threat. Larger ships need better defense against lights with higher velocity anti fighter turrets and flak that have decent turn rates, this can be done in live. There are solutions to this problem that don't completely ruin the flight model and make everything feel like shit. The solution isn't to ruin light fighter gameplay and distance control, it's to make large ships a threat.
@@graveyardshift6691 Yeah thats why i bought the ship with the Gatling gun....thought that was the way the was going
And a sheild rework... it does NOT make sense that they take 10 seconds to BEGIN recharging, when your in a giant ship cappable of quickly cooling and powering them... ... constantly@graveyardshift6691
I don't agree with everything he says, but it would be really interesting to see a test of the changes he suggests.
Unfortunately the high skill level crowd is small. The next level are people like me that have an understanding of what to do but just don't have the time to reach that high level is larger but still small compared to the rest of the community. %70 of the community tries MM and gets to feel like a decent pilot. That is the feedback CIG is getting.
and they cant balance their game around what the high skill crowd wants exclusively.
and that is the issue, mediocre players feeling better is the goal.
@@JackMelqart it is not so much feeling better but having fun
Theres a few goals. Making combat more accessible so more people are inclined to do it. Reducing Desync and Hit registration issues due to high speeds. Bringing fighters in closer so less jousting. Smoothing the edges off engine quirks like tricording giving only certain ships far more Gs than they should get and finally rebalancing flight mechanics so other fighters asides from lightfighters are more able to fufill their roles.@@JackMelqart
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I may never be a great PvP’er, but I’ve love the idea that one day I could be, when I am ready to put the work/time in. Really gives me a reason to continue playing the game for the last 4 years, knowing that I can always improve. Sure it can be hard in the beginning, but learning is what makes it fun. Great job on the feed back too.
i aggree so much man !
I like this comment. I’m holding off on training until master modes launches. Hope training then wouldn’t be a waste, let’s see.
I agree and I think MM will take that away if they don't focus on components only . Not slowing down speeds or anything like that.
I said a year ago that the issue with jousting should back then should be dealt with missiles... they should be made to punish people at long range who are attempting to flee...
to make them so... they need to move faster... and be more accurate and require more skills or more counter mesures to insure your survival why you are out of shield... because people fleeing or jousting often do so when out of shield or low shield...
9:27 you talked about backers unwillingness to learn while its true to a point you are also forgetting some backers bought industrial ships and are interested non combat occupation in SC so they see no reason to learn fighting.
Or to learn it to the same degree as a dedicated combat person
"some backers bought industrial ships and are interested non combat occupation in SC so they see no reason to learn fighting." well that is true, but they should then hire security detail who can fly and fight, and not bitch about being killed by others.
@@JackMelqart Or understand how pirates hunt to avoid those areas
@@JackMelqart The problem is it's not profitable, it's not worth.
There is no system economically that supports this type of play style. I wish there was.
you dont understand.. the people who dont want to fly fighter type ships, and want to haul, or mine, ect, they are not affected by this new system, the only ones affected by it are the fighter pilots, and if you want to fly fighter style ships, then you should need to have either talent or skills based on many hours. its that simple., @@Aztaable
WW2 Mustangs, are about ~445mph, which is about 198 m/s, so we are getting those WW2 style speeds and gameplay, and then some.
we don't need higher speeds.
The Goal is to make the game Cinematic, that was stated in the last ISC.
They ARE getting rid of fixed assist and auto gimbal for ships in favor of the cone
Small ships, able to take out things like hammerheads, manned or otherwise, high or low skill, is not great. Mastermodes does fix a lot of that. and yes, puts them in little bubbles of what their rolls are. *that is good* Take the tool you need, for the job your doing.
Were gonna see this in 3.23 soon, and I for one, am looking forward to seeing this in live, outside of the limited confines of AC. Its gonna feel a lot different when were not stuck in a small constrained bubble, and with more ships to fill out all the roles that there are.
It's OK A1 seems to think fighters in real life dogfight at Mach 2.
Speeds are all relative. 250 can work but accels are so incorrect that it’s making him want 500 for that reason. Tune the accels and I think we’d be fine with 250
mustang never flew at 445mph, that's literally 8000meters+ altitude SPD
@@valdurion6779 which is another good reason why we're really don't need much more than we're getting lol. But was just posting max reported stats from a wiki
@valdurion6779 the P-51D Mustang is often debated top speed. Between 430-450mph at 20-25kft. Depending on the source.
I feel like this video misses on so much we get back with master modes. Scatter weapons have 500 range, hopefully they'll be viable and not just a joke. Laser repeaters with variable ranges like Attritions, CFs, and NDB will have their range modifiers restored hopefully. In fact all the normilization that took place needs to be taken into account when it's removed. Hell maybe even missiles will be more effective as well. Just like in F1 or NASCAR, now you'll be forced to do tuning of your ship rather than relying on the same weapons over, and over, and over. The reality is this is taking the current single player focused flight experienced on the gladius, and now it's forcuing more focus on team combat both with larger ship sand squadrons of smaller one.
it's bad they slowed everything down for combat but its also good. maybe they could allow the ships to be slightly faster though but it makes sense to start balancing the game this way. it also means the missiles will actually start to be useful in game since you wont be able to just sidestep a missile right before it gets to your ship, you will have to release your flares.
I think the speed decision isn't related to gameplay, but rather a technology issue. I think it's because of latency. If two ships moving at 1000m/s both have 50ms pings, then the difference between them could equate to 100ms, or 200 meters. I think this is why we suddenly get de-sync issues in flight.
In master modes the same scenario would result in a difference of 40 meters instead.
I think they're concerned with the implementation of server meshing that an increase in servers and therefore an additional lag / communication step could result in massive desync.
Yeah they actually mentioned this.
@danlewis2999 i think you are 100 percent correct,
@@project.jericho What are you going on about? Avenger One's ability as a pilot and opinion of the game has zero to do with technical network communication limitations.
@@project.jericho Um. No. Gameplay opinion has zero relevance to technical limitations.
I'm a software and network engineer. Where did they mention it? My initial reaction to the comment is that it's probably incorrect.@@Billy-bc8pk
Phew.. disagree on every point of your feedback honestly, besides maybe one: speed locked behind boost. This is something worth trying.
Multi crew bullet saturation is a joke. You still do a lazy cork screw at 1400 at in a gladius and wont be hit, even with the gunners turning off FA. Spread is contraproductive even. Tested and validated between different player groups. Only thing that helps is faster bullet velocity.
Speed increase is your opinion, nothing else. A lot people actually disagree and some want lower speeds. Blind tests suggested even lower speeds to be fun for the target group. The only thing a higher speed will reintroduce is distance. You could instead only reduce acceleration but not both.
Run away is possible in live without Quantum. A mantis will hold ships within scm, thus preventing running in MM, which would not be possible in live. So not a long term issue.
A lot of things you are stating is "simply not true" or.. just your opinion.
You claim echo chamber but you have your own, every one has one btw.
Its quite arrogant to state that who likes MM and sees the potential of the fundamental experience, must be of low skill.
Cruise mode failed, since it was without a timer and created the problem, that people build up speed in cruise and then went back to scm.
Removing FA will result in the most people not being able to hit anything.
There is no objective viewpoint people could take, its always subjective.
This comes also from a deep game experience and hundreds of hours in MM.
Im fairly new to SC started in the 2nd week of IAE 2954 and I feel like the reason I personally got sucked into the game was because of the current flight model. There was more depth to it then just pressing forward throttle and pitching up. My first 10 fights were spent zooming wayy past the other guy but now after some practice and understanding of the flight model, fights are rewarding when I can actually control my ship and get some shots in and even dodge a few. It gets really fun. I have to agree that after trying out master modes, I would probably get bored of that flight model and may not enjoy flying as much
This
It will be very boring.
The current flight is way too fast and caters to the top 1% of players that spend an absurd amount of time learning how to fly. The game to an average player, when they encounter someone that is in the top percentages of pilots seems like the top player is straight up cheating, even though they are not. The ocean of difference between an average player and the people at the top is absurd and these guys in tiny snub fighters can take down anyone and every thing just because of how good they are, that is not a good game play experience for anyone but the people at the top as they seal club everyone. Master modes hopefully will reduce this gap.
Space vs Atmosphere vs no atmo Moon should all run differently and have different effects and hovering should be a something not easily performed unless the ship is setup for it. In a atmo fighters should be running plane mechanics with the fastest being the smallest, Lasers should be degraded in atmo, a cutty black should be great at hovering but have a speed cap as all other ships that lack aero dynamics you could make ships very unique simply by playing with how they move in different situations. Space should not be atmos or moons and there should be considerations on what ship you are using and where it is.
Without a high skill ceiling... what is aspirational? What keeps players engage? He nails it here!!!
@@RahzZalinto If it's in cig fashion, both will be mind numbingly boring.
Doing quests, Exploration/Science, Salvaging, Mining. You know, all the non-combat related stuff which will be plenty to keep people engaged in fun gameplay as well.
@@Xiggles-54321 What quests exploration or science do you speak of, there is 0 in the game? Mining and salvage are fun for a play session but not much after, they need A LOT of work to be fun or considered gameplay as it's the same 3 things on repeat.
Because this game has a lot more than just the combat. It's an MMO, and the competitive (this is the important part) pvp community is a small subset of it. It was never intended to be Call Of Duty: Space Combat Edition.
@@Velthus The problem is there isn't a single mmo aspect that's fleshed out. The movement in fps is also more tarkov like than cod, so it would hint they wanted it to actually be good but you carebares scream when anyone whispers pvp.
How does the solution you propose work for larger ships? No amount of training or awareness can enable a Connie or Hammerhead to defend against an Arrow or Gladius. This is fundamentally broken. If we’re talking skill it has to be across the board and not apply to fighters in general or light fighters in particular.
He addressed it. Improved capital shields able to charge faster than a few fighters can damage. Improved capital weapons, so cone of fire, range, fire rate, remove the broken aim assist. That said in WW2 the allies thought a flying fortress could defend itself against fighters, they couldn't.
@@samrye8342what does that WW2 example have to do with SC though?
@@ryanmitchell4044 The fantasy of large ships defending against fast moving fighters failed in WW2. It still holds true. It's why long rang fighters had to be developed to defend the bombers. It's exceedingly hard to hit a fighter zipping by your slow moving flying fortress. Also this game is meant to mimic that time.
Would you be happy with Master Modes if they kicked the speed up to 500? It doesn't sound like the master modes is an issue, it's just the speed limits inside the modes.
There are soo many benefits to be had IF CIG were to take the best of Master Modes and the BEST of Live and allow tests to take place.. The just has to be a better middle ground.. I totally understand the high skill ceiling aspect that can turn some players away... However as such a player I am DRIVEN to try and get better to compete with players at a higher skill ceiling. This is part of what makes the game SHINE and is not just some copy of another arcade shooter.... I think we all need to drive this point home to CIG for the longevity of the game!
Sweet Jesus we went from strong disagreement to massive agreement. =) I'm glad you saw the folly of Molasses Modes.
Same. I rarely agree with him as we come from different game pasts I'm sure.
But this is so well thought out and the word compromise leading the thought process has me so excited. I hope they take his thoughts into account.
I'm no ace pilot, but MM is just incredibly boring. Playing this in AC made me lose all interest in the combat side of the game. I played for a couple hours and can't force myself to anymore.
You asked "why won't they raise the speeds?" I think the problem with high speeds is more technical than gameplay based. With servers that have FPS below 10, a ship going 1km/sec will travel 100m in between ticks. So how does the server calculate projectile intercept with a ship moving 100m between snapshots (usually while the ship is changing speed in an arc)? That's too much distance for a straight-line interpolation.
I don't know how you solve that problem... but MM ain't it.
Yeah I quit the game because of MM
😂 molasses modes
@@user-iu6sd8su3e no you didn't, because it's not even in the game yet outside of a specific AC module
I'm in the game since January 2023 and of course I'm not a hell of a pilot - yet. Most of my PVP Experience is to be shot down.
BUT I can't see how master modes, especially reducing combat speed that much, makes any sense. And even I'm still a newbie I don't want the game to be nerfed down to my current skills, but I want to learn to become a better pilot. Otherwise what should I do in the years to come!?
Because speed does not equate skill...
Speed is all relative tbh. You can have this game maxed at 250 m/s if you have the correct accels, running and weapon speeds. But there lies the issue. The balance is way off and causing many issues
9:40 Well you said it. You made a career which means monetary impact and reason your passion on this topic is so great. I on the other hand just see SC as a game and not something I need to have a large skill cap in order to enjoy. I will not take away from others which see value in the skill but I am fine with MM and the next 5 iterations until cIG is done. I see MM as square peg from a single player game being forced into the round hole of SC. The edges will need to trimmed to make it fit. I see only one question. Will the edges which are trimmed make the game less enjoyable for the people in this community or will CIG find the right balance. I personally think speeds will come back up once the entire player base actually starts using it. Look what happened with HOVER MODE. Thanks for your perspective, Avenger.
Could it be that CIG are taking a commercial decision here? Think it through. What percentage of the playerbase are high skill?
I dont think A1s take is universally shared as it is implied even in the pvp community hes ofc entitled to his opinion as is everyone. If you ask 100 of the top rank 100 pvpers what their opinion is they are not the same.
Bring that skill Cieling and floor DOWWWWWWWWWN.
Never cater to the high skill players.
A successful game appeals to the majority, wether you like it or not.
he was never the best to begin with
I have just started my journey in the verse this January, having played live and master modes around 50/50 this last month as a new player I say I prefer master modes. I've invested in a hosam setup with gladiator evo omni throttle and have had more fun with master mode than live pvp. Just my opinion as a new member of the verse.
That's fun and all for now but your experience will never pay off. You'll be missing something but never know what it was. You'll have the experience of a veteran going 50/50 with the recruits. You'll want to be crushing the recruit, looking for a good challenge and still being amazed by the Ace.
@@samrye8342 Your probably right, I am still new so I can't really see the whole picture. This videos suggestions sound promising.
@@samrye8342that's what "muh content" and light fighter sandbox kiddies want.
The rest just want to fly the next idris and do bunkers.
@@guts2787 muh? Successful games have standout players. If everyone is a pion, a cog in the wheel with no room for improvement then that's not interesting. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing bunkers, flying next to capital ships or fighting amongst peers. There's plenty of roles. Shouldn't be ok to have them take away from others as long as it's not you. If they do it right it could all makes sense and everyone gets what they want.
@@samrye8342 SC isn't a "cybersport" game, never aimed to be. Chris wants his dream freelancer game and he will get it.
I would argue that dropping into a hot frying pan can be better for the game than not. Rocket League(Arguably one of the hardest mechanical games out there), League of Legends and Counter Strike are just a few examples of successful high skill ceiling games. They all have successful player bases.
I believe CIG will raise the speeds, we just need to give them time to dial in the bigger roster of ships and see for themselves that the LF's need a tune up. I to, want to feel like im actually flying the light fighter / Hornet again
Correct. Except the part where you believe CIG is competent enough to achieve this.
@@lennoxdantes7555If you're following the game then you think they're competent, otherwise you would be playing Skull and Bones instead.
All those games have matchmaking. And so are terrible examples.
@@lennoxdantes7555Ugh, looks like my comment about Skull and Bones wasn't allowed.
I think there is more to it. You made good point, the devs have good points, the LIVE model has good points, but there is just too much missing at the moment like armor, shield and weapon balance. They not only have to balance to PVP ship combat, but also PVE, PVE and PVP ships vs ground vehicles. If ship speeds are to high, the e.g. AA would need to track ship from (tens of) thousands kilometers away. It's a space sim so the flight model has to be a priority, but they need to balance the other suff too.
Power, weapons, shield triangle should also be more important.
Curious to see MM on LIVE.
I also agree they need a baseline for SQ42 if they want to release it in not sooo distant future. Still lots of work, still nothing is set in stone. Spektrum feedback and communication is key atm.
One issue i am having is that they are not going to put the MM to the 3.23 ptu but straight to live. They are not allowing us to test the mode in the full game but only in a controlled involvement. So i think 3.23 is going to be a disaster because they haven't allowed us to test anything. That is why they are only doing fighters right now because i feel like if people were to test on the full game and on any ship and not the arena commander they would say that it is bad. There is so much to test before it goes to live but we have nothing.
Honestly think it would be cool if SC had Esports potential with Master Modes that's not possible really
I don't play enough to have an informed opinion on "how" to balance. That being said, when I've tried master modes it "felt" like I was dog fighting in starfield. Arcady AF, slow, boring, unengaging. The model now needs to be reined in I think but there has to be a happy median between these two extremes.
Ok. Let’s not exaggerate.
@@BGIANAKyYour right no median can ever be made
I'm not exaggerating. I emphasized the word "felt" hoping trolly intenet people would comprehend what i was writing. This is how it feels TO ME, as in an opinion. Yours may be different which is fine. cheers. @@BGIANAKy
I think its way better. =)
@@68Lima that’s simply a lie. I played a lot of Starfield. You cannot compare the flight model in MM to that. I suppose we have not flown a 890 jump in MM yet. So may be the massive ships might feel like absolute trash.
Master Mods are a necessity for RSI due to SQ42 for cinematics, and they feel the convenience of making SC with the same basics for the players that will come from SQ42 to the PU. Master Modes are here to stay but these need fixing of course and can be improved.
The resume is we need a game. The game isn't there yet, just pieces. PVP will be part of SC but not the unique part of it.
The flight model that works for complete noobs as an introduction to space games in a pve setting is not the same flight model that works for a space mmo for anyone who's gotten their training wheels. Trying to force them to be the same is a mistake.
@@NyaandereGaming The decision making is done. You can take it or just leave it. It's a Developer choice and the players are divided about it. Some like it, some don't and some don't care of any flying model at all.
The decision has been done in the past and they realized it was a mistake and reverted it. We've already had split scm/nav mode and hover mode too. Both of those modes sucked then and still suck now.
They've already said that if it doesn't work for a third time they're open to the possibility of having different flight models for sq42 and SC. Giving feedback does matter.
How can the decision making be done before it's even been tried in PU? @@Haegemon
@@NyaandereGaming They will adjust the Master Modes but they won't get rid of them. These are part of Sq42 and Devs want the players who play Sq42 to be able to move into SC with what they have learned in Sq42. The real learning curve will be there as prequel of SC.
They are trying to recreate the WingCommander and Freelancer game styles; this is what MasterMode is trying to attempt.
They may not be going in the right direction. This is what Trial and Error are for, to understand the errors and try to correct them.
We can only wait and hope they understand their errors and correct them.
I completely agree about the weapon balancing fixing the problems that MasterModes falsely claims to fix. And yes 1200m/s is too fast but 250m/s is way too slow, 500-650m/s range I think is a good speed for combat. I've always felt MM is completely unnecessary and I feel CIG only wants this so people can have a mode to avoid combat.
100%
People should have a way to avoid combat if that is what they want.
@@Glathgrundel Offline mode.
2:02 my man I respect your dedication towards pvp in SC, and I subbed to your channel because I think you are one of the best pvper and maybe someday I need to learn a thing or two from you, but I'm gonna need to stop you right there.
Some people like you may love pvp the most in SC, but there are also a lot of people who don't. Saying "playing against other players is the best of Star Citizen" is pure ignorance.
Pvp is the only way to achieve depth in gameplay. NPCs provide nothing but static and annoyance.
@@lennoxdantes7555 Why are we only talking about combat tho? Many people just wanna salvage/mining and chill.
Also there are tons of PvE focused games, are you saying games from From Software, CAPCOM, Platinum don't have depth? How about Path of Exile?
@@lennoxdantes7555 There is more to PvP than dueling light fighters.
@@SnowTerebi X4 is a good example of a single-player experience that has the illusion of depth via very complicated systems. But the gameplay depth... no.
@@lennoxdantes7555 Please define "gameplay depth".
I agree with what you said and also disagree at the same time
I’m not a fan of basically making every ship a snail during combat but I also hate the fact that every fight is basically light fighters vs anything else like I beleive light fighters should be most effecting against light fighters, somewhat good against medium fighters and not very good against heavy fighters when it comes to capital ships light fighters should do basically nothing
the other way around capital ships should deal so much damage against literally everything but have slow bullet velocity so that they have a hard time hitting small targets such as fighters but if you do get hit well you are dead
We have had years of the live model and there are many who hate it, while there are also many who love it. While I concede that there are many who hate master mode, I am seeing many who are saying they love the master mode tests in Arena Commander. All I can say is, this is currently Alpha. This is the chance to test it. Better that CIG test master mode now and collect at least a couple of months of test data before they make a decision. If master modes really is that bad, I'm sure the collective feedback will pressure CIG to switch it back.
Not to mention all the currently broken things such as missiles, insane desync, silly pip wiggling, it really hasn’t been a fun learning experience doing ship combat PVP in the live version of SC. I hope Master Modes gets more fleshed out since it’s in its infancy right now
Yeah what a lot of people miss is that the desync is part of the problem caused by the insane ship speeds in combat.
Well said. The past 7 months iv'e been saving and bought verpil prime duel sticks and rudder pedals just so i can be a pvp pilot so i can challenge myself, effort equals reward fundamental to enjoying a game and feeling a sense of achievement. Now i'm seriously thinking about playing dcs. What a shit show star citizen....
@@RahzZalinto Slow speeds in a space game also doesn't work, it's boring. Look what happened to rust when the removed the skill gap in shooting, drop in players and continues to be so. If it's easy, it won't keep people. They are doing the same in fps in sc as well, instead of fixing desync they've increased ttk without even knowing themselves what the ttk is(we tried on 113 servers and got a different time every time) they are turning it into a giant pve carebare game.
Thank you for your honest opinion. As someone who both loves dogfighting in an Avenger Titan as well as slow and steady cargo hauling, I really hope the Master Modes speed limiter mechanic is rethought.
What you call "skill" is the fact of out maneuvering any ship that is not a snub or a light fighter. If you could win against ship of higher categories it was because you could maneuver more quickly and with more agility than they ever could, so it was just a matter of time until you drain them to death.
Also, you could use very high speeds so you literally never register any meaningful damage to the point it's just abusing the physics and servers lags, and when things didn't go well you could just trichord away to reshield ("skilled people" call this "disengage" lol.......) while again, slower ships cannot chase or keep up with you.
Now in MM speeds are reduced and what you are experiencing for the first time in the fact that you finally do take your damage even from slower ships, just as it should.
The "MM issue" you envision has nothing to do with a skill ceiling. It's actually that you have been abusing the limits of current PU flight model to the point you believe it's how it should be when it isn't.
You are a good pilot, and instead of just publishing a MM rant every two days you should just go on AC play MM and fucking train, like dozens of very good dog fighters have been doing for months.
PLEASE CLARIFY
how is 500 scm a compromise? thats the current optimal speed to fight in LIVE no? if not FASTER.. or do you mean a 500 LIMIT for combat mode? and are we talkin in atmo here? or space.
SCM space as in max speed while guns are up. 400-500 speed makes sense from the current 1200
but im asking how is that a compromise? as that is the speeds that is best for current LIVE combat SCM. that is not a compromise.@@stefanosgeorgiou621
You're absolutely right, Master Mode sucks atm. I hope Yogi watches your video.
I agree with some of what's being said here, but I think some of these are automatically going to be addressed with systems that aren't in yet but a few that are coming this year, namely, Maelstrom.
1) Shields are fine, and a light fighter being able to bring down a cap ship's shields with repeated and constant fire isn't a big deal, what is a big deal is a light fighter being able to DPS a cap ship into oblivion. Additionally, engineering solves the shield problem, because even if you do have the weaponry to bring down the shield, engineering can just boost power (or use batteries) to bolster the shield to nullify light fighter attacks. I think that's a fine trade-off for larger vessels with engineering stations.
2) Maelstrom makes it where armour will thwart the current ability for small ships to bring down large ships simply by out-DPS'ing them. Light fighters won't even pose much of a threat to a Hammerhead alone once Maelstrom's material armour system goes live.
3) New ammunition types will drastically change the rock, paper, scissors effects of which weapons and ammo types do damage to certain ships in certain engagements. I think it's way too early to say that people will get bored when Master Modes is only testing basic ballistics, laser repeaters, and distortions. When the new ammo and weapon types come online + Master Modes we will have a better idea of how engagements play out even between ships of the same class.
4) Even after all of that, I think we can then return to the discussion of ship speeds. It's hard to get an idea of what the balance should be when Master Modes is just a very small part of a much larger flight system overhaul.
I think we need to see how missiles physical armor and damage is implemented before we can really say Master modes was a bad Idea. I do believe the max speeds for light fighters should be a tad bit faster. The armor and weapons should be what determines if a light fighter can fight a hammerhead class ship or not. I should add I want a high skill ceiling as that will make skilled pilots a high commodity for both pirate crews and merc/police players.
And actually balanced components.
@@ksl-988 absolutely that too.
I agree, my only nitpick is light fighters should never be a real threat to a HH.
Master modes = boring, low skill, arcadey and not the sim we were sold
agreed
You haven't been sold or promissed anything, it is a work in progress, an ALPHA
It has never been a sim. It WAS sold that way. But they obviously cannot accomplish it.
How do you know what the master modes are when they are far from completion? They literally said in the last ISC that they continue to tweak it and need more feedback.
Also, i would like to add that one of the problems is that people try to fight the way they used to in Live, which is trying to wiggle and orbit, while the devs want the main thrusters to be the main moving force of the spacecraft. So what we have now is a lot of people playing as strafing turrets, and if it is effective, than they need to reduce the speed of yaw and pitch, so it is not an aim and dps race. I should hop in the 3.23.1 MM to see where it is at now, I might be wrong about the latest iteration of MM.
@@oyeebo6766 12 years... can't even create a decent inventory system. Gg.
holy messiah complex batman... over a fucking video game
I love everything in SC, but I HATE one thing - the flight model - the current and Master modes equally. THIS IS NOT HOW SHIPS MOVE IN THE SPACE. By doing it at least somewhat realistically, you won't get your WWII planes in a space shooter, and I get that this is the intent behind the SC. I HATE IT. I would love everything the SC is but with a somewhat realistic flight model. Does anyone want to create such a game? :D
Sorry about the rant; I had to vent somewhere :D
Wow misspelled multi-gang.
And aren't we jumping the shark a bit? They still haven't finished it yet. They may reduce weapon ranges, they may adjust velocities, in short They may fix a lot of this. As for the speeds... really? This from the man who thinks modern fighters dogfight at Mach 2.
Live mode the speeds aka velocities are so high that desync becomes a bigger issue.
There has to be a happy median. I like that some ships are now feasible again; the bucc seems to have a role in chasing down or engaging/disengaging now, but it's not proficient in a rate fight. But, like you said, if I want to fly a fighter... I want to fight like a fighter, not like a big sluggish ship when I'm in what should be a highly maneuverable ship. Master modes is definitely more boring than the current flight model, but I think that tweaks can, and should, be made to make it _more_ fun and _more_ intuitive. There needs to be a higher skill ceiling than that with which master modes offers currently offers.
only thing i disagree with is the notion that SQ42's release solidifies the SC flight model. I think many of us have always assumed that the two games would have identical flight models, but at this point I'm not entirley sure they will. The fact that we are possibly less than a year from SQ42 releasing and they still dont have the SC flight mechanics set in stone leads me to believe that the two systems can and will differ from one another in the end.
SQ42 won't even have the same armour system as SC, since SC will have Maelstrom's armour system, which uses the new material assets, SQ42 has a more fixed damage model. So you're right that SQ42 will not be solidifying the flight model at all.
And they absolutely will continue to tune things after the launch of Squadron. There's no reason to suggest that there's no turning back after Squadron is released.
Tuning yes, but changing the FM fundamentally would be nearly impossible. First of all they would have to continuously support 2 different flight models, people would need to switch between 2 different FMs when switching betweem SQ42 and SC although they fly the same ship. Noone would accept that. Training and muscle memory are out the window. Tuning or even changing the FM after release would also change or st least severely affect mission and level design, introduce mega tons of bugs and create inconsistencies in the story lines. Tutorials, player AI interactions would have to be redone or tuned every time. SQ42 is having several chapters, so it won't be a one time thing.
I totally agree with A1, we need to push this issue NOW!
The whole reason for Master Modes is a hamfisted attempt to have the two flight models be identical. The mandate is that the speed limits must be the same, but the speed limit that works for a single player game introduction to the series for complete noobs is not a good flight model for people who've gotten past learning the basics.
@@NyaandereGamingThe whole reason is because the servers were having trouble keeping up with the entity tracking at the current flight speeds. So yes, they had to reduce them in order to both make it easier for newbies to get into and for server stability.
The real point is making a flight model that's easy for cig to control, so that the pay2win mechanics can be properly implemented into the final game.
I'm not good pilot, but flying in Live give a lot fun. I tried MM couple times and I can say that: It's no longer "simulation", it's arcade game. But problem isn't what we want as "backers" or "community", main issue is try to convince CIG, which we know that in some cases is impossible. With increasing speed problem may be with game engine: slower = more time for sync. RN game cannot catchup in situations when a lot players are in one spot.
@Avenger_One So I think one of the biggest things a lot of us who are excited about Master Modes (coming from other flight games) is the tri-chording aspect and how more traditional flight sim setups (HOTAS) were not as competitive. I know you said HOTAS is popular, though I don't think it's all that popular compared to dual sticks or mouse & keyboard, but rebuilding some of that muscle memory when you've likely built that for years in other realistic sims like DCS and/or you fly IRL is just not in the cards for some of us to learn the on/off inputs that tri-chording often required with a HOTAS setup (similar to how you describe how boosting feels). I don't think the majority of people that like MM necessarily care about the speeds staying where they are now and you likely are correct that they need to increase in order to provide for some breadth of skill in things like throttle control. I also think longer ranges on weapons needs to happen to facilitate things like CAS, but having the cone of fire makes it unrealistic for space/aerial combat.
My question to you is it seems like you're not calling for tri-chording to return, but mainly the speeds to increase (along with the other mentioned things at the end of your video). What about Master Modes outside of these things has caused you to specifically turn against it when I feel like your previous video you were calling for updates/changes, but it seems more like you're now calling for it to completely go away?
Modern throttles have an analog mini-stick where you can strafe, so HOTAS can be essentially Dual-stick + Throttle. The Thrustmaster FCS throttle has this (cheap) as well as the Virpil throttle (expensive). So people who want to use a throttle have an option which allows for analog strafing. I had dual custom Warthogs back in the day, and was one of the earliest adopters to dual-sticks, but I've moved to an analog throttle setup because it has more buttons and is more like flying. You don't really need dual sticks with bigger ships also. The mini-stick is plenty of accuracy for ships bigger than light fighters.
I won't speak for someone else but right now in fighting to maintain some kind of rewarding gameplay he is trying to break some things down that should concern most players. To dip into talks of the mystical trichord "something so many already do or are capable of yet are unaware of what it really means" can be intimidated by it or fearful of it giving someone an edge so I believe he chose not to hammer down for it in this video since this can be a lot for some to understand......
It is nice to hear that you are excited about tri-chording? So it seemed at first and it may have gotten off track a little but in all honesty yes light fighter vs light fighter mild experience dual sticks are a little more precise but would you want stick ability limited down level with a throttle? Or to be able to use a gamepad in place of your hotas setup? No and likely more to do with enjoyability than a purely pvp combat set of reasons ......It is worth noting in the higher tiers there are even mouse/key pilots flipping and doing magic tricks in light fighters but some will admit it is to be different and show skill while they prefer using sticks to be relaxed and have fun, not work at it. Your hat buttons on your throttle can do anything the keyboard could & most of what a second stick can.
Even a gamepad left handed for strafes/accel via the analog stick and triggers/buttons with your stick right can do some pretty impressive maneuvers. Being that left stick doesn't require the precision of your aiming stick "yaw pitch, usually roll" you could get a less expensive one down the road if you wanted to get the very most out of the game but I have no doubt you would enjoy and fall in love with the game with a hotas....priority one is that there is still a game here which is capable of giving you that experience not a detuned watered down version of the thing you seemed excited about.
I think speed will be raised at some point. (It should) When they do I hope they keep the variation between ships and have differences in pitch and yaw as well as strafe thrust per ship.
The one thing they really need to get right is the damage light fighter weapons do to larger ships.
Right now its too much. As ships get larger there should come a point in that equation that a single light fighter is simply not any type of issue.
I like the idea of a small squad of fighters have to be efficient to take down a larger ship.
Whatever we end up with, I think they will continue to work on it.
I just really hope the servers can be evened out with speed and still preform well under stress.
If they did in fact cut speeds because they cant get the server to handle it then...
Well were screwed lol.
BTW, you can turn off fixed assist whenever you like, even in current live. It is called "ESP" and you can bind a key to toggle ESP in settings. This lets you turn off fixed assist whenever you like.
But FA gives too much of an advantage at close range you would handicap yourself
@@Avenger__OneYes, so you bind to the toggle action and toggle it back on once you get in range. Give it a try, it works quite well to do it that way! It is too important for beginners during PvE for CIG to remove it entirely.
I remember Vruse mode "all power to thrusters" in AC
I'm surprised we are returning to this and I suspect this will fail .. again. What is the difference vs what we had back then ?
Then it was weapons off, shields to minimum, now we get shields off, but what about weapons ? Can I still shoot ?
Oh, I did not know they were done ship balancing. When did this happen? (sarcasim)
Does feel a bit drama baitey with 3.23s PTU still to come with all its likely tweaks
I quite like both master modes and non master modes.
I do believe that they will be able to balance ships within their respective classes a lot better as well.
I agree, but lets not lose the skill ceiling
The speed reduction is a mistake and it's a further departure from realism, and it should not go through.
On a side note, the idea of a tiny fighter being able to "punch above its class" is also dumb. In space, a 35 ton fighter should never be able at any skill level to take out a military ship that out masses it 130 times, especially not in a game with energy shields, missiles, turrets and 900 years in the future. No matter how well you fly: rounds, and missiles will always be faster more maneuverable and have more range than a fighter. The shield on a fighter would be a tiny bleep due to mass constraints compared to much larger ship with a 130 times mass advantage who if it wanted could carry 100 times the shield and power generation and still have enough mass to outgun and out armor it. Not only that but a bigger ship could even out accelerate a fighter if enough of that mass was reserved for propulsion. This is space.
Just a speculation. Maybe CIG cannot change master mode speed yet because the precision targeting system is being built upon the current master mode setting. Maybe they cannot tune the precision targeting system with higher speed yet so master mode speed cannot be changed yet. Just a guess.
I agree on MOST of the points, but a recent video has shown cone saturation has also negatively affected larger ships yet again, as smaller fighters can stay still and fire from a distance and still avoid damage and easily 1v1 a hammerheads turret in a standoff, if we want to TRULY fix this issue, we need to increase damage output based off the powerplant model in the ships, each powerplant increases or decreases energy to different zones, Industrial, stronger shields and slightly faster weapon firerate or recharge rate, Civilian, Better ship speeds and acceleration, baseline shielding and possibly lower firerate or damage, Military, stronger shields, stronger recharge speeds for weapons and shields, but possibly a slightly slower firerate, etc. (This is just an example and not properly balanced in it) This is based around @TaldrenDR's recommendation and idea below. I do want to see mastermodes implemented but correctly as the current flight model I would say may not be as skill based but buggy, And I do enjoy knife fighting in fighters more then jousting. A good middle ground needs to be found.
I haven't thought of that component scheme before. I like it.
My Idea for components was that they should be modifiers on the ships base stats. For example a power plant component would give you percentage modifiers to a ship's base power output among other buffs or nerfs. This would give us much more diversity in how ships can be balanced.
precisely, I just believe all components based on what their intended audience was should benefit those actions. Most of the time it seems like they don't or are lack luster.@@YourArmsGone
ALSO MOST IMPORTANTLY any weapons should be considered as having recoil... which litteraly, in space would produce force of a maneuverability thruster...
thus too powerful weapons on a too light fighter would make the fighter unpilotable.. it light fighter I should feel the effect on the piloting of the recoil of weapons...
that's what should make the range and the "cone".... not a random algorythm on the weapons like now...
ya that means the Ares would be freaking hard to pilot...
and all that would be fix if they would implement a PHYSIC-based piloting and weaponry system instead of making arbitraty MMORPG weapon/shield/HPs stats...
and let pilot free to put whatever can fit... and deal with the reality ...
also make powerplant realitic with Amps and Volts... and define small powerplant a range of Volts and Ampere it can produce and define stats of weapons with minimum and maximum values... so then you can implement mechanics of overpowering a weapons and also underpowering by using a too big weapon with a too small powerplant...
see all the issues can be dealt with by using "REALITY" physics mechanics unrelated to piloting...
the current cone of dispersion is a stupid things as it'S a random algorithm based on the weapon... not the ship's piloting...
implement recoil and weapons affecting the piloting and you'll get a more realistic and adjustable cone of dispersion based on the weapon choices and skill level of players...
I was nearly ready to vote for you for president until you said Ares haha kidding. This would be of some help in trying to combat the F8c meta since MM feels it was designed around an F8 griefer's wishlist. They have cried meta and circulated it every time another ship was able to use skill to bridge the gap it has over an Arrow or Hornet despite having twice the DPS of light fighters " 8 guns vs 4" and 7x the shielding while also being able to run away anytime their shields dipped below 50%. Now removing the agility to these barely shielded ships which kept them alive. Add in the ballistic ammo cap boosts + range increases, if a Vanguard can take down a Gladius in MM so easy, the F8 outperforming the Vanguard in all metrics plus delivering 15% more DPS than the Inferno with 1400 m/s ballistics which are twice the speed of the Inferno's s7 gatling and an ability to reach out to 4km will be insanity.
The Inferno is another ship which with skill could overtake the f8, it was argued by good pilots it was not a dog fighter but it could be used to kill or discourage f8s. Now with larger ships getting light fighter defenses it will be in a pretty bad state. The Ion could still be useful but on lower -mid tier systems and likely just able to land those pew......pew......pew red tennis balls at range & be roasted by fighter defenses and fighters themselves.
Every time I go out to do VLRT's I get rammed 3/4 times by the pirates I am trying to engage. Usually just able to avoid them enough to not blow up.
Was rammed by customs while setting over a planet instantly destroying my ship and ruined the night.
Seems like if both ships shields were on and at 100% they would bounce off each other, forcing a smaller ship to loose more control, knocking the bigger ship slightly off course & some shield loss on both ends. Less shields, more risk of direct collision...
I'm a big noob. I feel like any players can destroy me. That leads me to feel like Master Modes makes it easier for me to have an edge. But I totally get your perspective. If you've put the work to becoming the best of the best, it should show. I like that you're offering solutions. I hope they go through.
arcade and realistic mode like in warthunder?
I dunno, new players coming into this game have a huge learning curve when flying, and even higher curve to PvP in SC. I find Master Modes good for new people like me, because I won't be griefed when I'm just learning to fly, and can escape. But I do agree, a light fighter shouldn't be able to farm heavy and medium fighters so easily.
I believe that high speed is not fully functional because the server and clients are only synchronous to a certain extent. The clients send the server where their own ship is and what they are doing. The server sends its data collection back to each client. The pilots therefore act on the basis of old data. The system must use position, speed and acceleration to calculate the actual position, and this may not be enough to match the positions of other (clients) ships in real time. For this reason 1000 m/s might be too fast. We must also not forget that the speed of sound is 343.2 m/s.
The server has to judge who is hitting a target and this at such speeds. It could be like shooting a bullet with a gun.
I believe that if I mark them regularly, the positions look like this at slower speeds:
* * * * * * *
The position at higher speed looks like this:
* * * * * *
In addition, the faster ships are also smaller.
If it changes the speed in between, it looks like this:
* * * * * *
and we have no idea where the next point might be and that's just a line and not 3D.
Master mode will make SC more game than simulator, for the speed of the ships it will be similar to the very old TIE fighter DOS game
I hate to nitpick but when you mentioned WW2 fighters using energy you said the plane only builds energy in a dive.
The general formula for energy in a fighter is Speed X attitude. Meaning a fighter flying significantly higher but slower than an opponent can still have much more energy than a plane flying lower but faster. Stored energy must be taken into account and boom and zoom aces such as Eric Hartman knew this intimately hence why he scored 352 victories.
CIG "We have tried nothing and are all out of ideas!"
This has been my feeling with SC ballance for a long time, instead of tweeking they chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I really hope they listen to the communities feedback for once and try a balance patch, start from the A1 baseline and go from there.
Put A1 and MM in arena commander at the same time and let people compare both at once and have an informed vote, i think I know which side the community will fall on.
Telling people to "learn how to fly" when the model is so complex is not the answer though.
The flight model cannot be designed around the focused PvP players only. It makes it exclusive and difficult for new people to get in.
The current model is terrible for various reasons, and I think the drastic change in master modes is a very good thing. I am sure we will rebalance slightly back towards the old model, but for the most part, the master modes setup is an extremely good thing for the majority of the community.
If SC was meant to be a PvP competitive game exclusively, then I would say otherwise, but because SC is more than just a competitive PvP game, it cannot all be focused on raising the skill ceiling.
13:19 i actually thought about that and even made a comment on some other video awhile ago. Why would they go to ship speeds first? Why not tweak damage or shield charging times, they choose the nuclear option right away.
As for the why speeds were hit:
ua-cam.com/video/Xnawhboh6ow/v-deo.html
That clip made me think the simulation will be on pair with DCS but in space. I was soooooo wrong.
"... the flexibility and engageability of fighters has been removed so that only ships within certain classes and roles are able to engage ships in other classes..."
Oh Lord A1 that was an incredibly long winded way to say "they took R META!"
Rock Paper Scissors is also something we were promised, and this is a step in that direction. No doubt a janky and woefully incomplete step, but this is CIG we are talking about here.
Edit: Light fighters should never be a problem for a hammerheads because light fighter repeaters at range should not significantly damage a hammerhead. Like Hellcat strafing a destroyer -annoying but never going to sink the ship.
There is fine line between boom and zoom e fighting and jousting. The line is largely defined by your attitude, and the inability to do fatal damage in a single pass.
Rock Paper Scissors is board/card/party game logic. If you're gonna do rock paper scissors in an immersive sandbox I want to see a guy armed with a rock, a guy armed with scissors, and a guy armed with a piece of paper fight it out in a brutal battle. Scissors guy will do bleeding damage but rock guy will do blunt force trauma so I see him probably winning. Paper guy doesn't have a chance.
I want a core set of physics in the universe, and have us play in that universe. That's the essence of a sandbox game. Not have a structured set of "rules" like it's some sort of sport.
@@NozomuYumePaper guy with a thousand paper cuts is definitely dangerous.
The suggestions here are really good. it's too bad only like 5 minutes of a 30 minute video covers them. As far as the speeds thing, it's a very common strategy in video games, especially during alpha/beta, to move numbers far more than you would expect to be good, before narrowing in on a good value. It could be that they are simply following this design philosophy to see what works. We had very high speeds, and now we will have very low speeds for a while. You may be correct that 500 is a good number, and they may already know that, but we never could have learned the things you talk about in this video if they didn't try it out, and it's probably fine that they release mastermodes with the slower speeds to the greater population to get feedback from an audience that isn't just evocati. All that said, I think the main issue with CIG is the time it takes to make any changes at all. I'm less worried about why management is deciding on speeds of 200, 500, 1200 or w/e, and more annoyed that it takes months to years to see someone go in and change a float value in a line of code somewhere. They should be using this opportunity to play around with numbers, let it play out for 90 days, learn from the community, and then keep doing it. It's not bad decision making so much as it's bad iterative process.
Another thing flight has changed over and over again way before you have been talking about it. when we only had the hanger module and arena commander, in vandal swam i could make it to wave six with one ship they changed flight and i couldn't make it past wave two
Valid points, although having seen your interview with Yogi it seems they do have some changes to come into MM to bring back the skill ceiling. Not least weapon damage drop off, damage vs bigger shields, higher speeds for Individual ships based on type balance and boost, as well as armour and weapon type.
The problem with SC combat experience claim I've always had is that they claims to aim for a "WW2 dog fight" experience.
Yet the public perception of what WW2 dogfight is is so shallow and Hollywood-ized that the expectation for what SC should be is also shallow alongside of it.
They think of WW2 dogfight as some knife tip fights. While in reality group tactics, energy state management, gunnery planning, and a understanding of different flight characteristics match up is the real depth of dogfights that made them interesting
Game feels like Tokyo drifting tanks that float now and it looks horrendous.
Great video. This is especially important, since there is so much of a push for FPS based gameplay, I see "Pilot" being a role and skillset....not a base loop. Id like that this to remain "deep".
First of all - thank you for what you do for the community (tutorial stuff, guides etc).
Master modes is a ton of fun ... I've been following the game since 2013, first purchased ship in aug 2014 ... It took me a long time to get good in the existing flight mode, and there's more than just sticks/controls involved in being better, there's all kinds of things including turning off graphic settings / immersive stuff like camera shake all for the sake of stabilizing ur aiming. Minute sensitivity settings and so much more than i dont even want to write about (aside from having a better PC build)... things are just unfair ... its a game at the end of the day, where ppl come from work/school to play n want to enjoy... not every player is making a living off of the game thru streaming or competitions or otherwise either. I think you do the community so much good, but I feel let down by your approach here because of the potential for mob mentality.
So now with MM everyone gets to stand a chance if caught up in any ship PvP no matter if you spend an hour after work or 15 hour days making youtube videos, that truly is great news.
These new modes are new for everyone and the people complaining about it already have an advantage because they have played it to death in AC and know its limits, while the vast majority are just playing the game and accept the fact that things will change during development and adapt.
Keep SC difficult. Keep it skill based. Promote CIG educational material for people to better themselves. I don't want ship engagements to be pocketed dependent on class. I honestly think it would be badass if an Arrow takes on a Vanguard and wipes him out because he's a skilled pilot.
i would say im more in the middle but i like the new mater modes more than the old system and if we can hybrid in future then bonus
I completely agree. I love the game for the feeling of "flying". Having a chance with disparate ships because of skill. 200 M/S in space? Booooooring.
It might be worth avoiding characterizing this as boring for PvPers. I treat the game like a smorgasbord - do a little of this and that, depending on the mood. Being stuck at below 450 MPH, 900 years in the future, in space is a wet blanket on all of it.
After previous similar modes didn't help the game, you're left with few logical options beyond that CIG has thrown in the towel, know they can't get the servers to keep up with faster movement and have thrown the brakes on flight mechanics to get around such a fundamental problem.
I completely understand and agree with your points from a pure pvp perspective.
Trying to think why the devs do this.. Is it true you have more chance of avoiding (perhaps also running from) pvp in master mode?
If true the reason might be that losing a ship and dying in the future might be very very harsh. So they might what to give people more a chance to survive?
A C2 leaving a ground location on planet climbing in Nav mode- no defensive weapons is attacked by an F8c which will have an a larger ballistic ammo count, 4km range and double the shield penetration...if it can currently down this C2 sooner than it hit altitude to quantum even with limited gatling round counts. Now MM will increase engagement range, ammo count and double effective damage....this being the fastest climbing s3 shielded ship and the F8c being able to keep up even pass via boosting. Then....no, that's not how this will work lol. Even worse for slower ships with less shielding. "To all you industrial players and haulers out there"
I largely agree with your points. Idk if 500 is the magic number, but from playing, I don't think it's 200.
As an average pilot, I'm concerned by the coming changes. Why bother playing if you can't get better, learn and grow, and become a truly excellent fighter pilot (assuming that's the career and skill set you want to master).
Some people want to be rock jockies, or ramp rats, or engineers. Sweet, give them those play loops. Don't gimp being a combat pilot and totally remove that path from us only to replace it with 'arcade mode' 😢
I think with a few adjustments to speed and accelerations MM will be fine. This isn't the final iteration and combat needs to be slower and closer than what it is in the PU. I think a lot of your ideas are good or at least worth testing.
What I really want in MM AC is sliders to adjust flight and weapon characteristics. Let all of us experiment with different speeds and weapons to see what works.
24:11 that was my experience in MM, it feels like flying ship against the wind in space. Especially the slowong down after boost, it's in Elite and it's bad there too.
I suck at flying. I've got dual flight sticks coming tomorrow, though. I'll still suck at flying, but I'll be using flight sticks. The basic fact of the matter is, if I were to go up against someone like you, I'd lose. Every time. I'm spending lots of money on this game and it sucks to lose. But the basic fact of the matter is, you're right. Almost across the board. I don't want them to make the game easier and "more accessible" for everyone if it means placing artificial limits on more skilled players. That makes it pay-to-win. Taking down someone like you in fighter combat should be difficult if not impossible for a new player. Something that makes one famous. A boss fight with a grueling training montage. I don't want an arcade game-style flight model. I want a simulation. If that means I lose a lot, then I'll either get better or I'll find a profession within the game that better suits my skill-set. The universe needs Roc miners too. And cargo haulers. And salvagers. If everyone can hop in a F8C and become the Red Baron, the game loses its soul.
That being said, I will challenge you to a spelling contest any time, anywhere.
😁
I don't think we should have speed limits in space, it's space. I rather we find ways how to do combat without speed limits. and CIG gives us tools to do so. first of, projectiles needs to inherent the momentum to a ship, else this won't work at all, you could potentially fly into your own bullets if not. then we need a tool to ship, match targets vector, where your ship will try to keep constant distance and same vector to it's target, and you control the relative motion to your target. this way we could have two combat modes, a long range, high speed, tactical and positional in space. while having the ww2 dogfight in atmosphere.
IMHO
I like that capital ships are now making there entrance which is very good. But I worry I am losing my space sim. I Imagine pushing a capital ships to its limits example being the flight scene of the matrix of the hammer capital ship racing to Zion taking impossible turns only a skilled pilot can do with a really good copilot power managing the ship with good gunners fending off the sentinels. In each of these aspect it takes skill and working together. I don't think this can happen only at 160 speed. I don't want everything so dumbed down so low that there is no fulfillment in mastery. Be it piloting or engineering.
Being a casual myself I love seeing my turret gunners stomp gladius tryhards. I can acknowledge that it's because I suck and I'm salty after years of getting stomped myself.
Heres an idea for evocati testing, create multiple patches that teaters can choose from to test. Patch A Current Flightmode adjustments, Patch B Master Mode Testing both using different versions of the EPTU. And see what preforms better for what CIG wants and the players want.
The whole point of experimental modes was to bring the ability online to try the changes that the community recommends. I expect CIG to hold to that promise.
This isn't the "A1" formula. It's the collection of changes that the PvP community collectively want to try, and have collectively shared with each other. I will make sure to do my part; to give feedback on this next patch, and to make sure CIG does the right thing to test out our future flight model.
Because it's meant to be like a fighting in a spitfire ww2 dogfighting, that's why the capitals have turrets and some ships have turrets as well.