Star Citizen Hornet F7 MK2 & Missile Drama - This Ship Is Just OVERPOWERED Get NORDVPN Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer Beam Eye Tracker For Web Cam | www.boredgamer.co.uk/Beam Become a Channel Member | ua-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin Sign Up To Star Citizen & Get a Bonus | www.boredgamer.co.uk/enlist Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer Website | boredgamer.co.uk Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/ Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/ LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 3.23.1a OPEN PTU
isnt the f7a inline with the f8a levels of being op.... end of the day it still comes down to the pilots. Why shoulds early supports be rewarded before the game get released...
@@shaggymanson5375 Sadly t he F7A is so overpowered that it in fact does not come down to the pilot anmyore. The F7A with the bug is so good that someone who has no clue can shoot down more experienced pilots that do not have the ship. And the F8 was nerfed by quite a bit to bring it in line with other ships in its class. In comparison: The F8 has 500-600 more DPS than other ships in its class and is a bit more tanky -> A bit to much for me but OK. The F7A has 2.000K more DPS than other ships in its class. That is way WAY to much. + The bug which makes it way more agile than the Gladius is just a joke
@@Vitnir You do realise you are comparing the F7A MK II (military) to the F8C (civilian version), you should compare apples to apples and use the F8A. Military if I remember correctly is one size larger power plant, and 1 size larger in the hard points.
Funny enough, the original missile speeds for marksman, pioneer, and spark missiles in size one, with old speeds those were hypersonics. All other size 1-3 missiles were actually also close to hypersonic velocity, with most of them being around mach 4 + Even torpedoes at 510 m/s are supersonic, almost Mach 2.
Atmospheric missiles work very differently from theoretical space missiles. You can't use fins and control surfaces to steer, you need to use thrust. Modern Air to Air missiles only have like 3-4 seconds of thrust to get them up to speed after which they coast in. If you try that in space, you have a dumbfire weapon..
Hope they don´t go down the balancing nerfing spiral that ends in pure madness. I´ve seen a lot of games destroy themselves with nerfing stuff down to a tin can. Let´s pray for a good balance.
I would like to see size 4 weapons trimmed back to size 3. They want more dog fighting and higher TTK, then they add weapons with 3000 alpha damage and 10 km range. And missiles. If you want dog fighting, missiles need to be SRMs or Clan streaks. Nobody in their right mind brawls with LRMs.
CIG's balance = NERF. But thanks for CIG's constant behavior over the years, they now saved me a load of money. Since I know they'll be nerfing the piss out of all new pledge ships for at least the next 6+ months after release so I do not (and will never) pledge any new ships anymore and no JPEG for me either. Many great ships turned into flying turds since I joined. Lesson was well learned.
Same. The way they handled the sale, price increase, announcement of removal, and nerf they did and are in the process of doing to the original hornet has sealed my wallet. No more new money from me.
Agree, especialy for a not finished game, if we suppose we testing a game in développement, one more things , this is not the last ship with high stats we will see ^^
That seems to happen in all MMO's, but this one seems to get more than normal. I'm behind the curve and generally haven't even seen what's complained about at a given time.
@@Palko65Drama in Star Citizen is nothing compared to that in League or other popular competitive games. People getting upset about something is just an inevitable part of the internet.
@@Leujee1789 Lmao, you're talking as if this game is ever gonna be finished. I judge it as a finished game because they had a shit ton of money, 10 years of development and microtransactions worth over 10k$
@@GundamWheat No plane gets even close to the fastest missiles. The avangard does aledgedely mach 27, and even if we do the second fastest the df 41 it still does mach 25. The fastest military plane was the sr 71 blackbird and it did mach 3 and some change, modern fighters does around mach 2.
@@bolla999999999 I do not recommend relying on a guy in the youtube comments to teach you about the difference between an ICBM and an AAM. Respectfully, your example is irrelevant here.
Actually F7A's are being picked apart by buccaneer pilots, I agree balancing is off but we could have the exact reverse of overpowered pretty soon. CIG has unduly nerfed some ships to the ground because of our feedback.
Balancing only really makes sense when all relevant game mechanics have been implemented. In addition, the A variant should be stronger than a "civilian" ship.
The F7A being strong makes sense, given that it's a military ship. Obviously it's kind of broken at the moment, but the military ship being stronger than civilian ships should be obvious. They just need to bring it down a bit to less absurd levels.
Broken is the keyword. Guns wont work sometimes. Nose turret and top turret breaks in one shot, litterally 150 hp instead fo 1500. No scanning information pops up, aka scanning is entirely impossible. In atmo handling is atrocious, worse than a titan. The cargo box won't work. There's no inventory and last but not least, the sustain DPS is useless if using lasers. Sadly i cannot get a refund from CIG even though it's barely flyable, i can only melt it and lose my token. Edit: Oh yeah it also won't save firegroup config which is a "fixed" bug according to CIG. But i'm guessing they didn't include this ship in that fix.
Slowed it down to a crawl so now when npc rubber bands you're inside their ship. Literally. I have ended up inside my bounties like 3 times. Finally got the last one recorded when a HH rubber banded and my whole taurus was inside.
What's mad about the who missile issue is that there was originally no explanation that the changes were temporary to identify issues, so it seemed like it was the intended balance, and then some people tried to defend it like it was a good idea, and then when CIG finally explained it was just a test, people were then trying to say that CIG shouldn't have to explain when something is just a test. I just struggle to understand why some people think CIG can't make mistakes, and that it's unreasonable for people to think that changes to a patch that CIG intends to release in a matter of days are what's more or less intended to go live.
It would be cool if missiles speed depended on your velocity with your ship. When you launch a missile, it gets a speed boost from the launch, and then another boost from its thruster. Your flying at 250m/s, missile launch boosts it by another 200 (depending on your missile launcher), then the thrusters boost it to the max speed (560m/s if your at a stand still) or surpasses the max speed by say another 120m/s depending on your velocity.
@inportrace Right! Haha. I can see why they don't have those types of physics in the game, which is why I fly mostly in decoupled mode so I can lie to myself about it being like real space flight (special relativity).
@NinjaQuick it's different, I'm getting used to MM, but it still has a ways to go. Entering combat mode is the best spacebreak without making your character pass out right now. Lol.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said CIG have made a rod for their own back. I think it's unbalanceable purely because of what it is - military spec. If they push it closer to the civilian version in any way, what's the point of having it? If they leave it the way it is, it's better than any other medium fighter, even some large I'd argue. It'll be interesting to see how it fares after they get rid of the 21G side strafes, because at the moment I can be sat right in front of an F8 and dodge most of the incoming fire by boost strafing. F7C-M, which in lore is "as close to military spec as legal" (which now also doesn't make sense as if that's true the F7AmkII has illegal parts) , has significantly less firepower, with 2 size 3, 2 size 2 and 2 size 1, the F7A has 2 size 4 and 4 size 3, while maintaining comparable agility, it's a massive upgrade. I've always bought ships on their in lore description, because I figure whatever changes they make, they'll be balanced around the ships intended purpose, the problem with the F7AmkII is that it's in lore description is basically "this is the best one" and I think that's an issue, the only way I can think to balance it would be to classify it as a medium/heavy crossover, putting it's firepower and agility somewhere between the F7C and the F8. More agile than an F8 but less guns, less agile than an F7 but more guns.
The F7A mk2's were retired fighters from the navy a per lore. Military equipment tends to be much more heavily armed than a civillian variant (F7c, or any other civillian fighter). Tweak its movement numbers back to normal, but its guns should be as they are, its a military fighter. Not a cut-down fighter sold for civillian use.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not saying it's guns should change, I'm saying reclassifying it as a medium/heavy hybrid to put its manoeuvrability somewhere between the F7 and F8, as I think that's where it's firepower sits too, it's got more firepower than an F7 so should be less agile than that, but it's got less firepower than an F8, so it should be more agile than that, if that makes sense. Just my opinion, anyway. I know people are going to be defensive, they paid money and worked hard to get it, I did too, but I want to have fun also, I like combat that's a bit like rock, paper, scissors, but it feels a bit like rock, paper, scissors, gun at the moment, there's no point picking anything but gun. 😂
Idk I got my MKII for the combat not for its looks. I think it looks pretty ugly then again its a military design so...I doubt we'd get an Origin type sexy design for it lol.
I'm ok with the F7A being overpowered. Everyone who has one had to work their ass off for it and earn it by going through a gauntlet of broken hellacious missions.
@@calebkepple1964 im not a pvp expert at all but if i had a combat ship ive bought from the same classification of medium fighter or whatever, and then a new medium fighter released with better statistics all round (idk if this is true), then yeeee I'd be upset due to the power creep :p
@@calebkepple1964i do a fair bit of salvaging in a vulture and if a new ship released for the same money roughly but had say double the cargo size or faster scraping, I'd be mad as the new thing has made my ship obsolete, and thats a pve (it isnt but you know what i mean lmao) ship. Pvp ship balance is a billion times more important :p
Awful take. All the shake-ups that were done to avoid a "meta" and CIG creating one with an exclusive ship is endemic of both power creep and the idea that the game is pay to win.
I actually think that the F7A should be one of the more powerful ships and game because it was the one that was being used by the Navy. Most of the balance should be done with upkeep costs and initial purchase price.
Your right, and I'm with you, the problem is 1) those aren't in the game yet and 2) I never underestimate someone's ability to find infinite money in any MMO. "Cost" isn't really a balancing lever that's sustainable unless you go CRAZY with it. TIME might be a better metric. If it takes "downtime" to maintain it, (which is why Military have round the clock dedicated maintenance staff.) Maintenance can even be what shuts down a military vehicle, like the F-14.
Agreed. Blame the idiots in marketing who wanted everyone to be able to get one. They were supposed to be super rare, now every idiot with some cash and a bit of time has one. F8a too. Xenothreat was easy if you joined a guild that did them regularly. I just stood around half the time.
@@jrspringston Bro this happens every time I try to play, and I don't get much opportunity to play. It took me 4 hours to finally complete one Intel Raid mission yesterday because of all the set backs by bugs and server issues. At one point my ship QT'd me right through the planet 😅
@@clickbaker1 I played for 3 hours yesterday for one Intel raid 😭 I'm scared it's going to update before I finish and I never get the F7A. which I REALLY want because I've only flown hornets since day 1
They are slowing everything down to a level that dynamic server meshing can handle. remember they are looking at requiring individual servers per capital ship, throwing ballistics, lasers, and missiles at each other without obvious desync. They have to slow everything down before they can hopefully iterate the technology to ramp it up.
I don't think the F7 Mk 2 is as overpowered as a lot of people think it is. It's supposed to be a medium space superiority fighter with a heavy punch. And according to the lore, it's attributes lead to it's success with the UEE Navy.
Realy slow missiles are a very minor issue, there are worse bugs (cargo bug) that need fixing, and it would be nice for CIG just to throw out a heads-up with each patch at what they will be focusing on for testing. As players, we are the gunnipigs and would be more inclined to help get them the data they need if we knew what they wanted to test ahead of time. Help us help you CIG.. 😊
To be fair SCM speeds for most ships are near Mach 1 Which is 343.2 m/s. So, technically we are flying quite fast. The issue i draw with slower missles, is that they already have quite a few weaknesses. 1) Even a hard lock, is easily broken. 2) Counter measures (when working) are very powerful and plentiful. 3) The second a missle is launched the target get a blaring alarm, along with notification of the type of lock and number of missles incoming. 4) Currently missles and torpedos have a huge targeting marker on them, making them one of the easiest things to see in game. (To the point that with enough of them you can blind pilots for a brief period.) 5) The larger the missle or torp, the more space it takes up. Meaning both its an easier target, and that you cant carry as many. (Indicating they already have some balance built into them.) 6) Missles have a limited flight time, so if you don't hit your target with a limited window you miss automatically. 7) Neither torps or missles carry the inertia from the vessel from which they were launched. Which makes them dangerious to host vessel, and means means your speed at launch doesn't matter. Many of these are bugs, which could be easily fixed. But in my opinion the missle/torp should have a velocity apriximately double that of its intended targets max velocity. The intended target should not be able to hit boost and out run the torp or missle. I'm okay with it buying them a few more seconds to say try to shoot it down, but not escape entirely.
If given less range and other operability functions I don't see a problem with F7A MK2 being the top medium fighter since they're used by the military. However it cannot be too overpowered. Less storage is another thing for instance.
As someone who flies a hammerhead often, I hope that they dont fuck up torp speeds. it'd be really stupid if they didnt fix the desync before reworking missles.
Combat is going to see a great deal of focus and iterative refinement now, the devs will need to recognise though that what works in single player may not in multiplayer.
I like the idea of torps going slower. On a sub if a torp is shot at you you have around 15 - 20 seconds to register it and brace for impact. Gives you a second to call out torpedo inbound or get to escape pods or something like that.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think all single seat fighters should have quantum drives that can only reach Lagrange points. So it's possible to hop across Stanton with a lot of stopping, but you can't cruise anywhere you want in a little fighter made for short range engagements.
Why is this a drama, this is intended to be overpowered. Its a militarry ship. Are you going to argue that militarry ships are suposed to be balanced against civilian ships? And we are suposed to get many of these ships when we complete SQ42.
I think you nailed it. It was testing but they did themselves no favors by not announcing it, because it makes it look (and probably rightly) that master modes is a shoot from the hip attempt to fix something they viewed as bad. As they reduced speeds down to WWI levels, the speed of missiles was predictably a problem (though they still rarely hit with anything worse than a direct burst o guns). I think if they are going to keep master modes, SCM speeds need to be upped, maybe to the 300-400 m/s range. It is just too slow right now, and there is a fine line between hard to kill and chipping pixels and on some of the LRT encounters i've had, opening up with a F7C Mk I with 5 guns takes 4, 5, sometimes 6 passes to take down certain ships; who, even though completely red, still fly as if they were 100%.
The missile speeds... yeah that definitely could have been conveyed in the patch notes "BTW, we know missile speeds are out of whack, we are testing something, it's temporary". Issue solved before it's even an issue. The F7... they could sort it's agility numbers, maybe bring those size 4s down to 3s. But as CIG said themselves just last week in the vehicle Q&A, some vehicles/spaceships WILL be more powerful than others!!! If you have every vehicle/spaceship exactly the same, what's the point in having multiple. They may take the edge off the F7A slightly, but I think it's going to be one of the higher performing mediums, after all, lore wise, the MkII is a relatively new ship, its still in active military service. People forget, a lot of the ships we can own and fly are, lore wise, several hundred years old. The F8 and the F7MkII are new, still in active service ships. They are by design, meant to be better to counter the latest vanduul threats.
I believe that the F7A MK II does NOT have that much effective health. Its supposed to have Medium armor, no? Why would it not be tanky? Yes its got amazing firepower, but the Capacitor is a limitation. It feels overpower because an average pilot can get decent performance out of it, because its a ship that is a jack of all trades & a master of none. In lore it is supposed to be a strong ship too. A good player can still out dps you, they can still destroy you quite easily if you don`t know how to apply pressure back to the attacker.
Capacitors are not a limitation. You can just swap out some of the guns for ballistics and it is no-longer an issue. Most of the top PVP players figured out that a mixed build of energy/ballistics works much better in practice than the theoretical highest DPS Omnisky laser cannon build. A good player can not out DPS an F7A MKII at the moment. That is one of the problems with the ship. Even with the F7A strafe bug fixed, the ship will still easily tear through the F8C Lightning, Vanguards, Hurricane, Gladius/Arrow/Avenger (in one pass), Buccaneer, etc. The only ship that actually competes with the F7A MKII is the Talon and that is only on in-atmosphere maps where it has a mobility advantage.
Speed of torps should be extremely quick, irrespective of size. The deciding factor should be the agility of the missile/torpedo, and the bigger it is the less agile it should be, so that way it will hit your lumbering capital ships but also hit people who are just shit, or not aware of what is going on. Getting your way out of a problem shouldn't consist of just accelerating.
I think that communication has always been the issue backers have had with CIG, however they have SO much information that they have to cut it into bite sized pieces. They have also over shared in the past and when the plan has changed been lambasted for it. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that if you have an issue commenting in a polite and respectful manner is an absolute must, things change constantly in game development I people need to remember that
CIG and a new ship they want to sell being "accidentally" overtuned. Name a more iconic duo. Maybe they can balance it by giving the F7A a much bigger signature (because its increased performance generates a lot more heat or something like that) and making it a lot more susceptible to missiles. That way you can have your OP dogfighter but flying it would also come with clear drawbacks (being a big and easy target for missiles). Like if you'd fly an F7C instead, then maybe you wouldn't do as well in a straight up dogfight but you'd have a bigger chance of surviving a barrage of missiles.
I dont see a need for too much balancing/ nerfing the Hornet beyond its already existing problems. Civilian market ships are supposed to be weaker than actual military equipment like the Hornet or F8 in their A versions by lore principle (eg see the description of the Super Hornet). And since those versions need unlocking by event achievement, they are in the end just legendary loot with specs beyond the commonly available. win the hardest dungeon raid in the game and get the super shiny whatever-dragon armor of awesomeness that makes you near invulnerable... common rpg occurence
Honestly, none of this matters until they can fix the duping issue. In 2 days I've only been able to do 1 single mission without a "Server Error" occurring, wiping all of my contracts off the board.
The F7A mk2 is a contemporary military fighter. The ships disbursed to the militia that was used to fight against the Xenothreat in a Call to Arms. It is not the premiere fighter available. The best fighters were kept in the hands of proper military. I think it’s not only reasonable for it to be overpowered, but, kind of necessary that it is. I would be ok if they turned them into F7A mk1’s. But, the people that have the original F7A’s opinion should take precedent.
I want them to implement a temporary secondary multiplier added to guns where when they are hitting the type of armor they are intended for they do bonus damage. Nothing to big but as a natural insensitive to come prepared if possible. Food for thought
I want to see a missile that is incredibly fast but with no payload. A small one like a size 1-3, so small ships can punch right into components of bigger ships, forcing them to repair so smaller ships can get away.
I think the problem with the f7a is they balanced it for where it feels good in sq42 and brought it directly in, while the PU ships have all been balanced arbitrarily and can't match that standard... I'd rather they boost all the ships to perform closer to the f7a than nerf the f7a to the ground.
I think the devs made a mistake offering us a military grade ship, balancing a civilian version would be easier. But the f7a is lore accurate and to keep it there it needs to be better than all the other civilian ships on the civilian market.
Lets see... the arrow came out broken, then after sales got nerfed. The F8C was broken then got "balance" after sales... nerfed. Now we have for F7C and F7A, do we see a pattern here? Also the missle thing is stupid, Chris wants a space sim, with a Futuristic WW2 dog fighting feel... but a torpedo can be out run under boost, or be out run by the one who fired it. Genuine question: Is there any fighter plane today that can out run a missle in a straight line while engaged/engaging in combat, or to that matter a ship out run a torpedo?
No, only if you look at the earliest air to air missiles compared to the fastest modern fighters. Same with torpedoes, only the earliest of torpedos could be outrun by much later destroyers.
The torpedo changes drama is a storm in a teacup. I don't feel they are under any responsibility to tell us why they make these changes. Let CIG cook guys!
Bored do you think lore ship be considered when balancing a ship. F8 and f7 mk2 are the top fighter in the uee navy and the f7a is a military model so one would expext it to be a substantial improvement.
We've not heard much of the scanning mechanics for a while. I assume the torpedo visibility will tie into the ship signature system, where range, heat, etc, and the scanner capabilities of your ship, will affect how you detect torps and bombs.
Missiles need to start being more effective. The last time I used any was when trying the Firebird. Half the missiles fired missed and the other half hit but did little to no visible damage to an Aurora. Missile boats are currently pointless as you almost need all your missiles just to kill one ship
They make a new ship, which flies like a dream, fights like a dream, smooth as glass. So it brings record sales. Then, after the sales are over, Nerf it to hell, for "game balancing", so you either melt it, or ccu it, They keep your money, either way, saying: we'll fix it: "sometime in the future", meanwhile... try this new shiney for more cash! The marketing team runs CIG. They know you will buy new ships, if you are unhappy with the old ones. ($$$)
I really hope they don't nerf the F7A Mk 2 into the ground. Small tweaks to make it more in line sure. But I like your idea of increasing the fuel cost to keep them in a 1 system type ship and keeping the firepower in place. In terms of the hornets my issue is with the Mk 1. I wish they had given a chance to purchase a CCU for the F7A Mk 1 before they retired the ship entirely.
For the mk 2 it is op. but i feel for anything that is military should have superior performance then other ships you cant compare an old ww2 dog fighter with a f35 its just superior because its new technology and its meant for modern warfare the fact that people don't want a meta ship is also understandable but in an MMO that CIG claims to be making there's always gonna be a meta. But it is weird that When an OP ship comes out it pushes sales so yeah i get it .
Agreed. And I like Bored's suggestion of having it be a high-signature, short-range fighter. Especially with pocket carriers coming out. Give it an itty bitty quantum tank, and that will balance its role. I don't want the F7A to be my daily driver. I want it to be my, "Oh I don't want my target to exist at the atomic level anymore" driver. I'll stay in my cutty/C1/Gladius for most things. F7A is what I'll pull out when those other ships won't quite make the grade. .
Except none of the combat ships are old ww2 ships compared to the hornet. The technological gap isn't that big and they're all ships designed specifically for space combat.
Unpopular opinion, most fighters (like the hornets) need to have an extremely limited QT range, as in limited to the vicinity of a single planet. They trade the ability to travel long distances for high DPS. To me, fire power includes missiles and capacitor capability. This makes Carrier based fighters actually have a purpose by having range be a real balance factor. Consider the F8 vs the Vanguard. Both are heavy fighters, but the F8 is designed as a space superiority fighter and the Vanguard as force projection.
Let's just hope this trend of "outdating" certain ships does not become a core CIG marketing strategy... but they eventually have to deal with balancing and all the people owning massive LTI ships. Best option would probably to include sub-par components in every ship purchased, that you then have to upgrade? Tough.
Who could have guessed that giving a Medium Fighter the same armament as a two-player Heavy Fighter would make it overpowered? If only there had been some way to know before releasing it.
@zot171 it has the same weapon loadout as a hurricane which is a 2 seater. The scorpius has 8 size 3s when fully manned. The hurricane would have 2 size 4s for the pilot and 4 size 3s for the turret
I get a little worried when people comment on "balance" . . . it's a little silly right now and we will pretty much be living with big swings in system performance for a while.
I think balancing the mk2 to be an over gunned shorter range carrier launched fighter makes sense for it's role. They could also balance the mk1 to be a little more long range to not completely screw over everyone who bought one.
i think they should balance but at the same time maybe for special events pick a specific ship and boost its stats to give people something to work towards in game to get or rent for the event.
I have the F7A Mk2 and agree that the bugged agility needs to be fixed but beyond that i suspect the ship will be balanced with emissions and limited fuel supplies as it is supposed to be carrier based and moderately short ranged, but not as short as a Snub-Fighter.
It's an easy balance fix, they should just drop the chin S3's to S2's. The Mk. I had 2xS1 on the chin, 2xS2 on the turret and 2xS3 on the wings, the Mk. II should have one size up on all hardpoints.
I like the F7C, it works nicely for me. Didn't have the time to finish the missions to unlock the F7A, so have no opinion on that. Disclaimer: I only flew the F7C vs. the PvE enemies, so also no experience vs. capable human pilots.
The missilies current in the PU definitely feel far less effective than they should. Easy to out run and if they do hit it's minimal damage with the hull damage reduction.
@boredgameruk absolutely PRAYING that the .1a patch fixes the servers, they've been -ABYSMAL- since last Monday. I haven't seen a server go above like 8.5 server fps in any region.
The F7A MKII should be strong, it's a top of the line brand new military fighter. Not a civilian spec fighter. Additionally, it was a quest chain/event reward. It should be strong.
I don't understand why there is drama around the bug. I think it was in teh patch notes that the ship had bugged number, and if not in the patch notes I am sure it was some place to let people know that it was not intended. I think it shoud stay they way it is. It is suppose to be ship of the line for the military.
At least they slowed the Missiles down, unlike what they did with the economy, when they accelerated the economy in the previous version. only to over nerf it in 3.2.3
Star Citizen Hornet F7 MK2 & Missile Drama - This Ship Is Just OVERPOWERED
Get NORDVPN Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer
Beam Eye Tracker For Web Cam | www.boredgamer.co.uk/Beam
Become a Channel Member | ua-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin
Sign Up To Star Citizen & Get a Bonus | www.boredgamer.co.uk/enlist
Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni
Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer
Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer
Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass
Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate
Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer
Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer
Website | boredgamer.co.uk
Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk
Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK
Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/
Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk
Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/
LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 3.23.1a OPEN PTU
isnt the f7a inline with the f8a levels of being op.... end of the day it still comes down to the pilots. Why shoulds early supports be rewarded before the game get released...
@@shaggymanson5375 Sadly t he F7A is so overpowered that it in fact does not come down to the pilot anmyore. The F7A with the bug is so good that someone who has no clue can shoot down more experienced pilots that do not have the ship. And the F8 was nerfed by quite a bit to bring it in line with other ships in its class. In comparison:
The F8 has 500-600 more DPS than other ships in its class and is a bit more tanky -> A bit to much for me but OK.
The F7A has 2.000K more DPS than other ships in its class. That is way WAY to much. + The bug which makes it way more agile than the Gladius is just a joke
@@Vitnir You do realise you are comparing the F7A MK II (military) to the F8C (civilian version), you should compare apples to apples and use the F8A. Military if I remember correctly is one size larger power plant, and 1 size larger in the hard points.
Hypersonic missiles: exist.
CIG: best we can do is slightly faster than scm speeds
Funny how other games can do it and have for many many years. The problem is that missiles don’t carry the speed of their host ship.
yeah except hypersonic missiles don't work in space at all. no retro thrusters, no slowing down capabilities. makes it VERY easy to miss the target
Funny enough, the original missile speeds for marksman, pioneer, and spark missiles in size one, with old speeds those were hypersonics. All other size 1-3 missiles were actually also close to hypersonic velocity, with most of them being around mach 4 +
Even torpedoes at 510 m/s are supersonic, almost Mach 2.
Atmospheric missiles work very differently from theoretical space missiles. You can't use fins and control surfaces to steer, you need to use thrust. Modern Air to Air missiles only have like 3-4 seconds of thrust to get them up to speed after which they coast in. If you try that in space, you have a dumbfire weapon..
Need Rick from Pawn Stars for a meme.
Hope they don´t go down the balancing nerfing spiral that ends in pure madness.
I´ve seen a lot of games destroy themselves with nerfing stuff down to a tin can.
Let´s pray for a good balance.
I would like to see size 4 weapons trimmed back to size 3. They want more dog fighting and higher TTK, then they add weapons with 3000 alpha damage and 10 km range.
And missiles. If you want dog fighting, missiles need to be SRMs or Clan streaks. Nobody in their right mind brawls with LRMs.
@@Krieghandt let´s see what they do in the future.
Hope they nail the balance otherwise the game might get one sided real quick.
Balance? Ion owner's uncomfortable laughter. Trust CIG to 'balance' your recent purchase.
Yeah the Ares series is fucking dog shit right now.
CIG's balance = NERF. But thanks for CIG's constant behavior over the years, they now saved me a load of money. Since I know they'll be nerfing the piss out of all new pledge ships for at least the next 6+ months after release so I do not (and will never) pledge any new ships anymore and no JPEG for me either. Many great ships turned into flying turds since I joined. Lesson was well learned.
Same. The way they handled the sale, price increase, announcement of removal, and nerf they did and are in the process of doing to the original hornet has sealed my wallet. No more new money from me.
Every time I turn around it’s some new “drama” that everyone’s freaking out about. People need to chill out.
Agree, especialy for a not finished game, if we suppose we testing a game in développement, one more things , this is not the last ship with high stats we will see ^^
That seems to happen in all MMO's, but this one seems to get more than normal. I'm behind the curve and generally haven't even seen what's complained about at a given time.
@@Palko65Drama in Star Citizen is nothing compared to that in League or other popular competitive games. People getting upset about something is just an inevitable part of the internet.
🥶
@@Leujee1789 Lmao, you're talking as if this game is ever gonna be finished. I judge it as a finished game because they had a shit ton of money, 10 years of development and microtransactions worth over 10k$
Missiles are supposed to be much faster than ships… they don’t have squishy meat sacks inside…
IRL missiles do not fly faster than planes...
@@GundamWheatThat is a lie
@@jodofe4879 I encourage you to do your own research as opposed to getting your information from video games.
@@GundamWheat No plane gets even close to the fastest missiles. The avangard does aledgedely mach 27, and even if we do the second fastest the df 41 it still does mach 25. The fastest military plane was the sr 71 blackbird and it did mach 3 and some change, modern fighters does around mach 2.
@@bolla999999999 I do not recommend relying on a guy in the youtube comments to teach you about the difference between an ICBM and an AAM. Respectfully, your example is irrelevant here.
Actually F7A's are being picked apart by buccaneer pilots, I agree balancing is off but we could have the exact reverse of overpowered pretty soon. CIG has unduly nerfed some ships to the ground because of our feedback.
Balancing only really makes sense when all relevant game mechanics have been implemented.
In addition, the A variant should be stronger than a "civilian" ship.
And civilians shouldn't have military gear.
@@mariobeck3798 Why? It's a game...
The "Missions" should be things that solo players could complete on their own. Not everyone wants to play in a group. IMHO
Or at least a mix so you can decide how you want to play
The F7A being strong makes sense, given that it's a military ship. Obviously it's kind of broken at the moment, but the military ship being stronger than civilian ships should be obvious. They just need to bring it down a bit to less absurd levels.
I am in canada, every weapons of the millitary is absurdly more deadly than what you can legally own, even with a permit.
Broken is the keyword. Guns wont work sometimes. Nose turret and top turret breaks in one shot, litterally 150 hp instead fo 1500. No scanning information pops up, aka scanning is entirely impossible. In atmo handling is atrocious, worse than a titan. The cargo box won't work. There's no inventory and last but not least, the sustain DPS is useless if using lasers.
Sadly i cannot get a refund from CIG even though it's barely flyable, i can only melt it and lose my token.
Edit: Oh yeah it also won't save firegroup config which is a "fixed" bug according to CIG. But i'm guessing they didn't include this ship in that fix.
Translation: "We slowed things down to not moving at all, now we will speed it up to merely slow to make it look like a walkback."
Slowed it down to a crawl so now when npc rubber bands you're inside their ship. Literally. I have ended up inside my bounties like 3 times. Finally got the last one recorded when a HH rubber banded and my whole taurus was inside.
What's mad about the who missile issue is that there was originally no explanation that the changes were temporary to identify issues, so it seemed like it was the intended balance, and then some people tried to defend it like it was a good idea, and then when CIG finally explained it was just a test, people were then trying to say that CIG shouldn't have to explain when something is just a test. I just struggle to understand why some people think CIG can't make mistakes, and that it's unreasonable for people to think that changes to a patch that CIG intends to release in a matter of days are what's more or less intended to go live.
It would be cool if missiles speed depended on your velocity with your ship.
When you launch a missile, it gets a speed boost from the launch, and then another boost from its thruster.
Your flying at 250m/s, missile launch boosts it by another 200 (depending on your missile launcher), then the thrusters boost it to the max speed (560m/s if your at a stand still) or surpasses the max speed by say another 120m/s depending on your velocity.
whats funny is that in space, the missile would keep picking up speed until the engine was shut off or ran out of fuel in this game they do not xD
Or just get rid of MM and increase speeds across the board.
@inportrace Right! Haha.
I can see why they don't have those types of physics in the game, which is why I fly mostly in decoupled mode so I can lie to myself about it being like real space flight (special relativity).
@NinjaQuick it's different, I'm getting used to MM, but it still has a ways to go.
Entering combat mode is the best spacebreak without making your character pass out right now. Lol.
@@inportraceEXACTLY! Ugh, they want so much for it to be realistic but they drop the ball on simple stuff!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said CIG have made a rod for their own back. I think it's unbalanceable purely because of what it is - military spec. If they push it closer to the civilian version in any way, what's the point of having it? If they leave it the way it is, it's better than any other medium fighter, even some large I'd argue. It'll be interesting to see how it fares after they get rid of the 21G side strafes, because at the moment I can be sat right in front of an F8 and dodge most of the incoming fire by boost strafing. F7C-M, which in lore is "as close to military spec as legal" (which now also doesn't make sense as if that's true the F7AmkII has illegal parts) , has significantly less firepower, with 2 size 3, 2 size 2 and 2 size 1, the F7A has 2 size 4 and 4 size 3, while maintaining comparable agility, it's a massive upgrade. I've always bought ships on their in lore description, because I figure whatever changes they make, they'll be balanced around the ships intended purpose, the problem with the F7AmkII is that it's in lore description is basically "this is the best one" and I think that's an issue, the only way I can think to balance it would be to classify it as a medium/heavy crossover, putting it's firepower and agility somewhere between the F7C and the F8. More agile than an F8 but less guns, less agile than an F7 but more guns.
The F7A mk2's were retired fighters from the navy a per lore. Military equipment tends to be much more heavily armed than a civillian variant (F7c, or any other civillian fighter). Tweak its movement numbers back to normal, but its guns should be as they are, its a military fighter. Not a cut-down fighter sold for civillian use.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not saying it's guns should change, I'm saying reclassifying it as a medium/heavy hybrid to put its manoeuvrability somewhere between the F7 and F8, as I think that's where it's firepower sits too, it's got more firepower than an F7 so should be less agile than that, but it's got less firepower than an F8, so it should be more agile than that, if that makes sense. Just my opinion, anyway.
I know people are going to be defensive, they paid money and worked hard to get it, I did too, but I want to have fun also, I like combat that's a bit like rock, paper, scissors, but it feels a bit like rock, paper, scissors, gun at the moment, there's no point picking anything but gun. 😂
You're right, CIG should have made a note this was a test of missiles. But yeah, a small misstep compared to past mistakes.
The hornet MK 2 not only is powerful it also got THE LOOKS 😅
Cheap, only for noobs
It's derriere is a bit lacking but otherwise very nice indeed
Idk I got my MKII for the combat not for its looks. I think it looks pretty ugly then again its a military design so...I doubt we'd get an Origin type sexy design for it lol.
Fingers crossed as the game gets more intricate with Maelstrom and engineering CIG will get more levers to balance ships, but I guess we'll see
I think they've decided to make combat speed more equal to development speed.
ayoooo
😂
😂
F7A and F8C were great ideas imo (aside from the obvious ship sales), I hope we'll be able to get some other limited ships like these in the future!
I'm ok with the F7A being overpowered. Everyone who has one had to work their ass off for it and earn it by going through a gauntlet of broken hellacious missions.
100% agree! We worked our asses off to get it plus it’s a military grade ship.
The ones bitching are the ones who keep getting in PvP against it and can’t kill it or it’s better than their ships
@@calebkepple1964 im not a pvp expert at all but if i had a combat ship ive bought from the same classification of medium fighter or whatever, and then a new medium fighter released with better statistics all round (idk if this is true), then yeeee I'd be upset due to the power creep :p
@@calebkepple1964i do a fair bit of salvaging in a vulture and if a new ship released for the same money roughly but had say double the cargo size or faster scraping, I'd be mad as the new thing has made my ship obsolete, and thats a pve (it isnt but you know what i mean lmao) ship. Pvp ship balance is a billion times more important :p
Awful take. All the shake-ups that were done to avoid a "meta" and CIG creating one with an exclusive ship is endemic of both power creep and the idea that the game is pay to win.
I actually think that the F7A should be one of the more powerful ships and game because it was the one that was being used by the Navy. Most of the balance should be done with upkeep costs and initial purchase price.
Your right, and I'm with you, the problem is 1) those aren't in the game yet and 2) I never underestimate someone's ability to find infinite money in any MMO.
"Cost" isn't really a balancing lever that's sustainable unless you go CRAZY with it.
TIME might be a better metric. If it takes "downtime" to maintain it, (which is why Military have round the clock dedicated maintenance staff.)
Maintenance can even be what shuts down a military vehicle, like the F-14.
Xenothreat was tough. Mostly because you'd work to build up a group then it would bug out
Agreed. Blame the idiots in marketing who wanted everyone to be able to get one. They were supposed to be super rare, now every idiot with some cash and a bit of time has one. F8a too. Xenothreat was easy if you joined a guild that did them regularly. I just stood around half the time.
@@jrspringston Bro this happens every time I try to play, and I don't get much opportunity to play. It took me 4 hours to finally complete one Intel Raid mission yesterday because of all the set backs by bugs and server issues. At one point my ship QT'd me right through the planet 😅
@@clickbaker1 I played for 3 hours yesterday for one Intel raid 😭 I'm scared it's going to update before I finish and I never get the F7A. which I REALLY want because I've only flown hornets since day 1
They are slowing everything down to a level that dynamic server meshing can handle. remember they are looking at requiring individual servers per capital ship, throwing ballistics, lasers, and missiles at each other without obvious desync. They have to slow everything down before they can hopefully iterate the technology to ramp it up.
I expected this MKII issue and it was something they are gonna have to address as more and more military spec ships become available
I don't think the F7 Mk 2 is as overpowered as a lot of people think it is. It's supposed to be a medium space superiority fighter with a heavy punch. And according to the lore, it's attributes lead to it's success with the UEE Navy.
Realy slow missiles are a very minor issue, there are worse bugs (cargo bug) that need fixing, and it would be nice for CIG just to throw out a heads-up with each patch at what they will be focusing on for testing. As players, we are the gunnipigs and would be more inclined to help get them the data they need if we knew what they wanted to test ahead of time. Help us help you CIG.. 😊
To be fair SCM speeds for most ships are near Mach 1 Which is 343.2 m/s. So, technically we are flying quite fast.
The issue i draw with slower missles, is that they already have quite a few weaknesses.
1) Even a hard lock, is easily broken.
2) Counter measures (when working) are very powerful and plentiful.
3) The second a missle is launched the target get a blaring alarm, along with notification of the type of lock and number of missles incoming.
4) Currently missles and torpedos have a huge targeting marker on them, making them one of the easiest things to see in game. (To the point that with enough of them you can blind pilots for a brief period.)
5) The larger the missle or torp, the more space it takes up. Meaning both its an easier target, and that you cant carry as many. (Indicating they already have some balance built into them.)
6) Missles have a limited flight time, so if you don't hit your target with a limited window you miss automatically.
7) Neither torps or missles carry the inertia from the vessel from which they were launched. Which makes them dangerious to host vessel, and means means your speed at launch doesn't matter.
Many of these are bugs, which could be easily fixed. But in my opinion the missle/torp should have a velocity apriximately double that of its intended targets max velocity. The intended target should not be able to hit boost and out run the torp or missle. I'm okay with it buying them a few more seconds to say try to shoot it down, but not escape entirely.
If given less range and other operability functions I don't see a problem with F7A MK2 being the top medium fighter since they're used by the military. However it cannot be too overpowered. Less storage is another thing for instance.
As someone who flies a hammerhead often, I hope that they dont fuck up torp speeds. it'd be really stupid if they didnt fix the desync before reworking missles.
Combat is going to see a great deal of focus and iterative refinement now, the devs will need to recognise though that what works in single player may not in multiplayer.
My Super Hornet is sitting in its hanger crying.
Right?!🥲
I like the idea of torps going slower. On a sub if a torp is shot at you you have around 15 - 20 seconds to register it and brace for impact. Gives you a second to call out torpedo inbound or get to escape pods or something like that.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think all single seat fighters should have quantum drives that can only reach Lagrange points. So it's possible to hop across Stanton with a lot of stopping, but you can't cruise anywhere you want in a little fighter made for short range engagements.
Why is this a drama, this is intended to be overpowered. Its a militarry ship.
Are you going to argue that militarry ships are suposed to be balanced against civilian ships? And we are suposed to get many of these ships when we complete SQ42.
the slow missles were just funny to me being able to fly around them and watch them turn around in a wide arc just to fly away
I think you nailed it. It was testing but they did themselves no favors by not announcing it, because it makes it look (and probably rightly) that master modes is a shoot from the hip attempt to fix something they viewed as bad. As they reduced speeds down to WWI levels, the speed of missiles was predictably a problem (though they still rarely hit with anything worse than a direct burst o guns). I think if they are going to keep master modes, SCM speeds need to be upped, maybe to the 300-400 m/s range. It is just too slow right now, and there is a fine line between hard to kill and chipping pixels and on some of the LRT encounters i've had, opening up with a F7C Mk I with 5 guns takes 4, 5, sometimes 6 passes to take down certain ships; who, even though completely red, still fly as if they were 100%.
The missile speeds... yeah that definitely could have been conveyed in the patch notes "BTW, we know missile speeds are out of whack, we are testing something, it's temporary". Issue solved before it's even an issue.
The F7... they could sort it's agility numbers, maybe bring those size 4s down to 3s. But as CIG said themselves just last week in the vehicle Q&A, some vehicles/spaceships WILL be more powerful than others!!!
If you have every vehicle/spaceship exactly the same, what's the point in having multiple.
They may take the edge off the F7A slightly, but I think it's going to be one of the higher performing mediums, after all, lore wise, the MkII is a relatively new ship, its still in active military service. People forget, a lot of the ships we can own and fly are, lore wise, several hundred years old.
The F8 and the F7MkII are new, still in active service ships. They are by design, meant to be better to counter the latest vanduul threats.
I believe that the F7A MK II does NOT have that much effective health. Its supposed to have Medium armor, no?
Why would it not be tanky? Yes its got amazing firepower, but the Capacitor is a limitation.
It feels overpower because an average pilot can get decent performance out of it, because its a ship that is a jack of all trades & a master of none.
In lore it is supposed to be a strong ship too. A good player can still out dps you, they can still destroy you quite easily if you don`t know how to apply pressure back to the attacker.
Capacitors are not a limitation. You can just swap out some of the guns for ballistics and it is no-longer an issue. Most of the top PVP players figured out that a mixed build of energy/ballistics works much better in practice than the theoretical highest DPS Omnisky laser cannon build.
A good player can not out DPS an F7A MKII at the moment. That is one of the problems with the ship. Even with the F7A strafe bug fixed, the ship will still easily tear through the F8C Lightning, Vanguards, Hurricane, Gladius/Arrow/Avenger (in one pass), Buccaneer, etc. The only ship that actually competes with the F7A MKII is the Talon and that is only on in-atmosphere maps where it has a mobility advantage.
It has tiny capacitors though. Not too overpowered.
Speed of torps should be extremely quick, irrespective of size. The deciding factor should be the agility of the missile/torpedo, and the bigger it is the less agile it should be, so that way it will hit your lumbering capital ships but also hit people who are just shit, or not aware of what is going on. Getting your way out of a problem shouldn't consist of just accelerating.
I think that communication has always been the issue backers have had with CIG, however they have SO much information that they have to cut it into bite sized pieces. They have also over shared in the past and when the plan has changed been lambasted for it. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that if you have an issue commenting in a polite and respectful manner is an absolute must, things change constantly in game development I people need to remember that
CIG and a new ship they want to sell being "accidentally" overtuned. Name a more iconic duo.
Maybe they can balance it by giving the F7A a much bigger signature (because its increased performance generates a lot more heat or something like that) and making it a lot more susceptible to missiles. That way you can have your OP dogfighter but flying it would also come with clear drawbacks (being a big and easy target for missiles). Like if you'd fly an F7C instead, then maybe you wouldn't do as well in a straight up dogfight but you'd have a bigger chance of surviving a barrage of missiles.
The bigger the missle/torpedo the slower it should go tbh. You should easily be able to dodge a Size 9 torpedo in something like an Arrow for example.
I dont see a need for too much balancing/ nerfing the Hornet beyond its already existing problems. Civilian market ships are supposed to be weaker than actual military equipment like the Hornet or F8 in their A versions by lore principle (eg see the description of the Super Hornet). And since those versions need unlocking by event achievement, they are in the end just legendary loot with specs beyond the commonly available.
win the hardest dungeon raid in the game and get the super shiny whatever-dragon armor of awesomeness that makes you near invulnerable... common rpg occurence
This isn't an rpg
Honestly, none of this matters until they can fix the duping issue. In 2 days I've only been able to do 1 single mission without a "Server Error" occurring, wiping all of my contracts off the board.
I would love to see swarms of super slow missiles! Make them have like 10x the fuel and be much harder to break lock with countermeasures.
The F7A mk2 is a contemporary military fighter. The ships disbursed to the militia that was used to fight against the Xenothreat in a Call to Arms. It is not the premiere fighter available. The best fighters were kept in the hands of proper military. I think it’s not only reasonable for it to be overpowered, but, kind of necessary that it is. I would be ok if they turned them into F7A mk1’s. But, the people that have the original F7A’s opinion should take precedent.
I want them to implement a temporary secondary multiplier added to guns where when they are hitting the type of armor they are intended for they do bonus damage. Nothing to big but as a natural insensitive to come prepared if possible.
Food for thought
I think missiles in general should be a lasso that catches ships out of range in nav mode trying to escape
If they said they were changing missile speed to test something ahead of changing it, it would have gone over so much easier
I believe the real reason for MM is because CIG hasn't been able to solve desync when ships are doing combat at anything above a glacial speed
Torpedoes being slower than missiles would be a decent tradeoff for the damage, but this change was just weird, hope they return it to what it was.
Nerfing torpedoes that are already rly bad... they need buff not nerf..
I want to see a missile that is incredibly fast but with no payload. A small one like a size 1-3, so small ships can punch right into components of bigger ships, forcing them to repair so smaller ships can get away.
I think the problem with the f7a is they balanced it for where it feels good in sq42 and brought it directly in, while the PU ships have all been balanced arbitrarily and can't match that standard... I'd rather they boost all the ships to perform closer to the f7a than nerf the f7a to the ground.
I think the devs made a mistake offering us a military grade ship, balancing a civilian version would be easier. But the f7a is lore accurate and to keep it there it needs to be better than all the other civilian ships on the civilian market.
Lets see... the arrow came out broken, then after sales got nerfed. The F8C was broken then got "balance" after sales... nerfed. Now we have for F7C and F7A, do we see a pattern here?
Also the missle thing is stupid, Chris wants a space sim, with a Futuristic WW2 dog fighting feel... but a torpedo can be out run under boost, or be out run by the one who fired it.
Genuine question: Is there any fighter plane today that can out run a missle in a straight line while engaged/engaging in combat, or to that matter a ship out run a torpedo?
No, only if you look at the earliest air to air missiles compared to the fastest modern fighters. Same with torpedoes, only the earliest of torpedos could be outrun by much later destroyers.
I liked the first hornet. The MK2 sounds crazy OP. Even the Redeemer gunship doesn't have that much pilot gunnery.
the more they bring out ships, the harder it is to pick the right ship to start with
Seems like they should let people know if a change like that happens on purpose, with the missile speeds.
Some off the videos of torps being passed by the ship that fired them is just hilarious
The torpedo changes drama is a storm in a teacup. I don't feel they are under any responsibility to tell us why they make these changes. Let CIG cook guys!
Bored do you think lore ship be considered when balancing a ship. F8 and f7 mk2 are the top fighter in the uee navy and the f7a is a military model so one would expext it to be a substantial improvement.
Power creep is definitely a concern. Another concern is using the power creep to justify mk2 versions of every ship.
We've not heard much of the scanning mechanics for a while. I assume the torpedo visibility will tie into the ship signature system, where range, heat, etc, and the scanner capabilities of your ship, will affect how you detect torps and bombs.
Hopefully
Missiles need to start being more effective. The last time I used any was when trying the Firebird. Half the missiles fired missed and the other half hit but did little to no visible damage to an Aurora.
Missile boats are currently pointless as you almost need all your missiles just to kill one ship
After all these years people still get surprised by CIG doing power creep xD
They make a new ship, which flies like a dream, fights like a dream, smooth as glass. So it brings record sales.
Then, after the sales are over, Nerf it to hell, for "game balancing", so you either melt it, or ccu it, They keep your
money, either way, saying: we'll fix it: "sometime in the future", meanwhile... try this new shiney for more cash!
The marketing team runs CIG. They know you will buy new ships, if you are unhappy with the old ones. ($$$)
I am happily out of the loop when it comes to drama in SC, especially when it comes to combat. I play this game way more chill than some it seems
I really hope they don't nerf the F7A Mk 2 into the ground. Small tweaks to make it more in line sure. But I like your idea of increasing the fuel cost to keep them in a 1 system type ship and keeping the firepower in place.
In terms of the hornets my issue is with the Mk 1. I wish they had given a chance to purchase a CCU for the F7A Mk 1 before they retired the ship entirely.
Imagine the MkII variant of a fighter being designed with overmatch in mind… weird.
the problem is the F8 lightning owners club are mad there is other players in their MMO
Ship balance changes so much I'm not even sure if it's even worth stressing about it at the moment.
I think Weapons and Missile rework needs to be fix and balance and having different sizes of missiles and their speed must be take in consideration
For the mk 2 it is op. but i feel for anything that is military should have superior performance then other ships you cant compare an old ww2 dog fighter with a f35 its just superior because its new technology and its meant for modern warfare the fact that people don't want a meta ship is also understandable but in an MMO that CIG claims to be making there's always gonna be a meta. But it is weird that When an OP ship comes out it pushes sales so yeah i get it .
Agreed. And I like Bored's suggestion of having it be a high-signature, short-range fighter. Especially with pocket carriers coming out. Give it an itty bitty quantum tank, and that will balance its role. I don't want the F7A to be my daily driver. I want it to be my, "Oh I don't want my target to exist at the atomic level anymore" driver.
I'll stay in my cutty/C1/Gladius for most things. F7A is what I'll pull out when those other ships won't quite make the grade. .
Except none of the combat ships are old ww2 ships compared to the hornet. The technological gap isn't that big and they're all ships designed specifically for space combat.
Misseles are supposed to be fast, literally meant as a way to intercept other aircraft. Most fly over 500 miles per hour.
A lot of players don't seem to understand how FOMO works. CIG has perfected the use of it
Unpopular opinion, most fighters (like the hornets) need to have an extremely limited QT range, as in limited to the vicinity of a single planet. They trade the ability to travel long distances for high DPS.
To me, fire power includes missiles and capacitor capability.
This makes Carrier based fighters actually have a purpose by having range be a real balance factor.
Consider the F8 vs the Vanguard. Both are heavy fighters, but the F8 is designed as a space superiority fighter and the Vanguard as force projection.
hopefully the 4.0 resource network changes will see a big shift in show ships function and work
CIG will wait until everyone buys it, then nerf it into the ground.
I am not worried about the missiles speeds since that have been adjusted, but selling a Superiority Fighter with those way OP stats is so crummy.
Let's just hope this trend of "outdating" certain ships does not become a core CIG marketing strategy... but they eventually have to deal with balancing and all the people owning massive LTI ships. Best option would probably to include sub-par components in every ship purchased, that you then have to upgrade? Tough.
Changing the missile speed for testing purposed makes plenty of sense, but the definitely should have framed it as such initially.
Who could have guessed that giving a Medium Fighter the same armament as a two-player Heavy Fighter would make it overpowered? If only there had been some way to know before releasing it.
the scorpius?
@@zot171 The f7a MKII is single seater?
@zot171 it has the same weapon loadout as a hurricane which is a 2 seater. The scorpius has 8 size 3s when fully manned. The hurricane would have 2 size 4s for the pilot and 4 size 3s for the turret
@@thelemionslice7226yes
The missile changes did seem a bit odd to me. I'm really hoping that they increase the maximum range of all weapons In the future.
The F7A felt really strong in bounties I got to try but then my rental got cut short when I lost it to the .1 patch
me and my friends were able to grind for it! Very fun ship, but I miss the regular MK2's paint scheme
I get a little worried when people comment on "balance" . . . it's a little silly right now and we will pretty much be living with big swings in system performance for a while.
I think balancing the mk2 to be an over gunned shorter range carrier launched fighter makes sense for it's role. They could also balance the mk1 to be a little more long range to not completely screw over everyone who bought one.
i think they should balance but at the same time maybe for special events pick a specific ship and boost its stats to give people something to work towards in game to get or rent for the event.
Newly introduced ships ALWAYS are op at the beginning to push sales. Nuttin' new here.
Don't worry guys, CIG will now make the missiles faster than your ship so that you just run into the back of them after launch
I have the F7A Mk2 and agree that the bugged agility needs to be fixed but beyond that i suspect the ship will be balanced with emissions and limited fuel supplies as it is supposed to be carrier based and moderately short ranged, but not as short as a Snub-Fighter.
It's an easy balance fix, they should just drop the chin S3's to S2's. The Mk. I had 2xS1 on the chin, 2xS2 on the turret and 2xS3 on the wings, the Mk. II should have one size up on all hardpoints.
I like the F7C, it works nicely for me. Didn't have the time to finish the missions to unlock the F7A, so have no opinion on that. Disclaimer: I only flew the F7C vs. the PvE enemies, so also no experience vs. capable human pilots.
Funny how ships on sale tend to be op, when they get off the shop, they also get nerfed.
The missilies current in the PU definitely feel far less effective than they should. Easy to out run and if they do hit it's minimal damage with the hull damage reduction.
@boredgameruk absolutely PRAYING that the .1a patch fixes the servers, they've been -ABYSMAL- since last Monday. I haven't seen a server go above like 8.5 server fps in any region.
The F7A MKII should be strong, it's a top of the line brand new military fighter. Not a civilian spec fighter. Additionally, it was a quest chain/event reward. It should be strong.
I don't understand why there is drama around the bug. I think it was in teh patch notes that the ship had bugged number, and if not in the patch notes I am sure it was some place to let people know that it was not intended. I think it shoud stay they way it is. It is suppose to be ship of the line for the military.
At least they slowed the Missiles down, unlike what they did with the economy, when they accelerated the economy in the previous version. only to over nerf it in 3.2.3